publish rates. and adopted a methodological change. those rates will be set in another proceeding and a the schedule for that proceeding has an update to the rates happening in early november. so we actually are anticipating the outlook with those rates will improve. because wholesale electricity markets have been -- prices have been up since pg&e initially forecasted. that is an influencer in the calculation. we will be waiting to see what those figures are before submitting any proposals for next steps. on those next steps, first of all, i think that as the rates picture becomes clearer for 2019 , i want to emphasize that we will continue to provide clean and reliable and

affordable service to our customers. they continue to operate and offer generational service today that is about two% lower cost than pg&e so customers are receiving their -- those savings we are also evaluating next steps for 2019 and asking questions like how can we reduce program cost to absorb increases we and the pg&e generation decreases. should we make changes to our power supply portfolio? should we adjust our april enrolment plan? there are other questions but those are some of the key things that we are considering. at this point, all options are on the table. in partnership with our colleagues back we will also be examining our options for recourse at the cpuc. the worse case scenario is that we postpone our april enrolments and we operate at a higher cost for some amount of time.

we definitely hope not to need to delay the enrolment as it will set back our efforts to procure new renewable resources and begin programming to support local buildout and affordability objectives. so that concludes our reports but of course, i'm happy to take any questions you may have. >> commissioner ronen? >> thank you. this is very upsetting. i don't know if you could talk a little bit more about what possible appeal recourse we have i don't know the process at the cpuc and i don't know if you can appeal directly or the legislators can intervene in some way. whatever you can talk about publicly, if you could educate us. >> yeah. what i can say is there is a rehearing process at the cpuc that would go before the cpuc initially.

an application for rehearing could be filed by parties. we are looking at that with our partners. typically that is done on legal grounds. and that is due 30 calendar days after the final decision. so early to mid november is one that would be due. soon. that would go through a cpuc process which could take several months. and depending on the outcome, that the cpuc finds are the decision that the cpuc makes, the next deck would be the ticket to the courts. there certainly could be legislation that addresses things that may not have been clear enough in the law and the statute. so that is certainly another route.

probably a slightly longer term route, as i said, all options are on the table. we are looking at all those options and we will definitely continue to keep you informed. >> while litigation is ongoing, do the changes go into effect? i guess that is the judge's decision on whether or not there is an injunction of the rate change. >> i believe that they do. but i will double, -- double check and confirm as to whether the changes will go into effect on schedule. one other thing i wanted to mention, i'm not sure if it was clear in the presentation, the timeline for implementing by january 1st is really quite tight. in fact, the cpuc wasn't even dealing with these methodological changes this last year and the rates were delayed three months. which isn't very common. normally there is a rubber rubberstamp process for these rates.

so they were delayed for implementation in 2018 and now for implementation of the rates for 2019, they have some changes to make which will require that all parties that have an interest feel comfortable that it is being done correctly. so we will be participating in that process and advocating for enough time to make sure that the rates are reflective of the decision. so i mentioned before the 1st week of november, that is when we would typically be updating the rates. it is just a few weeks from now. so we will have to see if they will be able to make that schedule. so we could see the timeline slipped a little bit in terms of when the rates would go into effect. >> and then you said -- should we change our supply portfolio? what would that look like? >> so the city and the clean

powers program through the city 's direction has focused on certain types of renewable resources that are the most costly in the market. they are really the premium product types. >> and those are what? >> for the renewable portfolio standard programming in california there are three categories of renewable energy products. there are is category one which is a bundled renewable energy product, you purchased it ahead of time with the electricity and all of the attributes associated and that has to be delivered into the california grid. there is a category to resource which comes from out-of-state that also has to be delivered into the california grid. but it is not a state product and then there is a category three resources which can be unbundled in time and they can

be in-state or out-of-state. they don't need to be purchased ahead of time and bundled. they can be purchased after the energy is generated. it they tend to be the lowest cost renewable resources. there are a number of options. i want to be clear. that is one set of options is to incorporate more category to renewable resources then we have another option would be to pause on the increasing of our renewable energy content so that we are not incurring those additional costs. that would be one way to avoid some amount of cost that we have budgeted for when we have not yet contracted for certain amounts. we might also look to purchase other lower-cost clean energy

products like hydro. more hydroelectric power. this could be a short-term approach to bring the cost down for some amount of time. so the changing of the portfolio is a cost mitigation, cost reduction strategy. >> and excuse my lack of knowledge in this area, but is it paid -- how long is that fee per customer paid? >> for the most part, it is for the life of the commitments. so the cpuc has approved a lot of long-term contracts for pg&e and the other utilities for renewable energy. and many of those are 25 years in duration. so projects that are just coming online, and in some cases, we have that situation, those will be operating for another 25

years. and the utilities will be able to recover those above market costs for that period of time. it is a long-lived cost recovery measure. i do want to mention that there are a couple pluses, positives that came out of the decision, which unfortunately, they are for the next phase. the proceeding is not over. there will be a phase two. one of the things that the cpuc will be looking at, which was advocated for by the c.c.a. community was securitizing these costs. essentially, fixing the cost over a longer period of time and refinancing some of the deals to help bring costs down for all repairs, not just to help with the p.c. i.a. issue but also to help all of pg&e customers, for example. and also to make some market changes that would balance --

would create more transparency in how the excess assets that pg&e has are valued for these purposes. for example, they had proposed creating an auction that all entities in the market could participate and to acquire any excess power that pg&e may have. rather than using this administratively determined mechanism. and that may be a more equitable and transparent way to share these costs going forward. so the message i am trying to deliver here is that there are reforms that are still being considered by the cpuc. but those are going to not take -- not come into effect for another year or two or more. so we do need to figure out how to manage the decision and its effects on our business -- the effects on our business and in

the -- in the near term. >> last question, i am assuming the speed of a local buildout program here does not impact there is one way or another because we have to pay the fee whether or not we generated more of our own electricity. is not right? unfortunately, no. there is not a waiver or exemption or anything like that that is related to local generations. the cpuc hasn't adopted an incentive for doing that kind of a thing. so there would be no corresponding benefit, necessarily to more local build with respect to the p. c.i.a. i think that the local build is more -- it more demonstrates a value to our customers and our community. so i think often times, the way i think about this problem is we

need to focus on what is in our control and unfortunately they are not in our control. but what is in our control is how is the business that we run and we operate? so that is what we are focused on. and certainly local build will be something that we continue to work on. now the impact really is on the cost side and what we are able to bear with respect to local build. generally speaking, renewable resources that are developed within san francisco or the bay area will be more costly than renewable resources that are developed in other parts of the state. there are some obvious reasons for that like real estate is more expensive. but i think that the program can make a material impact and start to show that we are developing those resources. we will just need to figure out

how much this sets us back from a cost standpoint. >> i actually think it makes sense for us to have a bill -- a local buildout plan. just because as we have seen, as more jurisdictions come on to community choice, then we are all going to be in competition with the same power. it can only raise the cost of that commodity. and we are wholly dependent on outside energy sources, then we are -- our costs will naturally go up. i think -- and i actually think it is our moral responsibility as a san francisco. we want to grow the population to over 1 million. some people do want to grow the population to over a million. what will we do, then? keep buying more of these resources? we know there isn't enough to cover even everyone in

california who wants to start a community choice program. since ours has been lost for so long and we have had this energy , i think it is the morally right thing to do, quite frankly. to have a percentage or a goal that san francisco would generate on their own or renewable clean energy because we are using so much of the state resources of natural renewable clean renewable energy it is just going to ask, quite frankly. it doesn't give -- we monopolize it. it doesn't get smaller jurisdictions the ability to actually buy in a competitive price market. also the renewable energy. i think our goal is that it is not just san francisco that has clean energy but it is all over the city of california. >> thank you. thank you for breaking this down for us. i know we are all looking at the

proceedings and at the cpuc with a little bit of worry and interest in how it would come down. i'm interested in what's you talked about in terms of delaying the april enrolment. what would that look like? when will a decision be made on that? i know the advocates who wanted the enrolment to be much sooner than the april 2019. i wonder if there is a looking backwards of if it had been sooner, with the impact have been greater or lesser? what are the decisions involved in terms of delaying it? and also, when we would know when that decision is made to.

>> i will try and get all of those. please let me know if i missed anything. with respect to the timing, we really have to make a decision by early january. that is a dropdead date. in terms of go or no go. and the reason for that is there is work that needs to happen before april in terms of noticing but also the regulatory processes that we need to participate in and so about mid-january would be the absolute last moment to shift our plan. i will say that our plan is to enrolled. we have included the enrolment in our forecast in our procurement planning but this,

this decision was part of our risk management plan. and to answer your question about the hindsight, the look back, i'm not sure it would have benefited us that much to have done that. i think that we still would be facing the consequences of this decision from a financial standpoint. it does make it hard to enrolled customers in an environment where we are getting squeezed. by the other scenario would be that we would be serving them in that environment where we would be getting squeezed. so neither one of those is great i think the specifics of what we would do, we are still working on. part of that is going to depend a little bit on what we are

seeing with the updated rate forecast it would be, rather than forgoing the enrolment entirely, it may be that it is a part of the plant enrolment all options are on the table. we definitely will be sharing more information as we are evaluating what we anticipate the impacts to be. >> just building off of commissioner ronen's questions regarding intervention from the state legislature. i'm sorry if i don't know this. by the cpuc has an authority that is not changeable by the state legislature. how does that work? is that correct? >> i'm hesitant to speak to the

cpuc's authority and what the legislature can do their. but with respect to our issue, i think there is a broader -- it is a broader cpuc authority question but then there is also the legislature that can direct the cpuc to determine the fee in certain ways. to change its determination of the fee. i think that the way the law has been crafted there is some discretion there. there some specificity but it could certainly be more specific it could be more prescriptive. >> thank you, so much. >> any other questions? seeing none. thank you. >> thank you. [indiscernible]

>> i don't think we need to take an action on this. ok. can you please call item number 4. >> item four is an update and presentation on the emerging mobility services labor city scope. >> thank you. i would like to egg invite our executive director to discuss this item. >> good morning, commissioners. i am happy to present our draft scope today for the emerging mobility services labor study. i am just going to pull my powerpoint up here. as you know, i did not get a

chance to present this at the last meeting. we got the idea for this study from the transportation authority's emerging mobility evaluation report. one purpose of that report was to determine whether emerging mobility companies, labor models aligns with the city's labor. do the labor models of these companies ensure fairness in pay , labor policies and practices. but not enough data seems to be a long-running story with these companies. it was not available to make that determination. so what our city will try and do is make that determination by investigating the company's labor models, by requesting data and then also conducting a first of its kind representative survey of people employed as independent contractors for

emerging mobility companies. so the narrative has been the gig economy is exploding. to date, there is no available data on the size of the gig economy work for us in san francisco. since this data hasn't -- a census data has not been reliable in this area. one estimate from the city treasurer office but the number of tmz drivers in san francisco at about 45,000. that was in 2016. that number has grown significantly. as you know from this week's t.a. report, they are responsible for more than 50% of the increase in congestion. as you know, san francisco lacks authority to regulate t.n.c. we hope that will change. i am aware of your request to the t.a. this week to look into state legislation. but in the meantime, what are ways that the city, the state

and even federal regulators can help ensure that these workers are making a fair wage? that is the goal here. so we will be using a set of metrics developed by the transportation authority to determine if the company's labor policies aligned with the labor principle. metrics like earnings, benefits, or lack of benefits. and their level of transparency with regard to pay. one of the big issues we have been hearing about lately is deactivation his. and whether or not there is a good appeals process when a driver or courier is deactivated we will also hire a consultant to do a survey and peer reviewed final report and that will offer a ground breaking glimpse into the gig economy workforce in san francisco. we have already been in touch with a number of academics who

are interested in bidding on the r.f.p. we are talking to graduate students from usf and berkeley who have expressed interest in taking on some aspects of the study. one of the things we are talking about his is having these students investigate the lobbying practices of these companies. the results of which could inform the city's efforts to pass state legislation, allowing for local regulation. the number of emerging mobility companies in san francisco seems to be growing by the day. our account puts them at more than 100. they fall under several categories. the biggest our ride services like uber and lift and then there are courier network services. while we cannot regulate t.n.c. at courier network services is an area where there is no regulation.

supposed mates, door --dash, grub hub, amazon flex, caviar, and bike share and moped share and car share. micro transit like chariot and autonomous vehicle companies. workers on these platforms drive but they also use scooters, electric bikes, regular bicycles , i have met several couriers who walk and of course, i have also seen couriers on hover boards, as well. so what we hope to do is once we have selected a consultant to do the survey, we are going to work closely with them to develop the questions in the methodology. we want to get a handle on the demographics. things like age, race, ethnicity , gender, city of residence, we would like to find out if they do it full time or do they do it for supplemental income? what is their mode of transportation? what is there commute like? do they have health benefits?

do they access food assistance? we will be using an equity framework to analyse the data that we receive. we also hope to identify some of the barriers to gig economy work especially as it relates to the digital divide and how workers access vehicles and bicycles or equipment needed for the job. we will be bringing together an advisory committee composed of city agencies, advocates and representatives from the labor and tech sectors. several people have already agreed to sit on the committee. they include the city's chief economist. advocates from the greenlining institute and transform, the teamsters union, and the representative from post- mates. we will be reaching out to several more individuals in the coming weeks. we are also working to develop a template of questions for each company. we want to know what's there profits are.

we want to know the salaries of their c.e.o. we want to know what the average worker earnings are. and also the estimated cost for supplies for courier or drivers to get started. phones, cars, bags, things like that. we also hope to gather some focus groups. i will be coming back to the commission to set some public hearings on the issue so that we can have strong community engagement throughout the process. we really want to hear from gig economy workers, advocates and staff from other city departments. not just in san francisco but other cities who have studied this issue and may have some recommendations for us. we would welcome collaboration. this study, and you approved this at the last meeting, this study is going to require about $55,000 in new expenditures. i have also estimated in mind time on this which i think will be about 80% of my job as executive director.

and then i have budgeted small amounts for printing and photography on the final report, along with a stipend for our research assistant. in addition to leah who is here today, a plan to bring on a few more research assistants. i want to let you know that i do expect the budget for this to increase. but i won't know exactly how much until we receive some proposals. i am working to identify sources of funding and i have some good ideas. but once i do identify that funding, which will be from city departments, i will need your help to lobby for those funds. what we are planning to do now with your feedback, is break the r.f.p. up into a few phases. developing the methodology, conducting a survey and issuing the final report. it is the last two faces that we

are likely going to need more funding for. but again, i will not know how much until we get some proposals in. we do have a fairly aggressive timeline for the study. the tasks were outlined in detail in your last packet for the previous meeting. what we expect the beginning phase to take about three months i have already drafted the r.f.p. and currently going over it with legal council. this will be an informal and art -- informal r.f.p. process we are we solicit three or more bits. i hope to have that wrapped up by the end of november. the survey itself will take about seven to eight months. interviewing the companies and getting the data we expect will take 6-7 months and i don't expect that we will get a lot of data from some of the bigger companies but from some of the smaller companies like post- mates, i expect that we will get some data from them. and then we will begin drafting the final report by spring.

so what we hope to do is come up with a list of policy recommendations for local state and federal regulators. as well as the companies themselves. in doing so, we would have considered their respective regulatory authority. our next steps will be draft and issue an r.f.p. for the representative survey, conduct a literature review, that is already underway and of course, identify additional funding. that is my presentation. i'm happy to take any questions and i also want to thank our research assistants for her help on this and our intern for helping as well. >> thank you. >> yes. this is really impressive and exciting and supervisor and commission are fewer and i were saying it is a nice complement to the recent studies that we

have been given at the transportation authority that is starting to fill out the picture a bit about the impact of this new industry on our city and on our workforce. i really appreciate the work. thank you, so much. one simple question, aside from government resources for this project, have you identified any private lending sources that we may be able to apply for? >> yes. i am looking into that spirit chair fewer's office has made some recommendations and we are looking at nonprofit and potentially corporate money to see if we can get financial systems that way. >> do you have a projected budget? >> i am thinking -- so i spoke with a few survey companies and got a little feedback. it is possible that we might need as much as $100,000 more.

>> additional. >> in additional funds for the study. i think, ultimately, leah who is with us through the end of december, i would like to figure out a way to extend her time on this because her help has been invaluable thus far. >> hasn't been any study of this kind anywhere in the country? or internationally, for that matter. >> i think new york city was able to get a glimpse into the workforce, but to my knowledge, the data that will be coming out of this survey, especially of the workers will be the first of its kind of any major american city with the exception of new york city. >> i do think a literature -- we don't need to reinvent the wheel , for sure. i think a literature review is important. have you contacted the organization, the national

employment law project? >> i have not. >> i would highly recommend contacting them and talking through this with them. i believe that annette is still there. they conduct a lot of studies of the impact in the reality facing the wage workforces and have done many similar studies in different industries. carwash industries, day labor industry, et cetera. they probably have a lot of thoughts and leads about how to do very effective studies in this regard. i highly recommend it. rebecca smith is there as well. i can make those connections if you need them. >> that would be great. thank you. >> commissioner saying? >> i want to echo supervisor ronen in her enthusiasm. i am really excited to find out

what the results of this are, particularly because one thing that i have had in mind or have been thinking about is law does a lot as washington, d.c. has mission 77 which was just overturned by city council. it was looking into the issue of tips. i think this is prevalent here because one thing that is a unifying factor that we see with uber and many services is that these workers may be increasingly reliant on tips to furnish their wages. so i would be really interested in looking into how much gig labor is dependent on tips. it has become a unifying factor. that is something they have been adding too. uber now has tips where they didn't before. caviar has a courier bonus and all that stuff. that is something i would be interested in if that is what

you are looking at. and also, i do appreciate the difficulty of this task considering a lot of these companies are based here. while they may be national or international companies, san francisco is a ground-floor innovation or experimentation. i can understand why that would be very hard or it might take a little extra time in terms of comparing it to what is going on in other cities. >> thank you. i think that is an ex -- excellent suggestion for us to consider tips. i will add this into the scope because as you know, initially, none of the apps had tipping options and that was really a big deal. i think that i will include that in our analysis. >> thank you. >> thank you, so much. this is exciting. i think groundbreaking. important work for us to do and i am excited for what you've put

together before us today. i would love to hear a little bit more about your advisory committee. you talked a little bit about city agencies and advocates, unions and companies could be a part of that and i would assume that it also includes organizations like jobs with justice. what that be a subcommittee or what that be something more informal in terms of the advisory committee? >> to answer your question about additional groups, as i am still reaching out to folks and i think jobs with justice is an excellent suggestion and i will reach out to them, but the advisor committee process role is to give us feedback along the way and also have a couple of meetings where we can gather their input and bring everyone together in the same room. i think the purpose of the

advisory committee would be mostly for feedback on the draft report. feedback on the data and of course, feedback on the final report before we issue it. >> ok. and then you would bring those findings to the commission so that we could have insight into those? >> exactly. i would bring the findings to the commission and i think i would also make a presentation before the board of supervisors acting as a transportation authority and potentially even the board of supervisors down the way. >> thank you, so much. >> any other questions, commissioners? seeing none, is there any public comment on this item? [please stand by]

had a history of -- this person who died on the job, his name was patrick ricketts, he died

from a beam. there's a history of violations. in fact, in november 2016, a worker operator died after losing control of a forklift. this brings into question if the screening process -- in fact, it demonstrates that the checks and balances are not being done by the people who spoke this week before the panel. moreover, there's a female who bu busted the glass ceiling who lost her life working on a construction site. she has a two- or three-year-old daughter who's asking where her mother is, and the grandfather is telling her mother that she's in heaven. and the two- or three-year-old little girl is saying she wants to go to heaven with her mother, these departments need to be

disciplined. >> public comment? seeing none, public comment is now closed. no action needs to be taken on this matter. madam clerk, can you please call item number five. >> approval of the 2019 regular meeting schedule. mr. goebel. >> the document i provided in your packet has a list of proposed tapes. the commission meets every month with the decision of december and august with the winter and summer recesses. i reached out to all of you and did not find any of these dates posed a conflict. let me know if any of this changes. our meeting scheduled for next month has been changed to november 30th and there's no meeting in december. my recommendation is you propose dates for meeting in 2019.

>> thank you very much. >> commissioner ronen? >> that's from the last item, but i will make a motion to approve the regular meeting schedule for 2019. >> thank you very much. we'll take public comment on this item. >> are you doing your scheduling of hearings? i would like you to have a hearing on making part of your business to conduct an investigation and a release of the lists of catholic priests that's raping and sexual assaulting little kids in these churches. it's just been released that bishops have released 71 catholic priests from a church who are raping and sexual harassment little kids, just like the list that has been released in pennsylvania. in this county, i believe this

is taking place in the city and county of san francisco. moreover, in san jose, there was also a list of 15 priests in the catholic church who have credible information pertaining to little kids being sexually harassed going to church. furthering that my suspicion this is taking place is correct. this should be handled by the justice department. now it's in the system and the justice department is getting involved and taking care of these problems pertaining to these child molesters who are raping kids. here are examples of victims who have been raped by priests. as you can see, they're adults, their crimes. this is what they looked like before they were being abused by these pedophiles.

moreover, here is another picture of a person who was 16 years old. as you can see, the latest picture of him on how much time has passed from the assault. here is another victim. age six, she's a female who was raped by a priest. here is how she looks in her adult life. in fact, that's one of the sisters, a family of four who was raped by priests in the same church. the attorney general that started this -- >> thank you. thank you very much. any more public comment. see -- seeing none, public comment is closed. can we take this without objection. the motion passes. madam clerk, could you call item number six. >> unon the request for proposal for legal services. >> mr. goebel.

and ms. strictler is leaving the room. >> on august 7th, we issued a request request for proposals for lafco legal services. the commission felt it was time to do that considering the contract has not been updated in almost 20 years. so the deadline to submit proposals is now october 26th, and i do anticipate several proposals. i am currently putting together an energy panel that will consist of the board angela -- a member of the chairs staff and a member from another area lafco and a representative lawyer from the city attorney's office. at this point, we hope to have the interviews wrapped up by mid-november, and i hope to bring a recommendation to you most likely at your january

meeting. >> thank you very much. up for public comment? is there any members of the public that would like to comment on number six, which is the update for the request for proposal. okay, mr. wright. >> the proposals, i would like you to include that the shipyard and the whole area is coming further to life. just last night, there was another additional investigative report demonstrating that the shipyard is contaminated. i spoke about that contamination, and i made demonstrations showing the magnitude of the reasons why that area is contaminated with radioactive material. viewer, please. here's the shipyard, how it looks.

overhead view. then, when you look at it, as far as the areas that are contaminated with radioactive material, these are the area where is housing is being built and proposed to be built. moreover, there's additional situations that demonstrates the reasons why the radioactive material take place there. there were not one but a total of two nuclear atom bomb explosions that took place in the pacific ocean that caused this radioactive material. back then in the early '30s and '40s, the navy wasn't too smart. they did a nuclear explosion with 128 of our battleships right next to the explosion -- dangerous range of explosion. those dark spots, they were battleships. they were affected and hit with the radioactive material and the

cancer-causing blast and concussion from the explosion. here is an example of the one of the battleships that was on the receiving end of that explosion. as you can see, all the metal is melted from the high temperature of the dangerous chemicals. it says keep clear. danger. very radioactive materials. >> thank you, mr. wright. any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is now closed. i don't think we need to make any motion. there's no action on this matter. so would you mind calling in mr. stricter, please. thank you. thank you, very much. i would like to also note that our legal counsel's name is

teresa stricker. i called her strictler. i would like to correct that. >> call number 7. >> it's the lafco budget update. >> thank you, i have two items for you today. as you know, a few weeks ago, i attended the calafco conference at yosemite. it was the first time in the history of our lafco that we've been represented at the conference. and we received applause almost every time we were called. it was quite thrilling to be there. >> lots of love. >> you know, going into this, because our lafco is unique, i wondered how much of the conference was actually going to be relevant to me. i found it really beneficial on several fronts. first of all, i got to network

and meet other lafco executive officers, and commissioners were there from all over california. there were 57 lafcos represented. my impression is that lafcos are going vital work, but they lack the resources to be as strong as they need to be. many lafcos and counties where fires caused widespread destruction have stepped up to better coordinate fire services. sonoma is working on consolidating fire districts. those are the kind of issues we don't deal with in san francisco because we don't have different districts. many of the panelists expressed lafcos having strong relationships with their local planning department. that's something i'm still working on. and their local legislators because almost every year there is some type of legislation that

threatens the work that lafcos do. so in your packets is also a document published jointly by the strategic growth council, the government's office that talks about the role of lafcos in promoting efficient growth and preventing sprawl and preventing open space and in some counties, preserving farmland. there's urban development and farmland. a lot of lafcos are working to preserve, you know, pristine farmland in california. i think what the conference did for me was gave me a better understanding of what lafcos do and inspired some ideas that i hope to bring to the commission at some point. there's a lot that we could be doing that we don't currently have the resources for. so thank you for allowing me to attend the conference.

next year, it will be held in sacramento. i look forward to attending. the other i have for you today is brief lean update on our budget. chair fewer has asked me to provide this in each packet. you can see we're at 55,265 this year. so our spending is pretty much on track with what we've budgeted. of course, i'm already looking ahead to next year as i know we'll start talk about the budget again in december. so that's something i'm working on. also, i think it would be important for the commission with your feedback to develop a strategic plan. where do we see lafco in one or two or three years down the road. so that is my report, madam chair. >> thank you very much. let's open it up for public comment. are there any public comment on this item?

mr. wright? >> you talk about -- when you talk about your budget -- is this your pen? when you talk about budgets, i've got a problem with the budget. i spoke earlier this week too where i watched numerous multibillion dollar bonds being proposed on numerous departments in the city. okay? then i pointed out when i spoke how the amount of money being proposed as far as these multimillion dollar bonds is just a fraction of the amount of money that twitter and the minimum of high-tech companies have gotten for free. i predict that at the present time, twitter and a minimum of tech companies have gotten over $300 billion worth of free monday. and then the programs that are in the city who's supposed to help the most vulnerable people,

economically disadvantaged, got a combination of mental and physical disabilities, veterans, people in wheel chairs, victims in rape, they've got to always come to the board and literally beg for finances in order to keep their departments afloat to help the most vulnerable people. and then you turn around and give a break, multiquadruple, millions and trillions of dollars, break to companies that don't need a break. that's an insult on my intelligence and the people on the board and the people in the community that need help. it's disgusting. you sit up there and talk about -- you mentioned chariot taxi company. they come before the board and ask for a payroll tax break and explaining how they get along with the mta and they would like to not pay payroll taxes and

they were told by peskin that they shouldn't be excluded from payroll taxes. why is that not applying to the high-tech companies? that's preferential treatment. >> item number eight is public comment. >> hello. public comment, i'm going to further expand on my earlier demonstration on how those three departments who are supposed to scrutinize the pre-application requirement in order to be permitted to be a contractor and work in the city. i already mentioned how patrick

ricketts lost his life and died on the job site. i further want to demonstrate when filling out an application, one of the questions that was asked on that application -- viewer, please. one of the questions that was asked is have you had any major accidents within the past 10 years? they lied on that application and said no. by further response, the review of their file not done by the city overseers who came in looking professional wearing a suit and tie but their performance was -- one of the accidents, there was a fatality. so you had a person die on the construction site before you were granted the latest proposal when you filled out this application. that's not the only bad record they have. according to this review of

their files, they have three serious accidents that took place while they were working. that contract shouldn't have been permitted. as a result, this employee lost his life. and about the shipyard, this started off a class action suit of my own. unlike the $50 billion class action suit filed in state court, my experience is in federal court. here is the front page. i'm starting off with the human rights commission. i filled out the form. started it off -- >> item number nine is future agenda items.

>> future agenda, i want you to add this to your future agenda. i want you to add my earlier demonstrations to your agenda in order to make sure that these issues get addressed. i want that situation, those three departments that claim that they got pre-requirement applications to screen contractors is proof that they're not doing a good job. if they did, the two people who died who i demonstrated earlier would still be living. normally when i take care of business, i always take care and make my demonstration pertaining to females first because i'm a gentleman, but last week, you caught me off guard and i walked into that hearing and you were

talking about that. so the first person that came to my mind was about that person that died at the west portal station. but i further matured and realized there was a female that died who i seen on an educational show, and it stuck out in my memory, in my recollection, that on how that two-to three-year-old girl asked that grandfather where is her mother. and the grandfather said the mother is in heaven, and the three-year-old kid said she wanted to go to heaven to see her mother. that should have been included on the agenda. that hearing was call because of the male that died at the west portal station. that should have been called when the female died, which is seven months beforehand. so i want a hearing on those three departments that took

place this past week to ask them why didn't you catch the history of this contractor which caused those two people to lose their lives? is that clear? all right. >> that concludes our business for today.

sustainability mission, even though the bikes are very minimal energy use. it still matters where the energy comes from and also part of the mission in sustainability is how we run everything, run our business. so having the lights come on with clean energy is important to us as well. we heard about cleanpowersf and learned they had commercial rates and signed up for that. it was super easy to sign up. our bookkeeper signed up online, it was like 15 minutes. nothing has changed, except now we have cleaner energy. it's an easy way to align your environmental proclivities and goals around climate change and it's so easy that it's hard to not want to do it, and it doesn't really add anything to the bill.