the ballot. especially with the opposition and the campaigns that are out there. i think that we should prioritize affordable housing within our appropriations process, and it is the correct way to move forward. taking a look at the 2008 measure, it failed to pass on that ballot. i think there were strong arguments against the measure that carry today. the campaign would nearly double in terms of dollars spent. that is to be expected and that can be overcome. the formula to set aside a percentage of the property tax would have been a strain on last year or this year's budget.

i think it would have made the discussion that is not yet complete here at city hall, it would have been worth it anyway. clearly, it would have been causing some additional pain in terms of the competing and other priorities within the budget including ongoing obligations. in terms of taking that argument out of the picture, what the measure in front of us would do would be to lie on the nine month report that would base most of the budget deliberations here on the board of supervisors. and projecting a budget surplus, it includes the

increased cost of doing business which the comptroller is more often than not conservative on in terms of revenue projections. they would have 33% of that surplus dedicated into this affordable housing fund. it would be identical to proposition be from 2008 -- proposition b from 2008. most likely, the next several years when there is a budget deficit, it would move toward the cause of affordable housing. if we had a bumper crop year and had a budget surplus going in at 33%, it would be written into

affordable housing. what the budget committee came up with back when we did have better than anticipated revenue at the end of the fiscal year, we are able to make an appropriation through the year over supplemental -- that was supplemental in nature. that is good in terms of moving this item for for affordable housing. the major priorities we had, we had money we could send out the door. one of the things to note is that there is a safety valve, a release mechanism that would allow eight members of the board of supervisors to vote to suspend this appropriation. i think that is a safety valve that is important in case there is some major unforeseen event or circumstance where the money

that would otherwise be pushed to affordable housing would really be needed elsewhere. the board could take advantage of that opportunity and to decide to move money elsewhere. it is a limited duration measure, 15 fiscal years the this project would happen. i think the housing prices is more than likely to let that happen four times as long as that. that is a criteria that i feel comfortable and it is safe to assume that affordable housing will continue in san francisco for at least the next 15 years. let me point to the release, and the relief valve of the majority of board members if the

situation calls for it. i think in terms of unfinished business, which has been a theme for me, wheat delivered a long term and a sustainable revenue stream for affordable housing, not for lack of effort, but i would like to see us on do this. it and hopefully if the economy turns around and but its turnaround, we could part with some of the surplus to affordable housing and to build what we know how to do, that is decent and a new affordable housing where citizens can make a go at it in terms of their lives in the city. it is much more of a struggle. we appreciate your support on this item.

supervisor elsbernd: i rise in objection to this charter amendment. supervisor daly has done a better job in drafting this than he did his last one. color it in any way you want, but it remains a set-aside. hyou very well could have a general surplus at the end of the year. if this passes, you need eight supervisors to adjust the budget to help fix those future budget deficits. if we want to find affordable housing in the manner that supervisor daly has proposed, we can do that any year. this is just going to make it that much more difficult for us in future years to manage our finances. this is a laudable goal, but it handcuffed our ability to

handle the other goals that anybody could name as a top priority. i caution you to think about the future and think about this measure, what it will do to future boards of supervisors in their ability to address in the city's future concern. supervisor avalos: just a question for the controller's office, it also includes an effort of baseline? and if we have a value for the effort, how much is that? i think it is starting with the allocations for this current fiscal year. >> to supervisor avalos, based on the statement, based on our analysis, the base line amount

is $135.6 million. that would be the base line for the current fiscal year. >> do we have a sense of how that baseline may have changed over the years? i know every year there are many of these services that are identified in the baseline that get cut. a lot of them get restored. if we were to look at previous years, how is the baseline fluctuated? >> the baseline has fluctuated largely in those years where there have been some funds were the board and the mayor have chosen to appropriate those funds for housing, low income housing. the services affiliated with a lot of housing programs have grown in the past number of years as their additional housing units are put on line,

services are required that increase the cost of the overall baseline amount. i think that you would see a gradual increase over the last number of years. >> if the board were to take any action actually allocate the surplus, they would need a majority vote. do we have any authority over the baseline with this charter amendment? >> the way the charter amendment is written, the rainy-day reserve would not come into play with this appropriation. what we do when we calculate the baseline, we look at the total aggregate discretionary revenue that the city has, and we

calculate the baseline requirements to the children's fund, the mta, library, and so forth. that residual amount is what goes into a fund balance which is considered surplus to be used in the subsequent fiscal. -- fiscal period. supervisor avalos: that is what we would establish with this charter amendment, correct? >> only as much as the baseline is greater than the calculated amount. he wants the base line has been met, it cannot go below that baseline amount. supervisor avalos: last question, how would this interact with our financial policies that we enacted earlier this year? as we are seeing part of the source of funding for our budget stabilization fund, it would get

funds from a surplus, and how would this interact with our ordinance? >> to the extent that the board and the mayor and the voters approved a policy decision for a certain spending level, those dollars would be dedicated for that purpose, and any reserves beyond that would apply to the various financial policies that have been approved by the board of supervisors. the charter has required that the city developed at past policies. the actual policies have been approved through ordnance, so this charter amendment would trump any of those provisions. supervisor daly: just to clarify

1.3 the control -- one point through the controller, it will go up and down based on your projections of aggregate discretionary revenues, correct? page five of the charter amendment? that the comptroller shall adjust to the base line based on calculations consistent with a year to year by the percentage increase or decrease? >> that is correct, supervisor daly. it would go up or down based on the aggregate discretionary revenue. we did see the baseline to the mta, the library, and the children's fund go down for the first time in many years. supervisor daly: if it is a bad

budget year, the baseline does go down. that is the amount of city funds that would be necessary with the appropriation process. >> this year, it did go down, and it could go down. supervisor chu: the legislation reads that 33% of any available surplus increased in a previous year would be allocated toward the affordable housing fund to the extent that the executive government may have withheld spending in order to help balance the next fiscal year. that would affect surplus funds, wouldn't it? >> it says that the annual

appropriation would be in an amount equal to 33% of the annual budget surplus available from the preceding year. the surplus available is usually a combination of excess revenue beyond that amount budgeted as well as expenditure savings. in some instances, those are, in fact, required by the executive branch so that those funds can be used to balance the subsequent year's budget. president chiu: supervisor daly. supervisor daly? any additional discussion. we can take a roll-call vote please. supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: no. supervisor daly: aye. supervisor dufty: no.

supervisor elsbernd: no. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor maxwell: no. supervisor mirkarimi: no. supervisor alioto-pier: no. supervisor avalos: no. >> there are 4 ayes and 7 no's. president chiu: item 21. >> item 21 is a charter amendment to require the mayor to appear personally at one regularly scheduled meeting of the board of supervisors each month to engage in formal policy discussions with members of the board. president chiu: any discussion on this item? supervisor mirkarimi. supervisor mirkarimi: on item 21, i want to thank his supervisor daly.

for his persistence -- over the years this has been battered around, i think it was demeaned by sources out there from the administration to their advocates in the press as a way to really make light of what i think is probably one of the most meaningful ideas that has come before the voters of san francisco. they would castigate the intent of this particular measure, thinking that it was something personal with this particular mayor. sooner or later, he will be gone. this measure will have more of an import to the successor. i believe another mayor would actually want to engage in a

much more consistent and regular way than what would have to be legislated. but i like the idea of this being legislated. i think it is time that sense other governments do this in various ways, it would be to san francisco to also do the same. it is an important peaceable that adds a little bit of levity. it also fortifies the engagement that quite frankly does not occur on the level of accountability that it should in an open environment. that is what this measure does. president chiu: any further discussion? supervisor avalos: i will be voting in favor of this charter amendment. i can't think of a better time to see the mayor that right now. he could explain to the people of san francisco what is going on with our budget. it would be time for him to come

inside of the board chambers and let us know what his thinking is on the budget. this is a place where the legislative process occurs in all of its blemishes. no person should be immune to that process, including the mayor who crafts to the budget. i will be voting in favor of this measure, and i hope successive mayors will be inclined to be here. president chiu: roll-call vote on this item. supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: no. supervisor daly: aye. supervisor dufty: no. supervisor elsbernd: no. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor maxwell: no. supervisor mirkarimi: aye. supervisor alioto-pier: no. supervisor avalos: aye.

>> there are 6 ayes and 5 no's. president chiu: this charter amendment is submitted. item 22. >> item 22 is a charter amendment a third draft authorizing split appointments between the mayor and the board of supervisors to the recreation and park commission. supervisor mirkarimi: if it is ok, i would like to refer this to later in the meeting. president chiu: seconded by avalos. that will be the case. >> item 23 is to set the terms for elections for the health service board. supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: aye. supervisor daly: no.

supervisor dufty: aye. supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor mar: no. supervisor maxwell: aye. supervisor mirkarimi: aye. supervisor alioto-pier: aye. supervisor avalos: aye. >> there are 9 ayes and two no's. item 24 is a charter amendment second draft authorize non- citizens voting in school board elections. supervisor chu: colleagues, as you know, this is an item that is very important to many san franciscans. 1 out of 3 parents is an

immigrant. most of the students we are talking about our citizens themselves whose parents do not have a voice or a vote on the most important decision that dictate the government's -- governance of our schools. study after study has shown that when parents are engaged in the governments of their children, it improves the quality of their education and improve their schools. unless anyone thinks this is a first time, this is an idea that had tremendous roots in our american history. for a hundred and 50 years, immigrants were allowed to vote in 22 states and territories in the united states. until the late 1920's, immigrant could vote. a idea of allowing them to vote was to encourage newcomers to get more involved and get engaged in our local government.

recently, immigrants have been allowed to vote in a number of cities around the united states. in new york city, chicago, in six cities and towns in maryland. the united states supreme court has stated repeatedly that immigrants are allowed to vote, immigration status is not a bar to exercise their right to vote, and under our state constitution, it explicitly authorizes charter cities such as san francisco to provide for the manner of electing a school board members. colleagues, i ask for your support for this item that came out of rules committee unanimously and has the support of eight of us. i want to mention one thing that has changed since the meeting. initially, and the comptroller's office had to assess the cost to the city being about $780,000.

it turned out that those cost estimates were inaccurate, based on estimates from six years ago. recently, they issued a new letter that stated that the cost for allowing immigrant parents to vote in elections would range from anywhere from 106,000 to $150,000. i ask for your support to ensure that all immigrant parents have a voice and that all students are part of what we're trying to achieve here in san francisco. >> bottom 24. supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: no. supervisor daly: aye. supervisor dufty: aye. supervisor elsbernd: no. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor maxwell: aye. supervisor mirkarimi: aye.

supervisor alioto-pier: aye. supervisor alioto-pier: -- supervisor avalos: aye. >> there are 9 ayes and two no's. item 25 is leaving the street encroachment permit processing fee for signs related to bus service for the golden gate bridge highway and transportation district. supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: aye. supervisor daly: aye. supervisor dufty: aye. supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor maxwell: aye. supervisor mirkarimi: aye. supervisor alioto-pier: aye. supervisor avalos: aye. >> there are 1 ayes. -- 11 ayes.

president chiu: if you could call items 26-28. >> resolutions adopted in ceqa findings to purchase easements and licenses. president chiu: same house, same call? these resolutions are adopted. if you could call items 29 - 34. >> resolutions approving amendments between the treasure island development authority and the u.s. navy. the marina, child care, and authorizing a modification to the cooperative agreement. president chiu: same house, same call. these resolutions are adopted. >> item 35 is approving the amended and restated agreement for telling storage and disposal of abandoned and illegally parked vehicles between the

municipal transportation agency and auto return. president chiu: same house, same call. at this resolution is adopted. >> approving the memorandum of understanding with the metropolitan transportation commission and other bay area transit agencies for future operations and maintenance of the clipper program. president chiu: same house, same call? this resolution is adopted. >> to execute a water system improvement program funded professional services agreement for an amount not to exceed $38 million for the replacement construction management. president chiu: same house, same call? this resolution is adopted. >> this is a resolution approving the budget for the treasure island development for fiscal year 2011. president chiu: same house, same

call. the resolution is adopted. >> updating fees for house recovery. president chiu: same house, same call. this ordinance is passed on the first reading. >> updating environmental review fees and establish new mitigation and commissions monitoring fees and making other clarifying changes. president chiu: same house, col. this ordinance is passed. item 41 we have committed to later in the meeting. >> for international schools by the california enterprise development authority, not to exceed $26.50 million. president chiu: same house, same call? if we could call the next 3 items related to potential revenue items. >> items 43 through 45 were for the budget kind -- budget finance committee, a motion ordering submitted to the voters

that any elections be held, an ordinance authorizing an amendment to the real property transfer tax. the order submitted to the voters and ordnance revising the payroll expense tax to establish a regressive tax rate structure and opposing a growth tax on the rental of commercial property. item 45 is a motion submitted to the voters, an ordinance authorizing a parking tax increase. supervisor mirkarimi: colleagues, i like a continuance for one week on these three items. president chiu: seconded by supervisor campos. without objection, these three items will be continued to july 27. >> item 46 is a resolution authorizing the implementation of assisted outpatient treatment and requesting the

comptroller to conduct an analysis of mental health funding levels. supervisor alioto-pier: think you very much, supervisor chiu. i have some amendments to introduce for this resolution. you should have a copy of them. the first amendment is on page one, which states the san francisco board of supervisors to implement these programs on a pilot basis and no later than 2013. the second amendment is on page 4, line three through six stating, and the board requests the department of public health to prepare reports measuring the efficacy of this program to the board of supervisors when they are filed for the department, the california department of mental health which is done on an annual basis.