people put money in the meters because they're scared to get a parking ticket. our parking control officers, they don't mess around when it comes to making sure that people are paying the meter. and so, that's just kind of one of those things that people pay attention to. so, i want this industry to be very similar in that regard where people -- there's a fear to do this appropriately because you will basically get a fine for breaking the law. and i think again as i said in the beginning, your office has been great in really being out there in the neighborhoods, cracking down, paying attention to detail, which makes it better for the people who are following the law and getting rid of those folks, getting them out of the system is going to just make this that much more better. thank you for doing that. i know there's some challenges

and other things that we're going to have to do and deal with. but this is a great start. and i am just really concerned about the thing that i mentioned earlier, which of course is until they're approved, i don't believe that they should be hosting. and then finally, this other issue around the honor system in terms of reporting. i think we need to get a handle on that too. >> thank you for those comments and for the compliments too. on that note, i do feel very fortunate to work with the staff i do. they are really incredible and dedicated folks and take their job seriously. so, i thank you for that recognition. >> supervisor peskin: and just relative to cost recovery, the 2,100 plus or minus registered hosts, is that annual fee covering you and your staff? >> so, the amount of the fee that we assess covers only the cost of processing the

application on average. so, it doesn't necessarily account for the enforcement costs. so, we're going to see with the surge in applications, once we reach a static stat where most are registered, that revenue is going to drop off. we recoup some of that every two years when folks have the certificate expire and they come in for renewal. and the other part of cost recovery is the enforcement revenue. if we're in a world where we're able to more effectively police at the platform level, and platforms are compliant taking down or turning off capabilities for unregistered listings, that's fantastic. but it doesn't drive enforcement revenue. we do have a bit of a structural issue with the fact we are under a new sort of system of

operating. we will still be doing some host enforcement basics. that is a bit of a challenge to work through. within the ordinance, the controller's office takes a look at the fee and whether it's covering the cost of the registration process. so, we'll work with the controller's office to give them best information on our current state of affairs in terms of applications we're receiving, how long it's taking accounting for the new appeals process that we have and the fee may be adjusted accordingly. i wouldn't anticipate -- several years go the fee went from $50 to $250, which was a surprise to some understandably. i wouldn't anticipate percentage wise in sort of a jump in fee anything commiserate with that. but it is important we do coast

recovery at least for the application process of the program. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. i think you have one more slide. >> yes. wanted to leave up the contact information for the website, email, phone. we also have walk-in hour. we have appointments. i did want to conclude giving my heart felt thanks to my dedicated and talented staff in the office of short-term rentals who have been helpful getting to the point we are seeing the outcomes. folks from the city attorney's office, city administrator's offers and many others. this really has been a good sort of collaborative city family effort. i appreciate everybody's hard work on that.

of course thank you all for the time to present here today and i'm available for any questions that you may have. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, mr. guy. and i want to also thank you and your staff and the city attorney's office and my colleagues who all voted for this measure. it has been a long road. we still have a ways to go. but i'm delighted to see the progress and we will continue these check-ins from time to time as this all shakes out. i have a number of speaker cards i see -- >> supervisor breed: just i want to ask real quick before we open it up to public comment. mr. guy, we had had a meeting about this a few months back. and one of the things that you said was that after a drop-dead date when the platforms have got to remove listings that aren't registered from their platform, you would be able to -- there's a time period where you'd be

able to collect sufficient data that could help us understand whether or not the regulations that we put in place are working effectively. so, can you tell me what that timeline is and when we can expect to see data that helps us understand exactly what's going on? this data is extremely helpful. it's the beginning. but it seems as though it's going to be a completely different ball game now, especially because we have the cooperation of the platforms. so, that's going to change these numbers as well and maybe significantly. so, can you tell us when we can expect to get that kind of information to understand exactly how these laws are working? >> right. a couple of things have not happened yet. of course we just had the last phase of the delisting occur last night. we have sort of preliminary numbers and estimates, but we will get much more final data on

those numbers shortly. and within a matter of several days. we also have quite a few applications to go through and obviously some of those will be approved. some will be denied and numbers of listings and hosting will change correspondingly. so, expect sort of late february, early march, we would have a much better sense of where things will finally shake out. if the cadence of the hearings will be on a quarterly basis, we will definitely have sort of final retrospective data on the entirety of this kind of tranching process at that time. >> supervisor breed: okay. what day was that? >> some time in april. >> supervisor breed: i thought it would be more in february? >> again. the applications get reviewed. the data gets more refined. we could have data much sooner than the next april date.

>> supervisor breed: but you think that more comprehensive data not until april? >> no. i'm sorry. i was just referring if we were doing the cadence of these hearings on sort of a quarterly basis. if we did the hearing in april, we would have data by that time. but we we will get much more definitive data earlier to you than that if desired. >> supervisor breed: thank you. >> late february. something like that. >> supervisor breed: okay. thank you. >> supervisor breed: madame chair, i have a number of speaker cards. keith freedman, phil lee, jason holt, laura johnson. first speaker please. >> public: i'm a professor after city college. and coach of the home shares democratic club in san francisco. i just wanted to thank kevin guy and his office for their hard

work in this settlement agreement. we think we have seen a lot of progress. it helps all the hosts because we are really looking for people who are supporting the law and supporting san francisco. we think we've seen a lot of good progress. i want to address the mayor's comments whether it is okay to host while your application is pending. what we're concerned about is people being penalized who have good intentions and it's a concern there. if the office of short-term rental had a service level agreement who could guarantee a return time on an application, it might have been agreeable to make hosts wait. but since there isn't, people could be waiting months to host when they are in compliance with the law. if there are any changes made there, we appreciate the policy and we think it has encouraged a

lot of registration by good actors since they don't have to wait. we do know a lot of hosts that are waiting. they have gotten an application pending and for personal reasons they are waiting. people are self-selecting and we don't want to punish people. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. next speaker please. >> public: hello. my name is phil wllee. i'm speaking in support of the registration process and implementation of the settlement. i'm a board member of the home shares democratic club as well. speaking on behalf of my mother today whose first language isn't english. i told her to register seeing as i was available as an option. and she has set her requirement plans based on the rules, the

way they are right now. she was one of the first to comply and register and she's made a lot of changes to her living situation and investments based on the current rules. we are certainly very encouraged that there seems to be stability in the way the rules are set up for hosts who have always intended to comply and play by the rules. and hope that there will be stability of the rules in the future. thank you so much. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. next speaker. after the next speaker, joe lighthouser, kevin cred it. >> public: good morning. i'm in district eight and proud to be a registered host that fully complies with all the laws that this legislation has set forth. we accurately report to each quarter all of our data and i

use that data in those reports to then be able to calculate metrics that help me in becoming a better host. and we comply with any audits that we ever receive. i love that being a host brings the world to my door. i've had guests from every continent except antarctica. i'm still waiting for a profile picture of a penguin to come in. 30 plus countries, 30 plus states here in the u.s. and i get those people that come and experience the city through my eyes. we make recommendations to local businesses like momma g's, all the little spots in the castro that we love that these guests might not ever see if they were to stay in other places. and we support local businesses ourselves with all the handy men and work that we've done in our home to make it more

accommodating for guests. i'm supporting the local business economy as we continue to make improvements to our hundred-year-old home. i thank you for helping get the ptr process online and for this service because hosts like us want to be in the good graces of the city and are happy when the bad actors are removed from it. we just ask that you give this registration process enough time and space to determine it's successes before proposing any new legislation. thank you very much. >> supervisor breed: next speaker please. >> public: thank you. i'm impressed with some of the things they seem to be doing in terms of enforce. and i want to applaud the city for creating this environment

through the settlement. and i also echo the idea that i think we need to see if this works. i'm kind of surprised and shocked to be honest with you from the three of you that we haven't been hearing more congratulations to his office. half of the listings have been removed. half. in a city of almost a million people. we have 2,500 hosts. and yet the questions have focused on what could they be doing wrong, how could they be cheating the system. it seems like there's a sense of distrust. i would urge you to try to give this a chance to work. let the platforms and office of short-term rental see how this all plays out. yes, there may need to be adjustments made but we have made huge progress. i'm shocked that doesn't seem to come across. i just want you to maybe reflect on that a little bit. i think that while some -- there were a lot of people doing this

illegally, we have got them covered. and those housing units will likely come back on the market. but the people who are doing it now are doing it for legitimate reasons like the two previous speakers that you heard from. i just want to sort of echo that i think this is a good thing and we should see how this all plays out. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. i think i complimented mr. guy both online and offline and noted the progress in this and i also note that had airbnb not litigated this, we wouldn't have had to have this hearing at all. next speaker please. >> public: hi. i would give you my certificate number but in view of the falsification of numbers, this may not be the proper forum.

but we have been registered in anticipation of hosting for very early on in the process. we have not hosted yet. my wife and i have not hosted yet because we are waiting to remodel our house. that is going along. i would echo the benefits to all local merchants and construction people in the process. we hope to begin hosting in march of this year. i want to assure you and mr. guy and anyone else that it is our firm intent to find a way to do this to the benefit of ourselves and others and to the detriment of nobody within the confines and structures of the current legislation. we hope to do this -- hope we can be counted among those people who may be honorably trying to do this right way.

we have been registered for two or three years waiting to see how it settles out. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. after the next speaker, eric. >> public: good morning. i'm from district four. i host with my wife and two kids on the sunset district. you've heard all our stories many times. i won't bore you with that. the important point, i'm very happy that this legislation is in place and that you've reached and agreement with the flat forms. i think it is very reasonable for all of us. and asking a lot of great questions today. i just want to give it a try and if things need to change in the future, they can change them.

but it's always important to remember we're not a city about walls. we're a city known for our bridges and i think home sharing as a lot of great benefits for everybody for the community when done right. and we're all about doing it right. that's why we registered and glad to see a lot more people registering and complying and you're doing your job to enforce those actors who aren't doing things the way they should. thank you for your support and hope to continue the support. appreciate it. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. next speaker please. >> public: good morning everyone. i'm a single mother of a 9-year-old son. immigranted over several years ago. my current occupation is to being a host with spare room in my home.

i love being a host and it's the only income i have right now to support my son and covering expenses. i have been glad to hear the city and airbnb work together to make registration and hosting easier for all hosts in the city. i want to continue seeing that fair and easy to follow regulations for hosts like myself who rent out spare rooms to afford living in san francisco. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. next speak. if there are any other members of the public that would like to testify, if you would line up on the right. >> public: hi. i'm from district three. while my apartment and my roommate and i have been using airbnb since 2010, so it has been quite a while.

like some of the other people have mentioned, we've had some wonderful guests. i appreciate the legislation to deal with short-term stays because it is a new concept and it just blossoms in the last eight years or so. it is essential that we as a city and as a group of people learn how to work with new things. i work with start-ups a lot and i can tell you that many start-ups doing some innovative and crazy things seek out and want to see proper legislation because they need guidance. and for the city to provide that guidance is very helpful. at the same time, there's guidance and there's keep changing the rules and it makes it tough for them to be able to work with us. we really like to urge the board of supervisors to really look

into making model legislation so good that other cities around the world will want to copy it. and i think you can do that because we have a lot of people here with all the concerns who will help you make those legislation work. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: for the record, we have been contacted by in cities. i know mr. guy's office and i'm sure my colleagues since the settlement. i think it is actually being replicated in other municipalties. mr. carlson. >> public: i want to congratulate you on this legislation that you passed in 2016 is indeed model legislation for cities all around the country and indeed all around the globe. that's a little ironic considering that platform accountability, which has brought us this great success

along with the good efforts of mr. guy and his office, platform accountability was at the heart of proposition f. when we brought platform accountability to you and you passed it unanimously, airbnb sued and yet now they praised us as the greatest thing san francisco has ever done. i'm happy everybody is happy. there are still problems with short-term rentals. the hosted and unhosted rentals is still not enforceable. we are concerned about the proliferation of large apartment buildings that are becoming part of airbnb so called friendly buildings program. when you have a hundred buildings and every single one is eligible to be used, seems to

be it should trigger some safety concerns. concerns about how the ada applies. those are all questions worth exploring. while we have seen number of listings switched to being available on a 30-night minimum, we keep hearing people are saying it's 30 days, wink, wink. come stay for a week and if you leave early, no problem. i think that's a problem. so, i think a lot of great work has been done and we're moving in the right direction. i hope you continue to stay on top of this. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. next speaker, please. >> public: calvin welch. it's important to make this simple point that roughly 50%,

somewhere between mid-40s and 50% of all the listings were listed illegally. about half of the listings have been taken down. and those of us in share better basically started the campaign three years ago on the notion that the overwhelming -- a significant number of short-term rentals were being done illegally. i think our data, the city and county's data has shown that unlike any other city in the world -- let me say that again. unlike any other city in the world, when you have adequate legislation, you reduce by almost 50% the number of short-term rentals.

and that is significant in a city facing the housing crisis that we face. in the housing balance report, short-term rentals are not even listed. and if they were listed, we would see that we are producing fewer affordable units than we lose to short-term rentals or evictions. i support the supervisor acting president -- acting mayor breed's position that the assumption should not be in an industry that we have demonstrated 50% of the time is wrong, the presumption should not be when you apply, go ahead and started doing this. no. you should only be allowed to do short-term rentals once you have been certified. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. next speaker. and if there are any other speakers after this one, please line up. otherwise this will be the last

speaker. >> public: thank you, supervisor breed, president breed for making the point that calvin welch just said -- reiterated. people should be licensed, registered before they start collecting money. a lot of people have made money illegally on airbnb, hosts and investors. so, let's set things up properly. let's tighten the rules where they need to be tightened. i'd like to see the unhosted cap, which is still unenforceable -- or the hosted cap of how many days a year. we've got to get that tighter. i remember seeing advertising of a program that said here's how you can rent out two or three apartments and sublet them on

airbnb. hopefully that's been changed. but they're still saying you can rent your apartment on airbnb and go stay in another airbnb apartment while you're ostensibly hosting in your own. there's a lot of unverifiable issues with hosting and unhosting and the number of days. i would like to see more clear protocols about the auditing, how often it's done, the methods of verification and public hearings for these reviews of cases where there's enforcement issues. i went to a few of the hearings and i was amazed by the desire of the city to make it easier for those people being caught doing something wrong. so, those are some changes. let's tighten up on the good behavior your.

thank you for the improvements already. let's do better. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. next speaker. >> public: i'm robert. i'm host that registered immediately. i believe that the regulation is good. it supports a good start where everyone is hosting with better standards and creates a better share. for me trying to retire allows me to stay in san francisco. i'm a california native and i would probably have to leave if i wasn't able to do hosting. it's been beneficial. perhaps to work less some day. i think it is good for the city

of san francisco to have people staying in neighborhoods versus the official hotel industry. i think the money that may be diverted from the hotels, the people that stay with airbnb, the money actually goes into the community. i appreciate your work and i'm glad that the home sharing -- the sign-up is working and it keeps the start -- keeps everyone more responsible and creates a better standard. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: seeing no other members of the public on this item, madame chair i would request that we close public comment. >> supervisor kim: public comment closed. >> supervisor peskin: i think everything that needs to be said has been said. i would like to continue this

item. >> supervisor breed: i just had one question before we continue this item to the call of the chair. a point was brought up by one of the first public commenters about hosting waiting months for approval. mr. guy, can you address that? >> certainly, mayor breed. thank you. so, there's a number of reasons that hosts may need to wait longer than typical for the approval application. the most basic reason is again when we hit these peaks of applications which in the past was something we were striving for, it would have been an enviable problem. but we have a lot of last-minute applications coming in the door prompted by the deadline of last night. so, that will take some time to go through. on individual case by case basis, though, every application is different. we have some applications where certainly the basic submittal requirements are met. people submit proofs of

residency, id and things like that. we do our sort of deep dive and scrutinizing of that application. everything checks out. everything looks clean and it's easier to approve. we have situations where we want more documentation or a site visit. there could be individual circumstances of individual applications aside from any sort of pending application backlog. just plain by the nature we have questions and they take longer to get through and approve or in some cases denied. >> supervisor breed: thank you. i just wanted clarity on that. those are my two outstanding issues at this time. as i mentioned in my opening comment, if we are going to make changes in any way to this law, i do want to make sure that we have the appropriate data to do so. so, what would also be helpful, you know, i understand and respect and appreciate the

feedback from members of the public, specifically those who have to wait some time for their application to be processed. but i also just don't think it's appropriate to allow someone who doesn't have a approval from the city to move forward. so, fb there's something that we -- if there's something that we can do to make the process easier, speed up the process or what have you, that would be helpful to understand. but i do -- and let me just back up. i know i have said this a few times. your office has done incredible work. i appreciate you keeping me informed of what's happening. i appreciate your rapid response to help address issues with some of my kon stitch wants who have had -- constituents who have had challenges. i think you're very organized. you are doing a great job and very responsive and you have really good information to help me as a member of the board make good policy decisions around this particular issue.

so, i just want to thank you again because we've come a long way. a lot of this work -- i know there are people who are advocating, share better and others, but more importantly, i really do appreciate the work of the city attorney's office because of this lawsuit and the situation that happened there. i think this really set in motion the ability to implement these policies appropriately. and so, now, data is so important in understanding whether or not these policies are working to the satisfaction of the intent of what we're trying to do here. and that is make sure that we balance the desire for home sharers to use their places of residence as a way to host individuals, but also with those

who are the bad actors in breaking the law and making sure we're doing everything to crackdown on that because it is not fair to those people who we know rely on this platform to, you know, support themselves in various capacities. thank you again. thank you to my colleagues for sharing in on this hearing. i look forward to seeing that data in february and understanding it and also the hearing we have upcoming in march. with that, i'll turn it back over to the chair. >> supervisor kim: thank you president breed and mr. guy. after i think about three years of debates and negotiations on this very issue, short-term rentals, i think it's actually a positive thing as mentioned by one of the member's public comment, that we are all on the same page how we would like to see legalized short-term rentals move forward here in san

francisco and it's truly short-term rentals people living in their homes, just sharing their experiences with those visits san francisco versus what we feared, which was full-time hotels in residential units that should be homes. thank you for all the work and glad to see that our short-term rentals platforms with working in partnership with the city. i think it is an incredible thing to know that many illegal listings are no longer being provided online and that we are really focused on residents that are doing short-term rentals and providing great experiences for those visiting san francisco, from supervisor peskin we have motion to continue this to the call of the chair and we can do that without opposition. clerk call item two. >> clerk: hearing on the

2016-2017 civil grand jury report taking accountability and transparency to the next level. >> supervisor kim: thank you. the next two items are i believe the last two of the civil grand jury reports. i just want to welcome cassie lowery, the foreperson here again today. and also recognize lawrence grew, the chair of the committee. i want to give you both the opportunity to make brief remarks. i know you are available to answer questions from committee. in addition, we do have a member of the mayor's office as well as the controller's office to respond and answer any questions from members of this committee. so, to ms. lowery and mr. grew, come up and make brief comments. want to welcome you back to the

committee. >> i will defsh to lawrence to make comments. >> good morning. thank you chair kim, vice chair peskin, supervisor breed. it is a pleasure to be back to follow up on this topic. we know that during the last hearing that a number of points were made, requests were made from your committee to follow up from ben's office and his colleagues in the controller's office, as well as the mayor's office. we stand ready to comment on their follow-ups and answer any questions that you may have. i would make one substantive remark in opening today. a lot as changed in the city's politics in the last several months. what hasn't changed is the public's concern, overwhelming concern on three issues.

homelessness, housing affordability and crime. it will be interesting to see how the different government departments have progressed since most of these recommendations were adopted. thank you. >> supervisor kim: thank you so much, mr. grew and foreperson lowery. i did want to give the mayor's office and controller's office an opportunity to respond to the recommendations from the civil grand jury. thank you so much for being here today. >> good afternoon or good morning supervisors. my name is tasha. i manage the performance program which oversees the performance for our website. i thought i would just run through the recommendations that

were still open as of the last hearing and give you a status report on where we're going with implementing them. the first is recommendation 2.2, which states commencing in 2018, the controller's office should prepare quarterly updates of the performance framework. we still have this one under review. we have said this one has not been, but will be implemented in the future. we've looked at out jurisdictions and found they do semi-annual and annual reporting. we do an annual report which we issued at the beginning of december. we will do one in the next six weeks or so as an update and in the mayor's budget book, we will have an update and highlight on the score card measures. in the next six months we will have two more reports. we want to take a little more time with discussing with stakeholders on what is usually is a static pdf report.

is it better to do more interactive updates whether coming to a hearing like this, doing more work on social media and outreach to other groups. we will come back on that one next time. the next one that was open was recommendation 3.2. this one stated in consultation with other sf government entities the controller's office should evaluate feasibility of including district level reporting on some or all of the indicators. this is underway. we've identified a good number of measures on the performance score card's website that have a geographic component. we are talking with departments about what data is available and whether or not that data is useful. for example, if there's a call for service in a variety of different areas within the city, is it useful to have the call location or would they want to know the response location? we are trying to identify where that data is available and where it's not. recommendation 4.1, this one

actually did not apply to the controller's office, but i can responsibility through the mayor's office. this said the mayor's office should ensure that by januarjanuary 1, 2018, should have it underway. we are working with departments to revise performance measures to link with strategic goals. we have also set the targets for all of the budget books. this is still ongoing. recommendation 4.2. the controller's office should ensure by january 1, 2018, the performance score card includes come parrive performance figures alongside the current year to understand the trend of progress. so, this one has actually been completed. we're made a few changes on the score card pages. we have included arrows to give you an update how performances

are trending. we've added summaries to each of the measure pages that will outline last fiscal year's performance as well as what's going on this year. and in the annual report and mayor's budget book, we also provide this information. recommendation 5, controller's office should identify the top three to five rankings to each score card. this was one we said it required further analysis and that is underway. we are doing some other performance reporting particularly around benchmarking and we're trying to look at better ways to provide comprehensive look at various reporting methods. so, we are going to consider how this might fold into that additional work. recommendation 7.1. the controller's office should update by january 1, 2018, the weren't housing affordability based on recommendations from the mayor's office and submit revisions to the mayor's office.

this is underway. we are in the late stages of data evaluation with different systems works with mohcd, dbi, planning and hope to have that ready in the next couple of months for posting. recommendation 7.2, the controller's office should update by january 1, 2018, the current homelessness numbers. examples of other leading cities and submit the revised indicators to the office of mayor. this is underway. as you know, for department of homelessness recently issued their strategic plan as part of that they have a huge effort underway to develop metrics for that. so, we are kind of shadowing and seeing what they're doing and plan on working with them over the next couple of months to revise those measures and expand what we have on the score card's website. finally, we have recommendation 8 in consultation with other

government entities and community organizationing, the controller's office should ensure that by january 1, 2018, one or more indicators are amended or added to ensure that we are tracking reporting on the equitable distribution of government spending and services. this is underway. we have an effort with the city department of the human rights commission and all city departments and the plan once those survey results come in is to develop city wide equity mess tricks. once they are come -- metrics, once complete we will update those on the website. i'm happy to take any other questions. >> supervisor kim: thank you so much. i do just want to say with the civil grand jury report, i think -- this has come up in past jao meet, it is something we want to be accessible and understandable to members of the public. i appreciate the feedback that

came back from the civil grand jury on that. it is great to be the performance metric. but if no one knows about it or has a difficult time discerning what it means, it becomes less meaningful. i appreciate your responding to the civil grand jury report and appreciate the civil grand jury in helping highlight this issue and the importance. because i think we're often happy when we accomplish something we have been intending to do. it is great to have the feedback how to make it meaningful and effective. thank you. so, seeing no further comments from members of this committee or for any -- from the mayor's office, i will open up for public comment on this item. our office has prepared a response which i will read into the record after public comment. i see members of the public. please come up and if there are

any other members that would like to speak, just come up to the mic. >> public: thank you. good morning. i name is ellen. i'm a candidate for mayor with interim mayor. >> clerk: i will pause the speaker time to remind general public time is not a time for any election hearing. if we can keep the commentary specifically to the agenda item called specifically. thank you. >> public: thank you. my name is ellen. i'm a civil grand jury member and i am a government employee and i am representing -- we have 16,000 members for the city. and this report is not going to be implemented unless we have all the 60 entities working together. i've seen many of the problems

as a public services employee and have seen many problems as a bargaining team with management, hr and commissions plus civic commissioners. in order to make this work to hold the government accountable, we have to make it publicly known. and i'm here to request you in charge to publish in six languages that is required by our city ordinance in order for the public to know what the civil grand jury report are about. we volunteer 500 hours a year plus 52 weeks of work to put out these reports to improve our city. our city can only improve if you and i hold each other accountable. for example, come to this public hearing on time.

we were waiting for 20 minutes to start. that is not acceptable. we have a lot of legislation and leaders to improve life but it is not being enforced by departments and they're playing games. now the time to stop. thank you. and i want to follow up this in a few months myself. thank you. >> supervisor kim: thank you. any other members that would like to speak on item number two? seeing none. public comment is now closed. i do just want to personally apologize for the late start of today's meeting and for keeping members of the public -- i'm sorry. hi, nancy. please come up. absolutely. without objection, we will reopen public comment item number two. ms. cross. >> public: thank you supervisor kim for recognizing me. my name is nancy cross for the

people i haven't met before. and i am very much concerned about the role of the grand jury in what started in 2002 report. i saw a recent copy and i was surprised to find that it has been altered from what was produced in 2002. and i wondered who is authorized to change it without notice. that it's an amendment. isn't it strictly on this particular report -- but it's my only access to somebody talking about the report and accountability on the grand jury for 2002 on homelessness. i saw recently it has been sustainially revised without any

notice it was formerly amended. can i get an answer on that? >> clerk: i will pause your time for a moment. >> public: i couldn't hear what you're saying. >> clerk: public comment time you're enjoying right now is not your time to ask questions -- >> public: how do we ever ask for accountability on a previous report? [please stand by for captioner transition]

comments made were important for us to consider, especially some of the issues around too many indicators on the website which can be confusing for members of the public to follow and simplifying it, and reorder and reorganize, it is important to have -- understand and identify where we are at in the city.

almost feel like getting no information at all. thank you, miss cross. and so i'm going to read these responses into the record, starting on page three, under the moved, recommendation number, and say a number of these while we agree with the findings and recommendation, as a policy perspective, the board of supervisors is not the implemented agency.

>> president scott: i want to con tur with the -- feedback made finally, i think -- talked a lot about the equity standards and ensuring inclusiveness, noting the severe economic inequality within and between various neighborhoods and communities in the cities. we absolutely should be including budget discussions and i don't think we have really fully incorporated the data that we have access to in our budget discussions and as we embark on our next budget for 2018-2019, i would just encourage our departments to include this analysis within your budget proposals, and encourage this board to ensure that we are using all the data to actually address what many in san francisco have asked us to talk

about, the fastest growing income gap between the rich and the poor in the country and i think it's upon this board and the city to really do its best to address it through the budget process. so, any comments from members of this committee? so, seeing none, i'm going to make a motion to move forward. these amendments to item number 2 and i can do that without objection. and can we move this forward with positive recommendation? and we can do that without objection. thank you so much. and mr. clerk, can we call item number 3. >> clerk: hearing on the 2016-2017 civil grand jury report entitled the san francisco retirement system increasing understanding and adding voter oversights. >> yes, thank you for being here for the third item as well. >> to the members of the committee, thank you for putting it on today's agenda, partly in response supervisor peskin for the comments that you wanted to investigate the consequences of

adding members to the retirement board who were not members of the system, so, i'm interested to hear what you have to say about that today to reinforce a message i had sent earlier. we -- while all the departments to whom we sent this report are very responsive, it appeared that it was pretty much going to be business as usual and not too much action was going to be taken. san francisco prides itself that it's in the top quarter of other cities in the same situation of the unfunded pension liability. ours is either at 85% or 77% depending on which report you read. and also since 2008 as you noted at the last hearing, supervisor peskin, three reports issued on this matter which emphasizes the fact that there are many san francisco members of the community who are concerned about this. because in fact, if this liability or debt needs to be made up it is on the back of the citizens of san francisco. so, i guess our question is, and

i hope it's responded to at least in part today, what is going to be done and by when. >> thank you. >> thank you to the civil grand jury. colleagues for this on this panel, some four months ago on september 20th, and i want a time to wrestle with recommendation r2.2, states by the end of 2018, the mayor on board submit a charter amendment to the voters to add three additional public members who are not retirement system members to the retirement board. and as members of the public know, i have introduced a charter amendment that is going to be considered later today at the rules committee. it is not precisely what the grand jury recommended, but it is a different composition for the retirement board and alternative manner. so, colleagues, what i would actually suggest is that as to

recommendation r2.2 we move that the board reports that we will not -- that that recommendation will not be implemented because it's not warranted or reasonable but go on to say that the board of supervisors may consider alteration of the composition of the retirement board in an alternative manner. so, that would be my motion of public comment. >> seeing no further comments, at this time we are going to open up for public comment on this item. >> thank you again. my name is ellen, and i am a social worker representing 16,000 public services employees from 1021. the reason i'm here because we have two retirement systems. one is the pension pay by the public dollar and portion of it,

our employee money. the other one is called 457b derred compensation plan. never audited by the city or revealed by our county accountings. we have done a lot of research and this 457b, always reported under our pension plan. it's misleading the public, it's misleading the public service employees. i am here to request board of supervisor intervention to do an audit on our pension plan and also 457b, deferred compensation plan. the reason is because what we will save our money for our retirement, but our retirement is at risk. and you are part of it, if you invest in it. i am here to ask you not only to do it for yourself, but for the public and for us.

the workers. we have 30,000 employees for the