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 coalition may be okay with 11. either way, you know, i would be okay. i just -- you know, there are some advantages of including more. as you know when you have more it's harder to have a quorum. it's a disadvantage.

whatever version we come up with in terms of a amendment, we're going to have a week -- i mean, i'd like to say this about in general, that there's a lot of amendments to amendments today. and we will be probably accepting them with the idea that we still have at least a week to really clean up everything and look at it much more carefully in terms of why it doesn't make -- a second chance to rethink whether this is the best way to do this or not. so, that's what the -- >> thank you. no, thank you for the clarification. i just have to say, you know, i think a 15-member council is fine. my main worry is quorum. i think that size of a body becomes unweildy and it will never be able to meet because it's hard to get that many folks in a room, you know, every two months. i would prefer 11 on a pure

practical. i want the group to meet. i've seen large bodies meeting because of quorum issues. i'm also offering a number of amendments. actually i've only charted my amendments to supervisor avalos's children fund version. they're really minor amendments. they're mainly procedural. and i've distributed them before the members of the rules committee. the only -- that i think i want to spell out so everyone is leer in the room is the definition of transitional age youth. i wanted to change young unmarried parents to low-income parents. you might be a married transitional aged low-income parent and i don't think that that should be the barrier to being eligible transitional aged funding. what we're going for is low-income parents that are struggling and have needs and service with child care. the other change i want to make

is instead of immigrant and/or english language learner, i want to say new immigrants. i think that's important to put in because you might have immigrated when you were two or three years old. i think the intent of that language which was really for those that are transitioning to san francisco or the united states. everything else is fairly procedural, the other amendments before us. the last piece, the last major amendment i'm asking in the children's fund is i prefer that we do the membership structure of the committee via ordinance. this would allow flexibility. let's say we decided we actually needed more young people on the committee advisory committee or we wanted more parents or more youth organizers. we can make those changes via ordinance. once we set this in the charter amendment, that set the 25 years unless we want to go back to the voters and ask them to change the structure and membership. so, i think that we should include the number whether it's

11 or 15 in the actual charter amendment, but that we should leave the membership and structure appointment criteria to do via ordinance and i suggest that we introduce that as soon as possible so that there is space to the coalition we pass to set this before the board of supervisors before we pass this to the ballot. my comment is i really struggle with the children's fund increase. even though youth and family funding is my priority, it is because we're not getting an increase in revenue from voters. we're not asking them to pay more taxes so they can go into after school programming, child care slots. i mean, out of those thing we desperately need here in the city, we're working within a finite budget. so, when we put more money into the children's fund that does mean less choices for the board on muni services, on senior services and nutrition. i mean, you name it, everyone here comes to our board in the month of june and say, you

know, all the different things we struggle with. of course, i believe that we should fund 5%, you know, of property taxes to children and youth services. i think 4% is a good compromise . an additional roughly $16 million to the children's fund and that's $16 million less than what we get to play with for other important need in the city. i do think it's a good compromise. i'm happy to support that addition. i want to say on top of that, on any given year there is an incredible need the board can allocate more money to the children's fund. the 4% will be the floor in term of what we know we'll be allocating. i do want to thank everyone for their work on that. i think it's been tremendously hard for all of us but i think this is a good, this is a good baseline that we can -- that i can continue to support. understanding it does have impacts to peef and a lot of other fund, but understanding

we'll have increased revenue over the years as well. >> supervisor campos. >> thank you, mr. chairman. just a couple of quick points. one, i was incorrect in listing supervisor breed as an official co-sponsor of the children's fund. she has been very involved. i think she's still trying to decide the issue of sponsorship in term of which form this takes. but i want to note that just to correct that record. though for the record she is wearing a very, very bright orange outfit i think in spirit , solidarity with the coalition. i also want to note that in term of the ~ term of the -- i'm a member of the citizen's advisory committee. i normally like more people than fewer people, but i

actually agree with supervisor kim, that quorum could become an issue and i think that's why i think 11 does make sense. but we certainly will have time to figure out what the right number is. thank you. >> let me make a couple -- you asked the question about the difference in funding. yes, so, we've had that discussion and i think supervisor kim was very articulate about most of us in term of the attention we have between how we could continue to increase our resources to children and family knowing that we have many other needs. i think moving us into what i consider from the original ask

to the older version has been a good compromise. this has been done before. when you look at the original legislation when it was reauthorized the first time, it was about a 20% increase at the time, and that was over 15 years. so, we're not going to be visiting this for a really long time. let me, let me -- and i also realize that the difference between when we just look at the ramp up between whether it's 4 years or 5 years, the difference year during the four years would be about $800,000 [speaker not understood].