becomes less of a need so i'm just trying to understand i do not like to waste money i want to make sure we're using our current dollars efficiently where it is almost as if we would not be in this situation to ask for additional fund if we billed by hours in the ways your proposing not only with the clerk but everything that we're required to pay for i just wanted to make sure we're keeping in mind and moving forward in the future i'm presented to move this budget along and to submit this budget as is but moving forward in the future there may be a need to make adjustments especially again on a path of pushing cca through i want to make that point. >> you're okay to move the

budget to as proposed. >> yes. >> and just to add cca perhaps is winding down but another thing that lafco can decide to do that means the budget is based on those assignment that lafco is working on the projects could you know be the higher budget or the same level of funding maybe needed to depending on the direction our commission gifdz lafco gives itself. >> through the chair if i can make one point clear we'll include billable hours with the clerk it's the expectation that the choofa will remain full-time and he will indicate which hours he's spending cca and i

understand where you're coming from. >> well, i think i get that i know we'll continue down that path i'm expressing in the future based upon the amount of workload for this position things may change thank you, thank you commissioner crews i had a followup question supervisor breed's as a full-time executive director through this budget process i see sort of going forward this is something i'll put on the radar i make sure we have assignments and interests i know that the supervisors that are certainly interested in studies

going forward i want to be cognizant when we are thinking about future of lafco and utilizing mr. frooedz time we currently give him the workload and staff and i'll say i appreciate your work you do for lafco and hope to keep our plate plentiful. >> thank you, commissioner if i can add the way i did the budget for next year when i was creating that budget it was after december we had half of years spending done this year i took the half year i've spent thirty percent of my time open the administrative non-cc organization work and other other on billable hours i determined for the second half of the year the underground and

open source election a little bit more of my time and knowing the puc was moving forward with the cca but spend more time about 35 percent come next year when we launch it if everything stays on schedule 45 percent cca and 55 non-cc a we'll have to have a discussion when the 55 percent looked like if i'm going to remain for a moment staff that is my full one hundred percent will be determined by lafco itself so we'll need to have that discussion coming second half of next january or february and what lafco and the puc role plaids together those are discussions that needs happen. >> commissionerlipid.

>> if i may ask the council it seems like that is a discussion around the idea of a sunset for lafco i'm curious what legal refresh my recollection or requirements is that needed to for that to happen i personally feel like there are projects that the members of the public that feel are important to the city will come to us i'm curious what legal perimeters are there regarding that. >> there is statutory lafco in the county san francisco is a unique county because of the city and county so lafco is driven by projects and so if you have no projects in lafco than typically not a dedicated staff that's in a

sense some small county they don't have dedicated staff only a small part of the cca duty and in other county it is an individual staff it is a determination of the lafco commission in each county and each county rotundas their lafco very, very differently. >> thank you. >> okay other comments from the commission madam clerk thank you for your presentation and we'll go to public comment and have questions probability e probably afterward. >> good afternoon, commissioners eric brooks san francisco green party and grassroots in the city i serve with other but including san

franciscans and clean energy advocate i want to definitely speak to continuing lafco as a fully flushed out budgeted entity with no detraction from its continuing work, yes we're about the launch the community on the ground gas station we've got the mayor's office it looks like this is going to happen but it is absolutely clufshl to understand the reason lafco was created was because it was recognized that programs like clean power sf will need a quasi state body that is not totally tied into san francisco politics that has public members that have decision making power on this commission payroll to make sure that citywide services and

other citywide needs like good elect royal and trash collection and recycling all those are things we balanced need lafco to continue so it it come in from the outdoor when the city is laughing on something like clean power sf and most recently will come before you is the public broadband is a really good example exactly the same situation if you look at what 9 department of technology it looks like it will seriously lag unless we have a strong entity like lafco to stick up for a great citywide broadband program that covers the digital divide and you'll that good stuff so keep lafco fully. >> thank you are there any members of the public that want

to comment seeing none and colleagues i'd like to have a motion to approve the lafco unless there are other comments coming forward supervisor campos i make the motion to approve the budget. >> very good and seconded by commissioner crews. >> i want to second the budget and say we will be voting on it again and this is the first, as i understand the first step in moving forward. >> correct this is the first step we'll come back at the may meeting i'll make within motion we have a reverse reserve our right to the 2 hundred and 9 eight hundred 342 we're going to be asking the city and county

for only a certain amount so we can ask for an entire amount it will come a point in time my full salary will be under the general fund of the no money we'll be using the full amount i want to make sure we reserve that right to the lumbar or the next year the city and county has a right to refuse us to the whole amount so only accept the lower amount we'll take from next year and did it make sense we ask for the full amount now. >> what we've didn't e when we did a proposed budget except we are only going to accept an x

amount this year a specific amount. >> so my motion to ask for the proposed amount here with the pd that we reserve the right to ask for what we're statutorily allowed i don't know we should ask for more than we need to it is really important we've been really good at it but reserving the right make sense ultimate we'll have the power to decide that anyway. >> great, thank you and yes. >> motion from supervisor campos and seconded by commissioner crews we'll take that without objection. okay. the motion passes. >> our next item. >> item 4 community agreeing gas station activities report status on the clean sf program and b the california

update. >> okay jason fried a lot has happened we have seen the fairness board accept the not to exceed rate urge to see a timeline just yesterday supervisor breed at the board of supervisors along the mayor and supervisor avalos as well introduced the language that was need to change how our procurement contract work we're excited to see that move forward we need to get that ball rolling in the critical section of timeline it moving f and the main

program objective is to have the program be affordable we're leading that affordability and reliable service we've talked about the fact that the enernex report that we need to have a competitive program a program that has the renewable attribute the city is striving for to the

extent it's afford by your residents the second and third objective go to those points clean energy supply and developing new infrastructure next up i have me milestone and key milestone is the implement schedule we have some accomplishments listed here and some further one that occurred recently i'd like to draw your attention to the update column in the middle you'll see the activities that happened recently we'll fill in the april 14th date the date that we appeared at our commission to present the guidelines so this is didn't appear on the slide

but it will we were successful on april 17th in getting the rate fairness board to agree that not to exceed rates with respect proposing are appropriate. >> so we presented it on april 17th and they agreed and you see that that is the last item that is updated in the date column. >> and that came in a few days early. >> yes. it do we're ahead of schedule thank you for putting that out we are trying. >> i appreciate the work it is very clear that the dates are close to when the proposed dates are in this case exceeded and we've heard loud and clear and we're going to highlight where we are on target and off so for

it's been a mix we missed the legislative reform date but we accelerated the fairness board date overall the important dates that are highlight with the blue arrows are not effected by those advancements and delays. >> commissioner. crews sorry. >> i have a quick question on the timeline that was one line that says mid to late april is that for the back office. >> yes. >> is there a proposed like hard date for that. >> well, the mid to late april characterization is the timeframe we're drafting the materials we're getting approvals that are necessary before you issue american people rfp

and so by late april soon, we'll be able to publish that proposal to solicit the back office we'll need. >> the question was raised to me about when we're approving rates so there is a bite of the apple in the string isn't there for not to exceed rates; is that right i roll call sitting on the timeline we'll have i think may there is not to exceed rate is that still in the worked. >> yes so the first step in setting the not to exceed rate is bringing up them to the rate fairness board for approval and the next is presenting them to our commission for approvalpublic

utilities commission. >> it's not open the slide. >> yeah. i think the summary is in error the summary of our schedule is not clear statuteyly to have them before the board of supervisors at least thirty dates if the board explicit take action that should be a date highlighted and not i think that's what you're referring to that time period. >> yeah. the not to exceed rate the last in 20 what? 2013 or 2012 that was done and public utilities commission and that went to the full board it wasn't approved. >> in the last round it didn't run the full process because it didn't get the approval of our commission not presented further

to the board so the expectation we'll present the not to exceed rates to the commission now thankful been approved to the to the board then moved to the board of supervisors for the thirty day period. >> i saw a 27 date for final rates to be approved is that action that is done similarly or the same action. >> that's not the same action but the rate fairness the puc the process board process will set a cap present final rates to commission on october 27th will be rate that are below that or we could not e won't take further action since their below that the charter requirements rate has been met we won't have

to come back to the board for a second bite. >> the final rates if we don't take action they've set not to exceed rates. >> correct and but we may consider lower than that and done and puc. >> correct. >> and the board. >> the board doesn't see those rates again. >> thank you oh commissioner crews sorry. >> i just have one more question while we're other than the topic of rate is that it said in the paper this morning there was something coming before 9 state puc to talk about narrow rates so the lower rates could be built higher this is a

hold over from the year 2000 when the rates were changed tiering was changed this didn't hurt the household do you anticipate this will impact any way our rate setting. >> the program design because the focus on affordability looks at what the compete rates to the extent pencil is charging their customers for their basic service at a higher level than that had give us more room to have a competitive product some margin for local build and workplace our basic offering aced jooid.

>> it makes us think right now is not cost effective for low energy consumers their rate goes up that changes how we look at the meter work and make that more cost effective all of a sudden to do the work in the low tiered customers the costco come in in a good way there are potential impacts but i agree with the overall assessments of the program. >> yesterday president breed and i co-sponsored a process to enable the puc to go forward with purchase power purchase agreements later this year and i guess think that is important that we get the ball rolling as quickly as possible i believe that that be h be unconventional

perhaps as the thirty day rule to move quickly hopefully the puc is drafting the proposals for the bias is that something that what happen the puc is drafting we're ready to go once the legislation ready to go. >> we've begun you know we've dusted off the work we've done before on drafting the requests for offers and bringing in consulting support that will allow us to have better insight into the process their implemented merry run and others so we think we're poised to hit the ground running we have had prior conversations with the

members of the board of supervisors with supervisor breed in particular about the legislation i think we're geared up and ready to keep going with the pace to make the progress to stay on tackle. >> and is waving the thirty day rules great. >> i'm going to turn now to the perspective proposal is i'm sure you're aware of we currently have requirement to bring to the board of supervisors for approval any yachts exceeding 10 years in duration other than $10 million in total cost we really need to act quickly incorporated to temp of the administrative common practices within the industry we're looking at forward for the ability to use pro-formula contracts that are used in the industry two of them commonly we

have authority to use one of them that authority was dwrantd to the puc quite sometime g ago we're looking to be able to use it standard form contract called the western power systems contract and another contract that has extensive the edison contract we're asking for the authority to use those contract not only for 5 years but up to 10 there will be some waivers of the city contract requirements in that context in order to use it standard form contract we're rehabilitation asking for the authority to develop our own pro-form contract it have a standard contract in progress we envision seek additional supply and want

to that a w a standard set of contracts getting the industry used to hearing from us as and continue to grow this program we're also asking for the ability to contract up to 25 years for renewable and green house regrergs from california sources and in that context we're asking for the ware of some city requirements standard contract terms and we the ability to move forward with those under a delegation of authority from the board where we don't need to come back each time we wish to strike a contract if it exceeds 10 years or $10 million we're proposing in this legislation to annual report how we're doing how much we've procured so you understand

we're exercising the authority we're requesting and we would have the budget issues around the contracts be part of our standard budgeting process we're looking for the authorities not only for the community agreeing gas station program but our existing program. >> obtain the power side. >> yes. >> and i think this is important to note we're not proposing to use those authorizations and those waivers for excuse me for generation we'll deputy on city owned property we envision those in the city process. >> so what kind of products would be utilizing in granted those authorizes what kind of program design we're proposing

to have as the enernex report suggested having two tiered program a default product and premium product the goal to offer supplies that are greener than pg&e and having a low g h g at compatible rates again that meeting with affordability we're proposing a 33 to 50 percent renewable content bundled california eligible resources we'll expect when we go out into the market in the first r0u7b8 the responses will be larger from existing operating renewables we also expect that as the program matures we'll be able to contract for new you know both owned and purchased renewable

generation and this those will be coming online in the years two to three plus timeframe as their developed under the default product that competes with the routine pg&e customer what about our dark green equivalent or our clean start equivalent excuse me. our evergreen sonoma laupgs it is one hundred percent renewable green house free supply we'll envision the rate and cost to be set to say a margin to fund building new local and regional projects renewable projects at a