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 kind of profits that they reap? let's inspire and inspire cities like oakland and san diego, other counties, our states, everywhere across this country to do the same. thank you very much. supervisor avalos: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is guy carson. i'm the co-owner of the cafe de

norte on market street. also a founding person of the cultural association. i think most of my speech have been well covered by my colleagues. i'd just like to, i guess at this point, address supervisor mirkairmi's statement about the accumulative effect of all these charges. we purchase the cafe kell nort -- del norte in 2003 and since then suffered a success of well-intended fees and legislation passed on that have directly impacted our bottom line. i think what you're hearing here today is from the small business owners is that we are at our threshold. we have laid off, we have cut back. we have taken no salaries on our own parts. we have borrowed to our maximum limit. and what the great agri gations

of numbers -- aggregations of numbers don't show is that we're going down. it's not so much this particular fee is that the patterns of fees. we, small business owners, just cannot take any more. we, california music and culture association, last week or two weeks ago now, had a city insider lunchon from the state board of equalization. her assessment for the finances of the state of california for the next five years were bleak, were very, very bleak, and it occurred to me and all of us there that if this is true, we all have to get together and come up with new sources of income instead of taxing your own revenue sources out of business entirely. thanks it. thanks. supervisor avalos: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is james robinson. my wife and i own a small wine

shop here in the city. and we talked today about the targeting of big alcohol, but i think in reality the trickle down is going to hurt everyone in the chain below, big alcohol. we talked about price sensitivity today. three cents, five cents per glass. it doesn't sound like much but the true cost will realistically be much, much higher under the current three-tier alcohol distribution system. we talked about the impact on new payroll which could lead to further job losses here in the city. and i truly believe we need to do everything we can to stimulate job creations. the end result it seems that we would be steering business away from san francisco metro area. and we've got too many empty storefronts already that have gone dark. so i respectfully urge you to vote no on this new tax. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is richard donahue.

i own two liquor licenses in san francisco. born and raised here for 57 years and i've got 40 years of bar ownership or management. i came on short notice. i don't have slides, graphs, powerpoint presentations, but i can positively tell you of the five cents of tax issue per beverage that has been brought upon us over the last 40 years, it has never occurred on a federal level or a state level that the five cent per beverage remains after it's been distributed through. so this does positively come anywhere from 25 cents to 50 cents per unit per beverage when this is all multiplied out. on top of all the business tax and everything else as any small business in san francisco, i urge you to vote no on that. one other thing i'd like you to know which has been mentioned, if you go through bars, cafes, pizza parlors, large and small restaurants, retail stores, liquor stores, wine stores,

sporting venues and hotels, it's approximately 100 pages of the yellow page correctly. all of these customers will be affected by these tax increases. in addition to that, all of the above-mentioned groups directly support charities, contributions, nonprofit, including school spirit programs, little league clubs, pee-wee soccer clubs, parents clubs, first tee youth camps, breast cancer awareness foundations, lung association golf tournament sponsorships, fire department toy programs, burn center fundraisers and many individual family emergencies that do not have any tax i.d. status. please vote no on this issue. the small businesses do not need another burden. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is collie chung. i want to speak to this

litigation. more often than not, the youth we work have have been victim or witnessed the dangers of drug abuse, domestic violence, other personal tragedies as well as being targeted by the alcohol industry. despite their hardships, our youth wants to take action to reduce the negative messages of and easy access to alcohol. whether partnering with local stone otherers to sad -- storeowners. every day our youth are challenged by an imbalance of power when trying to make positive social change. so in part of our work to ensure that youth have a voice and a say in what issues impact them and the neighborhoods. despite a tough economy, san francisco continues to thrive and this fee is a reasonable and simple way for our government, our services, our community to come together and respectfully continue to prevent and treat alcohol problems.

thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please, and before you speak i'll read three more cards. siacro, john kelly, joshua puner, tom colter, debbie learnman. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is for rest fwray. i own the speak easy brewry. i've been operating in san francisco and the hunters point area for a little over 13 years. we have fewer than 35 employees, however, we do provide health care. we don't have to but we do because it's the right thing. window everything we possibly can to be a good citizen and a good business owner in san francisco, and we want this city to be the best it can be. we are very concerned about the tax. it's one more nail in the coffin for us that we're -- we're just concerned about the general outcome of this and the fact that it hasn't been thought through well enough. we're -- there's certain several points which have been

covered. if you -- i do want to come back to the trader joe drop shipment. if it's dropped in another county and transferred store to store would not be subject to the legislation as it's written. but really more to the point, i think what i've been hearing now, i've been here in two different hearings, it's two different conversations here. we don't disagree at all with the fact that there are people that need help. and we want to help them. what we're fearing here is that we're killing the goose that lays the golden egg and that we are what provides income to this city. and if the income isn't here then we can't do anything. and, you know this is just a matter of balancing a checkbook and we encourage you to think about the outcome of what's going to happen to small businesses as a result of this. please, i encourage you to vote no on this and not allow you to leave the budget committee. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors.

i'm the general manager of a large bar and i came a bit unprepared. besides all the points that my fellow businessmen brought forward, i have three things to question about the economists of the city said. i doubt that the elastiesity of the price alcohol is as flexible as you think. it is not gas. the second thing you kept talking about the private sector versus the public sector. as far as i understand the private sector being the government and city hall and public jobs and so forth so you say it's not for that because the private sector, which is corporate and private businesses, us, might only lose about, i heard a number of 50 jobs and so party, will these people be able to get jobs at city hall, then? it doesn't seem possible to me.

and then the last thing was that i don't really get what this whole fee is for. as my fellow people said, some are killing the goose that's laying the eggs. that's all i wanted to bring forward for you to think about. supervisor avalos: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is joshua. i'm with the youth leadership institute and i'm also part of the program from the youth leadership institute. i'm here again today to say a few words on why this fee will be beneficial to the youth. it's known that the youth are the most influenced in the community by the messages they say. and, therefore, they are the most vulnerable. this fee will help fund some services that the youth need,

such as prevention services and other youth organizations. i'd also like to add that it's a known fact that at least 10% of profits are made by underaged drinking. and, therefore, since youth are the most price sensitive, this will hopefully reduce that number. and i'd like to add on a more personal note, as someone who is native to this city, i know that there are millions of people who love the city as much as i do and there will be -- there will continue to be business in this city. i mean, if people are willing to pay for like a $5 pretzel at fisherman's wharf, i'm pretty confident that people will spend a few more cents per drink. thank you.

supervisor avalos: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hello, supervisors. my name is ficro. i'm co-owner at a bar in north beach. as much as both sides can argue the merits of their argument, i think the biggest question of all is, is this legal? is it constitutional? and that's the question we should be asking ourselves. and if the city is so broke, how do they got the money to impose this fee afterwards? and listening to the proponents of the fee, they present this that alcohol is not already paying tax. as we are, as small business owners point out here, we pay city tax, we pay city fees already. we pay state tax and there's federal tax on alcohol already. and this money is already being used to fund these services for which we're trying to be -- which the city is trying to tax

us once again. and it goes to the same old argument. is it legal? i don't think it is. it's a tax on many to support few. and i think the city might be better. looking at how they can enforce drunken behavior on the streets, people staying on the streets, the serving of alcohol to known drunks and people who are drunk and maybe some of these people can be put up in the 1,400 empty spaces of city hall to take care of these people. that's my argument. thank you. >> thank you, supervisors. my name is mark wilson. i own two bars in san francisco. it's just been tough. one in ash burry and one in castro -- ashbury and one in castro. my fees are sky high.

i am just opposed to it. i don't want to lay off anybody. i have to work more and more. it just gets tougher and tougher. if you can find another way it would be wonderful. thank you. >> hello. my name is john kelly. i was born in this great city, and i'm a political liberal. however, over the years i've turned into a fiscal conservative because government too often misuses taxpayer dollars. however, there are some services government must provide, and i am fully supportive of the alcohol mitigation fee for two -- three reasons. the revenue must be spent on the health cost to our city services caused by the alcohol problem. second, the revenues will come from the people who