vimarsana.com

Im joined my my supervisors and our clerk. I would like to thank Sandra Williams for broadcasting this meeting. Madam clerk, any announcements . Please silence all cell phones and electronic devices. Anything part of the file should be submitted to the clerk and iteming will appear on the september 17th, board of agenda. Madam clerk, call item number one. Finding the proposed updated port shoreline protection at a San Francisco International Airport fiscally feasible pursuant to code 29. Thank you. I believe we have kathy weidner, director of Government Affairs at the International Airport. Yes, good morning, chair and members of the committee. The items before you is an updated i should say the airport is seeking your approval of a previously approved shoreline protection project, fiscal feasibility report. We are asking you to find that the expanded project is fiscally feasible pursuant to chapter 29 of the citys administrative code. In 2015, the airport completed an airport shoreline protection Feasibility Study identifying deficiencies in existing infrastructure and made recommendations on the improvements necessary to protect the airports shoreline Protection System against 11inches of sealevel rise. At that point, the board found the 2015 project to be fiscally feasible. The programme at that time focusing on addressing the current level of flood risks and moderate amounts of sealevel rise. Sealevel projections incorporated into the programme were based on science from 2012. Since the time of the approval of that project in 2015, the science for Sea Level Rise has been updated by 2018 new design criteria from the state of california. In march of 2018, the state of california adopted a new sealevel rise guidance programme, which the airport used to update the report before you today. The updated shoreline Protection Programme proposes construction of new shoreline Protection Systems around the entire perimeteperimeter of the airpor, including along highway 101, that would protect the airport facilities and runways against a 100year storm and 36inches of sealevel rise. Tout ththis is estimated to cost 587 million. The significant cost increase is due to constructing infrastructure to address sealevel rise up to 36inches rather than the previously reported 11inches. The 2019 shoreline Protection Programme provides for new sheet pile wall and concrete wall construction and Environmental Mitigation not included in the approved 2015 shoreline protection study. The airport intends to fund the updates project by utilizing debt finance through the general aviation Revenue Bonds. The budget analyst recommends approval and i would be happy to answer specific questions you might have. Thank you very much. Colleagues, any questions or comments for miss weidner . Seeing none, lets hear from from the analysts office. The proposed resolution would find the airports proposed shoreline Protection Programme to be physically feasible and responsible in accordance with chapter 29 of the administrative code. Approval of this resolution would allow the airport to proceed with environmental review. In december of 2015, the board of supervisors found the airport proposed programme to be physically feasible in accordance with chapter 2019. In march of 2018, the state of california issued a report called sealevel rise guidance with updated sealevel rise. This incorporates new design criteria to address sealevel rise resulting in shoreline Protection Programmes, scope and estimated coasts from 580 million to 718 million and this includes a breakdown of the estimated costs. This is due to constructing infrastructure to address sealevel rise up to 36inches rather than 11inches in the 2015 plan. A list of major changes to the scope of work is shown on page 3 of the report. The areas to be considered for determination of fiscal feasibility and this is on pages 47 of our report. According to the march 2019 airport shoreline protection project fiscal Feasibility Study, its to maintain operations and associated reductions in airport employment and revenue. The estimated shoreline Programme Cost 587. 1 million, the airports Capital Improvement programme includes 15. 7 million in airport revenue funds. The remaining scope and estimated budget are 571. 4 million for Construction Costs and Environmental Mitigation will need to be added to the Improvement Plan at a future date. The airport estimates that issuance of 58 587 million in Revenue Bonds would result in 1. 5 million in debt statements over the 30year term of the bonds. Debt Service Costs to repay the airport Revenue Bonds are paid from airport revenue received from the airports doing business through airport rates and charges, as well as lease and concession revenues. As previously noted, the funding of fiscal feasibility allows the airport to proceed with review for the shoreline Protection Programme. Issuance of airport Revenue Bonds and appropriation of funds for the Protection Programme are subject to future board of supervisors approval and we do recommend approving the proposed resolution. Thank you. This opens us up for member comment. Any members like to comment . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Colleagues any comments or questions . I just have to say that this is somewhat frightening. The fact that were now anticipating the first sealevel rise of 36inches rather than 1, ten times the cost and the protection says until 2085, but that is just our best estimate with known science. So this is frightening, quite frankly. I dont know, i wont be alive in 2085, but i do think that this isnt the last time we will see an assessment that we might have to recalibrate how much more protection we will need. I think we have seen in these past years and in the recent past years that Mother Nature has the last word on this. So seeing how the vla recommends approval, no disagreement here . I would like to move this to the full board with a positive recommendation and we can take that without objection. Thank you very much. Everybody pray. Ok, lets go on to item number 3. I would like to continue this item until the next meeting of the budget and finance committee, which is the 18th, i believe. Would you like me to read item number 3 . Yes, im so sorry. Item number 3, resolution authorizing the director of property to sell up to 550,000 gross square feet of remaining Transferable Development rights authorized from the war memorial complex at 301 and 401 at fair market value. As i said, i would like to continue this next meeting, which i believe is september 18th. But lets first hear Public Comment. Any members . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. We will hear the daily report and also staff report at that time and i would like to make a motion to continue this item until the meeting of september 18th. We can take that without objection. Thank you very much. Madam clerk, can you please read item number 4 . Hearings to consider the. Fund to the Public Utilities commission in the amount of 3 million to fund the operation, no cost of the solar assess programme for 20192020. Thank you very much. Is it angela putane from sfc power. Yes, im the Programme Managers at the enterprise. This is a request for the release of 3 million on budget and finance committee reserve for the go solar sf programme. This is the Incentive Programme providing incentives, monetary incentives to residents, businesses and nonprofit organizations, installing solar panels on San Francisco rooftops and provides additional incentives to lowincome households and to projects that have been installed by San Franciscobased installation companies. In june of 2014, the board of supervisors placed 3 million on reserve for the go solar sf programme to be used when the clean power sf Community Choice aggregation programme was up and running. The board wanted to ensure that go solar sf funding would be available for the new customers. , these new power sf power. Clean power sf launched in early of 2016, so the go solar sf programme is currently providing Solar Incentives to clean power sf customers and hetchi power customers. The 3 million will be used to fund the programme this fiscal year. 1. 8 million is budgeted for solar alternatives. 800,000 is budgeted for the low income inverter Replacement Programme, which will provide incentives to lowincome households to replace a component of their solar system, the inverter, which has reached the end of its useful life. Finally 406,000 is budgeted for administrative costs. I would be happy to answer any questions, supervisors. Thank you very much and any questions or comments from my colleagues . Seeing none, could we have a daily report, please . Im from the analysts office. The supervisors placed 3 million on reserve for the go solar sf programme pending implementation of the clean power sf programme. Sf puc is requesting to release the funding from reserve to fund the programme through june of 2020. It originates from the hetchi power enterprise from the 20152016 budget. The solar sf is developing a Replacement Programme which would help lowincome. Reporter s replace solar lr reverters and 1. 8 million is budgeted for Solar Panel Incentives and approximately 400,000 is budgeted for administrative costs. A breakdown of the gosolar sf budget is shown on table two on page 14 of our report with a further breakdown of the go solar incentive budget on table 2, also on page 14 of our report. We recommend approving the request. Thank you very much. This opens us up for Public Comment. Any members like comment . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. So colleagues, this is not a motion to send it to the full board. Its just requires us to approve the release for the funds forenoon reserves. I make a motion to approve the release from the budget and finance reserve. Take that without objection and thank you very much. Madam clerk . Madam chair, can we please file this hearing . Yes, please, thank you. Can you call number 5 . Item number 5, resolution to authorize the District Attorney to accept and expand a grand for total not to exceed 267,000 from the california Victim Compensation board, for the period of july 1, 2019 to june 30, 2022 to continue the criminal restitution compact, should the parties agree to a amendment under the provisions of the Grant Agreement. Thank you and we have jackie ortize from the Victim Services division. Yes, good morning. Please be advised the grant is technically not retroactive because it was budgeted in the annual budget process. This resolution is needed to meet the california Victim Compensation board requirements, which has a separate legislation authorizing the approval of the funds. Do you have any questions for me . Colleagues, any questions . Seeing none, no report on this and lets open this up for Public Comment. Anany members like to comment se seeing none, Public Comment is now closed. Madam clear, point of clarification, since the department mentioned that this resolution is not retroactively approving the grant, can we amend the resolution to strike the retroactive leads on page 1, line 2, i believe . Yes, thank you very much. We can strike retroactive from the title of it and we can talk that without objection. And then lets move it to the full board as amended. Thank you very much. Thank you. Can you please read item number 2, please . Retroactively authorizing the park departments into an internet agreement for the protect Environment Agency for the receipt of 1. 2 million in the remediation project for a term of january 1, 2018 through september 18, 2030. We have a representative from the rec and part and this is part of the indian basin project. Yes, the indian basin waterfront project is between recreation and parks, the trust for public land and San Francisco parks alliance. This is designed to honor the history and culture of the neighborhood, part of a plan by social justice communities. Currently, we are moving into our 2020 construction phase of the project and this is what we will be doing, side demolition and removal of band structures, remediation of soils containing elevated concentrations of sediments. The department was awarded a 1. 2 million Funding Grant from the United States protection agency. This was actually appropriated through 20182019 budget process and originally allocated to the Construction Cost expected to occur in 2020. In fall of 2018, the United States epa asked to build a grants fund and the administers at the federal level wanted to ensure we were spending the money,es, and epa isnt the most favorable department. In spring of 2018, there was a grant over one Million Dollars or greater approval by the board of supervisors. After learning about this additional requirement, we asked for this Grant Agreement before you today to be retroactive approval. Lets open this up for comment . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. I would like to move this to the full board with a positive recommendation and we can take that without objection, thank you very much. Madam clerk, any other business before us today . No further business. We are adjourned. In this San Francisco office, there are about 1400 employees. And theyre working in roughly 400,000 square feet. We were especially pleased that cleanpowersf offers the super green 100 clean energy, not only for commercial entities like ours, but also for residents of the city of San Francisco. We were pleased with the package of services they offered and were now encouraging our employees who have residence in San Francisco to sign on as well. We didnt have any interruption of service or any problems with the switch over to cleanpowersf. This clean power opportunity reflects that. I would encourage any Large Business in San Francisco to seriously consider converting and upgrading to the cleanpowersf service. Its good for the environment, its good for business and its good for the community. Hi. My name is carmen chiu, San Franciscos aelectricitied assessor. Today, i want to share with you a property tax savings programs for families called proposition 58. Prop 58 was passed in 1986 and it was helped parents pass on their lower Property Tax Base to their children. So how does this work . Under californias prop 13 law, the value we use to calculate your property tax is limited to 2 growth peryear. But when ownership changes, prop 13 requires that we reassess properties to market value. If parents want to pass on their home or other property to their children, it would be considered a change in ownership. Assuming the market value of your property has gone up, your children, the new owners, would pay taxes starting at that new higher level. Thats where prop 58 comes in. Prop 58 recognizes the transfer between parents and children so that instead of taxing your children at that new higher level, they get to keep your lower prop 13 value. Remember, prop 58 only applies to transfers between parents and children. Heres how the law twines an eligible child. A biological child, a step child, child adopted before the age of 18, and a soninlaw or daughterinlaw. To benefit from this tax saving program, remember, you just have to apply. Download the prop 58 form from our website and submit it to our office. Now you may ask, is there a cap how much you can pass on. Well, first, your principal residence can be excluded. Other than that, the total tap of properties that can use this exclusion cannot exceed 1 million. This means for example if you have two other properties, each valued at 500,000, you can exclude both because they both fit under the 1 million cap. Now what happens hwhen the totl value you want to pass on exceeds 1 million. Lets say you have four properties. Three with current taxable value of 300,000 and one at 200,000, totaling 1. 1 million in value. Assuming that you decide to pass on properties one, two, and three, we would apply the exclusions on a first come, first served basis. You would deduct properties one, two, and three, and you would still have 100,000 left to pass on. What happens when you pass on the last property . This property, house four, has been existing value of 2 has an existing value of 200,000, and its existing Property Value is actually higher, 700,000. As i said, the value left in your cap is 100,000. When we first figure out your portion, we figure out the portion that can be excluded. We do that by dividing the exclusion value over the assessed value. In this case, its 50 . This means 50 of the property will remain at its existing value. Meanwhile, the rest will be reassessed at market value. So the new taxable value for this property will be 50 of the existing value, which is 200,000, equaling 100,000, plus the portion reassessed to market value, which is 50 times 700,000, in other words, 350,000, with a total coming out to 450,000. A Similar Program is also available for prepping transfers fl interest r from grandparents to grandchildren. If youre interested in learning more visit our website or welcome back to 49 hang on , have you seen our first video . If not, click on the link before in the description and watch before you watch this one. Welcome back to 49 south van ness. We are excited to show you around today as we have now topped out and we are well underway for construction. Early in june this year, we had a topping out ceremony. It was the very last steel beam that was placed at the roof penthouse level. We had a number of speakers who came to join us. It was a great event and we cant wait to show you what is going on inside. [ ] what has happened in the last year is Steel Construction is now topped out at the top. Down below us, as you can see, as a full foundation. The basement is almost complete. We have concrete, we have steel, we have framing, we have a little bit of everything. To get started, i would love to walk you through what we call the form. It is a really exciting new way to get from here into 49 south then ness. It is a new Public Open Space that cuts through the walking allows people to walk through there and gives the civic Building Three or more ways to be connected to this really big block. [ ] we are in the pavilion gallery. Right behind me as south van ness. It is very close to the street. You will see a curved wall with an l. E. D. Screen. This space will be used for a number of different purposes. It will be also one of the most prominent spaces in this building. We are here in the main atrium lobby. Behind me here, there are the grand stairs that will eventually be fully finished with wood and this will go to the level to permit center. Welcome to the permit center. We are now on the second floor of the building. The permit center is the driver for this project. Picture this. I am a plan checker and im sitting on the inside of the permitting counter. And i am a member of the public, and i get to come in here and enjoy this big, open, beautiful space as well as tables and chairs behind to open up my plans, review them. The terrace is just outside. Tons of windows, daylight views. It is very exciting upgrades and improvements. [ ] now were on level three, which has a really great building amenity, the childcare center. In fact, we are standing at the terrace, or the outdoor space that is connected to the childcare center. The kids will have access to a huge area for playspace, as well as a really nice interior space for three classrooms. When the kids are out here playing, they will get a very close up view of the historical clock tower. A some of you may have seen, we have preserved a historic clock tower that one point was the cocacola bottling plant, so we have tried to integrate this into our building and thoughtful and meaningful ways, and preserve some of the character of the site. [ ] the two have so the tower joined in the center. The idea was to create a scene where all of the collaboration spaces can rise vertically to the architecture is a public as the public comes to the Office Building, they are physically within a public realm, but visually connected to the inner workings. The theme is going to be a Collaborative Center that includes an atrium nested by a series of stairs. This is the bottom of the threestory stack. At the bottom of this, would be a collaborative breakout space where you can have meetings, have lunches, just talk to your coworkers. [ ] we have Conference Rooms throughout the building, including the Coffee Center and the Training Center which will be used by staff and potentially for things like city hearings. There are a lot of amenities in the building that make it really be unique really unique and special. [ ] one of the unique aspects of the building is it is clad in eight and a system that will adjust the intensity of the tent of the glass as the sun moves around it and is whether patinas weather patterns change. Everything from the glazing that covers the glazing, to the water system, were really excited to bring this tower to San Francisco. [ ] it is a pretty exciting project. A civic Office Building for the city of San Francisco. It is pretty unique. I dont believe the city has built a new building of this type in at least 50 years. Were really excited to partner with the city to create a new experience for you and for all of us. Thank you so much for joining us today. We hope you really enjoyed the tour inside the construction of 49 south of then ness. Watch our next episode when we give you another update on the projects being that see next time. [ ] [laughter] good morning, everyone. Welcome to the thursday exit a fifth meeting of the government audit and oversight committee. I am the chair of this committee im joined by supervisor aaron peskin and supervisor vallie brown who will be joining us shortly, and we are also joined by supervisor safai. Thank you to the committees clerk. I would also like to thank San Francisco government tv staff for staffing. Mr. Clerk, do you have any announcements . Thank you. Please ensure you have silenced yourself owns an electronic devices. Your completed speaker cards a copy of documents should be cemented to the clerk. Items acted upon today will appear on the september 19th, 2019, board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. Thank you. Since item number one was sponsored by supervisor brown, along with supervisor safai, we will skip that one until she gets here. Lets move to item number two. Item number two is an ordinance amending the campaigning government conduct code to increase the matching ratio for Campaign Contributions raised by candidates participating in the Financing Program and the amount of public Funds Available for those candidates. Thank you. Welcome, supervisor brown. We skipped to item number two. I just wanted to make some opening remarks. I am incredibly excited to bring this ordinance before this committee today. In 2019, with our democratic norms and values under assault every day, it has never been more important for us to advance invest in strengthening our democracy. The path to a more just future is stronger democracy and a fair and more just elections. When the voters of San Francisco crated our public Financing Program in 2,000, it was cutting edge and it established San Francisco as a leader in publicly financing elections. Since then, outside spending outside campaigns has skyrocketed and we have fallen behind our peers and keeping up with the times. The ordinance before us, based on a simple idea, public official should be accountable to the public, in this accountability must start and how we are elected. Public financing of elections allows candidates to compete in campaigns increasingly flooded with private funds from super pacs. It apple flies the voices of our constituents and provides greater regulation and accountability for those who seek office. This is not a controversial idea it was the people of San Francisco who establish this program. The National Democratic party has recognized recognize the urgency in furthering them when nancy pelosi retook the gavel this year, the first piece of legislation passed by the new democratic majority was h. R. One , that we the people act. With sweeping electoral reform, including establishing Public Financing for congressional races at a 61 matching ratio, h. R. One mirrored every part of this ordinance. While these reforms are blocked on the federal level, we cannot wait for washington to start to the essential work of strengthening our democracy. It falls upon cities to lead and we can do this here and now. This ordinance represents the single greatest expression of our public Financing Program since its inception two decades ago. Modernizing and bringing the program further in its goals. It does this in a few ways, most importantly, it increases the amount of publicly public Funds Available to qualified candidates. It increases the ratio from 21 to 61, while limiting the matchable portion of a contribution to 150. This will significantly amplify the overall impact of the program while specifically amplifying the impacts of grassroots, small valard donations from individuals. Because the value of your voice in our democracy should not depend on the value of your bank account. It also increases the end of this ordinance began with Community Meetings hosted at the commission over a year ago. It went through a robust inquest process from community stakeholders, Campaign Finance reform, advocate advocates and our office. Multiple draft recommendations from the Ethics Commission staff and amendments at the Ethics Commission where the final version before us ultimately received unanimous support. We partnered with the b. L. A. For substantive policy analysis of these reforms, which is before you today. Also on record for this file are letters of support from the aclu and the Campaign Legal centre. Without further ado, i would like to welcome leanne, executive director of the Ethics Commission. Good morning. Thank you, and good morning members. I appreciate your opening comments and the Ethics Commission is really delighted to be able to be here and have the opportunity to encourage this paddle and the full board to support this ordinance. As you indicated in your opening comments, this is a process where the Ethics Commission, for the past year, is really tried to focus on how we can strengthen the public Financing Program and it has been a process with lots of stakeholder involvement. We know there is a balancing of interests and needs in any legislative package that we bring forward and we feel that this one really does move the dial forward in terms of encouraging, not just participating by candidates in communitybased individuals, to run for office, who dont have to rely as heavily on larger donors, would also really encouraging citizens to get more involved. We are increasing the value of their contribution to political campaign. As you indicated, cities have been leading this effort around the country for years. San francisco is taking that path and we are very excited to be part of this discussion of encouraging the changes that you highlighted. As you know, this is a system that is voluntary so candidates have to participate in it and opt into it. Our focus is a commission has been to look at how we can make the program attractive to candidates within existing funding levels and also encourage greater participation among the voters that candidates are seeking to be elected to represent. Over the years, the historical figure shows that the program has been opted into by roughly half or less of candidates on the ballot. So for us, that was a motivating factor to look to see how we could increase that so the candidates of real resources to run and recognize a availability his of campaigns in 2019 and update and modernize the program so it is relevant and is an incentive to candidates to want to participate. We know when they participate, the public does benefit. This is the third phase of the changes we have brought to the board of supervisors. We started with an initial change in a phase i ordinance that was a technical cleanup that the board and the mayor adopted. We had the regulatory changes that also address provisions in the public Financing Program administration. Those are now in law as of effect of july 30th. This is only the third piece and one that is the most substantive that we are very excited about. I just wanted to thank you for your leadership and support in moving forward and the focus of this committee and the time you spending to bring the Program Forward that is beneficial for san franciscans and all people who participate. Im happy to answer any questions. I want to thank you for that time. Thank you so much. Thank you for your work on this in the ongoing work that you and your staff do administering the public Financing Program and our other ethics programs in San Francisco. Now we would like to welcome fred from the budget and legislative Analyst Office to present his detailed report and overview on this item. Good morning, supervisors. Im from the budget and legislative analysts office. I am going to start this. We have issued sorry. Is there a way to get this on the slideshow . Okay, i see. We issued a report to you yesterday on the proposed legislation, the Public Campaign financing and i will do a quick summary of that report this morning. First of all, a quick background , most of you probably know the program started in 2,000 with the passage of proposition oh. It is a matching program where private funds are matched with public funds and as was mentioned, it is a volunteer program. Initially it covered the board of supervisors and in 2006, the Mayors Office was added to the program. The funding structure has changed over the years. At one time there was a 41 match, but now it is between one and 21. Public funds disbursed over the years since it has been in place ranging from 281. 9 24. 7 million in 2011. With a range of all candidates spending covered by the program. That is an average of 29 . Participation has ranged from nine to 23 candidates per election, which equates to 12 to 67 of all candidates on the ballot, averaging around 40 1 . The programs are in place in other cities. They have Public Finance camping programs, as well. Those with a 61 matched rates include new york, los angeles, berkeley, portland. Denver and baltimore are now adding 91 matched rates to their programs. Current structure for board of supervisors elections as presented in this table, and as you can see, there are three tiers in the Current Program, and different matching rates going with each tear. The first is the qualifying requirement where candidates need to raise a certain amount of money based on a certain number of donors, and it is 10,004 nonincumbent and 15,004 incumbent, and that qualifies them for the program. They get matching public funds for nonincumbent his and 314 incumbent his. And then there are two more tiers of fundraising with matching contributions, meaning the amount of the contribution that will qualify for public funds, and it is set at 500 right now. The match rate for the second tier is 21, so when 50,000 in private funds are raised, the candidate gets 100,000, and then there is a third tier, so they matching contribution amount of 500. The rate drops down to 11. You can see at the bottom of the the total amount that can be raised is the individual expenditure ceiling with a maximum that the candidates can spend on their campaigns that is 250,000 in on the table shows the makes of public and private monies that add up to that amount. Candidates may not raise all that if they dont get if they dont raise all the private funds required, but they would get a portion of the match up to what they have raised prior. This table shows the current structure for mayor Mayoral Elections. Same idea, with the dollar amounts are greater and you can see the match rates and the matching contributions in the same columns, and the difference between incumbent and nonincumbent. In both cases, nonincumbent get slightly more money for their private fundraising then incumbents. And right now, that would add up to 1,475,000, maximum individual expenditure ceiling. If the candidates raise all the required private money and get through the associated public funds. The individual expenditure ceiling can be increased by the Ethics Commission, but that requires that their opponents have raised more money and are using some funds were oppositional spending or that they have more quarter funding that exceeds the individual expenditure ceiling. The proposed changes in the legislation have a number of policy objectives and these are captured on this table. For the legislative change, we do see the maximum private contribution amount that qualifies for public matching funds and increasing the match rate from right now that ranges from 11 to 21 and would be increased to 61 for nonincumbent his incumbents. The associated objectives are to enhance the impact of smaller sized donations and encourage candidates regardless of whether their supporters and donors are able to contribute large sums or not. Another area of change is increasing the initial total spending limits or the individual expenditure ceiling for publicly financed campaigns and providing a greater amount of public funds for candidates, and the objectives here at apple for Resources Available to participate with candidates for more effective and sufficiently resourced campaigns, and to provide participating candidates with more available resources and make their Time Available for communicating their policies and reducing their time fundraising. Another area that is proposed for change is the area Public Financing reduction in funds that candidates must privately raise qualify for the remaining public funds, and reducing the number of tears a private fundraising requires to access public funds as i showed on the previous slide. With the proposed changes there be two. The objective is to reduce the importance of raising large sums of money to access the public funds. On this chart we show the changes for the board of supervisors elections and candidates, and you can see this highlights where they are separated by incumbent and nonincumbent. The ceiling goes up by 100,000. I think that is important to note that they would still be a 10,000 minimum for candidates to get for nonincumbent candidates to be able to programs and 15,000 for incumbents. That is a qualifying amount right now. That does not change. But once in, what does change is the maximum public dollars available for candidates shown on the next row which increases by approximately 100,000 for both nonincumbent and incumbent the amount to be privately raise to release those funds decreases , thats because of the increased match rate. It goes from 95,000 in private funds and nonincumbent his that have to raise to 42,500, a reduction of 52,500 per candidate. For incumbents, the changes from 97,500 and now 47,000. For tier two, the matching contribution amount, this is the amount of the contribution that the donor can give up to 500 illegally to a candidate, but right now, all 500 of that counts towards matching funds. The larger the donation, the faster candidates get the public funds. Under the proposed changes, the matching contribution would reduce to 150. It would not take as large of a contribution but the candidate would get access to the public funds with a smaller amount at a higher match rate. And then finally, the total amount to be privately raise to allow the candidate to spend the individual expenditure ceiling maximum stays the same. It is currently 95,000, and that would remain 95,000, but they would have received all the public funds for less than that, it is just that they can continue private fundraising after theyve acquired or been granted the public funds. The next slide, i wont go through the same detail, but this shows the arrangements currently, and as proposed for mayoral candidates and it follows the same pattern of increase individual expenditure ceilings, a maximum public dollar available for candidates increased, a smaller amount that needs to be privately raised to access the public fund, and a lower matching contribution so smaller donations results in higher amounts of public Funds Available. One of the impacts of the proposed changes that ive shown on this slide and this chart, and i think its important to note, that there are two variables that will have impact here. One is the increase in the match rate and that seems obvious if you get 6 for every one privately raised dollar, that is better now better than what it is now. It is also significant in the reduction in the matching contribution. You can see on the left two bars it shows there is a five time differential right now if you didnt change the matching contribution. Theres a 500dollar donation candidates would have 30,500 at their disposal, mostly because of the increased public funds. Five times more than a donation of 100 to provide to candidates with the proposed changes, the 6 1 match rate increases the amount of public funds that would be provided, with a differential between a 100dollar donation and a 500dollar donation is reduced. So theres only 1. 5 differential this captures the important policy objectives for the proposed legislation. The next page, a different way of looking at this, but quickly showing what the Current Program with the Current Program, a 150dollar donation. The match right would provide three underdogs the public funds to the candidate with the proposed changes, is 900. Right now, 500dollar donations with a 61 match rate that would provide a 21 match rate would provide 1,000, but with the proposed changes, the 61 match rate, but only 150dollar matching contribution. That donation would result in 900 in public funds. You can see it is the same as a 150dollar donation and dilutes the impact of large donations in terms of access to the public funds. We did look at the Election Campaign funds because this will result in higher rates of spending of public funding if the proposed changes are adopted what we have seen is that the Election Campaign fund generally is very wellfunded. It started in 2018 was 7 million, it is wellfunded in part because of the level of participation in the program. So there are funds that are allocated every year by the board of supervisors through the budget process, but if they dont all get spent, then this is the nonelection mirror and they will move over to next year the result has been a fund that funds that has been able to cover all public funding for the campaign since the program has been in effect, except for one year, the very first year. So this shows, except for example, expenditures in 2018. And this was the year that we had the board of supervisors and Mayoral Elections, and even with all of that spending, it was about 4. 2 million. The fund had 7 million at the beginning of the year. It was more than sufficient to cover. It was 14 candidates that participated. Under the proposed changes, and assuming all the same candidates will participate in the program, but now have the higher rates of public Funding Granted to them, that would require six my 4 million, assuming they all got 6. 4 million. So with the 7 milliondollar balance in the Election Campaign fund to begin with, there is still sufficient funding. In fact, there would be 632,000 left over after providing the candidates with that level of funding. The concern over the long term, there could be problems with the fund. This table shows if participation levels increase, the level of funds that would need to begin the Election Campaign fund to ensure that all candidates could receive the maximum public funding. So it is probably safe right now in that there is this 7 milliondollar cap on the fund , in most years there is 7 million available. That would cover 207 candidates for the board of supervisors under the proposed changes, and assuming it to do 55,000dollar in public funds per candidate, which is certainly a healthy number right now. Participation runs between 12 and 14 candidates on average for the board of supervisors per election, in a normal election. For mayoral candidates, five candidates could be covered with the 7 milliondollar cap, currently provided if more participated over time, for example, if it got up to seven, that would require eight my 4 million, which is severe, and in the funds would not be sufficient. In doing this, we are also looking at the provisions in the campaign and the government conduct code that provide the funding to the Election Campaign here is a quick summary of it. Every year the funds received the Fund Receives an appropriation of 2. 75 per resident. That is about to . 3 million per year. With then in addition, there is the bulldozer funds. There usually is more than that in the fund per year. The code has a 7 milliondollar cap on the Election Campaign fund at present, although that is one section of the code. Another section allows for mayoral baseline that right now, with the Current Population of the city and the amount in administrative costs, actually exceeds 7 million. Is a conflict in the code with what is provided for a baseline Mayoral Election and the cap that is set in another section of the code. In addition, there are provisions for additional funding for 15 administrative costs associated with the mayoral and board of supervisors baselines. That also pushes the mayoral amount and theres no provision in the code right now for what should be taken out and if it should be reduced to get back to the 7 million or if it is allowed to exceed it. Some language is needed and some work on the code, which isnt immediately necessary for the proposed legislation. It is something that down the road should be addressed, particularly participation in the program increases over the years. Finally, the board of supervisors baseline in the code right now only allows for 1,295,000. If that were the only funding provided, it would be inadequate to cover even the Current Program, the Current Program has been covered. The annual appropriation what you see the top of 2 Million Dollars exceeds the baseline for the board and just having that alone provides more funding for the candidates, but it actually is not sufficient if that was all that was in any have 15 candidates running, youd still be short. Another consideration is interesting. Our conclusion is that the legislation wanted to address all of the policy goals stated there and detailed in the report how each one is addressed. And then the second through fourth are about the issues i just raised on the campaign and government conduct code and the need to certainly reduce inconsistencies between different sections of the code and address the issue that 7 million is the cap that the board of supervisors wants to keep for the program, particularly with potential growth not only with city population which drives funding, but participation in the program. And then the final one is addressing the issue of the baseline funding for candidates. We came up with a number that the board could consider. These numbers would allow for funding that would cover 15 board of supervisors candidates an Important Note on that is that only kicks in if there isnt funding in the Election Campaign to begin with, so it would likely not lead to the need for additional appropriation, but sort of a backup to ensure that sufficient funding is available. That is a summary of the report. There are a lot of details in the document they have before you now. Thank you so much for your presentation and all your work presenting the report. Colleagues, we had one more presentation from the b. L. A. s office on her separate fiscal analysis of the ordinance, i wondered if we could see if we could at that presentation and then move to questions discussion. Good morning, members of the committee. What is before you today is an ordinance to make changes to the citys campaign and governmental code to increase the initial grants in the matching fund for candidates of board of supervisors and mayor. You will see the summary of the changes in our report on table one on page seven and table two on page eight. I wont go through those, but in terms of the physical fiscal impact, ill have to give them credit. If this legislation had been in 2018, the actual contribution to the 11 candidates to the Campaign Fund were 1. 5 million under this legislation

© 2025 Vimarsana

vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.