will be offset, at best, with a slight loss in the neighborhood of 50 jobs with spending from consumers or if they react in a stronger sense than we would expect. i hope that these clarifications are clear to you and i am happy to take any questions. supervisor avalos: thank you, supervisor mirkarimsupervisor e? supervisor elsbernd: what is the number of jobs lost in the private sector as opposed to being retained in the public sector? >> public-sector job retention stays the same at about 60. the total private-sector job loss becomes about 100 jobs. supervisor elsbernd: and that is the extreme example? ok, thank you.

supervisor avalos: there were comments last week at the small business commission that we apply a feedback by about 5 cents for a drink. that you apply that feed at the distributor level and there will be a trickle-down effect to make 50 much higher at the ground level. some folks even express that it would be almost a $1 increase. your thoughts on that them >> i do not see the economic reason in thinking that wholesale distributors should be able to pass through more than what the fee cost them. if they could unilaterally raise costs, i would assume it would be doing that now and that right now they are basically charging as much as they can. it costs increase by 3 cents for a drink, i can see passing on 3

cents. i do not see how they can pass more, as it is a competitive business. >> as has been expressed by many, they are concerned about the cumulative factor based on city initiatives in san francisco. i'm hearing various information or disinformation regarding impact. what would you say that? -- say to that? up >> the cumulative impact? we are simply trying to show the impact of this legislation. it is true that over the past several years and number of pieces of legislation have been passed, either our office has showed there is a negative economic impact on certain

sections of the economy, but i have not tried to add them all together. which i would need to do to answer your question by any meaningful way. i understand that point in terms of the straw breaking the camel's back, but all that we can tell you is what is the difference if you pass this or do not pass this? not the cumulative effect. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you for your work on the report. we can open it up to public comments. i have a few cards that i will be used up -- that i will read, please, in that order. [reid's namads names]

>> my name is kevin murphy. i am a high-school history teacher in daly city. we have dealt a lot of budget cuts in our school district. i have lost pay and benefits. i understand what it means when we need these services to be paid. at the same time, i have a bartender. i owned a bar with my wife in the city of san francisco. i know how small businesses are suffering in this city right now. business is declining. i know that this service is critical, but i would like to point out three things.

we have a federal system. it is the state's responsibility to tax of all. this fee is a regressive flat tax. the plump jack groups of the world, they will be able to handle this feat. but the corner store, they will not be able to handle this. the second point, san francisco has roughly the same budget as chicago. chicago is 3.5 times the size of san francisco. we cannot find $18 billion? pay for this? i have been doing some research myself. the marin institute, which

published this next study, they do not just want to charge for farm. they want to start a new prohibition. if you are a student of history, you know how that turns out. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> my name is mike pedro and i want to talk about the impact that this will have on the youth of my community. working with youth in terms of talking about alcohol and the harms of alcohol, working with this youth group that met at 12:00 every thursday, 12 to 15 voice, we were talking about the harms of alcohol specifically amongst young students in high school. these are the types of services

that are greatly going to benefit from getting those 5 cents for a drink. that money will come back to the community. this programming is greatly needed by our youth, as we know that youth is a very vulnerable population. these types of vegetation and counselors are needed. the coordinator that i was advising got cut last semester. since june they have been in limbo. again, i would like to reiterate that this type of thing would be helpful for that type of youth in terms of providing education in the harms about galt and

preventing it. supervisor avalos: thank you. >> good morning, supervisors. i am part of a nonprofit trade association of venue owners, industry professionals, artists, and culture in our community. i operate and down with my wife a couple of small bars and nightclubs in the city. i am here today to respectfully speak against the proposed of faulty. san francisco is an experiential city, many come here to experience the legacy of fine food and drink, fascinating people, exciting food and entertainment. this is called our culture. that culture is the engine that drives the industry.

the proposed of golf he might be noble in purpose, but it will be incredibly problematic. the equally, if not important phase -- more important phase, we emphasize that the city needs money but we look beyond the fact that the hospitality and -- entertainment industry has been taxed to the breaking point. we are left with no choice but to decide whether or not to increase prices, turning away customers, or reduce our thin margins. the impact will be most acutely felt by local entertainment members, some of the hardest hit in this economic downturn. people are coming out, but they are not staying for spending as much.

15 to $20 per head. this has happened over the past few years. the overhead associated with costs -- [bell] while the overall revenue decline. thank you for your time. supervisor avalos: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please? >> good morning, supervisors. as an alcoholic by sort -- i support a recovery fee on related accidents. for some of this money the tax code treatment facilities would be supported. i know that if i was not in treatment, in the long run i would be a financial burden on the city of san francisco. you cannot put a price on the

detriment to community individuals. supervisor avalos: next speaker, please. >> san francisco is a destination city, a tourist town. i'm not concerned about the tourist from europe, asia, or south america, it is the one right across the bay. we have noticed already a significant decrease in people from the east bay area. this is in part because of the last couple of years these cities have gotten more business friendly and developed world- class restaurants and entertainment revenues. this proposed alcohol free to just give some of these people another reason not to come

across the bridge, as unfortunately for many friends that i have in the east bay, the idea of a big night out in san francisco is not a big night out anymore. i implore the board to not allow this alcohol feed to be imposed. supervisor avalos: thank you. i will read a few more cards. [reads names ] >> thank you, i have been a resident of san francisco for 36 years. in the long run hospitals and jails will pay the price. i am an alcoholic and now that i

am in recovery, i am proud of my life. proud of where i am. >> thank you, i speaker, please. -- next speaker, breeze. -- next speaker, please. >> this is a small price to pay given the bad effects of alcohol in the world today. it will not make a big difference to pay few cents more to drink. helping with the health care costs, which are going through the roof at this time and will only get worse. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you, next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am also a recovering addict.

i am for this tax. i have firsthand seen the detriments to alcohol on the community. you know? people walk by homeless people on the street, asking for money for their booze. that is one thing that well, that not being able to get their alcohol. and get help. i am grateful for the treatment i am receiving. i could be any one of these people's kids. my parents are successful. has nothing to do with that. there are no boundaries. in my addiction i would come to san francisco, not caring how much money i would need to spend.

this tax is a small price to pay for helping people out. supervisor avalos: thank you. next beaker? >> thank you, supervisors. i am the executive director for the national council on alcoholism in the bay area and i also served as the chair of our public policy advocacy committee. we have been providing services to san francisco since 1957 and throughout that time have witnessed the impact of the harm caused by the over use of alcohol. excessive alcohol consumption costs the city millions of 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 challengin