today ♪ ♪ [bell] chairperson chu: thank you very much. are there other speakers? >> good morning, supervisors. my name is john r. and i'm here to talk about how -- john navarro and how -- i'm here to talk about how we are here to get many more back to work with the farmers' market. the bayview training academy is a 12-week academy where drivers receive their class "a" driver's license. a major component of the program is that we offer a job placement assistance. that is where it working with

the perris market makes a lot of sense. we will continue to work with others at the produce market. whiteford to getting unemployed san franciscans -- we look forward to getting unemployed center distance back to work. >> my -- my name is a.c. ♪ ♪ and i've been on this case ♪ ♪ i've been working on a case with a lot of conspiracy ♪ ♪

i'm here working on the transfer of the tea -- dtis. they need to be here working on city hall. ♪ right here in city hall ♪ it gets so silly ♪ i'm here to show you something that has never been shown in san francisco. i have three website that we want to launch of that will show ♪ who is in control right here in san francisco ♪ ♪

we have a mayor right now -- this budget procedure, you will see me here and you don't even have african-americans on the bottom line. you're talking about all these department heads. department heads here in san francisco need to be examined. i'm calling for a federal investigation here intemperances gough because of her politics. my name is a.c. and i will be on the case. chairperson chu: thank you. are there other speakers who wish to comment on item number five? the none, public comment is closed. >> i want to extend gratitude to mr. rose, and especially to the produce market corp. and the folks who came out to speak

today. i believe the concerns raised by our budget analysts have been added -- adequately addressed and i urge your support. supervisor avalos: this is actually a pretty exciting thing to be coming before us. i see there is economic benefit. i am curious about why there was not actually analysis from the comptroller's office about the overall economic impact that the wholesale food market would have. it seems that since it is a major economic engine and we are talking about going to a major lease, is there anything in particular that might determine when we will see such a report? >> dispatches, frankly, does not lot -- rise to the level of materiality of the bigger impact

reports. the role of items that we use is the annual change in economic activity equivalent of $10 million or more. this is not rise to that threshold. >> is that role in our charter, or is that what you determined? >> is part of the rules that we developed in consultation with the board years ago. each week, legislation is introduced to the board and we flag things as likely to trigger a report or not, and impose that on our website. but we do that each week. supervisor avalos: thank you. i am curious to have that information. but we can see that there is economic benefits drop the city. gregg's and there are times that the board has requested that we produce even a cursory economic

impact report on legislation below $10 million, but as ever -- absent that request, that is the general will we operate within. chairperson chu: i want to thank supervisor cohen for bringing this to us and for her leadership on this item. i would like to be added as a co-sponsor as well. supervisor kim: i do want to appreciate supervisor cohen's work on this, because i believe that the pdr industry is very important for the city to support and encourage. it is often complicated to do so. there were a number of questions that came up from it because it was a complex deal. but i do think it is important for us to look at city property and surplus property to see how we can continue to support pdr

and these types of industries. i know that has come up before in our conversations with both sf made and other types of manufacturing here in san francisco. we have lost some of those jobs in the past couple of decades. i look forward to more conversations around issues such as this. the only thing i would say is that as this continues over the next several years, i do think we will continue to build on local hiring. maybe i will talk to supervisor cohen's office about this. we can maybe work to increase those numbers. that would be the next step in this development that i can see. thank you. chairperson chu: do we have a motion to send this item forward

with recommendation? we have that motion. we can do that without objection. thank you. let's return to item number four. we have already called that item. is the mta here? >> thank you, supervisors. sorry for being late. what is before you is a proposal to authorize an extension of agreement for parking county related services not to exceed $4.6 million beginning august 1st, with the option to extend the term for an additional four years. the dollars associated with this project and where we are with the project, they have done a good job. there has been a reduction in the annual amount for this contract. it is the additional card processing and wireless

communication fees that have resulted in this we had significant attention on the rfp, but we only had one responsive bid. the other bidders failed to bid. they documented a couple of reasons. one is, they were having trouble finding partnerships required in the rfp. an san francisco specific requirements are so significantly different from other cities that they felt they were not able to produce those requirements. the mta board did approve this agreement am happy to answer any other questions you may have. chairperson chu: thank you. budget analyst report. >> but we point out on page 3 of our report that if you compare

the existing agreement with the proposed agreement, there is an increase of $959,000 or 11.5%. however, as ms. boros stated, if you take out the additional services in the agreement, there's a slight decrease in the agreement. this agreement was made through a competitive process. mta has realized an average of $31.3 million in parking meter revenue collections between 2000 two-three and -- between 2002-03 and 2010-11. we recommend approval of this

agreement. >> let's open this up for public comment. any members of the public that wish to speak? >> yes, my mother, grace murray, a check for 111. when i was little, she was a meter maid. and i used to seeing ♪ lovely recaps, meter maid ♪ ♪ where would that be with our view ♪ ♪ standing by a parking meter ♪ you are going to greet her ♪ she's going to take the money away ♪ ♪ oh, where would we be without you ♪ ♪ you worked hard every single day ♪ ♪ this is the last meeting of the budget and finance before you go on a break, so i would like to be the first to give you ♪ a ticket for a -- an airplane ♪

♪ your groin on the fast plane ♪ and i'm writing you a letter ♪ ♪ you will be on a fast break ♪ you will be getting it to get -- you will be getting a ticket to ♪ ♪ and going away ♪ >> -- chairperson chu: thank you, walter. i will close public comment. do we have a motion on that item? thank you. i will take a motion to rescind items one through three so that supervisor kim can border on those items. we can do that without objection. and on items one, two, three, do we have a motion to send those -- to rescind those. thank you. item number 6.

>> contract cs914 for construction services jacobs and incorporated. where are authorized to increase the agreement by $1.5 million for a total agreement amount of $26 million. chairperson chu: thank you. we have juli from the puc. >> this is an item that pertains to a consultant agreement with jacobs engineering group. it is one of multiple agreements for the water improvement program. it was awarded in 2008. it has a value of $25 million

and a duration of four years, 10 months. budget analysts did an excellent job of describing the scope and the reason why an amendment is needed at this time. the main reason, actually, is that we need additional services to help us address archeological and paleontological discoveries at various sites under a critical pipeline that we're building. at one side, we discovered a human remains and it was determined to be most efficient and cost-effective to tunnel under the area. in summary, we are seeking your approval to increase the agreement from $25 million to $26.5 million, a 6% increase.

the projects will be completed shortly, so we do not seek an extension of the agreement. there are also some related items to the findings. i will be happy to answer any questions. chairperson chu: thank you. budget analyst report. >> on page 3 the request of $1.5 million additional, we do recommend that you approve this resolution chairperson chu: are there members of the public who wish to comment on this item? item number six. >> ♪ here comes the clean water again ♪ ♪ reining in my head like a memory ♪ ♪ i want to dive into your budget ♪ ♪ is it raining which you ♪ budget, make it good ♪ make it good

♪ like you should ♪ city, make it good ♪ like you should. -- like you should ♪ ♪ and i hope you make it clean ♪ and make it like a dream ♪ to flood a million streams of the motion ♪ ♪ and you can make it might be clean ♪ ♪ and make it like the best water dream ♪ ♪ to flood a million streams of the motion -- ♪ of -- ♪ with this motion ♪ chairperson chu: seeing none, -- seeing none, public item is closed.

>> item number 7, the city will contribute funds up to $9,000 to acquire the nallen range and conservatory easement of which the city will be one-third partner and provide a permanent endowment of $125,000 for the conservatory easement and authorize the public utilities commission to execute document and take certain actions in furtherance of this resolution. chairperson chu: i believe we have tim ramirez. >> yes. i'm from the natural resources and land enterprise protection program. this one is at the top of the headwaters of the watershed itself at the peak of mount

hamilton. because its does not adjoined the property we manage, the senate has agreed it will be co- managed with grant county park. i will be happy to answer questions. chairperson chu: what we go to the budget analyst report. >> madam chair and members of the committee, on page 5 of the report, we report that the puc 's $866,000 purchase price, there one share for the purchase of the ranch, and additional costs are -- of the -- nolan range, and additional costs are $333,000.

the puc would pay a one time $125,000 as an endowment fund to the nature conservancy to protect the construction easement. and that would be in perpetuity. recommend you approve this resolution chairperson chu: are there members of the public who wish to comment on item 7? >> phil paulson, my father, he worked at central shops. it ♪ i should have listened to my old man ♪ ♪ i should have stayed on the on ♪ ranch man ♪ ranch man ♪ and all the science i don't understand ♪ ♪ is just my job every day of the week ♪ ♪ branch man

♪ ranch man ♪ ♪ i'm having daydreams about ranching ♪ ♪ in the middle of the afternoon ♪ ♪ and every night, you make my ranch dreams come true ♪ ♪ i'm having ranch dreams ♪ ♪ about budget things in the middle of the afternoon ♪ ♪ and every day, every night, every year ♪ ♪ you make my ranch dreams come true ♪ ♪ chairperson chu: thank you very much. any other members of the public who wish to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. public comment is closed. we have a motion to send this forward.

the next item before us? >> adjournment. >> -- chairperson chu: thank you. we are adjourned. supervisor chu: welcome to a special meeting of the budget and finance subcommittee. do you have any announcements? >> please silence all cell

phones and electronic devices. completed speaker cards and copies of any documents included as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will appear on the july 24, 2012 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. supervisor chu: thank you very much. would you call items one and a wheel? >> item 1, ordinance amending the business and tax regulation code to enact new article 12 a-1 to impose gross receipts tax and gross expense tax on persons engaging in business activities in san francisco, amending article 12 a to reduce business payroll expense tax rates based on the amount of gross receipts tax collected under article 12- a-1, and in the current business registration fee to generate $13 million in additional revenue. item two, motion ordering

submitted to the voters and ordinance amending the business and tax regulations code to impose a gross receipts tax and gross expense tax on persons engaging in expenses activities in san francisco, amending the ordinance to reduce business payroll expense tax rates based on the amount of gross receipts tax collected, amend the article to establish business registration fees based on gross receipts in gross expenses, amid the current business registration fees to generate $40 million in additional revenue. supervisor chu: thank you very much for reading both items. i know these are brought by a number of sponsors. i just ask whether any members of the committee would like to speak on the items before we begin. i just want to note we have been joined also by the president of the board. supervisor chiu. supervisor chiu: thank you, and i appreciate your consideration

of this matter. there are a number of proposals which have been moved forward to contemplate how we reform our current payroll tax to a gross receipts tax as well as increases to our business license fee. i want to thank supervisors avalos for his leadership as well as mayor lee for the proposal he and i have been working on. i want thank our city economist for the tremendous amount of work that they have done over the past six months to move this forward. colleagues, today, there are a number of technical amendments that i would like to make to the measure that mayor lee and i had, and i believe supervisor avalos will be making the same technical changes to his version. in general, they are language cleanups, technical corrections to definitions of financial services, other clerical corrections.

if it makes sense to have controller walk through some of the specifics, i would suggest that, but otherwise, these are mostly technical amendments to be hopefully adopted today. it is my hope we can continue this item -- these items to next week's hearing, at which time we will hopefully have more clarity about whether we can move forward with one measure as opposed to to a video or have a bit more of a robust discussion on these different matters. supervisor chu: thank you. for members of these public -- for members of the public, both these items have been called. i know a number of amendments will likely be proposed today, which will require we continue these items. rather than go forward with a full presentation today, my intention is that we will be going through the full presentation of the specific proposals in the coming week. supervisor avalos: thank you.

just want to thank my co- sponsors for this measure. very similar to the mayor's measure. we are proposing replacing in great part the payroll tax with a gross receipts tax, a new version of our business tax that will not be taxing jobs and job creation in san francisco. this work could not be done without -- this measure could not be done without the great work of the comptroller's office -- the controller's office that are reaching out to the business community to get input on how to craft a measure that can really achieve its objectives, lifting up our job creation abilities in san francisco and looking at how to create a fair tax structure in the city. i will not go into detail about the measure, but i want to make sure that both the measure i have and my colleagues are

supporting are really looking at how to support small businesses in san francisco. we have an exemption of businesses whose revenues below $1 million will be exempt from any of the gross receipts tax provision. that is something i think is significant as we are moving forward as a city. i am looking at how we can have a measure that can generate some revenue to meet the increasing demands on our public infrastructure and that is increasing when our economy is also burgeoning. that is something i think we will have a clear discussion about in the weeks to come. i am hopeful we can have one measure that can go to the ballot, and, hopefully, it is one that will have broad support between the mayor's office, the mayor, and the board of supervisors, the business community and non-business community and labor groups supporting the measure i am working on as well. that would be great for the

passage of the measure as we go forward. i have. i would like to submit a motion to accept these technical amendments, and our controller is here to talk about what we are introducing today. these technical aspects of the new version. i do believe there was discussion about where my measure is silent on the business tax exemptions that were enacted or have been enacted in the past eight years or so, the mid-market exemptions -- my measure is actually currently silent on this, meaning the it does not actually actively take them away. there is a phase-out of the payroll aspect of our business tax. my measure does not mention taking away the exemptions, but they will be phased out.

but i believe there is still discussion about continuing those exemptions in the newest version, and i am open to that as a way to actually come to some consensus on a measure going forward. >> thank you -- supervisor chu: thank you. i would ask the controller's office to speak to the specific amendments. it sounds like they are acceptable for both items one and two, so i would like the office to walk through those changes for us. >> good morning, supervisors. we have provided a one-page summary to the committee members, which is also available to the public on the podium of the amendments that have been moved to both measures today. generally speaking, we have organized these into three different buckets, so there are