City and County of San Francisco Wednesday, June 29, 2016

>> >> good afternoon everybody. Welcome to the san francisco

board of supervisors budget and

finance committee meeting for wednesday June 29, 2016. My

name is mark farrell. I am

chairing the committee and

joined by the vice chair katy

tang and supervisor wiener and thank the clerk and staff from

sfgtv for covering the -- meeting today. With that Madam

Clerk do we have any announcements? >> yes Mr. Chair. Please silence all cell phones and complete speaker cards and documents to be part of the file should be submitted to the clerk. Items acted upon today

will be on the July 12 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated.

>> okay. Madam Clerk will you

call item 1 and two together. >> item 1 resolution determining and declaring that the public interest and necessity demand the acqusition improvement and accountability

and conversion of "at risk" multi-unit residential buildings

to permanent affordable housing

and performing need the seismic, fire, health, and safety

upgrades and other major accountability for habitability

to be financed through bonded

indebtedness in the amount not

to exceed $350 million and item two is ordinance callng and providing for a special election

to be held in the for proposition a.

>> thank you Madam Clerk.Y we

know have speakers from

supervisor peskin's office and

controller office and well so supervisor peskin's office. >> thank you supervisor farrell and supervisors. Thank you for your consideration of

this item today and apologize that supervisor peskin could be here for the discussion this

morning so I wanted to give a brief overview and context of

the bond measure itself and the repurposing and we have some

amendments that we would

appreciate someone moving today. I understand that supervisor kim

was prepared to move them and

when she joins us hopefully we

can do that so almost 25 years

ago voters approved a

$350 million bond measure aws

theoried by supervisor tom shay

which provided loan tiewntsd for seismic strengthening and

retroactive mace ron ree buildings citywide. $200 million ion was approved

and 156 of the funds repain.

Supervisor peskin's intent has

been to expend the uses for the

market rate tranche to include the acquisition and improvement

and accountability of "at risk" multi-unit residential buildings and properties and allow

non-profit affordable housing

housing developer to convert them to permanent affordable

housing through the acquisition and program. And scope would be

expanded to include fire, safety and electrical plumbing upgrades and allow are if the preservation of at risk housing. These opportunities exist in

neighborhoods where the city has experienced a disproportionate

loss of housing and toin toin

and knob hill and mission and

other areas and a fire displaced many families. We of course, with a group of non-profit housing developers and staff to determine how the expanded loan

program would be useful for the short and long-term preservation

of at risk stock in san francisco. Feedback from stakeholders for the program

that made the program less usable brought forward amendments that supervisor

peskin is introducing today.

The original unb bonds loan program had modest praifz of the

out of of the $156 million set aside $105 million remains. We are prose position amendments that would increase the capacity of the program and widen the

base of potential users. This program would be allocated at

interest rates equal to 1/3 of the city's true interest cost of

the bond series and segment for

deferred loans:   program would

continue to be issued at 1% beyond the city's true interest rate for the amendments for your consideration are intended to

expand the uses of both funds

within the overall umb program.

In the first draft of the bond

measure weed included a couple

standard bond and transparency provisions that voters are accustomed to seeing but not included in the original 92 bond measure. I want to thank stakeholders and staff that

hustled to put together a creative and usable and

effective tool for the housing

being do -- stock and all of our

staff and all of who are available here for questions so thank you for your consideration

and I will distribute copies of these amendments to you today. >> okay. Thank you. Supervisor tang. >> thank you. Thank you very much for this presentation and I am really glad to hear that

there has been efforts to

repurpose this original go bond

measure. I know that as was

mentioned in the intro remarks

that there has been less of an uptake on the market rate program given we charge 1% extra

for the interest rate. There's also 1.5% additional bond origin

eagz fee to cover mo hcd costs

and I think this is a great

intent but I want to make even for the market rate program

there is the interest to use

this, and so I don't know if you could further elaborate on some of the conversations you've had

and what some of the ideas might

be and the interest rate a loan

and the origination fee are a deterrent. >> so might be a question for

jamie to address as well but

with conversations with the mayor's office of housing and

oewd it sounds like the market

rate program would be able to be

utilized for housing projects or infrastructure, accountability.

I know there was a project pier 70 that the mayor's office was able to use market rate funds so the anticipation is my understanding from oewd is that

they will be seeking to put together a short list of projects that these funds could be used for.

>> okay. But the additional interest rates would still apply compared to taking out a loan from a private bank? >> that's correct. >> okay. >> that's correct.

>> okay. Well, -- okay I look forward I guess to see this progress and whether it will be taken advantage of so thank you. >> thank you supervisor. >> colleagues any further

questions? Okay.In we have the mayor's office of housing. Did

you want to present on this item

I understand?

>> good afternoon kate hartley from the mayor's office of

housing. We support this ballot

measure and the seismic safety program with respect in respect to the affordable housing component and offers an interest rate which is a third of the

cost to the city so for us it's fantastic. We've had great

success over the last year with the small [Inaudible] Program

and see the low interest low cost funding as something that will allow us to continue on to

expand the program and to bring

even more resources. Last year we closed on 54 units on the small sites program and have

another 58 in contract and

another 70 on deck in the under writing process so there's

actually a lot of activity and with that lower interest rate we

will be able to replace the conventional debt financing that

we use right now at 5.5 percent

and provide loans at a point or

one and a quarter or one and a

half percent so we think it's

really great, and given the amount of money available the

pipeline that we have we would also ask the board of supervisors' consideration to

help us properly staff this with another staff person dedicated to these projects so that we can get out there, compete in the marketplace, get the money out on the street and preserve more affordable housing so thank you and we're available for questions. >> okay. Colleagues any further questions? Supervisor tang.

>> thank you. So the budget analyst had made a recommendation which I am sure

-- or I guess someone other than

Mr. Rose will speak to, but it was that the board of

supervisors May want to consult

with h mo dc and definition of which properties qualify for the loans and I don't know if that

is in the works or agreed upon and whether it's an amendment

you think we should take today? >> yes. We are definitely

going to continue to work with

them to further identify small site properties in particular in the various neighborhoods prioritizing the neighborhoods that they feel that need the

most work so the ones that I listed and that work will continue, yes.

>> okay. So do you think we should amend that into legislation or something you're doing?

>> I think that would be the

scope of work that happens

outside of the proscriptive confines of the bond measure.

>> all right. Thank you. >> okay. With that should we

go to the budget analyst report

and then the controller's office

office.

>> Mr. Chairman, members of

the committee debra new man from the budget and legislative

office. As noted there is $156 million remaining in the market rate portion of the program. Our report does not

address the amendments that are being put forward. If it were

only the market rate portion of

the program we note there would

be no net new fiscal impact to

the city because that

authorization has already been provided. Rather this would merely expand the availability

of those funds to be used for other projects. Because when we

were preparing this the office of public finance did not have

many of the specifics. We

cannot estimate the number of

bond issuances, the timing of bonds or what the interest rates or related costs would be. However, for the market rate

portion there would be also no

additional levy on the property

taxpayers to repay debt because

they would be fully cost

recovery within the cost. As

you mentioned before the

additional 1.5% loan o rejation

fee and top of the interest

cost. As you note there is no definition on the market rate side what is permanent

affordable housing but my

understanding is just discussed

at the office of the sponsor

will work with the mayor's office of housing and community

development to come up with a definition. Our recommendation it is a performance decision for the board.

>> thank you. Thank you very much. Colleagues any questions

for our budget analyst? Okay.In the control office is here as well.

>> go good afternoon. I am

with the controller's office of finance and we agree with the preliminary figures and comments from the budget analyst office.

One thing we wanted to point out

is in regards to affecting the

capital plan and the city's current general obligations

under the go debt program we do estimate that the issuance of the below market rate loans

would have a cost on the tax levy seeing that the tax levy is

the pledge to pay back general obligation bonds. The bonds we would anticipate to issue would

be first dedicated to the below market rate programs for these

loans and would be sold in batches of $35 million a year at most which is a provision that

was adopted in the 1992 ballot measure. This would be result

in a net cost to the city after applying the loan payments that

would be repaid by the loan borrows so there is a dollar

impact to the tax levy and this would impact the capital plan. Thank you. >> okay. Thanks very much.

Colleagues any questions for our controller's office? Okay seeing none we'll move on to public comment. Anyone wishing

to comment on comments one or two please? Please step forward.

>> good afternoon supervisors.

Peter cohen counsel on community housing organizations. We're

support of this. It's a great opportunity at the right time and make efficient use of funds

authorized by the voters and if

you will are sitting unused and

we could put them into context.

Acquisition rehab is an personality strategy to complement the new construction

particularly as seeing more of

existing housing at risk of

speculation and tenant evictions. This is happening citywide and the program that's mayor's office of housing and community development talked about couldn't come at a better

time. Also to note these program and other acquisition programs are mixed income and taking existing building and its income profile and trying to map

and extend to the future so it

gives a broad opportunity for folks in existing housing and making it permanent for a

variety of income needs over time. I'm going to be very short here today but there's a few representatives that are here from different housing

organizations that have been implementingly small sites programs and doing acquisition

rehab that can tell you concretely about some of the opportunities to use these funds so again we thank you very much and hope that you support this going forward.

>> thank you. Next speaker please.

>> good afternoon. Tracy parent. Director of the san francisco community land trust.

We specialize in the acquisition

and rehab of small apartment buildings especially those at

risk of being sold on the market to private speculators who have the cash available to come in, invest the money in the work

that needs to be done and flip the buildings evicting the

existing long time low income

residents and reselling them or

renting to higher income households. We support the

expanded use of the bond program

to include acquisition rehab of

rent control buildings in need

of safety and for low income

people because this will achieve

a triple community impact of not only improving safety but

preventing the loss of affordable rent control units

and eviction of long time lower

income residents from the

buildings. To give you idea of the opportunities we're seeing

across the city I did a scan of the listing service and besides the two buildings that the land trust successfully required and

renovated that were on the

city's soft story retroactive list I have found immediate

opportunities and two small sites in the inner sunset

apartment buildings over

garages. I have one 15 unit nblg cal hallow a neighborhood

under scerved and one in the central richmond and one near

north of pan handle so there is immediate opportunity to apply the funds across the city to help with the triple community impact. Thank you.

>> thank you. Next speaker please.

>> good afternoon. My name is carolyn fang and the director of community real estate at mission economic development agency and

we serve one of the highest impacted neighborhoods by displacement in our city and we focus primarily on mission

district as well as the surrounding neighborhoods and as colleagues have pointed out as well as kate hartley from the mayor's office of housing and community development we have over 30 units within the mission district alone in the pipeline

that are a part of this program looking to close and be acquired

so the tenants are no longer at risk of displacement and looking at many more building this is year and within six month this is program just within the first

six months of this year already saved close to 30 units in the mission so this program really

does are a rapid success rate of serving tenants and of the buildings we're looking at in

the mission at least three to four of the buildings were

buildings that are currently listed asicizically needing retrofit and the owners were

under the requirement to retrofit by 2017 to 2020 and

part of the reason for selling

the building they couldn't

afford that along with fire

sprinkling the building and we encourage the repurposing of the

funds to help owners otherwise selling the building because of that requirement to the right owners and to the right owners are the non-profit owners and help the tenants stay in place. Thank you.

>> thank you. Next speaker please.

>> thank you supervisors.

Name fernando with the council on community housing organizations also urging you to support this very important measure. One of the things that

it does it extends a lot of the

work that this board has

committed its to over the last

few years, both in strengthening and funding acquisition programs including the small sites

program that just rolled out a

couple of years ago and now has preserved lose to 100 units

throughout the city as well as strengthen our soft story ordinance and bringing buildings

up to code and preserving them

in perpetuity both as seismically safe buildings as

well as for the tenants who are

there and I want to reiterate a

point that tracy parent made earlier about the triple bottom

line that this will achieve. One, improving the safety for buildings throughout the city,

two, preventing the loss of rent controlled housing and three

preventioning the evictions of long time tenants. Again thank

you very much. We urge you to support this measure. >> thank you. Anyone else

from the public to speak on item 1 or two? Seeing none. Public comment is now closed. [Gavel] . Okay colleagues we have these items in front of us, some

amendments requested by the

project sponsor. They're non

substantive so we can move them on?

>> any amendment requires

another hearing so you would continue to the next budget hearing.

>> with that could I have a

motion to adopt the item and move to the next budget and finance committee. >> so moved. >> moved by supervisor tang

and seconded by supervisor yee. >> for clarification Mr. Chair

move it forward to July meeting.

>> yeah, the next scheduled meeting. Motion and a second and we can do so without

objection. Madam Clerk would

you call item number -- the item

sponsor here. Okay. Why don't

we go into recess for five minutes.

[Gavel] Francisco.

[Gavel]

>> >> [Gavel] Okay welcome back from recess from our regularly scheduled budget and finance committee meeting of the san francisco

board of supervisors for

wednesday 29, 2016. We just

concluded items one and two and

Madam Clerk please call three and four together. >> motion ordering sumbitted to the voters at an election to

be held November 8, 2016 an ordinance amending the business and tax regulations code to

increase the real property

transfer tax from 2% to 2.25% on properties with consideration

or

all at least $5 million and less

than $10 million from 2.5% to 2.75% on properties with

consideration of value of at

least $10 million to less than

$25 million and from 2.5% to 3% on properties with consideration

on value or at least $25 million

and increasing the city's proamgdzs limits from the amount

of tax increase for four years from November 8, 2016. Number 4 is resolution reclaiming the promise of free higher education in the city and county of san

francisco residents or working half-time in san francisco and

by supporting educational costs

for enroll students in receipt of state or federal financial aid.

>> thank you Madam Clerk. These items were sponsored by

supervisor kim and I turn it over to her.

>> thank you chair farrell and members hearing this item. Our

office requested that the city attorney requested two ballot issues for us as a way to

increase the general funds to

fund bo -- potential issues to

make san francisco better and I introduced legislation to do this very thing and generate funding to make san francisco

the first city in the nation to

make credit classes at city college free for all san francisco residents. It was

important to me as we move

forward that this proposal not

unfunded mandate but have all

the componentses for success.

One ordinance of the intent to

make community college free in san francisco, two revenue generating measure to make sure those profit or have profit friday changing san francisco and contributed to our luxury housing market May a little bit more to help project and improve our city and third, create an accountability measure that will create the financial vessel into

we can place what we're calling

our mansion tax ballot measure dollars with provisions that

funds are respond responsibly and intended to make city

college free as it was in 1983.

The intent resolution today

expresses the board's intent to fully fund the free college proposal with the revenue

generated by the mansion tax which we're hearing today as well. I want to thank my

colleagues who added their names

on as cosponsors and support of

this resolution. Supervisor

avalos, campus, mar, peskin and scpee recognize supervisor breed who is supporter for the

measures as well. The mansion

tax before us today is a modest

real estate tax increase for

buildings five, ten and 25

$25 million and above. It will

we are doing a modest increase by quarter percent on each of

the categories and creating a

whole new bracket at 3% for cities of sale $25 million. It's worth noting in san

francisco there is a mansion tax

and 1% surcharge paid by the buyer of residential sales above

$1 million. This proposal if approved will generate on average $44 million a year

according to our city economist

report that we could use to make

life better in the city for the

resentses whether it's

affordable housing, muni, parks,

public spaces and trees and libraries and other services we want and need and generating through times through this

vehicle what we need to make

city college free for all san

francisco residents:   the last component of the proposal is the free city college fund which the city attorney is the process of

timizing today and serve as the actual financial vessel to hold the new revenue and include provisions to ensure that the money is targeted for supporting

free city college for students for graduates of the public

school service to seniors who are lifelong learners and parents and adults and nontraditional students going

back to school to advance in

their career or get their associate's degree and will serve as a reserve so understanding that the transfer tax is volatile on years that we have less we will have a reserve

fund which will ensure we can continue to make city college

free and on the years that we

have an up cycle we can set aside dollars for the down years. Education as all of us

know is a key to upward mobility, financial stability

and the tool we know work to

help low income wage earners increase earning potential. We have learned on average that an

individual who gets an associate's degree at city college makes on average slightly $10,000 above an individual with just a high school diploma. When we talk about affordability we often

talk about affordable rent and home ownership. However, another key component of

affordability in the city is to ensure equitable educational

opportunities for folks to rise in their employment potential

and earning potential. Many of

our low income communities have been decimated by the exploding

cost of living here in san francisco and rapidly displaced

out of the city and homes. We also understand that many have

continued to work here and

attend city college as one of the last affordable opportunities to attain higher

education so we want to examine part time workers in san francisco as an option as well.

I want to acknowledge the controller's office who is here

and work closely with our office

to my chief of staff ive lee and

working on this proposal for the

last seven months and to the

groups that worked with this and

crafted the initial proposal in

terms how we would spend down

the funds and what a free city

college program would look like and recognize chancellor lamb and the board of trustees at city college for working with

the controller's office and our office and ensure this mechanism

will work into the long-term and disembers terms from city hall

into city college. Free college

is one of the ways to protect san francisco for san franciscans and I understand we have many items to speak from

the public on this item as well so of course want to take

comments and questions from board committee members as well

and I believe we also have a presentation from the

controller's office and the city economist. >> supervisor kim it's you're

item however you like proceeding or public comments it's your call. >> great. Thank you chair

farrell, so I will ask teddy

again who is the chief economist to do a brief presentation on

the study of this item.

>> thank you and good

afternoon supervisors. Ted egan

controller's office of economic

analysis. We issued a economic impact report on item and I will return you through the report.

Transfer tax is all sellers of

real property in the city pay

and progressive tax and from

0.5% up to 2.5%. The proposed

legislation is for properties

over $5 million and raise the

rate highest to 3%. It's a

general tax used for any governmental purposes and approved by the voters like any

tax increase. This is a table indicating the current transfer tax rates and the proposed rates. You will note that the

rates only go up for properties

sold in excess of $5 million. We estimated on the property sales for the past eight years

in the city that this tax would generate in today's price bs $44 million a year. There is

some variation in that during

years where there's little turn over in property real property

transfer tax is low. The additional amount of this is on

the order of 5-10 million and in

higher gleers excess of 70 million but average is $44 million a year we estimate.

Just touching on the fact that

the bulk of this increase will come from -- we project will

come from properties that sell for more than $25 million a

year. For the most part this is properties that are not residential properties, certainly not single family residential properties but

commercial office properties so our economic analysis focused on

the nexus between the higher tax on commercial properties and the economic consequences of that

particularly as they relate to impacts on office tenants.

>> Mr. Egan if you could stop

you there Madam Vice chair with

a question. The last point you

made -- supervisor kim described

in this proposal refers to it

and consistently referred to as "management tax." my understanding is that 90% of the

revenue from this transfer tax comes from commercial properties not from residential properties and that's not an argument for or against the tax. >>

>> one can reasonably support

a tax and 90% is from commercial, 10% from residential but if my numbers are correct

it's not a mansion tax. It's largely a commercial property transfer tax. >> supervisor we're not able

to slice the transfer tax by the precise use of the property but only the price of the property.

However, looking at what the most expensive single family residences in san francisco have

sold over in the last five years

relatively sold for excess of 25

twidle. I think it's fair to say the most expensive houses in san francisco would pay higher tax under this proposal. I

think it's also fair to say that other large commercial properties would pay more under this proposal.

>> so do you have any even estimate of whether the break

down between commercial and

residential? Because the controller's office actually --

when this was announced by a

mansion taxes we were informed it was generate $3 million a

year because there's not that

many homes that sell at that

level but once it was clear it went to commercial property as

well and the number went up to

30 million so could you give me some sense?

>> I might refer to them and as

done more work. With this I am just introducing the proposal as introduced. >> perhaps the controller's

office could comment on that.

>> supervisor, I am from the

controller's office. I don't have precise figures here but

typically the largest

transactions are commercial particularly commercial office buildings, particularly in the $25 million and up range. I

would be happy to go back and review our figures and get back to you. >> we're being asked to vote

on this today and portrayed in

one way. The controller's

office told my office when it

was introduced that 90% of the revenue was from commercial property so we're being asked to vote on this today and described in a certain way so I would like

to have that information.

Obviously the controller's

office provided us with that

information orally so I think the office would I mjs have that information. >> I would happy to get it in the next few minutes. >> that would be great. Thank you very much.

>> thank you and supervisor

wiener your question deemed that deem a mansion tax and includes large buildings and it's a real estate

term and the substantive what

what you're voting on is a real estate transfer tax as in the agenda. I think the campaign is a different question than before

us today but we're asking for a

increase in real estate

property tax of buildings $5 million and that is what is before us today

and ask the members for support

of the item and proposing the funds are used and the resolution of the intent before the committee today and portion

is to be used to make free college for san francisco residents. Thank you.

>> I would note that an office

building is not a mansion under understanding of the english

language. It's a mansion is a residence so again it's a transfer tax. It applies both to commercial and residential as

I understand it. A significant

majority of the revenue comes

from commercial and that it is

what it is but to characterize

it as a mansion tax is just -- it's not accurate. >> thank you supervisor. Again I want to reiterate that

what is before you for a vote

today is an increase in the real estate property tax of properties $5 million and above

and nothing refers to a mangsz

tax at budget committee today.

That gets discussed during the process of a campaign but what is before the budget committee

is a real estate property tax

transfer tax increase. Thank you. >> supervisor wiener to your question while I don't have a

precise figure of break down of

properties in excess much

$25 million of residential and

non residential our analysis believed it would occur through the impact of commercial

properties and how the potential

tax increase would affect the

economy would lower the capital

gain of seller of property would receive from the property. This

would tend to slow down the

sales rate of commercial and high end residential and affect

the real estate in a negative way and reduce the amount a buyer would offer for the property and face a higher transfer tax in the future.

Because of this and because

office tenants are sensitive to

prices we felt it was unlikely

the tax would be passed on all

to buyers and large owners if they own a building and selling

it in the city but May defer the sale and we believe they will brunt the tax and little of the

tax will be passed on to buyers of large properties and

particular the office using

tenants. Nevertheless we don't

have the data to do that and ran modeling sales and too much of

the tax would be tassed on to sellers. >>

>> the net of all of that is a

fairly small economic impact.

We estimated that the

$44 million tax would affect the

city's gdp at most minus.. 1%

of the city's economy. Over a prent year period and some of

the tax would be passed on to office tenants and raise occupancy cost in the city and

make the city a less competitive

place to do business and loss of

20-70 private sector jobs and

.01 of jobs in the city and

consequence of the fact that

office tenants have less employment and contractors would hire more people because the revenue would go into the city coffers and generate an economic

boost that partially offsets the

economic harm of the higher tax.

When the total job employment picture is considered private

and public sector we projected

this tax increase is a net

positive, between 100 and 200

jobs and weighing the growth in public sector employment, the growth of private employment

funded by the city versus private sector employment because of the tax. That is essentially the main highlights

of our report and happy to take questions from the committee at this time.

>> thank you. This is not the first time the board of

supervisors has put forward a real estate transfer tax before

the voters of san francisco and we know there was an increase

that went forward in 2010 and authored by supervisor john

avalos and in that economic impact report projected a losses of private sector jobs that

would out weigh the public sector benefit through net

losses through 2030. Have we

been able to study the imppact

of 2010 to check back on some of the projections stated in that 2010 report?

>> supervisor we have not

retroactively gone back and isolated that new piece of legislation and the context of the economic changes since that

time. Obviously the city has a great deal of economic growth during that period so the effect

of the tax increase which we

protected would be very small

would have been swamped by

everything else that happened.

We always try to project the economic impact if you pass the

policy if you don't basis and we have I think if I recall correctly from the report we

assumed a great deal of the tax, maybe 90% of the tax is passed

on to office using tenants. We know more about the city and have more data about the market

today so we don't think as much

will be passed to tenants of

offices in the city and consequently largely reduce the

land value which has a smaller economic impact. That's the

difference of the finding versus 2010 report. >> thank you very much. Seeing no further questions or comments from budget committee

members I wanted to allow -- I

believe that we have -- I do know that the vice chancellor and administration is here

today. I wanted to give him an

opportunity to speak if he wanted to before public comment.

>> Madam Chair for Mr. Egan

another question. In terms of

how much this additional tax is

projected to produce, the range

-- I know you have -- there's a

bar chart but not exact numbers. My understanding and you said this in the report transfer

taxes are one of the most volatile sources of taxation.

This tax is not a special

dedicated tax. I believe under state law it can't be so it's a general fund tax. Whatever the proceeds of this tax will go into the general fund and will

have to be appropriated by the board of supervisors and the

mayor each year for whatever purpose any future board or

mayor want to appropriate it

for. This revenue is not legally dedicated to free city

college or any other use. It's

an annual budget appropriation,

so what is the range? I know

you May have to estimate but if

you look back historically what we could expect with the ups and

downs of the real estate market?

>> last eight years have been very large -- a period of large ups and downs of the real estate market in san francisco but if I

recall correctly and this is approximate. It's probably five

to 10 million extra at the minimum to maybe 70-90 million

at the maximum and again that is looking backwards. The future could be different but we estimated it's average of

$44 million a year but significant fluctuation around that. >> right. So there could be a

year that brings in $5 million. >> additional, yes. >> and up to $70 million more? >> yes.

>> if there's a bunch of large commercial buildings selling for example.

>> that's correct.

>> and that's been -- my understanding is the annual

projected cost of this program would be about $13 million. That's the number being conveyed to me.

>> and we do have city college chancellor here to address that question.

>> okay. I think it's just important for the public to understand that this money is not required to be used for free city college. The board and mayor will have to make that

choice every year going into the

future, and I know in an ideal world the good years would be

put in reserve and pay for the bad years but that is not

required, and it can't be

required under what's being

proposed, and so in a good year

if get 40, 50, $60 million we

could be -- I don't want to say

"could be" but this is broad future boards and really

responsible and into a special free city college budget reserve and that's the responsible thing

to do but we can't require that

so if the good years are spent

on other things and we know in

our budget process there are so

many pushes and pulls to spend money on worth while programs

and get to I bad year and only 5 million and honor the commitment to go into the general fund to pull non

transfer tax money to pay for it and again it's an argument for

or against but the reality so we're straightforward with the public.

>> so in response to your question supervisor we're building a reserve into the fund and that vehicle is drafted by the city attorney today but the expectation by this commitment

and voting for this resolution of intent to prioritize funding for city college is that every year on years that we vup years the board of supervisors will

put into the reserves funding

for down years, and that will be

in a separated fund to ensure

that we can make city college free for years into the future

but we did want an annual disimbursment process to

evaluate how this is going with city college and insure that the

funds are properly spent down. This insures there are accountability mechanism with the city and city college to

make sure that the program is working as expected and funds

are spent down and I wanted to bring up the vice chancellor who is here today and how much this proposal would cost in today's

numbers and to present on any

other information that city college has.

>> thank you supervisors. Ron gearhart and the vice chancellor of city collegeof san francisco.

I am here for chancellor lamb

who is out of the office this week and appreciate our

appreciation to supervisor kim's office and support and cosponsors of the bill. To

answer some of the questions we view this obviously supportive

but view this as really an

instrumental effort as part of our enrollment management plan

moving forward and restoring approximately 1/3 of the

enrollment that we once had some

five, six years ago, so in terms

of our operations it's very much

in our eye and mind's eye in terms of planning and appreciative of the support. Related to the questions in

terms what the projected costs May be. That's difficult to

tell because that is really dependent on the participation

rate, those that live and work more than half-time within the

city and county of san

francisco. There's various scenarios that the city controller's office costed out and extrapolated that we were

involved in on the back end, but particularly my office was involved on the back end to formulate some of the modeling

but right now it's difficult to

tell because on the high end in the controller's office's memorandum there was a

percentage there if 15% of the eligible population were to participate it would be one

number and from our perspective while that's definitely in the range of possible that's

probably at the high end in

terms of in reality what May come forward, so you know I don't have a defined answer to

your question in terms what the

realistic or expected costs is.

That is really dependent on the participation rate that we see as a result.

>> do you have a range?

>> well, in looking at perhaps

what experiences have shown us in other areas of the country

that have seen this there's one example where the particular

college saw somewhere around a

10% increase in enrollment or

partly attributed to that effort

so that's one range or one

example to perhaps draw from.

Again that's a different area of the country and different demographics.

>> but in terms of the cost --

i'm asking in the range of costs?

>> in terms of the ranges of costs right now approximately

80% of our student population come within the city and county

of san francisco. Based upon

our 100% enrollments right now we're receiving about $13 million in student

enrollment fees so somewhere

along 80% of that in terms on the higher end.

>> yes thank you. So because it was stated in the resolution

on item 4 so I just want to

confirm that roughly based on an estimate about 20,000 students

with credit courses costing about $46 per unit, the

estimated cost is about

13 million so that's a rough now point and time cost. >> yes right. >> and of course enrollment could increase. >> we are hopeful.

>> we obviously hope so. Okay. Because I think at least

for me it would be helpful to

see you know some more fine tuning of the cost estimates because even though this is a concept that I know many of us

support very much I would like

to see more details on what it

would cost to have city college be free so I know that the resolution is supposed to be

more general in nature but if we could really work out some of the details get that before the full board that would be helpful.

>> supervisor tang just so we can take sure that the questions are answered for you what specific details are helpful in

learning? We know that

currently they're generating 12.$9 million from fees from

students and 100% of the student

body today and 80% list san

francisco zip code and in parts

of the country made efforts to

make it free and the maximum -- I I think the maximum was around 20%. >> >> 20%.

>> so somewhat lowering that

to be realistic -- perhaps quell our enthusiasm.

>> okay. What other details would be helpful because we want you to get answers to the questions? >> for example the other part

of the resolution states it's

not just san francisco residents or those working at least half-time in san francisco so do

we have numbers or estimates how many students would qualify

under that, where the overlap is

between residents versus those

who are working part time? How

would we verify that? Those details would be more helpful.

>> thank you supervisor tang.

>> are there any urt questions for our vice chancellor? Great. Thank you so much for being here today. >> thank you.

>> thank you for working so closely with our office on the details. We still have much to

work out in terms of the mechanics, how the fund would work and will work with the

chancellor as we do the actual funding vehicle that comes before the board in July so at this time through the chair I would like to open it up for public comment and I did want to

recognize that we have the President, alyssa messer here

and board of trustees yes and I believe you're the only trustee here. Oh I'm sorry. Right in

front of me. Trustee bridget

avala is also here and I ask that you speak first and I will

call up the rest of public

comment cards.

>> thank you trustee davila and for being here and the strong support of this measure. >> thank you. I want to say

that the board of trustees feels strongly this would be helpful to city college at this particular moment and time.

It's no secret what we have suffered over the last few years

in terms of a roag accreditation and loss of 1/3 of our enrollment but not only that. I

want to speak more personally

about this. I am someone that benefited from a free community college and I was actually

working at a factory when I got

out of high school, and where my

mother worked at and I was able to go to community college and on to uc berkeley and I think it make a tremendous difference in

a lot of the students that could use free city college. One of

the issues also is a lot of students on financial aid

already have free or reduced

enrollment and the problem with

that is books and I also teach at san francisco state. That's

my day job and I know what a

struggle it is for books and other materials, the computer and everything else, so this

would reduce a lot of that

impact on students and make a huge difference. One last thing I want to say regarding the

other part of this which is the

so-called mansion tax. As a

homeowner I am paying parcel

taxes looks like I will be paying more taxes and I want to

say this is one way to really spread this across the city for the benefit of all the residents of the city. Thank you. >> thank you trustee. Thank

you so much for being here today. >> good afternoon supervisors. Thank you so much for working on this important issue. Not that

long ago -- I'm sorry. Amy bacharach trustee san francisco city college. Not that long ago all public education in california was free. It was a

time when we valued education and our educators when we

recognized that an educated population was immensely beneficial to the entire community and our society and

when our budgets reflected our priorities which is what they're supposed to do free public

education is well known to be a cornerstone of our economic and

progress as a civilization and today's competitive world there's no reason why the

college which is extension of

the public k-12 system shouldn't

be free for all. If we want an educated population we must show that in the budget and priorities. I urge you to vote

in favor of the future of this

great city and yes to

prioritization funding for free city college. Thank you so much.

>> thank you. And I see Ms. Messier and tim kelly -- >> just for a moment of clarification tim kelly is the President. I apologize.

>> we know so I will turn it over to him first. >> thank you Mr. President and my apologies.

>> no problem at all. Alyssa is the driving source in this campaign so I understand that

and yes the modest increase in the mansion tax if you want to call it that or real estate

transfer tax to have those who can afford it at the most to put

into the cities and deal with issues of inequality in the city is critical and we're in support of that and the free city college campaign you know I have

heard somebody say it was an

idea whose time has come from an

idea -- it was already here

before. It's been here a long

time and actually not just in california but also all around the country. I went to school for free when I first went to college in new york city and then had increases in tuition and we've seen this as a pattern

that went on for years and we need to unravel that pattern and make it go back and a lot of

people have been speaking about this. President Obama talked

about it, bernie sanders and

hillary clinton have plans to

make college affordable and the state of tennessee has plans and san diego has its plans and having city college -- having

san francisco have its own plan that would be in its progressive

tradition to make sure that we

can get everyone to support and

to go to college is critical. These proposals together

mitigate against the growing inequality in the city and bay

area and nation and we

wholeheartedly support them and I want to thank you supervisor kim.

>> thank you to the vice President And Ms. Mezier. >> thank you supervisor kim

and thank you for the care and

concern for city collegeof san

francisco and is ongoing and you

have stepped up for that and we thank you and thank you supervisor kim for taking the

lead on this. There is two

pieces of legislation and the

resolution and the transfer tax

and a perfect combination and we have a modest change in the transfer tax and on the 25 million raising a half

percent. It's a progressive tax. It's an appropriate tax

and do more than just fund this initiative to make city college

free, much more, if we go up to

70 million in some years and

that's a smart way to go for san francisco and additionally the free city college initiative is a smart way to go for san francisco and especially for our students because we know how much they're struggling and we

know how hard it is to remain in san francisco take the steps to

get an education and how many

obstacles there are. This takes

away some of the obstacles for

them and making college more sebl for them and additionally

and there is no doubt about this city college has lost enrollment over the last years because of

this crisis and this is a way to

step up and ensure that city college can return to its rightful size and once again serve all of san francisco so that's very important, and it

would also be huge for san

francisco in general so this is really a win-win-win-win-win situation where we could be making a tremendous difference

in the lives of our students and

their communities, in the lives of our community college because it's san francisco's community college and making that

investment for our economy. It would be huge and then finally what it would mean for the state

for the larger movement to make

community college free? That would be amazing and thank you for your support. >> thank you and I want to

recognize your group. When we first proposed the luxury real

estate transfer tax back in December our office spent time

how the funds could be used to

make san francisco more affordable and equitable and a proposal and great use of some

of the funds and again because there is flexibility and not a set aside and used for affordable housing, to fund important improvements to the

city that so many of our residents depend upon. I see

the next speaker in line and

call you up and tim paulson from

the san francisco labor council.

[Calling speaker names] >> okay. My name is san jose

and jobs and justice. Both my sons attended city college and I

was on a board of education in

action and I fell in love about

city college and calling the important multirationale institution in san francisco.

Now I will read comments from charlotte hunt who couldn't be

here and in the city college child development, a student, tenderloin resident and a mother. This is her message "because of the cost of living

in san francisco I struggle to feed my family but can't get food stamps or support. This

means that money spent on furthering my education is

instead spent on food, housing et cetera. I attend child development class and funded by

city college is great example of free education with child care

that is much needed and I got

eight other mothers to attend

this class. Expending -- expanding free education would

allow for me and other moms to

take classes that are not free currently and spend more money on food and child care while

going to school. In closing

please support moms like charlotte and give them hope for a future which they deserve. Thank you. >> thank you so much. Mr. Paul son thank you for being here today. >>

>> thank you supervisors. Tim paulson and the executive director of the san francisco labor council and 150 unions in

san francisco and we have some of the wildest democracy that

you could have see as I am sure all of the supervisors experienced over the years but there's one thing that everybody is agreeing on whether or not

it's the construction workers,

public section workers janitors

firefighters and the labor council is unified supporting this measure as we go forward. We know that the financing was a question whether we talked to you and I think we have a

mechanism we could use to make sure that free city college

becomes a reality so I want to remind everybody and saying we're excited about moving

forward on this. This is something again that san francisco can lead the way on as

we did on other piece of worker and citizen legislation in san

francisco so I urge yes vote on both these items today. Thank

you.

>> thank you. >> hello members of the budget

and finance committee. My name

is jal hand dro and here in

speak of my union and make city

college free. As we deal with the housing crisis in history

and support the communities struggling to make ends meet and the government that, wos and

listens to the people and city college was envision said a free service to nurrish and uplift the minds in our communities and

we must continue to uphold that

promise. I personally as an undocumented immigrant that graduated from high school didn't have the guidance or resources to go to college. Had

it not been for the community

college I wouldn't be able to

learn to navigate the complexities of higher education and apply for scholarships and gaining the confidence to

continue studies and graduating with a bachelor's degree. Today I stand here as a professional who is proud of what a community college offered me. Making city college free will greatly benefit our working class

communities and help to nowrish the young professionals of tomorrow. Our union represents

workers who are immigrants from communities of color and work

class. 45% of our members'

children that go to college go to public community colleges and

27% go to csu colleges. They

rely on these services to continue the academic growth and making it free will greatly impact their lives and the lives

that come from low income families. Educating the present and future say public responsibility. Let's make city liege free again. Thank you.

>> thank you so much. Our former youth commissioner. Thank you for being here.

>> thank you jane. Thank you supervisors for having me. As I

am sure you know san francisco

has the fastest growth inequality in the united states

as well as the prize winner of having the most expensive real

estate in the U.S. And I know

the free city college and

mansion tax will attack issue. As beautiful tourists came to

the city the wealth and

inequality could be more stark.

I'm a success story and as a

graduate and has a job and transgender and without support going to college was hard. If

this plan was a reality then I

could have gone back earlier and

got my life back on track. I

know that many undocumented and

disabled and lgbt and those with barriers and accessing higher education continuing seeing getting a bachelor's degree much less than a masters a distant dream. I encourage you to support this legislation so we

can support all of our students

and residents. Thank you.

>> thank you Ms. Satillia.

>> good afternoon. Sfcc has been my second chance. In high school I went through a

disconnection of my studies. That resulted into not being

able to graduate high school on

time and deciding I would enroll

in ccff as I got my diploma and accepted into sf state. >>

>> it has been one of the best

decisions I made in my life. My professors care about my success

just as I care about their well

being. The community fighting against the genifz in the city

is still present there. Many of students we work attend there

and it's vital to making it free and eliminate the struggles that students go through in the city of san francisco. If san

francisco is rooted in being an

equitable city that a free

school suggest a big step towards that. Thank you.

>> thank you so much.

>> hi supervisors. My name is thomas wright. I'm a city

college student and I live in

the tenderloin, and basically I

just want to say that inequality is prevalent these days and I

think there's more emphasis on

making money that you know --

then like things like character and moral, ethics and things like that, so I think this would

be a good thing for city college

-- for san francisco to be --

take a leading role in this and

by making the education free for

opportunities for people who are

lower income, so please support city college and the mansion tax. Thank you.

>> thank you Mr. Wright.

>> hi. My name is duane with

ko r scpe. I believe if we have free college classes the students can focus more on their studies than the financial part

and I think they will be better achievements. I support it. Thank you. >> thank you. Why don't I call up the rest of the name

cards that I have.

[Calling speaker names]

>> thank you supervisors. I'm

a community organizer with community organize partnership

and our mission is help homeless

secure housing and become self

sufficient and that is crucial.

For homeless individuals to be self sufficient we need the

tools and resources to make that happen. Poverty and inopportunity are barriers to achieving that pattern to self sufficiency. Higher education is a necessity in gang stability and integrating with the community. We see educational opportunity as not only providing a pipeline to self sustaining employment but brings hope, opportunity and community

to those that have been

marginalized with the experience with homelessness. Providing

free city college creates that opportunity and hope and community and foundations towards achieving self sufficiency and improving the

quality of life of formerly

homeless populations and encourage support providing

education to citizens in sang fran and strengthening our

community and pass you to pass the real estate transfer tax and fund city college for all. Thank you.

>> thank you so much. >> good afternoon. My name is roger scott. I have been a

teacher at city college since

1972 and have been on the

executive board except for one

missed election since 1974. I

have come before this body on many occasions and this is probably the least controversial

issue I ever addressed. I think splawt our backward mayor might

be supportive of this issue.

Although I don't consider him of

ally of affordable accessible education. It's been most of my

life has been changed in a

positive way from the

opportunity to attend accessible and affordable higher education.

I was a juvenile delinquent in

high school, kicked out of school six times in five semesters yet I lived three quarters of a mile from texas

tech and I was able to go to school there for $25 a semester and I had a bachelor's degree by

the age of 20. I've been lucky to attend public higher

education over the years, and I

never had to take out a student

loan, and for me it's

particularly -- it's outrageous

that our graduates of, recipients four year degrees owe

$30,000 on average and roughly

up to $90,000 and $100,000 in

many o occasions. I urge you to

pass both issues. I think

they're a great step toward true democracy and without economic

democracy there can be nor political democracy in my view. Thank you.

>> thank you so much Mr. Scott

for being here.

>> hello. I am a refugee from ukraine. After one year of studying in university in my native city I had to move

because I am gay and it's

dangerous to be gay there. Gays are prosecuted. I like my

studying and it was interesting

for me to be starter day after

day and now I want to continue

my education. As a refugee i am not able to pay for city college

and I don't have a good paying

job and the main reason I can't

ask for help me. They were religious and after my coming out they said they don't want such a son and don't want their

son to be gay and it was a

mistake to keep my allieve so I

have to -- alive so I spend time

paying for rent and college and

food and books and instead I

could time to study. I have a

desire to study and to be a professional. That's why I hope I can make sure that city

college is free. Thank you.

>> thank you so much for being here today.

>> good afternoon supervisors and supervisor kim I want to thank you for your vision and

leadership on this matter.

Growing up in a working class

family I often would hear my

mother say "if you have to ask

the price you probably can't

afford it" and I know that's rather simplistic, but as I

reviewed the real estate aka

mansion transfer tax I would be very perplexed thinking that

this very, very modest increase

of a.25% to.75% would provide

serious hardship on any mansion, owner or significant commercial

building owner. I think about

how I don't dare ask here in san

francisco how much it is to rent

a modest one bedroom because again I know it's clearly out of

my range. Rents have increased

between three to 400%. That I

deem as hardship. When I think about the potential is and what

the goal is for this fund --

where this new funding, free

city college, I am even more inclined to support this real property transfer tax and I would like to think -- pause and

think if the wealthiest amongst

us would dare to ask "how much

will it cost not to provide

access to higher education?" well, then I would have the opportunity to answer in my mother's fashion "if you have to

ask the price you really can't afford it."

>> thank you. Thank you for

being here.

>> cathy burric. I'm not sure

I heard my name but I know I turned in a card. Thank you for considering this really important issue. I have multiple relationships to city

college over the last 37 years, and first I want to speak to you

though as a citizen of san francisco and a taxpayer who

wants to see my taxes spent to uplift the lives of poor working

and middle class people who are neglected by many decisions that

have been made lately in these halls. I understand the concern about business and taxing the

wealthy, but I want you to

understand that a 46-dollar fee

for every unit is a terribly regressive tax on the students.

When I was a student at city

college in the 70's it was free

and the only reason I pay taxes

in the city is because city college was free at that time.

It would be a terrible mistake to not take advantage of lifting

the lives of the 99% -- not just

the 1% in our city. We can't call ourselves progressive anymore if we don't pass the real property transfer tax and

free city college. Boston, L.A. And chicago are already looking

at it. L.A. Hopes to have it by 2017. Boston I understand

already has the form and I thank those really supporting it and I

would hope our supervisors that

tend to put business interests

before the people that live here to change their mind about the tax. >> thank you very much. I will call the rest of the cards.

I have two more.

[Calling speaker names]

>> hello supervisors. Jay chang from the san francisco association of realtors and

represent the agents active in san francisco and here to talk about item 3, the transfer tax.

We want to emphasize we don't

have a position on the transfer

tax because it doesn't

significantly impact our

members. Less than 1% of the

market is affected and one unit out of four years are impacted

by the transfer tax. We want to clarify questions posed during

the question earlier and provide

data. According to the multiple listing service to answer the

question the transfer tax would

have generated $1.2 million from residential sales. Out of

$44 million projected by the

controller that means residential properties only provide 2.27% of the revenue generated by the transfer tax which means that commercial properties are representing 97% of the remaining revenue. We present this facts and clarification just because we

know that in the press it's been

referred as a mansion tax.

Supervisor kim called it a

mansion tax in the san francisco

examiner but in fact gathers little revenue from residential property and should be a commercial or business tax. Thank you.

>> thank you very much.

Mr. Shin. Next speaker.

>> I actually had a quick question. I submitted two public karsd for each item so can I give two items?

>> no. We did combine items into one hearing so that's just one public comment.

>> okay. Got it. >> please speak on both items and we will restart the time.

>> okay thank you. I guess I will start here since I have two minutes. I heard arguments come

up and I want to address some of the and they stand out and the conversation about mansion and

what it means. I feel that is a

waste of people's time. I hope

I don't hear that and voters are

voting on the words of the

measure. I I'm a student and going from class to class and telling students about the

proposal and not using the world

and describing it how it is and property is $5 million or more

and students are asking critical and analytical questions and all students have ultimately

supported it so I think we

should give more credit to the

vote toarz understand what

they're really voting for and questions about fluctuations in

the market and doesn't make sense and $44 million versus

$13 million and the projected cost of the tuition and huge surplus and when there are lulls in the market we will clearly have enough money in it is reserve to counter that and there was discussion about the money not being. >>

>> not being set specifically

for free ccsf and of course it goes into the general fund but we know the program works and

report back and we serve this many students and have this many

et cetera and we get public support for the program and the voters will demand that the

money be allocated in that way so it's inconceivable to me that a future mayor or board of supervisors would take that money away from free city because it's what the public wants and remind everyone this is a really important investment. City college is one

of the main places to take esl classes and affordable school

for stem in the bay area so the

money is made back up when we create people for the market who can actually credibility to the

city and to the economy so thank you.

>> thank you so much for your comments.

>> hello. My name is morgan

russ and here with the living wage coalition and here because

I am 17 and I I'm going to college soon and our higher education system? This country

is a disaster. It is

unaffordable and inaccessible to

everyone except the uber wealth and he community college is a

great option and yet when they can't go to college because it's expensive and graduate with massive debt then we're failing.

We need to keep it accessible and affordable to everyone and as people said it's an

investment and having a well educated population really does

benefit all of us. Thank you. >> thank you Ms. Russ. Thank

you for being here.

>> supervisor jim lazarus san

francisco chamber of commerce. Certainly no one in the room disagrees with the given that

the tuition in california never met the master plan on education

from the pat brown era and should have tuition free university at every level of university and college in california. The problem is we picked a tax that's been raised

twice in the last five years. Seems to be an easy target because it's a tax on commercial

building transfers. It's a tax that's volatile and it's trying

to raise money for a good purpose, a purpose that this

board of supervisors could fund

from its current 9.6 billion dollars budget. There's half dozen tax measures pending. You have to choose I assume -- maybe you will choose them all but I

don't think the voters will.

Over $400 million a year of new

tax revenue on the table for placement on the ballot. Which

has the priority for this board and the voters? Is this tax going to be a priority? Certainly the purpose that you

would like to see funded through

an ordinance is probably a

priority and like ammiano some

years ago under writing and

education cost of city college

is a general cost of the city

like under writing the school

district's budget and let's get a measure and fund it before the normal process before this body. Thank you.

>> thank you Mr. Lazarus. >> good afternoon supervisors.

My name is charlie gosh and work on governmental affairs for the association. I would like to

echo the comments of the speaker

before me and I came to speak on

a housing tax, a mansion tax for city college and it's neither.

This is a tax on commercial

buildings which also include multi-family buildings which are residential buildings which have

rents that are high enough and

the way the taxes work they get

pass by law and whether residential or commercial it

will be passed and increase for the residents future or present.

We are supportive of the concept city college in general but we don't believe this tax is appropriate and we feel if this

debate is going to happen here

we at least speak it on the way the ordinance was written and

again it's a tax on multi-family

buildings and rent controlled buildings and commercial buildings and the businesses

that occupy those spaces and we would like to discuss the tax in those terms. Thank you for your consideration.

>> thank you Mr. Gosh and I am sorry I have one more speaker card. Lee. >> that's me.

>> oh thank you lee.

>> okay. I took that budget home, that big thick thing home.

Went to a starbucks last night and it was cold and actually

read the thing. I looked at all

numbers and what struck me so

much is consulting fees. There

is one place where you're paying $800,000 to consultants to see if a project can work. Why

don't you do the project and if

it bails use those funds to fix the project. The consulting fees is what is killing it is

budget. You take away so -- in

fact if Mr. Yee was going to buy

a pair of $10 pants and paid

five people each to see if it's the right pair of pants. That's ridiculous. If you take away the consulting fees you can transfer the budget to somewhere

else. I mean how many consultant sults do you need to see if the project will work?

Think about it and over consult somebody and spending money used for other things right away. You might have one person to

oversee it and if the project

fails you use that money to fix

the problem and then you got that much extra money in the

budget that you don't have to spend paying someone $60,000 to

be on a consulting board. I mean don't you think that's a

bit much? I looked at that thing and one project and $800,000. Come o you you could give that to the city college

and they would be happy. Think about the consulting fees maybe.

Come on. Mr. Yee dresses nice anyway so I don't think he needs

help. You guys have a good day.

>> thank you lee. I concur

that supervisor yee dresses very nicely.

>> hi. My name is terry madsen and I don't know how many other people when they got off

of bart and you can walked through the hospitality center

that is started outside of the public library and it's a

coalition of people who are offering services and they had

barbara shop and had food and

clothing and socks but there is no free education and right next

to city college and the sieving center city college campus, so

it made me think about you can

give fish but until you teach

them how to fish people will

need to get fish from somewhere else and we need to think how to

educate people and I'm a city

college instructor. I work in

the community healthier program in the health education

department and we did a survey

40% of our students make less

than $10,000 a year. 15% make

from ten to $20,000 and --

[Inaudible] From 20 to $35,000

and 81% make less than $35,000 a

year and 38 formerly homeless

and 38% formerly incarcerated.

We have six students have taken a introductory course at the san francisco jail and accepted into our program for August. They're going to get out of jail and

they don't have any money. Formerly incarcerated and

homeless people don't have

money. We're trying to educate themselves to be community health workers and work with the community like we see outside of

the public library and the only

way they can do it is with free education. Thank you.

>> thank you very much. >> good afternoon supervisors.

My name is sue englander and instructor at city college and I would like to speak from the

heart so first of all thank you

so much for your previous

support of city college and especially like to thank

supervisor kim for proposing

this extremely generous and important resolution. I always

need to tell that you my heart is history and city college is

in crisis and needs a new deal.

The transfer tax like the new

deal is not just well intentioned as many team have accused the visions that we have

for society but it's a concrete solution to a desperate

situation due to a deaccreditation crisis that the

city and this college did not

deserve. The old deal is inhumane solution cutting courses which means loss of

courses for our students, less r

loss of enrollment and state

funding and the unwarranted

damage from the accreditation

debacle to accumulate. The new

deal would be human and concrete

and set city college up for success and class enrollment, elimination of student department, faculty support and

a strong financial foundation.

For increase the -- for increasing productive san

francisco citizens who can

compete in a very sophisticated job market let's vote yes on the transfer tax and its priority

for city college and let's free city college.

>> thank you Ms. Englander.

>> hi. I am a student at ccsf

and I just wanted to say that

there is an epic struggle going on between two visions of city

college. One is a down size corporate model college, just

two year. The other our city

college and our san francisco

that is can.-14 but actually

long-term for lifelong learners and for cultural enrichment and

we had a fight nationally and

locally so this free city college proposal it counters a

piece of that and plays a huge

role in that. That's not just about human capital development but human development for all of

us and so I urge the vote for us

on this proposal and also to

reiterate the cuts that have

been occurring. A vote no would also support -- unravel down the

line again a push towards the

26% cuts to ccsf and the

opposite that we envision is a thriving ccsf and increase

enrollment that would pull in

more students and pull in more

classes and bring back faculty

and rebuild the college to 100,000 students and this is what we envision so we urge

everyone to support that and

keep the students community in

mind. >> thank you so much.

>> hi. I will allen desouza and library and treasurer with the union. Thank you for hearing us today and sorry for being late. I was working in

the library and today I had a

student who is dsps student who many years ago, 15 years ago I was serving across the street at

the public library, and he was struggling then and he's made so

much progress now at city

college working now on language

skills and job skills. These

are the people who we would be

helping and removing barriers from access to city college. Another student today in the

library was a mother with two children, one in a crib and one

sitting by her and she was --

these students -- these are the

students who need demolishing of

access of fees are one of the biggest barriers coming to city

college. I am proud to be a

librarian, proud to be serving these students and many more students like them. There are other students out there who

would love to have the

opportunity but whatever their

barriers are are unable and by passing the transfer tax we could remove the barriers and opportunity for them and make san francisco not only a place for education for students but

thrive in the city. Thank you. >> thank you for being here. You just just in time. Are there any other members of the public that would like to speak on this item? I'm seeing none through the chair. >> okay. Colleagues public

comment is closed.

[Gavel]

>> supervisor yee.

>> thank you supervisor kim. First I want to thank the public

for coming out and supporting these two measures and I want to

thank supervisor kim for being

the primary author of this. It's kind of interesting for me

to listen to the public because

so much of it could have been my

story and in fact it was my

story. Back then when I was

getting out of high school the

city college was free and it helped me immensely professionally because it gave

me an opportunity to actually continue from high school and go

to a place where I could continue learning and at the same time for my situation and probably most of the people that

go to city college you had to go

to work and basically raise enough funding or money to

support yourself, and that was

the case. In those days when I

was going to city it gave me an opportunity to save money

actually so I could transfer over to cal eventually and pay

for the housing and tuition and

so forth, and even then -- want

even then, but then there was

actually much lower at cal and

of course rent was much lower and it was very difficult to make ends meet when you don't

have parents that can support you, and so what people are

talking about today is even much

more crucial that we give people opportunities for different

reasons to go to city college

whether they can earn enough

money to pay just living today

or to save up to continue their

college career. This is one issue we're not just saying

let's make it free and not have

a funding source. There's been a funding source identified and

by the way if more revenues come

in we should be committed to fund other legislation that we

should really take seriously that this support free city

college. I am supporting both measures today. I hope we will be able to move it out of

committee with a positive

recommendation, and I also want to say that there's been

discussion and we heard today

that several people mentioned child care. Well, there's a lot

of students struggling to go to city college even with kids and

a lot of parents out there that

told me they can't go because

not only it's very hard to pay for tuition, but they can't afford to pay for care while

they're going to school, so

that's a big issue for many people whether it's going to school -- even in high school

it's a big issue, but it's an

issue at city college and issue at san francisco state and all

of public institutions in san francisco. Supervisor kim and myself have been talking about

this aspect for several weeks.

i'm beginning to talk to the

advocates out there about it. There's general acknowledge that

child care is an issue starting

from city college I mean it goes

beyond city college and I don't want to slow things down and

what you have for item 4 doesn't include language with -- issues

on child care and I was hoping

to get it in there so rather

than slowing it down I made copies of some language they

would like to have in there so

what I would like to is first

duplicate the file on number 4.

Okay. And then make amendments

to it and continue the item so I

will pass out my version and I can tell you where those

amendments are they would like

to put in, and basically starts

with the whereas clauses on page

four. I included a couple of whereas clauses. I will read it

to the public "a significant additional barrier for children with young children to obtain hiroshima is the cost of early

care and education for their

infant and toddlers and whereas that additional funding shall

support san francisco families

with infants and toddlers in order to obtain child care early care and education -- it's on

page four -- in order for

families to enroll in school and whereas concurrently the critical time in brain development and lace the foundation for the child's

ability to learn and develop

language skills and interact washingtons. >>

>> and whereas additional

barrier for families and

children to obtain education is

the cost of care" and then on

page five I meant to add a further resolve, and it reads "that the board of supervisors shall support funding needed to support san francisco families

with infants and toddlers to

obtain quality early care and education while families enroll

-- what I wanted to put in there but isn't in there and add that

to the language "families enroll

in public funded schools and

training or trainings estimated

up to be $10 million per year." okay so that would be my amendment. >> thank you supervisor yee,

and I have looked through these amendments. I think the whereas

clauses make sense and they're

certainly true that a child care

is an additional significant

barrier for parents who attend

city college so I would support

the whereas clause. My ask is and I understand you want to

duplicate the file and is it

that you want to keep that in

file and move out the rlt resolution to the full board?

>> right and move that and continue and flesh out the language for this.

>> I see. My suggestion to

move it out of committee and not duplicate the file I am actually

open to both and do that and

keep if in committee. With the

further resolve the board of

supervisors shall consider and

examine proposals for needed support for san francisco

families with infants and

toddlers to obtain early care

and education while enrolled in

school or training estimated to be up to $10 million, but if you feel that language is not strong enough we can duplicate the file

and keep your language in

committee but I would feel comfortable with my proposed

amendment moving to the full board.

>> I think I could accept your proposed amendment. I also

wanted to include publicly funded.

>> okay. Publicly funded --

>> schools -- publicly funded schools or trainings. In other

words, isn't be private schools.

>> to our city attorney john gibner.

>> deputy city attorney john

gibner. The whereas clauses --

if the committee adds those to the pending legislation wouldn't

trigger another hearing in committee. Adding a resolve

clause -- depending whether it's targeted funding towards city

college and that is all that was agendized today. If you want to expand the resolution as

supervisor yee is proposing and

having child care for children would require additional public comment and noticing which is I didn't believe the supervisor was proposing duplicating so

that piece of it could be continued.

>> question to the city

attorney. In our legislation in

one of the whereas clauses we

did include that in addition to

tuition and enrollment fees

students face education related

costs including room, board or

child care cost such as

transportation and taxation and supplies up to 3,000 annually so

there is language about child

care in the original legislation

-- I'm sorry, in the original

resolution, so this resolve would then trigger a continuance

even though we do refer to child

care cost as being a potential barrier of cost of attending city college.

>> you know it depend whases

you want to do. If the new whereas clause is really about city college --

>> just city college students. >> that's how I heard supervisor yee proposing. >> oh I misunderstood

supervisor yee. I thought you

wanted us to explore funding for

city college students?

>> my language kept at more

general to say -- that's why I

said publicly funded schools or training which includes probably big subset of city college

students.

>> but would include state and

public schools as well k-12? >> mostly san francisco state

because again if it's a barrier

for students to go to city and

get caught off and transfer one

year from now and not able to go to san francisco state.

>> I see. I misunderstand the intent. If limited to city college I am okay with the

amendment coming in but if we

expand to all students in all higher education institutions then I would prefer to duplicate

the file and leave that in budget committee. Supervisor wiener and then tang.

>> thank you. So just so I am clear so -- we heard from city

college before in terms of the

projected costs for the free city college program as

presented by supervisor kim is around $13 million maybe a

little bit less than that, and

now this amendment would add -- someone can correct me if I am wrong, another $10 million so

it's upwards and pushing

$23 million? Am I correct about

that? I know these are all

estimates. >> I think I am duplicating

the file and asking for

amendments to duplicate the

file, so I'm asking for a

continuance for that particular duplicated file as amended and

so we could discuss that piece

of it on another occasion so I

think we should keep our focus

on the original file.

>> okay. I totally understand. I'm just asking the question because it's proposed

as an amendment today. I understand you're entitled to

keep it in committee but

increases the cost to 13 million approximately to 23 million. I

look forward to that conversation. I am a huge supporter I think we should have

universal or free or deeply discounted child care. Access

to child care is one of the most significant issues facing our city but a lot of people around

the country and huge

ramifications particularly for

lower income, middle lower class and middle class people and workers

so I think it's a bigger conversation so I am glad the intent is keep it in committee

because this is a pretty significant change and

significant issue. Thank you. >> supervisor tang.

>> I was just going to say and

I think much of the discussion considered already but I would

like to keep the resolution relatively as originally proposed because I think that

what supervisor yee is trying to get at is really a larger issue

that we have to work on as a

city so again to make sure that especially because this is a

policy resolution with the intent of being accompanied by

the transfer tax increase just

to focus on city college. >> thank you supervisors. So

I would be supportive of a duplicated file that would be in budget committee to further examine funding child care costs

for those that are enrolled in public higher education

institutions. I concur with all

the statements made. Quality affordable child care is incredibly important and especially for the students

working towards an associate's

degree their ba or getting additional training in their

careers so I would love to

explore that concept at budget committee and support to duplicate the file and the amendments supervisor yee stated.

>> okay. Colleagues from my perspective I think overall free city college is something I

would love to support and open

to doing so. I think this dialogue here cemented my feeling this needs to be taken

in the context of the larger

budget as a city. To do it in a

one off and tad amount to

$13 million supplemental now or potentially $23,000,000.01 and perhaps it's the right direction to make but I think it should be

done in context of the city budget from my perspective and I will say while I am not supporting it today I am open to the conversation and supporting this cause and free city college. I think there's a lot

of merit to it and certainly child care and merit as a parent

with three young kids and

understand the concerns and supervisor kim.

>> thank you chair farrell. I

appreciate the comments that

were made. I hope I can get colleagues support on passing

this out of committee today with recommendation so that will be

my motion to move this forward with recommendation on both

items and what I would just say

is that the fund to make city

college free will be contingent

upon the passage of the new

revenue so we don't expect the

city to fund this city college

fund if this doesn't pass in November so trying to set aside from the current budget picture

that only with additional revenue. Second, I know a lot

of questions and comments came up at committee from supervisor

wiener about the committee whether this revenue will be used as articulated today. Like

many things in it is budget

they're no guarantees that

something will continue into infinity. In fact many things

we funded recently through the budget committee process there's also no guarantee we will fund all of the things forever. With that being said the resolution

that is before us today indicates this current board's intent to follow through on the

fund and we will follow up with

enacting the vehicle that will collect the funding if this real

property transfer tax passes in

November and also to set aside a reserve fund acknowledging that

the transfer tax is volatile

source of revenue than other

sources of revenue which are

more stable and ensure on down

years we have the funding to make city college free again and

I want to reiterate. We want

this a year to year appropriation to the city college program and hold them accountable to make sure that

the funds are properly spent

down and achieving the goals and increased enrollment, seeing students really benefit from a

free community college system,

and we will be able to evaluate

the program year to year. Now I have supported set asides in the

past but I know it ties the hands of policy makers and the

decisions to make the city the strongest and heaviest it can be. This real property transfer tax. >> >> is to increase funding

sources and keep the city more affordable and free city college is one of the strongest proposals we have seen so far coming to the commitment to make

this a more affordable city and more equitable opportunity for everyone and maybe in the future after years of this program

being in place maybe there will be a charter amendment proposal

put forward by this board to

ensure that this funding is dispensed for the city college board of trustees the way we're

intending it through the proposal today and colleagues I

ask for support and move forward both items with recommendation.

>> thank you supervisor kim

and again I completely hear how

you're phrase tg and a separate charter method is a different decision but I understand why

we're going about it this way.

Again whatever the cause for me

and the context of the broader budget is where we need to talk

about it. Again I don't love it

and set asides and authord and

fair enough but needs to be in

the broader budget conversation

gardeners and police officers

and other issues and I want it

in that context and not one off

situations and with the tax. Generally I'm not a proponent of more taxes. I will support them

and are doing so in November and when they're dedicated and companion measures and know when

the funding is going and fund vehicle I am open to support but want to make my intentions clear today. Supervisor tang.

>> thank you and I will echo the concept of free city college

is one that I support. I just

wish that by the time we had gotten here we had all the

details sort of tied up as much

as we could for example and how are we implementing this making

sure that the folks at city college administering this feel

comfortable about it. How will we verify students are, wog half-time in san francisco and what does that really mean?

Seeing the full range of the potential cost if enrollment

goes up for city college? What

does it mean in the long-term

for infrastructure if there is increase in enrollment which we

hope for. I would have loved to see the companion financing piece and set up the reserve

policy as well and I don't know what that entails at the moment

so I am comfortable moving forward to the full board at

this time but I would love to see as much of information possible by the time we get to

the full board.

>> supervisor wiener.

>> so I want to associate

myself with supervisor tang's

comments. I'm a supporter of free community college and

really moving back to a k-14 public education model. I think it's really important. You know

the comments I made at the

beginning were really not about lack of support for what people

are trying to do here because

it's a good goal and a goal they support, but more about the way

that this was moved forward in

terms of you know not really I think making clear to the public

that this tax was not in any way

dedicated. That it's an annual appropriation process because we're talking about situation

where we are asking city college

to make this change in terms of moving towards free city

college, no more tuition, and

yet we're not really giving city

college any kind of long-term guarantee that the funding is

actually going to be there, so

we will see students coming into

city college on the belief that

there's no tuition anymore that they don't have to pay tuition

and then if we have a downturn here in san francisco and if our

budget -- if we go through one of our horrific budget years that we have unfortunately had

to go through all too often making massive cuts to health and human services and parks and other critical needs and when

that happens we know that simultaneously transfer tax will collapse because it always does

and it's the most sensitive tax, so we could have transfer tax from this ballot measure that's

not even sufficient to cover

even half of the cost of the program, and then there will be a request that we take money out of other sources in the general

fund to pay for it at the same time that we're faced cuts to

homeless and senior services and park gardeners and all of the

other things that are so

important, so you know and then

of course as I understand it when this was proposed there was

no work done with the city college administration. They

learned about it when it was

being announced or shortly before that and fundamentally of

course we know that city college

has some fundamental financial problems that are really putting

at risk the future of the institution. They're not about

tuition but are about the

inadequate teacher's salaries or inadequate funding for the institution around all the

capital needs, so we have a pleasure that accomplishes or May accomplish a goal they think

I support and a lot of us support, but does not get to the fundamental challenges facing city college, wasn't put together in a collaborative way with city college and presented

to the public in an inaccurate

way so I join supervisor tang of definitely supportive of putting this forward to the full board

of supervisors but I think it's

important as we go forward do it eyes wide open. >> supervisor kim.

>> I will let supervisor yee. >> supervisor yee. >> I was going to make a motion. >> [Inaudible]

>> call the question, yeah. I

tell you what. We will take

them one at a time because there is duplicated file on item 4 unless you have comments speak your peace and we will go ahead with item 3.

>> I wanted to one make comment. Thank you chair farrell. In response to supervisor wiener. I agree when

you forward a program there

maybe an expectation of continuation of the program of

the program and we do this every

year and senior meals and hiv services and rental subsidies

and there is no guarantee it will. >> beyond year one or two and beyond the years. >>

>> so to say it's a reason to question funding free city college today because there May not be adequate funding in the

future and that is true for many things that we you understand

fund and the average taxpayer

understands that and fees go up services get cut, faculty get laid off. It's not that we want

them to happen but they often happen in these budget processes so I don't think that's a good enough rationale for not supporting free city college today if we know we have the revenue coming in to fund that program this year. Again we want to provide some flexibility as this is a new program. We didn't want to make it a charter set aside yet. We want to evaluate how this program would

move forward and there was no

intent onure part to claim we

were solving all of city college's issues and pay raises

and faculty issues and the board of trustees has been doing a tremendous job with the

administration putting together

a assessor's parcelel tax by the voters of san francisco and bringing city college back to where we want to see it. This

is one piece and not a magic

bullet to solve all of city college's challenges so again

colleagues I ask for your support on this measure.

>> colleagues any further comments? Okay. Madam Clerk can you do a roll call on item 3.

>> is there a second on that item? On item 3 supervisor tang.

>> aye. >> supervisor yee. >> [Inaudible] >> aye. >> supervisor kim. >> aye. >> supervisor wiener. >> aye. >> supervisor farrell. >> no.

>> there are four aye's, one no. >> okay. That item passes. Madam Clerk on item 4 we're going to duplicate the file so

first let's take the duplicated

file. The second file and have

a motion to accept supervisor

yee's amendment into the file?

Motion and second by supervisor kim. Take that without objection. On the duplicated file amended by supervisor yee. Can I have a motion to continue

that resolution to the call of the chair? Motion by supervisor yee. Second by supervisor kim. we can do so without objection. [Gavel]

And Madam Clerk on the original

item 4 roll call vote. >> on the motion. Supervisor tang. >> aye. >> supervisor yee. >> aye. >> supervisor kim. >> aye. >> supervisor wiener. >> aye. >> supervisor farrell. >> no.

>> there are four aye's. One no.

>> okay that motions passes as well. Madam Clerk do we have

other business in front of us?

>> there is no other business.

>> thanks everyone. We're adjourned.