Young, Victor - sfgov.org

27

Young, Victor

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Google Forms <[email protected]> Wednesday, April 26, 2017 1 :57 PM SOTF, (BOS) New Response Complaint Form

Your form has a new entry.

Here are the results.

Complaint against which Department or Commission

Name of individual contacted at Department or Commission

Alleged Violation

Date of public meeting (if checked)

Please describe alleged violation

San Francisco Public Finance Authority

There is none to contact. It hasn't been meeting.

Public Records Public Meeting

It did not hold any since 1994

The Public Finance Authority was the successor agency to the Educational Finance Authority originally established in 1991 and re-established in 1993 as the Public Finance Authority. Since 1994's Hoogasian vs. Board of Education decision, the Public Finance Authority thought it was the Educational Finance Authority referred to in the decision. Several years had gone by before Hoogasian was fully appealed, and everyone thought it would be overturned so by the time it was upheld. Everyone's minds were clouded about how the situation was addressed in 1993 by establishing as successor agency, especially since some of the key officials were involved in the "shrimpscam" scandal at the time and were dealing with their own headaches with the FBI's public corruption unit. That said, the ballot language in the 1993 voter guide is also misleading because it refers to a "tax we have already been collecting" instead of an illegal tax that should not have been collected; with that in mind, my view is the successor tax should be declared illegal as well because it was approved after false/misleading information was provided to the voters, even by the relatively lax standards of the time.

Because the Educational Finance Authority's sole purpose was to collect a Transactions and Use Tax declared illegal under Hoogasian, the Public Finance Authority stopped meeting and nobody cared or noticed. The Board of Equalization still continued to collect the 1993 Transactions and Use Tax for the (in its eyes) legally valid Publfo Finance Authority. In 1995, unwinding the mess, the legislature added a section to the Revenue and Taxation code (section 7267e - also, that was the year of the divided legislature, so the legislative intent of shaming San

P111

Date

Name

Address

City

Zip

Telephone

Email

Francisco for trying to pass illegal taxes explains the unusually strong legal text), and the Controller processed payments frorn the Board ofEquali_zation intended for the Public Finance Authority as if they were intended for the Educational Finance Authority under section 7267e, when instead it should have sent thern back and told the Public Finance Authority cronies, "hey, you need to get a bank account and have public meetings and budgets like an agency that exists." The Cornrnunity college and School District didn't complain because they were still receiving the money they expected to, albeit frorn the controller because of the June 1993 fix, and it was one less meeting for their executives to go to or worry about. This continued for over two decades. In subsequent years, the controller failed to make material disclosures regarding the Public Finance Authority and provided the public false and misleading information in ballot handbooks (along with the Ballot Simplification Cornrnittee's statements regarding what sales taxes are collected in San Francisco) and financial statements because it failed to reconcile the BOE's local district tax allocation reports to the City's financial accounts. Due to the opacity of all of this, I'rn not sure whether these funds show up as restricted or unrestricted in the city's CAFR, but in any case, I find it incredulous we have a law such as 7267e that gives legal force to an allocation formula of the Educational Finance Authority (not the Public Finance Authority!) requiring citizens to try to find 25 year old board minutes of a disbanded public body. If that's not unconstitutionally vague, I don't know what is.

04/24/17

Thomas Busse

584 Castro Street #388

San Francisco

94114

4152445072

tjbussesf@grnail. corn

Forward old email to another address with Email Forwarder for Gmail.

This email was sent via the Google Forms Add-on.

~12

Young, Victor

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Follow Up Flag: Flag Status:

Thank you Ms. Wolfe:

Thomas Busse <[email protected]> Saturday, April 29, 2017 11 :23 PM SOTF, (BOS) Calvillo, Angela (BOS) Re: SOTF - Confirmation of receipt of Complaint/Correspondence

Follow up Flagged

I have formally appealed to the City Attorney to force the Controller to Respond to my immediate Disclosure Request to produce the financial statements of the San Francisco Public Finance Authority with a bona-fide reason he cannot produce the documents. Because the San Francisco Public Finance Authority is a City Blended Agency of the county sharing four board members including the treasurer as ex-officio, any reasonable person should expect the Controller to be able to produce current financial statements. Per the Sunshine Ordinance's Supervisor of Records provisions, I formally requested the City Attorney to use all powers vested in him, including referral to the District Attorney or the Sheriff, to force the Controller to release this information or give a reason it is not available.

I have also given the City Attorn,ey an Immediate Disclosure Request for the Ordinances of the San Francisco Public Finance Authority. They and the board minutes of this authority are not in the records of the SFPL's Government Information Center; however, in a June 1993 special election, the City Attorney overrode the Ballot Simplification Committee and substituted his own ballot summary. Therefore, The proposed ordinance must be in the files of the City Attorney's Office (I have written confirmation from the Department of Elections the Department does not have copies of the text of the proposed ordinance (which passed).

The Board of Equalization claims to be following this Ordinance; however, they have also missed the deadline for my formal request under the California Public Records Act for a copy of this Ordinance.

I have two questions: 1) Does the San Francisco Public Finance Authority Exist 2) Is there a cover-up regarding the legal authority underpinning the 1993 sales tax, which continues to be collected?

I also have reason to believe the City Attorney's office may have a conflict of interest in this matter due to circumstantial evidence suggesting the City Attorney's office in 1993 conspired with other public officials to knowingly pass an illegal tax and cover it up until it met the short statute of limitations placed on tax measures. Further city legislative analysts have then buried the illegal pass through and knowingly and willfully made material misrepresentations to the City Auditor and State Controller, and established secret budget process, knowingly violating California law requiring the annual meetings of joint powers authorities.

The current City Attorney was also a friend of the then-mayor and advised him off the record. It is possible, the Current City Attorney may be aware of illegal acts that took place in 1993 and therefore take action to prevent their disclosure or destroy them. I appeal to the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force to consider and advise me how to proceed with my requests for disclosure under these circumstances.

Thomas J. Busse

A.13

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 5:39 PM, SOTF, (BOS) <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Mr. Busse:

The Sunshine Ordinance Task Force (SOTF) is in receipt of your complaint and correspondence. Your question is currently being reviewed by SOTF Chair Bruce Wolfe and will respond shortly.

Thank you.

Victor Young 415-554-7724

Administrator, Sunshine Ordinance Task Force

From: Google Forms [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 1:57 PM To: SOTF, (BOS) <[email protected]> Subject: New Response Complaint Form

Your form has a new entry.

Here are the results.

Complaint against which Department or Commission

San Francisco Public Finance Authority

Name of individual contacted at Department or Commission

Alleged Violation

There is none to contact. It hasn't been meeting.

Public Records Public Meeting

~14

·-' Date of public meeting (if checked)

Please describe alleged violation

Date

It did not hold any since 1994

The Public Finance Authority was the successor agency to the Educational Finance Authority originally established in 1991 and re-established in 1993 as the Public Finance Authority. Since 1994's Hoogasian vs. Board of Education decision, the Public Finance Authority thought it was the Educational Finance Authority referred to in the decision. Several years had gone by before Hoogasian was fully appealed, and everyone thought it would be overturned so by the time it was upheld. Everyone's minds were clouded about how the situation was addressed in 1993 by establishing as successor agency, especially since some of the key officials were involved in the "shrimpscam" scandal at the time and were dealing with their own headaches with the FBI's public corruption unit. That said, the ballot language in the 1993 voter guide is also misleading because it refers to a "tax we have already been collecting" instead of an illegal tax that should not have been collected; with that in mind, my view is the successor tax should be declared illegal as well because it was approved after false/misleading information was provided to the voters, even by the relatively lax standards of the time.

Because the Educational Finance Authority's sole purpose was to collect a Transactions and Use Tax declared illegal under Hoogasian, the Public Finance Authority stopped meeting and nobody cared or noticed. The Board of Equalization still continued to collect the 1993 Transactions and Use Tax for the (in its eyes) legally valid Public Finance Authority. In 1995, unwinding the mess, the legislature added a section to the Revenue and Taxation code (section 7267e - also, that was the year of the divided legislature, so the legislative intent of shaming San Francisco for trying to pass illegal taxes explains the unusually strong legal text), and the Controller processed payments from the Board of Equalization intended for

. the Public Finance Authority as if they were intended for the Educational Finance Authority under section 7267e, when instead it should have sent them back and told the Public Finance Authority cronies, "hey, you need to get a bank account and have public meetings and budgets like an agency that exists." The Community college and School District didn't complain because they were still receiving the money they expected to, albeit from the controller because of the June 1993 fix, and it was one less meeting for their executives to go to or worry about. This continued for over two decades. In subsequent years, the controller failed to make material disclosures regarding the Public Finance Authority and provided the public false and misleading information in ballot handbooks (along with the Ballot · Simplification Committee's statements regarding what sales taxes are collected in San Francisco) and financial statements because it failed to reconcile the BOE's local district tax allocation reports to the City's financial accounts. Due to the opacity of all of this, I'm not sure whether these funds show up as restricted or unrestricted in the city's CAFR, but in any case, I find it incredulous we have a law such as 7267e that gives legal force to an allocation formula of the Educational Finance Authority (not the Public Finance Authority!) requiring citizens to try to find 25 year old board minutes of a disbanded public body. If that's not unconstitutionally vague, I don't know what is.

04/24/17

Name Thomas Busse

Address 584 Castro Street #388

City San Francisco

Zip 94114

Telephone 4152445072

Email tjbussesf@gmail. corn

Forward old email to another address with Email Forwarder for Grnail.

This email was sent via the Google Forms Add-on.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY

TO:

FROM:

DATE:

RE:

DENNIS J. HERRERA

City Attorney

MEMORANDUM

Sunshine Ordinance Task Force

Nicholas Colla Deputy City Attorney

May 19, 2017

NICHOLAS COLLA

Deputy City Attorney

Direct Dial: Email:

(415) 554-3819 nicholas.colla @sfgov.org

Complaint No. 17039 - Busse v. San Francisco Public Finance Authority

COMPLAINT

Complainant Thomas Busse ("Complainant") alleges that the San Francisco Public Finance Authority ("SFPFA")violated provisions of the Sunshine Ordinance by failing to exist.

COMPLAINANT FILES THIS COMPLAINT

On April 26, 2017, Complainant filed this complainant with the Task Force regarding his questions about SFPF A.

JURISDICTION

SFPFA was created pursant to State Business and Tax Regulation Code Section 7281.1, which reads as follows:

7286.1. Authorization to levy; San Francisco City and County. (a) Upon the adoption of a resolution as specified by Section 7286.2 by the governing boards of the San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco Community College District, there shall be established in the City and County of San Francisco an educational financing authority in accordance with that resolution. Any authority so established may adopt an ordinance imposing for the authority's general purpose a transactions and use tax at a rate of 0.25 percent, if all of the following requirements are met:

(1) The ordinance proposing that tax is approved by a two-thirds vote of the board of directors of the authority and by a majority of the qualified voters of the county voting on the measure, or any otherwise applicable voter requirement.

(2) The ordinance requires that the tax conform with Part 1.6 (commencing with Section 7251) ..

(3) The ordinance provides, upon the approval of a majority the qualified voters of the city and county voting on the approval of the ordinance, for an increase in the appropriations limit established pursuant to Article XIII B of the California Constitution for each school district within the city and

Fox PLAZA • 1390 MARKET STREET, 6TH FLOOR • SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102-5408 . RECEPTION: (415) 554-3800 • FACSIMILE: (415) 437-4644

n:\codenf\as2014\9600241\0l l 93621.doc

P17

CITY AND 'GOUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

MEMORANDUM

OFFICE OF THE C!ly,A HORNEY

TO: DATE: PAGE: RE:

Sunshine Ordinance Task Force May 19, 2017 2 Complaint No. 17039 - Busse v. San Francisco Public Finance Authority

county in an amount equal to, or greater than, the revenues derived from any transactions and use tax imposed pursuant to the ordinance that are allocated and received by that entity each fiscal year.

(4) The ordinance provides that the increases in appropriations limits shall terminate no later than four years after the effective date of the ordinance, and may be continued for successive periods not to exceed four years each upon the approval of a majority of the qualified voters of the school district voting on each continuation.

(b) With respect to the approval by the voters of an ordinance specified in subdivision (a), the city and county shall, if the ordinance so requests, call a special election for that purpose, to be held on a date specified by the ordinance, not less than 60 nor more than 103 days after the ordinance is adopted by the governing board of the educational finance authority.

( c) If any provision of this section or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of this section that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this section are severable.

Because the SFPFA was established by a joint resolution between the San Francisco · Unified School District ("SFUSD") and the San Francisco Community College District ("SFCCD"), the same jurisdictional analysis used for SFUSD and SFCCD should be applied to SFPFA.

SFUSD is a government entity created under state law and is a separate jurisdiction from the City and County of San Francisco. See Berkeley Unified School District of Alameda County v. James 1 Barnes Const. Co. (N.D. Cal. 1953) 112 F.Supp. 396; Town of Atherton v. Sup. Ct. (1958) 159 Cal.App.2d 417. Article 9 of California Constitution provides for the establishment of school districts as separate political entities from City and Counties. In addition, the Constitution allows a City charter to prescribe only "the manner in which, the times at which, and the terms for which the members of boards of education shall be elected or appointed, for their qualifications, compensation and removal, and for the number which shall constitute any one of such boards." Therefore, SFUSD is not subject to the requirements of the Sunshine Ordinance, which is an iniative ordinance passed to govern the City and County of San Francisco.

However, SFUSD's Board of Trustees is a legislative body of a local agency under the Brown Act, and thus subject to the requirements of that law. Kavanaugh v. West Sonoma County union High School Dist. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 911. Likewise, the California Public Records Act ("PRA") explicitly includes "school district" among the entities subject to its requirements. See Gov't Code§ 6252(a). Section 67.30(c) of the Sunshine Ordinance provides in part that the Task Force "shall make referrals to a municipal office with enforcement power under this ordinance or under the California Public Records Act and the Brown Act whenever it concludes that any person has violated any provisions of this ordinance or the Acts." Nevertheless, this cannot be read to provide valid authority for the Task Force to hear and adjudicate a complaint that raises only a violation of the PRA and/or Brown Act, which are both state laws. Both the PRA and the

P18 n:\codenf\as2014\9600241\01193621.doc

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

MEMORANDUM

OFFICE OF T,HE CITY ATTORNEY

TO:. DATE:

Sunshine Ordinance Task Force May 19, 2017

PAGE: 3 RE: Complaint No. 17039 - Busse v. San Francisco Public Finance Authority

Brown Act provide their own enforcement mechanisms and do not contemplate adjudication of violations of their provisions by local government entities. Rather, Section 67.30(c) should be read to apply where a complainant establishes a violation of both the Sunshine Ordinance and the Brown Act or PRA. This reading both avoids violating the state law preemption and makes logical sense, as the Ordinance incorporates by reference the minimum requirements of those two state laws where it does not otherwise set stricter requirements.

While complainant alleges a violation of the Sunshine Ordinance, state law preempts application of the Sunshine Ordinance to SFUSD, and therefore SFPFA as well. Although complainant also alleges a violation of the PRA, the Task Force lacks jurisdiction to hear only these allegations.

APPLICABLE STATUTORY SECTION(S)

Section 67 of the San Francisco Administrative Code:

• Section 67 .21 governs responses to requests for public records.

• Section 67 .25 governs immediacy of response.

Section 6250 et seq. of the Cal. Gov't Code ("CPRA")

!II Section 6253 governs the release of public records and the timing of responses.

APPLICABLE CASE LAW

• none

BACKGROUND

On April 26, 2017, Complainant filed this complaint with the Task Force in which he alleged as follows:

The Public Finance Authority was the successor agency to the Educational Finance Authority originally established in 1991 and re-established in 1993 as the Public Finance Authority. Since 1994's Hoogasian vs. Board of Education decision, the Public Finance Authority thought it was the Educational Finance Authority referred to in the decision. Several years had gone by before Hoogasian was fully appealed, and everyone thought it would be overturned so by the time it was upheld. Everyone's minds were clouded about how the situation was addressed in 1993 by establishing as successor agency, especially since some of the key officials were involved in the "shrimpscam" scandal at the time and were dealing with their own headaches with the FBI's public corruption unit. That said, the ballot language in the 1993 voter guide is also misleading because it refers to a "tax we have already be.en collecting" instead of an illegal tax that should not have been collected; with that in mind, my view is the successor tax should be declared illegal as well because it was approved after false/misleading information was provided to the voters, even by the relatively lax standards of the time.

n:\codenf\as2014 \9600241\01193621.doc

P19


MEMORANDUM

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY

TO: DATE:

Sunshine Ordinance Task Force May 19, 2017

PAGE: 4 RE: Complaint No. 17039 - Busse v. San Fnmcisco Public Finance Authority

Because the Educational Finance Authority's sole purpose was to collect a Transactions and Use Tax declared illegal under Hoogasian, the Public Finance Authority stopped meeting and nobody cared or noticed. The Board of Equalization still continued to collect the 1993 Transactions and Use Tax for the (in its eyes) legally valid Public Finance Authority. In 1995, unwinding the mess, the legislature added a section to the Revenue and Taxation code (section 7267e - also, that was the year of the divided legislature, so the legislative intent of shaming San Francisco for trying to pass illegal taxes explains the unusually strong legal text), and the Controller processed payments from the Board of Equalization intended for the Public Finance Authority as if they were intended for the Educational Finance Authority under section 7267e, when instead it should have sent them back and told the Public Finance Authority cronies, "hey, you need to get a bank account and have public meetings and budgets like an agency that exists." The Community college and School District didn't complain because they were still receiving the money they expected to, albeit from the controller because of the June 1993 fix, and it was one less meeting for their executives to go to or worry about. This continued for over two decades. In subsequent years, the controller failed to make material disclosures regarding the Public Finance Authority and provided the public false and misleading information in ballot handbooks (along with the Ballot Simplification Committee's statements regarding what sales taxes are collected in San Francisco) and financial statements because it failed to reconcile the BOE's local district tax allocation reports to the City's financial accounts. Due to the opacity of all of this, I'm not sure whether these funds show up as restricted or unrestricted in the city's CAFR, but in any case, I find it incredulous we have a law such as 7267e that gives legal force to an allocation formula of the Educational Finance Authority (not the Public Finance Authority!) requiring citizens to try to find 25 year old board minutes of a disbanded public body. If that's not unconstitutionally vague, I don't know what is.

QUESTIONS THAT MIGHT ASSIST IN DETERMINING FACTS

• Has Complainant requested information from a City department or policy body regarding the SFPFA? .

• Has Complainant considered making a CPRA request to the Board of Equalization regarding the SFPF A tax at issue?

LEGAL ISSUES/LEGAL DETERMINATIONS

• Does the Task Force have jurisdiction to hear this complaint?

• If so, did any violations of the Sunshine Ordinance take place that the Task Force has jusridiction to take action on?

n:\codenf\as2014\960024 l \0119362 I.doc

P20


MEMORANDUM

TO: DATE: PAGE:

Sunshine Ordinance Task Force May 19, 2017 5


RE: Complaint No. 17039- Busse v. San Francisco Public Finance Authority

CONCLUSION

THE TASK FORCE FINDS THE FOLLOWING FACTS TO BE TRUE:

THE TASK FORCE FINDS THE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS TO BE TRUE OR NOT TRUE.

* * *

n:\codenf\as2014\960024 l \01193621.doc

P21


MEMORANDUM

TO: DATE: PAGE:



RE: Complaint No. 17039-Busse v. San Francisco Public Finance Authority

CHAPTER 67, SAN FRANCISCO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (SUNSHINE ORDINANCE)

SEC. 67.21. PROCESS FOR GAINING ACCESS TO PUBLIC RECORDS; ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS.

(a) Every person having custody of any public record or public information, as defined herein, (hereinafter referred to as a custodian of a public record) shall, at normal times and during normal and reasonable hours of operation, without unreasonable delay, and without requiring an appointment, permit the public record, or any segregable portion of a record, to be inspected and examined by any person and shall furnish one copy thereof upon payment of a reasonable copying charge, not to exceed the lesser of the actual cost or ten cents per page.

(b) A custodian of a public record shall, as soon as possible and within ten days following receipt of a request for inspection or copy of a public record, comply with such request. Such request may be delivered to the office of the custodian by the requester orally or in writing by fax, postal delivery, or e-mail. If the custodian believes the record or information requested is not a public record or is exempt, the custodian shall justify withholding any record by demonstrating, in writing as soon as possible and within ten days following receipt of a request, that the record in question is exempt under express provisions of this ordinance.

( c) A custodian of a public record shall assist a requester in identifying the existence, form, and nature of any records or information maintained by, available to, or in the custody of the custodian; whether or not the contents of those records are exempt from disclosure and shall, when requested to do so, provide in writing within seven days following receipt of a request, a statement as to the existence, quantity, form and nature ofrecords relating to a particular subject or questions with enough specificity to enable a requester to identify records in order to make a request under (b ). A custodian of any public record, when not in possession of the record requested, shall assist a requester in directing a request to the proper office or staff person.

(d) If the custodian refuses, fails to comply, or incompletely complies with a request described in (b ), the person making the request may petition the supervisor of records for a determination whether the record requested is public. The supervisor ofrecords shall inform the petitioner, as soon as possible and within 10 days, of its determination whether the record requested, or any part of the record requested, is public. Where requested by the petition, and where otherwise desirable, this determination shall be in writing. Upon the determination by the supervisor of records that the record is public, the supervisor of records shall immediately order the custodian of the public record to comply with the person's request. If the custodian refuses or fails to comply with any such order within 5 days, the supervisor ofrecords shall notify the district attorney or the attorney general who shall take whatever measures she or he deems necessary and appropriate to insure compliance with the provisions of this ordinance.

SEC. 67.25. IMMEDIACY OF RESPONSE

(a) Notwithstanding the 10-day period for response to a request permitted in Government Code Section 6256 and in this Article, a written request for information described in any category of non-exempt public information shall be satisfied no later than the close of business on the day following the day of the request. This deadline shall apply only ifthe words "Immediate

n:\codenf\as2014\9600241\01193621.doc

P22


MEMORANDUM

TO: DATE: PAGE:

Sunshine Ordinance Task Force May 19, 2017. 7

OFFICE OF THE CITYATTORNEY

RE: Complaint No. 17039 - Busse v. San Francisco Public Finance Authority

Disclosure Request" are placed across the top of the request and on the envelope, subject line, or cover sheet in which the request is transmitted. Maximum deadlines provided in this article are appropriate for more extensive or demanding requests, but shall not be used to delay fulfilling a simple, routine or otherwise readily answerable request.

(b) If the voluminous nature of the information requested, its location in a remote storage facility or the need to consult with another interested department warrants an extension of 10 days as provided in Government Code Section 6456.1, the requester shall be notified as required by the close of business on the business day following the request.

( c) The person seeking the information need not state his or her reason for making the request or the use to which the information will be put, and requesters shall not be routinely asked to make such a disclosure. Where a record being requested contains information most of which is exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act and this article, however, the City Attorney or custodian of the record may inform the requester of the nature and extent of the nonexempt information and inquire as to the requester's purpose for seeking it, in order to suggest alternative sources for the information which may involve less redaction or to otherwise prepare a response to the request.

( d) Notwithstanding any provisions of California Law or this ordinance, in response to a request for information describing any category of non-exempt public information, when so requested, the City and County shall produce any and all responsive public records as soon as reasonably possible on an incremental or "rolling" basis such that responsive records are produced as soon as possible .by the end of the same business day that they are reviewed and collected. This section is intended to prohibit the withholding of public records that are responsive to a records request until all potentially responsive documents have been reviewed and collected. Failure to comply with this provision is a violation of this Article. ·

CAL. PUBLIC RECORDS ACT (GOVT. CODE§§ 6250, ET SEQ.)

SEC. 6253

(c) Each agency, upon a request for a copy ofrecords, shall, within 10 days from receipt of the request, determine whether the request, in whole or in part, seeks copies of disc/osable public records in the possession of the agency and shall promptly notifY the person making the request of the determination and the reasons therefor. In unusual circumstances, the time limit prescribed in this section may be extended by written notice by the head of the agency or his or her designee to the person making the request, setting forth the reasons for the extension and the date on which a determination is expected to be dispatched. No notice shall specify a date that would result in an extension for more than 14 days. When the agency dispatches the determination, and ifthe agency determines that the request seeks disclosable public records, the agency shall state the estimated date and time when the records will be made available. As used in this section, "unusual circumstances" means the following, but only to the extent reasonably necessary to the proper processing of the particular request:

(1) The need to search for and collect the requested records from field facilities or other establishments that are separate from the office processing the request.

(2) The need to search for, collect, and appropriately examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records that are demanded in a single request.

n:\codenf\as2014 \9600241\01193621.doc

P23


MEMORANDUM

TO: DATE: PAGE:

s~



RE: Complaint No. 17039- Busse v. San Francisco Public Finance Authority

(3) The need for consultation, which shall be conducted with all practicable speed, with another agency having substantial interest in the determination of the request or among two or more components of the agency having substantial subject matter interest therein.

n:\codenf\as2014\9600241\01193621.doc

P24

Sunshine Ordinance Task Force Complaint Summary

File No. 17039

Thomas Busse V. San Francisco Public Finance Authority

Date filed with SOTF: 04/28/17

Contacts information (Complainant information listed first): tjbussesf(ci),gmail.com {komplainant) No contact information available for the Respondent.

File No. 17039: Complaint filed by Thomas Busse against the San Francisco Public Finance Authority for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Chapter 67, by failing to notice and conduct public hearings and failing to respond to request for public records.

Notes provided by Chair Bruce Wolfe:

SF Educational Financing Authority was created by state law with approval by resolution of both SFUSD and SFCCD. The governing law is found at the BOE but under Revenue and Tax Code, CHAPTER 2.5. LOCAL EDUCATION FINANCE, SECTION 7286.1. http://www.boe.ca.gov/lawguides/business/cunent/btlg/voll/alt/additional-local-taxes-ch2-5-all.html

Section 7286.2 describes the procedure for creating SFEF A. As follows, "7286.2. Resolution provisions. (a) A resolution establishing an educational financing authority pursuant to Section 7286.1 shall provide for the establishment of an educational finance authority for the general purpose of providing financial assistance to each school district within the city and county. The resolution shall require that the authority be governed by a board of directors. The board of directors of the authority shall consist of the members of the governing boards of the unified school district and the community college district. The resolution shall designate the president of the unified school district governing board as the chairperson of the board of directors."

SF Public Finance Authority was created by state law by virtue of intent as it has a multimembership consisting of the Board of Supervisors and school districts (herein, SFUSD & SFCCD). The governing law is found in Revenue and Tax Code Section 7288 et al: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes displayText.xhtml?lawCode=RTC&division=2.&ti tle=&part=1.7.&chapter=3.5.&article=

P25

"7288.1. A local public finance authority shall be established for the purpose of financing drug abuse prevention, crime prevention, health care services, and public education in any county if either, or both, of the following occur:

. (a) The county board of supervisors adopts a resolution declaring its intent to pr9pose an increase in the transactions and use tax in the county pursuant to this chapter. (b) The county superintendent of schools receives resolutions from a majority of the governing boards of the school districts in the county declaring their intent to propose an increase in the transactions and use tax in the county pursuant to this chapter."

"7288.2. The local public fmance authority shall be governed by a board of directors. The board of directors shall consist of the following members: (a) Five members of the county boards of supervisors. (b) Five members of governing boards of school districts in the county. (1) Governing board members shall be selected in a manner determined by the county board of education, provided that: · (A) If there are five or more school districts in the county, no school district shall have more than one member on the board of directors. (B) If there are fewer than five school districts in the county, each school district shall have at least one member on the board of directors. (2) For purposes of this subdivision, the county office of education shall be deemed to be a school district."

The best I can ascertain from the above is both the SFEFA & SFPFA are local agencies under. the jurisdiction of the Sunshine Ordinance. The sticky part is while both the C&CSF and SFUSD/SFCCD are to comply with CPRA and Brown Act, only C&CSF is bound by

· the Sunshine Ordinance. But, in my opinion, since the imposition of a tax would be on the residents of the C&CSF and the administration and burden of the ballot initiative also under. the jurisdiction of C&CSF (thus, the taxpayers) there appears to be a preponderance and gravity towards the C&CSF that more weight be given in the best interest of the public for these bodies to come under compliance of the Sunshine Ordinance.

This case does bring up some interesting anomalies, nonetheless, with regards to Mr. Brusse's inference on -when and where these meetings had taken place but, moreso, it may behoove SOTF to inquire and have them adopt the Sunshine Ordinance for complete compliance with CPRA and Brown Act; and in the interest of the People of C&CSF as the school districts do no other business with regards to tax~tion outside the bounds of San Francisco proper.

Additional research: There seems to have been both bodies in existence in the early 90's. There was a case Hoogasian v CA BOE & SF Educational Financing Authority but nothing in any general caselaw search results for the SF Board of Education against this plaintiff.

There was also a ballot initiative in 1993, Prop A - School Sales Tax.

P26

The San Francisco Educational Financing Authority and San Francisco County Public Finance Authority still exists today as in state law and was named as recently in a ballot initiative in the last election of November 8, 2016, as follows in two examples:

It is also m~ntioned in chaptered and codified state law, Revenue and Tax Code Section 7267(e)

" ( e) In the case of any claim for refund of the transactions and use tax imposed by the San Francisco Educational Financing Authority, which was deterin.ined to be unconstitutional by the court in Hoogasian Flowers, Inc. v. ·state Bd. of Equalization, 23 Cal. App. 4th 1264, payment of any of those claims for. refund shall be made from the revenues derived from the unconstitutional transactions and use tax collected by and in the possession of the board. When those funds and anypther revenues ~erived from the unconstitutional tax still in the possession of the San Fral{bi~f o Edric:~ti6nal ifiri~~cing .Ahthtirity, the City and County of San Francisco, the San Francisco Unified School District, or the San Francisco Community College District are exhausted, any remaining payments of those claims for refund shall be paid from funds of the San Francisco Unified School District and the San Fr~cisco Community College District which benefited from the illegal tax. The remaining payment~ shall be based on the method by which the San Francisco Educational Financing Authority distributed the proceeds of the tax to the San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco Community College District. (Added by Stats. 1995, Ch. 495, Sec. 1. Effective January 1, 1996.)"

http:/farww.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/95-96/bill/sen/sb 0601-0650/sb 612 bill 951003 chaptered.html

~::ii~~:J!~-~~i~~~its';~'~ie_stai:~f Q~75,f(o]for'·~:fritalfai)~f 9:2_S%~?~-'-Digest by the Ballot Simplification Committee The Way It Is Now: San Francisco has an 8.75% sales tax, with two parts:

• 7.5% in State taxes, of which the City receives 1.25%; and • 1.25% in local sales taxes that fund the Bay Area Rapici Transitpistrict (BART), the S~ FJ."agcis99_County Transportation Authority and the San Francisco County Public Finance Authotitv.

The main litmus is, are these two bodies local City & County of SF agencies or State of CA agencies? That will decide jurisdiction by the Complaint Committee. Nonetheless, whether state CPRA/Brown or local Sunshine applies the outcome appears to be the same as just the CPRA/Brown Act can be easily applied without the extensions of the Sunshine Ordinance.

If the former is found then the matter shall be scheduled for a hearing by the Complaint Committee. ·

P27

If the latter is found and Mr. Brusse refuses to believe it not be within jurisdiction of the Sunshine Ordinance with regards to City/County bodies et al he will have his answer and proceed on his way.

So, here is the research as best as I can find. This code block below appears to be only within the jurisdiction of the BOE. It is unusual that while it is in sequence in the main taxonomy of Rev&Tax Code it is not fou..11.d here nor in its usual place in the California Codes of Regulations.

Complaint Attached.

P28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

FILE NO

Amendment of the whole' l/27/93 .

[LOCAL PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY]

As amended in Board 2/1/93

RESOLUTION NO~ - 9.._9

DECLARING THE INTENT OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE CITY AND

COUNTY OF SA..~ FRANCISCO TO PROPOSE AN INCREASE IN THE TRANSACTIONS

AND USE TAX IN THE CITY AND COUNTY PuRSUANT TO CHAPTER 3.5 OF THE

REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE, AND ESTABLISHING THE S~.N FRANCISCO COUNTY

PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY.

WHEREAS, Due to cutbacks in state funds and other sources of

revenue to the City and County of San Francisco, the ability to

maintain public services and programs has been greatly hampered; and

WHEREAS, The California Legislature has recognized the need

for local governments and school districts to address the budgetary

problems and meet the needs for health, crime prevention, and

educational services in their communities by enacting Assembly Bill

193 o , 1 9 9 1 ; and

WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 1930 allows for the creation of a local

public finance authority for. the purpose of financing drug abuse

prevention, crime prevention, health services, and public education,

anq to authorize said Authority, upon voter approval, to impose a

transactions and use tax rate of .25% or 0.5% for the Authority's

general purposes; and

WHEREAS, The Board of Supervisors of the City and County of

San Francisco finds that it is critical to continue the provision of

health and crime prevention services and that revenues generated by

an additional tax are necessary; now, therefore, be it

I I I

SUPERVISOR MIGDEN1 , BIERMAN , ALIOTO 4452g

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

P29

PAGE NO. 1 01/19/93

·\

1 RESOLVED, The Board of Supervisors of the City and County of

2 San Francisco declares its intent to propose an increase in the

.. 3. tr an,§._ci.,<::tJ~:)JJ._s __ ~nd use tax _in__j~he City and C.o_v.JJ..t:y __ p'\1~ suarrt _t_o _C);ia:Qt_e_r

4 3.5 (commencing with Section 7288.1) of Part 1.7 of Division 2 of

5 the California Revenue and Taxation Code; and, be it

6 FURTHER RESOLVED, That upon adoption of this resolution by the

7 Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco, the

8 San Francisco County Public Finance Authority is hereby established

g pursuant to California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7288. 1 for

10 the general purposes of financing drug abuse prevention, crime

11 prevention, health services, and public education;, and, be it

12 FURTHER RESOLVED, That said Authority shall be governed by a

13 board of directors which shall consist of five members of the San

14 Francisco Board of Supervisors and five members of the governing

15 boards of school districts in the City and County as provided in

16 Revenue and Taxation Code, Section 7288.2; and, be it

17 FURTHER RESOLVED, That the President of the Board of

l8 Supervisors shall appoint five members of that body to serve on the .

19 board of directors of the San Francisco County Public Finance

20 Authority; and, be it

21 FURTHER RESOLVED, That in the event said transactions and use

22 tax is imposed, said Authority may exercise all powers necessary to

23 perform the collection, administration and allocation duties with

24 respect to said tax in a manner consistent with Part 1.6 of the

25 California Revenue and Taxation Code. (commencing with Section 7251);

and, be it

P30

PAGE NO. 2 01/19/9]

'1/93 1

2

3

4 !jp

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors, in

approving this measure, ~xpresses its strong view that the Authority

sha11--not approve--a-ny sales t-<.nc-rneasure thaC would pla-ce the

composite sales tax rate above the current rate of 8.5%.

SUPERVISORS MIGDEN, BIERMAN, ALiaI'O


P31

f·•·

Adopted - Board of Supervisors. San Francisco February 1, 1993

Ayes:

Noes:

Supervisors Achtenberg Alioto Bierman Conroy Hallinan Kaufman Migden Shelley

Supervisors Hsieh Maher

Absent: Supervisor Kennedy

6

I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Board of Supervisors

File No. 175-93-1

of the City and County of San Fra cisco

FEB 1 1 t993 Date Approved

P32

Part I

Boards, Commissions and Committees to which Members of the Board of Supervisors are Appointed or Serve Ex Officio

FAMILY VIOLENCE COUNCIL

Authority: Ordinance No. 170-95. Amended by Ord. Nos. 192-99 and 217-07. Administrative Code Chapter 5 Section 5.190 et seq.

Contact: Emily Murase, Ph.D. Dept. on the Status of Women 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 130

San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 252-2570

completed and request the Board of Supervisors to abolish the Council.

· SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY

Authority: Resolution No. 48-93; Revenue and Taxation Code 7288.l et seq.

Contact:

Qualifications: The San Francisco County Public Finance Authority is governed by a Board of Directors that consists of a total of ten members, five of whom are members of the Board of Supervisors and appointed by the President of the Board of Supervisors. The composition of the other members are as follows: five members of the governing boards of school districts in the City and County of San Francisco as provided for in California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7288.2. In the event said transactions and use tax is imposed, said Authority may exercise all powers necessary to perform the collection, administration and allocation duties with respect to said tax in a manner consistent with Part 1.6 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code.

December 30, 2013

A local public finance authority's purpose is to finance drug abuse prevention, crime prevention, health care services, and public education in any county if either or both of the following occur: (a) the county Board of Supervisors adopts a resolution declaring its intent to propose an increase in the transactions and use tax in the county pursuant to this chapter; (b) the county Superintendent of Schools receives resolutions from a majority of the governing boards of the school districts in the county declaring their intent to propose an increase in the transactions and use tax in the county. The Local Public Finance Authority may exercise all powers necessary to perform the collection, administration, and allocation duties with respect to the transactions and use tax in a manner consistent with Part 1.6 (commencing with Section 7251 ). The Board of Supervisors proposed an increase in the transactions and use tax in San Francisco pursuant to Chapter 3.5 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.

Reports: None Referenced Sunset Date: None Referenced

6

P33 "R Detail - Boards"

Young, Victor

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Thomas Busse <[email protected]> Monday, May 08, 2017 9:51 PM Records, Supervisor (CAT) SOTF, (BOS) Re: Petition to the City Attorney's Office

Thank you for getting back to me, Brad.

The Controller's response (below) is wholly unsatisfactory for the following reasons (among others not listed here):

1. I had contacted Ms. Madhavan on 4/22, and her response (also below) was to contact the Controller. I have issued a follow-up request to Ms. Madhavan and a new one to Mr. Gerhard via certified mail subsequent to the Controllers Response (both are ·cpRA requests) and have heard nothing. As to the Controller's gratuitous and insulting response I learn how to use "ctrl+F" and search for "Sales Tax," I had actually done so prior to contacting Ms. Madhavan on both the SFUSD and SFCCD financials (as my message to her indicates), and I had also perused the minutes of both bodies - ruling out the blended annual meeting of the SFCCD's Finance Corporation as being what I was searching for. As the response from Ms. Madhaven (who did not write back when I asked follow up questions) regarding where the Sales Tax revenues are disclosed in the financials, as she states~ they don't segment "sales tax," and her link to page 87 indicates it is mixed in with unrestricted "other local revenue" and not segmented as a sales tax. Technically, it's not sales tax, it's a local transactions and use tax, and I searched for that term as well.

2. Publication BOE 105 page 6 (April 2017) is the very thing that caused me to start asking what the San Francisco Public Finance Authority was in the first place. The very first contact I made in this regard was Angela Whittaker as well as the general e-mail of the Office of Public Finance (also below). That was on April l 8th, and I received no response from her or them.

3. The Controller's own Citywide Sales and Use Tax Revenue Manual describes the San Francisco Public Finance Authority on page 2 (incidentally, the pie chart on the right doesn't add up to the table on the left and the pie slices don't match the percentages, which might actually be the city's manual).

4. The San Francisco Public Finance Authority was established by Board of Supervisors Resolution 48-93 adopted on 2/1/93. It specifies it is governed by a board of ten members consisting of five members of the BOS appointed by the President and give members of some combination of the governing boards of the SFUSD and CCSFD. In 1993, the Chairperson was Carol Migden. A very similar entity with taxing authority created through board resolution is the County Transportation Authority, and the Controller properly discloses and treats the SFCTA as a blended entity in the CCSF CAFR. These facts establish the SF Public Finance Authority as subject to the Sunshine Ordinance.

5. The Controller, City Attorneys office, and Supervisor Scott Wiener communicated with the Dept. of Elections in reference to November 2016's Proposition K regarding a General Sales Tax, and the San Francisco Public Finance Authority is referenced on documents signed by these individuals, such as this one and the actual published ordinance including the Controller's Statement. Any Reasonable Controller would check that statement for accuracy in the context of the simplified ballot language, and given a deputy city attorney sits on the ballot simplification committee, the city attorney's communication to me below that the SF Public Finance Authority does not exist is baffling. Deputy City Attorney Tom Lakey counseled the Board of Supervisors about the Public Finance Authority in a fascinating set of parliamentary maneuvers in the minutes of March 15, 1993.

pg4

6. Under California Government Code section 26909, the Auditor (in our case, the Controller) is required to make an annual audit of or ensure an annual audit is made of every special district in his/her county. Per the .. City Charter, Section 3 .105, the Controller shall "have the power and duties of a County Auditor." I requested the audited financial statements. He did not provide them. Making sure they exist is his most basic job. Failure of the Controller to faithfully execute the duties of his office is grounds for removal for cause. His willful obfuscation evidences a fundamental disregard and lack of concern for the transparency demanded by the voters in enacting the Sunshine Ordinance - a CY A culture I find repugnant.

To be clear: although I think there may be legitimate cause for action to void the sales tax, my only goals are transparency and measures of funding effectiveness. Once again I repeat my constructive suggestion to fix this: accrue the BOE's remits to an escrow account and place the Controller, SFUSD, The SF Public Finance Authority, and the CCSFD on the State Auditor's Local Government High Risk Program. Allow the State Auditor to draw from escrow to complete her work, and release the funds on the condition the SF Public Finance Authority adopt her recommendations. The simple fact is, this could be a really great thing because, by reactivating the SFPF A's board, the BOS President can use her governance influence to structure the supplemental funding (even if allocated between the two districts on the basis of attendance) around program objectives such as the initiative for "free" city college, pre-kindergarten, cultural equity programs, etc. The Public Finance Authority could, for example, pay CCSFD scholarships directly and structure them around underserved communities or build student or teacher housing directly, and it's a great PR move because you can put up big signs, "paid for by San Francisco's Supplemental Education Sales Tax." Several of these are being backfilled from the imbalanced general fund. It also forces members of the BOS and education boards to work together, which will improve city service coordination. Thereare clauses in R&T Code Chapter 3.5, enabling resolution 48-93, and the 1993 School Sales Tax Ordinance (which took me three weeks to find and the City Attorney says doesn't exist), allowing these funds to be used for health, drug abuse, and crime prevention services when these services fall within the general educational purposes of the school and community college districts. I have a suspicion some folks in city hall have already beat me to this reasoning, and I'm totally cool with it just as long as everyone's honest and transparent. Lying to me (as the Controller has done) loses all confidence.

Cordially, Thomas J. Busse

----Forwarded Info----

Dear Mr. Busse,

Based on the specific information you requested, we respectfully refer you to contact Reeta Madhavan, the CFO at the SF Unified School District (SFUSD, ( 415) 241-6542 xl 617, [email protected]) and Ron Gerhart, the Vice Chancellor of Finance & Administration at the San Francisco Community College District (SFCCD, (415) 241-2229, [email protected]), as they oversee the budget, accounting and audit records related to all sources and uses of funds accruing to their respective districts. For helpful immediate reference, please find their budget, audit and financial statement links below, along with the California BOE Sales Tax allocation link:

1) the California Board of Equalization's (BOE) tracking and apportionment of sales tax allocations by taxing entity, for the City and County of San Francisco at http://www.boe.ca.gov/pdf /boelOS.pdf on page 6.

~35

2) SFUSD's budget, audit and financial documents available here as well as the SFCCD's available here. By keyword searching these documents you can find where Sales Tax accrues and is budgeted, for example, by

using CTRL-F and typing in "sales tax".

We hope this is of help to you.

Best,

Office of the Controller

From: CON, Controller (CON) Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 2:38 PM To: Thomas Busse <[email protected]> Cc: CON, Controller (CON) <[email protected]> Subject: Sunshine Request - SF Public Finance Authority

Dear Mr. Busse,

Thank you for contacting the Controller's Office. This email is in response to your public information request; we are researching your inquiry and are working to provide you with a response as soon as possible. Please direct any follow-up materials you may have to this email address.

Best,

Office of the Controller

Hello Mr. Busse, The school district receives our share of the sales tax revenue directly from the city's Controller's Office. You will need to contact the city's Controller's Office for the financial audit of sales tax revenue. This revenue is included on page 87 of the school district's 2015-16 audit report in the $52,614,948 total of "Lqcal Revenue" in the Unrestricted General Fund column. You are correct in that the audit report does not provide a breakdown of all our revenue sources, and I will discuss this with our auditors if it is feasible to include that level of detail without making the report overly lengthy (to give you a sense of what this would entail, the district receives funding from over 100 different federal, state and local sources and it could get unmanageable to list them all in detail. The detailed revenue breakdown is included in our Unaudited Actuals reportthat is submitted to the state annually and forms the basis of our audited· financials. This report is posted on our district web site here. Please let me know if you have any additional questions. Thank you,

P86

Reeta

From: Cityattorney <[email protected]> Date: May 1, 2017 at 3:46:49 PM PDT To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Records Request

Mr. Thomas J. Busse,

Thank for your request dated April 28, 2017 concerning the "San Francisco County Public Finance Authority" and the"~ those entities do not actually exist. Perhaps you are thinking of the California Public Finance Authority, the Office of Pu District. If you wish to request public records from any those entities you should contact them directly.

Best,

Andrea Guzman Responding for [email protected]

to Angela. Whittak.

~ Dear Ms. Whittaker:

I was perousing the district tax breakdown in the records of the Board of Equalization, and it noted San Francisco has a permanent .25% sales tax for a special district called the "San Francisco County Public Finance Authority" approved by the voters in 1993. Is that the same as your department, the Office of Public Finance? I would assume the special district would float sales tax bonds, but what is unclear to me is why it is set up as a special district (and how it was set up, given San Francisco did not have a Local Agency Forming Commission in 1993). I would like to read its charter.

Yours truly, Thomas J. Busse

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Supervisor Records <[email protected]> wrote: Mr. Busse -

I write in response to your petition below. I apologize for the delay; I was out of the office. It is my understanding that the Controller's Office has responded to your records request. Please let me know if their response resolved your issues. Thank you.

Best,

Brad Russi Deputy City Attorney

Office of San Francisco City Attorney Dennis J. Herrera Supervisor of Records: General Government Team

-----Forwarded by Cityattorney/CTYATT on 04/28/2017 09:21AM ----To: [email protected] From: Thomas Busse <[email protected]> Date: 04/27/2017 08:56PM Subject: Petition to the City Attorney's Office

Petition to the City Attorney:

Pursuant to The San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance, On April 26 2017 at 12:35 PM I submitted an Immediate

P27

Disclosure Request to the Controller for the most recent Financial Statements, 2016 Board Minutes, and bylaws of the San Francisco Public Finance Authority. My Immediate Disclosure Request asked for the name of the Public Finance Authority's "Director of Fiscal Services" who was issued a warrant from the State Board of Equalization on April 12, 2017 for $3,201,400, but most importantly an answer to this question, "Does the San Francisco Public Finance Authority Exist?" This followed up on a Disclosure request the previous morning asking the same thing.

I received a response later on April 26 that they were working on my request, but 24 hours has passed by and I have not seen any documents.

Departments have the discretion to extend an Immediate Disclosure Request if records are voluminous, in offsite storage, etc; however, there is no appropriate reason for the Controller to not be able to produce the Financial Statements of a County Blended Entity. In fact, the Controller is constitutionally obligated to publish these statements. Therefore, I believe the Controller is in violation of the Sunshine Ordinance's Section 67.25(a) because no reasonable person could consider the information requested for immediate disclosure to not be readily available from any competent County Controller. ·

As recently as November 2016, the Ballot Simplification Committee's statement on the proposed Proposition K mentioned a 1/4 cent sales tax is collected in the County on behalf of the San Francisco County Public Finance Authority. It is Special District 051 in the Board of Equalization's accounts, legally constituted under section 6500 of the California Government Code as a Joint Powers Authority. Therefore, I have every reason to believe I am asking for Immediate Disclosure of Documents. Sadly, I cannot find the San Francisco Public Finance Authority referenced in any of the San Francisco Legal Codes published by the American Legal Publishing Corporation. The City Attorney may have better research tools. My hope was to start learning about the San Francisco Public Finance Authority's decision making structure by reading the bylaws. After all, I could find them of the Transbay Joint Powers Authority with The Google. My Public Purpose was to determine if the City/County could fund tuition remission at the Community College by asserting its JP A votes to reallocate the Special District Tax the voters already pay to supplement education, thus reducing pressure on the city's general fund. Sadly, the City's Institutions do not seem to welcome my ideas.

As you are the designated "Supervisor of Records," I appeal to you to adjudicate this withholding of information by the Controller. A transparent accounting of taxation and expenditure is essential to any functioning democracy and an informed electorate.

Very truly yours, Thomas J. Busse 415-244-5072 584 Castro Street #388 San Francisco, CA 94114

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Supervisor Records <[email protected]> wrote: Mr. Busse -

I write in response to your petition below. I apologize for the delay; I was out of the office. It is my understanding that the Controller's Office has responded to your records request. Please let me know if their response resolved your issues. Thank you.

Best,

Brad Russi Deputy City Attorney

P~B

Office of San Francisco City Attorney Dennis J. Herrera Supervisor of Records: General Government Team

-----Forwarded by Cityattorney/CTYATT on 04/28/2017 09:21AM ----To: [email protected] From: Thomas Busse <[email protected]> Date: 04/27/2017 08:56PM Subject: Petition to the City Attorney's Office

Petition to the City Attorney:

Pursuant to The San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance, On April 26 2017 at 12:35 PM I submitted an Immediate Disclosure Request to the Controller for the most recent Financial Statements, 2016 Board Minutes, and bylaws of the San Francisco Public Finance Authority. My Immediate Disclosure Request asked for the name of the Public Finance Authority's "Director of Fiscal Services" who was issued a warrant from the State Board of Equalization on April 12, 2017 for $3,201,400, but most importantly an answer to this question, "Does the San Francisco Public Finance Authority Exist?" This followed up on a Disclosure request the previous morning asking the same thing.

I received a response later on April 26 that they were working on my request, but 24 hours has passed by and I have not seen any documents.

Departments have the discretion to extend an Immediate Disclosure Request if records are voluminous, in offsite storage, etc; however, there is no appropriate reason for the Controller to not be able to produce the Financial Statements of a County Blended Entity. In fact, the Controller is constitutionally obligated to publish these statements. Therefore, I believe the Controller is in violation of the Sunshine Ordinance's Section 67.25(a) because no reasonable person could consider the information requested for immediate disclosure to not be readily available from any competent County Controller.

As recently as November 2016, the Ballot Simplification Committee's statement on the proposed Proposition K mentioned a 1/4 cent sales tax is collected in the County on behalf of the San Francisco County Public Finance Authority. It is Special District 051 in the Board ofEqualization's accounts, legally constituted under section 6500 of the California Government Code as a Joint Powers Authority. Therefore, I have every reason to believe I am asking for Immediate Disclosure of Documents. Sadly, I cannot find the San Francisco Public Finance Authority referenced in any of the San Francisco Legal Codes published by the American Legal Publishing Corporation. The City Attorney may have better research tools. My hope was to start learning about the San Francisco Public Finance Authority's decision making structure by reading the bylaws. After all, I could find them of the Trans bay Joint Powers Authority with The Google. My Public Purpose was to determine ifthe City/County could fund tuition remission at the Community College by asserting its JPA votes to reallocate the Special District Tax the voters already pay to supplement education, thus reducing pressure on the city's general fund. Sadly, the City's Institutions do not seem to welcome my ideas.

As you are the designated "Supervisor of Records," I appeal to you to adjudicate this withholding of information by the Controller. A transparent accounting of taxation and expenditure is essential to any functioning democracy and an informed electorate.

Very truly yours, Thomas J. Busse 415-244-5072

p~g

584 Castro Street #388 San Francisco, CA 94114

P4o

Ygung, Victor

From: Sent: To:

Cc:

SOTF, (BOS) Monday, May 08, 2017 2:41 PM '[email protected]'; Lediju, Tonia (CON); Wiggins, Matthew (CON); 'James Russel'; Brask, Anne (CPC); Silva, Christine (CPC); lonin, Jonas (CPC); '[email protected]'; Nicco, Mark (SHF); San Francisco Sheriffs Department (SHF); 'Greg Berlin'; Lew, Debra (TTX} Calvillo, Angela (BOS)

Subject: SOTF - Notice of Hearing - Complaint Committee: May 23, 2017, 5:30 p.m.

Good Afternoon:

Notice is hereby given that the Complaint Committee (Committee) of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force (Task Force) shall hold hearings on complaints listed below to: 1) determine ifthe Task Force has jurisdiction; 2) review the merits of the complaints; and/or 3) issue a report and/or recommendation to the Task Force.

Date: May 23, 2017

Location: City Hall, Room 408

Time: 5:30 p.m.

Complainants: Your attendance is required for this meeting/hearing.

Respondents/Departments: Pursuant to Section 67.21 (e) of the Ordinance, the custodian of records or a representative of your department, who can speak to the matter, is required at the meeting/hearing.

Complaints:

File .No. 17016: Complaint filed by Jerry Dratler against Ben Rosenfield and the Office of the Controller for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.21, by failing to respond to a request for public records in a timely and/or complete manner.

File No. 17027: Complaint filed by the Anonymous against Anne Brask, Christine Silva, John Rahaim and the Planning Department for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21 and 67.25, by failure to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner.

File No. 17031: Complaint filed by Ann Treboux against the Sheriffs Department for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.25, by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and complete manner.

File No. 17038: Complaint filed by Gregory Berlin, Aqua Terra Aeris Law Group, against the Office of the Treasurer and Tax Collector, for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21 and 67.26, by failing to respond to public records request in a complete manner and failing to keep withholding of records to a minimum.

File No. 17039: Complaint filed by Thomas Busse against the San Francisco Public Finance Authority for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Chapter 67, by failing to notice and conduct public hearings and failing to respond to request for public records.

P:41

Documentation (evidence supporting/disputing complaint)

For a document to be considered, it must be received at least five (5) working days before the hearing. For inclusion into the agenda packet, supplemental/supporting documents must be received by 5:00 pm, March 16, 2017.

Victor Voung Administrator Sunshine Ordinance Task Force 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, City Hall., Room 244 San Francisco CA 94102 phone 415-554-7724 fax 415-554-5163 [email protected] I www.sfbos.org

• tlo Click here to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form.

The Legislative Research Center provides 24-hour access to Board of Supervisors legislation, and archived matters since August 1998.

Disclosures: Personal information that is provided in communications to the Board of Supervisors is subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance. Personal infor:nation provided will not be redacted. Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Board of Supervisors and its committees. All written or oral communications that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearin'gs will be made available to all members of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any information from these submissions. This means that personal information-including names, phone numbers, addresses and similar information that a member of the public elects io submit to the Board and its committees-may appear on the Board of Supervisors website or in other public documents that members of the public may inspect or copy.

· · · ·· · · · tocal.Baliot Measilres . .,.,-Proposit'idri~K" . ·:·_. : ~ . - · -- · · - · .,.::~.:..:__ •. · _ ·~ ,;_ .. _.• - t. • ~: •. - · - - - · · -- .•:. · .r-

.Digest bytlle Ballot Simplification Committee

Th~ Way ft Is Now: San Franci'sco has an 8.75% safes tax, with two. parts:

• 7.5% in State taxes, of wh!Ch the City· receives 1.25%; and · · ·

• 1;25% in local sales taxes that fund the Bay Area

[

. Rapid Transit .Distri~t .(BARI); ~he. Sa .. n F,r.ancisco.J· :CountyTransportat1on Authoritrand th~ San Francisco County Pi.JblfoFlnance Authori~ •

After December 31, 2016; the overall sales tax hi San Francisco will be reduce9 tq~.5%. . .... . ..

State faw'Bllows the City to increase. thf; !ciC;al sales tax up to an additional 0.75%, with voter approval. ·

State law limits the.amount of revenue, including tax revenue; the Cify can spend eacti ·year. Under Sfate law; San Francisco voters can approve increases 'to this limit for a maximum ~of four ye'?rs~ ·

The Proposal: Proposition Kis ari ordinance that would increase tf:ie sales tax in San Fr.ancisco by &.75%,for a totaltax ofS.25%.This 0.75% increase wbukl go into the Cieneral fi,lnd. . . . .

If voters approve tf'lis proposition, the increase would. start on April l, 2Q17. The sales tax increase would e~pire after 25 years~

Proposition K would a~so increase the Staie;s limit on the. City's annual tax revenue spe,nc:Jing by the atnolint of additional taxes collected under ihe-propo·sed rate lnc_rease, Jhe increa$ed Jlrnit woulq last for four year's.

A "YES"VotEflVr'~ans: lfy'ou' vote ~·yes;' you want the City to increase: its sales tax by o: 75%, for a total tax of 9 .. 25%.

A "NO" Vote Means: lfyou vote "no:'youdon()t want ta make this change.

..... ·'·' ;, -·, .......... • .. · ...

Controller's Statement on "K" City Controller Ben Rosenfield has issued the follow~ Ing statement on the fiscal imp;:ict of Propositloo K:

Sh()Uld tlils ordinance be approved, in my opiniOn, it would resµft in.al} annual tax revenue increase to th.e City of an estimated $.37.5 rililfion in fiscal year (FY) 2016-2017 and $155.1 million in FY 2017-18. The tax is a general ta:X and proceeds would be deposited into the General .fond~·

The measw:e would amend the City's Busines,s Tax and Regulatfons Code to increase the lo·ca.I sales tax rate by Q.75% (tJir~~-quartersofone percenii.ai of April ?017, for a per[od ot twentY-five years.

How ·~K"' G'«Jt on the Ballot On July 26, 2016; the Board of Supervisors voted 8 to 3 to place Proposition K Qn th~ ballot.The Supervisors v9ted as fo,lqws:

Yes: Avalos; Breed, Camp()s, Goher, Farrell, Mar, Tang, Wiener. ·

No: Kim,.Peskiii,Yee.

This measure requires S0%+1 ilffirmative vores to pass~ The above statement is an impartial analysis of this measure'. Argument$ for and againsfthis measiue immediately follow.

The full text begins on page 274. Some of the woras used in the ballot digest are explained starting on page. 58,

P43

l .~.

Member, Board of S\ipervisors District.8 · City and County of San Francisco

SCOTT WIENER

Jj}Gff iW;

.Augusts( 2016

Barbara Ca:rr Voter fuformation DiVision/ Publications Pepartmentof Efodions, City and County ofSan Francisco City Hall Room 48 1 Dr. Carlton B' Goodlett:Pface .San Francisco, CA94102

Re:, Suggested Edits fo the General Sales Tax Measure

DearMs. Carr,

After reviewing the digest forth~ ~nei:alSales T:a~ l:)allot meastire, I am submitting the following requested edits highlighted in yeilow; ·

The.Way It ls Now: San Francisco has anaJ5% sales tax rate, with two parts:

• 7 .5% in. State taxes, of which the City receives 1.25%; ·and

• t.25% in local sales taxes that fund the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART), the Sa11.Fr.an.ci,sco CountyJnmsportation Authority, C\Odth.eScin Francisco Co~nfy fu~blic ..

. Finance Authority. · • · .. __.;.-- .

·State law allows the CitY to ih«:;rease its share of the sales tax up to an additional 0. 75%, with ,,.,'Al. ? vot~r api:irovai . · yv I\/+ T / 0.25°/o·qf the7.9% St_ate tc:iJ<.rate will ~><pir~ on D~_cembet 31.; 2Q16:, r.ec!ucing tile 9veralltax rate in San Francisco to 8.5%. ··

State law. limits the amount of tax revenue the Cify can spend each yea·r. State law authorizes San Francisco voter.s ~Q approve increases·to fhis limit for ~. maxinium pf four years.

City Hall• 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place •Room 244 • San Francisco, California 94102-4689 • (415) 554·6968 · Fax(415) 554-6909 • TDD!IT',((415,),554-:52,27 • E~mail;[email protected];i.rg:

P44

. . .. . . . '. .. .

. . . . . : . • · .. t-'.,

. OFFiCE OF THE .CONTROLLER

FROM:

.DATE:.

Vicfor Young, Assistant Cler~ oftlle f{oanl · _· .

. ··.Ed~~# . •·November 20, 2002 . .. . .. .. .

SuBJECT: -· .. San Franyisco Public Finance Authotltyr . . .. .... .

. . . . . . . . . .

.. .-·.· ... · :·· ·:·.

... . .

--s.~\\ .. ·_~~:':;!~i,,'.;::> .. (../.(1 .... ';::- .. , ...

\ . ,-0 '-;--, /·~ ...

\_ ._. ~. ----~-~-~---,··+. ··. \ ,

. . . ':

-~-~·:cr..,....~==·mz.RQoP:.4<4Wat:;:::wc:=z; a ..... ~-~ yw"".'"' .... -.~"'-'~""" ""... _ ;;z::;;:::-'-:". qa . ~=-· ...,.,...,.,,_ ...,._........,"""'"""·"'----~~~

... on October 30, 2002 you sent me a notification requesting inforination on the_ makeup of the San ·· Francisco Public Finance Authority. · ·· · · ·

First, I'm not sure why l amJisted as the contact because I bave never been involved with this agency.-· Please·correct the conta~t listillg. ·

. Seconc4 my read of the State taw ooder which this Authoritywas formed ( copyatfaclled) • · imlicates. it n~ded to be in existence to· allow the. City fo:impose a .25 % transactions and use tax

.for ·the. School District which we have done ... It's not clear to me that it needs to continue. ·You . niay 'W~t to check with the CitY Attorney ort this matteL . . . . . . ..

. • Ifitnee<ls to continue, the appofuhlrentswouldneed to be made by the President of the Board and.the :some combinationpfthe Uni.fie<:} School Districtand Coill11lµnify College BQards,

P45

. .

BOiH 05 ~EV. s (4~17) . . .. . .... · . . . .:·. :. .. .. . · ..

District Taxij$;. R~t~s .. and i;~ectlve Date~ · · . . . . . . . . . . . . .

; rax Area• . . . Qistr.ict N~me arici Acr~nym .

Riverside County · fllversicte County Tr<1hsportatibn ccimrnissiori (~cTC) .: ·

· · Cath~dral City (Cityi • . . City oi bath~dralCify. Transactions a~d Use Tax (CCGT) ; ·

{:)ciachell;;i, (City) . Pity of Goac~eU~Transactions ahd l)se -(.;;c (cfoAc) •.

Hemet {Clty) · City of Hemet Transactions and Use' Tax (HMG1) .

: India· (C1ty} City of India Tran~iictioiwand Use Tax (ING1)

La. Quinfo. (Clty) · · City of La Qi:.tinta Trans~ctlons and.Use Tax (LtlUG)

M~nifee (City) · City of M~nlf~e Transactions.and U~eTax (MENG)

· Palni Springs (City) · City <if Palm Springs Transactions ~@ l)~e Tax (PSG1) . . .

RiYerside {City) .city of Riverside Trarisactiohs and Use Tax (R!VG)

Temecula (City) City of Temecula Trarisactioris and Use Ta~· cfEMG) . . . . . . .

· Sacramen.t9 County · · .Sacramento Transportatio11 A).ithority (STflll)

. Galt (City) . City of Galt Public Safety Traiisactfohs andlJse Tax (GlTS)

Islet on {City) City ·of lsleton General Transactions. a:nci use Tax (ISG1) •. ·

lsleton {City). . City of lsleton Special Trans~ctiOns andU~e Tax(ISLS}

Rancho Cordova (city) City of Rancho Cordov~ Tra~saclions and Use Tax {RHCG) • .

.Sacramento {City}

·. , San Be.nito County

Holllster (Cify}

• City of Sacramento TransaCtlo.ns and Use Tax (SACG)

City of Hollister Transactions ahd Use Tax (HLS1) .

San Juari BaJtista (City) City of San Jli\in Bautista Transactions and Use Tax (SJBG) . . . . . . -. .

San Bernardino Cotioty San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBER}

Monte.lair (City) · . City ~f t.:iontclilir Transactions and Use Tax (MTGR)

San Bernardino (City) · · City of San Bernardino Transactio~s and Use Tax ($.BR.N) ··. · ·

:. :.•:.

· Effective · · · · ..: ·• Ratf. Date . End Date ·

·. o.5o% .. :.oi~ot-89

.1.00% · 04c01-17. . . 04~01-17

too%

1'.00% . 64-01-17:

. ~.QO% 04-01-12

· toi:i%. .0.4-01-11

o.5()%: · 04::.01-89 ·

. a.SO% · · .• 04-01-09

· .. 0.50% 04"01-17 . .

. 6.5oo/o · 10-oi-16

• o:5o% ·. 04~01-15

D.50% o4~01-i3

. . . . 1.00% • .. 04~01-08

0.75% {)4~01-05

0~;50% . 04-01-90

o.2s% . • 04-01-o5 ·

Y~~ca Valley (Town) · Town of Yt.ic~~Valley Es;ehtial Services Transactiof!s and Use TaX' {YUCG) · •..• •.• Q.50% : 04~Di-ff ·

Yucca Valley {Townf

Sao. Diego county

Chulil, Vlsta (City)

Del Mar (City)

El (Jajon (City)

· '• . Et Cajon (City}

La Mesa (City)

•·National City (City)

·vista (City)•

Town of Yucca Valley Sewer. Improvement &-Assessment Trarisai::tlons and Use Tax (Ycsl) . . . . . . . .· ... . . . . ·. . " . . ·.·

. •. . San Diego County RegionalTrarsportation Conirnisskin (SDTC) . . 0,50% .. 04~01-88 <

.City of Qhula Vista Temporary Transactions and Use Tax (CVGTI . 0.50% • 04c0l-17

City of Del M~r Transactions and Use Jax {DELG) 1.~o.% 04.-01-17

City ~f El Cajoh Public Safety Facilities Transactions and Us~ Ta>i(ECPS) · . :o,50%. 64-01-05 ·. 03~31-15 :·

City of El Cajon :service Preser\'iafion lhrnsactioris and Use. Tax (ECGF), . . 0.50% 04~01-09

City of i..a t\llesa.Trar;sactions a_rid Us~ Tax ,(LMSAf · .. i:i.15%: .·. 04~01-09::

.City of·National City Trans_ai:;tio~~ a~d- Use Tax (NCG1)·· · {00%. 10-01-06

.. CJty•of Vista Transactions. and t.ise.Tax{vSTA) p~50%' • 04-01-07

· say Are.a Bapid Tra~slt District· {BAf-ri). •·San Fr~nci$_co Pity · a·nd ·county

· ........, San Francisc~ Co~nty Pubiio Finilnc~Authority·{SFPF)

. r San f ran~lsco County Transpor:tat16n Authorlfy (SFTA) ....

o.25% j(joco1-93

.· .b.50% ; • ; 04-01~90

. : . : . ; . ~ . . . . ~ ~ . : . . : : . ; : . . .

5/9/2017 Gmaii - Qu!'SUon resarding Offipe of PubUc Finance.

········ : ............. · ... ···:···· ..... ·.•· ···; .... ·•·. GtnaH ·• Th9Qia~ 13l!s~e <tjbussesf@gmaii:corn:> .• ·•

. . . . . . .. . . . -'---.---,--,-_,cc,~-~.,...,.-~__,.--___,----~---,.-

. Question regarding Office of Public Finance·. · :1 message

. ' ..

· • Thomas Busse <[email protected]> To: [email protected]

Tu~! Apr 18, 2017 at 2:13 PM .

Dear Ms. Whittaker: . . : :· . : ::

I was perousing the district tax breakdown in the records of the Board of Equalization, and lt noted San Francisco h~s a permanent .25% s.ales tax for a speeial district called the "San Francisco County Public Finance Authority" approved by

•·the voters in 1993. Is that the same as your department, the Office of Public Finance? I would assume the special . district would float sales .tax bonds, .but what is unclear to me is why it is set up as a special district (and how it \i\{as set

· up, given San Francisco .did not have a Local Agency Fanning Commission in 1993) .• I wciuld like to read its charter.

· · Yours truly, · • : • . • . Thomas J. Busse ·

http8://rnail.google.C()m/maflfu/O/?ui=2&ik;=04b5b6c999&view=pt&q=whittaker&qp~~earch=query&th=15b82ea0ccfd9c46&si.ml=15b82ea0ccfd9c46 1/1

.. : : • .. . .... :·.. ....•. . . .. ·.'········· .... · ......• ' .. · .... ·. • ..........•. •·,········· ........... ··: ' ...•...•.•.... · ALPHAseT1CAL usT1NG oi:. J u~1so1c;r10N c;9pes NeEoe~ r0,:V.tew $F'ec1f1c ·

• PAY.t\llENTS ON THE LOCAL JUR,ISDICJ!ON STATEMENT OF TAX OISTRIBUTION . : .. : .· ... .-··: ::.·> .· _:.·:_ '. .:.·:-·

· JURISDICTION • · ·•. DISTRicT AoD'.:.oN TAXE~ · · . CODES {3 Digits)

. ·:.··

213 ... . . 184

·. 274.

381

. . 325 201

140

384 .•,

185 287

010 245

085

214

132

417

424

1.76 095.

386

291

390 .. 338

026 .

. 233 · .. 023

321

128

405 . 357

l)53

015 .• 148

031

013 -· . . .. · .... ···. 347 ~051

• 027

038 444.

. . . :': . : .. · .... · .·: ..... ·.·. . . . · ..... ·. ·: ·.· · ... : :'

OXNARD (ClTY) VITAL SERVICES TR.i\NSAci:ioNs & usE: TAX · · . PACIFIC G,ROVE {CITY)TRANSACTIONS & USE TAX . . . . .•PALM SPRINGS (CITY) TRANSACTIONS & USET!\)( ·. : •... • • .·

.· PARADLSE(TOWN) TEMPORARY TRANSACTIONS & USE TAX..

PA~Q ROSI-ES (CITY) TRANSACTIONS & USE TAX :·· .

. PICO RIVERA (CITY) TRANSACTIONS & USE TA)( . : PINOLE{CITY) TRANSACTIONS & USE TAX

PINOL!= {CITY) 2015 TRANSACTIONS &USE TAX

pisMO BEACH (CITY) TRANSACTIONS & USE TAX. . .

PITfSBURG (CITY) TRANSACTIONS & USE TAX .•.•... ·. · .. • .•. ·

PLACERVILLE (CITY) PUBLIC SAFETY TRANSACTIONS & USE TAx

PLACER.VILLE (CITY) SPECIAL TRANSACTIONS & USE TAX

. · POINT ARENA (CITY) TRANSACTIONS & USE TAX

PORT HUENEME (CITY) TRANSACTIONS & USE TAX · . . ..

.PORTERVILLE (CITY) PUBLIC SAFETY, POUCE & fl.RE PR.OT T&U TAX

RANCHO CORDOVA (CITY) TRANSACTl.ONS & USE TAX .

.· RED BLUFF (CITY) 2014 TRANSACTIONS & USE TAX. ,

•• .. REED LEY (CITY) PUBLIC SAFETYTRANSACTIONS & USE TAX

' . RICHMOND (CITY) TRANSACTIONS & USE TAX

. RICHMOND (CITY) 2014 TRANSACTIONS & USE TAX

RIDGECREST. (CITY) TRANSACTIONS & USE TAX •

RIO DELL (CITY) TRANSACTIONS & USE TAX

RIO VISTA (CITY) GENERAL TRANACTIOl\IS & U.SETAX

. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

ROHNERTPARK (CITY) TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX

.SACRAMENTO TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

SACRAMENTO (CITY) TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX

. SALINAS (CITY) TEMPORARY TRANSACTIONS & USE TAX

. SALINAS (CITY)MEASUR~ GTRANSACTIONS & USE TAX

SAN ANSELMO (TOWN) TRANSACTIONS & USE TJ'.\X

SAN BENITO COUNTY GEN FUND AUGMENTATION

SAN. BE:NITO COUN.TY TRANSPORT ATlbN AUTHQRlTY

.SAN BE~NARDlNQ (CITY)TRANSACTIONS & USE TAX .. S,A.N BERNARDINO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY .

SAN DIEGO COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION. .COMMISSION

SAN FERNANDO (CITY) TEMPORARY T~NSACTIONS &,JJSE TAX

SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY -: . - ' ' . - . . . .

SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY '· . . . . . . . . .

SAN JbSE (CITY) TRANSACTIONS &USE TAX - - . . . . . . . .. .. . ...

(06 potu~~ the·jµris~ittion codes listed iri this file to compi~te your Sales imd. Use Tax retur~ or fpr an)' othe~ purpose.) > .

·· Eff~ctive 4/1/16

.21 of24

P48

. . . .. . . . .. - . . . . ' ' ' . . . . - ..

412512011 ' 'Board of E<jualizatrori- State of Califurnia·'

.. -. ' • _- ..... ·· .. • ...•. '.' ... _ •... ' ' . '--. '. '' --.- -. ' '•-···-· .... ' ·. ·_-•- ·-. ' · .. '. ··-·--·

· Local'Juris.diction Statetrient 6£.Tai Distfihutio11 ·'

·tp O!lt. _Date: - _ For the periods shown below • . •· · • ·_ __ t \\ 0. .•

' 0411212017 .· / \}"

Payee: sF COUNTY PUBLIC FINANCE AUTH/DIR~CTOROF ;t;- .. ' . FISCAL SERVICES

Current Advance · Feb 2017. " '

Prior Credits ·

. Total P~yment (by EFT) .

•I

3,201 ,400,00

0.00

3,201,400 .00

_lfyou have questions regarding this statement, please cbntact

BOE-Local Revenue a_nd Allocation Unit at 9~.6-324-3000. ·

Back to Query Page (lboewebserJices/localJur.jsp)

http:;;://efii~.boo.c::Lgov/boe~ebservices[loca!Jur.do;jsessionid=5124C406F_1674~16C51000531A4.p2 1/1 '

""C en 0

'i ' '' ' ' ' FUWRP6Ml ''

FUWRPGPl

''

.•A.DP-ON .. · 002 ' 003 004 005. 006 008 009 010 012. 013 01.4' 015 016 018 020 o2i 022 023 024 026 027

' 029 030 031 032 034 035 037 038 039 040 043 045 047 048

~5i 053 ass 059 0,60 061 063

'065 b66 067 0.68 '070

. . ' ... ····: ' .:·. . ...

·•··· ··· .. · .· ', .···· ......... ·•· .. ··•·· · ... ·•··.·· ·.·.···· sTA±1Feoii.~o or Eiciuil.r.rz.AT10n . FlJND' DISTRIBUTION S!JBSYSl'EM ..

QUARTERLY DISTRIBtrTION·OF ADD-ONirAX 'ALLOCATION PERIOD: Fourth Quarter 2016

. . . . . : . . ' : GROSS : ADMi• coi:r·:

22.' 6'51, 60 6,. 82 · 231, 470 .od, · '56, 526,210. 58 637,040.00

.5,295,•66·7.57 59,5.80.00' 210, 659,143 .38 2, 2.97' 640. 00

237' QQ. 0. 00' 66,978,247.88 739,390.00 22,°325,, 861. 00 246,470.00

1,376:39 0.00 1-8,309,35<'..35 216,520.00 76, 416, D.'iL 79 825,250.00

592, 836. 98, 5,460.0.0 5~.03- 0.00

0.00 0. 00• 22' 6,60' 971 .. 63' 231,410,00

o .. 00 0 '00. O·. 00. 0. oo •. a.po §.Q(l

3d,, 6,13, 6).4. 61 ·~ 33.9, 880'. 00. 2,1,311,688.99 254·, 5.70. 00 46, 654,S5L'24. '507,340.00 27 ,"737 ;9.8 6. SF 313, 320 .. 00 '3,S76,164.16 31,500.00

'9,.906,5.67.07 107, 840. 00 42, 874,616.95· 5.00, 740·; 00'

o.oo 0.00 268.93 0.00

2.io, 665, 499 .. 13 2,29'7,400.00 81 1 870;661.94 ·903,150.00 14, 607, 175.16 lEi,140.00

11,262 . .'29 ' ci. 00 645.36 0.00

o.oo a·. oo 166.75 0. 0,0

o.oo o, o.q 0.00 0.00

13, 869, a.as. 69 313, 300. oo· 0.00 0.00

•247,177.27 2,990.00 2, Bi's, 253 .·93 121,910.00

3.87 0.00 2,'646, S65.16 s~,620.00

9,456.73 0.00 4 ,. 948, 096. 45 54,360.00 2,'J47,22S,.4B 105,620.00

513, 605.95 23,280.00 60 6, 801. 42 6,770.op 27/,925.23 $,290.00

. NET AMOUNT '2.Z; 430, 136.82'

55, 889, 1 '16 .58: 5, 236, 087. 57, '

20~,361,503.38 237..oo·

G6, 238, SST. 88 ·. 22, 079, 391 .. 00

1,376 .. 39 18,092,8'12.35 '75, 650, S21.79

587,376.%.' 59. 03- '

0 .OO· · .. ·22, 429·; 561.:63 '

· 0 .OQ o.oo

'' ().00 ' 3 0' 2 73' 734. 61

2 3, o 5.7, 110 , 9 9 46,1.47,211.24: 27' 4~4, 666 •. 81

3,84(66.4.i6 9, 798, 727 ,(,;?

42;.373:, S76';.~5 6.00.

268.9J· 208, 368, 099.13·

80;967,511.94' 14, 445 1 035, H

11,262.2~ 645.36

o.oo 166 .. 75

o.oo 0. 00.:' ' '

'13, 556, 508. 6'9~ o. 00 ' ' "

244,1s'i.27 2, ,693, 343. 93·

3. 87 2,58,7,245.16

9,456.73 4, S93,, 736 .'45. 2,241,6os.4a.

490,325.95' 600,-031.42 272, 635.23

. .. . . . . . . . .

·· o:i;o412oi1 PAGE '.1.

'"C . CJ'1 _.

.. •.· .. ·· .. ····.·......•..•.••.... ......•. ..; ........ .. . . . . . . . . . . . ' .

. . . . ~ : :: : . : . . . . . . . . : . .. .

PAYMENTS TO SPECiAL DISTRICTS FBOM . THE TRANSACTIONS (SALES) AND·U$e':fAX.

Prior year . .. . ..

051 SFPF San FranciSco··county Public·. · · Financ~Authorit/

·:' ..

Year.to Yr to Yr DISTRIBUTED DISTRIBUTED DISTRiBUTED DISTRIBUTED oisTRIBUTEb DISTRIBUTED. date % chg • JULY 2007 . AUG 2007 SEP 2007 <OCT 2007 NOV 2007 D!:C2007

4.?31 .2,520,700.00! J.,.360 .• 900.00 I .~.e.o5,o36.19. I 2,520,600.00 I 3.494;1.oo,oo

4/27/2017

""C U'1 N>

•••••• ....•.••... · <•••r···•·•····•·\/ .. PA~MENT~TO SPECIAL DIS~RICTS FRQ~ .. · 'rriETRANs,<\cnoNs (SALE.S)ANO lisETAX

Prior year·

· 051 SFPF San F'raii~isco County Ptibll~ . · · Finance Authority ·

··Year-to· · date

. . . ; . . . . . ' . .

·~fl~t~~1~iJ1~~2iiq

. Yrio Yr . OIST~l~UT~D ~l~JRJBUTED o.1siRIBUTE~ DisfR1s0r~D DISTRIBUTE,D . DlS~~IBUTED .· % chg ·.·JAN 2008 .·. · Ff;:B·2QOB. • ·· · · MAFUOOJ!< . APR2008 MAY 2008. JUN 2008

4.231 2,891,600.QO I 3;855,500.00 I 3,28?,887.01j 2,415,200.00 I .3.22Q,2Q0.00 I .M59,:337.02

·.~

.. o.'". T'

0 ~·

". . ... ·:: .··. ::· . . . . . .

·:~·.··· . - . .

·2 412712017

1 l

l 1 ..

r

I I

r I

~;~0.~c-:.~·- ---·· -'·\.

School, Sales. Tax PROPOSITION A

·sttall 1n.otc1rnanoo ~f the e&n francr.co County PubUc Flniliff AuthorJtybe adopted ao as to 1) approve 1 iransactlon1 and UM tax of one quarter of ono ptrcent for the g1neral purpoM ~providing tlnanclal IBll&lancl to 1he San Francleco l,lnlfled School District and th• San Fr•ncl-=o · com.-unlty Collea• Dlltr~t; 2) approv• 1n lncrta• In th• Callfornta· Constitution Artlcl• XlllB appr0prlatlon11 Umlt for Hid dl•trlcta In an •mount .qusl to the revenuee dorlvedj by each dJstrlet

· from tha trannetlons and use tax for the ume t11epl yHr?

Analysis .&::=- IVbT No<Ar\ L by the City Attorney .(with recomr0enaatror1s by the BaUotSfmpllflcation Committee) · .·

THE W/\ V 11: 1s· NOW:·There. ls.an 8~ percent sales tax In San Francisco~. this Includes a supplemental ~ percent sales tax lmpOsed by t~e sta.te and a temp0r~ry 1ocat Y4 j)erCf)ot $chool dlst(lct s~lestax. Both taxes.are scheduled to expire.on June 30, 1993, This would make the sates tax .In S41n Franc1sc0 7t¥4 percent. ··

·current state law allows school dlstrlcis and boards of supervlscirs1o 1orn1.a.couniy pubilo finance· authority ani:t submit an ordinance to the voters Imposing a new Safes tax to. assist schoi)t dlstncls wf1'm the state supplef!'letltal tax Qf ~percent expires on.June 30, 1993. The legislature Js eonsldering a change In ihe law to extend the st~te supplemental tax ~nq stl~ allow the .rj~ )9cr{I sales tax to · take e'1ect. ·

THE PROPOSAL; Proposllton A I~ an ordlnance that would ce>n.tfnue the tun.ding of tfla San Francisco: Unified ScfiOol

. Dlstrlcl and the San Ftan.cllico Commi.lr\~Y C~lfeg~ Dfslrlct

through a permanem 1.4 J>ercent .local sales tax. 1f this P~oposhloi1 Is adopted and state law Is not ch'ang~. the total overall sales. tax Jn San Francisco wm become a percent. Ji this Proposition IS actOpted arid ·state law.fa 1:hanged to authorize both this tax· anti the eXtenslon of.the state·supplementat ta>< of Vi pefc.ent, the qy~rall sales. tax In San Franciscio \,Vlllreina1.n 8~ percent, · · proposition A also would increase the spending limits

of the dl.strlcis each year Jn an amount equal to the reve· nues received by each dlstrlct from the sales tax for that year. · · · · ·

A "YES~· VOTE MEANS~ lf}'ou vote y13.s, you want~ autho~ rJze this tax to ~ntlnue to ~ssfst the public ~he>ols and the Co111i11unliy Poll~ge.

.A·'!NO" VOTE fAl:ANS: If you vote no, you.do not want to ai.att)OrlzeJhJs tax to ~ntlnue to asslsi the public schools· and thtt Cornm.tnlly College. ·

·-:

Controller~s Statement on "A''. ''Cliy Controller Edward Harrington has Issued th&follow·.

Ing' statement on ffie fiscal Impact of Pl'9poslllOrtA: .Should the proposed. ordlliar\~ be a~opted. and' irn•

pleinenled, Jn my opinion, revenues for the Pornmunlty College and Unified School Dls!rlcls ·woµr~ Jncrea$e, by approxfmat~IY ~15.9 @lllqn ltj ff seal year 1993·94~n<1$21,2

4

P53

mlliron lo fiscal year 1994-95, l~reaslng thereafter with the rat~ of lrjf laUonuntll expiration Qf t~e jax·. The Ordinance also peilnlts a.n lf1Crease In the Appropriations Limits orthe Districts esta~llshe~ pursuant to Artie!~ XlllB of the Slate. Co11~tnut1~ (Gann LllT}lt) !n prdedo spend lhe. lnoreased taK revenues." · · · .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

/ . · ..... · . ..... . .· . ·.• ·.·. /.· ..

.·...!· . " ~

..... ·····1· flltNo ._ t.;s ··~~tHd . · • · Aineridmerit o~ the. whol_e' .· _AS_ cinenaed in_ B6ar_. d 2/1/9.3 l

l/?7(93 ... · •.• RESOUrnON NO:s;e.;.. 9~

J [~CAL PUBLICFiNANGE Ati1HORITYl

2 · :DE{:~ARING THE. 'INTENT o~ ~HE B~AruJ OFSUPERvrsbRs OF THE CITY ~.ND ·

·3 . COUN~'{ OF SAN ;~RANdrsco TO PROPOSE ~ INCRE~SE. IN. THJ!'.. TRAf,'T_SACTIONS

4 AND usE TAX IN THE CITY AND cO:qNTY PURSU~T To CHAPTER 3.5 OF THE . . . .

REVENUE AND TAX..ri.TION CODEi AND ESTABLISHING THE SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY

: \PUBLIC FINANCE AlJTHORITY. .

7

8

9

10

... :: 11

I

WHEREAS, Due to _cut.backs in state• funds and other sources of

reyenue to the City and Coun;t::y of Sah Francisco, the ability to

maihtairi public services and p~ograi:ns has been greatly hampe:red; and . . .

. . .. . . . . . . . :: ..

WHE;REAS, The Cali:forniaLegislature has recognized the need

for loqal 13:overn.rnents and school. districts .. to address' the bucigetary

. 12

• problems .and .meet the heeds for health, crime pr~vention, and . .

educational services ·in the.ir COtnffiUil:i ties by_ ... enacting Ass_erribl_y. Bil 1 13

... 14 1~3 o , 1 9 9 l ; and ·

15

.. ·J6

WHEREAS! Assembly Bill 19.30 allows for the creatio.n of a local i

. 17 ..

l8

19.

20

21

22

23.

24

i25 __ _;/

· public .finance authori:ty for. the purpose of financing drug abuse I l .... · . : . : . . . . . . . :· ...

prev-entiori, crime prevention,. health services, and public education, . . . . . .

: ci.nq to authorize said Author it:y:, upon vot:er approval, to impose a

· -t;r:_.ansactions and use tax ra.te of ,25% or O. 5% for the Authori tY' s . .

general purvoses; .and

WHEREAS, The Board of. Supervisors of the City.and County of ·. . :" .: . :-· .'..

. . . San Francisco finds that it is critical to continue the provision . · .. ·. - .. ·. '.'.. .. . . .. :: '

. . ..

ll,ealt.h and crime preve~tiori ~ervices and that revenues generated.by

• an addi tio~al tax, are necef;Sary; now, tb:l'!ref ore, be it

JI i SUPERVISOR MIGDENr 1 B1ERMAN , ALIOTO 4452g

PAGE NO, 1 ·· Olil9/93

· BOARD Of S\.JPERVISORS

P54

l JmSOLVED, The :Board· of sup~rvisors of the City ·and C9unty of

2 I San E'ra!lcisco deciares its int.en:t to propose:: an increase in the

I 3. i . tr§:p:~~-<;t;.!9P.s ___ {Ufd_1\§_? __ :_t_~;ir~J.!1:., tpe ,fit.Y~ __ anst_9_q11n.tY _£1J.:i;'..l?JJArrt· -to Ch~pt~r ______ ...... ..

4 ! 3. 5 (commencing ·w~tll Sectiop. 7:288'', 1) of Part 1. 7 of Division. 2 9:f

5 th~· ca:;ifornia Revenue and Taxation: Code; and, be it

6 FURTHER RESOLVED', That upon adi'.>ption o:f this resolution by the

7 Board of Supervisor·s of the G,ity and County of San Franc·isco, the

8 s.an. Eran.qisco County Pi.lblic .Finanqe ,Aµi:;hoti ty is hereby establis.hed

g pursuant to .Cali:fornia Revenue arid T~ation Code Seotion 7288 .1

10 tpe general purposes of financing drug abuse prevehtibn; crime

11 .prevention, health s·ervices, and publ:ic ed.uca:tion; and, be it

12 FURTHER RESOLVED; That said Authority sb,all be goverJ,led by a

13 . board of. directors which shall cqnsist of five. members of the San

14 Francisco Board of Silpervisots ar:id five members of the governing .. . .

l$ boards of school difitr;i<;:ts in the City and County as providt:d in

· 16' Revenue and Taxation Code; S~ction 7288 .2; and~ be .it

17 FURTHER, RESOLVED r That the. Presi4~nt qf t,he Board of

18 Supervisors shall appoi.nt f·ive rneinbe_rs of that. body to ::;erve on the

19 ;board of directors .of the. San Francisco County Public Finance·

20 Authority; a:p.d, be it

21 FURTHER RESOLVEP1 That in the event said t:i:;ansaotiop.s a,nd use

22 tax is imposed, said Authority- may $Xercise all powers .necessary to

23 -perform th.e coilection, adm:Lnistratioit and B.:lloc<l,tion- duties. with

respect to said tax Jn a i,na,_nner consistent with Pa'.rt 1. 6 of the 24

i25 Cali£ or.ni a Revenue and Taza.t ic:n+ co·Q,e. (oommencing' with Sec,tion 72 51) ;

and; be it

P55

PAGE: NO, 2 ,01/ }_ S/93

.. ; . ,: ~J .. I

·· 1 :.,

' . . : J.·

1 g3 l>

2

jp

3

: 4

5·

6

7

8

9

.. 10.

11

12

13

14

. 15 .

·. 16.

17

. 18

.• 19

20

21

22

. 23

24

. 25 )

;.

· .. ,

. . . . . .. . :, :. ·, .. :. . ....... ,. >. : ..•.•.•. ·· .... ·,· .......• ·. ··~UR'i'HER RESOLVEb" /~hat the Board Q~ 'su£e~vis:9rs,. I~ ..

approving' ~hiS:~eas~1e, exp~e~:~.~~ :.its .• strong yiew t.hat the AUthotity . : . . . . - . . . . . . . . . .

shaJ:1 ···rrot·-a;'ppi::b-Ve--a.ny--s-a-1es Ltax-raeaiur~e-·tna t: -~;fofftrpla."cfa th:e.c_.~--··. ~ ····-· •·. · · : . : . . ' .

coinposite saie~ 1:.ax rate above the cu.c:rent rat~ of 8.5%~

SUPERVISORS · MIGDEN; BIERMAN, .ALIOI'O


P56

,.,•+'" ~'.

·:·· . .. ~, . . ; ' ··. . : ·~

.: ... : :. ·:.· :· .:·:· :' ...... ·

. > ·ft·•·•·•. ·L.t•··.c_·s·-·····? • · • .. . ·1 •... · .. \:F_ ..

. . . . .. ·. - . ; ·. :6

t '··

--- - - . ----.• ·······~ .. ·•. •. •-. -.-. - - --.·.·- • -.····· ·.·.···••·· --- . . ·.. ... . ... , ... · ·. ----·.--:-·-·-,-·---· -.,- ... -··-~--- .. --.- ~·

.. ···>. < ............. c > . • ... · ·. •<.· ••.. <.•<

Adopted - ~oaz;d of super:visor:s. San Francisco February 1. 199.3

: :: . . :: .·. -: :·:.·

supervisors Achtenberg Alioto Bierman Conroy Hallinan .Kaufman Migden Shelley

supervisors Hsieh ~aher-'\> l"l•~ 3fs I"~ ~bdent: ~upexvls~r Kennedy · ·· .·

Noes:

Fil~ No .. 175-93-1.

. .

I her:eby certify that the foregping resolution ~a• ad~pted by the Bo•ta of supervisors of the City and County of San Fra cisco

r-', .. ··: I "fll

FEB. 1 1 \?93 na·te Approved ·

P57


Notes to Basic·Financial Statements Ju11e 30, 201.6

{Do!fars in Thous(lncj~)

·SPCAF=Q ::Zolf;

(1) THE FINANCIAL REPORTING ENTITY

-n)i_s \ ')

ho .. 0 \\'\t-

5f t' f A-. )~lf-,_\J : , A~~J~

San Franclsco is a city and county chartered by the State.of Califoroia arid as such can exereise the powers as both a city and.a co1.mty under state law. As required by generally accepted accounting principles, the f:iocompanying finaQclal statements present the City and cdunty of San Francisco (the City or primary government} and its component units. The cc:irnpohent units disGussed peloW arEl il1qluded in. the City's· rep9rtt,1g entity because of the significance of their operations or financial refationships wit~ the City. · · ·

As a government agency~ the City is exempt from. both federal income tax~s aricl California. StatEl franchise taxes.

Blended ComponentUnits

Following is a description ofthose legally separate component units for which. the· City js financially accountable that are blended with the primary government because of their .individual gpvernance or finanCialrelationships to the City. ·

San Francisco County Transportation Authority (Transportation Authority) - Tbe voters of the city created the Transportation AutMrityin 1989 to impose voter;.approved sales *'nd use tl::lx of oo~half of one percent, for a period not to exceed20 years, fo flihd essential traffic and, transportation projects. In 2003, the voters approved Proposition K, exteriding the cify~Wide one~half of one percent sales tax with a new 30.,year plan. A board consisting of the eleven members ofthe City's Bdard of ~oper'Vi:;>ors serving ex officio governs the Transportation Authority .. The. Transportation Authority is reported; in a speclal revenue fund in the City's basic financial .statements. financial statements for the

. Transportation Authority can be obtained from their firiance and administrative offiees at 1455 Market Street, 22°d Floor, San FranciSco, CA 94103.

San Francisco City and County Flriance Corporation (Finance Corporation) - The Fin;mqe Corpor1:1tion was created in 1990 by a vote of the electorate.to allow the City to lease-purchase $2.0 milljoh (piu!S 5% per year growth) -0f equipment using tax-exempt obligations. Altho'µgh legally separat~ from th~ City, the Finance ·corporation is reported a:s. if it were part of the primary government because, .its .sole purpose is to provide lease. financing tO the City. The Fihah~ Corporation is gov~rned by .a three:member board of directors approved by the Mayor aM the Board of Supervisors.; The Fimmce Corporation is reported as an internal service fund. Financial statement.s for the Finance Corporation can be obtained· from their administrative. offices at City Hall, Room 336, 1 Dr: Carlton R Goodlett Place, San Francisco, CA 94.102.

San Franciseo Parking Authority (The. Parking Authority) - The Parking Authority w(l~ created fn October 1949 fO provide services excJusive!y tcnne Cify. in accordanc~ yvith Proposition D authori:?:ed by the City's elei::torate hi November 198~, a City Char:ter amendrn·entcreated the Parking and Traffic Commission (PTC). The PTC consists of five comini$sioriers appointed, by t_he Mayor'. Upon creation of the PTC, the responsibilfty to oversee the City's off.::street parking operation~ was transferred from the Parking Authority to the PTC;. The staff and fiscal operations. of the Parking AlJtlJprity wer~ also incorporated info.the PTC. Begihhhig on July 1, 2002, the re~pc:insibility for overseeing the operations of the PTC became the responsibility of the MuniCTpal Transportation ,t\genpy (SFMT A) pursuant tp Proposition E, which. was passed by the voters in November 1 ~99. Separate financtal stateIT1ents are riot prepared for the Parking Authorify. Flirthl;!r' information about the Parl:(lng Authonty can be obtained from the $FMTA Chief Financial Officer at 1 Sol!th Vari N(ess Avenue, flth Floor,. San Francisco, CA . . 94102. •' .

.Tf ,;lts,J~ 11- 5hau,lc{ Affei1."- /ikq_ fhi 5 J .. ptfa

CITY AND COUNT¥ OF SAN FRANCISCO

Notes'tp Basic Financi,al Statements (Continued) June 30, 2016

{Ooilar~ i,n TboliS!:!flds)

Discretely Presented Component Unit

5-F-C4-f::R

2.0Jb

Treasure Island Development Authority (The TID.AJ~Tne tlOA iS a nonprofitpublic benefit corporation. The TIDA was authonzed in accordance with the Treasure Island Conversion Act of 1997. Seven C()mmissioners Who are appointed by the fy1ayor, subject to 'Confirmation by the City's Board of Supervisors; govern the TIDA. Ttie specifi~ purpose: of the. TIDA is to promote. the planning;, r~eveiopm.~nt,. reconstruc::tlon, rehabilitation, reuse,, a~d conversion of the property known, as Naval Station Trea~ure Island for the public interest, conven.ience, welfare1 and common benefit or the inhabitants of the City, The TIDA has adopted as its rrii,ssion the creation of'affordable housing an!'.f economic development ppportunitiel>. on Treasure Island. ·

The TIDA's; governing body is not substantively the same as that of the City and does not provide ser-Vices e,ritlreiy or almost en~!relyto the City. The TIDA is reported}n a separate.column to emphasize ttiat it is legally separate fror:n the City. The City is financially ac:countable for the TlDA through the appointment of the TIDA's Board .and the.. ability of the. City to approve the TIDA's budget. DisClosures related to the TIDA, where significant, are.separately identified throughout these .notes. Sep13rate financial statements are not prepared for TIDA. Further information' about TIDAcan be obtained from their administrative qffices at 1 Avenue of the Palms, Suite 241; Treasure. lsland1 San' Francisco,. CA 94130., . .

Fiduciary Component Unit

$uc.cessor,AgencJ tq the Redevefopment Agency of the City and County. of San Franciseo (Successor Agency) - The Succes~mr Agency was created bn February 1; 2012 to serve as a custodian for the assets and to wind down the affairs cifthe former San Frandsco Redevelopment Agency plirsuant to California Redevelopment Dissolution Law. The Successor Agency is governed by the Successor Agency Commission, .commonly known as the Commission on Communlfy Investment' and lrifrastructi.tre, and ls a separate pubiic entity from the City. The Commission has fiveiTiembers, whith serye: at the pleasure of the City's Mayqr and are. subject to confirmation by the Board.of Supervisor$. The .city is firnmcially accountable for the. Successor Agency through the appointment of the 9om.mission and a requlrementthat the Board ot Supervisors approve the Successor Agency's annual bl)dget · · · ··· ·

The financial statements presenl the Su.ccessor Agency and .its component units, entities fofwhich the successor Agency Js considered to: be financially accountable. The City and County of San Francisco Redevelopment Finan.cing Authority .(Fir1ancfng AuthoritY) is a joint powers authority formed betwee.n the former Agency and the City to facilitate the long-teim financing ofthe former Agency activities. The Financing Authority is included as a. blended corriponent' unit in the Succes$or Agency's financial statements.becaljseJbe Financing Authority provides services entirely to the Successor AQehcy.

Per the Redevelopment Dissolution Law, certain actions of the Successor Agency are· alSo subject t~ the direction of an' Oversight .Board. The Oversight Board is comprised of seveii-inember representatives from local government bodies: foU! City representatives appointed by the Mayor of the City §l[Jbjeq to confirmation by 11)~. BQard of Supervisors of the City;· the Vice Chancellor of the San Fnn1cisco Community College District; th~ Board member of the Bay Area Rapid Transit District: and the Executive Director of Policy and Operations of the San Francisco. Upified School District.

In general, the Suc;cessor Agency's assets can only be used to pay enforceable obligations in existence at the date of dissolution (including tne compietion of any unfinished projeets that were subject to legally enforceabie contract.ual comn:iitrnents). ln future fiscal years, the Succes'$or Ag~ncy will only pe allocated ri;iver:iues in the amountthat is necessary.to pa)' the estimated annual instaUment payments on enforceable opligatlons ofthe 'tormer Agency until all enforceable obligations of the former Agency have been pajd Jn full and. au assets have been liquidated. Based upon the nature of the Succ~$sbr Agency's cu,sfodiai role, 1h.e ·Successor Agency is reported in a fiduciar)f ftind {private-:purpose trust fund). Complete firanc:ial statements can be obtained from the Successor Agency's finance department at 1 South Va.n N.ess Ayenue, 5tn Floor, San Francisco, CA 94103'. ·

.n: N~ I 0 CA$K_

ha;ye_ !:a <Y1 eh h~- ') CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANGISCO.

f'Jotes to Basic Financial -Statements (Continued) - June 30, 2.016 -

(Dollars inThousands)

S'µ <A ff<__

~/p

(2)

Non-Di~ctos~d Organizations

There are qtMr g9vernmental agencies that provide se..Vic~ wit_hin _the City, Th~se, entities hay~ independent goyerning boards ~rid the City is riot financially t;>ccountablEt for th~rn:- The City's- basic financi~I statements, exceptfor);ertain cash held by the City as an agen{do not reflect operatfons of the Sa.n Francisco Airport Improvement.Corporation, San Francisco_ Health Authority, San Franci.sco Housing Authority, San Francisco Unified School District, and San Francisco Community College District. The City is'represented in tWo regional agencies, the Bay Area Rapid Transif Districfand the Bay Area Air Quality Ma.nagement District, both ohvhich are alsq e~qiµded from the City's reporting entity; --

(tvfJ -AJSD Jn1::,s1~:5 Pe'}J/\s<L{i.

(rif<R.-1 ~- :Sfh) SU_MMAR'fOF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING PouciE.s

(a} Govemmen~·wide and fu11d financial statements

The gpvernm_ent-wicl~ financial statements {i.e., the s~tement of net positicm and the statement.bf activities) report information on all of the non"fiduciar}r- activities of the pr_imary g9vernment and its component units. Gov_ernmental activities, which normally are supported -by taxes. and ir)terg·ovemmental revenues, are reported separately from bushies&,type activities, wl:lich rely, to a significant extent, on, fees and charges for st.ippo·rt Lilfow1se, _the primary governmentis reported sepa.r1;3tely from certain legally separate component unit_s for Which the primary gov_ernmentls financially accqi.lntable.

The statement ol ac:tfvities demonstrates the degree to' wh.ich fhe dirl:)ct expenses of· a given function or segment is offset by program revenues:. Dfrectexpenses are: those that are clearly identifiable-with 'a_:specific function or-segment. Program revenues include(1) chatges to CIJStomers or appiicants. who purctias_e, use, or direc;tly benefit fro_m goods, serviCes, or privileges provided by a given function or _segrp~nt, and (2) grants and contributions that are restricted to meeting the operational or capital requirements of a partic;ular function or segment Taxes and other jtems not properly included among program revenues are reported instead as general re\ienues·.

$eparate tln;;i.ncial statements are provided- for grive.rnme11tai- ftinds, proprietary funds, and fiduciary fun<:fs, ~ven though th_e latter are excluded from the governme11t-Wid~ financ;:ial statements. Major indi'Jidual g·ovemm_ental funds and major individual enterprise fund$ are reported as separate columns in.1he :fund financiGll statements~

JI)~_ pasic financfaJ statements include certain prior yea~ summ,arizeq comparative information._ This information is_ presented only to facilitate financial analysis, andis 11of atthe level of detail required for a presentation - In accordance with generally accepted, accounting principles. Accordingly; such information sholi1d be read in conjunctiOn with the City's finari<;:ial statements for the year ended ~µne30, 2015, from which the summarized information was derjveq~ -

(b) Mecisurement focus, basis of accoi.mtln!:J, and financial statement presentatiori

T~e gover,nment-wide financial statements are. reported usfng the econo_rnic resources measuteinent focus an9 th_e ac.crual _basis of accounting, as- are the proprietary f1,111d and fiduciary fund financial st~terpents,/\gency fuf)ds, however, report only assets~and)i~bi!ities_ and_ cannot be said to have a _measuremenHocus. Revenues are reconfod when earned and expense,s are recorded when a liability is incurrec;j; reg~rclless of the timing '.Ofrelated cash flows, Property taxes i;ire recognized as revenues in tne. year for which they are levied. Giants arid similar item$ ar~ recognized as revenue as soon ·as a11 eligibility r~qurrements ~ave beeri met

Governmentaf fund f!nancial statements are reportE!id using -the cµrrent financial resources measurement focus and the modified acerual basis ofaccoµriting. Revenues are recognized as soon (IS they al:e both measurable and available. Revenues ar~ consic:Jered fo be available when they are collectible. within the current period or soon enough thereafter to pay liabilities of the current.period. The_

SANFF.A.NCISCO lJNIFJED SC:HOOL DISTRICT

NOTES TO F.lNANCIAL STATE:MENTS JONE 30, 2016

NOTE 1 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

Financial Reporting E11tity

5P l/l S 0 C 4FR__ :)_oft

{µv}- ~·€:!{-€_ i1~)

The San Francisco Uni:6ed School District (the District) was establis\led as. the Sa.n Francisco School System in 1851 under the laws of the State of'Calirorni~ The District and County Office of Education (COE} operate under. a 1qcally.::.eiected seven-member Board form of government and provides educational .services to. grades· K- 12 as· mandated by State and Federal agencies. The Distrjct and COE provide c}iild care and elementary and secondary education in the Chy and Comity .of San Francisco, C<1liforilia. The District also administers the COE fund (County School SerVice Fund). Forfinanciaf reporting purposes, the District iiicludes all funds; account groups, agencies, and authorities that iµ-e controlled ,by or (!te dependent on the District's executive or legislative branches" Control by- or dependence on the District \Vas determined on the · ba51s of budget· aqopti,9n; taxing authority, outstanding debt secured by revenues or general obligations of the District, obligati9ns of the District to finance. any .deficits that ·may occur,. or receipt of signific_aht subsidies from the District The District operates 64 elementary schools, 13 middle schools, llJ)d 19 high schools including 4 continuation schools, 12 early childhood education centers and an independent study alternative school. The DiStrict sponsors 13 Charter Schools ..

A reporting entity is comprised. of the primary gove01lllen~ component units, and other organizations that are included to ensure.the financial statements are not misleading. The primary government of the Distrfot consists of all funds, departments~ boards; and agencies that are not.legally separate ihim the District. This inCludes general operations, food, service and student related activities of the District and the COE.

ComponentUnits

,Cmnpcinerit units are' ~egally separate organizations :for which the District is financially accountable. Component units may include organizations that are fiscally dependent on tbe-l)istrict .in thai the District approves their budget, tbe issuance of their debt or the levying of their taxes. Iri addjtiori., component ui:J:its are ·other legally separate organiZations f,or which the Disti;ictis not ffuancialiy accountable but the nattire and significance of the organizatio:ri;s relationship with the ·Distd,ct Ifi such that exclusion would caµse the District's financial statements to be misleading or incomplete. For financial. reporting pilrposes; the component '1Ilit ha.s a financial and operati911al relati<inship yvhich meets the. wporting entity definition criteria of the Governmental Aecountiilg Sfandlir9s,Boiird (GASB) Statemeu(No, J4,- the F'ini:meia.l Reporting Entity, and thus is included in the financial statements using the blended presentation inethcid as if it were part of the District's operations bec\'luse: the governing poard of the .component unit is the same as the govemi.llg board of the District and because lt~ ·purpose is to finance the acquis~tfon and improvemen! of, a new administration building to be used for the direct pene-fit of the D.istrict

The San Frat:;tcisco Unified School Distcict Financing. Corporation's (the, Corporation) financial activiiy- is presented in the financial statements as a fund of the Spedal Reserve Fund - Capital Outlay, Certificates of participation issued bY the Corporation are indude.cl ·as lotig-ten,n, liapilities in the goveffiI11ent-wide financial statements, lndi\ridual financial statements are not prepared for the Corporation.

~61

... · .··· ·· .... ·. • .. · ....... ·. · .............. ····• ... ·.· .········ .... ·· ······· .......... ·.· .. .

··•· .• SAN FRANc1sco UNI~IEDSCH()6Ln1sfrucT··· •·· . - .. . ,. .· -: . - - ' . . . -

MANAG~MENT'S ~ISCUSSIONAND i\NALYSIS . JUNE 30, 2'016

.-: _-- .. __ .:·: - :: : ·:. . -. _· : - .. ··. ..·- - '.: _::. : .. ·. · __ -_.

FACTORS BEAIDNG ON THE DISTIUCT;S FUTURE : -·. . .: .· ··-. . . . . ·. . . . :: ·. - ... · . . .· . .

. •.The District's staff continues to use assessments to measur~ and re-evaluate ways t~ i~~est in sound, educa~onal, . · and programmatic activities while en.sUring ffuancial solvency. The District achieved its required reser\re target of · .2% for fiscal year 2015~16, and currentlyprojeptS tliatit Will maintainits minimum reserve In bOth fiscal year . 2016-17 and fiscal year 2017-18. · ·· ·

.·_ . . · ..... · ..... : . . .

·Jn addition to the Local Control Funding formula incollle source, the District also received approximately $243.8 . . million of other program funding from Federal, State, ;ind. loc.al sources. In June 2008, Proposition A, the Quality·

. Teacher & Education Act was passed by the voters of San Fr:ancisco, bringing $30+ million per year for the next ·. twenty years to the Distrii:f beginning in fiscal year 2008~09:. These resources assist in recruiting and retafuing ·,effective teachers, increasing accountability, and improving the District's technology infrastructure.

. . Another local revem1e source Jhat has been greatly berie:fici~i to SFUSD is the Public Education Enrichment Fund . (PEEF),. a ballot initiative that was approved by the voters of San Francisc,o in March, 2004, and established a,s

. . 'fa'\¥ in the City Charter, Section 16.123.1-iO_ ()riginally set to expire on June 30, 2015, Proposition ;C; the ••· ·"Children and Families First" initiative passed in November, 2014, extended the PEEF funding through 2041; and ... ensured a sustained and guaranteed investment in our children~s future. PEEF funds have been critical in alfowing

· . the district to maintain, and in most cases, expand, programs during the economic downturn, The distdctreceives · a.pproximately $64 D:nllion o'r t~10-thirds of the annual PEEF allocation from the City (the remaining one-third

.. gojng to the City's Department of Early Care and Education for support to preschool). The district's portion of · · >PEEF is used to support sports, libraries, the arts and music (g.AM) as well as programs such. as Wellness

Centers; Student Support Professionals, Translation Servi<;es, STEAM curriculum, and Peer Resources, to name a

few. . IVO fct3 .5AL-G.> TAY? As it· relates to future State Budgets, the .District's ability to predict what actions will be taken in the future by the

. St~te: l,egislature and Governor to address the State's current or-future budget and CaSh management practices is limited. Future State budgets will be affected by national and State economk conditions and other factors over which .. the Distriet has. no control. However, :in a welcome departure from t,he past several years, prospects for

. 'State funding are brighter due to a sustained improvement in Caiifomia's economy and the implementation of the : · . L9cal Control Funding Formula which has provided increased funds to K-14 education under the Governor's

budget · · . . ' ' . . ... . . .

.. The District's Superinte~dent a~d senior staff riiembers will continue to work very tl~sely with the Board-0f

. ·Education to monitor revenues and manage expenditures .. SFUSD is. totally committed to take whatever measures . . · are necessary to maintain ~ strong and stable financfaL position. At the same time, the District will. ~lSo cotitinue

.· it!; dedica~d mission toerisure ih1proveni.eht ill ~cademic achievement, closing achievement gaps, fuiproving its > · fa~ilities, and meeting the priorities of the Board of Education arid the San Francisco commi.inity~ It is the

·. Pistrict' s goal to ensure that all children reeeive a qualicy education and a positive foundation necessary for them . to achieve academic success. . . . . .. . . .. ..

: . .·. . : . :: . . .· :·. . ·. :,

CONTACTING THE DISTRICT'S FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

. This :financial report is designed to pr~vl.d~ ~m citizens, taxp~yers, and credifors with a general mrerview of the · . Distrj.ce s finances and tci assist interested parties in understanding the District's sources and uses o . £

·. · you have questions about this report or need additional financial information.; please contac~ Reeta Madhavan, Chief Financial Officer of the San Francisco Unified School District, 135 Van Ness Aven~e; San :Francisco,

· Cilifornia, 94102 or ( 415) 241-6542.

li62

. . . . : : . . . : . . : . . . . - . . . : . . : . . . ; : . ~ . . .. . . : .

• '51s/2017 · Gmail " Re: Cooso!idated Annual .Financi<Jl Statements for the San Francis~o Finance Authorify . . . . . : : . . ; . . . : : : . : : : .. : : ~ . . . ·. : .

. . . .. . . . .. . . .. ···.. . . .. . . . . . . . .

· ··• !~l GrnaH. ·· • Thomas Busse <[email protected]:>

. - .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . .

Re: Consolidated Annual Financial Statements for the San Francisco Finance · Authority ··

1 m~ssage .

• Madhavan, Reeta <[email protected]> To: Thomas Busse <[email protected]>

···Cc: Thu Cung <[email protected]>

Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 10'.18 AM

• Hello Mr. Busse, · . . . . The school district receives our share of the sales tax revenue directiy from the city's Controller's Office. You will need to contact the city's Controller's Office for the financial aud.it of sales tax revenue.. . This revenue is included on page 87 of the school district's 2015~ 16 audit report in the $52,614, 948 total of "local.

· Revenue" in the Unrestricted General Fund column. You ace correct in that the audit report does not provide a breakdown . ofall our revenue sources, and I will discuss this with our auditors if it is feasible to include that level of detail without

•• making the report overly iengthy (to give you a sense. of what this would entail, the district receives funding from ove\ 100 differentfoderal, state arid local sources and it could get unmanageable to list them all in detail. ·

· The detaUed revenue breakdown is included in our Unaudited Actuals report that is submitted to the state annually and · forms the basis of our audited financials. Thls report is posted on our district web site here.

Please lefme ~ow if you have any additional questions. Thank you;. Reeta ·

&:'~: .~.f~Jh":;., .....

SFUSD· 5 M< l'l!A l'IC151:0 P\,IO~IC SCMOOLS ·

. • Www.SFUSD.EDU

Reeta Madhavan . · . Chief Finaridal Officer

San Francisco Unified School District 135 Vari Ness Avenue, Room 315. Sari Francisco, C.f\ 94_102 · T 415-241-6542

. F 41.5-241-6482 · [email protected]

-::. J) i'.l ~ t-r~ fte.7 r~~}Q...

On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 9:42 PM, Thomas Busse <[email protected]> wr:ote.: '. Dear Ms Madhavan:

: I recently became aware of the existence of the San francisco Finance Authority as·a separate- special district for ~he ·• receivership of the 1993 1/4 cent Proposition A sales tax, however I haye. been unable to locate any financials, · : governing documents~ or board minutes for this special district. I was specifically concernecj about its ;a'locatlor. ; fofrnula or whether it was used to.back sales fax revenue bonds, in which. case 1. was interested in the oversight ' process.

- . . . . . : . . . .

: Because of t~e e~istence of a· p~~anent sales tax revenue source to support both the school district and the : community coilege district, I folt if Was misleading in your Consolidated. Annual Firiani::ial Report's Statement of · Financial Actiyities to not lnclu.de a fine for local sales tax revenue. I wasn't sure whether this was Included in "state •

and federal support" because it's local revenue, 9r whether it was part of the big an:ibiguous "other revenue" line .

. · •• ~llps://maiLgoogfe.com/mail/u/O/?ui=2&ik=Q4b5b6c999&view=pt&search=inbOisiYG~baOf992&10eB5&siml=15baOf9928c10e85 1/2

518120~7 . . · . · ... · .· . · · · .. · • .. · • .. Gmail - Re'. Consolidated Annual Financial Statements for the San Francisco Finance Authority · · · . . • ·

·.·.··•· Any clarlficatio~ on this would be most welcome, bUt: I do haye a legal right, at~a mini;num, td request the most rec~nf ... I audited fif1ancials of this Special District. i will be happy tQ.pay any r~asonable. copying foe-if these are not available •

... i electroniCally~. •• . .. . . . ... . ... . -

: . . . . . . . .. Mariy thanks,

· ·• Thomas Busse .. ·.• •. 584 Casfro Street #388 .

1 San Fran~fsco, CA 94114 · . • i 415-244-5Q72 -

. . . . . . . .

. ·· h~J/mail.google.coni/mail/ulO/?ui=2&ik=04b5b6c999&vi_ew=pt&~ch=inboxP&~aoro928c10e85&siml;.,15oo~28c10eB_5 212

.. ··•·•·•• </ •• · .• << ..•.• .. '.. :· :: .. ·:··. : ·.:· .... ·.. ·.:.::.

G~ail·········· .·· ••.. ·· ·· .. ·.· .• .• < •. · .. ·•. . • .. · ·. · .•... ·.•. . . •. . . .

. • ·• Th~mas Busse <tjbu~S,[email protected]:> ·

. . Re: Consolidated Arin~al Financial Statements for the Sall Francisco ·.·.Finance Authority'.'.' ·. · ·. · · · · ·· · · · · · ··· · · · · · · · · · .· ·. ·· ·

1 message · ··

Thomas 13usse <[email protected]> · . . . . Mon; Apr 24J 2017. a( 8:52 Pfy'I To: ''Madhavan, Reeta" <madhavanr@sfusd_eqll>' . . . .

• Cc~ Thu CiJ~g <[email protected]>, rafaelmand(=!lman@yahoq,com;tecl.egan~sfgov.org

lam ~ery c6ncerned here because the 93 Me~stire A. sale~ tax is ~ollectecf p~rsuanlto an ordinance of the "San Francisco Public Finance Authority," not through an ordinance of the City and County of San. . · Francisco: This ordinance authorizing the sales tax does not appear in the existing San Francisco. Municipal Code. ·

The San ~rancisco CAFR notes the existence of a "San Francisc~ ~ihance Corporati~n;'; h~we~er, tni~ is a . separate blended entity, and a review oftheir financial statements indicates it is used for capital leases~ .

· · The CAFRdoes n.ot recognize the existenc;ci of a San Francisco Public Finance Authority. Reviewing the City/County CAFR, the only sales tax revenue going to a restricted fund is the Proposition K ta)( going to the San Francisco County Transit Authority. In other words, if residents of the City/County pay a 1/4 cent •· .

· Transactions and Use tax to support both the School DistriCt and Commonity College district, the CAFR shbuld show iteither'as a blended entity or as a governmental fund. I have asked the City/County

·. · Controller, the SWe Controller, ·and the Board of Equalization for more information about the Sari f rancisco Public Finance Authority and it has been over a week and I have heard nothing, so. I am unsure·. hqwfo review, as you suggest, the Controller's audit of the sales fax revenue when I have gone through ··

.. ntimerous audits on their site in vain. . . . . . . . .

A iundament~ principle of disclosure required by GASS Statement 34 is a di~cussion of what is within management's control and what is not. Presumably; beCGIUSe there is an alloeation petween the

·. • Community College District and the Unified School District (or County Office of Education), management · needs to.discuss its role. in governance of a related entity, Does it have a say in how .it shares the sales tax·· revenue (which I hope would shift with enrollinerit patterns.state funding formula changes, and changing Wi.shes of the electorate !1UCh as a desire for free Cjty College Tuition )? BecausE! both the School DJstrict

· anct: the Community College pistricthaye significant unfundeg pension liabilities and a truly. alarming . · • unrestdcted netasset deficiency, basic questions of fiscal solv1;incy beg a discussion of hdw you are going

. ~o dig yout way out of that hole or if you can dfg your way out of that hole (consider Orange County, • Stockton, and Vallejo). · · · . . . .. .· . . .. . . .

·. To that end, you include an entirf! section bn "Factors Bearing on the District's Future" on page 12, wtiere · you discuss at length the Schoql District's income that is supplemental to the Local Control Funding · · . Formula. These include the Public Education Enr.ichment Fund from 2004 and the 2008 Proposition A: a .20.:year supplementary fund. Shouldn't the 1993 supplementary sales tax be. !ru:luded in this discussion? I •would. then have a discussion.of comparative benchmarks to determine to which extent the supplementary funding yields supplementary effort and effectiveness. · · ·

· .•• P.c1ear breakdown <lftax by type wi1r give the reader .ot the fin~ncial statem~nts a picture ot the vo1itality ot . the SchoolDistrict'sfllnding arid its ability to meet its liabilities, Althotjgh year-over-year revenue is.·. . relatively protected by Proposition 98, a local sales tax can shrink with the economy, rmd as a · . .

"supplemental" fund, should be b\,liltinfo the budget conservatively (an~ I would even recommend issuing sales tax bonds <:igain~Ut so it is' used for capital budg~ting as a means to protect it against unsusta.inable CBA concessions), ff(wer~ an auditor, I would tei;;ttoWhfoh extent local funding decisions impact the .•

·Local.Control Funding Formula: is. itpossible the passage of a loeal sales.tax prior to ERAF has the effect · of redu.cing the funding provided by the State, as is the case ..vith. the lottery? · ·· · · ·

P65

Authority, including the one to adopt a 1/4ce.11t salel:; tax, are no longedegally in force and its board . mem.b~rs have riot been meeting or adopting budgets. Imagine thatthe the BOE has been rri<:iiling a ch!'JCk ·· . payablejo a special district ~nd.the City/Coun1¥ Treasurer has been illegally cashing it. Meanwhile, the · . ·· School District and Community College Districts have been proposing general obligation bonds and parcel

. taxes WithOUt a full and. candid qisclosure of the full. extent to which local voters have agreed to tax .themselves to supplement education already and hbV;I they do so. · · ·

As a t~xpayer and cbncerned citizen, lhope that I have be~n able to demonstrate a competence \l\lith understanding,aricl scrutinizir)g financials as well as significant factors of your 9perating model and that my concerns a.bout transpcirency and' accountability are justified. · ·

Yours since~ely; . . . . . ..

Thomas J. Busse 584 Castro Street #3SB San Francisco; CA 94114 415-244-5072

OnMon, Apr 24, 2017 at10:18 AM, Madhavan, Reeta <[email protected]> wrote:

• · Hello Mr. Busse, •·. . •. . •··•• ·. • . .· · • .. · . The school district receives our share of the s()les tax reveriue directly f'rom th.e city's Controller;s Office.

You will need to contact the City's Controller's Office for the financial audit of sales tax revenue. . Jhis revenue is Jn.eluded on page 87. of the school district's 2015-16 audit report in the $52,614,948 • total of "Local Revenue" in the Unrestricted General Fund column; You are correct in that the audit report does not provide a breakdown of all oi.Jr revenue sources, and I will discuss this with our auditors if it is feasible tci indude that level of detail' without making the report overly. iengthy (to give you a . sense of what this would entail, the dis.trict receives funding from over 100 differentfederal, state and

• local sources and it could get unmanageable to list them all fn detail. . • The detailed revenue breakdown Is included in our Unaudited Actuals report that is submitted to the ··· state annually and forms the basis of.our audited financials; This report is posted on our district web · site here'. · . • ·· ..• · · ... · < . ·. · · ·

Please let. me know if you-Ii.ave any•.:icjpitt9nal questions • . ·1hank you,. · · · · Reeta •· ·

•SFUSD • $Atl •tullC"CO J>UllLIC K'100tS

WWW.SFUSD.EDU .· / .

Reeta Madhavan . . . . .. Chief Financial Officer • .. •• • ·• · .. San Francisco Unified Scf'\06toistrict. 135 Van Ness Avenue, Room 31Q' San Francisco, CA 94102 T 415-241..-6542

• F 415-241-6482 [email protected]

P66

·. ·: ... . ... ·:. :: •... = ...

. • San Francisco Unified . •. . ·.San· Francisco Count}' ·.·. • . · ·• ·

·:: > . : . . ·.·. : .. . . .· .... : · ..... :·.:.

• . · Unaudited ACtuals . .· FINANCIAL REPORTS . •· iil15.~ 16 Uri!3uctiteci Adua1s . School bistrid Certification ·

.··•· U~AUblTED.AdTUALFfNANCIAi. REP()R"f;

.. T ~ the Cou~:ty ~up~erintend~nt ~f Schools~ . 2015~16 UNAUDIT~D ACTUAL FINJ\NCIALREPORT. This reportWa~ prepar~d in accotdan~~ •

with Education Code Section .41010 ancfis hereby approved and tiled by•the governing board of the school distri6t pursuant to Education Code Section 42100.

Signe~1.t!2Zf..t~;og eo.ro . ·Date of Meeting: . ·/of i. /I (

(Original sig11atute required)

To the Superintendent of Public Instruction: .. . . . . . .

. . . . : . . : ·:.

2015-16 UNAUDITED ACTUAL FINANCIAL REPORT. This report has been verified for accuracy by the County superintendenl of Schools pursuant to .Educati(ln Code Section 42100.

For additional information on the unaudited actuar reports, please cc:intact

For County Office of Education:

Reeta Madhavan Name . . .. . .

Chief Financial Officer • Tille.

415~241..:S542

Telephone [email protected] E-mail Address

· Calfforriia Dept of Education

. For Scho.ol District:

Reeta Madhavan .Na!f)e· . . . . • ..

Chief Financial Officer Tille .•. • . 415-241-6542 Telephone . [email protected] E-mail Address . ·

. . .

38 684 78 0000000 .. · · FormCA .·

SACS Financial Reporting Software-2016.2.0 .·.File: ea (Rev 12/0512014) · Printed: 10/512016 11:15 AM

. San Francisco Unllied sail f rancisco Coi.intv •

Desciiotlon · · · Resource ci>iie . . . . . ... l.CFJ<SOURCES ..•.

Prinolpa\Appartlonment ·. · 5iate Aid. cummt Year .. . . . . . . . . ..

Edueatkin ~r~.edi~ A~~ni s~;e Aid~ buite~fYeat .•.

'.Slat~ Aid· Prior Yea~. . . .

TaxRelietsu1>v.enuons . Hotiieiowner5' EicemptfimS: .. . .. . . .....

• Tim~iYJe1d Tax ·:· ; ' .'. :. .· ·. ;

Othei'- StibvenliQnSlln~UeuTi!X~.s ·. . Couritv & District Taxes •• ' · Secured Roll T:ilie!l ·

' Vnsecu~ ~ou~axes • Prio(Y~tS.''T~~ : ••..•.•.....• 1f h~) ~'\:> ~j_ • Supple~en~IT~es . . .•. C)P ~~\'.'') )fo._~ > Edueati~ R~enue Augmenlallon . • i\. i ~'. . · · · .·. · · · · . Fun.d tERf\F} · · · · · ·

· COf11munity Redel/e!opmenl Funds . •• (SB 6171699/1992)

· Penaltle!nind lnle~st from . Dellriqtient Ta~s · . . . . .

liJllii~\t~ri~ous·Funds lEC 416G4) RciyaiUe$. ll!1d. Bon U$li!S •.

• oiiie~ kl~L\eii !ru<ris ..

. Less: Non-i.Ci'F . · · • · · • t50%1 AdJustment

. . . Subtoiar;LCFF:Sources · ·

LCFF Tran~fers . .

tlnre5trlcl~ LCFF Trari~fers • • · current Year . . ...

· . ,Ali otliiir ~ci:=rrrali~rera -curren\ Year .... . . .. .

0000

All Olh~r

Trarisfer5 to Charter School~ l11Lle1t of. Properfy Taxes .

. Property Taxes Transrerri

· Calffomia Dapl or Education · SACS Financial Reparting Soflware -2016 4,0 Fite: fund.a (Rev 03/Z212016).

'.-7'

·abJect. . ·Codes.

ea11

·ao1i 8019

8021

. ep22 ·

.. .fl02~

·General Fund · · .Unresltlcted and Restricted · .. Expendlturei; by a b!ecl

ZD15-1& Unaudited Actuals: .·

·unmtrlcti:d . • .. 1.&.1· ....

. 122.765,792.04

· 10.223,534, 00 1744.00\

512.215.00

o;oci .

0.00

Restricted rs1

0.00

·'Q.Oo 0.00

o.oo 0.00

0.60

· fQtal FUitd col.A+B

ICI

122.765:79?.04

10.223.534.00

1744.001

s12:21s.oo

o.oo 0.00

tJ nresttleted IOI

134,268,372.80

10.300.000.00

0.00

497,373.oo

0.00

0.00

20111-17 Budaet.

Restrletl!d. IEI

. :o.oo •. Q.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

38 684 78 0000000 . . FQf111 O:{

TotlllFund CPI. D+ £

IFl

134.268.372.8!)

10:300.000.00

%Dlff Column C&F

9:4%

o.7% 0.00 u -100.0%

497 .373.oo I · -2.9%

0,00 .0.0%

0.00 o.o'I.

.. ao41 . 130 949 558.bo a.no 130 949 558.oo. 133 239 31s.oo ' • · .· : ·o.oo . 133 239 316.00 t:7%

8042 ii 256 312~00 0.00 . 8 256 312;00 . 7 975 &14.00 .. i. . 0.00 •7 975 814.00 . •3.4%

8043 51 533.00 . 0.00 51 533,0ti 52 999.00 0.00 52 999:00 .·. 2.8%

.·ao44 s7503i1.oo ·.·.·: o.oo s1ao321.oo 4680111.00 Ci.oo 450011100 -1s.0%

· ~045 • 230 524 56a.oo · o.oo · 2ao 524 566.M .221 210 211.00 • o.oo 22121a~m:oo ... -4.0

8047

a04a.

. •· 80li1

aos2.

. 8089

8091

l!091

·sags

8097

4.847,274.69

D.00

il.oo o.oti

o:oo

51J.!l10.369.73

0.00

OOO

C37 .977 .985 OOl

·OOO

0:00 4.847.274,69

·o.oo 0.00

0.00 0 00

·0.00 ooh

0.00 OOO

0.00 513.910.369.73

0.00

0.00 0.00

. ·0.00 137 .977.985.00\

u.oo · ci.oo

Page5

2.166.544.00 0.00, 2.16fi.544.00 -55.3%

0.00 o:oo 0.00 O.D%

·o.iio 0.00 0.00 {),0%

tl:OO a.oil OOO 0.1)%

0.00 0.00 0.00 0:03

.514;398,806:80 0.00 514.398.806.80 0.1%

0.00 MO o.n%

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0%

124.38~:597 .00! o:oo (24.389.597.00)f -35.8%

0.00 ·o.oo o.oo I 0.0%

. Printed: 101512011) 9'.19 AM

. . ·San Francisco Unlned

· ': ·sao Francisco ·County ·

.. .. · ObJect •·

Oescrlullon Resou~ Codes Codes ..

OTf:IER LOCAL REvENi.J.E . . .

:

Other Local Revenue county and Dlslrii:t Taxes

Oltier Restricted Levies .. ··· : Securad R,011 ,. 8615

. . · · l!nsecuted R-Of .... : 8616:

. · Piior Years°'TW(es · · ... . :as11 . . . .

Supptamenlal Taxes 8618 .

. Ni:io·Ad Valorem-T;uces- .. .. f'an:i:JIT;JxeQ

··:· Pr:>b. ~.e1~ .,·•· .. ---r 8621

.Other· 6522

·Community Redevelopmen_L.Funds : · Nol SUblect io t.CF.F Dedu.clion rvo 1~\Gu:h~ 1 8625

· · Penatiies and rnlerest from .. .. . · .. 5.All-5 h-·Y:., Delinquent Non-LCFF. . ' T8j(es · · ·· .. 862!1

·sa1es .. .. .. ..

Sal~ of Equlpinen~Supplles as:fr

I · $ale of Publicallons-..

.. ll632 .

.. Food iilitV1C& Sales · a634 ..

. All 0111er: Sales aii3s !.eases and Rentals 8650

Interest 8660 .. :

.·: N~tin~ase (Deetease) in lheFalrVatue :llf)nvestmenls · ··8~2

Foos and ContraciS' · · · Adu!! Education.Fees H8G71

. .

Non:Re~id~nt Sluden~ 8672

· Traos~rtalion fees From tn~ivlduals 8675

lnterageocy Services · · . 8677

J\WgaUon/DeveloperFees 8681

. Alf Other Fees and Contracts 8689 ..

Other Local ·flevenue PJos: Misc Funds Non"LCFF

..

Callfomla Dept of Educa1ion SACS Financial Repor1lng Software. 2016.2,0 · Filei fund-a (Rev 0312212016) . ·

~llUW,.;~111-Q"' ,...,_"',uQll,;i • G11nera1 Fund

lJnrestrii:led and Restricif!l:i. . Expenditures by Obi:ct

· 2015-16 Unaudlld!d Actuals ·

Total Fund Un restricted Rlli'ltrlclllld .. ·col.A+ B

IA!' 101· IC\

·· ...

O.Oo 0.00 OOO

6.0o 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0:00

o.oo 0.00 0.00

0.00 37 957 241.98 37 957 241.98

3'4 755 33a:oa ·.o.oo 34 755 338.08

o:oo a.oo 0.00

C>:OO 0.00 ·0.00

0.00 OOO . 0.00

0.00 .. o.oo 0.00

o.oo 0.00 ·. 0.00

0.00 .OOO 0.00

9:326 554.13 o.oo· 9 326 554.13

3746777.26 . o.oo 3 746 777.26

O.OQ 0.00 0.00

. il.oo .. 0.00 n.oo 0.00 0.00 0.00

0:00. 0.00 0.00

o.fo o.l>O 0.00

0.00 0.00 O.OIJ

0.0G 0.00 . 0.00

'. Page9

. . . Unrestricted , ... ·IOI

d.00

0.00

0.00

:0.00

o;oo ..

. 33 403 809.00

·o~oo

0.00 .

o.oo . 0.00

o.oo 0.00

902.9 977;00

3 510 111.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

: 2016-17 BUdllel ..

: .•:. R11!!1tricted IEI'.

0.00

o.-00

0.00

0.00

37 870 041:55

. 0.00

.. o,oo

··o:oo ..

o:oo 0.00

OOO

OOO

tl.OO

o.oo .

. 0:00

OOO

0.00

·OOO

OOO

OOO

0.00

. 38 68478 liOOOOOO · Form01 .

· TotalFund % Dlff col D+E Column

IFI C&F

·o.oo '0 .. 0%

O.ilo 0.0%

. 0.00 0.0%

0.00 -0.0%

37 870 041;55 ·0.2%

33 403 809.00 ·'3.9%

0.00 0.0%

OOO ·0.0%

0 00 0.0%

· MOc 0.0%' ..

0.00 0.0%

a.ao 0.0%

9029977,00 ~3.2%

· 3!i10111.60 -6.3%

0.00 0.0%

0.00 0.0%

0.00 0.0%

0.00 0.0%

0.00 0.0%

0.00 0.0%

o.oo· 0.0%

.Pri~lett. fOf5/2016 9:1.9AM

m '° a..

. San Francisco Urillled · · San F~ncisco Counly .

DHcrlptlon (50%) Ad]ustmanr

Pass•Through Reiienlies F.rom Local Sources

All Other Local Reveniie

Tuition

All Olher Transrers. In"

· Tiansfers of Apportlonments · Sped!!I Education SELP.A'Transfera.

· · ·. Frol)1 Districts or Charfor Schools :

.From Ca unty Offfces ·

rrom.JPAs' RoCiP Transfers . . . ·

· Froin:oisiricts or Chad~r sclioors · · .. . . ..

"From County Offices

· ·. FromJPAs

. . Olh~~ Ti.m~r~rs o!'App0itlonments ··.From 01$lricisor Chart8r-Sdioo1s

. .

From County Offices

FromJPAs•

·'< AllOlherT~nsfers ln~mAli 6i1t~rs •' · TOTAL. ~THER LOCAL R~NUE·

ITOl'AL. REVENUES

. . California Oept or Education SACS Financial Repcrtlng SoftWart;i • 201e:2.0 File: fund-a '(Rev 0~/2212016) . · · . . .

Resource· Codes Object Codes·

: 81!91 '

v·.~ ... -...,, ... _,. _ _...,.._ . .,.. , · ·, General Fund Orifeslricle<l and Restricted• · el<pendlture5 by Object

· 2015·16 UnaudHed Actuals

U111n!strli:t11d · (Al'

-

26.892.18

Restricted /BI.

.. 0.00

Total Fund ·cot.A+B

/Cl 26.89:<.18

Untestrlctr;td . IOI

11.000.00

8697· . . ..• 0.00 1122 917.79 1122 917.19 .. 0 00

2016·17·. Budqet

Restricted IEl

0.00

38 68478. 0000000 . Form 01

'rotzi.Fund .. 'col.D·+.E·

· <FI. 11.000.00

% r:ilff Column .C&F

-59.1%

: 1;152.272.oa I · · • .· 1.152.212:00 2.6o/.

~~c \-\~~

•-7 . 8699 4 759 385.55 9'7 654 522.73 102 413 908;28 85161 554~2S 86,370;554.28 -15.7%

650Q

. 6500 ..

· 6500

.. 6360' .

.6$60

6360 .. ··.

•All.0\ht;!r

Al.I other .

All Other. ·

. s11q . o.oo 1\ o oo .o.oo · , o.oo o.oo o .. DO

·8781."8783 o.no o oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo 6.0•0

ll791

ll792

a7s3 ·.

. 8791.

. &792.

6793

·6791

6792.·

8793

l!7~9

0.00

a.do

0.00

. ti.on · sz.e14:94t2u

5aa.<1o!l.'t34a.s1

rr~<-- '? .. t\. r(;Vf I ~

o.oo 0.00

· o.oo ·o.oil ·•

o.oo 0.00

0.00 0.00 ..

0.00 0.00

0.00 o.oa

:

0.00 a oil 0.00

0.00 ooo· o,oo

0;00 0.00 0.00

0:00' 0.00 0 00

136.734,682.50 . 189 349 629.70 41163 897.00

203,9a!;;ois.111i. 11a;:H o.a.12 95 . '55!!,530,214.80

0.00 0.00 0.0%

0.00 O.O!i 0.0%

OOO a cio 0.0%

li.OO 0.00 0.0%

o.oo . 0,00 o.oo/,

0.00 0.00 0.0%

i 0.00 ·· o.lio · 11.0%

0.00 0.00 0:0%

·o:oo . 0.00 0.0%

0.00 0.00 0.0%

124 183 867~83 . 171 347 764.83 . ·9.5%

• . ~Jar.sso.as7.98 .. 746,120,912;78 -3.1'JI ...

C) ,..... Cl..

· Paneio. Printed: ~0151201!! 9:19AM·

. . . . .. . .

.·. ·.· ... ··. . .. ·:. :.::· .. 51912017 Gm ail - SF311 Service Req@St 7072776

· ... ··•••··••· :········ .· •. :•· : : ••.•.•..... : > : • • • • • > • . . .

(~1GmaH• .· ··. •• Tho111as Bus~~ <tjbtis~esf@gmaiLc;om> .

· ·. SF31.1 Service Request 7072776 1 message

·[email protected] <[email protected]> To: [email protected] ·

··. > ·.·· < <. /

Mon, Apr 24, 2017~(8:5~ AM .· .

PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS EMAIL. INSTRUCTIONS ARE PROVIDED BELOW FOR CONTACTING SF31 .. . . . . . . . . . : . . . - . .

·· Dear Mr. Busse,

· . Thank you for contacting .the San Francisco 311 Customer SeiVice Center,

Your question related to the Treasurer-tax Collector's Office has been receiv~ and reviewed. Due t-0 the complexity of the matter, your request has been forwarded to a Treasurer Tax Collector specialist. You should.expect to hear from a . Treasurer Tax Collector Representative within 3 business days. · ·

Please ~~te, The City and County of San Francisco, ~an Fran~i~c~ 311 and The OfficeoftheT~easurer and Tax · Collector can only provide general information. We do not advise cl.istcimers on detailed tax matters including ordinance

iriterpretat1ons, manual calculation of tax obligations and fees or give tax advice for a customer's specific tax situation. If ·. you .have atiy questions regardl~g the information in this e-mail ple~se consult with a tax professional ·

. ::.·:: . . .. . . . . . . .·: . . : . . .. : : . ;· ·;.. . :

You may submit any additional request:;; by visiting (http://sftreasurer.org/contact-us ). You will receive a response from . our office same day if yo!Jr request is submitted by 7:00PM PST, and by the next business day if submitted after ·

7:00PM PST. You may also call 3-1-1 in San Francisco 7 days a week, 24 hours a day. For 24 x 7 assistance outside of San Francisco, please diaf (415) 701-2311. For TTY, dial (415) 701-2323. Please note: taxpayers who conie to City Hall for in-person assistance or call .311 may experience iong wait/hard times. ·

.·Sincerely,

steve M . . .•Sari.Francisco 311 Customer Ser\iice Center . City Services Simplified

.How#a 1... . . . . • Access ser:vices on 311's NEW mobile app? sf311.orgfrnobile

. Access services on the web? sf311.org Provic:le feedback on 311 services? sf311.org/survey

: ..... :' . . . ·. .· . :· . . .. ·.

Note: This email and its attachments (if any) may be confidential and isfare intended solely for t.h.e use qt the.individual ·to Whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this email and its attachments, you must take no action . based upon them.;. nor must you copy or show them to anyone; . . .

. . . . . . . . .

Please call 311/TTY {415) 701-2323 if you beli~ve you have received this email in error.

https://~all.Qoogle.com/mail/uJOnui=2&ik=04b5b6c999&view=pt&q=treasurerl!?qt=lrue&search=query&th= 15ba0b0233721ffc&sim I= 15ba0b0233721ffc 1/1

. . ·. . . . . .

5/912017 Gmait ~ SF311 s~~ice R~~es~·~t; ' .. . . . . . : . .

·.·· .. . ·. . . . . . . . . : . -- . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. ·. r~l Gn1aH .: .

.: ......... ········' •.. ' : .· ..• '' ': : •. : ··.• .. '

· Th()m~~ Busse ~tjbtissesf@~mail.com> ·.• ·

SF311 Service Request -1 · 1 message

[email protected] <[email protected]> fo: [email protected]

Wed!Apr26, 2017 at 9:~0AM

PLEASE DO NOTRESPOND TO THIS EMAIL INSTRUC:TIONS ARE PROVIDED BELOW FOR.CONTACTING SF311.

Dear Customer, .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :: . . . .

Thank you for contacting the San Francisco 311 Customer Service Center'. Our Agency has been assigned to respond to Service Request 7072776. Below is the information you requested:

·Please contact the Controller's Office at 415-554-7500.

... .

. You may submit any additional requests or obtain information at http://www.sf311.org or call 3-H in San Francisco 7

. days a week, 24 hours a day. For 24 x 7 assistance outside .of San Francisco, please dial (415) 701-2311. For TTY; dial <415). 701-2323. . '

. '

. Sincerely, pc. . .• City and County of Sail Francisco .

. :· :·.. . : : . . .

·. How do 1..~. ·. ·• •. ··. • .· •· . ·· · Access services on 311?s NEW mobile app? sf311.org/mobile

Access services on the web? sf311.org Provide feedback on 311 services? sf311.org/survey

. . --. . - _: . - : .. . -

· Note: This email and its attachments (if any) may be confidential and is/are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addre~sed; If you are not the intended recipient of this email and its attachment, you must take no action

· .based upon them;• noimust you copy or show them to anyone.·. · ·· · · · · · . . . ··. ·. - - . - :· ·:: . . .:· .: . : .. : · Please call 3-1-1/nY (415) 701-2323 if you believeyou have received this email in error .

. . . https:lfmail .google.comlmai!fu!Ol?ui=2&ik=04b5b6c999&view=pt&q=311&qs=eultsearch=query&th=15bab1943e5a89d7&siml= 15bab1943e5aS9d7 111 '

. . - - . . ·-· - . . . . ... · : : ·. . . . .. - : - . . : . . .. ' . ·. . . .. . . < ' . ·: ..

5/8/2017 . lajnfo.Jegislature.cagC?vlfaces/printCodeSectianY.,indow.x!ltml?lawCooe=GOV&secti0nNum7'2P~~9.&op_~tat~es=201siop_chapter:;1i&0p~secfion::Z· .. •. .· .. · .. · .··. ·.· ....... ·.· .··. · ...... ·.··•···.··. ·. · .. ···•···.

. :· _· .. : .-.·. ·-·: . · ... : . . ·. ·.~ . ·. . . .. : . ·: -.. . .

. . . . . . . . . . . GOvElll\TMENT CODE.:, GOV . . . . . . ·. . .. ·.·. . ·. :_ ·. :.·_ .. : ... _· .. _::. . : ...... :: .... ·.·: .·:. . . .. ·-.:. .·_· .. :: ·. ·:. . ·._ . . . _.·._. _· _· ·_. : ' .·· .•.•. n'ILE 3 . .G0'\7~RNMENT OF ~OtJNT1E$ ~~3.ooo - 33205] (Title 3 added by 5tats; 1947, Ch, 424.) .· .•. ·.••••· · ... ····· .. ·· .•.•. · • ••··. . ... · · ...

DIVISION 2. OFFICERS[24000- 280S5) • ( Divisionz added byStats: •19471 Ch. 424. J .. PART 3. OTHER OFFICERS [26500-' 27758] .(Pad 3 added by Stats~ 1947, Ch. 424. )

CHAPI'ER4~ Auditor [26900 - 26946] (Chapter 4 added by Stats; 1947, Ch. 424,) . . . . . . _· ·. : .·_. .. ... . . . :. '. -·:.: _:'. .. · .. >·; : .. . ARTICLE1.DutiesGen~rally[26900-2.6914] {Articfe 1 added byStats. 1947, Ch. 424.)

. . . . . . . . . ·· . . . . . .: . . . . .. . : . . . :

·c· . · .. • . . . (a) (1) The county auditor shaU eitherniake or contract with a c~rtified pub lie-accountant or public accountant to make

. · • 26909. ana·. ~u·a. l.a.udit of the acc. ~unts and rec~rds of every. ~pet1.·al ~i~tri.ct···,vithin tlie coun~f~r which a~ a~dit by a certifie~ . . . pubhc accountant or pubhc accountant is not otherwise ]JIOVtded. In each case, the mm1mum requtrements of the audit

· sha1.l be prescribed by the Controller and shall conform to generally accepted auditing standards. .

· (2) Tf an audit of a special district's accounts and records is made by a certified public accountant or public accountant, the

l")finimum requirements of the audit shall be prescribed' by the Controller and shall conform to generaily accepted auditing

standards, and a report thereof sha:il be filed.with the C9ntroller and with the county auditor ofthe c()unty in which the special

· distric;is located. Th,ereport shall be filed within 12 months ofthe end of the fiscal year or years under examination. . . . .

.• (3) Any costs incurre.d by the county auditor, including contracts with, or employment of, certified public accountants or public

. :acc;ounta1its, in making~· audit of every special district pursuant to this se,ction shall be borne by the sp~cial district and .shall be a

·. charge against any unencumbered funds of the district available for the purpose .

• (4) for a sped al districtthat is located in two or more counties, this subdi~ision shall apply to the auditor or the county in which

.the treasury is located.

• ( 5) The county controller, or ex officio county controller, shall effect this section 1n those counties having a coui1ty contr()ller or ex

· officio county controller. . . ...

(b) A special district may, by unaiiimous request of the governing board of the special district and with unanimous approval of the

·•board of superv1sors, replace Hie annualauditrequired by this section with one of the following, performed in accordance with

profes~lonal sfatid;i.rds, as detennind by the c;ounty auditor:

(1) A biennial audit covering a t\vo-year period. . . . (2) An audit covering a five-year period if the special district's annual revenues do not exceed an amount specified by the board of

. supervisors.

·. (3) An audit conducted at specific intervals1 as recommen4ed by the county auditor,. that shall be compieted at least on.ce every five . . . . . . . . . . years.

. . .

(c) ( 1) A special district may, by µnanhnous request of the governing board of the special district and with unani.mous approval

of the board of supervisors, repl~ce the annual audit required by this section with afinancial ~e\Tiew, in accordance with th~ appropriate professional standards, as.determined by the com;1ty auditor, if the following conditions .are met: '·. . - ... . . . . ' .

. (A) All oftl1e special district's revenues and expenditures are transacted th~ough the ~aunty's finandal system .. ··

. · (B) The special district's annualrevcmies do not exceed one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,0~0) .. (2) If the board of supervisors is. the governing board of the special district; it may, up~n unanin10us approval, r~place the annual

audit of the special district required by this section with a financial review in accordance V.ritb the appropriate professional

8iaJldards, as determined by the courity auditor, if the special districfsatisfies the requirements of sub paragraphs (A) and (B) of

parag~aph (I).

· • · httPJ/leginfo:tegislature.ca.gciv/fa~/printCodeSectionWindow.xhtml?lawCode~sectionNum=26909.&op _ statues=2016&0p _chapter= 164&op _ sectioh:=2 1/2

•.. This Site is out ofd~te and no longer maIDtained- !'le~e refer to official sourcesfor•the. • · · .. ··.· · . ·•.· · .· ··• .· .·.·· · ·•.. .. . ... · up t() date legalcode.

. . . : .· .: .... · .. ·.: .. :.··.

: ___ ·· :- ·.. . .. ·.: ..... ·:; ': . ·.··

·:: .. · . .. .· .: : . . . · .. · ·.

·Sari Francisco·· · ' . . ........... .

·· ..... DECODED.

. . . · .. : : .. . · ..

• ••• • •• • •••• ••••••• • ••••••••••••• •••••• • •• ••• • ••••••• • ••••••••

: .:_.·:: .... :.. . . . : . . . .. ·· ·:· :. : .. ·· . . . . .

. . . . . . . . - ~ . . . . . . . . . ·: · ..... _: . . . . . . . . .. ·. ': .· . . : . . .

. .... . ·: ':'. · .. ·.· ...... : . ·. . "> · ..• Ul EXECUTIVE BRANCH ..:.QfFl,CE OF MAYOR ..

: ·· .. : .. ·.· ... . ·. .. ' .

. §,3.105. CONTROLLER; CITY SERVICES AUDITOR

§ 3.105~

CONTROLLER; CITY SERVICES AUDITOR a.

. : . : . . . '... : . : . . . ~ .. . . . . . . .

'fhe Mayor shall appoint or reappoint a ~ontroller for a ten-year term, subject to • · .

·.confirmation by the Board of Supervisors~ The Controller may onlype re~o~ed by the . . . ·Mayor for cause, with the concurrence of the Board of Supervisors by a two-thi;rds vote~ . .

. .

·. • :r\1 (/III/3.105/#a)

b.

TheController shall be responsible for the timely accounting, disb~i·sement or other

-~~!.?P..~~i~.9..~ of monies of the City and Collnfy in; acco:rdatice with sound financial practices . < applicable to municipalities and counties. TJ:ie Controller shall have the power and duties

of a County auditor, except as otherwise provided in this Charter; The Controller shall

lp1ve autho:rity to audit the accounts an4 operations of all boards, commissl.ons; officers

• •. a~d departments to evaluate their effectiveness and efficiency. The Controller ~hallhave · · · . accessto, and authority to, ~xamineall documents

1 records, books and other property of

:, iy board, commission, officer Or dep~rnent.

% f /III/3.105/#b) . ~ I

c.

P74

. . . . : . . . . . -. . . . . .

. .. . . .· . . . . . : . . . .

. 4/26/2017 . ciTY ANO COUNTY OF' SAN FRANCIS~ · . . . '.' OFFICE OF THE =NTROLLER . : >: . · ! . . .

. . : . ·: ... " .. I . ' Mr;;niair·· MAURA LANE

· .•. ~se <tjbussesf@gm~ii.t;om>·· ~ . . ·. .. . ..

. EXECUTlVE ASSISTANT Tc;> a-::N R'?SEN.flELD, co~OLLE_R. i · .. · F~Uow Up on Meeting Toe

~,~. ------~---

· ·· : < 1 message · Cl-;YljALL,' ~OOM ~ 16

/

Ta, <41si 554-75oz:·.· FA)(, (415) 554-7466 j'

: , I . . .

t DR. CARLTON B. GqOI?':-ETT PLACE .

SAN _F~Cl~_CA 94102.-4694 [email protected]~ ~-----~----'

lTue, Apr 25~ 201/at 6:3~ PM · . Thomas Busse <[email protected] TQ: [email protected]

. .

Dear Ms Lane:

HWas a pleasure meeting you today, and I thank you for taking the ti~e to follow up on my request to insped tl)e m~st .. rece.nt audited financial statements of the San Francisco Public Finance Authority. Jhis visit followed up on e-mails to

· Angela Whittaker in the Office of Public finance on 4/18 and to the Controller's e-mail on 4/22, both of which were ~~- . . .. . ..

lrlthe notes to the City/County CAFR, pg. 41, thePublic Finance Authority is !1ot listed as a non-disclosed organization excluded from the city's reporting entity. B.ased on fhe accounting treatment ofthe localTransactions and Use Tax io support the. County Transportation Authority, I had expected the CAFR to have a similar presentation in relation to the

· Transactions and Use Tax regarding the Public Finance Authoiity. The CAFR does contain a blended component for the . San. Fraricii;;co Finan.ea Corporation; how.ever, this is a different entity that does not. receive sales tax revenue and is

. Instead a vehfole for seNicing capital leas~. The 1993 ballot proposition of an ordinance of the Public Finance Authority .asking the voters to approve the local Transactions and Use tax· was placed on the ballot by the Board of Supervisors; ·

. therefore; I expected your office to be the one where I could obtain financial statements forthe Pul:ilic Finance Authority. I had pr.eviously asked the California State Controller.for the finances on 4/23, Which.are needed to compile the State of C~lifomia's CAFR. This agency does !lot appear on the State Controllef.'s exhaustive list of California public bodies. • . . '' . .

f presented documentation from the Board of Equaliiation that the Public Finance Authority receives regular payments , .·. of allocated district sales and use tax. I also voiced my concerns that the San Francisco Pu.blic Finance Authority is a

.... special district that does not exist.. I can find no public records rEllated.to it includlng the "Public Finance Authority ·'.Code~ under which the BOE asserts a legalauttJority to collect local Transactions and Use Tax, budgets evidencing a

appropriation of taxes, Board Minutes, or a charter or other governing document As recently as last year; the Ballot · Simpfification Committee in regard to November 2Q16's Proposition K listed the Public Finance.Authority as an entity

· re(;eiving .sales tax i11 the county, but no description of th.e entity was given. · -. . . . .

· I tried to ~heck my concerns with the CFO of the Unified School District a·nd was told their allotatioh of sales tax ·.revenue came from your office and I would have to check your "audit of the City's Sale.s tax Revenue;" The CFO did not.• .know how the Public Finance Authority's Transactions anq Use Tax revenue was allocated betWeen the Community College Oisth.ct and the Unified School District, which I view as a material deficiency in management and disclosure. Because both entities have a substantial, (and alarming) ~nrestricted net asset deficiency, largely due Jo unfunded .

· pension liabilities, (3ASB requires a discussion of management's ability to res'forei fina11cial balance, \Vhich would include a discussion ofJts control(or lack of control) ofsignificarit revenue sources~ . ..

. . . : . . . . .

In regard to your office, it is a :rnaterial ~eficlency in disclosure .

. A well-informed citizenry requires transparent and horiesf public financial ~tatemenfsso it may make infomied choices; In recent years, the voters have .been asked to approve parcel taxes· and general obligation bonds to supplement funding for the Community College District and the Unified Scho9l Oistfict. Currently, there is no transparency iri regard to the extent voters already provide supplementary funding to these agencies and to what extent supplementary funding yields

. supplementary results. This is assuming they receive suppier.nentary sales tax revem1e at all,. as the finanCialstatements I havEl. been able to Jocat~ strongly hint at fund or even funds' diversion and possibly fraud.~,.· ·

. ,, hope th~t l have d~rnonsfrated ~ ~o·m~etency in~ading and scrutinizin~ public finances, and with that in mind,.th~ .·

. thought that for twenty four yearS a $13M/year tax has been illegally collected and diverted Should not be crossing l:TIY mind. I urge you and your departnientto t~ke this inatter seriously. · · · · · · ·

·Cordially, Thomas J. Busse 415~244-5072 584 Castro Street #388'

·· San Francisco, CA 94114

httpS:limail .google.comlmail/ulcinui=2&ik=04bSb6c999&vi~=pt&s~ch=sent&RJiia1e2c5080d244&SilTil=15ba7e2c5080d244 1/2

=.: .. ·: :· .. . .: .. ·.. : :: : .· : __ ·: ..

. ••Gm ail - RE: Stinshin~ Request- SF Public Finance AUthority

Thomas B~~se <tjb~ss~sf@gm~il.com> · ..

· ··•·RE: Sunshine Request - SF Public Finance Authority 1 message

•. CON, Controller (CON) <controller.con@sfgo\i.org> •Jo: Thomas Busse <[email protected]:>

Wed, May 3, 2017 at 10:31AM

Ci;: "CON, Controller (CON)" <controller.cori@sfgov:qrg>

• Qear Mr. Busse, . - . . .

. . · :·:. :· .· . : . : :. . :: . . .· .. :· ..

. · .. ··Based on the specific information you requested; we respectfully refer you t-0 contact Reeta Madhavan, the CFO at the SF Unified School District (SFUSD, (415) 241~6542 x1617, MadhavanR@sfusd~edu) and Ron Gerhart, the Vice. Chancellor of Fin.ance & AdminJstration at the San Fran6isco Community College District (SFCCD, (415) 241~2229, [email protected]}, as they over8ee the budget, accounting and audit recqrds related to all sources and µses of funds accruing to their respective districts. For helpful immediate reference; please find their budget,. audit and financial

• • .. ··statement links below, along with the California BOE Sales Tax allocation link:

..••. < 1) the California Board ofEqualization's (B~E)tra.cking and apportionment ofsates tax allocations by taxing ehlity, for · · ··•· • the City and County of San Francisco at http://w\Nw.boe.ca.gov/pdf/boe105,pdf on page 6.

. . . . . . ' . . .

. : : . . . . .:·. . . . . . . -

. ·. ·. • 2) SF US D's budget, audit and financial documents available here as well as the SFCCD's available here. By keyword · .searching these documents you can find where Sales Tax accrues and is budgeted, for example, by usjng CTRL-F arid

. typing in "sales tax". · · · · · · · ··

... · We hOpe this is of help to you.·

•:Best,

Office of the C.ontroller

• From: CON, Controller (CON) •Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 2:38 PM To: Thomas Busse <[email protected]\>

. Cc: CON, Controller (CON} <contrci!ler~con@sfgo\l.org> .. ·•· • · • Subject~ Sunshine Request - SF Public Finance Authority .

. ·· · . Dear.Mr. Busse, . .

· · Ttiank you for contacting the Controller's Office. This en:iail is in response to your public information request; we are • researching your inquiry and are working to provide you -.vith a response as sopn as possible. Please c;lire.ct any follow-up•

•·materials you may have fo this .email address. · · · · · · ·

Best,

· Offfce of the Controller . . . : '.· . . . . . ·. . .

. :https://m ai I .goog1e.com/man/u/O/?ui=2&.i k=04b5b6c999&view=pt&q=CON &qs~true&search=query&th=15bcf5df~6aaSo32&sim I= 1sbcf5dfa6aa6032 . . P76

112

. ·.'- .. ......

T~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ r..j

: n· . :J. ~--:----,--"'-.:;__;;:.....:;.-::::;::___:;;;~:::::._:::::_ _ _J ,·.

. . . ·rhoinas l. a·usse · ·· ·. ;"! Postage $ . .. .. . n . r---------l 584 c.~si:ro Street#388 certified Fee =i

. . . . .

.::J. : Return Receipt Fee · ::J {Endorsement Required) .

Postmark Here

. San.Francisco, CA94114

J. . Restricted Defivery Fee t:-. --:----'---! ) . (Endorsement Required)

r-------1 1. $

415-244-5072 . .

· [email protected] ·

. 'l Total Postage & Fees ·.: J ""-'------...........\

~ntTo . J

. ~ :-;:cr::x::.::··-···--"··-·-~----"···-+·--~---'--·------···-··~---·----·--Ciii,Sfale-:z1;s+4·····-·-·--~--~-~----···: ..... - ... , _____________________ _

re · San Francisco, CA 94103

FAX: 415-241-2344

Public Records Request

Dear Mr. Gerhard:

•

•

0

'e

•

Pursuant to the California Publlc Records Act,l;equestdisdos~re ~fthe following: . ..: .·;·· .. ::·.::= . .

IVlostcurrent financial statements of the San Franciscb Public Finance Authority .. :

Board Minutes of the San Francisco Public Finance AuthciritY from 2004 to the present

currentaniended byfaws ofthe sa·n Francisco Public fi~anc~ Authority.

CCSF Average Daily Attendance workpap~rs for calculation of the 1993 SFPFA Sales Tax f;om 2oi1 to the Pr~~ent. . · · . · · . .

lnter~gency Communications between your office and the. CFO Off.lee of the SF UnifiedSchool

District from 2015 to the present rega·rding transactions and us~ taxes.

lnteragency Communicatiori:s between your office and memb~rs of the SF County Dept. of

Elections Ballot Simplification Committee in both 2011 and 2016 (especially AnnJorgensen and

the. City Attorney appointee).

Reconciliation ReportS of CCSF sales tax income from 2014 to the p~esent. . - --·. •· ... . • . . , I

. - - .

Please feel tree td call me at the number above to discuss this request. Sca:ns via e~mall would be

preferable, but if you can only provide hard copies, I would prefer to inspecqhe docu~ents in person

and select which I may Wish to copy, If th~t is not possible, you may post them to my address above, or I would be happy to pick them up, as I live not far away.

P77

'-:.

.. ...

. ; '.:BunGit ANDFrN~crs6BJ;6~~cr · .. . . ...

: ..... : . . . . ~ . : : : ,~ .

MANDATE STATEMENT/BACKGROUND

···:·.·· .·

: .. -

Mandate ·statemenf

. ... '

. 'I",:. ,·

..•...... Iri. accor~~ with the ciiy·~ Busine~·~d T~~I{egulatfons Gode S(fctiori.S 1202-1204 and· .. ~·California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 1285.5, the. California State .Uoard. of .· · ·EquaJiz.ation·eurrentfy colietts·a on~.perce?-t local Transaction and·µse Tai (Sales Taxes).thaj:'

: ,-

· is then transferred to the City·and County of San Francisco's General. 'fun.d.a.S well as various. • '~special diStrict' use taxes"·f4at b~ne.fit rewon?l transportation and schools (~ee Table i below).' , ..

. In·accordance with Califotnia: Reve~ue. ar1.4 Taxalion Cod~ Section 7285.~; local Sales Taxes . ·. -cart_ be in~reased by multiple.~ of ()ne.:.qruiiter :of .one percent not to .exceed two i:>e~erit if · :approved by_ ordinruice by two~tb.irds of the· Board of Supervisors. and subsequently approved :~y a ~-third~ vote of .the San Francisco electoratf?. 1:'hl:s ordinance fubludes ali expenditure plan. describing how_ the pr6p()sed Sales Tax revpitues wquld b~ eic:p~nde~. · · · ·

·Backgroul)d · · · ;

Ill 20.Q9, the State Legislahire imposed a:teinporary one perGent fu.crease in ·th~-~State S!lles T~ · mcreasing it from 6.25 percent to. 7 .25 percent effective April. 1, 2p09 through June 30, 2011. .. ·

. . The rev~nues from'tJ:µs One percent incr~e were dedicated to the State's Gt?neptl Fµ:0.d. On. July· •• · • ' · · 1, 2oi1,·because of the ~xpiration·ofthe· temporary one perc~ntiricreas~ i1i the Staie Sales T8x;

·. the totitl Sale~ Tax in s~ Francisco decreased from 9.5 percentto 8'.5 percf?ht. Table 1 below shows tlie percentage, allocatiort of revenues from boih the prevfo~ 9 :5 percent and current8".5 percent Sales TaxforSa:i1Fra:ncisco: · · · · .~ ·.

.. .-.. : .. · ·Table 1·: Sales and Use Tax- ·

6/30/i.011 7/1/201.1 .· ~ S~te Sale5 True 7.25% 6.25% ..

. . ~

State ·~eneral Fuvd · · . . . o. 00% 5. 00% . ~:

Fiscal Recoyery:Act{+) .. ..• 0.25% 0.25% . '.

local Rever.i.u.e. Fund . 0.50% . .. . 0.51)%

. Pt1blic_Safety Fi:,111d ; .• . 0.50% . •. 0.50%

,· .... Loe.al Sale.s Tax ·~ ...

. .. •.· · 1~-00% 1.QO% ' . . · LocalSales_Tax {General Fupd) · ···· 1.00% _,. 1.00%

':fi.2;5%. . ;--0.?5%

. ·· _l.Qcc;t_l·tn;in~portatio11 Ta>G (TDA) . .. ·~t25%. . .. 0.25% . . ~ ~-. ;.•

.. -, ___ .

Special Distri~t:UseTax: .' 1.25% .. 1.25% ··, • · •

7 ·. • sF·countytrarspoitation Authority ·

" . ; .• · · . , _ · '.Bay· Ar~a R.apfd Tran~it (BART) , .

. ·Sf :Public Financing Authority (Schools) .. ·

: · ;0.50°/ri , Q.50o/o · . .0:50% ... ·. 0.5Q%.

. 0.25% .. 0.25%

Total SSies Tax Rate for San Francisi;o . . . . . .. . . . . .. .

SAN FRANCISCO BoARD OF SVPBRYisORS •... BUDGET ANDLE<;flSL~J,1.VEANALYST . . . ·~

. • .. ,..

. ·I

. ; ~

File #11074~

... '.

a·1 P79

. . ~ .

,· ':l

.,,.. : . ~ ..... _, . .

: .

...

'

: {.

. , ... ~ . .... ..

San F·ra·ncisco'sSales T.ax: .. Ra.te. ·,

State Sales Tax·· " . s~2~0/o State General Fund · : · . · 6.00%

:. Fiscal Re6overyAct·(TripleFlip)) ... ·· : .. 0!25% · • .~ '. . .. ff . . . • .

. Local Bever1ue· Fund (to bounties.for health& ... · ·b.50% ·. · · welfare) PubHc ·safety Fund .(to counti~s &.cities) ..

..Local Sales Tax . .-Lbcal Saf~s Tax (to ,General. Fubd) ... ·

······ ~oca"iTransportat!onTax.(TDA)-: · · · ·

. Sp.ecialDJstrict Sai.es ·Tax · . ~· ~· . . .

· s.F County Ttans.portation Authority

~ay Area Rapid Transir(BART) ·

. SF Public ·Financiri~·Authority (Schools) ..

"Tot~i S~lesJax.Rate:· · ~ . -·\; ; '

·-' ·; . . ~ '

. . . . . .1:00%'

0.75%. . ... . . :·.. ·· .. '

. ·.· 0 .. 25%

-·1.25% ··a.so%. . 0.50% ..

0.25%···

8.50%·

;~

..:r r .

.o .···~· J__.

------ .·~ . ( (

. ..

-·--"' • •I.:

. '

.

....

·~ .. 2

C) OJ CX)

. O') a..

.. • -- ~-

.. »h\~. \.l~_01f-f1 . ~. ·, ..

. . . . . . .. authorjfy, schOols·and BART .4 · Various ~XE:rnptions' ~~ve . . · . been granted thatfemove the fax liability f 0f~ertain · . · : . • business. such as nonprofit organizatipns~ variou~ types of

1

(~\71ot\) . · • property, and c~rtaiii·fotjd Cl.ftd r,riedical sefyices~6 A roar~ . .. · detailed breakdowndf Sarffrancisco's Sale!> Tax Rat(fcar:l ··

be seen in.the Table 2 .. c~ .

···.

,. ~· : - :

San Francisco's· Sales J"ax Rate

State Sales Tax 6.25% s:oook 025% 0.50%

Staie General Fund · _ fiscalRecovery Act (Triple Frrpr . . . . .

. LQCfll Rl~venli~ Furid (to counties forJ1ealth & . . .... · welfare} Public Safety Fund .(to couhties & cities) . ·

Local Sales Tax: · • · · · · 1.00% 0.75% 0.25% 1.25%

·. local SalesTax (to General Fund) Loeal Transporta~on Tax (TOA)

Special District Sales.Tax... . SF CountY Transportation Authority Bay Area, Rapid Transit (BART)

. Q,51)''/o

SF Public Financing Authority (Schools} · '0.50% Q.25% 8.5(}% Total Sales Tax Rate ·· · ·

What's: Being. Taxe~ Sales and.use tax revem.ie~ are generatedfrom six major busiries& groups; plus a County and :State Poof ·categ(),.Y

· tha( captures select countywide ac~vify. 6 ~ The bulk of, . Sales · tax revenues come ·from restaurants which contribute 27% of sa,les ta.X reven.ue. Apparel Store5 niake

-. up 10% of sales tax revenue, department stores contribute . . 7%,. and other retail stores com~il')e ·10 eontrtbute 20% of

sales·tax revenue (FIGUR~ 1). . . .

A witler tax base means more goods and ~ervice~ are subject to the sales tax, which wo·uld ~l?late i~to a Wider revenue base. In California; stafe.Jawmakers can.define the taX bas(iby,tjeciding .wnich goods and:serjic~ are : . subjeci: to if sales tax. Since the sgl~s tax is administered· at the state~Jevel, cities and co~nties that choose· to. ·

. impose their own. sales .fax must. coi:iform to tlie set of ·goods and services set by the state. . · · · ·

. •: •• '!"

... -.

·'.

4 SB 566 Was _$tgn'eci.·1nto law by Govel'Qbf Oavjs 6n Oct~ber J:J. 2003, which authorized aco~biried city and cqunfy · tran~~tions and ,use tax rate of up 2.G%--Ls. Special Qistrict taxes. Currently, San Francisco has 1 ;25% In Special

· Dlstriet Sales .Taxes leaving ~ unused authortiatfon of 0.75% .. Jurisdict.lons are only allowe·d .·to Impose SpeciaLDiStri6t-. &ales Tax In multiple$ of.25%, · · · · · · · • · . · : · · · · · · . ·. : • . . · - · 5 Any local saies ~ rn~st co~form to ttie·riJJes and exemptions s~M:iy the Board of EQllalizatlon for the state .. The .only

; P,Pwer City's· have to modify the .tax ar~ amoµnfar,id purpose: · . · . 6

. County poll sales activity includes sate of used cars petWeen private parties as well as Jargei or specianzed equipment . ·purchased from an ot.Jt-of-area manufacturer, but wlii~h is put into 'use' in San Francisco. . . . . • ·• • .

2 , .Controller's Office< ··

/

. ·',

'·

" \

84' P81·

~~-

·.

. I

. '.

. ·. INTRODUCTION.

Proposed Legislation . . .. and Passage

·Requirements

. '.

. ....

. . ... . .

How the Sales Tax Currently Works in ·san.

. · Francisco·

. ,

.. . . . . . . . .

f·.·~·~· ....... . ;"·:·· .... .

: . . .... :._ :: : . :: _:· .. _.·: :;

···•· \ .·.·• .. nl)~ . . \\..-0 · .. t . . ._.~-- . · .. r. : -.. : . . ... : .. :::::: -

. . . .• 'j •.. ,· .. : : . . .: . - : . : :

.. _-,;

. . . ~ . ·_. :_ ... -_t_·._.

. On june 1.4, 2o1t the May6,r introduced an ordi~ance to< • increase the saf.es arid µse ;tax PY 0.50% Jor ·iO years iri . order· to· fund p!Jbliq safe!Y programs ~d .. services .to •. ···

· children. and· seniors.• This increase would put the effective . . . . . sales tax rate in San Francisco at 9.0%. ·rn order to be ; · · ·placed on the November ballot; tlieordinance would require · · the approval of two-thirds of Ui.e Board of Supervisors. The measure 'l."Jo:..ild then need the ?-PPrrival. of two-thirds of

. voters before it can become law.2: If approved~ the jlalf-

p~n~entsales tax would be effective. on April 1, 2012. · .

The .legislation, contains a> meeh~11isrrt. to void Jhe • tax. · • ·increase if the State ·restores its to/o sales· tax. This means;· that if thi.s proposed· tax increase· is appro\fed; Sari'· ·

· Francisco . · resioents will face · four potential outcomes, - · dependjng Qr) what the State does or does not do: .

. 1: it the State does not increa,se its.sales tax rate, the· · . City's rate will rem~in ~t 9.0% until 202J. . .

. 2.· If the: State raises its sales :taX by• {ess· than 1 % at . ··. ·· any time, th~ Cityi rat~ will 'be

0

9% plu~ th~ State1s increase. · .. ···

3. If : the State renews a fUll ·1 o/~ sales· tax before · ·· .. Januruy 1; 2013, ·this sales tax increase will: be .

. voic.J.eq; and .the City's.rate will remain af 9.5% .

4 •. If the 1%.·sates tax· is .renewed after· January 1, •.· • 2()13; ·this sales tax will remain in effect; and San

. ... ' · ,Franciscans win tac~ 10% sales tax. · : · · ...

· .·on July'.1, 201.1, the ·state of California allowed a 1 % sale.s · trueto.expir~. which lowered San Frahcisoo's sales t~ rate

from 9.5% to 8.5%. The stateWide sales and use tax rate is 6.25%; bl!t tile rate in a gh~en jurisdiction may be higher · . depending on Spe9ial District taxes. The .Port.Ion of the tax _. rat~ that is currentlY allocated tQwards tha stat~ ili 6.2!)%; a. statewide uniform ta>( ,rate of 1 % goes back to the . juri~diction3, and 1.25% goes towards the transport~tion

·.·

. .

. '.·

2 Proposltlon 218 was passed by voters in November of 1900, ~tiich changed the requfrenients for locai govemments to . . . ~~e reverii.Je~ Tue lntenf for prop(.)$ltfo!' .2.1 B is to ensure !hat ~I taxes and most cha~es on property o~ners ,a,re ~Jed . . ; to voter approval. !;lecause this sales tax js for the purpose of fu11dl1,1g public safety programs.ant:I §leivlces to children .arid . . . senk>rs. it is considered a "Speciai tax." Under f'ropositio!l 218, any "special tax" muSt ba approved by a two-tjlird majority. · 3 111 '19.55 the California Legislature pas$ed the Bradley~Bums ·Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law .. This law laid tile. . groundwork for a. sales tax system that ai...<thoriies the State Board of Equaliz~tion to collect all Sales and use .taxes and . distribute the 1.0% local share. to cities and counties~ · · · · · ·

Controller's Office • 1

83 P82

; .

.. _,·.

·.·.

..

• a~; ~ools and llA!lT'.4 l/ruious ~xempttQiis have been granted that remove the tax liability for ~ertain . . . ...• hl1siness, such as nonprofit orga,r.ilzati~:ms~ .vari9us types of property. and ~rtain·focid al'ld r:rie<fjGal services.5 A more.

. .. · . . . . . . ~ ' :

., ~ .. ·"'· · · detailed breakdown of San Francisco•s,Sales Tax Rate can· be seen in .the Table 2. · · · · · · .. ·· · · · ·

,- . ~ ' . . . . ' ..

·San Francisco•s Sales :rax Rat~

State Sale& Tax . · . Staie General· Fund fiscal Recovery Act (triple RJp) . .. Local Re_venue Fund (to counties for:healih & .

· welfare)Public Safety Fund .(to counties & cities) Local Sales Tax · · · . · ·. Local Sales Tax (to General Fund)

Local Transporta~on Tax (TOA) Special District Sales.Tax. . .

SF Counfy Transportation Authority Bay Area RapidTransit (BART)' SF Public Financing Authority (Schools) ·

Total ~ales Tax Rate

6.25% . 6.:00%. 025%

. 0.503 ...

1.00o/o o.75% 0.25% 1.25%

.Q.500k '0.50%

Q.25% 8.50%.

.... ·

· ....

···.··What's: Being Truce~ •· Sale5 and use tax revenues are generated from six major busines~ groups1 plus a County and State Pool ·category · · · that· captures select countywide activity. 6' · ·The bulk ·of .. Sales · tax revenues.·• come ·from · restaurants • which. · contribute 27% of s&Ies troc revenue. Apparel Stores make ·

.. ..

" up 10% of sales tax revenue, departrr:ient stores rontribute · 7%,. and· other retail stores coml;:>ine to contr.ibute 20% of

sales· tax revenue (FIGUR.E 1 )- · · • . - l

A wider taxbase means more goods and service:s are' subject to the ·sales. tax, which would traJislate into a· wider revenue base. In California; state.lawmakers can.define , . the tax base by.deciding .wnich go<?dS and·seriices are .'

· subjeet to a ·sales tax. Sinc.e the· s~l~s tax is administered at the state~level, citi~ and counties that choose· Jo• ' impose their own.·sales .taX: must,confo'rm to the set of

. good~ and services set ~Y the ~tate. _ . ·

4 SB 56S w8:s .. sign'e~. into Jaw . by Goverl)~r. Dav.is on :oc~ber ~. 2003, which. ~uthorlzed a co~biri~ city. and cqunfy · tran1?agions and use tax rate of up 2.0~.e. Special QiStrict tax.as. .qurrently, San Francisco has 1.25% .if) ,Special· · Dis~rict Sal~s·Taxes leaving an unu~ed authorii().tion of 0.75%., Jurisdictions are only allowed ·to imp~ Special District ·Sales Tax in multiples of .25%, · · · · . · · · ·~ ' · · , . · • · · · 5 Any local sales ·fa:x must co~form to the rules an~ exemptions s~t·by th~ Board bf Equ.alization fur the state:. The only

. power City's: have to m<;>dify the tax a~ amount al)d purpose: ,, . · . • . ' 6 Cou~ty poll sBres activiW includes sale of used cars l:ietWeen private parties as well as large or specialized ~uipmsnt 'purchased from an out-of-area manufacturer, but wfji~ is put into 'use' in Si;ut Francisco, . . • .

2 . Controller's Offi~, ·s4·

P.83

..

. - . . .

5/812017 . Gmail - Information Reque5t Tmcking No. 7115896 . . . . .

.. . .. ·. ·. · ......•. ·· ........ · .. • .. ·· .. : ............. . GmaR Thomas'. B~sse <tjb~ssesf@gmaiLcom>

. ·. ·- :· .. . . . . .

·· .. Information Request: Tracking No~ 711?896 1 message.

. Ng, Wt.Ison (BOS} <[email protected]> To: "[email protected] <[email protected]>

.. Cc: "SOTF, {BOS)" <[email protected]>

Dear Mr. Busse,

Fri, May 5, 2017 at 3:17PM

·On behalf of the Office of the Clerk of the Board, I am confirming receipt ()f your request attached. Our office was not · able to identify records responsive to your request, as we were unable to identify the secretary or any meeting minutes

· . for the San Franci.sco Public Finance Authority. Unfortunately, based on the limited information-available, we are not. · able to confirm whether the body convened. ·

. .

.· Sincerely,

Wilson L. Ng

. Records and Project Manager

· San Francisco Board of Supervisors . . . . . . . .

. - . . . . .

1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244

· .. San Francisco, CA 94102

· Phone: (415) 554-7725

Web: www.sfbos.org

© tifo Click here to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form

. . Disclosures: Personal Information that is proliidedin communications to the Cierkofthe Board of Supervisors is subject to disclo~ure Llnderthe California Public RecordsAct and the San Francisco .Sunshine Ordinance. Personal information provided· will not be redacted. Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they cornmunii::ate

. with the Board of Supe1Visors and its committees. All written qr oral communications that members of the public submit tq·the ·. Clerk's Office regarding pending legisla"tion or heanngs will be l]lade available to all members of the public for inspection and

copying .. The Clerk's Office does Jiot redact aay information from these submissions. This mf)ans thatpersonal information-.· Including names, phone numbers, .addresses and similar information that a merjJber of the public elects to submit to the Board

and its committees-may appear 011 the Board ofSupetvisors website or i.h other public documents th<jt members of the public· may inspf)ct or copy, ·

fil T. Busse Info Request.pdf . 107K

https://mail .google.comlm ai llu/O/?ui=2&ik=04b566c999&view~pt&search=i nbo>p'Ef45bdab05c73ci989e&sim I= 15bdab05c73ci9B9e. 111

. . ' ...

5/10/2017 Gm~i - Re: Petltibn to the d~ Attorn~y's Office

. . . M Grriail. ThOmii~~n.<ljll~@~l.c~iji~

·-------·-. ----·-~-~-· Re: Petition to the City Attorney's Office ·1ni~~

- . . -

· · S~•N1..01.R•C..rdl"@l'fg1w,oro <SV~TVl~(ll.RE;r..orcfs~-sfgn11.or1;i> To;tjbuutd@g'n:iif,com

.. ~~~10:.~17al.5;3!1PU ..

lfl111-'Q')nl"""11m<1<1.,i,;\~l!w::Col~rnlk($Olr ..... 11ui11tw1yMV•rio1..::ord::s.1Mpms1VEIQYc.llrt&QU<l&\.~t<l'tllbS~nf:D:rl:llldKE(Se1'l""'1&T.2l!<llof1h .. ,...,,.,.,.l'<St••ll••Cv.lt}.lhcSl!P'll\'isfl<".;t~~,Ut>M$.b!E.-ior-M<£~~-.oiyod~«-~~~.1tnaldi:.~o. .. 1·1=1r;ot•t..c~d . ...ilhwi-'\l-.l.~b51l~far :dcing10-farfk.l .. 1rnWt12°"'W!lhnr1he rvcurdniqa.:~11:'.f.erJ")'pe<'I (1(1t.etN:l>'lf""'lll11Si.;d,.b;publC..· Hm-,lhe J!o,p;orlm"~Px;.,ot~CYredul~ai'1) !l!clll'd.>, T!*rcll:Vc,.~i$: nc.fn1mfor_d~~~if.orof~ortklo11ddriss..:1'ld1>t-C'<><>$ldtl!-!Jil$pctl!1411 Q:tit.d. ThAAl.:rou.

· aU1. f!OORl.rt.si bop~~ Clty Allomt)'

Office~ SIHl F"':l'Cl'ca CityAttolf'ey ~~ J. ~m ·, ,$1.pervi">t o' Reunl.!.!Gt:n~OOGoY~nl. ll!M;R

i:.,...,._ ~~l!~ut-<1a'.iu~~4 ... •l•ll"'

~.-- S.'°"'""""'""""'' "'~"'f_,..,._.,,;:;,...__t;·•'1P•,,•.i•, -,:,• '$.Olf;.l!l-Ol;f•:o~'l;::~-'1'-1'

llS""-'l't\10~.<l?L!I

t ..... ....;....i H<~l'<-.~l--!>.-t~"'f-~4~

: : : Thank you for getting back 10 me, Brad.

T}\e ControiJa'& rO!;ponse (be-low) is vrholl:/ uns~tisfat;locy for !he following R?asom: {El!Tiong Others not Ustad here);

1. I had contacted M$, ~adhavan on 4122, and her response (.also belovi) was ID contact the Con!rol!er. l have (ss)Jed a foll PW.up re~ues\ lo Ms~ M<lritlav.&_n and a new one to Mr. Gerhard vi_~ ecr'llfied mall &ubsequenl to the ControHe~ Response ~both are CPAA requ~s.) and have heard nolhing,As to the Contr~ler's 'i)rntuilous and insJJfting t~SpOl'ISe I li!am how lo use ~dtl-tP'.and search lar"Sales Tax.." I had aelually done-so prior to contacting Ms. M11dhavan an bolh the SFUSD end SFCCO financiafa (H my message lo.her lndica.tes}, anQ ~ had also perused the rninut~a of both bodie&:- rufing oot the bJluld~ iiimual meeting ott~ SFCCO's Fmance Corpof'a11on- es bfilng what I was searching for, As tt11: response trom MJI.. Madha\16}1 {'Nho did not wril.e bad: '.-'-'hen I asked foPow up questions) regarding where the Sates Tai( revenues arc dlseloscd)n lhe financlals,-as sh~ s(?tes, lhcy don'l.segm~nt:sales ta)(; Md her '"k to page 87 indicalas. a ls mixed in with 1.mrei;;lricled •otherJocal revenve· and not segmented as a sales lax. Technfc.aHY. ii'~ n~ sales ~. irs- a loeal tuinSacuons and use. tax, anti I searthed for the I lerm PS wcH. -· · · · · ·

2. Pubtli::atioo BOE- 105 pa"ge 6 (Apri! 20~ 7) is the ~ry thin~ lb.al caused. m~ to start asking what !he.San Francisco Pub~c Finan~Aulhorily wois ~ Ifie first place. The veiy fir<>\ conla~ J made Ii, !his. regard was Angela Whltuikcr as well as !he gineral e~<il of lhe Office of · Pvblic. Finance. {also below). Thal was on _April 16lh, .and_ I recatv.ed no response from her or1hem. · · · · ·

a. The Conlro~er's OY.'fl Citywide Sa'"'i:: and Use Tax Revenue Mgmml destflbe:s the San Fr~ncisco Public Finance Aulhorl!y on page 2-(incld~taUy, lhe pie chart Qll the rigt\t doesn't add lllJ to the table on the le~ s·nd the pit! sl!cfis don't rriatCn th~ pe1c:e~eS, which might · adual!}' ~the dty'~ mariual).

4. 1he San.Francfuco Publlc Anarlc:e Avttiority was e.stabl1Shed by Board of S11pervisors Re.Salution 48--93 adopltid on 211193 •. It speqTl\ls. tt l!i governed by a board cf len members ~sls\i.ng of five members of !he eoS apPQfn1ed by the P1esid8n1 and give ffii!.IJlbEfS or r..ome Cbmblnation at the governing boards cf lhe SFUSO 41nd C::CSFD. In 1993. lhe Chaifpe!"';cnwas Carot Migden. A veiy similar enlity with Uudng a.1.11hority created lhn:iugh boP.rd res-olllUon Is the County Transportalio.n Aulh~if}', ?nd !he Controller p~periy discios11s and treat~ lhe SFCTA as a blended enlity In 1he CCSF CAFR. The!iC f~ os.lablish lhe SF Publi~ Fi~nc:e Aulhority as subject !D \he Sunshine Ordinance. -- . . . - . .

. 6. Tho Conlroller, CityAUorrioyi.;iflie~ arid su·pervisor Scott Wiener communh;a!ed \l/i!h Iha ~apt. afEJcc:!ions in reference tq November 2016's Proposition I< regarding a General 53.Jes T.:iie, and the San Fr.mcisco Public Finance Authorily is feferenced on documents . ,sfgned by these lndlviduDfs, ouch as~~ the actual published-o«lin"1'l!:e ineb,1d1ng the Controller's Stu1ement. Any Reasonable. Con1rotler would check 1ha.I s.ti;itement ror accuracy in fue context or the simplified ballo{ language, and given a deputy r.lty attorney sils on the ballol simplification cotnmltlee, the ctty attOrney's comrrrunication 10 me below Ill ill I lhe SF Public Finance Aulhonty does nv1 e)(]st Is baffli:ig. Deputy City Attorney.Tam Lalt.ey c:aunsefed the 6o;rn:I of Supervisors about the Public F:_uumce Aulhotify In a fas~rwtlny set of parliamentary maneuveri; in the minutes QfMarch 15, 199'3.

6, Under California Govemmenl Code &eolioo 26909, l~e Audi!or (in ~ur case, the Controll&rj ~required 10 make an annual.audil o1 Or enSJJre an eonnual audit is ffiade of wery 1'pada1 dJt;\ttcl in tllsfherGOunty. P11r the City Charter, Seclion 3. 105, the Conlroffer shall "hiove the poW"f:f" a~ duties of a County Auditor,•! requesled lhe a1.111ite~ ftnani;~I sla.tements. He did 11~Jprovide lhem. Making sure they axist is his mostbaslcjob. Fel/ure of the-Controllerll) f~llhr1_.111y execute; lhe duUes. of his office is grounds for removal forcause.Hiswi!lful

·. otJfuscatiOn evidences a fundainenla[ disregard -and l!eK of ~ncem for lhe. transparnrn;y tlemarchW by lhe. vottif)> In tmaci!ng lhe- Sunshine O~nruic.e.- a <?YA_Cllliure I find rep~gnanl. · · •

··To be cl'Ulr. almough,-1 lhl~ !here may be Je9Ufm11le ea Use for ilction lo vold ttie-salcll 1BX, m}"onty goals are -tr.lnspa.renoy and ml!-ilsUr~ of funding effetlivOl'l\1$$, Once again I repeal ~Y cons1ructjVe suggesllon lo fix th!S:<1caue the BOE's remits lo .;in escm.,.,. accoonl . .anc1 plaoe the C:ontroller, SFUSI?, The SF PubllcFlnance Auihority. and 11\e CCSFD on th11 S!ale Audl!or's Loe<tl Government High Risk Pmgr:arrL Allow lhe Slate AvdJtorto draw from esc.row'k c:ornpJel~ f\erwork, and release the funds on lh~ eond!Uon !hll SF ~ub~c · fin2nee A~or1\y adopt her r()eomrrendalions. 7he slmpla fact _Ill, this could be a really great thing because, by reacflvt1lhg the SFPFA's board, ltl!; BOS Ptesidtml can us.n her go\'emam:e influence to slNc\ure the supplemental funding (eve() If aUoe<11ed betwetin the tv.·o

~islrii;iii: on the bas I& of_attend311r;~) arnund program Dbjectives sm:h as,ha lnlliallue ror ""fr~- city college, pre-ki"ndergar1qn, cullural eqlJ!ly programs, etc. The Public Finance Authority amid, fot ~ample, p;:,y CCSFD seholarsh1ps dir.ecUy a,nd slrucJure them aroi.ncl .. . tJnderseN'Ki communities or build sludfml or: laac:her housing direclly, and h's-a g1eal PR move because you can pill up big si9ns, ~paid for by San Framisco"& Supplemental Education Sal~ Tax.~ Se'1elc!I ol lh11s~ are being b.ackfil.led lrom the lmbalane«l genei"al funcL n ·• · also forces members of the BOS and edoct4tion bo.ard9 lo work together, which Will improve aly service c~9rofnati0f'l. There·are dauscs In R&TCcde-ctrapler 3.S. l;!'n.abblg resolullon 4S..9J, and the 1993 School Sales Teic On:finane:c (which look-me ltm:c-weeks 10 tnd

· ·and lh~ City Attomeynys doesn't eJl}sl},~_lowlpg these funds lo be used for health, dfl.l{j abuse. and cry me preveilrion se:rviees wt-ten these services fan witnin the gen.er<'[ '6ducaUona\ purposes of the -'i:hool and communl\y-college dl,.\ripl!>": I have a su.~ptcion some folks Iii city _ha~\ ha~ already_ ~al me lo lhi~ n;a~onl°:Q· and ,I'm f?talt1 t:00l wil~ II just-as lo_ng as '(l~ryone's honest and 1rnosp;1r~m. Lying lCI me (as the Contron&r ha.s done) loses all a:infidence-~

• -Cordially, : Th~s J. Bu:1si

-Forward~ klfu..-

. . . . . . 1'1irlil!d.on1t1l,,peclficinform..i~ya.ire•1.M::11 .. it, fd:~petlfvliy fciuynuli>~c.tll1d ~l.IMl<imn, '"'C~"11hc.SF UM~ Scrioo!OO-l!ic1 {SFUSD. f11§) ZA1:?>$2 i1uz MMhww%j;fu~t! llQ!I) ..-'tC!Ron aem.·r1.111<1Vrtc Cllane.e!i.;.rv!.Finanu. l.Adr:.lriislrl!-.aithe Sao Ftlln<:iu:o:1Cornm~My ~Drllnc.1

· {SFCCO.~ wemr-4.Y-cof ~;{,) -uthor qveBa\1Hibuda11I, l'Cll"'"""'ll .,.j aild<: ~,.;. 1111.1..d lo~ S01.KM11nd l!'lies of l~s.a:Mfl!) ll)t/"ollrm~INll!dslncl;.f:Olhtlpfut1rJ1mcobl"n;f-=<>ee. pi.la:;:• l•nd thtlir/:lodgBl.,adl M"Kl rm~tl at~t~11V:n! ~'Ii ~1-.aloog.,..li\~ C;i'Cep"'9 805"$!1~~ Ta.; •k:>:;:iitlOfl lo~;; . .. ' . . ' . . .

. . ~r llK~<f!;lr...i.~ ..... .do:iftqu.>~1.>"ll='•lBOE)1.r.>(W>t.Mt".l!>ral!""l!Pl'lfllffilDl:A~tl-.:~w11~..«ttinr,IDflhl!Co:y~i.dt:Qu--,iyot~~·~~!'ol>9:kW«ffl·Mt(nlnl'n<lffh

0

!>"l?'!pi!'<>~~~~

·~it,

.·~eof11>e..Con1";'1ie:

: ~:·coN.Cvn'TO!l..rlCONl· • $.e.l>i!W..rocsd3.J,Apri12Ci,21)172:J~PM : To: ThlitnH 811\W <lln!K\ .. .,.:fiJ'.em•tl rm1.>

Cc:: CON. COtltrollo:!"(CONJ <r.nnhpll!:!rrn@<,!wy MJ:> -_ ., •. 5utiitd!"Sunsflm.~t-SFPU<>lit:f"l'WIIC~-ll,\flhori1y

.De~tM.Bu;iH.

!~_fllUforcanlllctd>glt"l!JControllll1'sO/f~.Tl\b-li$.lru~poosl!IDfDCFP'l!bkl!'lla•rm~llon~l:.-•~rnAlth"IJy«r~/~..,,..rl.iog1:o,fW'lllde.y~W'lhlim:p-Df1tQ~H..,nii"'5~,P~nIDr~.JNrYf~~l"ll'liolsyoo~yh;weta1tu1nuiiladd-eu •.

O!'lee-ol Ul~ Controller

~:~~r~~~'fSt1arccftlte:'-"l~·ta~tevienuo=di«f.ivfrQ<J\!1ier:q'sCoolroter'sOffia.Youti1~ntedtti~~d\y':;:Cintl-o!~'iOOk~r°'~r~oa..d~·n1~1esbi~e;11nW. . .• Tfll:5.ftttn~el$\nd..dcd-0n-p~9e!l7o!ttlll'trliocoldb.<ri..:t's:'wl5-1b.awit~pcrt!nW-.15.2.~1'1,9'19 mallll"t.CGJ~'lnthclJnn:s.tktt:dGl:fll!ffl~c.ul<.rnr\.YWil!?:C«ro:tnh.ttl.eM!d'l"rEport~notPf<J".iclC;Jobr~nur3!lWf~WVl"~anQ:lwt11dirol£1:tt"'5""1oiG<Jr"11ui:::iors·tf1t1S.rcwb~willClllllctbal ~lddetlll!wittooutm11~the~.livMY~{w!1·-cyovnwiseQ'll\h:tim.WWdcmafl,ti.:disl.~i~fundlngfTcrn~lOOitffcrertfedcra!,~ilr.d.kx:zl.!.IUCdand-1tmul0~1nN~tt,>litl~all~d$il, lhe~_~br~v.nt.;h:llidtd!11wrUnin,1dit~.Acb.ill!sr~th.lt~~bll""'.$bhl11\NJdyiir.dfcn!l$"t1lc:bas"5.of-OlJ"aud>t&lfilli!r>CQS..Tt4ttPQAli~llrlDL/f&s":T\ct'WebSi\t>.!!i.!i::; · ~~ktmetnO>'l'if)'Qllhilll!afl't'ilcdllo::Jal~kms .. ' - - ·- - •• '· • -=y:>U,'' .... ,

fromJG\l~"il:tCJO"lfej ..-CityAJ(gmryfufo.,.tu<? -~~ Mnyi.2017 '11. 3..s·4g PM_ POT ·ro-;fti1'52•dfumr mm SUbJ-et: Re: RtcordL iuquut

... : . ;l.l;Thoma5.J:9..su•.·

• Th3fli.:!orywrrc~.,,ldi<~~p!i[.2ll,2G17·~'!iflhe'Si!nFr.nte.<stoC.oc;n1r'Pli>licF"i~<'.:klll"clri\y'~\~"S&llFr.i~bc11Coori1yEduw;icrillF~e~y.• W..ti ... i11<1~t1.•eci.~r"'"'l•Md~~;wauxiscert~£16am!ar;!11<1!1J~~. Pt<llfClliyo;..ia .. lhnUJ'l!!oflt...Califomi•f'utiiC;FinonatAu\horily, tf>o! ~ICe. DI, Ptb~c ~nc~ 11.~M lhll C.Ort:rol1er'l o.~. ™'Ill ri S~ f~~tll. Aflli.llY lbl: Sim F~clr.co Unlli:rl Sdiool D..shict. II ynu ~h 10 t~llU\ pulllk; rel<lnll Imm any tliot~ ~lr~ lfl>U 5hoi...-id co~ 1htm di~r.!f,.· · . .. •.

Bes\.

A1'°"1111G11l.rT1C'lll 'Rt-lpt>'ltf<l'ljlfp!CfMnlm1ty!fi}funiom

. ~arUi.Wn.t1.i.K.

IWUf'6l'~f"l!ltw!da11'""\l~b1<'~-nln&o,,r~a!Ovo.Br.....-rld0

EQOJ.aU1t!'°':i,.~i:,i-:r.ed~-Fr;o-c.o5co.tw..i~~.25"%si,"51~t1111S~~e.l•lcf~ln'1~lhi"SanF1;in:;tKt>Co~r-Pti>kHivict-Au1hu<ily"arir-t>VPfl\,yll'•n>:.nln1993,J5WllhenmeMt'OU"ck-fl;n"'k'"·ll"t<Ol!lctDl~mFln.ooc&?I WQUldi:ql\1'™'1he:\~jd.JlridwcUdf!OJt~~t.llr~$.,b./l .... ~l~U1clullom.el.i;~·!f1Ho:illlpllS.at~l~Ml!l~{l'fli:lno-..•ilWiJS•;i•1~,~....,.,Sanf1ilrc1'c1,1dd~l>.l~e1l.CQl.~Foonhg~!T\i$il011!fl11;:93).,l'Ml'..lldlll<11to.f'l'llllh.1&l~or:.

'tauB..lrufi. ~.J.l'IL!<.!10

. on· Mon. May B, 2.011 al 3:56 P~1, Supervisor Records ~eTVfsnrRecQ1ds@5rm7J onl> wro~e; :Mr.flt.n:S1"-

1wn1eirt~~~i:-l<1y1><1r~11t11W\bc~-lapo1a~f«.lhodcl~y;1w:rsw.ot1Molflce, 1tii;"'V~,.,.t~-,;log1.1;l.:~m11e.,;.orn.:.,t\ururicnud~~DLrm.cD<Mmi.."'it.Plf>ll~~1<:\~klXl"ftd~1.o:-i;Pa-~ru.:l_,e~)"Uliuun, Ttmu.,.oo.

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/O/?ui=2&ik=04b5b6c999&view=pt&search=inbox&th=15bf4efaf02d5f8c&siml=15bf4efaf02d5f8c . · · · · .. · PSS .

.112

5/10/2017 .

. E°'!·. . Bflld-l'Wtti · .

· .J)eput)tCi1i1<.ttom~)'. . - . . ·.. . . . :~ors .. OFnir>osccOly-Atl"""'Y~-ll'KJ,Hc"fTll'rll .~~o!~rlf~1GM.tn!Go.-cim>-c<11T~n

:~Forw;in:::~d Py Cilyallorney/CTYA_TI 011 ~126/2017l\!r21.AM _..:_ ·: To; !nfo@li!cl!Y?tfomey org

from; Thomas Bus5c <1jbus.scsr@'Klmait corn~ . Dai£-: 0<112?12D17 oa:s6PM • .

.. Subject Ptiblion 10 the City Attorney's Office

.fEl~!ion lo th~ Ci_lr Attomi:.y:

.dma11- Re: Petition to the City Attorneis Office '

: Pu~artl lo The San Frsnclsc.o SunShlne ordinance, On Apol 26 2017 ~ 012:35 PM I si.:b0

mitteo llfl Im media{~ oi~~"°li~fe R~~e~-()Q the em;lfoner for tho most rece~I rina~I Statemeflts, 2Q\6 Boo;d Mlf\Uleli, e~d byieWs o( lh~ San Franebcc Pubf~ FiMilec-1'uth~. ~y _rmme~lele Olsc1ost.rre Request ~i..ed for lhe narne of the Pub~c; finance A!Jthotity'& "Diri:clor of fiscal $i:rvices• who was ls.sued a warrant Imm lhH Statu Board of Equalization on lq;>rll 12.-20.17 for $3,201,400. bul most Importantly .en ~Wll"f lQ-thlJ·.q~tion. "Does .

\he.~en FrenciiC<J Pubf;c fm<ini:e Authoffiy Exisl?~-This followed up on a Oisc:l.o:;vre requ~\ the previous morning asking !ho same thing_

: .J fo~jved a re$t)onse later on Apnl 26 the\ t~e-y were working on my requesf, b-..tl. 24 hours ~as passed by and I~ not se"en ·any documents..

D~:.~enls .have- the Cist:rction lo oxtend an lmmedl2l.e DisclttSur~ Req·ues11r n:curds are voluminous, in olf-site s1orsg~. elc; howe11er, them ls ~o approprlal~ rCason r~r the Cor'LlfolU:( to not ·b~ abio 10 prodoce l!w Flnancml State~ents of a County a~no::ted En1ily- ln 'fru;I, ttie. Controller I& constiMlonoilly obliga!ed to publis~ the11e tilalemarrts- Tnere.lore, I believe the Controller ls In YlolaUon of lhe Sunshine O~dl~ance's Section 67 ~S{b) beaiuse m; reasorinble-person could consider the lnfo1maUon r~uesled for iinmedrate d~ck.i~re lonol bl!'i-e~i:iily available from any comf):Otf:nt Caunl)' Con!Iollt!r. · · · ' · ·

·.:.-At> ra~r\llY as Novcomber 2016. the B.at;ol Simplification Comnirt~'& stalement on the proposf:d Proposition K mentioned a 114 Ceo ls.ales I~ 4 t.Ql11tc\ed in Ill~ Cotinly' on behalf of the-San Francisco County Piihlle Flnam:e. Au1hOrity. II_ is Special Ois1tfct 051 in the Board of Equiilizal!Of"\'s ew:iunis; legally oonsti\uted und!lf section 6500 of lhe Ce.Jifornia Government Code as a Joint Powet!;i ~hority. The~fore. l ha\lfc every reason to believe I am asking furlrnmediale Disclosure or Documents_ Sadly, I cannot find the San Francisco Public.

·: Finance Authority re{orcl"lt:ed in any of rhe San franc!KD Leg11J Codes publi'Shed by the Arnerlean Legal Publishln~ Corpor.alion,TM. City Attorney may havo ~r resoereh lcrols. My hope wai_; lo start leamlng about lhe Son Franc ls co Pvblli; F:lflt!flc.e Avlhority's decision m:akmg ~cture by readmg1he bylaws, After au. I could flfld tt~m of the. Transbay Joint Pawars AulhDfityv.-llh The Google. M_y Public Purpose was ta detennlne 11 the Cll"JfCount),• could fund luiUon remission al 11-te Cornmvntty College by asserting: !Is JPA votes 10 iealjocale the Special Oislricl Tax Iha volert. a1rudy pay lo si.Jpplamenl education, lllu$: ruduclng pn!S'UU'.! on the city'& general fund. Sadfy, the City's li\iolilulion$ do no! i;eem lo welcome my Ideas. . ' .

As you are Iha d~l~naled ~suf:>ervlsot o~ Records; I appe.11t 10 yau lo .<1d!vd1ca.le lhii; Y.'i'.htiolding gf lnfo1TN1l!on b}'. the Co:ilm\11;1r: A. tranflpar611l accoyntirtg of t:urali.on and expendilure is- essenli~J 10 sny .f_uodiunlng ~emoc1a~y end-11n Informed c!~orale. ·

Verylflll)"YOlltt>, Thomas J. Buss~ 415-2-44.5072 584 Caslm Street #388 San FranclsCG. CA 94114

On Mon. May 5, 2017 at3:56 PM, Supervi$.OI Records <Supervisor [email protected]> wrole: Jl.r.aut.~· - .

·.I ""'.11' 1n~P<>n-s"-loyo1..q1d3.~~0" .... I~& futl.1dda1-;l w.' od ol !hr. ~ea. 1~ 1, m11.1~¥'l~_tr1<>l lhc Ccd111~0!Lc" ~FBli~~o,iliQ)iiirfE-C:ord5- ff;-,)1.~I. r1...-,a ~\111V•foo11·ll ""'•rr..rtiomc 1n"'-'_~roor,is~lt!rs. lluirKyw .

•• cifriccofsa.iF,.,...,t"EscoCil1·AUoiret~J.HU1V11 • -Sl¥1Vi,or()I Rl~tl,; ~I QQVYfr.>llllfT5l!MI

:-r-t.irv.·~1ded by Cilr~llt:in'lcyiClYAi-r on 04tz&.2o.17 o5:21AM ~ . To'. lnfo®sfcltyaHomey.orn

From: Thomas Busse. <tibu;sesf@gmail cum:o O;;ife: Ollf27fl.017 08;56PM .SLlbject: PcUtion t? the City Attorney's Office

·~~ition lo the City Attorney; :

·. : "Pursuant _lo~ San francisi;;o Sunshine Ordinance, On April 26 2017 al 12:35 PM I subnililad·an Immediate Dlsc!O~ure Request to the ControQM for the mOsl rfii:ent Firian"cilll Slatemenls, 20.16 Board Minutes, and byla\i'!i 01 the. S<in Fr~nciiCO F~b!iO Flnarlc8 Au thorny •

. ~ ~~!;~~~~c~O:i:.~.:~~;:~;[;~~l~~i~~~~::~: :~~n~~~~~~l~!iqJ:;~:r ;~:~l!~~;s~=~~ ~: ~~:'~:.i~'!ant !roryi tht: ~lah! 80<1!~ ~r Equaltzalion on April 12- 2Ci17 r!! S3,Z01,400, bul mo~l lmpo.rtantty an ansv.•tt10 this question, ·ooes. . . ' . . . ·1 r.eceiv~d a n:sponse ~er on April ~6 that t!ie}'Wef"~ ~orking o.n my reque-sl. bUt.211 hotushas passed by"Snd I hnva not seen any dOeciments.

Depar1menls have thi! diSatitJon ·10 rudend an lrrwnedla!e Dl5closutr: R~quest if re.cords- are ~uminous: ill; ~ff:s1\e storage, clc; tiowcver, lhere .is no appropriate reason for the Conlro\ler lo ncil be ;tb\1;1 lo produre the Financial S~lcmcnls Or a Co~nly Blended EnUly. In fad, · . ·the Controller Is consUtuUcmaHy obligate<! to tivbli$h ~e.$Ullements, Therefore, I b&lleve- the Controller Is In violation gf the Sunshine Ordinance's Section 67.25(a) because .no reasonable person could coriside1 lhe lnformalion requested for immediate dis.closure- to nol · b~ readily_ a1113l1abla from anY compelepl County Controller, ·

A!; recenlly as No\.'ernber2D16, fhO- Baliot $\mp~lica1ion Commillee·s staiemenl on the prop.:is~ Propasltion K mentioned D 1f4cenl Sales lax is collecied in ~-Collnlyon behbH of the San Fr;ancli;eo County Public Flnance Autharit}". ltis Special Dlslilcl 051 in the. Board 'of Equoi~on'5- aCcounts. kigany conslilulad under sei:lion.6500 of the California Go\remniel'lt Code. as a Joiril p_!7W@ts Av111only. Therefore, I have every reason to believe l sm asldng fQr l!TJJll8dlat~ Dlsclo&!Jfll. of Documenl&. Sadly, I cannol find Iha San Franclsco Puh!.c

. . Finance Authority referenced In-any t.if lhe S~rffnmcisco legal Codes pub~shl!d by the American Leglll Pvblishinn Cofporatiah,The City Attorney may have betler telie1trch tools. My hope v..'a-S lo slart learning ~bau', lhc San Fmnci&C!l Public Finance Authorit)~.S- deeisiol'l · . Making slructUte by re.tiding the- bylaws. After all, I could find lhe.m of lhe Transbay Joint P_o'.'lors Aulhorlty wilh The Google. My Publlc Pmpose was to. determine If the CltyfCounty e~d rund \uiilmi remls5!11n at the Co.mmun!l}' College by essertir.g Its JPA voles to

realaG!l.e .ttie sp·eti;il! O~c1 i:-~x the \'Otws alrE1ady pay lo supplemenl edUC1!1ion, thus rq.d1icing pNssUre on Ute cily's yenaraf fund. Sadly, the City's lnstitu11ollS do not s~m to wcltome my id1H1fi. . . . . .

. . : ;..'ii you are the ·deslgnatef:! ~uper.tfs~r or Records:; I appeal ID. you to adjudica1~ this WUhholdinQ of!nfonnaliori by the Controller. A transparcnl 11.ccountlng of la)(alwf\ and Citt:Hindl.t\l~'l! is essential le: any rimd-ion!ng democracy and an inf~rm~d e!ei:;WJ.1atf'~

V~rytrutj-y0llr$, Thmn;1.sJ,8USfit!

415-24'4-5072 SM Caslro Street #388 ·~an Francisco; CA.941_i4·

• https://m ail .google.com/mail/u/O/?ui=2&ik=04b5b6c999&view=pt&search=inboxplf f)5bf4efaf02d5f8c&sim 1=15bf4efaf02d5f8c 712

! . : ..

r"I

. ~·:-~· ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 11:.

_ _ . Thomas J_. Busse 584 Castro Street #388 ·

San f rancisco, CA 94114 · .

[email protected] 415-244-5072

Ult_ _ _;;;__;__;~.----''-------.-------~

~· P~ge.._$------1 rl1 Certified Fee .· ..

· · : EJ.: Return Receipt Fee · CJ (Endorsement Required)_ 1--------1

Cl : Restricted Delivery Fee . . . (Endorsement i:ie~J!.~l ... : i;;:i •. ""-.::nrrred Mail

Paulette Terrell Director of Fiscal Ser\tices :

Postmruk Here

San Francisco Public Finance Authority 135 Van Ness Avenue, Room 300 san Francisco, CA 94102

Reeta Madhaven Chief Financial Officer i35 Van Ness Avenue, Room 300 San Francisco, CA 94102

Dear Ms. Terrell:

i ;

I

. . - . . .: : . . . . . .. ·: . . . . -

. . . . : . . . .

May7, 2017:

This exte~ds niY Califorriia Public R~cords Act request emailed to you on s/2/17. Several.of these items Were reqtiested from Ms .. Mad haven on April 221 2017. The California Government Code Settion26909 requires arj audlt of a.II special districts. As the finanCial statementsmandated by law, your district should have this rea~ily available for public inspection. This t.mreas~nable delay arid lack of transparency harms the horibr of yourptofessibn, and I sincerely hope to ·avoid the, necessity of seeking injurctive a.nd declaratory relief .

. I request the following Documents:

1. All Notifications to the San Francisco Public Finance Authorityfrom the State Board bf Equalization' . ' . - . . . . . .

. . . : '. .... 2. The mostrecent audited financial statements of the San Francisco Public Finance Authority

3. All Letters of Designation of the San Francisco Pul:>Hc Finance Authority. . . ; . ~ . . . - : . . - : . -- . . : .

. . . . . . . .

4 .. All Average Daily_Atteridance c:alculations bf t(le San Fra.ncisco Public Finance Authority for the past five years including internal worksheets and reconciliation to allocation formulas. . ·

": : : . '. . . : : . . . ' ·. . .

5. All Board Minutes of the San Francisco Public: Finance Authority from 1993 to the present day including resolutions, especially between 5/1/93 and 6/30/93. · · ·

. . - . . : . . < . . ; . .: . . . . :·

6. The Current Amended Bylaws of the San F~ancisco Public Finance AUthority andthe comprehensive ordinances of the San Francisco PLI.blic. Finance Authority. · ·

. . . : . . . . -·. . : .:: ; : : : . .

7. The most recent uhaljdited Financial State.rnents of the San Francis'to Public Finance .Authority . . : .. . ; .

8. All Communications between the San Francisco Public Firiahce Authority and the City Attorneis Office from 1993 to . . . . . .

the Present with especial focus on Mr. Dave Fox and Mr.Ted Lakey. ·:·: . . . . . :

9. Management R~pr~sentation Letters between the San Francisco. Public Finance Authority and its Auditors.

P87

. ·. . . i •umcatlonsbeWeen th• Ca l1fo,nia State 2ontmiier and the ;San Frand,C~Publicflnance Authoflty .· .• • .•

. • <stof~ur_rent.~oardMembersofthe·sanFrandsco.~ublic Hnanc~ Authority.····.·

.. ·-.).All Budgets of theSanFranciscoPublic Fin.an~e Auth.ority.from 2010tothe pre~ent·.

@

. .14. All Coromunitations between Carol Migdenand yourself, Reeta Madhaven,_ ffo~e~Golton, Esther C~seo~ or Joseph _· ' Grazioli from 199ttcithe present. ·· ·· · · · · · ·· · · ·

: •15. AHlnteragency contra~ts with the San Fra~dsco Public Finan~e Authority, inciudingarticles o~ dissolution or

Thomas J. Busse

P88

. .. . . .. . . . · .. - :: :-: = ..... :: ·:: . : .. :·

SiB/2017 . . . : .:·.· . .

. . ":: . '. ·. . - . . . . Gm ail - RE;.Public Records Act Request •

. . . : . . . . . .

.:··::. : .. : . :- =·· ..

GmaiL ·· .. Thomas Busse <:tjbussesf@grnaiLcom>

. - . . .

RE: Public Records Act Request 1 message-

• Rick Chivaro <[email protected]> Mon, May 8, 20.17 at 4:49 PM TO: Thomas Busse <tjbussesf@gmail:com>

•·Dear Mr. Busse:

·With respect to Publi2 Reco~ds Act re_quests made to the ~tate Controller's Office, I am the person resp~nsible for responding to all such requests. Moreover, your gratuitous commentsnotwithstcinding, !reiterate my prior response to your initial request as though fully restated herein. Consequently, in light of the fact that this office is not in possession of any writings responsive to your request, no further action will be .taken by this office in that regard.

·Sincerely,

••;Richard J. Chivaro i Chief Counsel

··Office of State Controller Betty T. Yee

Legal Office

300 Capitol Mall; Suife 1850

Sacramento, CA 95814 I (916) 445-6854

·.From: Thomas Busse [maffto:[email protected]·]

Sent: Monday, May 8, 2017 1:57 PM · To; Rick Chivaro <[email protected]'.QOV> · Cc: [email protected] .-Subject: Re: Public Reco'rds Act Request

D.ear Mr. Chivaro:

. Th~ Chief Counsel is usually riot the one to respond to a routine CPRArequest.

I have a document signed bY Carol. Migden acting as Chairperson of the San Francisco Public Finance Authority dating from a time when your boss, State Controller Betty Yee, was Ms. Migden·s· protege.

I also have affidavits denying the existence of the San FranCisco Public Finance Authority from the current City and County Coritroller, Ben Rosenfeld, and from the San Francisco City Attorney's office, yet, I have obtained Internal documents from both their departments dating from 2008 and 2011 cc'd to both. officials referring to the San Francisco

"""',~"'"~'·-'""'~.,~,=64b5b&999&"-""oo''""'"'L.,.,_,.,,_,'""''='""''""'°"' . - · · .· · · P89 •· • .. 1/3

. .. : -: ~ . : : . . : . .

5/8/2017 Gmail- RE: Public Rec0rdsAct Re<iuest

·. Public Firi~nce Authority ·~~. fl. Special District cciteimiiious with the City ~nd County ahd their current oper~tions, and I •• have spoken to a t6nr1et 9fficiai of ttiat. Speeial District who has tnfontied me of the operations. ·

· .• · .• I als·o havea2016 internal docuinent .. sig~ed ·by sitting State Sen~tbr Scott Wiener (who now h~lds Migden's seat) · ••. referring to the currenfoperations ()f the San Francisco P!Jbltc Finance Autho~ty and its status as a Special District. .• .

• ( am.in possession. of the ~oi~ion proposed by· Senator.Migden• t•• Ostablis~·t~e Special. DIBtrlct,. and Rider v.• San. . biegq (1991) 1 Cal 4th 1 and. Hoogasian Flowers \I. State Board of Eq'i1a/ization (1994) make it inarguable thaf the entity meets the legal definition·of Special District. With that in mind, I call your attention to Section 26909 of the Government. Code regarding the responsibilities of a county auditor-controller in enforcing audi~ requirements of special districts in his/her county and to your boss's duties to oversee that special distrtcts adhere to minimum reporting guidelines. I also have an ibforrnant within the Board of Equalization who teils me the rnc:iney is going to thE!. County's general fund, not the Special District. · · ·

. . : :.· :.· . . : .: .. . . : :_ : ;, . ·.< :· . .. .. . . . . . .

. .. Wit~Jhat in mind, I repeatrriY CPRA request for the financial statements, audited or unaudited, of the San Francisco public Fiharic;_e Authprity, a special district.established in January 1993 under the second version section 7288 of

• Revenue. & Taxation Code, and recognized as operative per BOE Publication 105 (April 2017), a stat.e agency of which ·. your boss· is .also a member. If you do not provide this information or a bona tide reason it is not in your office's

possession, I have standing through over a dozen Brown Act violations (among other things) to pursue options for . injunctive and declaratory relief, which, under the circumstances, may be retrospective, This .could be considerably >damaging to the a/ma mater your boss holds dear. I really don't want to have to write messages lik.e this, and had our . officials valued transparency in the first place, this all could have been avoided - it dishonors my profession as an . accountant. As .a courtesy to Ms. Yee; I offer this .advice: trying to cover up ~m embarrassing rnistake or lack of • oversight 6nl{makes it worse. In such an incestuous and nontransparent environment, it too easy to stumble across the •invisible divider of criminal conspiracy.

. . . . . . .. .. . . : ·. .. . .. ··. . . ; : : : ·. . · ..

·. In my view, the b~st curative and c~rrective action (arid one that protebts your tioss) is to refer the. matter to the State •·Auditor, placing the SFUSD, SF Community College District, a_ndthe SF Controller oh the High-Risk Local Government . Program. Remits from the Board of Equalization for Special District ()51 should be placed into escrow, arid the State . . Auditor should draw on those funds to complete herwork, with release of those funds contingent on the adoption of her

· ·•recommendations. - · · · ·

. . .... : : .. . . ..

· : Thomas J. Busse • 584 Castro sfreet #388

. . .

SanFrancisco; CA 94114 . : : .·. : ...

· tjt)[email protected]

41 s~z44~5072

On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Rick Chivaro <[email protected]> wrote:

J Thomas J. Busse l :. . ·. .

584 Castro Street #388

i San Francisco, CA 94114

Dear Mr. Busse:

)lttP.s:i/mail.google.com/mail/u/Onui=2&ik=-04b5bsc999&view=pt&search=inbox&th= 15bea783bea036ff&siml= 15bea783bea036ff . . . P90 .. 2/3

. ··. . ·.. .. ..··· . . . .. : .. · ;. . . . · .· .. · . .

5/812017. .· Gm~n- RE: Puplic R~ccirds Aci Requeit

.. . . . . ..• Ws is in response to your request pu~uant to ~· Public R,Coms Act Wfinaoci;, siatmnents of ihe Califo~ia > .· .. Special District, "The Sah Francis:co county Pll~lic Finance Authority," (BOE SpeeialJurisdiction add on code 051).

regularly receiving warrants pf payment '.frqm the State Board of Equaiizatlon: .• . .. . . .

.i .. 1 ·

. . Afterre~ea~t;:hlng oUr rec6rds, it appears· that the State Controller's Office is not in possession 9f any Fi~ancial . .. . Tram;action Reports from San.Francisco County Public FimmceAuthority. In fact; we.do not have anyinfonnation on

: itinmi_rdat9base. We also contacted the Secretary of State and were told that the Secretary of State dqes not have any JPA dcfoimients on the entity referenced. Consequently, .in light of the fact th.at we are not iil possession of the re~ords you ~eek, we c:ire un~ble to comply with your request. · · · ·. · ·

' '

I !

Sincerely,

. , Ricnarcd. Chivam I ChM Counsel • i'

' , Offic·e of State Controller Betty T. Yee···

Legal Office . . . . : .

30() Capito! Mall, Suite 1850

Sacramento, CJ\ 95814 f (916) 445-6854 · .

. htlps:ffmail .g~le.com/mailfu/D/?ui=2&ik=04bSbGc999&vir;w=pt&search=inboa9i~1sbea783bea036ff&sim 1=15bea783bea0~6ff 3/3

.. . . . : . : :. : .. : : ·.: . : ..

· 5/W2017 Grnaii-R~s~~s~toRequ~tfQr P~blic Roc~rd~ (IDR}

. . ~ . . . ~ . . . . . ~ . . . . . : : . . . . .. .. . . : . .. . ..

. . .

·. ~~?1 _Gmai~ . Th.om~~ Busse ~tjbu,~.se~f~gmail.com>.

Response to Request for Public Records (IOR), · 1 message

· Slocum, Gregor}' (REG) <[email protected]> . To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> ·

Fri, Apr 28, ?017 at 3:07 PM

Good Afternoon Mr, Busse,

.. . .. : . ;, ( :· .. · ... : I ~m writing in response to your request for information dated 4/28/17 in whiCh you asked to view the following:

1. "TEXT OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE, PROP AJU_NE 1993 SPECIAL ELECTION".

2. "ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE BALLOT SIMPLIFICATIONS COMMITTEE'S FINDING RE PROP K 2016 A TAX IS COLLECTED TO FUND THE SF PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY"

3. "TEXT OF PROPOSED ORDINA!'JCE, PROP A DECEMBER 1991" •

Pursuantlo our earlier phone conversation:

1. There are no documents resi:ionsive to this request.

2. All documents responsive to this request are available for viewing on our web~ite:

http:/ Is fgov.org/ elections/balf ot-s implific~tion-c9mm itt~-nov ember-2016

. The measure you are interested in is located towards the bottom of this page, it is known as "Gene~al Sales Tax". .

3. •There are no documents responsive lo this request.

• Please d~ not hesitate to don tact me directly if you have _any additional questions or concern~.

Gregory P. Slocum .

. · Campaign Services

• San Francisco Department of Elections

1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place . .

City Half, Room 48

San Francisco, CA 94102

(415) 554-4331

TTY (415) 554-4386

https://mail.google.cornlmail/u/O/?ui=2&ik=04b5b6c999&view=pt&search=inbox&th=15bb69b3ff7891ee&siml=15bb69b3ff7891ee

P92 1/2

. ·.:. ·:: ..... : ·. ·: ... : .. · ... :. ·.. :

5/8/2017 Gmail -SF county public Fif}ance Autharity . ·

. . . . . . . . . . . . . : . ' .

t~ Gh1ail ............. ······ .... · ..... · .. · ... · .. · ····· · .. · .. · ... ·.··. ·.• ...

·.Thomas Bus5~ [email protected]>·

. : : .· . . . . :

. SF County Public Finance Authority 1 message

.· lnformation,.Government (LIB) <[email protected]> • Mon, May 1, 2017 at9:53 AM To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> ·

Good morning-

I've spoken with a colleague regarding your request for meeting minutes, and he has also been unable to locate them. Some colleagues who will be here tomorrow may be able to assist. I will get back to you after l'ye spoken with them.

····· ........ . . . . . . . . . . . .• . : . lr:i the meantime, do you know if this authority is part of the Unified School District (USD)? If this is ttie case, then we·

would not have received documents from them because we do not receive any documents from the USD.

Best,

·.Government Information Center/BA

http;://mail.google.comlmail/u/O/?ui=2&i k=04b5b6c999&view=pt&search=inbox&th=15bc4eed24bb2f34&sim 1==15bc4eed24bb2f34 · . P93

111 .

_ Co.IZR1 1 ~c{rJ "~ 'Jhe_ - Da__ Clt s) ';ID f 6

"implement the program review process'', which •'plays a role h1 future directions of

instructfonal programs and provides data (Qr pla_nnipg appropriate \lti1iz11.tion of

personnel, faqilitj.es, and_ rei)ources fo;r: the overalihenefit of the communit;yserved;'

(ACCJC, 1988),

The SFCCD struggled to match revenue with expenditures and implement-a

budget based on prioritizing scarce resources. In, the early 1990 's it was placed on the.

state-watehfist twic;e by the State Chancellor's office (ACCJC, i994; FCMA T 2012).

_J3etween 1989..:.1995 a "pa:ttern_ of deficit spending developed_, reflecting the giow:ing

structural imbalance between revenues and expenditures" (KH, 1993, p. 4)' The

spending pattern was descnbed as a "drawd()wn of hidden surpluses" to fund mostly

70

long term and fixed costs associa~ed wi.th persohl\e~ which by f993 constituted over

~0% of the overaUb!.idget.An opetatiorial report descnbed this spending pattern as "the

cote of the cutr_ent crisis" in 1993. By 1997, this crisis was averted through wage

freezes and limitations on hiring, plus an improvement in the sfate' s·economy;

Unf~rtunately tbis spending pattern and su,bsequept financial crisis wo_uldretum a

~ecade later despite a warning.in the 200Q ACCJC, rei?ort that "in light of past

difficulties, due dillgence triustbe exercised".

In general, the period between 1994-2003 marked a period of economjc stapility

and growth in the-State and during that tim~ the college enrolhneni grew as _did tl}e

course and p;rogi:am offeri11gs. Bet\veen 1994 a1id 2008, student he)ldcount iti credit

P94

Memo to Budg~t Committ~e J an:uary 27, 1993

· Therefore, Mr. Oppenheim indieates that .CSAC policy !s that the State Revenue and Taxation Code 1!.eeds to be ame;nd,ed for cou:p:ties to hav:e any dear. authority to increase~ Sales Tax rate locally. · ·

. Ms~ Angel~ Karikas. of the City Attorneys Offi~e has indicated tb.at a two~ thirds majotity of the voters would be required to increase. the. Sales Tax rate for the specific purpose of public ec!ucation, d~.g abuse prevention. filld health care services.

11. According to Mr. Oppenheim, there is current State legislation which is . befug dis~usse<I whl~h would clarify the requirements for increasing a local. Sales · Tax rate. Mr. Oppenheim adds that mQst coUn.ties in California are not considering . in.creasing the S:ll,es Tax rate until these legislative ambiguities are .clarified. Ba.Sed ·. · upon inqUiries· to the .Regional CoUn.ty Offices of the State Board of Equalization, . · neither ¥arin, San Mateo, Alfiln.eda nor Santa Clara counties are proposing to increase their local Sales Trur rate at this time~ Therefor~, if the Sales Tax rate is increa.sed by 0:5 percent for: San Francisco, the Sal~s Tax rate :(or San.Francisco w1ll be the highest of the adjoii:ring counties fu the Bay (U"ea. · ·

12. According to Ms. Sue Lee Of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, the Chamber of Commerce has not ~t developed an: official positi9n on the proposed Sales Tax rate increase~ or deternrined the impact on btisinesses if the Sales Tax rate is inereased by 0.5 percent~ Ho.wever, ¥s. Lee. notes that the Chamber of Commerce had previously remained neutral on the 0.25 percent Sales Tax rate for . the .San Fraricisco Unified School District and the Community College District.

13. Based upon the :revenue projections for FY i99S-94mcluded in the" Joint· .Report on the Anticipaw~ Reyenue .Shotj;full for the Fiscal Year 1993-~4 Bu,dget" by the Controller, the Mayor's Co-Budget ]Jirectors and the. Budget Analyst, dated January 15~ 1993, a revenue shortfall ()f $184 million.is pJ;ojected for FY 19~3-94. 'rhis revenue shortfallis based upon the most recent revenue. data, the Governor's State budget.proposal (which includes. an estimated $72 million in reductions for San_~rancisco) arid prdimfoary estimates of the CitYs e:tpenditure reqllirements for ry-1993-94. ·

14. As.noted above7 in order to hol!Ia sp~al election, an ss·day notice.is required beginning from the date the special .election is called for by the Board of Supertisors .. ·Jn. addition, AB 1930 requires 90 day8 before the increased Sales Tax rate can be imposed. The additional revem1es which ~ailticipated to be generated from increasing: the local Sales Tax rate by one half ~nt (0.5 percent}are an estiqiated. 145.320.000 ann;uallyt based on the .FY 1993-94 revenue projections contained iii .the Controller's,· the Mayor's C9-Budget IJirecto:r;s' and the Budget Ana1yst~l:!jhint report. Howeyer~ .given the requirements of the special election .. aild a 90 day State requirement before these revenues ~child ·be imposed, ··estim~ted revenues fo.r n 1~93-:94 would amo.u.nt to $33,990.000 (effective 10/1/93) if the special election were held no iater than June, 1993, and an ~stimated $11.330.000 (effective 4/ll9~} if the special election wa.s h~ld m November, 1993~· In: additiop, it is possible that: actt.Qtl revenues received in FY 1993-94· could. be reduced if consumers trayelro other areas to purchase goods and~ services. giy~n the: difference between the Sales.Tax rate ii:t $an Francist()~and the Sales Tax rate in surrounding

BOARD OF SJJPERVJSQRS . . BUDGET ANALYST

52

P95

J.V.leino to Budget Co~tte~ J~wrry27; 199~ · ·

cmmties. According to Mr. Ed Uartjrigton, the Contr~lle;~ Sari Francisco could request that the Stat~. adopt legis~ation which wo~d .expedite the. 90 day State .. requirement in order fu begin imposing a n~w Sales True in Jhly, ;l.993, rather than ·•

· having rui effective date in October, 1993, which h~s beeii done with previous loc~l .. · Sales Ta:X increases: . t · · · · · · · ·

·. Recommendation · ~ . . . ·. . . .· . . . ·.· .

. . · Approval of the proposed resolution, which wotild declare the intent of the . Board of Supervisors to propose an increase in the transactions and use tax (Sales · Tax) rate and establish the San Francisco County Public Finance Arithority, is a policy i;natter for the Board of Supervisors. · · · · · · ·

BOARD OF SJJPERVISQRS . BUDGETANALYST

53 P96

Monday, ·February 1, ·1993

[Equipment LeaseJ Ordinance P.i:o.v-iding :for the approval ·arid execution <ind delivery by Oft:ipers of the ·cify and County of San Francf:;;co of an Equipment ·

·x.ease Supplement :No. 2 between the City and County of San Francisco ·.Financ.e .corporat{on1 as les:so:a and the City and ·county of San Franci·scc;i, as l.essee with respect to equipment to be used for City purposes ·and t.he related certificate -Ot approval; providing for .reimbursement ·to the city of certain City expendHures .pr.iot to the issuance of leas~ revenue bonds ana approving.the issuance of Lease Revenue Bondi; by said· nonp:i:ofit corporation; and. providing that .sa.id bonds Shall be· subject to the certification ·Of the Controller of the· City and County of San Francisca' prior to- ·the sa·1e:· of .said bonds; and providing for the execution ·of documents in connection therewith and rat,i.fying previous act;ions t;akel) in connection thel'ewitl). (Chief l\dministra.tive o·ff!cer) ·

File l7n-9~-1. Ordinance No,

Passed for.second reading hy the following vote:

Ayes: ·supervisors Achtenberg, Alioto, Bierman, Conroy 1 'Hallinan,. Hsieh,. Kaufma11, Maher, Miqden., Shelley - 10,

Absent: ·Supervi:so.i: Kennedy - 1.

Adopted

t1'irpor·t Administration 1 Resolution approving the C~ntroller's action of increasing the Ai rp.ort;s Commission project budget from $.150 ,OOO to $500, OOO for Airport Contract; No·. 32001 emergency environmental services at .. Road. J.8 :and Roacl .9/ .s~n· Fr<1ncisco Interna:tiorial Airport. -(.Airports cpmmission)

File iS-92-11. l, ·Resolutiqn No. 82-93.

Adopted by the following vote:

Ayes'f. Supervisors Achcenherg, Alicito 1. aierrinin·, ··conroy, Hallinan, .Hsieh~ Kaufman., !'laher, Migderi, She.lley - io,

Absen.t: Superyisor Kennedy - L

Adopted as Amended

{Supervfsor Hsieh· dissenting in c·ornmi.H:ee.}.

'(Loeal Public Finance Authority] .. ResoiuHon decli11:ing the intent. of.: the' Board ·of superviso.rs. of· .the:. City ·and County· of· Sari. Francisco to propose an increase. ln t;he·. Transactions and Use Tax:1n the City and County pursuant to Chapter 3.5 of the Revenue· ·and Taxatioi;i Code, and estabUsliing the San Fianc;:isco County Publ;lc Finance Authort ty. (supervhors Migden, Bierman-, .lo.Iioto).

-86-

;,:. , ... :,.·., ·'

l ·- Monday, FE!brua.ry ·I,. 199·3.

fj.le ,l.75-:9'.l-l, Reso ltition ~9. 4 6-93

Supervisor- Kaufman,· seconded by· Supervisor Maher, moveil to amend :by adding a further resolved clause as ·fol.lows; "FURTHER' RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervi~Or~, i.n appJ;qving this measure_; expresses its strong view that ·l;he Author.ity. shall ·not appr·ove •any :sales tax· measure that would ·place ·:tne composite:' :;ales tax rate. above .the ·cur~ent rate oA 8.5 percent" ..

Motion to amend adopted by the. followin·g vocei

Ayes; ·;supe·rvisors Aiioto, ':Bierma.tl, conto"j," Hallinan, Kauflllan, Mahe,r, Migden, S.helley - 8. .

Noes~ :superrlsor Hsieh '""' 1.

Absent: Supervici<:rrs Ac°htenbet'g, .Kenne.dy. - 2.

l\dopted ai;· amended ·i)y the following vote:

Ayes: Supei::yisor:s A,cntenberg, l>·.l~oto, Bierman, conroy., Hallinan, Kaufman; Mlgden, Shelley - 8 ,.

Noes: Supervisors' Hsle.h, ·Maher ,..; 2·. ·- . ~VP..~J Dv+y Absent: .. Su)'.>ervi-sor Kennedy '"" 1:.

In connection wi. th ·the· above i tern, Supervisor Alioto requested ~o be addeil as· co-sponsor. ··

Recoriunenaatiomi ·of Health and Public Safety Committee

Adopted ·as .Amended

(911 Supetvision] Resolution urging .the·· Mayor to riiqe the ·police Co!11!11ission to consi.der the civi.ll;anization of the supervisodal positions .. in the Pc;iiice .. Departmertt communications cent:ei; providing for· quarterly reports. (Supervisors Shelley, Bferman 1 Migden·, Kennedy )

File 207-92-11 •. 2, Resolution No. ao-"93

·supervisor Hs':ieh, seconded by. Supervisor She1ley, moved to amend title, line four, by inserting •; providing for quarterly reports•; ·and amend page. two; li°ne i;ix by' iidding the follqwing reso.lved clause: "FURTHER RESOl..VED·, That. the Board ·of .supervisors .requests that. the Police Commission prbV:ide a written quarterly -i:epcirt to the Board of Supervisors· on. ·the. first· days ·Of May, August ,and November of 1993, and .February, May and A1.1gust of .1994·. Each re·port shall describe ·the prqgress of the Poliqe Department in .addressing .the .i:ssue which is the subject. of t;l)~s resolution··.

Motion :tci amend adopted. by tlie following vote .. :

~a.1•

I i

I I I 1

/

Office of the ,Mayor

SAN FRANCISCO FR,ANK: M, JORDAN

~ebruary 11, 1993

Honorable.Angela Alioto, Pr~sident San Francisdo Board of Supervisors

, Room 235 - City Hall San Francisco, .CA 94102·

Dear Su;perv is or ~1 foto:

r. am returning File No. :i 75-.93-1 (Local· Publ~c Finance Authority) with -my signature. Tli;is legislation decla_res the intent of the Board of. f)upervisors tp propo.se ·an increase in the transactions and use tax (±.e. Sales Tax} and establishes. the San Fran.oisco County Pul,Jlic Finance. Authority.

As you know, the Public Finance Aµthorlty · wol,lld be governed by a ·10-member Board of Directprs consii:;tizjg of five members of the Board of Shperv_:Lf?or.s ;ind a tot.al of five mell\bers from both the T,Jnifie9,. Schqol District and, the Comni.unity College D~strict •. The resolution specifies that the San Francisco Board ·of supervisors would elect five of its eleven melnbers ·to sel:'Ve on the· Board of tilrectors . · · · · · · /

Becatis~ -sari Francisco i~ the 011ly city and County ih the f)tate and; the only Board of. Supel:'Viso:ts with eleven members, we haye the o<;id situation 9f a minority or the Board of Supervisors: joining School Board .Members il'.i a decision to place a tax measur~ on t:h~ baliot. I would respectfully suggest. that the .Authority . seek full Board approval by resolution of: any 1:>rdinance pr9p9sed for the ballot l?Y the SC;\n ]rranciscq Cou11ty PU:b].id ' .. . . . . .. · ' · . By copy of this letter, I' am :requesting the city Attorney to draft a Pc:>licy resolution. on, this .s Jee . ·

. Sincerely,.~- ;J . ~_,/f ... ··~ ..,.-?(~/;M. Jorda .

Mayqr ·

cc: ~ember~, San Frgnolsco B<:>e~J;:d of superV'isors Ci:ty ·A.tt,orney, LpUis~ Renne,

~· ......

. . . " . . . . . . . . . . . . : ~ . . . . .

5/8/2()'17. · • ·Gmail-.Re: Records Request . .. · . : . - . . : . . . . ·. . .

. .. . .. :. . . . . . . ......... · ·.·. : .·

·r'1GmaH ·.:. .· ... : .. : .. : :· . : .

. . ..

. lhomas l;lusse <tjbussesf@gmaitcoili>

• . Re: Re.cords Reque;?st 1 message

.. - . - . -

·· • Cityattorhey <[email protected]> . . .

Mon, May 1, 2017 at 3:4i3 PM To: tjbussesf@gmaiLcbm · ·

Mr. Thomas J. Busse,

Thank for·your request dated April 28, 201T~bnceming the i.san Francis.co Coqnt~Public Finance Authority" and the ''San francisco County Educational. Finance Authority,''· We have no responsive documents and we believe these

. entities do not actually exist. Perhaps you are thinking ofthe Caiifornia Public Finan(;e Authority, the Office of Public Finance within the Controller's Office here in San Francisco, and/or the San Francisco IJnified School District.. If you wish to request public records from any those entities you should contact them directly.

·Best,

And~ea Guzman. · · · . R,esponding for [email protected]

.OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY DENNIS HERRERA San Francisco City Hall, Room 234." ·· · · · 1 De Carlton B. Goodlett Place

. San Francisco, California 94102-4682 . ., .. . .

(419) 554-4710 Di~ect ( 415) 554-4100 Reception

· (415) 554-4715 Facs.imile · (415) 55.4~6770 TTY

. . . . . . .

·· sJbscribe t~ news and updates from the S.F. City Attorney's Office at http://wW0.sfoityattomey.orq

. . . . . . . .

. https:/lm aiLgoogle.comfmailfu/O/?ui=2&ik'=04bSb6c999&view'=pt&search=inbJM~1~5bc631 e275cea51&si m I= 1Sbc631e2~5cea51 1/1

. : . . . . . . . .

. . co EXAMlNER.

· Couri will'settle ·' ·1ssue·ot PUC chief· ..

;_ '... . - . .. . . .

---'------'-----··...;.·_· - , . ' . . . ·s· . . : '·. , . : . ·. ·:_"c The matter no\v goes to Mayor ·. upeIVISOrs Vote . · . ~ !Jordan, who can .vet.o the resolu· . ' . · le. · •, · d · · tio1l'Or approve it. Jordan's office is ·

, . . h'..f .t' JU ge Say. . . . .. 'keeping mum on what be will do, . . :': . ·-~·j,:/.·'th . ·y. ' •. b bUt the mayor bas. mnde it clear : .:, . "\\TDC er. U S JO . . _ thnt he ~ Yii, Maher'a ~-·

. :~~ 'state· puts:::-.. ~·... . u 0 action, ... ~ .... \ het'. i"n·· ··-'co· _ ~c·' t . -. ·.. . -'. layi!d until Wednesday a decisloli \

. . . , ~ . . . on calllng upecial electioilBo '10f;- \ e111· can Jl.iicide whether to extend 11 ~

· quarter-cent Sides tax that oids,lD·- . t ----'----'-'--1--.........--1 cafschocila. · -· ·, · '

· . · · .. ·'J'he politii:iil · bilttle -0-kr ·· · · : Heleh an'd Conroy asked for the ~ . . Yui;s aPI_lolntnient t.o :the Pub • ·' .delay, 11aylnjt they wanted more · · · Utilities Conimimon may" mov ·;. time to B(ndy the matter. i:

O\tt. of City Hall.."W!th. ii d!.vi . :, -. .~Ir _opposflion.aet offnelll'ly Board .of Supervlllcirl i8qu118ti.n · illi hour of ilft.en acrimonious de- \•

· . : tbe,ta cbmt decide. the ieue, : ·• ~ ._ bat.a, -prlmarlly betwO'lll Hsieh and '1

· ... ·. ~··vote "8IJl8 aft.er sU .- SuperV!eol: Carole'Migden, who is J pemor Tere11ce. llalllnan argu sponsoring. ~e l.egWation and had i

. : that¥u'ehouldbQdiequallfled . , hoped tO push the mea11ure i · .. ··: ·Beffeig on~~~ be~-· through anmorgency legiiilitiion; ; . nhe. is employed aa.a:.dtiputY . which: wQUld have required unanl-

. ·, 'Jiey genereHor the it& Of ' , · -moiis aupporl;; :· • · . · · ! · "· )lle; 11 position he aaya c:Oii1d j>qae · . 'Haieb.'11insl9Wnce on :voting n<i , _· '· :_ .~et_ of· . fntm:e_.iit ;with ~er dUtie ... prevented the t.eu~ ~Jl'l gomc ,o~-

.aa ti;PUC eotimnwO!leJ:'. · \ :::- . .-·ward. The bl)ard Will take up the 1

· • ':'JJli!! board voted 1,2 to pua a_. i88U9_11galn Wednesdayin as[>eelal

\

1

f8l!O·M.i·. on 'urchig City l\ttom~y BBB81.· ·o. Ii. At.·t.biit time, .the proposal · . : ·Louls1;:I&n'!Jle to file a Jawsu1t to can pass with a mete µutjority be· ' , baVe the Jlpproprltitene·e 'of Yu' caune it will not be conBidered Al>'

-~ ·lippoinbxient d~itd in Su : emergency leglalatlon. · · • :· .· 'dQt.CoUtt. .. : : .: , ,,· · . ·. The l>NPC811l tor the tu exten·

' · %t!·City-~ttori\ey'a·office, .sion.w8' ~ Th~.by: agreement 'with H8Illnan, bad .;the.JointFlruinceAuthonty,whtch

. · . w~d ·an opinion stating. that . " ' is ma!le up of representativea from, 1 · .. deputy attOmey pnerahnay no : the Board of SllP8JVisorli, the.San·:

.serve-' 118 a · commll!Bioner· on· the .. , Frliilciiico Uidfied School Dilitrict. ~ pUO,ll · · · · '.Board O!Edueatiori mid the Board . . . ~or Jordan appointed Yu . ·. or'I)uateeS for Ctty College of Sen.'.

l'UO presidenHn J8ilual'1, clespi F'J'anci.sco.. . . · · . . . . the. city attorney's wamlng. Tho aupervisom are requited

. ·. ' PUC overaees euch operat.iona under the Charter to approve the .. · the· Mllniclpal Railway and Th ·J!POOlal alectiM. The only disere·

Cicy°• water 8}?1tem. · · , · . . tion the 1upmvisOI11 have is' the ,. -Yi:!, in a ali.-pege lettA!r to th · _timing.Ittheboardact.sthisweek, board, said &be disagfeila with the propo!alwOl!Jd. be on the June ~tY att:Omey'ft· poeltio.n and· re· 15ballot ai:Ld the taX could b8 colqi.le8ted that no action' .be! taken ; lected 11i;i.rting in Octobe~. ; . ·~iufing a?evieW·by the~ attoi:~ _. Ant delay in declaring a speci~ J)By: general; ; who is expected 'to election; eVen by a week, may mean

: i81111e 8n oplnitin ~n. · . · tll~- to: ,rouldn't be i:lnplement.ed · :· "Gtin~ to the city 11.tt.Orney's · un.U!JanuBJ$ because of &We not!-

} I

i

l

. . : . ·opmiOri; dlllqualifiCatiOl\ frqm of- ficAtlon requirements. The school . fice i'eq,uires more than a tb:eoreti~ · distr1c:ta will . pay for the iipeclal Cal ot O<ieatdonal «infticts of intAlr- electio!l, which will cost a projected eat,"Yu Bta~d; . ·. , . . . $.600;0:00! ' · ' · . · · · ·• , . · ~ City: .. Mtoiney'.. a office hall!~- ·.:.i ';l'he. quarter-cien~ sales tax, . J · eatUnated that Yu would have . which brings .Iii an eatlniate~ $22 .,/ abatlllri frOm between 16 pe?een · .mm.Ion jg allt to ~.o!.Ull.8 30. _ ,,,· and 20 percent oftha .vot.ss tl!ken• -~erJn!ltt.er& bfCrugHtup11tihe , ____ ,,.. .• ~

. · bY the PUC because they d1rectly. . board m•g Monday lncludedi · · invo~ state mattm. · · · · · · · : ... A requestfrom Conroy to fi. :· "Arewe golngtO obey the Char~· . nallce.' 10 new diepaklhers fur the

. t.er? Are we gomg to. illaptict ~ poll~ departm~Vs 911 emergency ' advice of the city attomey?" Hal· line, · · · . • : · , · • · ; • · '

.· lhiaJi ~ked in Urging hla colleagues . • "' A:lequesi by, Superviaor Bar-~ · to pwceed with court h!-t.ilrventiO~ : .bam Kaufman for a report on how

Supervisors , Tom Hsieh. an!l · much money 'ne. City spends -on. Annemarie. Ci.lnroY · v0t.ed in die~ progranig mid services for et.ate pa-11ent., BB,ying the lawsuit was prema· · roleea, and to what extent. The City ture and they wanted' to delliY ao· . is reimbursed,· . tion-\mtll tbii attoni.ey gerienil ren" · ! . !lo- Supe~r Angela Alioto's re· dell! an opinfon. · ··: · . quest fur e.ll explanation on. why.

: . . . Supervison ·Roberta Achten· the Main Llorary in the Civic Cen· berg and Bffi MaJier were absent.. i:A)r area is c!OfJed on Fridays. ·

c".

PlOO $

.. ~

( '·

.Js/Frank M. Jordan Frank. M, .Jordan .

. Ma.yor

. Supervisor Alfoto, seconded by Supervisor· Kennedy,, moved an amendment of .t.he whole to the main motiori bearing same title· as above-. ·· · · . . · · · ·

_.rJuuua:y.t i~Hi.t\.!JJ :J.:J 1 : ·.L.~,.~

F~le 60-93:-2.

·Super.visor Migden p·resented for. immediate acJ,opt"on,.

Supervi.so r Migden , .. seconded .bY · S1,1pervlsor ·Ha ll.fnan, moved ·that the need to·take act~on»a,rose.subseq4eQt ho ... thl'J.PUblication of the.

.calendar.· ·· · · · · ·

Motion adop~ed· by ~he fallowln~ vote: Ainendm.ent-'of :t~e ·wh~le adopted by the following vote:·

.. Ayes: Super.v·isots Alioto, Bierman, Con·roy,. Hallinan, Hsieh, )<au.fman,. Kennedy • .::Migden» Shelley: - .9,

[....\.\--; A-~j L .. Ayes: Supep;visors Ali ota. , Bierman, Conroy, . • f -~~1,.~Kallfman, Kennedy,. Migqen, :Shelley -: ~- . . ..

.·\~tJ~ .. ~· . · J;psent: Supervisors Achtenb.er_g, Maher - 2,

HaUinan, Hsieh!

/\bs\lht:r. · Supervisors A.chtenberg,. )1ah~r.-: 2.·

Mopted, ~s aniend~d by the Eoltowi11g. vote: .....

<.Ayes: ·St.tpervis9rs· Alioto.:, ··Biermari,, Conroy/, Ha·Uin<!n;. fis;i,e:ii, ·Kaufman,· Kennedy., .Migden; ·Shetley - 9,: · · · ··

Abseiit :· :S11pi:r.visors }l.chtenher.g.;. Maher· - .. 2.

..... : \~ Supervisor Hsi'eh requested this· matter be referred to Committee·.

:.,\ In response to the Supervisor'$ inquiry, Deputy City Attorney Te .. d. Lakey ·stated the Labal ·publ.ic Finance Authority is asking the' .Board .. o~.St!pervi.sors. to ·J?lace this .matter .. before the ·voters.

MA+\G:R,_ . o!'fo>~D ~ t"i~y. . . . ,..\ . " \c.._ . . f' I . . . ·. . · . '-1"\0!€• I !,RCll.J;\; . ' . ..._ ·

IMMEDIATE ADOPTION .CALENDAR . .. 5e.: \;'./l ' <?: > Pl!\..( In response to fui:ther inquiries from the .Supervisors, Deputy·

City·Attorney 1ndi°cated .that state law gives the Local Public.

. ' .. . These tesoliitians ate. b~i~~ introduced ·at ·this meeting. An "Aye"·. : t75V..~·

: · v.ote is (a) a vote to find that the need to take action arose a.fter M Jo ··.the agenda was published. (if the resolution title is not printed on IL \.

the agenda) and (b)· a vote to adopt the resolution. A ·unanimous ht · :· vote is required. for adopt°ion today. Any Supervisor may re'qui re ·any ·".') ·

: of these .. r.esolutions to !J'O. to committee:. · ·· · ··. · · di~SQ!)'i-

·, .. : : ·: ..

· · Severed fr·cim' Immediate Adoption Ca ienda r • • ' I

· '· . S~pervisa·i: H~i~h requested that the fo.llo;wing measuie be sev.ered · :ham .the Imme.diate Adoption. calendar. and considered separately. :

·. [-Ei'ec;!:.ionl

·.,Refused. Adopti an; Rescinded·; · · Refused. Adop.tiarir:. Rescinded:·

. Ccmsiderat:io·n continued

Motion :callih·g ·a Sped al .Election to be held on· June 15, 19.93, for .. the pt\rpase of submitting· ta the voters of the city and County of.

. ._ sa·n:·Fr.ancisco .. a proposed ordinance by the San Francisco Counl;,i.. : ·Public Fjpa~thority. imposing a one. quartet of. one percent

. 'E"ransactions a wa t:a ....... nd for other purposes, conditioned Upon· ··~·he .Publi.c ·Fitiance· Authority voting again, by May 6, 1993, ta ·place this:proposition befoie the voters, or the Board of su~erviso~s sh~ll c~ricel the 0une 15, 1993 Special Election, gnd agreeing that

·· · ,.:.tJie· San .,Francisco Unified School District and the City College o.f .. · San· Francisco. sha1 l pay t;o the· Ci tY nnd County- ·of San Franc;:isco by.

·May .. 6; · 1993 .·the est:,imated .cost;.s ... fo·r :the concliJct of. the June 15,. l.99l SpeciaLElei:tii;iii, · · · · · · · ··

.,-236:-·

Finance ·Authorit;x:: the power to adopt a.n. ordinance orderrmr--:-. . . suhmLsslon of .a.n'.:trans·action and tax ordi_nance· t.a the voter.s and· to request the· Board ~f Supe.r:vi•ors to calY a- special meeting for th[s: purpose.· The Sta'te .. I!e'lenue. and Taxation.Code ·s'tates' the» county :shall .. caH a spec:ial-=electian .for this purpose.,

Refused Adoption

After a period of debate the roll. ~as called o~ the.pending ·1egislation· and it- was refused .. adop.tion by the following vote:

. · ·Ayes:'··supe:tvisor:s'.1niotiJ, Bierman; Hailinan; Kaufman, Kennedy, · Migden, Sheller-, 7. · ···

~o.'!!ii;, Supervisors Coriroy, Hs.ieh °". ·2 ...

.Abse.nt:'· ·Super~i:sor~ Ac.htenberg,· M~·her :.- ·2 ,,-:

Mo·tion to· Rescind

Supervisor Kennedy, seconded by Supervisor Bierman, moved to rescin~ the pievious vote;

Mat.ion to rescfnd the previous vote adopted by the f~llawing . vote:

Ayes: supervisors Aliat;o, C9nroy, Bierman, .Ha1.r.inan 1 Hsieh, Kaufman, Kennedy, Migden,· Shetley - 9, · · · ·

AJ:>senb supervisors Achtenberg ,.. Maher "" .2,

-23.7-

I

I I I I

~. 0 ...... a.J

!'lonaay·, l'iarc·n :i~, ·19Y:.I

(

··.. . • . . . • Re.fused Adoption

· .· :. After a period of debate; the roll was called on the pending .le9is·lation.and it.was refus<;!d·adopti.on by the.fol,lowing .. vote:

.. :Ayes: . Supervis.ors Alioto·. ·Bierman, Ha·Hinan,· Hsieh; )(ati~man:\ -,..ft·· .. ? :Kennedy, Mig~en, She Hey - 6'.. · · J u;I\ rt)\( ~

Noes: Supervisor Hsieh··,,. 1. . 1 ~. l C..IJV...'<J. s.n ia..:. ·

Absent: .Superyisors · .Achtenberg ,.• Mahe.r:" t.

~otion to Rescind

Supervisor Kennedy, seconded by Supervisor Migden:-..mcived ·t.o rescind the pr.evious .. vot.e. · ·· · ·

' . . . . . . . ·. : . : Mot:°l.o·n :to,: rescind ·the previous vote: adopted· by the f'ollowing

.vote: · · .. . ·.· • •. ·.... : · • . ·· . . .. •. · .

.-. Ayes: .... Superiri'sin.s Alloto,·.Conroy,· .. Bierman·, Hallin.an, .. Hsieh, Kaqfma.11_, .. R:enned:,r ;. Migden 1 Shellil.Y :..• 9 •. ·

.a_ I '- -6_ ;,. ?' IC>.... \. ( ./ ..

Ai:i~~nt·:: · S~p~tv~~o~~ Achten:berg~ . Maher .:. ;L · ••· .· :· .

•·· ..... <:·.· ... ·· .... ·.··.··•·· .~I· .·.. ·In response to the Supervisors inqu'it ies, ·Deputy City Attorney

· stated that if !:°he· Board :is inter.ested in scheduling the special .election for June 1.5·, this matter could be recessed until a .date tat;e·r· .this week: ·The Board· could act and still meet the June· 15

: deadli!\e;,:··.·Next Monday .will be' too .late.

Supervisor Kehnedy, seconded by Supervisor Bier~an, moved to •·continue thism;ttter.t;o <f.i;ece.ssed lneetihg on Wednesday, t·1arch 17,

·· 19~3,· at. J.,:00 p._nL ' · · ·· ... MVt?...<L ~(if). 2..1.{_ hO'\t> ·<Motion to .continue t<i·.recessed' meeting adopted by the. fo.l!()w.b:i9 ···

vote: · .. · > : · .... : . . . •·· . . · ' ·· · . Aye~i ;··SDper·.:.iso.rs Alioto, .Conr~y,· Bierman, Hallinan, Hsieh;

'Kaufman, Xennedy,, Mi.gden i .shell er .. - 9 .'· · ·

· · ·Abifent :· Supervisors· Aclit.enberg; ·?-laher - 2.

. The Board resumed ·its considerati.on of t.he foliowin.g items. an· ·the rriirnedia.t<i Ad<iptfo.n ca.lendar, · · ·

Immediate Adoption Calendar ..

Adopted.

(Leaves• of Absence) . Resolution ·granting leaves of absence to various cHy and county · oUicers :with :»etmi:ss:i.cin to leave the :;;ta:te. (CleJJi, of tl)e Board)

-23,a.:..

Mohday, .Marc.h is; 1993 ~)

File l-9J-ll; Resoluti:0 n No .• 184.-93

(Roberta Achtenberg, mernbec, Board· of s·upervisors, March 15· ·- 17; Carole Migden, member, Board of Supervisb~s.·March 18 -231'. Rayrncirid Baxter; Director of H~alth,. Match .·9.; Sidney· Chan; rnemb.er, Recreation and Park Cominission, April lJ - 2.J:. Mar.ilyn Chow, member, ·social services Commissi·an, March 4 - 7 and .ll - 14; John

·E. Cribbs, Director of Public Works, March 11 - 22; :Kenneth Dowlin, City Lib~a~ian, Ap~il. ~s·- 28; Keith Eick~a~; member,

• ... Recreation and ·pa·rk Cammissi·on, March ·6 - lJ; Michael H<ierta, ·Executive o·irector, Part.. March 4.; Patrick McGrew.: member, Landmarks Board, March ·2 - 12; Patrick Murphy,.Rresident,

·Airports Commiss'iori, March 4, 5 and 12;• Jol:in E. Newlin, Ex.ecu;iv:l Director, Parking and Traff·.ic,· March.·19 - 2J; T.rent ·w. Orr, President, Recreation and .Park Commission, Apr'i.1 22 .'- May . .lJ; Anthony D. Rib~ra; thief of· Police, March 19 ~ 22 'and Mardh 28 -April 2;:Roselyne C. Swig, member, Library Commission, March 20 -23 i· Mason Wang,. member,. ··Reti remerit Board, ·February 2 6 - M~ rch B •.

.. J99J_) . . . .

Adopted .

·•(The Immediate Adoption. Ca·lerldai:.includes the following ·addit.ional ·resolutions submit;ted.:after. prepar:-ation. o°f.. the· ea tend a·r .. l · ·

[Commendations] ·Resoluti·on congratulati.ng .Sherry Dav~s and ·commending the -San Franc~sco .Giants. · · ·

.. File' 6~93-8, ·· R~s,olµl:iori No. l,~?-93

·supervisor .i\.Iiqto pr~sented for.· immediate adoption ..

Adapted,

·[commendations] Resolution exp~essinef the gra~itude ~t the City and County of San E'ranclsco to Barbara ·Johnson· for hei: generous donaHon. of two-thiri:ls o.f .. the· J; Parfor .Shaw Libi:ary «!.ea ling. with whaling in San l'"rancisco arid commendfng those institutions who pursued the.acquisition of this callecflon and declaring· March 26, 1993 SAN .FRANCISCO WHALES AND· WHALING. DAY.

File 6-93-:9; · ·Res.olution,. }fo; .lBii-"93

: -.Sup~rvisor Bi·errnan p(esented fqr iirunedi·ate .adoption.

Adopted,

(Commendations) ·Resolution commending Margaret Brady· an her 7.Sth bii:thday on March

20, i993. .

.,.,.239-

J ,..,. °+

I

• ! e • ·\

( Health, & •.. Francisco General Hospital, Community Mental Health Services, ·Police Depa·rtmf;!nt·, Sheriff's Department, Municipal and

··.·superior Courts,. District. Attorney, and the Public Defender to · ~Scertain an estimate~f the cost of service~ provided to parolees

·fr-0m the State Prison·System; a'nd that a letter of {nqu'iry be sen·t .to the Controller requesting data on the extent to w(1ich the City i.s· · .reimbursed. ·by the .State for such costs thr'.ough: the. ·sa 90: c"laiirl · :

· ·{Yroces:s or any oth'er avai.lal:ile mechanism. ·

By Superv.isor Kenrie.dy, that· City .Attorney. pre{Yare resolution to urge ·the Mayor tq"r.equest ·the llrt Commission to enter into serious ·

neg0 tiations with representatives of the San Francisca Muslim ."Community for the purpose ·of .securing a long term lease for the

. Mu.'sli!n Community .hi .operate a Museum, Book 'Store, Gift ·Sh.op and .Schop!, .at ptoperty located at;.·Tu.rk and';·t:':i.Hmbre Streets. ·

By s~~e~vi~or Kennedy, that City Attorney draft legislation to amend the. Rent Ordinance to reduce the 5 peicent paid on tenants

·security deposits by landlords to be more in line with' the' ·i..s· {Yercent tha~ is now.being paid Dn ~aid.security deposit~ by the ·banks.. · · · . · .

By SUp~(~is~r ~~nnedy"< that an urgent letter by sent to Mr' Henry G •. :'Cis"n.eros·, ·secretary of the us Department· o.f Housing and Urba·h. : Developme11t ·regarding the: conditions that· e'xist at t.hc 'HUD managed· .'Geneva "rowers and .Jackie· Robinson Home ·as a result of tenant

·'. ·campla'fnts of· deplo:r.able .conditions as ~ell .as inhum.ane· treatment £r-oiil HUD· arid.'j;Jroperty tnanaqemerit.:officfa!s ... :'. · .. , .. ·: · ·, : .

By S~pervi~or s~~lley, that ~ity Attorn~y an1end the Base Closure :'legislation co ·,ihclud·e. Tr:e.asure .. Island... · ·

... By S\Jpe'ivisor..lllioto;, that· le.tter of i1:\qui ry be sent to the City ·Librarian: r:eg.araing ·the ·,.r·e<faons· £'or .closure 'Of the. main lihr.ary on.· Fridays. · · · · · · ·

.: Motion .l:o Recess

Supervisor Kennedy, seconded by Supervisor Hsieli• mqved that the Board recess to reconvene at 3:00 p~m. Wednesday, 'M11tch :11, 1993 ..

. Motion to rnce~s ad~pted by the following vot~: .. 'Aye.s: · ·supervisors Alioto, Bierman, Conroy, Hallinan, Hsieh,

;Kaufman; Kennedy, Migden, Shelley, ,- ·9,, · ·

Ahs~nti~~p~ti.d.iiorsAchtenb~rg, Maher - 2 •. . . . . . . . . .~ . RECESS

: ·:· ··. ·.· .· . ---.The Board, .at ·the hour of .5:21 p.m.,

Wednesday,:Marotr 17, 1993.at ·3rno·p.111. rec•ssed to reconvene on

.Jean Lum,.J\cbirig Cle.rk·

-246-

. JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS


Wednesday, March 17, 1993 - .3:00 p.ri1,.

--.... )

~f)J.s 3: t~ The· Board of Supervisors of the· City and .courity of San Francisco

met in re.cessed sessia'n on the above dat.e .with .. P'resid'ent. Angela · · Alioto pr.esiding.

.The meeting was called to order at 3:04 p.m.· Ori call of the roll, the following Supervisors ~ere noted present:

. Supervis·ors ·Alfot'o, Bierm.an, Hsieh, Kaufman, Migden; Sh.e.ll:ey""."' 6, · · · ·

Noted>~b5ent al; 'first rnU call::·

Ht:tl/1vl'l.IJ, . tcAit&i/-.'f

Supervisors Achtenberg; .. Conroy~ '!rallinan,· Kenn~dy, Maher - 5.

Quorum present ..

Superv'.isor Hallinan was noted presl'!nt a.t 3;07 p.m.

Superviso'r Kennedy 1:1as: .noted present, 'at 3: o·6 p,m.·

·cqnside.ration Resumed; Adopted

[Election) Motion·. calling a Special Election ·to be held on June 15, 1993, for the. purpose of ·submitting to .the vote.rs. of the City· and Cdunty of San Francisco a proposed ordinance by the San Francisco county Public Finance Authority imposing ~ one quarter~~ one percent t.ransactions and use ta>t and for· other purposes., con.diti.oned \Jpon the Public F:inance Authority voting again, by May 6,, 1993, to place 'this proposi !:ion before the· voters:, or the Boaro of supervisors shall cancel the June 15, l,99,3 Special Election, and agreeing that the Sin Francisco Unified School District and the City:College of

·san ·Francisco·. shall pay to· th.e city and. County. of ·San' Franc.isco 'by May 6, ig93 the estimated costs for the conduct of the June 15, 1993 Special Elec.tion. (Supervisor ·Migden presented.)

·Fi le 60-:-93:-2

k~tei b~ ) ""'-\cl<. ":.+ fl"-1-;> p f, "Si- f'-1'-wk+- ~0p01et1. fo. Co11JOV#' . .· ·. .. T _ -2'1-. . .

Hi }e,~ c\.-~ v M. l;.J. ; bv~ s cirro ~4 1 f) ~ • GieJ:s Dzn+--{a..v c~~. (_ ~ tJe.r+ r-~c\) ~ . Pc~· • Sr<- f. l

',, .... r •" •:.:•.A ' •••. 1.,1,::, i."~ I~' -' • ~· :_,.'_•. '·· • • -

' ! i

.i /·

I

I I

I I

I

I

I I 'C")

·o ,.-a.

{~

' .File .:14}-93+5,. Resolut:ion No .. ' ·225-93

. . . .

Ad~11ted ;·

.· .... :.'; .:.: : :···. ·: .. :: .. : ~·Gr~nt.:~·Federa! Funds] .. · ··.. . · .... · ·: .

. Resolul:ion authorizing the ·public Library to apply for $35, 0.00 in grant. funds from. the. United states Department of Educa·tian Library· 'services ·ana Construction Act {LSCA) for. the purchase of .foreign · 1anguag.e· material.s Ear· the fiscal year 19.93·/94; with indirect c.osts n·ci·t include1f:in »-thi:{·l:)\Jaget. (Public Library) · · · ·· ·

.. File 14.7'-.93-6, Resolu\:ion. !'la·, 22 6-93 . . . . ·Adopted.·

.. : ...... :. ·. ;> . . .:.. ·. . . .. . ... :

The f~·reg'~i~g ~terns. on i:ll~ Con~:~nt c~ lenda.r wer~ acteil upon by the following vote: · · · · ·· · ·

Ayes: Supervisors Achten:berg, A·liotu·; flierma.ri, :Hai':i:i.nan, · , Ka~fmanr:: J<e.ni:.edY1 .. l.\ahe .. r 1 Shell.ey - a.

·.Absent:; .Supervisors Conroy, Hsieh, Migde~· .... ·3.

REGULAR CALENDAR

. UNFINISHED .. BUSINESS

. From Budget· Committee with Recommendation ~oo Pass".

. . Passed: for. Qecond .. Reading

. . . . [Repeal - Giants Candlestick Lease Amendment Ordinance)

·· ordinance repealing Ordin.ance 365-92, the Gi·ants Candlestick Park »1ease amendment drdinance which approved a lease amendment entered ... into ·by the Recreation and Park Commission. and the San Francisco ·Giants, which reduces· the.City's revenue from the, agreement by app·roximately $925,000 per yeqr (amount will vary with attendance) tlirotigh the year 1997, and assigns the dght to further revenue.<; in the amount of approximately $440,000 per year f.rom the agreement to

. furnhh scoreboard to the Giants duri·ng the· term of the lease, by· :. whicli ordinance .the city. further assumed the obligations for

titilitiei; and maintenance of .the playing field at a cost of approximately $250,000 per season,· added a provisi.on reguiring the

.San Francisco Giants to provide complimentary tickets. and specified

.the·.effec.tive date of· the o·t.dinance.

File.,6.S-92-15.l, . Ordinance. No.

-,256-·

II:''

r.- .. ~--J,.

\

)

P.assed ··for .se!=ond r~adiri<:J by .. the folfowing·: vote: · ..

·, . »/'.yes::. Supervisots·Achtenberg, Alioto; ·.Bierm;rn, Hallinan,'. Kaufinan, Kennedy, Maher, Shelley ..: a.. · · · · ·

.Absent: Supervisors. Conroy, Hsieh, Migden - 3 .

. From Budget Committee. ·with Recommendation "Do Not Pass"

~ Tab.led .

Re°fete~dum Submission -·Giants Lea~~ ~~endrients] , otion. ordering s.ubmitted .Ordin. a.rice .36~~~2~ th.e:.G ants .C~ndlestick ·. rk Lease Amendment Ordinance, for approval or d •approval at the ~ nicipal E.lection to be. held on No;:ember 2 1 • 1993 (Clerk of the

Board)

File .. 6 o.-93-1

Supeirv~sor. fl~tii~~~;. s~c~nded by .Supervisor :Bierman, mov:ed to ·table.

Tabled by l:t).e fo.ll.ow,i.119 ~ote!.-

. Ayes: Supervisors Achteri.berg, Alioto, Bierman,. Hallil'lan,: .iaufman, J\ennedy, .Ma11er, Sh~ll,.eY .,.. ll; .· . . .

;· .. . . .· ... . :· . . . . . .

Absent!. ·supE!rvisors Conroy,.'.Hsieh, Mi.gden - 3, ··

Recommendations of ·iiousing and La:nd·u·se· Committee.

Rerefetred to Committee

(Renf Ordinanca]· brdinance amending Admiriistrative ~ode, to provide that petition~ for capital improvements, rehabilitation, and energy: conservation measur·es must. be filed no later than .seven years after the work ha·s been completed, . to .limit the. amount hearing officers rriay refund to tenants for nuli 'and void rent increases, to .. limit .~the· amount tenants may recover in civil 11ctions for-'null· and vo.id rent inc~eases, ex6ept in cases of rent ·o~~rpaymen~s being made in.bad f11itk by the landlord, ~~d to c~ange the title of Executive· Secretary to Executive Di rector, (Residential,. .Rent Stabi li za:tion and Arbitration Board)

File io9-j~-l. Okdinance No.

(Amends Sections 31,<1·, 37,7, 37:8 and 37 .• l.lA .• )

S\t'{lei:vis.or. ·Maher, seconded hy Supervi.sor l<annedy, moved to · rerefer ·to tomml'ttee.· · · ·

SA-L,J;,5 TA-Y • ~4~e;~ P/t5 7 11-HltA

furz__ . CAP ,ffe ffloV6fv16Nt--257-

,.,..

i

I I ' od" 0 ,..... 'il-

.. ' ,

,1an Flowers, lnc • .v. State f3d, of Equali~~qn ( 1994) :: :: California Col.irt of Appeal pecjsions_ :< California Case Law ::' Calif0rnia Law :: u .S. law :: ...

The retailers paid the tax and filed claims for refund with SBE onthe ground that the

tax:was unconstitutional uqder Proposition 13, whicbrequir~s, that specialtaxesby

special districts be approvedbytwo,.thirds.oftb,e qualified electors voting on t4~

measure~ SBE denied the claims on the. ground that "Article III, Section 3.5 ,tit. 4 of the

California [] Qonstitutionprohibits (SBE] from declaring a statute unconstitutiOnal? or

refusing to enforce cl statute, o~ the group.ds that it is unconstitutional lµliess an appellate court has declared the statute unconstitutional."

In October 1992, the retailers illed a complaint for refund of the taxes, naming SBE as

defendant. (§ 6933.) SBE dem~red on the ground that the r~al party in interest {EF A)

was not named as a defendant. The trial court overruled the demurrer. In. M.arch 1993,,

EFA intel"Veneci in the action as a defendant, pursuant to stipulation .of the parties and

·approval by the. court.

r~n . priJ 1993, e retaj]erS illtwed.for Sll:i11illaty judgment on the ground the tax W(!S

inv I ecause Proposition tj's supetmajorityreqnirement applies to EFA, which is a

"speci:;U di&trict" within the meaning of California Constitution article XIIIA, section 4,

because it was created and is controlled bytwo i'special distriets," i.e., the San Francisco

Unified School District 'andthe San Francisco Community College District. EFA argued

inter alia that s<;:h9ol districts are not "special di~tricts 11 within the meaning of California

Cons.titution article XIII A, section 4. fn. 5

The trial court granted the retailers; motion for slimmary-judgmentand entered

judgrnentinfavor of the retailer~, awarding refunds of $1,126 toHdogasl.an Flowers,

Inc., $167 to Ace Pharmacy; $186 to Di~e 0,, and $183 to S~rf Pharma~y. The triai court also awarded the retailers interest and costs of suit but retained jurisdiction to .

decide the question of attorney foes until after conclusion of this appeal. [23 Cal. App.

4thi270]'

Di.Scussion

I. SBE's Contentio~ fn. ***

II~ EFA's.Contentions

A. Sta.ndarci of Reyiew

[i] "The power of the LegiSiature in the area of taxationis paramount ... any

constitutional restriction oil that power :must be strictly construed against the

P105 .httn:/llaw.iustia.com/cases/ca1ifornia/court-of-appeal/4th/23/1264.html 3.119

5!7/2017 Document: S.F. Schools Tax Invalid, Judge Says - $22 miilion could be refunded, if tentative ruling ... - America's News- Hlstoric:C!l aiid Cu.rrent.

Other Producis .. View History l;1y Co]ectlon • logio Heip Contact Customer Service i0u11•uy - Tell _us ·what· you think of our inlerfa;,.,l J

America's News - Historlcaland Current (New Search)

~.F. Schools Tax Invalid, Judge Says - $22:million could be refunded, if tentative ruling holds up H-lde Details .

San Francisco Chronide. {qA} (Published as THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE) -Apr!( 30, 1.993 Browse Issues

Author/Byline; NanetteAsimoV, Chronicle Slaff Writer Edition: FINAL Section: NEWS Page; A21

Readab/fity: tfo12 g9de /eve/ (leJiife: 1280)

The quarter~cent sales tax that raised $22 million for Se1n Francisco schools is invalid, a Sacraii)ento ju·dge said in .a tenfatlve ruling yestertjay,

If the judge finaljz~s hls ruling today and if It is upheld on app.ea1, focal retailers or consumers or both cou-ld be entitled to refunds.

School officials .credit the tax with saving San Francisco schools from having to ·.make m_assive cut~·this year- by l'aisliig $15' million for the distrii::\ and abou($7 million for City College. . . . -

In hfs ruling, Superior. Court Judge Joe ·Gray ca.lfed the tax·· an attempt to drcuriwent Proposition 13," which requires 5uch tax increases to pass by a two.-thirds majority. Voters· approved the measure in 1991 by a simple majority. Gray is expected to make his final ruitng at a hearing in Sacramento .today.

·'we argued all albn!:j ttiat the school district should have put this money iri es.crow, and they sure didn't. Now they might p·ay lhe price," said attorney Jonathan Coupal of. ttie Howard Ji;irv!s-Taxpayer Association, which is-representing four San Francisco retailers Who sued to invalidate the tax.

LaWyers for Sim Francisco schools and City College said they have not given up hope that the judge will reverse his· decislon. lfhe does npt, school officlalsw\Uimmediately appeal, said attorney David .Goodwin.,

"I have a strong feeling that the Court of Appeal wiil not agree" With yesterday's decision, Goodwin .said,

The 17-monttl, quarter-cent sales tax expires June 30. When school officials decided to spend the.money rather thati place it in escrow, they totik a gamble that no court would force $choo!S lo pay it to consumers and retailers after it had >een spent on children. · ·

Because bf the tax, class sizes in public sChools Increased· by about one student pet class rather than by fo.ur students. Fis.cal dfrector Bob Golton esthnal!ld that the jobs of hundreds of teachers were saved with the extra money.

In addition, .the mon~y pa-id for custodians and noon monitors at elementary schoo!S., maintained the sixth period in high sch~ls, bought equlprrient, <ind more.

Educators are hoping lhat everi if the d.istrict loses its case, ihe only retailers who wiH try ·10 recoup the tax will be lhe four who brought the suit Hoogasian Flowers, Sur(Pharmacy,.Ace Pharmacy, and Diane 0. fashions. Their lawsuit seeks ·only $2,70011'1 refu[ldS, · · · - , - · · - · - ·

An ~xtensiori of thE! quarter- cent sales iax for schools will be the.subject of a special election June 15 in San .Francisco, and local educator$ have beem loboyirig hard to per,suade th.e pul:!lio to pass it ·

''We absolutely need two~thtrds approval ttiis time," said Superintendent Bill Rojas~,"Without it, we, wtll lose huridreds of teachers, materials, supplies and equipment.''

Index ferms;r Joe .Grsy; City Pollege of San Frant;li;co: SF; SCHOOLS; COLLEGES; F!NANC~; COURTS) RULING; SAL/=S TAX

Record: 10016 Copyright: Cop}ilght 1993 San Franc/scp Chronicle · -

Privacy PciUc)' I Terms of Use I @2017 NewsBank. lnt.

http://infoweb.newsbank.com.ezproxy.sfpl.orgiresources/doctnb/news/OEB4Fs2:£a6iA7?p=AMNEWS

Ruling Final Oof~11alid.·S~hool

T<!x- S.F:consumers . .,

Flghting on· A legal lumina_ry·

takes up !tie case oL.

s.F. Sale$ Tax Ruled hwatid·-

.I $23 million collected •..

! PROPERTY-TAXALLOCATION l=ORMUlAORDERED

I

CttAN~ED

Ta:x. Ruling a Win-dfall for S.f, Schools· Oflic1aL..

County sues s.late over.shiffin

funding - Moving oL

PropertyT\i'><.f!IJling {foul\l.E3e · Costly lo S.F.-Allocation... ·

SF. schools, City Cplieg.,, Act on Sales Tax Funds

QC is a winnerin ~ling on

tax.es - Judg.e invallda\es, •.

Add-on prop.erlytax·sufilives

atta·cks iri Legjslature~,

. . - . . QuickLin~s

Find more articles by N<inette Asim.ov, Chronicie Staf(Wriler

Find more artfoles on page

A21 Firid all articles on. April30,

19,93

1/1

5/1512o17

BILL NUMBER: SB 612 [E~·N··.RO_L .. LE.O l [3ILL T~XT .

SBS12 Senate Bill-ENROLLED

PASSED THE SENATE SEPTEMBER 8, 1995 PASSED THE ASSEMBLY SEPTEM.BER 1, 199S AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY AUGUST 29, 1995 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY .JULY 13, 1995 AMENDED IN, SENATE. APRIL. i8~ 1995

INTRODUCED BY Senator· Lewis (P~incipal coauthor~ Senator Kopp)

FEBRUARY22, 1995

An act to amend. Section 7270 of, and to add Sections 7267 and 7270. 5 to, the Reve~(Je and Taxation Code, relating to taxation,

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

SB 612, lewis. JransactiOns and µse taxes; consti ti,ltional challenge: refunds.

The Tr<msactions a11d Use Tax Law permits districts, as 5pecii=ied, to imp·ose a tax. for the privilege of selling at reta;i.l, pr the storage, us,e_. or other consumption in the district of, tangible personal property. That law requires a district to contract with the state Board of Equalizatlonfor.:the administration and operation of the local tax. It requires that the .contract provide that the district reimburse the. board for ;:ind hold the- board ·harml..ess from any and all costs, losses, or refunds of any kind, when a transactions and .use tax is held unconstitutional or otherwise invalid. EXisting law also prescribes procedures for the -refund of'ariy tax revenues der:ived from an unconstitutional tax imposed pur5qant to that l.aw when the i.mconstitutioriality of th~ tax has been dete.rmined in a final and nonappealabie· court detisian and the: revenues have ·been paid to the State Boaf'd of EqlializatJon and are held in an impound account.

This bill would provide that any action or pl"oceeding filed on a bas:ls that the local tax ordinance is. unconstitutional, . or otherwise invalid, shall be commenced as. -specified, and.· that there sball. be no. recovery. from the state for the imposition of ahy illegal district tax, except as speeified. It would specify that the state shall not be made a party to any refund .action. The bill woul<;l r:equire t.he S.tate Board of Equalization to. transmit. revenue from ah uncon'stitl,ltiohal or otherwise inVali{;I; tax to· the local diStrict, except as specified. The biil would require tf1at if a final an,d nonappealable decision of a court determines that a <;listrict transactions and. use tax is untonsti tut:ional, the revenue be tran~ferred to the State Board of Equalization for administration of refunds, as provideci. The. bill would require, in the case of the tax imposed by the San Francisco E'ducatfonai Financing Authority that was determined unconstitutional in a spedfied court case, that refunds be paid as specified. The bill would require tliat specified prOviSions relcited to placement of l'.'everiOe in an. escrow ai;:colirit be inCluc:led .fn each contr~ct with the State. Board of EquaJJzation for th~ administration and operation of i'!OY tr:ansact:ions an.cl use tax. The .bill -would specify .a distr:l,ct.'s right to :i.ndemriity.

This bill would make spe~ffi~d ieg:Lslaf:ive findings and declarations reiated to refunds from, and .remedies in the· case of, ihvalid transactions and use taxes .. · · ·

THE PEOPLE. OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

P107 ftn·//192,234.213.1OO/oub/95-96/bill/sen!sb_0!301-0650/sb _ 612 _bill_ 950908 3nroll ed.htrnf 1/4

5115/20.17 SB 612 senate Bill- ENROLLED

SECTION 1. Section 7267 is added. fo the Revenue and TaxatiOn Code, to r'.-ead:

7167 .. (a) Except as provided in Chapter 4 ( C:omJ11endng with Se.ctiori 7275), thel'e· sh~ll be no recovery from th~ ,state for the iinpositioh of ~ny unconstitutional or othel".wis~ invalid tax tha.t is levied in conformity with this part . . ·(b) :Ha .final and. notiappealable decision of a court or competent

jurisi;fiction determines tha.t a district transactions .and use ta.x is unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, the district, the county,' or the city, as the case, may be; shall transfer to the board the revenues derived from the unconstitutional or invalid transactions and use taxes necessary to reimburse claimants for the unc.onstitutional or invalid transactions and use taxes paid, including interest allowed urider Section 6907. The.board shall. deposit theserevehues in.a si;!greg(lted impound atco!Jnt in th.e.Retail Sales Tax furid~ as describ.ed 1n Section 7275, and shall administer any .refunds necessitated by the court's dedsiori in accordano~' with the guidelines set forth in Chapter 4· .(commencing with Section 7275) to the extent·feasible and practical. .

(c) After the refund process described in· suf:id;ivision (b) is completed, a1w revenue: from an qricon,stitution.al or otherwise invalid tax described i.n subdivision (a) that is paid to tlie board shall be transmitted by the board to the district or its successor in accordance with Section 7271. However, unless the ordinance spei:ifies otherwise, if at the time the board is making those trah$mitta1s the district that imposed the tax has lio successor,. or has i;lisbanded, dissolv·ed, or is other.wise no lOnger ft:nH:tioning, the l;io<1rd·shall transmit those revenues in the following manner:

(1) ;I;f the ta:ic leviecl by the district was imposed on a countywide. bas.is, the reven.ue:S· shall be transmittetl to the Cbl!nty 1 S genera~; fund.

(2) If the tax levied by the di:strict was imposed on a citywide basis, the revenues shall tie transmitted to the clty's general fund.

(3) If the tax levied by the district was. imposed. on a basis other than iri pat-agraph ( 1) or ( i), the revenues shall be transmitted to, the general fund of each taxing jurisdictioir 10.cated wholly within the district, based pri each taxing jurisciittioh's proportionate share 9f revenue from ta){es inip6sed pursuant to the Bradley-Burris Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law allocated dt,1rihg the prior caiendar year .•

(d) •The distri~t; or any entity that partidpated in the f<?rmat~on of :t.he district~ shall reimburse the board for and hold the board harmless fro!ll any and ail costs, losses, or ·refunds of any-kind whatsoever, including preparatory costs incurred prior to implerpentation· of the tax.

· ('e) In the case of any claim for refund of the transactions and use tax imposed by i::.he Sari Francisco .Educational.Finaricing Authority, which was determine:d fo. be unconsti ti.itfonal by the court in Hoogasian Flowers, Ipc. \J, State Bd'. of Equalization, 23 CaL App. 4th'1264; payrnent of any.qf those claims fpr refund shall be made from the revenues derived from the un.constitutional transactions and use. tax collect.ed by and in the possessi~n of tt1e board- When· those funds and any other revenues derived from the·unconstituHonal tax still in the possessl.on of the. San Francisco Educational Financing Authority, . the City and County of San Francisco, the. San Francisco Unified. School. District;; or the San Francisco Community College f)istrid are exhausted, anY remaining ·payments of those claims for refUnd shall be paid from. funds of the San Francisco Unifiecl. School District ilnd :the san Francisco community Cc:>llege Distr:i.d 'Which benefited from the illegal tax. The remaining payments. sh.a1l be based oh ·the method py \'ibith the sa:n· Franciscq Educat:i.on~l Financing Authority <:{istributed t_he proceeds of the ta,x. to t!ie ?an Francisco ·

ttp:l/192.~.213.100lpUbl95-96Jbi111seii.isb_b601-005b!sb_612~bm_9SOOOO_enr°\!'1m 214

5f1

~:~:ied School District and the San Francisc:.:~m::t::~l-c~:i~~ .J· District.

SEC. 2, :Section 7270 of the Revenue arid Taxatfon Code is amende(,I to read:

72{0. (a) Prior to the operativf:? _date; of. any ordinance·. impos.ing a transi:ictions a_nd use tax pursuant to this part, th~ dfstric.t shali con:trac_t with .the board to. perform a:).l f1.mdions incident to the administration and operation of the ordinance, If the district has not contracted w~th the boa.rd prior to. the' operative date of its ordinance, it sha1i nevertheless so contract .and, in that case, the operative date shall be the first day of the first calendar quarter following ·the execution of the contr.ad. ·

(b) The contract shall contain a provision that the district shall reimburse the board for .and hold fhe board harmless. from any and all costs; loss'es:. or refunqs of any kind _whatsoever.

( c) The contract shall also tb.nt;:iin. ·a provision that, in the event that a legal actiot:i is commenced diallenging the validity of, the ta.x irr its entirety,. as opposed to its 11pplication to an individ4al taxpayet', the district shall place the tax proceeds into. an interest-bearing escrow account until the, legality of the tax is finally resolved by a final and nonappealable decision rendered by a cour.t of competent jur:isdictfon.. That provision shall be enforceable by any interested per.son in· a proceeding· for a writ of mandate.

(d) The. district shall be entitled to indemnity fOI" any and all costs~ losses. or refunds from any entity, except the state, that participated in the: imposition of the tax. for the purposes O.f th.is part,. "pari;icipatecj" means ariy involvement in procuring th~ legislation tt1at at1thorized the tax, or ill enacting or admini:ster~ng 1:h~ ordinance ;imposing the ta;x. Any organization that is a member of' the. legislative body Qf the district ~mposing t!i~ tax has participated in the impositi9n of ~he tax witbin the meaning of this section.

SEC 3 •. section 7270. s is added to the Revenue and Taxation Code., to read;

7270. 5. Any action or proceeding filed on the basis that. a tax ord.inance provided fof< in this pi;lrt or Part 1. 7 (commencing witb SectJon 7280} or. the .issuance of any bonds thereunder ·9r ciny of the proceedings in relation thereto is contested, questioned, or' denied. on the basis· that the tax ordinance is. 1mconstitutionai or otherwise. ihvalid and filed fo~ the ~o~e purpose of contesting the validity of the d:i,st:rict; transactipns and use tax.; shall be commence4 pursuant to chapter 9 (commencing with Section 860) of Title i0 of Part 2 of the Code 9f Civil Procedure. The. state shall not be made a party to :i:he. aC::tion or proceeding; That action shall not be filed more than 60 days after the approval of the enabling ordinance. by the voters unless the authorizing legislation specifies, a longer period. If no aetioh is filect VJithin that period, the tax, the bonds, aric!. Clll proceedings in relatiOn thereto~ ih'cltid;ing the acioption and approval,. of the Ptclin~ncei shall be heJ,d to be valid arid iii e'{e_ry respect l,egai and uncoritestable.

SEC. 4. Tl}E!: Legislat1we finds ar}cl Mc;lares that since t:ra11sactions and use t<'ixes are ~rnposed by the taxing districts and not the state, the s.t.ate has no interest in, and sho_tild not be a party· in, any .actfon to determine t'he validity of such a tax. It is the intent of .the legislature.that the state not be.made a party to· those actions. However, where. a refund· cla:i:niant is contesting the application of sales or use taxes in general to a particular tr~hsaction~ the claim should be filed with the State aoard of Equalization urider ·the ri9rinal refund rules, riotwithstariding the fact 91'\e of th~ tax~s t~e applicatfon of· whie;:h is contested is a tr:ansactii;ms or use tax Which is· alleged to be. invalid.

SEC. 5, (a) It i.S the. intent of the; Legislature that this a:ct be appl;ied retroac;tively to the fullest extent permitted by the federal and state Constitutions. · {b) The Legislature finds and ded.ares that when it enacted the

ftp://192..234.213.100/pub/9~96/li[lllsen/sb_0001-{)65{);sb_612_bill_:.9509()8.:_eicli{).J9n1 3/4

5115/2017 Sa 612 Seriate-Bill ·ENROLLED

secon(:I paragra"ph of Section 7270 (designated" by thi;s act as subdivis,ion {b) of _Section- 7270) of the Revei')ue and Taxi;\tion Cqde, it intended to prevent the State of California from being _made liable for refunds of any transactions and use tax which is declared to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid. The language of that provision. as enacted can, however, be interpreted as having the state assume primary liability for-those refunds with the district reimbursing the state:. It .is the intent .of the Legislature iri enactirigsubdivision (a) of Secticin 7267 of the Revenue and Taxatio.n Code to imp_lement it·s original interit in this matter and d<itify existing law that there shall be no recovery from the state for the imposition' bf any .illegal ta~ except .as specifically other~ise· __ provicjed by statute. It _is inten_ded that the district which levied tbe ilJ:egal tax shall b~ solely liable for such refunds.

(c) (1) The Legislature enacted Chapter 1060 of the Statutes of 1993 in order to prbvide a_ remedy to persons who bore the economic burden of an -illegal district tax in_ the situation where the revenues derived therefrom had been collected by_ the State Board of Equalization and distributed to the taxing district but had been retained by the distriCt pending the outcome.of -the litigation over ttie validity of the latter' 5 _tax. "(he Legislature finds' an_d declares that current law does __ not require the_ district to l'etairi those revenues dur.ing t:he li:tigatio_n and where the district does _not do so there, is no -effective remedy for either taxpayers or those wno bore the econ<;>mi<: burden of the tax.

(2) The United ·states supr.eme tou-rt, in the case of 1'!c\(esson v. Division of Ale. Bev., 110 L, Ed 2-d ;t.7 ~- deciared that· the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires. that· a taxpayer who may only challenge the validity .of a tax through_ ·a postpayment refund action must be provided meaningful retrosRective reli~f for taxe_s already pai'd pursuant fo a tax sc()eme

Ultimately found unconstitUti-onal. It iS the. ihtent of the legislature in addirig subdivision (c) to Section 7270 of tlie Revenue and Taxation CQde to ensure tbat effective relief is. available, notwithstartding the provisions of Sect_ion 6931 of the ReV~IJu·e and Taxatipn code._ -

,_

ftp://192.234213.100/pub/95-961bill/seriisb_0601-0650/sb_612"--bif1_9~_enrolled.htm1 - - P110

414

Memo to Budget Cotrinllttee January27, 1993

6. Based o.ri, information proYi.ded by the State :Board of Eq11alization, on July 15,. 1991, ·a Sales 'J'~ increase- becinne effective which increased the total Stateallocated Sales Tax by 1.25 percent,_from the 4,75, percent baser?te to 6.0percent. The GOvernor's FY _l.993-94: budget indica~s that the 0.5 percent temporary surtax noted above i:ai the 6.Q p'~tcent portion of the Sales Tax allocated to the_ State of California would ;not be extended past its June 3.0, 1993 sunset date. The Govemor's proposal is prelfurinary, and subseqµent State legislation, if approved, may extend the 0.5 percent. temporary sal~s t~-- As noted above. the current 0.25 percent surtax for the San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco CommUnity Collegk District a1so e:x;pires on June- 301 1993. Therefore, depending upon the State Legislature, and depending on the approval of this proposed resolution and. the approviil of the San Francisco electorate, the follo~g, sce:q.arios could resU.1 t: · ·

a) 8.25 );>erce:rit.. This Sales Tax rate would result if the pro,posed resolu.tion is ~dopted which would enable the Public :E'inance Authority, with the approval of the voters~ to in<!:rease the.sales tax by up to 0.p percent, and the Govern()t's proposed elimination of the State 0.5 percent surtax is approved by the State legislature (local 0,25 percent rate for schools expires). ·

b) 7.75 percent This Sales Ta:t.rate would result if the Governor.'s proposed elinrinati<>n of the Sta~'s 0~5 percent surt;ax:iS approved by tJ:ie State Legisl~ture, and the San Francisco -voters do not approve the incr'ea8e in the Sales Tax ra~ by ()J5 perceny (local o~25-p~rcentrate for schools expires)~ ·

7. Mr. Greg RidenQur of the Registrar ofVo~rs reports that a special election would reqtrlre a_;n.otice of 88 days after the.Board of Supervisors Callsforthe special election. Mr. Ridenour estiniates tha~ ~special el~ctfon could ce>st the City up to $1 . million, depending on the number of initiatives which are placed on the ballot. AB i930 specifies that the ant increase in the Sales Tax rate must be approyed by .a majority of the qualified voters 0£ that ci>tinfy~ However, the dity Attorneys Office states a two-~rds voter approval is reqµired (see Commeµt No. 10)~ AB 1930 also ;inqic;:ates that the costs of a special election coUld be reimbursed from the proceeds generated :from th~ Saies Tax rate increas~. Therefore, if the.yoi;ers do, not approve · the incr~e in the Sales Tax _rate, an, additional cost of up to $1 million would be incurred by the City. Howev:er, if the_ specif!l. election is called asp~ of the· :r:-fovemper; 1993. ballot, .the additional costs incurred-would only be the minimal costs associated with additional, voter pamphlet mailing and printing eostS~ . .

$ 41· i r\ esE~ ( vJhru__ Vf.5 ~ .. {'>vd Ne.?)

BOAIID oF SUPERYJ$0RS nunGK[',A..NALYST

P11lo

:. '.-:· . ..: .::::.: -: . . : .. •· · .. ·: .. ·: ::. :: -:: _· · .. : ·. . ·: ·. .. . . .. . . . .. ·. ·: ····; . . .

.·sm2b1i rfoi:uinent'S.F. Sch69Js, City Colfeg~Adfon-Sales Tax funds - America's Nevis - l:iistorical.~nd Current · . . ...... ·· . . .. . .. . . ... ·:. : .. ··.·:

()\her Products View Hisfciry' : My.Co;l~clion. ,c LOg.in Help conta~t cuslomsr ·s~wice·. :.' · · surwy Tell us wh_atyou think of oufinterfacer

. Al71erica 's News.,... Historic;al and Current . . ..... . (New Se.arch)

I j S.F. Schools Tax Invalid, judg_e

.. Author/Byline: Nanel/e ·,.o:simov, Chronicle Slaff Writer Edition; FINAL Section:· NEWS. Page: A 11 l Says.$ ...

S.F. Schools, City College Act on Sales Tax Funds Hide Pet•ils_

Saii Frandsco Chronicle (CA) (Published.as THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRON/cLEJ - June 23, 1992 Browse fssues

. Ruling Final On Invalid School· Readabilt1y: 1i-12grade·/evel.(Lexi/e: 1250) ! --- -···· -----

... Millions of dollars fro~ S;1n Francisco's new county sales l?x inched their \i/ay toward lcical classrooms yesterday when I Tax-. S.F. c~nsumers ... the governing boards of the public schools and City College withdrew the money from escrow and deposited it in their own ·

· bank accounts. Fighting on -A legal luminary . . . . . . .

Wiihin the next two weeks, both boards will consider whether to take the risky step of budgeting the money for the coming · •. $Cl:lool year. · · · · .

. ..:· . . . .. '.. . .

takes up lt1e.case of....

S.F. Sales Tax Ruled lnvalid -

$23 million collected ...

The \ax for cash~strapped San Francisco sctiool~ and City College had been fr~zen si~ce collection began on February 1, oecause ofa lawsuit by the Howard Jar\lis Taxpayers Association t_o nullify it. On Friday, Cl Sacramento judge dismi_ssed the suit on a technicality. l;lut the group has threateneq additional legal actions to stop the tax.

PROPERTY-TAX ALLOCATIOl'i FORMULA ORDERED CHANGED

. . . . . . .

. Voters had passed the temporary tax December 10, boosting the. loc~l sales tax'~ quarter cent to 8.5 percent for 17 months. The schools expect to collect about $17.5 million, arid City CoUege abou.l $B.5 million.

. . . .

· . The Howard Jal'.Vis Taxpayers Association, led by Senat~r Quentin Kopp, a San Francisco independent, said the tax .violates Proposition 13 be.cause it was passed by fewer than two-thirds of those voting. If.the tax is nullified, schools would ·h_ave to return the money.· · · · . · · . ·

. : ·. : . . ..

Yesterd~y. the school boards unanimously agre~d tp wllhdraw the money from escrow; the first step toward mald~g it available for budgeting. Both boards have until July 1 to.approve new budgets. ·

.. .. The public schoo.Js anticipate lay_offs, program cuts and higher class size due to a projected $23 million shortage. With the

. tax.money, the shortage could drop fo $5.3 million, said fiscal director Bob Golian, although the actual figure depends on the .state budget, wt:iich is being debated now. · ·

.:::ity College probably woulo use its share to repair aging buildings and upd~te the romp~ter system, said. Robert Varni of

the City College board.

Jon Coupal, <ittorney for the tax opponents, warned the boards that he will app_eal the judge's ruling and pursue other legai avenues to nullify th._e tax. He sakl ttie school boards would be "'absolutely stupid" to budget the money. · · . . . . . . : :

. Varn( said: .. I don;fsee any vul~erabi!iiy at this point'. But I am going to wait and see if any information comes up that '.would cause me tp change my position." . . '

. School board president JoAnne Miller fo.vors budgeting the money. "It's not risky at all, "she said. . .

The City College board ~ill have a pubiic meeting t6 talk about ~ians to spend the tax money at 7 p.in. Thursday in the

Pierre Coste building at 50 Phelan Avenue. in San Francisco. · . . . . . .

The school district's meeting will be at 7. tonight, in't~e auditorium of Everett Mfddle School, 450 Church Street.

/hdextl!>rms: PROPOSITION 13; SF. Board.of Education; S.F. CityCoflege;' Howard Jams Jaxpayers Association,'. Ouentin /(opp;

scHdo,LS; COLLEGES; si=; SALES TA,'!(,• FINA/VCE; EDUCATJON;V/OLATIONS; LAM<· CA; COURTS.: LAWSUITS

· Rf/cordi 51210 Copyright: Copyright 1992 San Francisco Chronicle

P~vacy policy f Terms of Vse j ~i.017: NewsBani( ~nc.

Tax Ruling a Windfall for S.F. Schools-OfflciaL.

County sues state over shift in funding •Moving.of. ..

Property Tax Ruling Could Be Costly to S.E ·Allocation ...

S.F. Schools, City College Act on Sales Tax Funds

oc is a wihner in ruling on taxes-Judge invalidates ...

Add-on property lax su_rvives. ·attacks in Leglsla\ure ...

f a~ick Links Find more articles by Nanette ·Asimov. Chronicle Staff Writer Find more articles on page

A11

Find all articles on June 23,

1'392

. . . .

· -L --· • ·-'---'' -~"' mnmvv dnl ora/resources/doc/nblnewsiOEB4F~1lJEfoAA31?p=AMN~S&dr~fer=news/Offi4F5093842ABA7&drefertype=m It 1/1

5!7J2017 Document S.F. Saies Tax Ruled Invalid - *23 million colfectecffor,scflo9ls - America's News - Historical and Current

sun•0y Tell us wfiat you think of our irjterface! J Amer/ca.s News- Historical and Current (New.Searchf

S.F. Sales Tax Ruled Invalid .• $23 million collected for schools. Hide oetans .11

R&fc.ted Artides San Francisco Chronicle (CAj (Puf)l/shed.as THE SANFRANCisto CHRO(l/!CLE) 'March.2$ •.. 1B91 Browse Issues f S.F. Schools Tax lnvalid'.Judg.e

_A_IR_h_o_r._h3"""y_li_ne_:_J<,_e_n_H._.o_o_v_~r._, _C_h_ro_~_;,,_fe_s_.1a_rr_i1_1r._it_er_e._a._1a_o_n_: _F:_IN._'4~L_S_e_ct._io...,n_:_N._E_LM_s_P_a_iJ~e_: A~. _1s __ ~--cc-.,..,.---,,----,,-----; Says-$.,.

A state appeal court ruled yesterday that a quarter-pent sale·s fax passed by San ·Fri:Jn~isc<) voten; for sch9pl$Jn. December f991 was invalid because ildid not reooive tWo-ihirds of ihe vote as required by Proposition 13.

Jon;ithan Coupal, the attorney who brought suit over the tax on behalf of four merchants, said the blJsiness~s he represents wi.11 be entltled to refuricfs fotaling atiouf $2, 7QO. · ·

But.he added that it]s pfobablY, alJ. bi;it iinpoi;slbJe to,recoiler' the $2$ million c911ected citywide .from tbe special tax that was in effectfor 17 months.

No one from fhe San.Francisco Unified School Distrlct could be.reached for comment on the rµling last night.

Teresa Serata, the city's budget chief, said that tastyear the. voter.s passed an extensiqn of the schools sales. tax, \;.:tiich still stands at 8 .. 5 percent, but this time they did it with more than tWo-thirds of the vote, so it is hot likely to be legally challenged.

She said she could .not immediatelY eomment on the effect of yesterday's court decision.

Four s11n Francisco retailers·· a fl611Jer shop, a Clothing boutique and tW() pharmacies·- had sued In Sacramento, challEmging_ impositlan.ofthe tax.

Last May, a Superior Court judge found the tax.invalid, a rulirig upheld yesterday on a 3-to-O decision by a state appeal court ..

In an npinion py Justice Richard Sims, the appellate court sald the tax agency control!ed .. by the San· Francisco Unified School Dis~riet and the· community college board was covered by the two~ ~h\fds vote reqt,Jir~ment of Proposition 13', the 1978 Property-tax slashing measure. · · . · .

The ruling.ls the third by an appeal court since the state Supreme Courtruled.in";:i San biego case.that local taxes must be approved by a·two-thin;ls \tote of ihe people. The ruling In the Sari Diego case.came a week. af!er"San Francisco voters passed the.sales tax in December 1991; with 55 percent ofth'e. vo.te.

Sims saldJt did not matfer that the San Francisco tax was passed a week before the SupremEi Court ruling.

Proposition Aon tlie Dec; fo; f991, bailot raised the .city sale.s tax froll'( 8.25 perc«'mtto B:5 percent.Tile San Franc;liico Unified Sch9ol District received about $15 mlflion from :the tax, and about $8 million went to. City Coilege of Sari Francisco.

Even though the tax was the sub)ect oflegal challenge, the school distrid board and·the community college board decided to spend the mo.ney anyway to prevent the layoff of hundreps of teact:iers .and other e{iiployees. in the face ofa ~sh shortage .•

C-oupal, the attorney for the Howard. Jarvis T,aj(payers Association, which represented the .four m,erchants; was unsuccessfulin obtaining a.courtorder thatwould have blocked imposition oflhe tax.

"It's very diffic. utt in. the area of local sales tax to prevent lo~al government from successfully breaking the law -- that.~ 's exactly what happened here," .Coupal said. · ~

Coupal said he Is studying ways to hold 1he school boards flnanc::iaHy accountable;

He said he suspects that other businesses may file. claims for refunds -0f the s~les t;:ix; Jo .wllich theY.are legally entiUeci.

''Customers.ihihk of themselves as paying .the tax because retail.ers generally pass the t11x along/' Coupai said. ''Bui: technically, lt's the retailers who are responsible for the tax and:W.hO are required to fill OU!qU\Ulerfy [eporls,"

Index "terms: Proposition 13,' ProposiUonA;SF;SAL£S TAX;·RULING.; COURTS; EOUCATION;FJNANcE.: VIOLATIONSiELECTfCWS,1991 Record; 10450 Copyright:· Copyrigh/1994 San Frani:;isco.Chron/cle.

Privacy Policy I T~rms·ofU~~ I ©2017 Newsean.k, lric.

Ruling Final On Invalid Schoql Tax. - S.F. consumers:.,

fig,hfing l:>n -A legal lumi.n·ary

takes up 1he case oL

S.F. Sales Ta)$ Ruled Invalid -$23 milflon collected ...

PBOPER1Y-TAx ALLOCATJON FO.RMULA ORDERED CHANGED

Tax Ruling a Windfall forS.F,

s.ctioo)s _-Official...

Count")' sues state over shin.in funding ' Moving of; ..

Prope.rty Tax Ruling Could B.e

C9stl.Y to S.F. -Allocatlan ...

SJ'. Schbols, City CnUege .Ad · 'on Sales rax Funds

OC is a winner in ruling ori taxes - judge inva Ii dales ...

Add-on property lax sur.v)ves

·attacks in Legislature, ..

Quick links Find more articles liy Ken

Hoover, Chronide:StaffWriier.

Find·mare articles on page A18 Find all articles on. March 29,

1994

http://infoweb.newsbank.~om.ezproxy.sfpl.org/resol!r:ces/doc/nb/news/OEB4F~itEl:iJDDE?p"AMNEWS&drefer=hews/OEB4F5093842A8A7&drefertype=mlt 1/1

5/14/2017 Rider v .. County of San Diajo (1991) :: :: Supreme C()urt of California. Deeisicins ;: California Ca.se Law :: Ca.lifornia. Law :: Ll.s. Law :: Ju$tla.

[No. So17917~ Dec 19, 199:i.]

RICHARD J. RIDER et al., Plaintiffs a:nclRespondents, v. COIDITY OF SAN DIEGO et

al., Defendants and Appellants.

(Superior Court of Riverside County~ No; 194690, Gordon R Burkhart, Judge.)

(Opinion by Lucas, C. J., witli Arabian, Baxter and George, JJ;j.·concurring. Separate

concurr:ing opinion by George; J., with Panelli, .J., concurring~ Separate dissenting

opinions by Mosk and Kennard; JJ.}

COUNSEL

Lloyd]\![. Barman, J r:, Col}nty Counsel, Da,niel Jf Wall(lce and Diane Bardsley) Chief

Deputy County Counsel, :Bruce D. M'.acLeish and Andrew J. Freeman, Deputy County

Counsel, McDougal, Love, Eckis, Grindle & O.'Cohnor, LynrrR. McDougal and Tamara

A. Smith for Defend~nts and Appellants~

John K. Van de Kamp and Daniel E. :Lungren; Attorneys Gen,eral, J~ckT. Kerry anci

Edmond B. Mamer, Deputy Attorneys Ge~ieral, Kelvin fI. Booty; Jr;, County Counse\ (Alameda), James F. May, Assistant Collnty Counsel, SuSail Minasian, County Counsel

(Butte); Max E. Robinson, CounfyCOl.lnsel (Fresno)1 Joh.n E. Slutt.er, Deputy County Counsel,.James:P. Lough, County Counsel (Humboldt), Thorn;as M. Fries, County Counsel (Imperial), Kevin E. Ready, Deputy County Courts.el, Bernard C. l3armann;

County Counsel (Kern), Stephen D. Schuett, ASsistaht C6tmty Counsel, Cameron t. Reeves, County Counsel (Lake), De WittW. Clintori; County CouriseHtos Angeies),

David L. Muir,. Deputy County Counsel, Jeffrey L. Kuhn, County Counsel (Madera);

Douglas J, lY,IaloJiey, Courtty. Counsel (Marin), .Alien A. Haim, Deputy County Co11nsel,

James S. Reed, Cou1rtyCounsel (Mq110), Ralph R. Kuchler, County Counsel (Monterey),

Leroy W. Blankenship, Deputy County Counsel, James A. Curtis, Coµnty Counsel (Nevada), Robert Shulman, County Counsel (Plum.as}, William C. Katzenstein, County

http://l~.justia,comlcases/californiwsuprerne-court/4th/1/1.html P114

~ A 11)+- of- "ilurneys )

1/~

5/14/2017 Rider v. County of San Oiego ( 1991) :: :: Supreme Col.ll't of California Decisions :: California Ca1>e Law :: California Law :: U.S. L.$w :: Ju$tia

now§ 93, subd. (a); Carman v. Alvord (1982) 31 Cal. 3d318~ 331 [i82 Cal. Rptr: 506,

644P.2d192].) In ot}ier words; a,s a pract~cal matter, the propqsed extensio11 of

Jliclimond to all distri<;ts, whenever created, which lack property fax J.).Ower would read

section 41s reference to "special districtS" out of existence.as app1fed to districts formed

after1978.

As the plurality opinion in Richmond explained, section 4 of Proposition.13 was

intended to restrict the ability of local governments to impose new taxes to replace

property tax revenues lost'lmder the other proVisions of that measure. (See 31 CaL3d at

p. 206.) This intent would.be frustrated if cities and countjeswere noneth.e.less

permitted to arrange for the formation oflocal taxing districts to finance municipal

functions without securing the requl.site two-thirdS voter approval.

Thus, we hold that "special district:! would include any local taxing agency created to

. raise funds fqr city or county purposes to replace revenues 1ostby reason of the

restriCtions of Proposition 13 .

. In the present case, the evidenceth~t theAgencywascreatedto r(lise funds for ~011nty purposes and thereby circumvent Proposition 13 is strong. f3] In future cases, however;

·marshalling such evidence of intentional circumvention may be dlfflcult. Thus, we

believe that courts may inf~r such intent whenever the plaintiff has proved the new tax

agency is es$entially controlled by one or more cities or counties· that otherwise woqld

have had to comply vvith the supermajority provision of sectit:m. 4. 11). determining [1 Cal. 4th 12Jwhether such control exists, a variety of considerations may be relevant,

including the presence or absence of (1) supstantial munidpalcontrolover.agency

operations, revenues or expenditures~ (2) municipal ownership or control over agency

property or fa.cilitiesi (3) coterminous physfoal boundaries, (4) coniinon or overlapping

governing boards, (5) 1,ll'ilnicipal involvement in the creation otformatlon of the agency,

and ( 6) agency performance of functions customarily or historic'1llypetfonned by

m1,micipalities and fina,µceci thrQugh levies ()f prqperty truces ..

The "essential control'' standard posited above is notnecessarlly the functfonal

equivalent of the "alter ego.if theory used to ''pierce the Corporate veil;' fo.r purposes of

imposjng liability on the individual shareholders. (See, e.g~, Meslerv. lkagg

Management Co. (1985) 39 Cal. 3d 290, 30.0-301 [216 C1,1.L Rptr. 443, 702 P.2d 601].)

Rather than attempting to demonstrate that the subject agency and county are identical

entities, application of the uessential contrortest simply affords ground for reasonably

inferring an intent to circumvent Proposition 13.

)]ttp://!aw.]L!Stia.c;omfcases/califomia/;mpreme-court/4thl1/1.html P115

9/35

511412017 Rider v. County of San Diego (1991) :: :: Supreme G°'urt of California Degisions· :: California Case Law:; California Law :: q.s. Law:: Justia

Vanoni v. County of Sonoma (1974}40 Cal. App. 3d 74;?, 748-751(115 Cal Rptt.485],

s.erves a.$ an instrm:!tive anafogmi$ preeedent, There,; the a:ppeifate court considered

whether a. water district should be deemed the alter ego ofa county for purposes of

applying the constitutional debt limitation applicable to cities, co\mties and school

districts, but notto water districts~ (Cal. Const;, former art. XIII, § 40; seeid..,. art. XVI, §

18.) The court obserVed that although the county arid water district shared. common

the absence of a sho:Wing 1;tll en r su ~ect tot e imitation [i.e., the county] controlled

the decision to incur the d~bt or levy the tax." (Id. at p; 750, italicq added.)

.AB Vanoni concluded, "Although the Sonoma Water District may be performing

function's traditionally performed by'couuties, appellants have offered n:o evfrlei:lce,

beyond the fact that the same individuals sit on the gov~rrring boai:ds of poth the county

and the water district, that Sonoma County exercises actual control over the actions of

thedistrkt The factthatthe same individuals are members of both boards is not

sufficient to establish that control. [Citation:]" (Vanon1v. County of Sonoma, supra, 40 Cal.App.3d.at pp. 750-751, italics added.) We agree wiUt Vanoni tbat comrriongover11ipg

boards ~o notinvariably indicate. county control, but certainly that fact is relevant fothe

inquiry. The determination whether a city or county essentially controls a taxing agency

is one that necessarily must he niade on a case..:by.:..case basis, using the-critet!a

suggested above. [1 Cal. 4tli: 13]

We.areuncorrvil1ced that.applicatiol'1 of the "essential control" standard would

necessarilyjeopardize all taxing:ageiicies created since 1978. As: plaintiffs observe, the

statutes establishing such agencies· and providing for the adoption. of tax. ord1p.ances

typically contain stricttime limifatiqns governing commencementoflitigation

challenging theirvaliditr~ (See, e~g., Gov~ Code; §,2628.2 [pertaining to the· San Diego·

County agency involved herein]; Code Civ. Proc., §§ 860 [in rem validation procedure],

863 [ 60,.day statute oflimitations fo:i;challenging validity of agl:)ucy action];) Unlike

curative.acts, whlch general1y are unable to cure constitutional defects (see Hoffman v.

City of Red BlufH1965) 63 Cal. 2d 584, 59_2 [47 Cal. Rptr. 553, 407P.2d 857];

Aughenbaugh v. Board of Supervisors (i983) 139 Cal.App. 3cl 83, 90-9t [188 Cal.Rptr.

523]), such statutes of limitations are deemed within legislative p·ow~r to provide a

J?rompt vaUdating procedure for asserting such challen$es (see Rand v. Bossen (1945)

27 Cal. 2d 61, 64- 67 [162 P..2d457]; Graydon v. Pasadena RedevefopmentAgericy

http://lawJust1a.com/Cases/californialsupreme-courtl4thl1/1.html P116

10/35

... _.,

. ' ~ Membel.'

. Board of Supef\Tlsors City aQd County ofSanFrancisco

March J.5, 1993

'l'O: Hort. Members of the Board

FR: Supervisor Carole Migden

RE: Immediate Adoption Item

~I<> /t.JtUL ~ ;3.i,<:>t>

...5/;7

Declaring a June 15, 1993 Special Election

On Roll Call ,today_, I will ask that the attached motion be approved on: the tmmediate}\.dopt:ion Caiendar. The motion would declar~ a Si;>ecial Election to be held on June l5, 1993. ··

You will recall that the Board authorized creation of a Joint Fillartce.Author;lty to determine whether San Francisco voters should be asked to ·extend ali or some portion of one half-cerit of sales tax should it expire as scheduled on June 30.

The. Authority h_as decided that the voters should be asked to extend one-quarter cent of the sales tax to fund the School Distt.ict and. Community College District.. This extension would have the effect of replaci.ng the one-quarter cent sales tax currently collected by the Scho.o.ls which also ·exp.ires on .June 30. · .. ·

The earliest date on which a Special Election can now be called i.s June 15, 1993.. That date would be secm::ed by our action to<lay oeclaring th.e election, pursuant to. the action df the Joint Finance Authority. The cost of the election will be approximately $600,000• '!'he entire cost .will }Je paid by the School District arid Community College District~ as ma.de clear, in th~rnotion declaring the election. .

Please contact my office if you have any questions in advance· of .today's Board meeting.

Thank you for your consideration.

Room 235 • City Hall • San Frfi°lslo? California 94102

~ f;CXJ) (JOO

G5t,mt1k

{415) 554-4033

FILE NO 101-92-66. 2

(Gov~rnlilent Funding.)

olilimA.Nca NoLs:I-AO# 92246 SA# 118

l APPROPRIATING 120~000 FOR PAOGRA!\11 PROJECT. BUDGET (SPECIAL ELECTION 2 FUND), REGISTRAR OF VOTERS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1992 ~ 93 •.

3 · Be it ordained by the people of the City and County of San Francisco:

4

5 Seetion 1. FUNDS ARE:HEREB.YAPPROPRIATED FOft FY 199?-93 AS FOU-OWS:

6 . Department and Number

7 101-001

8

99-bo~oo 9

Source of Fu11(1s and Purpose of Appropriation

General fund

General Fund Unallocated

1 o GL 155 (119990) lnteifun~ Receivable

Amount Debit Credit

n · Subsidiaty 000078 SFUSD ~Special Election Advance $120,000

12 · so ... oo -oo Registrar of Voters

13

14

15

16

17

Project 037 - 01 . Special Eleciipn Fund

· 0~201 ff (430025) Program Project Budget

18 PPAOVED AS TOFORM:

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

l i

LOUISE H~ RtNNE~ CllY ATTORNEY

DEPUTY CJVY Ai;T~RNEY

.1

11

11 80ARD. Of SUPERVISORS

1! P118

$120,000

FUNDS AVAILABLE:

~~ . ONTRoLLER · · · ·

On l( J [2vi roJ

A Pf ro f r1avk! i j J

.. ..

~onday, May. io, 19,93

[Metered Yellow zone, Down.town Core] . .. . : , Resolution urging the: Mayor· to urge the Parking· and Traffic. Commission to expand metered yellow zones in·the Downtown Cote to Van Ness and South. cif Mai:ket and to urge the Parking and' Traffic Commission and the· Police .Commission vigorously ·to cite . non-commercial vehicles illegally parked in yellow zones as well as :commercial vehicles parked. i !legally in yellow zones a 11 day.,. .. (Supervisor Maher presented.) Referred to· Housing. and Land· Use . "· Corruni t.i:ee wi.th request it 'be. considered at the. May 20, 1993 .meeting ..

. File: 190-93-4 ::· •• :•·.·· · ... > ... >'.. ··. . .•. · · ... · .. · ,... . .. ··•

[Manuai Trilffic Cantr~ll . · ··· · . . · ...• ·. . ·. Resolutio.n declaring th.e ·policy of the City and County that it is essential to San Francisco's tran'sit plan to 'have manllal· traff;lq .. control in the City's busiest· intersections in the Down town .Core of . the City 'dudng periods'· of peak evening traffic. (Supervisor Maher .. presented.) .Referred to Housing and.Land Use Committee with.tequest it be. considered a.t the May 20, .19.93 meeting,,' · .. ·

File 190-93-5

[Manual Traffic: Control Staff) ~Resolution urging the Mayor to U.rtje the ·Parking. ,and Traf.fic

Commission .to t?ke ·all steps ·necessary to hire twenty-four to . _.thirty-six additional 'parking, control office:rs whose p'rimary . CO function would be the ·control of traffic in. heavily used . ·.

intersections in. the. city during pe!:fods of ·peak evening 'traffic. (Supervisor· Maher, presented.).·' Referred to Housing and Land Us.a

·Committee with request, it be considered at the May .20, 1993 meeting.

File 190-93-5.l

:[Double P.arking 'Bail,. ·I.ncrease to $100] . . . , . . .·· Reso1'utlon.urging the Municipal Court to increase the bail for . double parking violations from $43 and $50 'to $100 and- u'rging the Parking and Traffic Commission and the Police Commission to place.a· high.priority.on vigorousl~ citing ~iolators of double parking · prohibitions, especially during periods of peak evening traffic. (Supervisor Maher presented.) · Referr.ed' :to Ho.using and Land Use CortllJlittee·with·request it be considerE:)d at the M:ay 20, 199.3 !"eating.

File 237-93-2

[Bai'lot Measure] Charter amendment (Fir~t·Draft) amending Section 7.309 relatin~ to financing const·ruction o.r. improv.ement. of capital facilities or, ..

. purchas·e of equipment. (Supervisor Hsieh presented.) Referred to Rules Committee.

File 240-93-i

.I. -462-'

. ,

j

Monday, Ma':ir 10, 1993

[a~not 1>1easureJ · · · · · . · ·· . . · .. · . :· . •· · . Chartei:' amendment (Rough Draft) amendfog Sect;i.on 3.543, ·relating to. Deputy Chiefs,. ·Fire Department, to· allow'.the .Fir.e Chief· to appoint-

.: two Deputy Chiefs from uniformed officers holding ~ank ·Of Battalion. 'Chief or Assistant Chief. (Supervisor Hsieh pres.ented .') Refened ·to. Rules ·Corrunittee. ·

' '

'rqe 24i-93.:.1

[Ba Hot ·Measure]· . . . Charter· amendment (First Draft) amending Section 6.203 to.require the: mayor t·o transmit to the board of supervisors the proposea. : • .

. budget .for the· ensuing fiscal year by the first day of May of"each year.. (Supervisor Migden presented.) Referred to Rules committee.

:Fne 24.2-93-1 ··

[nano!: Measure] . ·,· · :. · . ··· ·:. · . · · •. · · · •. · . ·.· ..... Charter. amendment· (Fir.st ·nraft) amending section ·7'.309 -relating to · the financing of the acquisition of· equipment 'by increasing the,." · obligations· or evidence of· indeb.tedness .. fr.om $2{1 to $40 million~ (Supervisor Shelley presented.) Referred to ·Rules comnii tte,e,

File 243·,..93.:.1.

[Bai'lot Measure] · . . : · ·. ·· · . . ·. Charter amendm~nt (Ri:>ugh Ilia ft)' amending Section 3; 670. relating to: the composition of the :Retirement Board of the. City and County. · · Employees• Retirement System by adding a .retir'ed person to the. . Board, (Supervisor ·shelley presented.) · Referred to Rules. Committ'ee.

'File 245-93-1 . . . .

.. Referred to Board'.

[Reques~l . . . · . . . . . · Report. py Registrar of Voters .. on the. proposed cut's· in the :1993-94

budget eliminating .or ·restricting the availability o'f absef\tee ballots and budget cuts' aJ:fecting access to polling. places,· · (Supervisor .Conroy presented.) . At the direction· of the Pre.sident'; scheduled for consideration by the Board on May 17, 1993,

File io0-93-7

Reguests for ~earings~ ·

: Fi'i'e 30-93~9 ,. By supervi~or Shelley: ' To ~o~sii:I~~ the, i~sue of electro magnetic fields and potentiat idpacts td .resident•. living near such f.ields. Referred to Health, 'Public Safety .and· Environment Corrunittee,

-463c-'

· Monda°f, May 3,·19~3

Ordinance appropriating $120,000, Registrar of Voters, for prog;jm project budget {Special Election Fund). (Supervisor Migden presented.) Referred to Budget Committee with request it be considered at the May 5, 1993 meeting.

File 101-92-66.2 ~

~ -'~ G\~~ [Surplus Property] v I Ordinance repealing·ordihante N~. 100~93' which authorized. and directed the ·Sale of surplus city-:owned property known as: a portioT) · of Water Depa:rtment Parcel· 55·1ocated at Lake Merced .Boulevard and Johh Muir Drive, whic~ property is currently being leased to the Olympic Club.· (Supervlsor Hallinan presented .. ) Refer.red to· Budget Committee.

12 n I.lee..... Sc,'rwo \ . File· 96-93-1. l .. , . . nec.t "'-' . . -

C:lRc."'""-rel'\;t ft~ 8 - s~oJ:.+, b~rA·0-[Property Tax Allocation] . J Q. " .• .9 Ordinance. amend-ing Administrati.ve Code by. ad. di.ng Sect.i-·o-ns .10-. 7-,2. I""'-~ through. 10.7-2.3 to r·eq.uirii the Controlle·r,·to ... allocat·e proper.ty ·r_ taxes collected .in the City and Cou.nty in accordance .with the laws ·1---K.<lM, governing apportio.nment during ·fi.scal ·ye;<r. 1992-93·. (Supervisor Shelley presented .. -)' Referred to ·Budget Committee. - · <.. .,.-:-

. . . J,\ ' File ~7~93~2s · · · '

[Rent );'eeJ .· . . . · : · · .. , : · or<Rnanc.e· amending Adminfotrati.ve. Code .by: amending Sectiori· 37A.2(d) to"\ncz:ease· the Res iden1:·ia1:· Rent· Stabilization and Ar bi tra tion Fee f ~. eight to ten dollars. (Supervisor Migden presented.) Referred tAudget Committee.

Fi le 97-93--26 ...

lCafe Tables and Chairs] Ordinance· amending Public. works. Code, Artie.le 5, 2~ l:/Y• dele.ting· seetion.s ·116 thro4gh 182 inclllsi ve, by ·adding neii(.Sections 17.6 throbgb 185 thereto, authorizing the Diredtor ·~f the Department of

·Public Works: t.o issue .c.afe· .tables· and chairs permits; requiring owners or operators of. business establishments·· s.eeking to occupy. a. portion Of a .public sidewalk, court, alley or street w1th cafe ·tables ana chairs to obtai,n a cafe t.ables and. chairs permit;.· authorizing the Director of the Department of Public w0 rks· to .... establiSh guidel iries for cafe tables and chairs;. requi ring: .. per:mi t applicants to post notice of intent on the busine~s premises; .. · ,· establishing process for P.rotest and appeal of denial of pel:mit·v· · · setting .conditions and·.re.stri.ctions on permits; providing· £.or · susperision or revocation of per~its; establishjng penalti•s· and remedies for failure to comply with said Article. (Supervisor Alioto. presented .r :Referred to Housing and Land Use· Commi tte.e with request it be considered.at the May 6, 1993 ·me~t3ng.

Fi le .123-93~1.

-434-

U~~J;t·'' -·~ ~'C•>'!o:\o;.<J'l.;I )'•;'~ ~.f:o•,-·.dLr\•- ;,,,y.• J!.t 1,11;•1\ fJoC,\.< ·1,:-.1~.•,') ~- '•\\ ,;c,r.,~1,.·•,.•.J.,. jo}~ T, ~!,','II'.·,;, \1 >:< ,.,,.-1·-"'·'·"lr'•"·j.· .. ,I,"\' q.~.1,1·,/"i'·r'''''iH·,.t":;·:F,i"/'.ll'r•.\ ·,' ·!<'·'-"°"'' "" "" ' '•C'·W '.il " ••'••n'.itl• , <t'',•l,~•\L "ovl·.•·'I "I'

J>1oriday, May 3, 1993

. . . .

ci: l1ega].· Dumpin~H Fi~el . .. .· .: . . •... .. . . . •. . .:. : . :. · ••

·substitute resolution u·rging the. Municipal ·court to incICease the,. ·:bail for illegal dumping of refuse from $30 to $300. (Supervisor

·Shelley presented.) Referred to Health and Public Safety Committe~,

File 237-93-1.

·Referred to Board . . .

[ProciamaHonJ . · .. · .. · · ·. . . , ·. · _ • · '. . :· ·: . . . .. Resolution. commending Chancellor .JulJ.us· R; .Krevans, 'MD, on his. retirement for his outstanding contribution .to the people of the City and County of.Sari Francisco for over two decades and urging his Honor, the Mayor, .to declare May 19, 1993 as "Julius R. Krevans, MD Day" in San. Frani::isc.o. (Supervisor ·M.aher presented.) Ref<frred to Board May l0 1 1993 For Adoption Without Committee. Reference Calend.at·;

File 4-93-.18

Called from Committee

[Water.Department] Resolution urging the Mayor to urge the.Publi.c Utilities commission to eliminate all of the temporary positions added to the Water Department for the clroughL. · .Called from Budget Committee by SOpervisor Hallinan; scheduled for consideration by·the Board on May 10, 1.9.93. . . . .

: : . . . . Fil-e ·.iaB-93-2.

. · R~guest~ foi;Jieati~. Fiie 201:..~:i:..s,2,. By s~~er~fs~r Conroy: .. To COt;Sider the increase in. crimes committed .Dy :yout.h. Referred ·to. Ilea lth ·arid Public safety

·Commit tee.· · · ·

·File 207-93:..18,.·. :By· Supervisor Sh~lley: public safety and .enfO,tCement, graffiti adequate youth.~c~ivities in the Sunset Health and Public Safety Committee.

·Motions·

. . . - .. 'To consider-. the issues. of and litter. problems and ··· District. Referred to·'

J<:e·ferr.ed .-:to, B,oard I

[Needle Exchange]. Motion ·co.ncurring in the determinat.ion of the Mayor' for the continue~ need for the declaration of emergency in connection·~ith the Needl~Exchange ~rogram; (Supervisor Alioto pr~sented,). Referred to Do.a rd May 10 1 1993 For Adopt:ion.·Wi thout Comrni t.tee Reference Cal~ndar. · · · . .

File· 30,~J-S.4

-435-

I '·· j I

J

• j ..

' j ..

i

LEGISLATfVE:HfSTORY. SHEET

! 100-93-7. FJI e No·------------"----

e. t ·c . Reques. t Ordina.nce, Resolution;

Subject: [Request] . . . . Report by Registrar of Voters on the proposed cuts in the ) .. 993-94 budget· eliminating or restricting the availability of absentee b~llots and budget cuts af.fecting access to polling places .•

====·=~.~!'!======~=======·==========:;:-===·==·==========::::=========-~·====-====.:...=· ·(·i·)· f . Supervisor Conroy in Bd.

lniti~l ly hitroduced by or received rom: ___________ _ . 5/10/93 Dette: ·· .·.

----'-"~---------

( 2) Referred' by President to C.ommittee on: ____________ _

Date:-'·---------~-

(3} Other bisposition:

On Board Immediate Adoption Calendar of _____ _

On Board Emergency Calendar of~~'-'----~---.;_.:.;.

Scheduled for pub I le hearing o"------~--

;:::;:===========-=======================~======================--====-====

R~cor~ of Board and Committee Act ions:: May io 1 1993. - At the direction of the President, scheduled for

NAY t 7 !~S ~rear:.:: =~~art! on !'l<I¥· .11, 199:r.

P121

•'

1. '.

I

I I

ACCESS FOR THE DISABLED VOTER' by the BallotS!mplHlcat_lon COf11mlttee

BEFORBELECTIONDAY:

VO'l'E·BV~MAIL-Ab8ent~ ballots for the June 15, 1993 election will be inililed between May 17 lind June?. Ballois are· mailed witbin :r days filter receipt of each requesl. If you do ll9t receive yout balfoi. within 10 days after, you b'ave sent in your request, pi~ call the Reg~~trar of \'o~s at 5$4:-4375. .

voters with sJ)ecificdisabiliuesmay npPtyfor Pero11ment AbSerilee Volei status. See Page 15 for.information. If you are ~·Pennane~ AbS<'ntce Voter, an absenfue ballot wiU ~ m!lifed IO )'ou au!Omaticaliy for an futµre elections, uni~ you move, or ie-~gisler. Then you woilld o~ io re.apply l.Q be.a Permanent Ab8entee Vote,r.

TAPE RECORDINGS --TheSanFiancisco Public t.ibnuy for the B~nd and frint Hititdlcapped at 31SO Sacraiµ~nto Street pro· 4uces Qlld dis!J"ibutes tape-recordetl copies ofJhe Voter Infonna'.' tion Pamphlet for ys~ by visually bnpalred voters. The telephone; number is 292~2022. ,, ··

T.D.D. (TELE(!OMMUJSICATIOf\JS D~ViCE FOR THE D.EAF>-- Hearfug .. impaircd OI' speech-impaired voters wh~ have a T[)D ·may ~ommimicatc wjlh' the S.an Francisco Regisuar of Voters' office by calling 554-4386.

. ONELECTIONDAY:

ASSISTANCE-Voters unable to mark their ballot may bring one or two persons with them into lhe vQli.ng bOoth 10 S§ist them,

· or they may Uk PQll WO~ to, provide needed8$sistanee, CURBSIDE voTiNG- If architeclUml barriers p.revelit a VOtel'.

frorifentering die polling place, poll WOrkers will bring theneee&wY v01iiig materials io the voter iq front of !he polling p~~

., ARKING- if their pollinf place is jli a residential garage, elderly and handicapPed voters may palt in lhe driveway while voting, provided they d_o not block liaffic. .

Rl:!1ADING ToOLS-l3veJ)' p0lling place ha5 iarge-print in· slJUctions on h(}w io vote and special sheets to magnify ihe iypeon the ballot. . . :

SEATED VOTING- Ever)' p0liing pince has Ill least one voting booth which· allows voters fo vote while sitting in a chair or a wheelchair.

VOTING TOOLS .;,.... Every polling plate ha~an easy-grip pen for signing the toSlcr and an easy-grip toO.l for punching the ballot.

IMPORTANT'NOTICE The're nrC, many polling place i:lulnges ·for this cleclfon. Please clteck the p01ling phtce ad~e8s On the label on the back cover of your

voter handbook.You may find .itmoroconvcriiCnt to vote by mail (sec page 15) or to vote at City Hall between May 17 an<t Iune 15. Voting hours in City Hatt arc s:30 n.m. to 4:00p.m., Moodny through Friday; On Satur4ay and Sunday, June iZand 13, you may vote in City Hall between lOa.% and 3 p.m. On Election Day You may vote. in City llallbctween?:OO n;m, al)d 8;00p.m,

6

If you desire ,a copy of the,_ proposed ordinance for Proposition A, phn1se can the Registrar's Office at (415) 554-4375 and a

copy will be mfliled at no cost to you •

.NOi L\~PrL

. ! P122

i.

J,.

t·~ r .. j',

~ . r I

' .

I I . I

OFFICE OF THE RE<?'lsrltAR OF VOTERS; City and C()'unty of Sqrl Frdrictspo Ro0m 158 - City Hall . . 400 Van Nes.s Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102-4691 (415) 554- 4375

I •

E>~\ \<__ rtck ::::.

1 3 vve~\~s --~,B -RAT .. -. . \ J . U.S. P.OSTAGE

r- Lt. · · . r:~p ·1, c. r \ ~ PAID .. · 'v°'J ju ·tJc vTl(::P-- sa~:ir:i.:\:m·

5 17 b... Perin1t No. 2750

CAR-RT SORT i . , .~ . . . . . ~

Voter, please bring this entire back page with you to.the polling place. The rocatfon of y9ur polDng place is shown on the label below. Please DO NOT remove the label from the appllcatlon · belowF · ·m~ • e:m•MMdiW(qJ~/IR!:R Q i$t~llMJi!b:#jEIJ~•·J: Q 8*elJ8:M.IFIM$111t.t:IMJIHHltn 0.

+. YES o; NO I O. f Is Poll Location Handicapped Accessible? t§tjr1-~fl

. :iiOO~!VJA±W!!i

fr1tlllllilllil1d1s!IR1lfim~--1993*6~ is J:I ff num•M:tellt$11N~ti:SMt:t£t993~6 f.l 8 antt~mu.m~JitM'lr .. ABSENT~E BALLOT (Vote-By.;Mall) APPL.ICATlON - June 15, 1·993 Speclai Election . Sign thi.s·:application and return: it. Registrar must r~ceive application by June. 8, 1993~

Check ,Orta: ll::PK4'-JJlfl:.tM: . · . . Check HJre If Appropriate: tnft£\1'8l:t£lltfl:l§.t:

O· .. s~nd my, ballot to the address on the label above'.

0. t hav .. ~ mov. e.· d since 1. '. ast·reg!ste.i'e<t. to vole. . .

~!l!!~~~:mflf!lUJ:.llii•nmmjjjjlJI:• ·MY new address !sprinted below ...... .

D · II · h d r1··· b lo · (Resldenoe;Ad.dressONLY.) 11:l.J:~~fll!l7ll!lgfift6 l want m. Y..ba ot:sent to' e ad. ress p nted e w... •.""• ""M'"""Lt1t:w"".,,.iiil "'""•*wn..-...i. .. L . Jn!Jil!!~ll\/m~"{!i:f!liJrJt. . . . . . ;m>Jll . ""''"mrl.il:.rn""~ ,. . • <.n R,"'""""~"l!;-'Jl;. >

I l I I r I .J I .I I f I I I I l I J 11 I l I I I I I· I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I P.(J.B~orsi,..tJtAildr111 -~lfilttl"J~ . . · . N1tmb1t~andStrect!fatt1<! r~!Wjlljij4:; . . . ~~lntApt,lj'o.

·11 1 11-r 1- ., 111 1 ·11rn1 11 1 11 SANFRANC•sco.cA 191411-1 1 1 CllJ! lT1 . . , . Statel!i ZlpCode~littll 1.JDfflllfillJ ZlpCod~ !lll~ftlll Check J>eJow all that apply, then ~lgn your name: M:j'f"fllJOMlli:l~.tldl:Mlf~:

D I BPPlY for l!ll Abseniee Ballet for .lqne 1~,, 199'3; I haWi noi and \i.;11 ·o· . . i appiy to be a PERMANENT AiiSENTEE VOTER; I iileef the · n,ot appfY for an absentee baftpt by any other meanir. allt~t9931J!61'l · ql!llllflcatJrin.s explained on pJlge 15: ·~111t1~1Jc~filbli.l; Ujl'f-$ .

IS f:li'll$tilJUJm: al~:(Ifil;'f''ftPJ.i£filJ ittfll!~Jatlf!l!W~l;WJ!Ji • 'flJ:tElfrlSJ{($JJc?.~llWll~1fff! •

. . You MUST SIGN here, to receive a ballot. !ll!lj!ci!ltltli1"lfbtlt'm1£Jlttt~ •

& . . . rnrnrn ITJJ1 1 1 11 crrn 1111

.J l

! l " \ I

Your slgnaiure ~DO NOT PRINT ~Jl(l(!•=t~'l'!JIH\!l.lll. Date Signed tr=tam. Day ,Tlt1ie Plloni?Jfllllfitlli'i Evening' Phone 1!%PO!lit~ ,

P123

.... : : . ·. :<. ·. .· .. : : . · .... -: _:_· :. : ··_ :. _: .... ·_ :·_ :: .. : : > ·::· .:··.· . :_·: . : ... : 5{7/2017 Document: Stunning Vic!oi)t of Prop7 A Has Im pi\ cations Beyond S.F . .._ Amer1~ai> News -[iistoricai and Current

·: . .·. . .. - ... · .. : . . :·

Other Prodv_cts :-Vi~w History ·My con~·~tion; - to9'n ti•IP C~iita~fcu-~iorn~r-Servick _"Un•oy -_Tell us what you-think of ourintetface! . . . . . . . . . . . . - :

-America'5NeiNs-:-Historical andCLirterit -- _ /New Search)

-··-·- -- ------

! - • - ;tunning Victory of Prop. A Has Implications Beyond S.E Hide oe1ans -. San Fiancisco Chronicle (CA) (Published as THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE) ~ Jl{nti · i 9,. 1993 Browse Issues

. --Author/Byline:' JERRY ROBERTS Edition:- FINAL Se;tion: NEWS Page: A4·. Co/um,;; JERRY ROBERTS ON POLITICS

. Readability: >12grade level (Lexile; 1340) . . . .

-For-John Whitehurst, ttie amazing spectacle wherein S~~ Fran~isco vote~~ overwhelmingly v~l~~teered~hi~ ~eek io raise th-eir own taxes forever was a matter of elegant tactics and simple strategy. ' ' - '

. . .. . : . . . . . .

-_'.~We created a very select universe of voter~,"said veteran lo~al campaign consultant Whitehur~t~ "'Then We jusi pounded the p--'- out of them." - - · - ·

Amid record low turnout, San Franciscans on Tuesday passed Prpposition A, a permanent extension of a .. tempprary" one-quarter cent sales tax_ earmarked for schools. -

Th~ pro-taxers won 74 percent, a stu~ning result wlih slatewide policy and politi~I reverberations. . : . :

A~ a matter of strategy, the $150,000 pro-P~oposition A effort was a case study of how to win a high-Impact, low-profile,

special interest election. p._', le.- I 0 I -:- q 'l. _ (,f, , ;i_ -

'"We stayed under ihe radar," the Victorious Whitehurst said. '"But by Tuesday, we could tell you almost by first name who - was going to come out and vote."

_Among the key elements of the campaign:

DEFINING THE UNIVERSE -

·off-Year special _elections always have very ldw' turnouts; and this one buried the needle. Drawing ji.ist 20 percent of -voters; it be_at the prey-ious modern low of 25 percent for a hci-hum 198_1 ~ity race. - -

_, - ·on that playing "field, the campaign identified a universe of potential supporters consisting of 75,000 voters with a direct,\ - .ersoriai stake: district teachers; admini_strators and maintenance workers: public sch?ol parents arid City Colle_ge of S:1 Francisco instructors and students_ ? -

_ _ _ - fit.ai.V Wi'\eJt,e... _ Matching that group to corn uterized lists of peo le who voted in recent elections, Whitehurst threw out 10,000 names cif

__ likely nonvoters, theh aimed and re e campaign at the remaining 65,000. The bottom line, pending final, certified : figures: m~re th~~ 58,000 of about 80,000 people who bothered to vote Tuesday favored the tax.

0

- - - l~iltlu\5 : - -- EXPANDING THE BASE

. . . : . . - -

_ Hel<.ted /.!.rtides

All About Marin: Fairfax backed .

Oba ma with_ 88.3 percenL.. - - -

Local ca!l'~aigners ~repare final pus])

ABSENTEES; MAIL:iNS ARE

CHALLENGE_ FOR-SCHOOLS

Vo_ter turnout by countians

could top 80%

Romney pulls In m·ajority of

cash

SR FIREWORKS FIGHT

LIKELY SET MONEY MARK

MEASURE ...

School district may decide

city/county issue -

Traditionally ...

Diverse group· seeks

judgeships - Twelve

candidates ..•

Poll: Voters [ean_ing against tax

cuts

·Poll: Voters leaning against tax

c_u_ts

Quick Links Find more artides by:JERRY

ROBERTS

Find more articles on page

A4 Find all arUcfes on June 19,

1993

- -The front committee of the winning campaign was financed arid dorriiriated by key labor unions that directly benefit from- :/--q_ -_the tax:_ the United Educators Of San Francisco, a local amalgam of the California Teachers Association and Ameriean 5· _IO :.. e.Je:chn u..ltec{ p Federation of Teachers; Local 2121 of the Arrjerican Federation of Teachers, which represerifs City College instructors, + _ and Local 790, representing janitors and other nonclassroom workers. {I .._ · -

f'lot 1,\,-t' f{\U-t\iJ'li : 'l:":'lio1d,; ¥0 _ - . - . · - - -- _ - rAMfle:f- tJiDes o..f bA.£[..;..._ ~ _ But the- pampa1gr(,lso garner~d early, important endorsements on the opposite end of-the spectrum, like Suri~rvisors I v .,, . Annemarie-Conroy ahd.Te>rn Hsieh and the city's Apartment Owners Association. This proviqe_d cover for coriservatives· not- Cl) '_ear.Js_ L ~ L .

- -~ . and isolated a few vocal ·critics, such as state Senator Quentin Kopp arid theGOP Central Committ__ee.: _ .- _ 1

• _ l O~

~ - ~-k -''o_.-q)-~ 3/1Y-3/17 bftA'\1fr0-..1e.o s{1-s1w;;..:.--_ Ol'C-\.· ~t rio'f-, '"1 C' ABSENTEE-VOTE MANIA -~- ·: _ -

1_ · , -· --:__ I' . · · 17 ~ ·

_ _· -. iv~t<\ 1ow i> Slol.i'\ hl-(e, 1 opp os31).rl\~t- P~P~·('"~t- 1;wu-) Ptl4v\phfet, ~ _Registrar Germaine_ w_ on_g.said the Pro _osition A campaign broke the citY'. 'i preVl()(JS record t6r absertee baUo~st as a 1· - __ -~ percentage of turnout - 40 ~ercent compar,ed to the previous hlgh of 38 percent in a 1987 special election won by 6 . S _ ~ il" fee__· i RepresentativeNancyPelos1.Ab~ltt-k.:fl1,,,;f"15.<:r.- ___ 'Doll_ knw..,f(--_ ·'~ 11 ___ L -·-_ ··1·l .. L.J_~ f 1 . - ·- ~

' . ..t ;_ '• . .- - ~ne...)1- • .Ov. \...ujl'.)(,lO"...(\li Po 1!\i sl"-fc'.C15 deo.:J1;"\(; ,_ ~ A huge majority of those voters favored the sales tax, as an aggressive absentee~vote !;lffort.by Propositidn A fo'tces put _ - - · · c 23,ooo ballots in the bank before election day_. _ ~il~ , f oO- ci?. --~- ,(,111 L ' __ -,_LI'! t-- b / f- : _ +· 'I

MIXED MEDIA - ·. - - _-, ··: ' - - : : '-•• ' cl1~1'\'t' -ri;t enc::'. ~ - ., ' • ' : ' _, _ _ . _ . , -• I..:> - rjp:,C,'\f'.e.. U'.1 o wA~r""' Oi,..l. ·, The/

. T-" ~mp,;g, m•ld•d '"'m'"'' ''"'" wOlnJ••~of -th~ •rt oommo"'"""''""""''"°'· A w•n~rat '"""' "'"~' . G IJ -f;"' ~ '\_ll h round_operation identified and delivered to the polls 18,000 known support~rs. -. - - ' ~ e(

Added to the absentee votes, this strong base meant the campaign had to win less than 40 percent of all remaining votes cast: When the deal we.nt down, they got more than half of the balance, yielding the extraordinarily l_>ig victory.

The Proposition A forces also blanketed potential backers with more modern salesmanship: prerecorded, targeted· taped

httn· ifinfoweb.r\ewsbank.com .ewroxv.sfpl.orgiresources/doc/nb/newsiOEB4F 85ik129B?p=AMN EWS 1/2

. . . . . . . ·:. . .: .... · .· _·· .... :: .. :: . ::. ::: . .. . .. . . .· · ... :. :·

5f7/2Q17 Document: Stunning Victory ofP~op, A. H~ lrilpli~a~oris Bey~~ S,F. ~ Am~i~a'.s Ne~s - Historical and Current . . . : . . . . -. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .

. · . .·. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oiher Products. \4ew Hisiory · My conkction. · ~ ldgin Help 6orrla~t cu:~to~er Ser~ic~ . · ~-iH n.y · ·reil us what you think of o[J~ interfaee! : . . . . . : . : . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . : . . .. . . . . . : . . . .

. The tapes were programmed t~ deliver a 30-seeond spl~l even if~onta6t. wa~ m~cte only ~th a phone an~wering machine, as many targeted voters repeatedly discovere.d upori checking their messages after getting home from work. - . . .

"'It wasn't brain surge~/; Whitehl!~St modestly said of his textbook ~a~paign .• "ft vrosn't too ~habby, either."

. In. a bro~der s_ense, the result was key because the buddet brouh~ha betwe~n state. and local governme~ts o~e~ extending a separate, temporary half-cent sales. tax means voters throughout California face similar choices in November •.

The 74 P.erc~nt of pro-tax voters in. San Francisco easily surpassed the normal!~ tough-t~- win two~thirds vote that will likely be required for many of those local increases.

.. . : . . .- .·: . · ..

Coupled with unexpected pro-tax sentiment in local electio.ns around the state -- voters in conservatlile San B~rnardino . County, for example; narrowly missed the two-thirds hurdle for a special tax this month - it coµld harbinger an important· swing in public opinion. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . : . . - . -

"Tf)e ccinventional Wisdom has always been that in a low- turnout election; tax measures will !)O down to horrible defeats," said California Poll director Mervin Field. . .

"But after~ll the state budget crises and Joeal scare stories, they are beginning to believe that a lot ofthe fat in go.vernment has been fried_ out."

Index terms: Proposition A; SF; ELECTIONS 1fJ93; SALES 7AX,· SCHOOLS Record: 11754 Copyright: Copyright 1993 San Francisca Chronicle

Privacy Policy J. Tenns of Use.· [ ©20.17- NewsBank, fnc,

. P125 http://infoweb.neWsbank.com.ezproxy.sfpl.orglresource5/doc/nb/news/OEB4F525F27B129B?p;;:AMNEWS 212

l

2

3

4,

5

6

7

8

9

10

U.

12

13.

14

15

i6

17

18

19

2D

21

22

23

'24

25

2G

27

28

•·~~.,.~,.... ... •'•• ... ,.; •. r.., ...... ;_.,_.~ _,_,,. ........... .,. - ..-- ;;,- ,_ __ .. _, - •.• •-·->.". ,·.,:' .. ,..--~4-. --:-.,._.._'-'--'"_

ll\)hc,J a~L fh k!

\'e >t'l <J;ho 0 +o CG\H f\,e_ eJe.cho(}?

CS~~ Francisco Public Financt Autho~tty>

Resolution No~ I ---

AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF M_ A(;REEP.ENT BH~JEEN. THE SAN FRANCJSCO PUBLIC : - . . .

F!NANCE AUTHORITY AND THE STATE BOARD Of EQLiALlZATION fOR PREPARATION TO

ADMINISTfff ANO OPERATE TtlE .AUTHORITY'S TRANSACTIONS .t.ND USE TAX ORDINANCE,

RESOLVED, That the San Frc;ritHco Public Finance Aothority a9thoriie~ the

execution of an agreement with the State BofrcJ of Equalization to '\inphment ~ : 1

th~ provisions of Parts 1.6 and 1.7 of Divisjon 2 of the California Rev~nue

and Ta)(ation Code, for the purpos~ of prEp&sin9 to administer and onfrate the

San Ftanci'sco Public ffopnce Authority transatt1ons and use tax or"dinance; and

therefore be 1 t.

FURTHER RESOLVED. ihat this agreement shall continue in effEtt until the

preparatory work nec~ssary to aominBtet" the . .O.uthortty•s tn1nsactions and use

tax ordinance has been completed and the St.ate Boar.d 9f Eoualization .has

tece1ved al I payments due from the Authority; and ther(!fore,be it

·FURTHER RESOLVED, if.at the Superintendent of the San francisto Unified.

School Pf stri et and the ·C/lam:~i lor of the San Francisco Community Co1 leg~

Dis tri et are hereby authorized to enter into and sign tlje agreement fof tne Authority.

· The forgo'ing Re~oTot1on ~as· oassed and adopted by the San FrancHto

Public flnance A_uthority at a meet1 l'ig thereof, this 2on1 l)ay of S~pte!!lber, i 993

by the following vote, tq wit:

NO; ZERO

.;bsent: .iw

ATIEST~ bv··~· Ad\ng Secretary

P126 ·

......

A~h~t-Rei.plruec-f .J

AND . AGREEMENT FOR PREPARATION TO ADMINISTER L

OPERATE DISTRICT'S T~SACTIONS A~D USE TAX. ORD ANCE

In Ol:"der to p:tepar·e to administer

tax ordinance adoptecl in accordance with the

(~ollltnencing with section 7251) of Division 2 of,

P.--i'cr ~r-1f,'?

use

1.6

Taxation code, the SAN FRANClSCO PUBLIC FiNANcE AtrrHORITY. .• ~·... i hel:'einafter

calied tspJ.sti;-ict11 I and the STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION-, .hereinafter.

called "Boar:d11, do ac;Jree as follo.ws:

L Th~ B.oard a:gr~es to enter into work to prepare to

administer and-operat.e a tran~actioris and use tax in conformity

with. Part 1-6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation code which

has peen approved by a majority of the electors of the District ahd

·whose ordinance has been adopted. by the District.

2. District agrees .to pay to the Board at the times and

in t:ne amol.ltits hereinafter specified. all of the Board's costs for

preparatopy work necessary to administer the District's

transactions and use tax ordinance. The Board's costs for

preparator;Y work include costs of developing procedures,

programming for data processing~ developing and a9opting

appropriate regulations1 designing and_ printing forms, developing

instructions for the Board's staff and :for taxpayers, a_nd other

appro;priate and necessary preparatory costs to adndnister a

transactions and ~se tax ordinance-.. 'I'hes~ c:ost~ :sha;ti .include both

direct and indir(:'!ct costs as specified in Section 11256 of~ th:g

Government Code.

P127

.= 'i~< · ..

·: . .. . :·. . . .·. . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . · .. ·.. . . . . .. :-:· :. .·· : . : ..

. ..,.,;. l;>reparatory.costs may .beaccounted for.in.~!manner . . . . . . . . . . ·... .: ... ·.· ... :

Which COriforns to the internal ac.countin~. and personnel r(H::Ords • . ' . . . . . . .

. .

> currently maintained by the Board. The billings :-f·or costs 'lTiay be: . . . : . . . . . . . . .

presented in summary form. .Detailed recot:ds of preparatory costs

will be retained for audit and verification by the District .. ·

4. Any dispute as to the amount of prepar'ato:ty costs

incurred by the Board shall be referred to the State Director of

. Finance for resolution, and the Director's decision shall be final. ·

~· Preparatory costs incurred by the Board shall be

billed by the Board periodically, with the final billing 30 days

after the operative date of the ordinance. District shall pay to_ . .

· .. the Board the amount of such ·costs on or before the last day of the

:next succeeding month following theroonth when the billing ;is

received"

6. The maximum amount to he paid by District for the . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Board's. preparatory costs shall not exceed one hUndredseventy-five

... thousand dollars ($175,oc>o'> (Revenue and Taxation .Code Section

72,72) •.

7. Communications and notices may be sent by first

class United states mail. communications and notices to be sent to

.the. Board Shall .be addressed to:

State Board of Equalization P.O. Box 942879 Sacramento, California 94279-0001

Attention: Executive Director

-2-:

P128

D 1 frcte0 +-

1 yr kit ~laz__

be addressed to:

and notices to be sent to District shall

Rob et t Gol fon San Francisco Public Finance Authority 135 Van Ness Avenues Room .215 San Francisco, Ck 94102

8. The date of this agreement is the date bn which it

is approved by the Department of General S~rvices. This agreement

shall continue in effect unti_l the preparatory work necessar¥ to

adxninister District's transactions and u~e tax ordinance has been

completed and the )3oa:rd has received all payntertts dU:e from District

under the terms of this agreement~

G·Rlf;E<)~t S~0;,~~~l-: t;);

BY (~;: .. ::~~?/ ·~t::S.S.

(5/92)

·, \ i I l

I I

STA'l'EBOAtill OF EQUALIZATION ~~·~~~\l I

(District} \;/

~Jitz~-(Signature)

WALDEMAR _ROJ_AS

{TYJ)ed Name) SAN tRA.~ClSCO COUNri SUPEID:Il:.~Eifr OF SCHOOLS

(Title)

E\'/\.~ s, DO.BELLE

CHA.~CELl.OJt, SAN. FRA..~C!SGO CO!-M\INili'. COLLEGE DlS:OUC'.

·:· -, . . :_:

GERM.~INE Q WONG • __ Regislrar ':lfVotC"rs- .. ·

·• Ju~~-15, 1993,; ·

· • thlsis ilie Firial Stil.tement .<!fVotes for the Jline is; 1993 Spiaa1' Election iri San ,' Francisco: · · - - - · · · · -· -·- · · - · -- · · " . - ·. ' ' ·- : . . .

· For ~cli precmct. iliere are tvilo lizies or infonnatia~. The firsriiiic:; With "o" ' registered voters is the absentee total. The second lizie sliows the total riiimber of • '

-· • v<!ters fegts~red in the precinct and the numbers of\,_cit-;;s cast at the polling place. n~ ~utfor ~chprecin~t, iiS a number and as a percentage, j~ only for the votes

.- e<1sf at. the p~lling place; and noes not include, the absentee votes; :The total ium~ut -. foq:ach precinct can be, obtairied by_ adding the absentee and prednct turnouts. - ' .

, 'iliere are tvio ~ages ar'stiminaiy inronn~tio~ at t!ie e~d or ih~ pi~cinct rep~rt. The ; ~ ' -lieighbprliood and ~trict. total.s iind. per~ntages in~lude both the absentee and_

.·.-•precinct votes. , .--_ ---._,· ··• _-. · -- ____ • .• - ,·- __ . ·

> ' /illbalJots were sorted ~(O the ap~topriate precinci before cow'iting Thls inforrri~ticin is also ~vilible on disk.··•

P130

~~;-x· -::c:g:~i-;;;~ --· · REGISTRAR OF VOTERS

- Cuy __ i:md .r;ouii~ of~~'1:r~~~!:S~o ·

. - . . .

' PREFACE

: , FOJicm'ingis~eFin.;i Sratenie~tofVote;cistin the No{•e~be;2,1993. · · • Consolidated Genera} _Efoction fu San Fi-ancisco_. · · · · · · · ·

> _. •Tuer.; are two line;fo~ ca~h precincL The-~ line.is th~ ~llrriber of absentee \;at~ -'' ' and tlw second Jineis the numbci of pollirig pl~ce.votes~ Jn order to d~temliiie the

'tot.il. tiimout for a precmct, you must add the absentee and precinct votes together. n;e.; you cim comraie 1:hii.t niri,)&r votes castwiili th.; nwnber of registered voters

. ill ilie precingt tci de\eiinine the percentage iuino~ for the precinct, · -

-The~e are thee~ mail~"1lo!J,reehicts m thls el;;;tioo; .3142, 3'199,' ancl 3899. Aese precincts have no pollintplace; and ·a11voters received ballots in tl1e mail. There · .ate also two lines sWiunarizillg the mu;cnted type l ballots (12th Assembiy District) ,

_ and nnsorted type 2 ball_rits (13th ASsembly Distt1ct)• Theseare ballots which ~·ere · . • Counted, but not sorted mto precincts before counting. These priniarily represent '

absentee.ballotS which were tinlied In al polling places on eleci.imi day arid coumed' ' • ~er the precinct ballots{ and provisiCll)al ballcitS whichwere counted after election .diy. ·. ' ' :;· ' ' '' ' ' ' '

. IriCiti.did in this_ docinnent is a suinmai)• Report, which follows the Stateme~t of . _·_ V<?tes. Also included is a. listofrieighborhoods and districts by precillctfor this "election. ' ' ' ' '.· ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

For addition!'linfmmaiion reganlllJg electfon re~ults, and for copies of this report on -· diskette, please contaet Giegi>ry Ridenollf, Adriiinistraiive Manag~r, at ( 415) -.- .

554-4382. ''•. ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '• '

-_ Thaii\<: you for your intereslinom-'e!~ticiti: We hope fuat thls dcicilm~t is helpful · • · ' toyi;m. ~f you have any suggeStions for improving ourfoiinat _for fµrore eleciions, _please let uskiio_w:• .-. :: ·:-· ·•" "' - · · "

-- ;"'.~~:~:fo~t~Z! < ' :: ;_;: '.t ' ' ; " -_

~2E.,~~~~.~~.,~~~;~,; .. ·

P131

< eokseJ 7 fAe_ rv/5~- '

( OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF VOTERS

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 158 CITY~ SANFRAN~ISCO, CA 94102. GermaineQWongJlegist:ratofVoters 1DD: 415. 554.4386 Voice: 415~.554. 4375 · Fwc 415. 554. 7344

Certification of Election Results

Honorabte Board ofSuperviSof$ Crty a,ndCOunty of San Francisco Room 235 City Hall SanFranclsoo, CA .94102

18June 1993 5tJCt,tll.~ be_ .·

f'r,,;,"" "'f",;",J

I, Germaine Q Wong, Registrar ofVotEn of the Cicy'and County of San Francli' ;c.oArerei>V;y rernf\Tffi~--.... pursdant to fuid in the manner required by law. I ha.ye~ thevot~ ~af e Consolidated General "

Tu \C\<jS. ~edfon held on Tuesday, th,eF'tfteenth day ofJtme 1993 in Said C"rty and C-ounty. ~

. u 1 . JU' 1

I certify that I commenced.. the canvass. of~ e1 .• n. ~n. ' . evening, ~tine I~ .. ) Cl that the 'TV)~\e- \i;t\.>. eanvasswascox,chtctedmthe~reqtiired Division 12. theGalifumiaEl~~-

N O D t V / l J-As a, ~tof such official can'Vass and tabutatfort of all votes recorded, I h~ present a complete record as setfurth mfiin in the voh.imeentitied "S~ofVoteS, Fmal Statement of'Votes. June 15~ i993 Spedal.Election,'' and thatJhenU1llberofba!Wts~~sakld~QnV{c!S84,78~i ~ M tss1·'?_j .5h._l ltt_~,. te:-

. .. . . . . . . . l(},) ,e>..\ le:.\ bJ. i kl ' . I certify that the ordiiwiee for the School Sates Tax, desigriated as Proposition A. re;clved an affinnative lO

1> ' vote ofD.S°/o (i.e. Y:es: 59;574 ;mdNo: 21)08),ofthevot,es c;:astthereon.

In witness whereof I hereb . affix · hand and seal thiS •• t ... ~...-i. .:to..~.·. · .•....... ' ~ ~-~~~

!Vo+-- ~~·. =:>-

No Seid

"·

GennaineQ Wong Registraf ofVoters

P132

SEP 22 I en