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.

>> when there is this a children's theater, it is a good theater. it is a good theater, you would like it, even if it is for children. that is what i think. i feel like it is both a story for kids and for much older people. it is both about being a young child and letting a toy or a friend, and it is also about what it means to get old. ♪ >> in 1986, my son was two, and i decided i would like to go

over the story of the velveteen rabbit, mind you i had never read it myself as a child. i only heard it as a mother. my first-time hearing it was a bedtime story recording. it was through that that i found the theme and determined how it was going to produce this story. it was through listening to it. when a first mated, i really did watch my son, because i took him to live performances as soon as six months old. he loved it when someone was on the stage. he loved it when somebody was reading to him, the language. >> there was once a velveteen rabbit. >> usually when the bunny first comes out ago, ah, the rabbit. i think kids can relate to it.

and they built love nana. nana is the man at all figure in the show, and she represents stern love. the ferry is also played by the same person. -- the fairy is played by the same person. it is like the love you have for your first child. pure love. >> i think nature is a beautiful thing. all the wild rabbits come from nature. i like that. i think nature is mysterious, a beautiful, and not something our kids get very much these days. ♪ >> there is fantastical spectacle these days because of computers and films. i feel that in a live

performance, being pared down, you can be more successful you can ask everybody to buy into the world you're in. if it is a simple world, they will buy into it, as long as the world is consistent that you have onstage. in some ways, i also want that message for kids. the world does not have to be spectacle. the world can be about relationships, how you feel, and having fun and taking them seriously. and not about being blown away. >> what is real, asked the rabbit one day. >> it is a thing that happens to you when a child loves you for a long, long time. >> i think it is a success because, for the most part, if you are 3 or 7 years old, you sit in the sea, and the kids are engaged. they laugh and ask questions but

that is part of the success. i think the fact that we tour and do it here and still have audiences says it is a lasting. i really want to say that it is lasting is because of the story is a gentle story. if it was just ok, it would not have lasted this long. i have had people come up to me and say that was the first dance show i ever saw and that is why i am a choreographer today. i have had people come back after being in the shows and come back to see it when they're 20 and 23 years old. little kids and people in their 50s and 60s tell me how much they love it. and they come back more than once, year after year. ♪