>>clerk: item 38 is a motion to aappoint mike petricca and waive the requirement to the graffiti board. >> president cohen: colleagues, with we take this same house, same call? without objection, this item is approved. next item. >>clerk: the next item is committee report, was considered by the land use and transportation committee at a regular meeting on october 15, 2018 and was forwarded as a committee report. item is -- [agenda item read] >> president cohen: all right. colleagues, we can take this same house, same call. seeing no names on the roster without objection, this ordinance is passed on the first reading. next item. >>clerk: next item would be roll call for introductions.

>> president cohen: all right. supervisor yee, you're up first. supervisor brown? >> supervisor brown: yes. today, i'm sad to announce that last week, we lost a beloved member of our community, norman tanner. on friday, october 12, norman heartbreakingly fell victim to his injuries as a result of a hit and run collision. he passed away, surrounded by his dear friends and family. mr. tanner, known as stormin' norman to his friends touched the lives of hundreds of individuals and changed those lives for the better. in 1990, norman was diagnosed with h.i.v. and given six months to live. instead, he out ran doctors' prognosis and cofounded black brothers esteem, and the san francisco aids foundation. in a time of incredible stigma,

norman founded a program for lgbtq men who are african american. norman also served many years on the ryan white care council, on the board of rams, and also serveds aa residential director of the haight-ashbury recovery program. norman also worked extensively with people recovering from addiction. earlier this years he celebrated 11 years of sobriety. he also mentored city jail inmates struggling with addiction and was a long time member of glide church. norman acted as a recovery group if a till tater to hundreds of folks, many of whom were among the most marginalized in our community. he served as a sponsor, friend and true role model for the community. his unfortunate passing reminds us as we -- reminds us we are as a community -- we as a community

can do better. he's survived by his family in southern california, including his mother, sisters, nieces and nephews. he grew up in chester, pennsylvania and moved to san francisco when he was 19 years old. after the accident, and it really wasn't an accident, it was a san francisco police department is working to identify the suspect in this hit and run. our office is working to review the intersection of oak and baker and discuss solutions with sfmta to reduce such incidents in the future. norman was walking on -- across the crosswalk and someone ran a red light and hit him. together, we strive to have no more pedestrian fatalities. we'll miss stormin' norman and we're grateful for him and his legacy will live on. i'd like to conclude this meeting in mr. norman tanner's

name. the rest i submit. >> president cohen: thank you, supervisor brown. >>clerk: thank you, supervisor cohen. you're next up. >> president cohen: i'm introducing lemgs lation introducing legislation to declare november 6 domestic violence day in san francisco. yesterday marked the one year anniversary of the #metoo movement. it's come to signify not only the experience of sexual assault survivors, but also how we treat and believe survivors in our society. it represents how we conceptualize sexual assault and what americans, particularly women, what they experience on a daily basis. we've been grappling with these issues here in these chambers through the leadership of supervisor ronen and the creation of the sharp program. the united states department of justice just reported that an american is sexually assaulted

every 98 seconds. according to the rape, assault, and incest national network, one in three women in the united states will experience some sort of sexual violence in their lifetime, and one in every six american women have been victim to rape or attempted rape. by declaring october 6 sexual assault survivors day, we recognize not only -- rerecognize not just the power of the survivor experience but the importance of that citywide and national conversation in making change. the 6th marks the day -- the last day of the first week of domestic violence awareness month. the number six also symbolizes nurturing, healing, compassion. it's a symbol of responsibility and service to be achieved through love, care, and

delicacy. i want to thank my friend, mina harris, infofor creating this concept. with this day, i believe we can have an annual reckoning, a continued conversation, and a way to look forward and move forward through compassion towards a more empathetic society that believes survivors and creates a truly safe space for all americans. and i also would like to invite any member of my colleagues that would like to join on board with declaring october 6 sexual assault survivors day. thank you, supervisor ronen and tang and fewer and brown and kim and stefani and peskin and mandelman. and i'm just going to add yee. i'm not here, but i'm just going to add him in. all right. thank you, colleagues. finally, i have another piece of

legislation -- i think supervisor kim might be interested in this one. today, i'm introducing legislation that prevents prior education institutions from -- this is taking the band a box application a step further, and asking an applicant's criminal history in the application acts as a significant barrier to education for millions of americans with criminal records. and undoubtedly, increasing access to education for individuals with arrests and conviction records improves public safety, it promotes greater financial stability, and it strengthens our communities. in 2016, the obama administration encouraged higher education institutions around the country to take a fair chance, higher education pledge, and to develop practices to provide formerly incarcerated individuals with a fair shot. san francisco believes in second chances. we passed the fair chance ordinance in 2014 to regulate

criminal history inquiries in employment and housing. by addressing rod blocks that exist in the pathway to achieving a higher education we will provide adults that have been involved in the criminal justice system to revitalize their lives and realize their full potential. this will provide them with an equal chance to learn and to make a positive contribution to society. thank you, and i hope that you all will also join me in consideration for cosponsoring this historic legislation that will be one of the first and most strongly written pieces of legislation across the country. and with that, i would also like to recognition my legislative aide for assisting me in drafting this legislation. madam clerk, the rest i submit. >>clerk: thank you, madam president. supervisor fewer? thank you. supervisor kim?

>> supervisor kim: well, because president cohen has announced her introduction of dedicating october 6 sexual assault victim day, i thought i would start with a hearing request that i am requesting, along with supervisor peskin, brown, ronen, fewer, and president cohen, with the national conversation on the #metoo movement, and recently with the brett kavanaugh hearing, it has become unconscionable to turn a blind eye to the sexual harassment that we see everywhere, but particularly within the workplace, especially in the city and county of san francisco. the city and county of san francisco should offer the gold standard to our employees in emergency room its of protecting our workers and their human rights and dignity. we brand ourselves as a progressive city, yet behind the scenes, this board continues to

see litigation and settlements against the city for unlawful sexual harassment and creme nation. we as elected officials often stand against the statements we hear from the white house, saying that the city stands for women, immigrants, lgbtq and people of color. we have to make sure that culture exists up and down through our city, as well. this past month, and this board is familiar because this settlement has come to this board today, there is an exceptionally dusting lawsuit alleging sexual harassment and discrimination within the san francisco fire department. the only female firefighter at her station was the target of many egregious acts, including having her colleagues urinate on her bed before she went to sleep and smearing feces throughout the women's bathroom's wall, knowing that she would be the only member of the station to actually see the human feces. despite the egregious acts that

were documented, no one was held to account for what happened. there was not a single firing, there was not a demotion, there was a slap on the hand and people were transferred to other stations around san francisco. i think on ensuring that this culture would be pervasive in other stations, as well, instead of addressing what actually occurred in this fire station. in this most recent fiscal year, the department of human resources received eight cases based on harassment from members of the san francisco fire department. so i'm asking for a hearing with my colleagues on the government audit and over sight committee who have heard the settlement, asking for a discussion on these allegations of sexual harassment and sex discrimination, and the city's policies and practices for responding to such allegations and requesting that the fire department and department of human resources

report to this committee. this hearing is aimed at giving voice to all of our city employees, both women and men, who have experienced injustice in the workplace as it pertains to sexual harassment. we have to do a lot more than make people watch videos. that is not changing the culture here at city hall or beyond. we must bring light to the egregiousness of these cases and establish a zero tolerance policy when it comes to sexual harassment. we can't just talk about it at press conference, we have to make it real for our workers, as well. second, i am introducing a charter amendment today for the ballot -- for the next election here in san francisco. many of you remember that in 2016, i authored with nine other members of this board of supervisors, to raise a modest

increase on our buildings and homes that are sold for $5 million and above and establish a new category at $25 million above. the campaign was to make city college free, and to make san francisco the only city for free tuition at all. san francisco use today have free tuition at all of our colleges until 1983. state law prohibits real estate transfer tax from becoming dedicated. on november 8, the voters of san francisco acknowledged the importance of education and funding our lifelong education institution bypassing proposition w at a rate of 62%. in the first year of implementation, this revenue brought in $28 million to our general fund. however, the administration at the time approved only $5.4 million peryear to the free

city college program in fiscal year 2017 and fiscal year 2018 which ended up not being enough to cover the ex-presence of this incredibly s incredibly successful program. the enrollment at city college exceeded our most optimistic prediction of what we thought would occur after we made city college free, which is -- speaks to both the success of this program but also speaking to the incredible thirst of our residents to attend our only lifelong learning institution, city college. i am putting forward a charter amendment which would create a dedicated fund for ten years for the free city program set annually at $15 million from the general fund, so less than what proposition w brought in in the first fiscal year. this will be available to all san francisco resident does who are enroll or will enroll in the city college of san francisco and will also create a more robust financial aid program for low-income students who are

already eligible for free city previous to proposition w passing where they will receive a $500 stipeyd persemester if they are full-time and 200 if they are part-time. what we learns was low-income students still did not enroll in free community college because now books and transportation and child care costs more that be enrolling in classes, and that making the class free alone was not enough to get low-income students into community college. this dedicated revenue fund will ensure the success of this program for ten years, after which you will either have to come back to the voters or be allocated annually by the board of supervisors once we have provided security and ensured the ability to tell the story of

its success. a couple of stories i will read from students who were surveyed after city college became free. one student wrote, i am in college bought of free city and the opportunity it has to change hi life. another, i just thought i would never be able to go to college because i never thought i was good enough. free city changed my attitude. a third student wrote, when i was younger, my impression of school was you did it for a job and a career that you probably have to wear a suit, and it seemed that i didn't fit into that culture. i felt that anything that took away from making money was detouring me from putting food in my mouth. pursuing a degree now in arts related education at city college has been a long-term goal of mine, and one i never thought i could pursue. but now that city college has become free, and i'm able to -- and i'm now able to save money

and able to navigate this complex system of education with the support of free city college, it's a no brainer. colleagues, this charter amendment will be on 30-day hold, and i look forward to talking with all of you about its importance, and i hope to gain your support when we vote on this before the end of the year, i do want to recognize our free city coalition who helped us craft this second companion measure, including our city college board of trusties, bridget did have ily, alex randolph and others, and recognize the leadership of a.f.t. 2121, the san francisco labor council, rude owe gonzalez, our executive director, and tim paulson, our city college students, and our city attorneys, janet clark and jon givner, as well as our

controller's office who spent quite a bit of time over the last two years on this project. i know one of them has moved onto dcyf, and my cosponsor, supervisor rafael mandelman. it is a pleasure to have a member of the college board of trusties on the board of supervisors, and he will be an incredible at row indicate on the board of supervisors. and the rest i submit. >>clerk: thank you. supervisor mandelman. supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, madam clerk. colleagues, first, i'm introducing a resolution urging support of the state water board's proposed updates to the 2006 big delta plan. i know the p.u.c. has been in all of your offices. i think they are well intended, but misguided. i think that they should immediately get with the program

and at least allow their science to be independently peer reviewed, but the bottom line is that san francisco should be at the table in a cooperative way with other water agencies as the fish populations are crashing as chinook salmon are all but going to be extincn in the san joaquin river systems. i want to thank the sew -- cosponsors of this legislation, and avail yourself of peradvice of people that have been involved in this process literally for decades. and i really want to encourage our public utilities commission to see this call and get them to the table to negotiate something because i do not want to be in a position where the city and county of san francisco is suing

the state of california and behaving the way the los angeles department of water and power did in and around the mona lake matter, which was eventually resolved, but only after the city of los angeles became a pariah in the state of california, so let us not go down that path. secondly, i am really quite troubled and disturbed about the "lax" accounting at the housing authority. we're not talking about a few pennies, we're talking about $30 million. how the blank that could happen is just extraordinary to me. this has been a plagued agency, but for them to have spent $30 million they thought they had in reserve, i mean, are they not the subject of annual audits? i mean, these people should be put in receivership.

but all of a sudden we don't have money for m.c.o., and street cleaning, but all of a sudden we have 30 million for this, even though we don't have money for street acquisition. this has been a bad month between leaning, sinking tours and transbay terminals. this is off the hook. i want to hold a hearing on that. i want to thank president cohen for cosponsoring that hearing, and i would like to thank you all for cosponsoring that hearing, and i would like to get the b.l.a. in there to audit them. this is just crazy. it's just nuts. so the rest i will submit, but i do, in addition to adjourning today's board memoeting in the

memory of dr. jack boatwright, i'd like to adjourn the meeting in -- [inaudible] >> -- he was beloved in the north beach community. he was a loyal public servant for 38 years, the recipient of the safe driver award, had 31 years of driving without an incident, and so i just want to take this opportunity to recognize milton's long time service to the city and county of san francisco and offer our deepest condolences to his family and friends. >>clerk: thank you, supervisor peskin. supervisor ronen? thank you. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: well, i don't have as much exciting news as supervisor peskin, but i will be submitting something to reauthorize the graffiti advisory board. i know we're all big fans. the graffiti advisory board does

really important work, in all seriousness, and i think it's important to all the supervisors in this city as well as all the residents in the city of san francisco, so i'll submit that. the other, i would like to end in memory of a constituent of my community, frankie lee kennedy. she passed away september 21, and she was a beautiful spirit, and she will be missed. she was a devoted mother, a loving wife, had four children. by trade, she was a cosmetologist, later worked for the unified school district and was present again at balboa, she was an active members of the rose olivet baptist church. she moved to san francisco in

1955 and was a long time member and active in my community. she leaves 13 nieces, six nephews, and a host of grand nieces and nephews, and one daughter, one son and law, and others. we'd like to end the meeting in her honor. the rest i submit. >>clerk: thank you, supervisor safai. supervisor stefani? >> supervisor stefani: thank you. today, colleagues i'm calling a hearing on the coordination of services for individuals with mental health and substance abuse issues. this hearing aims to i'd fee potential gaps in coordination between city departments with a focus on the department of public health, the department of homelessness and supportive housing, and the san francisco police department. for too long, we have witnessed the neediest people on our streets end up in jails, shelters, and hospitals only to be back out on streets days or even hours later. i have called someone recently when i've seen someone in

district two in distress, and have watched them as they're taken to the hospital, only to see them back on the streets with their hospital bracelet back on. we hear stories of people being released after a 5150 hold only to injure someone there after or themselves. section 5150 allows peace officers and mental health professionals to hold a person for up to 72-hours for assessment, evaluation, and crisis intervention. after doing so much research on this, i want to know how our assessment and evaluation process works. what crisis intervention is being offered? where we lack resources to address the demand at our hospitals? i want to know where people end up after undergoing a 5150 hold, and most importantly, i want to know what we as legislators need to do to solve this problem.

if the average length of stay in the hospital has gone down over the years, why, and what can be done? if the inpatient beds are usually full, how many more do we need and what is the cost? where should we be investing to effectuate the change we need? if people needing admission have to be released because they need to wait three or four days to get a bed, what are we doing to prevent that happening. if we aren't keeping patients long enough to stable yiez thiz and how are we working with other counties to address this public health crisis? people have been suffering on our streets for too long, and we cannot let it continue. i look forward to hearing from our city departments to hear how we can address this crisis through suggestions. thank you, and the rest i

submit. >>clerk: thank you. supervisor ki supervisor tang? >> we had originally introduced or single use plastic ordinance to reduce plastics in our streets and in our oceans. we had an exception in our legislation already for people with medical issues, there were other concerns that arose, and so i am simply introducing another piece of legislation given that the duplicated file had expired or went way because the ordinance took event to address that very concern and allowing people from the disabilities community to access plastic straws if they need to, and so that is what i will submit to you. thank you. >>clerk: thank you. madam president, that concludes our roll call for introductions.

>> president cohen: let's continue with the agenda. call the next item. [agenda item read] >> president cohen: thank you. i want to recognize supervisor fewer. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much, chair cohen. good afternoon, colleagues. today, i, along with supervisors ronen and kim, are amending the minimum compensation ordinance. this legislation covers raising the m.c.o. for a low wage home health care and nonprofit workers, workers who we rely on for the city's safety net services. this legislation is part of the original minimum compensation ordinance that was introduced by supervisors kim and sheehy about 18 months ago. a couple of weeks ago, we voted

unanimously to support raising the minimum compensation for our airport workers to $17 an hour beginning november 13, 2018. this was a proud moment to support a long in coming raise for our low wage workers and at s.f.o., and now we need to address the wages of our ihss and nonprofit workers. a raise of $2 an hour could affect many people. they do not have the power to negotiate better wages through contract negotiations like we did for police and fire unions this year. as a result, when this minimum compensation legislation stalls, so does the prospect of wage increases for these low wage workers. making $15 an hour, they, themselves are one step away from homelessness.

this is how we plan for the future. our senior population is expected to grow 61% between 2011 and 2030, and there is a decrease in residential care homes for people with disabilities. currently shelter beds are occupied by a large number of seniors. 57% of people are over 50 years old, and 30% of over 60. these are positions that increasingly we are not able to recruit or retain due to the pay and the high cost of living in san francisco. in summary, my amendments are as follows: for ihss workers, raising ihss workers to 17 an hour beginning 60 days after this is enacted, around february

1, 2019. c.p.i. -- c.p.i. based increase on july 1, 2019. fon nonprofit workers, raising nonprofit workers to $16 an hour on july 1, 2019. c.p.i. based increase on july 1, 2019, and to develop a working group to examine wage equity and wage compaction that is convened by the controller and gives recommendation to the mayor and the board of supervisors by april 1, 2019, in time for budget discussions. colleagues, you have amendments in front of you today, and so i'm making -- acted empty as in front of you today, and i'm making a motion to pass these amendments, and i believe it's substantive enough that we would have to continue this until the next board meeting. >> president cohen: all right. let's have further discussion.

supervisor fewer has made a motion and seconded by supervisor ronen. supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: thank you. i think that this piece of legislation is incredibly important, not just as the morally correct thing to do, both the 15 minimum wage in san francisco doesn't cut it for anyone, but it's actually smart policy planning for the city and county of san francisco. before i guess into why, i want to say i really wish we'd dealt with this in the budget process. we'd be in a much better situation if we did. but unfortunately, it didn't happen, and many supervisors explicitly didn't want to deal with it in the budget. so we find ourselves in the position that we're in today. i want to start with the ihss

workforce. this is a workforce that takes care of our senior population in san francisco, a population that's not doing too well as it is today but is expected to sky rocket over the next 20 years. this is not just an issue in san francisco, this is an issue in all of california. in fact, there was a -- there was a very good article in the los angeles times this past weekend about how the entire state is not prepared for the exploding senior population. currently in san francisco, we only have 29 residential care beds for every 1,000 seniors. if we don't get ahead of this crisis, then we're going to see more seniors on the streets of san francisco, our other major crisis that we're dealing with in homelessness, and we know that right now, today, over 50%

of residents in our shelters in san francisco are over 50 years old already. that's of today. and over 20% of those residents are over 60 years old. what ihs s workers do is they make sure that seniors are able to age in place in their homes and get the care that they need without losing their way and being forced out onto the streets. we have to figure out and get ahead of this crisis that we're dealing with, and i don't know a better way to do it than making sure that we have the ihss workforce that we need here in san francisco to take care of those seniors. right now, the ihss workforce itself almost mirrors the patients that they care fore. it's a workforce that's increasingly elderly, and are going to need care themselves. how may i ask are we going to

recruit worker to see do these incredibly difficult jobs if we can't even offer a wage that they can't afford to live in even a below rate apartment in san francisco? the irony is at $15 an hour, workers earn $31,000 a year. $31,000 a year. that won't get you a single market rate unit in the city. and it doesn't even make you eligible for a below market rate unit at 55% of the income, the discussion we had earlier around india basin. this workforce minimum wage won't be eligible for those lowest wage units. so we've got to get ahead of this. you know, alameda county just set a plan in place to raise their ihss worker -- workers t

16.80. we can't be behind them in terms of what we're offering the workforce here in san francisco. this is not only the morally right thing to do in the workforce issue, this is a must do if we're going to be able to recruit the workforce that we need to take care of the exploding senior population here in san francisco. that's on the ihss workers side. on the nonprofit workers side, i don't know if you saw heather knight's excellent article this weekend about the inability of the department of homelessness and the nonprofit that they work with to hire hot team workers. i am very frustrated myself because although i got funding in the budget to focus on the 16 street and 24 street b.a.r.t. station, four months later, they have yet to be hired. guess how much they earn an hour through the nonprofit?

$22, and we can't recruit enough workers to care for the homeless people on our streets. if we can't -- if we can't recruit hot team workers at $22 -- and mind you, it's an incredibly difficult job, how are we going to recruit workers that are the front line of our homeless shelters, that are monitoring, watching over people sleeping in the middle of the night? the -- the turnover that we're seeing at our nonprofits, at catholic charity, they have a 40% turnover rate every single year. tenderloin housing clinic, out of 350 jobs, there are 50 jobs right now that the director has to fill. this is because they cannot recruit at this -- at this wage, at this workforce. so while h.s.n. sent a letter worried about this wage, and while supervisor fewer, kim, and i cut the original ask from $2

an hour raise to nonprofit workers down to $1, not starting until july, this next fiscal year, we think this working group that we have to create immediately is essential because this homeless crisis, the mental health crisis that supervisor stefani just talked about, we're not going to be able to provide the care that we so desperately need to provide even if proposition c passes, and we get the revenue to hire more of those workers if we're not able to recruit the workforce of the so once again, this is not only the moral thing to do at this moment, this is critical. we have to have the workforce to take care of the most vulnerable people in our city. most of them work for ihss or nonprofits. if we are to meaningfully deal with the crisis that we see on our street every day, which mind you is supposedly the number one issue of every single politician

in san francisco. so this is a no brainer. i hope you'll all support the attempts that the supervisor fewer just implemented and then vote for this legislation when it comes up before us for a vote next week. thank you so much. >> president cohen: supervisor yee? >> supervisor yee: thank you, president cohen. i want to thank supervisor fewer for bringing this lemgislation up. everything that supervisor ronen just said, i totally agree. the -- we're really at the place where our seniors or ageing population are exploding. in my district, it's one of the highest percentage of seniors in the city, and we're seeing that go up even further.

and the issues that i've been dealing with with seniors in the past few years is exactly this issue of who's going to care for them? and one of -- there's really only in my mind two possibilities where we could have as a city, impact the situation. one is how do we reverse the losing of our residential beds for seniors? and we have a work group now that's setup for that. and we're going to hopefully find some solutions and start reversing it. i've been talking with laguna honda hospital because there's actually room to build some housing there. and what i'd like to see there eventually is not just one type of assisted care living there for seniors, but sort of a

gradual step up of moving kind of services so that people don't have to move out of the city when they need more care. so that's one, and that's -- in fact, the percentage of seniors that are being cared for in residential assistance is very small compared to those that are at their homes and needing the ihss workers. i've used ihss workers for my family, and i know their value. my sister, who was disabled who passed away before she was 50 was using ihss workers. i want to get that piece of it, and it's true. we thought we were being progressive at the 15% minimum wages, which maybe at the time it was a good start, but get

what -- a lot of the other parts of the country have caught up with us, also. and their standard of living or their cost of living is not anywhere near what we see in san francisco. so this is, to me, the right thing to do. let's get it done. the issue with the nonprofit, as most of you know, most of my career was with nonprofit. the issue that you get lousy pay, and you don't care because you care about your work. you get lousy benefits. in fact when i started in nonprofits, nobody had the health care. nobody -- even today, nobody has really any retirement plan. so for us to pay almost minimum wage, there is a reason why people are not entering it, and yet, it's probably one of the more important work that you would do for our most vulnerable

people. and the issue that we're talking about in terms of compaction of nonprofit as you try to raise the minimum, that's something that the early education field has been dealing with for the last 15 years, so it's a model to look at. there's already one setup in san francisco. i'm glad we're looking at these issues. i wish we had looked at it ten years ago, but let's not talk about them. let's move into the future with a better set of conditions for our ihss workers and our nonprofit workers, so yes, i'll be supporting this. >>clerk: supervis >> president cohen: supervisor brown? >> supervisor brown: yes, thanks, supervisor cohen. i just wanted to say i wasn't a member of this board when this topic was addressed a year ago. this critical need should have been addressed through the budget project.

i'm someone who totally understands the importance of ihss workers. i know so many people who use and have used them and have been critical in the care of their family, and as far as the nonprofit, before i came to work at city hall 12 years ago, i worked in nonprofits my whole life. and to talk about what supervisor yee was talking about, when you work at a nonprofit, there -- we didn't have health benefits. we did crazy things like try to help each other out when someone got sick or needed to go to the doctor, went to haight-ashbury clinic all the time to have something looked at. i have a splinter in my foot or whatever it was. and we didn't have -- you don't have pensions. i worked two jobs just to survive. i worked a nonprofit during the day and a lot of times, a book store at night. so i personally am one person

that knows what it's like to work in a nonprofit, and you stay there because you care. and i was just lucky to actually come into city hall and make a better wage. and i was one of the lucky ones to do that. but now, we're here, facing this huge supplemental, some precedent, really. i don't like that we're doing this, and i want to be clear that my vote in support today in no way indicates my vote next week. this isn't a way to run the city, taking from the reserve when we know there's a downturn coming. when i was an aide, working with many of you during the last downturn, during that time, we had hard decisions to make about cutting or reducing services. you know, vital city services. it was painful. and this makes -- this particular decision, is like a

sophie's choice for me. just a few months ago, i was part of the labor family in local 21, so i wholeheartedly support these laborers, and that's why i'm moving it forward today. but let me be clear, i believe strongly in the sanctity of our budget reserve, but i believe there's a day where we'll need it. >> thank you very much. first, i do want to begin by thanking the sponsors of this. i believe your heart is always in the right place, and even my own grandmother personally benefited from the ihss program. she started living with my parents when i was in high school, and i saw how firsthand service to important for having lived with our family for 12 years. but both my parents worked, and it was just very difficult to care for someone who faced depression in addition to

medical issues and could not leave the house. again, i have seen firsthand in my own home how this program and all the workers are so vital to our senior population. i do want to set the stage and building on the comments, i think, that supervisor brown just made. you know as i was looking into this issue and where we have a minimum wage ordinance in place as well as a minimum wage compensation in place, i saw we had compensation in place in 2000 at $9 perhour. at that time we did not have a minimum wage ordinance in san francisco yet. i was to thank our labor department working in getting a minimum wage ordinance passed specifically for san francisco. so again, i want to thank them for that. so in 2004, we had our minimum wage ordinance passed specific to our city. start out at $8.50 perhour.

and that was in comparison to the m.c.o., which was at $10.51, so there was about a $2.51 different there. then, we saw between 2004 and 2015, and you could see the m.c.o. has been higher than the minimum wage by an average of $1.86. but then, in 2016 is when the minimum wage started to become higher than the m.c.o., and how we are in 2018, and so again, that is the case where, again, while not -- not including the changes that we have proposed here, but we are at that juncture where our minimum wage is becoming higher than the m.c.o. so i just throw that out there as a discussion point for all of us, which is that i think for me, personally, i would love for this conversation to really include the minimum wage conversation. i think prior to, when we didn't

have the minimum wage ordinance that was specific to our city, it certainly made sense to have some sort of a living wage policy in place because we certainly do have a higher cost of living here in san francisco in the bay area, and so we need today address that, versus a statewide minimum wage ordinance. so i think that's an important point to make given where we have come given the history of san francisco, so i want to thank our labor partners for that. the other issue i want to address, having served on the budget committee for many, many years, and staffed it for many years, is there has been a difference in cost sharing. so over the course of the next or our current two year budget, we will see an additional $100 million in terms of what it would have previously cost to

run this program, and that's not even including the additional costs to just the program in general. so that's a very real problem that we're going to be grappling with during the budget season, so i'm not hour should you we're going to address that. i was here when we were addressing critical issues, like cutting public health. i don't know that some of us may not recall how challenging that was during the economic downturn, so you know, the comments that i'm making are simply that we do need to be fiscally responsible as an entire board, but yes, we do need to care for the nonprofit workers, the ihss workers, we want to be able to make sure that they can earn a living wage in san francisco, but we also have to do it in terms of what will come in our economic situatio

situation, not just in san francisco but for the entire bay area. today, i will support supervisor fewer's amendments, because i do think they make the ordinance better, but i -- i'm not sure what i'll be doing next week because i, again, i'm very concerned for our financial health in san francisco. so hopefully, some of our colleagues will be able to offer any solutions. so with that, i'll turn it over to the next speaker. >> president cohen: supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, madam president. colleagues, i don't think anybody questions the need, and i am struggling with this, and let me associate myself with some of the comments through previous members of the board. i lived through two of these recessions, one in the early part of this century, and one about a decade ago, and it was remarkably difficult. and the decisions that we

actually had to make really impacted lives in a very real and sad, tough way. there's an endless amount of deserving need and there is a limited amount of resource. and i' up to the minimum

wage -- the state minimum wage, when we got to 15 on july 1. we did not, as a matter of law, have to do that. it was a decision that we collectively made, and i also note that state subventions in and around ihss are being reduced by the state and supervisor tang noted that. so i will vote for the amendments, too, today, but there's a 12th person who's not in this room, and that is the mayor of the city and county of san francisco and we'll all collectively responsible for the health and well-being of our budget. but the mayor has certain powers that we do not have, and i would like to note them for the

record. i have been on this board when we proopappropriated money to ar who chose not to spend it. and i know that next year, many of us are going to be grappling with 29 open labor contracts, and, you know, i've lived long enough to see the cyclical booms and busts of our economy here and across the country, and it's not something that we control, so i will vote where it as is today, but i do want to add that i reserve the right to put in some fiscal triggers, that when a downturn happens, we are in a position to revisit whatever it is that we ultimately approve. and i wanted to also send a signal to the mayor that time

has tcome, and the devil is in the details, and that is c.p.i. i think that everybody on all sides now know where i stand and what i might do next week. >> president cohen: supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: thank you, supervisor tang, supervisor peskin, others that spoke before. i think i'd like to associate myself with a lot of those comments. i think that it is within every person's interest in this body, and i think respectfully, we all understand the hard work that goes into these jobs. we have a significant ageing population that in many cases is trying to age in place, and age with dignity, and i don't think it's been stated so far, but ihss workers represent the largest workforce in the city

and county of san francisco in organized labor. almost 20,000 employees. that is significant, and these are, as been noted, folks that are also themselves in many cases, over the age of 55, many cases, dealing with struggling with poverty as well as with housing challenges. many cases, these are family members taking care of family members, and this is not easy work. i have thousands of those families living in my district, i have thousands of those recipients living in my district. so i think we have a moral imperative to do the right thing here. i think this is important for the city and county of san francisco as well as future of our city. on the fiscal side, i think it is also important to note that we have a lot of competing interests, and we would be fooling ourselves to say this is not going to impact other areas

of our city's budget and other areas of services because it absolutely will. i think having a fiscal responsibility triggers is important. i think also that there's been some good progress in conversations. myself, supervisor fewer, and supervisor peskin were just involved in some knockdown, drawn out, long negotiations as it pertained to project labor agreement. folks were in the room, and labor was in the room, and i think we came to an agreement what was a pretty good negotiated settlement. i would encourage all parties to take this week to work with the mayor, work with members of the board that have been leading this to continue this conversation. i don't think this conversation is done today. i think i will be supporting these amendments today, but i would like to see more details and more work put in over the coming week. i mean, we sat for 7.5 hours to close the deal on a project

labor agreement with folks that are involved in that. that is a lot of time out of your day, but i think at the end of the day, end result was something very beneficial to the city. i know the folks that are leading this on behalf of the board have that in them, and we're all committed to doing what's right for san francisco. >> president cohen: supervisor mandelman? >> supervisor mandelman: yeah. thank you, president cohen. supervisor brown and i have the odd position of stepping into a conversation that's been going on for 1.5 years without us. and i do want to begin by thanking my press sever, supervisor sheehy, and supervisor kim for beginning the conversation, and supervisors ronen and fewer for continuing to push all of us to get to a

resolution. and i'm going to vote for these amendments, but i have some real concern about these legislation. i'm concerned about making commitments of tens of millions of dollars into future budgets without weighing the other costs and the other needs that are not part of a -- part of this discussion. all of us are acutely aware of the homeless and mental health crises on our streets. we talk about it a lot. we need hundreds for beds, we need thousands more units. we need to raise the wages not just of the nonprofit workers that are going to be covered by this ordinance, but of the hot workers that are earning $22 an hour. we need to raise the wages of our city workers who are struggling to survive in this city and raise kids and pay for all of their costs. and none of those other competing items are on our

agenda to be weighed against this extremely valuable, wise, and just thing, which is to raise the wages of ihss and nonprofit workers. i do hope over the next week there can be fruitful conversations that do get us to a sustainable place and get us to something that we can all support. thank you. >> president cohen: supervisor kim? >> supervisor kim: so a number of things that i would just say. as the original cosponsor of the minimum compensation ordinance with supervisor sheehy, as supervisor mandelman mentioned, it has long been important to me that we recognize how we pay or lowest paid workers. in fact, when asked a lot by the private sector on what they can do to address homelessness and housing insecurity,