secretary. here they are, magically they appear in real time. this person wants me to talk in detail about two things, tackling homelessness and the revitalization effort to get rid of what he calls ugly faults. the mid market plant just got a big boost. the national endowment for the arts just awarded san francisco a quarter of a million dollars to invest in the arts as a lead commitment to the economic revitalization of the mid market area. it is along the lines of what was done in new york city around times square. it is the same idea being advanced to allow the arts to be the catalyst for revitalization. we're doing a new redevelopment plan there. the planning commission just supported new retail development. it is called city place.

it will be in the market area. we have the arts in store from programs. we do these new outdoor fairs. arts are the principal component of the catalyst for dramatic change. this is an organic process. a lot of improvements. we did the pilot on shutting down a portion of market and picard. a lot of exciting things are happening. a lot of promises have been made for many years, but we're seeing real progress being made. i want you to know this is a firm commitment of my to do everything i can before they get rid of me to get this over the hump. one of the big things was getting the nea grant. it was a very prestigious and competitive grant. it will allow us to leverage up to $1 million of other philanthropic money to continue to a dance that catalyst -- to

vance that catalyst. the arts are the ultimate opportunity to revitalize that market. the other question was about tackling the homeless. i am as committed to as any other human being to this issue. 12,000 people have gotten off the streets since i became mayor. we reduced the caseload by 84%. over 3000 human beings have the dignity of a place to call home. every day i go to my department heads trying to help people on city streets and corners. the challenges we do not have a static population. 12,000 was the total estimated population when i began. we did a survey last year that showed 44% of people have been out on the streets and sidewalks for less than 90 days. think about that. we recognize the problem is much bigger than us. it does not mean we do not want

to solve it for our partners and other counties. for that matter, the state and the nation. we do our fair share and a lot more than our fair share. we will continue. there's been a 40% decline in the number of people on the streets and sidewalks since i became mayor. we're now moving in this direction. we have a lot more work to do. we have a lot of chronic homeless that we're working to get into programs and services. we're trying to deal with the trans bay area. we have more than 100 people we're trying to provide for, been living around the terminal. that is now closing. and a temporary facility will be across the street the first week of august. we are committed to this. we will not walk away from this. i want you to know that i see what you see every day. i do my walks through the tenderloin every week. that is around market and missionary.

we do have work to do. my budget includes extending more housing than at any time and our history. we had the board of supervisors strong support to work out the budget agreement a baseline in terms of mental health funding, substance-abuse funding. that is important and significant to avoid those cuts. that is because of their good work and our ability to negotiate and work together through the budget process. we will keep fighting. we will keep doing more. by the way, that ties into adam amen. are the homeless any better off today than under willie brown? i think they are. there are still homeless, but there are thousands who are no longer homeless. their lives have changed dramatically. we have an enormous amount of more work to do. there is no having made it on

this topic. there is no place -- in this case, success is not a definition. success is not a place. success is a direction. as long as we're moving in the right direction and i think we are, we're making progress in changing lives. we're saving people's lives at the same time. the final question. this one is from ashel hashim. i apologize for the pronunciation. have you ever consider giving up office and starting a family band with your cousin johanna? an interesting question. he is referring to johanna newsom is turning out to be a superstar in this indy arena. she has got talent. i have none. it ain't ever gonna happen. it will never happen. this family tree, the apple

that collapsed on the bottom in terms of the voice is me. hers is a rising star. if you have not checked her out, check her out. she is pretty special. she is remarkable. i am proud to be her second cousin. she is becoming so very popular. i am happy to consider her first cousin. thank you for the tweets. i look forward to seeing you all next week. ♪

possible action to make recommendations to the small- business commission on file number 100865, establishing an alcohol mitigation fee, an ordinance amending the san francisco administrative code, chapter 106, to impose a fee on alcohol and beverage wholesalers and certain other persons who distribute or sell a college beverages in san francisco to recover a portion of the san francisco alcohol and reimbursed health costs, and, two, to fund administration costs. today, we of the presentation from supervisor john avalos into we have a presentation. if you would like to speak, please take a moment to fill led a speaker's card. supervisor avalos: good

afternoon, supervisors. supervisor avalos, district 11. i am here to talk about a new ordinance which was introduced about one month ago that has not yet gone to committee. we expect it to go to committee by the end of this month. it is called the alcohol mitigation fee, and the ordinance essentially is helping the city to recover costs and harm that occurs to the city from over alcohol consumption in san francisco. there are costs to the city that have been measured per se survey done on behalf of the comptroller's office by a group. we were able to measure about $18 million in costs to the city and county of san francisco, the direct costs, for the consumption of alcohol and treatment programs that the city would run. specifically, but they looked at

and reimburse health-care costs for treating alcohol- attributable conditions, the under reimburse costs of emergency transport due to alcohol, alcohol prevention and treatment programs administered by the department of public health, and administration costs. the administration costs would be the costs for administering the alcohol mitigation program. so in the city and county of san francisco, we have an environment, a tourism environment, an environment that has a strong night life. i think it is conducive to people having a lot of fun, but it is also an atmosphere that allows for individuals to perhaps over consume alcohol. we are looking at how to establish a fee to help recover the costs that the city incurs from an over consumption of alcohol. where korea applied this feat,

one area appear -- one area to apply this fee, small retail businesses, operating bars, small liquor stores, or convenience stores in san francisco. we want to make sure we are applying the fee at the wholesale and distributor level. one reason behind that was because at the retail level, especially recently with tobacco, the fee that was applied last year, it was a really big issue for a lot of retailers, and in my conversations with some retailers, it was something that they wanted to avoid. we also thought it was the best place to look at the institution, the economic institutions that were responsible for alcohol, and they are at the higher level. where the wholesalers operate,

so we establish the fee to be applied at that level, rather than at the retail level, and first of all, we want to make sure that the recording requirements would not be overburdening small retail outlets for that. i thought that we were very conscious of doing that. if we move forward with this the. -- this fee. every year in san francisco, we go through a budget process or alcohol treatment programs get cut, where health services get cut, and we are always looking for ways to recover those costs and get cost savings, and this is one solution, not the entire solution. this is not going to restore all of our alcohol treatment programs, but it is one way where we could have some budget where we do not have to worry so much about the services being cut year after year. this is something that will be coming to the full board -- i expect it will be in the budget

finance committee, looking at the date of july 28, to have occurred there. we are hoping -- to have it heard there. we are hoping to hear the concerns of the small business commission. i think it is important for us to have the interaction to go forward. what you ask us to do, we will not automatically do, but certainly be aware of what your concerns are could help us be sure that we are covering our bases in going forward with this legislation. perhaps there are some things we could look at making changes to, and i imagine those concerns might not happen right here today, but on the 28, we would be open to hearing those. i am now on a fast track on this legislation. i would like to see it come throat and be approved by the board of supervisors in the next two months -- i would like

to see it come through. thank you. president yee riley: think you. supervisor avalos: and someone here is to present, too -- thank you. >> hello. we have been working with supervisor avalos, and we thank you for the leadership. we do not want to repeat but supervisor avalos stated but also want to emphasize some point in bringing out some others. as a supervisor mentioned, there was a nexus study done, and that was to show the harm that alcohol causes in the city and county of san francisco, and this is a significant cause of death, unfortunately, for many people, and as mentioned, upwards of $17.7 million of on reimburse costs. this is mostly borne by the

department of public health in the form of supervision in treatment and also san francisco general hospital. the fire department there's an enormous cost, mostly through emergency medical costs and transportation. what the ordinance says is that it is designed to reimburse the city for these under reimburse costs, and it proposes is essentially 7 cents per ounce of ethanol, which is the equivalent of 5 cents per drink, on every drinks sold in san francisco, and that is just kind of a way of talking about it, but really, it would be placed on wholesalers and others who are selling directly to consumers. but i want to just go through some of these things. we're hearing some things that i think we need to clarify a. it is not a hidden tax. a well-established law allows the government to set fees as long as there is a reasonable

relationship between the source of the fee, in this case those selling alcohol, and how the money is to be used, in this case to reimburse the city for the cost of harm. the other things we are hearing is that the city will penalize everyone for the irresponsible drinkers, and, you know, what we say to that is that most alcohol problems are actually not even caused by addiction per se but rather even moderate drinking has costs, particularly in terms of chronic disease. right now, everyone is paying for this problem. the other argument we are hearing is that the fee is meant to go after small business, and the supervisor covered this, so i do not want to repeat, except to say that there is an assumption, i think, that the wholesalers will pass on their increased costs to the retailer's.and bars. eventually to the consumer.

-- cost to the retailers and bars. we do not want to assume that this fee will be passed on. wholesalers could find another way to absorb the slight increase in their cost. this is particularly been put out their boat -- particularly been put out there that some will go out of business. " well, if you look across the board, when it comes to raising alcohol taxes, we do not have any published science. there is no published studies to demonstrate that an increase in alcohol tax or fee actual results in job losses. now, we are talking about one nickel a drink. research shows that when the fees are assessed, whoever has to pay that feed more than compensates by raising the cost

at the retail level note -- whoever has to pay that fee more than compensates by reagan note -- by raising the cost at the retail level, so they even make money on it. we're talking about residents of the city, obviously, driving across the bridge, it will cost more than the additional sense oat -- the addition cents on a drink. the question has been asked, where other cities to take this up, and, of course, that is our hope. we are hoping that san francisco becomes a model for this sort of policy, and so, it is likely that others will take it up, and then, finally, this idea that this sort of opens the door to

being able to create new programs, well, that cannot happen. by law, the fees can only be used for the direct costs incurred currently, and we have a nexus study which tells us what the limits of those costs are. the ordinance requires the controller's office to update the nexus steady, which would be normal. that requirement is once every five years, so it is not likely that within five years we're going to see an increase over that $17.70 million plus the administrative costs, which brings it up to about $18 million. the fees can not go above that amount. there is the hope that san francisco will recoup some of the enormous costs, and it is important to note that all residents are paying in one manner or another for this enormous harm that alcohol is causing, and i would ask that

you do not listen to industry scare tactics that this is a fair that is reasonable and long overdue, so we are asking for your support -- scare tactics, that this is a fare that is reasonable and long overdue. thank you very much. commission: how much money is raised in marin county? >> the fee is for san francisco county. i am not sure i understand the question. commissioner: it is passed in iran? >> no. -- is passed in marin county? >> no. i am a little pressed for time, so if i go back to my first slide. commissioner: i actually came

into this meeting theoretically prepared to vote for this, but based on this presentation, it is kind of insulting to me, after having revitalized several streets in san francisco and opened businesses and taking chances on streets that are desolate and help to revitalize them and bring in taxes in the city, and now, the spin on this is that the one person -- i do not know. maybe one person got taken.from the independent in an ambulance, and the amount of money that i have helped raise to help other businesses succeed in the area as well as many other bars and clubs around the city, helping to revitalize areas of the city, they have no clue how to revitalize them? that we come a small business people, taking risks have done that, and last year, we were

asked to raise $30 million for healthy san francisco. we already approved that. we voted for that. that has happened already, and now, you our saying, "well, sorry, you have got to do it again, to speak and i am not buying this. i was open to this until i hear someone from koran county come in to tell me that i and damaging my society -- someone from marin county. it is insulting. [applause] president yee riley: commissioner clyde, you have a question? commiss supervisor avila has been studying the legislation and just for clarity, i am a baroner. i occupy a seat on this

commission as a small business owner. my revenues are probably 95% alcohol. i am allowed, according to the city attorney, to weigh in on this issue because it is a citywide fee and it affects over 2,000 small businesses in san francisco, and that's the threshold. so just so everybody knows where i come from, that's it. so i've been studying this very closely. and first of all, i am concerned about the pass-through and that the assumption is that this will not be passed on to the small business community. everything i've heard from wholesalers indicates it will and if passed on at this rate, it's significant and adds significant costs. it's about 3% to 4% cost of goods in businesses with very narrow margins. that's significant.