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 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, lets 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 dont 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 someones inventory. I dont know if six months is enough time. One should not carry more than six to 12 months of inventory. I cant 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 cant 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 cant 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 wasnt 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 ecigarette legislation was in place. I want to make sure we are very clear that this is being elevated because of the potential ecigarette ban. This is a cumulative economic issue for tobacco retailers you requested the mitigation measures be put in place that havent or programs put in place or developed that happened back in september before the ecigarette legislation was introduced. I also, you know, the intention of having the office of economic and Work Force Development, Small BusinessDevelopment 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 wont receive this and it wont 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 im 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 dont 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 Controllers 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. Lets 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 dont 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 BusinessDevelopment 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 dont 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 dont make a motion that we come back. We dont 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 dont want to forget that. Mitigation doesnt necessarily come out of the general fund. It could be directed. That would require further legislation to have a specific syntax on that. Lets 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 0182019. Discussion and possible action item. Just a reminder the presentations are heretofore limited to three minutes. I can make this as quick as you want. Are those handouts . You have more than that for this thing of beauty, bring it on. Good afternoon. Richard kurylo. I have a power point. This is the annual report for the period april 1st, 2018 through march 31st, 1019. 2019. This is a quick high level overview. The report has been rebranded in the legacy business brand style and colors. We are seeking feedback on content, grammar and design. Draft report can be found at sfosb. Org meetings 10 under may 29 supporting documents. The final re