rye now it is the cost of the license which is less than $1,000. it would be the market valuation to be determined. >> well, if fact is if you prohibit the sale of something for which you have a license, your valuation is by definition zero. >> going down? >> no, zero. if you can't sell what you are licensed to sell, the value of the license is zero. >> i am saying if you need valuation. be careful with th the value situation. >> if you pay $1 million to the governing body and now because of the change in the world your medallion is worth $100 that is

not a valuable buy back scheme for the person most harmed. >> i have a couple questions here. >> that leaves it to be discussed later. i want to get at the intention. that is very vague. >> if the commission does want something specific we could say valuation prethe ban on flavored tobacco. >> you have to leave it open to a discussion because there will be a legal discussion about what is the legit mat valuation method? you might said at a valuation method to be determined. now it is vague without qualifications. >> i would be amenable to that. >> a couple questions before we start making resolutions. i would like to better understand what exactly it is. >> there are a few other areas

of ambiguity. >> i will put it out from. this is not an area of expertise for me. by educating me, you will also educate the record. the first question i have and i am going to take notes while doing this. commissioners, i know you will probably know the answer. how much is a tobacco retail permit? how much does it cost? >> there is two different avenues in which one must be licensed through the state and through the city. the difference is the city presents it as a fee as opposed to a tax. i think that is an important clarification especially as we have seen the controller be quoted in newspaper articles saying the city doesn't collect

taxes on this which is a huge loophole. >> i totally get that. >> there is a fee for the license which as the director mentioned is an initial one then an annual one. then there are fees related to that license. >> the city tobacco license there is an initiation fee and annual fee? what is the initiation cost? . >> there is the application fee and application to file. with all licenses you have an application then you have your annual license fee. >> the cost recovery like 100 bucks or something? >> the tobacco program application fee $91. the annual license fee is $346. >> it is not $10,000 or something like that. >> right. but it is important to mention, as you said that it needs to be

determined how long it has been there. it is a scaled equation. we should know it needs interrogation. >> hang on a second. does every store pay $346 or is this a different amount based on how long you have had it? it is every store $346? >> independent of revenue or tenure. >> what you are getting at is, you know, what we would call implied damages. in other words, that you have an investment in this thing. you are expecting a return on it over a period of time, when you have removed that return you have screwed up the calculations a lot of other decisions were based on. >> the qualitative resale value is a different number. >> can these be resold?

>> yes, but it has got restrictions due to recent tobacco laws that put restrictions on which part of town you are in. if you can resell in that district, how many years you owned the license. there are restrictions. >> point of clarification. let's just say store a is in a district that has over 45 tobacco permits and they want to sell their business to a whole new owner, you can't just automatically transfer the tobacco permit. even if you are buying it regardless of restrictions you still have to reapply nor the license. >> you have to go pay $91 and get approved? >> there are certain types of businesses not allowed to do

that like gas stations. >> i am confused by the resale aspect of the permit. why would somebody buy a permit? >> the intense is that the city could reimburse the stores. >> i got that. i'm not there yet. i am trying to understand the eco system around the permits. there is resale value. if you own a store and have a permit, there are certain conditions. we don't have to get to what those conditions are. there are certain conditions under which i can sell that permit to somebody else? >> yes. >> i'm not sure you can sell the permit. in buying the store they would say i have the ability to apply and get the permit. now there are numerous restrictions that started in

2015 that eliminates that ability. >> next question. maybe you know the answer to this. how many outstanding tobacco permits are there in the city? >> i don't know what you mean outstanding. there are a little over 700, 739 tobacco active outstanding. >> 739. that is in the city. >> note there were 900 before the ban on flavored tobacco, over 900. >> with respect to the buy back program, it seems to me everything turns on what is meant by valu by by valenciauat.

if they they -- valuation. if they give everybody back their fee regardless of how long they have had it. >> less than $70,000. >> we are not talking a substantial period. >> when we talk about valuation of the business itself. >> it is $255,000. it is not nominal. it is one quarter of the budget mayor breed announced this morning for small business. >> the important thing is you have to get to a practical valuation technique that does not require a tremendous amount of financial analysis. it is not practical to ask the city to go about valuing businesses with or without their tobacco license. they are not going to do that.

>> we have done it for alcohol. it is that same precedent. nonmarket restriction on a license at a previous value in terms every sale. >> for alcohol licenses, are they managed is same way? >> there are restrictions on full alcohol licenses, beer, wine and. >> those are transferable, right? >> once an establishment has it, if you sell your business, you are selling your license to sell? >> right. there are restrictions in in alcohol special use districts you can't transfer in a new one. >> the license here is not f un gible. to my knowledge it is worth 400

to $500,000. it has liqui liquiddity. >> this is not a transferable license. >> it has operated as that exactly before 2015. >> did they re-write the law in 2015? >> why woul somebody want to bua license? >> they can't. in 2015 they made restrictions on the sale of licenses. people are buying. >> you can only have so many in a given district. >> you can't sell it unless you have owned it for a certain amount of years. they made arbitrary restrictions

which devalued the transferable value. >> right. understood. like a liquor license -- unlike a liquor license. >> let me ask you a question. even if let's say all 739 retailers decide to pull out and they say if we can't sell e-cigarettes, it has no value. it seems like a stretch. let's take it to the extreme to illustrate the position here. if the city agreed to refund the application fee and refund the annual fee, the last annual fee that had been paid as a mitigation measure, the exposure

is financially to the city is $255,000. i guess the question for you is what i am picking up from what you are saying, and correct me if i'm wrong, it sounds like you feel this would be an insufficient mitigation measure, which i'm not -- i don't want to put words in your mouth. >> i think it is more useful. i can provide contexts with extremes that have be set our city and how this the idea of mitigation isn't something that we just thought up while writing this resolution. this is something the supervisors had been talking about during the ban on the flavored tobacco. this is about looking at it

whole somely. this tobacco retail license the role it plays in the value of the convenience store or smoke shop and how ther there hasn't n adjustments on the fees with the license there is a reduction in the inventory and ability to sell. this is trying to mitigate the damage that has already happened and to look forward to further bans on the sector that aren't being like the cpi question. the nexxus study that one of the fees is based on has not been reassessed. a fee in its definition has to be allotted to a specific earmarkker where the money goes, otherwise it is a tax. we have also seen that is not

happening with this particular tobacco related fee. this is a whole some conversation about devaluing the licenses which is integral to invesinvesting in this sector. imminent domain. is this an example? how do we compensate? to give you context this is something the supervisors have been asking for from our commission. >> i get that. i guess what i want to do in order to make an informed decision i want be to put a musa number on it. i want to say we are asking the city for x amount of dollars to mitigate this and this is the manner and method which we will distribute it. >> i think that what we need to

propose is tasking them with undertaking that analysis and really trying to understand what this license value is per the sector. that is going to take some work. it ranges depending on the business from 20 grand to 200 gland with this license. >> can i squibb you an example? if you are on the cusbe ofs -- cus p where are you going to go if you want the e-cigarettes. those store on the edge of the city have a drop. i am going to go there. this is like we can't quantify. this is independent to every store that is different. it is not the cost of $400 for

permit. sales as a ladyder to get people in the door to buy something else. in communities of san francisco where there are food deserts. 25% are gone. does that mean 25% of the stores are gone? probably not. >> so you mentioned that the number of licenses is gone from 900 to 700. >> that is 25% drop. >> what did those licensees do? stop selling tobacco or go out of business? >> we need that data. i am sure not all 25% or 20% went out of business. imagine they stopped selling tobacco. the impact of not selling flavored tobacco a $400 permit is not worth me selling cigarettes. >> i don't know that is what happened. >> that is really relevant

because we are not -- i mean if you are restricting the product mix, we are not outlawing to back could. we are restricting the product mix and not insignificantly, it is one of the most popular item in the portfolio. if a business, you know, the reason that it is worth discussing is because what you are looking for is remuneration for businesses impaired by the legislation. to suggest we are going to have a license buy back program. you might not get at the solution. the store might say i am not looking to give up my license. what i look for is the city to give me compensation for the fact they just viser rated a piece of my business.

>> i would like to clarify some stuff what i would like to propose as an amendment. >> we should say resolved to consider but not limited to. language that does allow us to have options that we are presenting to the supervisors. the intent between buy back program is treating as what it is, a work force issue. if we want a more sustainable or healthy or green whatever it is, status. then there is a work force attached and there needs a material transition plan. we are asking if this is the citdirection the city wants to . i have old guys calling me all the time they want to retire and they can't. >> because they can't sell their business? >> yes. i want to add also. i think it is good the economic

adjustment program piece is left a little open so we can have supervisors have buy in on what that would be. i would like to include in the manner we have been talking including technical assistance and material support for upgrades in equipment including age checking technology. maybe that is a compromise that retailers and the city would take as opposed to full buy back. >> i think the spirit of this is that we want to be highly specific but not prescriptive. what we don't want to do is say something very vague to the supervisors because they are not going to come up with the small business solution. we know that. they are not small business owners. that is our job. being very specific and direct about what we propose and being

mindful of what is practical. there are certain demands you cannot make of the government. it never will happen. finding things that have some probability of being embraced and being specific without prescribing it so they can say you asked for this and say no. you asked for something that looks like this to get there. >> a request for data is not absurd at all. i have been to other hearings for other counties. it is unbelievable to me that san francisco supervisors haven't asked for the data. in every other hearing in other counties the first thing is how many retails are affected, what is the material effect. they do industry reportings. the demographic. they recognize this is an immigrant demographic. our supervisors haven't be done any of that inquiry.

>> a quantitative assessment of the business impairment. >> exactly. >> like eyeballing this. this is the small business person in me to do that to quantify and establish what we are talking about here. give it to me straight. right? you know, you mentioned the range of impact from the businesses 20,000 to 300,000. taking the 20 thousands multiplying by the permits that is $13.7 million. that is a stretch to imagine the supervisors would support or the city budget would get behind that kind of budget. >> one year's lost sales is not the analysis. it is net present value of impairment looking forward. >> at $20,000 per year that is probably looking more like

present value ex number of years is a huge number. >> it is a massive number. when you talk about folks looking at retirement being cancelled, you know, the city has its own pension problem. >> it is a horrendous problem. i am eyeballing the same problems. what i am trying to plug this into. it seems to me and i am far from an expert on this. it seems if we are going to make any resolution to the board of supervisors, our credibility is heightened and our chances of success improve if we can somehow map whatever our resolution is and into something that looks sustainable.

>> we did have minimum to maximum program. we are providing them with options that make sense to the industry. those are options. this is one of them. that gets at the intent of treating it like a work force transition issue which is it is not. >> what we wrote is small business development center and office of small business are also to put together a plan and to come back before the commission. the commission instead of trying to really say we need to be super-perscriptive in this resolution in terms of the economic directions and implications. you are saying go back, work at

it and come back if you adopt this and come back before us. in looking at the we are talking about the valuation, i think my recommendation is that we don't be concerned about the bigger implication. that will be looked at and then potentially scaled in a way that will be scaled and the discussions will also be had with the controller's office, mayor's budget office. i just want to say we do have it -- we did put in here the plan should be approved by this body. >> i just don't feel this resolution as currently written puts our best if the forward in terms of making a coherent and

actionable recommendation. it leaves a lot to interpretation and doesn't, you know, it is kind of like, hey, we are announcing we feel that we have been slighted but we want someone to do something about it, but we are not specific about what we want done other than we expected to be compensated. >> there have been merchant meetings one-on-one with supervisors last year. >> i annual saying the resolution -- i am saying it does not reflect what i would put forward to the board of supervisors as my request. >> i have a recommendation. one, included is also this commission voted and made a motion in september for the office of economic and work force development to look into this. that hasn't happened that is why

this resolution is written. second, maybe a more simple and direct recommendation would be for the budget and legislative annual listing to write up -- we can't do that. >> it can only be requested by the board of supervisors. they will be representing the board of supervisors' perspective. we could encourage a supervisor to make that request. to have another lens but only work with caution against it. >> the reason i brought up the retailer meetings. supervisors are anxious for this direction. we can amend to get more specific in terms of direction. i will consider it a working document. also the reason why we put the

maximum ask is a references point. if you are not in this industry, putting in a shelf of apples is a one-to-one compensation. it is not. i think this line item creates an important reference point, if anything. >> i don't think this represents an ask maximum or not the way it is presently written. >> i am down to make a request. i have spoke very intensely at supervisor shannon. did i say that right? >> supervisor walton. >> i think something should be

done for the folks that, you know, bought in good faith this license. i feel equally longly. i like considered but not limited to. i like options. i think the options we present, it is incumbent upon us. it is what our responsibility should be detailed, and that is what i was trying to get at with the valuation. what are we asking? let's make it specific. i understand your point about trying to set an anchor on the price. you naturally want to set it high. i would say to you, my reaction to it, not being super-knowledgeable about the base but respecting that the

cost and expenses to these folks is high and it is going to be a material change and reflect their retirements and so north. notwithstanding all of that, i don't think an anchor point in the tens of millions of dollars is probably likely going to be well received or is going to be seen as an anchor point at all. instead, it will be seen as unreasonable demand. >> we can put that as an ask point. i am asking for specific amendments, guys. if you don't think that should be in the resolve, where should it be in the document. we have white papers created around the fees mentioned. we have specific things we are presenting as add den dums. we can direct our staff to put

those in here as well. let's work it. >> i hear what you are saying, commissioner sharky. our office working with oewd. i caution being overly prescriptive in a dollar value at this particular point in time. >> i many am not suggesting a specific dollar value. i am saying within a range. if we are talking a fairly subjective analysis of what the permit is valued on range between 20 to 300,000, minimum exit point is $340 million. >> we can give suggestions on what we mean by valuation without being so vague that we even got into the conversation because it is vague, and we

have, you know, i am in the business of knowing the value of my business. i know about business value valuations. this did not capture any kind of direction towards the supervisors as to what we mean by value situation, remuneration and valuing the impairment we are proposing here. with we should be careful that we stay -- that our recommendations stay on message about specifically what this is. we have a ten dab see to -- tendency to go on tangents. this is a specific issue. the other thing to consider what if the fda rulessed this product to be unsellable.

we should consider what happens. the city isn't going to get anything if the federal government says you can't sell it. >> say that you can't market it. that is what the fda is deciding. >> i think to vice president dwight, your point is perhaps we point to a definition of valuation. >> i am not suggesting we can can do that right now. i don't know what all of the the components are. i know in the case someone is looking at retirement, that is what is the value, the exit value of my business? can i sell my business? how does restricting my ability to sell tobacco products affect the valuation of the business i invested my life in? you have to do analysis?

what is the value in the business unrestricted in the way this legislation was restricted versus before that? >> i am not cheer. clear -- clear do you have a problem with the analysis? >> the wording of the resolution doesn't have enough information in it to have informative to the supervisors. >> maybe explore industry analysis? >> i think perhaps so we can get this. we have said considered but not limited to as one of the amendments. then i think to vice president dwight's point, item number one tobacco retail permit buy back program evaluation. we come back based upon the discussion having more direction

what that valuation is or direction. >> buying back the license is what you want to do. the store might say i want to keep my license but be compensated for impairment of the license. again, asking to buy back licenses is not the right directive. it may include that. the.a path to coach them on diversification. welcome to business one-on-one. you have got to change with the times. how does that business owner change in whatever his time or his or her time horizon is their business so they get a valuation that they want. it is complicated. >> let me just add one other anchor point here. i was at the mayor's press

conference this morning where she was very proud and rightfully so of this initiative to help with small business, and she spoke quite forcefully about this $2 million grant that has been established and a separate $1 million grant that had been established. naturally when i'm thinking what we are proposing and our costs. maybe i am crazy. maybe that is the wrong word. maybe i don't have the right sense of perspective and my anchor point is too low and i am willing to be persuaded on that issue. based on listening to her talk about, you know, essentially $3 million that has been designated for small business for ada compliance. >> we will review it in the director's report.

the press conference. there are several things that are. >> i would say that it appears to me the ability of the city to renumerate the damage done to these businesses is fairly limited. >> you don't want to come across as being punitive. we don't like supervisors look like they are punitive to small businesses. city hall doesn't like it when others come at them like you owe me something and this is what you are going to pay me. it has to be a rational dialogue around the real impacts. >> this isn't right. i don't think we can solve it here today. i don't have the records for you. this is not me specific field of expertise, tobacco licenses.

you have answered my questions today. i personally am not prepared to send this document to the board of supervisors. if you want to do it with majority vote, have at it. i don't have the suggestion. i don't have the wording how to make this a document that i think will actually get results for the people affected here. >> i will say i want to do something, but i want it to feel like we are saying something that is going to be heard. >> may i ask also what the role of the controller's office is in this realm? looking back at older legislation from maybe 2012 or 2015, it was the first bag feed that was applied for louisian

louisianatic bags -- for plastic bags they looked at the impact on small businesses. why can't we ask that of the controller's office in relation to the numerous tobacco control laws that we have? >> so the point that could be stipulated in here is that, i am getting more clarity, maybe not clarity of commissioner dwight. maybe the first item is not permit buy back program but establishing a valuation, right? so the permit buy back program may be something completely different than the valuation. establishing the valuation helps get to an understanding. we could modify this to say the controller's office be involved in establishing some of the

economic determination. >> i understand what vice president dwight is trying to say. we can't prescribe such limited answer to the supervisors. that is what the valuation is going to be. it is after we get the data economic report fromted or whomever. then it probably seems categories with groups. we can't evaluate every permit. we can establish categories. maybe coming up with a panel of subject matter experts such astor owners

i have a business based on what was given and will be impaired by what is taken back. i think there should be a method for valuing the impairment.

that is language that is i'm not saying that is ideal. it starts getting specific without being prescriptive. >> can you repeat that one more time? >> i wrote it down. if you want me to read it back. compensation for business impairment resulting from legislation that restricts the sale of products heretofore -- that were until now sellable. restricts the sale of products that were until now sellable and are sellable outside of the city's boundaries. >> i can get behind that. >> you can put legal in that. products that for legal products

for sale. you know, basically getting in key words. they are legal elsewhere. the city lets me sell them and has now made possibly impulsesive decision to halt the sale and not giving me, by the way, a runway. part of that valuation can be mitigated by saying i will let you get rid of your inventory. >> then you get to the horse trading. how do we minimize the impacted and therefore minimize the payout. >> i can support that. >> talk about the sentence that precedes that. >> okay. you opened the door. >> reassessment of cigarette litter abatement feeds. >> the sentence preceding. it should include commissioner

had previously said consider but not limited to. >> mitigation measures default should be considered. >> you are headed the direction i was going. further resolved that the city should cashould consider offerie following mitigation measures. does that sound right? >> or consider the following mitigation measures. >> can we end number one with what you just said. >> include the point i made earlier about technical assistance and upgrades in equipment and technology? >> well, let's be careful that the mitigation measures that we

request are directly relevant to the legislation that is being proposed. for example, you can answer the question for me. cigarette litter abatement fee is very specific. why is that reassessed in light of this? because that is correlated to the revenue you get from tobacco products, the abate meant fee? >> can i just make a proposal we could cut it all off right after your sentence. >> what you said. it seems like the purpose of this resolution is to put forth an intent, right? that intent is, look, you are knocking over some boats here. maybe you can take a couple people out of the water or throw them a raft or tell them you are going to call the coast guard,

whatever it is. i can get behind just putting our foot in the door to say you should consider. then leave out all of the detailed stuff. >> you want the cause and effect. >> the cause is the disruptive discontinuation of sale of an otherwise legal product. the effect is depreciation of the value of the business because it is immediately impacted. what you want to try to do is get a path to what you would like to do is figure out how the city puts the businesses on path to recovery, either through training or whatever. less through direct compensation. that is always the hardest ask. the easier ask is say we need an

education program. we need an active engagement so the businesses can be better businesses under the new rules. >> i would like to say that approach has been taken many times. it results in the city using the money that could go to retailers going to a third party that we don't need. >> that is like my concern and my concern with tieing this up in excessive study, you know. i love data as much as the next person, maybe a bit more, but it seems to me that we have a finite number ever number of th. we are diminishing -- i am casting an eye at the office of

oewd somehow training these folks. i give them more credit than that. i am inclined to think that would not be all that helpful. i guess other specific. >> we could make specific recommendations about the ability to deplete current inventory because you are already in. again, it is what is the real damage here? you are telling me tomorrow i cannot sell? is it six months now? that may or may not be enough time to get rid of someone's inventory. i don't know if six months is enough time. one should not carry more than six to 12 months of inventory. >> i can't imagine what 12 months would be. >> that is a lot of cigarettes. >> again, the specific

recommendation should be specific to the cause and effect. a direct eeffect is i have something i can't sell not only in the future but as soon as this is effective, what do i do with my inventory? either grandfather it until it is sold. you can't buy more but sell what up got. i think that is a legitimate ask. we made specific recommendations to the supervisor about that, so the city should take that. >> i would like to leave it implemented in a timely manner. part of the problem is the mitigation wasn't done at the same time of the last two laws and we had fall out. >> minimize coul colorado colo .

>> when it was at the department of health and owwd it was a motion and letter. that was before the e-cigarette legislation was in place. i want to make sure we are very clear that this is being elevated because of the potential e-cigarette ban. this is a cumulative economic issue for tobacco retailers you requested the mitigation measures be put in place that haven't or programs put in place or developed that happened back in september before the e-cigarette legislation was introduced. i also, you know, the intention of having the office of economic and work force development, small business development center and office of small

business in addition to the valuations or developing a compensation, putting that in there, not only giving consideration of programs to develop and budgeting that out and what it would cost but it also puts a responsibility of entities insuring this takes place and reported back to you that it took place because what we saw with the september while the commission made a direction and request, nothing had come of it. we are trying to tie back in some accountable so that this resolution, while we have supervisors who say they want to support and get the mitigation measures, but there is no

assurance that they won't receive this and it won't be shelved. >> two questions. one, the resolution before appiers to have language very similar to the language you just crafted. the mayor and board of supervisors administrator economic mitigation measures in support of small business retailers licensed to sell tobacco. are we just repeating ourselves? the previous resolved. >> without being maybe without. >> maybe we can put in something like the offers of small business and commission will work with soo supervisors on creating a white paper initiative. >> a white paper is generally a

kind of a . >> to give you a sense what i'm talking about. we have done that with fees and contact analysis and then an ask related to that fee. >> i hear what you are saying. i have to say and i don't want to put it all on our office to do the work. i would like to see some money behind this to have experts. it may not be the controller's office or the bla but we have an entity with the expertise of putting valuations on businesses and we contract with those to create the evaluation. you know, there are other ways of getting to this besides. >> us doing all of the work. if the city is saying preserving

and not creating vacancies is very important. let's put money and support behind this with a program that helps our tobacco retailers. >> should we instruct staff to go back and redo this based on our recommendation today? i am struggling with the fact we seem to have just rewritten the previous resolved. >> that is a valid point. i feel like we should table this and take another crack at it and district it around. >> my second question. who wrote this? was this you, commissioners? >> it was dominica. >> i got it. i understand. help me just was this again new person questions like i am trying to understand how all of

these pieces come together. was this is result of an office conversation? >> merchant meetings with supervisors and conversations at the commission. >> first, it was in september of 2018, the commission made a motion directing department of public health and the office of economic and work force development in relation to the flavored tobacco ban about creating mitigation measures, of which some are outlined here. creating the valuation buy back, helping businesses transition into the they don't want to close their business but putting together some meaning full transition support to other products, other things businesses can do up to and

including cannabis was one of the items mentioned. this comes from -- this is initiated from this. then conversations with the merchants and supervisors and supervisor walton said give me specifics on what to do for mitigation measures. i think for the commission to i think it is for the department oewd, small business development center with our office representing the commission and businesses to utilize their expertise which is what they do to develop these. they develop mitigation measure programs like construction mitigation. part of this direction is saying. we give you indication and direct you to some areas of the mitigation that the commission would like to see, but to develop it and as we drafted the

final be resolved to also then develop those mitigation measures to come back to say, yes, this is the right direction, now we work with the mayor and board of supervisors to make it happen. >> we are asking these folks to come up with mitigation measures. that is the intent is to get these departments to come up with mitigation measures that will have a meaningful difference using their expertise at solving these problems in the past. is that fair? then i guess my feedback for whatever it is worth would be the last resolved like run on sentence. to me like the whole jewels thing with that particular. i am getting the nods you agree

or disagree? >> i think the inclusion is to make a point this is part of the justification why this is being written. i am following general format of prior resolutions this is how they are typically written. they are not written to be full sentences. >> i get that part. >> in the first resolve. >> it has the air if jewel gets to do this, we get to do this. citations about jewel are one thing. then saying if you let jewel do this then we should do this. then it is getting into a little bit of . >> the point of jewel is made and referenced in the spirit of equitable policy administration. i think the sentence about jewel

after that is not needed. you are getting a point. >> i am fine. >> i also think it is important that -- i think the ultimate resolution should be independent of specific companies. because then you are actually drawing battle lines in a way you don't want to. you want to talk about policy and legislation. the legislation is certainly being, you know, the impetus comes from a specific company and revulsion to that. it is legislation against a market segment not against a specific company even if it is indirectly. >> i am fine with the points preceding that. >> i have to personally leave. can we make a motion? >> my preference is you don't make a motion that we come back.

>> we don't need a motion we justin? >> i recommend we continue. >> you would only make a motion if there was also a desire to move this forward. >> i recommend including the amendments we made and tabling this. >> not tabling it, continuing it. >> continuing it to either the next meeting and perhaps i think the one last point i want to when we are talking about economics. the city is deriving tax benefit from atic entity in this industry. there is a dollar amount there that can be looked at, too, in terms of developing mitigation measures. i just don't want to forget

that. >> mitigation doesn't necessarily come out of the general fund. it could be directed. that would require further legislation to have a specific syntax on that. >> let's continue it. you are taking off. any public comment on this item? seeing none public comment is closed. next item. >> item 7. draft legacy accident program annual report for 018-2019. discussion and possible action item. >> just a