that is $9 million worth. so are you are going to hurt jobs of people paying taxes already? i have got 400 people already. we are going to vote -- to idle a furnace already, because we make wine bottles. you are going to hurt business. you're going to end up with underground sources of alcohol. let's face it. that is the reality. so, anyway, i want you to rethink this, do not try to rush this through. i am fortunate enough with my job that we have that insurance program. maybe we would not have so many alcoholics if we had more work, so thank you for your time. chair avalos: thank you.

next speaker. just to clarify, the nexus study measured costs related to alcohol and did not count substance abuse costs or substance-abuse issues. they were separate from alcohol. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is -- i am 42 years old. i have been living in the area since i was 6 years old. i am asking for the support of this the increase. this is essential for the continued services for those whose families and friends have fallen victim to alcoholism. this will provide education and support for those who are suffering from the illness. substance abuse and out of listen. this will help them to help themselves and to help them get their lives back and get back to their families, their parents, their friends, their spouses,

and become that which they need so much to be happy. we will be able to make this different, -- this difference, a difference in their lives. thank you. chair avalos: thank you. [reading names] >> been a star is -- buenas tardes. [speaking spanish]

[applause] chair avalos: gracias. next speaker, please. >> no, my name is -- i am not sure if my name was called.

i am the bar owner and president of the association on one street. i am here to explain why i propose -- opposed the proposed fee. we have seen tremendous improvement in the economic growth and community development along the corridor. this fee concerns me because i believe it is a hindrance to this revitalization. in this economy, everyone is watching their pennies, and this new fee will have a far reaching trickle-down effect. as a small-business owner, it will focus -- force me to either pass this down and risk patronage -- neither one of these options are prudent in the current economic climate. we're hoping growth continues. earlier, we lost one businessman

who was not able to overcome financial difficulties. we're looking for some things that did not have such a dramatic impact on businesses that are trying to successfully operate. chair avalos: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning, supervisors. i would like to ask the committee to think about this before making a decision today.

this means less funding with our business. i redo for this fee. thank you. -- i -- for this fee. chair avalos: : thank you. next speaker, please. [reading names] >> good afternoon, supervisors avalos, elsbernd. we have seen cut after cut in critical services for treatment

and prevention. there are those who wanted to reach out, with the principal at the local high school addressing issues, but, unfortunately, the program was disbanded because of significant cuts. risking their futures. alcohol is the no. 1 drug of choice for alcohol -- four teenagers in san francisco. there is a stunning number of alcohol billboards and signs. i feel that this fee is a very sensible and reasonable way to effectively prevent and treat alcohol problems at a time when

the services are incredibly important. thank you so much. chair avalos: thank you. next speaker, please. >> director, good afternoon, supervisors. you have received your written response in response to the legislation, so i am not going to vote -- to mention that. with supervisor mirkarimi, kind any -- putting it into economic perspective, in relation to our small wine stores and the neighborhood commercial corridors, the costs have been identified as a small increase. these entities have the capability of being able to distribute that cost across other products. therefore " -- therefore, it

puts them at an economic advantage to be selling product that the small retailers are not going to be able to, so that is the point that i want to identify, that this legislation has the potential benefit to the large big bucks and formula retail entities, should it be passed. the second thing that i want to point out is that many of them are operating at very small profit margins, and this increase, because there are restaurants or bars, they are going to be the ones that are going to be laying out the cash to pay for this. not the wholesalers. and operating at the small profit margins, this is going to severely restrict their cash flow. i have talked to bars and

restaurants, and this is going to increase their monthly cost of goods anywhere from $600 to $4,000, so i just want to put that into consideration, while we are talking about the wholesalers are going to pay for it, the restaurants, bars, our local businesses are the ones that are going to be floating cash, and they are operating at very tight operating margins. so thank you. chair avalos: thank you. kevin, richard, lisa marie, tracy mcintyre, and julio. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is -- and we are a wholesale distributor, and i think we are the first and spoken today. we are a family owned company.

there have only been two owners in 77 years. we are a sponsor and contributor to many charitable organizations, several fairs, on and on and on. we have been doing this for many years. we are also very responsible. i have been with the company for 31 years, to be a responsible community business. i would say we can to be a lot to events in the city. i was personally over five years a trainer of bartenders in the use of alcohol for their consumers. we are also supportive of organizations that we talked about here, and this includes mothers against drunk driving. we are not trying to do it promotions for these excessive use of our products. so, again, we do do that.

i think we have underestimated the number of the employees lost in the city. we have 145 employees ourselves. , if you take a look and all of the of a small restaurant retail stores, i think we have seriously underestimated that loss. again, this is going to be a pass-through. this will cost about $3 million. this is going to be a pass- through. each time there is a pass- through, this will add $2 per case to a retailer. to the consumer, you're going to add 50 cents per bottle to a bar that is going to be passed through. everything goes up, and there is a margin added, and we seriously underestimate this cost. we're going to lose jobs and drive jobs to other counties. consumers are going to go shopping elsewhere.

[bell] chair avalos: thank you. >> a key for the hearing today. it we want to be on the record as opposing this fee. we are disappointed in the nexus study. i would be curious if the city would ask the nexus study what the average blood alcohol at general hospital was. restaurants have liability civilly and criminally not to allow customers to get past a point. my guess is a lot of people going to the general hospital are higher. these are not coming from us. we teach training with the abc. we worked for responsible drinking as best we can, but restaurants are criminally liable if we let them get that way, so you're asking us to absorb a fee-for-service is that

we do not directly cause. i think, therefore, it becomes a tax. thank you very much. -- m zorba a fee for services -- absorbed a fee -- absorb a fee for services that we do not directly cause. chair avalos: thank you. [reading names] >> i think the way the fee is structured is not the way you fund the programs. i can say that deftly if our costs go up, we will have to lay off some employees. there are some additional costs that will have to be passed on to consumers. there are those who regularly

visit places in san francisco, and that will keep those people out in the east bay. i also have doubts as to the administration of this fee, whether it can be carried out in an efficient way. i know that healthy san francisco, they have not been as efficient in an administration as they should be. and i just hope that all of the supervisors' vote no on this. thank you. chair avalos: thank you. next speaker, please. michelle, ron, rich, amalia. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is andrew. i realize the city is trying to absorb costs that do not stem from us or other bars, and we do

provide training, alcohol and beverage commission trading, and we do follow all of the laws and the fees that have been imposed. it was said that this was one year in the making, and i find it hard to believe that this is the root of the problem. the basic structure of this, it does not fall on to small businesses. this is going to close small businesses. excuse me. close small businesses and caused economic decline further in our city. when the supervisors asked earlier if anyone had seen an economic or sky falling impact on helping san francisco, -- some have been fired, and

they're people who supported the city for many, many years, and now, they are out of a job. i can see that happening with servers, wait staff, bartenders. people who will be getting laid off due to the increase in prices. small businesses will not survive. and we want to encourage san francisco to grow, small businesses to grow. this is not the right way to go about it, and i request that you guys go over this again and we focus on where the issue lies. [bell] chair avalos: thank you.

next speaker. [reading names] >> hi, i am ronny. good afternoon. i am here to represent my business and the san francisco brewers guild. we all support, or i do, personally, to maintain critical services in the city. the treatment and prevention. these are city priorities. i do not think this will bring results that it intends. it said that this fee would go to lower sales and job losses. there is the cost of chronic alcohol abuse. i feel that that study mrs. two fundamental points. the actual cost increases, one

nickel per drink -- i feel about the steady mrs. two fundamental points. -- the study misses two fundamental points. there are declining sales, less payroll tax, and there is going to be fewer tourists to come here, and we need to increase jobs, and the city will get more revenue. wholesalers. this will hurt our ability to

fund important programs. i feel we need programs to encourage sales in a very sensitive environments, and we need an increase in spending. [bell] >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is -- with an association. we are here to oppose the mitigation fee. we do understand the situation with the city budget is difficult. we do not want to diminish the value of services. some small businesses have fee after fee. we wish you do not continue to balance the budget on the backs of small businesses.

they are already struggling to survive. i would encourage you to talk to them and see how they are doing, and i believe that many of them will tell you how hard is, having to cut back staff, and how they are looking to try to continue their patronage. they a here to responsible of conspiracist. requester us go through thorough managing -- responsible -- they adhere to responsible famous. restaurants go through trade. -- training. chair avalos: 80. next speaker, please. >> hello, supervisors. i am with the brewers guild.

there are a bunch of reasons, the revenue stream for this problem. i agree that there is a problem. the health system is overburdened at, but i do not see, as a craft brewer, how i contribute to the problem. we focus on quality. our beverages are often priced of the range of some people looking for just a quick fix, and so, among the things that the comptroller said today, i just want to remind you of what he said, from his mouth. this does not represent a growth

in the public sector. it will be a net loss of public- sector jobs. widget private-sector jobs. -- private-sector jobs. we do not even know the real level of alcohol consumption. a bunch of hopes and guesses that we will be able to drum up a lot of money for this to pay for the very small users of this funding, and as supervisor elsbernd mentioned, it seems awful lot like a tax because of the number of people paying into it and the very small number of users. thank you very much. chair avalos: thank you. next speaker, please. and anyone else would like to speak on this item, if you could come to the center aisle, and i do not have any more cards, so

if you want to speak. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am with a group and also with the harvey milk lgbt, and we support this legislation. alcohol in the lgbt community is a -- relationship. this is primarily because it is the only social space for many, and after it came up, there was, no lgbt centre, nothing, just the bars, so i have this affection for the bars that i went to but also a recognition that they were profiting off of that through my of all, the sales of alcohol. this is a challenging conversation to have, and it is fair to say note that there are self-esteem issues, issues

around, as i said, social spaces, and they're a much higher rates of alcoholism in the lgbt community, and it seems to me that there is a clear nexus between the service and a profit around alcohol and the challenges, and i just wanted to come out and say this is not something that we feel really great about saying, that the lgbt community has higher rates of alcoholism, but it is true, and they are not the sort of chronic inebriated people that the alcohol industry would like to portray it as. i just wanted to put that out there. i can go to a bar on friday night and point out 10 people that i know have a drinking problem, and they may not need the level, but, certainly, they

need help, and they need support, and, frankly, i am sorry to say this, but over the years, i have seen supervisors come in -- [ bell] chair avalos: thank you. not this one. >> good afternoon. my name is michelle, and an i am a policy director and institutes, and i want to thank you, supervised a wrotevalos, for your leadership on this -- thank you, supervisor avalos. why are we doing this in san francisco? would this not be something better done at the state level? and it is not for lack of trying. we have in trying to of the very similar fee at the state level that would be for suppliers to import products into the state, and yet, it should be no surprise.

most of them do not even reside in california, and yet, in the meantime, some still suffer from the consequences, as we have been hearing throughout this hearing, and so, here we are. we're trying to get this done at the local level. we will not stop at the state level to have this kind of the implemented it. i also want to say that this is not a new idea. we found at least 20 states that fail this concept already in law. they were assessing some kind of fee in the sector of the alcohol industry for all of the programs that are so needed because of the harm from the or products. -- the harm from their products. now we're saying to follow the

other states that have this policy. to the small businesses, i will point out that most of the products sold in san francisco come from foreign sources, so even things like budweiser also now owned by foreign-based companies. another is based in london, as is another. [bell] so what we're talking about is simply asking local sellers to pay their fair share. thank you very much. chair avalos: thank you. i will ask anyone else who would like to make it, to come forward. >> hello. beer distributors of san francisco. the impact of this fee would be dramatic to us, about $2 million, which if we did not pass on, we would just go out of business, so there is no doubt

that this will be a hassle for the retailer. an impact meeting that i went to for the small business commission, they were talking about going after the big guy, the big, corporate guy, and i believe, supervisor, you thought it would be paid for by wholesalers. we have now subsequently found out that both of those are false, so if you accept the fact that both of those thought processes were flawed, maybe this entire fee is flawed, and i am asking you to reconsider. we had a chance in the alcohol industry to look at some of the economic impacts based on our estimates, and we believe the initial study was flawed, as well. we believe that the cost of the price triples out of the study. we believe that the sales decline will be over 5%, or over $70 million. we believe that the job losses