Well determined forms of wages, hours and benefits commonly found in public employment, typically, trying to create a balance between the employers ability to pay and the conditions within the relevant labor markets and the cost of living. So given all that, weve by the numbers, weve probably we counted it up. We had nearly 400 bargaining sessions. We dealt with almost 2,000 proposals from all of the unions taken together, and through the process from the middle of january through may 15, we were able to resolve all outstanding matters either by agreement or in some instances, by award. We had 26 tables. Seven of them were solved by negotiations, and through agreement, the remaining nine m. O. U. S were set by arbitration award. The generalization increases are covered in the controllers report. Roughly, its 11 over a 3year period. The just by way of explanation, the city and the unions did conduct extensive analysis on the cost of living. We compared public and private wage and benefit data to inform the parties, and this ultimately led to this outcome. It does exceed the controllers projections for c. P. I. During the 3year period, so we have built into the m. O. U. S a failsafe in the event of an economic downturn in years 2 and 3. If the joint report shows an increase of 200 million or more, the wages are delayed but not denies. City employees at the end of that term will receive that full percent and a little bit more. Its compounded. Youll see in the report that theres some minor differences in the settlement in terms of the economic value. Most of that is by wage adjustments that were targeted adjustments. Most of those resources went to our lower wage earners, notably the crossing guards had a base rate increase of 2 an hour. The sheriffs cadets, people who you see when you walk in the building here, had a 5 general increase in addition to the wage increases in the main body of the contract. We also resolved im just providing examples here a longterm dispute of concern with the seiu regarding internal relationships between two key classifications in the health department, certified nursing assistants and patient care assistants. There have been no changes or diminution to our health benefits. Weve created a process by converting category 17 and 18 employees to Civil Service. We addressed comp time and overtime issues, trying to limit the caps on compensatory time which, when not used, build up liability over time as it gets more expensive as you go. Wed spent a lot of time and made a number of changes in our no discrimination policies. We brought the standard language into conformance with changes in law since they were last negotiated years. We created diversity, fairness and inclusion committees with the seiu and with local 21. We made some changes to our grievance procedures to define Clear Pathway for resolution for discrimination complaints. We changed our rules for personnel files, making it hard harder for employees to vacate findings of e. E. O. Policies from their records. And finally, all contracts will be brought into gender kn neutrality from the executive order. We did make a number of changes to our procedures to further encourage resolution of problems at lower levels within the whole city, some joint committees to resolve problems. We did change the Union Security provisions of all the m. O. U. S. This is the end result of the janus v. Afsme decision, asking the city and Employer Division in particular to do everything we can to support the unions in light of that decision. We have come up with a process, worked closely with them, remaining the city entirely from any decisions about membership. Its completely between the unions and their represented employees. They are provided every two weeks with their dues disbursement, very robust report about where they work, how to contact them with city and personal information as required by senate bill 866, so i think that was a positive outcome. We have had reports that we have had a very overwhelming, positive response from city employees. From those unions that have ratified almost no opposition to these agreements, so were pleased about that, and im happy to answer any questions you might have. Supervisor mar thank you so much, miss eisen. Colleagues, do you have any questions . Supervisor peskin congratulations, carol. Thank you. Si thank you, sir. Its been a lot of work. Supervisor mar actually, i have a few questions. I wanted to congratulate you on the Monumental Task of getting these labor agreements done on time in a really nonintense way. Really appreciate that. And just for the overview that youve just presented to the content of the agreements, it all sounds really good to me. I did you know, especially, i just wanted to flag the higher increase for some of the lowest paid positions, you know, sounds really good. I had a couple of questions on the items that the board has had hearings on. Just on the exempt positions, you said there was created a process for those workers and those positions to be able to gain fulltime permanent status. And then, the other one was just around racial inequities in our city government. You referred to diversity, fairness, and inclusion committees that wasnt there was an agreement on that. So if you could just describe explain a little bit more on for those two provisions. Okay. Starting with the issue of exempt employment, the weve had an informal structure informal process in place first of all, in exempt employment, employees and their unions have the ability to object to those appointments at the Civil Service commission. It doesnt seem that that process is something that the unions feel is valuable to them because theres really no history of any of those objections, so weve moved a process into the body of the m. O. U. S whereby we will meet regularly, we will provide the unions and local 21, again, is the union that was most concerned about this. We will provide them with regular reports of all of the category 17 and all of the category 18 appointments with whatever reasoning we have available to us in those reports. We will review them routinely with them, and where the union believes we made a mistake, we will go through the process of filling that position. We went through extensive bargaining at the table about exemptions, how to address it, what some of the benefits are and what some of the issues are in longterm growth. We also did, when it was raised and i presented this in a committee report, i believe to you. We found a growth in exempt employment over a period of time, but that was overall city employment growth generally. Its out there. We will redouble our efforts, but theres reasons for it, multiple reasons for it. Theyre embedded in the charter, and where its being overused, well collect through a joint process. Second issue, racial the Racial Equity questions, as you know, the mayor had saetup a task force and there had been a series of meetings around that task force involving a series of organizations and unions. The unions had expressed an interest, both unions, both local 21 and seiu that have expressed an interest in bringing that into their process. So essentially the same process ive described for exempt employment, we will do our best to have it data and fact based. We will evaluate all the city employment hiring, firing, discipline among those different groups. Issues can be brought to the committee. Is not the its not the grievance issue per se, but theyre meant to be problem solving groups. These are the best things that are discussed through the process, through evaluation, discussion, and doing that together. So were prepared to put the resources into it, and we hope the unions, as well, will stay focused on these issues and work with us to resolve issues as they come up. Supervisor mar thank you. Re really good to hear those provisions being included and look forward to those that being used, yeah, to address the concerns, so yeah. Thank you, supervisor. Supervisor mar are there any members of the public who wish to testify on this item . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Thank you. I was told by one prominent labor official this morning that if were not there, it means that were happy, so i thought id report that. Supervisor mar thanks again, and colleagues, can we move recommend items 4 through 30 to the full board without objection . Great. Thank you. Mr. Clerk, please call item number 31. Clerk agenda item number 31 is a hearing to review the out comes of the Central Market tax exclusion of 2011, examining the impact on city resources, economic growth, its effect on vacant storefronts, and the negotiated community requests, and requesting the departments to present. Supervisor mar thank you. Id like to recognize supervisor matt haney who is here for these items. Notice, ive set time limits and will be implementing those as presenters come forward. Supervisor haney thank you, supervisor mar. Im going to make very brief comments, and then well jump into the presentations which i believe we have four or five. Todays hearing will be about the Central Market tax exclusion of 2011. This is also sometimes known as the midmarket tax break or the twitter tax break, probably more popularly known. The Central Market tax conclusion of 2011 was to ensure job growth in our city at a time when the country was just beginning to recover from a recession. It was targeted in an area of market and large companies, encouraging them to stay in San Francisco, spur job creation and economic development. There was also a lot of conversation and commitments at the time that this was intended to revitalize the midmarket area, helping to fill the many retail and spaces that had been vacant for many years ago, and it was hopeful this was going to be a tremendous help to the community at large. We are just at the stage where this tax exclusion has sunsetted, just last month, i believe on may 20, and this will have the goal on looking at what happened. We know today in San Francisco, 20 of our population makes over 200,000 a year, yet we have become one of if not the most unequal cities in the country. We still have over 8,000 people who live on our streets, many of whom live around the midmarket area. We have housing costs that are the highest in the country, and growing eviction rates that have forced out many of the Diverse Communities that have been here for generations. On in the midmarket area, well hear about where things are both in terms of some of the potential positive things that happened and also some of the challenges that remain. Some of the things that im hopeful to hear about today as this tax break sunsets is most fundamentally, what did we learn and what do we do next. Did the city meet its goal, how many jobs were created and who got those jobs . How was the money that these companies saved from the tax break used or redistributed . An important part of the Tax Community was that the companies would provide Robust Community benefits. What were the Community Benefits promised, and what were delivered, and how do these benefits differ from those that these companies would have provided any ways even without the tax break. And finally, what is our strategy for midmarket now . Our strategy of cutting taxes for Large Tech Companies was obviously not a silver bullet, so what do we do now to make sure that we have equitiable development that addresses the significant needs of this community . In central soma, we are about to embark in a massive increase in development, in job growth, in housing. And as we understand what happened with the midmarket tax break, i hope we have many lessons for how we develop moving forward, how we ensure that we not only create jobs, but do it in a way that truly benefits the community as a whole. So with that, i am going to open up this hearing first with a presentation i believe from the office of the controller. Supervisor mar and mr. Egan, you have up to ten minutes for your presentation. Ted egan from the Controller Office of economic analysis. I have a lot of material im going to deliver in ten minutes, so im going to speak relatively quickly. Im happy to answer any questions after the presentation is over. The legislation directed the Controllers Office to prepare a report on the impacts of the legislation after three years, and our office did issue the report in 2014, so some of the information that ill share with you is updated information, and some of it is new information which we didnt speak to at the time. Firstly, this chart just summarizes the payroll tax that was foregone by the city. In many years it was a relatively small amount of money. In two years, however, 2014, and 2015, it was close to 35 million and 16 million respectively. And i would just point out that 2014 was shortly after the i. P. O. Of twitter, which it is a matter of record because of their Community Benefit agreement, did participate in the tax break, and its likely that a significant amount of that foregone tax is associated with twitters i. P. O. Event. Throughout the impact, what i discussed in my presentation, im going to look at Economic Indicators before and after the exclusion was enacted and then look at the pattern citywide. We have different ways with which we can look at the area. Im going to talk first about our business tax filings, and we have a great deal of granularity, including some of the Large Properties that were not included in the legislation, not included in the tax break area but were also part of the area between vanness and 6th street on market street. And that is where we collected the business Tax Information that im going to share with you now. We saw as we reported in our 2014 report a much faster rate of growth in business tax revenue from the area before, from 2010 to 2013 than we saw citywide. So we saw over 600 increase in the area and about a 47 increase citywide. Since 2013, which was the year we used for our previous report, weve basically seen a stagnation of business tax growth area in the area, but looking fr looki looking to 2010 to 2016, weve looked at a about a 600 increase. Its businesses that are a size enough to report their payroll expense to the treasurers office. I believe thats about 150,000 in annual payroll expense. That number increased faster in the area than it did in the city as a whole, although there hasnt been much growth since 2013. There were other Economic Indicators that are best captured at a zip code level, and were using the zip codes 94102 and 94103 to capture whats going on in the area. Its a somewhat bigger area, just to keep that in mind, but were looking at Business Establishments by industry. So the Census Bureau annually releases information on the number of establishments by industry in the city as a whole, and also by zip code, so we were able to combine the zip codes and look at the businesses by industry in the twozip code area and compare that as a whole. Generally what we see is faster growth in business formation in the area relative to the city as a whole. Thats clearly true in industries that have a lot of technologies, like information, which had a 67 growth. Tech is a big piece of it, professional services. Its true, however, in many other industries. I would note, however, that while there was growth, there was faster growth citywide in arts, entertainment, and recreation. Also in other services, which includes a lot of Neighborhood Services as well as grant making organizations, and there was a loss citywide in wholesale trade establishments that was faster in the area, and there was a lot of trade establishments in the area and in the city as a whole. We also looked at housing prices, and ill discuss median housing prices and median rent. This is from zillow. Theyve actually been somewhat slower in the 94102 and 94103 zip codes than they are in the city as a whole, but again, were talking a 74 increase versus a 94 increase citywide. When were looking at asking rents, 36 growth citywide, a higher growth, 43 or 45 in the two zip codes surrounding the area, so increasing rental stock pressure on the area. And finally, we were able to look at some data from the Census Bureau, and particularly we looked at patterns of socioeconomic change in the residents as measured by their occupations. So this is just a short map showing the census tracts that we used, but again, trying to capture the area surrounding the tax cut region. The San Francisco rent board publishes data on each eviction in the city, and we were able to extract that and overlay is on the census tract map to realize where evictions are happening and changing over time. This is the five years prior to the exclusion taking effect. You can see that the Central Markettenderloin was one of the areas where it was most prominent in the city at the time. We made the same map from 2013 to 2017. There still are a lot of evictions in the Central Markettenderloin area, but theres a lot of spread in evictions in the city. So if you actually looked at the change in evictions in the area versus the city as a whole, there was not much increase in the rate of evictions. In other words, the number of annual evictions per apartment or rental housing unit in the census tract. That really hasnt changed in the area. It really has changed a lot in the city as a whole. And then finally, the last piece of information we looked at was occupational change. This was what residents of the neighborhood have reported to the census about what their occupation were, and again, were looking thornton thomaset thomasetti were looking at the 2006 to 2007 period and comparing it to the 20162017 areas, both in the areas representing the district and the city as a whole. So were showing the occupations, and theyre ranked from highest paid to lowest paid on average. Were looking at really fast growth in occupations in this area. There was about a 43 increase across the city in residents who