hurrah. [laughter] supervisor mirkarimi: in this chapter. >> to get back to the question you asked, that was all in our consideration when we developed the contract. we know we are not going to be getting any revenue or tax revenue base from the properties out there or businesses out there. in the contract, that is why it is estimated to a newly increase each year, with an accumulated annual rates increase. we will try to serve it today and still go the development route. we feel comfortable with that. when we started developing negotiations, that was taken into consideration. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. good move. chairperson avalos: deputy chief, if you could discuss what

is the difference between the presidio trust, in terms of the maximum annual agreement fee, and verses -- reverses -- versus the national park service. another is a different function these entities have. -- i know there is a different function these entities have. >> we were hoping we would be able to negotiate one contract, circumstances providing, since we are providing the same service to both agencies. but since they are separate federal agencies they have separate requirements. we negotiate overall the fee of $4.30 million. they came back to us and told us what their payments were going to be. that distribution was decided from their standpoint, the federal government. it was not decided on hours.

we just figured out the fixed price combined, and move forward from there. to tell you what one pays 70% or whatever it might be, that would be a question for the national park service or presidio trust. chairperson avalos: but the total combined fees on an annual basis is what you were trying to achieve and was provided by the federal government. >> that is correct. chairperson avalos: thank you. we can open this item for public comment. any members of the public that would like to comment on these three items, 8 to 10, please come forward. >> my name is jeff dice. i am the chief operating officer at the presidio trust. we look forward to the day when the san francisco fire department can provide service to us in the presidio. the last 18 months we have dealt with the sentences of our

department. we have developed a strong relationship and look forward to continuing that. -- we have dealt with the san francisco fire department. chairperson avalos: great to hear it. thank you for your comments. >> my name is mike savage. i am the representative from the national park service. to get to your point about the allocation, the majority of structures on the presidio are under the jurisdiction of the presidio trust, about 5.5 million square feet of space. that is the major structural fire protection responsibility. san francisco fire has traditionally provided responses to national park service plans in the rest of san francisco. we welcome being a part of the san francisco fire department family. we look forward to working with the staff. i have met many of them to

discuss the details. i am confident in being able to work collaboratively with them, moving forward. we appreciate and embrace the opportunity. chairperson avalos: if follow up question. you said the fire department has jurisdiction over other aspects of the golden gate national recreation area? >> historically, the san francisco fire area has provided response for areas like ocean beach. they help us out down there. that would continue. the presidio is the one station that is being looked at right now, because we are having to eliminate that station. san francisco fire will come in and operate out of that station. chairperson avalos: no other work is changing, in terms of the relationship with the fire department? >> correct. the presidio is the big change. chairperson avalos: any other member of the public would like to comment on these items, please come forward.

if not, will close public comment. supervisor mirkarimi: motion to approve with recommendation. supervisor elsbernd: there is an amendment for item 10. if we could adopt that item. and then send the items forward with recommendations as amended. chairperson avalos: we will take that without objection and move all forward with recommendations. madam clerk, please call item 11. >> item 11, resolution approving a loan agreement between the city and county of san francisco through the municipal transportation agency and the metropolitan transportation commission for $22 million of congestion mitigation and air quality improvement funding to be repaid by the san francisco municipal transportation agency over a five-year period with parking-related revenues. supervisor mirkarimi: i brought

this forward. this funding for the sfpark pilot program would offer updated parking structures and real-time information where parking is available. this will make san francisco and national leader in adopting the next generation parking technology that is more efficient. the sf mta is moving aggressively to become a world leader in parking management to help achieve the overall goals for transportation, specifically for improving customer service as well as reducing congestion and greenhouse gas emissions. the metropolitan transportation commission has offered to loan $22 million of additional federal funding. the funds would be used to purchase equipment that would require approximately $3.50

million to operate in maintained and would generate approximately $10.10 million in revenue, for a projected net increase of approximately $6.60 million a year. it would extend parking management in san francisco from 25,000 meters spaces to 16,000 232,000 meters spaces, replace parking meters with a new parking meters, and add parking sensors in the pilot areas, including leaders of motorcycles bases. another incentive is to expand the bike parking in part areas to help reduce parking demand. it would update the warehouse transactional system to accommodate additional major spaces and signing at all garages to reflect park branding, improved customer services, and small-scale pilot projects to encourage car sharing. it is our investment to better

the parking management in a way that would better addressed a renewed structural deficit. chairperson avalos: there is no one from mta to present? >> i am happy to answer any questions you might have. chairperson avalos: let us hear from mr. rose on the report. >> the only thing i would add is that under this five-year agreement the payments to the mtc would be made on an annual basis, the repayment of the $22 million loan. there would be required to pay interest on the loan balance in the final three years. there would be no interest in the first two years. there would be interested in the last years. on page 4 of our report, as shown in the table, the estimate

is that sfmta estimates a net revenue increase of $6.70 million over the first five years of their operating fund, if you implement this proposed san francisco park program. that would be net of the repayments to the mtc, including the interest payments. we recommend you approve this resolution. chairperson avalos: thank you, mr. rose. in your report, you estimate of additional 6 pi $5 million annual net revenue -- $6.50 million annual net revenue. how confident are you we will achieve that level of revenue? >> we did not do a detailed review of that estimate. it looks reasonable to us and we reported it to you as represented by the department.

but i cannot say with certainty that that will be achieved. chairperson avalos: for the department, how did you come up with that figure in terms of revenue? are you working to assure that is what you are able to achieve with your pilot program? >> american samoa revenue estimates were meant to be very conservative. -- those revenue estimates were meant to be very conservative. it makes it easy to pay even with credit cards. it takes into account the projected decrease in parking meter related cetacean revenue, making it easier to pay and having longer time limits. people will pay more at the meter but likely get your parking tickets. the net result is a small net increase in overall parking meter related revenue. chairperson avalos: a follow-up question. generally, we are major

failings. the revenue that comes from that location or generally across the city -- more from the citations or from the coins or cards that get deposited in those meters? >> very roughly, the citywide average is approximately $1,600 per meter per year in corn and card revenue and approximately $500 a year in citation related revenue. supervisor mirkarimi: per major? >> per meter. chairperson avalos: $500 a year? >> that is correct. supervisor elsbernd: the estimated revenue -- does it assume the extension of parking meter hours or sunday parking meters? >> it does not. supervisor elsbernd: it does not, ok. chairperson avalos: i am kind of surprised to hear that $500 per meter is what the average is,

knowing that i have been dinged at major's quite frequently -- at meters quite frequently. supervisor mirkarimi: i think we owned a couple of meters. [laughter] >> that is a turbo ratio. the purpose to increase meter revenue of giving fewer tickets. we really want people to pay at the meter and reduce the number of tickets we give overall. we do not make that much more money as a result, but our driving customers should be a lot happier. it also reduces our administrative burden of processing and dealing with protests related to that number. that is another area where we can reduce our costs. chairperson avalos: do you feel you will be lowering the cost for citations, or the number of citations? you still have a lot of vagueness -- uncertainty, perhaps -- about what the actual

revenue would be. you are assuming adjustments will be based on usage as well. >> the revenue estimates were conservative and based on our previous experience with small- scale pilots of parking meters that accept credit card revenue. when we accept credit cards, that alone increases revenues significantly. supervisor mirkarimi: just along that thread of questioning, those meters themselves -- are they also watched by the meter maids so they can zoom in on them? >> as part of the sfpark program, it is not just new meters but a sensor in every spot that tells us whether the space is occupied. that allows us to provide real- time data to drivers by at the web or mobile devices to help people find open space more quickly. that reduces congestion and get

people off the road more quickly. we will test providing enforcement officers with the combination of that data so they can improve their efficiency. but overall, by making it easy to pay and having longer term limits, it should be easy for customers to avoid parking tickets. supervisor mirkarimi: i think the assumption of $500 is a little low. how many years back are we looking at that average? >> the average of 500 per meter is over current average. supervisor mirkarimi: do you mean 2010-2010? >> there was approximately i believe $18 million that year of parking meter related cetacean revenue. there is other citation revenue from street cleaning. we deducted based on higher compliance rates -- more payments -- for these upgraded

meters that make it easy to pay. it is expected to be significantly lower. supervisor mirkarimi: it would be great to get some updated data over the last four or five years. excuse me. the citation revenue that is generated, both at meters and citywide. if you could share that with us that would be great. >> i would be happy to. supervisor mirkarimi: then he. i suggest this move forward. chairperson avalos: i am opening public comment on item 11. seeing no one come forward, we will close public comment. motion to approve with recommendation, without objection. we move to the full board. i would like to take a five-

minute break. i have some amendments to the next piece of legislation that are pretty minor that i think work in everyone's -- if they are for or against supervisor avalos: we are back from recess. thank you for your patience. if you could please call item no. 12? >> item number 12, ordinance amending the san francisco administrative code, chapter 106, by adding sections 106 through 106.28, to impose a wholesalers and certain other persons who distribute or sell alcoholic beverages in san francisco to: 1) recover a portion of san francisco's alcohol-attributable unreimbursed health costs, and; 2) fund administration costs. supervisor avalos: thank you,

madam clerk. colleagues, i present to you the alcohol cost for traveling feet. this is a legislation that has been in one year in the making. the city attorney was asked to draft this legislation in june of 2009. the idea came from the work of the brand institute, who was working across the state of california, looking at how we could give recovery for the impact of all call consumption in the state. there was also discussion about applying it here at the local level. there is a big, long process that we have to go through. we have to measure what the cost of excessive alcohol consumption have been to the city. the comptroller's office

commissioned a study to determine what that cost is. that helped to inform us how we would be able to set what the fee would be forgetting that cost recovery. there has been a lot of discussion about how the fee would be applied, discussion in my office and in stakeholders across san francisco. originally, applied directly at the retail level. i have concerns about that based on the experience of recent -- recent fees like the tobacco fee that was enacted last year. the paper works through the

remission of building in the treasurer's office. to me it made sense all so it to be able to apply and directly as part of the responsibility that we were able to apply. i believe that we should be subject to the feed, not so much the ones that are subject directly to the city and county of san francisco. the intention behind this is that every year the department of public health is forced to, with our budget crisis, is forced to make cuts to services, cuts that the board tries to restore but never entirely.

they go through the cut and reverse of cuts every year. losing services. important services for treatment on demand. services that san franciscans need to maintain sobriety and make changes in their lives. because we have continuously been fighting this fight to restore services, there was an effort to hear from the voters in their treatment on demand services as approved by the majority of san franciscans for those that are seeking support around substance abuse and alcohol related issues. when it was passed, the city had not really traded out the mandate. in a way it was difficult as the mandate did not have funding

that was attached. this legislation here, the alcohol cost recovery fee is an effort to have at least partial funding for that mandate. so that we can call it partially funded as a mandate that we were able to achieve in the legislation. originally this legislation was looking at 0.07 6 cents. we have actually changed the amendment today, it is to apply the feed in a different fashion , breaking out for a beer, wine, and spirits, they would each have different types of four levels of fees based on the

alcohol content. for those that could be opposed to this legislation and may still, i still have an amendment that i think would be worthwhile to hear. the nexus study in measuring the cost of the city is based on looking at the state of california and the drinking that occurs in the state of california. people across the state drink a certain amount, but because of san francisco, the nightlife and tourist industry, as well as density, we have a much higher rate of drinking per capita, for residents, and we are actually lowering of the with the new amendment by 25%. there will be an impact that we

can discuss later today in the meeting. ted eck in from the comptroller's office of economic impact has done a study about what the impact of this legislation would be on our economy and jobs created. i think that people will see an impact where there has been a great deal of concern about loss of jobs and that this could be a burden to our tourist industry. which is, as a matter of fact, having a negligible impact according to mr. egan. from the department of public health we of dr. mitch cats. yesterday the health commission unanimously supported this legislation. i would say that there is no

other commission that has seen the deterioration of funding for their department as the health commission has. every year we go through the painful process of trying to determine which services will be let go in which will remain. i would like to state my appreciation for the health commission and they're difficult decisions sphere -- and those difficult decisions that they have to make. a marin institute was a big promoter of this legislation but there are other groups across san francisco that would like to see this past. dan number of people are in the audience today and they work or receive services through the community behavioral health subsidy, michael walden house, the baker places. your presence here is greatly

appreciated. we know have difficulty is to provide these services and make changes in your lives. especially with the funding that is not always guaranteed. thank you for being here today. the youth leadership institute is here to be supportive as well. local 798, the fire departments, has stayed here from the last items that we have before us today. there is an impact on jobs within the fire department if this legislation is passed talking about cost recovery, with over-consumption of alcohol, it is important to note that these services

continue. the sobering center is $120,000. direct treatment costs and the judgment -- general hospital services digging up beds in the system, close to $600,000, and we have a fire departments where services are rendered to deal with transports. that is at $2.9 million through

the fire department. transporting directly to the sobering center, another $1 million study that was measured was $17.6 million. add to that, if we apply this week, the treasury tax collector, who would be providing administrative support services to make sure that we have room between the overall cost and what the fee will bring in.

we will have about $16 million currently that the fee is designed to bring back in terms of cost recovery. there is a role that the comptroller's office plays, making sure that we accurately said the fee for cost recovery, and i doubt that this would happen, but growing over the process that was measured to make sure that we are below that level and following state law. dart let's go ahead and have misters deegan -- mr. deegan report first on the alcohol impact fee. before he starts, i would like to thank my co-sponsors for the

legislation. i appreciate your help. >> good afternoon, supervisors. given the main proposed legislation of a fee on wholesale of all distributors in san francisco to recover some of the city's alcohol attributable costs, in terms of the economic impact the finding is that the fee will be passed on from a wholesale channel to retailers and final consumers. this will slightly result in decline of consumer spending that bars, restaurants, and liquor retailers.