shipyard project team and speak on behalf of those employees that i represent on local 21 and some of my colleagues are here. i came to work at the redevelopment agency six years ago because i was inspired by the agency's amazing commitment to improving the quality of lifes for residents throughout the city. the list of redevelopment achievement is really long and we have generated tens of thousands of jobs and created affordable housing opportunities and worked on the affordable housing unit for the hunters bay shipyard. our work is now solely focused on completing the transbay and shipyard and we had to abandon our other work. our workforce was reduced to less than 50. this was not easy, but we got through it. mainly thanks to our great work of our executive management

team led my stephany bowey. i continue to be proud of the work of the agency, but i have to say it's strange to be working on projects that are so important to the city and at the same time not be a city employee. right now, when redevelopment projects end, our careers end, and it would be really detrimental for the city of san francisco to lose the individuals who work on those projects. the institutional knowledge and experience would be a great loss and we have lost two people in the last month. my co-worksers have put in years of work to improving the quality of life and would love to do so in future, which is why the proposed charter amendment is before you. it would allow for a smooth and fair transition of less than 40 employees owhose salaries are covered by private developers and tax increment. thank you. >> any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is

now closed. supervisor cohen, thank you for bringing this measure to our attention. i personally feel there is going to be maybe some costs to the city, but as i was pointing out, if we had taken the redevelopment agency as city employees in the first place, we would probably end up having very little difference in the expenses. and i think for me, just because they were not hired by the city and under some other agency but yet these are the same people serving our communities in san francisco. i think it's just the right thing to do. with that, i will be supporting your amendments. and i also want to be added as a co-author. supervisor tang. >> thank you. i just want to thank you everyone who came out and spoke during public comment.

i know that some of the issues were actually raised at that time. so i don't know if perhaps our director of human resources, since you are here if you could speak to some of the comment has there were made? >> thank you, supervisor tang. supervisors, thanks for the opportunity. we have been working with the city-attorney's office, supervisor cohen's office and i have been in discussion with local 21 in particular as well on this amendment. i wanted to -- i know that mr. thomp made a comment and i want to make sure we were able to address a potential issue, which is really just a clarification and perhaps when the city attorney we can ask to look at it, which would be the amendment is intended -- as i understand it to address those

affected and the reading of those who voluntarily came into city employee as a career choice and i don't think that is intended to affect them. so that would be something that we would be looking for perhaps some clarification on. i don't think we're in a difference of opinion, however, based on my conversations. >> i don't know if the city attorney would want to comment? >> do you need a second? okay. >> i will just add something that we have made a request to the director of dhr's office of an analysis who wouldn't be covered under this particular change and we never received

that information. >> i'm going to answer the question. the charter amendment that is before you today, with the amendments that have been offered by supervisor cohen covers as director callahan mentioned covers people who were hired by redevelopment prior to 2009. and later became city employees. i think the question is that miss callahan is posing should the board further amend the charter amendment to provide that you only want to cover people hired by redevelopment prior to 2009 and who became city employees in 2012. >> or after. >> or after, but before 2015.

>> supervisor cohen, would you like to respond to that? >> so maybe you can rephase the question. what exactly are your questions, director callahan. >> it's more in the order of a clarification as you say to be narrowly-tailored. we're moving forward as i understand with this charter amendment to address the situation of people through no fault of their own were effectively forced into city employment because of the dissolution of redevelopment in its historicalet iteration. so the amendment covers people who came into city employment between 2009 and 2012. i don't think that is the understanding and talking to

local 21 that they -- the retirement -- the retiree medical coverage for people that came previously. that is all. >> supervisor campos, would you like to make a comment? >> sure. i certainly would like to hear from local 21 or from 1021. i mean i'm still not clear why we would need the amendment or the clarification. i am not sure. i mean i understand what you are saying. i just don't agree with the need for it. >> i think that everyone is agreement this is intended for employees at the redevelopment agency when it was dissolved by the state and those employees have to make the decision, i think by january 1st, 2015 of whether or not they are going to become city employee and take advantage of this change. that is the intent. i think we're all on the same page. that was our legal understanding and we thought the city attorney's understanding also. that is what we hope to do with

this. >> mr. chair at this time i think it's best to move this forward and pass it out of choice. >> we won't be passing this out of committee today because of amendments. i'm sorry i missioned missed the comment? the way it is >> there is language in a says that the employee has to make the decision by january 1,2015 and this was learly for employees -- clearly that shows that they are not currently a city employee and this is for folks still in limbo that can make the

transition now is our understanding. >> the charter amendment as currently drafted does not exactly reflect that. the charter amendment -- we could amend it to clarify that it is intended to cover employees who became city employee after february 1, 2012 afterthe redevelopment agency dissolved. >> we keep talking about 38. i don't think the redevelopment agency had 38 before. 2012 there was about 200. i think it's pretty narrow and it says "and/or" their option to be exercised by january, 2015. so i'm not sure if i am

understanding micki your concern. >> through the chair. >> well first of all, let's don't debate what the number 38 is. the concern is with the language that is written now. is there a way to -- if it doesn't address micki's concern, how can we write it? >> can i interject something, because this is a little bit frustrating because i asked and met with and been working with the director of dhr since mid-may. and i have asked her to provide me an analysis of who would be covered and who wouldn't be covered? and she has never gotten back to to me this information and now in committee today said she doesn't have the information.

it's hard to tailor language about that language doesn't exist and it's infair to the folks whose information that we do, that we stall this and don't move it forward. this is just really unfair to workers. >> supervisor campos. >> well, i'm not prepared to support what the department of human resources is proposing unless our partners in labor are in favor and given what supervisor cohen has said, the inability to provide timely response, i think we need to move forward. >> thank you. >> okay. so is there a motion to accept supervisor cohen's amendments as presented? >> so moved. >> okay. is there any objection? any objections? no.

the amendments passed. do we have a motion to continue this item to the call of the chair? >> so moved. >> okay. no objection, so moved. thank you very much. madame clerk, item no. 7. >> 6. >> of. >> item no. 6 is the charter amendment for the november 4th, 2014 election to adjust the required annual appropriation from the general fund to the transportation fund annually to reflect the population increases in san francisco. we're joined by supervisor wiener, would you like to make comments >> thank you, mr. chairman and to the committee for the opportunity to present this item today. i will describe -- i will describe this charter amendment and as with supervisor cohen i have an amendment to offer and i will

ask the committee to adopt the amendment and continue the item to july 10th is the next rules committee hearing. colleagues, as you know, and we have had a lot of discussion in this building recently about the huge unfunded transportation needs in our city around public transportation and also around street safety. recently we completed the transportation 2030 task force convened by mayor lee; which was designed to come up with long-term funding solutions for our transportation system. currently the san francisco municipal railway has $2.2 billion in deferred maintenance and capital needs and that number is only growing. between now and 2040 we expect billions more in capital needs of muni, for which we have no identified source of funding. our population has grown by

85,000 people since 2003. we're projected to grow by another 150,000 people between now and 2040. just to be frank, muni is not keeping up with our population growth. this system is straining and has been straining for some time and not shown the capacity to actually absorb increased ridership. it's an aging system and muni's troubles will only get more severe over time as our population begins to grow. in addition, our streets in san francisco are getting more and more crowded. we have more traffic on our streets, more congestion. we have more people biking, we have more pedestrians the. we have more delivery vehicles. we have more traffic on our streets every day. it is critically important that we make investments now to expand muni's capacity and to

improve our street safety not two years from now, not five, not ten years from now, now. the transportation task force identified three revenue measures to begin to fill the need, the unfunded needs of our transportation system. a general obligation bond and transportation-related sales tax for 2016. all three of these funding measures are critical. there are three legs of a stool in terms of moving us forward towards adequately funding our public transit system. colleagues as you know our general obligation bond is pending at the board for forwarding to the voters for november of this year. the vehicle license fee, unfortunately, has been delayed to 2016 due to some concerns

expressed by the mayor's office, and so we agreed to delay the vlf by two years to 2016 instead of 2014. which leaves a $150 million two-year gap in our transportation-related needs, $150 million gap due to the two-year delay of the vlf. the mayor to his credit and this board or the budget committee at least have back-filled the road resurfacing portion that we expected to use the vlf for, $42 million a year. in terms of what the $33 million, that was recommended from the vlf to go to the mta for muni and for street safety, that has not been fully back-filled. the mayor proposed $7 million in additional funds for muni and $3 million for street

safety, leaving more than a $20 million shortfall a year for the next two years in materials of terms of what the vlf would have provided and this charter amendment will introduce a basic and commonsense into muni funding calculations, as your population grows the mta's funding should correspondingly go up, because we know with increased population, as i mentioned, we have increased strain on muni and on our streets. in year 1, in other words, next july 1st of 2015, the charter amendment would reach back ten years and given that our population has been growing for a little more than ten years we would see muni's baseline increase based on ten years' of

population growth. that would amount to an additionally $11 million more or less for next year's fiscal year, coincidentally that is also the gap we're experiencing because of the vlf delay. it would be divided for muni to increase reliability, and capacity and state of good repair and 25% for street measures. after fiscal year 15-16, by population growth a year. colleagues today i'm offering an amendment to the charter amendment as follows: it would basically provide -- make this charter amendment effectively a bridge until we can pass the vlf. and what it will do is say that after two years, to it will be in effect two fiscal year,

15-16 and 16-1 and then at the end of that two-year period, the mayor will have the option, if the vlf passes of canceling this charter amendment. so this charter amendment would then sunset, and the vlf would come in and take its place. so we'll be able to start these critical investments now and not have to wait two years and colleagues given the strong revenue growth we have been experiencing, now is the time to make these long-term, smart investments. colleagues, you have received -- we have passed around letters and have gotten strong support for the measure. the sierra club has endorsed it. the transit riders union and walk san francisco have also endorsed. it the san francisco bicycle coalition will be taking up the measure and i see they are here to speak and i colleagues i ask for your support and today i'm simply asking that the committee adopt

the amendments that i have circulated and continue the item to july 10th. thank you very much. >> thank you, supervisor wiener. mr. rosenfield, did you have a report on this? >> i do, supervisor. you should have a copy of our draft analysis letter in front of you. i also have copies for the members of the public, if they are interested. as supervisor wiener described the ballot measure furtherly indices the muni baseline between general and discretionary revenues to also add on adjustment to neither daytime or night-time population. does it in two years, one is a retroactivity 10-year catch-up. that population growth we calculate to be approximately 8% during that ten-year period.

growing the muni baseline by 8%, equates to approximately 22 million dollars in general fund costs that would begin in fiscal year 15-16 and continue after that. additionally, through the addition of population growth above and beyond tax revenue growth, the baseline calculation in the future, we can expect marginally higher growth in the muni baseline into the future after that one-time catch-up of approximately $1.5 million annually. and that is using what we have seen on average during the 20 last years in terms of population growth in the city. >> what impact does that have for other set-asides? >> there is no impact, i think supervisor yee you are referencing here kind of interaction that we had with the children's fund and other baselines? this case, because this is a baseline and not a set-aside,

it doesn't further dedicate revenue. its what no effect on the other baselines. the full impact of the increase we're talking about here falls on the general fund itself. >> on the general funds? >> correct. >> i guess the other question that i had about this would be that do we have any similar indexing for other set-asides? >> supervisor, we do -- there are a couple other places where the voters created maintenance of effort requirements or a certain number of fire stations, certain number of fire engineers, a certain number of police officers that speak to expenditure-side requirements. on the revenue-side, though, no. generally speaking, our baselines work as a function of

overall discretionary general fund revenues as those revenues rise, the baseline amounts rise by the same proportion. as revenues decline, the baselines decline. so this would be a new feature to a voter-adopted baseline. >> thank you. any other comments? seeing none, any public comments on this matter? >> good afternoon, supervisors. john rizzo, speaking for the sierra club and we strongly support this measure, and urge you to place it on the ballot. muni in a sense is an unfunded mandate. we must have a transit system. it's the circulatory system of the city, but it is unfunded going forward. and even today there are tens

of millions of dollars of deferred maintenance and the system is overcrowded, and it is resulting in more people driving than ever. people abandoned the muni system, they have to drive to where they are going ontime and it puts more carbon into the air and makes our streets more crowded. we definitely need more funding. this is just a small bandaid, but it does stop some of the bleeding. it's entirely fair because as population increases the buss and trains are used more and more. this is fair, common sense and we urge you to enable the voters to vote on it. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon again, supervisor my name isleaf with the san francisco bicycle

coalition and i want to preface my comments that our board has not yet taken an official position on this perspective measure. we're encouraged to see efforts to better fund san francisco's transportation needs. i can't overemphasizethy i am sure i have tried at hearings to talk about the importance of that funding gap due to the vehicle license fee not moving forward to the voters. millions of dollars that our city planned to use for safe walking and bicycling conditions and we know you support that. i want to highlight after housing, transportation costs are the second highest for most citizens in san francisco. this hits low-income families even harder. a higher percentage of low-income households spend money on transportation second after housing. so i think it's even more important that we think about the timeliness of investing in reliability, effective transit and safe streets. we're asking that you look

forward to every funding possibility that makes sense and we think this does. thanks. >> is there any more public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. do we have a motion to accept these amendments as presented by supervisor wiener? >> so moved. >> okay. any objection? >> seeing none, motion passes. we have a motion to continue this item to the call of the chair. >> so moved. >> any objection? none. it passes. >> supervisor wiener? >> i wasn't here earlier in the meeting. in terms of continue to the call of the chair as opposed to date-certain, is there a reason why we can't continue it to july 10th, the next meeting? >> he needs to juggle -- [inaudible] >> i am respectful of the chair's ability to manage the agenda, given that we have various charter amendments. i believe that the last date to -- it has to sit one week at the board and then july 22, i

believe is the last date and then only one can be heard as a late charter amendment on july 29th, is that right mr. givner? >> that is right. >> my question is that it's heard on the 10, so we're not jammed up with charter amendments and have the maximum flexibility as a board. >> i will take your request into consideration. as i talked to you before, we'll try our best to juggle it in there. as you have already said, there seems to be a lot of charter amendments coming through the pipes and we'll get it all through regardless. so if we have to have rules committee every day. >> okay. i just -- i made my point, i just want to make sure we don't get into a situation that we have a bunch of charter amendments that we have more

than one that needs to happen by the 29th, because we're not allowed to that. >> okay. >> my request is to agendaize it to the 10th and as can you see it's not a massive public comment kind of situation, awn it's something had a won't take an enormous amount of the committee's time. i appreciate your consideration. >> okay. madame clerk is there anything else on the agenda? >> just is to clarify, we're continuing this to the call of the chair? >> yes. >> yes. >> that concludes our business for today. >> okay. the meeting is adjourned. [ gavel ]

>> welcome, everyone, to the san francisco board of supervisors budget and finance committee special meeting for friday, june 20th, 2014. my name is mark farrell, i will be chairing this committee. i am joined by supervisors e mar, john avalos, scott wiener and london breed. want to thank the members of sfgtv covering this meeting jeff smith and mark bunch as well as the clerk of the committee, mr. victor young. apologize for that. victor young. sorry, mr. young. i need to turn off my phone also. mr. clerk, do we have any announcements? >> yes. please silence all cell phones and electronic devices. any documents to be included as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will appear on the july 8th, 2014 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> okay, thank you. so, before we begin and call

these items, we'll read a script about today. today is public comment day. i want to thank everybody in the audience for coming. the purpose of this hearing is to hear testimony on the proposed appropriation and annual salary ordinances and our mayor's proposed budget. please be advised that as chair of the committee we are going to recognize the following protocols to ensure that all members have an opportunity to speak and be heard. first of all, priority is going to be given to those who may require special accommodation. such as persons with a disability, the elderly, infirmed or persons with young children under age 5. groups who come up who have brought individuals and want to stand together will be allowed two minutes per group. if you want to speak individually, please line up individually and you'll be called up as such. individuals are going to be called up by rows and we have members of our clerk -- clerk's office to help coordinate. keeping in mind that individuals requiring special accommodations may be called out of order and once you have spoke -- s