this tax incentive. i think it is a great idea. i look at it as a double or to the city of san francisco. there are a number of reports that have been made over the years from the development fund that point to the double bottom line impact on the social benefit that comes from a $10,000 tax break. if i were in a position where i was able to qualify for such an opportunity, it would be a great benefit to me to walk in and sell myself on the opportunity of having the $10,000 tax credit as an added benefit to hiring myself peter i am excited about it. i think when we look to the relative costs and going to be reduced, the $40,000, we look at the opportunity to invest and thousand dollars to set $40,000, when we look at the different types of activities that will come from a person receiving a job back towards the local economy, it is a great idea.

i want to offer my support and say thank you. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you very much. nice to see. please, for those of you who want to speak, do so. i see lou gordon here. >> my name is fred, and i am a retired law enforcement officer from san francisco, actually from the sheriff's department. i spent 24 years here in san francisco working with the law enforcement agencies between the district attorney's office, as well as the sheriff's department themselves. while working at the sheriff's department, i work with in the programs, and i see a lot of programs are very successful in there. working in seeing the inmates that are incarcerated, they are eager to find jobs and work with and that they are released. i wanted to also bring up what was brought up earlier, that not

all ex felons are violent. many are paper crimes. many are just drug abusers, and they are able to be rescued and to continue on with their lives as they continue on. there's another part here, too, that there many jobs that are also out here as well, individuals that a recently laid-off. and there are many individuals that are not willing to take these certain jobs out there that these sex felons are able to have and are willing to have. -- that these ex felons are able to have and are willing to have. thank you, supervisor. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. >> i am the executive director and founder of recovery survival network, and we do work with x offenders and provide job training, job readiness, job placement, and job retention. we partnered with some of the

agency's. we do on the job training was city-wide case management, there with the ucsf department of psychiatry. we have partnered with dupont from the for-profit sector. city pains, we have been told we can get up to 200 jobs to the small mom-and-pop type businesses. it $10,000 tax credit will make it really possible to help these small businesses to really make it. $10,000 is a lot of money. in any stressed economy like we have right now peter i am in full support of this could i am a resident of san francisco, a voter, and i am 100% on board with this legislation. thank you very much. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you, mr. gordon. any other public comment? seeing none, i believe public comment is closed.

supervisor chu: given that, we will close public comment. colleagues, the item is before us. supervisor kim: i actually just had some questions. i am sorry i did not ask them before public comment, but i want folks to be able to speak. i understand this is one-time did not want to clarify, is it a 607 $5,000 credit per job? for just one year? supervisor kim: it is one time per offender, and it is a two- year cycle. supervisor kim: so one company, if they hired three ex offenders, they would get three payroll exclusions for $675,000 each? supervisor mirkarimi: it would be a $10,000 tax credit. supervisor kim: for each fte. find the second year they hire

three more, with a get it again? supervisor mirkarimi: $10,000 per offender just once in a two- year cycle. supervisor kim: so they would only be eligible one of the years. ok. i just wanted to say that i really do appreciate this. i know i district 6, their many ex offenders that have challenges to employment, and i think that it is important for us to offer an incentive to employers. my wish, of course, is that we have so few financial levers that we would be able to hire more for this amount, that we would require more jobs for $10,000 credit than just one. however, i understand that this is been through a committee process through supervisor mirkarimi's office, and he has played a leadership role around

ex offender reintegration into community, so i really do respect this coming forward to as to the one other question i have is that i know that in the report it said the philadelphia did this in 2007. i was wondering, was not sure if this is accurate. was the $10,000.10-time tax credit for businesses for each ex offender or four ex as a whole? supervisor mirkarimi: i think the budget analysts report to misinterpreted it. that is per offender. not per business in philadelphia. >> do we know how many ex offenders were hired? how many jobs it translate to? supervisor mirkarimi: i believe 12. 13. it underscores the point that businesses were not rushing, and part of my opening comment was

that one lesson learned is marketing. the absence of marketing and informing. not as buoyant in philadelphia. more buoyant in other states that have adopted it, and we're still collecting that information to the but philadelphia is the one that responded to us first. supervisor kim: do we know how many of those 13 continue to be employed or how long they were employed for? >> minimum length -- minimal, six months. it only kicks in at six months. we do not have the data of all 13. some remain employed. supervisor kim: one of my concerns would be long term, it this week will long-term employment for those employees. i would hope that companies would keep them for longer than the minimum 12 months in order to get that tax credit. not sure what levers we have to encourage long-term employment. this is trying to create some incentive in the first place.

supervisor mirkarimi: the reason we pitch is at six months, and we could have done 12, is that there's strong proof and evidence that the recidivism rate is effected in the first six months of release. that is why we decided to move it at a six-month market. supervisor chu: this does not mandate the baby recently released from prison, does it? it would also impact folks who have records from 20 to 15 years ago. supervisor mirkarimi: there is no time line. the public defender may be good point which resonates, that if we want to consider that, he suggested three years as kind of a cut off and accountable to that. supervisor chu: thank you, supervisor kim. i think there is something to follow up with regards to the three-year eminent possibly.

first, a question about the $10,000 or the $600,000 plus salary number. how did we get to that number? why not just be individuals, payroll tax amount? supervisor kim: i think we were trying to calculate both with the city and city attorney's office, what is a meaningful, palatable number? leaning -- learning from philadelphia and the other states, $10,000 is what they deemed as the beginning of what is effective. so one part 5% of the $10,000 is where the 675 comes from. supervisor chu: it sounds like it was not necessarily a magic number. it was taking a look at work philadelphia place their tax credit, which was about $10,000, and working backwards to get that payroll tax value. supervisor mirkarimi: that is correct. supervisor chu: we have a couple items in the question about

whether or not to amend it to prioritize reason the fund is. that was a suggestion that was suggested by the public defender. also in at least one of the public comment that was made to the i am wondering if that is something of this committee is interested in doing. supervisosupervisor mirkarimi: i would be more than happy to. if you want to commend, using a window, say, three years -- in other words, it would obviously have an effect to those released within three years. >> i just want to be sure that i understand what you're looking for. this would mean that the tax credit would apply to employers who hire people who have come within the last three years, been convicted of a felony? supervisor mirkarimi: right. and released. >> so within three years of release?

>supervisor mirkarimi: release. >> my question would be to change that within the definition portion, so you describe what ex offender means and calculate that it will be somebody who has been convicted of and released from the conviction within the last three years. supervisor mirkarimi: colleagues, i am fine with that. supervisor kim: and i appreciate that. i want to encourage employers to hire all ex offenders to the that plagues the folks that have been released years and years ago. however, this is a large financial leverage. i would rather use other tools for those that have not really ended in a number of years to get them employment. but when talking about reducing costs, public safety from the sheriff's department and others, it makes more sense to be very focused, making sure that those released recently have access to employment and those that are more likely to reoffend.

thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. would you like to make that motion? supervisor mirkarimi: yes, i will motion per the comments of the city attorney on the language being amended for a three-year window for those who would be eligible upon release. supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor mirkarimi made a motion to amend the piece of legislation that defines who would be eligible, and that would include an individual who was released within three years, convicted of felony. so we can take that amendment without objection. supervisor mirkarimi: may just add one thing? per supervisor kim's comment, it is true that if it would remain open ended and unamended, it could go back, as some people testified, for decades. this was referenced in some public comment. over four years ago, we passed legislation, which i sponsored, bonding for ex offenders.

this is similar to the experience philadelphia is going through. we were the first city in the state to do this. the federal government provides bonds to local governments at pennies on the dollar, that because there is such a strong risk aversion by employers to hire ex offenders, the city could buy these bonds for up to $25,000 increments at a very, very low cost as an assured the against the liability that the employer would take on. some other states are doing this. california has not, and i hoped san francisco would be the first. not one bond has been exercised in the city and county of san francisco. i think what is really the telling part of that is just the no promotional marketing by the city in order to explain to those businesses that, here you go, this program does this exist. the city is willing to guarantee your back on this against

liability to the best that we can. from that other book again, i have been looking for -- if there has not been as much enthusiasm to embrace that, then i think it should be a complement and it has got to be incentivizing. to incentivize to a population that is enormously difficult to get access to employment, i was hoping that this would be the right liver potentially to do so. but the bonding mechanism does work. other states have shown that. those beyond the three-year time span of post-release, i would ask the city to ring gauge that legislation. supervisor chu: thank you, supervisor mirkarimi. a question to the city attorney, whether this is substantive? >> it is not substantive. it does not require a continuance. supervisor chu: then we can take action as a committee today. just a couple comments of my own. undue pressure the many people who did come out to testify, in

particular individuals who have gone through the experience themselves, having difficulty finding employment. i absolutely believe it is a smart thing to do to be able to try to get people to be employed again. in terms of actually providing a tax credit of $10,000, that is a very, very substantial amount of money. to be honest, i feel very uncomfortable with prioritizing this particular population over many needy populations, and we could name some many of them. i think we would all agree, whether it is an individual that is an ex felon or a single parent raising children, whether it is a family trying to keep their home in has been unemployed for the past two years, which is not unusual, there are many, many reasons why we want to incentivize the hiring of san francisco and its overall. although i do sympathize with some of the experiences that have been shared today and out of a cult it is to find employment, i do not feel cover

all with trying to produce this population over others at this time and unfortunately, i will be voting against it. i also want to indicate, in terms of the findings that were put in place, we talked a lot about the savings. i believe there is a savings associated with reducing recidivism and not having people go back to jail. but i would caution that you should not cavalierly throw out $50,000. that is not a truly the savings associated with potential in not having someone go back into the prison system. there are a ton of fixed costs within the sheriff's department that needs to be accounted for. so i would be very cautious about throwing than ever run. it is not really an accurate description. i will leave my comments at that. again, i do think there are many people from san francisco in need at this point in time. i think supervisor mirkarimi said it very briefly, but he mentioned that our unemployment rate here with 9% to 10%.

some of those people really represent folks who have been unemployed for a very long time. again, i would be uncomfortable prioritizing this population over other very needy folks at this time. colleagues, -- supervisor mirkarimi: can i respond to that? i appreciate your comments. this is not for me. my motivation is not one of sympathy. it is one of trying to implement a public safety preventative tactic for safe communities. frankly in the question about savings and how they're maybe some interpretation whether that is well-stated or not, i do not think the state -- savings are well-stated the nafta costs that are internalized, for december, the police to permit, all of the sudden in the utopian situation or crimes have plummeted to zero, do we lay off the police department? no, i doubt the union will let that happen.

all of the sudden, on the state level, we have the prison guard who knows it is a very well and out industry where they are building prisons, all of the sudden it the prison population started to go backwards, then that would also bring a different outcome of their own self-interest. as to relieve directed to the jails in insurance department, one of the operative points i made was that we're one of the few countries that has undergrounding. most county jails are experiencing under crowding. it is not given savings. this could be a potential for revenue generation. it that prisoner realignment turned into such a place where we're stressing the ability of other counties, especially in the bay area, to manage that data population, perhaps we could think through the possibility of maybe how we can say that there is room in our jails, and maybe we could capitalize on that potential, bringing in that population to the this is an abstract

discussion but one worthy of consideration. if it's in thousand dollar tax credit could go ahead and have one less person be arrested by the police department, one less person processed by the district attorney or the courts, one must person being incarcerated, and that is a space in the jail system that i can use, potentially, to capitalize. it is not just about savings. i see this having a direct and indirect benefit if that the question is fully assessed. i agree with you, maybe the statement and the finding in this legislation does not go far enough, but if it did, i think it would explain why this could be a greater savings than stated. supervisor chu: thank you for your comments. i do appreciate very much the recognition that the costs are probably not the most accurate. i am sure that there things that are missing the cost benefits are missing on both sides. i appreciate the recognition. i just want to caution, because

as we started this conversation and the public space, it is important that we try to get the most accurate information out there as possible and that is why i want to appreciate that recognition that the costs are not as clear-cut as it may seem sometimes in the reports. in terms of revenue generation, supervisor, i look forward to working with you in your new role as sure of. in terms of the salary exemption amount, i am not clear about what the direct connection is. it seems like there's not necessarily a particular reason why we're choosing that except for the fact that it is being done at a different location. primarily the reason why i will not be supporting this is the fact that another many people from san francisco who are in need of jobs. and i do not feel comfortable prioritizing any population over another. it wanted to an exception for all san franciscans for new jobs created, i would be open to looking at that. there are people in my own district in community who are at risk of losing their homes. they have been trying very hard to find homes, and they cannot

do that supporting their family. i will leave my comments at that. colleagues, we will do a role call on this item. >> on motion to recommend as amended, supervisor mirkarimi supervisor mirkarimi? aye. kim. aye. chu. no. >> motion passes. supervisor chu: the motion is passed. do we have any other comments? supervisor mirkarimi: there was a public comment made that did not go unheard of their federal and state laws that prohibit certain people who have come out of the system who were formally incarcerated for not having certain jobs. that does not -- that remains unchanged. for example, if you're convicted of embezzlement and it is a

white collar crime conviction, you are prohibited from working, say, the financial industry. if you were a sex offender or pedophile, you'd be prohibited from working in, say, a day care or nursery school. there are a number of parameters. i think there has been some reference made about this being sort of open and vague to that is not the case. we would abide by the current laws and protocols. supervisor chu: thank you for the clarification. given that we have discussed with the item and we have no other items before us, this committee is adjourned. thank you.

>> hello. 9 judge terri l. jackson. the court is now recruiting prospective civil grand jurors. our goal is to develop a pool of candidates that is inclusive of all segments of our city's population. >> the jury conducts investigations and publishes findings and recommendations. these reports them become a key part of the civic dialog on how we can make san francisco a better place to live and work. >> i want to encourage anyone that is on the fence, is considering participating as a grand jury member, to do so. >> so if you are interested in our local city government and would like to work with 18 other enthusiastic citizens committed to improving its operations, i encourage you to consider applying for service on the

civil grand jury. >> for more information, visit the civil grand jury website at sfgov.org/courts or call