regulates surcharges imposed on customers to cover in whole or in part the cost of the health care, it is difficult in some circumstances which of any portion of a surcharge is imposed for customers for this specific purpose, however, the olse will ensure that employers understand this provision of the ordinance for and are in compliance of it and for members of the public, we have many, many findings, departments gave us their recommendation and is we are incorporating the recommendations we see make sense. with regards to finding number 7, i would agree with that statement and incorporate the city attorney's spops to finding number 7 which states that a business commits consumer fraud if it assesses a surcharge for a stated purpose with the knowledge that it will use the money for a different purpose. with regards to responses to recommendations for recommendations 1, 2 and 3, i would recommend that we not

implement those recommendations, for the first recommendation, i think we state that recent amends to the hcso adequately address the issue of consumer fraud, the board of supervisors support businesses identify how to cover their cost within the individual business models as long as it is done within compliance of the health care ordinance. such investigations are within the purview of the state..[reading].. tax collector. >> excuse me, president chu, are you specifying this recommendation will not be implemented? >> correct, for recommendations 1, 2 and 3. with recommendation 3, the finding should be that the board of supervisors defers to the district attorney's ongoing investigation, the board does have the power to require to pursue recommendations so this recommendation cannot be implemented by the board.

going to the findings related to employer's health reimbursement accounts, finding number 8, disagree, and for this, the board of supervisors refers to the olse's response, the analysis of the 2010 annual reporting forms provides that employers allocated to health care reimbursement perhaps, flexible spending accounts, savings accounts, medical savings accounts, the 12 thousand dollars reports the amount..[reading].. from all of those types of accounts, the annual reporting form does not ask the employer's what happened, these allocation and is reimbursements were reported by 2019ed and 16 employers who submitted the annual reporting form to the olse, with regards to finding number 9, disagree, the city and county does not

know employees and employers using those, similarly there is no data between the differing reimbursement rates, the board of supervisors made amendments and believes they will help increase reimbursement rates and other reimbursement programs. finding number 10, partially disagree, the board of supervisors defers to olse's response, finding number 1 1, partially disagree, time limits are standardized. finding number 12, partially disagree, the board of supervisors refers to the response of the city attorney, the city attorney agrees that hra's may not be an allowable option o under the affordable care act, this question will be answered definitively by forthcoming regulations.

finding number 13, disagree partially. under the previous law, this could be have been a case under the recent amendment ts, this issue was addressed in a var iet of ways including posting and quarterly notice requirements so employees are aware of their benefits and how to use them and by requiring all unused monies to remain with the employee for 24 months, the law now requires that any benefit plan must be structured adds to be reasonably calculated to benefit the employee, olse has the authority to not be designed to benefit the employee and it should not be a qualified..[reading].. the new law that went into effect in january 1, 2012 pertains to

that. they are administered by a third party according to to olse's data, 85% of employees use third party administrators or provide the type of benefit that would not be able to provide health information, many employers build in other safeguards that make sure that private health information remains confidential. and then with regards to the fourth response to recommendations around disallowing the use of employee hra options, i would recommend that it states it will not be implemented, the hra are important to businesses and with respect to complying with the chro, they use appropriate

tools to make benefits readily available to their employees and with regards to the response of recommendation number 5, i suggest we state that it not be implemented with regards to eliminating time limits. it defer tos the public health response, so thank you for listening to that, and i'm making a motion that we revise the motion that included these findings and revise them as i had just stated on the record. >> and to budget and legislative analyst, anything to add? >> no, we have all of the information and if the motion is approver, we will revise the resolution part. >> i'm in agreement with those changes so we'll take that without objection. >> and just in closing remarks, i know this is an issue that obviously has a lot of perspectives and responses from my perspective, i do know and

we will be monitoring this data carefully and it is my hope that the education efforts engaged in by the city and the business community will have the intended impact. if it doesn't, i do look forward to further conversations in what we can do to ensure that employees have the health care they deserve. >> okay, thank you. then perhaps we could entertain a motion to file items 1 and 2 and to forward item 3 to the full board with a positive recommendation? >> i'll make that motion. er >> we can take that without objection. >> item number 4. >> item number 4 is a motion revising the priorities of the budget and analyst 2012 audit skej july. -- schedule. >> and i would like to recommend that we -- subject to public comment continue this to the next goa meeting, i think that would be appropriate because two out of the three

regular members of the meeting are not here. is october 9th the next meeting? >> october 2 -- 11. >> okay, i entertain a motion to continue this to october 11? >> we have to take public comment. >> is there any public comment on item 4 at all? great, public comment is closed. >> moved to continue this item to the 11th of october. >> we can take that without objection as to item number 4. okay, item number 5. >> item number 35 is authorizing the fire department to retroactively to upgrade its self-contained breathing apparatus and inventory. >> the fire department is here for item number 5. >> good afternoon, mr. chair,

supervisor chu, mark from the fire department, together with our department of training and assistant deputy chief to present the next item on the agenda, the fire department is very excited to present this project and would like to thank supervisor farrell for his sponsorship, it's for a fema grant in -- for the replacement of the replacement of the self-contained breathing apparatus, they include air respirators and fire masks fire fetters wear, the department's current scba inventory is not compliant with the national standards, as a result of both technological improvements as well as design improvements, there's been enhancements made over the past decade or so, the department has requested placement units in previous year's budget request but due to the cost of these units and

economic realities, we have not been successful in replacing these items so we requested and searched out alternative funding sources, the department applied for a grant to replace cba inventory and the department received notification in february that it was awarded a grant. this project was not planned in last year's budget, with the help of the mayor's office, we submitted a request for the general fund match to be included in the 12-13 budget which was passed by the board. there was a one time increase ated to our fiscal year 12-13 budget, the total value of the project is approximately 1.9 million which is made up of the 1 million 514 thousand 184 dollars which is 80% in the federal funding and a grant match of 20%. while this seems like a significant amount of money which it is, we've been able to

l*efrnl this fema money by 1.1 million in homeland security funding, other federal money and this will bring the total project amount to approximately 3 million and there's no grant match required for the homeland security funding, with the additional funding, this will bring our department's cba to the current nfpa standards and have a positive impact on the health and safety of our members, with that, i would like to turn it over to chief bellows and after that we'll be free to answer any wes you may have. >> thank you very much. >> good afternoon, chair, president, my name is jose bellows, i'm also the department of safety officer which deals with safety equipment and gear and apparatus, i'm happy to be here

to hopefully get this grant approved, and i just wanted to explain to you the major changes that happened to this apparatus, there were two standards that were passed after we purchased the last [inaudible] in 2002, it was a system that alerts all the firefighters when the fire dieters go into distress, there was some safety concerns and the nfpa recognized them and based on those concerns, they made the manufacturers improve this, there's other safety improvements that went down as much as having a display in the front of the [inaudible], you can see how much air is left, they made changes regarding the -- having a connector if you go into the partner, if you can connect to the partner and get the air out safely. this comes down by having safer equipment, we can protect the

community bet r by being able to go into the buildings from the smoke and fire and being safe for our members and also safety, the civilians we're supposed to protect, there's other different technical improvements being done such as the requirement to have the mask being cbrn which is biological and nuclear improved because of an event of maz destruction, we can operate with those masks as well, i'm happy to answer any questions you may have about the equipment. >> thank you very much, and i've said this before, you know that i think there is sometimes a perception among at least some members of the public that we don't have fires anymore and everything is so advanced that we -- that the fire department, maybe it shouldn't be as big as it should be, and what i really

have really learned or been reiterated to me through experience is that we have a lot of fires many the city and in my district alone, it seems like there is hardly a week goes by when there's not some sort of fire and we've had bad ones and arsons and in my district when two firefighters died in the line of duty, having this safety ap ruts is very important. is there any public on item number 5? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> yes, we did write a report on this item because it had technical impact. >> legislative analyst, i

apologize. >> it's to delete the board retroactively pr the resolution because it's not retroactive and another is to correct the grant amount to 1514184. >> thank you. i did see that and my apologies for forgetting. is the department in agreement with these recommendations? >> yes. can we take that amendment without objection? that will be the order, and can we forward this to the full board with recommendations? so ordered. item number -- actually, is there any public comment for item number 7? okay, i'm going to suggest that we take item 7 out of order because it's a very quick item because i know there is public comment for number 6, it will be pretty brief, thank you for waiting, so can we please call

item number 7. >> it is an ordinance administrating the code section 6.22 to reduce the amount of retention withheld from progress payments in construction. >> i'm the director from public works and the civic engineer, last year, the state passed code section 6.22 from 10 to 5%, san francisco is a charter city and does not have to follow or apply sb293, however, under the direction of edward lee, this ordinance may lead to support small contractor and is to align our policies with those of the states. currently, city departments with contracting authority reduced the retention from 10 to 5 percent on every public

statement when the work completed by the contractor exceeds 50% of the value of the entire contract. this modification reduces the retention amount to 5% from the beginning of the contract until the end. this change will provide more cash flow available to small contractors while working on six projects, hopefully, there's better performance and timely confusion. i would be more than happy to answer any questions if you have and i'm joined here today with [inaudible] from the city attorney's office. >> alright, thank you. is there any public comment on item number 7? i'm sorry, before we get to public comment, could you step aside for a second.

supervisor chu's a sponsor, my apologies. >> carmen was going to be here, i'm a co-sponsor for this legislation, as you know, supervisor chiu has a history of sponsoring ledge -- legislation for contractors to do business, we want to be able to help businesses have better cash flow and again just this has to do with prime contractors, we have legislation upcoming that we are trying to work with to address prompt payments, we want to urge your support on this legislation. >> now public comment, my apologies for the confusion before. >> [inaudible] contractor, and certainly, any way we can help more cash flow for small contractors is a good thing, so i support this.

>> is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed.

several members of public have requested that we move the meetings to a better place so people are better able to know what's going on in the authority. we have had neighbors and

concerned citizens draft legislation to move the meetings outright. the board does not have that authority. so hopefully, this resolution is the first step toward that end. we often talk about bringing the housing authority closer, inside the family. this is our attempt to do just that. in the vain of transparency, i want to provide a cost break down for this broadcasting. there is no cost to utilize the space. we thank the city council for being flexible and working with limited resources. the sfgov tv cost are $35,000 annually for 24 meetings. and we would like to thank them for being flexible and willing to do this. supervisors, it's our office's opinion that the cost associated with increasing a citizen's access to democracy and promoting government

accountablity. we hope to work with the implementation of this very important project. additionally, supervisor olague would like to thing her co-sponsors, supervisors mar and kimm as they have worked with residents of the housing authority sites. we don't have the need for a staff report on this, but i should point out that henry alvar alvarez, the director of the authority is in the audience today. >> he's upstairs. sorry. he's no longer -- >> so, ms. tucker. thank you. is the housing authority in support of this? >> the housing authority is in support of this. >> okay. so mr. alvarez was here, we would say yes. >> he would support, yes. >> so they are willing to pay the $35,000? >> it's important to note, other

departments like the san francisco unified school district factor into their budgets payments for broadcasting. >> i only reason i ask that is i know that the housing authority has had trouble paying off judgments and other things so it's not flush with cash. >> they have an annual operating budget of $210 million. >> in terms of location, and i think televising commissions is a very positive and good thing. i very much am in favor of it. in fact, radio is good too, when we were back to kpoo. the difference between 440 turk and city hall, is there a down side to having it at city hall? >> i don't think there's any down sides to having it at city hall, in fact, for us only upsides.

it's easily accessible and broadcasted live, and i think that what we heard from the residents would feel more comfortable coming here. >> thank you. that's useful >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> so i do have some public comment cards. i will call people up. sharon hewitt, who had to leave. want today noted she was here. robert woods. robert weber, karen huggins, i'm going to mispronounce this name. eiled banningpadon. >> shar on short and guon wu 10. if anyone else wants to speak, fill out a card. doesn't matter the order >> governor. supervisors, i am robert weber,

i come to you as a resident of san francisco housing authority. i would like to mention i'm a community organizer fully educateed on the sunshine ordinance. when i found out the commission met without being recorded and taped, i was pretty astonished. i am choosing my words carefully as i have blundered in the past. as a tenant of sfhs, i would like to lend my support to the long standing reputation for dysfunction. while talking to my building manager, she informed me she received a large shipment of goods costing thousands of dollars she did not order. upon returning the merchandise,

she was told she could only get half back. the supervisor told her to pay it. these are only the incidences i know of. if you take these incidents and multiply them by all of the housing authority housing and the millions of dollars, the people suffering at the loss of these funds being expended are the tenants. upon moving into my unit, the heat worked fine. to my surprise, a work heard has been issued to replace the thermostat. i informed the contractor that i use the low and the fourth stair and if he was taking away my choices, i would prefer the low. i cannot use my heat at all. after several bills from the company with no result she intended to never use them again. meanwhile, i no longer use the heat because a, it doesn't work since june and the tenant who

moved in above has cigarette smoke coming directly into my unit. if this proposed action can gain more accountibility, i urge you to pass it. thank you. >> thank you very much. and we're rejoined by president chiu. >> hello, how are you guys? supervisors. i wanted to let you know karen huggins couldn't be here. he's the president of halle court for their council over there. i wanted to read what she wanted you to know. transparency is important, in resident concerns have met with disregard and disrespect by san francisco commissioners and televising for us. we fully support this resolution. thank you. i'm going to read mine.

hello, supervisors. i am the director of community engagement. part of the role is to advocate for peoples' needs and their residents to make sure our residents which are almeny and halle court to support them as neighbors. we bring everybody to the table to assure accountability. we bring city officials san francisco housing authority. sf safe and business residents from both locations. we talk about ongoing issues and concerns. we are thankful for the support of san francisco housing authority in attending these meetings, but believe this resolution does a critical connection between the housing authority and the residents they

serve. by making it clear and transparent and accessible. thank you very much. >> next speaker. >> my name is sister stephanie. i am a resident in public housing and i am if support of the move to, of the commissioners to come to city hall for several reasons. i had an experience with the commission, i went once, i never went again. it was a very humiliating and degrading almost as humiliating as the housing i had lived in. if the meetings are moved here and televised, there's accountability, people wouldn't have to be concerned about being spoken to in a dehumanalized