dollars each year in related costs and it is time to change the way that the city pays for and provides valuable services to its citizens. last year when of the city funded prevention services cost $100,000 in general fund of dollars. several months later i read an article in the chronicle estimating the annual cost of the city of over $100,000 in ambulance rides to the hospital. i recalled thinking about how ironic that this was, we had spent the same amount of money to prevent chronic alcohol problems in hundreds of citizens debt of one citizen with chronic alcohol problems have you lies on its own dairy the problems associated with alcohol consumption are preventable. the center for substance abuse

prevention found that the effective programs could save state and local governments $18 in related costs for every $1 spent on prevention. clearly they were acting out all litigation in san francisco, using a portion of those funds to save money in the long run. an ounce of prevention is worth 1 pound of cure. i ask you to seriously consider passing the mitigation fee, not only to deal with the costs of excessive alcohol consumption, but two events -- invest in efforts that will have a larger held down the road. supervisor avalos: -- larger help down the road. supervisor avalos: next speaker. >> we are in a tenuous position in coming out of this large recession, trying to encourage our patrons back. we have cut our prices to try to

keep customers. this legislation, from the controller who i would like to thank from his insights, said that there would be a $13 million trickle-down impact on the businesses. i would like you to know that this impact will end with the loss of business and our customers. will impact my employees with a loss of shifts and jobs and possibilities of closing one or more of my location's. i would like to encourage you to vote no on this of all legislation. thank you. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is summer peterson, i am the owner of mini bar. with all of the additional fees passed down from distributors,

we do not really know what it is but i am rounding it to about one-quarter per drink, give or take. i would like to mention that it is not a competitive business from the distributors. we have to go through those distributors. they can raise their prices to whatever they want. we sell an average of about 200 drinks per day. at an extra quarter for a drink that is $50 per day. seven days a week, that is $350 each week. if i would like to absorb that cost and not raise those prices, i have to cut $35 a payroll each week to keep my business running as it is right now. 35 hours per week adds up. that is two employees out of a staff of five. i already work 60 hours per week end i am supposed to work an

extra 35 to cut the payroll. otherwise it is less hours, less-something. the big businesses will be able to absorb myself -- absorber themselves. i would like to say that if we could raise prices to cover these costs, we would have been doing that already to increase margins. it is a fact that i hear every day in my bar. every small mom-and-pop, with a similar equation, that is thousands and it will not help the city as a whole. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you. i will read a few more cards. [reads names]

>> hello, i am here again to urging no vote on this proposal. as a lifelong resident of san francisco i have been a small business owner for 20 months. i have paid every single license, tax, and feed asked of me. including the city licensing tickets that went from $769 to over $1,000. health department, fire department, in section fees, amusement fees, raise water rates, $200 per month to clean the sidewalk in front of my

business to avoid a $300 fine. it would be naive to assume that this tax would not be passed on to the small business person. i cannot afford this kind of fee and will be forced to put a further strain on my customers, your constituents hard-hit wallets. i have done everything i can to allow them to stretch their dollars, keep my prices lower and remained open. what are you doing? i have checked your liquor licenses. 81% of them are beer and wine only a. maxwell, 76%. my district, 71%. supervisor avalos, all of these establishments are treasures adding to the quality of life. enticing current residents to stay. it is a simple thing that is

easy to forget, but we should take the time to patronize and promote local shopkeepers. if you put me and small business constituents out of business, who will you collect your taxes and fees from them? -- then? [applause] >> good morning, my name is michelle simon. i want to first save for the record that we are not about free vote -- prohibition, trying to hold the of all industry accountable for the unfortunate cost of doing business. i would invite everyone here to join us in our fight to hold the bigger of all companies responsible. i find it interesting that anheuser-busch has recently announced that it is going to raise prices. apparently that company has done

the economics to figure out that customers can absorb increased prices. everyone here seems to admit that there are problems and we have to fund these programs somehow. thank you very much. >> good morning, supervisors. i am an alcoholic as well. i would be out on the streets and homeless, sucking up the resources of san francisco the street is dying from alcoholism, you can see the value in helping these people get treatment. thank you.

>> my name is lesley tenn., in a wine merchant in san francisco. i can tell you that wholesalers always take advantage of an increase in prices and if they get a chance, $2.50 per case of wine they always do, let's not kid ourselves. passing on the fees to us from $750 extra to $10. there's nothing stopping them from taking of their product in their warehouses outside the city, shipping it in a store to store transfer. how are you going to track

anchor steam, jordan chardonnay, coming in. they do not have to pay the of coffee. it is based where the of all lands. they do not pay the fee. if you think that you can mark every single bottle so that you know when every alcoholic beverage comes into the city, that is impossible. how will you track what they're going to do to the resellers and big chains? they will drop ship with serial deliveries and the alcoholic beverages that have already landed in another country. they will not collect the 18 million. the largest retailers are the chains. safeway will take all of the

deliveries, where there might be a fee, doing an inner store transfer. how will you collect a fee? supervisor avalos: please reflet in -- refrain from clapping. we spoke to the treasurer on that issue, san francisco would be subject to this feet beyond purchase as a way to figure that out. d issue has been covered by that legislation. you have other concerns, i know, and i have heard them. thank you, next speaker, please. >> hello, my name is j.j. and we

recently purchased billed lone star saloon. my biggest concern here would be a further loss of employees who are already suffering from the amount of money that they make compared to what it used to be. i would also like to say that i am a recovering alcoholic and addict. one of the first things that you learn from recovery is that you are responsible for yourself. i do not feel that it is the responsibility of people that verges alcohol to pay for my recovery. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you, next beaker, please. >> hello, supervisors. when i first got wind of this fee i was dumbfounded. how much more do we have to pay the city to stay in business?

for my business is -- it has equated to over 125,000 this year. i think that it would adversely affect the city and state, as we believe that the total sales will suffer. in the end of the city and state will lose. businesses will lose and more debt will be created. in addition, a successful business also lies with the staff, quality workers, able to retain stellar employees, i would like to be able to reward them by offering benefits like insurance, for a 1 k, etc. i will not be able to offer these things if this goes into effect. this will also be a huge loss

to my business as it will be difficult to recruit and retain quality employees. hindering the ability to offer benefits to the staff, it may also be more challenging, i feel that the bar and restaurant industry is being unfairly targeted to save the city and state that should be looking into other areas that generate money or cut spending in other areas. sales are already suffering due to the recession and this fee would further negatively impact revenue. please take my thoughts into consideration. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you. >> the morning, supervisors. my name is john gomer, one of the owners of q bar in the castro area.

we purchased a this establishment 1/2 years ago. in the time that we have all that we have been able to maintain a profitable business and grow, but at the same time we have been offering benefits to employees. from our estimates of this fee being imposed, it is not simply 5 cents for one nickel per drink. at the cost of what is most commonly purchased liquor, while liquor, $40 to $50 per case, the fee would be $10, which is a 20% increase on the cost of liquor. the prices of the drinks that we serve very basically in the cost of well drinks covering the cost of generics. the complete impact is not simply going to be that we can delay the price of the drinks by a nickel. this additional cost, we are in

a competitive area of town. it is not clear on how the prices will change. but if we have to absorb this cost we will have to cut benefits to employees or the employees themselves. this will impact the overall economy in the area. they shot, work, and lived in san francisco. -- shop, work, and libbin -- lived in 7 cisco. -- live in san francisco. >> the bottom lines at 440 is that costs are increasing. the next step, if it is put in motion, my next job impact not

only our establishment that we live in, so i urge you to vote against this tax and fee. not only that, this issue has become an emotionally wrapped sandwich. alcoholism is a horrible disease, but we are wrapping up the issue of alcoholism in two other arguments that the city is facing on the beauty of the city that is to come. the fact that we cannot find money to pay for these things should not fall to the shoulders of these small businesses. they already pay exorbitant taxes and fees. i do not believe that anyone has brought up the issue that in the castro itself all the bars are extreme supporters of the

community, giving thousands of dollars to charities and benefits. i think that those margins will increase as well. again, i urge you to vote no on this. thank you. supervisor avalos: i will read a few cards before the next speaker. [reads names] >> good morning. i am one of the many responsible drinkers in san francisco. many of the points i wanted to address have already been

covered, but for myself as a patron this is ultimately going to affect my discretionary spending, which will in turn him fit -- impact my ability to pay my employees. as other small-business owners pointed out, the potential losses in spending will result in laying off people. this is simply not the time, san francisco, to visit another tax against hard-working, responsible adults. we should not be held responsible for those that cannot enjoy art alcohol responsibly. i just learned about this ordinance last week, speaking with dozens outraged of the idea. i'm certain given more time you'll hear a greater outpouring of people opposed to any new alcohol taxes. as a second generation san franciscoian and last family

member able to live in this city, i ask you to vote no on this proposed tax. thank you. >> thank you, supervisors. thank you for the opportunity -- supervisor avalos: speak closer to the mic. >> i am -- i am with the urban restaurant. there is a lot of details from the previous speaker. the only thing i can say is a business -- it's going to be impacting us. we are having a very tight budget running a business. and what it's going to create for us is like a chain of reaction. we have to try to get the end of the month and what the solution some kind of capped labor, capped hours in a way to make the budget. i understand that the city needs to cover the expenses

with alcohol problems. i don't think this is a moment, the time is not the -- to give more fees. we are paying taxes. our budgets are already tight. i ask you to please do not pass this legislation. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning. my name is justin. area manager of future bars. i've been working with the timberland district for 10 years. i have seen rampant alcohol and drug abuse more than what i liked to have seen. i know the businesses we've opened in the past five to six years have positively affected this, bringing, you know, responsible alcohol sales to this area that didn't exist before. i think the point we are trying to make who are against this

fee is that it's going to affect small businesses. plain and simple. where we want to, you know, there's nothing being offered to protect us. and a point that has been made thus far is i know at least two or three partnerships of people that are trying to open up small businesses, be them bars or restaurants, that will not do it now because they're not going to be able to afford even that small fee that you guys are proposing. i urge you to vote no on this. thank you. >> hello, supervisors. my name is ramonea and i'm one of the owners of the bottom hill nightclub. we've had the nightclub for 20 years and done pretty well. but in the past few years after the recession and the economic downturn, we've seen a steady decline in the amount of customers through our doors. and it's been increasingly hard to make a profit and to even

keep our staff employed. and i urge you to please reconsider passing this fee initiative. i think that we'll have no choice but to pass that fee onto our customers and increases in drink prices. i think we'll see an even greater decline in business if that happens. thank you. >> my name is fritz. i am a connecticut yankee bar. i've owned it for over 21 years. the city of san francisco seems to have no concern for small businesses. i'm paying employees that have $30, $40 in tips and $10 in wages and provide health care to all. it's ill-managed. one person says one thing and another changes it. this is happening to me. no one seems to know what's going on. business is down 8% to 10%.

have any of you ever owned a small business? i used to fear that having -- not having a lease, rent would be my downfall. but now i fear that the city itself is going to do me in you hear about greedy landlords but what about the city that continually puts the burden of society on my shoulders as if we, the backbone of this town, can afford to solve the ills of san francisco. a few years back with a meeting at the river association, we were addressing our concerns about the impact of health care. he looked at us as a group and said, maybe it's time for some of you to consider moving to the east bay. this guy was maybe 30 years old. is that your stance? if you can't stand the heat get out of the water? do we really want small business to flee town and be taken over by the corporate entities? that can fill your coffers at your beckoning, gut the city of its soul? he mentioned the straws on the

camel's back. well, these straws are starting to look like telephone poles. i laid off 18% of my staff, cut shifts, went back to bartending and waiting tables. i pay myself net $13,500 working 60 to 70 hours a week. my landlord understood and didn't raise my rent. the question is, do you understand? >> good morning, supervisors. my name is demetrius. i'm vice president of c-mac and also one of the founders of vintage 415. we own and operate some bars and restaurants here in san francisco and i'm asking you to oppose this fee. as some people have pointed out, a nickel a drink just doesn't represent what our costs will increase as much as 10% to 20% for those spirits that we derive our greatest

profits from, namely well drinks. we just simply can't pass this increase along to our customers. we're already -- at one of our venues, we're already closed on sundays and mondays whereas a couple years ago we were opened and driving. we have $2 tuesdays where beer and well drinks are $2. we have $3 wenses. we have $4 thursdays. we just simply cannot raise our prices. if anything we're lowering prices to try to increase patronage. the weekends are subsidizing the weekdays. we're trying not to lay people off but it just won't be possible for much longer. and we're also seeing on the weekends people coming out increasingly late. they're showing up at 11:00 and 11:30. we're drinking at home and not spending as much when they show up. we cannot pass this fee along to our clients. and so -- you know, to wrap things up, in answering the

supervisor's question from last week, i don't think the sky will fall for all of san francisco nightlife or for the bars and venues, but it certainly will fall for a couple and it will fall for those employees who get laid off. it will discourage local business growth and it will just be another piece of well-intended local legislation that disproportionately impact the small business community of san francisco. so thank you. i encourage you to oppose it. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you very much. before you speak i'll read a few more cards. guy carson, james robinson, richard donahue, chung, pittman, for rest gray. >> richard jimenez, i'm the president of san francisco substance abuse contractors

association. we join the department of public health and other community-based organizations in supporting this initiative. however, we are sensitive to the plight of the small business owners and people in communities that we operate in. so understanding the legislation there's often amendments that are ongoing. we encourage the board of supervisors that you do whatever amendments they can to make it easier on our small business owners. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> chaffo from rising unlimit -- chavo from rising unlimited. empowerment program. i just wanted to express myself in terms of this city and its fees, you know, parking fees, we are like -- i live in east bay. i'm afraid to come out here and park but i'm not afraid to come out here and party.

in terms of the cigarette prices that have gone up, i have yet to see anybody stop smoking because of the price of cigarettes. and now that we're going to go into the new school year with no programs to support our students after school, we could potentially see an increase in violence in our streets. and that violence will most definitely affect the businesses here. securing our programs and neighborhoods will increase a sense of safety, security and a stronger sense of community in san francisco. san francisco has a reputation for setting cultural trends, and we all saw what happened with same-sex marriages. although politically challenging, countries across the globe are honoring the equality of institution -- of the institution of marriage. why not honor our residents, our youth, our future by passing this fee and improve the quality of services that contributes to the device of neighbors and begin holding big alcohol accountable for the alcohol accountable for the kind of profits that they reap?