would like to [speaker not understood]. the challenge is to show life. [speaker not understood]. where he can fit in and get some help. its was so frustrating, especially for me -- for him. i cried so many time for help and not a lot of us -- finally, two days ago he will be able to qualify for help. [speaker not understood]. one of the first thing that i cried for, of happiness, that take three years so many years for my son to get help.

[speaker not understood] 0 to 24 if i snav ~ of children and families [speaker not understood]. not only for my family. it's for all san francisco families. thank you. (applause) supervisor, [speaker not understood]. i'm here to voice strong support today for both the children's amendment as well as the public education fund. [speaker not understood] also join in appreciation to all of you for really working towards trying to create a legislation

that is going to address so many issues. i'm old enough to tell you that i was here when there was no children [speaker not understood] and at that time there is really no access to services for any communities. we are now -- we have learned today the wishes, advocates many talking about transformative experienceses and changed the quality of life for children. so, again, i just want to say i subpport a 0 to 24erv ~ 24 children's amendment. we need to look at the 5 cent sales tax and [speaker not understood] before we have authorization.

the last thing i want to say is oversight is very important and i'm asking all the board to look carefully at how the oversight of these funds will be determined and to ensure that there is appropriate representation reflecting the needs that we're addressing, particularly how we [speaker not understood] in that process and listening to the community at large. thank you very much. so, good afternoon, chair yee, supervisor campos, supervisor tang, supervisor kim. my name is oscar hernandez. i'm a member of [speaker not understood]. i just came here to address the board today giving my support for [speaker not understood] for the peef and also the council for collaborative process on how to

approve services across the city. i'm personally grateful for this board for doing [speaker not understood], the children's fund, the peef this november, also with respect to -- i also want to urge the board to also have whatever oversight body for children's fund with the committee, the commission that there be [speaker not understood] 25% youth and also to provide staffing for some people with oftentimes many young people are in these positions they don't know how to read these documents or budgets or be able to gauge these issues because a lack of understanding. and that is due to staffing and staff issues, resources or not wanting to help youth engage in discussions. also we've seen money invested in young people such as jobs,

bringing more experience in the workforce, providing prevention, helping at-risk youth address the problems and become better with young people and also leadership programs as well as also as a youth commissioner, i also stress youth assistance program and also that we make sure that whenever there is oversight body or other committee or commission that does staffing to help these young people engage in discussions. thank you. good afternoon, supervisors. my name is jose [speaker not understood] and i work with care s.f. i really wanted to say first of all, thank you for your leadership on all of these crucial issues. i'm going to take a step back. you know where i stand on a lot of these areas and actually want to read a comment from one of the parents who had to leave to pick up her children,

natalia. this is a statement from natalia right here. i have three children that is a part of the coleman advocates organization. i am here to advocate for the fund of the children's fund and increasing the fund and making sure that it does not go away. our children need these resources in order to reach their dreams, and i really believe that with these funds our young people will be able to reach them. i would like to advocate for them to never go away and that it can be, at the very least, for 25 years. i'm translating here. it's in spanish. i'm doing two things at once. and i really appreciate all you

have done and i will be here again in 20 39 again supporting the children's fund. so, thank you. (applause) >> chelsey and john [speaker not understood]. anybody else that wants to speak just line up. my name is chelsey from coleman advocates for children and youth. i think folks have talked about our main talking points. the priorities for the community coalition has been the meaning for two years now. it is to increase the funds to 4%. we are hoping for a phase in that is no less than four years to align with what we under to be the dcyf planning process. the inclusion of disconnected transitional age youth through age 24, to strengthen oversight and accountability in the creation of a dcyf oversight committee and to extend the length of time before the funds

sunset to less than 25 years. we under that we are very close to an incredibly strong children's fund legislation to be put on the ballot and look forward to what comes out of the discussion in committee today. and we did have -- we had a lot of people here, those of you who are on the steps of city hall know that there are over 150 young people and parents and kids and providers on the steps of city hall and many of those people had to leave. but there is incredibly strong support for the community core coalition recommendation and want to give shout outs to members of the board of supervisors who have worked tirelessly to make sure that we are coming together for the strongest possible legislation, and also wanted to give shout outs to the community coalition for the incredible work they've done over the last two years. so, thank you very much. (applause) hello.

john osaki, jcyc and i'm here as a very proud member of the community coalition and i'm going to make this very brief because i just want to speak very specifically on one issue, and that is i think even before today, but hopefully especially from today's public comment you can really appreciate the unmet needs that exist here in our city. you can appreciate all the transitional age youth who came here to speak, to talk about their needs and how urgent they are. and the one point that i wanted to make to you all today because there's been a lot of talk about a phase-in with regards to the increase and we do appreciate your consideration for the increase. the one thing that i want to urge you all to do is to not make them wait. it's to make sure that they don't have to wait because their needs exist now. there are families on wait

listses for child care now. there are young people on wait lists for the jobs that my organization provides right now. i want to urge you to make sure that we don't have to wait because the one thing i want to make sure that we do in addressing these unmet needs and addressing the needs of transitional age youth is we don't rob peter to pay paul, that we make sure the resources that the families and children of this city deserve are there and available for them to provide the services they need. to, once again, i want to urge you to make sure that we minimize the amount of time that they have to wait to get the services they need. thank you very much. (applause) >> okay. any other public comments? seeing none, public comment is now closed. [gavel] [laughter] is there public comment? >> i was trying to move it

along. okay. supervisors, as we know, there's been three amendments that were introduced separately to be heard today and i would like to -- i'm going to make some amendments to the concert piece, our children and families council to -- i have here ready to submit which includes a version of the peef language and a version of the children's fund language. i think we spoke about many of the changes that we want to make to the original peef and

the original children's fund. and i spoke in length many times now about the council itself and rather than repeating everything, i'll just highlight some of the things i see as amendments to -- besides having everything in one particular set of amendments to be inclusive. so, we spoke a lot about peef and i think supervisor kim did an excellent job on that. supervisor avalos spoke about his amendments. and to reiterate, in term of some of the thing i saw that were needed in the children's fund amendment that is in my version includes k up through

age of 24, that we would sunset at 25 years, and that we would have an oversight committee to hold us, hold the department of children youth and family accountable. and i [speaker not understood] a ramp up and what it really means. and looking at some of the original discussion around the funding where the original amount was 3 cents and all of us really wanted to get to 4 cents. there was some discussion by groups that said, well, let's figure out the plan to make sure we have a plan to know how we're going to spend the money. and i made the argument at the time that, yes, we could maybe eventually get to the full allocation, but there are some -- to me, some immediate needs that are so obvious and you

could give shorter contracts and so forth that we could [speaker not understood] that eventually would get to the 4 cents. and the 4 cents, once we get to 4 cents, it's a 33% increase. and the other thing to remember is that the 33% increase that we get up to over a few years, if i look at the original argument of not having an increase for a year or two until the year was completed, the ratv p up i suggested with five years would have been pretty equal to, in totality. but we also have to remember that there will be 20 more years where it is 4 cents and where we have these resources. so, that's what i'll be introducing, a ramp up over five years. that's what i have in the language. i'd like to hear some of the

arguments. i know there is going to be some difference in regards to four years versus five years ramp up. so, i'll leave it at that before i actually ask people to pass my amendments. supervisor tang? >> sure, i want to thank supervisor yee. i think again, as you stated, we do have many agreements actually in terms of what we'd like to cecum out of this package. one of the questions that i just wanted to peds to the controller's office, i believe that we have a representative here. we did receive a memo and i'm wondering if you can just state for us what the difference would be if we were to ramp this up four years or five years. if you could share with the public the memo that came down from the controller's office. >> [speaker not understood] from the controller's office. the memo just references what was introduced at the time, which is 5 cents in the aggregate and 4 cents over a

period of five years. let's see. the 3 cent amount at the moment is $49.1 million. the 4 cent amount is 65.4. if you divide the difference by 4, you'll get an idea. so, it goes up -- $4 million per year. does that answer your question? >> yes, thank you very much. >> can i -- let me -- no, go ahead. supervisor campos. >> thank you, mr. chair. and i want to thank all of the members of this very broad coalition that have been waiting for quite sometime, and

i just want to say on a very personal note that i was really inspired to hear our young people speak. whether it was joshua, oscar, anthony, so many incredible young people who i think are the best advocates for why we need this. and, so, i'm just very grateful. today i will be introducing a set of amendments that were originally introduced by supervisor john avalos who was here earlier. you know, john avalos and i get confused for all the other time. it only makes sense i'm the one introducing these amendments today. but the amendments are the product of a very strong community process that has taken place over the last month and a half. the process that's been lead by supervisor avalos who has worked closely with community

stakeholders as well as our peers at the board of supervisors. and i especially want to highlight and acknowledge the incredible work of our chair supervisor yee and of course supervisor kim. this set of amendments has 7 co-sponsor. besides supervisor avalos, supervisor mar, breed, cohen, yee, kim, and myself. and the goal of these amendments is to bring forward the strongest possible legislation to the ballot in november that would best support our children and families. and i understand that a lot of work has been done and supervisor yee and others has been talking about sort of their perspective and we certainly respect and appreciate that. but from our perspective in the midst of this affordable crisis, we feel that we're pushing the

envelope a little and need to a hard as we can to help our family and young people. let me outlinement amendments that i'm introducing. first on the issue of sunset, this is a change from the initial legislation which originally had no sunset. the amendment proposes a 25-year sunset which is the length of a generation. this allows the next generation to review and evaluate the children's charter amendment given the needs of the city in 2014 when so many of us will be old men and women. the second amendment is inclusion of disconnected transitional age youth. and, again, this is a clarification from the initial legislation, but the inclusion of k is really important and this is something that conforms with the best practices in this sector. and i think that we heard from the k youth and they said it more often than i could say in

term of why this is important. the third amendment is a five-year planning cycle which is the same as the initial legislation, but the amendment includes an adjustment to the timeline and that's after consulting with the director of department of children youth and families and our community stakeholders. we have adjusted the timeline of the five-year plan cycle. this will ensure that the best possible transition from the existing three-year cycle to the five-year cycle in the amendment, specifically we proposed the delay the results of the [speaker not understood] needs assessment through 2015. this will allow the agency enough time to do the assessment, make sure it addresses legislation and k. the service allocation plan is then done -- would be done in fiscal years 16-17 with the rfp

cycle being fiscal year 17 and 18. so, this means the first year of funding for the five-year cycle will be in the fiscal year 18-1. i don't mean to confuse anyone by all these dates, but it makes sense. ~ 18-19 number 4, children youth and their families oversight committee, and this is a change from the initial legislation. as you know, the original legislation proposed a commission which was similar to other large city departments and i must say that, you know, personally david campos, i would like to see a commission. i think it makes sense and i think that it's important to do that. but i am happy to support what i think supervisor avalos and others have worked out, which is to have something that is not quite a commission but actually provides more oversight. and i think that this

responsibility -- the composition of this body, this oversight committee would have 11 members jointly appointed by the mayor, board of supervisors, with input from the youth commission. and one other thing this body would do is complete community needs assessment, service allocation plan, the annual budget, at least the budget as a whole. and it would participate in i evaluations in hiring of director of dcyf ~. so, we believe that this -- and i feel confident that this slight balance between the commission and what we have today. the fifth amendment is a clarification on the baseline, that the baseline will continue to be based on the budget of fiscal year 2000, 2001. we have added a baseline for tay and the controller is to calculate city appropriations

made in fiscal year 2014, 2015 for services related to disconnected transitional age youth from 18 to 24. so, that will be the baseline for tay. and then the sixth point is an increase in funding. originally the fund was increased from 3 cents, $100 of assessed property to 5 cents. after conifertion with colleagues and community stakeholders, supervisor avalos and the community are proposing a four-year phase in to 4 cents for $100 of assessed property tax. we believe this will give the oversight committee and dcyf time to develop [speaker not understood] before a full 4 cents would apply. during the first four years of ramp up, three years of ramp up it would allow the agency to address chronic unmet needs in

neighborhoods to address tay needs. the phase-in shall be 25 cents each year beginning fiscal year 15-16 at 3.25 cents culminating in 4 cents in fiscal year 18-19. therefore, the full 4 cents would be funded in alignment with dcyf's first five-year cycle in fiscal year 18-19. finally, i just want to take this opportunity to once again thank my colleagues in the case of these amendments and all the work that's been done. supervisor avalos and his incredible staff, raquel radonez, [speaker not understood] rubenstein for all the work that they have done to put this together and for their help in crafting not only these amendments but everything else that's been going on around this for so long. also thanks to supervisor mar for the background work that his office has done. and i don't know if peter is

here, but peter lauder born has spent a lot of time and we want to acknowledge his work. of course, to supervisor kim and her aide [speaker not understood]. thank you for the incredible work on peef. i know that took a lot of time and energy and it goes without saying to supervisor yee and his amazing aide gen low for the work they have done on the children's council coordinating the pieces of this very complicated puzzle ~. again, thank you to all the co-sponsors of this legislation, supervisors mar, breed, cohen, yee and kim. i guess lastly but certainly not least, i want to thank the incredible, incredible children's fund coalition lead by chelsey bullard of coleman advocates for their incredible effective advocacy.

it's just amazing that we are where we are. and it's incredible that this is going to be in place for 25 years, you know. so many thousands and thousands of people, young people, kids that will be helped by this. and i think it really goes to show you that we in san francisco do have our priorities in the right place. i was going to say "straight" but i don't think i can say that word today. but i want to say i'm very proud of this and very grateful. so, with that, when the time is appropriate i will make a motion to make those amendments. >> supervisor tang. >> sure. thank you for your comments, supervisor campos. i actually wanted to follow-up a question to the controller's office. so, i know that you had done analysis based on what was originally introduced and, so, that was at 5 cents.

but i wanted to see if you can share with us what the aggregate impact is on some of the existing base lines that we also have. so, in our city we have mta, library, and peef as well. so, whether it's four years or five years, if you can share with us what that, that total impact would be based on some of the amendments that have been proposed today. >> supervisors, peg stevenson from the controller's office. we did calculate the changes to the other base lines for every level that has been discussed. and, so, these are the other departments in the city that have a baseline so they go up or down by the aggregate change in city's discretionary revenue. it applies to muni, to parking and traffic, cccn, the library, of course the [speaker not understood], and [speaker not understood], some of those base lines go down if discretionary revenue is taken out by a

change of commercial property tax. at 4 cents the muni baseline goes down in total by $1.1 million. the parking and traffic baseline by .4 million. the library baseline by .4 million. and the peef annual contribution by half a million. so, the aggregate change, 2.4. >> okay, thank you. and, so, i think that i just really wanted to get that clarified. as we know, we are trying to pass peef as well and we wanted to make sure people are aware of that and feel comfortable with the fact that baseline may be decreasing as well. the other thing is that we have two different sets of amendments. again, i think we have an agreement on most of the things such as tay going up to age 24, sunset at 25 years. i know the original proposal was not to have a sunset, but i

think as we have had these conversations for the renewal today it's a lot of [speaker not understood]. the oversight committee i think is something there might have been a difference on. i believe that supervisor avalos ' proposal has a makeup at 11 members, and supervisor yee, you have it at 15. i wanted to make sure we have some clarity before we take action on the amendments. the five-year planning cycle is something that i certainly do agree with and i think it's in both of your proposals. i've heard loud and clear from our nonprofits the current three-year planning cycle is much too shoreththv. by the time you do your community needs assessment and you've done the rfps and all that it's just ramping up way too quickly. i think five years is something we can all agree on. so, i think that really it was the question about the phase-in and as well as the oversight committee. so, if we can get some clarification where we might land on that.

i would say personally that i would support a 15-member committee. i do believe that currently we are at a 15-member cuc membership. especially since we are trying to increase the number of youth members on there as well i will support a [speaker not understood] committee. >> supervisor kim. >> i thought it was an 11-member committee. i think it's 15 now. ~ i just wanted to clarify >> my version i have in writing is 15 and i based it on the original, i guess, coalition for the commission. and then i believe supervisor avalos in his amended version would have 11 members. i understand the