project development costs. so eser 2014 is substantially underway, as well, and that approves principleally to pump and pipeline and station to enhance the station so it can assure the delivery of water upon being requested throughout the city. as you know, historically, the awss served san francisco of 1913, principlely, the northeast portion of the 125city, and we' seeking to develop sort of a new system approach that doesn't look to replicate what was built in 1913 buecause that would be prohibitively expensive. we believe there are more effective ways to provide for

the emergency firefighting water that will be required in the event of a major catastrophe, most likely a seismic event -- pardon me. [cell phone ringing] >> i'll move on. the police facilities report pertains to eser 2014, approximately 30 million. we have substantially completed or have underway, rather, the projects. we have completed some key projects, as you'll recall, the firearm training simulation facility, that was completed in the late summer of 2018. work to make police stations much more conducive to the work that occurs there in. we have been underway at three stations -- northern, richmond,

and taraval -- regarding their generator project and related structural enhancements to ensure the function of the building before or during a major seismic event. upcoming milestones are the continuation, certainly, of that work. there is a special note here that two projects, mission police station and the police academy renovation are on hold until next year, and that relates to a project i'll speak to in a second. office of chief medical examiner was complete in november of last year. it's fully occupied. it's operating according to need or expectation. and there's always the matter of closing out the project administratively, and that is continuing. traffic company and forensic services division project is the largest project within eser 2014. it is moving ahead. we have been developing it to

its intended full integrity. that being said, there's been quite a bit of revisiting of design and cost cutting in order to better align the project budget with the funding that we have. considerable time actually has been spent in that regard. i mentioned at the outset, the impact of a very dynamic, active marketplace, and it's come home to bear very heavily on this project. we are still at a deficit of we estimate 8.65 million, and we are looking to discover of ourselves at a true cost when we look at the roll out of all the packages which in the spring-summer 2019, and that is in correlation to the two

projects that i mentioned to you that are put on hold whether we need to pursue ourselves of the savings of not going forward with those projects on construction. the fire department is being asked to put two projects on hold. the total sum between the four projects, if you will, between police and fire, to relieve the deficit of the traffic company and forensic services division project. we'll know better, as i said, once we bid out the work. are we going to find ourselves below and not in need of any of the funds of those projects, or are we going to be beyond. i do want to underscore -- i've already said it once, but i think it bears repeating, there's been a nearly heroic attempt to cost cut this project

to take out of its scope without sacrificingity functional integrity. i think that's something we very much guarded jealously, if you will, to ensure that was not one of the casualties of this marketplace or cost cutting efforts. as you might expect, eser 2010 is effectively spent down to within 94%, and i've described to you the projects such as they are, and that remain to be installed. eser 2014, we're still in the midst of pursuing a spend down on the funds that we've already appropriated. as i said, all of the projects are underway on the bond components. they're initiating, and once they get underway, we'll see better expenditure against budget or appropriation.

so with that said, i'll stop there and kindly ask for your question. >> thank you, mr. legeres, just for information, our prior liaison appointed to those bonds, robert collson has retired -- resigned from this board because he's been termed out. let me just add and be noted on the minutes that even though mr. collson is not present, the committee would like to thank his service for having served on this committee for the past four years. his expertise will be sorely missed by ourselves. so having said that, do we have any comments and questions for mr. hegaris? >> i had a very simple one on definition. ceqa pmnd.

>> commissioner, what page number are you looking at? >> it's on 5, under recent accomplishments. it's next to fire station 35. >> oh, it's the final mitigated negative declaration, so ceqa clearance. [inaudible] >> fmnd. sorry. you threw me with the p. final mitigation negative dec. it's imminent. given when this report is presumably through september, i believe we did actually collect that in october. >> commissioner hughes? >> i had a couple of questions. first of all, charles, thanks so

much for an excellent report. >> and i apologize -- >> no problem. somebody wants to get ahold of you. these are changing times, and there's a lot of moving targets. trying to stay inside the costs that were originally projected must be quite a challenge, and i think you've done a great job. >> thank you. we do aggressively manage the situations, so to speak. we do have, and we had anticipated a few years ago facing, you know, the challenges of this kind of marketplace, so we held us -- or i should say we held a healthy reserve for the anticipated impact, which we didn't know. and we do believe that what we have in reserve for both eser 2010 and eser 2014 will be sufficient to help us get through this difficult period. >> you mentioned that the police department had agreed to put two projects on hold, and the fire department had agreed simile for a total of four, two and two.

what are the four? what are the two that the police have, you know, ten at thtative agreed. i'm not putting words in anybody's mouth and what are the two projects similarly for the fire department? >> so perhaps a term of context or clarification, the request for hold on the project was from the capital planning committee. >> oh. >> yeah. the two projects -- the four are the police academy project and the mission station. the fire department are historic rehabilitations of brick exteriors at fire station 24 and 34 and improvement of fire station in the mission district. the sum total of those, as i

said, are approximately the sum of money that we're in deficit in the traffic services and forensic services division. >> thank you for that information. in looking at this report, i can't help but notice that, like, northern police station, isn't that old, but i'm sure it needs some sort of psych mistake upgrade. there is some analysis, some determination as it relates to necessity and degree of necessity, i'm sure. >> we have been able to collect full engineering opinions of the structural strength and ability to resist seismic events for all of the police facilities. we've done about a quarter of the fire facilities. there are only -- no, i shouldn't say only.

there are 10 or 11 police facilities; there are over 40 fire facilities. so we've been able to get opinion their ability to withstand seismic event and remain operational. that's impacted how we address specific sites. >> mission police station, same thing, relatively new. >> one of the newest stations. >> yeah. >> it was built, however, before the northridge earth quick. the northridge earthquake produced some insights on how steel performed after a major event or during a major event, and that was built into the next code cycle, but that was after when mission was designed and built, so we have recognized conditions at mission that, pursuant to that code change, requires additional structural work. we're seeking to accomplish some of it now, that which we consider most pertinent to life safety, but there's still considerable work to do at mission. >> and the reason i ask is i'm not question the need to have

safe, reliable public safety structures, but just how we determine the use and the allocation of priorities as it relates to those seismic improvements. so for example, you mentioned the fire department. they have 40 structures of varying ages. some of them are very, very old, and some are not so old. >> correct. >> same with the police station. but i think with the fire department especially. mar some of their structures are ancient. >> well, and to the -- i'm sure you've heard of the seismic hazard rating that the city maintains, four being collapse probability. so when we do these engineering studies that i alluded to a moment ago, we take into effect how it affects the seismic hazard rating. when we find category four facilities, those are the ones we pursue diligently with

addressing their deficiencies. we work with the fire department specifically because there's so many facilities to look at the most critical tactical and strategic importance in the deployment of services throughout the entire network of stations. and so typically, those are batallion and division stations. we are looking at eser 2020. we're in the midst of looking at what would be the project list for that bond, and we're recognizing certainly the opportunity or the obligation of addressing a number of facilities that are really in dire need of seismic repair or replacement. >> thank you. >> any other comments? mr. higares, i do have a comment for you. if you could go to page 3 of the public safety building.

first of all, thank you for giving me a tour of the building. it's a really state of the art. and the one comment that i want -- wish to make, it's -- the word surplus for any project is a very rare thing, that this committee has seen. so i see that you have a surplus -- you're in the closing-out phase, so congratulations on being under budgeted because you're on a surplus. if you remind this committee, when you close out and you have funds, what happens to those funds? >> well, they can become reappropriated. it's a savings from the delivery of the project. we are expecting to reappropriate that to assist the

traffic company and forensic services project. so relief if you will of the deficit for the tffsp is reappropriate and it still results in this $8 million additional need. so we're literally pulling from wherever we can to help it sustain its functional integrity. >> well, thank you. i wanted to congratulate you and your team on this project because it's really plechbtly surprised when you see a surplus in any of these instruct well projects. >> thank you. thank you very much. >> i will now invite any public comment if there are any on this

presentation. >> my name is jerry dradler. i think president -- president's comments regarding the lack of transparency regarding surpluses or savings and the allocation process is critical, and then, perhaps the cgoboc can implement policies and procedures to make the process more transparent because there's an inherent ability to hide problems by moving dollars which should receive public oversight. thank you. >> any additional public comment? seeing none, thank you for your presentation and then, let's move onto the next item. >> thank you, commissioners. >>clerk: item nine, opportunity for committee members to comment

or act on any matters within the committee's jurisdiction. there are five. a, goboc annual report for fiscal year 2017-18. b, public finance for up coming issue. c sur public railroad have as. d, templates, e gsh ---surplus public surveys. d, templates. >> we have in our packet a proposed copy of a cover letter including individually a son reports and as per procedure, we usually send this packet, this reporting to the mayor and to

the board of supervisors. in addition to this, and you haven't seen it in your packets, there will be a detailed annual report that's prepared by the controller's office, and that report is still in production. and miss stevens, can you tell us the timing of that because the plan i would like to propose is that when that report, which will be an appendix to this committee's report will be send as the package to the mayor and the board of supervisors. so could you comment and remind us a little bit of when that report is going to be completed to give us an idea of the timing when we can send it. >> sure. peg stevenson from the controller's office. i think our discussion is the annual report, the docs you have in your deck today can be

submitted and shouldn't wait for ours. we're going to be a little longer completing our financial status updates and interviews with all the project and program managers for their milestone updates and creating the graphs that are wanted for this report. and we're hoping to have it done -- all our research done by the end of the calendar year and the report in production in the first -- in january and february . but this report can go ahead -- your report can go ahead without ours, and ours can follow. >> yes, i recall now. so we -- we are ready to send our packet to the mayor and board of supervisors and reference the detail controller's prepared report that will be forthcoming. so is there comments? >> so should we make a motion to submit our reports? do i make that motion? >> yes, we --

>> second. >> and there was a word left out on the liaison report, the word and. >> amended. [inaudible] >> so we should -- we're -- we've agreed to pass a motion to pass -- to send these -- this -- this report to -- to the mayor and board of supervisors upon correct of this grammatical error. all in favor? [voting] >> good. next, go onto the next item, public finance -- [inaudible] >> oh, i'm sorry. the public comment is at the end for all items because this is one item of our administrative tasks. the next item is public finance,

upcoming issuances. >> hi. my name is ana, and i'm the director of the office of public finance. we are currently working on the -- one of the -- a bond issue for one of the programs that jonah described earlier, the bond safety that's been repurposed, so we expect to sell about $60 million worth of bonds in january or february of 2019. and next, we will shift our focus to a small issue for waterfront parks as well as an issue for public health in the summertime. and happy to answer any questions on our schedule. >> how do you account for the payback of the loans? >> so we are still in the process of coordinating that,

but the way that it will work is the moneys that do come in from the payment of those will go to offset tax -- the g.o. bond tax rate. so while we might not get 100%, but we definitely expect a significant offset of our debt payments. >> okay. and what number are you presenting -- are you assuming that is going to be repaid? >> in terms of our interest rate? >> no, of the repayment of the loan. >> so there's -- for the market rate, it's a spread of 1% over the city's borrowing rate, and then, for the below-market rate, it's a discount to our bond rate, and we can present more information at the -- on the program at our -- our next meeting. that would be helpful. >> yeah. i think we've asked questions about this repayment and how this is affecting multiple

times, and be great to understand it. >> that's a great idea. so i suppose in our next meeting, you'll give a little presentation as to how that works as to the repayment process. >> sure. and i do have my colleague, michelle here, who can probably help answer that question. >> good afternoon, commissioners. it's laid out in the 1992 proposition a, the repayment of the loans comes back to the city based on the category of whether it's a market-rate loan or below-market-rate loan. and at this point, it's not clear what portion is going to be allocated toward the market-rate or

below-market-rate. the bonds will be subsidizing those below market-rate loans at two thirds of a percent. >> okay. i'm not completely understanding. >> yeah. i'd be happy to make a chart. >> because i don't understand borrowing rates and all that. okay. thanks. >> next item. >> move on, but for the next item, i'll just come around to the mic. project satisfaction surveys, this is the request of yours that we've been working onto get a better sense from the public of their knowledge of bonds and how they're contributing to the city's improvement and infrastructure through direct contact, so we have intercept surveys going on at rec and park

site and as a streetscape site. the research is almost complete, so they did intercept surveys throughout the fall and collected a sur sample for both purposes. they asked a certain number of the participants if they would agree to do a follow up telephone survey with some more detailed questions, so now they're just finishing those. i'm pretty sure all the surveys are now completely and they're doing data analysis and compiliation which they'll be sending to us at the end of the year. we'll be doing analytics in january and then can have a preliminary report for you at that time and have a final report in march. i'm really happy with the progress. the company has done a lot of work for the city on different types of satisfaction survey. they've done a really great job problem solving just inevitably

at any public site, you stop people and do surveys, you get questions from the public or users from the site or any folks, and they've done a really, really good job of explaining to people why they're out there and just being very communica communicative. i hope we'll learn a lot from it. standardized templates, either you, mis-chu -- miss chu or miss mcnulty may want to comment on this. we can turn some of our staff energy to standardized templates. and we talked a little bit about the volume of bonds that are going to be coming forward to the committee, both the current ones and future issuances, and trying to contemplate the load being anticipated by the liaison

meetings, and a couple of things that have changed since the last time we looked at creating a standardized template, but we would be underway with that work starting in the next quarter, calendar year of 2019. >> may i add here, maybe miss chu could elaborate a little bit on this topic for the rest of the members in regard to templates because standardized templates, and it actually begs the issue, what type of information do we wish to see in the slides? so maybe miss chu can share a little bit of our thinking -- our collective thinking with the members. >> yeah. thank you. we're having a lot of turnover in this commission, and sort of in anticipation of that and sort of with our chair leaving also, we've been talking about what is

the right cadence for and what is the right agendas for these meetings in order to focus on -- make sure we're focusing on what our missionaries, what we're required to do in the areas of highest risk. so the templates themselves are just a factor of that, and what we do each month. so we've started something those conversations with the thoughts of bringing that back to this group so what could be a more efficient way of managing -- one of the things that i was really surprised about recently was the controller said when i was previously on this committee, i think we had four or five bonds that we managed throughout total, and now we're up to very, very -- more, and we see it happen -- every time we have an election, we have a couple more coming on, and it's getting over

when wi -- overwhelming of what's being asked. we've seen in some of our work this year that all of these bonds have other places that they are being governed, also. so one of the things i think that would be good for us is to focus on, again, the areas where we have authority and also partner with the people that are coming in front of us to be as efficient for them as possible because we've all worked closely with them and seen the amount of work that they have. so any thoughts because this is really the beginning of a conversation. this is certainly not the end of it. >> any thoughts, you know? we of course don't mean to put you on the spot, but we wanted to share with you that there is this review and thought process going on, and to prepare this

committee going forward for additional bonds and how we could better fulfill our mission, be more effective and more efficient by focusing on the level of information that would be necessary for us to carry out, you know, our responsibilities. so if you have any ideas, please e-mail -- >> excuse me, commissioner? >> i would just say it sounds like this is going in the right direction, and i'm interested in getting more information on what your thoughts are and what these templates are. i think it would be great for any new member to have that in addition to the training that's already provided, which is good. i think focusing on what the core issue are and our

motivation should be here is important rather than getting off on tangents, so i think that would definitely be very helpful. >> yeah. i just support everything that's been said. i think the increased reliance on bonds for funding city infrastructure is going to grow and not shrink, and to the extent that we can stream line or capture the relative information that we need to weigh the handling of the bond expenditures is a great idea, so thank -- i support it. if there's something i can do, let me know. >> good. let's go to the next item, which is expenditures audits. i think that this committee decided it's part of our work plan to conduct three expenditures audits in this fiscal year.

so perhaps we can be updated on that plan. >> good morning, committee members. mark dela rosa from the controller's office. as of today, we have completed six out of the ten active g.o. bond programs. the last one that we completed was actually the 2014 eser bond program, which we issued on september 27, 2018. according to the results from cumming that we have completed so far, all of the bond funds that were actually audited were in accordance with the border mandates, so none has been with anything that was not appropriately expended. we do have one currently ongoing audit. that is the 2014 transportation

bond. we will be issuing that in january . after that one, we have three additional ones that are in the pipeline that will be either started or will be completed within the next -- either this fiscal year or the beginning of next fiscal year. >> well, thanks for that update. so we've delegated this task to the controller's office, obviously. so you feel confident that in our work plan of these -- of these three expenditures audits -- external audits, that you feel comfortable that we'll be able to complete this by the end of the current fiscal year or at least the first quarter of the next fiscal year. >> exactly. so we have -- so the seventh one will be completed in january of this current year. the next one after that will be the 2015 affordable housing bond, which we'll start in q3,

and be finished by q4. we'll start the affordable safety and public housing either q1 or q4 of this next fiscal year. >> any questions on the expenditure audits? thank you, mr. delarosa. i think that concluded all of our administrative comments. we're now open for public comment. >> i have some handouts for the commission members.

[inaudible] >> i did not see any discussion on the prebond expenditure cost problem on the annual report. it would be useful to see what progress cgoboc has made in the current year. point number two is no longer valid. point number three is the public deserves to under how the san francisco whistle blower program benchmarks against 20 international best practices of the government accountability project. i've handed out two copies of that. cgoboc should require the c.s.a. to benchmark the current program against international best practices each year. the c.s.a.'s whistle blower program sends some complaints back to the department where the complaint occurred. the c.s.a. calls this cosourcing. it is unrealistic to believe the offending department can objectively investigate themselves. this is a bad practice and should be disclosed in cgoboc's annual report.

number five is just there's a statement in the report which i believe you folks should review because it's probably not the message you want to send. number six is benchmarking cgoboc is a good idea, benchmark is against other san francisco bond oversight committees is not because of the limited sight and diversity of the peer group. number seven is a word issue. the report says performance audits, which is incorrect. and then lastly, there are three items in the report i'd like to commend cgoboc on. one is what i mentioned earlier, mr. bush's comment. also, mr. carlson's regarding

the 9 million budget problem and how it was resolved. and lastly, the commission made a motion and voted on it without public comment, so while the agenda item might be discussion, that's inappropriate. thank you. >> any further public comment? let's go to the next item. under other matters, maury, i think let's clarify the next meeting schedule for goboc. i believe it's january , but i believe that date is on martin luther king day, so it needs to be rescheduled. >>clerk: right. and so that date was changed to monday, and i'll send a follow

up to everyone immediately following this meeting. >> thank you. seeing no other comments, meeting's adjourned. >> the hon. london breed: well, i know the road to get here wasn't easy, but we all came together to make sure that we provide the support that will make hopefully a difference in

what you receive in your paychecks. this discussion started over a year ago at the board of supervisors and it's one that i'm committed to. thanks to the tireless work and dedication of everyone here today, we now have an ordinance that will create a path to success for those who take care of our most vulnerable communities. this starts first with our in home support services workers. these are people who support our seniors and persons with disabilities so they can remain in their homes and in their communities. they help with tasks that we often take for granted, like getting groceries or taking a bath or going to the doctor. i know personally about the importance of this difficult work and how challenging it can

be. it was in home support services workers who took care of my grandmother when she could no longer take care of herself. we have more than 20,000 workers who support 22,000 low-income seniors and people with disabilities in san francisco. and if it was not for this important work, these individuals do every day so many of our seniors and difficults living with disabilities would not be able to stay in their homes and get the care that we know they need. in addition to our in home support services workers, we have many nonprofit organizations who provide essential services in san francisco to those of all income levels and backgrounds. this ranges from homelessness to workforce development, housing, domestic violence prevention to child care and so many others. these workers are on the front

lines of taking care of our most vulnerable communities, our in home support services and nonprofit workers provided tremendous support and care for so many throughout san francisco, but they often are paid the least and, like so many of our residents, are too often struggling to get by in an expensive city like san francisco. san francisco has always demonstrated a commitment in supporting our lowest wage workers. when the governor significantly reduced financial support to counties for in home support services programs, san francisco stepped up to fill in that gap. we have led the way in raising our minimum wage to one of the highest in the country, and we are continuing that leadership today with this legislation. the negotiations were difficult, very difficult, and they were long, but that's because we all

knew the importance of making sure that everyone had a seat at the able in this conversation. as a result, we have an ordinance that reflects our commitment in taking care of what are the lowest wage earners in san francisco and moving them to a better place although we know they deserve a lot more. our in home support service workers will see a wage increase of $3.75 from their current wage over the course of next five years. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: the minimum ordinance will also raise the wages of our cities, contracted nonprofit workers for $1.50 over their current wage effective july 1 of 2019. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: and we should also mention the minimum compensation ordinance and how it's impacted the airport workers and their

increase. this is part of my commitment as mayor to make sure that all san franciscans have equal access to opportunities and can live in the communities they serve. san francisco has some of the highest paying jobs in the nation, but we need to make sure that our economic success doesn't leave low and middle-income families behind. by harnessing our thriving economy, we can lift up those communities who have been left behind for far too long and give them opportunities to succeed. this includes investing in why we are here today, and i am just really grateful for your hard work and the work that you continue to do to take care of so many of our elderly and disabled folks throughout san francisco. and at this time, i'd like to bring up supervisor sandy fewer, who was a lead sponsor on this legislation.

[applause] >> supervisor fewer: thank you, mayor breed. i'd like to thank a couple of people here today that actually helped to make this happen. of course our labor partners and their leaders here today. suiu 1021 and 1015. without their urging and direction, i don't think this would have happened, and their tenacity, actually to stay at the table. i'd also like to thank my cosponsors, supervisor ronen, yee, and kim, and to recognize with us today supervisor jeff sheehy who actually started this conversation. [applause] >> supervisor fewer: and then, i would also like to take a moment to thank our mayor, mayor breed, and her wonderful staff who came back again and again and again at the table to come to an agreement to serve these workers in san francisco.

i am honored to have helped create this legislation and to be part of this historic moment. this legislation is important for three reasons: one, the immediate relief that it will give to over 20,000 of our low wage workers. these workers who take care of our elderly, our disabled, people who staff our nonprofits, they are struggling to make ends meet in this city, and who are they? they make $15 an hour in our city. the average age of 58 years old, and 78% of them are women, and almost 80% of them are people of color. they are on the verge of homelessness themselves. second, this legislation demonstrates that we value this workforce. they do important necessary work that binds our community together, at that allows our seniors and disabled to age in their own homes and with greater health out comes and also to

greater mobility. and so i think it's so important that this legislation actually lifts up the work that they do, and the city as a whole recognizes how important that work is. and third, this reinforces our commitment to seniors and people with disabilities, children and their families, and we are planning for the future of our senior population that will increase 69% from 2010 to 2030. this, to be frank, is not a living wage in san francisco. this will give workers some relief, but this is definitely not a living wage in san francisco. we are experiencing the largest wealth gap that we have ever had historically in san francisco, and these workers will continue to struggle as they do their hard work. this legislation today actually gives them some relief, but let's just be frank. it is not a living wage here in san francisco.

i think it's important to do this, because this is the right thing to do. in a city where the economy is booming, where some of our low-income and moderate wage workers wh workers should have a piece of the pie. we don't leave anyone in this city behind, people who makeup the fabric of what san francisco is and who we are. this is a bold statement, and i just want to honor everyone who was at the table and thank you to mayor breed and her staff once again for coming to this agreement. i'd like to take a moment, also, to introduce my colleague, hillary ronen, who was so instrumental working with me on this legislation. supervisor ronen? [applause] >> supervisor ronen: thank you so much, supervisor fewer. i just wanted to make two quick points. thank you to the mayor. one of your biggest budget commitments that you've made to

this workforce says a lot about your values, and we just want to thank you so much for that incredible, incredible commitment. and then, number two, this piece of legislation really shows and reminds us what san francisco is all about. not only do we do the morally right thing by our incredible workers who give so much love and support to our seniors and our homeless population, and so many who are struggling to survive here in san francisco, but this legislation is smart planning. we have an exploding senior population in san francisco, and we don't have the infrastructure to take care of this population. we have a homeless crisis raging in our streets, and we depend on nonprofits who aren't able to hire the workforce to take care of those struggling the most. this legislation is so forward thinking, and that's what san francisco is known for. we have the heart but also the

brain to do the right thing and to think about our future. so congratulations, everyone. this is a wonderful, wonderful day, and a huge round of applause to my colleague, supervisor fewer, who is a fighter through and through. and it was so fun to work with her on this lemgislation. >> supervisor fewer: and now i'd like to introduce from the labor council rudy gonzales. [applause] >> good morning. i have to tell you that there are a lot of things that are left unfinished. it's important, coming from the labor movement where miners and long shore men were murdered in this city for standing together. wow, is it a sign of the times that our workers were able to stand together from electricians to teachers, airport workers, everybody stood shoulder to shoulder to make sure this important legislation was realized.

i want to take a moment to recognize the leadership of our labor council. without their leadership and mentorship of this council, we wouldn't have been able to do this. we're used to be attacked, or used to being the resistance in a moment of resistance. it's okay to celebrate these wins. we have a lot of thing that we disagree on policy wise, but this is a statement of value, and a time to celebrate because the lowest paid people in our city are getting the attention and commitment of this fine government, and this is an example of people coming to a table with leadership, an initiative that was started 18 months, when some people weren't even in elected office at the time and coming together and saying we're going to pick up the pieces, we're going to do our hard work and commit our staff, our hard work, our budget, and our values to the people who need it the most. when i say the people who need it most, i want to talk about the clients.

we talk about our ageing population, but there are disabled children that need care. some of the most null verbal in our city who need -- vulnerable in our city who need addiction treatment and housing services and supportsive services, they're being supported not only by our city workers in our city, but our nonprofit workers. i want to take a moment to recognize the incredible leadership of our mayor, mayor breed, who took this issue head on. [applause] >> supervisors fewer and ronen and supervisor yee, and everyone who voted to support this. supervisor kim, obviously. without people at the team and everybody in the supervisors' office who are dedicated to seeing this thing through, and all the courageous workers, that

would not have been possible. i want to introduce you to one of the courageous workers, one of the people who gets this work done, claudia, will you join me? claudia is a 25 year inhome health worker, and i wanted to let her say a few words about what she does. >> yeah. [speaking spanish language] >> yes. as rudy was saying, my name is claudia, and i'm an in home support care services worker. i've been doing this work for 25 years. of those 25 years, i've been

involved in the union movement 22 of those years. i'm so excited to be here today. this is a historic moment today as mayor breed signs this legislation that will have a huge impact on our lives. >> yes. [applause] [speaking spanish language] >> i also want to recognize the incredible and fierce leadership of several boards of supervisors who because of their leadership, we were able to get to this final deal. i feel like as a home care service worker that finally our work is being recognized, that we do have dignity and respect. [applause] [speaking spanish language]

>> i remember when mayor breed met with many of us workers of home care, and she actually has a home care story, as well, and she understands how difficult this work is, so i was not surprised when she made a decision to support this legislation. [applause] [speaking spanish language] >> and i just want to remind everyone, without a doubt, this has a tremendous impact on the roughly 20,000 home care providers here in san francisco, but the day after the election, this also sends a message that the city and county of san francisco has created a new standard for home care providers. that message will be sent across

the country, across the region and throughout the state of california. thank you, si se puede. [speaking spanish language] >> thank you, again, mayor and supervisors for your support and for your understanding and valuing the important work that we do. thank you. thank you. [applaus [applause] >> the hon. london breed: thank you all so much. and i'd like to also recognize other supervisors who have joined us today. it was a unanimous vote at the board of supervisors, including the leadership of the president of the board of supervisors, malia cohen is here. along with supervisor safai and supervisor yee. thank you for joining us.

[applause] >> the hon. london breed: now, let's get to the important task, and i'm going to ask former supervisor jeff sheehy to join us as the original sponsor of this legislation as we sign this very important piece of legislation to guarantee the commitment that we are making as a city for inhome support services workers and nonprofit workers in san francisco. thank you all so much for being here today.

[applaus >> important inform keep the drains clear it impacts the flooding in the environment and the neighborhoods. >> hopefully, we'll have another rainy season that is important people keeping up tare trains 72 hours one thing to captain about things but take responsibility. >> we will in the best city in the world keep it clean.

>> i invest a live-in san francisco for 38 years and proud owner of here. >> if we chip in i'm daniel a small business owner in the tenderloin and named in any drain after any boss. >> wear gloves. >> i'm diane this is kay we're in the golden gate hewitt's area and deposited 3

>> good morning everyone. the meeting will come to order. welcome to the november 14th, 2018 regular meeting of the public safety and neighborhood rv