it would continue to be the same. commissioner riley: we don't want to lose any business. to put the burden on 946 businesses, i don't know what the impact is going to be. would they leave us? >> in our initial findings, it would nedda's 3000 net new jobs -- net loss 3000 net new jobs. obviously, we're going to reduce that benefit a little bit. we are expecting a under the mayor's proposal -- and it is probably lower under supervisor avalos's.

>> i think it is vitally important that both camps find a single place to land before the legislation goes before the voters. the last thing we want is two ballot measures. i hope there is a lot of working to narrow the gap so we have a single piece of legislation and if there is anything we can do to help with that process, i think we would all be happy to do it. it will be very difficult to support these two things going forward independently. there is a tremendous amount of work that has to go back to all the financial calculations. the sooner we get there, the sooner we can do legislation to

fix the situation. and it seems that we have the political will to do it, and so, let's not get hung up on the details and find a place we can both agree on so we can move forward. president adams: any other commissioners? i agree with commissioner dwight. everyone in san francisco agrees something should be done. i really hope that supervisor avalos and mayor lee and president chiu come together for one ballot measure. so, any other commissioner comments? do we have a motion on either

ballot? >> commissioners, do you want to have any discussion? >> i think we should make our main recommendation that the two group's work together to come up with one measure. i think that is our number one goal. after that, if we want to weigh in on specifics of either side that we liked or with just being part of the final package, i think that's where we should go. commissioner dwight: yes, i just think we could talk about the details all day long. and this is not the body that is not -- that is going to decide those details.

i think we should go away, do your thing. and then if in the final manifestation of the legislation there are things that need to be tweaked and major issues, that would be the time to do it. right now, it does not to as much good because we're talking about shifting sand anyway. let's wait until there is a solid foundation. then we will -- you know, because things are going to move towards the middle, as they normally do. let's find out where that this. >> though i do think both supervisors and the mayor and some of the other supervisors are interested in what the commission thinks about the tax exclusions and credits, in part because one includes it and one does not. so, i do think it would be beneficial for the commission to

provide some sort of directive. and then at least in regard to that particular thing, i do think if the commission in terms of the revenue generation is there -- while another is going to be some hashing -- in terms of the discussion. well i understand your point, and i do see discussion going on, if we don't say much, then what our thoughts are will not be part of the conversation. are considerations will not be part of the conversation. commissioner riley: i agree. i agree with commissioner

dwight. we should ask them to come back with an agreeable solution or proposal. those are my thoughts. >> can you repeat that again please? the last two points? the tax credit exemption? commissioner riley: the tax credit exemption and the $100 million exemption. >> i would regard that as a flat tax. yes, from a global perspective, weighing in on those high level issues is still fun. what the specific dollar amount this -- i agree. i support both of those things

as well. though they are getting a tax exemption on these cases, twitter paid a lot of money for some other stuff, ok? for the neighborhood and things around the new venue. its not as though they walked out of the room and were paid money to come to the city. they paid in other ways. i think that is a means the city has to direct funds to areas that particularly need it. that market section has been blighted for so long. if it twitter is the one to kick start that -- even west field mall has struggled. that was going to turn that area around, and it didn't. as a matter of fact, we're starting to see a lot of turnover. businesses that move and there have been as successful. we have reached critical mass.

hopefully, some of the things they're going on in that area and other areas of the city will require special circumstances, the city can decide need particular efforts in those areas. so, i think the twitter -- twitter is used as the stalking horse for talking about campaigning for or against the exemptions. they can be very beneficial. with that particular one is objectionable or not, that's my own opinion. we do see it having the desired effect in the areas they are being used -- mission bay, for example. i support that as well, maintaining those. that can always be -- subsequent legislation can always take

those away and put them back into the structure. >> commissioner dolley? commissioner dooley: i agree with my colleagues. i also support the tax exemption. i would also like to suggest that we put a request in here that the funding go for the city infrastructure that would not directly benefit the corridors. things like roads, mta, trees, public safety. i think we all support the public trust fund, but at this point, i think there might be room to do a few other things with additional moneys liked supervisor avalos is suggesting that would be very helpful to

the business community in the commercial corridors. once again, and the like to formally request that the office of small business be granted $700,000 in our budget to help with the continuing of supporting the many, many small businesses in the city. >> any other comments? >> i totally support the tax credit exclusion. central market, mission bay -- we are starting to see real changes over there now. real changes. twitter moved in what? last week? i totally, totally support that. biotech, clean tech. san francisco -- i tell people it is like detroit at the turn of the century.

what is happening in the future is happening here, and now. we need to keep that going. we need to do everything to keep that going. because all of the all of the businesses around it continue to benefit. you can see it is changing for the better. with that, the under $1 million exemption, i totally support that. and what commissioner riley said. how would we like to proceed, commissioners? with our recommendations? >> do we need a motion for the fact that we recommended -- we are supportive of these -- >> i would make a motion with the recommendation of what i would like to see out of this. this will be our chance to chime

in on what we would like to see. >> i am good at doing multiple revisions. [laughter] >> do you have some paper their tax >> if i could summarize it, i move that we declare our support for the $1 million hur dle for the -- how do you want to describe it? the business registration fee, up to $1 million, as an exemption from the gross receipts tax. and we support continuation of the exclusions that are currently in place. that we are supportive of incremental tax revenue to

support affordable housing. and that we are not only in support, but insistent that there be a meeting of the mines in a set -- and a single piece of legislation the proposed for the voters. did i miss anything? >> may i add -- commissioner dooley made some other recommendations. >> oh, and that from the incremental revenue increase, that there be funds specifically earmarked for the office of small business. and that there also be allocations for improvements in such things as infrastructure in

the city that benefit businesses directly. so that the incremental revenue benefits businesses directly in addition tree other things that we want to see happen in the city, specifically affordable housing. did i get it? did you get that? >> just give me one moment, please.

>> i am sure i missed something, so i will do my best to summarize your motion. was that indicating a general support for the overall structure of both? that the gross receipts schedules was not addressed? >> and we support a -- we support that the two groups work out the differences that they have, but we support the structure. of the present registration fee. >> commissioners, i will give it my first stab here. support for the gross receipts structure. support for the $1 million small-business exemption. support retaining current exemptions for central market,

biotech, enterprise zones. support the increased business registration fee for affordable housing. support for a single piece of legislation and that the parties come together and form a compromise to put a single item on the ballot. you would like an earmarked for funds specifically for the office of small business. commissioner dooley did mention an amount. did you want to include an amount or leave it at the general allotment? >> i had attached that in the e- mail. one, we have a tremendous amount of requests and pressure to improve our technology interfaced with businesses.

to be able to do that, for a business to say, i want to open up the restaurant, what are all the licenses and permits, that sort of thing, taking a look at what new york's website has been and what it cost them to produce it five years ago, we would not be able to do it in one year. it would have to be done over a two-year period. there are infrastructure improvements that need to be done. in addition, when we do our web site, googled translation is not reliable, especially with some business terminology. for us and our office, there are key elements of what we communicate with businesses to make sure that those pages are accurately translated. i would like to be able to have

some of officially-translated portions of our web site. during an estimated cost of ongoing infrastructure, technology, development, and maintenance over a period of years. >> you have done some analysis which indicates that an incremental increase in the budget to $700,000, on top of the present budget, so i would like to include in my motion a specific allocation of no less than $700,000. >> no less than $700,000 additionally. >> to allow the office to make improvements to service and infrastructure that we have already identified. >> this one i have a question

on. is the motion supporting generating additional funds or is the commission stating that if additional funds are generated, that they fund projects and programs that benefit business, such as infrastructure, transit? >> i think we are all in agreement that we are in favor of incrementally increasing revenue. >> so the commission is in favor of some additional revenue generation, just not indicating a particular range? >> that is correct. i think it is -- it would be 92 insist -- naive to insist that since there is a need of additional revenue. >> i have that additional

revenue generation should fund projects and programs that benefit businesses. things that have a tangible benefit for the business community. >> in addition to affordable housing and a specific allocation -- >> in addition to what was previously stated. >> that is right. that is what i have, unless anybody would like to add anything additional. >> second. commissioner adams: can we get a vote? commissioner adams: aye. commissioner dooley: yes. commissioner dwight: yes. commissioner white: yes. commissioner riley: yes.

>> that motion passes 5-0. commissioner adams: next item. >> thank you for coming out today, guys. >> commissioners, we are returning back to minutes, item number 2. commissioner adams: do we have a motion to approve? do we have a second? commissioner adams: yes. commissioner dooley: yes, commissioner dwight: yes. commissioner white: yes. commissioner riley: yes. >> that motion passes 5-0. i did initially include some of our standard items on the agenda. item six, the director's report, i believe the director will

continue with a written report at the next meeting. is that correct? >> actually, what i would like to do -- i apologize. since we do have a bit of time, bring you up-to-date on a couple of legislative items. supervisor kim -- supervisor farrell, the small business tax exclusion, the payroll tax. that is being continued until budget deliberations are done. to understand its impact to the general fund. i want to let you know that that has not completely moved through the board of supervisors. supervisor chu, her legislation for the sunset past the planning commission with department recommendation for a slight modifications. i will provide you with written details at our july meeting. i just want to let you know

that. supervisor campos' wage task force passed on its final reading and returned unsigned by the mayor. in the next 30 days, the task force will be convened to start meeting. supervisor wiener's legislation of policy committee, we will be reviewing today. supervisor wiener did introduce some revisions to some of the police permits. so we will be reviewing that and taking a look at it. i just what -- i just wanted to bring you up to speed on those couple of things. >> can you remind me, i know that the amplified sound on tour buses recently passed. do you know when that date is? >> it went into effect.

i saw it on the news. >> it was enacted, but i am not sure the date that the actual rules take effect. i can follow up with the ordinance and give the commission and update on that. i believe it may have been october 1. commissioner adams: next item. >> item #7, the president's report. commissioner adams: i do not have anything to report at this time. next item. >> item #9, commissioner reports. item number 10, general public comment. commissioner adams: would anyone

like to the general public comment on items not discussed today? seeing none, general public, it is closed. >> item number 11, new business. item number 12, is there a motion to adjourn? >> i move. >> second. >> would you like to take that without objection? commissioners, the meeting is adjourned at 3:45 p.m.

supervisor chu: good morning and welcome to the budget and finance committee.