i want to address some of the comments made earlier by the budget office and the comptroller. i have been working and the non- profit sector my entire professional career. i have answered hundreds of requests for funding applications. good nonprofits never vote in an escalator for any of these costs into the bid, because they know they will be rejected, because the expectation is we could do it with london. i would like to hand out some charts that indicates some of the business pressures and we are facing here it is common knowledge that while each contract is different and each entity is different, i am sure that construction companies that do work or other entities, but they build an escalator.

it is only good business sense. >> different departments have different types of rates, and your chp receives funding from many different departments. what kinds of constraints does it have on your ability to work democrats and we contract region on your ability -- on your ability to work? >> we contact many, and we need to have training the record we need to have folks that can go get more contracts. we need a level of management commot, and our indirect rate it we charge for overhead. did the federal government looks at the door on it and says if

your auditor says your rate this 16.8%, they let you do the full rate. the city ranges from 2.5% to 12 1/45% and is normally capped at 15%, so we are looking to leverage other resources and private dollars to keep a level of administrative efficiency, not to count dealing with all of the costs and laid out in the handouts. >> i missed what you just said, in terms of when which contracts contact them and they get an automatic escalator? >> i cannot tell you a contractor, but i know somebody who works as a contractor. he had a multi-year contract, and he built in the fact that he wanted to give his workers

freezers -- raisers. most people in the business community know that their costs go up and when they place their bids with the city there's an expectation the city will cover it. the non-profit sector knows the exact opposite, and we have always expected to do more with less. we are carrying out charity work on behalf of the city. there is an indication we do not have the same pressures. >> could you walk us through the handouts? >> there are two handouts. this is for our agency. if you look at 2009-10, they went up 14% during your -- 14%. >> the you want it on the overhead?

>> it goes up each year during your and -- each year. we carry our health insurance 100% pure goo. we feel it is important that our employees do not contribute to health care, because many of them were homeless, and we feel it is a benefit they should have, so we of sort these each year region -- we absorb these each year. our next slide is the worker compensation rate set by the state. these go up every single year. there is no way to regulate.

we have an environment that occasionally our workers become injured, and you can see they have gone up exponentially every single year, and we cannot pass those costs to our contract. the only way it can be absorbed through the city would be by laying off staff. there is nothing that accounts for this. the next slide is showing for an agency contract reductions we have received from the city and from other contracts we hold, starting from 2009, and we broke it out for years to show that in 2009 we lost $152,000 in funding. that was correct those -- direct services. we lost $22,000 in what would have covered overhead expenses,

so our funding has remained flat or been cut since 2009, and the way we have accommodated that is we have reduced our work force. we shifted overhead expenses and look for other resources so we can keep it safe. this is showing how our funding is being cut or staying flat while our expenses are going up. gooaxe i think there is a questn triggered >> can you explain to remain -- >> i think there is a question. >> can you explain to me what makes of indirect losses? >> if is for our accounting team to build a city. it is part of our age are function so we can provide services to our staff.

it is so they can have an executive director central offices so they can have a central office, things that are not directly providing services to what we are contracts and former -- contracted for. >> in 2010 there was almost $23,000 reduction in indirect losses. am i reading that correct? >> correct the next slide is showing a fixed central expenses. at&t rates go of. office supplies go are. no water and heating goes up. gas for our vehicles goes up, and you will see starting in 2009 is going up.

you will see a shoe qi for 2013, and that is because we had to move three offices, and while we relocated and were very happy the retail cut a very good deal on that property, because of the rising rate of commercial property in san francisco related to the high-tech boom, we predict are fixed expenses are going to go up close to 50 percent signed next year -- 50% next year. we will not be able to pass many of those expenses on to our contracts unless we reduce personnel. >> thank you. thank you for sharing. it seems pretty daunting. your organization has been able to weather that. a lot of organizations have, and

a lot have not, and i appreciate your sharing that information. i have a few other names. we are going to start several public comment. i am going to call them up. [list of names] please come up. you can come up in that order or any order that has been called a request we are going to start a general public comments with two minutes per person. after those names are done, we are going to call from the others sat. goo-- stack. >> this is going to be more hard send data region -- more heart than data.

for the past few days i spent some time with a good friend of mine, corey busch, and his daughter was among those missing in a tragic note thing accident, so cory has served on the board of directors for almost a decade, for more than a decade. yesterday brought me down to his study for a talk, and i noticed a framed poster with the no. 28 in the middle. there were the signatures of the members of the california legislature. the poster had been a guest on the occasion of his 60th birthday. in 1973 when ronald reagan was the governor of california, he began closing one mental institution after another for so-called new budgetary issues. the legislature passed a law to require hearings and approval in advance of these closing to

reagan reagan vetoed the administration, and the senator led the fight to override the veto. gina said it considered it one of his best moments as a legislator. we call on you to demonstrate the same set of principles and vision that guided the state for so long. our services must be funded. our workers must be paid to the rigors of their salaries must be increased if we are to survive as a community and as a city that holds a vision greater than itself. thank you. >> next speaker please. thank you, everybody. >> i am president of 1021, on

leave from my job. thank you both for sponsoring this important hearing and for giving us this opportunity. they have laid out clearly this discussion. from the union's point of view, let me repeat of focus on getting these workers an increase in wages. the city cannot continue to fund these jobs as if it is charity work. being a nonprofit were, the work you provide is really a safety net it enriches the city.

it protects the city. i can only say we are not going to see city workers hit so they give to nonprofits. we are not going to see nonprofit hit so they can give to city workers. this is one of the wealthiest cities. goothere is a tremendous amountf wealth in san francisco, so the ingredients are here so we can all make a decent wage. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. we do housing and shelter and employment, and our biggest costs are wrenserent but also ae housing we have and food.

efood is one of our primary costs. health-care costs have gone up. we have to reduce for it to work, and i want to speak as one of the nonprofits that has a pretty diverse funding base, so we do fund raising. we try to have philanthropic dollars as well as city and state and federal dollars, so this idea that we can continue to raise to fill in gaps is a mesyth. state and federal dollars have a decrease. foundation dollars have decreased, and contributions have remained decrease from the

2008 levels, so it cannot be expected that we can continue to make up for flood funding that has happened. these are private dollars. and we use it to provide new services that are not eligible for public funding, so i want to be clear that we cannot just raise money to vassal -- backfull to raise money. >> i am a city worker, a san francisco resident, and a union activist, and i am here on my own time. i am fortunate enough to work for the department of aging and adult services, and i get to work with many of the

nonprofits organizations. i actually say to folks but if it were not for the nonprofits providing invaluable, linguistically diverse services, i would not have a job, so my viability depends on a stable private sector, but more important is what the nonprofits to do to raise the quality of life in san francisco. often we hear the flight of the low income senior debt must shoes between food and medicine. the plight of nonprofits is similar.

they often need to choose between paying a decent salary to keep skilled staff or paying rent on time or increase in health-insurance costs. we should be working to keep agencies but serve them healthy and hold. another is the displacement from offices they have rented. now that things are supposedly looking up common and rents are also going up, and nonprofit organizations are at the mercy of greedy landlords. who loses? who wins, and at what cost? >> i am the executive director of huckleberry use programs and also the co-founder of the san francisco human services

program. the fact the nonprofits would house squeeze enormously to make do with increased expenses, but i wanted to actually talk about how one nonprofit has to deal with these kinds of cuts. it would be approximately $45,000 a year over five years. when i look at the data, five years ago we had 65 full-time employees. today we have 55 full-time employees. we run up program. 25% of youth arrested in san francisco are now brought here instead of juvenile hall. goowe are now talking about havg

it for another day, in spite of the fact of the probation department and the police would like to reopen its. huckleberry house is still the only license shelter in san francisco, and we have had to downsize. we had to lay off our assistant manager. we have gone to single coverage overnight. only in emergencies can we afford to train in coverage. for those who need counseling because their child has threatened suicide at home now have a three-month wait list.

i close huckleberry house for the month of august. it is getting tough. >> i am going to call a few names. [calling names] >> i am the executive director. i am here as a member of the budget coalition. our membership is made of of primarily grass-roots small and nonprofits who have been devastated by the increasing costs and their organizations are experiencing. they fulfill critical services to the city in that they could reach populations others cannot reach, but they do not have the

resources to a absorb these cuts. they do not have the resources to raise bonds. they are in an even more difficult position of addressing these costs, and i just need to say a few things. to me this comes down to a question of values. when you want a service, and you consider that a value, and the cost goes up, you pay for it, yet our sector is increasingly ask to deal with it, and yet i hope we address this issue and deal with it and that is collectively on the city to address as very important issue. this budget committee has miraculously found a

efficiencies that could easily support the increases being put forward here and the recommendations being made. the last point i want to make is that i hope whatever comes out of this process is not just made this year, because this happens every single year. this is not just a one time issue of our organizations are dealing with. we deal with this every single year. regarding funding to nonprofit, there is nothing flat about the funding our organizations have received, and i am asking you to take the time to make something happen so we can deliver services to residents of this city and need. >> thank you. goonex>> today i am here to talt

being a nonprofit worker and our relationship to try to get a wage increase. but i want to say i began seven years ago in 2005 here in the community clinic where i first started. wages were something a lot of us talked about, feeling it is hard living in the city. a lot of my co-workers talked about moving from different parts of the cities to see if the rents can be lower. staying in the city is important. i am really touched a lot of you showed on and on to the point is actually a board session, because i thought it was only going to be a few of you, and i really appreciate that you showed up, so the living costs

have really gone up over the years. it is getting really hard to make it, and what i would ask, we know that the cost of living is going up, but the most direct way to help us out is to make sure our wages can keep going up as much as possible. the main players we talk about where it will have an impact is to make sure it goes into wages as much as possible, and know that we are going to be there along the way to help you out. i know it is not easy. i have been here every year for the past seven years making sure we do not cut in wages.

good thank you. >> my name is larry bradshaw. i worked on a daily basis with nonprofits, and i have come to appreciate the care they provide. i got my start in high school, where my classmates and i it organized a strike in the cafeteria and asked them not to serve what does and grapes. they did not work directly for the contractors. they worked with the growers, so they could say, we are not responsible for poverty wages. we are not responsible for lack of benefits, and the growers could say, we are not to blame. both could point their finger, and both could avoid responsibility. this is a pattern i would see throughout my career as a work

as a janitor he argued both would not take responsibilities for the wages and benefits. the same thing when i worked as a paramedic in oakland. the employer claims they are not our real employer, and the contractor claims a lack of money, and i see the same situation played out here as a non-profit, and i am going to challenge the board, you cannot hide behind legal artifice but you're not the employer. you control the wages of these workers. and we will partner with you to fund this cost of living increase for workers. and we can start with negotiations that have been continuing to continue to give a tax break to the wealthiest corporations. let's tax the 1% and give the

workers what they need. we are going to be rallying around this event with the theme of less to build the city we need. we encourage everyone to join us. >> this is mr. barkley. goowe volunteer at hospitality house. and we have seen quite a few of assessethe best quit because thd no longer afford to work for the wages they were getting. there was one social worker -- i am not the only disabled person, but i have arthritis in my back, and when i get my procedures done, i am stuck in bed for a couple days, and we had one of

the case managers would come over and make sure mr. barkley would get walked. i read an article yesterday, how our politicians old guard raises, but you cannot afford cost of living increase for nonprofits. goo>> thank you. next speaker. 5512 thank you for cosponsoring this clearly historic hearing i was here when the settlement went john with a fill the 52 corporations.

they sued the city, and only 10% of businesses are paying taxes in san francisco, which is astonishing. it is the most irrational tax policy of for a pure ego -- the most irrational tax policy ever. we think there are 52 guys downtown -- pies downtown, that it is time to step up and helped the city. they are not paying. there is $44 million they would be paying, and that would more than cover the cost we are discussing, and i think the conversation has been legitimate about how is it on legitimate about how is it on the private side they have these