with a private developer, will agree -- have the developer agree to include certain projects that are often referred to as community benefits or public benefits, such as the development of a park or another public amenity. for example, california pacific medical center development agreement requires the development of a variety of different public amenities. so that is not what we're talking about today, so i just wanted to clarify that. additionally, the term community benefit is often used in the context of talking about a community benefit district. san francisco has a number of community benefit districts the districts can be created under state law by a city or a county according to certain procedures and subject to the approval of the property heard within the district. if approved, there's a special assessment that goes on the property bill that can be used only for limited purposes for providing public improvements,

maintenance and oth maintenance and activities that promote economic vitality in the district. when we're talking about looking at hospital community benefit oversights. that's not the context with which we're using community benefits, and certainly creating a community benefit district wouldn't really assist in looking at hospital community benefit. so what are we really talking about here, and that would be hospital community benefits as an area which again has nothing to do with the other two contexts. state law requires nonprofit hospitals in california to provide community benefits that serve the public interest in exchange for their tax exempt status. to fulfill this obligation under state law, nonprofit hospitals are required to do a number of things. first they have to conduct a community benefits assessment every three years. second, they have to develop a community benefit plan in

consultation with the local community, and third, they have to submit on an annual basis a copy of its plan -- its community benefit plan to the office of statewide community planning and development which is the statewide agency that's charged with overseeing this requirement. for purposes of this state law, the term community benefit means a hospital's activities that are intended to address community needs and priorities primarily through disease prevention and improvement of health status, and they can include but are not limited to, the following things, so this is just a list. it's not an exclusive list. it can be health care services rendered to vulnerable populations. it can be the reimbursement of cost of services listed in the state code, including wellness and health promotion, prevention of services, health care medical research, and medical education. it can be financial or in-kind support of public health programs, it can be a donation

of funds, property or other resources that contribute to a community priority. it can be health care costs containment programs, enhancement of access to health care or related services that contribute to a healthy community. services offered without regard to financial return because they meet a community need in the service area of a particular hospital or it can be food, shelter, clothing, transportation or other goods and services that help maintain the community's health. community benefit plans generally include a description of the activities that the particular hospital has undertaken to address identified community needs within its mission and financial capacity, and the process by which the hospital developed the plan in consultation with the community. oshpd -- again, this is the agency -- the state agency that

administers this program maintains an on-line database of the annual community benefit plans from each nonprofit hospital. in san francisco, we have ten nonprofit hospitals that are subject to the community benefit requirements. those are chinese hospital, jewish home san francisco, kaiser foundation san francisco, st. francis memorial hospital san francisco, st. mary's hospital, san francisco, and then, the five different california pacific medical center campuses that exist here in san francisco. so what are the options for the lafco to explore whether there's a way to look at hospital communication benefit compliance? one idea that was proposed briefly at the last meeting was perhaps establishing a health care district. state law does permit the

formation subject to a lafco approval of a hospital health care district for the following purposes: one, building or operating a health care facility in underserved areas, two operating ambulance services, or three operating health care programs such as those related to wellness, chemical dependency, health education, rehabilitation, etcetera. because oversight of hospitals compliance with state mandated community benefits does not fall within one of those purposes, forming a health care district doesn't really get at the issue that the lafco, as i understand it, is interested in looking at. so how does lafco go about looking at this? well, as you know, you have the authority to conduct a special study. lafco may conduct a special study on the issue of hospitals compliance with state mandated community benefit obligations to make a recommendation about whether there's a need for additional or different local

government services to provide for the needs of the community. if, based on a special study, lafco concluded that there are short comings in the nonprofit hospital's compliance with state imposed community benefit obligations, it's not clear without more facts what options would be available to lafco. identifies what those facts and thus what lafco's options are is an appropriate part of a lafco study. for example, if a hospital receives funding from the city and county of san francisco, lafco may be in a position to recommend that the city condition future receipt of city funds on the nonprofit hospital's compliance with a state mandated community benefit obligation. to the extent that such contractual obligations already exist with the city, lafco may recommend that the city take steps to enforce those obligations. in the case of nonprofit hospitals that receive no city

funding and of course these are private, nonprofit agencies, these are not government agencies, there may not be an opportunity to -- for san francisco itself to do something directly, but certainly, lafco could recommend to the city and county of san francisco to pursue some legislative options on the state level to ensure that the state is holding nonprofit hospitals accountable for their community benefit obligations. end of my presentation. >> supervisor fewer: any questions, colleagues? so i have a question. so it seems as though we are able to -- this hospital health care district, you -- that is an option for us to develop one in san francisco? >> so we would have to -- we would have to go through and look at what the requirements are, and the purposes, but it wouldn't get at this issue. the issue that you -- that i'm understanding you wanting to look at is are the hospitals

complying with the obligations that the state already imposes on those hospitals to provide for community benefits here in san francisco? that -- enforcing that or looking at compliance would not fall within the purposes of creating a hospital district or a health care district. >> supervisor fewer: because that might be something that might follow after we do a special study that may or may not show that hospitals are complying with their community benefits plan, could we curtail or direct then services to be directed to -- you mentioned, i think substance abuse, mental health? >> what a hospital district would be formed for would be one of the purposes that is set forth in the statute, so one would be building or operating health care facilities in underserved areas, so there would have to be a

determination consistent with how that state law is construed that there's an underserved area to fall within that purpose. another statutory purpose would be for operating ambulance services which i don't think is really the issue here. the third would be operating health care programs, which would include for example as i mentioned before, wellness programs, chemical dependency programs, health education and rehabilitation programs, so we would need to look at what is currently being provided and our -- is what lafco recommending is a development of a health care district in order to provide those services, which is a little bit different than our health care -- our hospitals within san francisco complying with their identified plans under state law to provide for community benefits, which may go well beyond that. so certainly, we could look into a deeper dive to see whether when you're looking at this, there is an opportunity

here to create a health care district, but it may be that whatever short comings there are really are about enforcing what the state is requiring, but perhaps there isn't sufficient oversight or sufficient enforcement, rather than creating a health care district. >> supervisor fewer: got it. and then, the private hospitals, because they're not under this nonprofit sort of status, that we -- in order to look at that benefit packet, that would have to be through development plans, is that correct? >> so when you're talking about for-profit or are you just talking about -- >> supervisor fewer: for-profit. >> for-profit, we probably would be talking about development agreements, that this option we've provided of community benefit is really an animal of the nonprofit status that certain hospitals enjoy, so in exchange for getting the tax exemption status, they are

obligationed oblt obligated to provide a certain level of community benefits. we do have a number of hospitals in san francisco san francisco, and they are all supposed to have community benefit plans and are supposed to be moving toward satisfying them. so looking at whether those exist, how are the hospitals doing, are they meeting the state law requirements is one area that lafco may, if it chooses, decide to pursue. >> supervisor fewer: oh, yes, commissioner pollock. >> commissioner pollock: thank you so much for this presentation. i think it's helpful to understand how we might direct staff to move forward and better understand the issue altogether. i just wanted to ask a quick question about oshpd, and do they set of bar in terms of what's acceptable on the

benefits that a nonprofit might provide to the community or does san francisco identify the needs of the community and ask oshpd to monitor them? how does that work? >> so we would need -- if directed by the lafco, we can take a deeper dive into exactly how these requirements and obligations work and how really the synergy is supposed to work with working with the community. there's a clear obligation under the statute to work with the community to identify the needs, but how exactly that works, we would need to take a deeper dive. i will after my part of the presentation, chelsea has a presentation. she has actually contacted the agency, has a little bit more information. again we're still at the beginning of the process and want to get some direction from lafco before we go any deeper. >> commissioner pollock: great, thank you. >> but i think that's a great area of exploration if the lafco is so inclined to do

that. >> supervisor fewer: supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: yes. when i was a legislative aide for supervisor campos, this is something that i worked on. and there's not much we can do or even the type of body that we are at lafco -- i don't even know how to describe it, because of certain issues at the state. we did pass several resolutions supporting bills that encouraged more rigorous enforcement and further defining what this charitable benefit requires at a minimum? so i'm not sure that there's much to do there. what could be interesting especially if we talk to some of our, you know, community and union partners, is a comparative study of the amount of money different nonprofit hospitals spend on meeting this

requirement and the -- and the amount of tax benefit they receive from their nonprofit status and just do a comparison to, you know, put some media and other types of pressure on those hospital chains that are not doing their fair chair comparative to their peers? that would be, i think, a really interesting study. but we have -- i have done quite a bit of work on here, and unfortunately, at our level, there's just not much we can do with teeth. >> supervisor fewer: lack of local control is -- should we have chelsea come up and speak right now? >> absolutely. >> supervisor fewer: okay. >> i will just point out that if there is money coming from the city to these hospitals -- and again, you know, we'd have to do a deeper dive, but again, certainly areas where there may

be money, that there may be a contractual hook for the city, even though there isn't a regulatory hook. so it's not a question of local work, it's a question of fiscal control of local grant money, and i don't know if you have the opportunity to look at that. so that's an area -- and i don't know the answer to the question -- that may provide some hook, but yes, it's really at the state level, and it would be pressure at the state level. i'm going to -- if there are no further questions, i'm going to pass the mic off to chelsea. >> supervisor fewer: oh, i think commissioner pollock has a question. >> commissioner pollock: my apologies to just back in and ask one question. is there additional -- i don't want to say local control, but is there something that would be different because lafco is a state body and not a city and county body? >> no. no. good try. >> supervisor fewer: yes. >> hello.

chelsea boulard, legislative staff for supervisor fewer. so most kind of echoing miss stricker's comments and commissioner ronen's comments about what's possible at a local level, i did reach out to the state office of local and planning development. one of the things that's being handed to you is a copy of the 1994 legislation, sb 697 that was passed that essentially mandates, you know, that nonprofit hospitals provide community benefit thes. and as you can see, like, on pages 23 and 4, there is not a lot of specificity on what hospitals are required. there are some broad categories but no, you know, specific dollar amounts and very little accountability or kind of teeth to -- to the legislation.

when i spoke to staff at the office of statewide health planning and development, they kbi confirmed that they are essentially a clearinghouse for this information, so at their essence, they publish the community benefit plans that these hospitals are developing, but they don't necessarily even do an assessment or an analysis of these plans, you know, and so i think there are some limitations there to kind of the scope of their responsibilities with regard to -- to these community benefit plans. i did reach out to the department of public health, and they essentially as a local, you know, department, have no jurisdiction over any of these plans. the one thing i did want to note is they do work with these nonprofit hospitals that are based in san francisco through the san francisco health improvement partnerships community health needs assessment, the chna, and the

chna provides data enabling identification of priority issues that are impacting health and san francisco, and that needs assessment is the foundation for a lot of the citywide health planning processes, including the community health improvement plan, san francisco's health care services master plan, the san francisco department of public health population health division static plan, and then each of the nonprofit hospitals, community health needs assessments, and their own benefit plans. so essentially this kind of joint collective needs assessment that happens is what informs those nonprofit hospital community benefit plans, but essentially, it is up to those hospitals to create the plans themselves right there, and there isn't kind of external oversight in that besides the statewide office of health planning and development. part of this initiative where

it came from is i understand there was a 2014 initiative published. i've handed out copies of that report to you all. on page 20, there is a list of recommendations that they included. most of these as kind of have been noted are -- would be -- need to take place at the state level. there are recommendations with regards to hospitals themselves making changes and potentially, you know, putting pressure on those hospitals to make those changes, but there are a couple of things that could have local impact that might be worth exploring further, and i did reach out to the green lighting institute, and we weren't able to coordinate for them to come to this meeting, but they would be happy to come if the commission decided to continue this item for further exploration, they would be happy to come and present on these recommendations at the next meeting in may, and we have a call scheduled for this

week to explore also, have there been kind of updates to this report or their work around nonprofit community -- nonproperty hospital community developments. and the department of public health has also, you know, said that they would be willing to come and speak kind of more on the -- the health -- the needs assessment in particular. and the other option is the commission could also direct staff to reach out to nonprofit hospitals directly and ask them to come and present on community -- on their community benefit plans, which they may or may not decide to come, but it's another kind of -- if there isn't actually regulatory power at a local level, there is some pressure that could be exerted, you know, in knowing that a body like lafco has on

this issue. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. any questions for chelsea? yeah, commissioner pollock. >> commissioner pollock: thank you so much. it's exciting and also disappointing that you may have a little control over this. i would -- commissioner ronen was shaking her head, saying no, we wouldn't like them to come because i don't think the information they would provide would be helpful, it would just be a pr campaign. that's fine that they just send it in writing. i think it's something that i would like staff to look into. i see some -- i haven't read the green lighting report in detail, but i could see some things where hospitals to really provide benefits, beds for homeless residents, safe injection sites, there are things that if they were really providing the types of, you

know, hard hitting needs of the communities that surround these institutions, these hospitals, then we would see more than just some basic advertising and public health geared programs which might be helpful but are they really addressing community needs, so i think it would be interesting to see really where -- where those missed opportunities are, and the gaps in the types of plans that they think will benefit the community and what community groups and organizations say that they really need, where there's a shortfall in terms of money from the city. a good job, so i thank you. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. i just want to say we had a hearing on homelessness at the committee, and something as simple as having a nurse at the shelter, it makes a big

difference. so i would vote -- let's open this up first to public comment. thank you, chelsea. any speakers, from the public? >> hello, again, commissioners. eric brooks, san francisco green party and local grassroots organization our city. so over the years, to some extent, my organizations have been involved in the cpmc fight, especially around the new hospital on vanness in my neighborhood, being built at the expense of a hospital in the mission, st. luke's. i mean, i just kind of want to reinforce commissioner ronen's head shaking. it's just -- these hospitals, especially cpmc, are just as voracious and evil as any corporation. their executives make millions

of dollars in salaries. they are not going to help us, and that means that we need to take drastic action like literally having the board pass an ordinance that doesn't allow a hospital system like sutter or cpmc to build anything new anywhere in our community anymore until they start doing what we want. we also need to explore the idea of taxing these nonprofit hospitals if we can, and taxing and even if possible, taxing the executives that make millions of dollars running these quote unquote nonprofit hospitals, so that we can create our own health districts in each neighborhood where there's not enough services and do something about the problems. and that just brings me to i think that one thing that this commission can do very specifically is to focus on the mission, where there's a crisis right now because of the

st. luke's situation because cpmc is literally closing a critical facility for critical care and telling people that live in that community oh, it's okay. we're going to setup another facility somewhere else in the bay area, and you can just commute there to see your family. so -- >> supervisor fewer: thank you, mr. brooks. anymore public comment? seeing none, public comment is now closed. so colleagues, i understand that there's some interest to continue this item, direct staff to do some more research, perhaps have a speaker come from green lighting institute to share some of the findings? am i hearing that? what do you think? >> supervisor ronen: honestly, i don't know that that would be the best use of our time -- limited time, again, having explored this pretty in depth.

what i think might be useful, and especially when we have staff is directing that staff to maybe do that comparison report 'cause i think the only power we have is showing that, you know compared to one another and compared to their tax benefit, their, you know, charity care or you know, the amount of public benefits that they provide pales in comparison to each other or the amount of savings that they have. i have not found, studying this extensively anything else that we can do at the local level. we have a health care master -- health care services master plan already that talks about community health needs and then, you know, if there's any hospital that seeks to expand or build in the future, they have to show that they're meeting the community needs in order to get the land use permits. so i feel like we've really kind of pushed the boundaries over our local control on this

issue. but what we haven't done, as far as i know is this comparison study in one very clear way and place and that we could utilize and that advocates can utilize in order to highlight the savings that these hospitals are getting and what they're giving in turn and then compared to one another. so that would be my suggestion for moving forward. >> supervisor fewer: commissioner pollock, did you want to speak? >> commissioner pollock: thank you. and i appreciate commissioner ronen's experience on the issue and just sort of what's tied to it. thinking also of what miss stricker said in terms of what's tide -- tied to the state regulatory agencies versus the local agencies is something i would be interested in. sort of opening it up to other

places in the state and who has been able to push the boundaries on that. and i get that we don't have a lot of power over these areas, but i think that one power that we have on lafco is transparency, and it seems like this is an issue that they can just sort of sweep under the rug and no one is opening it up for public comment. and so i would zbree thagree t would love to see the report that you mentioned, and let staff -- maybe just a deep dive into the issue, i'd like to wait until our executive officer comes board, and so i wouldn't ask chelsea to do more work on this as she's already sort of created a preliminary framework that we could choose items to deeper dive. i don't know if we'll have any information available for the may meeting, so perhaps we

could take this, direct staff, and then staff could bring it to us when there's more meat to it, and maybe that's just an update at the may meeting and know that things are going forward. >> supervisor fewer: commissioner singh? >> commissioner singh: i agree with commissioner ronen about you're the expert with the idea of a comparative study fill in the gaps. looking at this green lighting institute report, it's clear that some hospital systems are reported not just much at all, so the idea to get some sort of assessment of what they have been sending through the study to makeup for those gaps? >> yeah. i mean, my idea -- so there's a state law that requires these reports for hospitals with nonprofit status, but the state regulatory agencies are not incredibly robust in terms of

how they sort of analyze and measure the success of this law. so what -- the basis of comparison that we have at the local level is really one hospital to another? and, you know, i -- i happen to know that many nonprofit hospitals provide a lot more community benefits than others, that they're a lot easier to work with for the department of public health when there's a citywide need like emergency psych beds or the snf beds or the sub acute beds, all of these cry sees thises than oth. and i've never seen numbers in how much these hospitals are saving because of their nonprofit status. they might exist, but i've just never seen them, so just having that as one clear study and document, it could be very

powerful. >> one quick thing that is still relevant to this conversation that i didn't mention, in my conversation with ojpod, they did say they collect hospital financial data, but that has not been released publicly historically, but they are making plans and in the process of being able to upload that data, but it is able to be released to the public. so at the point we don't know how much hospitals are sachbing sachbing -- saving or spending, but that'll be available in the next month. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. so i'm hearing there's some interesting in doing a study, but that perhaps we should start this after hiring the new executive, so my staff -- >> yes. through the chair, angela calvillo, interim administrative officer. while the bulk can be done by

the new executive officer once that individual is hired by the commission, i can begin some preliminary work in terms of collecting the information of each hospital, finding who the right person is. i can also contact the hospital council to determine if they've done an unless of any kind since the last time you did that, commissioner ronen, so i'm happy to start that. >> supervisor fewer: okay. so should we make a motion to continue this to the call of the chair? >> moved. >> supervisor fewer: oh, great. >> a friendly amendment, if i could say not only continue to the call of the chair but to direct staff to begin that work. >> supervisor fewer: yes. great. so i've made the motion, made by commissioner fewer or was that by commissioner ronen?

>> clerk: you made the motion and commissioner ronen seconded it. >> supervisor fewer: yes. great, and we can take that. thank you very much. now, madam clerk, can you please call item number six. [agenda item read]. >> chair fewer, members of the commission, angela calvillo, interim administrative officer. at the request of the commission i am here today just to present a brief update on the status of the lafco budget, the expenditure status as of march 31, 2018. slide two, i have approximately -- well, i have four slides. slide two shows lafco's work order expenditure and balance with the public utilities commission and its related work. the current balance is 220,000. this work order is available to

lafco through june 30, 2019, given the extension of the mou between our departments. slide three is the general fund balance. the appropriation expenditures and the year end balance for this carry forward, this slide now shows, the set aside for the reserve that's approximately 45,000 that is established through lafco policy, and the current available balance of this carry forward is 98,000. i will go over the detail of the fiscal year 2017 through '18 expenditures in the next slide. slide four shows this general funds side of the ledger. lafco spent approximately 123,000 to date this year. at the last meeting, i reported the executive director's salary and benefits included for his separation payout was

approximately 18,000. the last coclerk afco clerk an of the board administration staff, total cost is 31,000. total staff cost is 39,000. service costs to the department such as sfgov sv total 18,000. on the cca work order side, the only cost charged as of march 31st is approximately 2,000 for executive director salary and benefits prior to his separation and the marin clean energy refund for 2,000 for the incomplete portion of that study in 2015-16. so you can see the line items that you are needing to create an estimate for for fiscal year -- the remaining 17-18 and 18-19. the estimated remaining balance at the year end for june 30, 2018 is going to be

approximately $31,750, and this estimate assumes the cost of the contractor for the executive officer services for the month of may and june working 40 hours per week. for the 2018-19 budget, assuming the contractor works 40 hours per week throughout the year, approximately 136, 0 156,000. the other costs being the same this year, the office estimated that the lafco's total expenditures would be 273,000 for the next fiscal year. as i've mentioned to you previously in february , we requested the statutory amount requested for lafco of 297,342 submitted as a place holder. now lafco would just need to determine if that assumed budget makes sense for them, and then, we -- we are pretty

set on the board of supervisors budget to go through that budget process in june, and after i take direction from the commission today. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. >> sure. >> supervisor fewer: any questions at all? comments? i think commissioner pollock has a question, miss calvillo? >> commissioner pollock: miss calvillo, could i just have you represent again the estimated amount? you said 270,000? >> we are estimating if all costs remain the same, are estimating 273,000 would be the total lafco expenditures for the next fiscal year if all costs remain the same. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. thank you very much. >> sure. >> supervisor fewer: so i presented commissioners with a -- copies of the current year

budget that we approved last year. i believe that in june of 2017, we approved a budget of 297,242, and while reserving the right in future years to the full set amount, we held onto 192,000 for the current fiscal year, and rereturned the remaining amount to the city council. colleagues, is there a proposal on how to proceed? anyone? yes. commissioner pollock? >> commissioner pollock: thank you so much. i think in light of our administrative officer's report on a proposed -- or not a proposed, but rather the estimated amount for fiscal year 2017 and 2018, i would move that we accept the -- accept our statutory limit of

$297,342 with the estimate that we would be returning the balance of what is the mass is between 297,342 and 273,000 while reserving the right to the full amount in this fiscal year and in years to come. if that sounds good, and there are no amendments to that, i would move that to this commission. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. let's open it up to public comment first. are there any members of the public wishing to comment on this? seeing none, public comment is closed. so there's a motion on the table. seconded by commissioner row know -- ronen, to take that without objection. madam clerk, can you please call item number seven. [agenda item read]. >> chair fewer, members of the

commission, angela calvillo, interim administrative officer. i want to just make one comment, and that is while commissioner singh was being on boarded, i was able to reach out to former commissioner lindo just to touch base with him to let him know that he was no longer a commissioner and he has since filed the appropriate paperwork with the ethics commission. so that concludes my report. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. thank you very much. okay. are there any -- any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. no action needs to be taken by the commission on this matter. madam clerk, can you please call item number eight. [agenda item read]. >> supervisor fewer: so at our last meeting and through our strategic planning process, we identified several issues that we'd like to work on. those include nonprofit hospital community benefits, cleanpowersf 2.0, affordable

financing through a public municipal bank and an update on the mayor's broad band plan. the first we began to explore earlier today and will continue to work on. cleanpowersf 2.0 sounded like we may need a study to flush out what next steps to figure out what clean power may look like in san francisco. there is currently a public bank faesiblity task force meeting monthly to answer many questions through july of this year. i've reached out to my office and with regard to the board band discussion, we plan to put that on the agenda for the may meeting. what are the priorities for directing staff once we have finished the hiring process, and colleagues, would you like to weigh in on the order of the

priority of these items? >> we can open this up for public comment right now, and so we would like to hear from the public. >> good afternoon again, commissioners, eric brooks, san francisco green party, our city sf, and californians for energy choice. so there's a lot to go through in two minutes on this, but on broad band, when mayor farrell was commissioner or was supervisor farrell, there was a major public process and public outreach, and we were interacting collaboratively with that office, many of us, to help move public broad band forward. that public process has come to a screeching halt, so i would encourage you to put the broad band on your agenda, because we've been promised we were going to be involved in the rfp

process to start-up what company or companies is going to be contracted for this, and all of a sudden we're getting nowhere when we're requesting to meet and to have the public engaged. so that's pretty important. on the cleanpowersf, i mean, the mayor's office on this one, 2050 is far to along. we need to have a transition in san francisco to have a real transition. transportation is clearly outside of the purview of the puc, so we do need lafco to work on a comprehensive transportation and energy plan for the city that includes where and how we're going to build battery storage, and all that jazz, and something else that tetratech was caught

falsifying almost 100% of the radiation tests in the bayview-hunters point. they did similar tests on treasure island and yerba buena island, and my guess is that the upcoming hearing won't be comprehensive enough and it would be good for lafco to put this on its radar. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. >> and commissioners, jed holtzman for 350 bay area. i just wanted to put in a plug for the bay items, because this has been trucking along for a couple of years. also wanted to mention that cca 3.0 is now a thing, which basically comprises advanced business models and community action between joint agencies. it's probably too late for any

of the commissioners to attend, but i did want to let you know that there's community choice energy summit from the 24th to the 26th in la jolla. just to say that this is -- i can forward you this message so that you can see kind of what they're going to be covering, these are the kinds of things that we would love to increase the capacity level of here, and i guess what i would point out by mentioning this summit is that it's -- it's no longer a super avant-garde thing that sf lafco would be pioneering.

you're seeing southern california cca's using, so i really want to make sure that catch up and are ready so that when sfpuc rolls it full speed in the city, we are ready to go forward in terms of distributing energy instead of just starting it. thanks. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. so colleagues, would you like to have a discussion on this? commissioner pollock? >> commissioner pollock: thank you so much, and i'm so glad that mr. holtzman mentioned the community choice energy summit. i know that the work that i do in terms of the public seat, that that along with the business of local energy simil symposium were two things i could do. i did speak with barbara hale of the puc, and she did mention

she would be at the energy choice summit. hopefully she can communicate to us in the next meeting that we have some best practices that she gleaned from that panel. she said that she would be attending, so hopefully, she can. and then, its advocates that are attending could till in the gaps for us, that would be great for us to understand as we sort of look forward. in terms of our strategic plan, i feel uncomfortable choosing an order without having staff create a work plan and just -- and to make -- to advise the commission on what our -- what our -- what's the possibility, how that we make sure that we're not duplicating work from other legislative bodies within the city, and then, just sort of put through a plan that goes through the fiscal year rather

than a quick maybe we should work on this first quick look, and so i would just ask that we continue this item and, you know, not have it come up until -- maybe to the call of the chair when there is some work done on the item. but in the meantime, direct staff. >> supervisor fewer: so we don't need to take an action, actually, on this item, and so this was just for discussion. okay. thank you very much. thank you very much. so madam clerk, will you please call item number nine. [agenda item read]. >> supervisor fewer: i believe we have an update from mr. wilson ing who's been staffing this records and project manager services. >> hi, commissioners. wilson ing. as you know an rfq was issued in december of 2017 to solicit executive officer services for lafco. this established a

prequalification list of respondents which we issued in february and received no bid protests. on that list there were three respondents. this list was issued to all respondents and also publicly available on the office of contract administration's bid website -- bids and contracts website, and lafco may use this list at its discretion for selection and contract negotiation with any of the respondents. so last month at the direction of the chair, our office conducted panel interviews with all the prequalified respondents. from the interviews, the panel recommended the selection of mr. brian gobel based on his knowledge, skills and blt as in accordance with lafco's required scope of services, and with your direction we'd like to move forward with the negotiation. as a reminder, this is a procurement of professional services and not a personnel appointment, and because we are still pending contract negotiations, specific details about the rfq interviews or

deliberations are confidential until a contract has been awarded pursuant to chapter 67.24(a) of t 67.24 e of the administrative code. however we'll be glad to communicate with any of you commissioners offline so that you're apprised and engaged with the process. as for the next steps, with the direction of the chair in coordination with lafco legal counsel, we intend to proceed with contract negotiation, and once that is done, we can present a final draft contract to lafco for consideration and approval. hopefully by our next meeting or at the call of the chair. we anticipate the potential contract term to be about two years on an as needed basis with a not to exceed hourly rate of $75 or budgetary purposes, the number of hours expended peryear will need to be determined during the negotiation process. our office is going to look forward to further direction by the chair and we're going to keep lafco apprised when we have the draft executive

services contract in place, really for your further consideration. this concludes your update, and i'm available for any questions you may have. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. any questions for mr. ing? seeing none, thank you very much. i first want to appreciate our work of our staff, counsel, and administration. thanks to all your work and patience. i would like to propose that we accept the recommendation of the panel considering the lengthy and thoughtful process that they have gone through with applicants. mr. gobel as the top applicant appears to bring the skills and character necessary to bring lafco into the next phase. his experience with research analysis and policy and management of systems including

budget management. i have confidence in his ability to move this body forward. now let's open this up for public comment. are there any members of the public who would like to comment on item number nine? >> hello again, commissioners. eric brooxz, san francisco green party, our party san francisco and san francisco clean energy advocates. so sorry to throw a bit of a wrench in here, but the public, as you know, has not been able to see the bid documents, any of the communications that these applicants have had with you. i did look up the applicants, you know, on linked in, and what i saw on the two applicants with a i a lot of pr and journalism experience but not much else. whereas the firm that applied, my understanding was we had the opportunity to carrie a lot of

issues policy wise that we're going to be working on. to put it frankly, the public is in the dark about why mr. gobel has qualifications because it's not apparent from an internet saecearch, so if y can have staff -- can you guys layout for us in this hearing today, where's the experience and what's the reason for choosing this applicant just so that we know why. thanks. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. >> thanks again, commissioners. jed holtzman. i guess i would just say that -- i mean i guess it's hard to make meaningful public comment about a closed process, obviously, but i did look up -- once the names of the folks were announced, i did, you know, use the powers of google, and i found surprisingly little

about the person who you just choose. in fact, much, much less than the other two. and so it's particularly hard for me to judge this candidate because the only thing that i could find from a google search was involvement with sf bike coalition, and it seems like active engagement in polishes polishes -- policy issues would have resulted in media hits that i would have been able to find. so certainly we're strongly supportive of you moving forward and having an executive officer so that you can get going on this work. i would just point out that in the past lafco was a willing participant and for lafco to continue to be able to press issues independently from the

sfpuc rather than just following the sfpuc's lead, you are going to need independent expertise and kind of an independent style of action from your executive officer. so i would just express that i hope that those things will be sound in this individual and we look forward to working with him. thanks. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. seeing no other public comment, public comment is now closed. commissioners, do we have any comments among commissioners? seeing none. and in response to public comment, the -- the process and i think all the interview results will be public after, is that correct, mr. ing. >> correct, it'll be available after contract award. >> supervisor fewer: okay. thank you very much. so i'd like to make a motion to accept the panel's recommendation and direct the

interim administrative officer to begin working on a contract. colleagues, is there a second? okay. commissioner pollock has seconded. moved by commissioner fewer, seconded by commissioner pollock, without objections that we accept the panel's recommendation and direct the interim administrative officer to begin working on the contract. thank you very much. madam clerk, please call item number ten. >> clerk: item number ten is public comment. >> supervisor fewer: any members of the public like to speak during this time? seeing none, public comment is now closed. madam clerk, please read item number 11. >> clerk: item number 11 is future agenda items. >> supervisor fewer: this item is up for public comment. is there any public comment on this item? >> eric brooks again, san francisco green party and our party san francisco. just to amplify and reiterate

because i had very little time to mention it, two things -- well, two things. one is that on sacramento lemgs lation, i would strongly ur lation, -- legislation, i would strongly urge you, chair fewer to have staff cue up for the next meeting an action item for potential legislation in sacramento so that by then -- by the beginning of next meeting, we will probably know what the problem bills are pretty clearly. we're already getting a sense of that, and we can send you e-mails before that and maybe hopefully staff at sfpuc and staff at other bodies will be able to contact you and say these are the problem bills, calcca. and that way, you will be able to take action next month before this stuff really starts flying through committees. so i'd really urge you to do that. i'd just like to amplify on the

tetratech thing, so tetratech is a company that works for the navy all over the country, has been caught falsifying date a toxic public cleanup. our organization went with an organization called clean action, i specifically asked them about treasure island and yerba buena island and said, well, tetratech also did the same kind of work out there. why aren't we also hearing that there's an investigation of that work? the response that we got from the epa was frankly a lie. they told me that it wasn't a -- that treasure island was not a superfund site. that's not true. it's just not on an active investigation list, so that's the kind of thing we're dealing with. and what i've seen last tuesday

what was introduced to the board of supervisors, is only specific parcels will be introduced for action and not comprehensively redoing -- [ inaudible ] >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much, mr. brooks. seeing no further public comment, public comment is now closed. are there any future agenda items to note, commissioners? seeing none, i'd like to mention that our next meeting is scheduled for may 18th. madam clerk, is there any more business before us today? >> clerk: that concludes our business for today. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. we are adjourned.

>> clerk: please silence your mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings, and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. i'd like to take roll at this time. [ roll call. ] >> clerk: we do expect commission vice president melgar to be absent today. commissioners, first on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance. [agenda item read]. >> clerk: item