annual revenues. in 2014, the last 20 years of revenue as well. we are anticipating we are five years in and five years more of 10% freed up, and we are also recommending to the second to last year and the net result is a lower capital reserve and the long-term debt is down. package that up and it means there is $50 million over 30 years of a there are 3 billion program for $50 million more for projects. so we're holding constant. we're holding steady is what this says. also in the baseline, we take care of the major products in the paratransit category. central subway, these are the four major projects and these are the categories and prop k

that have the big, big ones. and central subway, we have allocated all the funds available and updated the strategic plan with cash flows and expenditures. and all available funds and cash flows and we are overprogrammed slightly in the baseline, but we are hoping this will resolve itself with the updates to the program and financing costs go down. presidio parkway, all the funding obligations have been met. there is some capacity leftover holding in reserve for claims potentially. and transbay transit center and caltrain downtown extension is phase one and phase two in the same category. all the funds are for the downtown extension per board policy. it is the only major capital project we do expect further

changes in the strategic plan. the remaining centers are not programmed yet, but once the board is comfortable with the direction of the project which which we anticipate will be in the next few months possibly, we would recommend to amend the baseline to make funds available possibly as soon as 18-19 and advance the design to 30% and value engineering of the project. and paratransit side, we're recommending to increase the annual amount of funds, to continue current funding levels through 24-25. and that amount is about $400,000 higher than it was when commissioner yee recommended increasing the funding to reduce the wait times for some of the group van services. we will continue with that funding level. and an increase over the next three years to find a chopper shuttle in the ramp taxi

commission. and sfmta would still need to come back to the board to request the funds. i just want to highlight that. and last year of funding for paratransit is 25-26 and that is a partial year of funding. the will wrap up step one and we are going to turn immediately and work with agencies with the five-year program and the survey of the public to release later this week to say how do you want to spunned the sales tax and back with straft -- how to spend the sales tax funds and we will be back in the fall with the budget going into the budget cycle. and with that, i can take any questions. >> thank you, ms. la forte for that thorough presentation. commissioner yee?

>> i have to concerns. one of them is the paratransit in terms of possibly investing into purchasing vans. can you talk about that? >> i will ask about the second question later. >> for paratransit operation and goes through the broker contract. and we would be looking into funding more vehicles from the programmatic category for muni vehicles which has a five-year plan. that was my reference to work to figure out what the needs are for the capital investment for vehicle. >> thank you for that explanation. the other thing is as i was glancing through the different projects and so forth, i don't get a sense that in the outer

districts, i can speak to district seven, it doesn't seem to be a lot of categories that would support the increased population and public transportation would need to meet in the next 25 years. as you know, essentially you have some major developments and residential developments out there. san francisco state, youngstown, and the board reservoir. and looking at the capacity now from the m-line and i keep talking about it during the commute hours is pretty much at capacity. and you are not going to be able to add frequency enough to meet

the demands in the future, so what are we doing in terms of addressing that issue? >> director chang will respond. >> we recognize growth happening in the southwest and it comes down to planning and allowing the planning that we are doing to assist sfmta. we received a grant from the region to look at a city wide transit plan and looking at freets and freeways as part of the upcoming program and jeff hobson are working closely with the sfmta and the questions are important about areas of the city and growing and continuing to experience that area. and one of the things that we can do is work in some of the

things in the near term can set us up and those are the planning activities and capital improvements that are more near term and can help with extending capacity, safety, particularly as the vehicle complex builds up in some of the areas. >> thank you. all right. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. and is there a motion to adopt the 2019 prop k strategic plan baseline? motion made by commissioner tang. seconded by commissioner sheehy. and we can take that same house, same call. the item is adopted on first read. next item please. >> item 9, update on emerging mobility services and technology report. this is an information item. >> mr. logan, the moment we continue to wait for.

>> not a power point, but i think it will work. i am warren logan and the transportation planner with the transportation authority, and i am extreatmently excited to talk -- extremely excited to talk about the emerging mobility sector. you may have noticed over the last 10 years that we have seen a lot of different services in our streets car sharing, bike caring, and including a possible bike path. we learned how to determine how we were impacting the streets and today a coup of different topic. the first is remind iing everyo of the guiding principles we adopted in june of 2017. and then we will go into how the transportation authority

connected the valuation to understand how the services are helping us meet our goals and how they might be hurting our goals as well. and finally, we have some really great recommendations about how we can guide the sector towards long-range transportation planning effort. it's really familiar, but urgent mobility services and technology inand scooters to electric mopeds, e-bikes and microtransit and in june of 2017 we adopted in the transportation authority 10 guiding e.p.a. technology and these are based and a number of adopted policies, plans, and strategist. as an example, safety is vision zero for policy t transit principals and last and should

be strongly rooted in the goals that we have and to conduct evaluation, we took each and developed series of evaluation criteria. i will step through this process to be clear about how we did eval and these are specifically related to the direct outcomes in the guiding principles, so in this case i have highlighted safety. looking far reduction in collision rates. others identify connection to transit and so on nond and many are relieved to the operational safety and measured distracted driving and whether or not the drivers are operated an trained and so on. let's talk about the result. i will keep it high level, but happy to dive into any questions you might have at the end.

first and foremost is companies that partner with sfmta and san francisco public agencies are better at providing data and providing experience so that we are able to create logical service types to better neat the transportation goals. what is interesting is this pipeline to date is very informal, so we need to har mornize that data. why we are collecting good data, we are not collecting the same data across the board. it is not an apples to apples comparison. we need to do a better job of tracking user behavior and asking the same questions of each one of these in the results section or questions section is many of the services operate late at night, 24 hours a day,

on demand, in areas that are less well served by transit. that means there is a great opportunity to bridge some of the gaps that we have identified in this meeting and in many others. there are conflicts with public transit, the first of which is as you have identified early on the, they are and we also study that some of the services while they say, hey, we're good for transit and connecting people to transit, but when we ask them, are you providing that information in the app or incentivizing the behavior, they are not. so those are the negative findings. and all the services except for chariot and none of them test the operators and this might be in direct connection to the curb management, impact on bike and safety line.

and there are impacts on congestion as well. and from the data and also from new york that demonstration for companies pulling off into private transit and that means that the mortgage is on the road, and that is less. that is a problem for congestion. let's talk about recommendations. a lot of these are great standards. and we want to encourage the city to actively partner with companies and with future companies as well. we want to create the framework for pilots to on board new companies at our discretion instead of addressing them piecemeal. the second is to continue conducting research in the space

to collect travel behavior data and ultimately measure how they are interacting and with public transit services, bikes, walking, etc. and we would like to address costs and harmonizing the exists permits we have and creating a framework for future permits so that the next service comes down in six months, we are ready for it. we would love to bridge whatever gaps we see. and for people who are joultd side and with the # signals and six, enforce safe streets. and however, we can't just throw man hours at this issue and a recommendation to automate some of the systems as well. we can use fancy computers to

address and lastly, we want to move toward congestion pricing and manage with the comprehensive curb management strategy. with that, i am happy to take any questions. >> colleagues, any questions for mr. logan? >> a commissioner colen. >> commissioner cohen? >> supervisor cohen: what are we doing to be proactive about our approach instead of reactionary to the new tiend in technology that are rolling out on the streets and sidewalks? then i have three other questions. you can start there. >> is the question, how with we currently doing that? want to make sure. >> well, yeah. >> and we have worked with the companies as they are moving forward the city. we went to all the companies and

asked what are the goals and what are you looking for? and there is a the proactive outreach. and surely that can be made stronger. >> you said a lot there. let me take back a bit. >> working with the mayor's office and the organization and what are the goals? what is the answer? >> that is a teaser. >> and what are our goals or their goals? >> when you reached to the tech companies, what did they say? >> some of this truly want to connect users to transit. i think everyone said that, but some have demonstrated that more than others. and secondly is the profit motivation. and third is many of the services and seeing this with the market right now are tracking towards what is called mobility as a service. so you might have noticed that uber now owns jump. jump is -- and lyft probably does the same thing and tracking towards each other and ultimatecally what we are likely to see is companies that control

a very large section of the market and not with one type of service but with several others. >> all right. what rule does the mayor's office of innovation play in supporting the t.a. on understanding te merging mobility -- the emerging mobility services and technology? >> we did not coordinate with mayor's office of innovation, but with the sfmta office of innovation and are happy to consider partnering with the mayor's office as well. >> i am just raising questions because i don't know the answers. so what about the planning department? is the planning department involved in this discussion? >> they are. and so maybe i will take you through a little built of the way we see this works. throughout each step of the process we used what is called design thinking to have several different shots. in the development of the -- excuse me, in the policy framework, the guiding principles, help from the industry stakeholder, community stakeholder, and also different agencies that includes sf environment, planning

department, an and the mayor's office on disability, and the sfmta. we used the same groups of people to continuously work together towards not only developing and the right answers towards the evaluation efforts. everyone is step by step a part of the process. >> everyone but the mayor's office of innovation. that is a rhetorical question. how do you quantify congestion impacts on safety? and the diversion of ridership from public transportation to the eengineered mobility services? >> have you an to quantify. >> and commissioner, i can answer both. >> for congestion, two ways to look at this. for our study, a strict guideline that data that was in san francisco for services, for services in san francisco, we

continue confirm that. and that said, there are studies about the broader san francisco bay areas and i will the point to u.c. and all the study iing d perhaps to course year network services that are pulling riders off transit and adding more vehicles to the road waist. we are not pretend -- to the roadway. we are not pretending that the studies don't exist, but we can't talk specifically about safety and highlight chariot trains and tests them regularly. that is a really big cold star. many of the operators are not providing the operate to and no

warning about how to pick up people from the curb at the right stop or what a bike lane might like in san francisco or a bufferer or what a red carpet line does and an muni and versus a bus and taxi lane. we are happy to partner with any of the companies to work on developing that, but to date those are issues that are comprising the safety of our streets. >> phenomenal presentation. did a lot of work in the last ant a year, so i am excited even when you first came to the chamber and made the proposal and i think you are doing a lot of good work. i wanted to bring the team that includes scooter, bike share, and obviously going to be the future of mobility and at least it feels that way when i read your report. i am wondering if we know if

there are additional mobility technologies and that have not been conceived yet. or are still in the development stages? and so i want to express my concerns that i am not sure that the team is big enough. that the team that is working on understanding this industry is large enough. it has the capacity. it is you and just you, right? >> can i jump in? thank you so much, commissioner, for asking that question. i believe the forces and the trends that we are seeing and the forces behind some of those because they are so powerful, cities around the world are really struggling to address that in terms of the capacity to do data collection. and so if they don't give us data, we have to spend more time to design surveys and conduct them ourselves in terms of observing directly the industry or contacting folks through survey.

i think the capacity of technology and the training that is needed to develop a cadre of planner s and advisors and city attorney's office, those folks are expert there is and training us in many ways and bringing all areas that we have to them. but it is a very important question you are asking. to have the capacity on the part of the public sector to do our jobs as planners, as broker, as regulat regulator, and as partners in some cases to the pilot where the collaboration is there to do a pilot and learn from that. >> i totally agree -- i totally agree with you and that is exactly why i was raising the question from my perspective it seems like a regional issue. the same way we do regional transportation for high-speed rail and to think about this and make sure and is theres --

to the branding concept that was earlier on the agenda. and just seems like this would be a stronger and better and more efficient use of our tax dollars that would actually go to studying and understanding and ultimately creating a solution for a future current as well as future, but transportation problem. >> thank you so much. >> thank you, commissioner. quick opportunity to thank both darden and danielle from the office of innovation. they have been wonderful partners in this. i want to laud our effort to bind our agencies together. they have been with us throughout this entire process. a big shoutout to them, too. >> thank you, mr. logan. commissioner yee? >> thank you, commissioner cohen, for your comments because my comments are really related to yours. what brought up this issue of

don't almost two years ago and i said this is where we're running into problems with this. we need to get ahead of the curve on this. and at the same time i realized that that was just one issue. as you commissioner cohen mentioned, this could be a lot of issues. commissioner breed mentioned scooter and so forth. and so more recently with the announcement at the time that i would do this, but it took a create this task force that would be led by the city administrator and kelly creating the task force now and the purpose is to look at exactly the issues that commissioner cohen is mentioning. but actually, even beyond

transportation or mobility type of devices. it is more of the emerging technology and what we are finding out more and more is we're always running behind and trying to figure out what to do about it once the technology is already introduced instead of working with industry and say what are you planning and which is the committee permit process that we need to have. the other thing i found out was that with new companies come into the city, new departments have different perspectives. and nobody knew who was supposed to provide permits and we need for information from the city. the outcome of that task force or the work group -- i can't remember if it was a work group or task force -- to come up with recommendations to possibly

develop or have the city f v a department of emerging technology to look at the issues. try to get ahead of the curve. figure out what type of permits we need to do and need to have before it hits the ground. and from the utility and with that report. and something that will be what we will all be supporting. i just wanted to share that information. >> oh, and then also one other -- wanted to appreciate from -- and in providing some of the guiding principles for the task force to look at, much of it came from the efforts of this emerging mobility effort that has been presented today. >> thank you, commissioner. commissioner fewer? >> yes, thank you for this. and i just wanted to ask if we are collecting any data around

enforcement with the police department? in my district they said 80% of the tickets are coming out. and just about that impacts and safety and violations and that was interesting about the training and to give recommendations with what we are seeing in the violations around our city. >> thank you. great. seeing no other commissioners, why don't we open this up for public comment. >> i have one speaker card, and if there are other individuals who would like to come forward, please do. clarissa. i apologize if i did not pronounce that well. >> good morning, chairperson and

commissioners. i am the mobility policy director at transform. i just want to applaud warren and everyone else for leading this effort. it has been a very important and important effort that sets a precedent across the nation for how we deal with new mobility as it kind of comes to our cities. this report says it is an important way to tackle issues that arise in the public right-of-way. and because we know left unto themselves, these companies will not prioritize the need of the most vulnerable. today i want to highlight two of the things i will provide formal comments to on later. but one, community engagement. as the prop program introduced with the outreach, what we found is when you lead with sensitivity and the right messeng messenger, we can steer the companies to provide real,

meaningful benefits to lower income communities of color. so out of that outreach, we are seeing 97% of people of color receive memberships before gold bike as well as 70% making under $15,000. that and so we need to where other transit agencies haven't been able to provide. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> and proud of the report and we strive to do better in partnership with the city, and in that vain, i would like to share with you some of charity's current and -- chariot's current and ongoing commitments to san francisco. we are committed to work with

the city. that can be exemplified in the private transit vehicle permit granted to chariot a few weeks ago. as part of that prment, we agree -- as part of that permit, we agreed to complement and not compete with transit. and we are paying a cost recovery fee and sharing data in realtime. i am proud to say that we are the first provider to receive this ptv permit in san francisco. we're also committed to investing in our community. nearly half of the drivers are from the bay view hunters point. we pay for all the drivers to go through commercial driver license training. we pay for the program itself and pay $16.50 an hour for folks to go through the program. we are committed to the labor harmony. we are proud of our partnership with the team stares and local -- teamsters and local 65 that set the bar for microtransit in the bay area. we are committing to reducing

congestion. one chariot takes on average 10 single occupancy vehicles off the road. we are committed to safety as the sfmta report showed, chariot has low as 3.2 collisions per 100,000 miles driven and we're also committed to accessibility. we have a fleet of wheelchair accessible vehicles and on app functionality. and we are developing service for areas of concern as we speak. thank you for your time. and we look toward to working with san francisco. >> thank you for your comments. are there any other members of the public on item nine? seeing none, public comment is closed. thank you, mr. logan, for your work and your presentation. we look forward to continue dealing with this emerging mobility sector. mr. clerk, next item please. >> item 10, preliminary fiscal

year 2018-2019 annual budget and work program. this is information item. >> good morning. cynthia fong. what i have before you today is information item. this is your first look at the t.a.'s preliminary fiscal year 2018-2019 annual budget and work program. i will first walk you through the number rs and pass it over to director tilly chang to wake you through the agency's annual work program. as you are well aware of, the t.a. has five to six responsibilities. the prop k, c.m.a., the prop a programs and the timma program. and revenues this year were forecasted to total to $123.2 million. this is $4 million lower than last fiscal year, so the current

fiscal year in right now due to funding for the island and the project will be island improvement project. that project will be wrapping up in the summer, this coming summer of 2018. we also have federal and state planning and the state programming and mon norring funds. this is -- and the monitoring fund. this is typical where we have one year we don't feoff it represents part of the nay federal grant revenue revenues representative and the island projects and the timma projects and the projects like the stone freeway, ramp intersection. and the vehicle registration fee represents 4% and holding steady for the past years and followed

by planning and m.t.a. departments, and the tide plans and providing funding for the island and with other projects. a look at sales tax and we have been study and from $102 million in fiscal year 15-16 and in the growth the last two year of 2%. in terms of expenditures, $263 million and this is $135 million les than last fiscal year and was an anomaly. we issued the first $248 million

bond that is mainly the reason why we have that with the capital expenditures. and mainly the majority of the projects are for the sfmta projects like the vehicle pro curement, central subway and the computers needed for that system. and we have the service expenditure costs and this is the costs that will pay for the annual payments and the outstanding or credit loan to maintain the debt service program. and in terms of personnel, and that represents 2.9%. this is the full-time equivalent staff we have at the transportation authority. we have no changes to the

personnel expenditure. nonpersonnel expenditures have increased increase of $400,000 and this represents 1%. and this is really for costs related to our office rent, legal, and i.t., and our equipment, software, and the office supply. everything that keeps the office running. i would also mention this budget anticipates us to draw down another $121 million in the credit revolver. and in addition to using bond proceeds to fully fund and any time we draw down from the revolving credit agreement, we will come back to the board for the approval. with that, oh, i have one more other slide. this is a slide i like to bring back once in a while. this is information from march 31 and this shows you the plan, ordered and in service in terms of the different various vehicles we were using prop k funds to fund the item.

i will turn it over to director chang. >> thank you so much. so continue on the work program priorities for 2018-2019, these are the eight or nine areas the board has continued to ask us to work on. and from the planning function and delivery and from the city is a big year. and will be diving in and following the vision and setting that planning department. and into the transit and the freeway side master planning. and the transit plan and down to park merced, east-west, along geneva to better connect with rail and that includes potentially subway rail as well as rapid bus as we heard feedback from you all last month to better connect across the

whole network and to nondowntown destinations. and they have further along will be diving into the freeway vision study and that was requested by commissioner ronen. and we are looking there at the short, medium, and long-term options to make that area more livable and accessible for folks on foot. and improving safety. and also trying to read this. to revisit the communities devised by the major freeways. the neighborhood transportation improvement program and from district two and the continuation of visions and soma and the mobility management district 10. we enjoy working on these on your mbehalf. we want to keep these going. they seem to be working well to have the planning work followed on by capital projects funding and hopefully we can renew and re-up that funding source for

you in the coming year as part of the prop k strategic plan work. moving on to the topic we just discussed, the emerging mobility study, we are deepening the efforts on research to tie and better provide the research data and the state-based evidence based on the link. t.n.c. in transit operations and performance. and in equity. there is a lot of issues in the questions. the only way to really shed light and advise you from the policy standpoint is to have data. we are making a big investment in the models and the travel forecasts and surveying the data warehousing today. and as much data we collect, and we are having the online tools that the public can see how does this effect me and part of san francisco. and the citizens advisory to to

be active throughout and the last time going in and we lie on the area to look forward to and get the message to the district folks and the newsletter rs and support on the outregion side. and from the efficiency and portal is the tool and sponsors and visibility and behind the scene. it will help to have that moved online. and so response from d.p.w. and when they make prop k and from prop aa is the vehicle registration free to implement the strategic plan from the

regional and state level. from the topics and to plug in to efforts across the bay area and the ministry and improved by voters in the general election. and thereafter we make sure we protect sb1 funding and approved by the legislature and if they choose not to do so, for whatever reason, we will be challenged to back fund that funding and further fulfill those efforts in san francisco and across the bay area. turning to the delivery side t focus is on the ramps and structures project. they will be procuring those projects. and the city project we just approved and that is fixing and finishing up the final amounts

and making sure there is an evaluation of that project. and from the 3p and traditional delivery methods that will be in comparison of the two methods. and the ocean avenue, southbound offramp and potentially the northbound geneva onramp and commissioner safai asked us to look at that and be involved in the community work and improve the safety of the ramps. and the connector road in the bayview is something we will work with on the real estate side. the project delivery report. and the downtown extension and to move that project forward. and from the positive control and caltrain and other niche toughs that we are working on to -- and other initiatives to set the stage for high-speed rail and now by 2029 is what the

business plan is what their authority has just released an estimate for the schedule. to make sure the caltrain business plan is addressing our needs and reflect the priorities of san francisco and the whole three county board district in terms of the high-speed rail and getting the financial side of the house ready for that work. and the central subway and provide support to m.t.a. and geneva bus ride transit. and a lot more information about how to manage outreach and communications. it is disruptive and we want to lessen and minimize the impact on the adjacent communities and provide as much support and peer review as you would like. and finally on the transparency and timely reporting and looking

forward to the recommendations from the assessment and the agency operating assessments that will be done at the request of the chair. and provide support to the disadvantaged and local business enterprises to be sure they are participating as much as possible in the agency's work. with that, i am happy to answer questions. >> an any questions for the executive director? seeing none -- commissioner cohen. >> thank you very much. i wanted to recognize your leadership. it is tremendous to watch you grow in the last couple of year. i just wanted to compliment you. thank you. >> thank you so much. >> thank you for that thorough presentation. are there any members of the public who would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. is there any introduction of new items? is there any public comment on that? is there any general public comment?

seeing none, we are adjourned.

>> hi. i'm shana longhorn with the san francisco league of women voters. i'm here to discuss proposition c. the city collects a gross receipts tax from many businesses which receive revenue from the lease of commercial property, such as office buildings, warehouses and retail spaces. the current tax rate ranges from.825% to 3%. businesses with $1 million or less in san francisco are generally exempt from the gross receipt tax. several other businesses are also exempt including some banks, and nonprofits. proposition c would impose an additional gross receipts tax of 1% on the revenues of business received from the lease of warehouse space in the

city, and 3.5% on the revenue the business receives on additional leases in the city. it would not apply to revenues received from leases to businesses engaged in industrial uses, some retail sales of goods and services directly to consumers or arts activities. this additional tax would also not apply to revenues received from certain nonprofit organizations or from government entities. the city would use 15% of funds collected from this general tax for any general purpose. the city would use the remaining 85% of this additional tax for quality early care and education for children from newborns through age five whose parents are very low-income to low-income. quality early care and education for children from newborns to age three whose parents are low to middle-income and do not currently qualify for

assistance. programs that support emotional, cognitive for children newborn through five and increased compensation for people who provide care for children from newborn through early age five. if you vote yes, it means you want to kboes a new gross receipts tax of 1% on revenues a business receives from the lease of warehouse space in the city and 3.5% on revenues the business receives from the lease of commercial spaces in the city to fund quality education for children and other purposes. a no vote means you do not approve this tax. we're joined by lisa rhenner from the san francisco republican party and an opponent of the measure. i'd like to start with miss

remmer. why do you believe this proposition is so important. >> just like housing costs, our commercial rents in san francisco will railroad high. and this 3.5% tax will be passed onto the tenant, the businesses, who will then pass it onto their staff and onto the consumers, us, making the cost of living in san francisco -- the high cost and shortage of child care could be contributed to the administrative costs of opening a child care business. city hall can help working parents by easing regulations and fees, allowing more child care centers to open. what is a crisis is the city budget of $10.2 billion, and the $88 million deficit for this coming year, rising to 800 million in three years. we just paid 77 million for a child care three years ago. in terms of value of child

care, well, the u.s. department of health and human services reported the head start benefits have all disappeared by third grade. >> miss buck land, why do you believe this proposition is so important. >> parents need child care so they can support their families, and children need early care so they can vehemently start their life. child care and early education is expensive, costing $20,000 or more peryear on an after-tax basis. it's often a family's biggest expense after housing. over 50% of san francisco families live in eligible for state child care subsidies. unfortunately there's not

enough slots for all families to qualify. every month, there are 2500 children on the waiting list for subsidies in san francisco, two thirds of them infants and toddlers. a third cause is low wages in the child care sector. due to the work of the city's office of early childhood education, we know what can cost san francisco families. we need to spend 300 to 400 million peryear. >> how will the voters be affected by this 3.5% commercial tax as proposed in proposition c? >> well, i think this tax is actually good for our city. my understanding is that our current commercial rents tax is lower than in other cities, and i believe that helping families pay for child care is a critical need in our city. we hear a lot about the struggles that families are having, particularly struggles paying for housing, but frankly, as i said before, housing -- child care is a

bigger expense than housing, and i personally being helping families pay for child care is a housing strategy as well as an economic strategy for our city. when families get help paying for child care, they can work, support their families and are contributing to the city's economy. and when they get help paying for child care, they also can afford more for housing. >> same question to you, miss rhenner. how will the voters be askd by this proposition specifically by the 3.5% commercial tax. >> the 3.5% commercial tax can immediately get passed onto the tenants or the businesses. your doctor, your dentist, your grocery store, and they could end up cutting employee pay, cutting staff, closing shop, so do we really need more closed storefronts, and mostly it will be passed directly onto consumers, raising the cost of

living in san francisco. what we really should be doing is lower the regulations required to open a child care business from head start, with 2400 regulations to be complied with to all of our local zoning and licensing fees. this 3.5% tax -- and none of it helps homeowner's, just makes the city more expensive. home enners are already paying for the last tax in 2514, 014, just think it's going to make people move away and make the city cost more. >> a second question, which we'll start with you, miss rhenner, what are the advantages or disadvantages to a universal child care program in your view. >> in my view, the benefits of early child care have disappeared by third grade, and the claims of high quality child care are highly

exaggerated. there's ten studies that have been cited. only half of them have been used randomized control. only three found positive, long-term results, and these took place 48, 58 years ago, with treatment groups very small, mostly children. they focused on infants, toddlers, not pre-k and had huge in home family visits which seemed to work out well. the teacher to student ratio was 33 to 66% higher than what students will be getting in the proposed programs, teachers all had bachelors agree and experience in these programs, and moms all had i.q.'s under 85. the treatment wasn't random. the moms stayed at home and dad worked outside of the home. the treatment groups and the control group still only earned under $12,000 a year. they both had approximately 50%

arrest rates, yes, 6%, less than a semester more in school, no i.q. differences beyond the differences actually shown among the children. the best results were with the moms with an i.q. under 70, and the younger moms with less school. the mothers actually in the treatment groups showed the biggest gains in lifetime earnings, even looking at ages 26 to 60, compared looking at the children 21 to 65, the mothers' lifetime earnings were estimated to be twice what the child's were, so yes, teen moms need child care while they finish schools, but we already fund these programs. >> same programs to you, miss lessman. what are the advantages and disadvantages to universal child care programs in your view. >> so i'm not quite sure what, lisa, you've been reading, but the research -- there is a growing body of research that

shows the short and long-term benefits of quality child care for families. it's been nobel economyist james beckman about investing and the out comes in early childhood education, about the need to provide special education and quality education in long-term earnings rates for families, the involvement in your criminal justice system. there's no shortage of studies that show the really important outcomes that come from early quality childhood education. for us, we have a situation in the city where i believe that this is really the key to ensuring that san francisco is a city in which diverse

families can thrive. we have -- as i cited before, we have a 50% of san francisco families are living below the self-sufficiency index. it's affecting kids of color. you know, lack of access affects children of color, and it's really important that we want to -- we want to provide equitiable outcomes for children in san francisco and ensure that all kids are ready to learn when they come into the school district, and we want to make sure that all families can thrive in san francisco. >> thank you, miss beckman. we're now going to start with the closing arguments, and we'll start with you, miss rhenner. >> the 3.5% tax will be passed onto us, the customers through the businesses, and i think that that will make san francisco that much less affordable. again, the child care, the value of child care, the

effects dissipated by third grade, except in these totally different, different studies with different groups of people, and they've been highly contested. i've read all of these studies. testing moms with less than i.q. of 85, that's totally different. again, i do think the teen moms need totally free child care while they finish school, but we already have this. let's not raise the cost of living in san francisco with a tax that just gets passed onto the consumers. >> thank you. miss beckman? >> thank you. i believe prop c is a critical investment in the city's future. it'll raise more than $100 million a year to support early care and education. most of that will provide access to low-income families that are struggling to make ends meet. parents that can't afford to go to work are relying on family, friends, and neighbors, catch as catch can in order to be

able to do that, to be able to work. we -- it will also help us increase the wages for our early educators, ensuring we can actually have classrooms open to serve san francisco's children. prop c will help people pay for care so they can work and support their families and support our economy and long-term benefits for kids. prop c is endorsed by a majority of our san francisco supervisors, the harvey milk democratic club, san francisco labor council, and many others. i hope you'll join me in voting for prop c to ensure that our city is -- remains one in which diverse families can live and thrive. thank you. >> thank you both for your time. we hope that this discussion has been informative. for more information on this or other ballot measures in the june election, please visit the department of elections website

at sfelections.org. remember, early voting is available at city hall on may 7, starting at 8:00 a.m., and if you don't vote early, be sure to vote, starting on may 5th. thank you. >> clerk: commissioner seriñá. commissioner lang and commissioner loo is excused and commissioner pappas. commissioner jeremy wallenberg. and please note that the executive director is present. >> thank you. we have amendments to the agenda. items k, l, m, n will not be discussed today and we're making the agenda shorter, please.