at that time we will look at utilization bids and if we should increase the cost of premiums based on those earlier ones that i showed -- showed you. utilization has gone up and we will have to increase premiums to cover the anticipated costs and costs that had been spent, which is exactly what we do with united healthcare. supervisor chu: thank you. >> can i? supervisor chu: go ahead. >> you pointed out the issue of planned migration with a risk premium costs. i wanted to give you an example of how significant this is. over the past few years we have had 4000 members move out because of the rising cost of the shield premiums. in this last year we kept the premiums constant and only 300 people moved. if we had 2000 members moving out with their families into

kaiser coverage, the city would save $9.8 million. but the loss of those younger, healthier families in the risk pool would increase the aggregate blue shield premiums, because all you would have left are sick, middle-aged people. to balance the risk pool, you need help the families in both. that is why they apply only to dependent coverage. so, in the long run, there is still a lot of work to do. as you pointed out, this is a short-term solution and only the second time we have done this. it is essential in order to negotiate good premiums that we have competition in the health- care marketplace. it is essential. going from one provider to another, we would be negotiating

with a monopoly. it is essential that we provide a choice of quality plans for all the members to balance the risk pool. tpacit is important that we take care -- take advantage of that momentum. we will be monitoring options closely as the insurance exchanges take effect. also, the increased purchasing power and transparency,ks there willóil"ñ be greater transparency, but this is one of the issues that bill come up at the california state exchange meeting tomorrow. we are working to incentivize employee and retiree wellness end working to change doctor and hospital payment systems so that we are paying for quality, for all it -- for value, not volume.

things that the government and purchasers have a stake in. i wanted to allow more specific details on the actuarial presentation. we could have them present. %ó let's have the: presentation of the 10-county amount. >> all right, it is number one. before you have the present amount for this plan, we did the analysis per section 423, collecting information in 2013. the amount is now $534.78, a 2.6% increase.

any questions? supervisor chu: thank you. let's go to the budget analyst report. >> on the bottom of page 6 of our report, in table 3, page 7, we have the total city employee and retirement costs for health , dental plans, and life by 1.4%. this is from july 1, 2012, through december 31. on an annualized basis, 591 million for the calendar year 2013, which is before you, as you know. attachment #two gives details for the city employees and retirees.

the blue shield flex funded plan has been thoroughly discussed. on page 9 be pointed out that it could result in a savings of a health -- savings to the health service system, but it transfers financial risk if the claims exceed premium penance. on that one item, we considered that to be approval for the board of supervisors. we recommend everything else the two approved for both resolutions at this time. supervisor chu: thank you. are there members of the public it wish to speak on these items? 9mñseeing no one, public commens )nosed. colleagues, to the items, if we could take approval of item #9 first? this is a simple one, to approve

the 10-county survey amount. can we entertain a motion to send this forward with recommendations? done without objection. item number eight, again, catherine walked us through this fairly clearly, but to reiterate, we are renewing ties are with no overall change to the plan designed. thereen we are allowing participation in the employer plan. in addition, we made an deductible out of pocket costs pouring from a half plan year to a fall plan year. other than that, there were no plan design changes for that. for the fully insured plan, we are sticking to that with the retirees. as we talked about, it is

applying only to the active retirees. we had planned design changes to incentivize employees to go with in a network dental providers. if people continue to go out of network, it is expensive and costly for the city. this is a renewal of the same this is a renewal of the same finally, on blue shield, the flexible funded approached was an area that the health service system grappled with. in materials the trade-off was $39 million in the status quo for the fully insured plan= just a $9 million increase with a potential rift in terms of payout. it is a big change and i do not want to take this decision lightly. i want to make sure that

colleagues are where we are taking on the potential risk, but there is a small likelihood that it could happen. i think that catherine did speak to the reserves, that we would have to deal with the exposure. fully funded, but we do have $7 million from the 2% pledge in addition to the other levels. so, that is the decision before us. supervisor kim: i would like to hear from other committee members as well. i appreciate the time and thoughtfulness that went into this proposal before us. of course, there is some nervousness as we move into a different type of system. with the flexible funding and liability, however, the small risk might be what the city is

taking on. i think that i feel comfortable with this proposal and that as we move forward we continue to assess how this benefits the city. because i think this issue is really important for our colleagues to understand, i would support moving it without recommendation just to give an indication to board members to evaluate this on their own. given that i think that it is important for each member of our board to really understand and weigh in on tuesday. for myself, i plan on supporting this. if you want to appreciate the faultless that went into this, particularly i would like to thank dr. dodd, who spent some health care in the city. i was incredibly fascinated and am excited to continue learning more. supervisor chu: thank you.

supervisor avalos: i will be supportive. i want to thank catherine and her team for her work and creativity. also, i am sure, looking at the risks, which are small but still there, there were probably some sleepless nights for part of this exercise. of course, supervisor chu as well. i am ok moving forward with that recommendation. supervisor avalos: -- supervisor chu: thank you. there is a motion to send this forward without recommendation, which i think it's fine, given the direction this policy would take the city. i would also request that the director be available on tuesday to answer any questions

about the plant and to ask you to reach out to board members in advance of tuesday to really explain it,n9 as that it takes time to understand the =p went through to get there. colleagues, we have a motion that i think we can do without objection. thank you very much. >> item #8 is without recommendation, item number nine is recommended? supervisor chu: correct. i plan toíulay take item #10. it will likely be a relatively short item. it probably have toxyn, be continued. but we will take a 10 minute recess after that before moving on to the other items. 8ú ordinance amending: 1) the san francisco business and tax regulations code, article 9, section 604, and adding section 608, to exempt a limited number of special parking events operated by the volunteers of non-profit organizations on sfusd property for the sole

benefit of san francisco public schools and earning less than $10,000 in gross revenue per event from rent, from the requirement to pay parking tax and other requirements; and 2) the san francisco police code section 1215 to exempt said organizations from the requirement to obtain a commercial parking permit, establishing an alternative permitting process, and establishing a sunset date. supervisor chu: thank you very much. we're joined by supervisor mar, the sponsor of this legislation. would you like to say a few words? >> thank you. y4 what the chair said. j=this is an amendment i am presenting today that befit hopefully for one week and then be built upon within a week. first of all, i wanted to thank the mayor and treasurer and a number of parent organizations from the richmond district that have worked with us on this legislation. this is an important piece of legislation that will support local schools.

it is also supported by almost all of my colleagues on the board of supervisors. they are all cosponsoring this with me. o appreciative of the hard work of jean alexander, and the treasurer's office. i also wanted to say that the second district parent teacher leaders, like michelle parker and the jefferson are gone elementary school, i wanted to of knowledge one of the parent leaders from our richmond district for his hard work on this in his great insight in putting this together. guaranteed share organizations

for several years have been holding special parking events on parking lots to raise a supplemental revenues. everything from fleet week to be hardly strictly bluegrass from october. currently the business tax regulation code requires that these events be taxed at a rate of 25%. this creates a burden on many of these parent-led volunteer organizations who are staging these events for the sole benefit of the unified school districts. by amending the existing law to exempt these fund-raisers from being taxed, it allows volunteers and parent organizers reap the benefits of their efforts. follows. the tax collector would issue what is called a special school parking event permit to the city's pta umbrella for the

following criteria. the event parking must be conducted by a volunteer in a tax-exempt organization and earnings must be for the sole benefit of san francisco public schools. a maximum of 150 school parking permits will be issued annually. gross revenues for the parking and not exceed $10,000 for each event. each day of the event is considered a distinct the event. for example, the three day outside event coming up in august, at the school puts together a three day event to take advantage of the parking created by the concerts', each parking event. this would allow one school to raise as much as $30,000. the exemption will sunset in

2015 unless extended by the board of supervisors or the voters. the fiscal impact will be addressed by budget and legislative analyst's. we have estimated that the maximum court on tax revenue to the city would be about $300,000 per year. budget legislative analysts have noted that currently there are not paying these taxes and in effect it has no present fiscal impact and moreover i believe these events should not be taxed in the same way the commercial parking lots are. it is simply good policy to remove burdens and obstacles from motivated parents looking to help students. the amendment as a whole, which the city attorney has alerted us of, there is at least one amendment that is substantive, but the amendments simply create a short set of findings and they are on your desk.

the volunteers of nonprofit organizations must change to more accurately reflect the entity's qualified for the exemption. pta and pto's, within the school districts. in our amended version, the tax collector bill issue the permits to the second district for these events. also, there is a reporting requirement that the set -- second district must make regarding relevant records and annual reports to the board. lastly, parking lot events no longer have to comply with the revenue control equipment requirements, streamlining the process and simplifying yet. changes have been made to reflect our adjustments to the sections enacted subsequent to the introduction of this ordinance. the city of san francisco, in my

opinion, should be doing everything possible to keep our children and families in the city. this is helpful to the parents who are already going above and beyond to raise money and make sure that these schools are able to meet the needs of children. the legislative and policy manager for the treasurer's office is here with us to present enters to any questions you have. thank you for considering this. i urge your support. supervisor chu: i also want to take a minute to recognize racial morton, who is here at the hearings. did you want to say anything them up or does that complete the presentation? supervisor mar: that completes the presentation. i should make note that rachel has been instrumental and i appreciate her support. supervisor chu: thank you.

let's go to the budget analyst report on this item. >> as shown on table one of the report, also table to, the maximum for on a reduction in revenue for the city would be 489,003 under dollars annually, but as the supervisor has correctly stated, it should be noted that fund raising events sponsored by the pta to benefit the unified school district at district locations are not currently paying these parking taxes or fees, although the city code provisions to permit required that such taxes and fees be paid. we consider approval of this ordinance to be a policy decision. supervisor chu: just a quick question for crag.

i know that the legislation contemplates the treasurer's office being the issuer of single-day permits. i guess it used to be the department and whether you think you can do this within your existing staff level. >> we think that if it is implemented as it now, it should on us requiring additional resources. supervisor chu: with regards to falling -- falling under compliance of the guidelines, do you check to make sure there was compliance with how the permits are being in love? >> yes, we will be doing our annual reporting based on data we receive from second district

pta, and we will continue to do all our auditing practices we do on parking lots around the city. supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor mar: i just wanted to thank the president of the second district pta and the knowledge that the legislative chair of the second district are here, but i appreciate their efforts to create a process that streamlines the process, but also to ensure there is good information so it is not just a few schools that take advantage ofp=4v this. they're created checklists and other information so that more schools can participate in this way of raising funds for the schools, but the second district pta stepped up to make sure this to be a process that works and that it is fair for all the schools that want to participate. thank you. supervisor kim: i just want to

thank supervisors mar -- supervisor mar for all his work and his office's work. i know how important it is that the school district is able to maximize its access in order to generate revenue for our schools. at the school district, we often talk about how we do not have enough teachers, and of money, enough supplies, but the one thing this will district has a lot of is land and facilities. i think that in order to best optimize what assets we do have, measures like this where we are able to encourage our pga -- pta's to be oblivious parking

school district has, so i am very much in support of this and let we can move forward on it. i often go to events in different neighborhoods. it is often frustrating to see an end the schoolyard -- an empty schoolyard that could be generating funds for events like this. i think that there are numerous benefits for the community as well. supervisor chu: why don't we open this item up for public comment? are there members of the public who wish to comment on item 10? we also will be continuing this item. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am vice-president of the board of education, also a parent of two public school students and a

pta member. i just wanted to express my personal support for this legislation and my thanks to supervisor farrell -- supervisor mar and to the treasurer for making this happen. this is been happening for a number of years now, and it has been a lifeline to individual pta's. it pays for supplies and other programs at the schools. as you know, our schools have been under a lot of pressure in recent years, and every little bit helps. this is a great example of government stepping up to clear the way and make sure that parents can raise money that they need to for their programs and their schools. supervisor chu: thank you very much. >> good afternoon. i am an executive board member

of lafayette's pta, and i want to thank supervisors mar -- supervisor mar for sponsoring this event and the treasurer as well. we just want to make sure that we keep a good, quality education for our children. you're sorry really appreciative of this happening and being possible. thank you so much. thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon. we have 65 units of pta's throughout the district. we want to congratulate the supervisors that participated and co-sponsored this piece of legislation. it is a great example of innovation in local government,

and we are very appreciative of a small step forward in helping to raise money for local schools. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you very much. are there other members of the public who wish to comment on item 10? >> i am et parent of a public- school student, a public school in the richmond district, one that has not run one of these programs in the past but maybe we will look into it in the future. i want to thank all the supervisors for joining and moving forward on this measure so quickly, just in time, i think, for some of the summer concerts. thank you very much. supervisor chu: thank you. are there other members of the public who wish to comment on item 10? can we entertain a motion to accept the amendment as a whole that has been laid out? we have a motion to accept the amendment as a whole and we can do that without objection. do we have a motion to continue the item as amended for one week?

we will take that without captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- supervisor chu: we@baw recess. my apologies. we wanted to iron out some of -- y=6fsome logistical problems. please call item numbers 11 and 12. >> item 11. motion ordering submitted to the voters an: "ordinance amending the business and tax regulations code to: 1) enact a new article 12-a-1 (gross receipts tax ordinance) to impose a gross receipts tax and an administrative office tax on persons engaging in business activities in san francisco; 2) amend article 12-a (payroll expense tax ordinance) to reduce business payroll expense tax rates based on the amount of gross receipts tax collected under article 12-a-1 (gross receipts tax ordinance); 3) registration ordinance) to establish business registration fees based on gross receipts and amend the current business

registration fees to generate approximately $13 million in estimated additional revenue; 4) amend article 12-a (payroll expense tax ordinance) to add a sunset date to the surplus business tax revenue credit; and 5) amend article 6 (common administrative provisions) to establish requirements for filing a tax return under article 12-a-1 (gross receipts tax ordinance), establish penalties for non-filing, and amend the requirements for filing payroll expense tax returns and penalties for non- filing to conform to the new gross receipts tax" at an 6, 2012. item 12. 9 voters an: "ordinance amending the business and tax regulations code to: 1) enact a new article ordinance) to impose a gross receipts tax and an administrative office tax on persons engaging in business activities in san francisco; 2) amend article 12-a business payroll expense tax rates based on the amount of gross receipts tax collected under article 12-a-1 (gross amend article 12 (business registration ordinance) to establish business registration fees based on gross receipts and amend the current business approximately $40 million in amend article 12-a (payroll sunset date to the surplus (e credit; and 5) amend article 6 (common administrative provisions) to establish requirements for filing a tax return under article 12-a-1 (gross receipts tax ordinance), establish filing payroll expense tax. supervisor much. please call item 13 and 14, though they are not exactly connected. >> item 13. hearing to consider the proposed initiative ordinance to be submitted by four or more supervisors to the voters at the november 6, 2012, election entitled "ordinance amending the san francisco business and tax regulations code, article 12-c, real property transfer tax, by

amending section 1102, to increase the real property transfer tax on certain transfers." item 14. hearing to consider the proposed initiative ordinance to be submitted by the mayor to the voters at the november 6, 2012, election entitled "ordinance amending the san francisco business and tax regulations code, article 12-c, real property transfer tax, by increase the real property transfer tax on transfers of $1,000,000 or greater." supervisor chu: thank you very much. on these items i believe we will be hearing a presentation from the comptroller's office, who will walk us through the proposals in speak to us as to their economic impact. supervisor, did you want to have any opening comments? supervisor avalos: unfortunately because of the meeting time, i have been meetings back up -- supervisor chu: unfortunately because of the meeting time, i am backed up.