>>other questions members of the board on the items that

director dodd has raised. >>police and fire if they are disabled there legible for medicare after 2 years. no? i stand corrected but i will look that up. i have some comments but if somebody else wants to go. >>do you have comments on director dodd's report? >>who is this coming from? this coming from you?

>>when we looked at how we could minimize the cost of the excise tax they were the only tier of employees that hit the excise tax and in looking and how the rates were executed we looked at the early retirees and active in pro 65 retirees. >>let me ask you something. let me ask you if you think that this is an unfair. let's say you take a blue shield person that's let's say 52 years old and he has a wife and a child. he will be paying $346 a month premium. >>i'm sorry, i wife and a child, to people $346 per month?? yes. and let's say that you have an early retiree

and he will be paying and he will be paying $1181.77 a month so he's paying 5 times more with your new proposal. almost 6 times more. >>i was asked to present the history and i have. >>excuse me, just to be clear about where we are. commissioner dodd is providing that background that was requested at the earlier meeting. i'm asking again about the history and background of this issue? >>so you're saying this is a long-term practice? >>according to the minutes which i brought with me for the

last 15 years, this board has considered rate relativity, it was called rate ratio is called rate realignment. previously during rates and benefit. >>how long have we been doing it this way the way we're doing it now? >>if you look at the text before you we have been doing the way that we are doing it right now since 2007-2008. >>i would call this long-term. >>i haven't argued whether this was long-term. >>you said in your presentation that this was a long-term

practice. >>i'm not going to argue long-term/short-term. i presented the information factually and that is before you. >>are there other questions on the history presentation by dir. dodd. >>in your presentation you mentioned the migration piece is the migration pieceto keep the individuals taxes down? >>what i'm suggesting is rate relativity's are rate ratio or rate alignment was used or could be used to address migration. i do not make a comment one way or another. i was saying there is a lot of volatility in the hmo population

so they didn't change with the exception of increasing the people in the city plan and i will point out that 46% of those people do not have a choice because they live outside of the service area. >>that migration issue still impacts how we set rates, right? >>when a family moves out and changes the population does it change the rates from one area to another. >>are there any other questions? commissioner sass. >>you said there's 417 individuals and the r +2and then there's 417 in the r +1 i'm assuming the disabled person might be the retiree himself it may not be the dependence and so one. that person is subsidized anyway with their health benefits and the cvc and the individual if

they move from this rate they can because their disabled. their medicaid premium is $470 a month as opposed to $471 a month so there is not a petite potential savings since they went to medicare. i would like a breakdown for the 2017. i like to know the current age of those individuals and i would like to know if that is possible. i would like to know what the+ because i don't have that information i worry about a person with a small pension or a wife that is not working or a family that has a small son or daughter at homeand

there may be a variety of those things necessary and i feel like i need a lot more data on those 2 groups and to waive the potential consequences of those 2 people. >>we do not have the data on what people's health benefits are. we measure their health benefits not there pension benefits. we measure their age band not their health band. i do not have pension data. to >>can we get that? >>there is a strict barrier between the pension amounts. you as an individual may be able to get that. but i cannot

get those pension amounts. >>any other questions? then i would ask aon hewitt to come forth and present their presentation. >>if you turn to page 3 as an example page 3 of this document for everybody in the audience it should be up there. it is just an explanation of what we are doing. so, there are 2 ways that we can do this if you choose to do this at all. you can do it over 3 years or you can do it all at one time. we wanted to demonstrate where we are now and what we're talking about if we did over 3 years versus all at one time. meaning we would change the

rate ratio so we are equivalent to that of one year and then the rest of this document because it takes consideration of all these grading proposals and all of the demonstration all these numbersthis demonstrates in a fully disclosed manner what the rate cards will look like if we do that. and i want to make it perfectly clear because were just using 2016 rates because we can't speak to the and right

now for blue shield the early retirees for blue cross blue shield would be the rates going forward. these are to demonstrate what the options will be in so that you guys can make your informed decision about what you want to do. on page 4 of this presentation and to commissioner breslin's point we did these numbers and we look at all of these things.if we grade this number and reset this number a single person's contribution for retirees would still be

$547.41 and subsequently that number would go up to 1321.81. this was spoken to in a question earlier and we would go from thethousand 1042.17we did the math and we applied all the algorithms and i want to explain why this occurs and this is what the answer would be. >>it is $10,000 more per year? >>absolutely $10,000 more per

year per people. i did the exercises if we took the algorithm and applied absolute equality to all 3 programs. it was a slight adjustment that the city planned in this exercise. so, how does this happen? well, we have lots of tables. >>i have one question. just a moment i will take the floor. if you would slow down in your discussion of this material number 1 and number 2 if the commissioners have questions if you get my attention to the chair. >>yes sir. >>the three-year plan does not describe the current rates, right?

>>that could add bigger amounts of money that we are discussing. we have disclosed at the february 11 and since we do not want to say anything about what the potential rate increases would be if it was okay with the board they said use 2016 rates to demonstrate the impact and therefore that's why was done this way. >>commissioner breslin. >>there is an increase in the city plan i mean it's not a huge increase but it is still an increase. >>yes there would be an adjustment but we will do the exact same thing. i will go slower i'm sorry about that. please turn to page 18. what you have before you on page 18 is our standard rate card we

approve this for your actuary once we get the adjustments in every year. so, i would like you to look at the 2nd portion of this which is the early retirees. when we create a rate and this is for blue shield we add the vision and we add the sustainability fee and if there's any amortization or claim stabilization policy that adds to the rate and then we will have a rate. for this case, in 2016 it was $1662.39 and what happens is we adjust this with the county and we do the actuary difference adjustment this is in the charter. it says we must subtract a single rate of the retiree to the single rate of the active. and then 2002 it says we have this to the profee

and that says that we take 50% of that and give it to the people also and that is because they are seeing increases to their dependence and it was making very difficult for people to pay for dependence of early retirees. that is why this was approved in 2002.this creates the contribution stream that you see.because of the nature of the charter that was implemented and voted in in this area you can see the actual differences across the board. if you raise rates and you lower rates over here the remainder of that difference would become the responsibility of the person covered. these

offsets are pretty much flat across the board. so, the reason that i described this would be 1st for people have never seen this if you're curious as part of the borer or the public. that being the case, are there any general questions about how these early retirees are developed these early contributions that were talking about. >>just to be clear about the actuary difference the retiree without medicare is $942 is that correct? >>that is correct. >>let's turn to page 19. if we go to page 19 we change the way the top line premiums are created. as you can see when you change the rate ratio at

the r rate or the 1st rate for the early retiree goes down to 1535.90 and the rate retiree issues go up and then when we create the contributions stream they staffed. that number does not change its independent of these relationships. the actual difference goes down because the rate goes down so the subtraction of the number that goes down $100 or whatever the case may be creates an actual difference that actually goes down.to say because of the dollar for dollar reduction for

the ratesand the reduction of the actual difference at the end of the day the contribution for those individuals is the same. there is no impacts. this is how this works. you can see will take some time for individuals to say okay, i went through all of this. we predict this so you can say here's the summary table and this is how we develop this. so, if you want to go through and say okay let's pinpoint a number off of all the rate cards that we presented let's look at $1320.91 on page 19. now, let's go look at the beginning for that number there. the answer is yes it is? this number is here on page 4 as a 32% grade. this is how we created the number and this is how is it summarized in the exhibit. we did this for kaiser so we have all the tables for kaiser and then we

did this for the city plan and they've been the exact same for all 3. you have 12 rate cards that are used to create these sets of numbers. any questions about that basic exercise? >>i was just looking at that actuarial difference and it appears that is based upon the retiree without medicare at the starting point of the total premium to determine that number and because the retiree without medicare premium is declining it is being moved over and that number is also declining and that declined then means that there is less of an offset and not only is there a higher premium for the retirees but there is a smaller offset to get to their net number. so, they are getting an increase premium as well as a smaller actuary loss as well. >>very well said sir. is there

basic development of why the there's so many tables and what they are used for as far as giving you an example of what the impact would be in these this scenarios? i think it's very clear so we go on and we look at these and then the next exercise that we do is we say okay, you have all of our rate cards now let's multiply by membership and show me dollars. so pages on page 7, 8, 9, 10,-- 9 pages with this exercise starting on page 7. that is the nature of these schedules. so, to demonstrate

we are looking at blue shield with a 33% rate. on the table on page 3 if you go to the line it says employee to the far right it says $1042.17. that is the existing contribution for an r2 for blue shield. our contribution is for 249 of these individuals that exist. all of the numbers are here you can look at what the total spend is and how the dollars shift and what the cost impact will be. i will not make any points of reference and you can see how the numbers move at this point. you can see where they go and what the employer's cost is adjusted to and for each of these examples as part of our responsibility and due diligence to represent the numbers correctly so that you can make your most informed decision, all of these numbers are presented here.

commissioner lim asked for this and this is the question i'm asking you sir is this what you had hoped for in whatthe cost impact and with the numbers would look like? >>yes or. >>without any further statements the numbers are presented for your review and i have done my part and hopefully i went slow enough there. are there any questions? >>questions by the commissioners? >>how long have you been working on this proposal? this great relativity change? >>we spent crack quite a bit of time recently. i don't know to be honest with you. >>have you had a contract with any other division? >>i don't know if i'm supposed to answer that question but the answer is yes. >>what department?

>>the answer to that question is we had a contract with the controller's office.. why didn't we know about this because we should known about this. the controller has a total different interest in then we do.they have a totally different interest than this boardthe controller's office does not. >>being an appointee to this board by the controller under

the city charter. my most recent appointment was confirmed by this board to a five-year term is the controller's representative so i think there is a bit of a diversions here about what interests are represented on the board. we are here to do the fiduciary service on behalf of all members of the system regardless of the origin of our election or appointment. i think that is where we need to start in this discussion. >>that is true but once you're on this board you have a duty to the members of the system not to the controller. >>i just said that. regardless of our appointment or our election our duty is to the members of the system. >>thank you. are you recommending that we do this or you neutral to this? >>i am absolutely 100% neutral. >>are there any other questions

to the actuary? all right so that we-- >>i would like to take a ask another question. >>yes, commissioner breslin.i think this is the correct i am wondering if you feel this is the correct thing to do that you are advising us? >>i think the subsidization of

the rates of the active pay i think the early retiree only rates subsidize are ones and r2's implementing equity over time whether it's 3 years, 6 years, or 9 years. it is fair and is equitable. >>i you cannot say that it's fair. >>i answered your question >>you cannot say it's they are a retiree the same age and an active retirees being 6 times more. is that fair? there is no we can defend this is fair. because, the discrepancy in what they are paying is huge but, the fact is still there.

the intent of the charter is clear to me if you read it that it is meant to provide health benefits of all members. it even mentions subsidizing for retirees because they will be more expensive and these other counties that you referred to i don't know how many of them can even provide benefits for retirees. a lot of counties don't provide benefits for retirees. >>a lot of counties do provide benefits and i would like to put this in a form that we can as a board discuss it. we have the data before us and the general public. during the course of the wait my email box

and the other commissioners i'm sure have been increasingly pinged with emails for members in the system. i have read every email that has come to that address. 103 as of 1230 this afternoon and counting. i'm sure there will be more by the end of the day. the theme of these 3 females i'm in 3 broad categories. one is that you should not discuss this now until the hour of our death amen.i take a different stance

on that. i don't think that anything needs to be in a public circumstance that you should not discuss them you may take discussion favorably unfavorably but that does not mean you do not discuss them. the other things that came out of this is this has a tremendous impact and terms of an immediate cost without any warning to the retirement community. in its present form we could talk about the extreme example of a full research to be done next year and if you way that out that is undisputed.the next question is how we are affecting the families particularly in the r2

category. i have brought a few of these emails and i'm not sure if they send out this email but a good number of them were the exact same wording. there are quite a few members that were urging the timing the impact in the logic behind them if we take them. >>one suggested that we would sharpen our pencils elsewhere not on the backs of the retirees of san francisco. and,there seems to be a certain onset on us. it does have a

certain impact to the r2 terms. but the impact of this question still remains. to address these concerns i'd like to offer the following motions which this board can discuss and then vote upon up or down after public comment. i move that one half of the rate relativity of 33% be effective for plan years 2018 and 2019 or r1 rates only for the health plans that we offer. secondly, that one half of the rate relativity of 66% be effective for health plan r1 rates for

plan years 20 and 21. 2020 and 2021. and lastly that the full impact of the rate plan be effective for r1 for her 2021 and 2022. that is a motion. >>you are splitting it from 3 years to 6 years? >>if there is a 2nd to this motion? is there a 2nd to the motion? >>could you just repeated a little bit maybe a little slower. i think we need a lot

of information here. to repeat the motion it's one half of the rate relativity of 33% and that would be effective on the plan years 2018 and 2019. one half of the 33%. so if that person was experiencing $100 at that time if that's what the 33% represented it would be 50 bucks. for 2018 and the same would be true for 2019. then, secondly i said it will be one half of the rate relativity of 66% for the r1 rates for plan years 2020 and 2021. now, what this does in both of these

proposals and in the next one is it excludes the r2 rates entirely. the last was one half of the full reset rates in the plan years of 2021 and 2022. do you have this written out commissioner at all? >>yes i do. the you have copies for us? >>i do not have copies for you. i have a copy. i didn't print enough for the general public. i will restate it is frequently as you like. >>we were dealing with the impacts and were dealing with numbers and things like this i think that it is helpful to have the numbers in the data in front of us. i think that would be helpful to have that in front of us for deciding on motions and so forth. but, we

can keep discussing that and i know there's a lot of public comment anyway. >>one half of 33% is 16.6.the 1st 2 years went up 49%. so the 1st 4 years is 49% and the remaining 2 years there are increasing at the 51%. >>i think if you look at it not as 66% but is 33%. so, from 2018 to 2019 and 2019 to 2020 it goes up 33%. >>that one half applies for the

2 years. that is not what the motion says the motions is one half of the 33% would be applied for 2 years. not the 2nd half for the other years. then, one half of 66% on the next 2 years. one half of 33 is is 16.6. if you do one half and one half the last 2 years it applies to 51%. >>that is correct. is half the proposal verse 6 or 7 year period of time. >>nobody made a motion so we shouldn't be discussing this.

>>i'm a little confused in terms of where we are in terms of the discussion. i will second it just so we can discuss something. >>all right, it's been properly moved and seconded. it is open for discussion. commissioner sass? >>why would we not divided by 3 or 7 or 10 and it grows at some rate that i could grasp or understand. really, white frankly i would need to see this on some slides as to what the cost would be and i'm having a little difficulty- i'm

going to have some difficulty supporting a motion that that i can't see a presentation on.. is very nice to have neil's presentation unless he has one that does these other things. >>know he doesn't >>it does it is not easy to support a motion that is not in my package and it doesn't provide a breakdown of the retirees and i think that it may be hard tosupport that. >> >>i took it upon myself to create a motion so we can have things to discuss. we also have the time to discuss this

as a board until it is addressed. >>commissioner lim. >>i have a question about aon data. >>yes sir >>if you have column number 4 on one it is 22,000,007 85 and

what it does is it gives the employer as shared to allocate the r1 and r2. that in itself regardless if you split it over 3 years or 5 years or 2 years or 15 years it still $6 million. regardless of time the employee share and the retiree sharer will increase by $6 million. it is just a matter of splitting butyou're really reducing the share of the city and having it go to the retirees which i will not

support regardless of how you split it. it would not increase it from by retirees 1 to retirees 2 at is more like retirees times 10. regardless how you split it i can't support it. it is almost 20,000 of their paying for their premium per year. how could a retiree +2 afford to pay 20,000 or income just to pay for this? >>the question was directed at

me. >>i wasn't directed at you. >>commissioner ferringo. >>i can't wrap my head around this there is no way that these families can pay this $22,000 and then still be able to live in san francisco they will have to move out of san francisco they will not be to have a family or live in san francisco. the migration piece you can almost guarantee there's families are leaving. >>all right. >>i just think the calculations are way too difficult to follow. and i think down the road it's just way too unforgettable for anybody including the members.

>>all right. commissioner follansbee. >>i have to agree i really can't visualize this certainly this particular plant but we were called a vote in february and 2 commissioners did not want this to happen at all. that was expressed in some of the emails and we expressed in point number 1 and if you think as a commission we need to decide-- 1st of all i think this presentation has been very useful. i think it points out the impact that this would have on the people that have made retirement decisions based on a certain set of assumptions with the cost of living, and alterations, and the health plan alterations but, this is been very useful for us to get a sense of the impact of this

problem. and, i guess the question is do you want me to-- i think that we should meet with the board so we can piece out these issues and then if we have specific questions. i just think there's no way to vote up or down unless we look at this issue and realize there's not a problem. i am responding to how or why i seconded it to get some discussion going. and, what we still would need to do we wrote this down. >>okay thank you. any other comments from commissioners? >>one last comment. where is it written that we need to get all the way to 2.82. i get rate relativity and an it same for the actives but is not the same for the actives they do

not pay near this amount. but what if our goal is not to get the 2.8 to get to 2.5 or 2.4 and set up not only an extended period of time to get there but it it doesn't create the kind of hardship that this creates. the issue for me is that- the issue for me has to do with the long history behind the city's decision to give full health benefits to people after 5 years. that decision which you would have invested in retirement before health benefit after 5 years of service. some people joined the city specifically to get that with the it plan of leaving after 5 years and some of them are quite young. some stay for 20 or 30 years. all of these people are entitled to this benefit until they get to medicare and that is the single

greatest reason why the postretirement health care costs are so high and white there clearly is a long-term problem and to say that this is the solution of things a little fallacious i think that is not what they're doing here was negotiated with the unions and it was negotiated with the employees it was in order to offer some long-term benefits which made sense a lot when it was done which was a long time ago. when i joined the city it was a major consideration they offered me far less salary but the benefit package made it worthwhile and i'm sure that i'm not the only one like that. so i'm fairly certain that the

problem is not with the retirees but it goes way back. and in these current years we no longer offer for health benefits after 5 years. it's now 20 years. and now we have 2 offer full health benefits after 20 years. someone said consistency is the hobgoblin of the small mind. we do not need to get everybody to 2.82. i do not think that is necessary. i have a number of concerns here. i do believe that we have a true long-term financial problem facing the city because of the cost of post retirement benefits. we do have that. that is a problem. we do need to find solutions so that for the good of everybody. to all of the people that are around

us the homeless and the police and the fire service and all the services that we provide in the city. we need to find a particular solution but i can't get anything that gets to 2.82. >>okay thank you. any other comments from commissioners? commissioner lim. >>i do not have a basis to vote up or down at this time i need to see the numbers. the numbers that we need to see her the cost of the employer to the employee. based on director dodds history of the rate

relatively in in the 2003 fiscal year up to this point. i can understandthat the applicants are usually basing this on theirpremium. these are not covered by their hmo, they're not covered by medicare. so there doesn't seem to be any benefit i will not be able to support this. >>this is the balance of $6 million on the back of healthy

young families and i do however many members this impacts but i think that's incredibly inequitable and i think it is wrong it's not rightit's completely against the reason that i wanted to be on this board in the 1st place. so i cannot support it. >>are a thank you. any comments from the board before we had public comment?i would like to let you know that we were absolutely here every public comment. we will restrict the times to 2 minutes. i would also like to request that if you are in absolute concurrence in agreement with the person that has broken before you please do us the courtesy and the others there speaking the courtesy to say i agree with the person

that is presented and my name is. however, you are perfectly at liberty not to do that during your 2 minutes if you so choose. i would like to restrict any public comment to 2 minutes. at this time, if there is any public comment on this proposal item 7 as proposed? >>all right, if you would bring the form to the secretary you will be 1st and we will take them in order. this will be number 1 and if you would please line up to my right and you're left and we will take you in turn. thank you. please identify yourself clearly when you make your statement. >>my name is timely vessuas.

the proposed rate changes seem to have a portion of impact on the retirees with dependence and that their income is now proportionally glee greater because the dependence can increase dramatically. the health service system has a long an established industry and it appears that this will meet this departure from this historical record. these rates arguably constitute the retirement benefits of these employees are earned and to change these rates to retirees and this may cost and abridgment of the early retire

benefits. so i ask that you reject these proposals and i know a lot of the same issues were addressed in the course of this discussion. >>thank you sir. next speaker. >>good afternoon board, good afternoon supervisor farrell. my name is-this has significant impact on me because i do have older parents and my concern is my father will not build take care of his family or my mother in his retirement.i thought we

were to take care of our elderly and we are fullyaware of the availability in the region. i do not understand why this is a viable option. we should be creative on how to do this. i do not have that answer. if i had the time i would like to try to figure this out because that's what i do him a problem solver. but for all of the members that have worked here up into the age of 65 the expectation to take care of them. i can't believe were hearing 2018 to 2019 and 2019 to 2020 and were expecting a recession in those years in the state of california. i'm not an economist but if i think about

that that would just be devastating peoplewould not be able to by gas or food orthe basic needs to live. >>[timer dings] >>next speaker please. >>my name is i had to

school-age children i ran through my disability and i ran through my savings and all of my benefits and i still have a dependent she's no longer a child i guess she's a girl/woman. but she is in that category up to 27 and i think there is a lot of us who have dependents that we hope to carry on our policy up to 27 but would this make that meaningful if you have a child who is of that age but will cost another $10,000 on top of your existing policy. i ask you and i want you to consider that. >>thank you for your comments. next. >>my name is rudy forster i own

secretary of protector benefits speaking on behalf of protector benefits. protector benefits opposes the rate relativity proposal from the state. this change may make health benefits unaffordable for members with families and unable to remain in san francisco. the intent of the charter is to make health benefits affordable for all of our members. thank you. >>thank you very much for your comments. next. >>good afternoon commissioners and executive directors todd and sharon johnson protector

benefits and also former member of the hhs board a few years back. i agree with what miss rudy presented to you but yesterday we spent a great amount of hours looking for protection for the oldest of our retirees from age 82-103and now were here on behalf of our younger retireesand we consider ourselves are part of a family we ask that you protect all of our retirees. thank you.

>>next. >>good afternoon i am here to represent 2300 police officers in san francisco as well as over 1000retirees. as a member of public policy the city and county of san francisco in the state of california and throughout the nation public safety officers retire early. why? because of their jobs. and the situations that they confront wear them out physically and mentally. you want to add this huge burden upon them. commissioner lim, you correctly pointed out that they's actions were covered under our normal mou now before

they retire they've already lost that mou protection and their insurance is radically increase. and now so you want to, and increase that radical already existing increase. public policy suggest that you don't. public policy suggest that you don't. we feel that of the people that are affected here most of them are not eligible for medicare at an early age. >>[timer dings] >>thank you for your comment. next. >>good afternoon members my name is adam would. i am with the firefighters association i would like to just comment that

the retirement model was developed because of the nature of the work that these employees performed. not to blow it out of proportion but it is not something that happens every day but occasionally you are called upon but occasionally you are required to exert yourself extremely to save someone's life in an emergency situation. they want to get closer to medicare eligibility before they retire. 55 to 65-year-old firefighters are not to be able to provide the quality of firefighters that the city deserves.. i don't know if you've looked at it from that point of view's was condemned to the city when these people are not able to retire.

>>i also want to point out the because of the rising cost of healthcare it is a real problem. because of our early retirees and the threat of excise tax shifting the burden on to the retirees does not address the cause of these healthcare increases. i wish we could work more closely together to address the real causes calling for more transparency for healthcare providers and get more per involved in negotiating prescription costs and cut down on a few providers gobbling up these increasing market share so they controlled monopoly type rates and that is what's causing the problem and we will still have that problem even if we pursue this type of solution. we would just be doing with the same issue over and over again. >>[timer dings] >>good afternoon liam martinez

i'm sitting on the board for the firefighters associationand we've about 200 members and am representing a group of people and also the thought that was the i would like to echo those statements. it just seems to me that were doing this on the back retirees and that is something that we oppose. so, thank you very much. >>thank you for your comments. next. >>good afternoon commissioners my name is jessica cole. i am the members of 1021 am also a member of san francisco. i want to thank greg sass which

are true to many of us employees who are non-sworn. i want to tell you my strongest opposition to this proposal. as a public sector employee by choice i want to speak to that. basically the promise of a secure retirement with health benefits is what keeps me here and out of the public sector. this is not wisconsin this is san francisco california and i also want to speak amendment to inequity. mrs. dodd you said it would be inequitable for retirees to be taking care of by the employees who if i understand it would be paying for us and i think it would be inequitable for us to be saddled with those costs.thank you very much. >>thank you for your comments.

next. >>herbert weimer with the member of the pob with my own individual opinions. i agree with what's been said before. i have a coworker that was a very lovely woman. she died of a heart attack and she employed when she died when she was working and she probably would have retired early. i think that there are people that are retiring early because they are physically 6. if they have a physical impairment they cannot perform their service to the

best of their ability. then the public is in danger as well as that service officer and it's a lousy proposal because it puts everyone at risk. you should not be punished for retiring early especially the high stress job. i also speak on behalf of miscellaneous employees goes i'm overtired social worker and this individual that died at 58 was from the welfare department. i am not in a pretend to be to do all these calculations but i do not pretend to do that but i certainly do not like the upshot. >>thank you for your comments. >>my name is emma erbach and

when we 1st heard this proposal we thought okay well this is just a small shift on paper from 1% to another and were talking about equity. equity is a termthat a lot of people like because the means were all hearing a fair share but as we started talking to more community leaders we start to learn more and more. people that have long-term to the them. i echo my firefighter

brothers comments about the causes of healthcare increases. i see that we need to spend less on employee healthcare. i know a huge amount of payroll for the city is spent on healthcare cost and that has to be addressed but i just question whether this is the way to address it. i've spoken on this before i will speak on it again the board has ways to address this accountability. perhaps you will see a lawsuit. there are ways to address affordability and accountability and transparency and i'm not sure this is the best way to do it. >>thank you for your comments. next. >>good afternoon my name is jeff roth i am a member of the san francisco police department

i'm i a retiree an i am 56 years old and i guess you would call me a early retiree. i do have one child still at home and i guess you call me and r2. i have a home right now and with these proposals let me put my home at jeopardy. i would like you to know that as a 56-year-old you call me early but i have done 32 1/2 years for the city. >>thank you. thank you for your service next speaker please

>>good afternoon supervisors apologize about my dress i didn't realize i'd be speaking to dave >>that's quite all right. go ahead siri want to echo what was said by some of the commissioners. when you're active you the union fighting for you when you retired who is going to do this. when you have the 0 person is retired versus the 52-year-old person that's working if they are not paying the same this is what i'm bummed about when i left. this was the decision that i made when i left. or, just to come up with somebody and say okay you're paying now $10,000 more for your group. this is

just another way of the city to balance the books off the backs of the workers. again, if things were negotiated and people got wages based on a lot of things. one of them being the benefit and you get a certain rate of a certain pay because of certain benefits. all of a sudden that you retire and you think that's what you're using did for you and that's what they promised you but then they're going to take it away from you. but, i would hope that you guys would not only not approve this to get rid of it all together. thank you. >>are a thank you for your comments.>>my name is david arlettei am a city employee for last 27 years. what to tell you it seems like this is a

deal that is not a well-informed decision and it seems obvious that there is information that you don't have that you need to sit down with a controller and break down this firewall so the proper information is brought to your attention so we can get the brackets and the numbers and where we all stand because i'm one of those employee who is going to retire early too but i think the 27 years that i've given to the city are important and i think that although i'm not going to be financially impacted by this decision, it seems that the families that

are fleeing the city are the ones that you need to take into consideration. the information that you have is insufficient for you to make a well-informed decision and you need to table this and you need to break down the firewalls and get the information that you need so that you do not continue to drive the families of the city. at the same time i like to remind you that in this city there's half of the population whose 1st language is not speaking english. the city needs to recruit people in san francisco that speak something other than english you're not going to attract people like me who put 27 years of service into this city of san francisco. i think you should think very carefully about what you do. >>left bracket timer dings] >>thank you very much next speaker please. >>my name is maury and baker.

i am a early retiree from the police department of san francisco. i think this puts a strain on the family that want to stay in san francisco as i do and who have children and who will not be able to afford to stay in the city of san francisco. >>thank you. any other public comment? >>thank you notice i came from your left. >>thank you. we appreciate that. >>[laughing] >> >>we understand that benefits are delayed wages and they are delayed benefits. as commissioner sass pointed out

we worked for the market for over 20 some over 30 some over 40 years and they're the ones that really get wacked and also the trainers of the firefighters also get back so this is because they will be on disability what we retire with is what we get for the rest of our lives so if you go out and you're assisting you are still going to have that benefit were that limited income for a very, very, very long time and if you

go out on a disability your provide prevented from other work that will change that. you govern this trust fund. part of our responsibility when you sat on this board is that we understood that our job was to subsidize if we could keep benefits affordable. we are not throwing people out into the exchanges 1 to any other world. it is your responsibility to members. that's why when crop c past and it eliminated the that we did not build the trust fund on that. we have now. the most efficient trust fund that we ever had for you to deny these members and not subsidize the small group as we have been traditionally as long as i was on this board and if you ask

fletcher longer than that. i'm sorry commissioner scott but you need to make the members benefits rate better than anticipated when they signed on. we cannot do this to our retirees. thank you. >>thank you for your comments. any other public comments. any comments from commissioners? >>1st of all thanks for coming out i do appreciate it. i agree a lot of comments that we've worked on we will continue around transparency and all the other things that we need to focus on. i completely agree with that and we work together as a body here. director.as well. i think that from my perspective

given some of the discussion here that i appreciate the motion and i think that as commissioner sass mentioned as well and i agree with a lot of comments that i think without seeing the information in front of us it's impossible to vote on anything from my perspective. also, i do not know myself where this body would be that being said i do think there is long-term what are we talking done a lot of things, this is a long-term issue and i think more information is better for my perspective. i would be happy to look at that. again, i do not think there be support for proving anything today but i would be happy to continue this item to look at it. there are some things i would want to look at. a from theiu perspective and i think if we're going to look at this is

long hires i would be interested in that information from my perspective i would be much more inclined on voting on the motion todayi would be happy to support that. i do not think there would be enough information to support what's being talked about ring out. >>any other comments from other commissioners? >>i am going to propose i withdraw my motion and that we continue the item. >>i move that we oppose this action of the rate relativity. >>we didn't get a 2nd for my withdraw. >>i will 2nd withdraw. the motion is withdrawn and there's nothing on the table it is blank then commissioner breslin.

>>i am move that we oppose this rate relativity. >>i second. >> there has been a motion that we oppose rate relativity >>i think that to take something off the table completely it does not serve our members very well. this is still an issue that needs to be investigated without a predisposed outcome he would >>thank you any other comments. commissioners asked. >>again, i support supervisor

farrells suggestion that we continue the item. i agree there is a long-term cost to the city and it's certainly unexpected what is happening with health premium and the consequences of all the individuals that are in the health care benefit after 5 years and so one because it is far greater today and the implications are far greater today than i think the city can afford. in all situations in the city these are just trade-offs if it's not dealt with in this fashion than in some other way the city has to balance its budget and support current employees in our communities. there are other things that are also important and we need to find solutions

to this. i'm not prepared to oppose the motion i believe that more exploration and more alternatives and more thought to a better, informed way to deal with this is still appropriate for us to consider. >>all right, thank you commissioner. commissioner farrell.>>i am a little bit biased with 3 kids but i do think thatwe need to be doing the things that i think from my perspective they are all of the right things that we should be talking about and i think that there are some compelling discussions here about it and i

appreciate the commentary on the entire topic and i guess from my perspective holistically as a topic i don't how we deal with it going forward i think that more information is going better and i think we should be looking at it as a board generically speaking. not to predispose any commentary or any solution and i just want to make sure that i say thank you because those comments are really important. >>thank you i would like to have the secretary repeat the motion at this time that is before us.could you please do that? >>the withdrawal motion? >>know that motion from commissioner breslin. commissioner breslin moved to oppose the rate relativity. and that was seconded. are there any other comments from

the commissioner. >>this is definitely a motion to table this item, right? >>commissioner breslin's motion is to oppose item 7. that was the motion. are there any other comments from the commissioners. >>my comment is why would you table something. >>commissioner breslin i asked before i called for public comment if there is any other comment from the commissioners. so, if you would like to make a comment i would have the public wait. >>i don't understand why you

would table something in less you start from scratch your how do you plan to do that? >>i apologize the terminology that we use is a different in the body at the city hall. there is not a motion to oppose that we've ever obtained. typically we asked for more information at some other point in time but then you have the topic alive generically but no one is supporting it today. from my perspective okay were not gonna support it today but will look at it generically and we don't know when it will come back and and then that's why was asking the secretary if we wanted to continue something to the call the chair to be brought back at another time. >>that was my understanding of

the process but you're probably right. >>according to robert c is right >>thank you.commissioner breslin can you please restate your motion for the through the floor. >>i move that we oppose this motion of rate relativity. >>that way commissioners can show their opposition to this topic. will prevent continuing or bring it up at any time. if you oppose rate relatively that's what i understand your motion to do. >>a motion to dispose does not dispose of this item either a >>then i withdraw my motion

>>[laughing] >>i moved to table this. >>is there a 2nd to the motion to table it. >>there is a seconf >>all this in favor of tabling this motion we will have as a roll call vote.

>>[roll call vote] >>we have 3 yes, and 4 no's. the motion fails. with that, is there any other discussion of this topic today and the answer to that is no. we will now move to the next action item. >>i would like to make a motion to continue this item to the call of the chair. >>all right, is there a second to that. >>it has been moved and seconded

we it have properly moved and seconded it that this item be moved and called to be continued by the chair. >>i think to look at the topic generically i think that is the intent i think in the future will look at this item in this general topic in different ways to approach this at least from my perspective.

>>thank commissioner farrell. >>listening to all of this our actuary please >>2017 there is nothing changingbaser actions today. >>is there other public comment on the motion this before the body? >>yes or. >>i have one follow-up question that i don't think that you have really addressed and i don't know that i really understand but if you reconsider this proposal doesn't extend to larger bodies of the member to some that are in the medi-cal medicare pool and some that are not because

you have, i mean you have family members some in some out you have kids that are out your husband's that are in and out this actually is not a little population this is a really big population. i think. >>ma'am, thank you for your comment. what is on the table now is to do for this to become by the chair. i understand and this would be part of discussion and deliberation on a future date to be called back. >>yes? >>yes mike tivo and i'm representing our members as we oppose this and why why your director has unleashed is this document. and less you have

some direction as to where you're going to move my members especially the 800 and do that are affected what director dodd recommends is what likely will happen. you've given us no direction to what we go back and tell our members, at some point we would like you to straightforward telus are you going to go forward with this proposal or are you not? until you give us that direction we are making that assumption correctly or incorrectly that you would some point will bring this back up in this form or some other form? >>sir i cannot base that on

what we do or do not hold without those reports. any other public comment? >>retired employees if you do not have an association representing you should be joining us. i concur with my colleague and my people and this means actually that this issue comes up every time you're looking at rates annually for every category. this issue does not go way. in less you take this issue and get rid of it it can be put into the rates that come before you in the next session you are going to approve for everybody so, it does not go away because you have not established a policy and your basically cost shifting 2 5689 early retiree who should not be taking on the

cost of healthcare burdens because they have circumstances for them to retire early in their families. >>if you vote this item down and you get rid of it as commissioner breslini believe was trying to do you can't impact the early retiree. is your obligationo make sure they retain a affordable healthcare. that is mike at her son. thank you. >>thank you commissioners sharon johnson would protect my benefits why is the early

retiree rates for city plan. most of those people live out of state and they are not in an hmo area it was done for the former director and the actuary. lost this issue so there will be transparency about it and if you were to say what taking this forever indefinitely or whatever you would not be able to equalize or whatever paying far more than the hmos is there any other public comments.

>> side and understand that last statement i just a member that the city plan was awesome for me i was married with 2 children and it was crazy so it forced me into another one i don't think city health plan people who i'm sorry the city plan, chairman thank you for your comment other any other comments