plan and the capital plan and the information and technology plan. they all work together and serve as a framework how the city should be think about and planning for our financial needs and capital and it needs. all of the plans will be before you within the next month and have to be adopted with or without amendments before may 1. i want to give you just a very high level summary of what the five year plan incorporates because it does two important things. the first is that it provides a forward looking projection of the subsequent five years budget. it also provides a plan for closing the gap between projected revenues and expenditures. the five year financial plan for the first part, the part that is the projection, is consistent with the joint reports that you have seen in the past. it's a

shared projection between the board's analyst, the controller's office and the mayor's office. at the highest level it projects 13% revenue growth. that is roughly $6 million and 25% growth in expenditures, and as a result the plan identified a short fall of $500 million over the five year period. the report also provides an update to the deficit numbers that you have previously heard about that were put forward by my office back in december, and in the report essentially indicates that the short shortfalls are similar to what we projected before. in

13-14 the plans indicates that the city has 123.6 million short fall opposed to what we projected at budget instruction and a short fall that we will need to close in the subsequent here so that's the high level of what the problem statement is. the plan also has to come solutions and strategies that the board and the mayor can take to close the gap between pends and revenues. the plan must be balanced over all five years and really our goal is make sure we have the ability to strengthen the city's financial position and close the structure gap and has the resources to provide services to residents. consistent with the last plan which was in 2011 the plan proposes a number of strategies that taken together could

address the projected shortfalls including things like restructuring our capital and debt portfolios, constraining wage and revenue growth. our pension and health benefit cost along with the labor cost contribute more than 50% of the overall cost city wide. the plan recommends identifying additional revenues, looking at base plan revenue allocations. considering not funding or reducing our inflation -- our ability to do that with inflation and fienltly it suggests over the five year period we're going to need to take consistent steps to reduce our spending in departments. at levels similar to what we're projecting this year. not dramatic, but not insignificant. the other thing i would

highlight for you is that the plan this year takes a special focus on the department of public health because of the short fall we have identified in their budget this year and i know you will be hearing more about that in the coming weeks but the plan addresses that in detail. finally i just wanted to highlight for you since the last time i was here we've had the federal sequester has gone into effect and the initial impacts to the city including our initial thinking what the impact is on the housing authority as well as the school district are approximately $25 million. those are initial projections and we will be refining them over the coming weeks as agencies begin to communicate with our agencies and departments how the sequester will be implemented

and i know several of you have asked me to come back in a couple of weeks if we have more information how that plays out in the city and i am happy to do that. that's my update and i am happy to take questions. >> thank you. colleagues, any questions at this time? supervisor mar. >> >> can you give more impacts on the schools and the housing authority? and i know we have a hearing coming up but a lot of questions are coming from parents and school sites. >> thank you for the question supervisor. i will have more detail about this in a subsequent hearing but at the moment we are projecting approximately 3.6 million dollars of reductions to funding at the school district including funds for nutrition programs,

head start, as well as individuals with disability act funding, ada. for the housing authority the effects are both the capital and the operating budget and at least 1.$6 million. >> thank you. >> supervisor breed. >> just for clarity i thought you said that the potential shortfall would be 25 million, and i'm not hearing 25 million from the numbers you provided for those two estimates. >> sure. so i have a detailed sheet which i am happy to provide all of you with. the cuts -- the reductions that are implemented by the sequester are across the board in nature so they affect our public health department, our human services

agency, criminal justice programs, energy and environment programs, so of the total reductions that we are currently tracking approximately $5 million at the house authority and the school district and the remaining 20 are within the city and the county. >> thank you. . >> colleagues any other questions? thank you very much ms. howard. we will continue item two to the call of the chair. we will have this all the time at this point though. however i would like to open it up for public comment. please step forward. seeing none public comment is closed. can i have a motion. >> so moved. >> and we can do that out opposition. mr. clerk can you call item one. >> item one review the cities

comparable worth and historic efforts to eliminate pay inequities based on race and gender and how it measures up to comparable worth standards as defined in the proposition h. >> thank you very much and this is sponsored by supervisor avalos. you have the floor. >> thank you chair farrell and thank you all for being here. i want to thank the department of human services for your work and your present today, and thank members of the audience as well. you know overall there is a discussion happening between dhr and the other groups and i want to make sure i am giving a bird eye's view of what we're doing as a city that looks at preserving comparable worth. i have called a hearing to review the policies on comparable worth and our historic efforts to eliminate pay inequities raced

race and gender. i am concerned as president obama and -- could be going in the other direction and cutting and classes disproportionately filled by women and people of color. it is well documented women make less than men for similar work. that's why equal pay advocates have been trying to get congress to adopt the fair wage act and president obama highlighted in his state of the address. over 30 years ago san francisco was ahead of its time on equal pay and tackling pay gaps here in city government. in 1978 the commission on status of women issued the comppable pay study of the city and county of san francisco. in 1981 the board of supervisors passed a resolution

stating unequivocal support to lmentd pay inequities based on race and sex and by bringing them up to parity. i believe that this remains the policy of the city and county of san francisco. under mayor fine stein the city of san francisco identified jobs classifications traditionally held by women and people of color and paid less than white men. in many cases the positions required skill and experience and were as value to the city as higher paid ones. after the voters adopted proposition h in 1986 the city started reversing years of discrimination any reversing this trend. over the next decade the cities adjusted pay scales to eliminate gender and race based inequity but as american moved forward san francisco is threatening to go

in reverse: the department of human resources has reproposed reducing pay for 45 job classifications and held by women and leaving others alone held by white and men workers. many was done by the historic work to eliminate pay inequities. there is -- on my desk somewhere there was a story that came out in the chronicle. it was associated press story that the chronicle picked up and talks about how in government jobs women are disproportionately bearing the brunt of job losses and cuts and pay cuts as well, and it seems like what is being proposed here in san francisco could be mirroring that national trend and i think we should be concerned about that. i hope

this hearing provides us with the opportunity to revisit and honor our city's efforts to insure comparable worth and here in san francisco the long ark of history -- actually i missed a page here. i have heard from the administration that things have changed. charter language has been replaced and the proposed cuts and wages protect pay inequities and let's look at some of the facts. here in the city and county of san francisco we still have classifications that are overwhelming filled by women and people of color while the overall work force is 46% female, women make up 70% of eligible workers and 79% of nursing assistants and vocational nurse scption contrast with this firefighter and police officers and many

male and women represent 86% of vocational nurses and eligibility workers and all the city nursing assistants and custodians. now let's take a bird eyes view of these pay classifications and how they have fared over the years against the classes representing by women and people of color. these charts will show now the information presented to us 10 from data from the department of human resources website. first chart will be license vocational nurses. >> can we have the overhead please? >> overhead please. so you

will see on this graph we have different bars. nineteen87, 88 and 2012 and 2014 proposals and conclude from the department of human resources. on the bottom you will see the pay gaps that we see between different positions. these are comparing license vocational nurses with painters. that was a standard used in comparing in doing comparable worth adjusting pay. they looked at those two groups. you see in 1987 the gap was $12,000 between the two. that was raised to 1999 to a gap that was only about $297 and while we have a different way of adjusting pay since that period

we still see that the current fiscal year there is about a $3,800 gap between these two classes. the proposal that is coming from the department of human resources for new hires is actually lowering the pay for this classification for licensed vocational nurses and that lower pay is a little less than $3,000 -- about $3,000 and we will see we are actually reversing the gap by having such a proposal between the lvn's and painters, the next comparable classification to lvn's. our next slide shows custodians and -- our next slide please. is comparing custodians with truck drivers and gardens. this was

the standards used with these wages. we compared to these classifications and education and knowledge. the gap of custodians and the blue bar with the other classifications and the lowest to the highest is about $10,000. that gap was closed over the next 10 years to be about $8,000 in the current year it looks like we're reverse according to the numbers that we have to about $13,000 gap which is fairly significant which shows perhaps we're not living up to our standard of comparable worth. the proposal coming forward in the next year comparing custodians to truck drivers under the comparable worth notion is a reversal of where we're trying to get to a gap of 16,000-dollar which i think is pretty significant. the next slide we have is with

eligibility workers, and we're comparing them here -- eligibility workers are the far left in the light blue bar. eligibility workers are compared with planners, electricians and carpenters and they're the lowest paid classifications in this grouping of comparable worth. in 1987-88 the gap was about $15,000. that was reduced somewhat by 1999 to $10,000 but we're seeing in the current year the gap is widen again between 1999 and today the gap is 17,000-dollar. with the proposal forward through negotiations within dhr and 10 to one we see the gap is widening more about 23,000-dollar. i am very

concerned as we're seeing decisions that are made how we pay people in san francisco according to classifications we're seeing that the reductions in these cases are falling predominantly on women and people of color. i think it's important to recognize that the actual data does suggest that there is a widening inequity and i think as a city we have to really request whether it really meets our values that we try to promote. that is about equal equity and protection for all so we will continue to explore this through this hearing. i want to welcome my colleagues who you would like to have opening comments on this hearing. i know supervisor kim is here and has comments and followed by supervisor mar. >> thank you supervisor avalos

and i want to appreciate you calling this hearing along with supervisor campos and comparable worth and pay inequities among the workers in the city. i think supervisor avalos covered the breath of the issue they heard about so i'm not going to repeat what he said or the data he pointed out but as we talk about women leadership and the importance of the representation of women in public policy roles i think it's important to protect gains that have been made by equal rights advocates require and continue to push gender issues on a policy level, ones that impact women and therefore their families and communities. one of the issues i believe is central to the livelihood is of course our pay and it's important to look at and evaluate classifications in industries that are predominantly women and howe

how they're paid in classifications and industries that are mainly male and looking at it with scrutiny and appreciating the quality of work and the needs for it and uncovering biases that we are unaware of and my understanding what we're talking about today is disproportionately higher average of women and also san francisco residents so when we talk about under paying women and people of color we're talking about under paying mothers raising children here in san francisco and trying to raise a family here in the city so i am looking forward to the presentation by the commission of womens' status, dhr and others as we continue to explore this issue. thank you. >> thank you supervisor kim. and we have supervisor mar. did you have some comments?

>> thank you supervisor avalos. i wanted to thank you and supervisor campos for bringing this hearing. i definitely wanted to be a cosponsor of the hearing as well. i wanted to thank our department of human resources staff nicky and martin and mary for being here as well and all of the data you provided, and then the historical study done by the doctor and the commission on the status of women. i think it's important to understand history and how policies were set in place for 30 plus years to today as we begin to hear stories from people that will testify and i know on valentines there was actions with human stories told and yesterday throughout city hall there was tremendous numbers of people in many of these 44 classifications that were doing their best to tell their story and how policies that we make at the board can

impact or moving forward progress for pay equity and comparable worth and civil rights move us backward which i don't want to do and as one of the asian pacific islanders on this body i want to raise a perspective. the city's work force is 36 asian pacific islander identified and of the 44 classifications we're looking at the proposal impacts the majority of that group. one example is over 2/3 of the cus dode an are asian or pacific islander and other groups including eligibility workers and the gap was shown and 57% of those eligibility workers are

asian. lvn's are 50% and i will repeat again. nursing assistants are i think the highest percentage at 71% asian or pacific islander and just think about it. well over two thirds of these groups are largely asian, immigrant workers as well and i want us to consider that, and also to compare from other data that we received from department of human resources and elsewhere compare those numbers and classifications to the city's police officers and firefighters where asian and pacific islanders make much or fewer numbers. i think it's 1/4 of the existing employees in those departments and i assume the demographics will come out as we look at the proposals and i wanted to thank my leagues for bringing this forward. i know

this is a difficult issue as we deal with a tight budget for the city and my feeling as i said yesterday and many of the workers in the city came throughout the first and second floors of city hall we will move forward and not backward as we look at pay equity and comparable worth. i want to say there were effective signs used in city hall and the questions on big signs were for many women that were on the first floor, the grand stair case, the signs said "if i were a man would i be paid more? people of color that said "if i were white would i be paid more?" and i hope in san francisco the answer is no but i know there is a long way to go so i would like to thank everyone who is assembled here

today and look forward to hearing the stories and understanding history and how our policy making impacts that history. >> thank you supervisor mar. we can go onto our speakers. i have a number of speakers that are going to be presenting. first up will be emily morase and mara keely who has a lot of history about the worker and the city around comparable worth and followed by vickey callahan. then we go into q and a and have other speakers as well but after emily might need to open it up for public comment so we can someone from the public to speak at this part of the presentation. >> thank you very much supervisor avalos and thanks to members of the committee for inviting us today. i am going to give you a brief overview of

comparable worth nationally and in san francisco. first slide please. so comparable worth began in 1942 in terms of general order 16 issued by the labor board. basically the federal government decided to adjust wages for women to equal men doing work of comparable work and quality. you can imagine when the men were at war the women were doing the work. the order remedied was a job assessment to determine the value of the work so that's really the origin of the discussion. in 1955 the u.s. census bureau reported that women earned 64% of what men earned. in 1963 there was a

federal equal pay act that was introduced that mandated equal pay with the following important exceptions. under the bennett amendment allowed differentiation of payment based on one seniority, two, merit, three, productivity, or four, any other factor, so you can imagine employers went to look for justifications for pay inequities in terms of these things. 1964 title seven of the civil rights act prohibits discrimination of covered employers based on race, sex, national origin and 15 or more employees for each working day and in the calendar year and most employers are subject to this. next slide. in 1978 as

was referenced the san francisco commission on women and women library workers conducted a study on city classifications and according to that study women earned 69% of what men earned. notice it's not much higher than 1955. men worked in 1200 classes and women were concentrated under 500 classes. the conclusion of that report said men's jobs pay more with comparable education and experience. the context at the time there was a supreme court case and they ruled title seven covers wage discrimination whether or not the jobs are exactly the same or not, so it was considered a landmark decision. however, in the application of this court case since 1981 there has been a

narrowing of the application. a lot of cases have used the bennett amendment to justify pay differentials based on gender, and actually in fact there have been few successful cases of comparable worth violations. the seiu city committee on comparable worth was convened in 1981 as was referenced by supervisor avalos the board passed a resolution stating adopting a policy to erase pay inequities and based on race and sex and bringing the un classified positions towp charter and law. at the same time the state passed a senate bill and it's comparable statute but not clear whether applies to charter city like san francisco. next slide. and then in 1984 mayor