>> and new take lowe, josh goodwin. hello, eve meyer and if there is anyone else that would like to speak, please come on up. >> is that's it for public comment? please hurry if you would like to come for public comment. pull the mic phone to your mouth.

>> good morning. i am eve meyer with san francisco suicide prevention. i have an audio visual here. this is what i was told that i needed to explain this so the deputies would not stop me. i have a story to tell you. there was a man once who had a horse and he wanted to teach his horse how not to eat. each day he would subtract one straw of hey from the horse's eating trough. every day he took away one straw from the horse and for a year he did this until the horse died. he never found out he could teach the horse not to eat

because the horse died. this is what was left of the horse. if you teach us not to eat by increasing our salary payment as our rents have gone up 20%, at the same time our health insurance has gone up 6%, at the same time as our other assurances that we are required to carry have gone up, you are turns us to the horse that starved to death. thank you. >> you have 30 seconds remaining. >> in my 30 seconds please do not do this do us. we are not people who it is around and file our nails. our agency takes care of 200 calls from suicidal people per day. we do this every day of the year 50,000 calls each year. we keep people out of the emergency room, out of

psychiatric emergency room. it slows us down and you lose money. thank you. >> next speaker. hello, supervisor, san francisco human services network. we are compassionate about the need for worker whose deserve higher wages. we have worked with the city to forma agreement to phase-in minimum wage increases that have been large for the past several years. we have worked with the city to achieve cost of doing business increases to raise our entire wage structure throughout the work force and pay higher rents and expenses. we support the for profit and airport increases that were proposed a year ago and have been on hold. we cannot support an additional 12.4% unfunded city mandate on

nonprofit organizations overnight too raise wages with no plans on how to pay for it. there is an assertion the city will pay to this. that does not present the picture. nonprofits have to come up for one f undergo for workers not on the city contract. they have to fund the entire work force. we are not 100% city funded and cannot raise prices. our survey of 34 organizations showed a cost impact of $19 million including $6 million for noncity funded workers. the legislation purports to delete lapping wage to require the city to fund any of it based on speculative revenue to cover $44 million. it will create unintended service costs, undermining the cost of doing business increase

and allowing funding for no new programs. we ask the city to take out nonprofits. if you are notfulling to do that we need to delay this until there is an adequate community process as we did with minimum. >> thank you. any other speakers, please come on down. >> good afternoon. i am here to support seiu. four months ago i am trying to find a job. i found out that the money i am earning is not enough to pay one week of my rent. i am looking for housing. i am struggling for four months i could not find anything.

sharing a bathroom and one room for $1,200 or $1,300. i am very, very surprised. 20 years ago i was in san francisco before. the first hourly $16 now it is $15 they are paying in san francisco. every time i go out and go home, sometimes maybe i have to cry. people on the streets is housing is very, very expensive. we have to take care of our people in san francisco. san francisco is the most beautiful city in the world. i started tourism. the fourth most beautiful city in the world. we have to take care of it. we have to keep buildings, not demolished.

keep it as it is. you can renovate it. please give us a little bit raise. $1.86 which we are asking for and supporting you. please support us. thank you. >> i am mike. i am a member of united here local two hotel employees union for 37 years. i am also a native born from san francisco living here all my life. i work as a union extra at the center when it is busy. i feel part of the problem is in san francisco you have a divide between the rich and the working class and the poor. the rich are taking over the city. when you see the gentrification going on in the mission. people are being forced out.

something has got to be done about all of that because enough is enough. people shouldn't have to commute long distances to their jobs. if they work in the city they should be able to live in the city. the city shouldn't be as expensive as it is. there is a time in the city and this pertains to you people on the board of supervisors where you couldn't get elected unless you had the support of organized labor. you couldn't get elected because the unions controlled the politics in the city and everything was just about union. you couldn't work in the city that you had a union contract. i feel this way. the way to cure this is to have every business in the city union. that is the only way to do it.

minimum wage doesn't do it. you have to have good strong union jobs in the city. yes, that is a true fact. the unions are the backbone of the city. they built this city up. that is why a lot of people are suffering. they have to work non-union jobs. >> sir your time is up. we appreciate your time and thoughts. we have to keep moving on. mr. cramer. >> san francisco living wage coalition. god bless debbie layman. we are on the opposite aisle on this. we have been through this movie before. we have heard the same script in

2008. the sky is going to fall, the sky is going to fall for nonprofits. after the minimum compensation ordinance was passed when the amendments were passed things transitioned smoothly. money was found. .04 of 1% of the city. one of the richest cities in the world. you all can do this. you need to know what side of the fence you are on. you have heard from the workers. we are in a severe labor crisis. we have severe worker shortage because these wages aren't retaining workers. they are not attracting workers. the workers are being pushed out to mooutto mowoutto modesto. you are responsible. you need to bring up the wages

to keep the workers. a note. we did a living wage questionnaire to all of the mayoral candidates. the next person whose most likely to become mayor, those candidates answered they are 100% behind this and behind funding nonprofits to make sure this happens. >> thank you, mr. cramer. next speaker. come on down. >> i am with the teamters 856. i want to hit two key points. the sister from hsn made a comment before she was cut off about a community discussion. that is a point i want to raise. this committee is very important. you have the ability to give voice to both sides of this argument. i am on the side of the workers.

i will tell you at the full board of supervisors peboard ofe they deserve to see their workers and the other groups deserve to hear this debate and have it at the full board of supervisors. even if there is not the comb fort to send -- comfort. these workers deserve more. the second point. teamsters 856 have workers at take airport affected. we have mco workers in the nonprofit, public and private sector workers. our highest paid aircraft mechanics are here today in solid with the lowest paid. in one of the richest cities in the world and country we can afford to do something for the lowest paid. we will hold out and we will hold the line with the nonprofit

workers of 2015. in home health workers and local 10 to 1. we will stand by them until the end. please send this to the board of supervisors, give voice to the debate. they deserve it. >> all right. anyone else that would like to speak? i am going to gavel down public comment is closed. ladies and gentlemen, thank you for taking time of work to be part of this discussion. a couple things i want to share with you. first of all, i don't believe there is anyone in this building that doesn't believe a pay raise should happen. it doesn't surprise me mr. cramer says they support a pay increase. that is not the issue. how do we go about doing that? the devil is in the detail that

is the difficulty. there has been not enough conversation around that. i want to make sure that you guys weren't set up with the expectation you are coming to fight against an enemy that wants to hold your wages. that is not true. the other thing i want to give you a little history, background how we got to where we are here today. i want you to know that march 21 in 2017, legislation was introduced by supervisor sheehy and kim that would bring an increase for airport workers only. an increase of $1.86 which would be phased in over fiscal year 17-18 and 18-19. that legislation for workers at the airport was agreed upon last year it is ready to go. it is communicated through the

airport worker through the labor leadership they want to stay in solidarity with the coalition. the coalition being ihss workers and nonprofit workers. i want it clear this body is not the one that prevented your pay increase. that is the matter of fact. it is a decision for the union and labor business. second, i want to bring to your attention that in april 20, 2017 -- 25, 2017, substituted legislation was introduced to deal with airport workers. may 4, 2017. supervisor sheehy, a member of the committee made a motion to amend and add nonprofit workers, public entities and the file was duplicated. that means he made the motion to

add nonprofit workers from 10 to 1 coupling airport workers. it is all one piece of legislation. in the file it was duplicated. the airport only file was sent to the full board with a positive recommendation. that means the legislation that allowed the airport workers to move forward with the pay raise was sent with a positive recommendation with three ayes and two excused. i voted for it. supervisor tang voted for it and supervisors yee and kim were excused. supervisor sheehy amended to the momon nonprofit. i seconded it. he added the nonprofit in the public sector worker to one

piece of legislation. i supported that in may of last year. on may 11, 2017, the file was continued to the call of the chair at budget and finance for the controller's costing. we had a hearing to hear the numbers. at the time when the legislation was scheduled there was no due diligence. we want a desire to give the raises we didn't know a source of revenue and how much it would cost. we are in a different place. we have estimations where those numbers are. i want to assure you that although it is a year's time and it has taken a long time to get the answers to the important questions. now, may 16, 2017, the item that held for the airport workers was heard at the board of supervisors, supervisor sheehy spoke about duplicating the file

and asked for the full mco to reflect all of the parties interested. at the request of tim paulson, chair of the labor counsel and other leaders that request was re-referred to the budget committee. this item today was cents to the full board, labor asked us to send it back. that brings us today. here we are dealing with the same legislation that has not been amended there. is very little changes. at this point, i want to go to the budget legislative analyst to talk a little about the number. there is a report that was given. you should understand the budget analyst has a very important role to the budget committee. it is their job to rise above to politics, it is their job to only make suggestions on where the numbers are.

they are dealing with the nulls and bolts. i want to use this as a opportunity to make sure everyone understands more clearly how much money we are talking about. i want to give you an opportunity to make a short and brief presentation. >> yes, chair cohen. on page 18 of the report we summarize the estimates that were developed by the controller's office in terms of the cost of applying the minimum compensation ordinance of 16.86 an hour to nonprofit organizations. that is 1.86 per hour more than the minimum wage in effect on july 1st. this is looking at the incremental cost. there is also an estimate based on the entire $1.86 if it was applied to the nonprofit workers under contracts with the city.

the cost to the city would be $44 million. that cost broke down as the incremental hourly rate goes down. if rather than $1.86 per hour the min ordinance was applied at $1.50 per hour that would be $38 million. if it was $1 per our $21.7 million. fifty cents per hour $18 million. >> i want to make sure everyone is able to follow the conversation. what she is saying an increase of $1.86 that the legislature would come to workers on july 1st would be $44 million. that includes home healthcare worker and nonprofit workers. thank you for that. now, i want to bring up the representative from the budget

office miss kelly. kelly is going to talk about available funds and money. she worked in the mayor's budget office. she saprocessing department head's budget. we are just getting into the main chunk of the budget process. this is a perfect time to continue to have the conversation. thank you. >> thank you. kelly kirkpatrick acting budget director in the mayor's office. a context where we are in the budget process. we are working to present the balance budget by june 1st. we have a deficit that is arrived at in consultation with the controller as well as the analyst of $137 million that we must balance in the next month and-a-half. i will say that deficit does not

contemplate an additional $44 million for the city's balancing projections. >> thank you very much. i appreciate that. the next presentation we are going to hear from is michelle from the controller's office with a few slides to present. before we hear from her i want to give supervisor sheehy, sponsor of the legislation to walk us through. he had amendments at the beginning of the meeting. we have them in front of us and give the supervisor a opportunity to share. supervisor kim was with us this afternoon. she is still up in tjpa. as soon as her item is heard she will be here for comments on the item. >> the first amendment is on

page 5 -- page 1, i am sorry. line five. it strikes starting at 15.86 per hour on july 1, 2017. we strike that. on page 4 line 16, we strike the entire line beginning on july 1st, 2017 an hourly compensation of $15.86. then on page 7 line 25 beginning july 1st that goes all the way over on page 8 lines 1 and 2 and ends at 15.86. >> one second. supervisor stephanie doesn't have that version you are walking us through.

can you give her your copy. thank you. please continue. >> i just want to note that the original mco did contemplate including nonprofit workers. what has happened is that a giant double cross. nonprofit originated it in good faith. if you look at the language struck out in this at the bottom of page four line 24. that was struck out previously. nonprofit workers were promised in years where we didn't have a budget short paul. it goes on page 5 and 6. what really happened is that the city always has a budget shortfall. the nonprofit workers recognized

this could be a burden on the budget of the city. they were conscientious. they negotiated in good faith and tried to help the city out with tough budget times. we will forego the mco when times are tough. was last year tough? is this year tough? was the year before last tough? we always declare deficit. they never get the mco. i understand why trust is low. and why they don't want us to wait until something is figured out. they made a deal years ago. we made a commitment and declare the deficit. then it doesn't occur and they never get the mco. i would hope we could move it forward to the full board as

amended. >> we are trying to understand the amendments. i want to correct the budget. this hasn't been in a deficit. i am in a surplus. >> i am talking history. i don't know if you have had a chance to look at it. this has been in this form for the entire time. >> yes. >> this language about budget deficits and shortfalls and mco for nonprofits is part of this since it was introduced. this is part of the reason we we are trying to correct unfair treatment of nonprofit workers. the original mco contemplated including nonprofit workers. it promised the mco in years with no budget shortfall. we de care claro we declared a surplus. it denied access to mco year after year after year when we

had plenty of money. that is part of the original file. >> this is the original file reflected at a time when minimum wage was not $15 in the city and county of san francisco. it makes sense if we are looking at something less than $15. we have pass and starting july 1st the law of the land in the city apcounty of san francisco is $15. there is a little bit of desscrip see how you are accounting history before us. i would like to bring in the conversation in the controller to present the slides on the budget snapshot of what the resources are available to us as we deliberate on this item.

>> i am from the controller's office. i have just two brief slides to explain the cost estimate contained in the budget and analyst reports and i am happy to talk about resources of the city. we want to explain our methodology. it is a large number. we want to give more detail what is included in that number. there are two pieces. we estimate the cost of increased wages for i hss workers separately from those increasing wages for nonprofit contractors under contract with

the defendants including department of public health, human services agency and other entities. there are state funding formulas we need to take into account. the estimate is just saying for the number of full-time equivalent workers raising the wage from the min to the proposed wage and in the case of ihss workers, there is an additional item we add which is that under the current minimum ordinance the value of paid time off counts toward the mvo wage. the time we are discussing at this moment 170538 would require the value of paid time off be in addition to the hourly wage. a $15 minimum wage plus the value per hour value of the paid

time off. that is a little bit of detail underneath for i hss workers. for other noncontract workers we assume the hourly wage. we think that is about approximately $2,200 ftes. we have included a small adjustment for wage compaction. if you increase wages for the lowest paid workers, you tend to want to maintain a wage differential for the next level up. we included a small differential to account for the cost of that that nonprofits would be under contract or in order to retain workers maintain the differential. it does not include any wage related benefit costs that the employers themselves would have to pay such as social security

taxes. this is just exactly what you have seen in the budget report. a total cost of the total wing is additional wage is $1.86 per hour that would be a total increase of $44 million to the city. then we provided for discussion at a prior time what the cost would be for various increments below that. that is what i have to explain our calculations. i would be happy to answer any questions. >> supervisor fewer. >> i would like to make a motion to accept the amendments that supervise sore sheehy has given

to us and i think they are nonsubstantive. is that correct, city attorney? >> city attorney's office. yes, the amendments are nonsubstantive. >> i would like to make a motion to accept these amendments. >> these are amendments to change the dates? >> that's correct. >> thank you for your presentation. i think supervisor stephanie had a question or two on your presentation. >> given the numbers presented, have revenue streams been explored how this can be funded? >> there are currently revenue raising measures on the upballot being contemplated and discussed for november.

there is no explicit measure tide to this ordinance that i am aware of. >> are we able to tie future revenue streams to legislation, county attorney? >> that would be something i would have to look into. you can't answer that question right now for you. >> from an accounting standpoint the way to do that would be to dedicate the revenue source when you authorize its creation. in the case of taxes you would create a special purpose talks and designate the purpose of that tax for this purpose or any other. it is typically how you would do it. >> what does that mean in every day language, please? this is not a purpose tax. we are talking about -- well, i guess it is. if it passes in june, are we able to -- what can we put in

the legislation? right now there is no revenue stream. or job is to balance the budget and balance programs as things move through the budget process. it is difficult. you just said that everything we have heard and we want to do is going to cost $44 million. we don't have an identified source. tell me how do we tie revenue to this? >> you would have to place a revenue measure on the november ballot as designated tax for this purpose. >> is there a opportunity to use revenue generating measure on the june ballot to this? or does it have to be forward? why november as opposed to june? >> if you want to dedicate a new revenue source to this particular purpose, the timeline for placing measures on the june ballot is pass.

you need to wait for that. on the june ballot there are two grocery seats competing, one for child care and one for homelessness and housing. the homelessness and housing measure -- i will enlist a little help. >> no problem. we want to get it right. both of those measures on the june ballot have a return, it is unusual drafting of the tax measure. they both are special purpose taxes to include a provision to send that revenue to the general fund. that is available for any legal purpose. >> thank you.

can you state for the record the estimation of how much that revenue would be? >> from the grocery seats tax measure dedicated to child care, return to the general fund after net would be approximately $18 million. under the second measure $1.5 million in the first year and $3 million in the second year of implementation. >> it sounds like when revenue tax measures are passed, what is the rate at which they come into the general fund? is it a lump sum?

will we see revenue in january of 2018? will be we see it by july 1st? if it is passed in june or november? what is the estimated time before we see the revenue. >> it depends on the tax. it is paid the tax year. that is the calendar year. the first tax year for which you can impose the increase in the grocery seats is 2019. we would receive two prepayments on that new rate in fiscal year 2018-2019, half a year's worth of revenue in the upcoming budget year. >> half of the revenue would be. if a measure passes in june, we can expect revenue by january? >> there is a timing difference.

actual cash. we could say we believe on a budget basis it would be available. cash in the door would probably be in the fourth quarter to after the year ends based on the timing of payments for business tax in particular. >> what i am not hearing is a clear start date. like the people in the office in the chamber. if we know we file our income taxes and know we will get those taxes back. i spent some of that tax money. what i'm trying to do is figure out when we will start to see some of that revenue come in to the general fund so that we can then begin to pay our workers? >> you would see it in the second half of fiscal year 2018-2019. >> that is july? >> no, you would see business

taxes for the largest taxpayers from whom the greatest share of revenue comes those are paid quarterly. we would have prepayment for the first and second quarter after the end of each quarter to count for fiscal year 2018-2019. >> thank you. i appreciate your time and expertise. i may come back to you with more questions. i want to welcome supervisor kim and give her the floor to talk about the mco. for the record she and supervisor sheehy are the cosponsors of the legislation we are discussing today. >> my apologies i and running back and forth where i it is as a member and budget committee today between items we have at tjpa.

i want to acknowledge supervisor sheehy whose office is playing a leadership role over the past year and i want to thank supervisor cohen. it has been stalled on you ho move this forward. i know there is no disagreement we should work to do everything we can to ensure equity for our lowest paid city workers. i am confident 11 members of the board agree that this very small raise should be granted to our lowest paid city workers. the biggest conversation piece is how we fund it. this is the right time to begin this conversation to ensure we figure out a solution before we pass the 2018-2019 budget. in terms of proposition c which

supervise yee and i offered understanding this is the top priority and respecting the fact that they refrain from placing a ballot measure for june 5, we did include 15% set aside of proposition c to go to the general fund to fund the minimum compensation ordinance. we have varied estimates from the controller's office it would raise 20 to $25 million per year to the general fund. it would not be again until january 1st. that might be one of the conversation pieces if we consider a smaller raise on july 1est or the full raise on january 1st as additional funds come in. i know there are three different pieces. the ihss worker who works to

support seniors and individuals with disabilities to stay in place in their community and really work to build the strength and resilience of san francisco. i know many of the members left. i want to thank you for your work. you make poverty wages in san francisco and continue care taking for our residents who want to stay in the communities and homes and do not go to the level of needing full-time care in hospitals or in nursing homes and how important that work is. we also have a cohort of folks the nonprofit workers contracted through the city. as many members of the public talked about they do incredibly important work providing services to the residents. they are struggling to live in san francisco or close to san

francisco because of our crazy housing and real estate market. this is incredibly urgent. i hope we can pass this as soon as possible. i want to acknowledge how we are going to practically do this. what i am hopeful for and i have spoken to the members of the budget committee. we prior ties funding this as soon as possible. i am hope to passing airport workers out immediately. we will raise wages on july 1st. i want to keep the workers together. i understand both side esof the argument. there is a part of me that wants to approve airport workers today so they can be sure they will get the raise immediately. i understand the concern from

labor we won't take care of everyone if we just take care of some workers. we have to involve hsn. we are not just talking about nonprofit workers in city contract but nonprofit workers are not covered. it would be unfair to not raise the wages of all workers. that has to be figured out it might raise the city's liability from $44 million to slightly above that dollar. we have to understand what that amount is. i really appreciate you are pushing this conversation. it has stagnated. bringing it to committee ensures that all of us are getting to a room and figure this out to make this happen for the workers. we don't want to say it is a

back room deal. >> the room is the chamber. we absolutely need to figure out. i am committing to making this happen in this budget cycle over the next couple weeks. having talked to supervisor sheehy, fewer and cohen we are committed. we probably did not get a chance to chat. i want to make sure we make something happen in the next couple weeks. i would like to work with the budget committee to make that happen. >> thank you very much. we appreciate your insight. a couple things i heard here. i am happy to begin the conversation about drafting some language to include an amendment that would be a trigger to help tie to legislation to a revenue stream. of course, that is all contingent if it passes in june.

we have amendments that have been proposed by supervisor fewer. proposed by sheehy and made by supervisor fewer not seconded. if we could address that, that would be helpful. i think those are to item which one? item 8, item 9. item 8 is the airport workers. >> would you restate the amendment. >> sure. on page 1 line five striking from 1586 to july 2017, on page 4 line 16 the entire line beginning and ending at 1586.

online 7 -- he i mean page 7. >> could you read the change of language so folks can follow along. >> page one line five. striking 15.86 per hour on july 1st of 2017. >> changing it to 16.86 per hour on july 1st of 2018? >> no, just striking that. >> i must have the wrong copy then. >> excuse me, supervisor. i wanted to clarify that. i see my amendment says you are striking other than nonprofit corporations or public entities. then you leave two but strike 15.86 per hour on july 1, to 17. that is what my copy says here? >> it is not highlighted.

nonprofit corporations that was made in prior committee. we are only changing the 2008s. >> you are striking 15.86 per hour on july 1, 2017? >> yes. on page 4 line 16. striking i begin on july 1, 2017. hourly gross compensation of $15.86. then on page 7. line 25. beginning on july 1, 2017. an hourly gross compensation of $14.39. continuing to page 8. beginning on july 1, 2018 an hourly gross compensation of $15.86. >> thank you. the motion is made. i will second that and we can

take these amendments without objection. thank you. supervisor sheehy? any other amendments? >> no. >> then the next major portion is the phasing in. we need to talk about revenue sources. since we don't have any language today, we should start the conversation. i would like to propose an amendment that we introduce a trigger that makes an assumption that there is a new revenue source that will be coming from the general fund we are able to tie it to funding the mco legislation. specifically the language before me says contingent upon general fund dollars available through new revenue measures as determined by the voters.

any discussion or concerns? >> yes, thank you very much, chair cohen. so i would not like the entire amount of money to be dependent slowly on a revenue measure on the june ballot. i would not be supporting an amendment -- that amendment. if the entire amount were dependent on one revenue source that is up to the voters in the june election, i would not be in fair o favor of that. >> can we remove airport workers from that amendment, supervisor cohen, or would that be -- the airport worker item is item 8. >> that is separate? >> we just amended item nine. we are discussing item nine.

both items eight and nine were called together. if you would like to start at item eight we can do that as well. >> i understand your desire to piggyback on supervisor kim. this discussion needs to be started in terms of a mandate. we have to pay for it. i want to agree with what supervisor kim said ther there s nobody on the board of superintendents that disagrees. this is a much needed increase. living wages are necessary. i want to find the revenue stream to fund enthusiasm so that we are responsible in our you can it during the budget season. i would definitely support that, i believe. to continue the conversation at

least to try to find revenue streams. there are taxes we talked about and measures on the ballot and there is also in my discussions with the mayor's budget office. i understand a cannabis tax may be looked at as well. i definitely think that we need to be very responsible about where we are getting the money from. that is something that i think at least to start the conversation in terms of revenue streams it is something i could support this. is a problem, too, we want this out as quickly as possible and be supportive. we need to be responsible for the funding. it is something we all believe in but something we need to be thoughtful of in terms of funding it. >> for the record i want to clarify something. item 8 is just the airport

workers only. item nine has airport workers, home healthcare and nonprofit workers. i understand that and i want to be respectful of labor piggybacking on supervisor kim and wanting that out for the airport workers. i am prepared to do that today. if that wants to be held back i will follow the lead of supervisor kim. >> i am prepared to vote out the airport workers. i want them to know we are trying to work with our labor partners. that will continue to it is on their wage increase until we have resolution around larger ordinance. i see supervisor kim on the roster. >> thank you.

i just want to be clear and affirm what supervisor fewer said. the mco passage should be contingent of passage of new revenue. i don't want the entire package contingent on c. we have to figure out what we can contribute that is not with paying our lowest workers. we negotiate with our labor unions and we are in collective bargaining. it gets a lot of press with the police officers today. we are not asking the police officers to go to the ballot to find revenue to raise wages. we ask our nonprofit workers to go to the ballot to find new revenue. there is exthat we need to be talking about among all of our workers herena san francisco. no one is more deserving than

another. while it is a fairly large liability i think we should be searching with new revenue which is what proposition c does. i don't think we should expect the workers to find the entire $44 million. what i would like to work on is i am comfortable to tieing it to proposition c to make sure it passes on june 5. we have work to do on budget committee to figure out how to fund the remaining portions through existing funds. >> that is why i calendared this. as the conversations were employing it was clear that it is a two class system when it comes to pay increases. i wanted to bring more equity to the conversation. that is why we got this scheduled and we are starting

this conversation. i want to recognize supervisor fewer. >> thank you very much, chair. i agree there is an inequity. i would like to give us time to continue this item. before i make that motion, i would like to say thank you for coming out. i among my colleagues here know what it is like for -- to live paycheck to paycheck. i was a cocktail waitress fond $2.35 an hour. i was a safe way checker at the 648 job. i know how hard that is to be on your feet. i was a local five member fitting bras for women at macy's. my father died when i was 14. i did a series of jobs. one thing i did learn is having

with many jobs in coffee shops, in chinatown to make extra money because m my mother was a low we earner. organized labor sets the standardtor living wages. i know people are suffering. i know low and moderate wage earners are taking the hardest brunt with the massive welts in -- wealth in san francisco. they work hard. i took care of my mother when she was dying. i know how hard and important that work is. i think you deserve and do need a raise. mr. de la cruise wh who is the husband of my best friend. you asked me do we know who 2015 home care providers are? yes, i know there are 20,000 hard working people. they are my neighbors, they are

people taking care of my neighbors. they are my friends. they are people we have relied on and rely on every single day so we can go to work and they are taking care of our loved ones. i understand that completely. this testimony is heart breaking. my husband is retired union worker. my daughter was a union worker until she went to law school for eight years. my father was a airplane mechanic for the government. i know what it is like to be working class. i will say that i think there needs to be more amendments made and this is the place where you make amendments. to say i have been somewhat disappointment in the leadership around this legislation is to be truthful. we are looking for some leadership around this

legislation to find a revenue source to come the agreement about how much the city should be expected to weigh in on this. even when i hear you today, i can't believe it was $1.86. for people making 14 and $15 an hour. i know that is so little relief. i also think we speak to the nonprofit providers. their concerns are serious. i am going to make a motion we continue this item to the next budget meeting next week and have a commitment that we work hard on this for the workers who are depending on this to come through and for us to come through for them that we work hard on this and come back next week with some real amendments what the committee and our sponsors have asked of us is to

look at funding streams and do soul searching around what we as the city should kick in. >> all right. supervisor kim. >> i don't have additional comments. i forgot to note that super visor cohen you came to talk about the inequity with which we treat our workers. we don't ask the labor unions to come up with additional revenue when they negotiate salary increases. that lit the fire for me that we need to make this happen before june 30th. i am committed to working with you and over the next week if we can host the meeting, get everyone at the table and let's hammer this out. >> thank you. i justt