tv [untitled] September 14, 2010 8:00pm-8:30pm PST
supervisor chiu:ed good afternoon, welcome to the entrance board of supervisors. it is tuesday, september 14, 2010. madam clerk, would you please call the role? >> supervisor supervisor alioto-pier:? >> present. >> supervisor avalos. >> avalos present. >> campos? >> present. >> president chiu? >> present. supervisor chu? >> supervisor daly. defense dufty. supervisor elsbernd.
>> supervisor mirkarimi. mr. president all members are president. supervisor chiu: thank you. ladies and gentlemen, could you please join me in the pledge of allegiance? >> i pledge allegiance to the united states of america, to the republic for which is stands, one nation under god for liberty and justice for all. supervisor chiu: colleagues, we have a lot of meeting minutes to approve from july 13th, 20th, 27th, august 3rd and the 10th and then from the special meetings of the budget and finance committee of july 1 and july 9. can i have a motion to approve? >> motion by supervisor maxwell, seconded by supervisor mirkarimi. minutes are approved. >> i have no communications, mr. president.
supervisor chiu: call consent agenda, items one through 12. >> these items require a single role call vote >> colleagues, would anyone like to receiver any items from the consent agenda? supervisor mar? supervisor mar: item number three. supervisor chiu: any other items? if we could take a role call vote on items 1 had-through except for item 3? >> there are 11 ayes. supervisor chiu: those
resolutions adopted, ordinances passed and aprood. item three? >> it is a resolution authorizing a lease and license at dr. carlton b. goodlett place. supervisor chiu: supervisor mar? supervisor mar: thank you. in light of new information some of us have received, i would like to move to refer this back to committee for a full and fair consideration of the corrector that has run the cafe for years in the basement of the city hall area. supervisor chiu: supervisor daly? supervisor daly: i will second that motion. more so than the new information, like most of us here, i patronize downs. i patronize over at the court building as well. we have relationships. i think this is really a bitter
tasting situation that we have right now, and i would like to see us somehow work through the issue of someone that has been serving this city, a disadvantaged business enterprise that has been serving the city family here for a number of years, and just the situation that has soured. i -- we can't fix everything, but hopefully we can make it not so bitter. i would second this and refer it back to committee. supervisor chiu: colleagues, any further discussion? supervisor elsbernd? supervisor elsbernd: i are reluctantly -- would reluctant ly speak against the motion. we vetted the process absolutely. the information that we all received just a few hours ago, with all due respect to the information, does not change any of the underlying facts.
there is no challenge to the point system. there is no challenge to who won. you know, the letter completely ignores the fact that unfortunately it finished last. it was as if it was second place, third place. they finished last. we have gone with the appropriate bidder. i think sending it back is actually a violation of our process. maybe not legally, but it distorts the process. this has gone through the proper process. i think we should allow that process to work. i agree with supervisor daly that we need to find a way to mend the fences, and there are ways to do that without sending this back to committee, without stopping this process. that can be done. i don't think we need to stir this up any further than it has already been stirred. this has been vetted appropriately. there is no challenge to that process. we should let this stand.
supervisor chiu: colleagues, any further discussion? supervisor daly? supervisor daly: just that it is through the president, supervisor elsbernd, if there was a concrete proposal to move forward while dealing with some of the bitter taste on this, i would be open to hearing that, but i haven't heard that at all. if there is an alternate proposal, i am interested in hearing it. if not, i will support the item going back to committee. supervisor chiu: supervisor campos? supervisor campos: just a quick question to the chair. i'm just wondering if there are any comments or thoughts from any of the other members of the budget committee that heard the item? supervisor chiu: supervisor avalos? supervisor avalos: i would back up the comments of supervisor elsbernd in terms of the bid that was made and the r.p. that went out. the process for it i think was sound. we made our decision on the contract based on a process that was sound. there was a discussion, some
questions about the current operator of the keef -- the cafe. she felt she had put in capital to the cafe and was not getting proper reimbursement from the city. that was a question raised in committee. the response from mr. john updike was there is, but it is minimal. i think there is a concern that that is not enough. i looked at the contract, and my staff look at the contract. there didn't seem to be any language in the contract that talked about any recome pens for capital that was clearly stated. i felt like the process was sound for us to move it forward, and that's how i did my vote. i on other matters could entertain looking at this next week here, but not sending it
back to committee. supervisor chiu: supervisor mirkarimi? supervisor mirkarimi: thank you, mr. chair. i conquer with supervisors elsbernd and chair avalos. the consideration i would give this is that a letter was handed it me just a little while ago before this board meeting by mrs. chong. i don't want to divorce the fact that we all know her in a business capacity. we have to try to separate our personal relationships from the fact that there is a professional code that we must abide by. in that particular letter that i just saw evokes information that i think is worthy of the consideration act committee, which is why i will support this to go back, but only in the instance that is high bar is now presented back to anybody who wants to provide an alternative to this particular decision that has been rendered
by the budget committee. at this stage i don't see what could upset or change that particular decision. something would then have to be advanced to make us think twice, and i don't know what that something would look like at this point. supervisor chiu: supervisor mar? supervisor mar: i'm just trying to think. so one option is letting this sit for a week and come back to the full board as opposed to going back to committee. i wanted to ask some questions about an allegation of sexual harassment, whether that was even relevant to the contractsing process at all. there are a number of questions i will like to ask, but i could satisfy that by letting it sit for a week and coming back to the full board without going to the committee.
supervisor chiu: at this time we have a motion to continue this item to next week. colleagues any further discussion on this motion? supervisor avalos? if we could take a role call vote on this motion to continue for one week? >> there are six eist and five notices. supervisor chiu: motion to continue passes. colleagues, if we can now move to item 13? >> item 13. resolution establishing the appropriations limit for fiscal year 2010-2011 pursuant to the california constitution,
article 13-b. >> role call vote? >> there are 11 ayes. chiu this resolution is adopted. madam clerk, call up items 14-17. >> they are the ordinances setting the property tax rates to be included in the city's overall property tax rates for fiscal year 2010-2011 for the city and county of san francisco, the college district, the unified school district and the bay area rapid transit district and the
pass-through rate for fiscal year 2010-2011. >> can we do this? without objection these ordinances are passed on a first reading. item 18? >> item 18 is an ordinance authorizing to accept a grand in the amount of $231,000 for the california value tears for 18 months following the package of the california state budget and amending the ordinance to reflect the class. >> colleagues, same house, same call. this ordinance is passed. next item? >> item 19 is from the budget and finance committee without recommendation. to oppose a fee on alcoholic beverage wholesalers and certain other persons who distribute or sell alcoholic benches to recover a portion of aldo alcohol.
supervisor chiu: i understand super supervisor alioto-pier: may need to recuse herself. supervisor alioto-pier: there thing. my husband and i have a small business business. i have an hold an abc wholesale license. that is where this fee is assessed and for those reasons i need to recuse myself from this vote. supervisor chiu: we have a motion and second. without objection, she shall be recused. supervisor avalos? >> -- avalos at last we have the alcohol recovery cost ridge slation before us. it has been a year in the making. this has been bracketed by two major discussions here at the board of supervisors. one is our budget and how we are going to be able to continue upholding and carrying out the services of the city and county of san francisco,
and the other is our sit and lie issue. that is talked about a lot about who is on our side walks and what the city is doing about the people who habit wall-e and frequently enter the public health system. this is a response and action we can take as a board to address the needs of our neighborhoods and communities and the people who are suffering from alcoholism in our city. i recently had a conversation with a doctor at san francisco general hospital who deals frequently with people who are presenting severe alcoholism at the hospital. he chooses to call people by their names. i think it is really worthy of the board as well to look at the individuals who are caught
in the cyclical nature of alcoholism, who are homeless, and who are the ones we are trying to serve with our city services, public health department and emergency services as well. every year in the budget process we go through a tug of war. we are dealing with our budget deficit, and we are cutting services that are meaningful to people across the city. often the services that we cut are public health services, treatment services, services that would help us carry out our mission of making the side walks safe and giving people hope and dignity that suffer from alcoholism. i i am glad we can vote on this measure to help the lives of people who are living on our streets. this legislation came out of a
process to determine what the costs are to the city for emergency transport for people who are suffering from alcoholism, for hospitalization and treatment programs for people who are suffering from alcoholism. there are real people who provide those services, and every year, the services they provide and their jobs are on the line. we conducted a study and established a fee to collect what the fee to the city is. the study measured about $17 million in costs, and this will be collecting up to 90% of the cost to the city for the services. the fee will be stab libbed -- established by charging for different types of alcohol. beer will be charged at 35 cents a gallon.
a gallon of wine is $1, and spirits or liquor is charged at $3.20. it would be three to five cents, closer to four cents, what the impact would be on a per drink basis. this legislation is not directly charging a fee to retail, people who sell directly to consumers in san francisco. it is charging to wholesalers, who have all admitted they want to pass this on to consumers through retailers. that is something the wholesalers are determined to do. i do believe, though, since they are the power varies of alcohol in the city, that they should pay for some of the impacts of alcohol in san francisco. in san francisco, compared to the rest of california, people here with our has talt industry
and our many bars and restaurants actually drink more per-capita than other places in california. so the avenues we have in san francisco that contribute to more drinking also contribute to the phenomenon on our streets of the people who are homeless, who are frequently using our hospital services that this would cover. the atmosphere that we create and the alcohol that is sold in restaurants and bars in this city would help to these services. that is what this fee really does. many of you have heard from alcohol lobbying firms, who have been drumming up opposition to this. i believe they have profiled each one of us, the restaurants
and bars that we might go to or the community we may be a part of, bars that may be shown at the brink of collapse due to this. it is more hyperbole. less than 1% drop in consumer buying of alcohol and about 50 jobs a year across the city, which is very, very negron ginobili compared to the -- jeglidgeable. i think it is worth recognizing and not the kind of doom and gloom that has come from the alcohol industry. i know there has been a great deal of pressure that all of us have faced. lastly, we are asked as
supervisors to do much more, to be innovative, to look at uncovering every stone to deal with our deficit, to deal with the difficulties of alcohol in our streets. this is one solution i hope you can support. i want to thank raquel in my office for many hours she has put in on this, working with the folks in the communities and the city attorney's office. from the city attorney's office i would like to thank frances ca. the institute has built support for the measure. it is co-sponsored by supervisor mirkarimi, supervisor maxwell, and supervisor mar. i want to thank you for your co-sponsorship. i do have some 34e7bments i would like to share with you. i have left a sheet of paper
summarizing the amendments on your desk. they are responding to some of the issues that had come up in committee. one is for entities such as a comes do or a safe way, entities that might buy alcohol from wholesalers outside the city and bring it to the city to sell directly to consumers, this first amendment would close a potential loophole to ensure that if they bought it outside the city of san francisco, and bring it here to sell, and if the wholesalers have not been charged, that they would be charged a fee to be sure we are being fair about the collection of that fee. that is the first amendment. the second amendment is adjusting this measure for the consumer price index. the controller's office would do a calculation to ensure we could ramp this up if we need to with the consumer price index. the third amendment is to
assure that if we are collecting more than the fee, that we would be able to, bi-annually being able to reduce that fee. i hope you can support those, and i hope overall you can support the underlying legislation. supervisor chiu: supervisor avalos has made a set of amendment. we have a second. is there any discussion? the amendments are accepted. supervisor mirkarimi? supervisor mirkarimi: thank you, mr. president. i would like to compliment supervisor avalos for his leadership and his office, and all the stakeholders who helped advance this legislation. and the stakeholders that are represented from a variety of perspectives who agree,
disadepree or who remain indifferent on this particular legislation. one of the main motivations that i have in my early support of this is this. that is after participating a number of years in our budget area process, seeing a district like mine, as well as many others in a very denies urban city like san francisco, is that san francisco city and county is having a very difficult time in keeping up with the demand and the capacity of attending to those who have alcohol-related substance abuse problems. those particular problems often manifest themselves in a level of community and neighborhood frustration and a level of anxious and anxiety because of a lacks -- lacrosse, or
perceived lacrosse or sluggish response by the government that they believe is on the shoulders of the government to make go away. i believe that in some respect to address this problem is to exercise a little bit of corporate and social personal responsibility. how we are able to i think evoke that particular responsibility is creative in the motion that both business, community and city government are asked to step up. in this particular case there has yet been no alternative proposal or program whether coming from the department of public health or any other entity in the city government to provide us. where are we going to get the additional funding to be able to deal with a population that quite simply crying out for some attention? this is one such concrete proposal.
while there definitely may be some arguments as to how this only compounds some of the hardships in an economic climate such as ours nationally, internationally and how that happens state and locally, then we do not want to invite any unintended consequences. but the primary argument of us being able to attend two issues that are really i don't wanting us demanding our attention does not go unnoticed. this legislation attempts to go in that direction. i have passed out some amendments. the goal is to help shoulder the burden on those who can afford it the most, not the least, and to stave off any idea that there is going to be some kind of impact through a stranl.
i would like in defense of the small businesses and working this out with a number of stakeholders, including the advocates of the legislation, the amendment before you is a quarterly exclusion up to $1,000. fee payors may exclude up to $1,000. the fee payor's total liability is less than $1,000, then the fee payor should not be required to pay a particular fee for that quarter. the next subsection lines up the comments and a quarterly exclusion under 106.7 f. amendment for your conversation. supervisor chiu: colleagues, supervisor mirkarimi has made a motion. any second? seconded by supervisor avalos. can we take this amendment without objection? motion passes. supervisor daly? supervisor daly: thank you, mr. president and colleagues.
first he would like to clear up an issue that has been floating around out there over this item , and that is that i know for a fact that supervisor john avalos laughs to drink beer, but for me, it is whiskey. if you are out there buying, i just want you to note that. and i am bringing my nickels with me when i am going out. i would like to thank the sponsor of this item, and i would like to add my name on to this legislation as a co-sponsor. i do so for much the same reasons as supervisors avalos and mirkarimi state. back when i was chair of the budget committee a few times, i will call them the good years -- even in the good years we were looking at very difficult, targeted cuts to
communicate-based substance abuse programs. the good daly years were nothing like the last few terrible avalos years. in this room, the month of june and the months leading up, we debate very, very difficult issues. and just the way that the budget is structured, the way that our charter is structured, it's terrible. but it is the community-based providers, the folks who are on the street level providing culturally competent services to san francisco's most vulnerable are the ones feeling that, the ones targeted with dra conian cuts to our budget. it is in the community