of the committee on jobs. let me first say that we support the health care security ordinance and believe that the program works. we also understand the concerns raised by supervisor campos. but we believe the current form of legislation will hurt the local economy, local businesses, and ultimately those who live and work in san francisco. in particular, it is clear that after a few conversations with local employers that the number of jobs lost will be significantly larger than what was reported today in the economic report. the fact is that this measure would hit local businesses and their employees harder than any single tax increase proposed or adopted in san francisco in the past 20 years and would come at a worse time for employers in decades. in 2006, then supervisor ammiano said this was a way to increase employee access to health care services. he was right, and that is what the hcso has done.

can it be improved? absolutely, but this is not the way to do it. san francisco does not operate in a vacuum. we have to compete with other businesses in the region and with the whole world. passing this legislation will continue to push costs higher and leave more san franciscans unemployed. health care policy is extremely important. yet, and even more complicated issue -- sweeping mandate should not be adopted in haste and without careful consideration of the facts -- sweeping mandate should not be adopted in haste -- sweeping mandates should not be adopted in haste. we believe we can allow employees to enjoy the flexibility of these accounts. additionally, by providing employees more and better reminders, we will certainly see the increase in usage. with the city's economic recovery still in question --

[bell rings] supervisor campos: thank you, sir. next speaker. >> i am a registered nurse and member of seiu 1021. i want to talk briefly about the young person who has asthma who has no access to an inhaler and an antibiotic to the ends up with life-threatening pneumonia in the emergency room. there really are ways for this to work, but i have to tell you -- i am outrage that someone who lives in san francisco and paste that $2 and thinks it is really going to health care -- i am outraged that someone who lives in san francisco and pays that $2 and thinks is going to health care and their argument against not going to closing the loophole is, "we swear we are not guilty of cheating, but in case we want to cheat in the future, we have to leave the loophole open." that does not make sense to me. i am in favor of this ordinance.

it is unbelievable. i go to a restaurant and order lobster and they gave me a hamburger, i would be totally outraged. you are handing me a bill that says you paid for health care for someone, and then pocketed the money, and you need it as your private source for creative financing? i do not get it. thank you. supervisor campos: thank you. next speaker. >> i admit, you're so tired of hearing small businesses and restaurants being vilified -- i am tired of hearing small businesses and restaurants being vilified. what a perfect example of what is wrong with this amendment. we have six stores. we have been here for 25 years. we have been a great san francisco citizen. we feed hospices. we feed the tenderloin after- school program. we tried to be a good citizen and try to treat our employees in a benevolent fashion.

all our employees get health care from us, but if this amendment passes, the impact is a $200,000 a year cost. we have six stores. two make money, two break even, two lose money. it this amendment is enacted, we are a true example of job loss. we will close two stores, and 40 people will lose jobs. that stands in stark contrast with what was expressed here. we are 1 business where you will lose 40 jobs right away from us. we are a prime example of what is wrong with this amendment. once again, i want to speak to the integrity of small businesses and restaurants that do business here and do it in the spirit of san francisco, which is a benign spirit. supervisor campos: thank you. next speaker. >> i am the executive director of the san francisco labor council. we represent over 100,000 men

and women who do have health care because they have effective bargaining agreements, and we were extremely proud to be part of the team the past the san francisco health care security ordinance in the year 2006. it was a 15-month campaign, extremely difficult to move forward with this. there were lots of studies, and ultimately, as people have said, this passed unanimously. by the way, i want to thank president chiu for cosponsoring the legislation, and thank you, david campos, for initiating it. the main piece we never anticipated what happened -- because healthy san francisco works -- tens of thousands of more people now have access to health care because of this wonderful legislation. we never ever thought that there was going to be the type of data

that we are now seeing today. we have been monitoring this over the last five years to see how it works. we like to see if legislation works. when we found out that over 80% of the money that is supposed to be going into health care savings accounts was going back into the pockets of the employers, we thought there was something vitally wrong. so we fully support this amendment to this great legislation, and we are urging you to make sure this goes to the full board of supervisors at the next meeting. thank you. supervisor campos: thank you. next speaker please. >> i am here with san francisco pride at work. the majority of our members are young people who work in san francisco, and i say the majority of them -- probably over 80% -- use healthy san francisco and otherwise would have no access to health care at all. when the legislation was originally passed, we never expected that the accounts would be used as a loophole for

employers and by closing the loophole, we will be bringing the legislation in line with the original intention, which is to provide health care for everyone who works in san francisco that otherwise would have no access. this is really important to young lgbt people and the city, and thank you, campos, for introducing it. supervisor campos: thank you. next speaker. >> i am an elected officer with seiu local 1021, and i work at a nonprofit in the tenderloin. over the last four years, we have suffered millions of cuts. we had deskilled our workers and reduce the availability of cyc beds. we have merged clinics and seen many layoffs. our public health system has been cut to the bone. we cannot allow anyone to continue to cheat the system.

the taxpayer's burden is about $600 for every blood pressure check. several thousand dollars for every emergency room visit, and at least $1,000 for every camp -- every ambulance ride. the idea that young people do not need access to health care, in countries with cervical cancer among young women, who is primarily affect women in the 20's, is the second cause of death, in this country because of regular checkups, it is the 14th cause of death among women, but those numbers go very high for women who are uninsured and do not have access to health care. in addition, the idea that young people do not need health care -- i do not know who you think there's children, but is usually young women. -- i do not know who you think bears children, but it is usually on women. it is very important that we close this loophole, moved in the intent of the original

legislation, and i thank you for your leadership. thank you. supervisor campos: thank you. next speaker. >> supervisors, i am with seiu 1021. i was part of the team that worked to pass the legislation when it originally passed. i can tell you without hesitation, having actually sat in the room when it passed this specific provision that it was never intended to be abused in this way. to reward bad actors seems wrong. leveling the playing field is the direction to go. i also just want to know, having sat through the hearings on the original legislation, the same arguments were made by almost the same people about job loss, how this is going to hurt

businesses. as history has shown, supervisor ammiano was correct. the supervisors and the mayor's office, who were willing to be courageous around the most important issue that faces america today and being a leader on the most important issue was the right thing to do. history has shown that that was the correct course. by closing the loophole today, you will show again that san francisco is the leader on health care and is willing to make sure that uninsured and those that are low-income have the kind of health care that they deserve. i just want to thank the board of supervisors for holding this hearing today and revisiting what is clearly a loophole that should never have been created. had we known, we would never have done this, and i am happy to see that you guys are doing

the right thing today. supervisor campos: thank you. next speaker please. >> good afternoon. i have lived in san francisco for 59 years. i would like to make my comments from a different point you. with this health-care ordinance, obviously, this -- there is disagreement. one area that everyone should agree -- if the department of public health had administered the different older programs more efficiently instead of wasting money, then we would not be in such a bad state of affairs. i admit that i am not fluent on these items, but one thing i am fluid is that if our agencies were to use the money more effectively and with less waste, we would not be here arguing for over two and a half hours about one particular loophole -- one thing i am fluent on.

one has to take a realistic point of view. if you are a businessman in san francisco, it is pretty clear that no matter how big of a heart you have, you cannot take care of everyone in every way you want to. it is kind of like the homeless problem. you take care of 100, there will be 200 more. you take care of 200, there will be 300 more. that is why a lot of my colleagues in different parts of the country actually congratulate me and say, "san francisco, you are doing a hell of a job solving problems for us in the east, the north, and the south. keep it up. you have such a big heart. we are glad we do not live in san francisco." my final piece of advice is no matter how much we want to help everyone, we have to be realistic. we cannot solve everyone's problems.

it is better to teach them to solve them themselves. supervisor campos: thank you. next speaker please. >> good evening. i am from the golden gate restaurant association. i am here today to talk about what i think is a way forward that will address the issues that have been raised, without the negative economic impact we have also heard today. one of the things that people have said -- and i think we need to clarify -- there's a, that keeps being said that there is not access -- there is a comment that keeps being said that there is not access. the purpose of the legislation when it was originally drafted was trying to create health access so that people did not first access health care at the emergency room. that was the design of the program. a reimbursement account does that. provides for reimbursement for

going to doctors, for going to the clinic. provides the level of health access, which is what the program was designed to do. however, if employees do not know about that benefit, then they cannot take advantage of it, and it undermines the intent of the law. we strongly believe that a mandate regarding notice would be appropriate. it could be a quarterly notice. it could be one that discusses how much of the benefit the employee has, how much they could accrue at the current rate over the course of the year, how the employee can access that benefit, and list the eligible expenses that they can be reimbursed for all on the notice to the employee. in addition, if we believe that there are bad actors and employers so limiting their program that they are not usable, we should require under penalty of perjury a request as

to what benefits are eligible under these reimbursement accounts. then we have information we could act on -- [bell rings] supervisor campos: thank you. is there any member of the public who has not spoken who would like to speak? please come forward. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i have been affiliated with restaurants for about 25 years. i think the legislation was well intended and was written with passion and care. however, although it is intended to solve a problem, a local, in fact, it will create another problem. restaurants operate on a 3% margin right now if you do everything right. with the 3% margin, with all the

other mandates pushed on this restaurant shares -- restauranteurs, eventually, a straw will break the camel's back here right now, there's a lot of restaurants -- a straw will break the camel's back. right now, there is a lot of restaurants and about 500 close every year. right now, what you are seeing is people are failing, and there is no cushion. there is no money. 95% of us are struggling. 5% of us seem to be doing fine. if we are all put out of business, no one will have any benefits. >> i am with the san francisco

labor counsel and as the wife of a restaurant worker. i am to speak on behalf of closing the loophole in the legislation because i think it is critical to the intent of the law, which was to cover employees with health care, and that is not happening. most of the restaurants are doing the right thing, and they should be applauded for that. some of those who are administering hra's are letting the employees know, helping them access this, but they are a minority. an important minority who are not. these employees are not given notice. it is not about notice. it is about the intent of the law. if we have a large percentage of that money being taken away from employees, that means they are not able to access health care. they are not able to cover prescription medication because of those stringent requirements

that are absolutely ridiculous. and young people do get sick. we do need access to health care. we do need preventative care. we have heard restaurant owners time after time say that they agree with it. we had a restaurant owner talk about how covering her employees is good business sense. i think people are failing, as the previous speaker said, and it is not just employers. it is definitely employees as well. i think it is critical that we close this loophole. the hra's are not working as currently presented, and i thank you for your time. supervisor campos: thank you. is there any other member of the public who has not spoken who would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. again, thank you to everyone on both sides of the issue has spoken about this. i know that president chiu and i know supervisor farrell -- ashley, he is on the rules

committee, which is starting now -- actually, he is on the rules committee, which is starting now. i do not want to belabor this, but one thing that is important going forward is that we had a discussion about the legal parameters we have, and i think that is something that should have been appropriately at the board of supervisors so that the entirety of the board can hear in a closed session some of the legal issues implicated, so with that in mind, i make a move that we forward this without a recommendation to the full board. supervisor farrell. supervisor farrell: thank you, supervisor, and thank you to everyone who came out today on both sides of the aisle. obviously a contentious issue. to say my piece about it now, i do have a lot of issues with how this has been implemented, and things that are probably unintended consequences. some people came up and spoke about going to a restaurant to pay 3% or 4% or 5% fee, and

understand now that it is not necessarily going to health care. i think that should drive everyone nuts. the fact that there are potentially incentives or disincentives to reimburse people -- it does bother me a great deal. i am move by the notion of leveling the playing field in the employer community -- i am moved. but whatever industry they may be on -- despite whatever industry they may be on. those things bother me a ton. where i come out right now is i think there are -- i have also been, however, hearing a lot of consequences here, and the loss of jobs in this economy is certainly a bellwether for me. i want to find a creative way -- i think there are ways to work around this. i am not right now comfortable that i personally know enough about the laws, and i would really value, as supervisor

campos mentioned, having a dialogue in closed session with our chief economist, with our city attorney to think deeper and much broader about creative ways to solve these issues without burdening the employers in the city unduly. obviously, health care is an extremely important issue, and we need to solve for that, so i appreciate the comments on both sides of the aisle. i want to thank everyone who came out in the middle of their day as well. so i appreciate that. i think where it differs, and i know supervisor campos and i will differ, is that i would like to do that now and in committee. from my point of view, this is not something in my opinion that we can rush into, and this is not rushing into it, but this is something i want to take the time to do it right. that would be my preference. to do it here in committee.

let me say very publicly that i will commit the work to find a solution. but i would prefer to do it here in committee as opposed to sending it to the full board. supervisor campos: i appreciate your comments, and i continue to be committed to working with you. i will ask for a roll call on my motion. to the extent that there is a need for a closed session, that is something that should involve the entirety of the board of supervisors. i think that it would be a disservice to our colleagues to have such a discussion as one committee in closed session if our goal is to really have a full discussion that actually considers the breath -- breadth of the applications. i think having that as three supervisors in committee is a mistake, so i plead with both you and with president chiu, out of courtesy to me, who is the supervisor who is the main

author of this, to let this go out of the committee without a recommendation does not mean you are committing yourself to any one vote. if you decide not to do that, it is something that does not usually happen because usually, that courtesy is extended to the author of the legislation. i will ask my colleagues to sign a document that i will introduce at the board on tuesday requesting that the item be directly placed on the agenda of the board of supervisors. i would hope that, given the effort to get along and work well together, that as the author of a piece of legislation, you would not be forced to do that, but i am prepared to do the -- that if this committee is unwilling to forward this to the full board. one thing that i would say is, president chiu, you are a co- sponsor of the legislation, and if you are going to co-sponsored

the legislation, i would ask that you move it forward to the full board, and if you are not prepared to do that, i would ask that you let us know whether or not you are continuing to be a co-sponsor of the legislation. supervisor chiu: thank you, colleagues. i first want to thank everyone who has come out here today to discuss this very challenging issue. obviously, this is the first time the matter has been heard of the board, and this involves a lot of complicated issues. my colleagues and i have spent a bit of time thinking about and discussing it in recent times. i do want to thank supervisors campos -- supervisor campos and the many community voices who have pointed out what i think is a real problem. i support the intention of the legislation. i am troubled that there are employers not paying what others are, that they are a disincentive to do the right thing, who have been limiting usage, who have not been

providing notice. i am also frankly troubled at the fact that we only have 20% usage. i do not think that is acceptable. at this hearing, there have been a lot of questions that have been raised that have not been answered. for example, what happens at the end of an employee's time? do we want to have millions of dollars sitting in definitely in these accounts? is that the best thing for workers? i think we all agree that we need to amend the legislation to ensure all employers are providing notice in all languages to all employees. there are still issued -- issues we need to discuss with the city attorney's office to make sure whatever we do is complying with federal law. that said, i do think it is appropriate, given this is only the first time we have heard this in committee, for us to hear this again in committee. thus, i would support supervisor farrell's motion to continue and not second that we move this out at this time.

i would suggest that we hold a hearing next week. i understand that supervisor campos and others are willing to consider ways to make sure the legislation is tailored. the committee is where work is supposed to happen, and i have heard from colleagues -- our colleagues -- across the political spectrum who want to make sure that we handle this legislation in committee. that is what committees are supposed to do. i do absolutely intend to support some version of this legislation. i just think we need a second hearing to do this right. supervisor campos: i have a motion to forward without a recommendation, so why don't we do a roll call on that motion. >> on the motion to refer without recommendation -- supervisor farrell. supervisor farrell: no. supervisor chiu: no. supervisor campos: aye. >> we have two nos and one aye.

supervisor farrell: that said, i would make a motion to continue. i could do it to the call of the chair, for a week, whatever the preference is. i am happy to do that on the most accelerated basis possible. i am would be happy to do that to the discretion of my colleagues. supervisor chiu: i would second admission that we were to do this next week, it would arrive at the board at the same time as was supervisor campos is suggesting -- as what supervisor campos is suggesting. >> is the motion to continue to next week or to the call of the chair? supervisor farrell: can we do it to next week? supervisor campos: to next week. supervisor farrell: ok. supervisor campos: do you have a specific date -- i think time. do we need to provide a time? supervisor farrell: at this

point, giving -- given schedules for next week, i would be happy to do it to the call of the chair. do you have any issues with that? supervisor campos: ok, if we could have a roll call on that, please. supervisor farrell: aye. supervisor chiu: aye. supervisor campos: no, and as i indicated, the motion passes, and it is continue to the call of the chair, and i will be introducing this at the next meeting on tuesday to have the item directly referred to the board of supervisors. can we call item two? >> item two, resolution authorizing the may cast ballots in the affirmative on behalf of the city and county of san francisco as owner of five parcels over which the board has

jurisdiction, where this five parcels would be subject to assessment in the proposed renewed and expanded property and business improvement district currently known as the bill more jazz community benefit district. >> good afternoon. i am year to present a resolution authorizing the mayor to cast assessment ballots in the affirmative on behalf of the city and county of san francisco as the owner of five parcels over which the board of supervisors have jurisdiction, where these five parcels would be subject to an assessment in the proposed renewed and expanded property and business improvement district, currently known as the fillmore jazz community benefit district, to be renamed. the district is in the process of renewal, and right now, the department of elections has sent out all of the ballots to every property owner within the proposed renewed district. they have also said ballots to the