signed -- sunshine ordinance and refer the matter -- ask them to refer the matter to the ethics commission for a clear, willful failure. one of the things i have to ask myself in having received this withholding on a continuing basis is, what part does it play that they friends give luis herrera $3,000 a month for his own personal use? $3,000 a month, $36,000 a year, and if you look at it, about the seven years he has been city librarian, over $200,000. is that a conflict? when you look at the fact they are not paying any attention to the millions raised every year by the friends and what turns out in the coffers of the

library or benefit to the library, it is. the library commission does nothing to oversee the friends and from what i've seen for the records, they never did and the city library and is being paid very well not to, either. supervisor campos: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i know a lot has been said about this subject but i had to get my two cents' worth. this is about ross mirkarimi. elected to the board of supervisors for two terms from district 5 and winning, approval for his hard work and dedication to the citizens, he then was turned out because of term limits. he then ran for sheriff and won

voters approval from the citizens of this city. they saw him as a young man, dedicated to public service, his ambition in life was to work for the citizens of this city. shame on those who are trying to destroy him. he deserves better than what he is being put through now. there are those in the city that should abide by an old saying that goes, he who is without sin, cast the first stone. thank you for listening. supervisor campos: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. on july 26, 2011 at 9:15 a.m., i was at city hall dressed in full kenya to discuss -- dress to

discuss the foregoing. what -- i made these comments with reference to the elections in kenya, the united states, and to the international criminal court. an incident report from the san francisco sheriff's department, the nature of the incident. president chiu: could we have the overhead, please. >> yes, please. city hall, third floor. i was in full uniform and assigned as a deputy. at 900 hours, the deputy and i were dispatched to investigate a suspicious person in room 48. the department of elections. upon our arrival, we observed at

bonafide -- unidentified black male with copper wire wrapped around his head and he was wearing a long brown road -- robe with a rope around his waist. [unintelligible] another incident report from the san francisco police department. incident 110153149. official declaration, prop 115 certified. star number 299. on february 22nd -- >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> good afternoon, supervisors. i am the executive director of the library users association. i am pleased to concern that thanks to efforts including research and assistance from attorneys, we were able to stop the paint out of the historic burkle heights -- bernal heights mural. it is a stay of execution good for 90 days and we ask that you do when you can to help make that stay permanent. the city in its haste to get rid of the mural, it is a wonderful merrill and i have shown pictures here before, simply did not follow the law which requires notice to be given to the artist or if the artist has died, to his heirs or personal representatives said they might have an opportunity to remove and save the work of fine arts.

in speaking with people about this mural, people will say, was there not a process? that led to the decision? with regard to getting rid of the mural and replacing it with two murals that are brand new. we say yes, there was a process. it was not democratic and riddled with illegalities. the sunshine task force has found in six hearings on six separate complaints unanimous decisions that there were illegalities throughout the process of decision making and for example, when library users association asks supervisor campos for his mural file, so that we can understand better what has happened, this is -- these are some examples of what we got. heavily redacted pages and pages redacting names, redacting

addresses, e-mail, phone number, and so on including -- e-mails and phone numbers, and so on including some that had died that year. that was an example. >> i wanted to weigh in in favor of the item 42 which is replacing ranked choice voting. president chiu: one can provide public comment on items that have not been considered. we have considered this matter. there will be an opportunity for july 10 for public comment on this topic and york or than welcome to come back then. next speaker. -- you are more than welcome to come back then. next speaker. >> this is a disposition and development agreement. when we came before the board many times regarding

[unintelligible] the city accepted the disposition and development agreement that has not been fulfilled. in other words, the disposition and development agreement is in default. now, i do not know if most of you have read the position and development agreement which is a legal fog -- document. it is in default. it gives away $7.30 million and the disposition and development agreement reaches a legal document, it is in default. one of you asked the city planner about the disposition and development agreement and tied with that, how big

developers, huge hospitals, what i call rove developers, come here -- rogue developers come here in these august chambers to light. you were disrespected. the legislative branch was disrespected. in 1996, the mayor chose to a charter an amendment to neutralize the city administrator and bring it into the executive branch. the executive branch has a lot of power now. but you are the legislative branch. and you must be vigilant and there were three of you yesterday that were vigilant. you have to be vigilant. we need an expansion of st. luke's in the southeast sector. thank you very much. president chiu: next speaker, please. >> i am resident of san

francisco and i am here to talk about our recent case of assault against individuals who are at the bc intersection in chinatown try to appeal to the problem -- public to -- against prosecutions. there were two incidents, june 10 and the second incident occurred one week later on june 16. when the victims were display the photos of the assault. the perpetrators were promptly detained by police, citations were issued, and the court dates were set. i want to take this opportunity to thank those officers who basically protect the citizens who were expressing their freedom of speech and religious freedom. later on, certain juveniles were seen being instigated.

[unintelligible] and has been documented such incidents were a discussion -- [unintelligible] persecution policy overseas. i have seen as victims and the marx, the birds marks are still on their arms two weeks later. a lot of times when i am talking to people about the human rights abuse in china, there will mention the country's -- the country is getting better. some would -- say they would do the same if they were in government. there are a tolerant and ignorant of police brutality and state terrorism against their fellow citizens, france, and family members. they said that in 1999 when the persecution started. 13 years later, the same brutality tactics were extended to them such as forced eviction from their houses, bulldozed down their houses, and so forth. i like to raise public awareness

of the ongoing attention. thank you. president chiu: thank you. are there other members of the public who would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. could you call items 59 to 63? >> there being considered for immediate and unanimous adoption. there will be acted upon by a single roll call vote. if a member would like to discuss the matter -- a matter, it will be severed and discussed separately. president chiu: would anyone want to sever? roll-call vote. >> supervisor elsbernd, aye. supervisor farrell, aye. supervisor kim, aye. supervisor mar, aye. supervisor olague, aye. supervisor wiener, aye. supervisor avalos, aye.

supervisor campos, aye. supervisor chiu, aye. supervisor chu, aye. there are 11 ayes. on behalf of supervisor chu, for clara maria dunn. on behalf of supervisor blogging, on behalf of rox -- olague, roxy marie. president chiu: are there any more items of business? >> there are none. president chiu: we are adjourned.

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

businesses. i have a handout that is here. over the years we have not seen major changes to our business tax. since to them and what we had a real estate transfer tax that has been applied but we have seen tax increases that have happened to our business community. we have seen incredible fee increases that have hit. -- have hit businesses large and small. the fee increases are the things that have had the most detrimental effect on the business climate in san francisco rather than a business tax in general. we have seen those every year. as fee increases the board has to either prove or we have to not approve and find the money to replace the fees. that is a hard thing to do. revenue generating can limit -- we can go forward on fee increases in the future. that is of the gatt would like to engage with the small business commission to see how we can roll back some of the fees that have been hit on a lot of our small mom-and-pop

businesses. we can look at rolling back fees instead. i have here when page that discusses the main differences between the mayor's proposal and the proposal that come from them members of the board of supervisors. they are the same pretty much and the presenter from the comptroller's office will discuss the main parts of this. i want to make sure you have this highlighted before you. ours is different in that our measure is silent on the current exemptions that were enacted over the past couple of years, the mid market petrol tax exemption, the biotech exemption, and the green tech exemptions that were done, renewed last year and the enterprise zone exemption. my measure is silent. i was asked whether i wanted to have language that would forever eliminate the possibility of having these exemptions go forward. my measure should be silent on that and we will go through the democratic process to decide how

we're going to continue or not continue this measures. that is something that is up before the board of supervisors about what to do about those exemptions. i imagine that as part of the discussion we can have with the mayor's office about how these revenue generators can go forward through these exemptions. also you see the scale of how we are applying the registration fee. hours differs from the mayor in that our field -- our fees are smaller. you do not see a major bump up until the business has a gross receipts tax of over $25 million. that is making sure that we are enabling some benefits for smaller businesses. businesses that are the lifeblood of san francisco. they're getting the most benefit from this measure. i want to highlight that for you

and thank you for your consideration. i cannot stay here the whole time but i appreciate your weighing in on this measure and ultimately, i am hoping that we do not have two competing measures. that we have one measure that goes forward to the ballot that has the support of the majority if not all the members of the board and the mayor's support. that is the kind of grouping that we need to have for this measure to be successful and i look forward to working with you on it when we do come to that agreement. >> how much time do you have? supervisor avalos: i could probably stay here until 2:40 p.m. at the latest. >> will be able to have the presentations and there might still be time. i wanted to make sure there was time for both -- for questions about supervisors. president adams: jason elliott

from the mayor's office. think you for taking the time to consider these two important measures. i want to pile on and say things as well on behalf of the mayor to jay and ted egan and the comptroller for all the work they have done for many months and many hundreds of hours and analysis and through some complicated issues so the mayor spinks is extended to the comptroller's office. -- the mayor's thanks is extended to the comptroller's office. i also largely on behalf of the mayor agree with most of what supervisor avalos said. he accurately characterized both measures, the importance for business tax reform and the differences are subtle but important between our measure and a measure that he and his co-sponsors put forward.