Grant that requires 3 more installments because you know we cant guarantee that installment will be on a prorate. Unless the participation time will limits ever business on the registry will employ and meet the eligibility requirements then we then just take whatever in that budget of the Business Assistance and divide it across the board. As the law is written. That specifically yep thats how it is written thats why i think from our staff prospective we are saying not granted a grant for 3 years you can apply for a grant for 3 years from the first time you apply that way we have is rolling those coming in later have a greater chance of applying forgive a grants and be able to get a grantee full amount. It prevents us from getting congested by rephil grants filling up the danced cards knowing next year well see the same companies theyve had it for 1, 2, 3 years or in perpetuity putting a limit on it you know in the end we can relax that limit because of limitation this is ridiculous none will apply and only a couple of people we can say we can keep on giving you money because we have that. That will make a business eligible for 3 years but not depend on that if theyre in the system have to get a prorate of what you you can set it your obstacle not more than 3 years and remain obstacle for 3 years and then cut off. And just because you show up next year didnt mean well give you that grant we have others that come after the fact that will produce the results we look for. Not the way ill put that becoming scenario we have standards you going to have to adopt them equally and then theyre in limit the time not take the new crop of applicants you cant come in because weve changed the eligibility requirements in my opinion so you can limit the time and you say you can remain eligible providing your replying you need the money and once theyre in they share equally with the others. I have no objection to putting a limit on it the limit comes from this body if we want to change the limit if we feel not serving the intent of the law we can change it. Thank you if thats the way the law is written we need a limit multiple voices . What were discussing not arguing but discussing the thing that will happen if it San Francisco balls what will happen the limit frankly in year 4 with a request for something; right . Were saying the limit is on the grant not per say the organization requesting the grant oh, i want to grant for something different. Staff is proposing we are limiting the number of years the business can participate in the Grant Program. In the Grant Program to assure that future legacy businesses Grant Program has meaning. Can you come back after a supervisor and sit out and come back again. I think we could revisit that but our recommendation. But for now adopt. Adopt it as is and see if the Grant Program is being opportunity at higher and i think that years is a good time. We can expand. 3 is less than a mayoral term. Rick would like to say something. If i could just make an argument and more than 3 years but the 5 years the reason the long term goal we want to look around the year 2020, 4 years from. Well not discuss divided funding. Okay. Great. Those other things in the purview im sorry. I was thinking that is give us more time. Well it is up to the commissioners so i would like to have the commissioner decide 3 years is a reasonable or 5 years a reasonable number i feel starting out a smaller number is probably better we dont know what the demand will be ill be happy to expand if were overwhelmed we need a limit or well not serve 0 all the people we want to commend serve and well be criticized. I agree lets be conservator and then tweak it. So the business of today so approve this with any modifications and by plugging in that one number. There is 4 things before we get both approving the final program and if any other considerations that you want us to add to the proposed rules and regulations and grants application so the first item is to approve to extend the Business Assistance grant filing period from in the year 20162017 this fiscal year to december 15th. Yes. So that would be great. Are we motioning on each of those. Do we have a motion. Public comment. Why not Public Comment let me reiterate your request for the commission and Public Comment on the entire and fact motion on each the actions so the public is clear to reiterate were asking the commission to extend the grant filing period to december 15, 2016, for 20162017 that the Commission Approves an eligibility list okay. Eligibility use list with what staff proposed or any modifications you want to make to it and approve the Ineligible Fund list as staff proposes or modifications to it can time limit to participate in the Grant Program for business to be able to apply for the grants, and then if theres any other considerations you want us to have otherwise after those 4 items are motions you take action on well take action on is final Business Assistance grant rules and regulations and complaisance awnings a that have the clarification if we decide on this today what is is the process for amending this or changing it is it having a just a second other things that disrupt the meeting are prohibited. Change and voting on it. The first so the entire structure we submit to the board of supervisors they have thirty days to amend or allow as is after that the commission has the authorizations to unless legislated we need leg latsd changes then if not under our purview to pravk reconsider. For example, if the Commission Decides that today to set a 3 year term and a month from anyhow decides it after if we set the limit at 3 signed off by the supervisors and then 6 months from now we decided we want to make that 4 do we make that here at the commission by vote and then to the supervisors again or do we think mark farrell make that change here and it becomes a change ratified by without the needs for the boards approval. Ill need to reverify that based on any understanding of prop j we present the proposed rules and regulations to the board of supervisors once they have responded to it then it is up to you to be able to make those amendments as you see them. All right. All right. Im trying to assess the risk of making a decision today and going home there will be definite flexibility once they legislate it. Youve now made that part of record. And we can have Public Comment on this any Public Comment on item this proposal. Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Commissioners are there any there any administrations you want to make to any one of those 4 items including the use of number 3 in the two places where the number of years is specified. I want to say this is perfect i like the eligibility fund use, i like the others uses to support of continuation the businesses as a legacy business from the Small Business commission that opens the door there and Eligible Fund use whoever put this together were not here for debt relief and you have the right increases with the Consumer Price index and the your covered and i like the 3 years. Commissioner toursarkissian a our residents attorney do you have any changes id like to recommend to this as is you. I think considering the limited fund we have at this point and the fact we have to spread the money we ought to consider a reasonable fund you know since were discussing it i find the years to be reasonable time provided, however, that the business has each time to apply and get funding the 3 years is not an entitlement but out limits. Is there any commissioner that would like to see anything other than 3 years seeing none, that item is closed any commissioner have an issue theyve not seen. A question was posed about the eligible list the only question the item number 4 item number 2 that says employee salaries increased grandchildren the Consumer Price index just the clarification on the record i think that is necessary to set these standards but what does that really mean. Is salary an Employee Salary something that we consider an inevitable use paying on employee. So can i come and ask for a grants heres on easy one one fulltime employees comboobl for a 50,000 grants i can hire one more person and want to hire 101 employees. Will that make our business more successful. The only thing increases in salaries of the city bumps the living wages a volunteery act you increase the salaries because you want to or because you want to keep i dont understand the thank you. The retention the blow retention thing thank you. From our assumption meantime the minimum wage goes up thats the masking the business will have to demonstrate based on their Previous Year the salary payment and then the reason why that what theyre planning on doing and the reason their Salary Increases through salaries or expenses in terms of their annual increases on behalf of the Consumer Price percentage. This calculation is 500 per fte well, i want to give you a fulltime employee a 0. 50 raise and the only element that needs clarification is this employee i actually dont think you can make a grants it is 0. 25 an hour if you said i want a grant you can only get a grant of 500 and want that 500 to give any dish washer a raise if theyre working fulltime 0. 25 an hour ill not give that grant oh, okay. Thats makes all the difference in the world to sustain our business. Having but one question a clarification that the first year they get the grant a legacy business can come for rents and the next year a certification or recognition expenses not have to be the same funding or need. Right. It can be the eligibility can migrate. As proposed it is; correct unless you want to do it for an x number of years. And that brings up whether we want to say it is fine to ask for the exact use of money all 3 times whether we want to impose any kind of limits so attention Deficit Disorder ada or whatever is that appropriate or is that more appropriate for them to ask for a different item. Yeah. I dont know. I think what we could do we could stipulate in the application under eligible uses that you can use the same use for each year or can change the use based on your need and in your Grant Application ill the Business Needs to justifies what theyre going to be using it for and why they want to use it we can stipulate that we have the option of on and on okay. If i get this full funding for 3 years this x dollars what am i going to do 40 with that and plan or say every year ill see what my need is. This is why i asked staff to give us examples look it didnt make a Rocket Scientist to look at the numbers if i look at the first three or four items additional employees 500 for each ftes may be one company with one hundred employees can hire 5 hundreds bucks people you divide that before i 15 an hour 33. 3 hours less than an hour a week that you can increase someones time inconsequential and the Salary Increase 0. 25 an hour unconsequential the salaries will increase the point here is that you see this an, an eligible use but it is pro produce that the taxpayers had save r they saved that business they gave sometime 45 minutes of work that week and a company the guest to hire one more person in my mind are not i wouldnt feel good being held to think i gave uaw three hundred grand and sthrp in those categories. Are you suggesting we eliminate that. Im suggesting that the the Eligible Fund uses signals to what people should come and ask for. Put those on the list; right . It seems weird to me. Theyre not good obligations of the funds and rent theres not come to this side of this education with a rent request well talk about that next week thats a separate part of this i am not i guess id like to see those first four items struck number one because rent dealt with separately lets not have rent on this side dont come and ask for rents but the other things well talk about next week those next ones are about employee wages i dont think this fund is well, one written in a way that numerators it around a meaningful wage increase to anyone and so i feel like taking those off the list were in good conscious make those choices. I agree when you have those on the list few people say oh, well thats really not going to benefit it sounds like like you know a sweet deal for the business. And it really isnt. I dont want to set people up to. Hire multiple voices . Oh, my god now i realize what i asked for we say 0. 25 an hour what. I think that to make sure the board of supervisors understands those are sexy topics and not adding people to the staff we need to make sure they understand from a Small Business appreciative. Its a practical matter weve been asked to make combrantsz that preserve legacy businesses give them a change for preservation and ill argue those 3 items youll had one were saying were dealing with rent in a separate but the other 3 those alegitimate to preservea legacy business. All the other things mixed in. Yeah. Theyre kind of stuff you have to do and it is a one time hit i dont plan on that. And move in the 3. I think the funds the rent increase crowds out the this portion of the funds. Yeah. Available. I think youre right. And should be dealt with at the level of former rent stabilization this is a in my opinion kind of leaps out as a necessity and shouldnt be kickoff remove the needs that the businesses may otherwise have but a portion of this fund and well discuss next week. So just to get it off the table anyone object to not numbered the first eligibility the rent increase. I say go forward. Anyone object. One contaminate and well be needing to provide written record if there are additional justifications for removing them you know it is good to have it so we can officially write it in terms of the commissions. I suggest we remove the number one, if you will, the rent increase because were dealing with rent in the rents Stabilization Fund and this portion of the funding is not rent related. Great. Is there a republican for creating the rent Stabilization Fund segregate and have an offer laptop not detriment of many, many niece of businesses legacy businesses may have. And give a chance to the other needs to show that there are a workable tool. To graduate. And the eligible use to provide you with a smarg borrowing of what to consider we finally lists this youve given full consideration of every possible potential landscape of what sort of fitsdz within the larger discussion of legacy business without their and or what is a in the administrative code in prop j. Yes. By having that list we should number things by having this list of usage were signaling to the constituents of that legislation this is what they should apply for we should remove that part and leave it in the rent stabilization we have a rent provision by remove it from this list of Eligible Fund uses doesnt anybody object a second. Were editing. Now the next 3 items would dont say to deal with them their employee related i propose to you that ploy salaries slash expenses first of all, not expenses because expenses are arbitrary salary i suggest to you that that really only provides such a small potential raise that it is i think consequential and not. If i may this was to help the legacy businesses those items may not help the legacy businesses vpdz we should leave a caveat and say prop j specific talks about salaries and per employee we may have to check back with the responsible person before we dispose of those items we ought to in my opinion, of course, my opinion to dispose of those 3 items and eliminate them subjected subject to getting approval from the City Attorney. Of course thats a good way of putting it before we doing anything through the City Attorney does anyone object to removing those if were not hunters view if the City Attorney has no objection to that. May i have make one other sort of what may happen if we do the City Attorney may be comfortable with this is that in removing them but if a business is able to present in a meaningful way is there a Large Business that could be something under other can be considered. Yes. The last item allows for someone to come and say hey i have hundred employees and want to hire a grant writer laughter so, yeah so i think that again, we get to whether theyre having those heres signals in a way that just teasing businesses to come here in that didnt work. Or whether excluding them someone has a proactively make a case and like invite them or entice them to come and do that. I be that is appropriate because like we keep on saying otherwise people will have Unrealistic Expectations about what some of the items can do for their business we dont want everybody coming up that is 0. 25 an hour over and over and over again, it is better it is a take them out if they come with some amazing and compelling reasons. Yeah. Under the other. And consistent with the time limitations those are reconcurring competitions where the other items on the list are open a need basis and limited in time. If someone says i want to hire a consultant for x number of months and it falls within the 500 per fte than that is different and in fact, ill hire a consultant not an employee. Okay. It is under there so, yes good. Im recommending an idiot to the document to delete the first 4 items under the eligible uses does anyone object and a motion based on on edited document that dleelts those and puts in the number 3 and number 4. Say impeding. And subject to the motion subject to any objection from the City Attorney as to the items we have