The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutStaff Report 4.B - Late Document 1 05/20/2013 • Ar end /Itevw4 B' 'DocuMe gt rece i veci.after a geed cv cti traiu t oyv. Mattioli, Allison Front;. Crump, Katie. Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 8:11-.AM To: - City Clerk Subject: FW: Petaluma Living Wage:COLA ,Attachments: Sonoma report 4:24.13:pdf,'COLA City of Petaluma Living Wage2013.doc Late-docurrient From: Marty Bennett[ma ilto:mbennett @vom.COm] Sent: Sunday;:May. 19,2013 11:33 AM To Michael Healy;;Mike Harris; Teresa;Barrett; Dave Glass,,councilman:albertson @gmail.cor ; councilmemberkearney@ me:com; kathleencmilleroffice @gmail:com Cc: Grump, Katie;;Brown, John Subject: Petaluma Living Wage COLA LIVING WAGE COALITION OF SONOMA COUNTY P.O. Box 427, Santa Rosa, CA 95402 • (707) 623-7395 livingwagesoco(cr�ginail.com fitto://www.l i vingwagesoitoina.org May 19, 2013 To: Petaluma City Council From: Marty Bennett, Co-Chair Living Wage Coalition:of Sonoma County City staff has again recommended that there should be no cost of living adjustment (COLA) to the Lcity living wage rate (currently $13.02 with medical benefits and $14.61 without) for the upcoming fiscal year. �1 I am writing=on behalf of the Living;Wage Coalition of Sonoma County to urge that the council not approve the recommendation by city staff. The city council rejected this recommendation the past two years, and we urge you to do the:same for the'2013-2014 budget. We recommend that the council approve a 2.2% cost of living adjustment (COLA) to the living wage rate as mandated by:Section-836.060.D of the Living Wage Ordinance (LWO). There are five compelling reasons to fund the COLA for the Living Wage Ordinance: 1) All cities should strive to become model employers, and implementation of a.LWO is one important step towards this goal. Currently, the California Budget Project calculates that an actual self- sufficiency or living wage for Sonoma County in 2010 is $19. 11 for each of two parents working full-time to support two children. By not approving the annual COLA for the living wage rate, employees of the city and city contractors covered by the LWO will not make progress towards a true self-sufficiency wage that actually reflects the cost of living in the City of Petaluma: We should not compromise a fundamental principle of the living wage movement: budget cuts should not fall upon the lowest paid workers who have the most to lose. 2) Section 9-P-1 of the General Plan states that the city should encourage employers that "pay living wages commensurate with the cost of living" to locate in Petaluma. Further, Section 9-P-10 of the General Plan states that the city will "encourage economic development that will enhance job opportunities for existing city residents by providing incentives for firms [to locate in Petaluma] that pay wages that enable workers to live in Petaluma." By freezing the city living wage rate for the next year the city council will move away from compliance with the spirit and intent of the General Plan. 3) One of the major problems with the California minimum wage is that it is not adjusted for inflation. According to the California Budget Project, Z,. the purchasing power of the California state minimum, wage (currently $8.00 an hour) has declined approximately 26% since its high point in 1968.. If adjusted for inflation, the state minimum wage would not.be $8.00 an hour, but $10.88. Most of the 140 living wage laws implemented by cities and counties require an annual COLA. Ten states including Oregon and Washington index their state minimum wage rates to in flation. Currently there is a bill pending in the California legislature (AB 10 Alejo) to increase the California minimum wage to $9.25 an hour over three years, and to require an annual adjustment based upon the consumer price index. By maintaining the COLA for the city living wage rate,. the City of Petaluma is sending a message to Sacramento that the statewide minimum wage rate should be indexed to the California Consumer Price Index. 4)■ A new study by the Living Wage Coalition and the North Bay Organizing Project "The State of Working Sonoma 2013," demonstrates that income inequality and working poverty are increasing across the county. In 2010, 41 percent of households in the county received less than $50,000 in total annual income, while 12 percent:received more than $ 150,000. A family of four is considered `working poor' by the federal government if annual household income is less that $44, 100, and at least one family member reports income from work during the year. The report indicates that in 2010, 28 percent of county residents and 22 percent of Petaluma residents fall below this level. T attach a copy of the report and please see the attached Press Democrat article. 5) The cost to the city for the COLA--about $11,500—is very modest relative to General Fund,expenditures. of $35 million in 2012-2013. If'I can provide more information please do not hesitate to contact me at 939-8933 and mbennett@vom.com. 3'' http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/2.013 0427/ARTICLES/130429624/ 1350?p=all&tc=pgall Santa Rosa Press Democrat April 2892013 Poverty Report Paints Grim Picture by Martin Espinoza More than 60 percent of Latino households in Sonoma County are barely getting by on incomes of $25,000 or less. Compare that to only 18.5 percent for the county as a whole. Nearly 14 percent of children in Sonoma County and 16 percent in Santa Rosa were living below the federal poverty line — a dismally low threshold set at $22,050 a year for a family of four. These are among the many findings in a new poverty report that details not only the adverse effects of the Great Recession but the lopsided consequences of an anemic economic recovery. Sponsored by the North Bay Organizing Project and the Living Wage Coalition of Sonoma County, the report was presented Saturday at a forum on economic justice at the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Santa Rosa. The forum was organized as a way of highlighting economic trends that are endangering the middle class and pounding low-income and minority residents. "The story here is that it a recovery, but for whom?" said Marty Bennett, a member of the leadership council of the North Bay Organizing Project and a co-chairman of the Living Wage Coalition. "From our perspective, there's really two Sonoma:Counties — the affluent at the top and those at the bottom of the ladder. A substantial percentage are in the other Sonoma County." The report, which was prepared by Ginny Browne, an East Bay planner and organizer, shows that in Sonoma County, communities of color are feeling the brunt of recent hard times. 4, From 2007 to 2010, the share of Sonoma County residents living in poverty grew from 9.4 percent to 1 1percent,, or 51,774 individuals. In Santa Rosa, more than 13 percent of the city's population is living in poverty, the report said. That statistic jumps to nearly 17.7 percent for Latinos in Sonoma County and 19,7 percent for Latinos in Santa Rosa. Within Sonoma County's small black population, which numbered 7,610 residents in the 2010 Census, 21 . 1 percent lived in poverty:. In Santa Rosa, 27 percent of blacks lived in poverty. "It's just extraordinary, when,we look at`the income disparity, the much higher rates of poverty and working poverty amongst Latinos and African-Americans," Bennett said. At the forum, the poverty report served as a launching point for attendees, which included labor, civil and immigrant rights and economic justice organizers, to tackle possible local solutions during afternoon working group sessions. At onetsuch session, a national community-organizing expert headed a discussion on ways to establish project labor agreements in major transportation works that ensure significant job opportunities and training for minorities, women and low-income residents. Laura Barrett, the national campaign director for the Transportation Equity Network, highlighted several cases across the country where such agreements were won. Local attendees were interested in how to score labor agreements for future SMART train projects and other highway construction jobs. The forum's keynote presentation was given by Chris Benner;, associate professor of community and regional development at UC Davis. Benner focused on the three-pronged crisis that he said afflicts the current economy: joblessness and sputtering growth; wage and race inequality; and political gridlock and fragmentation of society. In a recent book he:co-authored called "Just Growth," Benner examined 192 metropolitan regions across the country where decisions about growth are made by a diverse group of stakeholders, including communities of 5 color. These are places where "growth and equity have gone together, he said. "There's a lot of research out there that shows regions that are more equitable grow faster," he said. During his presentation, Benner pointed out that population growth in many parts of the country will be driven by communities of color, particularly Latinos and Asians. Future economic growth in many parts of the country will depend upon getting more Latinos and African-Americans into the middle income range, he said. The Sdnoma County poverty report paints a dire picture of these populations. The report says that federal poverty guidelines provide an inaccurate measure of current economic hardship. A more accurate measure is derived using 200 percent of the federal poverty threshold, which is $44,100 a year for a family of four, according to the report. Using this measure, more than a quarter of all county residents are struggling to get by. In Santa Rosa, Rohnert Park and Healdsburg, 1 in 3 residents is struggling, the report said. Among the other findings in the report: Sonoma County's median household income, adjusted for inflation, dropped 5.7 percent, from $65,531 in 2007 to $61 ,837 in 2010. In Santa Rosa, blacks earned 61 cents for every dollar earned by whites, and Latinos earned 69 cents on the dollar. Women earned 79cents for every dollar earned by Wien in both the county and Santa Rosa. About :15 percent of county wage earners fall within the five lowest-paid occupations, which include farming, building cleaning and other service jobs. In Santa Rosa, it's 17:8 percent. The report uses "self-sufficiency" measures derived by the nonprofit California Budget Project. According to these me asures, a family in 6 Sonoma County must, have two income earners working full-time earning at least $19.11 an hour each or $39,749 a year in order to pay for food, transportation, housing, health care and child care. Although unemployment in Sonoma County declined from 10.4 percent in 2010 to 7.7 percent last year, about half of all new jobs through 2018 are expected to pay $15 or less. The report, citing figures from the National Employment Law Project, points out that across the country 21 percent of all jobs lost during the recession were low-wage jobs that paid less than $13.83 an hour. However, these jobs comprised 58 percent of job growth during the recovery. 7 ' , .: -- - I _ . .4+ • - • —tics ' .s �' x r �y�,• a r. r. i ` come inequality; Povertya zi b• "9;w oaitr%n" ".?�!•• .. .1 ow0 i/age.Employment• 1- ; , y„ }' I 3 , i1 .11i _ . ` F� 2+ -.fir-b:tr'r i . $r +L I t .c,f ' I� �v' t+lrl•I�.�' [� �tar +t�7t* tett• MAJOR FINDINGS 1. Stagnant Incomes and Increasing Poverty • In 2010,one in ten Sonoma.County residents(51,774 individuals) lived below the federal poverty guideline of $10,830 for.a single adult. For L'aiinds,the poverty rate was 177%countywide and 197% in the City of Santa Rosa—nearly double that of the general population. For African Americans;these rates'were 21.1%and 27.2%, respectively—nearly triple that oithe general.population,More than one in seven children in Sonoma County,or 13.6%,were living in poverty,as we e:16%of children in Santa Rosa • Countwide,5%of people living,in poverty worked full-or part-time. In Sania Rosa,this figure was 6.5%. • Using 200%of the poverty threshold as a-measure,more,lhan one in four Sonoma County residents,or 27.6%,were living in economic hardship. In Santa.Rosa,'this number was one in three,or 32.7%.In Rohnert Park and Petaluma, respectively,29% and 21.8%-of residents were living in economic hardship. • Since 2007,household incomes and'individual earnings have both declined countywide.Adjusted for inflation, Sonoma County's median household income dropped 3%o,from $65,531 in 2007'to$61,837 in 2010. • Race and gender disparities in median earnings were stark,especially in Santa Rosa,where African Americans earned 61 cents for every dollar earned by whites,.while Latinos earned 69'cents on the dollar.Women in Sonoma County earned 79 cents for every dollar earned by men.That nuniber was nearly identical in the city of Santa Rosa. 2. Sonoma's Hourglass,Economy and Growing Low-Wage Sectors • Approximately 15%of wage earners countywide:or one in seven;fall within the five-lowest paid occupations,which, in aggregate;have a,median earning of'$25',721. In Santa Rosa;nearly one in five'workers (17.8%)are concentrated In the five lowest paying occupations,which,together,cairn a median of$22,734. • In Sonoma-County,workers in-the five,lowest--occupations earn less than two-thirds,of what is needed to sustain themselves (64.7%),,while those in Santa Rosa earn barely more than half of what is needed (57.2%). 3. Housing and Healthcare Costs Increase the Burden on Working Families • Both at the county.level and in the City of Santa Rosa,most households are paying.more than 50% of their incomes toward housing costs—'substantially more than 30% which is considered affordable. • 36,044.people in-Sonoma;County,or ono in six,are employed but have no health insurance. In Santa Rosa,more than one in.five-working-people, 15,163 in total.have no insurance. _ [r'('• r'L ,AK.- h 4-‘0.7 . .�f i}��:few_�_ f �' -. . .i� � . -�_ �y H'f:r • i t. .t.;'-.r ! c•,ti,....; r '�9[ -r; L--•_ [4-,_ , •s.-i r . .1 , a r.. ,. v „ SONOMA COUNTY' SANTA ROSA INDICATOR,(2010) NUMBFR 'PFRCbI PHGci NUM6ER r rIGE TAGF 'eople living below 100%of the poverty line - • 51,774 - 11% 21 642 13.3°0 People living below 200°0 of the poverty line 130,133 27.6°"0 53.343 32.7% People in poverty who work full-or part-time - • 18.727 1 4.9,0 8.412 6,5% Fawdles living be1ow 00%0 of the poverty line 7,580 6.5°.° 3 336 8.6°0 Children living below 100 90 of the poverty line 14,039 13.6°° - 6,159 • 16;0 Median household income $61,837 $50.334 Median earnings (full time,full yeah . ' -$47,751 $43,904 Fercen' ,. ' toe ocI : ' sns 15°'° 18°° 0'Ifle P Inw= ns 64.7% 57.2°0 Feicenhof people e 1 ,- . . earth I i ace 16.4°° 20.3°0 Households paying mor_than 30%of income toward housing 54.1% 51.0% ' Households paying more than 30%of income toward housing(renter) 55:9% 55.4% I. BACKGROUND . SonomaiCounty is located in the northern.pait Of the greater nine-county San Francisco Bay Area.At over I million acres, Sonomaiis the largest county in theBayArea,.and,it has two coasts along both the•San,Francisco Bay and the Pacific ' Ocean.According to the U.S. Census.Bureaulhepopulation of the county was 491-,829 in 2012. The county seat is Santa Rosa,located.in central SonomaCounty done-hour drivemorth f from San Francisco.With a popu- lation oill 169,292,Santa Rosa is the largest city in the county and the North Bay,a region that includes Marin,Sonoma, Napa and Solano counties. In 2012,1non-Hispanic whites comprised 06 percent of the population. Latinos are the;fastest growing ethnic group in the county aind were 25 percent of theipopulation'in,2012. Latino residents areprojectedto increase to 31 percent of the total county population by 2020 and more than S 1 percent by 2050'according to the California Department of Finance, The local econdlny,is Very diversifi'ed`,Witfremploynient the highest in the retail trade,,government and public educa- tion,and health and educational servicesindustry clusters,then followed by,and evenfy,distributed amongst,professional services,tourismand`hospitality,and'manufaciuring,that-includes both hi=tech equipment and wine. II. INCREASING POVERTY AND'STAGNANT INCOMES. Poverty In 2010,more than,onean ten.Sonoma County residents (51,774 individuals or)1%) lived below the federal poverty guidelines.of$10,830 for a single adult,or$22,050 for a family of four'This measure is-up from 9.4%:prior to the Great Recession in 2007: In 2010,in Sania.Rosa'more than 13% of,residents were living in poverty. I . -1 • ' .zj - ffatC Y c4iv xt ^: hid s,_. r,• , .._ . ;i." t.. .. _1 f1� . ., c?rift Ct5Qct. }._ ,1 :,fir o ♦ III.- xYi' r r• ` ht z • '44'1 I 9[-.. k, 1�mry�p 9 L.e9i"alyPyM , is" , �P �Y" ,3 . 4 ' '.� 1`'{[[ & t�{'�M,',`'.r,:S .L 3 • tncomelt equaht\e Poverty}iand L'ovv Wage€Employment m Sonoma-County r a ° �� - While poverty rates went up overall in the generaf:populationghe Iargesrincreaseswwere incommunities,ofcolor. For Latinos the`2010'poverty rate was 173% countywide and 19.7%q'in;the City of Santa Rosa—nearly double that of the general population. For African Americans,these:rates were 21.1% and'27.2%,respectively—nearly triple that of the general population:Three years earlier, 18.9%of African Americans i'n the'countyand 18.3%of those in Santa Rosa lvere livingin'poverty. More than one in seven children in Sonoma County,or 13.6%,were living-in poverty.as were 16%of children in Santa Rosa. Sonoma County poverty Santa.Rosa poverty by race, origin (2010) by race,origin(2010) 30% .. ... ... 30% 1 _...---'J 272%----...---- ----...-'-- --..-........ -'--- 25% 21.1% _ 25% N 213% 20% -.. .... .._... 17.7% ...._ 20% 197/ 15% • _ 12.6% .""_ —`-- 15% 130% .. 10.4% 9.e% " 80% 5% 5% I White Black or African American Asian Hispanic or 1White Black or African American Asian Hispanic or American Indian Latino American Indian Latino The federal poverty level was developed in 1964'using the cost of a basket of;fdod,which;at the time.represented a third of the typical family's income..However,although the measure of poverty has not changed,other household expenditures, especially housing,childcare,transportation;and health care,have far surpassed food in the typical family budget.For this reason,a more accuratemeasure of economic hardship,and one used'for many public assistance programs,is 200% of the poverty guidelines. In 2010,the federal poverty guideline for the annual income of a family of four was $22,050 and 200%of the poverty guideline was $44;100:1 According to the 2010 census,more thanone in four'Sonoma County residents were living.in economic hardship. In three cities,Santa Rosa,RohnertPark,and'Healdsburg,this number was one in three. People living below, 200%otthe poverty line in the six largest Sonoma County cities(2010) 40% -. 327%:... __. ...33.9% 27 6% 29.0% 30/ ._.- .- i. -.... 21.8%............. .......213% 19.2%.. . .. / 20 -... ... ..... ........... .... 10/ Sonoma Santa Rosa Petaluma Rohnert Park Windsor Healdsburg Sonoma County (163292) (58,453) (41333) (27,042) (11353) (10,741) (Poe. 491,829) 1 For a detailed discussion of poverty thresholds, please see these publications: Los Angeles Alliance for a-New Economy The Other Los"Angeles'The,Working Poor in the 21st.Century,"2000. pp 6-8. http://wwwaaane.org/whats-new/2000/08/26/the-otheelos-angeles-the-working-poor-in-the-city-of-the-21st-centu- ry-2000/ Manuel Pastor and Justin.Scoggins, "The:Working Poor in the.Golden State,"UC Santa Cruz Center for Justice,Tolerance, and Community. 2007: pp 9-14. http://cjtc.ucsc.edu/pub_reports.html T T F B = 'T ern- Income Inequality� �Poverty andLow Wage Employment m Sonoma County' � • , f an, �.. Incomes and Earnings As•,poverty has increased,countywide since 2007,household incomes and individual earnings have both declined. Adjusted for inflation,.Sonoma•County's median household income dropped 5.7%.,from $65,531 in 2007 to$61,837 in 2010 :Similarly, median household:income in Santa Rosa dropped.4% during that time from.$59,711 to$57,334. Shrinking household incomes are due in large part to declining;individual earnings, persistent high unemployment,and involuntary part4time'employment. For individuals+over the age of 16 employed eithe •full-time or part-time,median earnings have declined 4.5%to'$31,631 and an impressive 12%in Santa Rosa to,$29,069 between 2007-2010. More recent U.S. census data indicate that through 2011 median household income remained flat? • Racial inequalities existed for nearly all ecenomic indicators in 2010,but none More starklylhan,for median individual earnings In Santa Rosa,where these measures were most.significant,AI'rican'Americans earned,61 cents for every dollar earned by whites,while Latinos earned 69 cents on'thedollar._In•addition to racial disparities,the gender gap persisted in median earnings. Women in Sonoma,County earned 79 cents on'the dollar compared with men.That number was nearly identical in the City of Santa Rosa. Countywide;men working full time earned a median of$53,201,while women working full time earned a median of$42,243. Sonoma County median earnings Santa Rosa median earnings (part-or full-time. 2010) (part-or full-time,2010) $40,000 -- -$36,914 ___ ._ _.__ _ __ $40,000 • ..... ............ ......... _. _ $35,000 __. -. __ $30,685 . _.. $35,000,' $30,923 — — — $29.945 -_ $30,00 01 "- - 825,752 $26,667 - -- -- $30,000$25,000 ------ • - $22126--- $25,000 $18,906 $23,188,,._.,, e...- $29467 $20,000 - .. _.__.._: _ __ - - _._ $20,000 ._.._ __. $15,000 —_. $10000 $5000 ._ _.._ $5,000 •..._ _- chg _._ zifra 0410: "White Black or American Asian Hispanic or White Black or American Asian Hispanic or African Indian Latino 'Afncao' Indian Latino American American' Countywide,men working full time earned amedian of$53,201,.while'women working full time earned a median of $42,243. Median earnings by gender (full-time, 2010) $50,000 Mate— — - _- $50,W0 Male pd Female $40 000 t �Female $30,000 ° S!' $20,000 _.q; ...._.. ....._ ,$10,000 t - Sonoma County Santa Rosa • 2 Martin Espinoza."Sonoma County Income Stabilized in 2011," Santa,Rosa Press Democrat, September 19, 2011. ...2"' � ':.:, ,=w , �� :.kf, I .x•r"l F4}4.."2 _ rn� z y k ,`;}1 T ), � - a Inequahty,£Poverty, ands Low Wage mployment m Sonoma.Countyu. The2010 census.reveals a snapshot ofhighly,unequaluineornedis tributionwith a concentration of lower income house- holds below:$50,000,and fewer middle=income households between $75,000`�and$125,000.. In 2010,nearly four-fifths of Latino,households received less than $50',000 in household income. Household income:distribution, Sonoma'County(2010) I $200 or more -rxaur 5.5% I $125-150. 6.1% $75-100 13_,4% 1 $50-75 I ' tezv Under$25 ! ,I_. _{ _._ ......... 165% -.� .22.5% 0 '5,000 10,000 15,000 20000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40.000 45,000 Households Household'income distribution, Latino households , Sonoma County(2010) $200 or more 1 0.6% 1 i $150-200 1 1.0% I I i $125-150 ® 2.0% ! � I I $100-125 MI 3.2% $75-100 5.3% ° .$50-75 t I 11,0% I • $25-50 :wr -.gar3.:as:+ -115.6% Under$25 61,2% 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 Households III. SONOMA'SHOURGLASS,ECONO,MY„&.GROWING LOW_WAGE SECTORS,,_ In 2005,the'North?Bay-based policy:tesearch'orgahization New Economy,Working Solutions,released,"The Limits of Prosperity Growth Inequality and Poverty in the North Bay,"'The report analyzed economic trends,from the early 1980s through the_early`2000s and found that white economic growth had brought prosperity to some.North Bay residents, the dramatic increase of low-wage jobs„the loss of middle-mcomcjobs,and the rising cost of living led to the stagna- tion of incomes bottom two fifths,and extreme economic hardship for,many.The report demonstrated growing inequality—and a vast expansion over two decades—of the working poor;i.e.families-with at least one member who reported employment incomein the.past,year-who•cannot make ends meet. 3 Nan Rhee and Dan Acland',,'Limits of Prosperity: Growth, Inequality,and Poverty in the North Bay,” New'Economy,Working Solutions and UC Center for Labor Research and Education, 2005. www.livingwagesonoma.org •J�y�("y�q� ... I R t 1.11'. -� r a+r ' -r+ >_•fit i, _ - s - ,..{ This hourglass economy;°•characterized byrjob growth in;both high-wage,prefessi'onal'ocdupations,and low-wage, service'occupations amidst a,disappearance of rriiddle-income;middle skilled jobs;continues:to shape:the labor market andincome distribution in Sonoma County: SONOMA COUNTY SANTA.ROSA OCCUPATIONAL EARNINGS(2010)'4 1OF — #OF' MEDIAN n,'FRS r'.FLiA-c WOp1ORS EARNImnS i Management professlanal, and related occupations 54,900 567,986 16,867 $68.045 Construction, extactlon. maintenance and repair occupations 15.265 546,716 4.583 $40.492 Sales and office occupations • 36 346- $42.508 12.065 .,, $40.411 . • Production.transportation. and material moving occupations 14,721 536,449 58803 $35.147 Service occupations • _ _ . 23,020 S31.189 8.980 . $27.940 According to the California Budget-Projcct's Basic:Self-Suffieiency Family Wage in 20.10,fainilies in Sonoma County must have two wage earners workingfull-time and making atleast-$1911.an.h'oUror$39,749.(each) per year,in order to pay for housing,food,transportation,childcare,and.health care expenses.5 The 2010 census found that earnings by workers inthe five lowest-paid occupation's countywide fall far below the Basic Family Wage. In Sonoma County,approximately 15% of wage earners,or.one'in.seven,fall within the five lowest paid occupations,which,in aggregate,have a median earning of$25,721. In Santa Rosa,nearly,one in five workers(17.8%) are concentrated in the five lowest paying occupations,which,itogether;earn a median of$22,734. These occupations,of which many are'service related,yield fax less than is needed tejsupport a family in the North Bay. In SonomaiCounty,full-time,yearrround workers in the.five lowest.occupations earn less'than two thirds of what is needed to survive(64.7%),while those in Santa Rosa earn barely,more than half of what'is needed in order to make ends meet (57.2%). 6;;yf orrt`F Ce.1nf' OF MEDIAN FIVE LOWEST'PAYING OCCUPATIONS(2010) .k FARN'rs :Food preparation and sr •. • : related occupations 5,574 $22,305 Farming, tishing..and to occupations 2,318 $23 736 Material moving occupatwns 2730 $26.615 Building and ground cleaning and maintenance occupations 6, 072 527,424 • Per tonal care and service occupations r 4,674 '. 528.326 TOTAL WORKERS 21;368- $25,721 4 This data representsawoMers whe,were•employed full-time;year round. 5 Calif Budget,Project Making'Ends Meet: How Much Does It Cost to Raise.a Family in California?"2010. http://www.cbp, org/pdifs/2016/166624_M-a-4R-ingtEnds_Meet.pdf �•T ,s; • Y' 'f• ' MR '^! � rp ' '' r / '.l. L� n� r • Income Inequality, Poverty, amend Low Wage EmpIoy(nenllin'Sonoma•County i �t Santa Rosa FIVE LOWEST PAYING OCCUPATIONS,(2010) WORKERS EARNINGS MThEa R.. _ ,x$ .� 'ten • API/yva Food presaratjomand serving related occupatlons c ar .q.,01.4.21,3861141:.' $21;698= Building and ground cleaning and maintenance occupations 2,386 $26,131' E r tY. . } Y Personal cater and servlcejoccupa11 1841 +'°$25,225 woo Farming,fishing, and forestry occupations 393 $17,765 kMate algmavl gioccupations�, ., . , '�: 57 x$224851;. TOTAL WORKERS 8,463 $22,734 According to the California Employment,Development Department (CA EDD),job,growth trends•between 2008-2018 will continue to reproduce and reinforceahe;hourglass economy: nearly 60% of allnew.jobs in Sonoma County will pay a median hourly wage that is less than a,self-sufficiency wage of$19.11 per hour;and'half:of new jobs will pay less that i $15.00 an hour.'Unemployment in Sonoma'tCounty declined to 77%in 2012 from a peak during the recession of 10.4% in 2010.iDespite the optimism of manyrn the;buiness community about the recovery,.the;majorityof new jobs created do riot pay wages that will enable workers and their families to move out of working poverty. Sonoma County projected job growth (2008L2018) • • d More Than$40.00 ! . 6.5% TA $35.01 to$40.00 r' iI 7.3% co $30.01 to$35.00 5.4% iL 6 $25.01 to$30.006.-, 9.0% • t0 $20.01 to$25.00 f°" �' 3 is, 11.0%0' c > o$ 15,01 to$20.00 • 'E 10.5% $10.01 to$15.00 i .. wr a,. .. 34.5% o Up to$10.00 t „i 15.7/0 0 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Percentage of Projected Job Growth 2008-2018 Job growth and job quality trends at,the local level are,consistent with national trends according to the National Employ 'ment Law Project(NELP),;low-wage yobs.paying less than $13.83 an hour comprised 21%of the jobs,lost during the recovery,but 58%of,the job growth•Thc Bureau of Labor'Statistics calculates that seven outof:ten top job growth occu- pations over the,next decade-will he low-wage jobs in food services,hospitality,retail and other service sector occupa- tions.' 6 CA EDD,."2008-2018'Occupational Employment Projections,"'Santa;Rosa-Petaluma Metropolitan Statistical Area(MSA), 2010. 7 NELP, "Low-Wage(Recovery and Growing Inequality" 2012 http://www nelp.org/index.php/content/content_about_us/track- ing_the_recovery aftei_the_great_recession. NELP Big Business Corporate Profits;and the Minimum Wage" 2012 http//www nelp org/page/-/rtmw/NELP-Big-Business- Corporate;Prof its-Minimum-Wage.pdf?nocdn=1. 5 t N y i 4 4„ I:n:-"t q'h ably'FP v 2,:: " A m Poverty andLow Wag Employment intSoy noma Ct ounFt`�y$ •.nl w IV. HOUSING AND HEALTHCARE COSTS INCREASE THE BURDEN ON`WORKING FAMILIES'' The 2010 census showed thathardships faced by those working full]time for low,pay were exacerbated by the growing financial burden of other basic needs.According the widely accepted measure.of housing affordability—no more than 30%of household income should be'paid-toward housing costs—housing in Sonoma,whether renter or owner-occupied, is unaffordable across the board. Both at the county level and Mr the City of Santa Rosa,more than halt of the households are paying•more than 30%of theft incomes towards housing costs. To add to the burden of housing costs,36,_043 people in Sonoma County;or eine ip.six;,are•employed but have no health insurance. In Santa Rosa,more thamone'in five working people, 15,163 in total,haven() insurance. Household paying>30% ofincometoward housing'.(2010) 60% ..... 55.9% 4% _- 54,1% 55 55%! 51.0% 50%, •45%, - ---- a5onoma. 40% .i---- • — °Santa Rosa 35%. ._ • 30% .. owner-occupied Renter-occupied Households Households People employed without health Insurance(2010) 25% :..-. __...... ........ 15,163 20Y ........... 36,044 15%, Sonoma Santa Rosa. • About the:author tinny Browne has worked as an'organizer and researcher for labor,tenarits'r glits. and community development organizations in New Yoikt rty_arid-the;Bay Area St,e received her Masters in in ban and Recional Panning from UCI A`with a concentration in F,ousinp no Cornrngn ty Development dinny,'eurrently'works'as Community Engagmont Coordinator with The Participatory Budgeting Project in Vallejo,California on the.first citywide participatory budgeting process in the IJ.S. SCOE Graphics SERI Loud 7021 Design and layout y Ben Pairnquist. i /cc •s . .. aj,1 A & .. , r ■• � Mm r w C#et ^aF ut $ LIVING WAGE COALITION OF SONOMA COUNTY P.O. Box 427, Santa Rosa, CA 95402 (707)623=7395 I iv ingwagesoco@gmail.com http://www.I iv i ngwageson o m a.org. May 19, 2013 To: Petaluma City Council From: Marty Bennett, Co-Chair Living Wage Coalition of Sonoma County ' City staff has again recommended that there,should be no cost of`.living adjustment.(COLA) to the city living wage rate (currently $13.02 with medical benefits and $14.61 without) for the upcoming fiscal year I am writing on behalfof the Living Wage Coalition of Sonoma County to urge that the council not approve the recommendation by city staff. The city council rejected this recommendation the past two years, and we urge you to do the same for the 2013-2014 budget. We recommend thaFthe.council;approvefa 2.2% cost of living adjustment (COLA) to the living wage rateas mandated by Section 836;060.D ofthe'Living Wage Ordinance (LWO). ' There are five compelling reasons to fund theCOLA for the Living Wage Ordinance: 1) All cities should strive'to become model employers, and implementation of a LWO is one important step towards this goal'. Currently, the California Budget Project calculates that an•actual self-sufficiency or living wage for Sonoma , County in 2010 is $19:11' for'each of two parents'working full-time to support two children. By not approving„the annual COLA for the living wage rate, erfiployees of thecity and city contractors covered by the LWO will not make progress towards;a true self sufficiencywage;thatactually reflects the cost,of living in the City of Petaluma. We.should not compromise a fundamental principle of the living wage movement: budget cuts should not fall upon the lowest paid workers-who have the most to lose. 2) Section 9=P-1 of the General Plan states that the city should encourage employersathat"pay living wages commensurate with the costof living"to locate in Petaluma. Further, Section 9-P-10 of the General Plan states that the city will "encourage economic development that will enhance,job opportunities for existing city residents by providing incentives for firms [toy locate in Petaluma] that pay wages`that enable'workers to live in Petaluma" By freezingthe•city living wage rate for the next year the city council will move away from compliance with the spirit and intent of the General Plan. • • 3) One of the major problems with the California minimum wage is that it is not adjusted for inflation. According to the California'Budget Project, the purchasing power of the California state minimum wage (currently $8.00 an hour) has declined approximately.26°A since its high point in 1968. If adjusted for inflation';,the state minimum wage would not be $8.00 an hour, but $10.88. Most of the 140 living wage laws implemented by cities and counties require an annual COLA. Ten states including Oregon and Washington index • their state minimum wage rates to inflation. Currently there is a bill pending in the California legislature (AB 10 Alejo) to increase the California:minimum wage to $9.25 an hour over three/ears, and to require an annual adjustment based upon the consumer price index. By maintaining the:COLA for the city living wage rate, the City of Petaluma is sending a message to Sacramento that the statewide minimum wage rate should be indexed to the California Consumer Price Index. 4) A new study by the Living Wage Coalition-and the North Ba •Organizing Project "The State of Working Sonoma 2013," demonstrates-that income inequality and working poverty are increasing across the county: In 2010, 41 percent of households in the county received less than $50,000 in total annual • ' income, while 12 percent:received more than $150,000. A family of four is considered 'working poor by the federal government if annual household income is less that $44,100,'and'at least one family memberreports income from work during the year The-report indicates that in 2010, 28 percent of county residents , and 22 percent of Petaluma residents fall below this level. I attach a copy of the reportand please see the attached Press.Democratarticle. 5) Thetost,to the city for the COLA--about $11,500- is very modest relative to General Fund expenditures of$35 million in 2012-2013. If I can provide more information please do not hesitate to contact me at'939- 8933•and mbennettvom.com.