>> not explicitly. we do have work for planning purposes sort of broadly. the irp. we do have under professional services as needed contracts a number of engineering firms that do this kind of work and we have worked with them in the past on these kinds of projects so it is certainly possible for us to direct some of that capacity towards supporting these efforts. >> thank you. i know that there are for me a lot of questions in terms of distinction between the power enterprise and clean power sf. i know that is sf p.u.c. looks at them very differently. for those in san francisco at least for me it seems power is coming the same thing and i just

wanted to ask some questions about the differentiation. as clean power sf gears to start building renewable energy power facilities, can you talk about how the sf p.u.c. views the dynamic between clean power and the power needs or resources and how would the dynamic change if pg&e is broken up or municipalized. >> i will head over to barbara. >> thank you barbara hale, assistant manager for power. within the p.u.c., three lines of business. water, power, sewer. within power, two retail service programs. clean power sf.

the distinctions between the two are because of the services that we provide, right? under state law we only supply the supply part for clean power sf. under our constitutional authority as municipality that is able to establish publicly owned utility we provide all services that brick power to the customer. they are both part of power enterprise. it oversees both of the programs. one of the differences for us as we manage the programs. the ratepayers are different. we are not allowed to commingle the funds between the two programs. when you are a clean power sf customer and make a payment to

us those dollars go to a separate account. mike charges his time to that, all of the supplies he has been talking about gets charged to that program, the study work he is talking about gets charged there. we have revenues from the customers that go to a different account. if you are working on heche you are charges to them. we are not allowed to commingle funds. we do share resources and book time with the shared thought in mind. mike referred earlier to the fact that the sun set reservoir provides energy through a sale to clean power sf customer base that we use for super-green program. that is a documented between

heche, the controller of the supply and clean power sf, whom they sell the power to. even though we are in the same house we operate as two separate businesses. both of those businesses have their own budgets, capital plans. in the evict pg&e files for bankruptcy there are different impacts on the programs. they reply on pg&e for service and make payments to support the service. transmission and distribution where we pay the rates. on the heche we pay $10 million a year for the distribution they provide to us through the tariff. on clean power sf, by contrast,

because state law requires us to use pg&e as the billing agent, customers pay pg&e for the service. pg&e provides the payment to us. they are holding the funds our customers are paying to us, making payments to us through pg&e. it is a pass-through function. in the face of bankruptcy there is a concern pg&e could end up having a delay in the remittance of those dollars from them to us. even though a customer paid for the service and intended us to be paid, since it goes through pg&e we could have a delay in receiving the funds from pg&e. that is a potential impact that

we are keeping an eye on and taking steps to mitigate. as mayor breed has asked us to do we look at municipalization. that has come up in the context of bankruptcy to further expand on the question you are asking. what happens to the two programs? under that scenario the heche program would explain. that program would absorb the clean power sf program customers. instead of just providing supply to the customers we would provide fully integrated services to all those in san francisco that we only provide to a portion in the heche program. under clean power sf the contract they have signed, that

supply would be absorbed. the commitments we are making that the director was reviewing would continue. we would be in a position then of being able to expand our ability to invest in renewable resources. we would have a higher revenue stream coming in. we are note for profit. we would have more funds available to pay for these programs and to achieve these goals that we are trying to achieve. >> thank you. that is very helpful. if pg&e, if the route we go is not municipalization of pg&e, how do you identify the heche sites for renewable energy and which are clean power sf?

i know there are a number of things happening in terms of bonds to build renewable sites under heche. how do you decide which program it goes under? both programs are growing. clean power is growing at a much faster pace. they have a higher need for new supply. in terms which site goes where? for us like sunset solar, it can be a jointly utilized project. it really goes to the question how do we, you know, how do we fund it through our capital planning process? we have on the heche side a credit rating, we have a capacity that to perform the work with that credit rating.

we don't have as big -- once the enrollment in clean power sf is completed in april, we will have a higher overall revenue stream coming in from that side than we do from the heche side, dramatically larger. we have bonding authority on both sides, financial statements and credit rating only on heche side. our task is to get the credit rating on clean power sf to utilize that same bonding authority. we don need to be bound to that. we can expand the -- sorry. we can build out a renewable site utilizing the heche balance sheet and credit rating and prop

a authority realizing through a contractual reallation ship we can credit the revenue stream on the clean power sf side. >> is there currently an m.o.u. or something connecting the two? >> we transact business through the two through power purchase agreements. it is a business relays ship like we purchase from third-parties we purchase and sell between the heche and clean power sf program. we could do the same at individual sites as we are able to do that, right? >> i saw in august they approved three contracts for 2.$6 million each for renewable energy projects. can you tell us about the scope of the work they will provide?

>> those are some of the professional services the director was referring to earlier with engineering capacity to perform evaluations, engineering, design work, you know, to help us evaluate the feasibility of different program areas, to establish and advise us on readiness. from a staffing perspective all the way through to site evaluations. those contracts let under the power enterprise, right? they provide services to both heche and clean power sf program. >> couple more questions about revenue bonds. i saw there was an item on the december agenda as a pc revenue

bond revenue committee about sf power? >> that was the growth fund. director hyams will talk about that. >> the presentation to the revenue bond oversight committee was more background around the effort to complete city wide enroll meant in clean power sf. we did talk a bit about contracting, and there was some discussion around the potential for bonding and sort of the steps that worry choired to get -- required to get there. i think ms. hale walked through it in terms of getting a credit rating. >> do you know -- what i am saying the models for what the

budget, scope and timeline for clean power sf revenue bonds could look like? what i am asks is you are waiting for the credit rating of clean power sf to sort of begin the bond process if you were to have clean power sf revenue bonds. with the city wide enrollment, what is that timeline and scope look like? is there a timeframe that after city wide enrollment then that capacity is there? >> i can give you a general sense. we think that it could be about a three year period following stabilization of the program's revenues and enrollment so i think this is something that our sfpc finance team is thinking about, working on. i am happy to flush this out

further. the clean energy the marin county program were the first to receive a credit rating. it probably took them like 7 or 8 years following the service start. we don't think it will take us that long. we have put in place a number of policies, financial policies that we think support a rating effort really from the get-go, right from starting the program. we are confident that we can compress that schedule quite a bit. generally speaking, three years is sort of what we are thinking after completing city wide enrollment. >> the remainder of questions are around p.c.i. a and our upcoming joint meeting with your

commission and so i wanted to yield the floor if the chair would allow me to come back for those two sets of questions at a later time before we end this agenda item. >> if i could come back to my questions on p.c.i. a. our upcoming joint meeting, my questions for that, i will yield the floor for other commissioners, thank you. >> commissioner singh. >> hopefully it is a short question but maybe a long answer. under this area that commissioner pollock was discussions, are there changes in state law necessary for us to pursue that course of action? >> the answer is no, not changes in state law. i mean just to explain a little

bit. as barbara mentioned in the comments before. the city's constitutional right to provide public utility service within the boundaries. state law structures and frames the cca program and in state law the ccas don't exist in public utility service areas for maybe some straightforward reasons. the local government is already providing the service. the idea with the cca model is local governments providing the energy supply portion of the business and investor owned utilities territory. >> that clarifies it. with barbara's comment it requires it to be used as a billing agent. i just wanted to doublecheck. thanks. >> great question. i had the exact same question.

one other question in just trying to understand sort of the difference between hehche and clean power sf. it seems like we have two programs because of the history of how they developed in san francisco. it is not necessary. whether or not we municipalize which i have been very public about hoping that we will and hope that lafco will play a role in getting us to a point where that is possible. would we start a process of merging those two bodies anyway? >> in any ways we are merged in terms of operational components. people doing the purchasing and selling for heche are the same for power sf. what i talked about was really

an accounting separation that is necessary to respect the different ratepayers, right? any municipalization process will take quite some time, and there will be a transition period where both entities would continue to operate and ultimately we would assume responsibility for metering and billing for customers that are currently clean power sf and they would be absorbed to the heche program. >> let's say we don't municipa municipalize is there still the thought that we will merge the two. >> the statutory requirements make it so that we would always have two separate rate pawer revenue streams that we would have to continue to account for

separately. that doesn't mean we can't do partnership projects and programs. we will do the go solar sf program to provide service to both ratepayer sets. >> how is it decided who goes into which program? >> if you are a pg and e customer today you are eligible for clean power sf. the if you are a heche customer you are not eligible. >> there are some new customers suited for heche. for example when the shipyard was built out, it was built out knowing san francisco would be the owner and san francisco of the distribution system. from day one those customers have always been heche customers. >> the difference is who

distributes the power? >> right who handles distribution. >> thank you. >> you are welcome. >> any other questions, colleagues? commissioner pollock. >> i'm fine. thanks. >> so the question i have we have talked a number of times in our past meetings about the p.c.i. a exit fees. have you had conversations with our representatives in sacramento about legislation to fix pg&e's proposed increase in the p.c.i. a? >> so the city and the sfpc is working with our cal cca colleagues on, you know,

developing approaches, legislative approaches to address things like the p.c.i. a. i would say it is a very, very high priority for the clean power sf program as well as other operating ccas in california. >> i saw some social media activity from senator scott weiner that looks like he would support municipalizing bg and e and having a public power program. if there is a willingness to do such a big step he might be a champion for addressing the p.c.i. a. >> yes, we have been working with senator wiener. he has been a great champion for us as well as a great convener

much others with -- other elected officials within the cca community to provide a sounding board, thought partner on what kind of changes the cca community might want that the legislators would be ready to act upon, and we are in the final days of putting together the legislation that the ccas will be requesting be introduced to address p.c.i. a and other concerns about the marketplace. the bankruptcy, of course, kind of made everybody go something else is going on here we need to also pay attention to, right? whether that, you know, of necessity requires folks to

pitch vit to address bankruptcy related concerns, we will see. we have a nice team among the cca and legislative community to work to put solutions before the legislature this session. >> how much lee way does the legislature have? they can overturn the ruling on p.c.i. a? is that how i understand it? >> that is probably fair to say, but the concept of the indifference charge was a statutory contract. it came from statute. the legislature could say we are going to rewrite that section and change things. >> if pg&e, if and when they

file bankruptcy, how does that affect the p.c.i. a? does it go away or operate the same way? >> the basis for the p.c.i. a. there are unavoidable above market cost the utility is incurring. that goes to the fact that in bankruptcy cord pg&e may present obligations, costs it is obligated to pay the bankruptcy judge would through that bankruptcy process decide to forgive pg&e at least at some level. you hear about creditors coming out of bankruptcy getting paid x cents on the dollar. there is concern that is part of what is going to happen. what that would mean.

>> if the bankruptcy court were to make rulings like that, that would mean that pg&e would have lower above market obligations to pass on to ccas. that would mean that there may be downward pressure from the bankruptcy court on the p.c.i. a rate. all other things staying the same. >> is there similarly increased liabilities that could increase the p.c.i. a or do you feel like it would be a downward moving number? >> the p.c.i. a is only associated with generation. >> the liabilities in terms of fires?

>> right, steps to address the liability with the distribution system would increase distribution rates. i would not expect them to increase the p.c.i. a. >> that is helpful. thank you. i know that we have a joint meeting coming up. my questions to submit to you and i can read these off and i will send them to you, not to answer now but questions for the joint meeting. if i could just read those to give us a few outlines of the potential revenue bond programs. worse case with the proposed p.c.i. a. best case with revised p.c.i. a, how would increased super-green enrollment increase our bonding capacity? how would a premium local renewable power program increase the bonding capacity? if we identify another source of

revenue like a carbon tax, state or federal funds or general funds? how could that increase the bonding capacity? those are my questions for the jointer meeting. >> thank you for sharing those in advance. >> i wanted to get them on the record in lafco. thank you both so much for this presentation. it is very helpful. i think next step also for the joint meeting is to look at the timeline. i know on slide 26 you talk about commence of the 10 year capital planning process and development of new local energy program. early part of 2020. am i doing the math wrong? . >> that is the spring of this year.

>> spring of this year. >> fiscal year end 2019. that is july of 2019. >> i did the math wrong. the actual build out plan then begins in july 2019? >> let me take a moment to talk about how the capital planning process works. that might help. we have a capital planning process. we began the internal work in capital planning in preparation for next budget approval. for us the spring period is when we will be doing staff work to present to our general manager, executive management team the capital plan we proposed for clean power sf. that part of the process usually

runs from around september to november where we are from internal mode to look at competing needs, what are we going to fund. this will be the first time we have a clean power sf capital plan. the capital plan and operating budget typically goes to our commission in january. we have a series of budget focused workshops day long sessions to address the operating and capital plans. that feeds into the budget the mayor proposes. the capital planning committee also has a role of overview and oversight for all departments including the pc. it will have an oversight role of the new clean power capital plan. the capital plan and operating budgets get adopted through the process the board of supervisors

runs. >> will the local build out plan be in the capital plan? >> it will have local build out plans for clean power sf. that is our intention. >> when is the first time this body could be updated on the plan. >> i will propose. i will take this back to check with folks. i would propose after the general manager is comfortable with what we are proposing might be a good time. i would propose something that addresses it with this body, you know, in parallel with addressing it with our commission or shortly after addressing it with our commission. >> you are addressing it with your commission in january? correct. assuming we stay on the same

schedule we have been on important for air number of years. >> it could be in our meeting if you are presenting to your commission in january. >> yes, if we are presenting in january of 2020 at my commission, we would be in a position to present here in february of 2020 a capital plan as it is being vetted through the standard capital planning process. >> so kay. thank you -- okay. thank you. >> as you are developing the build-up plan and capital plan, where can lafco interjector give suggestions or work on some of the aspect of the plan? quite frankly when i looked at the presentation today. it is very thorough. i thought i would see more of a

fiscal build-up plan. at the last meeting they mentioned the build-up plan. when i look at this, i am looking at what occurred and not a actual buildout plan for the sites. san francisco sfo parking lot, hunters point. littlalso is there a need for ay to look at other sites within the city and county of san francisco. some of the land that pc owns outside of the city of san francisco? >> we do look at city-controlled property for development. the sites that are in the next report came from that body of work we have done. we presented the work we have

done and they presented it in the report to you. through the professional services consultants we talked about earlier, we use those teams to help us evaluate those sites. it is a process that will continue. we can share with you the prior reports we have done that describe the sites and suitability for development. >> have we looked? have they identified other sites with feasibility? >> off the top of my head i couldn't tell you if there are sited outside of what is presented to you in the report. we can definitely doublecheck. >> since you mentioned this is ongoing and you are looking at sites and possibilities. i know the pc owns property outside of san francisco. san mateo county my have possibilities. we would be interested in being

kept abreast of what your study ends up showing if you are adding these sites and the level of fees build for the build-up sites. >> sure, happy to do that. commissioner singh. >> i wanted to tack on to that i would be interested and others would be interested in any records on par cell e of the shipyard. in light of everything that has come out i could see how that would be delayed for a very long time. >> let's open up for public comment. any members of the public that would like to speak about this? please line up you have two minutes. >> eric brooks, california for energy choice. once again as usual i want to thank and congratulate the sfpc for making real and serious

progress. that is good. just to dovetail off the last piece of conversation you got into with barbara. what i heard her say is that the sfpc in 2020, a year from now will be putting in its capital plan buildout plans with an s. that means small individual projects identified individually. it doesn't mean city and county wide and territory wide plan. that is because it is the sfpc job could be conservative with the plans. that is not its role that needs to come from the legislature and board of supervisors. right now we have a situation where the world is waking up. the green party since the mid 2 thoughs are talking about a

new deal now progressive democrats like cortez are driving for a green deal. world war ii level mobilization in every city on earth t to buid out a real plan for the entire city and county. that is what we need. that is where in 2019 we need the board of supervisors to pass a plan, to study and pass a plan, maybe have the study done through lafco so that when 2020 rolls around we are telling the sfpc this is what we want you to build. show us how you are going to build it. we don't have to count on the sfpc to do a job it is not connected to do. >> thank you very much. >> thank you very much, jeff

hotel man senior policy analyst. i want to thank staff for the hard work. we look forward t to the full rollout of the program for six years. we are excited for april the end of an era and hopefully the beginning of another. i want to thank you for asking did hard questions that led to this presentation today. there is a lot of conversations that need to be had. it is unfortunate what is happening with pg&e is adding the angle to readdress the ownership issue. i am worried about taking our eye off the ball of the clean energy issue. i would like as the representative of 350 in the room to remind you if we do not do our part to address the

climate problem it is unlikely city and counties will be doing it. whether or not we own the wires will be immaterial by 2050. we may not even be here by 2050. i would like to put the focus on what's at stake. not to say i have not been a supporter of public power in the past. that is a long discussion not for this meeting. to mr. brooks' comment there is a distinction between the best cost development of renewable energy resources like we are doing now and affirmative choice to do energy efficiency build out and green jobs plan and best cost version of that in that policy.

>> any other speakers? public comment is closed. can you please call item 4, madam clerk. >> no action was taken on this item. update on emerging mobility services labor study. i would like to invite officer bryan goebel to present on this item along with lea troeh. >> we are here to present today preliminary findingses of the review on the labor study on emerging mobility services. i want to update a few items before the presentation. first, our request for proposals for the labor survey has been posted. i am beginning the process of considerable outreach hoping the

uc berkeley labor center will be one of them. i have had talks with them. the r.f.p. is posted. deadline to submit is marc march 15th. secondly, there is a graduate class at the university of san francisco that was going to be contributing to the study. i am happy to report today i met with the professor and that class commenceses january 21st. there will be three specific study areas, geographic and political economics in the speck tore. special and geographic, politics and lobbying and best practices. the students hope to present findings to lafco in may at our meeting. third i updated the timeline for the study.

some aspects of it have taken longer than i anticipated. i included that in the packet. we hope to wrap up by october and by sometime this summer come up with a final report of policy recommendations. throughout this process we are examining best practices of other cities, the graduate class is going to look into that as well. we have preliminary findings our emerging mobility intern is here today to give you a presentation. >> i am officially done with my internship. to put icing on my cake. our emerging mobility study is looking at labor practices in companies that use a platform to match services with customers

and independent contractors. the gig economy. my preliminary literature review showed three trends. radiation, how u.s. and global cities are regulating these labor practices and emerging mobility companies. that is what our study is first based upon but you can expand that definition to thinks such as sometimes called digital marketplace when we will get into later. portable benefits came up a lot. we were not expecting this, we will get into this later. employee benefits that are portable. lastly public and private partnerships. what public transit agencies are taking from the private and vice

versa. regulations. predictable results. there is a lot of friction and confusion who is ultimately responsible for achieving policy goals such as equity and safety and reduction of pollution and congestion. regulation does not apply to the same agencies. it starts at different times. lawmakers are pushing for that government must mandate operating information the from regulated entities and there should be one regulatory body in the region and state that monitors and oversees all mobility operators, public and private. anyway, there are trends on this. new york, they are mandating

that companies must share with the taxi and limousine commission. if you don't share you don't operate. washington state has legislation about workers classification. are they independent contractors? are they employees, self-employed? >> seattle gave them the right to unionize. in europe they have the wait and see approach. we will regulate it when it comes around and we see how the companies regulate themselves and interact with the public. they are finding that hasn't worked. labor classification and worker rights are jeopardizedded. it is pushed they must be regulated consistently from the start. if you don't comply with regulations, you do not operate.

london is imminenting fair treatment and breaks and limits. uber acquiesced. they are putting it on the big economy firms to work with them on worker classification. the companies must prove to the regulators about the worker classification. you prove to us they are self-employed, not the other way around. we don't have to investigate you to tell you what is happening with the classification. lastly, the companies would be liable for paying worker benefits, holiday pay, national minimum wage. mexico city implemented 1.5% fee on the company for each ride share ride given that goes to

air publico a public fund. portable benefits? workers own benefits, not tied to a specific company. company makes fixed rate contribution. benefiters cover independent workers. it is mobile. you can take it with you. your retirement, your maternal, paternal leave. it is a draw because it mainta maintains flexibility that employees and employers like, the gig economy. the affordable care act marketplace where workers can shop around for benefits package that benefits them. one example is from dc. it is about paid leave. paid family leave. they raise this from employee

payroll tax from workers who want to opt-in. this is an example of the regulations proposed. none of them have been implemented. they are very diverse. here in california they do nined the digital marketplace. this is an organization that operating digital internet website or smartphone application that facilitates the traditional services to individuals or entities seeking those services. it does not accept services request by telephone or fax or in person at a fis a physical l operation. you needy electricity. it is not a store that delivers things. that is another sort of name for this emerging mobile de or gig

economy. the other notable things about the proposed legislature is it requires companies to pay to health benefits plan administered by the employment development department and prevents discrimination under the fair employment housing act which is not in many or most of the legislation about regulating the gig economy companies. this died in committee last november. washington state we have portable pro rated universal benefits. one notable think about their proposed legislation. it was only for companies with 50 plus contractors to provide benefits and to a benefit fund for the independent contractors. one last one in virginia, $20 million in grant funding to

assist on an experiment with the economy. there is legislation proposed about similar things. why are these appealing to both parties? flexibility. very appealing to gig economy companies because they still don't have to call their workers employees. then they can't be sued about worker misclassification. handy came out in front. people come to clean your home. they wanted to say if you have this legislation, then you are saying, yes, we will give you portable benefits, but then you are putting in writing you are an independent contractor, not

an employee to unionize. portable benefits cost companies less than providing employee benefits. here you find uber and seattle unions forms a partnership for portable benefits. costs can be passed off to customers. public and private ask what interests the late borstudy. the employment relationship between city, company and drivers. some public agencies are taking on practices of the gig economy companies to have on demand services in the public transit options. they are saying, yes, put the buses instead of regular buses late at night with ridership low we will have it on demand. some companies down south have

the program where they are partnering with lift to provide the public transit service. that does include accessible services. you call and i think rides are $2. they are subsidized by the city. it is for all users, but, yes, basically lift is the public transportation. in ontario there is a transit partnership with uber to save the town more than $8 million in comparison to door-to-door bus service. in texas, you can book a mercedes-benz through an app subsidized by the city for $3 a trip. you can call to book a ride. you do not need a mobile phone to do that. these are all interesting ways to do that.

what we are interesting in are the labor practices are the lift and uber drivers performing the city's public operations employees of the city, end contractors? what is that looking like and playing out? part of our study will look at and call those companies. in conclusion, there aren't really best practices to tell you because we don't know what is working or not for all places. it works differently with different riderships. it is better to study and see how the regulations emerge. this is from november, this research that i did. in the last two months things have changed. some of the pilots ended. probably the legislation has

gone through the committee. that is all. thanks. >> thank you very much. any questions? yes. >> i want to thank you for this report. it was well-done and i appreciate that you spent your intern ship at lafco doing this. i was listening to a program where they were discussing the new california decision doing a new test on which workers are independent contractors. the abc test is so much better now than it used to be. i am a former worker rights attorney and represented a lot of miss classifie mississauga cs classified workers.

there is an effort in the california state legislature right now to coddy fiin legislation the new law as, you know, created in a way by the supreme court, which is reverse how things are usually done but very welcome. under the abc law it is very unlikely uber and lyft drivers are independent contractors. it will be interesting to see how the whole landscape changes based on this new california decision. i think it will change a lot in terms of what we see in terms of rights workers have and how they are classified in california and i think it is going in the right direction. i want to add that. >> i want to say thank you.

this is fascinating. especially i did not know about the public private initiatives where municipalities are subsidizing. i wanted to make a report on it. i am glad you brought that up. the elephant in the room is that for uber definitely and possibly for lyft it is estimated 40% of the cost of each ride is subsidized by venture be capital. they want to keep those going. so far these haven't run out of venture capital at all, but i think the idea they are trying to get to a point where one has monopoly power to increase the ride rates. it will be interesting to see if they are trying to now extract money from municipalities how that plays into their internal

plans to keep this feed of venture capital going or phase out of it. i am glad you brought that up. >> i want to say thank you, also. when i spoke to mta they were debating whether or not they would partner with lyft for the services. i cautioned them. you can't have it both ways. we see that this lyft and uber are competing with us in public transportation and we say it is okay. it is interesting when other municipalities are doing that. how do they strike a balance on this? they may not be seeing what we the magnitude of the economy and what it is doing to or congestion and the services like

policing, you know, how they take away revenue from our public transportation system. how do you balance that, i think, would be interesting to find out with the municipaliti municipalities, i could see how it could be. for example lyft wanted to do senior service vans. it would be easy to say we have a contract with you and they would have liability for drivers and passengers and we would contract with them. i think it is a slippery slope there. thank you so much. i really appreciate that. i will call for public comment. they may have questions for you. public comment. any members of the public? mr. brooks. >> eric brooks speaking for the

green party and for our city san francisco. it is a good preliminary report raising the important issues that need to be raised. it is lacking an important perspective theme aticly to get back on the table that is that in the beginning of the sharing economy, it was sharing. it was people individually contacting each other through the internet to share jobs and rides and resources. then the people that started uber and lift came along. if we stick ourselves in the middle of the relationship we can make a profit off this. they developed software. that is all they are is code. it is software but they stick in between the customer and the rider and driver to just make money. there is no reason for uber and

lyft to exist at all. mta could develop the same code not-for-profit, city run and owned, all drivers could work for the city, get city benefits, the whole nine yards. that is the one thing i say a theme ongoing in the future. we need to get away the idea we allow them to exist in our community at all. the other thing with the pg&e breakups especially we will see in the state legislature a lot every forming in the public utilities. if not we are going from the frying pan to the fire. part of that needs to be taking transportation responsibilities and giving them back to the city so we are in control of the transportation. >> any other members of the

public? seeing none public comment is closed. we need local control but also i can see autonomous vehicles being introduced. it goes on and on. any questions or comments? there is no action for the commission on this matter. madam clerk add time five. >> a discussion on the proposed budget for fiscal year 2019-2020. >> do you have a presentation for us on the proposed budget? >> thank you. as you know, lafco is required to approve the proposed budget by may first and finally budget by june 1st. i will present a proposed budget at the april meeting. i