i appreciate this legislation. i'm kind off on a rant because something touched a nerve, but i want to see how this affects small business because that's what this commission is here for. thank you. president o'brien: thank you. just on a point of clarification, i didn't see we as a commission are against raising taxes, and i did say that san francisco is considered to be one of the most expensive cities to do business in. i think in a broad sense, people will agree with that expression, it is an expensive city to do business in, from the permitting process through the red tape to open up a shop. just a point of clarification. i would not speak for the commission or presume to speak for the commission on a philosophical argument. so director, these are both action items, yes? >> correct. president o'brien: do we have an option to -- i just feel that not having the opportunity to get the controller's report on the impact of supervisor farrell's proposal over and above supervisor mirkarimi's, do we have the time to b

mirkarimi's legislation. i understand that you're considering both pieces of legislation side by side. we're still in the process of working on the analysis for supervisor farrell's legislation so don't have any findings to share with you on that piece of legislation now so i do have the results of supervisor mirkarimi's legislation. i should also tell you too the report that we issued last week, we issued prior to supervisor mirkarimi making amendments to his legislation, and he has outlined those amendments. they're closely aligned with what we recommended in our report, and i will try and clarify the points in my report here where the legislation has been superseded by the amendments that supervisor mirkarimi has made. zwroust go to the presentation as both supervisors told you the city included the stock values of exercise stock options and its payroll expense. although it is recently highlighted in the wake of the central market policy discussion, this has always been the city's practice. so this is not

the goals of my legislation were to fold. first of all, after the realization that we're the only major city in the u.s. to tax stock based compensation, to send a statement to the broader community that we actually get it and we will create a solution to a lemonade or minimize this tax. a second of all, making sure we don't create a budget deficit. my legislation is relatively simple. it states at 2010 or 2011, it will be a company space here. and that will be the maximum payroll tax to travel to compensation. the goals of sending a message to our business community and insuring that we do not create any budget deficit compared to last year is exactly what my legislation does. the protect the general fund and create some jobs going forward. there are differences between supervisor mirkarimi's legislation and mine. i applaud him for providing an amendment that also includes what companies were banned last year. my legislation capped the revenue growth related to stock based compensation. it has been discussed at great length

so that's my best description of what the legislation does. in terms of the cost and the benefit, as i say, because we don't have great data or any data really on what companies actually paid, it's hard to estimate but the treasure's office did provide me with the tax paying history of 14 companies that went public so i was able to look what they did before they went public, the year they went public and the year after. based on, that i was able to estimate the amount of additional tax they paid that you could attribute to stock options as opposed to just the growth of head count averaged about $140,000 a year for these 14 companies and the most that any company paid in one year was about $685,000 a year. so if this was $140,000 is an average i.p.o. in san francisco and that's the case for the past 13 years, if we have two to three i.p.o.'s a year, which has also been an average rate, it could cost the city about $750,000 a year on average. now supervisor mirkarimi, he told you introduced this idea of effect irving criming to the policy, which

supervisor elsbernd: but it has a legislative and executive splits. it is just pure legislative. if you wanted to add more seats so there was an executive legislative split, hot -- and that might make a little bit more sense. >> there were originally seven members, but they did not have to appoint them. i like the suggestion that we go into closed session and we are able to pull oup -- >> not closed session on this. supervisor kim: actual litigation and we can spend some time crafting language around the nomination that would work for all three of us. we have a motion to move into closed session. and reconvene. we will continue this item after the closed session. thank you. members of the public, we are going into closed session to discuss litigation and we will reconvene on item number 9. thank you. >> thank you for the members of the public for your patients as we put together some amendments reflecting some concerns from colleagues. we have now submitted a split proposal for the advisory committee. are there any comments or questions? ok. i also wanted to respond to supervisor

i will be supporting the legislation today. i do hope this does not continue a piecemeal legislative approach around tax reform, and as we're able to make companies whole, they will continue the negotiation process next year, and they will still stand with us. thank you. supervisor chiu: supervisor of los -- avalos. supervisor avalos: colleagues, i oppose the payroll tax exemption because i thought it was overly broad and put in place many measures attempting to revitalize the central market area. i also heard as we were discussing this legislation in our offices and in here in this chamber, that the real value of the exemption was four twitter, which was going to go public and would not be able to save a lot of money and stay here in san francisco. so the real issue was about the initial public offering that twitter was going through in the next few years. when i voted against the central market payroll tax exemption, i said i am willing to look at the issue of companies going public and seeing how the impact of our payroll ta

that is the legislation that is before you. it really focuses, as i said, on a discrete population, narrow. so we are able to gauge i am peer rickly what that impact -- empirically what that impact can mean. what a more larger, sweeping version of boss pre-public and post-public companies would look like. it might be difficult to be able to understand what that impact is, but it's important that we do know. and for us to gauge, i think, that sort of immediate and m&l long-term impact by dealing with this population that we have narrowly defined, that would benefit from stock options. there's an important lesson for the city, for the treasurer, the tax collector and for the controller's office and the economists to be able to answer the hard questions -- is there any adverse impact that we depend on from our general fund or revenue stream that would certainly belie the very reason for us to be able to do this? based on the report that we have received by the controller, there appears to be nothing with regard into the adverse im

in terms of the original legislation, i have no more comments. i will speak about supervisor ferrell -- farrell's legislation. supervisor chu: is there anything new that you had at from that meeting to this one? >> members of the committee, office of the budget and legislative analyst. consider items 3 and 4 to be policy for the board of supervisors. we are available if you have any formal questions. supervisor chu: i have a question that can perhaps good of the office of economic analysis. this simply have think about the impact of the general fund on the legislation. there is not yet complete study, but how would we think about these? >> these are among those of the largest businesses in the city. we believe that many if not most of them have offered stock based compensation that will fall under the exclusion that has been proposed here. what i don't have is a dollar value attached to that cost. in terms of just thinking about it, it would result in a reduction in the payroll expense of these companies and consequently, some reduction in the la

and the final paragraph, "many legislation -- this proposed legislation generates environmental and economic benefits. it will reduce city waste and recycling costs, as well as foster a more efficient business advertisement system in san francisco." in the conclusions section, if i can read from the last paragraph, the best estimate of the net impact of the legislation over the three-year life of the pilot program will be the creation of 115 jobs, and an expansion of the city economy but of when $6 million annually. i think at this point -- of a up and an expansion of the city economy of $3.60 million annually. i think at this point most questions have been answered. supervisor campos: thank you, mr. president. let me say this. i have recently indicated that i support the concept of getting to a point where we get rid of the yellow pages. from an environmental perspective, it makes a lot of sense. because of that, i will be supporting this legislation. where i feel that things could have been done differently is that i do wish there could be -- there had been more outreach to certain small b

i think this is very good legislation. commissioner yee riley: so should we get rid of this?open until midnight? >> we can change this in the future. i just feel uncomfortable introducing something right now with an open and to it. but in wants to get this program up and going, there is always an opportunity to revisit it. -- i just want to the this program up and going. i think really more from the direction is that our commission wants to see the green areas stayed green, and there are neighborhoods you want to pull themselves out, and they are welcome to do so. if the caveat to achieve that is we keep it at 10:00 p.m., we keep it at 10:00 p.m. otherwise, that is the first option, otherwise, another option is certain neighborhoods can save limited live performance can only be in their area until 10:00, where others may be until 11:00. does that make sense? i sort of have put two things out there, in terms of the directions that you can give me in terms of talking to the legislative sponsor. commissioner yee riley: turning to read into yellow? >> this is how it currently is.

, which can still and evaluate supervisor farrell's legislation. the two can be melded. supervisor farrell's can be put on top of supervisor mirkarimi's. they are not mutually exclusive. we have a very hard-working one that whites to do things thoroughly. in an ideal world, we would have all of the economic analysis of fraud. but given what i know, i am comfortable moving this forward. and potentially to meld the two in the future. >> i will quickly added that i continue to remain undecided on both pieces of legislation. my concerns are identical which we brought up earlier. and i will support moving it forward without recommendation. >> just to follow up, i want to say that your comments about the legislation being or not being mutually exclusive, i think there is room for them to have those pieces of legislation to emerge. i thought it would give us time to have a final version that everyone can agree with. that is not a piece that we have today going have today going forward. >> on the motion to refer item #3 to the board of supervisors without

, as well as supervisor farrell's legislation. supervisor chu: thank you. we will now go on to the presentation from ted egan. >> good morning, supervisors. ted egan, comptroller's office of economic analysis. we provided a report to supervisor mirkarimi's legislation also responded to david chiu's work. i would lead to summarize the findings of our report. the first thing to be clear about estimating comedy there the economic or fiscal impact of excluding stock options is, the city does not have clear information how much in taxation these companies are actually paying. what i tried to do is initially develop a model of what a typical highly valued tech company would pay for stock options. i also did some research with the assistance of the treasurer's office that allows us to make a rough estimate of what we think companies may have paid in the years immediately they went public. at the crux of the issue, if we could go to the overhead screen, -- because the city taxes stock options and most cities will only experience a peril t

we will strongly support the legislation. we believe that this revitalization effort with the government should benefit everyone, not only corporate business. it only happens when those stakeholders are addressed. that is why our organization is supporting this legislation. this will create the mechanism in which we can afford the partnership in revitalizing the community. of like to ask the support of the supervisors to please vote and approve this legislation. >> supervisors, the leadership council that is a grassroots non-partisan organization that was formed in 2001 that voted unanimously to support this legislation. there has been talk about the mid market project area committee fulfilling this role. let me point out it was last elected in 1997. vacancies since then have been filled by the project area committee itself and it is dominated the downtown development interests. the community has been noticeably absent in the dialogue are around the twitter deal until now. support the formation of this committee to give every

the legislative and policy matters to update on ada. between the last meeting in this one, working with supervisor chu's office. in to conduct -- and to conduct three workshops in three different sections of the city. and we are working with the state bar to help provide information on the legal interpretation and discussions. as i noted to our new small business policy advocate, the primer at the department of justice does not have plans to translate the new booklet into spanish or chinese. we found this to be a very effective tool when we are talking with the businesses -- the americans with disabilities act, and these are complex laws. and it helps to have these materials to be able to articulate these laws and have individuals be able to read it and understand it. another thing, there are numerous things with the legislation to ban smoking inside the establishment's. we are contacting the legislative sponsors office to get more specificity to make sure that hiif it is going to impact, this is going to be a big issue. they will be si