regulations dealing with or a cascade games it was 6 thousand words dlailt when and where our arcades can be in san francisco. this has been outdated there are reference to the department of electricity that does not exist and to the other department there are arbitrary positions on the square footage and not have an arrest warrant cascade game within 5 feet of another or a cascade or gas station in the district i haven't figured out the reasoning if you're knowingly in violation of the requirements the chief of police will impound our arcades until you pay to the police department. thirty years later a lot of

those regulations look cumbersome and upper necessary and there was a lot of concern about the impact of the arcades on children arcades can't be opened occurring the school year because of truant but in 2014 if a child wants to ditch class they act e, pull a cell phone out of their pocket we want to bring this up to the counter era there are appeal to people in my age growing up in the 80s so we worked with the entertainment commission and the police department and the city attorney's office to completely revise the code i'll 0 talk about that briefly st. the permits for small businesses that point to add a few games it

maintains the offering site and strengthens the controls against illegal gambling foreclosure and that's sensitive to the police department and streamlines the process to bring it in line with other practices. currently under the existing code if you want to add games there's 3 hundred plus dollars for an arrest warrant cascade game each other so we want to give the restaurants the opportunity to add the arresting cascades without the fees. that's ultimately the intent of the legislation there is details at the land use committee that effected the arresting cascades that was approved and we amended that with concerns under the

entertainment commission i can go into detail but we pa made a distinction between bars and non-bars the idea that the entertainment commission times to be engaged with bars and work with them on a good neighbor policy and it's different than some businesses so we want to make the distinction so that the entertainment commission can maintain it's off-site with bars that's what happened that determines the minimum number of games before a bar needs a permit from the san francisco entertainment commission i can go into that but that essentially is the high-level overview and by way of context the entertainment commission was kind enough to put together a list of the or david's cascades it's a relatively small amount 11 locations that have a one

devices and it's a popular universe and i want to finish by showing the stack of letters in the upper hate. the entertainment commission staff said it was one of the most positive responses from a business and those are just some of the e-mails and letters we've received in support of free gill watch and this is demonstrate to the community they have a pinball lead for people that spend time and get to know one others we wants to make the process easier. if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them >> any questions commissioners.

commissioner >> thank you for your presentation i have a question on the number of thresholds. 34 and 10 and 4 and 11 requiring a license. how did you come up with those numbers and what is it based on >> there's currently is a definition for an arrest warrant cascade under the planning code and in the police code 11 e.r. more games constituents an arrest warrant cascade you have reached a critical mass of games below 11 there's more flexibility we said for non-bars anything below 11 they don't need a permit the entertainment commission doesn't need the oversight. there was some debate how we

deal with bars originally the legislation that was introduced said a bar can have one game and anything else needs another permit. the - supervisor breed said allow bars to have up to four games that passed at the land use commission and passed at the board of supervisors and the police department were concerned about that it meant there would be businesses between 2 and four outside of the good neighbor policy and their purview so supervisor breed and i and the city attorney's office meet with the police department after that 72 the board meeting and it's a good come mice a bar can have one game and 2 to 10 over the counter permit and the

application of a will be wrafd that seven hundred plus fee will be waived and if the bar has 11 or more a permit from the entertainment commission and the fee will be imposed >> this will be submitted next week. >> correct. >> any other commissioner commissioner dooley. >> can you clarify the clause on the arcades and i and the inclusion it's unclear to what those categories are i - i'm sorry. what section of the legislation commissioners. >> under the all the times prohibition on - i'm reading the digest. >> okay. can you give me more definition on what a neighborhood or community business use area would be this

is. >> sure so if you look at the long form the legislation you'll see about three or four pages of crossed out language that dated back to 1982 that controlled the mechanic devices based on square footage you can't i mentioned it you can't have one 15 feet within an arrest warrant cascade 3 pages that was infected we trial court tried to delete all the obsolete portions and so what you'll see in our version of the legislation i can't have an arrest warrant cascade in a residential area with some car vouches for churches on their property by the long and short we deleted the vast majority of the locations infected in 1982. >> any other questions.

>> i've got to tell you i support this i know in my neighborhood there's a bar that's going with or cascade games they've spoken with our merchant group and everybody is excited to have 80 and pack man games? neighborhood we're excited in upper market for that. >> i was going to ask commissioner president adams in you're in the upper market and supervisor wiener is a co-sponsor of the legislation. >> and we're all like waiting for this place to get open it take care of an open space. >> good for you. >> anything to clean up the old police code and any other commissioner comments before we take public comment. >> any public comment on item

4? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner do we have a motion? >> i move to support. >> second. >> roll call. >> all right. and commissioner president adams. commissioner dooley. commissioner dwight. commissioner ortiz-cartagena. commissioner riley. supervisor paul. and commissioner white is absent. >> great, thank you thank you, commissioners. >> next item, please. >> item number 5 is the presentation on the department of health point of sales dies

ordinance number 195 or chapter one 15 of the administrative active code we have commissioner from the public health department providing you with a presentation. this is oh, >> this is discussion only right. >> this is discussion only no action item and just for your information commissioner in our packets are we have provided number commissioner has provided the inspections that have taking place a look at the counties state and local fees local forums in case you want to look at that and in 2007 a letter for the particular legislation i do

have information that the commissioner monoroadway was provided for the local issuance i'm going to distributto distri. this is the regulations what they are and the state regulation >> how the local municipality enforces. >> thank you for coming. >> you're welcome i'm glad to be here. >> i'm going to go through a brief summary of how we implemented those programs. the whys and where weer at this

point in time. i provided in our back up a lot of well, a certain amount of data maybe you want me to terminator it and why those figures are what they are on the expertise and revenue side and the register portion. in 2005 the reiskin was adapted and large county implemented a point of sale register program san francisco did not. in 2007 the department of food and agricultural conducted a survey in san francisco and that's the letter that's dated

october 24, '07 and many the first page of the letter you'll see where san francisco county 67 stores were in compliance and 80 percent so san francisco was above compliance. so the commissioner scott paling son departed in april of 08 i came on board in october of 08 and considered what we would do about the point of sale there was a trespassed to adapt the point of sale san diego and fresno and los angeles all the coast counties we preceded to

propose and adapt the regulation in jill of 2010. if you go back to the recent survey you'll see your fees are the least expensive. and we are the highest for those large stores retail outlets with the cap of $773 at the time, it was adapted the logic was that the small stores shouldn't have to pay as much as the larger stores as you can see the only county that doesn't have to data standard of

ordinance is marlene county. i'm going to go directly to the inspectors program and what the right side are. first i'll go to the revenues. we adapted the fee in july of 2010 that's not reasonable to send out invoices to my businesses in the last half the year so we decided to wait until january of 2011 this is a our first invoices. there wasn't a list of businesses in san francisco that

maintained and operated a point of sale. so we knew there were some registered locations businesses that had scanners we we used the scales from our dies from our gas petroleums to begin the process of identifying the businesses with point of sale stations we sent out 2 thousand invoices in 2011. and we got a subsequential number of them we sent out a letter in multiple languages to try to explain what we were doing. that was we know there are more than 2 thousand so the following

year if you go to the mid of that page you'll see that we decided to go to the sf data po s 5 hundred and 54 thousand businesses that's unreasonable that's the entire we can't do that so we ended up encouraging as many as we could we ended up in 2012 sending out well - let me back up in 2012, we sent out over 2 thousand invoices and then we obtained an sf data source there was that was unreasonable to building we had 5 hundred and 54 thousand. i put everybody that i had on

cleaning up the list. and that will be reflected and you'll see how much more we spent in 2012. so in 13 we sent out 15 thousand plus invoices we got over half of them back. it was boxes and boxes of them that were being returned to us and our phone lines were jammed. it wasn't going to take any more messages we cleaned up that list and it requires manual entry and it requires my staff time who have walked the streets of san francisco and driven the streets of san francisco just from their experience trying to figure out when a who thinks to delete and which ones to call.

in 2014 we got it down to 3 thousand one hundred and 52 invoices. and that includes everybody small businesses and large retail outlets. to date we've got less than 2 thousand let me explain. my instructions to the staff were you'll go out and you'll go out with this list and you'll inspector those businesses and if they interest have a po s they'll get a refund they'll have to apply but if they're not registered we'll delete them from the database that's how we're down to 2 thousand businesses from a corrupted file

at the tax collectors that was bizarre. that's where we're at right now. you'll see the 39 percent of the businesses have one po s and two to three have more than that. so, now i go to the part where how much have we spent >> how much have we received. i'm not sure how many of you have experience hiring through the city but this was a new program and i have are a person to conspiracy and do the inspections i had all my staff. so we spent about 95 thousand 2 hundred plus up front on staff that was like half of a person

and hiring of another half of year we brought in $68,000 and in 2012, we haven't hired everyone but we spent 93 61 but got in 76 and identified the locations is with po s we've spent 4 hundred and 59 thousand now, it's stabilizing we have 4 hundred almost $400,000 in expenditures in 326 a that's what we brought in so we're still operating if you take it all in the last four years we're still 2 hundred and 5 thousand dollars in the red that's the

general fund contributions >> so what have we done the first year 2012 we inspected 3 hundred plus locations and the evidence only 56 of them. because not all 3 hundred have po s we eliminated some of them and we found of the 56, 24 had over charges and in 2013 we inspected 21 locates and only tested 1579 i leementsd 6 hundred locations because they didn't have po s and had 67 percent over charges. so in 2013-2014 this is all

fiscal year july one through june 30th we inspected 5143 locations only a few kwflgd almost 4 thousand we eliminated off the database they don't have to register and one hundred plus were over charging it's and it's 10 percent plus we issued notices of violations. that's a brief summary there's a lot more technical information if you have more questions but i know that regina sent me a list of questions you might have i can answer those for i. i don't know if you have the list in front of you i can address >> well, let's take the

commissioners questions commissioner white. >> just to refresher my memory is the city and county of san francisco required to do the information. >> we're required to enforce the laws and one of the laws the most recent one that regina passed out in responding no one can charge more than the price. >> we can take the approach we're going to respond to complaints rather than have a preempt enforcement it makes it illegal to overcharge but not illegal to do the testing; is that correct. >> the statute allows the board of supervisors to allow the adaptation of fees, however, i have to -

>> this was so then backing up we the bvrz did, in fact, dick your department to go out and do the preempt. >> to get - >> to get back off would require the board of supervisors to have a new perspective initiative to say we're not going to do preempt testing we'll go out with the complaints and we'll go out and respond to those complaints that's the practical thing we're going to get into why this is completely impracticality in the new age because the term po s device has changed. and the original reason for this was because supermarkets there's

a multitude of prauts products did i really get charged the right price for this stuff my history of scanners both that it was labor saving device that the labor objected but now all of a sudden the contribution was happening and you just charged me over and you didn't figured out until you got home. so do a blanket and try to go out and first of all, put the financial burden on small businesses that are in cases charging for a single. item and oh, i'm paying $99 for this shirt or blouse and everyone is aware there's only one or two

items but no opportunity for miss charging. i think there are large volume transactions where there's a possibility continuously or uncontinuously for pricing to be out of sync with the advertised prices we can look at those but you've shown this is a losing proposition it's costing more to do what little you're doing with the little staff then getting the revenue for and to scale that that would be outrageous so a waste of time and money we've got a bunch of other questions it's clear to me that we got this is another case where this is legislation that the

completely outdated at this point i frankly ill advertised. i'd like to point out consequentially this morning on the issue which of one person to person transaction i've received a complaint many morning on the database. a bag i will shop sally summary labeled it 259 the person was charged 279 and the person said why are you charging me 26 more and he said that's what the computer said and he said, "well, it's 279 in the computer he refused to refund the money. a complaint was sent and the inspector sent r visited the

proprietary and the proprietor took the sign down and contacted the person and refunded the money >> great - >> in light not really large stores like safeway it's across the board. >> that's fine i think that $0.20 is i think that we need to deal with the complaints $0.20 does not in my way validate starting up the city to cost the city potentially million dollars dollars and create an exception of special circumstances all the devices in the world it's noted scare device but a phone can scan my bar code