this has been done before. when you look at the original legislation when it was reauthorized the first time, it was about a 20% increase at the time, and that was over 15 years. so, we're not going to be visiting this for a really long time. let me, let me -- and i also realize that the difference between when we just look at the ramp up between whether it's 4 years or 5 years, the difference year during the four years would be about $800,000 [speaker not understood]. if you want to increase five years it would be 3.2 million.

so, it's $800,000. and what's happened, i was comfortable at five years ramp up and then there's been quite a few things that have changed to make me soften my stance. the main one was the timing of everything. when we finally figured out what the timing was in terms of completing the spending allocation plan that we looked when it was going to land, it would have landed at the beginning of year 4, where then you would adored need the funding. that in addition to the many,

many, many contacts and communications and phone call i received by people in the field to say it won't make any sense if we vote to have a plan and we don't have the funding. so, i have to really dig really deep down to figure out, well, i had a comfort level of five years and that it looks like there is some logic behind still a ramp up, but it's a four-year ramp up rather than a five-year ramp up. so, at this point i will reconsider my five years and look at supporting the four years. supervisor tang? >> great, thank you for sharing that. again, i think that all of us want to see the increase. i just wanted to make sure all of us especially when we have a full board to feel comfortable with what we have on the

impacts of our other baseline. for the purposes of today, i wanted to know what our plans are in terms of reconciling from the differences in the amendments. i said i would be comfortable with a 15-member oversight committee. really for me i just want to make sure we have the various seats dedicated for all the different kind of age groups and communities. so, to the extent we can accommodate that with an 11 member or 15 member, i don't know we want to consider what supervisor kim did, which would be refer to the board to determine that makeup. >> let me respond to that. i think her recommendation or this amendment is a solid recommendation. it's consistent to the other two , two groups that we have that's going to be new, which

is the community advisory committee for the office of ece . we framed it in term of what the framing -- what the general makeup may be, but in term of the actual membership, it would be done through an ordinance with the counsel. it would be the same thing, we would go through an ordinance. and then rationale here to me was that if you do it for an ordinance, you have an opportunity to see it would work or not work, and that then everything else could be working. but you don't want to go to the voters just because the committee is not working and it would be easier to make changes through the ordinance. so, i would be supportive of supervisor kim's recommendation there.

>> just if i may, mr. chair. in term of procedurally sort of how we should move along here, i know that you have, you know, some amendments. i had amendments. supervisor kim also has some amendments. i'm trying to figure out -- >> suggestionseses -- >> supervisor kim? >> thank you, supervisor campos. if i can make a suggestion, i have the same amount of amendments. [speaker not understood] we use supervisor avalos's fund. if we can make a motion to amend supervisor avalos' charter amendment, that is the page that's been distributed to you all here. i did want to clarify. we did keep the number of seats at 11 based on what supervisor avalos had put in. obviously we have another week if you want to clarify that, but it does say the mayor shall appoint for seats 1 to 6

subject to confirmation by the board of supervisors. the board of supervisors shall appoint members seat 7 through 11. the board of supervisors shall further provide by member, so, we did keep the 11 membership. so, i was just going to leave it at what supervisor avalos said. if we can make a motion to amend supervisor avalos, and then i think a motion to amend supervisor yee's, i think that would be appropriate ~. >> i think the question really is, supervisor kim, some of the recommendations that you have made for amendments is incorporated into the language that supervisor avalos has for his amendments to his -- >> no, supervisor avalos has agreed to our amendments, but the amendments in the sheet we have handed out have not yet been incorporated into the

supervisor avalos's version. >> thank you. would you like to have that considered for today? >> yes, i would. i would like the motion to amend to be considered today. >> okay. procedurally -- >> but when do i -- i mean, i can make a motion to amend along the lines of the documents i circulated to you, changes supervisor avalos has put forward. and can we include in the motion that these amendments would also incorporate the amendments that supervisor kim has also circulated, which is an additional sheet that amends this document? is that appropriate, madam clerk? >> yes, i would actually suggest you adopt supervisor avalos first and [speaker not understood]. >> have a motion to adopt supervisor kim's amendments to

the amendments i had circulated on behalf of supervisor avalos. >> thank you. >> is there a second? >> second. >> second. so, with no objection, motion passes. [gavel] >> and then i make a motion to adopt the amendments that i have circulated that include the amendments from supervisor kim. >> okay. >> sorry, i just have a point of clarification. i'll ask the city attorney perhaps. supervisor yee's amendments incorporate all of the me you'rex in one. so, are we also going to -- >> let me clarify. it's a little confusing. if we pass supervisor avalos' amendments then -- and then we pass any amendments we have for peef, then i would make a motion to [speaker not understood] language that i have amended, put them for amendments.

substitute with what was just passed so that we have -- issuing one document going through. >> thank you for that clarification. >> city attorney owen? >> i'll wait till you make the actual amendment. >> okay. so, there is a motion to adopt supervisor campos' amendments and did you second that? okay, no objection. it passes. [gavel] >> so, let's talk about peef, peef amendments. do you have any other additional -- >> no. >> okay. so, there's -- do we have to -- he we would have to pass that or not?

~ it's coming to the rule. >> oh, you're talking about the rainy day fund charter amendment. >> no, the peef. we can't talk about the rainy day fund yet. >> right. i believe -- >> you didn't have any new language since introducing it to the full board? >> no. so, what i would request is, understanding that we're combining children's fund and peef into one measure, i believe that item 3 has already been called. so, having the charter amendment that is before you today, the public education enrichment fund, be motioned into supervisor yee's combined children's and family council of san francisco and children and family plan. >> so, i just wanted to clarify that. you didn't have any additional -- >> no. and my understanding is that your version already has included the preamble for the public education enrichment fund. that's already in your version. we're just going to insert the charter amendment underneath that. >> okay.

so, i'd like to make a motion that i amend my amendments. i think that's how i'm going to have to do this. where i would substitute what was just passed through the children's fund amendments that supervisor campos just introduced. i will substitute that language for my children's fund language which is section 116.108 a through p, i believe. so, that's one amendment. ~ that i'm making. and i believe i would need to include inclusion of the peef language into the amendment.

>> i apologize, i do have one amendment. i thought this had already been incorporated into your legislation. i had actually requested it, but it's not -- >> >> [speaker not understood]. >> this is not in what was brought to me. it's page 27 lines 11 and 12. it says the measure may be referred to the art, music, sports and early education for every child amendment of 2014. and i had actually, in the original charter amendment that i introduced on april 24th, i had entitled the measure, the measure may be referred to as the public education and enrichment fund of 2014. >> okay. >> and it coincides, then, with the rest of the language that refers to the fund as the public education and enrichment fund through the rest of the body of the charter amendment. i'd like to make a motion to incorporate what supervisor kim just said.

>> this is your piece, right? >> no, it's into your piece. >> so, we'll have two amendments. one which is to substitute the language for children's fund into my -- what i had originally wanted for amendments. >> just to clarify, you are going to move your second draft as has been circulated, going to change the reference to the peef, and then you are going to substitute wholesale the language of the avalos charter amendment file 443 for the corresponding section of your second draft which is 4-4-1. so, it will be supervisor avalos' 16.108 with supervisor kim's amendments and supervisor

avalos' section 16.108-1, which is where he sets up the oversight committee. >> correct. >> thank you. >> so, that's my motion, if you got that. that's why we need another week to look at it. so, i made a motion and second. any objection? no, okay, with no objection the motion passes. [gavel] >> so, we now have a unifying document that we will be i guess hearing next week. so, at this point i guess we need a motion to continue this item.

i think we need a couple motions here. >> i was just going to move that motion to continue the item to the next week. >> okay. >> to the next rules committee meeting. >> and then for -- okay, let's do that first. is there a second? >> second. >> no objection. motion passes. [gavel] >> mr. chair, just to clarify. you're continuing this to the next regular meeting of june 19th or -- >> yes. >> or just continue to the call of the chair in case there is a special meeting held? >> no, this will be heard on the 19th. >> june 19th, okay. >> okay, i think we're done, right? do we have anything else? okay. madam clerk, is there anything else on the agenda? >> that concludes our business for today. >> meeting adjourned. [gavel] (applause)

item 3, director's report. >> good morning chairman nolan and members of the staff. our purpose today is to sunshine some labor contracts and provide updates on where we are in the process. this year we had seven collective bargaining agreements that are set to expire on june 30 of this year. to remind you, sciu, local 1021, there's three different

units. that was the sciu, the electricians and the managers and the machinists. three of those -- the first three will be on your calendar for june 24 for consideration of approval. the fourth one, the machinist, we had basically a clerical error so we are redisclosing, resunshining those so that we can make sure we're disclosing the proper corrected agreement. as i mentioned when we last

met, we did not have ratified agreements for the transport workers union, the three different units of that. for local 200, which represents the supervisors and managers, the application was completed and we're disclosing the labor agreement today and have it ready for your approval on june 30. the highlights of that agreement, it's a two year contract so -- just to refresh your memory, the ones we disclosed on june 3 were all three year contracts for the transport workers union, they'll likely be two year contracts. for local 200 it's a two year contract, it's got a 3% base wage increase this year and 2% increase next year. they will be coming into the

city's model which is where the employer pays. some smaller things are language that allows employees to serve suspensions by reducing pay rather than taking time off work so we don't lose the benefit of service should they want to work a cash allowance for safety shoes, a number of other smaller items. the cost of the contract, which is primarily driven by the wages is about 1.2 million in the first fiscal year and about 1.3 million in the second fiscal year. with regard to local 250a, which has two units, one that represents our transit operators and a small one that represents the fair inspectors. as you know we're still in talks with them.

there was some mediation this week and for a moment it seemed like we were making progress but at this moment it doesn't seem like we're making progress. i did share a letter yesterday, just really trying to outline what the path to resolution is, reminding them of the charter provisions and deadlines because the way the charter reads, we need to make any agreements that we have public for 15 days before you can consider them and since the agreements expire on june 30, that means we'd have to make them public by june 15 at the latest in order for you to be able to vote on them and prevention a lapse in the contract, which is what would happen if you don't approve a contract by june 30.

so what we are doing today is we are disclosing the agreements that -- which is basically where we left all with both of those units. for local 250a in terms of the transit operators, it's the agreement that was reached as a result of the mediation process that's outline nd the charter. its agreement was reached back on may 8. at that time i believe the schedule was that the union was going to bring it to a vote and then be ready to come to arbitration on may 20. as it turned out the vote itself didn't happen until may 30 and subsequently the vote was resounding vote down of the agreement that came out of the mediation process. the union has not be willing to enter into arbitration as the charter requires so what is before you today is the

agreement that came out of that mediated process. so just to be really clear, what we're sunshining today, this isn't what we had proposed, it wasn't our started proposal, it wasn't what we went into mediation with. this is what came out of the mediated process so it has some things that we had proposed, has some things the union proposed and some things that present a compromise between those. so just wanted to be really clear, this is in our proposal, this is what came out, the charter mandated mediated process. so what was in there, what was in that recommendation from the mediator that the two parties agreed to is also a two year term, it's also a 3% base wage increase on the first year starting on july 1. for the second year it's an increase on july 1 of the second year between 2.25 and

3.25 based on cpi, based on inflation. it does include the retirement pension swab that we talked about at some length on june 3. and just to remind you, every other -- pretty much every other union and employee in the city, pays the employee's share of their pension contribution and the city pays the rest. right now the full employee share is 7.5%. right now the city's contribution is in the 20-something -- 22 or 23% range. we still have a very significant contribution that we make to employee mentions, but the employees for pretty much every other union in the city pay 7.5%. most of them got to that place through the same process that's on the table today where we actually offset their cost, at least in part, of their

contribution with the wage increase. that's what we had proposed in this contract, that they would pick up their 7.5% employee share in exchange for a 5.05% wage increase. the reason those numbers are different is that we propose that as being cost neutral to the agency so when you take the cost of our paying the 7.5% and add that all up, convert to wages, because on top of wages we have to pay certain other costs such as fica and other insurance, the math works out, at this point in time, to a 5.05% wage increase. importantly, that wage increase is what the pension is based upon or the wage increase on top of the wage is what the

we're providing offsetting salary to them, but basically increasing their pension at 5% so if you look at the page, plus the pension benefit, it's -- i believe it's a pretty significant benefit. the agreement also recommended moving them also into the city health plan, which was something that the union actually had desired that same 93/93/83. with regard to part-time operators it increases the daily limit from five to seven hours. and also allows for the serving of suspensions by reduced pay as opposed to taking time off. the cost is $3.8 million in the first year and $5 million in

the second year. that's the agreement that we are sunshining today, recognizing of course that the union membership has voted it down at this point and the union has not been willing to to into arbitration on this, but this is the result of the mediated settlement process so it would seem to me this is the most reasonable agreement to put forth so at least we have an opportunity -- or you have an opportunity to approve something before the end of the fiscal year. in terms of the fair inspectors, which is obviously a much smaller unit, a little different process that they came to agreement, didn't even get to impasse or mediation. they came to agreement, but subsequently, the agreement was unanimously voted down by the membership and likewise, there's been no willingness to

enter into mediation on this. the terms are the same, same terms, same wage, same retirement swap, same health plan. more or less the same deal. the cost in the first fiscal year is $200,000 and there's a slight savings of $78,000 in the second fiscal year. that's what we're making publically available today. i've been urging the union to return through the collective bargaining process that the city uses for every other union and we still remain hopeful that we'll be able to get there with them. we do have the agreements, we'll be making these agreements public on our website as required by law that we have copies of them here and they'll be up on our website by the end of the day.

that's pretty much where we stand. we have reserved sunday, which would be the last possible day to make public the sunshine, any agreement. so if we're able to make any progress with the transport workers union between today and sunday we would -- and have a revised agreement that we can sunshine and make possible, that's what we would do on sunday. i think that covers it. be happy to answer any questions. >> no action is required by the board. this is simply a public meeting to sunshine -- >> right, the charter requires that we make these available to the public in a public meeting. >> members of the board? members of the public care to address the board? good morning. >> good morning, erik williams, president for the transport union.

respectfully, he's misstating the facts of what happened in negotiations between transport workers union and the agency. for one, you were not even there. for two, if you talk to your team in terms of what they brought to the table it was total unfairness. and if you look at the process between the impasse resolution procedure 88 and 049 and prop g, you ask me is it fair and we go to negotiation under these terms. let's be clear here. we want to go back to the table. you guys are refusing trying to push us into a lopsided arbitration process. we're asking to go back to the tab. table. your team misstated the facts on the pension. our team crunched the numbers. that's what happened. we came back.

so add ininjury to insult to tell them this is a fair and decent package in terms of this pension where the numbers are not correct? really? i'm not going to do it. our team is not going to do it. and every individual that is driving a bus right now, despite that you think we are incompetent and we don't understand numbers is insulting. it's insulting. so let's clarify that. so secondly, in response to your letter -- i have a response for your letter, for you. i have a response for the board so they can look over on which we propose to you on tuesday through the mediator in which you did not even respond on how to get something before this board and the board of supervisors by your date within the charter. you did not respond so we have that here. let's make it clear, we're not opposed to going to arbitration. we will go there.