a straw will break the camel's back. right now, there is a lot of restaurants and about 500 close every year. right now, what you are seeing is people are failing, and there is no cushion. there is no money. 95% of us are struggling. 5% of us seem to be doing fine. if we are all put out of business, no one will have any benefits. >> i am with the san francisco labor counsel and as the wife of a restaurant worker. i am to speak on behalf of closing the loophole in the legislation because i think it is critical to the intent of the law, which was to cover employees with health care, and that is not happening. most of the restaurants are doing the right thing, and they

should be applauded for that. some of those who are administering hra's are letting the employees know, helping them access this, but they are a minority. an important minority who are not. these employees are not given notice. it is not about notice. it is about the intent of the law. if we have a large percentage of that money being taken away from employees, that means they are not able to access health care. they are not able to cover prescription medication because of those stringent requirements that are absolutely ridiculous. and young people do get sick. we do need access to health care. we do need preventative care. we have heard restaurant owners time after time say that they agree with it. we had a restaurant owner talk about how covering her employees is good business sense.

i think people are failing, as the previous speaker said, and it is not just employers. it is definitely employees as well. i think it is critical that we close this loophole. the hra's are not working as currently presented, and i thank you for your time. supervisor campos: thank you. is there any other member of the public who has not spoken who would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. again, thank you to everyone on both sides of the issue has spoken about this. i know that president chiu and i know supervisor farrell -- ashley, he is on the rules committee, which is starting now -- actually, he is on the rules committee, which is starting now. i do not want to belabor this, but one thing that is important going forward is that we had a discussion about the legal parameters we have, and i think that is something that should have been appropriately at the board of supervisors so that the entirety of the board can hear

in a closed session some of the legal issues implicated, so with that in mind, i make a move that we forward this without a recommendation to the full board. supervisor farrell. supervisor farrell: thank you, supervisor, and thank you to everyone who came out today on both sides of the aisle. obviously a contentious issue. to say my piece about it now, i do have a lot of issues with how this has been implemented, and things that are probably unintended consequences. some people came up and spoke about going to a restaurant to pay 3% or 4% or 5% fee, and understand now that it is not necessarily going to health care. i think that should drive everyone nuts. the fact that there are potentially incentives or disincentives to reimburse people -- it does bother me a great deal. i am move by the notion of

leveling the playing field in the employer community -- i am moved. but whatever industry they may be on -- despite whatever industry they may be on. those things bother me a ton. where i come out right now is i think there are -- i have also been, however, hearing a lot of consequences here, and the loss of jobs in this economy is certainly a bellwether for me. i want to find a creative way -- i think there are ways to work around this. i am not right now comfortable that i personally know enough about the laws, and i would really value, as supervisor campos mentioned, having a dialogue in closed session with our chief economist, with our city attorney to think deeper and much broader about creative ways to solve these issues without burdening the employers in the city unduly.

obviously, health care is an extremely important issue, and we need to solve for that, so i appreciate the comments on both sides of the aisle. i want to thank everyone who came out in the middle of their day as well. so i appreciate that. i think where it differs, and i know supervisor campos and i will differ, is that i would like to do that now and in committee. from my point of view, this is not something in my opinion that we can rush into, and this is not rushing into it, but this is something i want to take the time to do it right. that would be my preference. to do it here in committee. let me say very publicly that i will commit the work to find a solution. but i would prefer to do it here in committee as opposed to sending it to the full board. supervisor campos: i appreciate your comments, and i continue to be committed to working with

you. i will ask for a roll call on my motion. to the extent that there is a need for a closed session, that is something that should involve the entirety of the board of supervisors. i think that it would be a disservice to our colleagues to have such a discussion as one committee in closed session if our goal is to really have a full discussion that actually considers the breath -- breadth of the applications. i think having that as three supervisors in committee is a mistake, so i plead with both you and with president chiu, out of courtesy to me, who is the supervisor who is the main author of this, to let this go out of the committee without a recommendation does not mean you are committing yourself to any one vote. if you decide not to do that, it is something that does not usually happen because usually, that courtesy is extended to the author of the legislation. i will ask my colleagues to sign

a document that i will introduce at the board on tuesday requesting that the item be directly placed on the agenda of the board of supervisors. i would hope that, given the effort to get along and work well together, that as the author of a piece of legislation, you would not be forced to do that, but i am prepared to do the -- that if this committee is unwilling to forward this to the full board. one thing that i would say is, president chiu, you are a co- sponsor of the legislation, and if you are going to co-sponsored the legislation, i would ask that you move it forward to the full board, and if you are not prepared to do that, i would ask that you let us know whether or not you are continuing to be a co-sponsor of the legislation. supervisor chiu: thank you, colleagues. i first want to thank everyone who has come out here today to

discuss this very challenging issue. obviously, this is the first time the matter has been heard of the board, and this involves a lot of complicated issues. my colleagues and i have spent a bit of time thinking about and discussing it in recent times. i do want to thank supervisors campos -- supervisor campos and the many community voices who have pointed out what i think is a real problem. i support the intention of the legislation. i am troubled that there are employers not paying what others are, that they are a disincentive to do the right thing, who have been limiting usage, who have not been providing notice. i am also frankly troubled at the fact that we only have 20% usage. i do not think that is acceptable. at this hearing, there have been a lot of questions that have been raised that have not been answered. for example, what happens at the end of an employee's time? do we want to have millions of

dollars sitting in definitely in these accounts? is that the best thing for workers? i think we all agree that we need to amend the legislation to ensure all employers are providing notice in all languages to all employees. there are still issued -- issues we need to discuss with the city attorney's office to make sure whatever we do is complying with federal law. that said, i do think it is appropriate, given this is only the first time we have heard this in committee, for us to hear this again in committee. thus, i would support supervisor farrell's motion to continue and not second that we move this out at this time. i would suggest that we hold a hearing next week. i understand that supervisor campos and others are willing to consider ways to make sure the legislation is tailored. the committee is where work is supposed to happen, and i have heard from colleagues -- our colleagues -- across the

political spectrum who want to make sure that we handle this legislation in committee. that is what committees are supposed to do. i do absolutely intend to support some version of this legislation. i just think we need a second hearing to do this right. supervisor campos: i have a motion to forward without a recommendation, so why don't we do a roll call on that motion. >> on the motion to refer without recommendation -- supervisor farrell. supervisor farrell: no. supervisor chiu: no. supervisor campos: aye. >> we have two nos and one aye. supervisor farrell: that said, i would make a motion to continue. i could do it to the call of the chair, for a week, whatever the preference is. i am happy to do that on the most accelerated basis possible. i am would be happy to do that to the discretion of my

colleagues. supervisor chiu: i would second admission that we were to do this next week, it would arrive at the board at the same time as was supervisor campos is suggesting -- as what supervisor campos is suggesting. >> is the motion to continue to next week or to the call of the chair? supervisor farrell: can we do it to next week? supervisor campos: to next week. supervisor farrell: ok. supervisor campos: do you have a specific date -- i think time. do we need to provide a time? supervisor farrell: at this point, giving -- given schedules for next week, i would be happy to do it to the call of the chair. do you have any issues with that? supervisor campos: ok, if we could have a roll call on that, please.

supervisor farrell: aye. supervisor chiu: aye. supervisor campos: no, and as i indicated, the motion passes, and it is continue to the call of the chair, and i will be introducing this at the next meeting on tuesday to have the item directly referred to the board of supervisors. can we call item two? >> item two, resolution authorizing the may cast ballots in the affirmative on behalf of the city and county of san francisco as owner of five parcels over which the board has jurisdiction, where this five parcels would be subject to assessment in the proposed renewed and expanded property and business improvement district currently known as the bill more jazz community benefit district. >> good afternoon. i am year to present a resolution authorizing the mayor to cast assessment ballots in

the affirmative on behalf of the city and county of san francisco as the owner of five parcels over which the board of supervisors have jurisdiction, where these five parcels would be subject to an assessment in the proposed renewed and expanded property and business improvement district, currently known as the fillmore jazz community benefit district, to be renamed. the district is in the process of renewal, and right now, the department of elections has sent out all of the ballots to every property owner within the proposed renewed district. they have also said ballots to the city and county of san francisco. the city and county of san francisco could vote on the parcels in the proposed district if the board of supervisors were to approve this resolution, which is before you. a list of the parcels in the proposed renewed district are

attached, and they include five parcels that total $12,000, -- $12,747.82, representing about 3.40% of the wages within the district. if you have any questions about the ballots for these parcels or the resolution, i am here to answer your questions. supervisor campos: colleagues, any comments or questions? why don't we open it up to public comment. is there any member of the public who would like to speak on this item? please go ahead. thanks for patiently waiting on this item. >> no problem. supervisors, i am the president of the fillmore jazz community but the district, and i am standing to ask that you support

the resolution before you. as you know, we are in the process of renewal. we are going through transitions and doing the best we can to make sure to take care of the safety, marketing, and cleaning of the area. a negative vote would basically hinder that process. we want to continue the process of making sure to keep that area safe, make sure to keep that area marketed, and make sure to keep that area clean, so we hope you all will support this legislation, and we are here for any questions. thank you so much. supervisor campos: thank you, sir. is there any other member of the public would like to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, is there -- colleagues, this is an action item. we have a motion. can we take that without objection? >> i believe this item is going as a committee report. supervisor campos: change the

motion to committee report, and we can take that without objection. call item three please. >> item 3, resolution of intention to establish the west for the community benefit district and setup a time and place -- establish the west portal community benefit district and set up a time and place for the hearing. supervisor campos: we have been requested to continue this item, but before we take action on that, if there is any public comment, please come forward. >> i appreciate the fact that you are continuing this. you must have 30% to go forward to initiate. there were 20 to return their ballots in 2010, and there has been a recent mail out to see if those people -- if their position was changed -- was the same period -- was the same.

there have not been any response is, as far as i know, so i am glad you are continuing -- there have not been any responses. supervisor campos: thank you. any other public comment? >> i would like to offer my support of this resolution. i have lived in the neighborhood for 21 years, and i think everyone agrees the neighborhood has gone downhill. about the only improvement i have seen on west portal is that campaign office across from starbucks. this neighborhood in my opinion really needs this improvement. the whole district has been going downhill. if you look backwards, near new -- mayor newsom's famous triple play has failed miserably in

all three aspects. i urge you to pass this asap. we do not need any further delays. we do not need any more delays on west portal. it is interesting that it will be delayed. thank you. supervisor campos: thank you. any other member of the public? seeing none, public comment is closed. if we could have a motion. motion by supervisor farrell. we can take that without objection. is there any other business before the committee? >> no, there is no other matter. supervisor campos: thank you. the meeting is adjourned.

>> good evening. welcome to the july 11th, 2011 small commission -- small business commission meeting. public comment will be taken on each item. speaking card are available at the front table.

>> item two, approval of the march 11th minutes. expiratory documents. >> i move. >> to we have a second. >> all in favor. >> we see no objections. >> commissioners, item three, approval of the may 9th, 2011 meeting minutes. >> i moved. >> i second.

>> next item. >> you are now on item number four, general public comment. this allows members of the public to comment on items that are within the commission's purview. >> do we have any members of the public that would like to comment on the matter that is not in the agenda? seeing none, next item. >> item 5. >> discussion and possible action to make recommendations to the board of supervisors on board of supervisors file number 110749, business and tax regulations to fund the public safety programs and services to children and seniors. the ordinance amending the san francisco business and tax and religions code by adding article

16-a to provide funds for public safety programs and services to children and senior citizens in the city at a rate of one-half of 1% for a time of 10 years. >> we have a presentation here. i will try to be brief and leave time for discussion. i am the mayor of's budget director. i appreciate your time inviting me here to speak with you on this measure. what i am here for today is to ask your support on behalf of the mayor for a proposal that he has submitted to the board of supervisors with the intent of placing it on the ballot this coming november.

the essence of the proposal is that as you all know, the state sales tax rate effective july 1st declined by 1% bringing the tax rate from 9.5% to 8.5%. this was done over the objection of the governor. we would like to get the sales tax at the existing rate. we would like to offset some of the deeper cuts that were on the table absent that extension and the extension of some other revenues at the state level. as this discussion was playing out at the capitol in sacramento, in the mayor's office, we were developing the mayor's budget proposal and looking at some of the proposed cuts that were on the table and ultimately made the decision that the uncertainty about what

was going to happen in sacramento and what the implications of that work for the city which were unacceptable and we did not want to wait and see what happened, we wanted to take matters into our own hands. as a result, the mayor has proposed the measure that is before you. essentially, what it would do is that it would replace half of the 1% reduction in the sales tax rate with a local sales tax. again, our sales tax have just decline from 9.5% to 8.5%. we would still see a reduction in our sales tax rate compared to where we have been over the past couple of years. at the same time, that will enable us to bring in some revenue that we can use to protect the city and protect the city's budget against the cuts we have been seeing over the past several years and we

anticipate seeing over the past -- over the next several years. the proposed sales tax measure is a special tax as required, we cannot put a general tax on the ballot unless there are legislative seats also on the ballot under the california constitution so this requires a 2/3 vote of the people. the tax needs to be dedicated as a special tax. what is proposed are a couple of things. this falls into how the mayor has been talking about his priorities for the budget over the past several months. some of you have heard the mayor may be one or too many times about how you'd like to see a budget that is solvent.

a safe part of that equation is what we're talking about today with this measure. when he talks about having a safe city, he talks about two things. he talks about public safety which is the core police and emergency response services and that is obviously a key component of safety. he also means a basic social safety net, a minimal level of social services that help people in our city feel a sense of personal safety about their future, about their health care, about their economic stability. so, the proposal that is before us would be dedicated to a fund that can be used for both of those purposes. this could be used for public safety programs and i believe you might have the expenditure plan in front of you. that gives you more details, it can be used for both of those types of services.

also, a social safety net programs for seniors and children including child care that is significant a factor for a lot of the workers and employers in our small businesses and in the city. in terms of the mechanics of this budget, there are two critical pieces i want to point out. the first is that there is a 10- year sunset so that this would not be a proposal that goes on in perpetuity. the second is that there is a piece of this legislation that if the state and of extending their 1% tax rate, this would invalidate this local sales tax. the idea here is we did not want to put the tax on the ballot, only to see the state restore their full 1 cent and then the

effect is that our net tax rate goes up by half a cent. we would like to keep the tax rate at or below the level that was over the past several years. if the state does impose the sales tax rate, this tax will cease to be collected for the first year of its operation. after the first year of its operation, the two would be decoupled from one another and our tax level with no longer be dependent on the state. there is that trigger which is an attempt to protect us from having our tax rate inadvertently escalate beyond where it is right now. the purpose of this legislation is to provide us with a source for offsetting the impact of cuts. you have no