organizations can apply. >> do you have a question? >> i do. you have 640 in jobs now. first of all, thank you for the program. it has been a tremendous benefit to so many citizens and residents of san franciscans. you have 640 slated for local small businesses. the rest of the jobs remain in? >> the rest of them are part of the transitional program, and also there are a little more than 100 slots under what we call our public service employment component with individuals working at hsa and the rec and park department. >> commissioner o'brien?

commissioner o'brien: i would second you on running that program. a couple of questions of the people who participated, would you have any estimates. -- would you have any estimate of how many would have multiple candidates? i do not think there was a restriction that it could only be one -- only be one. >> a lot of companies us for multiple candidates very good we had about 600 businesses -- candidates. we had about 600 and businesses participate.

we have some criteria we use were based on the size of the business how many you could hire, and we ended of which about 50% of the current workforce, so you could get five approved. >> maybe i got it wrong, but i will ask it again. is there a sunset for this job version to set? >> i probably was not clear. the applications are open now. the program would be with this current fiscal year. now that would be june 30, 2011. we are hoping that even with the dire budget situation policy

makers will understand both businesses and job-seekers need this program and we might get some money in the next fiscal year. commissioner dooley: i just wanted to say i have are to the scene jobs in action being able to be higher people who had to be a -- to rehire people who had to be laid off who have been able to step up to the plate and the liver and are now employed on a permanent basis in -- and the liver and are now employed on a permanent basis and -- and deliver, under now employed on a regular basis. they now have the experience that is opening doors for them, so i want to say i see it every

day when i a.m. working on my own job, and i want to thank you for that. >> that is why i do what i do. i am an old work force person, and we want to use this program to make a difference in people's lives, and i think we have, and i think it is unfortunate that the federal level congress did not see the benefit of things like this. i just got back from a national conference on this topic on friday, and a lot of states and cities did not taken vantage of this opportunity. for example, the state of illinois and the state of pennsylvania did not get started until june of 2010, so i do not think fit congress truly

understood the potential positive impact of program of this type could have. >> i also worked with a lot of nonprofit organizations that were able to take the advantage of the program, and some and were able to retain employees they hired with this program. thank you. >> i hired someone through jobs now. >> hooray. obviously, they are doing a great job for you. >> is great. >> any more questions or comments? thank you very much. >> thank you for your recommendation and support. >> any public comment since?

-- comments? seeing none, public comment is closed. next item please. >> of discussion on the 2000 eighth-2009 annual business -- 2008-2009 business filings. >> welcome. >> thank you and good evening. i am head of the labor enforcement department. i am here with matt goldberg, who is fairly new and n will be heading the enforcement of health care security, and he will be doing the presentation. good by way of introduction, i know all of you are familiar,

but as a reminder, the health care security ordinance was first passed by the board of supervisors in august of 2006, amended in april of 2007. if those two things. it sets up and -- it does two things. it sets up a comprehensive system as an option, and it also requires employers with 20 or more employees to spend so much per hour on health care benefits for their employees. the ordinance requires employers also to do some annuals and reporting to the city, and we have now done reporting to understand employers choices and how they are complying with the ordinance, and we have done the

reporting in 2008 and in 2009. we are here to talk about what we found out that night to be of interest. matt is going to give you a brief overview, but we have to hand out. it looks like a handout on the table might be short a few pages, so we brought you a full one for the commissioners. there was also a question about how the health care expenditure rates are set in the ordinance each year common and and we will be prepared to -- each year, and we will be prepared to explain that and where we are for 2010, and you will be the first to

know what it looks like for the raises -- the rates for next year, which are now being determined. >> good evening, commissioners. i appreciate the opportunity to be here and share a few thoughts with you. i am going to briefly explain the timing and method for determining the health care expenditure rate on an annual basis and how the process happens and how employers get notice of the process. i am going to highlight a few point from our analysis of the statistics we gathered, and there is more information in the handout we provided, which is also available on our web site. i am also going to highlight the process we are going to engage this year to gather information of the changes we have in the

works, so with respect to the technical question, in terms of how we determine the annual quarterly expenditure employers are required to make, essentially we arrived at an hourly figure, and that is based on a 10-county survey. that is through a charter of the health board and gaugers each year. that is a survey determining the expenditures they may concerning the 10 largest counties other than san francisco during give we divide down to get an hour the figure, and from there, but he the bureau's raid sent francisco employers are required to repay -- and from there, the

two embraced san francisco employers are required to pay. 3/8 arlin the ra -- the rates are 75% determined from the survey. but as a little bit complicated and technical. -- that is a little bit complicated and technical. that is what employers in san francisco are required to spend. the timing is such that the health service's board is required to conclude the survey by the second week of january every year. we happen to be at that point, and this thursday the board is meeting, and they are going to approve the survey, so i can

tell you preliminarily that we then go through a process to the shore we do the calculations iraq -- to insure we do the calculations correct. i can tell you for 2012 is set to increase from $2.60 per hour to $2.20 per hour. forgive me. that is for the large employers, and for the medium-sized employers, the hourly rate is set to increase from $1.37 an hour to $1.36 an hour. those slight increases are fairly consistent to what we have seen in each of the past four years.

but as the rate we are going to see for 2012. we intend to provide notice to our employers we publish about on our website. we also have notices we send out to employers. even our was going to move on to a quick highlight of some of the analysis i did. just by way of background, the ordinance requires us to collect data on that basis from employers about how the specifically are meeting the ordinances' requirement for

health care. copies are also available on our website. of approximately 300,000 forms we collect each year with good data that represent responses on behalf of about 130,000 employees, we were able to determine for 2008 and 2009 the most common and popular way to meet the health care expenditure requirement in the ordinance was to provide traditional group health insurance coverage to employees. that was the overwhelming majority of employers chose that as the primary method fork spending requirements. it changed slightly from 2008 to 2009. it was switched from 84% to 81% of employers.

we broke down the other categories of ways to meet the health care expenditure requirement. there are health spending accounts and direct reimbursement systems. those were a relatively are comparatively small percentage, and they did not change dramatically from 2008 to 2009. the other method was to extend the city option to the department of public health so those employees could take a vintage of the help the san francisco program or medical reimbursement -- the other employees could take advantage of the healthy san francisco program or medical reimbursement for employees that live outside of san francisco. in addition to the fact that the group health insurance was clearly the most popular, a couple of other highlights. the very largest employers were those most likely to use the city's option to meet the health

care expenditure requirement. the employers of over 500 employees at the highest rate were using the city option at 13%. we collected industry data in 2008. there were a few highlights with respect to industries. the construction industry was the highest industry with respect to providing group health insurance. they were at 92%. as indicated, all employers were at about 84%. they were at the high end there. the administrative support and waste management industry was the highest usage of the city's option at 21%. there are some interesting industry-by-industry breakdown'' there as well. the other highlight that came out was that some of the direct

reimbursement and health spending accounts programs had some lower utilization rates. employees were not able to or did not take advantage of those programs at a higher rate. those are a few of the highlights. we have been sensitive to employer needs, and have tried to work hard to make our data collection effort as simple as possible. each year we change our form a bit. we try to simplify the form. the other thing we are in the process of doing -- we are working with the tax treasurer and collection to make the form

available online for employers. more and more city forms are being made available for submission online. this is something more and more employers are doing with all sorts of data. we are in the midst of negotiations and trying to get this year's reporting form available for employers on line. we will have that decision made, if we can accomplish that in the coming weeks. typically, we do a mailing out to all the employers in march. we ask that the submissions of annual reporting date to be completed by the end of april. we continue with that schedule this year. we will be providing the opportunity to do that online for some employers. for those who would prefer to do a hard copy, that will be a backup option as well. that concludes essentially what i wanted to share with you. there is technical information

there, so my apologies. if you have any questions, i can try to clarify or explain it. vice president clyde: thank you for your presentation. it is important the small business community be informed of the program, the requirements, and what will happen in the future? we need to be able to plan for our expenses as time goes by. i would like to say that i support this program. i think it is well designed in many respects and very favorable to employers because there are many ways you can manage your health care expenditures as a small or medium-size employer. i really have to commend help the san francisco and the health care security ordinance because

it gives us the opportunity to improve on group plans. if you are a small employer, the group plans have restrictions in the size of your hourly restrictions and size restrictions. a very positive thing for san francisco businesses is that this is a way to provide health care for employees that group insurance currently does not allow employers to follow. i also would like to say that the office has done a great job in in forming the small business community. the outreach has been great over the past three or four years the program has been in development and in its implementation. that being said, i have a couple of questions. those are for the small business community. are there areas where you are seeing interpretations difficulty in interpreting the law? where are you seeing small businesses -- are there places

whereupon -- where you are seeing problems with the implementation, and do you see solutions for those? >> thank you for your comments generally. i think we have seen, trending over time now, that the law has been in place for many years and there has been a better understanding from employers and small employers. there occasionally are confusions are questions when we have business owners that have a number of businesses or a number of locations, and so there are technical elements of the law that have to do with whether they qualify as one larger employer or if these can be seen as silos for a number of small businesses, each of which have enough employees to qualify as a

covered employer under the law. that is maybe not specific necessarily to small businesses, but that is an area of confusion we see occasionally, an area where it is difficult to interpret on occasion. are there areas of confusion? nothing comes to mind. employers need to have worked -- employees need to have worked a certain number of hours per week to qualify for health care expenditures to be made on their behalf. some of the smaller businesses have part-time employees, and there can be a little bit of difficulty in interpreting whether a part-time employee whose hours change from week to week over a given quarter -- if they have worked enough hours to qualify. questions arise occasionally in

that area. vice president clyde: i think it is fair to say that the majority of the complaints we get that we follow up on our from workers whose employers are ignoring the law, be they large or small. occasionally, investigations involve employers who have chosen reimbursement accounts, and workers are having trouble getting reimbursements. >> i want to take a moment also to thank you for the concept of highroad employer. i think san francisco is really interested in raising the bar. it might be difficult at times, but it is really important to keep in mind that raising the bar really lifts us all. but i am -- i really want to

help people understand how they can comply. i am looking forward to looking at the new form as well, because it is kind of a confusing -- for some small employers, especially when you are in the under 50 range, 25 or 30 -- sometimes, small-business owners are the only one doing all their bookwork. we do not tend to have human resources people. we do not have a human resource department, or even a dedicated paperwork person. so it can take some time and we need all the help we can get. >> i would like to comment on both of your points. i have been asked numerous times why san francisco legislates these great labor

laws, and what is it about our city. i will point to the history of the strong labor movement, but i also point to highroad employers. our city is blessed with a community of employers who, as you call them, highroad employers, who want to provide well for their employees. on the other point, if i may, commissioner, if you would be willing, we would love to run by our draft of the 2010 annual reporting form for your feedback, if you are interested in offering it. vice president clyde: i would be very interested in that. there are two issues. one is fairness for all workers. the other one is i believe that health care is something that we have to -- that we should all have access to.

and the longer and harder work for that, the sooner that they will come. president yee: i think it would be beneficial if you can share that report our director so all of the commission can have a copy of it. commissioner o'brien: i have one technical question, i suppose. it says there is a correlation between employer size and participation in the city option. the larger the employer, the more likely it will use the city option. is that right? the bigger employers are more likely to go with the city option than with the group care? is that correct? >> yes. i was just calling to point out -- i will address the more complicated "why" question,

but it is correct. table 7 shows that as employer size increases, there are four categories. use of the city option increases from 4%, 6%. we definitely do see that correlation. >> i might suggest it may have to do with large employers who operate in many states, who do not have a uniform health insurance plan. so they choose the city option as the simplest for local. commissioner o'brien: make sense. president yee: i am sure your office is getting inquiries and complaints, but i want to ask the director. the small business assistance center -- do we get many inquiries regarding health care? other small-business owners who might be not so clear? >> i think initially, in the

beginning, we did get inquiries, which we've been directed to the office of labor standards and enforcement. i think now not as many inquiries. sometimes, we might get inquiries right before the new fee comes up online, because people are trying to work on their budgets. but i think we are doing a relatively good job informing folks at the counter, and we have the pamphlet always available, informing people about the specific liberal laws -- the labor laws that are specific to san francisco. i think the first year, there was a little more confusion. i think as reported that businesses are better understanding. president yee: that is good. thank you. any more comments or questions? vice president clyde: just -- i

just have a comment about the healthy -- it is really not for your office. it is not for your office, but things for the presentation and your work with the small business community. i mean, you have done great work with us. it is more just a discussion, a little bit, about the professionalism asian -- the professionalization of labor and the cost of doing business in san francisco. it is sometimes difficult to communicate the difference between concerned about our overall cumulative cost of doing business and the narratives of a specific program. i got a little bit of a catch in my throat but when i heard the expenditure next year is going to be about a $50 an hour for a small employer on top of the -- about