beer, as well as 75 to one dollar increase for every pint at the on-premise retail level. that's a huge increase. it is much more than five cents per dripping. the drinks in a market like san francisco will keep people from dining in san francisco. this is a huge part of the xi. the nexus study as membersed does not bring in any -- does not discuss the health benefits or economic benefits of modern intake of alcohol. even -- even supervisor avalos notes there's a health benefit to moderate use of alcohol. finally i want to say, it seems ridiculous that a -- a 75 cent price increase on a pint of beer -- that makes my product less affordable. only nets five be cents to the city to address a problem not caused by my industry. thank you so much.

good afternoon, i'm dennis collins. i meant to talk about six. but this discussion got me going. i think you hit it on the head. it is revenue after revenue after revenue. i'm all for the mirren institute, we had an ad at the last program, but you didn't do your homework. the city of san francisco hrd taxes, taxes, taxes small businesses. we pay 22% and i believe i sent a message to the commissioners, small business pays 22% more in labor costs than any other city in the bay area. and if it is healthy san francisco, it goes up to over 40% more in labor costs. this one wants $17 million. president chiu wants $20 million

more in taxes. it is enough, enough is enough just say no. until we get ref noo for small businesses, it is absurd and obnoxious that people want more and more for small business. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. tom haas. i'm one of the party owners of a beer distributor in san francisco. i want to make a couple of comments. i'll be brief. one we're a family owned company. i'm one of three san franciscans who owned this private family owned company in san francisco. we're not a corporate player. i think it is also important to point out that based on our study, this cost -- alone to us would be in the millions. i -- our company could not afford to absorb that cost. that cost will be passed on to the retailer.

obviously we don't -- we don't expect a retailer to ash sosh that cost. the consumers will be the person that bears the burden. we estimate anywhere from 50 cents to 75 cents a drink on premise. so keep in mind, in the beer cycle, there are three tiers. the supplier, and the wholesaler and the consumer. it is my understanding that this proposal, a corporation would not be touched at any of this level. it -- the burden would go to the beer wholesalers who was a family owned company and the beer retailer. small businesses. then the coorm. thank you for your time. >> jason. jennifer. and karina. >> evening. i'm dr. jason and i'm a small business operator here. i don't operate a bar or

restaurant. i operate an addiction treatment program, i encourage you to support this measure. there's harm done by alcohol. we treat most lilo income and indigent folks, folks who have been strung out on opiate for the many years. they come into treatment with us. we're able to turn their lives around for the most part, they start using opiates. the grain irony of course is whether these folks end up dying of live related disease or liver cancer, because -- they have been drinking and are unable to stock drinking. i know it is scary for small businesses. i'm a small business owner to think about new fees like this. but i hope there's room among the body to consider the perspective of nonbar, nonrestaurant small businesss. i think it is important that we think about -- recognize the science, the moyer ren institute of science, it is good and

powerful. it is -- it is, rare that -- that we get a chance to consider a proposal like this, where the fee is so closely correlated and so easily connected to the services that it would fund. i encourage you to support this ordinance. >> i think a great idea would be to shut down bars and clubs in san francisco. >> no discussion. >> what is the point? we're a bunch of sinners. >> my name is jennifer winn. i work for nonprofit organizes in san francisco. wayant to take the time to say, i appreciate the efforts of the small business owners in the city. i don't think you're part of the problem. i think that it is unfortunate that you have to bear the brunt of this. i'm here to say, if it is difficult for small businesss to meet revenues in the city, it is really apack lip tick working in

the nonprofit industry. i want to say that -- to acknowledge the question of where the money would go as a fee and what kind of services we would derive. i wanted to say the services would be like substance abuse counseling. substance abuse programs and for youth services in particular, we have to consider the prevention piece which includes things like education for youth and empowerment for youth. service that is would allow angela, who just spoke before who are part of a prevention service that specifically addresses alcohol use. i want to say there are creative outlets to where this money is going to. just to say working in the industry. it is difficult for small business owners. what the nonprofit industry, particularly within prevention and substance abuse programs are going to, it cuts across the board. salary freezes. people getting laid off. there's instances of individuals who are substance abuse counselors that are being withheld benefits. we can't give these organizations money, due to recent cors cuts in the budge --

cuts in the budget. it is counter intuitive for those this with alcohol problems, and can't get services themselves, it is counter intuitive. we wanted to assist the city and want the resources possible to do this. we hope you consider doing this fee, which is not necessarily a tax but money to a specific purpose. i think that there are -- there are really great benefits to this and i do want to acknowledge the assistance you have given thus far. we're in this together at this particular, very difficult crux of the economic climate right now. and i think it this would definitely help an industry, nonprofit industry, which hasn't really been acknowledged within the entire hearing. thank you so much for your time. >> if any of the members of the public want to sperks you could line up on the side >> commissioners. my name is guarino.

i'm here representing the mission district. i'm a director of substance abuse program for young people. i worked as a counselor also for the past nine years. i represent those losers and the fools on the corner, the young people who i am meeting on a daily basis. more specifically, young women who are drinking mixtureses of malt beverages and energy drinks and find themselves on the floor in the streets by themselves and then in the -- in the emergency room with their stomaches pump. i'm listening to the details of their story, not understanding why. sometimes not caring why. the services that are needed for these young women and young men are vital. they are necessary. they need a space where they could go and understand they're safe, that they could slowly and surely reduce the use of alcohol and drugs. i ask you please consider investing in your future, in the future generation of -- that is

going to put money in your businesses. be it clubs, be it bars or stores. these young people need your support -- so i ask that you please vote in favor of this. thank you so much. >> next speaker, please. >> any other public comment? >> anymore public comment? seeing none. public comment closed. any discussion? do we have any discussion? what with the -- do we have to take -- take action on this this evening? what are our options? >> you do not have to take action on this item if you want to, you could -- if you want to have discussion, to see -- make some recommendationses for the

supervisor to consider see if he's willing consider them. you may want closing discussion with the vfer now. you don't have to take action on it. if he's going to be staying with the schedule of july 28th, of course that will be if it is heard in committee. it'll be heard before the next commission meeting. you could, just as we did with supervisor chiu's legislation last -- commission meeting is say we're not going to take a formal action, but we have a list of recommendations. so -- did i apps that for you? >> thank you. do weave motion? >> i like to make comments. i prefer toe make comments rather than take a motion. i wanted to to know if it would

be possible consider whether these funds could be specifically earmarked for youth alcohol education. i think -- i think that would be one -- one issue to, certainly to me. >> to the extent we're only able to put directly funds toward what is in the measure of the nexus study. to the extent there are actual services at the nexus study captured. i believe there probably would be. the other way this works though, and that's why i talked to -- commissioner 0 contkphor, behind the rail is that -- as we put my -- directly into these -- these services and -- emergency services and department of public health services. it also frees up my general fund. we had just reversed a cut of 6 poile 8 million dollars for children and family services.

there are things that would effect children and youth and families. i'm chairman of the commit by. it that's my focus. i came out of advocate for the children and youth. i work with the institute, where members are here as well. and to me, it is -- it is important place, we put our investments in young people as well. so, i know that i'm -- i'm fighting for that every year. and my colleagues share that value as well. it is something we could do. to the extent there are -- actual services that -- that the nexus study measure. they're directly for children and families, yes, it'll goo there directly. we have more flexibility to do youth and family services as well. >> thank you. >> and -- commissioners, from where i sit, there's more work to be done in information gathering and what this will mean to the small business community that is affected. we need to get more information for the young people in the

audience. i think we look at a bigger picture of -- of revenues from -- from -- there are industries that are not taxed. you might know that there are -- there's someone running for governor who has -- a billion dollars. she made it on online auctions. that asks me, how can one person earn a billion dollars? what part of that has come back to the citizens of california. how could a person that put up a social network. mr. zuckerman is 26 years old and worth over a billion dollars. but every time i say, well, you know, maybe we should look at online advertising revenues. maybe we should look at online services. maybe we should look at taxing or you know, the people who pay nothing in to our system directly, the way -- the way a person who gets a pair of shoes, you know, you-pay 10% if you buy shoes in san francisco.

you go to oregon, you don't pay anything on that. you buy the pair of shoes, no tax. we have tax equalization work to do and we have a very powerful politically active, organized board of sprfs and -- and community. and i would really urge all of us to look at -- at historic exemptions from taxation in this world. in the world and in the future. because i don't think we could keep taxes the same places. i don't think we could continue to fund you know, kind of everything out of a very small pool. so, with that being said, i don't believe without more information about -- about some of the things that -- the effects this will have on the small business community. i have, i wouldn't be ready to take action. do i have sympathy with -- with you know, the effects of alcohol but i also have sympathy with

and concerns serious concern about the effects of all psycho active elements, psycho active substances. marijuana. marijuana in oakland, is taxed at 1688 pr thousand. in san francisco i don't believe it is taxed at all. there are places where we can apply our advocacy in addition to -- to a -- along with, whatever. and instead of to raise the money to cover short falls that were not created by one particular industry or one segment of any particular industry. there are huge places where we're not taxed. online transactions. financial transactions. you know visa and mastercard gets 3% of everything you put on the visa or mastercard. nothing comes back to our local jur dictions. not nothing. but 3% between the bank and visa

and mastercard. nobody is going, where is the money for us? and so, you know, that is my come from as a citizen as an advocate of the small business community. i would like to see a stable, healthy small business community that can employ young people. and because we keep trying to get money from the same places, and we keep raising our costs and raising our cost, one of my greatest concerns t we don't have the jobs for the 16 to 24-year-old that we had 20 years ago. those jobs are being taken by men in their 50's, and feeding their families right now. i really think in the overall tax discussion has to be had and become broader. and so, with that, i do look forward to -- to asking the supervisor to look at the craft brew issue.

to please ask that the office of economic analysis to do an analysis of what, what this fee will cost, or what, you know what it will mean. the economic impact because it does effect a broad group of people, also look at the only way that i think anything could be forced on to a corporation if it is regulate add then you add the fee. if you look that the -- at that, that would be helpful. those are my comments. thank you. >> please refrain from any applause or outbursts while the commissioners make their comments. >> we were wondering if you would slow down the track on this legislation so we could get

back with you to work on these issues. would that be possible so we wouldn't be able to weigh in before it goes forward? right now we have a hearing not scheduled yet but a proposed date was july 28th. between now and then, you wouldn't have the ability to have any recommendations or -- >> we need time to get a little more something from the controller's office, to get a little more information that we're not sure we're going to have time to put that together. >> is there going to be a formal request of the controller's office to get more information? >> i guess. economic analysis here. >> good owning.

my office has indicated we're doing an economic impact on this item. we haven't completed it in time for this meeting, it would be in time for your next meeting however. >> do you have an estimate for the -- for the supervisor, when it might be ready? >> it would be within a month of the time he introduced it. i think that's two or three more weeks. >> okay thank you. your next meeting? >> second monday of the month. august 9th, i believe it is. weave break, i think it is -- it is august, begins august 10th. i could have it go to committee after our break. >> that would be helpful. >> we appreciate that. thank you. >> the intent for this to go on the ballot? >> no. no. >> it is something that the board -- the board would legislate. >> i like to point something out

with the current fee structure. it concerns me. it does not incentivize in any way, mitigating 9 impact of drinking and overconsumption. the fact it does the opposite. the alcohol consumed, presumably the lower the fee will be. it is actually -- it is in the nexus study. it states it clearly. i didn't mark the page but i would like you to know that's a big 22. >> that's my understanding. if -- the nexus study measures the cost of the city. and by, i imagine the costs, to the city, are based on you know the amount of people drinking and getting in the emergency system and the public he tell system. >> right. the fee, it is a catch 22 because the fee -- is divided among the -- like the total number of drinks. right? so -- if the costs go -- wait a

minute. if the number of drinks go up, the cos go down. right? the cost goss down if the number of drinks go you will up. you know, i think that -- that is -- an unfortunate -- >> i'll follow up with -- to find the fee and exactly how that is being calculated. do i believe there are. i'm not sure of the nexus between the number of drinks that are consumed and the cost to the city. i didn't know there was that exact ratio that was done. but in terms of costs, those are either, the same or stable or rising or falling. and -- would -- you foe, base the -- the collection of the fee on that cost. so, i would say, we're seeing, the costs that is incurred by the city. we're to do another nexus stud gli five years, we find that the cost to the city is for the services is going down. i expect that -- that the fee

that we would put out there would go down as well. >> okay. the concern is that if we work as a society to reduce the consumption of alcohol or -- or because we have this fee, the alcohol of consumption goes down, 10%. well then the fee, could go up. if there's medical inflation or costs inflation or we have more people coming, you know, population inflation. do you understand that -- >> i could look at the tradeoffs in terms of the nexus study in terms of how it is measured. we're not trying to get into a -- regulating the consum 14u7b of alcohol or the sale of alcohol, or most -- we're mostly looking at the fee for costs recovery for the services. and so, the formula itself i'll review and look at and see what makes most sense. i think as -- as the costs incurred go up, the fee goes up

if they go down they're measured. the fee could go down as well. we're not looking at full cost recovery, we're looking at partial cost recovery. >> i find the answer to my question in the report. thanks. >> should we -- we wait for the -- for the report? then make our recommendation as -- and forward it to the supervisor? so he could work on it more? we could coal late information upon so commissioners, have you -- do you feel like you have already given your -- your list of recommendations or suggestions to the supervisor? we have that complete list as of today, as of now. >> i might add one more thing, which was after hearing from -- from the person who had -- was a

family distributor, whether -- whether there's some way to mitigate targeting why -- is there some way to restrict this to just the really big manufacturers to keep it on that level? >> question of clarification. you could answer that as clarification. >> i don't know how that would be possible if this charge is at the districter level. >> just wondering if we could bump it up. >> i'm not a lawyer -- i'm not a lawyer, i just know this bill -- i believe this bill is written and targeted the first fee is inactive at the beer distributor, the wholesaler. says nothing about a supplier in the bill. >> could we get an add from the mirren institute? >> we have to -- they have to go after the business that is doing

business in san francisco. like i was saying earlier, if we had our druthsers, we would assess anheuser-busch but they go through the distributor. the reason we're not, we just -- we can't by law assess the fee on a company that is not doing, technically doing business in spran has to be the point of first sale, which is either the distributor and in the case of the brewers, they're not going through a distributor. that's -- that's what we're -- we available. >> if it is a clarification. there's talk about this -- it would be perceived as anti-corporate talk. none of this, this bill is not touching a corporation. it is touching, i could only speak to beer. it is touching family owned privately held beer distributors.

>> thank you. >> would i be correct in concluding that -- you made it -- a decision that, guys, we can't get the bad guys directly. so we're going to have to hurt the people at the end, so let's hurt the people at the end. that's a blunt unfair question. but it sounds like what i'm hearing? >> i would characterize it. i was answering the question, why weren't we going after the supplier? it is a simple legal challenge that we can't ask a company that is technically not doing business in san francisco to pay a fee in san francisco. >> theanmoos that the answer is yes. we decided okay, we can't really get the bad guy directly here. so -- we'll just -- we'll just do it -- the way we're doing it, which is kind of it was a little

bit brushed over in your original presentation where you made the statement, there's no guarantee that -- this is -- this will get passed on to the end user, which i shot was not genuine and the idea that, there are people going to make more money out of this. i was sure you could find some absurd example of a place where an increase in costs resulted in the guy claiming more than he should have been. with the increase in costs and making some money in the difference. it is not going to -- let's be honest here and grown up. it is important for me, from my moral attitude or my right and wrong and doing the right thing by the right people. as much as possible. i quantity too understand that is a decision here that -- that hey, we can't touch the corporates directly. so we have to go after the local people. i just need to -- to know, you know, do we acknowledge that or not? >> i wanted to say, this

gentleman represents a family opened by that does distribution in san francisco and that's one, one business that we have heard from that distributes in san francisco. there are others. there are different business models out this. i know that different states have different laws about whether big supplier like anheuser-busch, again based in belgium, not even in st. louis anymore, whether those kinds of big corporations can only control the districters. many states they cannot. in california they can. i can't say for a fact that there are anheuser-busch districters that do business in san francisco. i have a hunch that there are. in that sense, there's a corporate connection. it may not be represented by this person, but -- >> can i make a point of clarification? i point out unquive chri, anheuser-busch has no ownership

in a beer distributor in san francisco. that's a fact, proven fact. >> thank you. public comment is closed. if you have -- >> i have one more comment which is in your study you talk about how concentration of retailers selling alcohol is a big factor and a lot of problems we have, and -- we were wondering if there could be an allocation of funds that would help small retailers kind of start weaning themselves away from relying so heavily on alcohol sales, is there any thoughts in that direction? >> well, interesting idea. i know there was a talk about -- about tobacco legislation that was before us earlier. there being some way that you could -- you could get retailers to to el is other products or thoukts that were more healthy. and something, something,