I can provide contexts with extremes that have be set our city and how this the idea of mitigation isnt 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 hasnt 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 arent 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 ecigarettes. Those store on the edge of the city have a drop. I am going to go there. This is like we cant 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 dont 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 cant. Because they cant 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 dont 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 havent 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 havent 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 years 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 BusinessDevelopment 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 superperscriptive 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 dont 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 Controllers Office, mayors 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 dont 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 doesnt, 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 oneonone 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 hasnt 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 cant 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 onetoone compensation. It is not. I think this line item creates an important reference point, if anything. I dont 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 . Lets 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 superknowledgeable 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 dont 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 dont 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. Lets 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 isnt going to get anything if the federal government says you cant sell it. Say that you cant 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 dont 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 doesnt 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 dwights 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 oneonone. 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 mayors 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 im thinking what we are proposing and our costs. Maybe i am crazy. Maybe that is the wrong word. Maybe i dont 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 directors 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 dont want to come across as being punitive. We dont like supervisors look like they are punitive to Small Businesses. City hall doesnt 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 isnt right. I dont think we can solve it here today. I dont 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 dont have the suggestion. I dont 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 Controllers 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 cant we ask that of the Controllers 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 Controllers Office be involved in establishing some of the economic determination. I understand what Vice President dwight is trying to say. We cant 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 cant 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 im 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 citys 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 precede