and when you add those together, it's still typically short of the minimum funding guarantees by the state. -- guaranteed by the state. and in those cases, the state fills in the gap to create that blue layer. so there are multiple sources that meet that state established guarantee, and the first sources are local property taxes, and eraf, and the state. in the case that's represented on the right hand column, the local property taxes plus the eraf exceed the state established minimum for the district in question. and when that happens, the amount in excess of that minimum guarantee actually stays with the county rather than coming to the school district. so this is what has happened as the city and county was closing its books for last fiscal year,

for 17-18, that was determined to be happening, really, for the first time. this is the first time that this has come to light, and that's really the circumstance behind this wind fall that's been reported over the last couple of weeks. so just important to note that there's no net change in funding to schools, so we're still getting funded at that minimum guarantee, where that red bar is, that red line. it's just coming from different sources. and of course, the amount above that red line on the right-hand side is the extra money that's surfaced about two weeks ago. so these numbers numbers represent the breakdown of that $415 million windfall. and this is, again, from the controller's office, so just

borrowing the work that he has already prepared and presented. so it's a $415 million total over two years, and the two years throuinclude last fiscal, which it's ended, and it's being closed, but the phenomenon is understand to be happening again this year, so that's why there are two years of this pattern happening. so it's $415 million of previously unexpected funds. and from that, there are about $78 million of contributions to baselines. this is various charter amendments that have been established mostly by -- or maybe exclusively, entirely by voter approved measures. and if you look at that third line under that list where it says schools and first five,

that is mostly representing the public education enrichment fund, of which sfusd receives two thirds directly, and then, the other third goes to early care and education and preschool for all. there's a small piece of that that also reflects the public education baseline, but if -- for our purposes, the great majority of that 13 million is peef. and then, the next list are contributions to reserves. and then, these were established by voter measures and most recently in 2014, prop c was passed by voters which broke out a separate school reserve. so there was -- usually, there's deposits to these -- in the past, before 2014, there

was one rainy day reserve that was for the schools and the city and county, and prop c, in 2014, established a separate, dedicated reserve for schools. and so that also represents some aspect of this 415 that's coming to sfusd with a contribution to that school reserve, that $26 million. so if you take about two thirds of that 13 million, which is about, say, 9 million, and the 26 million, that represents about $35 million of this 415 that, pursuant to charter provisions that have been approved by voters, will accrue to the benefit of sfusd. and then, if you take the total of the baseline contributions, the 77 million, the total of

the required deposits to reserves, 156 million, that leaves 181 million that is discretionary for the city and county. i know i'm going through numbers really fast. >> quickly, the children in tay baseline, does any of that come to the district? >> so that is the children's fund, so that -- that is one of the main sources of funding for the department of children, youth, and their families. and they -- they make -- they have various processes, r.f.p.s, etc., for allocating those funds. we do receive some funding through dcyf, so it's -- it's hard to say how much of that would end up coming to sfusd, but it would be through dcyf grant making, not directly to

sfusd. okay. so these slide basically summarize the current situation with this "windfall." and the next slides talk about something that's not related technically to the current situation with the city and county funds which is conceptually a question that comes up a lot when we think about the relative wealth of san francisco and why -- why sfusd doesn't see more funding than -- than, you know, many people would expect or would, you know, naturally intuit. >> there are basically about 800 districts, and those districts are where the excess -- i'm sorry, where the property tax revenues, without including eraf surpass the

minimal lcff entitlement. so let me justi toggle back. on the right-hand side, if you imagine the part of that column exceed the red line, that would make a district basic aid, but eraf cannot push a district into basic aid, and so that's our situation. so when -- when a school district has its base property tax allocation exceed its main entitlement, then, they keep the excess. and i'll spare you some of the details about the --

[inaudible] >> -- whereas basic aid districts are not -- lcff is kind of irrelevant to them. they're funded at the levels of their share at the local property tax. lastly, i did want to point out that we -- aside from property taxes, we did receive funding, as you know, from voter-approved measures involving the city and county. so the public education enrichment fund is very substantial funding stream for us, and in the current year, it's about $75 million, and

that's prior to this current situation with this excess eraf. and the rainy day reserve has a balance of about $44 million prior to the 26 million that's going to be fed, so to speak, by the eraf windfall -- the excess eraf windfall. so that includes the crash course in property taxes that we wanted to convey, and we'll be happy to try to answer any questions. >> president cook: we have speakers signed up for this item. alita fisher, i see you making your way. julia roberts. later, some people may not be here anymore.

cassandra curio, and mary wayne, and alison collins. >> i'm impressed by the budget concepts and how you take these huge tariff concepts and make then attainable to us mere more mortals. and where's commissioner haney? i'm preaching to the choir here, i know, but i can come across the street and say this again later, too. it's fine. but education's a civil right. education's a social safety net, and multiple studies have shown the correlation between high school drop out rates between under employment, incarceration rates.

in fact it seems to me that the best way to reduce our homelessness crisis, to address it, mitigate it a little bit might be to, i don't know, spend more money to educating our population, especially when the fund, as commissioner haney has previously pointed out, includes the name education. so thank you for all the work that you're doing here, and hopefully, we can share that message across the street. thank you very much. >> my name's julia roberts-fong. san francisco education association. >> i don't want to talk for three minutes. it's late. thanks for making sure it was only two.

yeah, so i have a feeling you're getting all the questions -- all the same questions or used my questions to prep. so super helpful. you know, again, you're preaching to the choir and want to offer the support of families to really advocate to make sure that sfusd receives resources from the eraf funds. i think it's important to remember that we're in this mess because san francisco's taking a really bold assistance and challenging the control that the driver's taxpayers association has had over the state for decades. and that san francisco voters have spoken and said that we want to invest in our k-12 schools but also in early childhood education and in housing, and we can't let orange county voters or orange county billionaires tell us that we can't. so the think the eraf money offers us an opportunity to sta standup and say we are going to

respect the promises made by san francisco voters. i think as we reflect on all the great work that's going on here tonight, many of the schools that spoke up tonight are schools that would stand to benefit under prop g, and i was especially struck by the good work that assistant supe nicky ford and others have been doing around teacher retainment in the bayview, and just how important it is to make sure that our teachers are able to stay in the city. so i want to offer the support of families to advocate that sfusd gets our fair share of this funding. it's been encouraging to see commissioner haney and commissioner walton and incoming supervisor gordon mahr make comments to that and i just want to ask you to fight hard for our incoming students. thank you. >> good evening.

i'd like to say good evening to the president and the superintendent and the commissioners -- all right. all right. okay. so my name is elaine meriwether, and i'm currently serving as vice president of united educators of san francisco. i know last year, before the implementation of prop g, we saw a vast number of our educators and paraeducators struggling in the city just to make ends meet. and also, many of them left because they couldn't afford to live here, so that was a crisis for sfusd. but within my current role, i get an opportunity to talk to parent educators and teachers priet often just to see --

quite often just to say how they're doing. many of them are excited about what prop g has done for them. it has changed many of their li lives. we know people who have decided to come to san francisco to teach here because of prop g, so prouz because -- because of this, we were able to recruit more teachers to teach in this district than ever before. so uesf is committed to our students and our educators, which is why we will continue to work with the district and the school board just to find some solutions. and we know that we have to work as a partner in this because we want a school system that's the 21st century that supports whole students,

provides adequate resources to our classrooms. that is what we all want. we're looking forward to working with the district to try to secure some of this funding for our students, for our educators. and i just want to say on behalf of united educators of san francisco, we want to thank the outgoing school board members. you have done a lot for the students in this city and the educators in this city, and i just want to personally say thank you from united educators of san francisco. >> president cook: thank you. comments kfrom commissioners? commissioner sanchez? >> thank you. thanks for the presentation. so what -- remind, what are the triggers for releasing rainy day fund -- funds?

>> so there are two. one is similar to what it used to look like before prop c in 2014, that in a year when there's a decrease in inflation adjusted per pupil revenues, and there's kind of an elaborate technical formula for that, the -- a majority of the board of education can -- can approve a draw of up to 50% of the balance -- the then-current balance in the school reserve, so that's one. and another provision is that -- that a super majority or two-thirds of the board, which would be five members, could approve a draw of up to the full amount or any amount less than the full amount of the reserve for any reason.

so that's different than it used to be, and that may be the more relevant part of available options, i guess, in this case. >> okay. and then what are some or if there are any long-term fixes for eraf for guaranteeing -- next year, we're projecting it will be about 200 million more in eraf funds. how can we ensure that the majority of those funds come to the school district? is that a resolution that needs to be proffered by the supervisors or is there another way? >> if we could hold aside the timing, one is to, as we

alluded to in this slide, one is to actually change the state law, the state law that's relevant to the distribution of the property taxes, so that's one mechanism. another mechanism might be to make a local decision whether it's through a ballot measure or local ordinance or decision that even though the funds are allocated per state law that there's a different subsequent commitment that's made from the city and county to -- to the school district. so that could be by, we imagine, through a ballot measure or it could be by ordinance or some other legislative mechanism, so working within the state -- the current state law, but just having another layer that would

differentiate funding that would eventually make it to sfusd. >> the m.t.a. is getting $38 million out of these eraf funds. is that in the charter? >> yeah. so each of these baselines that are on this list, m.t.a., library, schools and first five and so on, they each have a charter amendment that voters passed at different points in time that basically established the formulas and conditions by which these funds are being allocated to those purposes, so yes, m.t.a. does have a charter amendment. >> so to overturn that, that would have to go back to the voters? >> correct. >> okay. i just want to mention that, as it's pretty clear, that m.t.a. is getting more funds out of

eraf than the school district. >> that's correct. >> and there's some tree trimming. tree maintenance gets $2.1 million. >> president cook: commissioner haney? >> commissioner haney: i have a question and then more of a comment. so the state statute says that 33% of san francisco local property taxes will go to sfusd. why did -- why were we set at such a lower level, and there were some attempts or some conversations over the years to try to revisit that, and is that something that we've thought about. and then, as a related thing, it says that, on the next page,

8% to sfusd and 20% to eraf, which equals 33%. does the statute also set the percentage that goes to eraf versus directly or how -- how -- that -- i imagine that -- what is -- and obviously, eraf came much later than -- than the statute that decided it was 33%. so how was that balance decided? why do we not get -- i mean, could we not necessarily -- basically, to restate commissioner sanchez' point, what about not changing the 33%, but changing the balance of it so that we get a greater percentage, although i guess that would set us at the revenue limit sooner. so how is that balance done? >> so -- so the 33% is -- is

our derivation of these two together. so it's the 8% that was established by assembly bill 8 almost 40 years ago. so that's -- that's 8% of the 33%. and then, as you pointed out, commissioner haney, there was a second event that happened in 1992 that was also codefied in state law when the eraf was established. so the 25% that shifted into e raf, we' -- eraf, we're doing the math and saying the figures through both of those combination

figure up the 33%. >> and if i could add to your suggestion about changing that mix, for example, lowering eraf and just giving it to a school district as straight property taxes wouldn't really benefit the school district unless you exceed that threshold of 500 -- of the lcff limit because as excess eraf, the school district's unentitled to keep that, to make that basic aid. but if it came as the other form of property tax, it would have to exceed a total revenue limit for the school district to be able to retain that, which it's not likely to happen. >> why would it change the overall amount if we had a -- so if we had a greater percentage of it coming -- i guess it would still require us

going back to the state and making a legislative change to increase the amount that we would receive overall, whether it's to eraf or -- or -- or changing the percentages. one way or another, we'd have to change the state law to do that. why is it so much lower than anywhere else? it's not much lower than the average. it's the lowest of any county, right? >> we found one county, i think it's alpine county, but that county apparently has a -- has an even lower percent of its property taxes that go to the school districts in -- in the county, but that's the only drk-out of 58 counties, so i guess we're second lowest. and we don't know much about the circumstances of that

particular county. aswe're second lowest. and we don't know much about the circumstances of that particular county. asguess we're second lowest. and we don't know much about the circumstances of that particular county. aswe're second lowest. and we don't know much about the circumstances of that particular county. as far as why the rates were established that way in 1978, we don't have any information. >> it feels very arbitrary. >> so -- so with -- take this with a grain of salt because we haven't done exhaustive research about this. but our understanding is that whatever the rates happened to be for a whole variety of different reasons back in 1979, when ab-8 was established, it took a freeze frame, it took a picture, a snapshot of the then-current rated and enshrined them into law. and those proportions are

still -- are still in effect unless maybe -- there may be jurisdictions that did tweak their proportions since then. we don't know about that, but in general, that whatever the allocations were or happened to be back in 1979 is -- is the basis -- you know, that still dominates how things were in the present day, and that's still true in san francisco. >> so the fact that we received it in fiscal year 16-17 and 18-19 would suggest there's some ongoing nature to this fund. would there be any reason to believe that the city is not going to continue to receive it at some level? what would have to happen for this money to disappear next

year? >> so -- this is borrowing from the controller's analysis, so i hope we get this right. but one possibility -- again, it's unlikely that this would happen next year. not sure, but it's conceivable that the state law could change in a way that disadvantages the distribution locally. so for example, if you keep in mind that the fund is that he ae retains in t-- is that -- t the funding that's in the city and county reduces relationship between these three or four counties keeping the excess eraf and the state budget, so

it is hypothetically possible because this phenomenon is creating more pressure on the state budget, especially with the magnitude of san francisco just by itself, it is "anow th largest impact on the state budget, it's my understanding there are four counties that have been in this situation before, and san francisco is the latest of the group. but none of them by themselves is the magnitude of san francisco. so i guess there's some hypotheticalal possibility that the state could -- hypothetical possibility that the state could change the allocation rules in a way that results in less of this being recaptured by the city and county. so that's one possibility. then, the other possibility is that as lcff changes, as local property tax collections change, both of those are sort of dynamic, that the amount of

the excess will -- will vary. but having said all of that, the controller has estimated that on a going forward basis that this phenomenon would -- unless, you know, there are drastic changes in either state law or revenue collections or lcff, that there would be about 200 to $250 million of excess eraf allocations going forward. >> okay. so a couple things on that. well, so -- so in order for it to change -- well, but we have a sense of how the lcff is going to go up and how that would affect the revenue limits. it would have to go up a lot, which would be the good thing, and then, the excess would be

less. but we would be getting more money because our revenue money would be going up in that sense, and that would lead to less excess summicoming back t city. or the property taxes would have to go down, which we think is unlikely. or the state would have to basically say thanks, san francisco. you're going to subsidize everybody else's -- yeah, all of those things sound unlikely. well, last thing i'll say, it seems to me that, you know, this is a inequity that, you know, we're getting screwed here as a district, and it's a fu fundamental challenge for a district that is in a city that's growing tremendously with revenue, and we're not getting any additional funds as a result of that to address the cost of living challenges that

our educators are facing that comes with living in a city with growing inequality. so it seems to me that whatever happens this year in terms of the distribution of it, that there's a very strong case that this money on an ongoing basis should come to sfusd, not to the county. and that that would help to address i think some of the -- i mean, build in inequity that has us getting 33%, which is way less than anyone else, and a city that's growing in terms of property taxes, and we're not seeing a share of that. so i would like us to consider how -- how to make that case moving forward. i'm sure the city would not like it, but in reality, it seems to be a way to address

this inequity in the district in terms of paying our staff and funding our needs. so i know one thing at a time, but in addition to the money that we need to cover prop g, which is essential and immediate, there's a longer term question here about how we either address this locally or address it at the state level. >> president cook: thank you. and for the record, 1100 people living in alpine county. commissioner norton. >> commissioner norton: somebody should make you a supervisor. has anybody thought of that? in all seriousness, did -- it -- it sounded like you were saying that some -- that some counties may have -- we're not necessarily sure which ones, may have changed their

allocations reflect -- from -- from what is in ab-8, the 1979 law, is that correct? >> so commissioner, just thank you for that clarifying question. we don't know. we don't know that that's not true, nor do we have any evidence that that has -- that that was true. i was just kind of speculating on that question. >> commissioner norton: i guess what i'm trying to get at is it is actually possible for a county to change that allocation. >> yes. >> commissioner norton: so it doesn't require state law. the county could make a different situation. >> i see. so in order to change the initial distribution of the property taxes, it's our understanding that that does require a change in state law. what i was saying a few minutes ago is it is possible that after that initial distribution is made, that the local jurisdiction could -- could

make a subsequent -- a super imposed decision to -- to allocate more funds within its jurisdiction to -- to -- you know, to school entity or any other entity within the jurisdiction. we -- we think that's possible, but you can't -- you can't change the initial allocation of property taxes to across the jurisdictions without a change in state law. >> commissioner norton: and have we talked to -- to our fo -- you know, like, what t whatchamacallit -- i'm sort of interested on the statewide level, this seems like a pretty -- it seems like there

could be other districts that would -- could benefit from a more equitiable distribution of property tax across the -- enough to get votes in the lem the legislature to make this change? you said a lot of districts get 54%, and we're at 33%? so is there a way to kind of get more districts on board with this idea of rationalizing this law? >> so 54% is the statewide average, so that's -- so there are some that are -- that are above the average and some like us that are below the average. i think just sort of as a practical matter, it becomes a

political question as much as anything else because the way that the law's changed, not to insult anyone's intelligence, but you know, it requires the -- the legislators to approve the proposed changes. and i think it would -- there would be reason to expect that each legislator who's considering that type of proposal would -- would try to consider the, you know, multiple sometimes competing interests of -- of the entities within their respective jurisdictions. and so -- so there is somewhat of a zero sum relationship with -- with these proposals. and so i think -- you know, frankly, in most of these cases, and, you know, very likely in ours, it would be -- it would make a big difference if there was consensus or buy

in about the proposal among the stakeholders within a jurisdiction rather than sort of, you know, one side in favor or one size opposed, and then looking to the assembly member or state senator to sort of pick a side or adjudicate the dispute, if that makes sense. >> it just seems like it's just in general, a kind of weird way for the state to fund schools, right? like either we say, you know, this is the percentage of property tax that should be -- you know, or here's a formula to determine what percentage of your property tax should go to schools, rather than this kind of arbitrary snapshot. it's -- to me, it seems like there's a good government argument to be made here, but i take your point. yeah, i think we need to -- i look forward to hearing more about our plan to advocate for

this because we need to -- this is really -- this is really wrong. and i feel like the district is just getting screwed coming and going on this, you know? we got screwed back in 1979, and we're getting screwed -- it just seems like we've got a really strong case to make, we just need to make it, so i look forward to learning how we're going to do that and how the board can help. >> president cook: well, i appreciated the ongoing updates and all of the efforts that have been made to d-- it seems like a lot of our funding, a lot of our staffing is to keep us above. a lot of it is how do we change

the charter so that more funding comes to schools, and we don't have a lot of ongoing efforts on maneuvering that, so that's a decision i think we have to start -- those are the things we have to start to do so that when stuff like this comes up, you know, we're not in a position where m.t.a. is getting way more because in the charter, they have a baseline. you know, we have to change the charter. every area where schools get funded, if there are opportunities to move those things, as a district, i think we should be focused on moving those things, and so that's, like, a staffing decision that we have to make as a board and -- and being that this is a situation that we're in, i know there's ongoing discussions about how this 181 is going to be allocated, and we'll see where all that lands.

but i think there's also a case to be made for everyone that's getting a portion through the reserve to put that towards schools or towards education in some way. and so if m.t.a. is getting 38 million, the free muni for youth costs 2 million at its current levels. so at 38 million, they can make it free for every kid. and if the tree -- if our arborists are getting 2.1 million, that should be higher for our graduates -- like, everyone should be thinking did -- 'cause i'm assuming that everyone's funding is unrestricted, so they're going to have to make decisions about where that money should be going. and so all of it should be figuring out how do we add value to our kids in the city. and then, this whole discussion where anyone goes, discussions

are already being had, and i look forward to participating in those and supporting to the best of our ability. but long-term, i'm interested in seeing what we can do to make our district a basic aid district, and how can we make that higher to get that to the state average of 54%. and even if we do accomplish those things, it still won't be enough. but thank you for the update, and if there are no other questions, we'll move over to the next item. thank you. good night. section i, consent calendar items removed at previous

meeting. there are none. j., introduction of proposals and assignments to committee. there are none tonight. we moved up section k. section l, board members reports. let's see, we have the rules committee on november 14 -- it's already been updated. building and grounds had a meeting on november 26. that's either commissioner haney or molagi want to talk about -- [inaudible] >> president cook: we'll come back to the committee as a

whole. so for the committee of the whole report, vice president sanchez reported on those items earlier. for buildings and grounds, i believe we had those reports out earlier. board delegates membership organizations, all other -- commissioner merase? >> commissioner murase: yeah. so we participated in the c.a.c. annual education conference? i shared with some of the colleagues some of the challenges with this year's conference because the marriott was a headquarters hotel, and of course, there was a labor dispute that has since been resolved, but at the time, it prevented from many of us participating in events at the marriott because we wanted to stand in solidarity for our

workers. so to what extent should we continue to be engaged with csba given the fact that they really put school board members at risk in insisting that the marriott remain their headquarter hotel. but the conference itself was held across the street at moscone west. i hosted two workshops, one on ending sexual harassment in schools and the second one on human trafficking curriculum? my colleague, commissioner norton was on a panel on our math sequence, which is gaining so much attention nationally for the amazing results, the impact it's had on formerly underperforming subgroups, so i wanted to just give that

report. and if i may just make one announcement of an upcoming -- this actually isn't my last formal school board meeting. i'll be well coming students to a meeting where we will be starting to do some planning for the world languages council. >> president cook: thank you. all right. commissioner moliga, did you want to do an update for buildings and grounds? >> so we meet with our building and grounds committee, and we went over the mission bay update, and they recently just had a community outreach event to collect more data and information on how to roll out the school. they're moving into phase two, which is -- is a -- it's

actually a success for the process. and -- and i know that they've also been working on this title transfer, which hopefully, they're trying to close out by march or april, i think is what she said. i actually went out there to check out the school site, and there's a lot of energy, you know and excitement in the community. >> president cook: okay. and we had an appointment by commissioner moliga, as well. >> i'm appointing leah vandermay to complete her term on the budget oversight committee. >> president cook: all right. any other reports by commission members? all right. let's see we'll announce the new committee members and the

meetings at the january 14 board meeting. section m, other informational items, there are none tonight. section n, memorial adjournment. there's no memorial adjournment. at this time, we'll take public comment for those who have submitted speaker cards for closed session. seeing none, session o, closed session. the boa >> president cook: we are back in session in the regular

meeting. the parties have stipulated to the expulsion of one high school student, matter 2018 number three from the district for the remainder of the fall semester 2018 to the end of spring semester 2019. the parties have further agreed to suspend the enforcement of the expulsion pending the student's successful completion of the agreed upon rehabilitation plan. may i ask for a second? >> second. >> president cook: roll call please, miss casco. [roll call] >> clerk: six ayes. >> president cook: number two, this is our report from closed session on several matters of anticipated litigation, the board gave direction to general

counsel, in the matter of 2018100461, the board, by a vote of six yois, one absent, walton, gives the authority to the district to faa up to the stipulated amount. in the matter of chavez frank versus sfusd case number sdj 884521, the board by a vote of six ayes, one absent, walton, gives authority to the district to pay up to the stipulated amount. that concludes the board meeting. this meeting's adjourned. food

just about expensive eat but food for everyone and there's organizations in the city that are doing really good work making sure that healthy food it assessable to everyone. more and more as follows are are becoming interested in upper arlthd they want to joy the open green pace sea know where their food it coming from we'll look at 3 programs talking ushering

agricultural and garden to new heights. so what exactly it, your honor agricultural >> it the growing food or flowers within city limits traditionally we've been referring to communities gardener that is a raised bed over and over upper argument has a more a farming way of farming. >> so tell me 0 what's growing in this garden. >> a really at all plant. in the one of the rare places, you know, people have access to green space 24 is one of the places to grow things like the purple floor.

it is sort of recognizing that the more diversity in given space the better not to just have one thing by everything supported each another >> it provides the community with an opportunity to get their hands dirty and reach 0 out and congressmen with the community in ways they might have not otherwise to engage with one other. >> now the dpw urban planning program so see how the garden community. >> so i grew up on a farm in air force base we picked the foods open the trees and share with other families and as i drive around san francisco i see any trees with apples or mrumdz

and lemon trees i can see the food going to waste and brought that idea back to the department many of the trees where the fruit would go to waste we origin or crop and pick other fruits and delivery this to food banks or shelters to people who need them. >> i'm here with nang wong hello nang. >> hello. >> i need to understand house this gleaning work. >> we come and harvest like for example, we'll come over here this is the lemon and plug it like this. >> (laughter). >> made that good, good and ease. >> the trick is how not to hurt the branches. >> like the thing.

>> i'm so excited about this. the people are so passionate about where the food goes to the private property owners give us the food they're happy that no of a t is going to waste >> oh. thank you. thank you. again job aura natural >> (laughter). >> from backyards to back lots let's take a look at the food and community bonding at the free farm. >> my idea was to start growing food and giving it away. and getting my neighbors to who had space and having a kind of

event that brings people together not to run our food program this time around but to share the wealth of the abundance of our welfare. we were all divorce and as part of our philosophy of working together and working together. >> what's the most rewarding aspect of volunteering for the free farm stand. >> well, we could is a generalic satisfaction but something about giving food away it's giving something i brought that in and sort it and gave it to you it's primitive to be able to give something some basically to someone else. >> now serving number to 49 come on down.

>> we have the capability of producing this food and in san francisco you can grow food all year round so the idea we're capable of prougdz food in our own backyards we're here to demonstrate an bans of food and i think that giving it away for free we show individuals it in have to be a comedy. >> we build time together and it's the strength of any ideas of the connections we'll turn that connection and the more connections you make no mistake about it the more you can have a stronger power and not have to rely on money that's the people

power. >> in this episode we've seen the urban farms and gardens provide more in fruits and vegetation people can have the special produce available it can be a place to give back by donating food to others and teach our children the connection to the earth and environment it's truly

>> the hon. london breed: hello, everyone. good afternoon, and thank you so much for being here today. if anyone wants to come down to the front, there are a number of seats where you can join us. i called my aunt today, and i was about four years old about 40 years ago -- oh, did i just tell my age? and i wanted to get an idea for what was going on during that time. and my aunt said, you know, my grandmother, who raised me, she said ms. brown, who was tough as nails, she ne