march is 3.1. the inspection services is what you're looking at. >> for plumbing? >> for everything. >> electric is up. plumbing is up. building permits are up. march, spring. >> well, if you -- for instance, look at building permits. right? so we're at 1.8 million. so we hadn't been that high before. the other place you'll see is plumbing permit issuance fee is about 436. so just a variety of things. they just happen to be just a net month that a couple things happen at the same time. i wouldn't think it's to one project or something. it's just happening to be a busy month. building permits went up a lot. >> boiler permits?

>> yeah. >> everything did. >> there isn't anything -- normally sometimes you see a jump in december because -- not in inspection services, but in housing, some of the licensing fees, they are one or two months. this is a little bit more activity in that month. yeah. thank you. >> just wondered. >> and then just an update on the budget. we will be presenting our budget tort board tomorrow. we have received some preliminary recommendations from the board of some cuts and we're working with them. once we have an agreement, i'll come back and i'll let you know what it is. okay. thank you. >> thank you, deputy director. >> i wanted to inform the commissioners regarding the department wide meeting on the 23rd, three of you can come. if you can confirm with me via e-mail who is going to come.

thanks. >> our next item is item b, update on proposele or recently enacted state or local legislation. >> good afternoon, commissioners. public affairs. just hit highlights in the report. i did submit to you, we did work pretty closely with supervisor peskin's office on his propose the amendments around slope protection. we managed to return dbi, departmental discretion that will, i believe, help us manage an anticipated increased volume due to the 25% trigger that is in this ordinance. the ordinance passed second reading yesterday. it will become law and effective june 18th. so the director has designated deputy director lawry to put

together an internal team to make sure we are prepared to take on those additional cases that we're anticipating around the middle of june. so that is underway. the second item, as i believe you know, the supervisor tang has put to the board and the board has passed and the mayor assigned it as of the 4th of this month an extension into this accessible business entrance program that involves some 12,000 or more buildings throughout the city that have public accommodations where we're trying to make sure that people do have the access that's required in those situations. we are having yet another

workshop. supervisor tang is coming to say a few words around 2:00 at the kickoff of that. some other staff are also going on another merchant's walk in the richmond on monday the 21st as a way of explaining to some of the small businesses in these spaces what this new ordinance is all about and the compliance deadlines will be. we'll be having a special workshop on this at our annual earthquake safety fair, which i believe you know is the 13th of june. we're hoping that you'll be able to come during that day. it's going to run from 10:00 a.m. until 4:00 in the afternoon. one additional matter that i think you're probably aware that on may 22nd, which is next

week, the annual lean list, where we have delinquent property owners that haven't been responding to novs come to the board and a determination is either worked out with those that haven't yet done so or they go on a formally voted list that encumbers the property through the assessor and property taxes and so forth. so that will happen on may 22nd, and the total number of cases that was sent originally for this year is 437. last year, it was 256. it ultimately fell last year to 156. so we are expecting the number of current pending cases will get resolved before the board votes. that's typically what happens every year on that.

i believe with that, i'll take any questions, but i think that hits the highlights. >> thank you. director you're up next. >> update on major projects. >> compared to last period, this period, we have roughly 3% increase. any questions i can answer? >> increase? >> increase, yeah. >> okay. thank you. >> next is item 10d on code enforcement. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i've got the numbers of the code enforcement dbi monthly update for april. building inspections performed, 5,523. complaints received 404. complaints responded 24 to 72

hours, 376. first notice of violation sent 81. complaints received and abated without nov, 188. complaints with notices of violation, 37. second notice of violations, 29, housing inspections performed 1,073. complaints received 428. complaints response within 24 to 82 hours, 390. complaints with notice of violation issued 151. abated complaints with novs 367. number of cases sent to directors hearing 47. routine inspections 47. code enforcement, number of cases sent to directors hearings, 60. number of cases -- number of order abatement issued 17. number of cases under advisement, 8. number of cases abated, 86. code enforcement inspections 536 and number of cases referred to

the city attorney was 2. >> in march and april, the code enforcement inspections went up a lot. did we just refocus or -- >> well, they're going through a lien cycle. they're posting a lot of properties for the lien cycle. >> oh, i see. >> then it will be back to normal. i think today is the last day. >> perfect. thank you. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on the director's report items 10a through d? seeing none, item 11. review and approval of the minutes of special meeting of april 18th, 2018. is there a motion to approve. >> move to approve. >> is there a second? >> second. >> is there any public comment? seeing none, are all commissioners in favor? any opposed?

minutes are approved. item 12, adjournment. is there a motion to adjourn. >> motion. >> second. >> second. >> we are now adjourned at 12:55 p.m.

>> i'm warren corn field and we are doing a series called stay safe, we are going to talk about staying in your home after an earthquake and taking care of your pet's needs. ♪ >> here we are at the spur urban ken center and we are in this little house that was built to show what it is like in san francisco after an earthquake.

we are very pleased to have with us today, pat brown from the department of animal care and control and her friend oreo. >> hi. >> lauren. >> could you tell us what it would take after an earthquake or some other emergency when you are in your home and maybe no power or water for a little while. what it would take for you and oreo to be comfortable and safe at home. >> just as you would prepare for your own needs should an earthquake or a disaster event occur, you need to prepare for your pets. and i have brought with me today, some of the things that i have put in my disaster kit to prepare for my animal's needs to make sure that i am ready should something happen and i need to shelter at home. >> what are some of the things that people should have in their home after an earthquake or other emergency to help take care of their tasks and take care of themselves. >> i took the liberty of bringing you some examples.

it includes a first aid kit for your pet and you can also use it for yourself and extra meds for your pets. and water container that will not tip over. we have got both food, wet food and dry food for your pet. and disposable food container. and water, and your vet records. in addition, we have a collar and some toys. >> yeah. to keep oreo busy. >> he needs toys and this is san francisco being a fruity city and come on oreo. this is your dinner, it is patte style chicken dinner with our foody seen here. >> what they say now is that you should have at least a gallon of water and i think that a gallon of water is small amount, i think that maybe more

like two gallons of water would be good for you and your pet. >> does the city of animal control or any other agency help you with your pet after an emergency. >> there is a coalition of ngos, non-governmental organizations led by the department of animal care and control to do disaster planning for pets and that includes the san francisco spca. the paws group, the vet sos, pets unlimited. and we all have gotten together and have been getting together for over four or five years now to talk about how we can educate the public about being prepared for a disaster as it involves your pets. >> a lot of services. i understand that if you have to leave your home, we are encouraging people to take their pets with them. >> absolutely. we think that that is a lesson that we concerned from karina, if you are being evacuated you

should take your pet with you. i have a carrier, and you need to have a carrier that you can fit your pet in comfortably and you need to take your pet with you when you were evacuated. >> i am going to thank you very much for joining us and bringing oreo today. and i am go in this san francisco office, there are about 1400 employees. and they're working in roughly 400,000 square feet. we were especially pleased that cleanpowersf offers the super green 100% clean energy, not only for commercial entities like ours, but also for residents of the city of san francisco. we were pleased with the package of services they offered and we're now encouraging our employees who have residence in san francisco to sign on as

well. we didn't have any interruption of service or any problems with the switch over to cleanpowersf. this clean power opportunity reflects that. i would encourage any large business in san francisco to seriously consider converting and upgrading to the cleanpowersf service. it's good for the environment, it's good for business and it's good for the community. >> supervisor fewer: this is may 18, 2018 regular meeting of the san francisco local agency formation. i am sandra lee fewer chairman of the commission. i am joined by commissioner

cynthia pollock on my left and hillary ronen on my left. i am also joined by alisa romero the clerk. my apologies for starting late. i was in another committee meeting. madam clerk, do you have any announcements? [agenda item read] >> supervisor fewer: thank you. madam clerk, can you please call item number two. [agenda item read] >> supervisor fewer: okay. do any of the commissioners have any changes to the minutes of either the april 20 or the may 2 meetings? seeing no changes, i will open this up for public comment. are there any members of the public who wish to comment on item number two? seeing none, public comment is now closed. is there a motion to approve the minutes? yes. moved by commissioner ronen, seconded by commissioner pollock. without objection, these

minutes are approved. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor fewer: madam clerk, can you please call item number three. [agenda item read] >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. i believe we have a presentation from mike himes from the san francisco public utilities commission. >> good afternoon, commissioners. mike himes, director of cleanpowersf for the sfpuc. pleasure to be here with you this friday afternoon. i know that you are pressed for time. i do have an update for you. i'll keep my remarks fairly brief. i did distribute a few slides. i can run through them. fortunatel fortunately, there's only a few of thing. just before i do that, i want to start by letting you know as we sort of do with all of these updates, we continue to serve

our customers successfully in the city. we've got about 81,000 active accounts. that's the number that i reported previously. opt out rate has stayed the same. it's about 3.2% cumulative since we launched. our opt up rate to supergreen is 4.3%. went up a little bit since we last met, and i think as we've been reporting at previous meetings, we're in the process of our next phase of enrollment, and we'll be adding principlely commercial accounts in july, but we'll be in total enrolling around 27,000 new accounts starting july, and we've actually commenced notification. so last week, the first batch of our first notice, which is required under state law was issued. we'll be sending the first round of notices throughout the month, and then, notices will

continue to flow to customers, four in total, over the next four-month period. so that -- that's really kind of the official kick or tstart the notification process. and that's enrollment. i wanted to also mention on the regulatory side, just one side. there's a lot going on over there, but one of the more important things we deal with is the pcia, which is the exit fee. and i wanted to provide an update there. hearings in that proceeding concluded last week, and so the next step in that case with the california public utilities commission will be case briefs which are submitted in the month of june and then we're expecting a proposed decision to come out of the california puc as early as the month of august. that's a pretty aggressive

schedule, so it may get delayed a little bit, but that is what has been reported to us from the commission. so let me jump over to the slides here. as you know, for some time, we've been doing procurement to acquire power supply to serve our citywide enrollment. this -- this slide here shows you what our power supply contracting looked like against our projected demand before we started this process, so that black line in the chart represents our forecasted annual sales for cleanpowersf. and the bars underneath that, those sort of gray bars representing the existing contracts we had. so you can see there's the -- if we were fully contracted, the bars would be at the same time spot as the line, right?

so i just wanted to show you that prior to starting our contracting process, we had a lot of contracting to do. that's really the message of this slide. and this slide, the additional blue bars indicate the power supply that we have acquired over the past several months to serve the customers we're enrolling in the program. so you can see, for 2018, we're almost 100% contracted for our forecasted -- our expected sales. in 2019, we're 90% contracted. and you can see those percentages track the -- the portion of our forecasted demand. i just wanted to show you this, that that's the progress we've made in terms of acquiring the energy we need to reliably serve the customers we're going to be enrolling? i also wanted to show you this, which is our projected power

content for 2018, so this current year. and the way the energy supply content is tracked in the electric sector in california, it's done on a calendar year basis. so we actually just reported out our 2017 power content as delivered to customers, and i'm happy to announce that for 2017, the program was 43% california certified renewable energy and actually 100% greenhouse gas free for our green product, so that's our default product. i do have to attribute that partly to the fact that it was a very good hydro year, so the hetch hetchy system produced a lot of additional hydropower that we could deliver to our clean power ser cleanpowersf customers.

it was a wet year. that hydro condition varies over time. so this was our expectation, especially given this year was about normal, a little bit below normal. but that's an 81% ghg free portfolio to our green product, and of course 100% to our supergreen. so any ways, this is what our portfolio, the renewable energy or the energy content will look like as projected now for the end of 2018, and we're getting close to that 50% mark that we're aiming for. and this is for reference, so what this chart shows is our targets over the next 12 years. so you can see with the green segment of the bars, the renewable energy content increasing each year. we have a target that was set

by mayor ed lee and adopted by our commission to meet a 50% renewable energy target by 2020, and you can see that reflected in this chart. and then, the blue represents -- you know, we call it additional greenhouse gas free. that could be renewable energy or it could also be hydroelectric power. but the overall goal here is to squeeze out any conventional power over that timeline so that by 2030, the city -- the electric supply served to the city by cleanpowersf is 100% greenhouse gas free. this is to give you a context of where we're going in the future. and those are the slides i prepared. i do want to add a little bit more detail to the contracts, and then, i'll wrap up.

couple of more things that are exciting for me to announce, and that is the general manager of the puc under authority granted by the board and the commission entered into two long-term contracts, a 22 year purchase agreement to take energy from a 100 megawatt -- to be constructed 100 megawatt solar facility that will be built in lancaster california to meet our customer demand. that plant is expected to come on-line in the middle of 2019. and in addition to that, a 15-year power purchase agreement with a developer to construct 47 megawatts of wind in the tehachapi region of california, which is mojave. and what they're doing it taking down wind turbines that were built in the 1980's and

replacing them with larger more efficient wind turbines, and that contract is expected to start delivering at the end of 2020. so both of those contracts will create new jobs in california in the clean energy sector. we are pulling together these statistics, and the puc will be making that announcement soon, but i wanted to share that news. we're excited to say we're going to get some steel in the ground as a result of this commitment that the city's made. and then one other announcement with regard to contract, the puc entered into a 4.5 year contract to purchase energy from the geisers. we're happy to also sort of enhance the local content of

our power supply as we embark on the citywide enrollment effort. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. >> yeah, and i'll stop there, but i'm happy to answer any questions. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. any questions from colleagues? no? okay. seeing none, let's open this up for public comment. are there any members of the public who would like to comment on item number three? mr. brooks. >> just one minute. >> supervisor fewer: you can have two minutes. >> okay. eric brooks, san francisco green party, our party san francisco, and californians for energy choice. so the -- this looks pretty good. it's a -- i think it's a nice, short presentation. one thing that, you know, on slide five, the projections of us getting to all renewable and greenhouse free looks really good, but now, i want to start pushing the envelope again as a climate crisis activist that -- that that actually is good, but

it's not where we're going to need to be by 2030 if you look at transportation. so by 2035, not only do we need 100% of our building electricity to be renewable and greenhouse gas free, but we also need transportation to be the same. and that means that we're going to have to expand what the sfpuc's doing as far as public power goes and expand cleanpowersf so that it's producing enough -- these are producing enough electricity to power the entire transportation system in san francisco and replace all the buses that currently run on biodiesel, which is bogus and actually worse for the climate crisis. we need to change -- we need to be ready for that to happen in 2035. so i just want to flag that for lafco and for the sfpuc to start thinking about that future because we need to get this, and those numbers that --

that are on this look good, but they won't quite get us to that point. and then, another thing i want to point out, if i can get the overhead -- yeah. so mike showed this graph, and i think it shows something really important, and that is that we're able to have competitive prices by just doing short-term contracts for renewables. pg&e and others claim they have to have these 20 and 30 year time frames, that they can then charge us -- [inaudible] >> supervisor fewer: thank you, mr. brooks. are there any other public comment speakers for this item? seeing none, public comment is know closed. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor fewer: there's no action to take on this matter. madam clerk, can you please call item number four.

[agenda item read] >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. mr. gobel, i believe you have a presentation for us. as you take up, i'd like to take a moment to acknowledge our new financial officer, mr. brian gobel. you've hit the ground running and i'd like to tell you we're looking forward to working together in this body. miss calvillo provided tremendous support to this commission in the last ten months since losing our staff position, and i'm so grateful for her work. with that, mr. gobel, i'll turn it over to you. >> thank you, madam chair and commissioners. i am here to present your final lafco budget for fiscal 2018-'19. before i get into the final budget, though, i just want to review your expenditure status. a lot of these numbers with similar to the numbers

presented to you at the last two meetings by former interim administrative officer angela calvillo, but they have been updated for you today to reflect the new expenditures since your last meeting. so i'll show you the first slide here is lafco's expenditures as of may 15, 2018, the available balance is just under $220,000. as you know, this mou between lafco and the puc has been extended through june of 2019. here are your expenditures to date -- i'm sorry. this next slide is the lafco general fund balance. this slide shows the general

fund appropriation expenditures and year-end balance for lafco from 2007 onward, and we have set aside a reserve of about $45,000 or 15% of the annual budget, and again, these expenditures and balance are updated as of may 15, 2018. the current available balance is around $82,000. here is your ex-pentures to date. on this side, lafco spent about $130,000 to date this year. that includes the separation payout for the executive officer -- executive director salary and benefits. legal services cost approximately $43,000. service costs by other department such as sfgovtv, and

others around 13,000. th and then, on the cca work order side, the cost charge as of may 15, 2018, is about $2300 for the executive director's salary and benefits that occurred prior to his separation. a refund from nce for an incomplete portion of the study, and then -- mce for an incomplete portion of the study, and then $450 for the executive officer cca work. so here is your proposed budget for 2018-19, and i've included a rundown of each line item in your memo. none of these numbers have really changed a lot since the april 20 budget presentation. this amount includes the estimate for executive officer services, and i would like to recommend today that you

approve the final budget for fiscal 2018-19 in the amount of $273,000. that will be used about $24,000 that we can return to the city and county of san francisco. of course the commission reserves the right to retain the full amount of $191,000 in fiscal year 2020. one thing i want to note is there is a chance to change the amounts by the committee for the hiring of a consultant. i want to thank former administrative officer angela calvillo, and if you have any questions, i'm happy to answer them. >> supervisor fewer: commissioner ronen? >> supervisor ronen: i'm just wondering, given the sort of focused -- and i'm looking forward to hearing the

presentation today about our work around creation of a municipal bank. i'm wondering -- well, and the likelihood that we're going to need some specific studies, given how complicated this whole endeavor will be. i'm wondering if we just want to have a line item in our budget for, you know, anticipating that we're going to do a special study rather than returning money to the general fund. and i don't know what the bureaucracy looks like to get it back, but i just think it's going to be very likely that we're going to need that money for a special study. so i'm just curious what my colleagues think and what you think and what counsel thinks about my suggestion. >> supervisor fewer: sure. commissioner pollock? >> commissioner pollock: just. i appreciate this conversation happening here. i just want to thank mr. gobel for hitting the ground running in two short weeks, preparing this -- the budget and

information for us, because this is good -- a good discussion with today being the deadline to pass our budget, i do -- i do think that we should have something in there that -- that says, like in past years, that we would reserve the right for the full amount, and that we anticipate returning the money for -- to equal the 273? just sort of looking at the proposed fiscal year budget, i -- i don't see -- yeah, what you're talking about in terms of the money for -- to begin an rfp process for a special study. so am i overlooking that? >> no. part of this was i -- you know, trying to determine specifically what studies we're going to take on and what money we would need, but i'm

certainly happy to look at a line item that -- that talks that? we have an estimated remaining balance of 51,000, which we can carry over, but i'm definitely open to a line item because it does look like we're going to proceed with work on the studies. >> supervisor fewer: how much were you suggesting to give back to the city? >> at this point for the next fiscal year, we had 24,000 that we could give back. >> commissioner pollock: 24,342. >> supervisor fewer: 24 -- i concur with supervisor ronen and supervisor pollock -- i mean, commissioners, that we may want to draw on that money. i actually don't feel an obligation to return any of that money to the general fund. i think we should keep it, considering we didn't last year. we gave some money back, but we didn't have -- we hadn't gone through an exploratory process that we would like to work on.

we have identified items that we would like to work on, and i think you may need assistance in hiring an consultant in the expertise. we know from past experience that i know we have carried over before -- i mean, we have given money back to the general fund. but in this case since we are just launching, you're brand-new, i would actually suggest to this board that we don't return any money to the general fund. that is actually money that is due us and also it would give usually way to hire an outside consultant to assist us in some of the topics that we are really interested in. >> that sounds great. >> commissioner pollock: i hadn't thought about it, but i just want to say that $24,000 in the context of the city and county's budget is miniscule, so i don't think it's going to

throw a big hole in their budget process? >> supervisor fewer: no. >> commissioner pollock: so i would say -- and i could ask counsel what you think in terms of, like, the way we word it, should we consider to -- consider an opportunity to return any, would it need to be included in the language? >> i'm not sure this is working. good afternoon, commissioners. i think that you have identified that you will be doing studies, but you haven't gotten to the place of identifying which studies and particular line items, that it would be prudent to go ahead and hold onto that money, include it in your budget. certainly, if the money doesn't get spent, it can carry forward to the following year and eventually be returned to the general fund. if you decide to go the other direction, however, i would

encourage you to do it in the same way that you've done it in the past, which is to include language about reserving the right to come back at that money if it is returned. but since you have identified a particular need to do studies, although haven't identified which studies and the exact amounts, it would make some sense to go ahead and hold onto that money, rather than returning it to the yep fugene fund and asking for it back. >> commissioner pollock: and would we be able to insert a line item reserving the right -- not reserving the right. but insert a line item that's going to say future studies or work to be done on identified areas in terms of our focus on lafco without -- i guess, what we would approve today would be an update to the slide, correct? >> so what i would suggest is that you request that your executive officer work with the

clerk of the board to come up with the appropriate way to indicate that on your budget and to extend that. there is a challenge in doing it that way, to go ahead and return the money with the reservation that we spoke about, but i believe that there is a way to do it, and include a line item in there identifying it for special studies and any necessary consultants without putting any greater specificity for just that. >> commissioner pollock: because today is the last day to approve the budget. >> correct. >> commissioner pollock: okay. super. >> supervisor fewer: okay. mr. gobel, do you have any questions of us? >> so would the line item that you're requesting be for $24,000 then? >> supervisor fewer: yes, the full amount. >> the full amount. >> supervisor fewer: we won't be returning. >> commissioner pollock: okay. >> supervisor fewer: okay. so let's open this up for public comment.

mr. brooks? >> yes, eric brooks again. good afternoon commissioners, speaking for -- i think i'll just speak for san francisco green party and our city san francisco. back in the day when all we were doing was cleanpowersf, it did make sense to give that money back to the city. commission fewer, you as a supervisor have been in on a hearing on public broad band which raises a lot of question about whether the direction we're going is the right direction, and we may need a study that probably would cost around $20,000 on public broad band in the near future to make sure we do it right and it's a true public internet system, not an internet system controlled by a corporation. and likewise, i'll highlight you again, commissioner fewer. you were at a hearing about

bayview-hunters point and treasure island and the tock objectionic waste out there and how that impacts our facilities like transit and plumbing and electricity, etcetera. we may need to do a study on treasure island because that's -- treasure island and bayview-hunters point because that is such a politically -- how do i say it? politically manipulated issue in the rest of city hall, that we may need to step in and say wait a minute, here's when reality about this radio activity and toxic waste situation. so there may be issues that we may need the lafco to weigh in on, so i just want to give a big thumbs up on what you're doing, which is keep your budget and probably what you're doing in the feature. thanks very much. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, is there a motion to approve the budget as proposed by mr. gobel and then

as amended by us. >> supervisor ronen: so moved. >> supervisor fewer: okay. so that was moved by commissioner ronen and seconded by commissioner pollock. >> commissioner pollock: i would offer a friendly amendment that we are approving the budget for 297,342. >> supervisor fewer: very good. can we take those amendments without objection? take them. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor fewer: and then motion to approve -- [inaudible] >> supervisor fewer: oh, excuse me. is that right? >> supervisor ronen: we had make a motion to take that balance and put it as a line item for special studies or special expert as for input needed. >> commissioner pollock: i see. so that was not the motion for the full budget? >> supervisor fewer: it was a motion to approve the full budget with our amendment, which is to add in a line item

for the -- and not return the full amount. >> commissioner pollock: okay. great. we're on the same page. i think it was just putting the amount. >> clerk: yes. just to restate the motion for you guys, to approve the full budget of 297,342 that it receives from the city of san francisco and approve a line item in the amount of special studies in the amount of 247,392. >> supervisor fewer: do we need to approve that motion? >> clerk: yes. so we have commissioner ronen moving and commissioner pollock seconded. >> supervisor fewer: great.

and we can take that without objection? >> clerk: yes. >> supervisor fewer: good. thank you very much. so madam clerk, will you please call item number five? [agenda item read] >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. we have a presentation from molly cohen of the san francisco treasurer and tax collector's office regarding the municipal bank funding and municipal bank feasibility task force. thank you, miss cohen for offering to present today. i think this commission is very interested in how to support and supplement the work the task force on this issue. >> absolutely. oh, thank you so much. absolutely happy to be here. really excited to present in front of all the commissioners today. thanks inform brian gobel, executive director for having us here and find some ways that we can find some ways to collaborate with lafco moving

forward. so a little bit about the municipal bank feasibility tark force. we're here today, i'm here today in no small part because of the work of members of this commission. the idea of a municipal bank is something that's been progressing in circles. a little bit of background on both the municipal bank and the task force. so in general, a municipal bank is a bank that's owned by a municipal entity or public entity. could also be a state or a federal government. we have put together a task force to look at the feasibility of san francisco starting a municipal bampg. it -- bank. it's going to be about a six month process. we brought people together in february . it's going to run till august.

we have people who are active in racial and social justice, in banking. we have folks who have operated banks in the local interest, which are community friendly credit unions and banks. we have some people who know about bank formation and we have a lot of government officials who just sort of know a lot about how the city works. so a little bit about process. we meet once a month, and in between meetings, members of the treasurer's office including me sort of, you know, develop plans and research and sort of go in front of the task force with some different proposals? and also, we're constantly meeting with members of the public and advocates and subject matter experts in other jurisdictions. and i should just also add in a thank you to the board of supervisors for funding this project because it is funding my salaries and also some salaries for consultants and professional services, that buzz word again, so definitely do not want to forget to mention that. so just a little bit about

municipal banking. one thing that i will frequently tell folks who are interested in municipal banking is that it's really a spec rum rather than a binary. it's not an on-off switch. there are many different ways that you can organize a municipal bank, and there are lots of different products and services that you can offer? and this little slide highlights that. what this is showing is that depending on what you want to accomplish, there are lots of different ways you can accomplish that, from something very minimal like just a city program or revolving loan fund all the way to a full scale retail bank. and so obviously because this is a municipal bank feasibility task force, we're going to be looking at five and ix is, which is a wholesale bank or retail bank. so a little bit more about how we're conceding of the task force. in general it's called the municipal bank feasibility task

force, and i have feasibility with a quark here because we really don't think that's the right question to ask. a lot of jurisdictions -- including jurisdictions we're very friendly with and talk with, they've got into a task force, they've done a feasibility, and they said nope, it's to expensive. it's too complex. there's these legal issues. like, can't do it. i don't think and we don't think that that's the right question. we know a bank is feasible, we know it's going to be expensive, we know it's going to be complicated, we know there are state law questions, but rather, the question then becomes, is this a good policy. what we hope to produce out of the task force is a robust and thorough analysis, a real cost-benefit analysis so that board of supervisors and ultimately the members of the public, they can decide whether they think this is good policy. and part of how we determine that is based on what we're trying to get out of it, right? and so that's why we have the solution, which is do we want a municipal bank for affordable housing, do we want it for

cannabis, do we want it just to divest from wall street. depending on what we really want to get out of the bank, that's going to affect sort of how our cost-benefit analysis gets structured, and ultimately whether the board of supervisors wants to allocate finite city resources to the bank. so about the solutions that we're trying to achieve, one thing that i've worked really closely with the task force on has been really rewarding but also been really difficult is trying to get folks to prioritize what folks want to get out of a municipal bank. you can talk to treasure cisneros who says everybody else wants a different things. banks allow us to do tons of different things, but ultimately particularly when we're thinking about motion denied ellig, we ng -- modelli need to think about this topic.

thank you supervisor fewer for asking for the budget and legislative analyst's report. we took everything that members of the public mentioned and we brought that in front of the task force and sort of had the task force pick which things they thought were most important. when we sort of picked five topics. then we made them vote again. we're really mean. we wanted people to narrow in. as you can see, affordable housing was the most popular, infrastructure, under banked individuals, and cannabis. as we'll discuss moving forward, it's honestly not enough just to have those broad categories? we're going to need to keep drilling down? but that is the work that we're very excited to do. so next thing, and just always want to be honest with folks, banks are complicated. they're highly regulated, and there's a fair amount of state law that we might need to change? so i don't want to belabor this

point, but just each one of these boxes are going that we're going to need to think about and work on, and that's something i think actually board of supervisors could, you know, be a great ally with us moving forward. for example, we'll need to get a bank charter that works for us. right now, any money that the treasurer's office deposits in a bank has to be fully collateralized to about 125 to 150% of the value? so that's obviously something we haddy needs to think we'd need to think about. a whole host of things, and i'm happy to get into them. as sort of a legal nerd, it's pretty fun, but also pretty difficult, so just sort of want to make that point. and then really where we're going to be spending sort of the bulk of our time and the meat of our work both as a task force and as sort of staff, and we've actually brought on an consultant who's an expert in bank formation and operation

with is what i call these big questions. so one of the big questions is capitalization. so a bank needs to have some working capital. that's sort of typically 10% of its deposits. the question is how much, where is it going to come from, the general fund, philanthropy, and just to get a sense of scope and ill scale, other banks that have been funded in the past in the bay area have had between 10 and $30 million of capital, so that's a big perhaps to anchor. then the next question is deposits, what is our deposit base going to be from in government, there's some legal concerns with government. as i sort of mentioned on the last slide, businesses and individuals would be a great source of deposits, but you know add some additional costs. there's issues of insurance. and then, of course issues of revenue, which that is sort of

really what do you want your bank to do, how are you going to make money? i think there's a lot of stuff that we want to do that will be in the community development vain? so we might be doing it at less of a profit, but ultimately, the bank's got to make some money, got to be on a path of profitability? and last, is questions of governance, so how do we want the entity to be structured? should it be an l.l.c. or a nonprofit, what's the size and composition of the board? how are the board members appointed? and this is something that sort of the advocacy like friends of public banking of oakland have done a lot of thinking with this. so we want to make sure we're working with the advocacy community to make sure there's adequate community input into sort of whatever structure gets created. and then of course tax status, another big question that we've had some folks on our task force who are lawyers looking into. just to give you a sense of the analytical plan, we are midway of our task force meetings. we just finished meeting three

of six. unfortunately that does not mean we're midway through the work. we're just getting started, but we're now getting into the meat of things, which is really fun? but we'll be working in collaboration with our consultant and the task force to look at pure banks, so look at sort of loan output, balance sheets, income states. then from peer banks and subject matter experts, if we want people want to do loans, is it accessory dwelling units or really try to figure out where municipal bank could have added value? and then, once we have gaps, figuring out what those products and services look like, who are they aimed at, what's the target market, what sort of rates will we need to offer to be both competitive but also to, you know, achieve the goals that we want. then, we'll be modelling the pro formas, literally looking at balance sheets, you know,

financial projections, profits, i.a.r.'s, etcetera. and then finally what we want to present is board of supervisors and members of the public is cost-benefit, which is if you want to achieve 100 small business loans, here is what it's going to cost you, and here's the amount of deposits you'll need, capitalization you'll need, etcetera. so really excited to -- so as i mentioned, we're finishing -- we're midway through the task force. we'll be finishing up in august with a report to come out shortly there after. happy to work on the task force as well as with lafco, and happy to take any questions you may have. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. any questions, colleagues? >> commissioner pollock: thank you so much, miss cohen. this is really, i think interesting, and we are the perfect nerdy audience for you. so i know that you're still getting to the final report at

the six meetings and how you will, i guess, report out to the board of supervisors? will you report out in the final report city departments and policies that could further the work with the -- i guess the findings that you have and the, you know, here's what you should do if you want x, y, z? >> yeah, absolutely. and i think what we view this report as is do you want to -- >> commissioner pollock: sure -- yeah, no, please. >> commissioners, amanda freed from the office of the treasurer. we have been consulting very closely with other departments. we have another person on the controller's office, we have the director of the mayor's office of housing and community development sitting on the task force, and then we've also been working very closely with oewd and other bodies to understand what is the status quo, so what is the city doing in the areas

that the task force wants to look at for a municipal bank so that when we look at a cost benefit analysis we can take into account what the city is already funding, and then, those funds would be shifted into the zephyr. >> commissioner pollock: so in terms of that, you'll get their weigh in, but you'll also have -- these are the next steps going forward? >> i think our aim is to give to the board some framework to move forward. so to say here is, you know, a cost-benefit analysis of how to do this and perhaps two options or three options, and then hear feedback, and it'll be a collaborative effort. i don't think it'll reside only in the treasurer's office because i think once it gets to that point it becomes a lot of policy matter, and of course we'd love to stay involved and continue to help move it forward with some of our expertise, but we know that we will not be the only -- the

only folks in the room. >> commissioner pollock: sure. i definitely know there are many folks that should be in the room, and i appreciate you sort of herding all of the information together and giving people a framework? i think the only thing that i am concerned about is that, you know, that we get a really amazing report and things just go stagnant. and so i -- that's the really big concern that i have. and i don't know if it needs to be this body or the board of supervisors or someone at the state level needs to take the ball and run. but i just wonder if there's a road map that you'll include that just sort of says, if you want to begin this, someone needs to take it -- take it further. >> yeah, commissioner, i think we're in full agreement. we've seen these reports as molly said, from a number of other yourself jurisdictions come out and really be deflating in a -- jurisdictions come out and really be