tv Government Access Programming SFGTV February 1, 2018 8:00pm-9:01pm PST
to. for construction work, procurement and services relating to identified shelter crisis sites that will provide emergency shelter or housing to persons experiencing homelessness. >> thank you very much. we've got a presentation from the mayor's office. sponsors of the mayor, ronen, sheehy and cohen.
are you speaking on this one? jeff, director of the department of homelessness, i welcome you to the mic. the floor is yours. i don't need to tell you or member of the public, we're in the midst of a humanitarian crisis on our streets in san francisco. we currently have approximately 7500 people experiencing homelessness on any given night, 4300 or 58% of the homeless population in san francisco is literally unsheltered. the other -- the remaining population is in the shelters or other locations or other institutions, but we have 58% of the population living on the streets, so it's one of the highest percentages of unsheltered homeless in the
united states. and often times, we'll hear people don't want to come into shelter and i would say that is untrue. our shelters are generally full on any given night with the vacancy rate of less than 4%, generally caused by people who aren't able to make it for the reservations. we also have a consistently every a thousand people waiting on the list. i want to point out that last year, 198 people experienced homelessness in san francisco passed away. so this is clearly a crisis. impacts thousands of people who are living on the streets as well as impacts our neighborhoods as well. you also notice that there has been a dramatic increase, you'll see on slide 4, of individuals calling with complaints or often time concerns about people living on the streets. we currently are seeing well
over 5,000 calls a month between 3-1-1 and 911 and those numbers have been increasing up through 2017, in terms of people had are concerned about what they're seeing on our streets. and while san francisco does have and has invested significantly in the homelessness response system, we have currently over 2300 temporary shelter beds that are available for individuals, both shelter beds, winter shelter program, transitional housing, stabilization units and of course navigation center beds. clearly we have not been able to meet the demands. you can walk outside in many neighborhoods in san francisco and see the results of that. so as such, as you know, mayor lee challenged the city and challenged our department and the department of public works and others to get a thousand people off the streets, in addition to those we would have
served with current resources. we're following multiple strategies in order to achieve that goal, including opening up new navigation centers, opening up supportive housing, opening up transitional housing programs, including one targeted at women who are pregnant and who are currently homeless and a variety of other programs. in order to expedite this work, we have proposed an ordinance, one-year, that would allow expedited contracting with waivers of certain administrative sections that would allow us to construct and rehab shelters slights more quickly, be able to purchase ff and e for the shelters quickly, provide services and operations at the sites more quickly to address the problem with the urgency that we all agree it demands. the benefits of this ordinance would save approximately six months per site in the contracting process for
operations and services. public works estimates that the ordinance would save 120 days per site in the contracting process for construction and procurement and that it would result to in 10-15% cost savings per project. this is what we're including in the ordinance, including the transition housing program for the pregnant women. supportive housing site 125 bay shore, fifth and brian, the navigation centers and other cal tran sites that may become available. we're very excited about the opportunity to work with cal tran. i think we're the first in the state that is taking advantage of the law that allows to us lease at very little relatively no cost sites to be able to serve people experiencing homelessness and then including in the navigation centers for expansion and extension of the
sites. and would want to point out that in adding new sites, the city or the partners could identify the sites, we must notify the board of supervisors in advance and confirm availableability of the sites and would need to come back to the board in any event for the funding to engage in additional sites. we have also through this board consult appropriately with the board member whose district it is in. we'll be opening the site. we do robust community outreach and all required noticing. and then adopt site specific health sanitation and safety plans and just a really good example is the one that we have at 15 south van ness, where with ework the community and public
works to ensure that the area is kept safe an clean. we have a downtown streets, one of the nonprofit partners has a job training program and their participants are out cleaning the streets twice a days, getting job experience and getting paid for their work. we have security onsite and great collaboration with the police department. that concludes the apprenticing presentation. >> do you have questions for the director? we'll go to the analyst to hear the report. >> yes, the ordinance code provisions for emergency shelter sites. this is consistent with the board's declaration of emergency in december. he laid out the sites there, it's on page 22 of the report. there are five specific sites and then two categories of sites
that are not as specific and well identified. on page 26 of the report, we do list what we evaluate is the cost for developing the sites. this is the information presented in other reports. for the two cal tran sites, 125 bay shore, cost are $11 million and operating costs are $12 million. there is costs for the gentlemen lawny house and the hotel, we haven't fully developed yet, but talk about in the report. our understanding is the mayor's office will have to verify the funding. we consider it competitive bidding to be and the other code provisions to be important provisions in terms of ensuring
city contracting. we think given the board has declared emergency given there are five sites, we think it's reasonable. we believe that the cal tran sites that are subject to future identification, and given that the department will have to come back to the board for additional funding to implement the sites, we considered that these sites could be removed from the ordinance and waiver approved at a future time when funding is available. also for the existing navigation center sites, the ordinance would cover them if they were to be extended beyond their current date. of the five existing navigation sites, only two are scheduled to close during the period in which the ordinance is in effect.
therefore our recommendations are that the board remove the cal tran sites not yet identified until those sites have been identified and funding has been identified and including mission street and van ness, that are currently scheduled to close prior to 2019. we considered this to be a policy matter, because it does waive provisions. >> thank you for sharing your thoughts. i don't know if there is anyone -- i don't see -- is there any other questions you have for the director for the department of homelessness and supportive housing? seeing none, public comment at this time. come on down. quickly, please.
thank you. welcome. >> hi, good afternoon. i'm the chief programs officer at community housing. we provide housing to san francisco residents every day in the 17 buildings. we run the civic center hotel navigation center where we have served over 300 chronically homeless. our city has a chronic problem on our hands. we feel it is essential we do all we can to expedite on bringing on navigation centers and housing to meet the needs. it is imperative that processes be stream lined to begin bringing on more housing in order to combat the emergency we face here. i implore us all to do everything in our power to make
this happening. we're in support of the ordinance. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm the director of clinical and strategic initiatives for community housing partnerships and here in support of the ordinance. since january 2016, the civic center hotel navigation center has provided a safe respite for 300 adults. we serve those who are otherwise not able to access shelters and this includes 197 women, and 10 women who identify as transgender. these folks are particularly vulnerable while living on the streets. we also know that housing takes time and is a limited resource. and the navigation center offers an opportunity and support for our participants to successfully transition off the street and into a more structured environment.
the non-time limited and problem nature of the navigation center allows us to support the participants in building skills and addressing challenging behaviors that lead to future success in supportive housing. navigation centers also have a key impact on the community in which they are. prior to becoming a navigation center, the civic center hotel was severely underutilized space. the ground floor was mostly boarded up windows and neighbors experienced safety and quality of life concerns. with the hotel turning into a navigation centre, the entire ground floor is now used. we've addressed neighbor concerns. all of this works to display to the community that serving folks who are experienced homelessness with dignity and respect is a key san franciscan value. >> thank you, next speaker.
good afternoon, i'm the chief operating officer at project homeless connect. we're an organization that is dedicated to connecting individuals experiencing homelessness to the resources they need in the community. while san francisco has been innovator in services and programs, including the housing first model, we've been limited in our ability to put innovations in practice. our programs see more than 7,000 people a year. when asked about their needs, we get creative to find solutions because simple solutions are not available. while permanent housing is the end goal, the longer people are on the streets, the more severe and life-threatening their situations become. mental health deteriorates. there cannot be delays if we're to have any chance in succeeding for our neighbors. i speak today on behalf of
project homeless connect and the thousands of participants as we implore you to pass the measure, allowing the city to expedite the process of shelters and housing sites. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, i'm the director of shelters for community services. ecs provides 534 beds and two shelters, our next door shelter and our sanctuary shelter for single men and women. we provide an additional 60-100 seasonal mats for the winter shelter. in addition to that, we're currently do 50 additional slots at our next door shelter for pop-up shelters. we also offer two navigation centers, one of which is one of
the ones identified for close you're. we provide 139 beds at those two navigation centers. so we are 100% behind the department's cause to try increase the number of beds, expedite the process for making those beds available. we believe that this particular service, these services are needed to stabilize, provide respite for many in immediate need for critical care and improve the quality of life for both the homeless and stable citizens of the city. thank you. >> thank you. is there any other member of the public that would like to speak on item 8? seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor fewer? >> yes, i have an amendment. >> good, because i have questions. >> great, do you want to start with the questions?
>> thank you, so what we've done, we've done a considerable amount of conversation around homelessness and we acknowledge it's a crisis, but it's not a new housing crisis. with that said, are we planning at all for this ongoing problem long-term? one of things that concerns me, we're creating all these navigation centers, but before jeff got on before board, there was dustin and they said that navigation centers were temporary. i'm hearing conflicting messages and i want a better understanding of what is the long-term vision? >> thank you, i think navigation centers may have been temporary at particular sites, i believe there is still increased demand for temporary shelters and we need to meet the demands to get individuals who are currently living on the streets off the streets and into a place of safety. as far as longer term plan, the result to the solution to homelessness is helping people
find access to house, whether that's through temporary rent subsidies or supportive housing of which we have 1800 units in the development pipeline. i think all of these resources need to be combined to have a more systematic thoughtful approach to addressing homelessness. our framework lays out what our plan is, but we need to be smart about adding to all parts of the system. more street outreach, more diversion and prevention programs, more temporary shelters as well as more housing exits for individuals. in order to -- again our plan lays out in more detail where some of gaps in the system are and again, the eyeball test, you can go out on the streets and look around and see there is a need for additional shelter beds. we estimate close to a thousand more shelter beds to meet the demand we currently are seeing on the streets. what is currently in the
pipeline is going to help meet that need. >> so my question is, does this need to be treated as an emergency every single time? i'm looking to see some forward thought, some forward movement, instead of constantly responding. i'm looking for a proactive strategy. >> i believe we put forward in the framework a proactive strategy around using coordinated entry and what we call problem solving which is ways to quickly divert people who are newly homeless out of the system, prioritizing people who are the long-term homeless and the sickest individuals into the permanent supportive housing. and more effectively using the resources we have. i believe that this is a regional state and federal issue as well. we've been meeting closely with my counterparts in counties
regionally to talk about data sharing and resource allocation. been working at the state level on a number of potential increased investments in -- at the state level around building more housing for people in need, as well as i think we need to continue making this a federal issue as well. despite the fact that we may not be heard by the current administration, at the end of the day, it's important to recognize that from 1978 to today, the hud budget authority has been cut by 81%, which very much corresponds with the rise of modern day homelessness in the united states. and i don't believe that without state and federal assistance, which we are lobbying for and advocating for constantly, that we as a country are going to be able to solve this problem, but here locally, mayor lee's creation of the department and the framework we put forward does show potential for a forward vision and reduction in homelessness in a variety of categories. think the focus needs to be on housing and we're again working
on creative and traditional ways of expanding the house stock, but there is immediate need on the street. you can see them. i don't think the needs are going to go away quickly without finding additional housing exits. we need to meet the needs of penal the streets. i i believe when people have to sleep outdoors in up safe conditions, in the weather, they're not only putting themselves as risk, they're creating challenge in the community in many of the communities and adding more shelter systems and navigation center to the shelter system, i do believe is an emergency given what we're seeing on the streets. i also want to point out that part of the -- although the homeless numbers have started to go down, one of the things that changed in san francisco over the years is really development on the eastern part of the city, where you know, there used to be large number of homeless people
in what is now the baseball stadium and in mission bay. those individuals have been displaced if you will, into residential neighborhoods and business districts, so the problem is more visible and having greater impact on the lives of san franciscans who are housed or tourists and business leaders. and you know, i don't think that the crisis is any different than it was ten years ago when it wasn't quite as visible. i do think people are sigh see -- seeing it now. people in the community want to find solutions. i don't think navigation centers are a magic bullet. but given the large number of people on the streets, it's imperative that we build as quickly as we can, as many temporary shelter beds as we can. >> all right, thank you very much. thank you.
>> thank you very much. so, colleagues, i'd like to make amendment to exclude two existing navigation centers from the sites of navigation centers, mission and van ness. both are scheduled to close within the next year, if there is proposal to extend them, it should be brought back to the board of supervisors for approval. this amendment will still allow shh to fast track construction. cone >> supervisor cohen: i want to discuss a few things that are on the top of my mind. so, colleagues, we have this item was an ordinance to codfy what we fasted at the full board in resolution form in december of last year. and as you will recall, we had a
significant discussion at the time for whether or not it was urgent. i called for hearing on the efficacy of the navigation centers, examining a couple of things. first, i want to know how -- how we will get people off the street. how successful the wraparound services are. what is the impact of the navigation centers on the immediate neighborhoods that welcome them? i believe that this hearing will give us a bit more clarity on how we should be evaluating any more navigation center sites. i initially had reservations about what i described as a blank check nature of this particular bill. i understand that any additional sites or expansions would require additional funding and therein would have to come back to this committee before proceeding.
but still, i'd appreciate a little more oversight on what these additional negotiations are. is it an emergency? what constitutes an emergency? how do we know we're meeting our mark? the first time i heard today on -- from the director that the homeless count, the number of homeless people are decreasing on the streets. this is, i think timely and important information that we should be able to extrapolate from this hearing. i'm offering an amendment as well today to ask that any sites that are currently not identified, would come before the board through a resolution if they want to take advantage of the fast-track privilege. i think that's fair and pretty balanced. having a resolution would add a two-week legislative process to any new navigation centre site, which i don't believe is undue burden and allows the public transparency in where navigation centers are being opened and
located. i've circulated language on this item. i want to call to your attention in section 4, this adds a subsection a-6, page #, line 21, to read, the board of supervisors approves by resolution the addition of the identified shelter crisis site. it would also update the name of the ordinance to include and to include, "approval by the resolution of the board of supervisors". so again, we're just changing the name of the ordinance to include an approval by the resolution by the board of supervisors, that's going to be found on page 1, line 17. so i do look forward to what the department of homelessness brings us, particularly as we expand the footprint outside of district 6, district 9, district
10. i think it's incredibly important, more so than ever, that every district in the city shoulders some of the responsibility and to ensure we're not concentrating our homeless crisis and already i'd say stressed neighborhoods, neighborhoods that are found in district 6, 9 and 10. supervisor fewer, you offered your amendment of the same nature for the extension of existing sites. and i don't know if supervisor stephanie has comments, but i wanted to open up the conversation. anything? nothing? ok. supervisor fewer, seeing that you made your amendment first, would you restate it for the record and then we can put it to the vote. >> supervisor fewer: my amendment would exclude two existing navigation centers from the sites.
those two sites being 1950 mission and 1515 south van ness avenue. both of the sites are scheduled to close within the next year, and if there is proposal to extend them, it should be brought back to the board of supervisors for approval. >> you're looking to exclude 1515 mission and 1515 south van ness, but not all existing sites, is that right? >> that's correct. >> >> supervisor cohen: perfect. if we could take that without objection? amendment passes without objection. thank you. >> supervisor cohen: did everyone have an opportunity to look at the language i proposed? if we could take that without objection? without objection, the amendment that i propose are also passing unanimously. thank you. ok.
now just make a motion to send this item as amended to the full board with no recommendations. >> no recommendations. >> all right, we'll take that without objection. thank you. madame clerk. could you call item 9. >> item 9, hearing on community supportive and public municipal banking and requesting analysts to report. >> we have a few speakers, we have amanda faried, molly cohen and then fred brousseau who is with the legislative analyst office. we have the lawyers committee on civil rights. i just have a few talking points i want to go into prior to the introduction. supervisor fewer and i called this hearing for the dual purpose of hearing the budget legislative analyst assessment
of how a public bank might work in san francisco. we're also framing our municipal banking task force, which kicks off this week. and identifying the major -- this task force will be identifying major questions and policy goals that will be identified by the task force. i called for the task force because i believe we need more local control, transparency and financial empowerment in our city and in the financial system. we're currently relying on big banks, which many of those folks would agree that's not a good place to rely. which in the last two years, fraudulent accounts have been made on behalf of clients, this is just one recent egregious behavior that has happened in the recent past. they have invested, banks have
invested in the fossil fuels that harm our health and planet. we as a city have taken a public position not in support of the dapple and public support for the divestment of fossil fuels. in addition to this, home and small business loans don't often favor those taking out the loan. i believe there is lot of opportunity for us to continue to move the conversation forward. with that i want to invite supervisor fewer to make remarks. and then staff. >> this hearing has been a long time in the making as supervisor cohen's commission to create a feasibility bank and my request to the budget and legislative analyst to study community banking. both were put into action over nine months ago. we have been looking forward 0 the presentations shared today and the public is also ready for the hearing.
my only personal interests in banking alternative stems from two things. i want independence from large corporate national banks that make investment choices or have business practices misaligned with san francisco values and i want more local control over how the public dollars are invested so we can leverage the resources better for the public good. a public bank would finance affordable housing development or provide easier access to capital for underserved communities. since 2011, a number of banking institutions have been decreasing with profoundly increasing concentration in assets for those remaining. in 2011, the average asset size of banks and credit unions in san francisco true from $4
billion to $9 billion. we have bigger national banks to choose from and the bigger the institutions get, the less likely they are to be invested in san francisco priorities. i asked the analyst to produce a support looking at key large banks that have the capacity to provide banking services to the city and county of san francisco, and assess their performance against a social responsibility indicators used by the san francisco treasurer office. these indicators include the percentage of loans made to small businesses, people of color, low-income communities and for community development purposes. overall, the major banks performed worse than their smaller counterparts in each of the areas. additionally, almost without exception, these banks are investing that industries that conflict with san francisco. civilian firearms, tobacco,
fossil fuels and private prisons. i understand that establishing a public bank in the city and county of san francisco is an undertaking and there are challenge, but i'm committed to explore embarking on this important endeavor. i'm happy to be delving into this issue alongside supervisor cohen. we're building on the work of the supervisor who called for a report in 2011. the report that i requested today is an update to the 2011 report. i look forward to continuing to work with treasurer and his office as well as the new municipal bank feasibility task force to advance discussion on this issue in the coming months. with that, i'd like to pro-introduce from the chief assistant from the treasurer office.
todd? >> yes, he's here. >> who will be giving update on the feasibility tax force and initiatives in their office. >> congratulations, supervisors, honor to be in front of three of you. it's an exciting time to share the work we do. the focus of our presentation is around treasurer and tax collectors role in banking and investment. and we'll be speaking about the leadership on the task force. we're excited about the work we'll be doing together with you in the upcoming six months. so as you know, our mission is fundamental. it is collecting and securing the revenues and fees and taxes that are due to the city and
county of san francisco. in addition, our charges to safeguard all of the funds that we collect to achieve the maximum yield, low risk and high liquidity. in addition, we expanded our role to take on financial justice and financial empowerment. the office of the treasurer and tax collector is shaping up municipalities work with the banking sector. like all of san francisco our rsp and contract approach are vehicles for changing the industry. we've been involved in a number of ground breaking endeavors. of course, we do all of this while ensuring we benefit our employees, vendors and partners and city as a whole. at its core, ttx is the guardian of the city and the counties annual expenditures.
we take all the money invested through the city, the school district and the city college that has been allocated by your budget process that have and appropriate and then invest them accordingly. we invest them in two buckets, one the bank accounts, necessary for cash flow, short-term, making sure that payroll are met and vendors are paid. the other is considered a pool fund or the portfolio. upwards of $10 billion at this point in time. that is primarily cash reserve as well as bond proceeds. and it's intended to be there and safe and earn yields so we can pay it out upon when those bills, those capital projects are due and payments are met. a lot of -- what is going on? a lot of the primary
conversations we'll be having is really about social responsibility and san francisco values and how we interface with those values in the work we do around banking. in 2011, san francisco really changed the landscape of municipal banking by putting rfp on the street that was requiring us to break apart the services that banking provides municipal governments. in addition to really do deep analysis on the social responsibilities that they have, specifically in san francisco. and that is what has yielded the two partners you'll be hearing about later. in addition to that, with your leadership and partnership, we've spearheaded the first yufrl college savings account for all students. with over 36,000 accounts to help them save. this requires us to work with the banking partners to create products that are available to them at no cost that students
and families have access to. something no other community has been able to do. to supervisor cohen and fewer, the first to speak out against wells fargo and sever our ties with them. our approach to programming, by creating programming like smart money coaching, that extends our work with families who are disenfranchised by the financial markets. i'm going to go a little bit deeper in the pooled investment side of the work we do. california state law particularly prescriptive in the area of the priorities and how we're allowed to invest monies. the rules were strengthened in 1994 after the bankruptcy of orange county which had invested
in high risk bond and led to the counties losing $1.5 billion. after that experience, the tightening of the laws by the state were rigorous to ensure that no county or municipality had that calamity ever again. first, we're about safety. we safeguard and preserve the principal money that allows us to pay the critical services we have ahead of us. we take significant learning in managing the great recession in 2008, where san francisco did not lose any revenue during that period of time. secondly, showing that the funds are available when needed. that will be the liquidity part of the component. yield. it's not the primary projection of our work. while we do want to have continued growth in our revenue.
as i stated earlier, the pool is approximately $9.6 billion, it's highest peak it's been in the past years. in 2005 it was around $3 billion. 2012, $5 billion and now $10 billion, they're operating and capital funds that belong to the city government, and the college district. it includes money for projects. due to those investments, these funds are in highly secure investments, so that -- all government backed to make sure we meet the safety, liquidity and yield components. but we recognize that there is
other ways and other opportunities for us to invest in our communities. so recently, the office of the treasurer and tax collector launched safe sound and local. it's a unique opportunity to allow institutions to receive substantial deposits from the pool specifically to allow them to do exactly what they're intended to do, invest in our communities. we've earmarked $80 million to be invested in banks, credit unions and financial institutions. in addition to safe sound and local, which has large deposits to the institutions, we have deposits that enable credit unions to receive cds up to $240,000. combined together, we have potential to put millions of dollars to work in our communities every day. i'm going to move into the banking section of the work we
do. i'm going to move us, but the screen is not. with close to $10 billion in the portfolio, city and count revenue is equivalent to micah johnson -- major corporations in san francisco. unlike those that serve the public, we are substantially different. we have diverse vital services that touch every single resident's lives in many different facets. that diversity of the work that we do and the services we provide, mean that our banking and our ecosystem of banking is significantly more complex. we have disbursements of checks, ach wires, payments, all the way through to -- for all of the
retirees, employees, and our vendors. with deposits that come in 25 cent changes as well as large wires in the millions of dollars. we have to do reporting to meet the financial forecasting for the city and the end of the year financial audit. we have a large degree around services around fraud and security to ensure that the revenue we receive is secured and to make sure the disbursements we make, they're going to the people they're intended to go to. these products that we utilize to minimize the amount of manual processing and paperwork, and then obviously, we have a significant amount of credit card interactions and transaction that happen in the city and county and growing testimony of those that have a whole set of security policies that are mandated by the credit card companies themselves. with a staff of seven, the
department works to ensure that all of the actions are taking place. i articulated the challenge that diversity of approach is necessary. we must support chinatown shop that takes water bills as well as airline industry that is paying fees for landing fees, all the way to armored trucks moving cash and the city for us. as well as ensuring that every single credit card stripe magnetic swipe is meeting the compliance requirement that they have put upon us. the numbers are significant. there are a total of $15 billion in deposit in the last fiscal year. we deposited 1.2 million checks. we had over 847,000 ach payments and 93,000 outgoing checks.
not a simple task to achieve. this kind of streamline operation with a minimal amount of cost. and a small team. all the bank accounts are reconciled daily and monthly to ensure they're in good standing and the basis of a financial audit. finally, i want to reiterate the work we do around social responsibility. it's embedded in everything that we do. not only is it part of the banking rfp and the bank and programming we do, it's part of the investment policy. to make sure we're investing the pool, the first things we look at is safety, investment and yield and make sure we're
investing in entities that share san francisco values. we use an index to ensure that and have consultants look at all of our investments. in addition to that, we also build some of the programs around kindergarten to college and smart money coaching. the other things we do are partner with other entities like the mexican consulate to make sure that people who are not comfortable with bank accounts with u.s. firms are able to have a safe place to secure their funds and they don't have to get check cashing or have cash in their home. with all of that work, what we're excited about is sort of starting the task force with you. we have an incredible team of diverse individuals with experience that go from looking at starting their own bank, to housing to cannabis, to really
think about what are the opportunities that we have ahead of us? how do we broker the power of the city? and how can we start moving made on the outcomes in that manner that is economical, smart, efficient and quick so so we can meet the needs as fast as we possibly canment i look forward to coming back in six months. >> i have a couple of questions. so you've identified some of the potential areas for the public bank to effect policy change and i was wondering if you could speak to the opportunities between a public infrastructure bank which might fund the development of housing, for example. versus a deposit taking institution which might help with home loans.
>> well, i think primarily, we'll speak more on that about the task force and the complexities around dealing with those. i think the key thing we have to remember, because we're city and county all of the investments have to be collateralized at 110%. so the challenge is how to meet the collateralization requirement and when we do that, where what are the ideas and options we want to take around investing into our communities? whether it's providing loans or investing in different programs through the small business programs that are already available to business and expanding and extending and scaling those further. the infrastructure conversation is something that a lot of the local regional organizations are having. and they're going to part of the task force and we look forward to hearing about some of the infrastructure concepts that are out there and how san francisco can play a part. >> supervisor cohen: could you give us any insight on the
public bank offering administrative functions, such as taking payroll, payment processing or investment oversight? >> not at this time given the level of what we've just shared with you. we haven't seen examples of public doing this kind of work. >> we know that. we know we're in unchartered territory and what we're embarking on doing is ground breaking, i'm just trying to get a sense as to your offices confidence level. can this be done? can we execute it? are we chasing a pie in the sky dream? i know no one else is doing it. i get that, but that's why we're gathered here to talk about it. i was asking these questions to get your department's take, what are you thinking? trying to tap into some of your
thoughts around this. i know you don't have a definitive answer and i understand your reservation for seeing on the record -- speaking on the record, but there are members of the public watching and here had the chamber that have these questions. i was hoping to get what direction -- again, i was looking for distinction. administrative functions will do this. lending institutions will do this. so i'm just putting out there to tease out more information. >> there are hurdles as you all know and we'll hear about this. taking on how do we bring in-house some of those core functions that we do with our banks right now, such as payroll or vendor payments. the infrastructure cost to build that solution is something that we're grappling with right now. so what would be the cost to
take on doing ach payments without any intermediary? i think that question is still unknown, but something we're unpacking as part of the process. unfortunately, i'm not able to say, wee know this would be the cost or this is what we assess around the challenges, but we're understanding the things we have to quantify to answer the question, so you're able to make your policy decision around do you want to invest in that. >> supervisor cohen: do you have insight on specific challenges that you see going into the process that we could -- that you could flag for us, something we should be knowledgeable of or prepared to discuss? >> i think some of the things we're thinking about, one, there are a lot of aspirations for a public bank, supporting the cannabis businesses, another is housing, another is businesses and so i think one of the big challenges is going to be making
the policy decisions around what areas or outcomes are we going to focussed on. what is the scale in our investment? and what is the scale of the outcomes that we want to achieve? and what is the most appropriate and expeditious tactic to achieve the goals that you, or we in the task force, have outlined for us? we see that as some of the burning issues as we look at the conversations that are ahead of us and that we've already heard about. and i know you've all heard about as well. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. i just have a question, you started this presentation talking a little bit about diverting some of the funds to credit unions? $80 million did you say to local? could you please go through that again for me? >> sure. so we initiated a new program called safe, sound and local. we'll get more information to
your office on that. it's an opportunity for local banks to get collateral -- to essentially have a deposit from the city and county, enables us to meet our safety, liquidity and yield because the deposit we're giving them is government backed, it's not a risk and doesn't cost us as a city loss. but it gives them capital they can invest in the community. >> supervisor fewer: this is local banks and credit unions, is that correct? >> yeah. >> supervisor fewer: do you see if san francisco were to embark on municipal bank we would do this in conjunction with local banks to this part of the banking part of it, loans, those types of things? do you foresee that? that actually we can actually grow a local economy here with our own credit unions and local
banks as we also develop our own municipal bank? >> i think we do have a strong partnership with the credit unions already, both through the cds and work in san francisco. i think part of this is understanding how to further capitalize on the partnerships for sure. and what is the further deeper complement that the county could do? is it something that competes with them? in partnership with them? we have intentionally not had credit unions on the task force itself, because we don't -- there could be a self-benefit tore them, but i think it is part of the conversation to figure out how do we take advantage of the things happening in our communities, what is not happening and what is the role that we play? what is the opportunity available to us? >> supervisor fewer: we see that the local banks and smaller banks meet many of the services
to communities that we're most interested in. and using a reinvestment in our funds to serve those communities. and it just seems as though as we're embarking on the path of municipal bank, whether it's feasible or not, there may be things that need to be federally insured as you mentioned and we can do that and use local banks and credit unions as a vehicle for that and that would make sense. rather than -- because i think the goal of this also is to wean our ourselves off the national banks. we're having less choices of national banks as they become more concentrated. all of these large banks invest in things that are not aligned with san francisco values. so it seems as though a partnership with these entities such as the local banks, and also the credit unions that are federally insured, we may be able to create sort of a
partnership to serve the same purpose. >> yeah, i completely agree and part of that is looking at obviously you know how -- like i spoke earlier how we do our rfp and contracting and how to look at lines of business and different opportunities with local banks. that's something we'll be looking at through the process. the rp we did in 2011 was fairly deep and our hope was to further slice up the lines of business. and we're continuing to investigate that opportunity with the existing ones and then i think really look at different ways to do the work that we do and parse it out as i have in the boxes to figure out other ways to parse out the work and engage with the community banks in a different manner. >> supervisor fewer: do you think, this is just lay person's question, do you think that the idea of a regional municipal
bank is something that is more feasible than a public bank? >> clearly there is an announcement that the state is looking at a public bank. we're fortunate to have the state treasurer office representative on our task force. it will be something that we also know that berkeley and oakland and others are having the conversation as well. so i think it is an opportunity for us to look at how are we going to address this and not individually invest in this in a faulty manner. >> supervisor cohen: supervisor stephanie. >> i just wanted to bring something to your attention. when i oversaw the county clerk office, for the past two years, one of the programs i was charged with was the city i.d. program and when that was passed in 2008 and launched in 2009,
one of the benefits of the city i.d. program was so that someone could get a government issued i.d. and use that as a primary source of identification to open an account. unfortunately, that hasn't happened. it's something i think we need to take a look at when you're looking at a municipal bank, to fold in the city i.d. program because it's a vital to the residents of san francisco. i want to make sure that's not overlooked. >> thank you for bringing that to our attention. they can support our residents that are not comfortable given the circumstances we have right now. so, yes, thank you. >> supervisor cohen: supervisor fewer. >> supervisor fewer: so thank you, i'd like to introduce fred