>> i think they would be more than capable of accommodating that request, that either they would have longer to comply or possibly their fee would be slightly less in proportion. but i think the recommendation that they would do that, it seems, would be the way to go for me, if everybody could agree on that. >> i'm ok with it. president o'brien: commissioner dooley? commissioner dooley: i would just like to add the other recommendation about how some really small businesses don't have cash registers with these separate -- that have that ability to do a separate line item. so that we would recommend working on that portion of the bill to figure out a way to allow those small businesses to comply without having to be buying a brand-new cash register. >> i appreciate all your thought process on this, and i agree with you that i think that will add to the point

before it would convert from 10 cents to 25 cents, that there be a proper assessment on its impact. i think you're right about that. and it's a very good suggestion. and then commissioner dooley's suggestion as well. president o'brien: all right. so do you have -- do we put a motion there? do we need to characterize this into a same? commissioner adams: i motion we go ahead and approve this legislation with the two recommendations that were put before us, just as recommendations, and let the department of environment do their assessment. and commissioner dooley's cash register policy. president o'brien: we have a motion. >> i second. >> irene president irene was first. president o'brien: motion by

commissioner adams and seconded by commissioner riley. commissioner riley: yes. >> that is a motion and recommendation to approve, requesting provisions for alternative to line item on cash register and review and assess the impact of the 10-cent fee prior to it being raised to 25 cents. >> you're good. >> would you like to do a roll call vote, mr. president? president o'brien: yes, please. >> commissioner adams. >> aye. >> commissioner clyde. >> aye. >> commissioner dooley. >> aye. >> commissioner o'brien. >> aye. >> commissioner riley. >> aye. >> that motion passes 5-0. president o'brien: thank you. next item, please. >> thanks for all your work on this. >> commissioners, item seven, discussion of possible act to make recommendations to the board of supervisors on board of supervisors file number 11102, business and tax

regulations code, payroll expense tax inclusion for compensation paid to individuals with a felony conviction. this is an ordinance amending the san francisco business tax regulations code. we have a presentation by supervisor mirkarimi, and in your packet is the file number and the legislative digest. this is the discussion of possible action. >> i thank you, honorable commissioners, and, again, thank you for the decision you rendered on the last item as well. and thank you to the department of environments and rob for his good work on this. so this piece of legislation is something i introduced not that long ago, but it comes as a result of almost about seven years as me being a supervisor working on ways in trying to tackle the high rates of recidivism in san francisco, repeat offender rates. four years ago i started -- i authored the creation of the

re-entry council. it's the first council of its kind in san francisco. it obligates the district attorney, public defender, adult probation, sheriff, police department and 1/3 of the members of the council are formerly incarcerated people, to now become the compass point for city hall in vote for community, to help direct policy and fiscal questions of how to best tackle recidivism. the current state of our reality is that for every four people that the san francisco police department arrest and the san francisco district attorney prosecutes, over three are repeat offenders within three years. and yet, we frontload about $480 million a year from the general fund to the police department. $480 million a year, which is, i don't think, insignificant, if you think about the sun, when you have the police department deployed to

re-arrest, re-arrest many of the same criminals. and yet, at the same time, it's the sheriff's department and the adult probation department, juveniles, who are saddled with the responsibility for rehabilitation and re-enter tri-of people coming out of the county jail system and prison system, especially now with prisoner realignment. but what it does, it saves us money. this is about crime prevention. that's what this legislation is about. because what it costs san francisco, it costs us nearly $50,000 a year to incarcerate somebody in our county jail. $50,000 per year. if in fact we're able to do a decent enough job while somebody is incarcerated and as they're exiting, so that we can land them a job and they will be less likely, i think, to repeat their crime, and we're giving that business an incentive for hiring somebody, because there's such a strong risk aversion to hiring somebody who may have a record, and then we give them a $10,000

tax credit, whereas we don't have to spend $50,000 to incarcerate somebody as we commonly do in san francisco, then i think that this is really an added gain for san francisco's coffers. not just the obvious that we're trying to spare somebody from repeating their crime and saving us money, but it's one less criminal that we're deploying for the police department to have to respond to back to that over 70% recidivism rate. and so i don't find this a novel legislation. this is something that's just come out of years of conversations amongst really the experts within the city and in sacramento of what we can do to incentivize the private sector, to really take part, i think, in this larger need. and we tried almost four years ago, by the way, with another piece of legislation that came before this body that passed

unanimously before the small business commission and i sponsored that, called the ex-offender bonding legislation, where the city and county of san francisco, for pennies on the dollar, could buy bonds from the federal government where those bonds then could be used to offset any liability that an employer could use in order to hire somebody. and we could buy that for pennies on the dollar, up to $25,000 increments. but mayor newsom at the time -- at least this is my interpretation -- was a bit risk averse himself for being able to, i think, really want to give this legislation a try. so san francisco did not buy those bonds from the federal government, so we never really tested it in the way that i think we should. but what i did do was talk to business leaders to say, tell me the approach that you think it would work so that we can get an offender population who's having a very hard time getting access to work. what would it do to take you? and they said, well, while we

appreciate the idea of covering some of our liability, the risk that comes with the notion of hiring somebody that has a record, what we would like is something more meaningful, and that's how we arrived at the tax credit. that mirrors what the city of philadelphia is doing. it mirrors what illinois, iowa and maryland is doing, too. it's not novel. president george w. bush also had recommended that this be national law, and it is now national law, as states are allowed to use this as well, too. it's just the state of california really has it, and cities have not. so i decided that we would tailor it to the need of the city of san francisco. so we decided to just go sort of low-key and what he made it voluntary, and that's really the operate i have thing, it's voluntary -- operative thing, it's voluntary president i don't necessarily see a tsunami, where they're batting

down the door to say we're going to hire so many people. that's not reality. this will not have a hit on the general fund. for any hit to the general fund of doling out a credit, quite frankly i would venture to bet that it's an added gain and one less person to incarcerate and we just saved $40,000. so i'm really thinking that this is a plus. i don't think it's going to be the earthquake kind of law that any legislator hopes their laws would like to be. but i think it's one of those tests that we really must try, and we must try, because state prisoner re-alignment has already begun. and it started october 1, where nearly 700 added prisoners are coming back to san francisco. they've become our responsibility, because the state of california has essentially confessed, with supreme court validation, that it cannot handle its inmate population anymore. so every county has seen a return of about 40,000

prisoners. our share this year, 700. the sum that has returned so far is almost 50. they'll be coming over the course of the year. then maybe another 700 next year, and then the year after. their time in incarceration? who knows. probably won't exceed more than 18 months, two years. they eventually all get-out. while san francisco hovers with unemployment at 9% to 10%. the unemployment rate amongst ex-offenders is 50% to 70%. so 50% to 70% for the unemployment rate of ex-offenders, then the arithmetic really should speak for itself, that nobody should be surprised that there is such a high recidivism rate. so they're not getting access, in some respect, in a way that we might be able to incentivize, then i see no other solutions that are being put on the table from anybody, which is why i think that this is a very benign idea. so i'd be more than happy to answer any questions. president o'brien: thank you, supervisor.

commissioner clyde? commissioner clyde: well, now i'm going to congratulate you on being elected the sheriff, because this is something i've been waiting for to come before us. i attended the hearing that was held by the human rights commission on this legislation. it was a very long, very informative hearing. there was a lot of public testimony about this. so it's a pretty complex issue for people to wrap their heads around. for me, i support it. i absolutely support it. i think the case is made of the numbers of people who have felony arrests and convictions are just incredible. have a arrd convictions is incredible. the fact that a job is the best way to address recidivism is -- it is not questioned. i think the devil is in the details.

you're going to hear more but i want you to know that i support this approach. my only concern was for the general fund and what it would cost, which looks pretty significant to a small business person like me. i would like to tell you that i have people who have been arrested and had convictions as well as combat veterans and people of all kinds of ethnic groups in my employ over the years. we have never had one problem. this would be a very significant incentive to not distance sent the hiring of a qualified person. that is something that people are not aware of, how big that disincentive is even though your records -- you are supposed to

be able to work past that. that is the premise of this society, that you can redeem yourself. i like this legislation for that, it allows people to work and get back into the system. on my understanding, i anson -- i am in support of it. it does not mandate you have to do this. it is a significant and benefit to those employers who employ a qualified people. >> thank you. there are certain prohibitions, by the way, of certain sex offenders depending on the crime they committed.

for example, a sex offender, someone who had offended a child. there are prohibitions by a federal law so this is not an at large, anyone gets a job. those parameters are very much in place. >> i agree with you on that. i support this. i read this over the weekend. what worries me is and what is happening with the state of california and prisoners coming to stamp francisco. i think this program helps with that. are we going to see a tidal wave of jobs? probably not but you will see a few. i see how those individuals

change and how they have come back into society. i listened to some of the human rights comments. i agree you are helping a solution. especially with the state of california and us in getting many more prisoners. this is what we have done historically over the last 40 years. it is the right thing to do. i support this. >> i must confess i did not consult delancy street, but when criticism, because it got politicized. some had suggested that this was putting criminals before the victims which it had not. i do see this as crime prevention.

many had been incarcerated. this happens to be a high number. delancey street called me and said, this is the kind of legislation we would support. in the media they were saying that. i agree there are examples like to lance the street which, if i could exponentially grow those around the city, or others that necessitate that the transition back into society, i would do that. i think of this as a test because it is voluntary. we might be able to be taught where we go from there but not based on the numbers. i am scared for the rest of the

state who are those conservative counties that send a lot of people to the prison system. thousands are coming back to those counties. what are they going to do? this problem has shifted from a state and that responsibility to local government. that argument about the building of prisons on the state level is going to trust the argument locally. or alternatives to incarceration. that is going to be an interesting discussion. commissioner riley: this is only for two years. at the end of that, look at it again? president o'brien: is there any

legislation that would make any rules or conditions for those that are participating in the program in such as -- i am thinking that a lot of the people -- tell me if i am wrong. a lot of them are drug-related people that are repeat offenders. they also have a drug problem that is causing the issue to keep going. i am wondering, would it be and i did to have a mixture so there is so incentives so people are, if they need help with abuse problems that they are participating in that? >> that would be a condition of their probation. time further away from them being released and they call off the wagon. i think you are spot on.

of those who are incarcerated, it is due to their relationship to narcotics or substance abuse. in some form or another. you just have to scratch the surface. gang violence is domestic violence is. it can be related to a relationship to what we're talking about. recovery and treatment has to be enhanced and fortified. for this program to work, the six month threshold where the employee and employer have to be able to experience that in order to be qualified. that employee would have to be fruitful and productive, someone

who is contributing. president o'brien: that jury is a little bit out for me. but i'm willing to support it because i think it is crafted in a way where you have set it up to see how it progresses and works. i would be delighted to see if it does work. it is against my grain because my genes are at that help comes from within. most of the time i think that people have to wake up one day and decide they're willing to do it for themselves. but i can be convinced by statistics that might be generated that might show evidence that putting these

people and giving them an opportunity is definitely a step in the right direction. for that reason i am going to support moving this forward. public comment? is there anybody who would like to step up and speak? public comment is closed. could we get a recommendation? >> i would like to support this. >> i will second period commissioner adams: aye. commissioner clyde: aye. commissioner dooley: aye. commissioner o'connor: aye. the motion passes 5-0. next item.

>> item number8, possible action to make recommendations for the board of supervisors. administrative, business, and tax regulations, a business license fees. amending various sections of the san francisco business and tax regular -- regulation code, administrative code, fire code and police code. we have opening remarks by -- your file is the file number along with the legislative digest. >> good evening. my name is catherine and i am from the office of the david chiu who is the supervisor sponsor. as a business honor, and he has been focused on policies and legislation that will streamline

the requirements that small businesses have to comply with. the legislation is one part of these efforts. for the past year, we have been working with the tax collector and city attorney and departments on a project to consolidate annual business. it is commonplace for businesses to receive multiple bills for the licenses they hold. this situation is confusing and inefficient. the proposed legislation will enable a consolidated bill to licensees and establishes march as the due date for all fees collected. they have to post the amount of fees on their website. it is not increase any fees. the ordinance up dates as stated licensing provisions in

the codes and clarifies the manner that penalties apply to delinquent accounts without changing the amount of the penalty. all of these changes will result in easier compliance and enhanced enforcement for the city. also better management of delinquent accounts. the treasures offices here to present more detail about the proposed plan. i am happy to answer questions you have as well. >> thank you. i'm joined here from our office kathrin summarized it well, what this legislation does. the pages you had to go through, you can see we have a complicated code with respect to licensing. what we are doing he may have

already heard among your colleagues. we have met together the data bases with our business database and are reaching out to businesses and a sanguine notice you have a license at this location. it does not seem like you look at this. just to make sure that everyone is up to date. over the years, some of them have been registered as the cafe as opposed to cafe so we have different items. we are cleaning that up. we also are going to be rolling out to this implementation so it is not just something that happens on march 31 as we present back to meeting. this is going to be a rollout over the course of the next year where on the former due dates, prior to this law, folks will be

getting their licenses on a pro rated basis to bring them up to march 31. we view that as an effective way for businesses to plan because their fees will be reduced a little bit as a pro rate and get on to march 31 when they will have the full fees. we are excited to implement this and think of the supervisors for all of their help. >> thank you. commissioner adams? commissioner adams: i -- the feedback i got was positive. we have several business owners and this helps them out. thank you for coming early in the morning. i am hearing that this is good

legislation. it cleans up a messy process and makes it more efficient not only for the city but for the business owners. i see this legislation as a win- win situation for both sides. great job. commissioner dooley: i would like to echo what commissioner adams said and think of supervisor chu for being sensitive to small business issues. we appreciate his efforts to streamline. we look forward to doing more of the same. thank you. commissioner riley: i agree with commissioner dooley and adams. this is going to save a lot of confusion and time. i was concerned about the due

dates but then i read and that the bills will be prorated. that is great. commissioner clyde: hopefully i will never pay and other late feet again. over 30 years there have been some painful ones. thank you for that. i am assuming that the rollout will be the education a time to educate the businesses. i hope the treasury's office will have someone when this happens, when people get their bills to work with anyone that might be having trouble. i know that they might have trouble. as i pointed out, property taxes are at do as well as income tax payments. it is a busy time.

mostly, your property taxes. for small businesses who might have trouble, i am hoping there will be someone in place to help them in case they get caught. it is a find job. thank you. >> this will be rolled out over the course of 2012. it will be implemented by march 2013. >> just to clarify, what we will be doing after this cleanup, we are contacting businesses and clarifying their business information. the tax data base. we will send out something once all of the data is cleaned up to let people know this is what we have. these are