>> everyone deserves a bank account. in san francisco, anyone can have a bank account, things to an innovative program, bank on s.f.

>> everyone is welcome, even if you are not a citizen or have bad credit to qualify for a bank account is simple. just live or work in san francisco and have a form of id. >> we started bank on s.f. six years ago to reach out to folks in the city who do not have a bank account. we wanted to make sure they know they have options which should be more low-cost, more successful to them and using chat catchers. >> check cashing stores can be found all over the city, but they're convenient locations come with a hidden price. >> these are big. >> i remember coming in to collect -- charged a fee to collect a monogram. >> people who use check catchers, particularly those who use them to cash their paychecks all year long, they

can pay hundreds, even a thousand dollars a year just in fees to get access to their pay. >> i do not have that kind of money. >> i would not have to pay it if i had a bank account. >> bank accounts are essential. they keep your money saved and that helps save for the future. most banks require information that may limit its pool of qualified applicants. encouraging to turn to costly and unsafe check captures. >> i do not feel safe carrying the money order that i get home. >> without a bank account, you are more vulnerable to loss, robbery, or theft. thankfully, the program was designed to meet the needs of every kind, so qualifying for a bank account is no longer a problem. even if you have had problems with an account in the past,

have never had an account, or are not a u.s. citizen, bank on s.f. makes it easy for you to have an account. >> many people do not have a bank account because they might be in the check system, which means they had an account in the past but had problems managing it and it was closed. that gives them no option but to go to a cash -- check catcher for up to seven years. you want to give these people second chance. >> to find account best for you, follow these three easy steps. first, find a participating bank or credit union. call 211 or call one of our partner banks or credit unions and ask about the bank on s.f. account. both -- most bridges will have a sign in their window. second, ask about opening an account through bank on s.f.. a financial partner will guide you through this process and connect you with the account that is best for you. third, bring some form of identification.

the california id, for an id, or your passport is fine. >> now you have open your account. simple? that is exactly why it was designed. you can access your account online, set up direct deposit, and make transfers. it is a real bank account. >> it is very exciting. we see people opening up second accounts. a lot of these people never had account before. people who have problems with bank accounts, people without two ids, no minimum deposit. we are excited to have these people. >> it has been a great partnership with bank on s.f. because we are able to offer checking, savings, minimarkets, certificates, and loans to people who might not be about to get accounts anywhere else. even if you have had a previous account at another financial institutions, we can still open an account for you, so you do

not need to go to a check cashing place, which may turn to two percent of your monthly income. >> you can enroll in free educational services online. just as it -- visit sfsmartmoney.org. with services like financial education classes and one-on-one meetings with advisers, asset smart money network makes it easy for you to learn all you need to know about managing, saving, investing, and protecting your money. the network offers access to hundreds of financial aid programs. to help their eruptions, fill out the quick questionnaire, and you will be steered to the program you are looking for. >> who want to make sure everyone has the chance to manage their money successfully, keep their money safe, and avoid getting ripped off. >> it sounds very good. i think people should try that one. >> to find out more, visit

sfsmartmoney.org or call 211 and ask about the bank on s.f. program. >> now you can have a bank account. open one today. 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. before i talk about what makes them different, i want to reemphasize and underlined the -- this is about removing a tax on jobs and there is no group of commissioners or people more conversant in the importance of doing that which is removing the tax on jobs. we have as has been stated the only kind of tax on payrolls. in the state. we need to move away from that system and i appreciate the leadership over the last several years on moving the conversation

for. it is not easy conversation. it is complicated. we're still finding new questions. underlining that this is about removing the tax on jobs and making us more competitive, i would turn for a moment to what makes the measures different. i will speak to what ours is. ours is a product of a long consensus effort we've undertook with many different people in the business community. this body is very well versed in the fact that the business community is not monolithic. and when you say the business community support something, that includes a lot of different kinds of people. i think that is important to underline and i know other folks will speak for the business community. it is not monolithic.

the mayor did convene a number of meetings over several months to talk to the business community about why we were trying to do what we were trying to do. we're now at a point where we are proposing a $13 million positive measure. as supervisor avalos characterized it. they are the same absent is one important difference in biotech but they are largely the same. i will speak to what ours is. it is a $30 million positive measure and we have been open about saying that $13 million, we're raising for the explicit purpose and the cooperation of the business community to fund the housing trust fund which is another initiative that the mayor along with a number of supervisors, including several of those sitting behind me, are working toward that goal together. that $13 million is -- not tied to it in terms of the ballot language, we're talking about

those as companion measures. it is important to us as we move forward with the consensus that we have the buy and of the folks that are working with this all along. -- buy in of the folks that are working with us all along. folks have not said status quo is better. that is to their credit. we have arrived at this point where we're here. the issues about mid market exemptions and biotech is important. jay welcome -- will address that in his presentation. what ours is is ours does extend and acknowledge directly the successful programs and wanting to continue those. i am available for several more minutes. i can hang out here for a while if there are other questions and we have people back downstairs monitoring this as well. if i have to come back, i am happy to do that as well. thank you.

president adams: supervisor kim. supervisor kim: thank you. supervisor avalos already described the proposal of which i am a co-sponsor. i will not go into the details of that legislation. both revenue packages support generating revenue for the city and everyone acknowledges the business community as well. there are a number of needs that the city needs to invest in the rose as the city economy grows. that is access to affordable housing as our workforce increases. we need more housing available for that and we're already seeing their rent crunch that we're experiencing in the city due to the growth which we all support but there are these other impacts and we do not have enough housing available for the residents that live here and our increasing work-force. we will also see increases in

needs around public safety whether it is police officers on foot patrol or other types of infrastructure needs such as maintaining our streets, dpw, must another -- a number of other things. we are investing in small businesses to recognize as one of the largest engines for job growth. for variety of reasons, the school district is looking to save 13 for next school year. the school district already has to make that difficult decision of shortening our school year by four days this past year due to state cuts. they're proposing another four days and the state may mandate another five days on top of that. the question of course is whether we can address that issue. that is 13 days less of school that our kids will be attending next year which impacts, of course, our ability to teach and

help our students achieve and it means almost 2.5 weeks were our parents and community will have to figure out what to do with our school children. four are ready of reasons we're looking at one that generates revenue. -- for a variety of reasons, we're looking at one that generates revenue. i think it is important to distinguish things being an investment. it is important that we invest in our infrastructure. what i appreciate about gross receipts is it spreads that burden to a wider universe but acknowledging that we do not want to penalize people for creating jobs which is why we're moving away from payroll tax system. i think that for anyone to say the system as it is better, i would strongly disagree with that statement. it is imperative we move to a gross receipts model.