>> so that is not supposed to be paid by the establishment owner it is paid by the practitioner themselves. >> right. >> okay. >> commissioner ortiz? >> i just have a question on permanent cosmetics? >> that is like eye brows. >> yes. >> does that effect the salons? >> the ones that do permanent cosmetics. >> is that a high number in the city? >> we think, possibly 30. >> we are guessing. >> we are not sure, we have go out and do and actually go out and research it. >> so like a beauty salon will have to go through this process now. >> they never had to. >> so now they do. >> they will. >> has there been any out reach to like the beauty salons. >> not yet. >> i think that it is actually more than 30.

>> it might be 30 in the valley. >> but i mean that... and the permanent cosmetics. >> okay. >> commissioner dwight? >> just back on the subject of dramatic increases you might also consider phasing this in over time. >> that is an idea. >> just to reduce the shock a little bit. >> one of the things that we are obligated to cover are costs. >> okay. >> right now, we are even with these fees we are still not going to reach 100 percent, in fact we will probably be at 89 percent worth of costs for the program. okay. then you are not addressing the problem that you are obligated to cover the fees, if you had to cover the fees what would it be? >> more than what we are charging now. >> so what happens is our fees, i mean our fees, what our costs are, our revenue and they are composed of most of it is from

the establishments themself and so we are charging 1174 and now it is going to go up to 1300 a year and for the rest of it is going to be from the practitioner and how much did the establishment pay and verses the practitioners. >> it opens up the door to being arbitrary, you are obligated to cover the fees and you are not. it makes people feel like you choice a number. i challenge you to explain what it should be in order to meet your obligation, what it is today, what the gap is, and maybe you justify the fact that you are coming in under what it should be because you are subsidizing it in other ways to take out the notion that it is arbitrary. >> don't position it that you are giving a favor, just tell them what it is. >> the people like the facts,

rather than we pushed things around and this is where we ended up. >> we had to pick both in terms of the establishment owners and the practitioners we felt this is the right balance. >> okay. >> so, i apologize, i did not get a chance to ask you when we met, so, the body art practitioner fee, that is part of the state regulation at this point? >> right now it was $25. >> i am not talking about the cost. but, that it is codified in the state regulations that there is a practitioner license so to speak? >> right. but now it changed to allow the jurisdictions to make that decision. >> so, perhaps i will reserve my comments for the comment section. but if there is anybody in the public who is here for the body

art, i would like to hear kind of how your set up is organized. because i think that one of the things where and this is not specific to the body arts, but this is the body arts and this is going to be about our dog walking licenses and this idea that individual practitioners or individual entities need to get licensed but yet they may work under everybody who is setting the fees and so it sort of put thises and complicates the notion of what is an employee and what is actually an independent contractor and so, could, with that, or not being really clear about who and how can pay for these, licenses could put a business in jeopardy of the state labor code. and the state, you know, in terms of that they might think that if this person is getting their own license and they are

an independent contractor. so, i'm not... you know, i think that for today, we, you know, this is just part of a larger conversation, i think that our commission may need to take a look at. in terms of how we are dealing with these individual types of licenses assuming that a lot of individuals are so proprieters they should be setting their own fees and correct their own costs if they are working under a business that is setting the cost then they are not true independent contractors. >> and so the state has been coming down hard to businesses who are not correctly identifying the employees and it is extraordinarily costly. and so i am just saying as an over all issue as we get into wanting to license an

individual and a business, when they are not the same or not necessarily the same entity >> and it is also, it is hardly, unclear, the definition of an independent contractor as opposed to a employee it is not black and white it is extremely gray area and which absolutely correct in raising that point. that is an issue that needs to be thought about as we go foe ward on this. >> one other question, that did that and this is not just effecting the artist operators and it is also, this legislation is broader than that now and it is bringing all of these other businesses. >> yes. >> that is are going to be coming in to this and on to this um bella as well. >> yeah. >> they are all being faced with a fee that they did not have before. >> that is true. >> right. >> i just have a little bit of reservations about it, i know that it is kind of look for

more discovery perhaps. this is state wide, this is not just san francisco, this is happening throughout california. >> that is mandated? >> yes. >> right. so, we would be in violation of state law, but we could control the modular fees that was given to the local jurisdiction. >> that is true. >> what are other county fees in comparison? >> i have not done, a comparison of them, or come partively, i have not done them. and so it is just separation kind of in mind of allowing the body art practitioner and therefore to have a license that they can move from one facility to another? and, if they don't work at a facility, how does that effect them? they still have to apply?

>> at the facility themselves? as a single operator? >> no. it means that if the practitioner themselves could, if they are not working that license is good for the whole year. so even if they are not working there are still obligated to pay for that. >> so they have to renew the license every year. >> yes. >> if they don't the license expires. >> yes. >> okay. >> and what is there would there be a penalty if someone says that does not practice for several years and does not have their license, can they just then reapply when they are going to start operating again? >> yes. >> so is there any penalty. >> the application fee. >> i am for the regulation i really am and i think that is responsible. and it is going to improve public health. >> i think that it is clear and i think that in this industry, believes that it is going to

improve public health by a great amount. >> and i just have a reservation of what i heard of the plan so far it just seems quite broad and quite dramatic increases and the impacts of the harsh is not the right word, but it seems like a lot of things and whether we can slow it down and maybe implement it more. >> in terms of the ear piercing that is only $45 each facility and that should not be an impact. >> but the permanent cosmetics skin we don't know how many there are in san francisco. >> okay. >> and that is where i was going to be concerned with the permanent cosmetics and most of them are truly independent small business and english is their second language most of the time. where is the out reach and i am actually with the fee, the cost of inflation, like commissioner dwight said just the out reach,

i didn't know that i was supposed to do that and then the penalties and all of these things and most businesses do want to operate with all of the permits and legal requirements. so i am more concerned with the out reach, because you don't think about waging my nose and then this kind of falls into the practitioner kind of thing. >> i understand. >> do i think that we have to consider though that this is can be a health issue. that there are problems sometimes and it is very necessary to make sure that everybody who is doing this kind of work is doing a good job of being san tarry it is a big issue. >> we had to shut down one or two because they were doing it to minors without the parents approval. >> sir?

>> any other commissioner comments before we go to public comment? >> thanks. >> okay. let's have public comment on item number five. >> commissioners, hi, i have a comment card, paul stole. welcome. >> and public comment will be limited to three minutes. >> thank you, guys, my name is paul stole and i own a company called body manipulation and serve with the california state health department on the advisory committee on this av 300 that we passed and locally and i can answer your question after this, i don't want to use my minutes for it. for me i am here for two points. one, being the fees. and second, being there needs to be some sort of discussion about the education of one needing to go through or a time served of some something, for a practitioner to be able to get

a permit like a dog walkers license to establish are they okay to do this? we don't have that right now and ab300 we put a 6-month experience program which was not training and the regulators didn't know how to handle that, what is experience? how do you enforce that? >> we have thrown that out. >> and without that being in there pretty much anybody can take a two hour blood pathogen class and send in their fee and be register and a school? los angeles that registers 100 people, just so they can have hands on cosmetics tattooing. >> the main issue here is the facility permit fee was set at $1372 in 2008 when we had 37 registered facility and it was not passed yet and now we have, 60 facility and plus another who knows how many more hands in the pot for that facility.

and that 1372, based on 37 is arbitrary at this point. i think that the fees is outrageous and it is the same as 2008 for no reason and i would like to see the transparency in this program, abc 300 says that the health department is use the funds that they are receiving for this particular program and not used anywhere else. >> whatever this keeps going and is it worth it? i mean if the fee needs to go up fthey actually got down there and did another report like this one from 2008 saying that this is what is costs us to do this and what $158 an hour is paying for. send that to the facilities that is paying this and give them transparency, so they are not yelling at me to go in here and bark about it. i have a problem with the fees not making such sense they seem like they are coming out of nowhere. >> i understand that the practitioner fees are separate

and i think that $25 is too low any way for what these guys have to do, they have to vet the person and call around and say that they are who they say they are, it takes the legwork but the facility permit fee seems the staim as it always was and coming out of nowhere i need to see the transparency with that and it is outrageous. >> so, thank you. >> thank you very much. >> and do you want me to answer... >> i would through the commissioner president would like to if could you answer these questions. >> sure. >> go ahead. >> restate your question. >> my question is with the practitioner license is the general practice and i understand that you are not going to know every single entity, do you know if the general practice is people are hired as employees. >> generally speaking, in the tattoo industry, most people are not employees. the same with the piercing

industry. myself, my business, they are all employees, because i know the law, and i think when it comes to cosmetics tattoo artists they will be contractor as well. >> so for those businesses that you know of where they are contractors, are you aware as to whether the individual who is the contractor sets the fee or the establish. sets the fee? >> are you talking the fee that the customer would pay? >> yes. >> the contractor sets that fee. if i am setting a fee for my tattoo artists they are employees and i think that the shops will say that they have a shop rate but you can get really willie nilly and you can go to one that will do it at one price and another, and at the end of tattoo artist will name the price and they are all setting their own fees but the facility permit fee, i am sorry the practitioner registration fee which is not a registration for the facility, that goes

just for the individual, and you were wondering earlier is that going to create the confusion on whether or not that makes them the contractor or an employee, the way that the law is written, an employer can't employ a body art practitioner unless they have that permit. >> so, in, do you reimburse your employees... >> that is something that you are looking for them to have. >> part of the requirement. >> yeah. >> strangely enough, though in the law, the blood born pathogen training is something that the employer is responsible for every year. >> thank you, very much. >> and thank you. >> and any other public comment. >> on this item? >> seeing, none, public comment is closed. commissioner dwight? >> thanks for your comments there, i think that it is just

reinforces this notion that people like to know what they are paying for and you actually said that you were prepared to present your budget. i think that you know what you should be prepared to do is explain to this community what it cost and what you are charging in the spirit of transparency, so that everybody knows what they are paying for, and then to your point it will justify what it is you are charging. and he believes that it is too low and that is fine, if people are willing to look at renable costs for reasonable things and so i think if you were just to show financially how this is justified i think that this will go a long way to making people understand. what the new rates are. >> i am sorry,... >> commissioner o'brien? >> i wanted to ask a question

of the speaker one more time? >> so, you agreed that the 25 dollar current fee is probably low? >> i do. >> did i understand you correct that the proposal for the facility fee from 1157 to go up to 1372, you did not agree with that? >> i don't. >> and that is a little bit steep. >> it is steep because it, the history of that current fee goes way back and for the last four years we have been getting a subsidy from the city to pay for part of that fee. so, we had a meeting four years ago when the fee jumped it used to be $350. and then we got a bill that $1372. it costs this much to run it and we are going to divide it by this many and they were

transparent and we were shocked and so we agreed to get the city to subsidize that program. that did what you suggested, where it eased us into it and we figured okay, well you know what? we have this 830 coming out and that is going to require the cosmetics tattoo artists to register. >> we are not going to worry about it until it passes. >> the discussion never happened and we are still getting the same number again to which i feel is based on only 37 facilities and i understand that if you have more you will have more work to do but that is also another 60 times 1372 that they have to play with for the year and i want to see where that money is going, that is all >> for me it is a level of transparency and i need the community to understand that the health department is working for us and with us. not just siphoning it off into some program that they are doing experimentations with and private research,

>> and so we want to be able to have a force behind this. where if i am going to pay $1500 a year for this, i want to be able to call up the health department and tell him that i had a customer that had something weird go on and go and talk to them and you get a response >> why is that much? >> give us the documentation that is all that we are working for. to see it change so drastically for the community we know what happened. all of a sudden the 70-plus new people registered where before they were footing the bill and angry back then that this is why the community pushed for these regulations in particular because we wanted a fair game for all of the businesses across the board and now we feel, well you guys in the health department needs to catch sxup do the work. this law passed two years ago and how many shops are there >> we passed the law in january

and did not enforce it until july to give every district seven months to figure it out. the budget was terrible and i traveled the state of california giving seminars to regulators and practitioner to help them prepare for this and it still everyone was very confused. so i understand that it takes time to put these things together but they really need to do the work on this and i feel that it is not seriously. and i feel that it is a serious issue for the city. >> thank you. >> commissioner dwight. >> it is a reasonable expectation that the department detail their responses, salary goes sxup expenses go up and the increase in the work will effect your staffing and so whether it is that tipping point where you had to hire more people or whatever, and in the spirit of transparency let's detail the expenses and see how it washes out so that the community has rationale around it and so that those who

are representing the community can explain it so they do not lash out at you individually. >> do you want to take the action on this? >> i am wondering, with the time line is, is this something that you would want to act on or something that we could just request a little more time to get more details about the pricing from your department? >> right now i think that it is going to go to the board on july 11th. >> director? >> well a couple of things is one, i mean, the city needs to enact something to be in state compliance. >> and i also thinking that this is also part of the 13/14,

budget and so it does need to move forward and now the commission does not necessarily have to take action or you can say heard or we have no recommendation. or, you know, you can recommend that with some of the conditions i want to make a suggestion that probably since we don't know how many of the cosmedic tattoo places that there are, we can invite the department of health back maybe over the next couple of years a couple of times just to get the budget or see the budget and as they get to know exactly how many, you know, cosmetics tattoo places there are, and what is the actual pool of the businesses that they are going to be inspecting and what does that budget look like? and so it is not just one time, but maybe over a couple of years as the program gets established, and we know what the reality is.

>> in the ordinance, it says that if the revenue exceeds the operating costs, the controller can reduce the fees. so it says specifically in the ordinance. >> commissioner ortiz? >> i just going back in to the cosmetics tattoos i just think that the body art communities are fairly well informed and advocating their cause but there is an overlap and to another community that is hugely impacted fwhi and i just want to see the out reach, like you said get ahead of it, instead of like i got this tremendous fee now that we did not have and so that is my only recommendation. >> i don't have a problem with it frankly and i don't like being under pressure now because it is going before the board of supervisors in july 11th. and we must take it because it is going before. i don't like that. and to have, i really have

misgivings about that. i am not saying that it is wrong, i am not saying that it is too expensive. but, i just don't feel comfortable with just the way that it is right now. i am going to have a hard time supporting something that is worded the way that it is now. >> commissioner dwight? >> if you consider this sort of a trial balloon i would expect the board of supervisors to request the same thing that i would request and that would be that you detail out not here today, perhaps, but you detail out, here is what it cost to administer the program and the entities and both exist under the current scenario and the past and then the new ones that we are include and here is what we think the budget is required to address. all of these, here is how we have set all of the fees and the number is balanced. because as you say, if there is a surplus it gets rebated, would i like to see the math done that shows that you have

made every attempt to zero it out so there is no surplus or shortage. >> and then that is the best effort that you can do today. and as the time goes on, you can verify where the assumptions that you made as to the population of these entities is correct or not. and then, you can adjust your fees over time up or down depending on what it takes to administer this new, you know the new set up here. but i think that the board of supervisors would require the same thing. >> so, maybe take this as advice to refine your presentations to address the issues.

>> you can take the policy and the rules and the reg, and the need for health and safety reasons and say that what we can support and if there are budgetary issues and then to say that we can't make a full recommendation now we support this, but here is where the concerns are around the budgetary component and that gets articulated and so you are advising the board of supervisors about what you would like to see about out reach and the out reach in terms of the policy and also in terms of the budget and one time, and ongoing, over a period of time. so, you can sort of separate it out that way if that makes

sense to you >> commissioner dwight? >> so, do we want a motion for position on this? >> presume that you do, mr. president? >> yes. if i may be so bold to take a crack at it. i move that we support the health department, the department of public health in the spirit of health and safety, compliance with the state law and regulation and balancing the budget. these are all requirements. and i recommend, as part of this motion, that you come prepared to the presentation with the supervisors with a transparent and detailed budget analysis, which explains each of these fees and it is not a huge menu so you should be able to go through how you have allocated your expenses against these fees and how that

represents to your analysis of a balanced budget. >> so that the community can feel assured that has been done thoroughly and transparently and that we can then check the math as the years go by and hopefully that satisfies all parties, your needs and the needs of the community. >> i second that. >> do you want to read that back? >> before, i am sorry, could we make a recommendation that one of you also make a motion about out reach to also put in there? >> and that, dot, dot, dot, that there be a concerted effort by the department to prepare an out reach program to explain to the community just exactly what you present to the board of supervisors and so detailing your obligations to the public, for health and

safety and your obligations to the state with the compliance of the rules and regulations that they have enacted and your obligation to balance your budget. >> i am sorry, apologize. >> also for the permanent tattoo, and the cosmetics tattooing, with commissioner ortiz, do we want to make sure that we also encourage the department do language competency or out reach so that everything just is not in english so there are going to be a high number of individuals that... >> absolutely. >> and i think that we should say that for all of those that will be now put into this category, that are permanent make-up artists that significant out reach needs to