mr. egan, who's here, can have the policy advantage of providing a tangible benefit to a few successful companies, reducing their incentive to leave san francisco, while leaving the majority of taxpayers and the city's payroll tax revenue unaffected. mr. egan has estimated that the effect on the city's general fund, with this limited stock option exclusion, would be minimal in annual tax revenue and that the loss would be more than recaptured by making sure that companies are retained and sustained in san francisco. so that we are then in the proactive business of making sure their companies are nurtured and that our employee base grows, and from that employee base, because we're not going after payroll tax and just stock option, that we be able to benefit from their contribution into the employment base increasing into either payroll tax or whatever the new business tax that would supplant that in the future. that is the legislation that is before you. it really focuses, as i said, on a discr

i think mr. egan as you mentioned before, i think it's impossible to tell how many of those have left over the past number of years to track them down. what i would tell you in anecdotal evidence in terms of research so what we've all been doing right now is public companies are actively placing head count elsewhere outside of san francisco. is it specifically related to stock options? i think it's more of a cumulative issue about their perception of the overall economic environment in san francisco. but they will actively tell you they're buying office space outside of san francisco and trying to add head count outside of the city when possible. >> thank you. >> just a followup on that then. if you're going to, for future public offerings and you're not going to have a tax on those, do you anticipate that you're going to drive out more of the larger in 2010/2011 payroll taxes that they're currently seeing if their neighbors pay zero? >> no, i think that's a great point. quite frankly, originally i wa

president o'brien: thank you very much mr. egan. i think at this point we should go first to public comment -- or to commission remarks -- >> commissioner questions first. president o'brien: anybody have any questions at this point? >> for mr. farrell. i just wanted to ask, do you have a feeling of how many companies here in san francisco that are public have left because of their continuing to pay stock options? >> right. i think mr. egan as you mentioned before, i think it's impossible to tell how many of those have left over the past number of years to track them down. what i would tell you in anecdotal evidence in terms of research so what we've all been doing right now is public companies are actively placing head count elsewhere outside of san francisco. is it specifically related to stock options? i think it's more of a cumulative issue about their perception of the overall economic environment in san francisco. but they will actively tell you they're buying office space outside of san francisco and trying to add head count ou

i would like to thank mr. egan for all of the work he has done so far and i look forward to a similar analysis to understand the impact of these other proposals on the general fund. at the end of the day i think that we need to go forward in reforming the entire business tax code. if these pieces of legislation are steps in that direction of interest, hopefully i think we can take that larger and more comprehensive step to do this in a way that will hopefully address everyone's concerns and put us on a footing for making sure that our economy is as healthy as possible. supervisor chu: thank you. we have dispensed with our agenda items. are there any other items before us, mr. clerk? are there any other items before us, mr. clerk? >> there are no other items. supervisor chu: thank you. we are adjourned.

why don't we go to the budget analyst report. >> i believe mr. egan have provided you a comprehensive report. from the budget analyst standpoint, obviously, the approval of this legislation is a matter for the board. i would be happy to respond to any question that you might have. supervisor chu: if we do not have any questions at this moment, let's go to public comment. anyone in the public that would like to speak to the items 6 or 7? >> good morning, my name is douglas yepp. when i was looking at the schedule on monday, i did note for items 6 and 7, it noted that the 30-day rule was waived. i do not think it has happened very often in the past few years. i was wondering if we could get an explanation for that. i think most people listening in or looking at the procedures probably would not understand that. i am not familiar with that at all, so i thought i would bring it up. i did think of this even before the president came here today. supervisor chu: thank you. is there any other member of the public that would like to speak on these items? >> go

i feel very bad for mr. egan. i wish we could provide him with more staff. if there is a clean way for us to satisfy all the different interests, i think what we are trying to achieve with supervisor mirkarimi's legislation, i think in concept we all agree with. if we can get there in short order, from my perspective, i feel like we need to move these questions forward. that is what we are doing today. we will obviously continue to talk about this. i will say this to the members of the business community, what ever we can do to create consensus, i would be happy to facilitate and work with the mayor's office and all the various supervisors to make that happen. supervisor chu: thank you for your final comments. mr. clark, do we have any further items before us? >>i do not believe that we do. so, we are going to adjourn the meeting. thank you.

about the other amendments on supervisor mercury's -- mirkarimi's amendments, and then i am sure mr. egan will go into them in more detail. there are a set of amendments to change the proposal that had initially focused a two-year tax exclusion to only tech companies who had been founded after 2001, that were larger than 100 employees. i would suggest that we not omit this legislation to just as companies, that we need to have the exclusion open to any private company that undertakes either an initial public offering on a public stock exchange, or experiences a change of control prior to any such public offering, as in through an acquisition, during the period that the agreement is in fact. supervisor mirkarimi has proposed that we change that time from two years to six years. in the mn and that you have, i also suggest we amend the definition of the stock option compensation to be more precise. the definition that i think we adopt is a language from supervisor farrell's legislation to ensure compensation that the stock based includes incentive and non statutory stock options, including a

>> thank you, commissioner, yes, mr. egan is doing a study right now that will be available in a number of weeks. it is a little bit of a time step process at this point. president o'brien: would there be a serious impact on the world if we were to wait and give that the time to come back and -- and deliberate on this at that time when we have a more full picture of everything as opposed to voting on something with kind of half of the picture? >> i will leave it to your good zpwraces but i don't believe so, no. president o'brien: we won't have the snime >> you will have the time. >> point of clarification, supervisor farrell and your legislation may not be heard in committee until before or after our next commission meeting -- >> it will likely be before -- be heard before, in all honesty. president o'brien: i -- >> i don't think these are exclusive. these are mott mutually exclusive pieces of legislation. they are quite different. supervisor mirkarimi's is very targeted. i think -- if anything that we do to promote businesse