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. i would ask for those amendments to be taken. president chiu: is there a second? seconded by supervisor dufty. without objection, those amendments are made.

>> colleagues, i brought this forward because i believe we must try to reform a system that places a mentally ill person in jail rather than in treatment. despite the fact that treatment is more efficient and less costly. by providing structured treatment outside of hospitals are jails, it provides the court ordered intensive treatment in the community providing consistent supervision for those with mental ls with some other community services are not working. the law was modeled after the one in new york, which has resulted over the last 10 years in a 77% fewer psychiatric hospitalization, dramatically reducing the most expensive form of psychiatric treatment. 74% reduction in homelessness, and 83% reduction in arrests.

and 87% decline in incarceration. as proven in new york, the law helps a very ill individuals get well and stay in the communities they can later continue in treatment on their own. the law is preventative and disrupts the revolving door of repeated hospitalization, incarceration, and homelessness. our current system requires that a seriously disabled and mentally ill individual, people with severe issues like schizophrenia or bipolar disease first need to become well enough to accept treatment, and in most cases, they can't without treatment before receiving help, or they end up in jail after committing a violent offense. this legislation establishes a procedure for individuals with mental illnesses to receive and accept outpatient treatment outside of the jail system.

this is what the services are for the physically disabled or the elderly. it focuses on it independence and the ability to go back out into the work force. assistant outpatient treatment consists of services provided within the community to help the severely mentally ill. they are provided by community- based multidisciplinary and highly trained dedicated a mental health teams. the actual services include whatever the individual needs to get well and stay well. those services include substance abuse and crisis intervention services, benefits applications and money management, medication support, housing assistance, all vocational training, socialization and recreation, and the supervision of intensive case management so that the individual can successfully

utilize the help provided to him or her. him or her. currently in san francisco we have a system outpatient treatment available but only to those who break the law. through the behavioral court system. in san francisco's behavioral court system, we've seen a 72% decrease in homelessness, 23.3% decrease in mentally ill hospitalizations. of 198 mentally ill people, 140 of those people are actively pursuing employment and 85 of whom are already employed. a.o.t. works. it works well and it works efficiently. but unfortunately, in san francisco, you can only get a.o.t. if you first break the law and are lucky enough to find yourself in front of our

behavioral court system. under laura's law, in order to qualify for a.o.t. or for laura's law, the person proceeds to be 18 years old and suffering from a mental illness. the person must be unlikely to survive safely in the community without supervision based on a clinical determination. the person must have a history of lack of compliance for treatment for mental illness that reveals serious, violent behavior within the last 48 hours or required hospitalization twice within the last 36 months. the person is, according to his or her treatment history and current behavior, in need of treatment to prevent a relapse or serious harm to the person or to others. the person needs to be likely to benefit from a.o.t. and the director of the community behavioral health must be able to determine that there are

services in the community to provide to the individual before a petition can be forwarded to the court. thus, there's no mandate on the director to file the petition and if the director does not he or she has the services available to the director, they may not file the petition. this program is happening in nevada county and it's also a pilot program right now in los angeles county. in los angeles county, what they did was took a certain number of people out of the jail systems in los angeles at the cost of $100,000 a head and a $25,000, they put them through an a.o.t. program and that was how they measured their cost efficiency. what our numbers are shown, those in new york and here in san francisco through our behavioral court system is that when given the opportunity, assisted outpatient treatment works and it works very well and effectively to help people live independent lives. colleagues, i truly believe

that laura's law will help stop the revolving door that's spins too many people in and out of the emergency rooms and our jails and i urge you for your support. president chiu: supervisor bevan dufty. supervisor dufty: thank you. i have co-sponsored this measure and i think it's a good thing for the board to pursue. currently, a major portion of our jail population is comprised of individuals with serious mental illness and as the supervisor indicated, this is not the route that we want people to go through to access help. the reality is that being in jail exposes an individual to greater risks, deepening their illness or exposing them to behaviors or potential criminal behavior that they could take with them that only creates a more difficult cycle of homelessness and mental illness to break. when the measure came before us, i voted against it. i felt like it wasn't a

meaningful tool. i didn't feel like it would add anything. i didn't feel like it would change anybody. i honestly believe that despite the doctor's reservations about this that san francisco could chart our own path in implementing this approach and utilizing these tools in our tool box and have a more meaningful impact and demonstrate to the public we recognize that we could do better. we can be better prepared to address the needs in a meaningful matter. i think it does far better for individuals who need a more strongly, focused approach and does not require the criminals.

it has a concern and i think there's a way to utilize this process and really to do something meaningful. we've had the occasion this year to look at some of the services. i've gone and visited services that move me. it happens that because they hadn't been on the budget chopping block that i hadn't had the occasion to see it but i think we recognize that there are large numbers of people who are facing serious mental illness that are unwilling to engage treatment and i think it is the responsible and the right thing for us to chart our own course and so work within the tools that this law provides to help people. president chiu: supervisor ross mirkarimi. supervisor mirkarimi: i would like to thank you supervisor michela alioto-pier for her leadership on this issue. i know the board of supervisors has had two committee hearings on this issue and my ongoing statements has been that i

think the county of san francisco is eloquent in not recognizing the complete demands on our city systems in dealing with those who are on the streets with mental health needs and who need the kind of attention that i think the city has resourced and a little bit dated in their strategies in providing. but this conversation that we're having before us, in my opinion, cannot be entirely delinct from the budgetary discussion before us, too. i have concerns that based on real substantive elements of the budget that will be before us that i think are import of debate, why psych beds were being cut and other elements that subvert our ability to deal with the growing demands of this population calls into question how complete the discussion would be.