accepting the section. the law is a little different. it concerns me that we would appoint someone to the board who is trying to allow landlords to skirt the law, to the detriment of section 8. i will be looking into more until the next hearing. for that reason, i appreciate your motion for continuance today. >> thank you for supporting that. supervisor ronan. i made a motion for the record, to continue this item to december 11th meeting. supervisor ronan seconded the motion. without objection? thank you. without obje without objection. continued. what do we have next? >> committee reports. >> okay. >> item 15-20 were considered by

the budget and finance committee on november 29th and were forwarded as committee reports. item 15 was recommended as amended with the same title. item 15 is an ordinance to amend the environment code to require audits every three years of large generators for compliance. to establish enforcement measures, and to affirm the determination. >> colleagues, i want to recognize the supervisor. >> thank you. i want to give a little context for this. and thank a host of people who have worked with the ordinants for almost the past year. about ten years ago, going to 2006 and 2007, we set mandatory recycling goals and mandates. and even a few years prior, the

city department of environment commissioned that the objective of achieving the waste in the city and county of san francisco. and set the mandatory recycling rate. the supervisor brown was working in the office at the time. since this time, we have achieved a significant, significant amount of goals in the sense that rather than sending all of our waste to landfill -- the release of greenhouse gases and methane gas, it takes away land used for farmland or development and prevents conservation and uses the waste stream as the main

source for that. we now, ten years later, with a lot of experience and a lot of data, we asked to see at that time back in the fall, if we were going to achieve our zero waste goals by 2020. it became apparent really quickly as you can imagine, that we are not going to achieve zero waste. meaning sending zero amount of waste that is generated to landfill by 2020. we have made significant strides and achievements. i think at the time, we were still reporting a city-wide diversion rate. we were far above 85%. meaning that only 15% of the waste was still going to landfill. the last 15% is the most difficult. and so, the hearing that we had last fall, we asked to see why it is not achieving zero waste by 2020 and how we can achieve a better diversion rate on sending less to landfill. it became very apparent quickly

that in that conversation, 60% of what we send to landfill is still recyclable and compostable. meaning that although we have a wonderful program and we provide this in almost every corner of san francisco, people are still putting things in the trash bin, whether they are tenants of a large building, tenants in a commercial property, hospitals, hotels, apartment buildings, universities, large generators. in that hearing, the department of environment said what are the areas we can tackle that would begin to remove what we are sending to the waste stream and landfill and tackle this. three areas were identified. one, was construction and demolition waste. there is a significant increase in that over the last number of

years. the economy has increased. people that are doing rehabilitation or rehab jobs and new construction in general, the waste is going straight to landfill. the second category, and the category that this legislation focusses on are on what we are calling large refuse generators. they produce more than the legislation. more than 30 cubic yards of waste. what does that mean? that is the equivalent of about 100 single family homes. 80-100 single family homes. who are the large generators. i mentioned some of them. they are class a large apartment buildings. class a office buildings, excuse me. they are large apartment buildings. they are universities. they are hotels. (please stand by)

>> and in many cases, in some of the large office buildings and hotels and hospitals and universities and apartment buildings, it is a janitor. in other places like an affordable housing complex or someone on a lower scale, it could be someone with mental disabilities or mental challenges, places like tool works and affordable housing. there's organizations that focus on employment training opportunities for those that are residents like green works. so we have multiple examples in

the economy that targets this and we want to set a baseline though we already know because every one of the account holders on the list already knows their diversion rate and there's a built-in incentive to do a better job. and why are they not doing a better job? because in many cases they've decided the cost of doing business is doing better than hiring an individual and let's be clear, colleagues, it is an almost 100% of the cases a minimum wage job that pays for itself, helps the large refuse generat generator divert cost from their bill and we have savings we have a refuse generator and the goal and overall objective is to meet our environmental goals to be

efficient as aggressively as possible to achieve now no longer zero waste, mayor breed made an announcement we'll be cutting our waste in half by 2030. so some of the concessions we made, we made conditions to allow for the city because it has a different hiring process than what we asked for in the legislation. we allow for the city to do their audits. after we set the baseline over a three-year period we allow them to do their audits outside of the budget process. we allow for more flexibility for city agency to hire because the hiring process cannot meet the goals of this legislation so we worked with the department of environment aggressively over the last year to craft this legislation. we talked with the port, we talked with sfusd, with the small business commission and the city administrator. we talked to sfmta. we talked to almost every single

entity that would be impact and made concessions and amendments. at the heart as i say in closing and if individuals have questions, i'm happy to answer them, we move the effective date back from january 1, 2019 to july 1, 2019. we allow for a three-year period to do the audit to set the baseline and know already without doing the baseline how well almost 100% of the people are doing. i have amendments today and one last set of amendments to take into consideration. for non-profit affordable housing providers and non-profit food banks and the entity that we care deeply about in this chamber and i think supervisor peskin will agree the flower mart a consortium of many vendors is almost like a

non-profit we almost put them in to allow for the ability to two audits in this category and allow for the districtrector to discretion if there's financial hardship and i stated on committee and i'll state again, we plan with the non-profit food providers and affordable housing providers to look for grants and opportunities to look into whether it's a green works or whatever the right approach is to allow them to be ahead of the game. there's also two other categories i want to talk about outside of the large apartment hotel. the restaurant industry, once we raised the threshold, it's another concession of 30 cubic yards to 40. there's only 40 restaurants left in the mix and put them at the back of the line and the director the direction to --

discretion and there's ways to adjust to not have them be considered as part of the large refuse generator and that may be better education or tools. i'll end, colleagues, i think this is the right ming -- thing to do and we spent time at the department working on. we feel confident because we are compelled to do this in a very aggressive way if the camp fires and global warming and other things don't compel you enough, the fact this is in its heart the solution as a minimum wage job that pays for itself and saves entity money, then we feel 100% confident it's the right way to go. i'll say quickly the amendments that i have and we can make a motion to accept these to allow for greater flexibility if there's a financial hardship and abut for -- and allow for the

hardship for the nonprofits and that's it. those are the two main amendments in those categories. thank you. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> thank you, very much. supervisor, i want to recognize supervisor yee. >> thank you, president cohen. so my question's not about the amendments in which i'm more than happy to support. through the chair i want clarification. when we talk about audits my understanding is that an audit consists of somebody from ecology taking a photo or something and that it goes through the one folder that could possibly not pass inspection and things can go wrong because of that.

so can you clarify that as oversimplification. >> through through the chair, if it's a rolloff compacter or the other mechanism they use or the large refuse generators, they actually take it back to the plant and look at it and it's not just based on photograph, they actually pour the content and go through at it significantly to look at it and we define in the ordinance the threshold which contamination is acceptable. there's a really throw threshold for composting and recycling and higher threshold for the waste stream. in most cases they're having three bins but on a much larger scale and it's not just photograph and surface, it take a few hours. it's at no cost to the account holder, ecology does perform

those. that's one of the amendments we made. we originally wanted the amendments to happen over a two-year period but we lengthened that out to three years. >> supervisor: thank you for the explanation. that's helpful. i was guessing i was over simplifying when it was explained. i guess i appreciate your amendments for the nonprofits and flower mart and so forth. i follow your logic there. so can you explain for the chair, can you explain what's the rationale in providing that second chance to nonprofits versus not providing a second chance to the others? >> it boils down to economic means. food pan tries -- pantry

operating at losses an come for funding and they said not only do we want to be pushed back the effective date and that was the effective date for affordable housing and nonprofits goes back to july 1, 2021 and we'll spend the next two years working with them and the flower mart and put in place these practices in advance of the legislation. but even then if that were the case we would not be able to overcome that, we'll give them two audits and give them one more thing that says if these entities can prove financial hardship, then the director has a discretion so only for those with lack of financial means. the other entities we referred to which this talks about which is 95% to 96% of the remainder

are large entities with the financial means to make this happen. in most cases they understand -- let me rephrase, in all cases they know their diversion rate and discount rate. they've been made aware and the incentive are build-in. they also know in july of last year for the first time in the rate system, the department of environment has not the ability to not just raise their rates, 50% and now up to 100% of what their current garbage bill is. the department has recognized their fee approach for many of these large, if not all the large other than those hiring facilitators, is not working. so what we say here is we are compelling them to do that. it could be part-time or

full-time. it just has to be a dedicated person doing the work on scale appropriate with the -- so it's about financial means and about urgency, supervisor yee to meet with our environmental goal and deal with the degradation. there's an urgency component as well. >> supervisor: thank you for the explanation. >> thank you for the policy discussion. supervisor tang. >> thank you. i do appreciate the amendment made for 100% affordable housing projects an nonprofit and food providers and the flower mart. i know this came up during other committee hearings and i know you had many hours of debate about this but wondering if you can explain why there wasn't the amendment made allowing for the additional six months of time to remedy violations for all other entities. >> that was my answer to supervisor yee. i'll state again, the process -- >> supervisor: please speak into

the mic to hear loud and clear. >> thank you, madame president. i can't tell sometimes when i'm talking. now i can hear myself. >> supervisor: that's what happens when you can hear voices in your head. >> i'm not there yet. i haven't been on the board as supervisor peskin. just to reiterate what i said to supervisor yee it's with the financial means of the organization. the other entity we were planning for in supervisor cohen's district is wholesale food provider for the food mart. right now they're not captured. they're below 40 cubic yards but have the intention to plan for going to consolidating on one account. and we want to provide them similar to the flower mart the opportunity for flexibility. it's about focussing on the organizations that don't have the financial means or the ability or have not had their rates increased or have been ignoring the fines and fees in

the past and not there in terms of moving towards the incentive-based system. i will say and i really appreciate the conversation that president cohen was able to promote and encourage in the budget committee with other colleagues, supervisor stephanie and fewer. it really helped to advance the conversation and refine where we are and i think that where we have ended is really important to see that we're focussing on meeting our environmental goals, respecting the financial means of the organizations an giving flexibility where necessary and knowing that through cased givi flexibility where necessary and knowing that through case studies, and we know there are affordable housing complexes paying an exorbitant amount for

their garbage bill. they may not be able to start off by hiring a facilitator or train residents but they'll save money. part of what supervisor cohen and others asked for that in the case where's they hired the facilitator, not only dit save them on their overall garbage bill it paid for the facilitator and increased savings. we tried to narrow it down to who could weather it financially and who needed more help bade on their restricted budgets. >> supervisor: supervisor, we need to talk about something pretty obvious in the room. we past legislation about second-chances and there was conversation around the worse offenders of the refuse generators. and just wanted to have a little bit of a conversation how if you

could articulate your position on why you are not in favor of allowing good standing businesses who have failed an audit, why not allowing them a second-chance to get their act in order before being punitive and forcing them to making investment in higher full-time exclusive -- stick the language of the legislation, exclusive the language of exclusive facilitator. >> so similar to what i was saying to supervisor yee and supervisor tang, i guess what i would say is i've worked in this industry for almost a decade on the ground and i can tell you --

>> supervisor: you started as a facilitator. >> i started with the folks who were hauling away and collecting the trash but no, i wasn't a sorter, no. i worked in the industry. i've been in the guts of buildings and seen the work in practice. i know some of you walked in on janitors and saw the work happening. i did that for almost a decade and i can tell you when given the opportunity to not participate whether it's mant mandatory sick leave or mandatory minimum wage or health care, there's mandates the private sector is not willing to embrace and sometimes we have to compel them. >> supervisor: this is the bad actors that haven't been

willing. those people that have been penalized we don't know if they're willing to acquiesce with the law or not. >> we worked on the legislation with supervisor mayor knewsom s knewsome's -- newsome's office at the time and wrote legislation something similar and it didn't have teeth so they were aware of the goals and opportunities a decade ago. >> supervisor: why didn't it pass a decade ago? >> it was not written as well as this is today. i was not a legislator or involved in it. i can tell you that the opportunity was there and the opportunity has been ignored over eye -- a decade. two, every en city knows there's an incentive or stick in terms of raising the rates and many much them pay that rate.

every one of them knows their division rate and every one of them knows their discount rate in terms of how they do sorting, correlates to what they're paying on their garbage bill or the savings on the garbage bill. because of the urgency we have to reduce the waste we're sending to landfill, we're no longer at zero waste but trying to achieve a reduction of 50% by 2030. it's going to take us three years at a minimum to even just set the baseline audit. i was fine with that. that was a concession we made. secondarily, if we look at who has the means to absorb up front and at the end of the day it's about a minimum wage job that pays for itself and will save money for the companies. that is why where we know where the diversion rates are in many cases audits have happened. i would say that is why and because of the compelling nature of where we are in terms of our

environment degradation, i feel strongly it's the right way to go. even that, we wrote into the legislation the director of department of environment is required to come back and make policy recommendation and adjustments as necessary. we wrote that in in case we don't get it right today we have the opportunity going forward. i was trying to anticipate in your district the food mart, they're not covered but they will be at some point in the next couple years. we wrote that in in advance in that. >> i want to acknowledge your flex act and faith-based organizations that deal with large amounts of food and i'm think of glide and the sf mart. i'm grateful because they go to great lengths to handle their waste in the most effective and

safe environmental manner. i appreciate that. >> supervisor: nine years ago dit come to legislation? >> if they didn't meet the city wide diversion rate they'd be required to have a facilitate perp -- facilitator. however it was written then it wasn't implemented. >> supervisor: colleagues, i think we're exhausted, at least i'm exhausted talking about this item. is there any other discussion? if not i think we can go to a -- can we take the same house, same call. >> clerk: madame president, we need a second on the amendment.

>> supervisor: supervisor safai made a motion to accept several amendments. is there a second? supervisor tang has volunteered and will second the amendments. so let's take this legislation as amended. >> clerk: the amendments without objection first. >> supervisor: that's what i was just about to go and gavel down on that. if we can take the amendments without objection. without objection amendments accepted. all right. now we have the legislation as amended before us. same house or same call or roll call? looks like we can take the same house, same call. as amended the legislation and ordinance is passed on the for the first reading. >> clerk: item 16 is an ordinance to appropriate $200

million of tax bonds for financing related to the trans bay plan infrastructure project in fiscal 2018 and 2019 and to approve related documents. >> supervisor: seeing there are no names on the roster -- >> can i have a roll call? >> supervisor: supervisor peskin made a request for roll call vote. >> clerk: [calling roll]

>> clerk: there are nine ayes and one no with supervisor peskin in the dissent. >> supervisor: so this ordinance is passed on the first reading and the resolution is adopted. next item. >> clerk: item 18. >> supervisor: colleagues, supervisor yee. >> thank you. i just want to say and thank the mayor and president cohen for moving this forward and it's important for us to do as we did with prop c and the baby prop c in june to put it fron of the court system to to determine

whether it's legitimate or not. both were the will of the voters and whether it's the homelessness issue or early education issue. i'm glad we're moving forward with this. hopefully both of these cases will be a positive outcome for the voters in san francisco. >> thank you. thank you, supervisor yee. supervisor kim. >> i would like to add my name for what we now call baby prop c and g. >> supervisor: we'll add your name. >> thank you. >> supervisor: supervisor ronen wants to add her name too. anyone else? supervisor yee, no problem. excellent. we're all done. so let's take this item, same house, same call? >> clerk: roll call, vote, please.

[taking roll] >> clerk: there are ten ayes. >> supervisor: thank you, colleagues. without objection the ordinance is passed on the first reading. madame clerk. >> clerk: i believe items 19 and 20 together. >> supervisor: yes, please. >> clerk: item 19 is to appropriate $1.1 million of state revenue and reappropriate the following amounts 200,000 for the supplemental security cash-out program and 3$300,000 for the cal works and $970,000

at the human services agency for fiscal year 2018 and 2019 and item 20 is for the fiscal year to add 37 new positions at the human services agency and the department of public health to implement the security cash-out and calworks initiative programs. >> supervisor: thank you very much. seeing there are no names on the roster, we can take the same house, same call, colleagues? without objection the ordinances are passed on the first reading. madame clerk. missed items. >> clerk: the regular meeting december 3 were forwarded and item 21 is to look at permitted

use at properties to look at the ceqa and finding determination. >> supervisor: same house, same call? without objection the ordinance is passed on the first reading. madame clerk, item 22 was not referred to the full board. let's call item 23. >> clerk: reading item 23. >> supervisor: seeing there are no names on the roster, colleagues, can we take same house, same call? without objection the ordinance is passed on the first reading. madame clerk. >> clerk: items 24 through 28 were considered at the rules committee on a special meeting

december 3 and forwarded as committee reports. item 24 was forwarded without recommendation second draft to establish the free city college fund to defer the cost of check students and to require annual appropriations in designated amounts to the fund and an election to be held november 5, 2019. >> supervisor: i want to recognize supervisor kim. >> thank you, president cohen. in front of you is the second draft of the free city college fund charter amendment. i'll be introducing amendments today to be a third draft. we've come a long way from claiming victory on proposition w in 2016 thanks to the support of many of you who put it on the ballot for the implementation of the first two pilot year of the free city college program in fall 2017 with the seed funding of the $5.4 million plus thanks to the board of supervisors an

additional $1.2 million for summer semester and $2 million for the refer fund. proposition w as you know came from a transfer tax and in the first year $28 million of which we designated $6 million to the free college program and i'm putting forth this proposal. it will set aside $15 million to fund the free city program which aims to provide stability and security to the success pilot programs and ensure the free city college program will have enough funding to provide free tuition which we campaigned on as well as a stipend for eligible students that attend city college full time or fu full -- or part-time.

when we originally proposed it in 2016 we proposed $500,000 per semester and $250,000 stipends based on research where we looked at programs in tennessee and oregon and chicago and found even after they made college free for recent high school graduates, low-income students still did not enroll because of the cost of books or childcare or transportation exceed the cost. we noticed free college programs throughout the country primarily benefit middle-class household which is is great but to ensure lower-income students avail themselves the stipend program is important to make sure it's an equitible -- equitable

program and every single resident regardless of age, income or any type of gpa's prerequisite interested in enrolling will not have to pay tuition, include mig self. city college and community college is our nation's only life-long learning institution and this institution only grows in its importance as we see the technology racing ahead of education we're providing to residents. as automation and technological advances continue we find many jobs available today will not be available tomorrow and that is why this life long learning institution will be so critical to the economic longevity of this great city. we also know that by 2020, regardless of all the technological innovation, 70% of all jobs in the u.s. will require some type of

post-secondary degree and a high school diploma is no longer enough. we need to increase the social compact government has made to citizens to provide a free and universal k-12 education and expand it to college. the charter amendment is set aside for 10 years. in fact, it's the only one with a short duration. every other charter amendment is 15, 25 years or significantly longer. this is also the third smallest set aside the city will have if it passes from the board of supervisors and passed by voters behind the municipal symphony fund and the original public education enrichment fund which started at $10 million in 2004 and now is $80 million. we're making a positive change to our public education system

and changing and transforming the lives of students not able to attend. having talked to students, it's astounding the impact this program has had and in reading surveys, i myself have been startled by the impact free city has made. city college has been able to hire additional faculty and brought back to life the campus supervisor mandellman has worked on. i have amendments i'll introduce today after the feedback of colleagues i've worked with including supervisor yee, ma

mandelman and safai. i do think it makes sense to allow e allow a program to flourish and will change it from 25 years to 10 years. i also want to point out whether $150 million was the right amount. in the original charter amendment we stated that any excess would be put into reserve and the reserve may not exceed 20% of the fiscal year's annual baseline contribution and any funds in excess of that 20% limit will be returned to the general fund. so if there's a dramatic decline

in enrollment in the first five years of free city college, we will allocate up to 20% of the baseline to a reserve fund for down deficit years and the rest will return back to the general fund. it's not like the $15 million set aside will never see that money again. but at the request of colleagues who want to really ensure we are being physically responsible, i will be added another provision to this charter amendment. we do have one provision that already allows the board of supervisors by two-thirds majority to expand the eligible uses of the fund to permit the city to use the moneys from the fund to benefit any and all students and we're thinking of undocumented citizens who cannot avail themselves of free city college unless they are part of -- sorry, i think it's ab73.

there's a universe of undocumented students that are currently not eligible for free city. if we're able to figure out a mechanism for the free stunts this board with a two-thirds vote could vote to expand to this universe of students. the amendment i want to add in and i passed this out to colleagues on page 5, starting line 5, after the audit, which we will now be asking the controller to do in year five of the program not eight and that amendment is on line 12, after the audit by june 30, 2025 and no later than june 30th each fiscal year thereafter the board of supervisors may adjust contribution to the fund for the upcoming fiscal year, if, a, the amount in the reserve is 20% of that year's annual baseline and

b, the board of supervisors finds the city college has the sufficient funds to set forge the stipend and the adjusted stipend after section 4 and pay all enrollment fees for san francisco residents ineligible for the grant. and we can make some of the uses of the fund nul and void, the board of supervisors after year five can reduce the baseline with a two-thirds majority vote. however, the board can ome reduce the amount if the reserve is fully funded and if the intent of the program which is free tuition for all san francisco residents and stipend is fully funded. we wanted that provision in to make sure it moves forward in a fiscally sound manner and know

the enrollment will go up and down every year. we wanted to provide flexibility to the board moving forward on the program. however, i do think it's an important program and want to thank my colleagues for en t ten -- entertaining this and understand mig time is up in january 7, 2019. i know we moved the charter amendment forward in an acc accelerated rate but i appreciate my colleagues allowing this. >> supervisor: thank you, supervisor kim. supervisor brown. >> yes, thank you. i want to thank supervisor kim for this because i think this is really important for the city and i'm a co-sponsor of this legislation because i firmly believe education is a right. basic college education is increasingly important to earn a decent wage.

i believe government should ensure this level of education to be available for all. with the sky-high soft -- cost of san francisco many folks cannot afford to attend legislation and if this is ratified it will provide a leg up that all san francisco people deserve. the last couple of years i've asked and worked with city college to actually be able to come out and sign up people in neighborhoods for free city leng. and i also have been i think the stipended are really important. we have right now the old yoshis and new heritage center that's opened and have housing events an workforce academies an i've asked to sign people up for free college and the lesser addition.

if we're going to have a strong and vital economy, everyone has access, we must provide additional educational opportunity for folks especially for low income and people of color. the skills we can acquire at a free community college will help them succeed in business. a trade or university and it allows folks to get vocational training to help secure well-paying jobs. as we face an income gap that gets wider every day, i think san francisco should consider providing the increased opportunities so more can be a part of the growing economy in the city. i just thank everyone for your support. >> thank you, supervisor brown, before we continue i want to acknowledge, supervisor kim has made a motion and there's a

motion on the floor. is there a second to her motion? seconded by supervisor rafael. >> i washington the opportunity to work with supervisor kim. i know we had some pretty -- over the course of the last 48 hours there's been some intense conversations. i think normally the conversations would be spread out over a six-month period or at least a three or four-month period but out of respect for my colleague who put in such a significant amount of time into this, we wanted to accelerate things and move it forward in a timely fashion. i think the amendment that we came to an argument with today working with aft2121 and the coalition of free city college is the right amendment as supervisor kim says, in the event that we have additional funding come through, this program would be allowed to make the adjustments.

i know it was just announced today that some introduced something in sacramento to provide for full-time students but let's be clear, this is free for everyone so there's a whole host of students that would not be covered by that and if that were the case we'd have the ability to make the necessary adjustments while respecting the reserve and respecting the goals of the program in no way shape or form would there be any cavalierness or desire to zero out the program. the program would always be respected but that level of having some additional adjustment without the voters i think was important. i appreciate supervisor kim for her willingness to do that along with the coalition. i'd like my name to be added as a co-sponsor and what it means for the citizens of san francisco and we can send a message to the state of california of what this means for all working families and

those immigrant, newly arrived, continuing education, seniors, which essentially is how you would describe my entire district. i know many of you feel the same way so thank you. thank you for supervisor yee and others for their leadership as well over the years on this. thank you. >> supervisor: okay. supervisor, . >> thank you. 10 years, 20 years, for me my grandkids are 2 years old and in 20 years they could benefit from it. what the heck. i know the program will be so great by the time we get to 10 years i'll extend it so i'm not afraid it's not going to exist when my grand kids are old enough. i accept the amendments and have

no reservations about it. >> thank you, supervisor yee. supervisor stefani. >> thank you, president cohen. i want to commend supervisor kim for her legacy on providing free city college for all those who need it and something i believe in deeply. and also a member off the budget and finance committee and at the county clerk i can't divorce myself from my responsibility to what are the taxpayers and the general fund and i want to reiterate i believe all people from san francisco deserve access to quality affordable education. i believe free city college say

vital and invaluable program for every person who wants to further their knowledge and academic opportunities. i do want to see this continue in perpetuity. however, i want to see it done in a way that maximizes federal and state support for our students and creates a physically responsible and economically sustainable city college. i recognize there are students who cannot use federal or state aid and these the students for whom free city college is most important. we all know the voters approved city policy regarding set aside is not in line with this and set asides restrict our ability to handle changes in our economy and the sacramento b recorded california college made the opportunity for an associate's degree free for many. with the set-aside we're limited to respond to a change such as

this or any economic downturn. i am supportive but before i do, there's several questions that have not been answered and it's been accelerated through the rules committee and the latest financial aid report showed 40% of getting students to apply for financial aid. on the same report it shows the number of awards is down 50%. i don't know why that is. in july 3, presentation it shows a similar pattern from fall of 2016 to fall 2017 before and after free city college started. i want to know why the number of students seemed eligible for state aid dropped while enrollment increased by nearly 4,000 students. here's my worry, we're leaving $8.7 million on the table of federal and state aid and i'm supportive of free city college and a do not think there should

be any barriers at all to someone receiving a free education but i do worry about the set-aside. i approached supervisor kim earlier today about an amendment i'd like to see in this charter amendment and she said it was too late but i want to put it forward and ask my colleagues to consider it. an amendment that would have the board of supervisors adopt annual reporting requiring. say we would develop any reporting requirements by ordinance by march 1 of 2020. i have this amendment for people to take a look at. i think it's a common sense amendment. standard practice with other city set-asides an ensure tax dollars are used responsibly. i'd like to pass it out and ask to have it moved forward. i'll ask for a second. i don't know i'll get it but it's important for me as a

member of the budget and finance committee to make sure our tax dollars are spent wisely and we're not leaving $7.8 million of federal and state ate -- aid on the table and we're doing it in a way to take responsibility for every dollar we have to spend at the board of supervisors. i'd like to make a motion to move that amendment forward. >> supervisor: there's a motion on the floor. supervisor tang made a second. supervisor tang, i see your name on the roster. >> thank you. i too echo my thanks to supervisor kim and her staff and ivy lee now a trusty at city college for their work over the years on this. i had supported it back then

when this sent to us and i'm sure we'll try to find the answers. one is we did receive a letter from the chancellor's office which did state after nearly two years of administering the free city program in its current form, they're keenly aware it's not serving their students including the most vulnerable students and dig in to what that is to ensure all students are actually served by the free city program. again, i just wanted to look into that a little bit further. i had similar questions around the maximizing of resources for students whether it's through financial aid or other grants. i wanted to look further into that data and make sure all students are able to access

whatever resources they need so they don't have barriers to attend city college. and i feel personally about that. i family members who serve as financial aid counselors at city college here in san francisco. the other thing brought to my attention is there may be a new funding model as well for city college. so wanting to understand that and how that plays into the amount of money we as a city million will be providing. i support the program and concept i just wanted some questions answered. i'll take some offline with supervisor kim. thank you for your work on this. as i said to supervisor stefani and brun, i know both had suggested amendments but it was

not time for me to work with our coalition and have them see it. we didn't have time to vet it with them. what i will say is this board via ordinance can do many things and we'll have to have an oversight committee to make sure the dollars are constantly being sent down and supervisor mandelman will take the ordinance and they can go into the oversight committee analysis. keep in mind, the charter amendment guarantees we'll fully fund the program. we won't understand fund as we have in the first two years of the pilot program. this is the reality. there's different competing means in our buckdget and the

mayor was only allocating $5.4 million to the program. >> mayor lee at the time only felt comfortable contributing $5.4 million of the $28 million of the program. this board through its very limited budget was able to add $1 million. it's a huge sum of money considering the $20 million we get to play with but it will never be able to add another $5 million to $01 -- $10 million. and we fought or the revenue. it's not revenue we're asking you to give. we fought for this revenue in 2016. however, it was so important to get our foot in the door and start free city we accept the lower stipend and still the cost

is probably closer to $8 million or $9 million according to csf or the controller's office and we have a provision on unspent spent funds and if the state bill passes, the controller shall maintain the fund separate and any amount in the fund unspent or uncommitted at the end of the fiscal year shall be carried forward to the next fiscal year subject to the budgetary and fiscal limitations an appropriated thereafter for the services specified. we also say we will put into the city reserve a total amount of 20% of the fiscal year's annual baseline and any funds in excess will be returned to the general fund. so in the first five years if the bill passes and see the cost has gone down from $15 million to $14