is the difference between the presidio trust, in terms of the maximum annual agreement fee, and verses reverses versus the national park service. another is a different function these entities have. i know there is a different function these entities have. we were hoping we would be able to negotiate one contract, circumstances providing, since we are providing the same service to both agencies. but since they are separate federal agencies they have separate requirements. we negotiate overall the fee of $4.30 million. they came back to us and told us what their payments were going to be. that distribution was decided from their standpoint, the federal government. it was not decided on hours. we just figured out the fixed price combined, and move forward from there. to tell you what one pays 70% or whatever it might be, that would be a question for the national park service or presidio trust. chairperson avalos: but the total combined fees on an annual basis is what yo
of excessive alcohol consumption have been to the city. the comptroller s office commissioned a study to determine what that cost is. that helped to inform us how we would be able to set what the fee would be forgetting that cost recovery. there has been a lot of discussion about how the fee would be applied, discussion in my office and in stakeholders across san francisco. originally, applied directly at the retail level. i have concerns about that based on the experience of recent recent fees like the tobacco fee that was enacted last year. the paper works through the remission of building in the treasurer s office. to me it made sense all so it to be able to apply and directly as part of the responsibility that we were able to apply. i believe that we should be subject to the feed, not so much the ones that are subject directly to the city and county of san francisco. the intention behind this is that every year the department of public health is forced to, with our budg
supervisor avalos: we are back from recess. thank you for your patience. if you could please call item no. 12? item number 12, ordinance amending the san francisco administrative code, chapter 106, by adding sections 106 through 106.28, to impose a wholesalers and certain other persons who distribute or sell alcoholic beverages in san francisco to: 1) recover a portion of san francisco s alcohol-attributable unreimbursed health costs, and; 2) fund administration costs. supervisor avalos: thank you, madam clerk. colleagues, i present to you the alcohol cost for traveling feet. this is a legislation that has been in one year in the making. the city attorney was asked to draft this legislation in june of 2009. the idea came from the work of the brand institute, who was working across the state of california, looking at how we could give recovery for the impact of all call consumption in the state. there was also discussion about applying it here at the local level. th