>> so at this point we have a total of 72 cases of covid-19 diagnosed in central gardens. we have 37 staff and 39 residents. overall, there have been 160 cases of covid-19 confirmed in the 21 nursing home facilities across the city. i want to emphasize that these facilities are overseen by the state and also emphasize that we are requiring all nursing facilities in the city to test for covid-19, and as i said previously, we have started this work in laguna honda. at laguna honda, we are continuing to have our 21 cases of covid-19 diagnosed, and to date there have been no deaths at laguna honda. >> as a follow-up, you previously said that san francisco does not count a nursing home death or case within the county's number if

the resident lives somewhere else. we checked with several other counties. all count those numbers within the county, despite where the nursing home residents has a registered address. how do you explain that discrepancy? >> dr. grant colfax: so thank you for letting me clarify the issue. so first of all, we count covid-19 cases during our outbreaks as cases, regardless of the county of residence. so when i report these outbreak numbers around nursing homes, that includes all the residents, not where their home address is. and our measurement of confirming deaths at -- with covid-19 is not specific to nursing homes. it's not even specific to covid-19. it's basic vital statistics, that if a person dies, even in the confines of the city, but has a permanent address somewhere else, that death is

reported in that jurisdiction. >> next question is from jany harr, associated press. how much outside room time is given daily to people in hotel rooms recovering from covid-19? do they get smoke breaks? >> dr. grant colfax: depending on the facility, i can't speculate on the exact amount of time, but i can say in referring to the work that the agencies are doing, that the mayor thanked personally, and across the entire spectrum of our support system for people in isolation and quarantine, we work with people to ensure that they get the breaks as much as possible that they need in order to maintain their isolation and quarantine, to support them, and to support the safety of the community. >> next question is from joshua sabotini, san francisco examiner. can you expand on your remarks if there were some pilot programs this month related to business, and does that mean the

city will allow retailers like bookstores to have curbside pick-up? >> dr. grant colfax: so again, i think once we see what the governor releases later this week in terms of guidelines and recommendations, we will be studying those very carefully in the local context in which, again, we will continue to follow the data, science and facts, collaborate with our business leaders and other partners to start establishing some very specific parameters, including how potentially curbside pick-up could potentially be executed. >> thank you, dr. colfax. the next set of questions are for director trent roar, human services agency.

>> good afternoon. trent roar, human services agency. >> director roar, your first question is from angela hart, kaiser health news. please explain how the city has been approaching hotel and motel owners for leasing their spaces out for project room key. what are the challenges in the state providing assistance? >> thanks for the question and the opportunity to clarify project room key and its sort of role in county operations. before i respond to that question, i want to piggyback a little bit on what the mayor -- how the mayor responded to i think it was your question,

ms. hart, on the characterization of san francisco's hotel leasing being slow. you know, slow is an interesting word to use. you know, it's a distributive word that's usually use to compare pace relative to something else or relative to a benchmark or relative to other areas doing similar work, and it's difficult to use that adjective when talking about a deployment that know county or state has ever done before, no county human services agency or county government has attempted to lease and rent hotel rooms directly from hotel owners, and so this is all new territory. so to characterize it as slow, i often wonder, slow compared to what? because there really is nothing to compare it to. i should say that, you know, i'm on calls with my county colleagues throughout the state regularly sharing best practices, trying to problem solve together, and i can assure you that we're all facing the same difficulties in leasing up

rooms, whether it's negotiations with hotel ownership groups that are overseas, whether it's hotel ownership groups who are reluctant to rent their hotels to homeless, deployment of staff, unique setup at hotels all present challenges in terms of pace. but in these discussions, you know, in sharing these challenges, what certainly is clear when looking at san francisco's progress relative to our homeless population, whether it's state-wide or the bay area, there's a couple numbers i'd like to share. the first is that san francisco has about 5% of the state's homeless population, but when you look at the total number of rooms being leased state-wide under project room key, san francisco has about 15% of those rooms. again, we have about 5% of the homeless population. when you narrow down to the bay area and the bay area counties, san francisco has about 20% of the bay area homeless population. a little over 8,000 homeless is

about the same as almeda county, a couple thousand less than santa clara county, so of the 20% of homeless in the bay area and you look at the rooms that san francisco county has actually rented, we have 45% of the total rooms rented in the bay area are in san francisco county. so i don't know if those numbers indicate that we're slow. i don't know if they indicate that we're fast, but certainly when measuring against a benchmark or other counties, we seem to be doing well in terms of ramping up to meet our needs of our homeless and other vulnerable populations. now specific to your question about room key, so project room key is the state-wide -- the name of the program, and really what project room key is is a funding source for counties and general county human service agencies to lease hotel rooms. the guidance for project room key wasn't announced until march 27, and it was along with $150 million state-wide to counties

to support our operations. and as i've mentioned before up here, we started our operations in san francisco three weeks before the project room key guidance was announced. we started on march 9. the mayor and myself and the director of health met with the hotel council on march 18 to share with them our need for hotel rooms for our isolation quarantine needs, as well as for our homeless individuals. we released our request for hotel quotes on march 19, and we entered into our first contracts a week later and opened our first hotels on march 30, which was three days after the project room key guidance was announced. so we started before the state was really activating their response. we thank the state for their partnership. we certainly thank the state for our share of the $150 million that they've appropriated for this cause, and all the rooms that are leased through san francisco county's efforts,

through my human services agency and our staff, along with the city's department of real estate and the city attorney's office. we approached these leases directly using our county staff, working directly with hotel owners in negotiating and developing and signing contracts, and we're not relying on the state to negotiate for us. we're fortunate in san francisco. we have the institutional capacity to do this on our own. i think project room key is really providing support to counties that might be smaller, don't quite have the infrastructure that we do, or counties, frankly, that are very, very large who need the additional support from the state. but at this point, san francisco is able to do this on our own with our own staff and resources, and our partnership with the hotel council and other hotel groups, leadership of the mayor, and we're able to do this on our own and aren't needing to rely on the state, but do appreciate their leadership and certainly the resources they've allocated to us. >> the next question is from

mission local. according to the latest alternative housing update, there are still hundreds of rooms available. are there plans to move homeless residents not just those who are considered vulnerable? >> yes, you do correctly note that there are empty rooms, according to the report that we release daily, and let me help clarify why. there are two categories of rooms that we have secured and staffed. one is for isolation and quarantine purposes, and these are for individuals who are covid positive or who are showing symptoms. they need to isolate or be quarantined because they don't have a place to do that. principally these are homeless individuals. we have 530 rooms under contract for isolation and quarantine. only 248 of them are occupied. what does that mean? that means that we have almost 300 empty rooms that are

available should we need to isolate our quarantine additional individuals. this is an intentional design. we want to have flexibility to be able to respond when there's an outbreak at a congregate setting, like shelters that we've had, at mse south, where we were able to successfully quarantine 90 people over the next day, when we have outbreaks at skilled nursing facilities or nsros. we have built this system to allow us to respond to those pressing public health needs that are, frankly, very difficult to predict. so you will see on an ongoing basis several hundred rooms that are being held and that are open to respond to outbreaks and the need to quarantine individuals. the next group of hotels are for vulnerable homeless individuals, either from our homeless shelters or from our streets, and these are individuals age 60 or older or those who have underlying health conditions. we do close to 300 vacancies

among those hotels. 260 of which are in two hotels that we have under contract, and we are working with our non-profit partners to develop the site management staffing. our non-profit partners have been stretched. you heard early the mayor thanking them for their work and their partnership, but the reality is they are the experts in providing the leadership and the management of these sites, and we're working with them to identify staff to do so. these two hotels totalling 260 rooms we hoped to have on-line by this week. it looks like that will be towards the beginning of next week. we continue to prioritize the vulnerable population. this is a population that fema is reimbursing for, and they are reimbursing for it because this is the guidance from the cdc that these are the most vulnerable individuals to covid and those who could become the most sick if they get the virus. those 60 and older and with

underlying health conditions. lastly on the hotels, we continue to actively negotiate with hotels to meet our estimated need of 7,000 rooms. we are currently in active negotiations with nine hotels totalling 1381 rooms, 1,381 rooms. most of these should come under contract by the end of the week, and if not, definitely anticipate by early next week, unless we run into unexpected problems with the negotiations. we won't stop at those 1300 plus rooms. we continue to negotiate with -- or enter into and assess hotels for potential negotiation constantly. this is a rolling activation that we will keep building on. >> thanks. this concludes our questions for today's press conference. ♪ ♪ ♪

>> good morning. the meeting mr. come to order. thithis is the april 17, 2020 regular meeting of the. commission. our clerk is here and i would like to thank jason from sfgovtv for broadcasting this meeting. do you have any announcements?

>> yes. due to the covid-19 health emergency, and to protect commissioners, staff and public, city hall is closed. commissioners will participate in the meeting remotely to the same extent as if they were physically present. public comment will be available for each item. cachannel 26 andsfgovtv will st. comments will be available by calling 18882045984. dial the access code 350-1008. then press pound and press pound again. when you are connected, dial 1 and 0 to be adde added to the qo

speak. all callers will remain on mute until their line is open. everyone should account for time delays and speaking discrepancies between live coverage and streaming. best practice call from quiet location, speak slowly and turndown your television or radio. you may have submit public comment in either of the following ways. e-mail me. if you submit via e-mail it will be in the legislative file as part of the matter. written comments may be sent through the u.s. post office to city hall. 1 carleton place room 244, san francisco, california 94102. that concludes my remarks.

>> thank you very much. can you please call item 1. would you like me to call the roll first? >> yes, please. >> chairperson fewer. present. >> commissioner pollock. here. >> commissioner haney. >> present. >> commissioner mar. >> not present. commissioner singh. >> present. >> madam chair, you have a quorum. >> thank you. can you please call item 2. >> approve of the lafco minutes from the february 21, 2020 meeting. are there any callers for this item? press one and zero now to be added to the list.

>> checking our public comment. >> is there anyone in the list? >> no caller to speak. >> public comment is closed. would someone like to make a motion to approve the lafco minutes from the meeting of february 21, 2020. >> so moved. >> second. >> roll call vote, please. >> on the motion to approve the minutes. commissioner fewer. >> aye. >> commissioner pollock. >> aye. >> commissioner haney. >> aye. >> commissioner maris absent. you have three ayes. >> item 3 community companies

activities report. >> thank you very much. we asked mr. hyams to present on covid-19 on clean power sf. he is klein joining -- joining us today. >> can you hear me? >> yes, we can. >> great. once again. i am the director of clean powers sf for the san francisco public utilities commission. i want to say i hope everyone is healthy and safe and remain that way as we navigate through this challenging pendemic. as the commissioner mentioned the executive officer asked me for a short update how the clean power sf program is giving given

current events around covid-19. clean power sf is fully operational. our electricity service will not be impacted by covid-19. we recognize that the society response has required sacrifice and many members of the community are facing economic hardship. i wanted to take this moment to emphasize we are here to help our community. we have created a covid-19 information page on our website. we continue to update this page with the latest information on covid-19 response and support service as it relates to clean power sf elect service. you can find it at our website.

in addition to making sure that we are communicating efficiently with our members of the community and customers, a number of measures have been taken by the city and county and the state of california to ensure that electricity customers have access to electric service. first, if a customer is unable to pay the electricity bill, power will not be shut off. this is part of the emergency proclamation of march 13th and the governor's executive order of march 16th. pursuant to the emergenc emerger payment delinquency. flexible payment plans are also

available to support clean power sf customers. customers interested in more information can find that on our website at the page i mentioned before. pg&e is providing additional support to medical baseline customers for the next 12 months starting as of the beginning of march. that additional support includes suspending all customer removals from the medical baseline program. customers will also be able to recertify -- excuse me. not need to recertify eligible through a doctor or other eligible medical professional during this period of time. customers will be able to self-certify eligibility to enroll in the medical baseline program. for information the medical baseline program increases the

allotment of energy available at the lowest price to qualifying customers. if any members of the public are interested in applying for this program they can find more information on our website. some customers may qualify for monthly discounts on electricity bills through the california alternate rates for energy or care program. under care qualifying households save 20% or more each month on the energy bills. the public and members of -- customers can obtain information on the website about eligibility in this program. finally, i wanted to highlight clean power sf customers will receive a $35.73 credit and

$17.87 on their may and june bills respectively under the california climate credit program. this program provides credit to customers using revenues from the state of california greenhouse gas cap and trade program. to help with the economic impact of the covid-19 response, the second of the two credits which is for october each year is provided this year in may and june. the october amount is split 50/50 across the months of may and june. that is where the $17.87 comes from. shifting gears to our staffing and operations. our staff is now mostly working remotely with only staff members reporting to the head quarters

to support department mental emergency operations or complete tasks that must be done there. for example, receiving mail and sorting and distributing it. staff are reporting to the office or field operations are following personal safety and using protective equipment. on the power supply side. we have had no problems with our supply of power or our solver's ability to operate. however, shelter-in-place has impacted construction schedules and disrupted disapply chains for -- supply chains for new development. we are in communication with clean power sf. i am happy to report that neither of the two projects under construction this year have reported delays. these projects are expected to

begin operations and deliver the power in september and december of this year respectively. on the demand side of our business, as you might expect, the shelter-in-place order was issued on march 17. we have seen a reduction in clean power surge of 7 to 9% relative to pre-shelter-in-place usage. as for the specific customer groups, we are seeing trends similar to what other community choice energy programs in the bay area are also reporting. with most households in place we have seen an increase in residential customer usage of about 12%, and with only essential businesses open we have seen when a 20 to 25% decrease in nonresidential customer usage. we will be tipping to track and

analyze the customer usage and demand to understand the impact to our business and also to individual customer groups and will share further information as it becomes available. that concludes my prepared remarks for the meeting. i am happy to take questions from the commissioners. >> thank you very much. commissioners, any comments or questions? i see commissioner marhas joined us. any comments or questions for mr. hyams? seeing none, i have a question. >> i will go after you. thank you. >> please go ahead. >> thank you so much for the report. one of my questions had to do with whether or not customers would be sent back to pg&e for

nonpayment. i am pleased to hear that clean power sf has decided to take the stance of not returning customers to pg&e and no shutoffs. that is all good news. i wanted to ask the decrease in usage. what do you attribute that to or do you? >> yes, the principal thing that i attribute it to is some businesses are closed. all nonessential businesses are closed for the time being. just the reduced traffic in our office buildings and other businesses throughout the city as a result of the shelter-in-place. the figures that i shared, we are seeing a pretty significant reduction in commercial customer

or non-residential usage as high as quarter of normal usage has disappeared. as we know, people are working from home. we have seen residential usage increase. it hasn't compensated one for one. there is more commercial demand reduction than residential demand growth. >> that makes sense. i wanted to ask not included in your report is there a recovery plan? do you know in the city or if you have a sense of how economically we recover from covid-19? is there something built in, you know, future planning for recovery period whenever that should be? >> i think that planning work is

being under taken right now as we speak. i think that we are coordinating clean power sf recovery planning with sfp city-wide planning. that is coordinating with the city and mayor's office. i know the regular budget process is suspended for the year so there is work done to forecast the expected impacts on the economy and what that might mean for the budget. we are similarly making our own sort of projections as we get what have been sort of realtime information about changes in our customers usage. the big challenge, of course, is uncertainty. we know what demand is now under shelter-in-place, but

shelter-in-place will, we expect, be lifted in some way over time. we will start to see people go bacback to work in some form or fashion. from a clean power sf standpoint we do expect that demand will start to pick back up to normal levels. we just don't know if it will go all of the way given the economic impacts and what the pace of recovery will be. i know that doesn't directly answer be your question. i think the direct answer is we are working on plans right now, and we are also still trying to understand the magnitude of the impact that we will see as a result. >> are the plans connected to the irp and capital plans?

>> absolutely. our budget in capital planner are connected. those will be going together to the board of supervisors for approval, my understanding as of now that will be late summer or early fall, but i imagine there will be more information on that coming fairly soon. we are looking at what those impacts may be or what the impacts may be to those plans. we will have more information soon. i don't have any at this point in time to share any new updates. >> i read that the irp was delayed from may to july. do you think it will be pushed out? >> i do have news on that. it has been postponed by the california p.u.c. from july to september. we continue to work on our power

irp, integrated resource plan. a really big challenge we faced has been uncertainty around what the california public utilities commission is requiring of us. there was a decision voted out by the california p.u.c. a couple weeks ago that set in place the more or less final direction for the i rp. that decision extended the due date from july to september. it also identified mid-may delivery of final guidelines from the california p.u.c. energy division staff. those final guidelines will shape what we will need to submit to the california p.u.c. in the meantime we are getting ready to quickly do analysis, modeling work after that time

and prepare a report to the stakeholders and run through the approval process. >> commissioner maxwell had asked about who was present for the roundtable in terms of the irp process, meeting with stakeholders. i know that is probably delayed as well starting in february and everything hit and is pushed out andy layed. do you know if you will be inviting some of the lafco stakeholders like 350 bay area and seand those groups to the rd tables? >> they are on the invitee list. we have delayed that engagement

on when that is going to happen. i am happy to share more information as it becomes available. i am also happy to share through the executive office our stakeholder list. >> that would be great. if mr. gobbel could be brought in. i don't know if it started in february due to all of the shifting priorities, but if he could be brought in to identify the lafco stakeholders to be included and have those stakeholders and mr. gobble be included in the report review early to report out to lafco after your commission has been updated. >> yes, absolutely. >> that is wonderful.

thank you. i know that i was on maternity leave in january. i know that the build out plan agenda item was continued to the call of the chair. you know, those items are tied together, obviously. when you start to do that recovery planning and the irp and how that looks and i think i would be interested to know if part of the recovery plan includes making some of those sites identified as a better site, if those might be shovel ready as part of the recovery plan. i am not asking the question now. i realize you are sort of on the spot and things are shifting and moving and pushed out.

when the item is called again, i would be interested in hearing how that dovetails with recovery from covid-19. i know there is talk of getting the country back to work and those are essential jobs. that would be wonderful to be able to work, especially with building and trades and construction and electrical workers, just howther work within the city and that whole process. that would be great to sort of include in your report out on that. that concludes my questions. thank you so much. >> thank you. any other questions or comments? seeing none. i have a couple questions. the relief measures. what are we doing proactively to let customers know there are

these things available to them? are we instead of asking them to look it up, are we putting things in mailings, sending e-mails out to customer base to let them know about not forgiveness but these efforts? >> we have not -- well, we have not been using physical mailinglers yet. although i will take that suggestion back, commissioner. we have been prepared a newsletter electronic newsletter to distribute. these opportunities will feature prominently in that communication. we are also using or intend to use social media messaging to try to direct some traffic to our website so people know it is

available. you bring up a good point about making sure that folks know where they can get information to provide assistance. of course, we are arming our call center with this information. if our customers reach out to our call center looking for assistance, they will be able to get that information through the call center as well. i will take back this idea potentially for proactive physical mailinglers to direct attention to assistance measures. >> also, are we contacting any sf media to make sure the nonenglish speaking customers are aware of these relief efforts available to them? >> i will follow up on that as well. the status of our media

coordination. >> i have heard from the chinese folks that they aren't reading newspapers but they are on the radio and, of course, seeing ads and public service announcements on television. television viewing has gone up dramatically. you might do a public announcement on the ethnic media. i think a lot of customers who may need these relief packages or opportunities might be the nonenglish speaking customers. >> yes, thank you very much. i will definitely take that back. those are great suggestions. >> thank you very much. no commissioners, no comments or questions? anyone who would like to comment

on item 3, please get in the queue and press 10. could you please check to see if there are any speakers waiting. >> there are no callers wishing to speak. >> thank you very much. public comment is now closed. we don't need action on this item. it is informational. madam clerk please call item 4. >> item 4. consideration and approval of the proposed lafco budget for fiscal year 2020-2021. if there are any members of the public to speak please press 1 and 0 now. >> bryan goebel, i believe you have a presentation. >> i do, thank you madam chair and good morning, commissioners. i hope you are coping well during this crisis.

thank you for your leadership right now. i do have a presentation this morning on the lafco budget. today i am proposing a status quo budget that is based on the latest city projections of a growing deficit. the status quo budget we are required to pass a budget, a draft budget by may 1st and final budget by june 15th. the budget i bring you today includes no increase in the amount requested from the city. it maintains the level of funding the city is required by state law to provide from the general fund. it is the same amount provided to lafco over the past 10 years.

this slide is our work order balance with the san francisco public utilities commission for lafco's oversight of clean power sf. it outlines the balance through the years and the current fiscal year. we have spent minimal funds. we spent to pay interns and research associates like mr. parsons who produced the report. we will be ending this fiscal year with a balance close to $200,000. we are very close to bringing on a consultant to help us with oversight. in fact, that r.f.q. process is wrapping up. i hope to bring a recommendation for a consultant to you at our may 15th meeting. this will be providing expertise for oversight of clean power sf and help us analyze the local buildout report that you heard

in january, and also providing feedback on the capital plan and the irp as discussed earlier. the process was disrupted because of the crisis. under your direction, i do anticipate a lot of work on clean power sf in the next fiscal year. this shows the amount of funds lafco was able to raise this fiscal year for the survey of on demand workers. it is about $330,000 -- actually $335,000 we got a $5,000 grant to help with our urgent covid-19 survey of workers. it will be possible to fundraise in the next fiscal year to support similar work we undertake. the climate for fund-raising has changed. however, i imagine a lot of what we are do in the coming year

will be impacted by the impacts of covid-19. this shows the general fund balance. that is the budget we are talking about today. the amount we receive from the city and county. this is over the years and projected balance by the end of june. today we anticipate a $37,000 carryover to the next fiscal year. these are the expenditures to date as of april 7th. right now we have about $105,000 remaining funds to get to the end of the fiscal year. all spending is pretty much on track, maybe a little over budget. we have been calling on them a lot to do public bank work, that might be a little higher but not anything substantial. this is my proposed budget for

fiscal 20-21. i have provided a description of each line item in your packets. similar to last year. increases for clerk of board's office based on this year's spending. they are critical and helpful. increase in the dues. it amounts to a little over $292,000. i would ask you to approve the fiscal 20-21 budget for that amount while reserving the right to the full statute amount of $297,342 lafco receives each year from the city and county. with that, commissioners, i am happy to answer any questions. >> are there any questions, commissioners for our executive officer? mr. global, i have a quell. i wonder, this is not the budget

we submitted to the mayor as part of the board's budget, is that correct? >> that's correct i revised it based on consultation with your staff and in light of the city's deficit reverted to status quo budget to use the executive officer as an independent contractor and the status quo budget from all previous years. >> i think for the meeting in may where we will approve the budget, can you present the two proposed budgets for us so we have an explanation of the budget proposed to the mayor as part of the board's budget. this committee is able to see that and we are able to have discussion on that. >> i would be happy to do that,

madam chair. >> thank you very much. i want you to know we had proposed, i think, a larger budget for lafco in light of for so many fiscal years we were so solvent and we thought it was time to add to the lafco budget as it has not been added to -- i think we have had this budget for many, many years and it was time to increase the budget but given the landscape now, i actually think everything is pretty much in the air. i am the budget chair. the budget land scape is undetermined now and we are trying to get numbers. it is too early to make a final determination on a status quo budget. i am going to ask mr. gobel to

present two budgets to deliberate on. i am wondering any commissioners have comments or questions at all? >> chair fewer, this is commissioner mar. i have a few questions and comments. i appreciate the work that you have done with mr. goebel to come up with a new budget for lafco for next year based on the new budget environment we are facing throughout the city. i do have questions about what this means for the important work, looking ahead. if lafco is involved in work around clean power and on demand worker and lane important study where there is a need for important follow up policy work,

and then the public bank work. i know the original budget that you referred to included more capacity to carry forward on these important priorities. i think my question is when we get to the presentation of the budget at the next meeting, it could include some explanation about how a reduced budget and staff capacity for lafco would impact the important work that lafco is doing in the coming year or years. >> mr. goebel, would that be included in your next presentation? >> yes. thank you, commissioner mar. i appreciate your input and i would be happy to analyze the

impacts of cutting back that work abinclude as part of my presentation. >> i do see mr. global has fund raised $330,000 on his own for our labor study. i want to recognize and thank him for that work. we wouldn't be able to do that study without his initiative to get that money. thank you, mr. goebel. i want to appreciate that. commissioner martha could be included in the discussion. any further questions? >> thank you for the budget. i want to ask in past years the budget has been presented in april for approval and second approval in may. i wanted to ask is that tied to the city budget processor

something legally we need to do by a certain date? can we extend tha that? >> is our attorney on the line? >> good morning. it is nice to see everybody. yes that is required under thelas co-statutes. we have to look at the budget twice. we also, of course, are coordinating with the city since the lafco budget comes through the city. it is a lafco requirement, not a city requirement. does that answer the question? >> is it tied to the date of april and mayor can it just be approved in two meetings, you know, with a date to be determined by the san francisco

lafco? >> i believe we have until july to hold the two meetings. >> that is great to know. our own budget process is delayed and won't start until august. >> that goes together nicely. i just really think we should give it more thought. as commissioner mar talked about the important work, i feel like covid-19 impacts on the economy will be huge. they are huge now. that work is so important that we continue, and also in terms of clean power sf, people needy electricity. how does covid-19 impact clean power sf and how it moves forward with the m.o.u. expiring

with the san francisco p.u.c.? that money will be part of what we use as what we get from the city and county of san francisco. we need to just think about the fiscal impact of the budget and what that means for the important work that lafco can do. at this time i wouldn't feel comfortable voting on the budget. i agree with chair fewer this needs to come back in the next meeting or may would be a great time unless that was pushed to june. with a june and july approval process that it could go to the city for the full budget process. chair fewer is wil is -- well

positioned to advise lafco. i can't vote on a budget today. the second part of the question is with our executive officer's services being transitioned from contract to a city employee, does that impact the budget or does salary plus benefits equal $150,000? >> i believe we have done that calculation, mr. goebel, if you can respond with the proposed budget. it included mr. goebel being considered a city employee rather than contracted employee. >> thank you. the line item budgeted for that which was given by the clerk of the board's office is $193,000

total, $80,000 of that, i believe, was benefits. that is the figure for that. it would impact. it is about a $43,000 increase. >> if i could interject. i just want to point out government code 56381 requires lafco to adopt the proposed budget by may 1st and final budget by june 15th. i don't know if there are suspensions of that government code but i want to point that out for the commission. >> thank you very much, madam clerk. >> back to our attorney we need two hearings but not two approval voting. is there something to delay this vote since the budget process in san francisco is delayed also. >> today you were asked to adopt

the proposed budget. this would not be the time budget adoption. you will have one hearing where you adopt proposed budge eat and then the final budget. we did look into what would happen if the deadlines were pushed. we did not find anything in terms of a penalty that lafco would suffer if it had to adopt the budget later. there is a legal obligation to adopt the final budget in june, however, there doesn't seem to be any negative ramifications for pushing that deadline if necessary. we did feel we would not want to do so without clear rationalization for that missed deadline. >> this is also in light of what madam clerk just explained about

the government code, that is correct? >> is that correct. >> is it your opinion we may be able to continue this item, then commissioners are holding a vote on this budget together since we have time because the city budget is not to start discussions until august. would we be able to in your legal advice be able to continue this item until the meeting in may and have mr. goebel continue the discussion with both proposed budgeted and what the implication for the reduced budget might mean for the work we are doing. >> am i understanding that we would review the proposed budget in may. what is the date of that meeting, bryan? >> may 15th is the next scheduled meeting. >> would the commission

entertain a final budget in june or later in the summer? >> if we could have a discussion with both budgets and then at that time the next may 15 meeting have a deep discussion on the we were to reduce and prioritize but increase the budget so that the board had an opportunity to see what the impact might be on the work we have already done and are doing, i think we would have a discussion in may. tentative approval and final approval in june. does that sound like that would give you enough time? >> that makes sense to me. >> that is great. i also think that by that time

we will have a clearer picture on the covid-19 impact on the city and county of san francisco's budget and as budget chair we are pushing hard for the numbers. if we could do that, i shy that would work well for us. >> when is our june meeting and would that be in time to meet the june 15th deadline? >> yes, i am looking at my calendar here.

i believe the june meeting is -- just one second. i believe it is june 12th. >> my question in terms of government code to have take extended would that go to the board of supervisors budget and finance and then to the full board? >> i don't understand. what was the question? >> i think i can answer that, commissioner. it would then be going to the board's budget. lafco is part of the board's budget. the revised budget would go the board's budget and be part of the overall process under the board of supervisors budget.

>> then it would be miss ca c.e.o. who would present it. our our numbers would be pushed forward as well? >> yes revised numbers. >> okay. great. thank you so much. >> mr. goebel are you sure it is the 12th? i look at the calendar. it could be the 19th. >> itant correcte -- i stand co. it is the 19th. it is a mistake on my part. >> to our attorney if it is four days later or how many days later than the statutory requirements, that is actually we wouldn't suffer any penalty by submitting it four or five days later? >> i see a delay of days rather

than weeks or months being fairly low risk. as i noted there aren't any legal ramifications for delay. we don't want to be seen to be blowing off our statutory obligations. that said, i think four to five days sounds like we can easily rationalize that. >> commissioners, i would like to make a motion to continue this item to the meeting of may 15th where mr. goebel will bring the proposed two budgets to us. proposed budget in the board packet before the covid-19 crisis and also he will bring to us a discussion on the impacts that the budget cuts would make to the current work that we are doing. madam clerk, would i need a

vote? i assume yes, is that correct? >> yes you need a roll call vote. >> i need a motion. could i have a second please. >> thank you. roll call vote, please. >> who was the second? >> i was. >> the name? commissionier singh. >> you are an alternate. i need another second. >> i second that pollock. >> if you could state your name it would be helpful. we can't tell who is doing it. the motion to continue item 4 to may lafco meeting. commissioner fewer. >> aye. >> commissioner pollock. >> ice.

>> commissioner haney aye. >> commissioner mar. >> a ye. >> we should rescind this vote. i make a motion to resend this vote. second vote. >> commissioner pollock seconds the motion. >> madam clerk, roll call vote. >> on the motion to resined commissioner fewer. >> aye. >> pollock. >> aye. >> haney. >> aye. >> mar. >> aye. >> there are four ayes. i would like to open up for public comment. any members to comment on item number 4?

>> there are no callers to speak. >> i would like to make a motion to continue this item 4 until the may 15th meeting. could i have a second, please. >> commissioner pollock second. >> roll call vote please. >> the motion to continue. commissioner fewer. >> aye. >> commissioner pollock. >> aye. >> commissioner haney. >> aye. >> commissioner mar. >> aye. >> there are four ayes. >> can you please call item 5. >> item 5 approval of a resolution to accept and expands a grant from the san francisco foundation in the amount of $5,000. any members of the public to speak please press one and zero now. >> thank you.

mr. goebel you are going to walk us through this? >> yes. straightforward item. when we pivoted to a covid-19 survey of gig workers, i sought additional funding for staff time and also the worker incentives for the survey. we did receive a grant from the san francisco foundation in the amount of $5,000 for this purpose, and this item would allow us to expend that money. i would recommend your approval. >> thank you very much. open this up for public comment. any members of the public to comment on item 5. >> there are no callers wishing to speak. >> public comment is closed. any comments or questions by colleagues? seeing none, please roll call vote. i make a motion to approve this item. second please. >> commissioner haney second.

>> thank you very much. could i please have a roll call vote. >> item 5, commissioner fewer. >> aye. >> commissioner pollock. >> aye. >> commissioner haney. >> aye. >> commissioner har. >> aye. >> there are four ayes. >> thank you very much. >> these call item 6. >> item 6 is executive officer's report. >> mr. goebel again. >> thank you, madam chair. we are running late. i want to give you a brief update on our gig worker survey. the work our new intern is doing on public bank. hopefully you can see my screen. my powerpoint so on both of these items, we have shifted our

focus to assess covid-19 impacts. the results will be a series of timely reports not only to report much needed data but give recommendations to help and form and guide your local policy decisions going forward. first i would like to talk about the survey of on demand workers. for those who are not up-to-date on this. lafco was in the process of a large survey of on demand survey of 1200 workers to get the city good data about the vulnerable workers who are front line workers. they were struggling before the virus. now it is much, much worse. before shelter-in-place was issued. the survey team suspended the survey a month ago. when that work stopped they managed to get about 700

completed surveys up until then along with a number of in depth interviews. we suspended the survey three weeks to a month ago, and quickly pivoted to do a survey of covid-19 impacts. the survey addressed these four categories. how is covid-19 impacted the number of gig jobs? we know that there is a shift. we know uber and lyft is down. it has impacted pay as well. there are more workers out doing delivery. many of the companies have waiting list for folks applying for these jobs. we know it has caused a big impact. we are also as in the broader survey asking about the lack of access to health insurance and paid sick leave. we are also asking what do you

most urgently need now? emergency funds, healthcare, pro protections from exposure, how are the companies doing? what are you doing to prevent spread of virus? how likely to work while sick due to the financial situation. before this with some of the focus groups and results the team was getting, there were workers that said they would work even if they were sick. the plan here with the covid-19 survey is to get around 300 responses. combine that analysis with the 700 completed surveys the team has already. they are going to follow up or have been following up within depth interviews combined with research. we expect to have a preliminary report on the findings on may 2

and present those to you at the may 15 meeting. along with those findings, working with the survey team and collaborating with stakeholders, lafco will produce a number of recommendations based on the findings. they will address these categories. improving economic security, promoting accountability and lawful operations among the at base delivery and ride hailing companies, improving safety and health for at base workers and promoting public health and safety. these will be short and long-term recommendations. we are going to put out a table of ideas to comment already existing emergency measures taken and considered now by the board of supervisors. also, we have a u.s. tackling best practicing to address these. how are other cities responding

to protect workers? what protections are being put in place around the globe? what kind of health and safety regulations are developed? what will the virus mean for the delivery industry and workers? what are the best practices around that? to comment the resolution passed calling on the city attorney and the office of labor enforcement to enforce ab5 considering other aspects of ab5 or even force meant to protect the delivery industry. this will all come together in time for the may 15th meeting. we will have three presentations at that meeting. combined findings of the survey and the team is pouring all resources into that preliminary findings. we will have the report from us f class on delivery services and lafco recommendations based on the combined findings and