then innovates not a balanced. there's a pretty dramatic difference it became more representative in 2010 or not i don't know how important road resurfacing and street lights are in this particular chicago precinct but there was a pretty dramatic reduction in both and i don't care which is more representative. so those are my points and i do think this is very interesting. it would be a positive thing in some situations >> if i could respond first of all, to supervisor wiener. i'm not proposing today that all districts have this pilot program. i understand that we have some

colleagues that are very interested in bringing this to their districts but i'm not at all saying we do it the way we did it. so far as having a representative to represent people i know that a commissioner in chicago said thousands of his residence engaged in this process. and a number of people who were involved were 10 to 15 times more of people who would interact with me. i think it's far anywhere representative process to reflect sort of the democracy in my district. to supervisor avalos points for first of all, and a want to thank you. i know this is an

idea you've piloted a variation of that with your community action grants. i agree the south east neighborhoods we could do better. one of the things we do did in our pilot we were thinking about the same set of issues. we have a number of neighborhoods that have great democratic participation. and there's other neighborhoods will be less active. we want to make sure that those neighborhoods wouldn't out vote residents who aren't as used to having their way at city hall. we put in rules like no particular neighbor could have more than $20,000 devoted to

their neighborhood. for example, this could involve certain community i want to expand how he think about the possibilities here. i want to echo one thing about the importance of engaging the community. if we s had of done this right we could really have set up a leadership of folks and start that community education process before you actively engage the neighborhoods. i wonder if there's a two year budget that could dovetail that. i'm open to the number of variances. how it at least has been done in

my district. so with that i'd like to turn it over to ms. brown >> thank you supervisor chu. i also want to thank supervisor avalos and wiener for raising some points. i do want to add i think to start you tell in kind of piggy bacon some of the supervisors comments. there's a lot about pb on the issues you raised. and the two ways are to number one design the process that inequity issues are prioritized and number it to allocating the resources to make sure it's implemented correctly. i want to say that out front. i wanted to start out with a short video a new video that our

organization just is finishing up production on about pb and kind of to bring more of a human face to this and then get to my power presentation >> come out and vote and decide - >> is the - try to communities and you pay taxes and come out and vote and decide how our tax dollars get spent. >> budget is a different way to engage the government and decide highway tax dollars are paint e

spent. >> the reality is who knows better about their community. no one else can make a better decide for you, you. this is different because you're voting for where the money it going to be spent instead of allowing them to spend the money. first poem brainstorm ideas and start to think of what kinds of projects would they like to see in their neighborhoods and volunteers can turn them into really projects. we had a series of project meetings and they narrowed it down. what are the real needs of the community that's going to pen as many people harassing as possible. >> we're asking for laptops.

>> people actually getting paid in governing in their city and coming up with the thing that can improve their community. we're saying you know what you live in our community and you have a right to decide and we should listen to that voice. the project system was good. we have some playground improvement and roadhouses >> there's been implemented over the next two years and the following year the process starts again and they'll own the projection. it becomes part of the process. >> i think this is the greatest

democracy coming into the united states. >> from there it's all over brazil and thousands of cities and in north america. >> that is a way to become part of government. >> it's creating a more educated voters overall. this can be good for the big projects of democracy >> okay. i know we're running behind schedule i'm going to try to move quickly through these and move past a few of them. i'm the coordinator for the

party project. the first citywide project in the u.s. this is an organization that was start in 2009. we were incorporated in last year and our mission is to inform and make fair decisions about public revenue. we supervisor

wiener and avalos. what makes pb different from voting in a typical election is that public education is at the center. the pb really functions as kind of a school of citizenship and democracy. what we've seen is that that education process both serves as the leadership development ground not only for new leaders people who have not been part of

the leadership in the community but also to transform their understanding of their community. one of the things that we saw recently in the process in chicago to kind of illustrate what that public education looks like there was a public committee that wanted security cameras. they met with the local police department and the local 9-1-1 center and what they found was actually what would improve public safety wouldn't be security cameras but proved latin-american are that was an important thing to incorporate into their experience as delegates. someone else that gets to the question of our democracy.

is that pb ingenders a kind of deeper democracy. not only are people who normally don't come out but they come out if there's two or three you million dollars to come out and spend but it attracts people who are excluded from the process and politic making. due to delusion the way the city works. so, yeah i wanted to also tell a couple stories but i'm trying to be mindful of time. so something else we've seen is that pb allows people to make more informed decisions. it allows for community ease for

governments to actually do spending in more ways number one the people who are called budget delegates spend hundreds if not thousands of the hours on volunteer work and doing research and meeting with experts and their neighborhoods to find out where the problems are preys you think u up against people and what are the ways they can solve those problems. and secondly the volunteers who were part the oversight because part of the monitoring. that's something that improves transparency but also allows the community and city to be making more informed decisions. and 15 we've found f that pb

reduce spending. we've found that people who are making decision for spending in money they look for potential cost savings. fair spending is also related to that. while the original model was focused on reducing and addressing infrastructure qualifies by reducing participation by under participating groups and they looked at buildings that didn't exist before oppose e even without those needs we've seen that pb can create more

inadmissible outcomes. they focus on the common good. they're often more sensitive to those with greater needs than these are. that's about people who question the process. they see it in their own eye we saw a father who came to join the education committee because there was a project he wanted to implement in his daughters school. it had you were and lower incomes and actually in the course of working on the committee and meeting parents who's kids go to schools in the lower income part of the city he realized there was no doors on the bathrooms.

and for the project he had come with the intention of abandoning he dropped it in favor of promoting another project. so one other thing i wanted to actually add there was a lot of the budget processes were looking at the kind of equity criteria it's included in any processes around the world before the investing process does incorporate a measure of need according to a scale of entity that's been department for the process. i think we're going to see tried here in the u.s. we look forward to piloting.

stronger communities folks meet for months and collaborative along all kinds of the gender and education level and politic ideology. we've found the process of sitting down both across the table from neighbors and city staff buildings a new kind of understanding especially city staff and residents. in toronto the residents have been battling with the folks. one of the things is that the residents learned it wasn't that the city staff were against them but there wheel e really he wasn't enough money in the

budget. so they worked to get that done. so finally a couple of last points. accountability and transparency it's different from how it happens in government for it's not just about elected officials being responsible to the public but their accountable to each other. now they're sitting across the table and solving problems. that's not just about decision but about the decision-making process being transparent that were it connects people in ways one thing we've seen in chicago with supervisor moore is while he just barely won election

before he implemented pb he won with a 37 percent voteer difference. i'm going to skip a couple of these. this is along with new york and chicago and our pilot here the fourth pb process in the u.s. it's actually, the first to happen citywide. valy is difference because of the structure and the way the process was implemented the lis

were the highest project and 15 prelims and monitoring is going to cabin july 1st. so one of the things i want to go back to say when you talk about the power of pb in reaching communities that are hifl disfranchised that's not just what the cable decisions have been made. we want to make sure those

communities are part of the process of designing pb so our steering committee came together and gaeng youth and communities was tyler number one priority in this process. so they decided that the voting age was 14 but the council choose to move it to 16. there were special programs for seniors and spanish speakers and actually hiring target outreach workers to work directly for those of us on staff didn't have relationships with. airing on the side of inclusion was absolutely critical to the success we had in valy.

i had the privilege of fill out and one of their projects was funded. one of our project expos on the right we had over 5 hundred people to learn about the projects. you can see one of our mobile sites. it takes the vote to the people. we had voting in 15 sites including churches and senior center and high schools. that's one of the important ways we reach the folks. and lastly on the right you can see the posters educating folks. so some of the outcomes i'm looking the numbers. back why the fall we had over 8 hundred folks participated. the vast majority of those came

to the assembly. a one hundred and 15 people turned those ideas through proposals and spent countless hours of their time. they submitted 60 proposals to the city for final investing and in the ends 4,000 people voted. education public safety economic development and street transportation and community and curls were the categories. and parks and recreation. so again, i been involved in th

budget process in san francisco for a very, very, very long time. we know about the fancy words like expenditure.

we like to fancy ourselves as budget excerpt. and everybody gets to became is budget expert. we played a minimum california role. person delighted to be part of this pilot process. i wanted to share two highlights of the district. that was really amazing to see us dream big. so in san francisco with the budget in the million dollars projects that only go up to $20,000 might not seem like a lot but for us to individually look at how to spend $20,000 that's big. people were able to brainstorm alongside folks they don't talk

with. the culminate projects people's lobbied hard for those projects. it was interesting to see the open mindness of the folks egg whoer hearing the information. so supervisor chu spoke about the books in the library. it was interesting to see parents bring up that idea and they were nodding along with the speaker. in terms of lessons learned. early on it became very clear that the community engagement needs to happen as soon as the process begins. so in our very first meeting the questions awe roses around who

voted on the criteria. another one of the lessons learned was the project just flew bye. 4 months is a relatively short time to engage the community so we want to see a longer process for anything moving forward for just to end the ultimate goal is that the budget is participatey. neither we're a part of the budget process. the pilot in district 3 was a great extort for the budget. we'll definitely want to say that is a good project

>> thank you i want to call up betty from affirmative action. and a thank you supervisor chu. i'm the community organizer. as mentioned our cpa are some of the non-profit organizations. and some of the key he learning we also i wanted to you highlight were similar to what kim mentions. we have folks who don't have english as their first language. they proposed issues on the ballot and some of the voters voted on as well speaker we really support budget

allocations toward creating more a task force it combaengz a diversity of constituents. we hope to conduct more of an independent analysis. the pb was a clue of process to help organize the priorities and it will be a great opportunity to engage communities in education and built across different culturals and neighborhood. obliging dating.org like that and i'm going to invite up greg >> thank you