dungeon founded i can't believe they'll send it the thing that bothers me the month is the spouse will and the e cigarettes i don't think that was thought through and it will effect a lot of small businesses in our neighborhood we have e cigarettes dealers there are fairly new and contributing to the neighborhood whether you get that priority or noted so commissioners wyoming we like to do we can motion to continue this or have it continued but it is going to be heard at the board of supervisors so that's too late and i can say we can motion you want to - >> so a couple of clarifying things there were amendments to the original legislation to

expand the ability in terms of how for the current businesses when they sell their businesses the new buyer being able to get a license so the fact they are different options i mean you can do straight up and down there are certain components of the legislation you approve and do recommend and provide a list of things that need to be worked obtain and to recommend to the board of supervisors to consider for the trailing legislation i mean, i think that i don't know victor if adding spouse is a change that maybe something that can be done not a substantive change can be done at the full board are tomorrow so i mean there are a few things to deal

with prior to the board hearing i'm communicate to the supervisors so you could sort of give a list of thing i may recommend or things to continue or do a straight up and down and you know if you're not recommending for approval it 0 would be great to get you a list. >> commissioner riley. >> i think i hear five or six things to be clarified that were brought up. >> okay. >> it's reasonable to ask for clarification on those areas prior to us taking action. >> okay. >> we could say we could support it in general but the following issues. >> needed to be addressed. >> needed to be addressed and needed to be in trailing legislation but. >> if this 5 areas the

clarification come back what will we expect not reasonable rather than what we said was important. >> too many items. >> i'll suggest do a straight up and down vote to support this for now. >> what would be appreciative to again to provide direction to the board of supervisors if there - if the commission choose not to make a recommendation for approval then to list out the reasons why and then and what direction i mean what are the items the reasons why and what needs to be continued to worked on thing is that you know it will be before the board of supervisors how many spokesman to you have now.

>> 4? >> 4 there's a how property it will pass on its first reading so, so even in come back there is not the opportunity to the likelihood to effect the vote is not likely i want to make a recommendation in terms of how you want to communicate to the board of supervisors. >> commissioner dwight. >> well, the communication i'd like to deliver is not that we are unsupportive of the legislation and the intent clearly it's been stated in public comment you know, i think we can support the intent it's that we are here not only to represent the small business but to be good states people you know we're sitting up here helping the board of supervisors and the mayor's office pass laws

and here we're in the situation where it would appear that there is some unfinished business in making this a law so it's sufficient for me to simply inclusive that message to the board of supervisors if they appreciate our assistance in helping them pass good laws they should bring things to us twenty-four hours we're here to be helpful not buttock i thought we're reasonable individuals as well as people that are presuming specialists in the field of the legislation but planters in the legislation process to my objection there are issues in here that potentially have legal

modifications where the spouse it one where we think that the mayor's office should take into account that before we give it to the board of supervisors i mean it's sufficient to note it as a supervisor as u.s. bancorp obtaining we're on record to help to the extent we're precluded from a time schedule is silly there's no point in being here; right? we're all volunteering our time. >> if we could go on record stating the areas we feel have not been included in that and courage the supervisors. >> right to consider those before moving this piece of legislation along.

>> great so i do not the spousal issue is one and the displacement. >> commissioner riley if you want to go down and talk about your list. >> i have a transfer to spouse and the business going through the cu. >> conditional use; right? >> and then should i think the district should have a different number of permits due to difference of population and geographic areas. >> for clarifications of the rational whatever it might be. >> and then permit holders needs to move out of the current location due to no fault of their own like fire or change of landlord or you know soft story building eaten the fifth one is

e cigarettes. >> right. >> and may i have get a little bit of clarification around the e cigarettes so i can clearly articulate it and - >> to me it is that the distinction the primary definition is tobacco products and e cigarettes present a hybrid area that has not been fully clarified my understanding is some of them are tobacco based but other not per say only concoctions of liquid for evaporateing but there's an going on investigation into whether or not tobacco products is an outdated term and it should include whatever it is

combustible inhale ants and evaporating is a gateway to tobacco and similar to tobacco and used to bring i did not know children into the tobacco industry those are issues that should be contemplated in this legislation maybe it only says for the time being e cigarettes are clarified temporarily but that doesn't have to be solved in order for this legislation to go forward but i don't know the definition of e cigarettes rather than the over definition of tobacco products. >> so the definition of e cigarettes needs to be refined so there's a more clear definition of e cigarettes that are stoob based and those are not in terms of in terms of the

assess or the business how the business operates with that. >> i think it needs well - i don't know it needs to be squared up with the definition of tobacco products that is used literally throughout and some of the traditional ones are objectives and e cigarettes are not clear it is neatly fitting into the definition of tobacco products. >> so one last point of clarification we did do the legislation to say we on a san francisco are defining e cigarettes as tobacco produced so the commission says it needs to be revisited. >> it seems like there's clarification of what they look like this is disturbing to me. >> okay. then right - got it. >> a rose is a rose

and so is needed a motion? or can we just give a recommendation >> what do he need you think what i have here is the commission would like me to the board of supervisors i don't know if you want to support the general intent to communicate that but there are outstanding issues that need to be clarif d clarified. >> in this. >> i would make you know to the it's hard to say yes or no this commission makes a recommendation on this piece of legislation bans this criteria.

>> so the commission is making another motion that the recommendations needs some continued work and those are the areas that needs continued work. >> correct those are the areas that needs identification. >> going this into more detail. >> you need a motion should we make a full motion. >> it's appreciable so it's noted. >> read into the record. >> that all the full body agrees with that motion and it's officially documented this is a the official record of the commission. >> yes. >> so i move that we recommend to the sponsors that this legislation needs work in the areas that we have at least in the areas that we've identified here tonight and that. >> it needs to be continued. >> and it that we - recommend

that the legislation be continued until those issues restraining order addressed. >> i second that motion. >> all right. i'm do a roll call and taltdz. >> commissioner dooley. >> commissioner dwight commissioner ortiz-cartagena commissioner tour-sarkissian commissioner white commissioner riley and that motion passes 7 to zero. >> great thank you. >> thank you very much thank you for coming on such short notice now hear 2, 3, 4 ellen love. >> item 4 we've toddler i called this item into the record so we'll have ellen just -

>> is this microphone on? >> it is great. >> okay good evening, commissioners i'm ellen love with the office of standards and impoverishment thank you for inviting us to talk about the health care security ordinance i don't know if regina if you have copies of the power point presentation so you can pull it up that should be enough. >> so just briefly the administration i think you have the full that administration active guidance i tried to highlight some of the points that will be respect to you as a commission and the business community just a little bit of background

on the health care security ordinance tests been in effect abstinence e since 2007 and there's two components the first i'll speak to say that it establishes the city's access plan the san francisco plan and the city's medical reimbursement program and the second components of the law is the employers spending requirements to refresh your recollection it covers 20 employees worldwide and their covered by the security ordinance no, it covers nonprofits with 50 employees and requires that the employers make health care expenditures for all they're covered employees in san francisco so the requirement for 2015 i'll talk about firefighting first is that the

employers spend one dollar cents per adhere that comes up to $284 a month foyer a for a moment person and are there's a requirement for one hundred employees that they spend 2 there's plus it comes out to 4 hundred and 26 there's per month for a full-time employee that hassal has been in place the amazes u amounts adjust annually but they have been unchained on june 17th of this year, the board of supervisors passed an amendment to the law which you probably heard about it has 30 main components and they have now about in fiscal most of the central ones begins on

january 1st, 2015, and it phaseout the revocableable health care expenditures theirs expenditures that the employer lots of for the employees on the books but explicit pay out to a third party but they may return to them after a certain period of time and most common form is called hr a other components of the national black anthem amendment it charged depending s with adjusting the heath plan the new health care exchange you can ask page about that and the third component of the amendment what was that it allows employees to choose to opt out of some of the

revocable health care expenditures before january but it basically if you had money in a health care reimbursement green before january 2014 you may elaborately cho's which i see to opt out those are dollars that can revert to the employers can be over 20 years and 60 percent of all health care expenditures for each individual employee has to be irrevocable it is 80 percent for 2016 and one hundred percent for 2017 and beyond so employers can't make the revocable health care issues so that's what the board of supervisors did we took the time

to adjust our guidance to get the language in harmony and issued new sections of the administration active guidance i'll go over we did that because we were getting lots of questions from employers and clarifying the language also so, yeah we issued explanations of the new terms irrevocable expenditures and also wanted to provide i didn't want on the security ordinance with the affordable health care act so we issued a section on that and finally, we issued updated information on plans for 2014 sort of a yeerd year with the affordable health care act so it applies with a doubt a of a gap here so a little bit more on the information that we shared on

revocable and irrevocable the irrevocable they don't revert to the employers and actually paid out to a third party or employee or someone and generally some examples of those irrevocable are medical, dental and vision insurance and contributions to the city run access programs and savings accountants that are for the employees those are some of the examples of that revocable expenditures we sclafrd that as in the past those are generally the amounts is going into the hr a they have to be still in prior years have to be available for 24 months to access it during a reasonable period of time the employees

have to be notified and the contribution is reasonably calculated to benefit the employee that's the language from the status we provided new information on what you have to tell your employees is you have to tlachl what the benefit is use for and there hearsay been confusion on the benefits can be used for and so new language on our our office cease whether those accounts are reasonably calculated to benefit the employee and then okay second area we issued the administration guidance was how the health care security 0 are ordinance interactions with the affordable health care i won't go can debate but if you

want more information ask me affordable health care act changes the rules around the health reimbursement accountants as january 1st, 2014, so the key things to note we can't make in contributions to those accounts for core medical services so some employers have done - well, let me see sorry if an employee does have a contribution in one of the reimbursable accounts it makes them ineligible for the tax induces to get subsidized for california that's one of the issues the amendment intended to be addressed so if someone wants to get the new health care coverage they have this old balance remaining they can opt

out of the old balance of the core medical services and access the induces so for tax credits on the exchange and we provide we issued a specific form if their employees want to do that yeah. okay another area of the affordable health care that we provided information on is the accepted benefits and those are benefits that are not core medical services their dental, vision, and long term care and care for specific diseases like wrap around services that came in some cases be used inform

satisfy the health care security ordinance and then the last thing note to the affordable health care act and the health care security ordinance is that under the affordable health care if i oh, your employees insurance you've safety the requirement of that law for employees that need to ply with both louses laws you're only making an offer 0 of insurance company it safeties the federal but not the local requirement you actually have to spend the money to satisfy the local security ordinance not make an offer of insurance >> okay. >> (laughter). >> and so the final area we've issued is the compliance of 2014 it is a gap it's a little bit of that funny one the amendment requirements is not revocable it

kicks in on january 1st but we've issued some combines last fall on those new types of health care accounts so there is combines that justifies for 2014 so and those have to do with accepted benefits of hr a it's an employer where they allocate money for a certainty period of time and collection the money accepted benefits of hr a that only combrurments for dental and vision and long term care basically, we issued the guidance on those types of accounts they're limited at the can't be used informing to the doctor or medical insurance

premiums but only for narrow services we last year issued the guidance you, we will only consider those are that you reasonably calculated they're only a benefit to our employees if i use them to 20 hours per week if you're putting thousands of dollars the full amount of the health care expenditures for dental and vision we don't know or think that as substantive benefit for the employee we will only consider it up to two hours per week we're continuing to enforce that and we'll be river employees that use those covets accounts to report to our office and in march and april of next

year and also anyone that contributions in excess of that 80 hours will have to and if the employee didn't use that amount that was triblthd in excess of two hours per week the employer will is to 52 true up they'll have to find a way to spend the funds that we're accrued in that the for more than two hours per week before january 30th of 2015. >> oh, yeah, the next slide is on employer outreach and support that you as a commission we've done our best to educate the small business community about those complex issues we can't speak all of the details about the affordable health care act but we do our by itself to

answer the questions about local by the way, law and how the federal and local laws subcontract we've sent out e-mails when we issued the administrative guidance to more 6 thousand businesses and employers that are covered by the law and we're answering e-mails and answer e-mails dial and answer phone calls and we'll be hosting a webinar in partnering with the city on those issues on december 16th and another one specifically on those sort of complicated accepted benefits hr a on january 6th or 2015. >> great. >> thank you commissioner white. >> hi thank you for being here honestly, i was listening to your presentation i'm still in the dark it's christmas eve to me as a small business owner

it is probably confusing to other small businesses i think a question quick you talked about the small business owner employers that are using up to two hours and have to true up with what where i said it is money to be spent where it is being spent and they have to find another way with the remaining fund if you have an employee that works 25 hours a week the employee explicit use any of the money about two hours a week so 5 extra hours accommodated throughout the year you can use it for health care for medical and dental insurance contributing to the option but contributing to the health care

sales tax account or come up with a medical indemnity plan but that is something that expenditures for health care services for your employees. >> so the option to pit it into a health care plan with that employee. >> yeah. a health savings account that is an option i've heard a number of employers that will be contributing to the city option i think i believe it is because we can do that with a specific dollar amount that can be a one-time payment and i've heard a complete opposite i don't think that any employers are planning on giving money to