the polish. i'm hoping to bring to you more information about our communications plan associated with that. i believe mike and brian have been talking about that. >> but you do have a plan already, as you said, is there something that you can bring before us for the next meeting so we can at least see what you have done so far? i appreciate it but i don't want to interrupt the questioning. it just came to my mind that i'd not seen a plan. we had not been briefed on any plan. i think this is really important that we tackle this and if we want our, all of san francisco to be on clean energy. please proceed. >> you took the words right out of my mouth. [laughter] it is certainly the key. is where are we since the

reports. it was a brainstorm. so is the p.u.c., has the p.u.c. done an updated report where you've identified which projects are priority? >> i will have to talk with staff to see if we've prioritized projects. i'm happy to come back and talk about where we are at with the efforts. and i am hearing your sentiments that you are concerned that since 2015, we have been implementing this program and we have gone -- you are showing some of the improvements on the greenhouse gas that has been avoided by our program, that is good, yes we can always do more and what is our plan for once we complete enrolment for making those advancements club i am hearing you say that when you're talking about local builds, you

want to talk about what is in the confines of san francisco capital also within the bay area counties that we have been referring to as our local opportunity. i'm happy to bring that back. i think the generation is a component of it. i think one of the more challenging areas is how to do the energy efficiency improvements and fuel switching opportunities in san francisco. >> you are talking for customers >> when i am saying fuel switching, i am talking about switching from reliance on natural gas to electricity. since we have a very clean electricity opportunity, some of the greenhouse gas opportunity -- reduction opportunities are now in encouraging customers to switch off of natural gas, and onto the clean fuel supply that we are bringing to our electric grid. >> that was one of the things

that someone had talked to us about when he presented. it was the ways in which the department of the environment could partner with clean power s.f. to do those types of switches, and to work on innovative programs and really engage customers in that way. they do that for pg and e. >> they do that for customers. but they partner with pg and e. on that. they utilize funding that is collected by them that is rate payer dollars to implement programs and yes, it is an ongoing dialogue with my staff on what is the work plan to take advantage of the great skill set that is at the department of the environment as we -- once we get customers enrolled, pivoting to our attention as staff to k.,

what are the program opportunities, how do we execute and use the resources that the city already has, and by resources, i mean the good minds and hearts of our staff and our colleagues at the department of environment. absolutely. >> i think i want to say that in these conversations, we have also talked about the amount of clean energy that we can procure and that we will be in competition with jurisdictions that are also going to be switching over. it only makes sense that we would have a local buildout plan and that we, quite frankly i would have assumed that while we were implementing our clean energy, that we would also be actively working on a plan or implementing a plan at the same time, aligns with clean energy sources. so i'm a little surprised to hear that we haven't invested a

lot in a buildout plan in san francisco. >> i don't want to overstate or understate. as i said, i will have to check with my staff to see mount how much additional work has been done and i'm happy to come back to you and presents that information. >> with that, do you think the next meeting would be good timing for that? >> i think probably not an either or, but a yes, and. yes, i would love to see that information, and i think that they should start taking the steps to have the next, you know , what is the next step? what is the plan? how do we prioritize the project and i would love for that to be something that we work with the p.u.c. on. >> one of the areas that we want to integrate into our local

builds plan and into our program more thoughtfully is some of the equity concerns that i think we are in a really good position to address. it really distinguishes us as a provider from the services that pg and e. provides. and that's an area where we are very interested in collaborating with your staff and thinking through how to integrate our strong environmental justice policy, our equity concerns in the local build program and in the clean power s.f. program more broadly. that is an area where we were hoping that we would be able to engage with you more on in this calendar year. >> i see the equity piece of it as being a part that would be baked in to anything that we

would do. when i think about two areas that there's been a major gap in work, i think the local buildout plan. what are the nuts and bolts of what builds san francisco charge a local build? the second thing that i see is what are the opportunities? people have been talking about, what are the innovative programs that clean power s.f. could be offering to customers. and i'm sure your staff has done a lot of work on that. the equity piece, i just want to be frank. i don't know if that's just a piece you want to hand to them to manage this commission, but i don't think that's the work. i think that is a piece of the work. what we really want to see and what we need to take back to the

board of supervisors, because i think that the s.f. p.u.c. is in the business of running clean power s.f. and you are looking at how does it pencil out? had do we serve customers that day-to-day building infrastructure. and having a larger vision of the city is something that they are thinking of any holistic way what do we need to build to make san francisco independent from pg and e.? that may not be what the p.u.c. is looking at. and it's tied to it, but i think we may be talking about apples and oranges and i want to make sure that we are -- we have the whole basket of fruit here. so i want for them to work on something larger and that the equity piece will be obvious to

any part. to programs or local buildout, that of course, we have the equity piece. i don't think that that's the entirety of what they will work on. >> yes. i didn't mean to imply that that was the entirety of what they would work on. i just wanted to make sure that i was putting that on the table too. as we talk about programs, and how to implement a local build program, i really think the equity and environmental justice issues squarely belong there. so that is why i was making sure i was vocalizing that component of it i think that is -- when you look back at the energy sector in general, what is one of the failings of the energy sector in general, it is a blindness to that.

it is like after the fact that people say oh, yeah, what about affordability? what about the impacts on the neighbourhood of what we did? we don't want a local build program that takes that approach we want to think about the impacts on the community and bake it in, as you said. >> right. >> i have one last question before we move on and i know that in june, 2018, this past june, prop a authorizes the p.u.c. to more revenue bonds then prop be. this would be more authority for clean energy projects. if we are moving into the budget cycle, the p.u.c. have revenue bonds proposed for local buildout projects?

>> we are on a two year budget cycle we will not be presenting a budget this round. and developing a capital plan and determining how to fund it for clean power s.f. it is one of our two dues for the next budget cycle. >> the question was that if a buildout plan was included in the budget -- is that the question? >> are you planning revenue go she would obviously start planning right now for the next budget cycle and last year is when you submitted the last legislation so when you submit the next one then do you have revenue bonds plan for the local build out? >> we don't have a capital plan for clean power s.f. yet. >> okay. >> there is a plan that's been adopted by the planning committee and presented to our commission and presented to the

board of supervisors for power and it includes only power revenues. >> i feel like i looked at the last capital plan and was that only that company or was a clean power s.f. listed? >> there is no clean power s.f. listed in the ten year capital plan. >> in the next budget cycle, we want to have a capital plan specific to clean power s.f. and i would expect it to be a couple line items. and energy efficiency item or may be a distributed energy resource item and stand if we feel we are in a position to invest and own generation of our own, then that would show up in the ten year capital plan. over the horizon, i would expect it will, absolutely. >> i know that commissioner ronan has questions and i have been taking a lot of time on the floor.

i have a couple more things but i want to yield the floor to my colleagues. >> thank you. i just wanted to continue on the capital planning point. because when i met with brian strong who heads up the capital planning committee for the city, i mentioned the next phase of clean power s.f. is a capital priority for me and that would include a local buildout plan, but also, again, paving the way towards a complete independence from pg and e. and building or buying a transmission network to be able to deliver energy to our customers directly. my understanding is that the draft plan is coming out shortly , but that there is still time to get certain priorities

in that draft plan which then will be under review and the final plan will have to be approved by the board of supervisors. but i would be interested in seeing that in the draft plan, which is not that complicated. it is 150 word description sent to the capital planning committee and they will included in there to be reviewed. i would ask that that is something you consider. >> i will take that back and that will be on the capital plan and that would not be on the clean power s.f. plan. i will take that back. >> yes. >> couldn't you put in the capital plan for the entire city , the ten year plan for the entire city, a placeholder for a clean power s.f. or c.c.a. capital plan,. >> my reaction is, why i am saying them and not clean power

s.f. is the statutory construct for a c.c.a. is that the customers receive their transmission and distribution service from an investor on utility and third-generation service from the c.c.a. that is the statutory structure. so when we talk about the city having transmission and distribution responsibilities, that puts us into the other side of our business and not the clean power s.f. side. >> i see that. that makes sense. maybe we could do both. may be we could put the plan -- the buildout plan under clean power s.f. and the transparent dose transmission acquisition under the other company. >> we could. we could put both under them and the sales of the power could be to the clean power s.f. portfolio. there are options. it is good to hear you are talking with brian strong about it and i can go back with him and get an understanding of his thinking of how it would actually be structured in the plan. >> that would be great. i would love to see that priority in the capital plan and i don't know if i really want to

approve the capital plan without it. >> duly noted. so let's wrap this up. i believe commissioner pollock has a last comment. >> this has been so helpful. thank you so much. i am really looking forward to you coming back to us in january and talking about local buildout i don't know if we are overdue for a joint p.u.c. meeting and maybe that is something we could explore in the near term, is to understand, and maybe that is what we do for your presentation on the local buildout, because i have not seen that presented to your commission, is that we get, we are together when we get that and then, just in terms of the work that we will do, i will be asking my colleagues' approval on this.

is just concurrent that they begin looking at an update to the report. i think, if the local buildout is the next step, then before the next step is, if local buildout, then went, and when? do you agree with that? >> i guess. i would like an opportunity to talk further about what you mean when you say the next report, building off of a reports. i'm not sure that third-party consulting resources are necessary but i am happy. >> wouldn't expedite it? i feel like a third party resource report would expedite the work if it has not already happened.

>> i can work with my staff to see what we think the best approach is to doing that and with your executive officer to think through the best approach for that. >> may be what we can present in january would be the work plan. >> am i missing your point? >> when you say. >> i'm hearing you say you are interested in another report and that report, you would prefer the report to have a third-party view through a consultant and what i am reacting to his i'm not sure that is the most helpful approach at this point, but i would like to talk that through with your executive officer, my staff, and come to you with an answer to that question, it could be in the

context of, here is the work plan for understanding what it is you want, and having an opportunity to best understand what it is you wanted to say, here is how we will deliver that product to you. >> i think that there is concern on my part, you know, when i'm looking at, it has almost been four years since the report. if we were talking january 2019. so you will be coming to us in january 2019 and if there hasn't been a comprehensive local buildout plan, then i think, it does get the work done faster. i think for us to look at third-party resources. and that's just where i am. how do we get it done and how, the time is now to have this independence from pg and e. is so important and it is important to san franciscans. it is all over the news and i

think, what i am hearing from advocates and hearing from the public, i represent the public seat and i'm trying to best say how they can serve the public and also serve the board of supervisors. so if that is not part of what the p.u.c. presents in terms of revenue bonds are getting started with the local buildout, than maybe they can inform the board of supervisors so the next bold steps can be taken so we can reach our climate goals. that is just where i am. i don't think that it's your resistant to doing the work or that the work even hasn't been done, but just that there is an urgency. there is an urgency. so that is something i will be asking my colleagues on the commission today, is to start looking at that report. >> i definitely hear your urgency.

i appreciate that you are recognizing i'm not saying that i'm not enthusiastic about the project. i'm thinking through, as i stand here and hear your comments about what is the best method to achieve that and to be responsive to the urgency, given the scope, given the responsibilities that we have for a successful enrolment to occur between now and april. thank you. >> and that is really something that they can lift the wait on that. that is the benefit of having the commission. >> i hear you, what part of the challenge is what happens when, again, just to be frank, when we bring a third party in, they sit down and take my staff's time to understand what we've already done, and what we want to do and how we can do it. it doesn't really lift a lot of burden off of us. it is another project.

it is another draw on time and that's fine. i'm just saying i would like the room to be able to work with my staff, work with your staff to figure out what is the best way to accomplish it, is it with a third-party third party or not? how do we achieve the goal you are challenging us to achieve. >> i think the p.u.c. has a long history of disagreeing with you guys on methods. it might be an area where we disagree, but i think that is where we as an -- you as an independent body is looking at a different angle and that, it is unfortunate because i feel like i want us to really work together, and i think that may be a really good way to be together if we were to have a joint meeting with the p.u.c. and with your commission.

>> i will yield here. because i think we see next steps and big picture, and obviously if we were to do an r.f.p. for a third-party, that work would not begin happening until the full rollout. that process takes time. >> okay. >> would you suggest that at our next meeting that the executive director sets up a joint meeting with the p.u.c. and the main bulk of our meeting be dedicated to this report that we are hearing an update on at the rollout? >> i would like to focus -- i would like the focus of the joint meeting to be an update on the local buildout plan. >> yes. >> and then the reports would be something separate that they take up as business. >> okay. i think if we can make an agreement, that we would ask our executive director to work to schedule that meeting with the

p.u.c. too, and just so we can have a full discussion with the p.u.c. about the local buildout. >> that would be great to. >> okay thank you very much. let's open this up for public comments. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm with the californians for energy choice in san francisco clean energy advocates. we have sent you communications highlighting the sydney, australia, plan. please take a look at that again it is really important as a model. i want to refocus us away from optimizing cost of renewable energy to remind the commissioners and the s.f. p.u.c. that the more we build local and regional and get away from long-range transmitted energy, the less we need the transmission lines, and the last we will have fire danger because

the transmission lines can then be turned off in high fire times when they are not needed. and eventually, hopefully by mid century, we can get rid of the transmission lines. this isn't just about low-cost renewables. this is about removing ourselves from pg and e. and the transmission lines for perfect safety purposes as well, not just becoming independent. on the buildout plan itself, please, we don't need another report. that is what the other report was for. we need a plan like the sydney plan, and i want to come to the defence of the s.f. p.u.c. here. if you look at the city charter, it tells the s.f. p.u.c. that his job is to deliver reliable, affordable utilities to rate payers. it is actually the opposite of its job of what it is chartered for, to come out with some big and bold multibillion dollar buildout plan for renewable energy and efficiency.

it is against their jobs. what we are doing with this as we are trying to force the s.f. p.u.c. to do something that is not charter to do, and it is actually chartered not to be that risky pics of the board of supervisors and the mayor are the driver of a buildout plan. that is where we need to go. >> could i recall, mr brooks, just to clarify, when we are talking about the next step from the report, i was referring to something like the city plan. >> right. >> i just want to clarify that we are not talking about another report, i was just using that as an umbrella term. i think when we do look forward we'll be talking about something like the city plan. >> i am a messaging and framing guy from a long time ago, as a grassroots organizer. i want us to start using the word plan.

it will be great if you guys could do that. thanks. >> we will do that. thank you. >> public comment is now closed. can you please call item number 4. >> it is an update on emerging mobility services labour study draft scope. >> thank you very much. i would like to invite mr bryant go vote to discuss this item. >> i know you're trying to wrap up soon. i want to give you a short update on the labour study. i have a final draft r.f.p. for the survey of on-demand workers, which i have given you copies of today. i am venting it, running it through our advisory committee and gathering feedback and hopefully will be issuing that r.f.p. in the next few weeks. commissioner ronan, you suggested i reach out to the national employment law project. approved very helpful. i talked with becky smith there and she connected me with the washington department of commerce which is actually doing a survey nearly identical to the one we are doing. we have been able to share information and i have been able

to draw language from their r.f.p. into our r.f.p. i did mention to you at the last meeting, thank you for that connection. i did mention at the last meeting that the costs for the survey is likely to rise. we will know --dash we won't know exactly how much until we get proposals and. what i've done is broken the r.f.p. up into phases. the first phase will be done with the 50,000 -- 55 thousands that we have authorized for that , and the remaining phases be done after the start of the next fiscal year, once we have secured the remainder of any necessary funds. we will not know until the proposals come in. in the meantime, we are pretty much on track with our literature review and the other aspects of the study at your january meeting. i will be presenting the findings of the literature review and best practices. that is the latest on our labour study. >> thank you very much. any comments?

>> i have a quick question. if the s.f. p.u.c. joint meeting is in january, then we may, we want to separate out the labour study portion. >> okay. >> to make sure they're not at the same meeting. >> i will talk you about the timing. it may actually need to be in february just to coordinate between the two of us. >> thank you. let's open this up for public comment comments. any members of the public? >> good afternoon, commissioners and with the californians for energy choice and san francisco clean energy advocates. we have a really golden opportunity right now on the subject and that is cpuc reform. since the fires, the recent fires, as a statewide organizer on clean energy and power issues , i have been invited to

several different coalition meetings for statewide coalitions on what -- we will do something now about pg and e. we will do something now to block the bailout and we will do something now to reform the cpuc and previous reforms of the cpuc included breaking up the cpuc so that it becomes part -- part of it goes to a telecom agency, part of it deals with the electricity problem, and then we take the transportation staff that the cpuc unfathomably it is in charge of, and i -- to evolve that to local control. if you can be proactive about that, 2019 is probably going to be our opportunity. there probably will be a bill driven by the advocates and a couple of good legislatures to reform the cpuc and that's our

opportunity to say enough of this nonsense. we will bring it all back to local control. please have that on your radar and on your agenda so we can get on top of that. thanks. >> thank you very much. public comment is )-right-parenthesis can you please call item number 5? i'm so sorry. i did not say or see you there. >> if we could direct staff to add any cpuc reform regarding transportation to our legislative watchlist? >> that's a good idea. >> thank you. >> thank you, commissioner. public comment is now closed. can you please call item number 5? >> for the record, no action was taken on items three or four. >> thank you very much. >> item number 5 update on request for proposal for legal services. >> i believe our attorney is excusing herself and i believe mr goebel has a presentation.

>> this will be brief, commissioners. i'm happy to report that the r.f.p. process for legal services is starting to wind down. our evaluation panel is meeting next week and i anticipate that we will have a final push finalists selected in the next few weeks. we will then of course, enter into a contract negotiation once the process is complete. we have some strong candidates. >> commissioners, any comments or questions? thank you, brian. okay. as their public comment on this item? >> good afternoon, once again. brooks. san francisco clean energy advocates and californians for energy choice. it sounds good that there will be a choice made. i've said this a lot but i want to hammer it home that the more local that legal representation is, the more they will be accountable and buy in to getting our needs met. please make sure that that is a

top priority in this selection process. >> thank you. public comment is now closed. can you please call item number 6? >> just for the record, there was no action taken on item five >> yes. >> item six is the executive officer report aid, community choice energy summit and the budget update. >> thank you very much. >> commissioners, this week the community trace energy summit is underway in san francisco and i have been attending some sessions. i wasn't able to attend all of it because of my duties here. it is ongoing today and. clean power s.f. intern is there the most interesting panel i attended was a session yesterday on the pcia or the exit fee. what struck me in learning about how the pcia is arriving to that is there is no transparency whatsoever in how pg and he sets their rates to determine the exit fee.

i'm still trying to understand how all this works. one presenter pointed out that the p.u.c. chapter decision and process fails to address whether the costs are reasonable at all. summit also pointed out in a panel that ccas were created to stabilize energy markets and that this process impedes the ability -- the stability in the energy market. that conference, continues today and i will report more on that dust on it at the next meeting. second as i have provided you with copies of our latest expenditures as of november 15 th. so far this fiscal year, our expenditures are now around $73,000. i have, of course, started thinking about next year's budget and what division will be in the next fiscal year and even beyond that. i'm also trying to determine what our process should beef for figuring that out. i'm currently working on a two

page that maps out the future of the company, and i'm very interested in getting all of your input on that. >> colleagues, any questions? thank you very much. no action needs to be taken on that. public comments, please. >> good afternoon, again, commissioners. sorry, but there so much. we haven't been here in a while. there is a lot to cover. on the community choice piece of the report, one thing that i'm really excited that the whole state is rising up and getting angry about pg and e. there is one thing we need to be careful about. there is a lot of demand right now for california to just take over the electricity grid. that is a desirable long-term goal. there's a lot of talk about, let's just make sure that we don't shift costs from pg and e. to the customers, which is important, and if we do that,

they will go bankrupt and he'll be cheaper for us to take over pg anti. that. that is not necessarily true at all. and i want to remind folks and the public that when we created a community choice in 2002, part of the reason we created it that way is so pg and e.e. and utilities would retain control and the expenses of the wires and the transmission and we could move rapidly as possible working on only energy generation and energy purchasing to make sure that california, through community choice programs, which are booming right now, specifically builds enough clean energy and efficiency fast enough to deal with the crisis we are seeing that is currently burning down california. and if we were to make the grab right now within the next year or two to make california a public power agency, that would slow that down.

we would have to buy pg ne's system and the other utility systems. we would have probably a lot of legal debate. the cost could be anywhere. if you look at public power agencies, a lot of times they are not as aggressive on clean energy. we have spent the last two decades getting community choice in place. it is about to serve 80 5% of the customers, and it is building renewables fast. we need to be careful on that and not to derail it. >> thank you. public comment is now closed. no action needs to be taken on that. can you please call item number 7? >> his public comment. >> would any members of the public like to come forward,. >> one more. [laughter]

>> we need to talk about legislation. 2019, as i said will be a very important year and advocates are angry and moving to pushed forward to. i mentioned cpuc reform. it is definitely going to be on the table if advocates have anything to say about it. the top priority right now is no bailout. that needs to be a strong focus. there will be a bill to that effect and we need to be very proactive about guiding the board of supervisors and guiding the s.f. p.u.c. to oppose any bailout and make sure that the costs of the wildfire liability is directly on the corporation and its stockholders, because if it isn't, they will not have any incentive to prevent forest fires. it will be just like the bank bailout where the banks have no incentive whatsoever not to creat just crash our economy because they know we will just pay for it. we can't do that with the

wildfire. there is also an important piece of legislation that probably will be put up again, we have a lot more activist energy behind it. that is on transmission access charges. be looking for that. clean coalition will be the driver of that bill. what it will do, right now, for all of this excess transmission that we don't need that we pay for, we pay, at the customer metre for transmission charges. that is not good to. a lot of times, that is buying energy that comes locally. the customer metre is not where we should pay for transmission access charges. we need to pay for app at the substation where there is real transmission coming in. so this bill will switch those charges up to the substation and that will make it cheaper to get local renewables built because we will no longer have to locally pay for transmission charges that aren't used. >> thank you, very much.

>> public comment is now closed. >> my doctor's school -- i had to pick it up. i'm so sorry about that. i wanted to echo commissioner pollock and asked that we keep any bills related to the pg and e. bailout on our watch list as well. >> can you please call item number 8. >> item number 8 would be future agenda items. >> are there any future agenda items,? >> this is restating what we've already stated in the meeting. i just wanted to be clear that i wanted it as a future agenda item and i will defer to the chair on scheduling which meeting it goes to. but just to make sure that they are adding, as an agenda item a special study that will builds on the report that will model the sydney plan.

we can think of a better name for this agenda item at a later time, but essentially, that is what i am looking for and that it also be included in our budget discussion when we look at the next fiscal budget. thank you. >> thank you very much. is there any business, other business for us today? >> that concludes our business -- public comment. >> public comments. i'm so sorry. >> hello again. one little comment on this. this is something i've said before but we need to make sure we are hammering at home. biomass is not a good way to do renewables. the sydney plan has a lot of biomass and biogas in it. it is very important. that plan was written before battery storage became competitive with coal. and so now the battery storage is being competitive and

especially renewable projects that are combined with battery storage, it's very important that the sydney plan -- the sydney plan is awesome, but that part of it is not awesome. when we develop our plan, we need to make sure we replace the biomass and biogas with things like battery storage and efficiency and demand response because biomass and biogas actually, especially in the short term, make the emissions go up. if you look at the intergovernmental panel on climate change report, they are saying we have a decade left to get our act together. we can't afford to play with the biomass. that is an injection early on of carbon that we shouldn't be putting in the atmosphere. it's very important as we move forward with this plan that we ask the contractors that we hired to do it to not to do biomass and biogas and to really focus on battery storage to replace that component. the purpose of biomass and biogas is just to make sure

there is 24-hour reliable power that is always on. battery storage solves that problem. the sydney plan was made back in 2013 or something like that. we are way beyond that now i need to get that component in. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> could you please integrate his comments when you are looking at scoping that out for us? >> i would be happy to do it. >> thank you. madam clerk, is there any other business for us today. >> that concludes our business today. >> our meeting is adjourned. thank you very much.

>> supervisor peskin: good afternoon and welcome to the annual meeting of the san francisco transportation authority. i have the dubeous distinction of being chair of this panel. i'm aaron peskin and i'm joined by the chair of the committee and vice chair of the transportation authority, katey tang. to my right and member of the committee, commissioner jane kim. to my left, this is going to be their last personnel committee. and with that, i have called

the roll. our clerk is mr. alberto quintanilla. mr. kiquintanilla, if you coul please item number two. [agenda item read] >> chair peskin: is there any public comment on the minutes of november 28, 2017. seeing none, we will close public comment. [ gavel ]. >> chair peskin: is there a motion to approve said minutes? made by commissioner kim. mr. taylor, in the parlance of the board of supervisors, we don't do seconds on committees, but i bet you have a different theory here.

>> we actually have brenda tan here with us today in case you have any questions about the data or the mythology in collecting the data. they are human resource firm specializing in compensation and they are located in the bay area. >> chair peskin: and we have used them in the past? >> we have not used them in the past. this is the first time we've used them. we put out a competitive bid, and this is what we like to see. at times, we do make modifications of who we work with. now in terms of the item we have before you, we also took it upon ourselves to update the job descriptions. there are 42 job descriptions in your packet, as well. the last time we updated the job descriptions was 2006, so we thought it was a good idea to do this.

we are also creating six new proposed positions in this item. they are administrative engineer, assistant deputy director for capital projects, public policy manager, principle program analyst, graphic designer and director of communications. the reason for that is we wanted to create growth pathways for staff to progress within the agency since this is not something we take to the board every year. the total size of the agency would still remain at 46 positions. there was no increases, but this explains why you see 42 positions in the proposed job descriptions. in terms of methodology, the survey -- market survey mythology, we took a look at nine comparative agencies, including orange county transportation authority for only the two timma positions we

have, the timma program manager and timma system manager, riverside county transportation commission for the timma positions, as well, the san francisco municipal transportation agency, and the city and county of san francisco. san mateo county transportation authority, santa clara valley transportation authority, and we look a look at two nonpublic sources. they are the radford global technology survey used for technology positions, and those positions in our agency are the modelers, and we also took a look at data for the american society of civil engineers, their 2018 salary report. in addition to that, in terms of the results, we concluded our salaries are below the median maximums of all the comparative agencies. in general, they range from 1 to 25%, and we actually have an

attachment that lists this all out. >> chair peskin: are you referring to this attachment? >> yes i am. >> chair peskin: so the only question -- maybe not the only question i have about that attachment, just relative -- and you and i had an offline conversation about salary savings due to vacant positions and impact starting january 1 of this fiscal year would be reduced because of positions that have been held vacant or have not been filled. but the -- that's not what i was going to get at. what i was going to get at was that on page eight of the staff report, there is a representation that the average increase in salary expenditures would be approximately 5%. >> yes. >> chair peskin: and i don't understand that, because if you look at this chart, virtually every position at the minimum salary side of the range goes up by at least 5%, if not --

and some of them, as we've discussed, by much higher percentages. so i don't understand how they could average out at 5%. >> so the data shows a higher percentage of what the market rate is showing. that 5% represent what the agency can afford within its budget for the -- for the compensation, for the adjusting the salaries. the average adjustment -- the total adjustment would be about 217,000, and that's 5% more than what we're projecting as our actual costs for personnel right now. >> chair peskin: got it. so in other words, you would overspend that budget category by $217,000, but compensate for that and not need a change to your budget by virtue of the fact that there are these vacant positions where you have salary saves. >> correct. so i'll proceed on unless anyone has question oz this attachment one. >> chair peskin: commissioner

tang? >> supervisor tang: i guess i was wondering what inactive meant on the classification status? >> that was just what i was previously referring, that we are creating positions, so there would be growth pathways for the staff. for instance, we have one -- we have a program analyst area. we have one program analyst position only, but we had created a program and -- a staff program analyst, a senior program analyst, and a principle program analyst in preparation in the future if there was a need for advancement. >> supervisor tang: okay. i guess i was confused in the difference between inactive and proposed, because proposed sounded like to me was those were ones where those positions, maybe they didn't exist before. >> correct. those positioned didn't exist before. inactive means they're unfilled, and there's no intention of being filled. >> supervisor tang: okay, and what is vacant. >> vacant is a position that isn't fill but we intend to

fill. >> supervisor tang: okay. thank you for that clarification. >> chair peskin: can you help me out on the classification of the director of communications. can you elaborate on that a little bit? >> yes. so we have -- on the third attachment, we have an org chart there, and it shows you the total positions for an agency, which is 46 positions. on that document, it has a category called reclassification in each of the divisions. we are reclassifying a position in the division, and that's more so to fit our work program needs. >> chair peskin: and can you help me, because there's a senior communications officer who appears to be above the director of communications. is that correct? which position is mr. young's position. >> senior communications

offic officer. >> chair peskin: so what's the difference between a director of communications and a senior communications officer? >> the director of communications would oversee the work of the senior communications officer. >> chair peskin: got it. so you would now in that division have basically two folks. >> we currently have two folks, but there are a few levels. we have director of communication, senior communication officer, communication officer, and in that group, there would be a graphic designer, as well. >> chair peskin: so not to publicly talk about personnel issues, but i presume your senior communications officer would become your director of communications, is that correct? okay. thank you. >> we would put that position out for recruitment if needed. >> chair peskin: okay. perfect. >> anymore questions on the attachments before i continue on? >> chair peskin: commissioner kim? >> supervisor kim: sorry. i just want to make sure i understood this because you stated this in your presentation. the chart has 46 full-time

positions? >> the organization chart -- the attachment three has 46 positions. those are 46 forward approved f.t.a. positions. the last time the board saw this was 2006. >> supervisor kim: and we're approving the positions? >> yes. and the difference is because we have one more senior transportation planners. >> supervisor kim: oh, i'm sorry, the categories. there's 42 categories and there's 46 f.t.e.s. >> yes. >> supervisor kim: and of the categories, four are inactive, meaning that you don't intend on filling them. >> yes. they're also inactive. we may not fill that position, but there is three levels of a position for one person to potentially fill. >> chair peskin: and you have seven current of your 46 have a can't. >> correct.

>> supervisor kim: and -- and we can talk about this later, but i did note that the salaries did appear lower at sfcta, particularly for executive director than others, in other agencies, but i also notice our f.t.e.s are significantly higher than everybody else, which made me question if we were a little top heavy or staff heavy. i do want to have that conversation because i want to make sure that every dollar is being spent on the transit improvement that our voters want to see, so while i do want to have a discussion about making sure our salaries are on par with other agencies, i also want to make sure we're not too staff heavy if we don't need to be. and i don't know. maybe there's a good reason for it, but i noticed we were larger than actc which has a revenue budget of 351 million, and we have 125 million. >> if it's okay with the commission, i'd like to have

this discussion during the executive director's presentation of 2018 accomplishments and 2019 objecti objectives. >> supervisor kim: okay. >> okay. anything else? then i will proceed. >> chair peskin: thank you. >> so where i left off was based on the study recommendations. the recommendation is to increase the salaries, as you just saw on attachment one. we also noticed that our ranges were approximately 35%, so our range up to 35% and suggested that we create ranges of 38%, so that's what we have done here in the attachment. so based on the fact that market ranges in san francisco are highly competitive, we decided to adjust the ranges.

it's to allow for flexibility for us to promote within if there were an opportunity to do so. it's also important to note, again, that the last survey -- some of the positions you'll see on the chart go back till 2012. that was the last update, and we also have some 2014s, when the positions were created, and i brought that to past board meetings, and we have 2015, which is the lard board compensation meeting that we have. we also noted there were four positions that fell below the minimum of the salary range for the agency. we'd like to bring those positions up to the minimum and adjust them at the correct level that they should be, where they're currently standing in. we've also talked about a handful of reclassifications, and just to repeat that, we are reclassifying two senior -- taking two senior transportation planners, two transportation planners, an administrative engineer, a

senior engineer position, and realigning them closer to what our work program needs are by reclassifying them to director of communications, a prince classification planner, an associate engineer, and an assistant director for capital projects. and with that, i'm more than happy to go over fiscal impacts unless there's any questions right now. >> chair peskin: so you're referring to the fiscal impact note on page eight? >> yes. so just to recap, those four positions that fall below the minimum, we estimate that that's approximately 17,000 to race them up to the minutium. in addition, we'd like to realign staff positions to the current positions they currently hold, and that would cost approximately 200,000, for a total of $217,000 between the two. >> chair peskin: j t