share analysis that we have not been able to share today. >> ok, thank you. supervisor chiu: back ashley, called love for someone to take the chair for a second -- actually, with love for someone to take the chair for a second. first of all, i appreciate all the comments that have been made. in part, this is an issue i have spent many months thinking about. we had our first meeting with the yellow pages industry last august when we asked them to propose a way to reduce the number of yellow pages in san francisco. unfortunately, that has not led to a proposal we can agree on with the industry, but that being said, and i know this is an issue that takes a little bit of time to get your head around. for those of you who have not had a chance to visit the plant where phone books are actually

recycled, if you go to the recology plant, you will see that the reason it costs so much to recycle these books is because the yellow pages are the only product that does not easily fit into the recycling process flow. if you recycle single loosely pages, cans, or aluminum, there is a conveyor belt that either travels paper up to the top or troubles heavier objects down to the bottom. yellow pages literally get stock. this is one of the reasons why it is difficult to recycle these. that being said, obviously, there seems to be some interest on this topic. i would also suggest that you take a look at the small business commission hearing on the topic where we had dozens of individuals come out, merchants and small businesses from around the city, to talk about the economic impact of this. there is a reason why the small business commission unanimously supported it. that said, i also feel a little badly for our chief economist for the city because i know how

many things you have on your plate with the budget with all the different tax proposals that we are about to ask you to do work on and other different things, but let me ask you -- how long would it take for you to do an analysis of this topic? >> i would imagine in hours of work, it would probably take one to two weeks. we do have a fairly full plate, so i would not want to promise a time line for that, but i do not think it is a particularly difficult for owners assignment. >> what i would like to suggest is that we continue this item to a date certain that someone in the future to give you enough time to do this analysis so you can provided to us and we can read it and have discussion. supervisor campos: motion by president chiu. second by a supervisor cohen. supervisor elsbernd: i withdraw my motion. supervisor chiu: let me ask what

you think is appropriate. a month? >> i would prefer two months. [laughter] if that is getting laughs, i could bring that down. supervisor chiu: why don't we do six weeks, and if it is not ready at that point, we could bring it back. what date would that be? >> they 10. supervisor chiu: a lot of it -- >> may ten. supervisor chiu: a lot of interesting commentary we heard was how this would create jobs, a particularly around online advertising. many of these companies which exist in san francisco and again represent our 21st century economy. i look forward to seeing that analysis here with that, i leave the motion in the hands of the board. supervisor campos: motion to continue to may 10, seconded by

supervisor cohen. do we need a roll call on that? we can do that without objection? without objection. supervisor chiu: with that, why don't we proceed -- skip over our special orders and proceed to roll call for introductions. >> supervisor avalos, you are first on a roll call for introductions. supervisor avalos: just a letter of inquiry to submit. today, supervisor wiener and myself had hearings on the mta switchback issues and general issues of the j church line, switchback issues on the 14 line. one of the statistics that came out of yesterday's hearing relative to the g-8 church was that if its offer and return

back at 30th and church, and a statistic they gave was 348 times between january and march. sending a letter of inquiry to the mta to just break that down, exactly when those switchbacks are occurring. during peak time, or non-peak time, and have that data provided to us. it was not quite as broken down as i would have liked it yesterday. that is all. thank you. supervisor chiu: colleagues, today, and i am introducing a drafting requests related to our payroll tax and stock options. as we all know, there was a recent control report that identified our city's practice of taxing stock options as a factor for why certain businesses consider locating outside of san francisco. as someone who helped to found a technology company in my previous life, and i think we have all heard from previous tech leaders about how our

treatment of stock options could lead companies to leave san francisco. penalizing the possibility of success, as we know, is not smart economic policy. on the other hand, stock options are given by many companies, mature companies as well as startups, as typical compensation. at a time of challenge revenues, we need to be careful in how we reduce taxes, simply because a company simply chooses to compensate employees with options. i have convened meetings with our treasurer's office, the office of economic and work force of element, the comptroller's office, in the city attorney, and i am requesting these agencies to help crack a legislative solution to this problem that is narrowly tailored to limit the possibility that companies may lead -- leave san francisco to encourage growth companies to become successful while preserving tax revenues during these tough times. i know supervisor mirkarimi will also be introducing a legislative proposal in this

idea, which a number of us have discussed, and i'm glad there are several of us here committing to working hard on this issue. i know there are many companies trying to figure out how to figure -- how to plan for their future, and i think we have to help them with long-term predictability. this discussion about stock options as well as mid-market raises the reality that our business payroll tax, the only one of its kind in california, is a real disincentive to job growth. i think many of us believe that we need to tackle the broader topic of business tax reform, and to this end, also last week, the mayor and i discuss these topics and have decided to convene an ad hoc council of technology ceo's, venture investors, and lawyers to advise us on our current tax structure as well as other issues relevant to building a 21st century economy here in san francisco. i understand that supervisor farrell has also been convening

tech leaders. i thank him for his efforts, and i know the mayor's office will be working with all of us and joining with our efforts to make sure we address the situation. i also have an in memoriam for joseph alioto, because of our former colleague, as well as cousin to our former mayor of. he was actually the third generation of his family to run the alioto's restaurant in my district, which started in 1925. he is someone who was well respected among not just the restaurant community, not just the fisherman's wharf community and business community, but the entire san francisco community. on behalf of the board, i would like to wish my deepest condolences to his very large family that he is leaving here in san francisco. the rest of my items i will

submit. >> thank you, mr. president. supervisor mirkarimi. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. there has been much attention placed over the last few days on the issue of us advancing legislation in providing for growing technology companies. the exemption of their stock compensation, as they are routinely required to pay to san francisco. this idea, which i think has been floating for quite some time, and how we might be able to retain, grow, nurture business is in san francisco is -- has now reached an appropriate juncture as a result of the deliberations on the twitter proposal. i think the twitter proposal, as many of us may opaline, publicly or privately, has taught us that there is something very uneven

and i have to say clumsy about the approach -- as many of us may opine. that is trying to do everything we can to marshal the resources to help companies day in san francisco while it threatens to leave, while at the same time, we want to see the double benefit of relocating the company took an area that is distressed. there are a number technology companies in a number of districts also claiming a similar point as twitter has, and i think many of us knew that this inevitability was just a matter of time. with the discussion that i think has been very critical for the question of overall city-wide reform that both president chiu just referenced and supervisor farrell and avalos and others have at one point or other manchin has come to its natural headwear it gives us an opportunity to laser in in the

most effective way possible those limiting strategies. in my opinion, one of those strategies perhaps is why that we are submitting today, and i would like to thank supervisors campos and mar for the co- sponsor ship, that provide two years moratorium for technology companies that may soon go public. companies with more than 100 employees, companies founded after 2001 that are not currently traded on the stock exchange. we believe that this is a unique time in history where there are a number of growing tech companies that may soon go public, making the time here extremely important of our and any deliberations on this and other laws, requiring that every company pay at least $1,500 per employee, even with the exemption only applies to companies affected by the payroll tax. those that have payrolls above $250,000.

the city's taxes are some of the highest in the state and nation. i believe there is a more progressive approach that helps answer the question that all of us want to see realized, and that is -- how do we retain companies in san francisco, at least in this genre of industry, the technology companies? how do we incentivize that those companies relocated and be hosted in neighborhoods that we also want to see benefit, i think, from their presence so that a wave of fact is extended to other neighborhoods that would like to certainly enjoy that particular dividend, whether direct or indirect? and for us not to be triaging by happenstance every time a tech company says they are ready to leave san francisco unless we react in a way that is not fluid

or consistent with existing practice. what has been called into question is exactly what that practice is. i believe there is probably more reform in the making, but in the short term, our legislation specifies two years. i have already talked to a number of colleagues who have inquired about the legislation. i am certainly pliable. we may be able to negotiate with those maybe, but i think it is important that we do everything we can to look for the win-win to communities that may feel the double bang adversely by the potential gentrification that could be constituted by well- intention policies that are being discussed right now but might have the unintended consequences of not being able to help communities in which we hope that they serve. we think that companies that exist, such as in district 10 or district 9, and other companies

that i know would like to come to, say, district 5 -- we are looking to find a way to incentivize them. by scott firing the potential remedy, we are at that intersection where we are able to ride that particular incentive. i look forward to the deliberations on this and the others over the next few weeks and months. next, i am submitting -- i'm sorry, chair of the budget committee -- supplemental appropriation for women's and lgbt health services for fiscal year 2010-2011. without mentioning who specifically, as is required by our own process here, there is a concern to us of health services provided by various communities,

but one community in particular, where we do not want to see those services compromised or reduced to the point where they become ineffective. i believe that the community, especially the lgbt and women's community, have done a brilliant job of trying to find supplemental resources to help with this particular endeavor. now, i think it is time for the city to step up to the plate. we have held substantive hearings on this question here at the board of supervisors and budget committee, and we realize that everything that can be done is being done, and it is time for the board to step up. the supplemental appropriation, i think, is nominal, but it could really help make a difference in restoring the kind of health care services that i think are in danger of being cut, which would be a travesty. next, in submitting a request for legislation by the city attorney -- i am submitting a

request for legislation by the city attorney of to allow the radiobroadcasting meetings of the board of supervisors here roughly about eight years ago, the meetings of the board of supervisors yesterday on mondays, not his days. then it was a unilateral change by the board of supervisors to switch to tuesdays, but when they were on mondays for decades, kpoo radio was the station that broadcast it live our particular proceedings. then they went to the redevelopment agency and have been broadcasting the redevelopment agency proceedings. but if the bid development agencies ceased to exist and the commission's businesses ceased to exist, that frees up the ability for them to return to was to broadcast the proceedings of the board of supervisors. they are one of the last few remaining independent stations. in my opinion, as we have recognized and commemorate their work, probably one of the cool stations around. i think it is important that we

allow a mom-and-pop, such as theirs, to be included in our plan of making sure that the people have access to what we do at the board of supervisors. lastly, i have to tell you, i was completely heartbroken to hear about the passing of supervisor charles smith classroom from marin county. i know others will speak to this as well. he was my counterpart, a real fighter against some of the travesties of pg&e, and it was the architect of community choice aggregation in marin county. we just had dinner very recently. he is a year older than i am, and i cannot tell you how blow away when we found out that he passed away unexpectedly. he is an amazing legislator. two-term supervisor with a number of commissions he had served on, and he was seeking

his third term as a county supervisor. i know that he is a colleague to many folks up here on the golden gate bridge authority. i have to tell you, speaking about the golden gate bridge authority and about charles mcglashan, when we were contemplating what a community choice abrogation would look like, we used to meet privately at the golden gate bridge authority, both with their team of people and our team of people to try to have what was a series of meetings to envision what it would look like with marin and san francisco to work together. this was pre-prop 16 when pg&e tried to extinguish the county's right in california, to deny us that independent path of wanting to provide an alternative energy service along with the private utility. i have to say, those meetings were incredibly rewarding. charles mcglashan, incredibly wise about how to proceed, and

it does not surprise me that marin county is the first city to implement their program. and, as everybody had predicted, in terms of the industry predictions, that the program would fail, in six months' time, they paid back the start of dollars of $900,000 on their program where they are now already making a profit in marin while being able to furnish a green energy at a different rate to customers who elect to want to have that particular energy. it is really brilliant but in a very simplistic way because it requires breaking down those kinds of barriers, and that is what charles was. he was a fighter in probably the most smoothly as possible, and he was a colleague, and i have to say i am extremely saddened about his passing. i think it is a loss not for marin county, but for county

boards of supervisors throughout the state because he was a real leader. the rest i will submit. thank you. supervisor chiu: colleagues, can we do the in memoriam for our colleague across the bay? without objection, that shall be the case. >> thank you. supervisor campos. supervisor campos: thank you. i do want to thank supervisor mirkarimi for the in memoriam on supervisor mcglashan. i'm glad we are doing it collectively as a board. i also was very struck by the sad news. for those of us who serve with the supervisor on the golden gate bridge board, not only was he a very pleasant individual, but very hard worker, and who really had the best interests of the public at heart. i am reminded in thinking about

his accomplishments with the chronicle said about it -- what "the chronicle" said about him, which is that he was an environmental visionary whose efforts from solar, wind, and biomass power into countless homes and businesses. he truly was a visionary, and i think we have a lot to learn from what he was able to accomplish. for those of us who served with him on the board, we will miss him, and give our condolences to his family. the second item that i have is a hearing request for the city's external auditors to present a comprehensive annual financing report single audit management letters for this item to come before the government audits and oversight committee. the rest i submit. >> thank you. supervisor farrell. supervisor farrell: thank you.

i have two items today. first of all, in terms of stock options, i want to thank president chiu and supervisor mirkarimi for starting a dialogue about a stock option. i have actively been working on a for a number of weeks, have been meeting with a number of technology executives that i have worked with personally in the past, as well as the investors which fund these technology companies and make the decision to locate here in san francisco. i think one of the unintended consequences of our mid-market, now twitter debate is the notion that san francisco opposes a tax on stock options. companies are aware of it. investors are aware of it. in a way, the sleeping giant has awoken. we need to refrain this debate from one as a notion of a corporate giveaway or changing our laws based on a particular company. that is not sustainable long

term. we need to focus on how we create a long-term sustainable economic environment in san francisco. that has to be the question. the status quo is just unacceptable. the reality is we are the only city in california that taxes stock options. it might not seem like a big deal, but to young companies and investors that invest in them, it matters a ton, and they create a ton of jobs. it is not like we are incrementally more expensive for a little bit more burdensome. we are out in left field on the issue compared to other municipalities. the question that a number of us are working on is what to do about it. i appreciate supervisor mirkarimi's legislation. as a government, we cannot continue to kick the can down the road or craft legislation based on a company. that does not work, in my opinion.

we have to focus on the long term in san francisco and focus on the long-term solution. if we pass a two-year fixed, in 12 months, we will have the debate again. we have a broad coalition of people who want to work on the issue to get a long-term solution done now. that is what we have to focus on. last week, i took two steps. i asked our budget and legislative analyst to conduct and complete a study on other technology hubs in the united states, from seattle down to silicon valley, acrostic austin, the research triangle in the carolinas, new york, boston, to understand what other municipalities and areas are offering technology companies to relocate their, what incentives they are providing. we have to realize that while we have a lot of inherent value in san francisco, i believe it is the best city in the world, but we are competing for companies and the jobs they create in our city. i have also asked our city attorney to draft two pieces of

legislation to address the issue. one version, a more extended version of supervisor mirkarimi 's current bill, is a complete elimination of taxes on stock options. the other is that we tax companies based upon the stock price of their option or the fair market value of the stock when they should not be fair market value of the company when it goes public and there is a triggering event for taxation. in addition, i have been speaking with the mayor and working with his office to put together a technology council comprised of industry executives, investors, attorneys, and other service providers to discuss the economic environment of san francisco and generate policy ideas that will insure severance is to remain at the forefront of our technology industry. i believe the idea of bringing this group together as long overdue, and i look forward to a long-term dialogue about the future of our city. lastly, before coming to city hall, my career was spent as a

corporate attorney drafting stock options, as an investment banker, creating a financial analysis, and as a venture capitalist issuing them. i have worked in the area for years and believe our current situation is a problem, but also one that can be solved relatively easily and in the short term. i look forward to working with everyone else on this issue and believe we can have legislation introduced at the board within the next 30 to 60 days to create the long term solution. second of all , i ofan in memoriam -- i have an in memoriam on top of what president chiu introduced for chi-- for joseph alioto. i have known the family for years. he will be sadly missed.

more importantly, really, the face behind or in front of alioto's down on the wharf. he will be missed by a number of people. we will miss him dearly, and i asked my name be added to president chiu's in memoriam. supervisor wiener: as supervisor avalos noted, we did hold a hearing that i had called, and it was, i thought, a very productive hearing. i have been willing, when appropriate, to be critical of muni, and i really want to commend mta for coming forward with a laundry list of ideas to improve the service on the j. it is a very important line in

my district, and it just does not always run that well. mta has a number of ideas, some short term, some long-term, to fix the line, and i just want to commend mta for thinking outside the box, and i look forward to working on the future to making it a better line. the rest i submit. >> thank you. seeing no other names on the roster, mr. president, that concludes roll call. the next item on the agenda is the opportunity for the public to address the board for two minutes on items with the subject matter jurisdiction of the board, including items on the adoption of the committee reference portion of the agenda and excluding items which have been submitted by a board committee. speed is using the systems will be allowed twice the amount of time to testify. a member of the public would like to document to be displayed

on the overhead projector, please clearly states such and move the document when the screen should return to live coverage of the meeting. supervisor chiu: thank you. each speaker shall have two minutes. we do have one special commendation at 3:30. i will probably interrupt public, in about two speakers or sell. -- two speakers or so. >> our president, our supervisor, i see something wrong today. six of our supervisors use glasses. supervisor chiu: i think we are all waiting gemini eir -- reading too many