really working for us. at this stage, i get this. the second day was a little bit better, and so on. there is a lot of complaining, when i walk on the floor. right now, i am all years. i am asking how this works for you. this is something that you think is suitable, and give a comprehensive report. >> i think another question but i would like as part of the report, is the new system and we want to work those out. as long as i have been here on the commission. they will pay their fees.

this is one thing that maybe does not come up. their life is to hang out at 16th street. what has been there in the past, they're getting to know some of the staff. we have people standing inside -- these are people who don't get to jump in line. i think that -- this makes the public less confident in the way the departments run.

everyone who walks in, if this is a private building, if this is a model of our own, or a professional 100 projects at that time. >> answer the question, before the system, we look at the least, and then we try to put all of the staff there -- and then we have quality-control -- and then, cashiers are a major problem. people want to get the permit ready. there is concern with the staffing. a lot of people combine it. after them, too.

this is not the critical -- how you maneuver. >> i was wondering what the plan is. how chaotic the new system is. one speaker we had earlier, you know, was very concise in talking about the issue of efficiency. and i was wondering -- we have to roll it out and give people a chance to get used to it. i heard how much better it worked in oakland. there seems to be more to it. it seems to be how the

software program is handled. i wonder if part of the plan is after people have gotten a chance to be used to this, have had some experts get through the system and tell us at what time, with the efficiency, when this is working and not working? >> first of all, this was expedited through the system. the more patient one is the homeowner. sometimes they did not know where they are, and they're really trying to pass more information. the customer coming in with the information desk, if this is a violation we ask them to go to the 64 or the first floor.

they need to come back to the first floor to get the ticket. unfortunately, people jam up the system. there may be some other way as we try to educate -- standing from the front line to tell them where to go. from our staff side, we had a lot of training, on the fifth floor, and this is what we are trying to do. the customer site is sometimes the toughest one. >> and other any questions? thank you. >> item 8-f? >> one thing we have been trying to do is help the rechords

managment and have the things available online, so we implemented the 3-r request so they can request things on the web. another thing is we work on scoping, having people be able to have records requests. we have things we work on in order to assist people to use the web to be more efficient. >> thank you. questions? >> item 8-t, was adressed earlier. is there any public comment on items 8-a through g? seeing none, item 9,

commissioner's questions and matters? 9-a, inquiries to staff, regarding documents, policies, and procedures. >> is there any -- commissioner walker: i would love an agenda item around the housting authority and code enforcement. we get updated to our working together on the housing authority building up to code. there is the check-in? >> alvarez -- someone from housing authority. >> we could do that for the next meeting. vice president?

>> it could be in line with that. as we heard from one speaker, there is a lot of outstanding n.o.v. we hd asked for a breakdown of the bad actors. it is a lot of the same buildings or same landlords who account for a lot of the violations. if we had a spreadsheet on that -- by neighborhood, we can see that. >> deputy director sweeney is working on the nov. we will have something for the next report. we had one from the public -- we could work towards. is there any more questions?

seeing none. >> item 9-b. future meetings and agendas? you may discuss a special meeting or the items for the agenda of the mesnext meating. eting. the next date is july 18. are there any other comments on that item? is there any public comment on 9-a or b? seeing none, item 10, review and approval of the minutes of the meeting of february 15, 2012. is there any motion to approve? >> motion to approve. >> second. >> are all in favor? any public comment?

no public comment. everyone said -- aye. are their any opposed? no. the minutes are approved. item 11, approval of the minutes of march 21, 2012. >> call the question. >> to approve? >> a second. >> is there any public comment? are all in favor of approving the minutes? >> aye. >> any opposed? the minutes are approved. item 12, discussion on a-b appointment, hiring of the interim director of the department of building inspection, and confirmation for transition purposes, persuant to

1.1d with the annual salary ordinance. 12-a, public comment on the closed session. is there public comment? seeing none -- item 12-b, possible action to convene a closed session. is there a motion? go ahead. >> i was wondering if we could discuss this in open session. i get up this morning at 6:30 nd and read about this in the "san francisco chronicle." we are deciding something the mayor and h.r. knows about, but we don't.

why do we need a closed session if the "bay-guardian" knows about it. we may as well discuss it in open session. let the discussion happen. >> i tend to agree. i think that finding out from other sources that there is an effort to solicit a resignation from the director that we have not discussed, the entire commission has not had a discussion. this is a slap in the face to the rest of the commission. i think this has been a process over the last few years of continued harrassment from the

president chair, not you, commissioner mccarthy, but from the previous director. we would hope that this would stop so that we could try to bring people together and move forward. the department has gone into the black and we have initiated many of the programs that we attempted to do over the last 15 years. we are in the middle of upgrades in our department, which we were trying to do for the last 10 years. three times, before this has gone forward and failed. we are succeeding in upgrading the computer systems, and a program that was all the time after time, and we are moving

this into an administrative position. i am not clear what happened. i think that we, the commission have a right to know what happened and so does the public. >> is there any more discussion? >> it appears that some of us no more than others. regardless, we should discuss this in closed session. i make a move to convene in closed session. >> seconded. >> a motion to go into closed session. i will do a roll call. president mccarthy? >> aye. >> mar? >> no. >> clinch? >> yes. >> lee? >> yes.

mcrae? >> yes. melgar? >> no. >> the motion carries, 4-3, and we will convene >> hello. this is item 12d. reconvene in open session to vote on whether to disclose any and all discussions held in closed session. is there a motion? >> i make a motion to reconvene in open session and to disclose the results of the closed session. >> second. >> are all in favor? >> aye. >> any opposed?

>> at this stage, i would like to turn it over to the city attorney. >> the president has asked me to read into the record the decision of the in building inspection commission. a majority of the building inspection commission voted to confirm the appointment by the human resources director of vivian day, as special assistant for transfer -- for the commission ethnologist director day's -- commission

acknowledges director day's resignation. the commission also looks to a point -- to appoint tom as acting director effective july 1. this will be subject to a six- month evaluation, done by the building inspection commission, and initiation of a job search for a new director. >> thank you, city attorney. at this point, i would like to -- madame secretary, what would you like to -- >> the next item on the agenda is item 13, adjournment. is there a motion to adjourn. >> i move that we adjourn. >> second. >> all in favor?

>> aye. >> we are now turned at -- now adjourned at 1:55 p.m.

commissioner white, here. commissioner riley, here. we have a quorum. president adams: next item. >> at this time we will call item no. 3. is that correct? general public comment. >> this is general public comment for anything that is not on our agenda. if anyone has any public comment that is not on our agenda today. seeing no public comment. >> would you like to call item 4 and 5 together? discussion of possible action to make recommendations to the board of supervisors.

file 120681. initiative ordinance, business tax and regulations code and the gross receipts. introduced by the mayor and president chiu:. in your packet is the ordinance no. legislative digest. there items of public comment and staff notes. >> i would like to thank the mayor, a supervisor david to -- chiu, the city chief economist and their staff for their intensive our reach -- outreach and facilitating many questions and recommendations and ideas on these ordinances. so thank you. >> item 5, discussion of possible action to make recommendations to the board of supervisors initiative

ordinance and tax regulations code. this is introduced by supervisor avalos. in your packet is the ordinance digest along with public comment and staff notes. i do want to note for both items we have presentations of the supervisors' representatives for the mayor with each respective item and we have a presentation from the comptroller's office. both items are [inaudible] >> i wanted to make sure that you see your handouts. supervisor provided an outline of the chart outlining the relationship. staff has provided you with a fairly large hand out so it is easier to read that key

components, the different schedules instead of looking through the powerpoint that ted egan has provided the commission. with that, [inaudible] president adams: president chiu. president chiu: it is great to be here talking about a topic that is near and dear to me that is the topic i have been thinking about ever since i sat in your seats years ago. we know the topic of this is tax reform that is one that the small business community has been wrestling with for the better part of a decade. we all know that san francisco is the only city in the state of california that charges a business payroll tax as our main way of asking our business

community to help us pay for city services. as the only city in the state that does that, obviously, that has created a certain amount of disincentives to the creation of jobs. at this time, only 10% of all businesses pay the business payroll tax and there has been for many years a discussion of the unfairness of those businesses that have had to shoulder the burden and a lot of small businesses that have been in more labour intensive industries. in 2010, i have asked the commission to consider when possible variation of the payroll tax which we considered and debated for a number of months. mayor lee and i asked our city controller and chief economist to spend a number of months researching in detail what for possible alternatives to the business payroll tax which has led us to the conversation that we're about to have today. i think you know the gross receipts tax is used in over three dozen cities in

california. i want to thank our controller and our chief economist and their staff for putting together a proposal thing makes an awful lot of sense. you'll be hearing about the proposal in greater detail but the gross receipts proposal that is being put forth, that is quite different from our current flat payroll tax is a much more progressive tax in that the rates set by industries kehl-scale up with chris recedes. with the twiggs we saw last year, we saw an increase in technology and innovative sectors. we're all joined in wanting to see our business tax reform forward in a way that will continue that job creation. i want to take a moment to thank the leadership of the business community for engaging with city hall on this question. many of you have been involved in the conversations and many leaders in the small business

community have been at the table giving us feedback on what is we need to do. i happen to think we're closing to -- closer to real business tax to four -- reform. i wanted knowledge supervisor avalos. he has a slight variance of the proposal we are putting forth which is a difference in the level of revenues that we hope to bring in on this topic. i am glad that the two proposals that are being discussed are based on the same course receipts proposal adjusting revenue levels based on our business license fee. i think we all acknowledge we have a significant structure of budget deficits and the question is how we're going to pay for that. it is my hope the small business commission will support this move and i want to thank those of you who have indicated some feedback in -- and positive feedback. it is my plan to continue to

work with all stakeholders to move us to one proposal that we can place on the november ballot to move this forward. unfortunate -- i have other committee meetings i have to attend saar will not be able to stay for the rest of today's conversation. my staff is monitoring the developments and we look forward to further conversation and thank you for your service. president adams: thank you. except my jason elliott -- next up, jason elliott. >> supervisor avalos, you have a meeting. welcome. supervisor avalos: thank you, commissioners, and thank you for weighing in on this important subject. i have introduced the board of supervisors for your review part of the transparent democratic

process. an ordinance i am submitting. the small business relief and economic recovery initiative. it has three main parts to protect small businesses and encourage job growth, to generate revenue to support our economic recovery and to make the largest corporations pay their fair share. i am happy to have the co- sponsor ship of many of the members of my -- the board of supervisors. i want to thank the great work of the comptroller's office in putting this measure together. ted egan for his work, reaching out to many parts of the business sector and much of the modeling that has been going on. ben rosenfield and others. we have the opportunity of taking our business tax system which is an archaic system based on payroll which does have an inhibiting effect on job

creation in san francisco. we also are -- we of the current extension of ipos. we are the -- we have a current extension of ipo's. this would elminate the taxation that occurs. it will happen if we don't make changes to the community. revenue generation is a vital part of what we want to do with our business tax especially in 2001, there was a change that happened when many businesses, some of the largest corporations in san francisco had settled to eliminate the gross receipts tax that had existed at that time. there are parts of the business community that are not paying the same kind of taxes they were in the past and it has created a hole. we would expect $40 million

you're counting our financing for the settlement as well as inflationary measures. people would say our business tax has increased dramatically over the years despite the settlement but i would say a lot of things have increased dramatically. inflationary rates on many of our delivery of services in san francisco have to increase dramatically as well. as we're seeing the local economy picked up, it creates some strains to make sure we can meet the demands that our economy is facing. demands on public services be they muni or public safety measures, department or fire department, roads that dpw has to make up. we're seeing our resources stretched as our economy is growing. we have to make sure we are researching their red effectively. that is why i'm looking at revenue generation as a vital part of how we are supporting busies