Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    September 5, 2010 8:30am-9:00am PST

9:30 am
institute, who we have worked with over in numbers of year -- number of years. also to a number of the non- profit advocacy service based organizations that can speak from experience as to why a lot of this type is needed and san francisco is poised to help. i look forward to hearing from the industry community, i think that their instincts, in a fee like this, what could be the detrimental or blow back of fact to the industry that feels that the economy is as fragile as ours in this downturn that somehow it will compound the
9:31 am
adverse impact. when you speak, we do not know the alcohol consumption in san francisco but we are a compact city that has, from what we know, for square-mile a fair amount of alcohol service establishments that parallels some of the largest cities in the united states based on per capita how many actual restaurants and bars that we have, and how many retail establishments that there are for purchasing alcohol. i do not know how that might have been factored into your analysis. >> the original estimate came from a nexus study. call my understanding is that
9:32 am
the authors wanted to rely on credible, why be accepted, widely used data for of all use. i would agree that there seem to be far more alcohol licenses in san francisco than a difficult city our size. if someone was to show me hard data that says look, on a residential bases there is a lot more of all consumption, i would not be surprised about that. on the other hand, i cannot as an economist second-guess the reliance of credible third-party data sources. i felt that in doing our independent review it was important to consider our large tourism industry. and it's much larger restaurant and bar industry that you see statewide the needs to be accounted for at some time. i do take your point.
9:33 am
we do not have a clear sense of what the alcohol consumption is. the i think that the additional level of review that we provided, if you like a more cautious estimate, we would proceed on that basis. >> what about an unintended consequence between mom-and-pop against the more well- established, larger chains and franchisees that might be able to absorb what could be perceived as a disproportionate shot in how that might actually reorient any kind of adaption to this >> we do find it will reduce the business on the retail side in terms of what
9:34 am
experiences, we are experiencing an industrywide number that would not surprise me at all of the more marginal struggle in small businesses were the ones that suffered the most. i do not know if those will go out of business in this deed, but certainly the larger, more established businesses will be able to support this better and use it in a competitive way against a smaller rival. they would have a harder time with that. they might be able to pass it on to their customers, who might have less disposable income and might be less tolerant and might not by as much. which would go directly to the top and bottom line. supervisor mirkarimi: that was the same logic would help the san francisco about the fees associated with restaurants and
9:35 am
eating establishments that had to pass on those cost, that we would be able to establish our own version of a san francisco universal health care type system, correct? quite correct. supervisor mirkarimi: did this guy fall? >> i have not done a complete economic analysis. i would say, however, that the way that the current legislation is designed, being that falls on the wholesaler, it is up to the wholesaler to pass on the cost. they will not care about the size of the retail business. supervisor mirkarimi: from an economic perspective, we are a healthy city. one of the top in the united states. probably one of the happiest
9:36 am
cities by those that were polled. probably one of the most beautiful cities in the united states. so, you are thinking that with all of those variables lined up, we can absorb this? of >> i would not want to say anything of that level of generality. we think that it will impact business and consumer spending. we think that the expansion of the city's budget has proportional economic impact. at the maximum and in the original legislation we have maybe $20 million fee that is brought down war in the neighborhood of $40,000,000.14999999 dollars. not likely to have a decisive impact citywide. which is not to say it will not impact some participants. supervisor mirkarimi: supervisor avalos: thank you supervisor elsbernd: -- supervisor
9:37 am
mirkarimi: thank you. supervisor avalos: supervisor elsbernd. supervisor elsbernd: following up on the economic impact on jobs and the public sector job growth, i almost wonder if your section of the comptroller's office and the other section of the comptroller's office might want to communicate a little bit in that respectively over the next few years it would be a mistake to say that the budget will grow. looking ahead we know that we have a budget deficit. to say that new jobs will be created, would not be more accurate to say that we will retain jobs? instead of getting new jobs? >> you are absolutely right on
9:38 am
that point. i do not want to give representation that this represents a gross of the public sector. these are jobs that will not be lost just because the city revenue is growing by $15 million in the context of the revenue loss experience. supervisor elsbernd: potentially there is retention of public- sector jobs but a net loss of private sector jobs. >> yes. supervisor elsbernd: what this represents to us is the exchange of a loss of private sector jobs for the potential retention of public-sector jobs? >> correct. supervisor avalos: i would like to interject, i think it is about keeping services. i do share your concerns, in my
9:39 am
mind the purpose of this is to retain the services. that is my question as well as to how we consider this to be about job growth. it does not seem like it can do that with a deficit limits over us. >> in the same way that we cannot say that based on the industry going down, on this policy there might be less employment in their otherwise would be. in the public sector there would be more employment than their otherwise would be, not to say it is the biggest thing driving employment in that time period. i would not want to give the impression that private-sector job losses are a sure thing. there is uncertainty about the revenue. if it comes in less, the benefit to the city will be less and the
9:40 am
cost of the private sector will be less as well. supervisor elsbernd: the assumption that you have, if i understood that right, there is an understanding that there might be a decrease in overall sales tax revenue? >> yes, it was. the shows approximately $5 million. supervisor elsbernd: which slide? >> slide #13. this shows a $6 million decline in retail establishments. a $6 million loss in revenue corresponds to a $60,000 revenue sales tax laws. supervisor elsbernd: the
9:41 am
question on the nexus study, one of the big picture concerns that we have about this, in looking at page 4 of the presentation, itemizing the various costs that we are recouping, in looking at those costs, is the nexus study identifies the total number of individuals served, does it compare to the individuals in san francisco naming a fee? is the question cleared? >> if in the stand correctly,
9:42 am
the study does not say that this is how many are served by the programs in the cost recovery, that information might be available but it is knobs for those receiving services. the study does not explicitly do that. it does not really need to. >> one of the things that gives me pause about this in my own view of the numbers, i would be willing to bet that the total number of individuals served by these services compared to the total number of paying a fee, the later number is going to be exponentially higher. big question to the controller, and i do not need an answer right now, but if you could give me examples of other city fees
9:43 am
with those that pay the total number of individuals, businesses, or entity's the pay the fee are exponentially higher as served by the revenue producer, if you could give me other examples, i cannot think of one but i would like to know the answer. in terms of implementation, i have questions about how this will work. supervisor avalos: another way to look at who is served broadly by the feed, i think we all benefit from the services provided for people that are caught up in the cycle alcoholism. it is something that we have is a service because san
9:44 am
franciscans of value that service. who is benefiting is broader than the individual that simply provide the service. >> i could not agree more. it does lead to the question that goes to the person on the far left, is this a fee or a tax? i think that that issue, we do not need to get into that debate here, but we do have to start getting into something that is paid for by a large number of people, it is important that we are aware of that. supervisor avalos: as far as it being paid for by the wholesalers and distributors of alcohol. >> if we heard from ted, we practically no who will pay this, it will be the consumer. let me just understand how the
9:45 am
treasurer or tax collector will do their job upon passage of this. >> there are two categories of businesses that will pay the fee. the third is wholesaler distributors. supervisor avalos: 4000 in the state? the country? >> 4000 located all over the state and out of the state as well. supervisor avalos: david, you are too tall. we will excuse you. thank you. >> there are 4000 distributors across the country licensed to sell in the state of california. supervisor avalos: we have no international distributors? >> not to my knowledge.
9:46 am
this is from the state collected excise tax on all fall, a large group that is a 4000 group all along with a smaller group of manufacturers that sell within the jurisdiction of san francisco. that number is very small. as we understand it, that is the entirety of the universe licensed to sell alcohol to retailers in san francisco competitively. we would have those groups in the forum once each quarter, looking at how much is sold in each category. for those sales in 7 cisco and sales that occurred. -- san francisco and those sales that occurred. supervisor mirkarimi: are there other examples of businesses across the country that receive quarterly forms for the taxes
9:47 am
that we hire? >> there are certainly businesses located out of the jurisdiction that we have to pay for services for in terms of what was rendered within the jurisdiction. often the headquarters are out of state and we will send them a forum to pay that tax, located in some cases outside of the state. >> what role does the board of equalization fly in this? >> they collect the excise tax and alcohol, two different functions. we have been working closely with them to make sure that the have the information to pass on. supervisor elsbernd: they will be assisting, but not collecting and transferring? >> correct. they do not have the ability to know where distributors sell of
9:48 am
call in the state of florida. of course, we are concerned about sales within san francisco. they cannot really assist us with that part of it. but they can assist us with providing names and addresses of these 4000 wholesalers. supervisor avalos: supervisor mirkarimi is going to have to leave for another meeting. so, i thought that we would have the acceptance of the amendment as a whole fifth, essentially with language that clarifies the role of the collector on standard fees for beer and wine, as well as spirits. lowering the overall amount based on the economic report based on 25%.
9:49 am
without objection? supervisor mirkarimi: ok [unintelligible] supervisor avalos: yes. the timeline we are looking at for this legislation, supervisor mirkarimi has to leave. based on the amendments we will have to have another committee meeting on that, monday morning at 11:00 this coming monday. whatever happens there is forwarded to the full board. in that meeting the full board will be after the legislative break, a september 7. there will be that amount of time between the last committee and a boat from the full board. the time line has sped up because looming november ballot is prop 26, passage would
9:50 am
require two-thirds of the electorate to support a fee. i think there will be cities, municipalities, and counties across california that will be opposed to prop 26, which is brought to us by the tobacco industry and the alcohol industry, as well as the oil industry, trying to protect their bottom line against local entities and counties with the impact of the industry and local jurisdiction. that is why we were -- we are moving up the time line. i do believe that in one month it will be around to be able to
9:51 am
hear concerns as well from people and to get feedback on the legislation as it proceeds to the board of supervisors. supervisor elsbernd: you feel confident that the treasurer's office can handle a feel like this? >> we do. we have built in a function that we think is important to make sure that the fee is collected from everyone knows the feet. supervisor elsbernd: my last question goes to the controller, are you assuming any revenue in the budget? >> in the budget recently adopted by the board, there are no revenues assume from his feet.
9:52 am
supervisor avalos: ok. dr. katz is here. i am sure you both have pressing things to do. you could talk about the impact of your services as rendered to the fire department, the impact of excessive drinking and what it means in terms of jobs for you in making sure that there is stability as his passes. >> thank you, good afternoon. first of all, a supervisor, i acknowledge you for putting forth such an interesting and innovative legislation. as the fire chief, if there is an instance where we can recover additional costs, it is a good
9:53 am
thing for the city in general. conceptually it sounds like we are headed in a good direction. that has provided strong data related to the calls. as you noted, approximately $4 million cash at this isn't an -- this is very innovative and creative and i'm looking forward to discussion.
9:54 am
we would like to look at the study conducted and we like to look at specific language. >> in terms of that $4 million, the full cost recovery for your department, $4 million,, how many firefighters can be retained with that cost recovery? >> this is approximately 25. this would not be adding those jobs of making sure that we maintain the level of staffing at the city currently has. >> how many do you have that the station? >> we have 355 on duty for day. they could range from a low of four to a high of 15 depending on the staffing and equipment that is needed at each of the
9:55 am
stations. >> thank you for creighton this legislation. we very much supported the commission in favor of it. we see the tremendous cost, the human cost and financial cost of excessive alcohol use. this is going back to 1986 when i was at the emergency room at san francisco. this is a bag of intravenous fluid from which to put in a multi vitamins which turns it yellow. this is because of the chronic malnutrition occurs to heavy
9:56 am
drinkers. at any one time, a third of them are there because of their chronic inebriation, withdrawing from alcohol, while having delirium drummond's. others have consequences like the disease or gastrointestinal bleeding due to alcohol. if i got a cut deeper understanding on how much those in resources for transporting people were chronically in the british. we have created a group that helps to reduce some of the hospital costs and it has its own costs. i very much want to see those services maintained. i see this as a way of putting the cost of these services more
9:57 am
directly, more directly we have costs that are created and this is a way of making sure that these services continue. i am very supportive of this approach and i appreciate your leadership. >> i appreciate the way that your department has looked at this fee. you have been working on this with the comptroller's office to help us with the numbers. i appreciate your support. the budget analyst, please share your findings. >> of course, our report is based on the numbers without the amendment. i would point out that on page four of our report, based on the $18,126,484 and costs that cannot be reimbursed, we
9:58 am
estimate that the city would realize $60.2 million. this would be 462,000, we note that as shown in table 80 on page 5 of our report, our estimate of just looking at salary and the mandatory benefits, it would be about 8997 must that would have no impact on the legislation. we pointed that out for your consideration. our understanding is that the proposed fee could not be imposed until january 1st so there were the six months.
9:59 am
if you look at the revenues of 16.2 million, the city would receive in 2010, 8,132,000. i emphasize that that is based on the prior fee. we also show on page 7, this is based on what the impact is specifically on a 12 ounce bottle of beer, this would be 5 cents. on a keg of beer, this would be $7.54 and down the line you can look at that table 3 on page 7 to see the specific impact. of course, we consider this to be a policy matter for