that i think we could be able to determine the success or not success. it is 20 less people in philadelphia who are now repeating their crimes. what they save potentially on the deal costs, so they are not incarcerated as people, not having to dispatch police or prosecution or courts to have to process those people. the savings are considerably more. the arithmetic speaks for itself, which is why there is a complete savings in this notion. if we are giving a $10,000 a year tax credit but the potential is we're making room in the jails for someone less likely to return, that is where we should be zeroing in on it on how to incentivize businesses who are not forced, not compelled, nor can we impose them to hire this population. this is the least likely population in some ways that

would get hired and that is the experience of other cities and states. supervisor cohen: i have another question for you. forgive me, i do not know of my other colleagues have questions on this legislation -- when it came on the scene. also, can you talk to me a little bit about -- that is ok. thank you very much. that is it for a president chiu:. me. president chiu: supervisor elsbernd. supervisor elsbernd: thank you. here is my concern. i do not have a problem with tax exemptions when targeted for inappropriate purposes -- an appropriate purpose. what is unique about this

proposal is it is for a particular business industry or neighborhood. when we voted on those, i genuinely have operated and i believe everyone who voted on those, the city operated and the process of determining biotech, film, those are industries more than any other industry want to support. mid-market. we have been working to redevelop the market for decades. we felt this was something that was necessary. we decided to place amid market -- placed mid-market above other neighborhoods. this -- we are identifying a class of citizens as more important than all the others. supervisor mirkarimi eluded that -- alluded to that when he talked about veterans, those with special needs. we can play on the movement happening in justin herman plaza at about san franciscans who

have been foreclosed upon. what about san franciscans who have student loan debt? these are people who could use an incentive. to have an employer hire them. and what really concerns me here is we have not appropriately entered into an analysis to say, this class of san franciscans is more worthy of this kind of exemption than any other and i do not think we should. i do not think it is appropriate for us to enter into that kind of discussion to say, this group of san franciscans is more important. that is inappropriate. it really leads to a slippery slope. supervisor mirkarimi says, offer some amendments. we do not want to get into that. into the game. that was -- would eviscerate the payroll tax. maybe i do want to get into that game but i will lead that -- leave that for another day. it is genuinely show that payroll tax is a problem for the city. -- it does genuinely show that

payroll tax is a problem for the city. tax exemption should go for a class of san franciscans as opposed to an industry or never heard which i think are more appropriate. president chiu: supervisor cohen -- supervisor mirkarimi was planning to respond. supervisor cohen. supervisor cohen: i wanted to comment on supervisor elsbernd's comments. it is about framing the issue. in the spirit of what supervisor mirkarimi is trying to do, not framing one class of persons more important than acknowledging we are talking about a general segment that is more fragile than -- in overcoming some challenges with a single mom or vietnam or any kind of veteran.

i really like this legislation. i do not necessarily feel confident i am prepared to vote today. i think there needs to be more communication. you might be able to send it back to committee said there might be more discussion. we have not been involved in -- he acknowledges that districts 10, 6, at 11 -- and 11 will be historically affected by this population. thank you. president chiu: are you making a motion to send this to committee? supervisor cohen: i would like to make a formal motion to send it back to committee for discussion so we can vet out the piece of legislation. i myself have spent a considerable amount of time in the county but i have not had a

chance to talk to my ex offender community to get their weigh in on this legislation. i would be grateful to have this opportunity. president chiu: is their second? seconded by supervisor elsbernd. -- is there a second? supervisor mirkarimi: do not send it back. let it meets its fate here. there is no one who will be able to go back to the drawing board and do much with this legislation. it is simple. this is going to take that if we want meaningful change, it will be a bold move and i do not think that is ready here. not ready yet. i appreciate what supervisor elsbernd said but it does not speak to the reality that we are confronted by now. we have thousands of people in san francisco who cannot get work because their ex-offenders. we do not want to see what hrc

was suggesting, creating the protected class that would require a mandatory lever that opens up access. i do not think that was being received as well. but then the next best step is creating an incentive so that people in the private sector are encouraged to hire ex offenders. what does that sit as? -- save us? many of the population are ex- offenders. it would be nice if we could alleviate the drain on general assistance if they were able to get a meaningful job. it has shown that as i said earlier within the first six months, when one gets out of the system, if they get a job in the first six months, they are 50% less likely to repeat their offense. what we're doing is without trying to activate the private sector relationship to this

larger need to build solutions here, to legislate solutions, all the pressure grows on the not-for-profit industry, not the for-profit industry in order to facilitate, hire, and hopefully find gainful employment for those people coming out of the system and it is not happening already. with an escalating population that is returning back into the district's many of us are host to which also doubles as the same districts where a growing safety challenge and will so if we are not able to rehabilitate effectively, we should be more perspective about what tools we're going to deploy. this is about crime prevention. this is about saving the city money. that might mean testing this for a two-year period to see how effective this law makes -- works. it is not going to take away. what does it take away? it is voluntary.

to take away from this, from the general fund, if we were to say we got 10 candidates who made it, that qualified, i am hoping those were the same 10 candidates who did not make it back into the jail system and the savings speak for themselves. i would like to think the numbers are higher. i would say go for the vote today. the comments that have been made are telling. it requires a level of due diligence to answer this larger question which i do not think will be answered by tweaking this legislation. this legislation should meet its fate right here and those who care and those who want to take this issue on in a way that will produce results that will have some hopeful impact on putting ex-offenders to work and finding a partnership with private sector and with the non-profit government sector, that is what i hope comes as a result of this

exercise. thank you. president chiu: supervisor farrell. supervisor farrell: thank you. i appreciate the fiscal arguments, very much so. in consideration of this legislation, financially incentivizing businesses, it is the way the real world works outside their walls of city hall and it is something that supervisor elsbernd had articulated. i do not mind voting for it. supervisor avalos's comments, why did you this. this type of business, this neighborhood needs we value, we think mid-market needs our help. that is when we needed when we make those very judgments. i have similar problems. supervisor mirkarimi mentioned

extended to other folks. the fact of the matter is you cannot have it both ways. either it is effective and cost the general fund money or it will not affect the general fund, it will not be effective. why are we doing this at the end of the day? to me i think we are -- this piece of legislation, while well-intentioned and i appreciate the theory behind it, it is not seeing the forest for the trees. what we're doing for the city. it is a slap in the face to the thousands and tens of thousands of san francisco's, law-abiding san franciscans that are waking up every day looking for work and cannot find work. what message are we sending to them? there is no way i wouldn't support this and i would support going back to committee. -- there is no way i would support this. president chiu: supervisor cohen. supervisor cohen: let me be clear.

i requested it go back to committee so it would become a piece of legislation. what we stand up and say, this is a priority, this is an important group of people, and they deserve an opportunity. that is the way i read this legislation is supposed to do, the intent. this is a matter of clarification for the folks that are watching this broadcast and that are not familiar with the legislation. correct me if i am wrong but this is a pilot program you are proposing. supervisor mirkarimi: two years. supervisor cohen: are there build and benchmarks? what kind of an analytical tool we have to analyze whether or not this program, this legislation has been successful? >> that helps us establish in the mayor's office of workforce development. maybe those should be reminded. we legislated the creation of a

bonding program so that sense we're concerned about this population, because hiring an ex-offender, many employers are risk averse. understandably so in some direction. we legislate it. i happen to sponsor that role four or five years ago. to incentivize businesses to hire ex offenders, we would buy bonds on pennies on the dollar to offset any liability. not one bond has been moved -- use. we went back to the business community to say what would it take? it is the feedback from many in the community. incentives. when this question comes up, this seems to prioritize. i understand where the resistance is coming from. it is unpopular to advocate for this population but it is this population that continues to

have -- add to the general funds dress. on police budgets, district attorney budgets, on sherra, probation costs. -- sheriff, on probation costs. we have the sheep's of -- chiefs of probation on this. for those who work in this industry. unless there is something that comes in lieu of this, this problem does not go away. it continues to exponentially grow. i do not agree this puts about anyone else. with regard to the impact, that is not what is being attached to this conversation. it is a huge population. half a billion dollars is going to the police department. roughly half a billion every year. look at who they are resting. look at who the d.a. is prosecuting. if we are not be touring them in

a positive direction, this adds to the general fund costs. as i said it makes total system -- total sense where resistance is coming from. i am dubious that we will broaden this as it was suggested to other populations more deserving but that is a slippery slope. not to remind you what is wrong with our payroll tax system. this underscores what is wrong with the payroll tax. it is a slippery slope but it is one we're going to have to confront on the ex-offender population in reducing recidivism. president chiu: i want to thank supervisor mirkarimi for proposing a creative and courageous idea for how we ensure that in the wake of what happened at the state level, we're helping our population work their way back into the work force. i have shared the concerns that

have been raised today about the slippery slope. we wondered if we should extend this to veterans or those who have been foreclosed upon or those who are in dire need during this time. i am sympathetic to the either- or is that supervisor farrell have laid out. the fact that this either will not be successful in a way that philadelphia did not see success or will be successful and we will wonder if the amount of money that is being spent here could have been spent in different ways. i certainly respect -- support supervisor cohen's desire to send this back to committee. we want -- could see if there are other ways to incent their hiring. i would prefer to go in that direction to see if there is some way for us to jigger creative thinking. we know this reentry population

is hitting us now. we have to move forward as quickly as possible. sending this back to committee puts pressure on us to keep on thinking. that is why i will be supporting that motion. i hope that we will be able to work with you, supervisor mirkarimi, and others to continue to fine tune or replace it with other ideas that can always to be innovative in how we make sure the powere 0-- our ex-felons are higred. supervisor chu: in terms of what wse would be saving, if we were able to reduce or to change the recidivism rate, we would see a different situation. if we see one, two, three, four

individuals, the expense reduction is not as clear-cut. we would not necessarily be laying off police officer at -- police officers if we had one or two individuals back into the prison system. we have a fixed cost on the jail system. because we have one less inmate does not mean we will be able to save a significant amount of money because we have to turn on the lights and have the existing staff we do have. the other thing to keep in mind is the pilot program is not free. even if not a single person or employer ended up hiring an excellent in this situation we would incur $150,000 set up costs to make it possible. the pilot is not a free pilot. it does cost us something if even not a single person took up the offer. i wanted to point out some of those real financial issues. president chiu: supervisor kim. supervisor kim: i did vote to

support this ad budget committee. the one argument i will make. i understand the slippery slope argument. this is a barrier to employment. when that is on your record, it is an actual barrier. not to say that we want to favor one population over others. such as veterans and folks and those whose homes have been foreclosed on but those are not barriers to employment. there is a rationale behind singling out this population more than other populations in terms of encouraging and incentivizing companies to hire them because they are not being hired. i understand the rationale for why this group [unintelligible] this legislation begs the question on what we can do better to hire this population. some of the questions i had were about the long-term benefits. of the folks in philadelphia, how long were they hired for? what kind of impact did they

have -- that have on the lives of individuals? because it was a two-year pilot program, there was not much of an uptick in philadelphia. it was not clear on what the uptick was -- would be here. we're trying to do so much given the realignment that is coming. i am sure will have a large impact in the district i represent as well as the district's supervisor mirkarimi alluded to. some of our colleagues have had not had as much time to reflect. i do respect the author's desire to not have the vote take place today. i would support this but i would like to respect the author given that he has a couple of weeks remaining left and is not clear who would take this out after supervisor mirkarimi leaves in his new role as sheriff.

the plastic bag ordinances different for me. i do not think there is clear ownership over who would take over. once supervisor mirkarimi leaves. supervisor mar: our colleague is ending his term and he has asked us to blow this up or down. i think this -- to vote this up or down. i intend to support to vote against the continuance and abide by my colleague's request. supervisor elsbernd: there is nothing that prevents the sheriff from introducing legislation. he can continue to passionately

defend what he is proposing. supervisor mirkarimi: the sheraton -- sheriff's department is a brick and mortar budget. if you -- san francisco is one of the few counties that has undercrowding. that does cost. it is not like there is always room at the end kind of mentality because that is not the case. this law happened to be an entry to the more effective strategies -- that would hopefully reduce recidivism. let's go in the other direction and think about ways to generate revenue.

to think that this does not have a meaningful result, i would disagree. the budget itself presents opportunity if we can reduce recidivism. not to do anything means that we don't have that opportunity to do that. >> unless there is for the discussion, there is a motion to continue. i'm sorry, there is a motion to refer to committee. >> i had an opportunity to talk with some districts tend constituents and i would like to

commit myself on the record to take up the charge. if it passes, it goes back to committee. i will take the charge to work on this. i believe that it has a significant impact not just on the african-american community but most communities of color. the conversation on this piece of legislation goes hand in hand. i would have liked to see more. i would like to go ahead to publicly extend an olive branch to you. we are making a commitment to work on making this happen.

>> why don't we take a roll call vote on the motion. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> aye. >> no. >> no. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> no. >> no. >> there are four ayes and seven no's. >> i appreciate the supervisor cohen had to say. i think it will take it legislature and hopefully more than just one that will be the

charge and i look forward to working with you in my capacity as sheriff. i hope that this issue does not die here but something meaningful results from this conversation. this is not coming out of left field, this has been cycling through the reentry consul for several years and through a number of departments and also access to employment. this is not something new. this has been happening for a while. a number of people on behalf of the district's have been involved. i look forward to hearing the next iteration of this approach. >> thank you. i was going to send it back to

committee. i do agree that we owe it to supervisor mirkarimi to vote up or down. i'm happy to vote on this position. >> any further discussion. >> on item 23 -- >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> no. >> no. >> aye. >> no. >> no. >> aye. >> no. >> no. >> there are five ayes and 6 no's,. this ordinance fails. >> ordnance approving a

contract between the city and the west and renewable energy generation system for environmental attributes. on item 24 -- >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> there are 11 ayes. >> item 25. >> resolution placing funds intended forward defense of special circumstances cases on control reserve and adopting guidelines for release of such funds. same house, same call? this resolution is adopted.

item 26. >> resolution authorizing the lease with a six street baldwin house for the police department. >> this item did come to committee. one piece of like to share with colleagues. the redevelopment agency, there is still some work to be done. this leased depends on five $1,000 worth of free development funding in order to renovate the space for the new police substation. one of the concerns is what happens to the redevelopment agency component? it turns out that they would not be able to enter into a new contract. however, the lease that we would be entering into in this situation would not obligate the city to pay rent until the renovations are completed. there is not a financial cost to last until there isen