annual budget decide how much it wanted to appropriate to the ifd. either way, we have an accounting mechanism in place that tells us how much is being generated. either scenario, the board would retain full discretion over the money. you do not lose control of the enough once the board commits to the bond issue, of course, some portion of that would be committed to the interest payments. other than that, the decision of when to stand is this board's decision. secondly, that we leverage the outside moneys with that increment, and that would be something strategic.

there is a requirement in newly rezoned areas that we do this, to ensure that there is a prioritization process for how the money is actually get spent. we do not have a formal cac on rincon hill, although there is an active association, and we will communicate with them. along with supervisor cohen, looking at criteria so we can report back to this board presumably on whether our projections for the ifc have

come true, and that will allow us next time to do a better job. that is the extent of my presentation. any of you have questions? supervisor mar: no, it does not look like there any questions, and thank you for being so thorough and for filling in for supervisor kim, as well. >> supervisor kim did send in an email this morning that she would like to co-sponsor this. supervisor mar: thank you. let's open this up for public comment. i have two cars, and the first is from the rincon hill association, and the second is from the cac. >> good afternoon. my name is jamie hill.

i am with the rincon hill association. the demolition of the embarcadero freeway made the town not so attractive for residential uses compact -- uses, so we are trying to turn this into a friendly ear area for folks to live and also for office space. -- a friendly area. there is no redevelopment. it is sort of on its own for building an infrastructure. i support this area plan infrastructure program to help do that. in our neighborhood, there are a lot of young professionals, like myself, and most of us live there so we can walk to work. it is very easy with the transit

center be in there and also the financial district, the jobs being right there to walk to work -- the transit center being there. and children, there are kids living in the towers, and i assume there will be many more in the future. for them to be able to exercise and build their muscles is very important. the street scape is also important. supervisor kim has already mentioned that street safety is very important. speaking of cookies, we make a lot of cookies in rincon hill. it provides millions in property taxes every year. we are just looking for a little bit of reinvestment in our neighborhood for the quality of life. thank you. supervisor mar: think you, mr. whitaker.

-- thank you. >> dan murray -- murphy, stakeholder in the eastern neighborhoods. i was appointed to be on the eastern neighborhood infrastructure finance work group, which was actually the group that recommended this half -- this ifd tool for transitioning areas in san francisco, so i have been very involved in the background. recently, i was voted by the members to represent the neighborhood cac on this committee, which is piloting this incredibly important financing tool in the rincon hill area. i think the policies that staff has developed in consultation with people like me representing the public are right on point. i think it is a great program. i would be remiss if i did not

say in the context of being on the eastern neighborhood cac, i look forward in the not too distant future of working with this type of tool in the eastern neighborhood. i recognize the -- that rincon hill is a pilot area, but i hope we do not wait five years to be able to do this. this is a growth area for san francisco. private sector development for close to 30 years now. i can tell you that when cities showed a commitment to infrastructure, that sense -- sends an important message for growth, and in that sense, i will be pushing with my fellow neighbors in the eastern neighborhood cac to push for

this in the future. supervisor mar: thank you. is there anyone else who likes to speak? >> i will wear a slightly different hat for this one. i chair and was, like the previous speakers, part of the committee, apif committee, whenever that is, but i am one of the stakeholders. i am very supportive. our cac is on record for using this as a tool for funding in our area plants, and i think it is pretty well known to most of us that the market octavia, balboa, some of our recent plans, the funding was actually about 50% short for what was needed to provide this in the community improvements to meet the projection, so if we are looking at smart growth, this is

a great tool for that. there are some specific details in the guidelines that i have been looking at and have been talking to mr. yarne about. one of the things i have been very attended to is that the cac's that are in place have to be strongly involved. it takes years and years of planning work. they are part of the plan itself. this funding to a should be added to the sources of funding to implement those, and they should not be in somewhat overriding that guidance that cac is providing. it is providing sort of a partner or peer role.

i just wanted to point out, as mr. yarne said, this does not mean it is bad. we are still looking for funding for some of these others, perhaps. thanks. supervisor mar: is there anyone else from the public who would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] colleagues, could we have a recommendation on item number four? supervisor wiener. so movers, a positive recommendation. -- so moved. a positive recommendation without objection, and we look forward to moving it to the budget commission. colleagues, is there a motion for items 5 through 11? supervisor wiener: yes.

supervisor mar: with positive recommendation without objection, so let's forward this. clerk somera, are there any other items before us? clerk somera: no, there are no other items. supervisor mar: ok, seeing as there are no other items before us, this meeting is adjourned. [gavel]

>> good afternoon welcome to the san francisco local formation agency commission. i'm ross ross mirkarimi chair. good afternoon. would you please read roll call. [roll call] >> thank you.

would you please read the next item? >> item number two, election of the chairperson and vice-chairperson for 2011. >> this is something that we do annually. i have been absolutely honored to hold the position of chair for four years now, and i have decided that i think it's time that we expand the leadership circle here in lafco. and so to that i nominate commissioner david compos -- campos as chair of lafco. >> second. >> by commissioners mar, avalos. very good. are there any other nominations for chair? i just want to add to this particular point as i transfer the gavel to commissioner

campos, who has been a very able-bodied member of this commission that his -- he's made me quite proud to work with staff of lafco and the san francisco public utilities commission and with the legion of advocates who had been steadfast in their commitment. some of them are taking the day off i think. but there are some tried and true and always here, and i appreciate that. in over the years i think to realize in over the years i think to realize an obvious objective that i think fits san francisco's outlook and that i think objective is that we cannot gamble on the inaction or any superficial attempts to really step up to the plate and diversify our energy portfolio

in san francisco with a healthy substantial use of renewables, and when we consider the annual aggregate consumption of mega wattage that is used in our electricity, and the consumption that really doesn't seem to be waning and the fact that the private utility pg&e has done everything in their power since be garnering, securing a franchise in perpetuity in 1939 without signs of any ability to try to modify, correct, update or even suspend that franchise, it has made it very difficult for the san francisco city government in efforted like lafco and advocates to chart a path in providing consumers an alternative choice. i appreciate the challenges, i appreciate the trials and tribulations that we have all undertaken and our predecessors

have taken when lafco had started in 2001, approximately 2002. so in about eight years or so, there has been i think great effort in mounting from a grass roots movement of public power to an institutional recognition that it's high time for san francisco to do what i think people would expect us to do and that is provide our taxpayers and our consumers a choice. and i've said this many times, if the federal government is going to move as the glacial pace that they are moving in addressing issues about inserting an aggressive load of renewable energy usage because the infrastructure just isn't there and they are not moving fast enough, if the state government seems to be hamstrung or hijacked by special interest,

and as we've seen private utilities such as pg&e to literally mastermind a monopoly by leveraging the ballots as evidence of prop 16 last year, but our ability to fight that back, then really a great amount of the responsibility is deflected onto municipal governments. so if we care to take care, then i think it's time to really press forward and on that note, i end on the cautious optimism in the conversations that we've been having with the p.u.c., ongoing conversations, of course, with lafco and advocates that the in the next six months or so i'm expecting that c.c.a. becomes a reality in 2011 and that, that reality is grounded in the fine work, in the bidding process and in the contracting process that we expect to be forwarded to the board environment supervisors and then

to the mayor. with that i think with -- i think the stage well set, commissioner campos will do an excellent job of leading lafco, and i know the rest of the supervisors/commissioners and people here who like commissioner schmeltzer and others who are citizen advocates that are here will continue to do everything they can to make sure that we aid commissioner campos in the direction that i think we need to go. so commissioner campos, do i hear any objection to the -- i was going to do this together. the nominations are close on chair and then public comment on chair, please. seeing none. public comment is closed. then without objection, commissioner campos, you are now

chair. >> thank you very much, commissioner mirkarimi and i want to begin by thanking my colleagues for their vote of confidence and to especially thank commissioner mirkarimi for his kind words. the thing about lafco is lafco in san francisco is a unique entity, is a unique agency and it's interesting how life works because at some point as a deputy city attorney i actually did legal work around issues involving lafco. but one of the things that is clear about lafco in san francisco is that it would not be an existence but for the work of pretty amazing leaders beginning with now assembly member ammiano, then supervisor tom ammiano and including especially commissioner ross mirkarimi. i want to thank you for the leadership that you have

provided this agency for more than four years as chair but also the many years that you have been an advocate for consumers and for clean energy in san francisco and throughout the state of california and the country. we have a real opportunity to build upon the amazing work of tom ammiano, of ross mirkarimi and so many advocates and members of the community. and the only thing i can promise you as chair of this body i will do everything that i can to make sure that we work collectively in making community choice aggregate today a reality in san francisco. like forward to working with every member of this commission and i also look forward to working with public utilities commission, p.u.c. here in san francisco and i extend my open-door policy to make sure that we move forward in an expeditious, transparent and open way. and to the staff of lafco, we're very lucky that we have the level of talent that we have

working on this -- for this agency and i look forward to working closely with you and the one thing about being in this position is that there has to be the humility to know that you're not going have all of the answers, you're not going to know everything and i look forward to the input that each one of you has provided and will continue to provide and to the members of the community, thank you for your involvement and i look forward to working closely with you. we are where we are today because of the fact you have been involved in the tremendous work that you have done and one of the things that i do want to focus on is to make sure that this message of what lafco is trying to do is extend it throughout san francisco, especially through the diverse communities of san francisco who may not be aware of everything we're trying to do and what we're trying to accomplish through community choice aggregation and the foundation has been laid, and we need to move forward. again, thank you very much. with that if we can move now to the election of a vice chair

finance i may, i ask for your indulgence, i would like to nominate commissioner ross mirkarimi to serve as vice chair. i think that it would be person for the agency to maintain some continuity and certainly no one knows more about the inner workings of this agency and the goals that we're trying took accomplish than ross mirkarimi. so i would make that nomination f. we can get -- if we can get a second. seconded by commissioner avalos. are there any other nominations for vice chair? seeing none, why don't we open it up to public comment. is there any member of the public that would like to speak on the nominations? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner mirkarimi, is there anything you want to add before we vote? >> it's been so long since i spoke. i think it's all been said.

i really look forward to working with you in the capacity and the ongoing body of lafco members now and we i think are expecting to see some newer members of the board of supervisors potentially joining us. so i think that this will -- this is a milestone, an important one in a new era. >> thank you, commissioner. so if we can take that without objection, congratulations commissioner mirkarimi. madam clerk, if you can please read item number three. >> item number three, approval of the minutes from the december 10, 2010 joint meeting of the lafco and the public utilities commission. >> colleagues, if we can have a motion on the approval of the minutes. motion by commissioner mirkarimi. seconded by commissioner mar. is there any member of the public who would like to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, any changes? >> moigs to approve.

motion to approve. >> we can take that without objection. thank you. we can call item number four. >> item number four, report on the status of community choice aggregation activities. >> great. thank you very much. if we can now ask the executive officer, we have a presentation from lafco staff and also from the public utilities commission, miss miller. >> thank you, and welcome chair campos. mike campbell, the director of the clean energy s.f. program has praintation i would like to have him present first regarding the status of where we are currently with the bidders and the process as we go forward. >> great, thank you. mr. campbell, good afternoon. >> good afternoon, chairman, commissioners. congratulations. my name is mike campbell. i'm the director of the community choice aggregation program, commonly referred to as

clean power s.f. as miss miller noted i will give an update on where we stand and what we have for next steps. i'm really excited here to be able to note that we have some high-quality firm that's expressed interest and responded to our most recent solicitation. it's important to note many of the firms that responded were many of the same firm that's responded to mirren sa listtation. solicitation. as you all know, mirren is up and running with a program that is by all accounts successful. while we continue to look to the neighbors to the north and look at the contract marion struck with their supplier as a guide post moving forward, balances, what's commercially feasible with the interest of san franciscoans in particular. we're really interested in trying to get the program rolling and give san francisco residents and citizens a choice about their electric supply and

their ability to choose a greener future. commissioners, in your packet you do have some materials that outline my remarks today and i will be speaking from those today. i will use the overhead for that. i will skip the first line because it just says who i am and what day it is. the first key thing to note is we did get responses from major players of the industry but no firm responded to our request for proposal to provide high level renewable along to no risk to the city at lower cost than what pg&e currently charges. so given those realities we have two ways forward. we can move forward with direct negotiations or we can work on developing the program entirely in house. we discussed both at length here at this body through a direct negotiation process. one of the key benefits that we have there is that we have the opportunity to figure out a way to strike some balance where the supplier takes on some of the

risks. as we've noted in the past, doing some of the services in house, we do have a lot of those functionalities already at sfpuc but the downside in such an approach is there would be a fair amount of time spent getting those various functionalities up to speed and ramped up as well as the fact that the city would have to be taking on and hedging all of the financial risks. that brings me to the staff recommendation. and this is the recommendationly bring to sfpuc when it meets next on february 8. at that meeting i will be presenting and seeking authority from sfpuc to begin direct negotiations and the negotiation team will have many of the same folks on it that participated last year. that will include sfpuc team, alongside lafco staff, city attorney and external consultants as needed.

to execute the contract we're anticipating we need review by lafco as well as formal approval from sfpuc and from the board of supervisors. i'm not used to presenting slides. i usually just speak off the cuff to you all. in our negotiations we will need to have the ability to work creatively as we've seen as i noted earlier, we don't have firms in the marketplace that are capable or able to provide everything that we've asked for in the past that are rates lower than pg&e's. so we need to be close on program requirements and we have been closely examining the program in marin and what it executed and looking not as a model to start from. i want to be clear on what type of flexibility we're talking

about here. what we're talking about is for one, we need to focus on getting fixed prices. we know it's something customers care a lot about, prices where we know what the performance guarantees are for what we're getting went have a road map for those prices. that would be different from having a hard cap on prices, if it's not a certain price, then we don't move forward. the other is really keen and the getting the choice for customer so they have the opportunity to have energy supply that has a high renewable content. and we're going to need to be making sure that we keep an eye on that and make sure that the renewable content of whatever we negotiate is significantly superior to what pg&e offers. we're going to make sure that the -- going to make sure that the portfolio meets or exceeds the state requirements for r.p.f. i think that's important for the health of the planet as well as a marketing effort to emply but

we'll focus on that rather than a prespecified ramp rate to get to the 51% trespecified ramp ra to the 51% that we'll need to be able to move with that as we go through negotiations. we're also going to have to deviate from -- we've talked about the past city taking on no financial risk whatsoever. we'll have to be sharing the risk swt supplier. in the responses firms were clear they could not take on all of the financial risks so what that means i believe at a minimum is san francisco will be required to put up some collateral to get the program started and the amount of the collateral and loan guarantees will depend a fair amount on the size of the initial program and type of portfolio that's offered. looking how that played out with marin contract. marin dids