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 on participatey budget. thank you for having us here you today. i'm a citizen of san francisco. i live actually in supervisor faerlz district and i was

pleased to learn in district 3 my neighbors had the opportunity to participate in san francisco's pilot of pb. as president chut u chu said i always work at google. i work on the social impact before we like the democratic participation. in learning about the various methods of the democracy i become greatly interested because i have it's proven track record of improving coalition and to idea solution for those needs. to refine them and to prioritize

them and to over see the implementation is a major drive of bringing folks together. skilled and problem solving and democraticly engaged. people became so involved it's like a school of democracy for more engagement in ones community. and it results in happier citizens. where pb washgs was first conceived they believe it is a

interesting program. i spend most of my days drinking coffee and thinking about how technology can help folks. to this end i'm particle thrilled about exploring ways that technology my enhance the pb. technology can help to reap more people so in essence making the process even more representative. right now it's just a little past 3:00 p.m. on a wednesday and if we look around the room we can sense that the people at this meeting might not constitute all the folks who

want to be here. it describes those kind of gap for the opportunity for those who have the time to come out and those don't. through mobile and other forms of technology we can streamline the technology so it, fit into the public's schedule. another area where teenage can make technology inclusionary any people lack competency in los angeles so the mobile would allow people to participate without knowing english. in fact, one of the delegates said it allowed folks who know

spanish could flush out the words in other form. this would be particularly important in san francisco where language is spoken in 44 percent of household. the second way technology is to enhance pb allow people to collaborate more ways that compliments calculation. it can help to organize a thought. imagine for example a pb proposal in which the wisdom can allow people to build off other knowledge. so 15 i would like to add when i think of san francisco i think

of innovation. we're already wired citizens and we have the opportunity to leverage our technology to innovative in democracy. this is something that really only san francisco, california do. as a constituent i would be exist to know that san francisco can be an example to the world about how democracy cabaret vithd. lastly, i want to thank you for inviting me out >> thank you much. mr. chair if he could go to public comment. i want to thank folks who he know came as participants in this process.

can i call up folks (calling names) and then other who may wish to commit on that >> i'm bypassing i'm a renter. i've olden on district 3 for more than thirty years. i want to compliment president chiu that was working on that part to his talented aid. i attended the neighborhood meeting that were used to gather suggestions i was greatly compressed by what i saw. having lived in the district for 20 plus years i saw that the people who attended those meters were broadly representative of

district 3. there were interpreters to allow people to have varies a translations into cantonese. i heard suggestions i would not have in and out of myself. there were scores of participants. lucky there was a knowledgeable person from the staff and her services were invaluable. the folks who were at those meters where in my mind broadlyly representative of the residents of district 3 and i think the same can be true of other districts. this is a creativity and worthwhile process and i urge

the other supervisors applying similar projects in their districts. i think the public clock is 10 minutes. okay >> peter executive director of library yourselves orchestras. i hope you'll join us in looking for proper emphasis on the book budgets since one of the projects was adding more non-english chinese book collection. the book budget has been frozen. it's not clear to me with what the permeates are and