Thank you for your analysis. Before we go to Public Comment, do you have any supervisor peskin . I just had a question. I may run for election in the year 2020, and i have actually taken out the appropriate papers to do so, and have a question as to whether or not i have any conflict in voting on this matter as it could potentially impact my campaign financing. You do not. You and probably many other members of the board and the mayor could benefit, or your campaign could benefit from this ordinance in the future or it could be hindered by this ordinance in the future depending on the content, but under the conflict of interest laws that apply to city officials, voting on an ordinance that may Impact Campaign laws like this does not create a conflict for you. Thank you. Thank you for clarifying that any other questions . We can move to Public Comment if there any members of the public wish to testify on this item you have two minutes. Good morning, embers of the committee. My name is [indiscernible] and im here in support of the match proposal. We submitted a letter of support and i like to highlight a few points. We believe this is an important tool in the empowerment of politically underrepresented community members, second, this update to the program is critical in ensuring participation and competitiveness of communitybased candidates who may not otherwise have access to a donor. Third, this proposal provides the right incentives an opportunity for candidates to spend time reaching out to the various people they hope to represent, rather than a select few who will be donors. Finally, the time for this update is now. The 2020 election season is a reelection which will engage and reenergize many more voters. We ask that you please vote in favour of this proposal. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good morning, everyone. We were supporting Public Financing campaigns. We were instrumental in helping the system be initiated when it was in its inception. We are here again to continue to support Public Financing of the campaigns. We support all these amendments and reforms and we have seen nationally that the influence of money in politics and the impact it has on our democracy is a serious crisis and we applaud San Francisco and do hope you vote in these changes because we need to set an example and see a city this amazing and large as San Francisco that can run a system like this and create better democracy and more access for small donors and people that would otherwise not run. So we do hope you vote against these reforms. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good morning, supervisors. My name is peter. I have been involved in City Government in San Francisco for about 40 or 50 years on various levels. I was a chief assistant public defender, im a former member of the Police Commission and former chair of the Ethics Commission, i commend you for having this before you. It is an example of getting away from the whole idea of paying for pay to play. Someone who has the most money can go ahead and pick a candidate and then have the candidates take their cause. There is the matching funds aspect and also in particular, there are small amounts benefiting new candidates that are coming in. It is something that is the height of democracy, and at a time where in terms of the federal government we see in abdication of democracy, in terms of cities like San Francisco and other cities, running with the ball and putting forth measures that are indeed at the heart of democracy it is quite commendable. I ask you to support this and im quite grateful that you have it before you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good morning, supervisors. My name is john. I am an adjunct professor of election law at golden gate university. I have been involved in these campaigns are a couple decades. I have an advocate for government reform. I have a couple points to make. I was involved in some of the Public Interest meetings of the Commission Held starting last summer and really appreciate the inclusive process. This is not a super simple issue and there are a lot of moving parts. I think the balance between raising the match and lowering the contribution amount for matchable contributions really does empower small donors and that is incredibly important in this day of big money and the perception, if not the reality of big dark money in giant corporations dominating our political process. I also just want to empathize with the budget analyst that the San Francisco system, when it was passed by voters in 2,000, was one of the strongest, ending the two decades since, it has been one of the weakest, as was mentioned, several cities have gone up to 61, 91, new york city is up by 80 . It will take effect in a couple of years. That has changed. That is why it is valuable to modernize our system. In addition, Citizens United and the supreme courts restrictions on most attempts to balance the system and empower clean money. They have been afforded. The one area they have allowed it to proceed is Public Financing. The system is well within the bounds of the court. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other members of the public that wish to speak on this item . C. And none, comment is closed. Colleagues, do you have any questions or comments . I have one point of clarification. So the threshold lowering, if someone donates 200, you just get credit for the 150 . Yes. It is matched up to 150. I wanted to say i appreciate you taking the lead on this is someone who has gone through multiple campaigns and been a beneficiary of Public Financing. I can tell you firsthand that the ability to have money matched and the ability to have access to public funds freeze up your time is a candidate to do the things that voters really want you to do, which is come talk to them. Whether it is at the street corner, at your house, at a Community Event or forum, rather than having to spend your time endlessly raising money, and that consumes a significant amount of time for candidates. So the ability to have access to public funds is a wonderful, wonderful way to free up the opportunity for all candidates, regardless of if it is the first time running or they are incumbent, and as was pointed out, candidates that might not necessarily have access to networks to access those funds. I commend you for taking leadership on this in the community for doing the hard work and pushing this forward and bringing San Francisco up to what other cities have already been doing. Thank you to the Ethics Commission for their hard work and the b. L. A. That was a wonderful presentation. Very clear, very easy to understand. Thank you. Thank you. Before we vote, i just wanted to thank a few people for their work, feedback, and support on this important measure. The ethics policy director, the deputy city attorney, campaignfinance report advocates. The Campaign Legal centre and the aclu. In conclusion, i wanted to thank everyone who worked on this and your support. We can strengthen our democracy, we can lift up working people and we can do this here and now. With your support, we will. Thank you again. Can we move this sorry, can you add me as a cosponsor. Thank you. Can we move this forward with a positive recommendation positive recommendation . Without objection . Thank you. Great. We will go back to item number one. Please call that item. Agenda item number one is an ordinance amending the ministry of code to amend heart trouble and pneumonia presumptions for firefighter and Police Officer industrial disability and death result of duty and Retirement Benefits. Thank you. Today we are continuing an ordinance to amend the ministry of code that affects our First Responders ability to seek disability and Retirement Benefits when they suffer from heart trouble or pneumonia. Due to the in parent nature of their job, the conditions they were kind and exposure work under and the exposure to harsh chemicals, are more susceptible to developing Heart Disease and suffering traumatic heart attacks than the general public. These amendments will bring our administrative code into alignment with the state labor code, codes of other municipalities in the bay bay area, and our own admin code governing disability benefits for Deputy Sheriff his. Currently, San Francisco firefighters and Police Officers must prove that any heart trouble or pneumonia they have suffered is from the result of being on the job. Under the state labor code, those disabilities are presumed to be a result of the conditions First Responders work under. The change we are considering today will have a minimal physical impact fiscal impact , mirrors the state labor code, prevents the cause of disability to any prior existing disease if no evidence of a heart trouble or pneumonia was identified and the physical examination of the member conducted as part of their initial higher. Initially, with this change, if a firefighter or Police Officer suffers from heart trouble or pneumonia, and then applies for disability benefits, the worker Conversation Division is to presume those ailments are results of the job, even if there is no evidence of those conditions existing at the time of hire. Every day we ask our firefighters and our Police Officers to risk their lives and step into dangerous situations. Today we have an opportunity to step up and do the right thing for them. The b. L. A. Is here to speak about the fiscal impacts and also peggy from d. H. R. Is here to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you supervisor brown. I just want to thank our leadership of the firefighters as well as Police Officers for bringing this to our attention. I think this was an oversight on behalf of the city. Especially because it is codified in our state labor code as a supervisor brown has said, and to think that this type of job, in terms of the amount of life expectancy, in terms of the amount of exposure to dangerous materials, in terms of the amount of stress that comes with the job, we made a very simple change here to get a physical, see where you are at, we measure , look for existing conditions, sorry to use that phrase, with see if theres something in the persons history that has to do with their heart or trouble with pneumonia, once they are clear, then it is very straightforward. On the job stress or onthejob exposures that might affect their heart or exposures to pneumonia should be covered. We have had a report from the b. L. A. , and i know we have our executive director here today. The physical the fiscal impact is negligible, but the overall impact to the membership of the police board and firefighters is an important benefit that we want to confer. Im he happy to be a lead cosponsor was supervisor brown and thank you to our firefighters and Police Officers for bringing this to our attention and advocating on behalf of your membership. Thank you. Thank you, supervisor brown and safai for all of your work on this. I would like to be added as a cosponsor. We have a brief presentation from the b. L. A. s office on the fiscal impact. The proposed legislation before you would amend the city s administrative code to comply with state requirements for four Police Officer or a firefighter, if they have Heart Disease and pneumonia. This is an industrial industry. The actual cost is based on the actuaries and the retirement system. Increasing the citys retirement contribution. Retirement contributions are on the table and are estimated to be less than a tenth of a increase in the percentage contribution to payroll. We consider the recommendation to be positive and recommend it recommended to the board of supervisors. Thank you. When we move to Public Comments, are there any members of the public who wish to testify on this item . Actually, i have one speaker card. Mr. Chairman, board members, supervisors, thank you for the opportunity to present and thank you for your support of this. In 19309, 80 years ago, a Charter Amendment came in which was 16. 85 creating something for Police Officers. In that same year, the legislator in the state of california created a heart presumption that applies throughout the state. Over the years, these last 80 years, the presumption containing in the labor code has changed numerous times. The presumption contained in our own administrative code has changed not once. We are asking simply that the administrative code parallel the code that applies for all public Police Officers and firefighters in the state of california so they are similar. Here is an example as to what the change would amount to. Supposing a San Francisco firefighter or Police Officer with 25 years of service was out on the job and in pursue of their own employment, they suffered a heart attack. This firefighter or Police Officer, because of the severity of the attack, may not be able to return to sir her employment. Under the current system, evidence could be introduced to show that firefighter or Police Officer was under medical care for hypertension which and may have been taking cholesterol pills, and other things of that sort to attempt to defeat that application. Under this legislation, that no longer will be allowed. It is not allowed in the cases and it is not allowed in the 1937 counties act. 95 of Police Officers and firefighters are under those sections. We are all going to be treated the same. Thank you for your support. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good morning, supervisors. Im a San Francisco firefighter. I stand here to think our sponsor and cosponsors for bringing this legislation up. This would be a great opportunity for us to be able to work more with the families of our firefighters and Police Officers who suffer. There are many times most of the families are struggling to get healthy and be able to move forward. And then have the extra stress of trying to go and fight has put much strain on them. Thank you for your work. Thank you. Next speaker. Good morning, supervisors. I also want to thank all of you for sponsoring this legislation. Over time, we noticed there were certain holes or loopholes in our presented legislation and it started out with finding out the firefighters are having to fight to get their paycheque while they were battling cancer, and later on we discovered there was also a similar loophole in the legislation for heart presumption where Police Officers and firefighters had to be fighting for their paycheque while fighting for their life. This closes that loophole and gives assurance to those who give their heart and soul to the city that they will be taking care of. We thank you and appreciate their work on this. Appreciate your work on this. Thank you. Are there any other members of the public who wish to testify . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Mr. Chairman, by email to the clerk, im also a cosponsor. Thank you. Can we recommend this to the full board without objection . Thank you. Mr. Clerk, please call item number three. Agenda number three is a real illusion resolution approving the annual reports for the Community Valley district. It is required by the Improvement District law of 1994 in the district management agreement. Thank you. I would like to recognize helen mar from the office of economic and Workforce Development. You have three minutes to present on this item. Good morning supervisors. My name is helen and im the project manager with the office of economic and Workforce Development and working on the team that provides oversight to the program. Were we are here today for the Community Benefit district fiscal year 17, 18 annual report review. As you may know, the boards are governed by total pieces of legislation. Our review process is oewd ensures that all c. B. D. S and b. Ids are meeting their Management Plan. We conduct an annual review of reports and they review. We provide the board of supervisors with a memo. Here is a parcel map for the c. B. D. Encompasses 218 parcels. It is a propertybased district with an initial assessment budget of 230,000. It was established in 2005 and is set to expire on june 30th, 2020. The executive director is also here. Their Service Areas are public rightsofway and sidewalk operation, district identity and street improvements, as well as administration and corporate operations. Oewd staff reviewed the following budget related benchmarks for the c. B. D. Benchmark one was a variance between the budget amounts for each Service Category with the intent within ten percentage points. Benchmark two was a 5 of the valley actual