electronic monitoring is good, in that it does give alternatives to the people being incarcerated with the low level of offenses, and the people who are not a risk to committing more violent crimes, and in the society. but i think that there are other processes in place, and or, and that don't require people to get our economically disadvantaged to help to put out the money because with the electronic monitoring it also is maybe, not as cost effective for the people who are economically disadvantaged. over all i think that there are systems in place that allow these, and the deversion program, also, and i actually had a member of my family who had never had any or been arrested or had any problems, and that was on this and it was for our family he could have been or but for our family it was cost a lot of money and it

was really hard on us. so in theory i think that we already have a law in place for this. and so i am kind of saying why we have to add to it. and so i can see that if the people have been in jail for 30 days to 60 days and showing the good behavior and the staff are able to assess them, and see that yeah, they are possibly really low risk to the community to recommend that they be released on the electronic monitoring but much would prefer as i said or. and on the deversion. thank you. >> thank you. very much. >> next speaker, please? >> and good afternoon supervisors. and it was very interested and interesting to me for the da, because i support all parts of

the law enforcement. but i was really surprised when the da compared the people like with a million dollar bond murder, you know, committing a murder, to what is going on here today. because, i was like what? how can you just like the sheriff was saying, it is apples and oranges to the way in los angeles, but, we just like when i was in my addiction some years ago, and i was in the middle of the revolving door because of my addiction, but, with the money that could be saved for opening a new jail, that if people are allowed to go on the monitoring and process that could go into housing, and then, in the

mental health services and other things that would that is really needed to help the people stay out of jail. so, i really wish that you would bring this forth to the full board, thank you. >> thank you, next speaker? >> good afternoon. my name is luke gordon and i am the executive director of recovery survival, and i am here in full support of the electronic monitoring and home detention. and because i work with this population every day. and what i have come to realize is that the taxpayer i have something here and as a taxpayer, i don't think that it is cost effective to leave a person for a low level crime in jail at 140 dollars and upwards a day as opposed to putting them on the electronic monitoring at 16 dollars a day or something in that vicinity and the point is that we know that that person is every day, every second of every day.

and it is absolute positive way to keep complete transparency, for that client, is and it makes a community, a whole lot safer, to be able to identify where that person is and i am mot talking about a murderer, i am talking about a guy who did petty theft or something like that. and so i think that they don't have the economic resources to bail themselves out and as a pretrial, too, i think that electronic monitoring is the best way to go and 100 percent support it as a taxpayer and as a service provider to the sheriff's department to probation and to the superior court, thank you. >> thank you, sir, the next speaker? >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is martha roots and i am here today as an ankle monitor success story. san francisco sheriff department assessed me, and put me on an ankle monitor for 75 days.

and that time, i was electronically monitored through all of my walk of every day and i was also home detained after 9:00 p.m., in that time, i got my high school diploma, received an internship through the sheriff's department and have now been working for three years. and so, this does work for low level criminals. it has nothing like, i don't see them letting a murderer go on home detention, i don't see them letting anybody that has 3-d uis with may hem going on electronic monitoring but for those low level criminals that do deserve the second chances it does work. >> i want to thank you for sharing your story. and very inspiring and congratulations. thank you. >> next speaker. >> my name is kevin pull son and i am assigned to the community programs which means that i manage the deputies and the men and women who manage the electronic monitoring

system for the department. >> i wanted to say just a few short things, one, i want to make sure that we know that in addition to knowing where people are, we also have the ability to monitor their alcohol consumption, and so we know whether they are putting themselves more at risk. and the other thing that i wanted to mention is to make sure that we know that this is a relationship that we do electronic monitoring and not just putting the person, or a person in an electronic jail. but, it is a calculus of interviewing the person and working with the person to provide them the resources that they need to successfully reintegrate with the community. and this means providing them educational services, and substance abuse services, and a variety of violence interventions so that we give them the tools to succeed in the community at the same time as letting them know that we are watching them and working with them for their success. thank you. >> thank you. captain. thank you for what you do. >> thank you. >> next speaker?

>> good afternoon, supervisors, my name is nick and i am the director of the legal services in jails in san francisco and i am an attorney and i am also an ex-offender. and one of the things that i have been working here for 15 years that mike hennesse pointed out to me when i started working here is people who go to court from outside from the street, usually stay out of jail. i was one of those lucky people many years ago. i came from a family who was able to bail me out of jail and i was able to get out, and eventually get my life together and show the court that i was worthy of staying out, part of that was the color of my skin and part of that was the socio economic family that i came from, the majority of the people in our jail don't have those resources. they don't have the opportunity to bail out and we can and then on the other issue that i want to talk about was the district attorney brought up the people with prior serious crimes.

now, someone could have a prior serious crime from 20 years ago, not have money, and not be able to get out of jail. if for something minor today. whereas someone can have a prior serious crime and a current serious crime and have money and still get out of jail, and so, it really does, even though the public safety is a big issue, it comes out to people with money are able to get out of jail and the people without money aren't and it comes down to that simple and do we want to keep the people in jail, solely because they don't have the resources? thank you. >> thank you, very much. is there any other member of the public that would like to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. again, i want to thank everyone for their thoughts and comments, and it is clear, that all of us even if we have disagreement, you know, we all agree that the main thing here is that we want to maintain the public as safe as possible and

in the process of making sure that we explore the alternatives to incarceration and i think that it really is about striking the right balance. and we have a motion, and to amend the ordinance, and we also have to include in the amendment, the annual report. and i want to turn it to supervisor yee. >> thank you very much. >> i really, i guess that the last speaker that just spoke, hit the point very clearly to me, in that, with this is going to do is continue to look at vehicles to even out the playing field for everybody regardless of what socio economicks that people come from. and i, again as i said earlier, i think that this is just a little too... for us to help people get back to their lives,

and so, with the annual evaluation reporting to the board of supervisors, and you are even stronger to maybe, to get this passed to the full board. and >> great, so can we take, and i just want to make sure that we are clear on the amendments to our deputy city attorney and our clerk and we are clear on the amendments and a motion to amend the amendments and so we can take the motion to amend without objection, and now on the item as amended, if we could have a motion to move this forward with a positive recommendation, as a committee report? >> so moved. >> we have a moved by supervisor yee if we could take that without objection. >> without objection. item passes. and mr. clerk, do we have any other items before the board. >> i believe that is today's business. >> meeting is adjourned. thank you.

>> >> good afternoon. welcome to our rules committee for thursday july 17, 2014. i am supervisors norman yee and i will be chairing this meeting. i'm joined by supervisor katie tang and supervisor campos. the clerk today is lisa miller. the committee would

also like to acknowledge the staff of sf gov. tv. san francisco television jessie larson. who record all our meetings and make the transcripts available online. madam clerk, do you have announcements? >> yes, please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices. please submit any copies and documents should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will appear on the agenda. >> call you call items 1-9. >> items 1-9 involving various lawsuits. >> is there any members of the public who wish to speak on items 1-9? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues is there a motion to convene in closed session.

with no objection. motion passes. members of the public, we will now be convened in closed session. we will ask you to please leave >> deputy city attorney john gibner, the committee voted items 1-4, 6-9 for full recommendation. one vote with supervisors campos voting no to vote item 5 with a full board of recommendation. >> thank you. city attorney gibner. can i have a meetings -- motion to not disclose the

session? >> so moved. >> can i have a second? no objection. motion is passed. madam clerk, please call item no. 10. city clerk: item 10: [initiative ordinance - administrative code - minimum wage]14068710.sponsors: mayor; kim, chiu, farrell, breed, yee, wiener, campos, cohen, tang and marmotion ordering submitted to the voters an ordinance amending the administrative code to increase the minimum wage for employees in san francisco to $12.25 per hour on may 1, 2015, with annual increases, reaching $15.00 per hour in 2018, followed thereafter by annual cost-of-living increases; following 2015, provide only for annual cost-of-living increases in the minimum wage for two narrow categories of employees; and include the city government and in-home supportive services public authority as employers subject to the minimum wage ordinance at an election to be held on november 4, 2014. city clerk: item 10: [initiative ordinance - administrative code - minimum wage]14068710.sponsors: mayor; kim, chiu, farrell, breed, yee, wiener, campos, cohen, tang and marmotion ordering submitted to the voters an ordinance amending the administrative code to increase the minimum wage for employees in san francisco to $12.25 per hour on may 1, 2015, with annual increases, reaching $15.00 per hour in 2018, followed thereafter by annual cost-of-living increases; following 2015, provide only for annual cost-of-living increases in the minimum wage for two narrow categories of employees; and include the city government and in-home supportive services public authority as employers subject to the minimum wage ordinance at an election to be held on november 4, 2014.

city clerk: item 10: [initiative ordinance - administrative code - minimum wage]14068710.sponsors: mayor; kim, chiu, farrell, breed, yee, wiener, campos, cohen, tang and marmotion ordering submitted to the voters an ordinance amending the administrative code to increase the minimum wage for employees in san francisco to $12.25 per hour on may 1, 2015, with annual increases, reaching $15.00 per hour in 2018, followed thereafter by annual cost-of-living increases; following 2015, provide only for annual cost-of-living increases in the minimum wage for two narrow categories of employees; and include the city government and in-home supportive services public authority as employers subject to the minimum wage ordinance at an election to be held on november 4, 2014. >> short 1234 shortly we'll be joined by supervisor kim who is going to speak on this item. we'll give her a minute to get here from her office. >> everyone is so quiet. >> you are going to sing a song? >> yes. i'm going to sing a song. >> so, we are joined by

supervisor kim to this committee meeting. and we already called item no. 10, which is the minimum wage item. so, supervisor kim would you like to make your comment and go over this part of the meeting. >>supervisor jane kim: thank you for those that came out of this proposal for the ballot. san francisco is setting the bar for workers right in an economic growth agenda and we are doing it together. i'm proud to stand with the entire of the board of supervisors, mayor, labor, workers, coalition for fair economy and non-profit and chamber of commerce the most progressive and strongest minimum wage

proposal in the country. and this proposal all san francisco employers will be paying $15 an hour by 2018. there is no tip credit or -- credit. these are pure wages that workers will be able to take home. despite setting this precedent in 2003 led actually by a coalition of activist and laborers, in the last two 2 years in particular we are seeing a widening gap between our lowest and highest paid workers. in a time of economic prosperity, no one should be left behind. everyone that works to make a city and economy most successful should benefit from this prosperity. we have to keep in mind when we are talking about minimum wage, we are not just talking about the province of teenagers trying to make more money. in fact 88 percent of those that benefit from minimum wage are ages 20

and older. women are almost half of all minimum wage workers in this country. we are committed to creating more jobs in san francisco. we can't just be about creating any job. we should be committed to create higher paying jojs jobs and lives wages and allow people to take care of their families and thrive. labor and workers have been clear to initiative and respect the lowest wage workers. labor and workers fought for universal health care in san francisco, put sick day ordinance on the ballot. no one considered these landmark legislation and now others are joining san francisco's rank and implementing the policy. san francisco has a lot to be proud of. we not only push the boundary to respect the work of our workers within our

city boundaries, we impact the lives of workers throughout the country. having the strongest minimum wage proposal in the country isn't enough. it has to be effective. we can't work this hard to pay better wages and not pay attention to where the money is going. we want to ensure it ends up in the pocket of our wage earners. therefore we are presenting this today and the mayor's office and all have worked on to make sure we are highlighting the city's enforcement priority for this minimum wage measure. i have submitted those amendments to the members of the rules committee as well. to be clear about what the ordinance is actually about, this is how we are amending the minimum wage ordinance . one, we are increasing the minimum wage wage to $12.25 on may day, 2015. and then thereafter, every year rising to $13 and and $14 and

eventually to $15 with annual increases starting thereafter cord together consumer price index. we krooefd -- created two categories of government employees starting on may day with annual increases starting july 1, 2016. based on consumer price index. we add the city and san francisco in home supportive services public authority to be included in the definition of employer of minimum wage ordinance. something that we were not able to do 10 years ago. a very important class of workers here in san francisco. we also exempt city employees from recovering monetary penalties. the initiative would of the administrative code of the in home had been authority shall be paid no less than minimum wage in the

minimum compensation ordinance and no less than the minimum wage established in the ordinance. so, i do have a couple of amendments and i do want to -- is it appropriate to read them into the record now, chair yee or after public comment? >> read it in right now. >> okay. there are three amendments. first on page 5, line 18, added section which reads kwoets "it is the policy of city of san francisco to employers be held accountable and the board of supervisors shall study and review the fees ability with state law to enhance the enforcement tool and the city's to combat wage theft and to promote collaboration

between all agencies and departments as well as between the city and state and federal labor standards agencies in the enforcement of this chapter. the second maemd 2nd amendment on page 7, line 10. that all city agencies and departments shall cooperate with revocation or suspension from the agency, the agency being the office of labor and standards enforcement. finally page 10, line 3, change the operative date, that it reads may 1, 2015 and not january 1, 2015. in order to preserve the cpr increase that will preserve the previous minimum wage passed in 2003 that will take place in january. that was just an oversight from us. we have two presentations from our city agencies. the first is the mayor's office. drew is here to present on behalf of the mayor and we have ted

eagan, office of the controllers to present the city's economic report. >> thank you supervisor and good afternoon, supervisors, drew from the mayor's office. on behalf of the mayor i wanted to make a few remarks. at his state of the city address. he wanted to promote the wage increase in san francisco. the mayor met with representative from businesses, non-profit organizations, labor unions and a number of top economist with a goal of setting a minimum wage which is fair to both workers and businesses. i would like to thank all those who participated in this process especially kim for her leadership and supportive of the amendment that supervisor kim has proposed and propose the committee recommend this to the full board. thank you.

>>supervisor jane kim: thank you, ms. drew. mr. eagan? >> good afternoon, supervisors. ted eagan from the office of economic analysis. today our office issued and economic impact report on this item and i would like to walk you through findings and conclusions. it will take me one moment to bring up the powerpoint.

>> thank you. as supervisor kim indicated, the minimum wage increase begins on may 2015, at $12. 25 to july 1, 2019, and thereafter receives an annual increase. just to provide an a little bit of background. the minimum wage in san francisco since 1968. both the federal minimum wage and state minimum wage and then the city's minimum wage. the city did have a large minimum wage increase in 2003 and has had the highest minimum wage in the country since then. however even today's minimum wage would not be as high as the minimum wage wage would have been had it kept up with inflation since 1968. in addition since the state action the gap between the state and city's minimum

wage will shrink. the states minimum wage has risen $1968. in addition since the state action the gap between the state and city's minimum wage will shrink. the states minimum wage has risen to $9 an hour to $15. that inflation is set on a regional bases, metropolitan basis and cost in the city for many workers are rising more rapidly. this is a chart that shows median rent paid by san francisco renters and since 2005, the earliest year we have data on rents annual data. rents increase twice the minimum wage in the city. we believe in our office about a maximumch 60,000 workers may earn the minimum wage today in san francisco, about 11 percent of the workforce. they are heavily concentrated in five industries. food services, retail trade, manufacturing, percent -- personal services

as well as ihs. that's workers who are counted in a different industry. in terms of our economic impact analysis, the effect of raising the minimum wage will increase to the extent that it raises wages of workers. it will increase their earnings and their spending in san francisco and to expand the city's economy. however to the extent that their wages will go up will extend the labor cost of businesses. the net nick impact am -- economic impact is the relative importance. we did look in detail about the economic after effects of the 2004 minimum wage increase in the city. despite the fact that people predicted there would be widespread job loses in the wake of that, there

was actually very little job loss in 2004. however, we also believe there was relatively little increase in actual wages in san francisco. we think that the state minimum wage which we rose from was so far below which people were actually making in san francisco that the net effect on wages increases was fairly small. for example, the highway industries in san francisco saw their wages go up not withstanding the minimum wage. so while we think it's worth pointing out there's a very small employment effect in 2004, we don't think that's going to be the case in the future. this is how we are projecting the increase in the minimum wage as an annual increase will translate into higher wages for workers. so 2015 on a calendar year average the proposed minimum wage would lead to a 10 percent increase

in the minimum wage. that will range anywhere from about a 3 percent to 8.7 percent increase for wages for workers in different industries. if you combine it over five 5-year period, the 28 percent increase in minimum wage will translate anywhere between 13 percent and 26 percent increase in average wages for workers in these industries for san francisco. this is not only the minimum wage wage workers in the industry, this is the average wage will go up by these industries. what does that mean in terms of how much people will make? we project that the average worker will have an additional $125 a week and about $85 a week and you can see the other industries there. these industries are reflecting both the minimum wage increase and inflation that we naturally expect to happen over the time period. in terms of the employment impact, we do expect that there will be an employment

impact associated with raising the minimum wage based on economic motion deling. we believe the city would have more jobs by 2019 compared to the jobs without it. that's about 2 percent of employment in the city. about half of these jobs in food services and retail trade. the employment impact is whether this city's economy will be growing during this period and whether growth is enough to continue the job expansion into city's economy. to do that we need to look at different projections at the city's employment during that time period. we rely on three sources of employment projections. they are all projecting significant amounts of growth from 27,000 to 59,000 new jobs. what that means even the least optimistic employment projection we have will