nexus with the city for purposes of becoming taxpayers. so there are a number of different specific examples in revisions you have before you wear those activities in and of themselves do not mean these kind of very passive investment funds are actually doing business here. third, in this category, we clarified that distributions from a flow through ntt -- entity that has already been taxed shall not be taxed another time when they make distributions. again, this is a means of avoiding double taxation as a fund might flop through different legal entities. next, we clarify that gains from the sale of financial instruments in real estate shall be calculated on a net basis. we can talk in greater detail next week regarding the theory behind the taxation for

financial services, but it is, generally speaking, treated in other places as a net concept, which means it shall be applied that only to financial instruments sales but also to real estate sales. also, we exclude from taxable receipts tax refunds, governmental grants, so that is a summary of the major changes you see in the amendments before you. supervisor chu: thank you very much for that presentation. colleagues, and questions? why don't we open this up for public comment. we will have an opportunity for this item to come before us again next week, but are there any members of the public who wish to speak on items one or two? >> jim lazarus, san francisco chamber of commerce.

i want to thank everyone involved for the process that has been under way for months now regarding the redrafting of a business tax structure for san francisco. we have consistently supported an outcome we tax revenues and not job creation. i think we are close to reaching a broad-based agreement on reforms. i had a chance to speak a couple of days ago with a colleague of yours from many years ago who was the author of the gross receipts tax in the late 1960's, and that was to replace some lost revenue because of a lawsuit on the city's property- tax formulas for business versus residential property. $35 million was what was needed in the gross receipts tax in the late 1960's. i do want to say that any outcome of this process, which is dealing now with a payroll tax that brings in over $400

million a year, the number two source of revenue behind property-tax for the city, has to be fair and equitable to the broad business community, small business, mid-size, or large business. we have gone into this process with the understanding that on the gross receipts tax rate structure, the goal is revenue neutrality. we support that. we also believe that there is a business license fee structure in the ordinance that has not been adjusted for decades, and there is room for reasonable revenue growth in a reasonably restructured business license fee, but i want to make it clear that we do not believe that the change in the court case, 10, 11 years ago left on the table this suppose it $40 million of revenue that the city lost in 2001. in the last 11 years, the rate of inflation on average has been 2.5% in the bay area and in

san francisco. yet, the payroll tax growth on average has been 5%, double the rate of inflation. the business community employers in san francisco have paid a fair amount for the privilege of doing business and hiring people in this city. so we want to just keep that on the table, that we believe we can come up with a fair process for gross receipts that minimizes winners and losers because any tax change, even revenue neutral for the city, will not be revenue neutral to every taxpayer based on circumstances or gross receipts. we look forward over the next few weeks to working this out and coming back here -- i guess over the next few weeks -- with substantive rate changes and license fee changes that can meet the needs of the city, the needs of your employment community, and that can result in one measure on the ballot,

resulting in the removal of the competing transfer tax measures, and we can go forward to passing the measure in november. thank you very much. chu -- supervisor chu: thank you. are there other members of the public who wish to speak on items one or two? seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor kim: i would like to introduce an amendment for item two, which is the business and tax code, the one that is being co-sponsored by supervisor avalos and myself. i would like to add in the same language that is currently in the mayor's proposal and president chiu's proposal amount tax exclusions that have been put in.

supervisor chu: to the city attorney or controller's office, would you indicate what that language looks like? >> do you know what section you are talking about? it would help us go through supervisor kim: i am looking right now. >> hold on. we have to locate the language. >> i am looking for it as well. my apologies. i should have brought copies with me. i merely want to replicate that language said that it is identical on both charter

amendments. supervisor chiu: i believe part of it starts and section 921 with the charter amendment, but i will look for other pieces. >> supervisors, the language you are referring to, i believe, is section 960.

i believe those are the existing payroll tax-based exclusions. supervisor chu: to be clear, you said page 28? >> yes. supervisor chu: what was the other one? >> page 28, section 960, and then page 29, section 961. supervisor chiu: i think that is in the version mayor lee and i have proposed. supervisor chu: it looks like it is on page 27. >> that is the pagination given the amendment that is before you today.

supervisor chu: 962, is that correct? supervisor chiu: i think it is 96961. >> i apologize, in the amendment before you today, it is on page 30 and 31. supervisor chu: ok, colleagues. looks like what we are looking at, item one does include those sections. item two does have those two sections removed, it looks like. i am imagining your motion is to reassert the same language in section 96961, correct? supervisor kim: yes, that is my motion. just to speak to this motion, this is an issue i have been

really thinking about and struggling with over the last couple of weeks as we begin opening of discussions around tax exclusions that were already controversial previously, and after some discussions with some of our companies that do currently benefit from these tax exclusions -- i just have to say i have always been very clear that if we ever reform how we do business tax, that these tax exclusions might not continue, but in conversations i have had, because some of these companies also are trying to continue community benefits or begin them and work on relationships with neighborhoods and communities that they are in, i thought that it was important to be able to continue that, regardless of which measure moves forward. i think these companies have

also offered kind of in their good faith both support for these efforts in november and also their ability to partner with generally like to initiate. supervisor avalos: 90. these amendments -- sank you. these amendments i will accept in a measure -- thank you. these amendments i will accept in a measure i am is sponsoring. the discussion we have had around payroll tax exemptions, whether it was clean tech, biotech, enterprise, or amid market was really about trying to do something around the payroll tax that was inhibiting job creation. while we are replacing the payroll tax with a gross receipts tax, i do believe we are doing that, but a thing the

argument supervisor kim has put forward that there already is something in process between the community and business groups moving into the area means we should allow the process to go forward. i also believe if we are going to be able to find consensus around having one measure going forward, this is something that i believe is a minor part of that discussion that i am willing to see going forward continuing the business tax exemption so we can be more successful. supervisor chu: thank you. looks like there's a number of motions on the floor. i want to articulate them again. i believe that there is a motion to accept the amendment as a whole of the documents we have talked about. they are primarily technical in

nature, have general changes to some cleanup language, administrative language, and other receipts and exclusions, so these i believe are fine for both measures, so there is a motion to amend both items one and tip o'neill. finally, there is a motion on the floor to add items for sections 96961 into item two. i would also say if we could amend that motion to allow the city attorney and controller's office to allow any legislation necessary to implement that that they can go ahead and do that. i apologize, we should have done this in advance, but it was a last-minute amendment that i wanted to motion for this morning after some conversations i have had, so if we could work with the controller's office, we are happy to work with you on at least ensuring uniformity of

that aspect. supervisor chu: thank you, supervisor. can we take those motions without objection? that will be the case appeared on the two items as a minute, can we continue this to wednesday july 18? we have that motion? we will do it without objection. thank you. do we have any other items before us? >> that completes our agenda. supervisor chu: thank you. we are adjourned.

>> the right to vote allows us to vote for candidates or party and it is a significant way to have our voice heard. exactly 100 years ago, women were given the vote in california. the battle for women's suffrage was not an easy one. it took more than 70 years.

a woman could run for president in new york. >> organizing this conference, basically it modeled itself on a declaration of independence for women. it marked the beginning of the women's equality movement in the united states. >> at that time, women were banned from holding property and voting in elections. >> susan b. anthony dedicated her life to reform. >> suffrage in the middle of the 19th century accomplished one

goal, it was diametrically opposed to this idea. >> many feared it would be corrupted by politics. >> women in the 19th century had to convince male voters that having the vote would not change anything. that woman would still be devoted to the home, the family, that they would remain pure and innocent, that having the vote would not corrupt them. >> support gradually grew in state and local campaigns. >> leaders like ellen clark sgt come repeatedly stopping these meetings -- , repeatedly

stopping these meetings as a politically active figure. doing everything they could to ground the campaign in domesticity. >> despite their efforts, the link made it tough whenever voters were in the big city. a specialist in francisco. >> the problem with san francisco is that women's suffrage as an idea was associated. >> susan b. anthony joined the provision party. a deadly idea in san francisco. liquor was the foundation of the economy. and >> anything that touched on

the possibility of prohibition was greatly and popular. >> the first campaign was a great effort, but not a success. >> the war was not over. less than one decade later, a graphic protests brought new life to the movement. >> women's suffrage, the republican convention in oakland, this time it was the private sector response. 300 marched down the streets of the convention center. women were entitled to be here. >> joining together for another campaign.

>> women opened a club in san francisco. it was called the votes for women club. if she could get the shopkeepers to have lunch, she could get them to be heard literature. the lunch room was a tremendous success. >> it was the way that people thought about women willing to fight for a successful campaign. what happened was, the social transformation increase the boundary of what was possible, out word. >> there were parades and rallies, door to door candidacies, reaching every

voter in the state. >> the eyes of the nation were on california in 1911, when we all voted. it was the sixth and largest state in the nation to approve this. one decade later, we have full voting rights in the united states. helping newly enfranchised women, a new political movement was founded. >> starting in the 1920's, it was a movement created by the suffragettes moving forward to getting the right to vote. all of the suffragettes were interested in educating the new voters. >> non-partisan, not endorsing candidates >> -- endorsing

candidates, getting the right to vote and one they have their voice heard. >> the 100th anniversary of women's suffrage is taking place throughout the state. bancroft library is having an exhibit that highlights the women's suffrage movement, chronicling what happened in california, bringing women the right to vote. >> how long does this mean going on? >> the week of the 20th. people do not realize that women were allowed to vote as early as the 1920's. in the library collection we have a manuscript from the end

of december, possibly longer. >> in commemoration of 100 years of voting in california. 100 years ago this year, we won the right to vote. around 1911, this is how it would have addressed. and here we are, dressed the same. [chanting] >> we have the right to vote.

>> whether you are marching for a cause or voting in the next election, make your voice heard. thank you for watching. >> there are kids and families ever were. it is really an extraordinary playground. it has got a little something for everyone. it is aesthetically billion.

it is completely accessible. you can see how excited people are for this playground. it is very special. >> on opening day in the brand- new helen diller playground at north park, children can be seen swinging, gliding, swinging, exploring, digging, hanging, jumping, and even making drumming sounds. this major renovation was possible with the generous donation of more than $1.5 million from the mercer fund in honor of san francisco bay area philanthropist helen diller. together with the clean and safe neighborhood parks fund and the city's general fund. >> 4. 3. 2. 1. [applause] >> the playground is broken into three general areas. one for the preschool set, another for older children, and a sand area designed for kids of

all ages. unlike the old playground, the new one is accessible to people with disabilities. this brand-new playground has several unique and exciting features. two slides, including one 45- foot super slide with an elevation change of nearly 30 feet. climbing ropes and walls, including one made of granite. 88 suspension bridge. recycling, traditional swing, plus a therapeutics win for children with disabilities, and even a sand garden with chines and drums. >> it is a visionary $3.5 million world class playground in the heart of san francisco. this is just really a big, community win and a celebration for us all. >> to learn more about the helen diller playground in dolores park, go to sfrecpark.org.