i think it's -- last year i know, i remember the figure is like $65 million for that year, maybe it was higher, they were looking for 90 but got 65. and there also are a lot of layoffs that happened last year p. the budget we just passed in the budget committee two weeks ago, i think there was a two-year concession that labor unions had made. it was over $100 million, i believe. there also have been layoffs and retirements that have happened that we just have been working on restructuring pensions and there will be more pensions coming forward that the public defender will be having. i know that there are a lot of our departments that have been decimated over the years, rec and park is one in particular where we don't have sufficient gardeners and their estimate for what it would cost to bring back a sufficient garden for the entire city is $20 million, a lot of rec directors were fired or laid off and more

being laid off soon. that's just one department. police and fire, we cut them dramatically. police took a $3 million hit from a recommendation from the budget committee that we also cut back. their overtime budget from say a couple years ago, about $25 million to $7 million for the police department budget, incredible. you have to give the chief a lot of credit for bringing it down that much and the work he's done to make sure that's happened so we've been across the board, a lot of work done to bring this budget into balance, and it's only in the balance for a short period of time. 12 months from now it's not going to be in the balance, so all this work that's being done, the mayor's office, the office of finance spends all their time trying to bring this budget into balance and really, it's about the overall recession that we're in, these are very difficult times,

revenues down all around and is part of the contact we're in, all the different funding streams or revenue streams are down and it's very difficult to keep up with current spending. across the past 10 years, you've actually seen possibly -- it's either flat or slight reduction in the overall staffing of the city, the work force of the city. we're a city and county so we're different to be compared to another city jurisdiction like oakland. oakland, their budget for police and fire, 75% of their entire budget is police and fire. that's not san francisco. we have so many other departments in parts of our budget so we're very distinct so to have an apples to apples comparison to the city of san francisco to other places is not exactly accurate because there are so many other functions we have because we're a city and county that make our budget look so much bigger but there's so much work being done over the years for me, working with my colleagues on the board, 11 colleagues, it's the biggest challenge of my life to

make sure we're all in agreement on how we'll finalize the budget because we're seeing services that are essential to our communities being cut all across the city and it's very challenging. >> thank you for that. commissioner o'brien: i think it would be helpful to have an understanding at least of how much of the budget deficit problem, if you will, is being solved by the different mechanisms and approaches. frankly, and i'm sure i'm telling you something you don't already know, there's a lot of cynicism in the city of san francisco right now with, you know, i talk to some people being very flippant, may be just off the cuff but every time they open the paper there's a proposal for a new tax measure and i don't know whether it's a big picture or big part of the picture or maybe it's really a minuscule part of the picture, but it just would be nice to have an idea, let's say well, our gap

is, say, $200 million, so with new taxes we're trying to solve $20 million of it, and $160 or $180 is with concessions because a lot of people feel we're starting out from too big of a problem already, that we shouldn't be where we are, and presents a whole lot of arguments about how much of this is being caused by people coming in from out of state and using our health services. can we afford that? we've all had those discussions before. should we be doing that, should we not be doing that? it is what it is and we have to think about what it's going to do in the future and can we afford those things. so people are -- >> if we were to move i'm working on a transfer measure for the ballot in november and there's talk of commercial rent, tax, and payroll tax adjustment, those two together would be $50 million, a little

less than that. but we're still trying to close $450 million, probably $600 million for a deficit for next year. our budget this year is based on one-time moneys we could get or might not get from the city government so what we're trying to do in revenue is only part of the solution. we're still going to have to close a significant amount of money by, you know, making it more efficient, budget cuts, service cuts, layoffs, all that is still in the works in the years to come, in the next year to come. >> thank you. >> thank you. any more questions? discussion? >> i have another question. i appreciated your question to the supervisor and appreciated your answer about the overall budget situation. so going back to this proposal, how much is this supposed to raise? if this were passed and approved and went into action? >> the nexus study measured $18

million, $19 million and looking at partial cost recovery of $15 million. >> and to what degree is it designed to go directly into the general fund, to what degree is it designed to actually address things like ambulance -- >> it's designed to go into -- >> general fund? >> no, into those services. it will go to the general fund and we also are considering doing emergency response, rehabilitation program as well. you know, they would go directly into that program. really that program kind of already is and we know we can put the money right into that program and also frees up money for the general fund as well. and also helps us do other things we need to do that relates to our parks, our street cleaning and muni services, everything, it's all related. >> ok. thank you. >> commissioner clyde?

commissioner clyde: supervisor avalos, thank you so much for patience in answering all these questions and i really appreciate your appearance before this body. it's good to be able to have a frank discussion. i would like to go back to medical costs just for a moment. medical costs, their containment and their effectiveness of different models and treatment, it's a huge issue in the general pop place, and i know that our city and county costs are higher through the general hospital and ucsf system than they are, say, a kaiser. and i would like to know what the city is doing on that side with the fair share arrangement, with ucsf, what are we doing to negotiate fair medical costs from our high level providers that can help us with these costs and with their inevitable escalation?

my private insurance is probably going up this year about 9% in 2010-2011, 9%. i have no idea what they have in store, so i'd like you to address the medical costs in escalation if you can. >> i don't think i have enough information to really, you know, respond and, you know, comprehend that but i know twh it comes to the work that the city and county does through general hospital and other places with u.c. providers, a lot of them could be, you know, interns, doctors, doing their, whatever -- what's it called? >> internships. >> there's a fee we pay at u.c. called the afillation agreement and i know it's always less than it really should be according to the t.u.c., which

they feel they provide to the city is not sufficient enough. on one hand it's the costs of actually doing the business and doing the work of medical treatment and primary care. on the other hand, it's the cost of the insurance companies, you know, put on everyday people as well that we have to pay higher and higher premiums in paying for, you know, i would say higher profits as well as the corporate level, the insurance level and also a factor in the cost for medical care that we have less of an ability to be able to respond to. i'm hoping in years to do we will be able to respond to that. i think more at the national level than the local level but that's one thing driving up our health care costs that make it difficult to do that here at the local level in san francisco. >> ok. thank you. >> thank you. no more questions? let's open it up to public comment. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> members of the public, the

commission is now taking public comment. each member of the public will have two minutes to speak to the commission. members of the public, please refrain from applause and each member of the public may express their position through their public comments. we have speaker cards, i'll call some names. please line up on the sidewall once we get through the speaker cards, members of the public without a speaker card may speak at that time. if you did not get one, just go ahead and put them on the table over here and i'll pick them up. ron silverstein. mary ann costello. collin o'malley, dennis collins. >> good evening, commissioners. i thank you for your time for. my name is ron silverstein. i'm here wearing two hats, i'm

with the san francisco brewer's guild, and we're a -- in fact, what i'd like to do, clerk, is could i hand a letter to each of the commission members that would make it a little easier? this is simply a copy of the letter i did hand to the supervisor and that i intend to give to all the supervisors and deals with the issue at hand. the one hat i wear is on the brewing company, we've been in san francisco 14 years, and the other is as a founding member of the san francisco brewer's guild. the san francisco brewers guild is a very small organization, there's seven businesses, we are the craft brewers of the city. we make our own beer, we make it on premises and we're in the unique position in which we're both wholesalers and retailers, only one of our members only sells retail and doesn't have a

restaurant attached to their business. of these -- the seven -- just to give you an idea what we're talking about here, the seven businesses combined plus the breweries and restaurants, we do roughly $29 million in gross revenues in san francisco and employ over $5 -- 500 people and not insignificant but whatever. before i go into the details, i want to say, i'm a small business owner and i can very much relate to the extremely small margins we have to operate under. i had just last year, if i stood before you, i could say i own three businesses here in san francisco. i just have one and it's thirsty bear brewing company. it's very difficult to operate in this environment. the other restaurant i had was in the mission and cortez which was in a hotel. so in any case, the first thing i just want to say is craft brewers, and again i'm going to restrict my comments to our

organization, are not part of the problem. our focus is quality over quantity. we basically -- our consumers typically eat while they're having meals and the -- we help enhance the quality of their life. and i want to refer you up to the recently released united states department of agriculture dietary guidelines for americans in 2010. it just came out. and the science, the studies that that is based on is -- am i already out of time? >> yes. thank you. sorry. >> i was wondering if i get any -- since i speak on behalf of seven businesses, may i have a couple minutes longer? i'm sorry i didn't plan for just two minutes, it's my ignorance. >> we have your letter. >> ok. i will say one thing, then, if it's ok, it's in my letter, it's with taxes.

actually, 54% of the price of a beer right now goes to taxes, between federal business tax, state business tax, federal excise tax, state tax and state sales tax. you talked about that and i wanted you to know what portion of taxes you're paying for a drink already. thank you. >> thank you. >> just to follow up on that speaker, i would ask that we move forward with the legislation, if there's a way to work with the microbrewers association to see they don't get hit in the same way some of the major corporations would get hit. >> good evening, commissioners, mary ann costello, i'm the director of the california restaurant association and also involved in several organizations in town. and i think that i can certainly economies rate -- commiserate with commissioner clyde and you have the study and was able to do the research and i wasn't able to this

weekend, i was working, commissioner o'connor as well, we're in the same industry and we share the concerns and the intent is perhaps not to have it impact the small businesses and the independent businesses, the fact is that it will, and as it does, it will be quite costly. i think that, you know, it's fee after fee, year after year for the businesses in san francisco. and i think that's where much of the concern comes from. revenues will come back with economic development, job growth and job sustainability. we have 155 employees, i spend nearly $1 million on health care, and i also spend a lot of money on various fees, including the 911 emergency fee, false alarm fees, and i do know if there's a 911 call, there is a bill that comes along with the ambulance, in most cases, i do understand it's not something the city can collect. but i do recall year after year as i've been doing this for 26 now that there have been other

things that come up and they all go back to some of the same issues about recovering the costs. and again, in the long run, is that really going to then solve the problem? i appreciate the questions from the commissioners and would encourage you to oppose. thank you. >> thank you. collin o'malley, dennis collins, juan santa maria. >> hello, my name is collin o'malley and i own two bars in san francisco, john collins for five years now. at this point in time owning two businesses, taxes are high enough as they are as far as i'm concerned and it's hard to keep up as it is. we are a small business. we employ i think between the two, 30 employees, you know. a few things about this whole deal is that you know, where does it lead to, where does it go and what does it open for? you mentioned something, mrs. clyde, you mentioned about people who say they're adicked to pills and pill popping and if we tax them, how many

accidents happen, maybe people riding bikes do they get a five cent charge for riding their bicycle. i'm wondering where it goes and don't understand why it comes to us in the end is the main thing. >> it comes to us because we're completely not politically organized, people's jobs. >> thank you very much. >> i'm just keeping it real. >> so anyways, i'm definitely not for this, i am for to do anything i can in my business to help out and support the -- excuse me, what's the word, making the situation better, i should say or preventing the situation of people having these issues and not overserving and things of that nature. i also would like to point out, i did google something, about the marin institute and i'm going to do a little more research as well but i'm not sure where they're coming from and what they're actually looking to do, if they're really about getting the money

for the deal or are they a watchdog against alcohol industry and that's kind of what it says on their website so i'd like to keep that out there and people know where this is coming from as well. thank you guys very much. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good evening. my name is jonice downs with the california restaurant organization and we're the longest serving nonprofit trade association in the nation, representing the interests of more than 22,000 members throughout the state but more importantly members here in san francisco. and i'm here today respectfully to oppose this fee. this fee would have a disproportionate impact on small, low margin, labor intensive businesses suches restaurants, and here in san francisco. and although it's not the

intent to be passed down to the small businesses, more than likely there would be a pass-through. and further, what's really of a concern is that this proposal inappropriately attempts to shift accountability for municipal services that are already have taxes and fees associated to them. and it shifts it from the city and the county to wholesalers and distributors which ultimately will mean your restaurant tour and your bars. more importantly, it removes accountability from those certain individuals, individual behavior, to upstanding businesses, who as mentioned before, has invested and has done things to improve the community and already again is paying multiple fees and costs already associated with alcohol. and shifting this accountability is in a sense like giving a ticket, a

speeding ticket to a car dealership because someone inappropriately misused their product. i mean, that's what we're saying here. and again, this would be unfair and unreasonable. it would be unaffordable for many of the small mom and pop establishments and is duplicative in many ways as is the healthy san francisco program which restaurants are still adjusting to and the common misconception is they can absorb this but ultimately will mean cutting back hours or costing a job or something of that nature, so we respectfully oppose. >> thank you. >> matt rosen, roger klein, rich higgins. if i've called your name, you can go ahead and line up, also. >> maybe you should redo the order.

>> good evening, commissioners, my name is juan santa maria. >> and i'm amangela. part of the community action work. >> and i'm from the jtyc community center and i live in the ocean view area of san francisco which is also close to the excelsior district. >> we're here speaking on behalf of the youth that actually live in san francisco and we're actually in need of these services because not a lot -- there's budget cuts going on and these services are not really funded by the city as much so this will actually help out and provide to educate youth for, like about alcoholism and how to drink responsibly so we feel that this fee is actually essential

to us and our education. >> and plus, since our targets are actually the big corporations that supply the alcohol to san francisco, we're not going to target the small business owners and everything. our goal is to provide a fee for them to pay back to the community of san francisco, so if they're going to raise the prices that means they're kind of being selfish because all they want it their money back and these guys are multibillion corporations and i mean, it's not right because what temporary trying to do is think about themselves and they want their money back by providing -- raising the taxes for the small business owners which means that those guys raise taxes so that means why it's a chain. >> i'd just like to add -- the bell went off but if we could say that this money is all going to go to youth services,

i would say let's raise it to 10 cents but the reality is that this city's priorities are not youth services. and that's one of the biggest problems in this building. and the money that this city raises, youth services are the ones at the lowest end of the totem pole, down there with us, small business. and if this $15 million is all going to after-school ports, after-school training, after-school arts, i would be the first one, i'd say let's push it up and raise it more. it's not. we're not going to get into the money for youth activities. >> no discussion. >> you have some time remaining if you want to finish. >> and also with the extra funding that we'd be getting from these fees will also provide education and it's also going to provide positive social medias instead of these big corporations providing alcohol medias and stuff.

>> i mean, if the people are concerned about losing jobs, like this money will provide counselors and like mentors for youth that are in need of those kinds of services. so like they can get job cuts. >> and this fee is going to go towards the youth because it should. why shouldn't it? because all it is is for education for the youth and if it means the youth are getting their proper education at a young age, wouldn't they be more responsible in these kinds of situations? i mean, right now we have an older generation, you know, there are tough times and a lot of families surrounded with alcohol businesses, tenderloin, excelsior. >> thank you. your time is up. >> wouldn't that provide some positive influences for us? >> thank you. >> thank you. >> hello, my name is matt rosen

with the youth leadership institute and appreciate the opportunity to speak in support of this ordinance. last wednesday, i joined about 40 young people and almost a dozen nonprofit youth organizations to come to city hall to meet with members of the -- supervisors to let them know why we think this is a really critical and important piece of legislation. we feel like alcohol does tremendous harm in this community and that the harms are not just concentrated on a few small, select individuals but rapes, sexual assault, long-term illness, hospitalizations, hospital poisoning and a whole lot of other direct effects cost the system a lot of money and affect a lot of people. and that we're not asking for an enormous contribution, we're asking for corporations to pay a small amount that actually address a pretty small impact, the alcohol and alcohol-related

problems have much greater impact, then, $17 million on this community. so we're asking for a small contribution, a responsible contribution we know can go to supporting treatment for young people, prevention services for young people, for the kinds of things that have an impact on our community, and as a youth worker, i see the serious impacts that alcohol industry uses around advertising and promotion and that there's a very sophisticated attempt to encourage and engage and push young people to drink and drink heavily and drink dangerously and that we need a fee to hold the alcohol industry accountable, so i thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> dennis cullens, roger klein, rich higgins, tom kloss. >> hello, thank you for your

time, my name is roger klein. i have been a bartender at the deco bar and lounge four blocks from here the last five years. i'm now the manager of the bar. and if this was only targeted for the corporations, i could understand it, i'm adamantly opposed to this because i'm the one sitting there looking at the customer. i know how many customers we've lost over the last few years because of the economy, people are struggling, we're struggling to keep our prices where they are. this is just going to be another reason to push our prices up and will land in the workers' lap, the guy that really needs to come in and have a drink and wants to come in and have a drink, yet if we can just target tourists, if we can just target people who are drunking and that type, another story. you're really targeting people who are struggling as it is.

also, alcohol is built into our culture, as many parts of the culture have to pay for other parts that don't take part of. i do not have children. i pay for children's education. alcohol has been built into our culture. if there are unfortunate results from this, it is just a part of our system, and i don't think that we should be targeting and making people pay for kind of the losers. most people are social drinkers, they handle themselves, they are adults and make adult choices. thank you very much for your time. i oppose this. >> thank you. >> good evening, commissioners, any name is rich higgins, i'm c+ i'm president of the brewers guild and the prugh master of social kitchen and brewry out of the inner sunset. both the social kitchen and the stran brewers guild strongly

oppose-to-this measure, for several reasons. i want to review them quickly. craft brewers and craft beer are not the problem that this is attempting to address. our products are enjoyed for quality and not in large quantity. they're also priced as such too. they're higher price point. i don't think this is the products that are being abused to the extent, they're putting a big hit on our public health care. also as industry, we're heavily taxed. we're very heavily taxed. in addition to sales tax and payroll and business taxes and state and federal, and things like that at the retail level, we pay very large -- large state taxes. 54% of every -- of every -- of -- of the price of every beer is taxed. the margin chain is going to -- to bump up the price to the consumer of the products about 50 cents for every