Good morning. I want to welcome you to the regular scheduled budget and finance committee. Im chair of this committee malia cohen and to our left, our new member and joining us will be supervisor fewer. I want to thank our friends at sfgov and linda wong is our clerk assisting with todays meeting. Madam clerk, any announcements . Please silence cell phones and complete speaker cards and documents to be submitted to the clerk. Items will be on the february 13th board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. Supervisor tang cone k you call item one . Calling item one. They will not have a contract done until june. This is a stop gap measure until the new bid and contract are in place. I believe we have mr. Vladimir ridicove. Good morning. This is the contract manager for Human Services agency. We respectfully request authorization to modify the contract with allied universal security for additional money and 1,983 for a total contract not to succeed 26,062,288 and extend the term. It provides unarmed security at 26 sites for Human Service agency and supportive and Homeless Housing department. Including the main building, Program Sites and shelters. The reason for the extension is hsa and hsh have been working with office of contract of administration to services. Due to the protocol of the procurement processes, they have a number of changes, splitting the two into two for each individual department. We need to extend it. I or john can answer the questions you have. Thank you. Thank you. Lets go to the budget legislative analyst for a report. Good morning. Yes, as the department said, theyre extending the contract for five months to complete an rfp process for a new vender. The budget is 3. 2 million which includes five months of Additional Security Services through june and two month contingency in case a new vender was not able to start on july 1st. We looked at the numbers and consider them to be reasonable. We have a technical amendment to the resolution which states that the increase is 3. 5 million and it should be 3. 2 million. We recommend amending the resolution to give the correct information and otherwise recommend approval. Supervisor cohen colleagues, comments or questions . Were going to open up for Public Comment. Ladies and gentlemen, Public Comment is open and youll have two minutes, youll hear a soft chime indicating 30 seconds remaining on the two minute time a lotment. If anyone wants to speak, please do so. Seeing no member of the public, Public Comment is closed. Colleagues, what would you like to do with the item . Supervisor stephanie . Make a motion [indiscernible] make a motion the budget legislative analyst to change the contract numbers from 3. 5 to 3. 2. Supervisor cohen okay. I would like to make a motion can you hear . Louder. Making a motion pursuant to the budget and legislative Analyst Report to change the numbers from 3. 5 to 3. 2. Second it. Supervisor cohen i take that without objection. Motion passes with a positive recommendation to the full board as amended. Item two. Resolution authorizing and approving the licence of a portion of the agreement equipment room at San Francisco General Hospital and at T Mobility National accounts at the Monthly Base Rent of 5,000 that shall be waived and providing enhanced Services Within building 25. Supervisor cohen this allows at t to install a cable at zuckerberg hospital. The floor is yours. Good morning. Here before you on this exciting item of a rack. But this is very important for zuckerberg General Hospital. We have had three items before this committee and the board in 2017 around the distributed antenna system, think of it as the hub of which providers can wheel their services to patrons and staff of the hospital. This fourth item on the list is with at t to allow them to provide enhanced Cellular Service within the new hospital. This is a licence agreement, a five year term. It has a base rent of 5,000 a month with an annual 3 inflater. However, as we have done with the other three agreements, two for messaging services and one for Cellular Services and would do for another perspective in negotiations with verizon, they would only provide service to the building and most importantly provide the service to our staff. We believe that is of tremendous value for the operations of the hospital. If that is not those conditions are not met, then the rate kicks in and they owe the amount of money pursuant to the licence agreement. The five Year Agreement has an annual renewal thereafter that can be terminated five years after the party. This is a licence that could continue for some time and that is our hope. The citys only obligation here is two fold, one, modest utility costs and pay the electricity, theres no way to submeter the electricity, about 3,000 a year. If we do early termination before the end of the five year term, theres a modest payment for some of the capital they have invested on the order of approximately 3,000 for dismantling the equipment. Thats all i have on this side of the item. Supervisor cohen thank you. Appreciate the presentation. Well go to the budget legislative analyst for their thoughts. This is the fourth sale licence that would be approved for San Francisco General Hospital, it was not competitively bid because more than one company can locate in the space. The rent of 5,000 per month and 60,000 a year is standard licence rent but will be waived during the time that at t is providing direct services to San Francisco general staff and patients and visitors. There are many costs associated but otherwise we recommend approval. Supervisor cohen thank you. Any questions or concerns colleagues . No . Well go to Public Comment at this time. Ladies and gentlemen Public Comment is open for item two. Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Colleagues, is there a motion . Supervisor fewer. I make a motion to move it to the full board without changes. Supervisor cohen next item. For the purpose of executing purchase or sale or Lease Agreements to provide Homeless Services on caltran property for the people experiencing homelessness. Supervisor cohen okay, this is item three, the sponsors are mayor and sheehy. I dont know which mayor but nonetheless, the mayor. Im not sure where it originated. John updike is here. This is a simple resolution for the use of two caltran properties for the use of centers. Thank you. Thank you chair cohen, were keying up a brief presentation and we want to tell you whats going to be on the two properties. Ill begin while were loading. As you mentioned, a key property here involved are one at 5th and bryant, on ramp facility. And another facility at what we Call Division circle or van ness. This facilitates our execution of an expected Lease Agreement with caltran for each of the sites, individual Lease Agreements. While we anticipate the Lease Agreement terms to be within my current administrative Code Authority, theres a potential of some departures from that authority, such as the initial time frame. I have authority to sign a lease up to one year but not greater than one year. It would have to have renewals. Caltrans may require an additional term slightly longer than that. It would allow us to move further without further board authority. Under the current state legislation ab857 that enables caltrans to lease it to Homeless Services for 1 a month. I appreciate 12 a year in fiscal authority. Well take advantage of that under my Code Authority and i think emily wants to provide a little context in what is anticipated at the two locations. This is your first look at what were proposing to build. Supervisor cohen great. Thank you. Just to give you a Little Information about what were proposing to do on each of the caltrans sites, as you know, homelessness is an issue on many of the properties in our city for some time and i think this will allow us to address some of the pressing challenges. We have two proposed projects, fifth and circle and fifth and bryant. Both sites would focus on people experiencing unsheltered homelessness in the community. These are just some early images from public works about what would be built, the fifth and bryant site would be modular trailers on the site for the Navigation Center and similar to ones were using at the central water site. On Division Circle, this site would use temporary structure and would have facility for about 125 people. Again, with all the services and programs involved in the Navigation Centers we have used so far. Happy to answer more detailed questions you might have. Supervisor cohen i dont have necessarily a question but i just want the record to reflect that part of Construction Development costs will be totally 7. 9 million and that money is coming from the money that we were able to secure on the state level, correct . That will be used for Division Circle and 125 base shore. We have other funds for fifth and bryant. Supervisor cohen i see. Well go to the budget legislative analyst for thoughts. Yes, this legislation actually authorizes the director of real estate to negotiate with caltran oversights that can be used for purposes. Now, they have identified two specific sites here for purposes of the report. But my understanding is that somewhat Broader Authority in terms of being able to negotiate for other sites. We do talk about the costs of developing the Navigation Centers on this site on page 11 of our report. We identify 7. 9 million, you talked about the Funding Sources for that. There are operating costs combined for the two would be i believe on the front page, over 7 million a year. Our understanding in talking with the department that some of the monies are available in the current year budget but there would need to be funds made available in the 18 19 budget to complete this. These are self renewing leases. They could be for a number of years. Its not determined in terms of the actual lengths of leases at this time. We do recommend approving this resolution. Supervisor cohen were going to go to Public Comment seeing no colleagues with questions. Public comment is open on item three. Good afternoon supervisors. I did put in a comment card or a speaker card. Speaking as a voter and i just want to thank you for taking this up. Its a nobrainer. I just wanted to mention that it might be a good idea to help people by allowing them to design their own systems when possible and this might be an opportunity to allow people to design their own systems. Im going to send more details, comments later, i just wanted this to go on the record that its a good idea to empower people when possible and since this is opening up a new possibility, you might want to consider asking people how they want to live. Thank you. Supervisor cohen Public Comment is closed. A motion . Move with a positive recommendation to the full board. Can you send the item to the full board as Committee Report . Supervisor cohen not only with a positive recommendation but also a report. Item four please. Resolution for modification supervisor cohen sorry, items four and five together. Resolution approving modification two of the lease between American Airlines and the city for the recapture of certain land at plot 40 of the superbay hangar for parking at the San Francisco airport annual recent of 4. 6 million to be effective on the first day following board approval. And item five modification two of the lease between United Airline and certain land of plot 40 at superbay hangar for the parking at the San Francisco International Airport and adjust annual rent to commence on the first day of the month following board approvals. Supervisor cohen we have two resolutions for lease modifications for the hangar space used by american and United Airlines. The Square Footage is being leased and will be diminished to make space for Construction Contractors so they can park while working on airport improvements and saving the rental space every where else. We have Kathy Widener with us to share her thoughts. Thank you Kathy Widener with the San Francisco International Airport. Chair cohen summarized what is essentially a swath of space in modifying two existing leases with american and United Airlines for the airport to recapture some space for staging and contractor employee parking at plot 40 of the superbay hangar at the airport. Under the proposed modifications, American Airlines will give 1. 19 acres of land and united with 1. 48 acres of land in exchange for 1. 2 acres, a portion of which was part of the original american lease. This is all being done to support construction activities at the airport. We will make use of the recaptured space for parking opportunities for Construction Contractor employees, otherwise the airport would have to pay for off parking for those contractor employees. The modifications will reduce the rent paid by american and united, but we believe the cost savings associated with using the recaptured space for construction parking is estimated at about a Million Dollars a year over the next four years. That would exceed anything we would lose in the rental costs. The Budget Analyst Office has recommended approval but im happy to answer questions you might have. Supervisor cohen i see no questions right now. Well go to the budget analyst. Yes, in sort of following up on what was said, the actual revenue loss to the airport for reducing the leases with united and american is about 386,000 over the remaining terms of the leases. Our understanding based on information provided by the airport, the loss in revenue is off set by savings in terms of Construction Contracting of about a Million Dollars a year and we recommend approval. Supervisor cohen that savings is a little over a Million Dollars, is that correct . Yes. Supervisor cohen i have a question miss widener, this is a temporary loss, correct . Until construction is completed and then back to the same lease . I dont believe theres a contemplation that we would go back and the airlines would take back the space, although for the next four years, things may change, but my understanding is this is space that the airport desired and the airlines dont particularly use, so i dont believe theres any plan to go back. Well definitely use the space for something else. We would be able to make it available to other airlines or other tenants at the airport who wanted parking for employees. There would be rental there would be revenue coming back at the end of the lease. Supervisor cohen thats good to hear. Thats where my concern is. We change the lease to make reasonable accommodations so people can park to continue with the expansion, no problem. Once our construction work is done, my question is, im not looking to continue to have operate with a loss of revenue. So youre saying there will be future opportunities to recover that. We are very land constraint at the airport and we leverage any opportunity for Available Space. It wont at the end of the term, if the airlines dont want it back as part of a lease modification, we could use it for parking for other tenants. Supervisor cohen for the record, how long is the lease . You mean the supervisor cohen the modification. I believe you, the board of supervisors approved the original leases for united and american at the superbay. I believe it was a 10year term and it was about i want to say five years ago. So its very possible at the end of the four years we will be coming back to you with new leases at the superbay anyway at which point we could make better use of the space once the construction is over. Supervisor cohen when do you anticipate construction to be over . Its four years is how long the Construction Company will use this Available Space for staging and employee parking. Supervisor cohen has construction begun . Not yet. We definitely have construction at the airport but whats contemplated here before you has not started. Supervisor cohen when do you anticipate that starting . Soon. My understanding is that as soon as this is approved, its the first of the following month that everything will begin. Supervisor cohen thats my understanding, too. Thank you. Were going to go to Public Comment. Any member of the public that would like to comment on four and five you can do so. Come up to the podium. I dont have cards in front of me. All right. Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Thank you. Colleagues . Can i get a motion to send to the full board . Yes, i would like to move items four and five to the full board with positive recommendation. Thank you. Well take that without objection. Item six. Clerk ordinance of sections of the campaign and Government Campaign finance and conflict of interest. Supervisor cohen thank you. I just want to let folks know that supervisor tang and supervisor peskin are going to join us shortly for this particular item. In the meantime i want to recognize leeanne pelham from the San Francisco Ethics Commission, executive director of the commission. Welcome. Thank you chair and good morning members of the committee, welcome to the new supervisor on the committee as well. Im here this morning to provide a brief overview with our policy staff, senior policy analyst and policy analyst working quite hard over the past year to put together an ordinance of needed changes we believe to help with Responsive Government in the city and county of San Francisco. Were happy to respond and address questions that Committee Members and others might have, but our primary policy focus as a commission over the past year was develop an Anti Corruption and ordinance order, this came in response to two grand jury reports and something the commission spent a fair amount of time on with members of the public and others to address the perception or reality of pay to play politics, pay and play that can be perceived of how decisions are made and on a daytoday basis. The goal is to help reduce potential that political donors, money in politics is making a decision when it comes to governmental Decision Making and were looking to enact new restrictions to support that end and new disclosers for the public to better understand what can be at play when there are high stake issues those in Public Service are deciding every day. We support this initiative and we hope you support to help with trust in government and electoral institutions. The two civil grand juries identified serious gaps, over the past year, our focus as a commission, over nine public interested persons meeting and Commission Meetings monthly, to develop workable and forcible provisions that are strong and help advance the goals we have. There are concepts included in the ordinance that speak to proposals made by the members of the board of supervisors over the past year. We have been responsive to those issues that have included provisions related to those. And very importantly, it was important to gather information about the practical insights and experiences of those required to comply with provisions of our citys campaign and governmental conduct laws. We really wanted to reach out and spend a fair amount of time reaching out to those who may be impacted by this to understand what the practical daytoday issues are with them and we have tried to do that through Public Engagement process. I want to go briefly to kyle to walk through the area of the ordinance with new restrictions and pat for a walkthrough of the disclosers and then of course come back briefly to any questions you may have about the cost for an ordinance that we have identified roughly 160,000. 01 time cost to implement, our commission is very much of the view its a sound investment in strong and effective government. We want to support that and hope you will as well. With that, ill turn it over to kyle for a couple of slides. Thank you. Thank you. Im sure youll have a number of questions. Ill walk through these fairly quickly but i want to touch on the prohibitions that are changes to the current law. Although the city currently has a contractor ban, persons with certain matters pending before the city, those members of those organizations, board of directors, president s, other key officials are prohibited from making contributions to members of the board of supervisors and the mayor. We are proposing that be extended to certain parties with land use interest in the city. As we all know in california generally but San Francisco in particular, land use matters are sort of high value high stake programs. When we originally evaluated this land use restriction based on a proposed ordinance change by supervisor peskin, we did some analysis and found that since 2012, the five largest contributors, Campaign Committees or general purpose committees, those were all land use or developer organizations and entities. Several of the top givers gave since 2012, well into the millions of dollars for political activity in the city. Next fundraising by commissioners. This would be a rule that would prohibit certain members of boards and commissions from soliciting Campaign Money to their appointed officials. This mirrors what is already law at the federal level via initially the pendleton act and later the hatch act and is in l. A. It simply points the the fact that appointed officials shall be acting in the interest of the city, the interest of the commission that they serve on and not in the interest of the individual who appointed them. So now ill switch over to pat ford to discuss disclosers. Thank you supervisors. This ordinance would build on local reporting requirements that the board approved last year sponsored by supervisor peskin. Our ordinance would expand this in a few ways that we think would help further the purpose of the ordinance and strengthen the disclosers and expand the rules to apply equally to elected officials, create uniformity and further strengthen the rules. It would also broaden the set of payments that would be disclosed, right now under the current local rules, they only have to be reported when the person making the payment at the behes of the official, has a proceeding in front of the official. We would expand the class of proceedings that would trigger discloser in the ordinance. And it would add some additional disclosers, in addition to filing the form 803, there would be two additional things that the official would disclose, thats the official, family member, or staff member works at the organization that is receiving the payment. And then also whether the organization receiving the payment spends money to distribute literature that features the official who requested the payment. Donors would also disclose what makes them an interested party, the official that asked them to make the payment and in very narrow set of circumstances, the recipient would make a discloser, that would only be when a recipient receives 100,000 or more of payments that are made to the same official within one year and in the past three years thats only happened about four or five times and they would essentially report back one year later how they spent the money that was given to them. Lastly, an exception that this ordinance would add to carve out certain payments that the commission does not believe brings a danger of corruption, when an official makes a behest through a speech at an event where 50 or more people are present, we dont believe that request brings the same kind of danger of corruption that oneonone communication brings. Those behests would not trigger reporting. Another discloser it would require is bundling. So this is of course when a person delivers or transmits contributions other than their own to an official, its a pretty common fundraising practice and this ordinance would require committees that received bundle contributions to make a discloser when they file semi annual statements of who bundled the contribution and which person bundled and if the person is trying to influence that candidate. And our last slide has to do with the estimated cost. Earlier we estimated about 230,000 but upon further review and talking to the internal i t team, we have found a way to cut the costs, not going through the main net file contract but working through docusign that the city is just starting to work with. We believe its just under 160,000. And we invite any questions you may have. Supervisor cohen thank you. Just want to recognize that supervisor peskin has joined us. I have a couple of questions and i believe supervisor peskin has questions as well. Colleagues, if you could put your name in the cue, well get to the questions. First, got a number of commissioners and members across the city that were specifically selected to serve for the expertise in a particular given area of expertise, and the conflict of interest you have identified is in many ways what makes them a great commissioner, makes them desirable. We have a recuse process for direct conflicts that exists already. So how do we reconcile the need for Strong Community organizations, there need to be able to fund raise to be effective and our citys need for expertise. Certainly. I want to point out that the recuse is law in the city of los angeles. We worked with them closely to implement a similar provision and asked them how often the provision was used and the answer was not often. I think in their view when it was used, it was important. And i want to point out, were not suggesting that we are going to be banning any activity, only that because we are the repostory for other conflict of interests that we be the sort of repostory to evaluate the recusing, we are only suggesting, the Ethics Commission be the body to evaluate it and if and only if there is sort of a refusal or theres an ignoring of the law would we go to the next steps of divesting and removal. But we are only in this recommending that we be able to review those and we dont think its a burden anyone serving as a member of these important public bodies or associated nonprofits. Supervisor cohen okay. What about organizations ability to fund raise to be effective to their mission . If were speaking about payment disclosers, i think theres a little confusion there. Theres nothing here to restricts an individuals ability to fund raise for their nonprofit. I think thats i dont know if i need to explain it further, theres generally no restriction on the ability of a nonprofit to fund raise. There is a potential limit on the ability of how do i potentially a limit on ability of what the elected officials in the city or what public commissioners in the city may want to engage in but nothing that prohibits from solicit itting money from organizations or board of directors for doing the same. Supervisor cohen i would like to hear more about the policy around bundling. You touched on it a bit in the presentation. Are there more details to share . Generally the policy, this is potentially a form or method for people to build influence with elected officials that would not be shown on existing forms of discloser. Supervisor cohen i understand and support the provision of the but how do you execute it . How do you enforce it . Can you tell us more about the plan for the investigation and enforcement on the issue . Sure. This would essentially be a form that Campaign Committees have to file and say when they receive over 5,000 of contributions that are bundled by a single individual. And youre right, if committees are not forthright, if they decide not to comply with the discloser, that would not immediately be apparent on other disclosers, currently theres no way to see that. We would rely on committees to self report and people within the committees if they discovered there was conduct not properly being conducted, to notify us. Supervisor cohen how do you prevent it from implicating people who may be connecters but not influencers on the donations. So if a person is merely connecting a donor with a candidate, that wouldnt show up as a bundle contribution. It would only be disclosable if the person making the connection actually acquires the contribution and transmits it. If i merely say to somebody i encourage you to contribute to that candidate and the person does it on their own, its not within the scope of the discloser. Its if i say give it to me and ill give it to the candidate and i amass 5,000 or more and hand it to the candidate. Supervisor cohen supervisor peskin. Thank you chair cohen. Over the past couple of weeks ive had an opportunity to dig into frankly a vast piece of Ethics Reform and theres a lot of good i see in here. As a matter of fact, a year ago i introduced and some of what is in here, albeit its changed, the Ethics Commission i say with all respect has put the board in a tough spot. And i get it. Theres a leverage issue going on here relative to the board discharging its duty to regulate itself and the Donor Community that as i said, i support because i introduced a bunch of these. But this is a vast piece of Public Policy and i want this board to get it right. And its going to be difficult to get it right in a handful of days before i dont see any of the Ethics Commissioners themselves here, before they have an opportunity on february 16th to put this on the ballot. And i have some amendments that may indeed deemed to be substantial. I say that as a person who has seen a lot of code in the last 18 or 17 years, what i would like to do and propose, particularly in so far as let me go back. If we make substantial amendments and they have to be rereferred, we wont they wont be able to incorporate them for a june ballot. It is my profound want that this not go to a ballot. If it goes to the ballot, its too late to regulate the june race with these reforms. That i say this respectfully, had some of the stuff i introduced a year ago been enacted timely and this come back sooner, they may have actually impacted particularly in and around the use of the area of land use donation regulation, they could have impacted the june race. But i want time to be able to hear from the community that you have heard from, to hear as part of the regulated community from my colleagues to do it in open and transparent public process and thats frankly not going to happen between now and february 16th. I have a situation i would like to throw out there. Its a similar with the retirement board, we have all 11 members of the board have had the system divest from fossil fuel holdings. And indeed to that end, i introduced a Charter Amendment here that would have changed the composition of the retirement board, i chose and my colleagues agreed this last tuesday to move that to possibly the november ballot. Were maintaining our levage but allowing the retirement board to move forward with fossil fuel divestment. And i would like to encourage staff to encourage the commission to give us that breathing space to discharge our duty to regulate ourselves and, you know, the Donor Community, and i think if were going to do it right, particularly given some of the questions i have and amendments i want to offer, its going to take more than the next 15 days. So i wanted to throw that out there to start with. Sounds like you want to say something. Im so transparent. Thank you for the comment. The Ethics Commission, for the public who may be coming later to the discussion, the Ethics Commission, i think i shared with the committee has been looking at the proposal and developing the proposal and building on proposals that members have made and that reflects in the package sent over. The dates of february 16th that you reference, during the process of the commissions considerations they have been very focused and cognizant of their ability under the charter by the voters to direct mandate to place measures for governmental ethics on the ballot for the voters of San Francisco to decide. Thats something they have discussed throughout the process and yes, at the same time, the commission is aware well of getting practical input from those affected by the ordinance. The process where we are today, the ordinance was approved in final form by the commission in november, late november, forwarded to the board of supervisors in early december and this is the first time weve had a chance to have a hearing with a committee as a board. We will take that message back to the commission. They asked for it to be put on the agenda and possible action for february 16th. But certainly well take back every question and suggestion were hearing today to inform that discussion so the commission can make the best and most informed action on that day. So were happy to hear other suggestions that any member of the committee may have to relay that information to the commission. I want to pass something and pass something here that honors the commissioners intent and rids the potential corruption we have seen over the years and in many ways, the proposed ordinance makes strides towards doing that. And would inhibit a lot of the money flowing through this building which is what prompted me to author some of the stuff i sent. But it casts a much broader net and impact behavior that i think is very innocent behavior and my caution is while we go down the path of getting money out of city hall, we dont end up killing the small donor environment in favor of independent expenditures. I think we want to encourage the smaller groups, for anyone who donates, even 15 to a Campaign Sign an affidavit that they are not among the category of persons prohibited from submitting that donation, presumably at some risk of repercussion if theyre wrong, it will chill the small donor environment. I say this as somebody who has run for office four times, if you stick a phone in front of somebody who says im over 18 years of age, im a United States citizen and these funds are my own funds, anybody can read that and sign it. But if you have them sign an affidavit that says youre familiar with somebody who frankly you have to hire a Campaign Lawyer to interpret, a lot of small donors will say im not going to give you that 100 bucks. Those are the kinds im not running for anything, but those are the kind of donations that we want to encourage and not chill. I think there are ways we can figure this out, putting in dollar thresholds. I think youre moving in the right direction, but you have cast a broader net than may be wise. And i have a proposal for the commission and staff which unfortunately wont move through the legislative process quickly enough to be ready for this junes election cycle that is shaping up to be one of the more consequence consequentle in recent history, i want to see disclosers of every donors business interest, ownership in various companies or real estate, with my own form 700s, a full recitele of stock portfolio. That will give a clearer idea of why the money is flowing through our political system. I dont want to dominate but hold on. I want you to be here. I dont mind you dominating right now. Ill let you know when im done dominating. Everybody ask your questions and well work supervisor tang is here also and will have questions im sure as well. Please continue. Thank you madam chair. At section 101. 04 on page 2, and again, i say this as somebody who has long wanted to regulate donations in and around pending land use matters. The definition of developer under this section seems very broad and the language is quite vague regarding who may be considered to be a developer for purposes of conflict of interest law. The definition includes anyone at an llc or partnership who has Decision Making Authority Regarding major decisions or actions. Is the intent relative to the underlining project only. What is a major decision or action can you answer that . Im sorry, were pulling up that version right now. So perhaps some clarification is needed here. But i just want to point out we worked with the Planning Department and department of building inspection as well as the City Attorney office to sort of develop this definition you see in front of you here. So, i dont know if we can speak specifically to your question, but i will point out that it was reviewed and analyzed and developed with the number of agencies family with the land use process, more familiar than our commission involved and i will say if it needs clarification, that can be done in regulations or associated documents. It seems broad and vague. The definition also includes any individual tasked with submitting an environmental evaluation application, an eea as we call it, can staff walk me through the scope of projects that require an eea . I dont think were prepared to walk you through the process of eea right at this moment. Okay. Im not trying to play gotcha, but eeas can be submitted for the smallest of Small Projects and that goes back to the issue of not killing a donor environment. We know who the large political developers are in the political economy but its not the person doing the eea because theyre adding a floor to their two unit building in north beach. So, again, i think that needs some thought. If i may quickly. There is a threshold attached to this, it is a Million Dollars so you have to it has to be discretionary review and have over a Million Dollars in the property for this to be a thing and we exclude certain nonprofits that are performing traditional and low income Government Services in the city, there are a number of qualifications to that definition. And then the definition of land use matter on page 3 line 9, again, i say this as somebody who introduced that legislation a year ago, that proposed to cover this exact topic, and its been stuck at the commission for a year but before us now, can somebody advise why the Million Dollar threshold has been that i included in my legislation isnt in the provision. Its in the definition of financial prevision corresponding to section 1. 17. Financial interests is on the top of page 3, ownership interest of 10 or Million Dollars as subject of the land use matter. Im going to have to look at that and see if it does what all right. Im going to have to sit down with the City Attorney on that one and see if it does what you say it does. On section 1. 114. 5, this is the signed which i discussed and having to sign an affidavit about whether or not you are a contributor when you may not know if you are or not, its going to chill small contributions that we want to encourage. Can someone say why there wasnt a dollar threshold here . There is line 19 page 6, 100 or more. And these are contributions required to be reported as you know on statements once they are 100 or more by candidates. And this is i would suggest its not an affidavit, its a contributor card, something we would have a sample of on the web site and mandatory training that candidates and treasurers participate in with the Ethics Commission. But it is to help committees respond to the concerns they have that they may be in a position to get donations from individuals and have no idea if a person falls in a century stricted category. This is a tool and used in other jurisdictions i understand for helping the contributor to at the outset of making the contribution to share with the committee, if im in one of the categories, to give a flag to the committee to not take the contribution or inquire further. Its one that helps committees with a newco with a tool to help them comply. In speaking to a couple of the members of the board of supervisors, had heard that because of the contractor ban, it affected the individuals running for the office to create their own data base and check against the selfmade data bases and only then would they have done Due Diligence not to be subject to the law. This is put there for the front end. I understand about the threshold amount, im sure thats something that is a policy consideration that could be considered. We did this to sort of we heard that really it was only the sort of incumbent large candidates able to comply with the law and pushing out smaller candidates from running for office because they had to comply with this contribution ban and discovering the information. We put it on the front end to hopefully lessen that burden for candidates who want to run. A high level note, i have to observe that the world has changed because of the internet. In the old days, 100 of the contributions you got were by check and you would have to have a Human Interaction and you knew who you were dealing with. Now, you know, theres most are online. Page 7 line 12 looking at the discloser requirement for persons making contributions over 5,000 in a single calendar year, i didnt see an indication of how or when the discloser must be made and in the following subsection, theres a how and when for the report by the committees. Is that intentional . Should we insert that in subsection one . I guess it was our intension in section one there that those persons would be forming the committees and they would be reporting to us. If thats unclear, we can look back at that. And then in 1. 124. 82, how are committees supposed to determine if a business entity received funds through a contract or grant within the last 24 months . We believe that the campaign, the individuals, the candidates i should say are going to be the ones in the best position to know if these individuals had spoken to them, had lobbied in front of them. Done any of the activities, such as they would be in the best place to report that information
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.