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]. if you want to increase five

years it would be 3.2 million. so, it's $800,000. and what's happened, i was comfortable at five years ramp up and then there's been quite a few things that have changed to make me soften my stance. the main one was the timing of everything. when we finally figured out what the timing was in terms of completing the spending allocation plan that we looked when it was going to land, it would have landed at the beginning of year 4, where then you would adored need the funding.

that in addition to the many, many, many contacts and communications and phone call i received by people in the field to say it won't make any sense if we vote to have a plan and we don't have the funding. so, i have to really dig really deep down to figure out, well, i had a comfort level of five years and that it looks like there is some logic behind still a ramp up, but it's a four-year ramp up rather than a five-year ramp up. so, at this point i will reconsider my five years and look at supporting the four years. supervisor tang? >> great, thank you for sharing that. again, i think that all of us want to see the increase. i just wanted to make sure all of us especially when we have a

full board to feel comfortable with what we have on the impacts of our other baseline. for the purposes of today, i wanted to know what our plans are in terms of reconciling from the differences in the amendments. i said i would be comfortable with a 15-member oversight committee. really for me i just want to make sure we have the various seats dedicated for all the different kind of age groups and communities. so, to the extent we can accommodate that with an 11 member or 15 member, i don't know we want to consider what supervisor kim did, which would be refer to the board to determine that makeup. >> let me respond to that. i think her recommendation or this amendment is a solid recommendation. it's consistent to the other two , two groups that we have

that's going to be new, which is the community advisory committee for the office of ece . we framed it in term of what the framing -- what the general makeup may be, but in term of the actual membership, it would be done through an ordinance with the counsel. it would be the same thing, we would go through an ordinance. and then rationale here to me was that if you do it for an ordinance, you have an opportunity to see it would work or not work, and that then everything else could be working. but you don't want to go to the voters just because the committee is not working and it would be easier to make changes through the ordinance. so, i would be supportive of

supervisor kim's recommendation there. >> just if i may, mr. chair. in term of procedurally sort of how we should move along here, i know that you have, you know, some amendments. i had amendments. supervisor kim also has some amendments. i'm trying to figure out -- >> suggestionseses -- >> supervisor kim? >> thank you, supervisor campos. if i can make a suggestion, i have the same amount of amendments. [speaker not understood] we use supervisor avalos's fund. if we can make a motion to amend supervisor avalos' charter amendment, that is the page that's been distributed to you all here. i did want to clarify. we did keep the number of seats at 11 based on what supervisor avalos had put in. obviously we have another week if you want to clarify that, but it does say the mayor shall

appoint for seats 1 to 6 subject to confirmation by the board of supervisors. the board of supervisors shall appoint members seat 7 through 11. the board of supervisors shall further provide by member, so, we did keep the 11 membership. so, i was just going to leave it at what supervisor avalos said. if we can make a motion to amend supervisor avalos, and then i think a motion to amend supervisor yee's, i think that would be appropriate ~. >> i think the question really is, supervisor kim, some of the recommendations that you have made for amendments is incorporated into the language that supervisor avalos has for his amendments to his -- >> no, supervisor avalos has agreed to our amendments, but the amendments in the sheet we

have handed out have not yet been incorporated into the supervisor avalos's version. >> thank you. would you like to have that considered for today? >> yes, i would. i would like the motion to amend to be considered today. >> okay. procedurally -- >> but when do i -- i mean, i can make a motion to amend along the lines of the documents i circulated to you, changes supervisor avalos has put forward. and can we include in the motion that these amendments would also incorporate the amendments that supervisor kim has also circulated, which is an additional sheet that amends this document? is that appropriate, madam clerk? >> yes, i would actually suggest you adopt supervisor

avalos first and [speaker not understood]. >> have a motion to adopt supervisor kim's amendments to the amendments i had circulated on behalf of supervisor avalos. >> thank you. >> is there a second? >> second. >> second. so, with no objection, motion passes. [gavel] >> and then i make a motion to adopt the amendments that i have circulated that include the amendments from supervisor kim. >> okay. >> sorry, i just have a point of clarification. i'll ask the city attorney perhaps. supervisor yee's amendments incorporate all of the me you'rex in one. so, are we also going to -- >> let me clarify. it's a little confusing. if we pass supervisor avalos' amendments then -- and then we pass any amendments we have for peef, then i would make a motion to [speaker not

understood] language that i have amended, put them for amendments. substitute with what was just passed so that we have -- issuing one document going through. >> thank you for that clarification. >> city attorney owen? >> i'll wait till you make the actual amendment. >> okay. so, there is a motion to adopt supervisor campos' amendments and did you second that? okay, no objection. it passes. [gavel] >> so, let's talk about peef, peef amendments. do you have any other additional -- >> no. >> okay. so, there's -- do we have to --

he we would have to pass that or not? ~ it's coming to the rule. >> oh, you're talking about the rainy day fund charter amendment. >> no, the peef. we can't talk about the rainy day fund yet. >> right. i believe -- >> you didn't have any new language since introducing it to the full board? >> no. so, what i would request is, understanding that we're combining children's fund and peef into one measure, i believe that item 3 has already been called. so, having the charter amendment that is before you today, the public education enrichment fund, be motioned into supervisor yee's combined children's and family council of san francisco and children and family plan. >> so, i just wanted to clarify that. you didn't have any additional -- >> no. and my understanding is that your version already has included the preamble for the public education enrichment fund. that's already in your version. we're just going to insert the

charter amendment underneath that. >> okay. so, i'd like to make a motion that i amend my amendments. i think that's how i'm going to have to do this. where i would substitute what was just passed through the children's fund amendments that supervisor campos just introduced. i will substitute that language for my children's fund language which is section 116.108 a through p, i believe. so, that's one amendment. ~ that i'm making. and i believe i would need to include inclusion of the peef

language into the amendment. >> i apologize, i do have one amendment. i thought this had already been incorporated into your legislation. i had actually requested it, but it's not -- >> >> [speaker not understood]. >> this is not in what was brought to me. it's page 27 lines 11 and 12. it says the measure may be referred to the art, music, sports and early education for every child amendment of 2014. and i had actually, in the original charter amendment that i introduced on april 24th, i had entitled the measure, the measure may be referred to as the public education and enrichment fund of 2014. >> okay. >> and it coincides, then, with the rest of the language that refers to the fund as the public education and enrichment fund through the rest of the body of the charter amendment. i'd like to make a motion to

incorporate what supervisor kim just said. >> this is your piece, right? >> no, it's into your piece. >> so, we'll have two amendments. one which is to substitute the language for children's fund into my -- what i had originally wanted for amendments. >> just to clarify, you are going to move your second draft as has been circulated, going to change the reference to the peef, and then you are going to substitute wholesale the language of the avalos charter amendment file 443 for the corresponding section of your second draft which is 4-4-1. so, it will be supervisor avalos' 16.108 with supervisor

kim's amendments and supervisor avalos' section 16.108-1, which is where he sets up the oversight committee. >> correct. >> thank you. >> so, that's my motion, if you got that. that's why we need another week to look at it. so, i made a motion and second. any objection? no, okay, with no objection the motion passes. [gavel] >> so, we now have a unifying document that we will be i guess hearing next week. so, at this point i guess we

need a motion to continue this item. i think we need a couple motions here. >> i was just going to move that motion to continue the item to the next week. >> okay. >> to the next rules committee meeting. >> and then for -- okay, let's do that first. is there a second? >> second. >> no objection. motion passes. [gavel] >> mr. chair, just to clarify. you're continuing this to the next regular meeting of june 19th or -- >> yes. >> or just continue to the call of the chair in case there is a special meeting held? >> no, this will be heard on the 19th. >> june 19th, okay. >> okay, i think we're done, right? do we have anything else? okay. madam clerk, is there anything else on the agenda? >> that concludes our business for today. >> meeting adjourned. [gavel] (applause)

aggregation we hope that it can be less controversial than it was in the past, it has been terminated and shown that the model works. and they recently celebrated the 4th anniversary, with the addition of the city of richmond, and served 125,000 customers and the county just launched their own program last year, and the alamena county to

explore the program as well it is time for san francisco to do its part and so why don't we go on to the budget analyst, and i think that is. and the other parts. >> mr. president, do you want to speak first? >> we can wait for the budget and the analyst report. >> mr. rose, could we go to your report, please? >> on the page 10 of the report the recommended reductions in the proposed budget total 3

million in 14, 15 and of that amount, 2 million, 563 are ongoing savings and 256 are one time savings and these reductions will allow an increase of 53 million, 436,700 or 6.1 and the department's fiscal year, 14, 15 budget and we recommend closing out three projects resulting in a one time savings, and that is one of the organizations that san francisco avalos has referred to. our recommended reductions to the proposed budget total, 3 million, 432, 956, in the fiscal year, 15, 16 and the reductions 3 million are ongoing savings and 55,000 are one time savings, they reductions will allow an increase of 61 million 672,582 or 6 percent in the budget. and the other part of the

savings that supervisor avalos referred to is shown on page 9 of our report and that is approximately 800,000 and one time savings, and again from the power or the hetch hetchy enterprise, the department concurs with us, on the report and we are happy to respond to any questions. >> thank you mr. rose, and supervisor breed? >> thank you, thank you supervisor avalos for working with director kelley to put forth these recommendations which, i think are reasonable. but, as you know, in the past, there has been money put in reserve for clean power, and specifically it still did not convince the puc commission to

set any rates. and so it did, it did not do what it was intended to do. and i talked to director kelley. and i talked to the folks at the mayor's office and i have assurances that they are going to work with us to review and to determine if the direction that we are proposing to work with marin is the best direction as it results to actually implementing finally a real clean power program in san francisco. and today, i actually came prepared to put their funds on reserve, and in an effort to leverage the resources within the puc's power, funding in order to get them to do what they are making commitments to do. and at this time, i am not prepared to move forward with that budget reserve, but, this item is going to go to the full board, and i don't think that should be placed off the table. so between now and then