my understanding is that there is not an analysis by the budget -- and i know that we will not be voting on this today. mr. rose will have some information on what this very significant proposal means in terms of the changes that this entails. i support the idea of moving away from the payroll system. i think that this this incentivizes the job creation and i am not certain what i will do with this proposal. i know that a lot of work went into this. i am grateful that we have some time before the final vote before the proposal is taken, when this final vote comes before the board, that i can get

to a place where i am is supportive of this matter. when i added to the proposal for mr. avalos, i believe this proposal that was put forward by the supervisor is a modest proposal, and in addition to meeting the level of funding that was put forward. the approach is to have to measures, for the gross receipts and another that creates a property transfer tax to pay for affordable housing. i remain concerned that and we have the measure that tries to deal with two problems, the

solution does not do enough for by the row of them. if you look at the numbers from where we were when the litigation happened, as a result of that litigation, the city lost $25 million per year beginning in 2000. if your account for inflation and adjust the numbers, for us to get to a place where we make the city come back to where we were, we would talk about injecting into the system $33 million worth of revenue. this proposal would bring in 28.5 million and the affordable housing measure is approved and all of us who are supporting this -- you are talking about 13

million going to affordable housing. in reality only thing that would remain is about $15 million that would remain for the general fund to be used by the city. this is important to the staff and i think that this is a good thing but i wonder if this is enough. i do hear the words that president chu said in his comments. with the proposal of this magnitude you will not have the opportunity to change this for some time so you want to make sure that this is done right. i look forward to engaging in a discussion to learn more about the specifics of this proposal. i appreciate the threshold of $1 million, this is a good thing

for small businesses but i have some concerns about some of the fees that are included in what is being proposed. i like by comparison with supervisor at the lows, where he was trying to do with this proposal to correctly charge smaller businesses last money than fees than the current proposal. we have to make sure that we do everything that we can to extend the revenue so we don't place to hide a burden on small businesses, and i appreciate the threshold, and comparing these proposals, and comparing the proposal before us, the original proposal that a better job with these concerns for small business. i want to have a better understanding of how this will

impact individual industries. today there was a report based on what the chief economist has indicated, that some industries, as a result of this will be paying less money in taxes. i don't know if this is the case -- if this is accurate, but i would like a better understanding of that. restaurants will see a 20% reduction in the taxes that they pay, and i don't know that this is a good or bad thing. i know that in the restaurant industry we have an issue that remains unresolved, the issue that in many restaurants you have businesses charging customers for -- to pay for health care and a lot of the

money is being pocketed. this may be the right approach in light of what is happening. and tech companies will be reducing their tax burden by five-20%. i don't know if this is the case but i look forward to hearing more about if the numbers support this. one thing we should do is make certain we have enough revenue to address all of the concerns and the needs that this city has. there are many positive things brought to the city and county of san francisco, but with the positive has come challenges. one of them is the impact that the tech industry is having the route the city. i will use the mission

district, where i can see that the fact that you have a lot of workers coming in, and many of them are doing well financially, it is impacting the cost of living. in a separate discussion it was reported that the average monthly price of an apartment here in san francisco has risen 12.9% since last year, and this is now 2007 hundred 34. the average price of a home in san francisco is $725,000. as far as these companies are impacting the cost of living in san francisco, i can see the policy benefit with gross receipts -- because they're impacting affordability to connect the two of them.

but the $13 million for affordable housing that would be provided -- is this sufficient to deal with the magnitude of the problem before us? those are the questions that i have. i remain open to supporting this measure, and i think it is important for this board, with the mayor, to speak with one voice and i look forward to that conversation between now and when this comes back to the board of supervisors. i am is still supportive of the measure that was introduced by supervisor of the los. i hope we get to a place where we can have some of these questions addressed and i can be supportive of a larger measure. i look forward to hearing this from my colleagues.

>> supervisor? >> i want to appreciate -- his remarks -- especially when we look at the changes in our economy and how these impact the communities. this is something that i was partnered with on the ground, organizing the community response to what was happening in the late 90's and early last decade. this was very powerful, and the changes that we see in this city demographics, and so many friends or families i know who have left the city, and gone to the east bay. this is something that we explored at the revenue coalition to report this measure. we affirmed that these are the conditions that many of us experienced and are experiencing again, and we thought that

also, we wanted to look at not just generating revenue, but also how we do the business tax structure, we would tax something different, with a much more progressive -- with the changes that we see in san francisco. we go into this eyes wide open. the supervisor does remind me about this -- there is a real estate transfer tax and i have this right down to the department of elections, i will be pulling that back. they had one measure going forward. i want to keep my commitment with pulling my name back from the real-estate transfer tax, so

that we can go forward with one measure this november. >> supervisor? >> thank you. i want to thank them for being able to work out a compromise, with one tax measure going to the ballot. i respect the views of supervisor campos, because it is important to ask questions but i want to stress -- and this is similar to the housing trust fund. everyone has a perspective and likes some things that others may not. this is tempting to stand on principle and say that you will go forward with what you want to do. the mayor could put forward the revenue-neutral measure, avalos

would have the revenue enhancement measure and we would have the transfer tax. they would take the parks fund down with them. what has happened here has been a very mature and collaborative process among leaders in this city to don't agree on everything and have some strong philosophical disagreements. there is a very strong measure, raising more revenue than some are comfortable with. but it gets the job done. i am a appreciative of this effort and what they have put into this. i look forward to supporting this. i hope that the supervisor gets the answers to his questions and

he supports this -- supports this as well. >> i want to say that my comments are not meant to take anything away from the work that has been done. and i don't think that whatever happens has to do with maturity. this is about the substance of what is before us. i look forward to this discussion, and again, i think that, to me, this is one of the most important matters that we will be deciding on. this is something we have spoken about for years, from the moment i was elected we were talking about the need for more revenue in the system. we want to make sure that we do this the right way. this is how i am trying to approach this. >> unless there is further

discussion, i think the order of motions is the motion to amend, and continue. supervisor avalos -- do we take this to ammend without this -- there is no public comment on this. we will have comment next week. with regards to item 21, is there a motion to table? is there a second? seconded by weiner. roll call vote. >> cohen? >> aye. >> ellsbernd? >> aye. kim? >> aye. mar? aye. olague? aye. weiner, aye. avalos, aye. campos, no. president chu, aye.

supervisor chiu, aye. 9 ayes, one no. >> with regard to item 20. because avalos made this, item 20 has to sit for a week. a hearing next week to be scheduled at 2:30. could i have a motion, by chu and avalos. motion to continue to july 31? can we do that without objection. it is continued. with that -- madam, clerk, the in memoriams? >> adjourned in emmory of the following individual, mr. patrick ryan. >> madam clerk, is there any more busineses? >> that concludes our business. >> ladies and gentlemen, we are

adjourned.