Next speaker. Yes. Thank you. Hello supervisors. Im with senior and disability action. I just want to say, i agree that setasides are not a perfect policy mechanism but the reality is we work within the flawed system we have. One of the only tools for poor and marginalized communities right now is setasides to get resources for the services that have been historically underfunded. The dignity fund helps fund among other things for seniors to stay in homes and not be evicted and not displaced and end up far away from San Francisco and the communities we know. Were doing a Needs Assessment for the dignity fund right now. It takes time to figure out how to spend the money in a way thats responsible and best for our communities. The claw back provision would hurt seniors and people with disabilities. We certainly all agree we need a better budget process, one that involves and really hears Community Members, and meets peoples needs and this is not that. Please oppose this legislation. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Good afternoon. Im going to echo a lot of the sentiments that people have said. Ill keep it short. Im an organizer, i work with the Teachers Union at city college of San Francisco. Aft is a member of the budget justice coalition. Our union has concerns about this measure. The 200 million trigger point, we believe whether its six budget cycles or 20 out of 20 it can insert a new level of instability into the already flawed budget process and regardless of other points and complexities at this time, we dont see it as workable. Without knowing what would replace setasides, were concerned the measure will leave a gap for the most vulnerable communities including students who need the resources. Programs that we have to serve, students like these are already struggling to meet our city and Community Members needs and have long waiting lists. Our students often cannot afford to wait any longer. We understand that this is complex and we hope that you can include our community further in solving this. Please dont move forward too quickly. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Hi coalition of homelessness. Good afternoon supervisors. We have a huge crisis in particular around homeless families in San Francisco. You have seen us come year after year, draw attention to the issue. Weve pushed frank jordan. We pushed willy brown, ed lee, london breed. Still today we have an average of 111 day wait to get shelter for families with children in San Francisco. 111 days. What has San Francisco done in response . Well, they created a task force, thats what gavin did, shrunk down the eligibility, instituted an unworkable requirement. Thats happened under the current government. Were primarily sending families out of town is what were doing. We have situations like what happened recently in San Francisco because we shrunk down eligibility and turning families away from help, we just had a young mother, very young mother who was forced to double up in a situation with very violent person, she went to try to get shelter, she was turned down, she was told she wasnt a priority because she was doubled up. And she was killed. Sorry this stuff we have to go to the ballot. We have to get a setaside. We dont have a choice. With these situations can you add a bit of time, please . Its really messed up that there is not a collective process on trying to figure out how to address setaside reform collectively without hurting communities. Its too fast and loose, its not thoughtful. Its not engaging. Theres a lot of ideas out there for setaside reform that wouldnt hurt people. Theres a lot of messed up things, having a set number of employees without look at effectiveness, you could tie funding to effectiveness of program and having some evaluation measurements. Theres a lot of stuff we can do around setasides but the random caps are not going to work. Thank you. Thank you, next speaker. Good afternoon. Todd david on behalf of San Francisco parent pack. We as an organization have been supportive of the setasides on the books. They make life a little easier for families in San Francisco and children in San Francisco. I know that both supervisor tang and peskin know that and theyre not questioning the value of what it is the setasides are providing. I want to talk a bit about a couple of ideas around setaside reform. One of the things, the 200 million as the trigger, if thats based on todays budget, thats a 10 billion budget, thats basically 2 . 2 budget deficit of the overall budget. I believe supervisor tang said it was 2 over the past number of years, i would be curious to know what was the total number budget that it was a part of, a 5 billion, 6 billion, youre talking 3. 5 or 4 of the budget is 200 million. If theres going to be a conversation around setting a trigger, i would encourage perhaps to switch to a percentage as opposed to a flat rate. We know the budget continues to grow. And i want to say i agree with supervisor peskin to look at new revenue measures to offset some of the setasides. I think now if we collect signatures and its a 50 plus one threshold for new revenues, i think theres an opportunity to build coalitions especially with people in this room, we can protect setasides by having offsetting revenue measures. I think theres ways to work it out being fiscally responsible and providing the services that we value. I hope to continue the conversation. Thank you. Next speaker. Hello supervisors. District 11 youth commissioner. Im here to speak on the legislation. It came as deferred to the full and i voted against the legislation because it touched money set aside for youth, it is much harder duties to look into things that affect youth and being a native of San Francisco since i was born, i have lived through things from budget deficits to recessions and i know for a fact it is not a happy thing for a kid to go home and see his parents fight tooth and nail because they cant find a job. And it was after School Programs that kept a lot of us youth sane. My fear is that touching things set aside for youth is going to set in motion another catastrophe that affected my generation during 04 and 08. Destroyed our Mental Health and took away our potential. I am open to discussion at the same time. I believe we need solutions to deficits and recessions. I dont want to go through the same thing i went through when i was younger and i saw my parents fight because there were issues around money. We are all open to discussion, i think everyone in the room is open to discussion and we want a democratic process around this, something we all deserve and im sure that none of us want to fight and none of us want to argue. What we want is a Better Future for San Francisco, something we can all agree on and something i truly look forward to with all of you. And as youth commissioner, i will continue to stand by what i believe in and what i believe is best for my district and the youth within it as that is my charter duties to do. Thank you so much and have a great day. Thank you. Next speaker. Good afternoon supervisors and chair safai. I come before you today to sharon behalf of the commission, the position on this piece of legislation, under charter section, the commission is charged with advising the mayor and board on legislative policies and in this case budgets concerning children and youth in San Francisco. The commission heard the legislation before you today and after careful and robust deliberation, the Commission Voted to oppose the legislation. From their discussion, commissioners shared a number of concerns as a whole but overwhelmingly the concerns were about the programs and services for our children and youth and our most vulnerable communities and they should be protected always. You know, people children and youth and people with disabilities and the most vulnerability are usually at the chopping block and thats especially true in years with a budget deficit as we consider the legislation before you today. It came out of the Childrens Fund in 1991 and the commission advocated along side many of the folks who came and spoke in Public Comment today for the expansion of the Childrens Fund in 2014 to include young people who are under served and so to consider, you know, a cap on the growth and a lot of the growth funds for children and youth fund would go to transitional age youth, its Something Commission took to heart. Should the board move forward with the Charter Amendment today, the commission would recommend first to oppose it, but they would recommend the removal of some funds and setaside from consideration, the children and youth fund, the children and pay baseline, the Public Education and Enrichment Fund and Housing Trust fund, a full reflection of their comments is in your packets and while i cant speak to the dignity fund, i would note the commission in past has stood in solidarity with seniors and people with disabilities on other issues before the board, such as funds for seniors and such. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Thank you. Any other members of the public wish to comment on this item . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Supervisor yee. Yeah, i want to thank the public for coming out here and sharing their opinions. I really appreciate supervisor tang and peskin in their intent to look at these setasides. And i was supporting the notion of this. There were before i walked into the chamber today, there were basically two things i thought i needed to have addressed in the legislation where i could support it. One of them ill state them. One of them being that why are some setasides on the list and why are some not on the list. And it becomes almost the same discussion, almost redundant to why we have the setasides because somebody is going to choose priorities over other priorities. Thats why i supported the Childrens Fund and dignity fund because i knew it was difficult to get some of these issues to float closer to the top where it becomes something that cant be chopped off, we dont have enough money this time around. The other issue i was hoping to get addressed would be this 2 million the projection and for whatever reason i guess i was hearing it was a real deficit and not just projections and i thought that would be an easy fix. If thats the amount were looking at, then i think any growth funding that is associated with any particular setaside should be put on reserves until the end of the year, where if there wasnt really a deficit a lot of times we project a large deficit and it shrinks to the point where i guess we really didnt have to worry. Being on a Budget Committee, i understand why we project more on the conservative side, you dont want to end up with a budget where you cant pay for it. But at the same time, i think its only fair you dont just put it back in the general funds just because you project it. We can play games with the projection. That was the other thing i wanted to fix. But after listening to todays Public Comments, all the issues that came up that i wasnt questioning now im beginning to question. I think part of it was i think it started with supervisor tang saying theres explanations about the baseline, Childrens Fund, its different in how were going to look at it. I want to understand that better. Each baseline seems to be a little different yet were kind of lumping everything into one category. And i think supervisor tang was addressing multi year contracts but i wasnt sure. And the ones with dedicated funds. Theres many issues and i at this point i walked in with two issues and rather than having clarity around that or making amendments around that, theres more questions now where im at the point that i cant support this. Supervisor tang. Ill defer to supervisor fewer before i answer some questions. I cannot support this legislation in its current form. I am not opposed to setaside reform but i think it should include all setasides, this does not include police and fire, which i think should be included and i think every setaside should have a sunset date thats not included in the legislation and it should be revenuedriven and have builtin accountability and mechanisms. Im concerned about the trigger increases in the amount of setasides is the projected budget deficit and this is not completely scientific and not the best mechanism for a trigger. Today i will not be able to support the legislation. Im happy to defer to supervisor tang. You cant vote on it today. I do appreciate the questions, well have to continue the item anyhow. But i did want to address and really thank a lot of the members of the public. I wish they were here to hear this dialogue at this moment. But like i said at the beginning, there are so many setaside provisions we want to make. There are many people who are much smarter who came up with much better ideas, we had to pair it down to these provisions not to cut any of the baselines. We started from probably 10 plus ideas and went down to the two with the least amount of impact. I heard from nonprofits and so forth saying were going to cut funding and youre going to hurt critical services. This measure does not cut the funding. We are saying that in the years where theres a projected deficit of 200 million at the point of a joint report. Its not just at the beginning of the year when were starting off the budget process, its tagged to the joint report that we would suspend the growth. So the baseline is not touched, its the growth part that would be frozen. However, i am interested in looking at what supervisor yee was talking about putting it on reserve until the end of the year to figure out if the 200 million deficit by law we have to balance the budget every fiscal year, so of course we balance it but there are tradeoffs in the conversation but i will look into that idea. There was a question that came up or some concerns around the fact that the city doesnt pay nonprofits fast enough. And multi year contracts and how does that work. So i dont know if the City Attorneys Office wants to answer this, but in terms is that my understanding as long as youre in contract ill take dcys as an example, they contract and provide funding with many nonprofits. As long as theyre in contract and contracted with organizations and have multiyear contracts theyre incumbent. It wouldnt be clawed back unless they voluntarily closed them out, but theyre the ones the department has the flexibility to figure out if those funds by the nonprofit grantees would be clawed back to the fund. Theyre the clearest example i can offer because they provide so many grant funds to nonprofits opposed to capital improvements. If the Controllers Office wants to share or elaborate further, let me know. Just to confirm that your description of it is accurate. Typically grant or contract once entered into the whole amount in the budget. So i hope that eases a lot of the fears i heard during Public Comment and from supervisor yee in that respect can you reiterate that again . I want you to reiterate it one more time for the record and everybody. Once a budget is submitted, its once a grant or contract is agreed, the whole amount is encumbered even if its going to be paid overtime by monthly a lotment. So for instance, excuse me supervisor tang okay. One of the individuals talked about the dignity fund and how there were individual subsidies for seniors and its done on an annual basis, theyre submitting a contract for specific subsidies for a particular provider on an annual basis, that then marks the money as encumbered for the year and happens on an annual basis . In general, yes. I dont know a lot about the mechanics of the dignity fund but as a general rule, once the grant or contract is agreed to, the whole amount is encumbered regardless of how its paid out over time or other circumstances. Okay, great, thank you. Thank you for the clarification and question. So, again, i felt like a lot of the concern stemmed from this sort of uncertainty around the payment and so forth and multi year contracts but really that is not supposed to be impacted because the language in the charter measure says as long as the funds are encumbered or spoken for, they will not have to be returned to the general fund. And even if the nonprofit doesnt spend down the funds by the end of the year, really the department is not obligated to go and return the funds back to the citys general fund. One thing i want to mention with the 19 setasides that doesnt include fire in here, only police minimum staffing is, the controllers report explored three different types of uniform kind of measures that each should contain that we consider good policy. One is that they should all include an expiration date, a return and suspension trigger. Out of the 19 setasides only the latest rec park one contains all three of these. I heard from some of the Public Comment and from supervisor fewer that all should have a sunset date. We thought about the idea and if you look at when the latest would expire its in 2045 2046. When do we make the sunset date, after that or beforehand. If we do it beforehand, were cutting and impacting the baselines. If we do it afterwards, we have a major problem on our hands in the future and im not going to be here at this point but future boards will and its convenient for me to leave them with that problem. Thats why we didnt put a sunset date in here. Its not because we didnt want to. We dont want to cut the baselines. I agree that all of them should be backed by new revenues and thats the only fact i supported the street tree one because it was backed by new revenues at that time. I hear the concern around Police Officers and minimum staffing. I know thats a conversation as a membe