May 15, 2020. The meeting will can the order. This the is the may 15, local meeting of the local agency formation. I am sandraly fewer joined by gordon marand cynthia pollock. I would like to thank sfgovtv for broadcasting this meeting. Madam clerk, do you have any announcements. Due to the Health Emergency and to protect commissioners, staff and public, city hall is closed. Members will participate in the meeting remotely. This precaution is taken pursuant to the stayathome order and local and state and federal orders, declarations and directives. You may participate in the meeting to the extent as if physically present. Public comment will be available on each item. On channel 26 and sfgovtv will stream the number on the screen. Each speaker will be allowed two minutes to speak. Communities or opportunities to speak are via by calling 408 4189388. Pound and pound again. When connected you will hear the discussions but you will be muted and in his senning mode only. Listening mode only. When your item is up dial star nine. Best practices call from quiet location, speak clearly and slowly, turndown your television or radio. You may submit Public Comment be in the following ways. Email to myself. If you submit Public Comment it will be forwarded and included as part of the official file. That concludes my announcements. Thank you very much. Can you please call item 2. Approval of the lafco minutes from the april 17, 2020 regular meeting. Thank you. Any comments from my colleagues . Seeing none. Lets open for Public Comment. Any members of the public to comment on item number 2 . Madam chair, no callers wish to speak. Thank you. I would like to make a motion to approve the minutes of the lafco meeting of april 17, 2020. Could i have a second please. Second. Supervisor mar. Roll call vote. The motion to approve the minutes. Commissioner fewer. Aye. Commissioner pollock. Aye. Commissioner haney. Aye. Commissioner mar. Aye. There are four ayes. Thank you very much. Madam clerk, can you please call item 3. Consideration and approval of the proposed lafco budget for fiscal year 20202021. We have mr. Bryan goebel, executive director presenting. Thank you, madam chair. Good morning, commissioners. Today i am bringing you a proposed budget which needs to be approved by the end of may. At the last meeting you asked me to bring two proposed budget options, one a significant increase in our budget for the general fund. Another would be a status quo of the lafco budget. The first option the general fund request would be under 7 84,000. Status quo would receive the amount that we are statutorily required to receive each year from the general fund which is 297, 342. This is because of uncertainty abuse of the budget situation. Commissioner mar asked to talk about the impact if the commission chooses to move forward with the status quo budget. This is the general fund balance over the years. Lafco has not had an increase in 10 years. We receive the same amount every year if from the general fund 298,000. We do expect carrying over to next budget as you can see in the column at the bottom that is our general fund balance. To the right in the right column you can see we are going to have about a 28,000 carryover to the next fiscal year. For those not familiar with lafco, i want to give a brief history and mission of lafco. Our lafco is unique. Most lafcos in california oversee special districts. Ours was formed in 2000 with a voter petition drive to create a municipal utility district. Over the years we worked primarily in energy issues. In 2007 we were assigned oversight of clean power sf. It would not exist without lafco. We led to the creation of clean power sf. Lafco is successful at exercising special studies powers. We have that authority under the act which governs all lafcos. We are allowed to initiate study os issues that impact Municipal Services. These are advantageous to help the city assess Municipal Service needs. In 201920 we did important projects. We commissioned the most representative study of on demand workers. Today as you will see we present a report offering a slate of recommendations on how to improve the working conditions on demand workers. We continue to derm avenues the city can take to curtail labor abuses. You heard a report last year about the troubling amount of disconnections, power disconnections in San Francisco, especially in neighborhoods that have suffered historical burdens. To do the special studies work, we have had to raise the money. In this fiscal year lafco raised 365,000 from five foundations, biggest from the ford foundation. We worked the bay and the casey foundation, San Francisco foundation, the family foundation. Through that fundraising we were ability to double the budget in this fiscal year. That money is the biggest source of funding. You can see where the general fund money falls in here as well as work order from the cca. That funding under 200,000 for clean power sf is to cure and will carry on in the next fiscal year. With increased resources for lafco, the significant increase that we are asking for, we will be able to carry on our work that we started in this fiscal year. We are hoping to do another round of Research Related to on demand workers and companies. We want to have an Engagement Process for recommendations we present today to vet those with a variety of stakeholders and city departments. We would like to Commission Additional surveys. The findings presented today, the broader survey of on demands workers was about halfway into the data gathering when it had to be suspended because of covid19. We hope to work to Cross Platform level data on worker trips and earning. We didnt get to do that during the initial phases of the survey. Of course, there is the work on public bank pending legislation, providing a consultant to support a Public Bank Task force. You will see in the presentation today from the lafco Research Associate recommendations that involve engaging with communities of color to traffic covid19 assistance from banks and organize listening sessions with limited English Proficiency communities how Crisis Response has affected bans responsibility. There is a Communications Plan to allow the work to increase Public Participation and engagement. Also to provide additional fundraising capacity. Significant amount of my time was spent fundraising this year. We have a slight increase in Legal Council budget because of increased workload and more item to review. Looking ahead in the next fiscal year clean power sf. This happens regardless of option one or two. We have that money from the p. U. C. We will manage and work with Renewable Energy consultant to provide improved oversight. We will have expertise working with staff to really strengthen our oversight role. We will develop and manage r. F. P. , hire another consultant to dive into the report on power disconnections in San Francisco. As we think longterm i would like a funding strategy to ensure it is supported after the m. O. U. And after the funding is gone. This requires no increased resources to do this work on clean power sf Going Forward. Speaking of clean power sf. This is the work order balance. We have under 200,000 left in that fund. Here is the first option. Increase resources for lafco. What does that mean . Two fulltime positions. Executive officer currently works as independent contractor. This would make the executive officer a fulltime city and county employee. We would hire a fulltime policy analyst and provide money for Labor Research and Communications Plan. The total increase we are requesting from the general fund would be under 487,000. Total request under 7 84,000. Budget option two. Again with the status quo budget. I propose most of our work focus on clean power sf. No additional funding required for this. If we go forward with this option we have money left from the amount we raise from private foundations for the survey team. There is funding there to do additional work. I am trying to derm what the scope of that would be. Moving forward with the status quo no funding for public bank. Limited staff capacity to fundraise for special studies, limited staff capacity to conduct further Labor Research. We could bring in Research Associates from graduate classes. We have been successful at this to work around it. Because of delays in the citys budget process, regardless which option you choose to move forward to, lafco will operate on the status quo budget july 1 through september 30. That is because the budget process is delayed. The earliest to get additional funding would be october 1st. These are the two options i bring before you today. Option one increase resources for lafco, allow us to follow up on the work we have been doing this year versus option two. Status quo budget no fulltime positions, move forward focusing mostly on clean power sf with no money to support the Public Bank Task force. These are the line items for each option. You can see budget option one, two, and then what the contingent appropriation would be if you approve budget option one. These are the numbers. For the first column most increases for the fulltime positions. They are for the public bank consultant, Communications Plan, budget option two status quo budget. Working within the amount we are required to get every year from the general fund. Column three shows the contingent amount if the citys budget process moves forward and lafco is favored in that process. We would receive that money after the citys budget process is complete. With that, commissioners, i am happy to answer questions and get your feedback. Thank you very much. Any comments or questions for mr. Goebel . I have a question. Mr. Goebel, thank you for presenting option one and two. That is helpful. I want to ask two questions. First is whether the sfpuc has talked about whether or not there would be a new m. O. U. For our clean power sf work Going Forward. The other is did you do the math quickly on what our spending was this past fiscal year when you count fundraising plus money from the general fund. It seems like we werent operating at status quo budget this year because we had fundraising. Is that the amount that would be with the fundraising and the general fund amount . How that differs . It looks like only about 100,000 difference in that option one budget. Thank you for that question. The first question about the m. O. U. I am in conversation with the Public Utilities commission. They michigan it may not be they think it may not be necessary to extend the m. O. U. And appropriate the money to lafco. We are investigating right now. I have been talking with mik mikeheims at clean power sf. They support lafco receiving the money. We are trying to figure out the best way to move forward if it is allow us to spend it moving forward. That is for the 200,000 . That is correct. Are there any discussions to earmark money to receive either i guess that would be like a change an addendum to the m. O. U. That would be for an additional amount . I was thinking after 200,000 is used it makes sense for our ongoing work with clean power sf that we receive additional funding from the sfuc. I have not had any discussions with the p. U. C. About future funding Going Forward. If the commission desires for me to initiate those discussions, i would be happy to move forward with them. So on the e on the expenditure. We spent the allocated amount 298,000. We have about 23,000 left of that. The total amount we raised for the survey and study 365,000. That has all been paid out to the survey team. Just the craziness of switching to covid19 survey and suspending the broader survey. We are trying to figure out what is in that pool of money. I hope to have an answer soon. I dont have an answer today. The 365,000 did you say. Thats correct. I am sorry. I dont have a calculator handy. Let me add that up. I will do the math on that. 639,000 total that is minus the 23,000 carryover, 639,000. The proposed option one budget was do you remember . 700 . Let meet put that back up on the screen for you, commissioner. These numbers are different than the staff memo because i had to revise these numbers. 150,000 difference if we were to continue with option 1. We are on track to spend at least i am just sort of thinking Going Forward if we were to do the type of work that we just did that without any additional fundraising we would need an option 1 budget. For the commission my colleagues to decide. I want to point out i know we were spending a lot more than the allocated amount from the general fund. Yes. You are absolutely right. I would like to mention that lafco has not had an increase in the 10 years it has been in existence. It has always been at 297,342. We have not had an increase even though the budget of the city and county of San Francisco has grown tremendously over the last years. We at lafco have not gotten an increase. I want to say on that line item budget about the executive director. You may recall that we had an employee before that was actually city and county employee, and that position was eliminated. Mr. Goebel has been working as a contract employee. It was part of the intent, i think, of our board here to actually secure a more stable salary for mr. Goebel that also extends to benefits and other retirement protection. That is an increase in that budget, which i think is, quite frankly, warranted. Any comments or questions from any of my other colleagues. I will put this up for Public Comment. Can you please see if there is anybody that would like to speak on item number 3. There are no callers wishing to speak at this time. Public comment is closed on item number 3. I think todays agenda reflects incredible things that lafco has achieved under the leadership of our executive director. The analyzing equity issues in the current program. It is my hope we can continue this program that is dependent on the city budget. I propose budget option one with the recommendation any increases in the latch could budget lafco budget are on the increase in funds in the city budget. Once the city budget is adopted lafco will need to revisit and make final objections. The board of Supervisors Budget Committee did hear a presentation on the updated request and the city is facing say significant deficits over the next two years. We are waiting for more information to come. This allows us to be prudent and have flexibility if we are able to secure funds. Any comments or questions about this . Madam chair. There is a caller who would like to speak. Would you like to reopen Public Comment . We can hold that thought about what i just recommended with option number one with the recommendation increases in the lafco budget are contingent on the increase in funds in the final city and county budget. We will open Public Comment again to hear from the Public Comment speaker. Any members of the public on the line to speak, please dial star nine now. Good morning. I came in late. Are you discussing the preliminary recommendations for food delivery drivers . Not at this time. We are discussing the budget for the lafco committee. Thank you. My apologies. I will defer. Thank you very much, caller. Any more Public Comment . I am curtis. I want to say our coalition approves the funding for a Public Task Force as well as executive director. I know there is a lot going on with the city and the budget, but i think we are one of the wealthiest cities in the country. I support the funding of the task force. Thank you. Thank you. That completes the queue. Thank you, public speakers. I would like to comment on what he said during Public Comment. I want to say we are facing a 1. 7 billion deficit. However, i would like to remind everybody that we will be going back to a 2018 member budget. Although we will have a deficit, we will still have a 10 billion budget. It is a larger budget than some countries. I want to pu put that in perspective. That is why i am proposing option one and we will deliberate that with the rest of the supervisors. I think we are not from a city that doesnt have a lot of income like fresno or modesto. We will still have a significant budget. Also, we have a reserve. I would like to leave options open. I make the motion to approve option 1 with the recommendation that any increases in the lafco budget contingent upon receiving an increase in funds in the final approved city and county budget. If there are no objections, i am asking for a second. Thank you, commissioner haney. Roll call vote, please. On the motion. Commissioner fewer seconded by commissioner haney. Commissioner fewer. Aye. Commissioner pollock. Aye. Commissioner haney. Aye. Commissioner mar. Aye. There are four ayes. That being. Could you, madam clerk please call item 4, 5, 6 together. Item 4 presentation and discussion on the findings of the Lafco Commission survey of on demand ride hail and delivery workers in San Francisco. 5. Presentation and discussion of the u. S. F graduate Class Research and recommendation on on demand Delivery Services in San Francisco. 6 presentation and discussion on lafcos recomme