>> chair fewer: okay. hello. welcome. could you please introduce yourself. >> hi. good morning, chair, members of the budget and finance subcommittee. my name is gloria wu. i'm with the mayor's office of housing and community development? and we would like to thank you for sponsoring this resolution? so the city through the mayor's office of housing and community development had the opportunity to apply for a state grant for construction costs to -- for a community center in the richmond district. and our office, mohcd went through a procurement process, and we selected c.y.c.

c.y.c. is here today if there's any question. due to the state process, they require us to have a board resolution to accept -- to apply for, accept the grant, along with their terms and conditions, as well as to expend the grant. that's why we're here today. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. there is no b.l.a. report, and let's open this up for public comment. are there any members of the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is now closed. i'd like to make a motion to move this to the board with a positive recommendation. if we can do that without objection, thank you very much. [gavel]. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. >> thank you very much. >> chair fewer: madam clerk, can you please read item 6. [agenda item read]. >> chair fewer: thank you very much, and we have kathy widener

here from the san francisco international airport. >> good morning, chair fewer, members of the committee. kathy widener with the san francisco international airport. the item before you seeks for a new contract with rilo corporation. the lease has a ten-year term with a minimum annual guarantee of $310,000. the proposed lease is the result of a competitive request for proposals with rilo management being the highest scoring proposer. this is a set aside lease opportunity which is intended to attract smaller businesses to business opportunities at the airport. the budget analyst's office has reviewed the lease and recommends approval, but i would be happy to answer any questions. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. let's hear from the b.l.a.,

please. >> we summarize the terms of these in table two, page 28 of our report. the tenant would pay the greater of either the minimum annual guarantee of 310,000 per year in the initial year or percentage rent. the airport does expect to gain percentage rent which would be higher through this lease, and we recommend approval. >> chair fewer: thank you very much, miss campbell. let's open this up for public comment. any members of the public wish to comment on item number 6? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel]. >> chair fewer: i'd like to take a motion to move this forward to the full board with a positive recommendation and we can do that without objection. [gavel]. >> chair fewer: madam clerk,

would you please read item 7. [agenda item read]. >> chair fewer: hello. so please introduce yourself. >> good morning, chair fewer and members of the committee. my name is michael hyams, i'm the public director for the s.f. public utilities commission. this is a contract for renewable energy to be delivered during calendar years 2020 and 2021. for the benefit of the public, cleanpowersf is san francisco's community choice agregation policy, adopted by the board of supervisors and the mayor that provides clean power services to the city and county of san francisco? cleanpowersf has been serving customers since may 2016 and completed citywide enrolment in

the program in april of this year. all costs associated with the contract will be paid from cleanpowersf revenues and the total costs are within cleanpowersf contracts covering the contracted delivery period. this will help us serve the significant growth and customer demand resulting from our cleanpowersf enrollment efforts in the last year. with this, we predict we'll be able to meet its green target of 50% renewable target by 2020. the negotiated contract meets all other applicable conditions set by the board of supervisors for contract renewals for cleanpowersf, and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> chair fewer: thank you. let me hear from the b.l.a. >> this resolution approves a

two-year contract between cleanpowersf and southern california edison. there's currently a one-year contract with southern california edison for the same product. the total cost over the term is $15.8 million. this would come from sf revenues, and we recommend approve. >> chair fewer: thank you. let's open this up for public comment. any members of the public wish to comment on item 7? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel]. >> chair fewer: i'd like to accept a motion to move this to the full board with a positive recommendation. we can do that without objection. [gavel]. >> chair fewer: thank you. madam clerk, please read item 8. [agenda item read].

>> chair fewer: thank you very much. and i believe we have a representative from supervisor safai's office. >> yes. i'm very excited to be here today to talk about this amendment. it's to reflect a $1 million additional investment from the city to go towards the rehabilitation of two properties, 35 and 45 onondaga. this will improve the hvac, and the electricity so we can welcome in two incoming tenants, clinic by the bay and ar art span. we are very grateful for the mayor for this additional investment to allow this capital project to take place, and we look forward to a

positive recommendation so we can welcome these two tenants into their long-term home. i am happy to answer any questions if necessary. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. can we hear from the b.l.a., please. >> the board of supervisors previously approved two leases between the nonprofit clinic by the bay for 35 onondaga, and art span for 25 onondaga. at that time, the city was going to contribute $410,000 for improvements to the building. since that time, the improvements have been more expensive than originally contracted, so this is a request to increase the cost by

$1 million to $1.4 million, and the tenants would cover the rest of the costs. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. let's open this up for public comment. any members of the public like to comment on item number 8? seeing none, public comment is now closed. [gavel]. >> chair fewer: so the b.l.a. says this is a policy matter before the board. i'd like to make a positive recommendation to move this -- i mean, move this to the board with a positive recommendation. can we take that without objection? thank you very much. [gavel]. >> chair fewer: madam clerk, can you please call item number 9? [agenda item read].

>> chair fewer: thank you very much. i thought my speaker was going to be supervisor aaron peskin, but maybe not. >> supervisor peskin: i'm happy to make some comments, chair fewer. >> chair fewer: yeah, please. >> supervisor peskin: let me start out by saying that i have some comments prosecute supervis -- from supervisor stefani, but before i make those comments, i disclose that i have been a member of the south bay rowing club since 1992, but i don't have a conflict as i have not been on the board of directors or an officer of the club and am situated as are hundreds of members of this club are. the club was established in 1873 and has been in the current location since 1938. it is open to the public as various days -- at various days of the week and complements the

club next door door, the dolphin club. the new 25-year lease will help defray capital improvements that will be extended to build out the women's locker room facility at the club. i encourage you, colleagues, if you ever want to see it, you are always welcome to come down. jackie will regale with the terms of the lease, but i want to thank jackie and daina with the south bay rowing club who have been having these conversations with several different members and finally recommending the park commission for recommending this lease to the full board of supervisors. >> chair fewer: thank you very much, and i'm assuming you're

jackie. >> yes, i am. >> chair fewer: will you introduce yourself. >> supervisor peskin: jackie, put that microphone right here. >> good morning, supervisors. i'm jackie with the rec and parks department, and i'm here to request your support for the approval of the south bay rowing club lease, and then item 10, which is the golden gate yacht club lease. these provide recreation on and in the san francisco bay. so as supervisor peskin mentioned, the south end rowing club is located at aquatic club, and that the club was established in 1873. i just also wanted to mention that some of the other offerings included, in addition to rowing and swimming include hand ball and running groups. the active club membership is very active, and the club is managed by volunteers in leadership and service positions, and i wanted to

highlight the requirement of a membership switch for managing of the club such as planning for clubhouse and dock maintenance projects and for repairs. and also as supervisor peskin mentioned, in 2016, there was a capital improvement project that not only expanded and created the new women's locker room but also created a new workout room, as well, and these improvements would not have been possible without the strong membership base. i just wanted to show some photos of recreation in the bay and around the bay. in july, the water's about 58°, and here's some photos from the annual alcatraz ininvitational event. as the supervisor mentioned, the clubhouse is open to the public for three days a week for a $10 public access fee. day use visitors can use the

facilities to change and shower for swim in the bay, and volunteers are present during those public access days and hours to greet the visitors and to give them a tour of the clubhouse and also to provide tips and information on swimming regarding the tides and the winds in the bay for safety. any changes to the south end or dolphin club hours for access require department approval, and the department and south end has open communication regarding maintaining public access. here are some of the other services available for the public visitors such as the hand ball courts and the workout room. the proposed lease terms, as the supervisor mentioned, the proposed term is 24 years, with one 24-year option to extend at the city's discretion.

we will be updating the boundaries of the premises per an m.o.u. that we have with sf port, so this will now include the entire dock and access view at -- via the hyde street pier. and maintenance will continue to be paid for by the premises with no cost to the city, and we will update the language in the lease. thank you very much. happy to take your questions. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. let's hear from the b.l.a., please. >> yes. on the 500 jefferson street lease, the board is being asked to approve a new 25-year lease with the south end rowing club and the rec and parks department. the south end rowing club made about $2.6 million in capital improvements to their site.

they want a lease that will advertise those costs offer the 25-year term. the terms are largely the same as in the existing less. the actual rent is variable from year to year. so we actually have two recommendations on this lease. one is to amend the resolution. one is to urge the rec and park department to extend the hours or days to which the -- excuse me -- the lease site is available to the general public. the other is to, under the current lease, the tenant has the option to extend for 24 hours at the tenants sole option. we believe that language needs to be change at the city's option, and we recommend approval. >> chair fewer: thank you very much, miss campbell. let's open this up for public comment. any members of the public like to comment on this item?

>> thank you. my name is peter ross. i've been a south end member for the past 31 years, and a former president, and just really want to thank rec and park, and jackie and daina in their partnership in negotiating this new lease. we've had a relationship with rec and park for 81 years. we're looking for another 49 to tack on to that. it's a really great partnership, and we respect being stewards of this public asset, so thank you. >> chair fewer: any other comment? seeing none, public comment is now closed. [gavel]. >> chair fewer: any comments from my colleagues? i understand there are two recommendations from the b.l.a. >> supervisor peskin: so my understanding is insofar as the second period is at the city's

sole discretion, i think that takes care of the recommendation from the budget analyst. >> chair fewer: i believe there are two recommendations. so one recommendation was to urge that the south end rowing club and the delta club be accessible to the public for all hours. >> supervisor peskin: and i believe supervisor stefani and this supervisor opposes that. the site is accessible by the public every day except for sunday. also, it's one of the least expensive options for water contract in the city and county of san francisco. >> chair fewer: the second recommendation was to amend the lease to extend the lease solely at the city's

discretion. >> and we amended the lease. >> chair fewer: you are rejecting the first option -- amendment because you're saying that the way the contract is written out is they either have access to the dolphin club or to the south end rowing club. >> supervisor peskin: that is correct. >> chair fewer: okay. so i'd like to make a motion or would you -- >> supervisor peskin: i would be happy to send the item as presented by staff of recreation and parks to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> chair fewer: okay. we can take that without objection. [gavel]. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. can you please read item number 10. [agenda item read]. >> chair fewer: okay. and i believe we have

supervisor peskin speaking on this, also. >> supervisor peskin: i will defer to rec and park for their presentation on this 18-year lease extension. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. >> thank you very much, supervisor. may i have the projector again. so the golden gate yacht club is located in the harbor. it was founded in 1938. the golden gate yacht membership is very inl invested in the club. the golden gate yacht club provides an affordable opportunity to participate in the yachting community as boat ownership is not a requirement for membership. regarding public access, the public may visit the clubhouse

for the day use fee for $10 on the same day for club members, which is thursday and friday evenings and saturday and sundays. the clubhouse is also available to rent for weddings and parties and other functions. any changes to public access will require department approval, and the department and golden gate yacht club have an open communication about maintaining and providing public access to the clubhouse. here's some photo example ofs sailing events on the bay or enjoying or being in them. regarding the proposed lease terms, it's an 18-year lease with no option to extend. the lease will also include a hectare bar maintenance assessment, which will be paid with the rent. the department will use these funds for harbor maintenance projects, such as dredging. the lease will require the

golden gate yacht club to establish a maintenance fund for building repairs and future capital projects, and so annually, the requirement will be to deposit 3% of gross receipts or $45,000, whichever is less. and the golden gate yacht club has been holding a student program, and i'll explain a little bit more about the program in the following slide. the lease is until updating the -- also updating the premises to reflect the lease configuration. the youth sailing program is open to san francisco high school students. they take about 15 to 20 students per semester. students from san francisco unified schools come from various schools. financial aid is available.

the students must know how to swim. >> chair fewer: excuse me. they charge for this program? >> yes, they do. >> chair fewer: what is the cost? >> $400. >> chair fewer: so it's $400 for a session? >> for a semester term. >> chair fewer: for a semester term. how often do they go out on the water? >> so after school, they have classroom insfrutruction, and then, they go out on the water. >> chair fewer: and how many students do they instruct? >> 15 to 20. >> chair fewer: 15 to 20 students at $400 apiece. and how many scholarships do they give out? >> i'm not sure. >> chair fewer: do you have any demographic information on the students that he serve? >> hello, members of the board.

i'm leslie iacopi, and the president of our sailing foundation. the questions you're asking with regard to our youth sailing, we have a foundation which subsidizes the inner city youth kids from the high schools that we are trying to serve so that they are able to attend for free with the subside gee, and then, people, parents -- there's other kids whose parents are members. they will pay the $400 per semester to participate, but we open it up to the general public and the kids that are -- it's a way of druzing children who would not normally have an opportunity to be out on the water? >> chair fewer: sure, i guess it, but i wanted to know how many subsidies you give out annually? >> i would at least 50% of kids come from the high schools that are not able to pay.

>> chair fewer: so 50% of the students -- so year-round, you take 15 to 20 students, but that's not annually. >> it's per semester. >> chair fewer: per semester, so that's about 30 to 40 students a year. >> that's correct. >> chair fewer: and 30 to 40 students, 50% of them are on subsidy. is that right, commodore? >> this is not money that -- this is money that we utilize so that kids can come to the regattas. that money does not come to the clubs. it's maintenance for the boats that we use in the regattas, and money for the coaches. we have seven certified sailing coaches that take kids out twice a week. >> chair fewer: thank you very

much. can we have a b.l.a. report? >> yes. the resolution -- actually, the ordinance approveds a new 18-year lease with the yacht club and recreation and park department. the rent is set at 10% of gross revenues with a minimum rent in the first year of $85,000. the minimum amount over the life of the lease that the parks and rec would get is $18 million. we recommend approval as amended. >> chair fewer: could i have public comment -- okay. let's open this up for public comment. any members of the public like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel]. >> chair fewer: so i'd like to amend the proposed ordinance to

encompass what the b.l.a. recommended and move this forward to the full board with a positive recommendation. [gavel]. >> chair fewer: madam clerk, please read item 11. [agenda item read]. >> chair fewer: thank you very much, madam clerk. abigail maher from rec and park, is that right? thank you. >> thank you. good morning, chair fewer. my name is abigail maher with the recreation and parks department. i'm here to ask for an in-kind grant from the trust for public land for buchanan street mall. this is a five-block

pedestrians mall between eddy street and gough street. it's located in supervisorial district 5. this in-kind grant is for project management, planning and design services, and community engagement to develop a concept plan for the five blocks. in addition to funding a concept plan, the trust for public land is also working towards raising additional funds for construction documents. the value of the grant for the concept plan and the construction documents is approximately $770,000. we are requesting accept and expend authority for about $30,000 more in the event the plans and costs are expanded for this project.

once the plan is ready, department will bring it to the board for approval. that concludes my presentation. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. there isn't a b.l.a. report on this, so let 'open it up for public -- let's open it up for public comment. any members of the public want to comment on item 11. seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel]. >> chair fewer: i just wanted to mention, it is time that buchanan street mall is activated. i think it is a huge step to serving residents in that area. any comments from my colleagues? seeing none, i'd like to make a motion to move this forward to the full board with a positive recommendation. [gavel]. >> chair fewer: madam clerk, can you please read item 12.

[agenda item read] . >> chair fewer: thank you very much. i believe we have graham dobson from the office of early care and education. >> yes, good morning chair fewer and members of the committee. i'm graham dobson, policy analyst of the office of early care and education. our department requests modification to -- permission to modify the preschool grant with the san francisco unified school district for a new total grant amount of $17,956,240, and to extend the term to june 30, 2021. as part of the preschool for all program, we directly prove

79 pre-k classroom of early education and special education students. -- to inform kindergarten readiness practices when students transition from pre-k to kindergarten. i'm available to answer any questions regarding these services. john sutikawa can also answer questions regarding the contract process. >> chair fewer: thank you. let's hear from the b.l.a., please. >> this is an extension to the contract approved between the department and the program preschool for all. for two years, the annual expenditures would be about $3.4 million per year. there is a 10% contingency over

the two-year intention of the contract. because the residents do provide for a contract amount of $17.9 million, our budget shows a contract of $17 million. therefore, we request amending the contract to $17 million, and we recommend approval. >> chair fewer: mr. dobson, you are aware of this recommendation? >> yes. >> chair fewer: and you are in agreement? >> yes, we are. >> chair fewer: thank you. i'd like to open this up for public comment. are there any members of the public that would like to come forward? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel]. >> chair fewer: i'd like to make a motion to move this item to the full board as amended. can we do that without

objection? [gavel]. >> chair fewer: madam clerk, please read item 14. [agenda item read]. >> chair fewer: thank you very much, and with us, we have today supervisor gordon mar to speak on this issue. >> supervisor mar: yeah, thank you so much, chair fewer. sorry. this came up a little sooner

than i thought. but yeah, thank you so much for allowing us to actually hear this item today. i just wanted to make some brief sort of opening, framing remarks. so this conversation has always been about wealth inequality, the driving force behind the multiple crises facing our city. all of the greatest challenges we face are rooted in economic inequality, housing affordability and homelessness, gentrification and the exploitation of workers whose labor creates the immense wealth in our city but who seldom share in it. we do have a moral obligation to create a more economically just city. san francisco has the highest income gap in the nation, the highest housing costs in the nation, and the highest concentration of billionaires anywhere in the world. the majority of people, our

constituents, feel the negative impacts of this every day. these are not problems unique to our city, but here, they are uniquely urgent. for decades in our country, we've seen a massive redistribution of wealth from the working people towards the top 1%, exacerbated by divesting from social services, attacks on the labor movement, and tax breaks from big corporations at the expense of every day people. and here in san francisco, we've seen the result. wealthy corporations receive big tax breaks while small businesses shutter, and new industries seek to redefine the nature of work, to cut pay and benefits while working people struggle to get by, and young people, families, seniors, and entire communities worry about their future in our city. in the face of an

inprecedent -- unprecedented number of wealthy individuals of large corporation, we held a hearing, and through that hearing, we learned that i.p.o.s have a measurable impact on these crises, significantly increasing income and wealth inequality, which is why i introduced a payroll tax for stock-based compensation to recapture the wealth san francisco helped to create. it is in fact not a new tax but a restoration of a tax that existed prior to 2012. in the coalition that was build around this measure, it came clear that the stock compensation tax should be one part of a broader strategy to

build a more just city but is not itself a comprehensive solution. so today, i'm announcing that we are committed to developing this comprehensive solution. i will be making a motion to table this legislation. in the coming weeks, we will be tabling the stock compensation tax on the 2020 ballot, and i would like to invite ted conroy to make a presentation -- ted egan to make a presentation on the economic impact analysis. mr. egan? >> good morning, supervisors. ted egan from the controller's office. our office issued an economic

report on this item this morning, and if i can bring it up on the screen, i'll walk you through some of the highlights and conclusions of that report. as supervisor mar indicated,

this tax, which is a tax of 1.12% on the stock-based compensation of businesses subject to the payroll tax in the city would effectively raise that tax to 1.5%, which is the rate that it was at prior to the business tax reform efforts the city undertook in 2012. the tax is a dedicated tax as currently introduced and would require a two-thirds approval. the tax was intended to be devoted to low-income workers and small business stablization. i would want to point out that while small business stablization is often discussed in the initial public offerings of companies, this is broader than that. it would cover all stock-based compensation, which is payment or compensation made to

employees in lieu of wages and salaries and consisting of rights to own the company or options to own the companies. it's in i.p.o.s, but not exclusively restricted to i.p.o.s. some other companies also offer stock-based compensation. this would cover all stock-based compensations that was realized on or after may 7, which is a few days after uber's i.p.o. uber was the largest company to have an i.p.o. in san francisco that we're aware of. earlier, companies from 2019 would not have made that deadline and would not have been covered. subsequent ones from companies such as slack and any future ones would be covered. it's also important to keep in mind that the tax-based

compensation is a tax on the business. it's not a tax on the employees that receive the tax-based compensation. so on the uber i.p.o., we expect there'll be millions of dollars flowing into the oakland economy. this would increase the tax on uber as a result of the tax-based compensation -- stock-based compensation that they pay to plyys. stock-based compensation is largely associated with the tech companies, and it's believed this is to create incentives for employees to achieve growth goals for the companies morning cash-based wages and salary.

so because of this reason, in san francisco, given our economy, it's likely that the bulk of the burden of this tax would fall on the tech sector. and because of that, i think it's worth considering some of the impacts that the technology sector has had both positive and negative on the city's economy during this decade. it's very clear that the city's economy has been transformed in the past 15 years by the growth of the tech sector here. as recently as 230 -- 2004, technology accounted for only 2 prs -- 3% of the jobs in the city, and now, it's 15%, so a

500% increase. the tech sector has been rapidly growing across the country, and other communities have had their communities impacted by the tech sector. one of the major impacts that the technology sector has had is on housing including rent. this is a chart showing rent trends this san francisco and in california and in the united states going back to 2011. san francisco already had housing back in 2011 that was 50% higher than the statewide average, but our rent since 2011 has already grown 40% faster than the state. our rent has grown faster than the state and much faster than the united states since 2011. on the other hand, the tech sector is also associated with

a period of economic growth in the city in which incomes have risen. this is the per capita income trends in san francisco, again, comparing it to california and the united states. per capita income has grown from 2011 to 2017, which is the most recent year we have data for, 60% of the nations income growth in that period. so in one hand, he have a very rapidly growing sector. it's growing much faster here than it is in other places, and that's led to rising costs and incomes. so what does that mean? that means you're increasing

the enumeranumerater and the denominator both. san francisco is a city that has always had a high rent burden compared to other cities. if we go back to 2006, which is the first year the a.c.s. started collecting this data, over 40% of san francisco households were rent heavy at that time -- rent burdened at that time. that percentage of houses actually peaked in 2012 at the end of the recession and has actually gone down since the end of the recession, so the number -- the percentage of san francisco renter households that spend more than 50% of their income on rent is lower

than it's been in any previous year that the a.c.s. has done that, and that's true for households that spend more than 50% of their income on rent. so the net effect on renter households is there's generally been an improvement in housing. one of the things that impact that is in san francisco, not everyone is paying market rate for housing, but wages and income growth tend to effect people every year. so for example, if you are a san francisco renter and you rented a unit, and you've been stable in that unit since 2011, it's likely that your rent has been growing slower than your wages. of course, that's not true for everyone in the city but it's a fairly large swath of households in the city. another way to look at the

experience of the city's economy as it affects different parts of the workforce is looking at people's trends after they pay for housing. so this is a chart that breaks down the income that households have after they pay for expenses in san francisco. this comes from census data from the 2012 record data that allows us to subtract housing costs from household income. that widespread of occupations reflects the inequality in san francisco which has been pronounced in san francisco as long as we've had statistics. but it shows that the real incomes after paying housing

compares to the same jobs in other cities. i compared san francisco's incomes to a sample of other large cities like new york, los angeles, washington, seattle, etc. and san francisco households in occupation after occupation generally make more here after paying for housing than they do in other cases. so again, the general trend among san francisco households is that the growth and income in the city has outweighed the growth and housing costs that people actually experience. so as a general rule, their housing burdens are going down, and as a general rule, they're better off here in occupation after occupation after paying for housing costs as a result of the growth and wages and economic growth in the city. let me just now return to the policy under consideration and mention some of the criteria by which we have in the past used to assess tax policies and over

the years that our office has been involved in assessing basis taxes in the city. the criteria that we and others suggest looking at go beyond just looking at economic impacts, but also evaluating tax based on how administratable they are. so i'll walk-through each consideration in relation to this tax, and that will conclude my presentation. this tax, like every tax that the city was imposed, creates costs and benefits within the city's economy. it would raise the cost of labor on businesses that use stock-based compensation and on the other hand, it would raise revenues for purposes explained in the legislation, so the net economic impact is the net of that. we've estimated, and it's very difficult to statement because the city does not collect data

directly on stock-based compensation, and the federal statistics we rely on similarly do not break out stock-based compensation for payments to workers, but we've estimated somewhere between 10% and 30% of all compensation paid to san francisco workers in the economy today did and dependin the year is stock-based compensation. so at the proposed rate of 1.12%, that is suggested this tax could raise between 50 a$$ million and $100 million a year. it's also very likely a cyclical tax because compensation is tie todd to th stock market. so we would expect lower

revenues when the market is down, and higher revenues when it's up. we used our remy model of the city's economy as we do to assess the economic impact of the legislation, looking at the tradeoff between the higher cost of labor and the higher spending. we found that it would lead to a midpoint range of $100 million, would plead to about a negative impact of 125 million on average over the next 20 years and 675 fewer jobs. this is taking place in the context of a city economy that is $175 billion in its g.d.p. and has 175,000 jobs. now, that does not speak to the sufficiency of the tax. in other words, what is the economic harm that you're imposing on the economy to get every dollar of revenue. but we have done other analyses

over the years that suggest there are labor taxes that do not focus on stocks and payroll that could get you to more of a revenue with less economic less than this particular tax. i won't speak directly to administerability issues but it's ae clear that because the city doesn't levy a tax on stock-based compensation. we also believe that this tax is likely to be more unstable than other business taxes, as i said before, this has to do because it's benchmarked essentially to the stock market, which is more volatile than the stock base of our other business taxes. and then finally, equity issues. when people study the equity of tax proposals, they often ask questions like how closely does

the tax required payment match to the taxpayer's ability to pay. that's one common question, and a second common question is how equally does it pay the tax payment of two different taxpayers who are otherwise equal. that's known as horizontal equity. these classes in dealing with business taxes are always difficult in california cities because the thing that we would like to tax and treats businesses equally is an income tax, and we're prohibited by doing that by state law. in terms of this tax, in comparison to the proposed business tax, probably does reflect -- better reflect a business's ability to pay in some ways. so if a company was valuable

and it had a lot of highly paid employees, it would pay more in taxes and it would pay more under this proposal, so it is getting to a more progressive payroll expense tax. however, it is not necessarily the case that every stock-based company will have a large compensation. a tax like this might encourage a same behavior. it's getting towards a more progressive payroll tax than the one we have now, but i would say it's not perfectly reflective of income, which is difficult to do in the context but it's a situation where we're not allowed to charge an income tax.

>> the stock-based compensation was even much smaller than central market and the shift to growth receipts, at the time, we projected, you know, 1500 to 2,000 jobs might have been created as a result of that switch after it phased-in after 20 years, and we still have a payroll tax that is 25% of what

it was and we only just finished phasing it in. i would say those three proposals, which i would agree are the three biggest things this city has done probably had relatively little impact on most of what we are talking about what have happened had we taken those policies or not. >> thank you. just to clarify, i was asking what your assessment was on the impact, not on the overall economic growth of san francisco over the past 15 years, but just astounding growth of the tech sector. you said by more than 500%. that has taken our economy to the point where they are dominating the economy at this point. do you feel like these tax breaks and the tax changes were really directly or indirectly on target to growing the tech sector and played a role in that and were they successful? >> i don't think they played a

great role because the amount of savings they generated to the tech sector as a whole is relatively small in the context of the growth. for example, again, i think we founded all of the tax exclusions that were taken over the years of the central market amounted to about $70 million. that sounds like a lot of money in the context of the city's budget, but in the context of one hundreds of the 5 billion-dollar economy, who is fastest-growing, that is the tech sector. it is not very large in the context of the growth of that sector at that time. what exactly were the tipping points and what changes in san francisco you maybe would see in 2,010 or 2,011, in that period, something is happening and i can't put my finger on it, but it would be hard to attribute it to city policies just given the size of those policies relative