san francisco public utilities commission, and our last meeting was supposed to be a joint meeting, but there was an issue of quorum. i'm wondering if you could say little about when that is happening, assuming both commissions be on the same page and continue to push this forward as quickly as possible. >> we are working to try to put together that meeting. my guess is it will be sometime in mid to late april is the time frame we're looking at now that would coincide with the april meeting. we will have a joint meeting with sfpuc, schedules permitting of course. chairperson campos: i would underscore to our staff and the puc staff the importance of making sure that happens. i think there is momentum, and we need to make sure we take full advantage of that.

colleagues, any other comments or questions? why don't we open it up to public comment. any member of the public who would like to speak on this, you have three minutes. >> good afternoon, commissioners. so two points, one is that it's good to hear what marine is doing and even though it's outside of the county, it's great to hear that marine is actually triggering stuff being built, instead of us buying energy on the market. that's going to improve the statewide situation and renewables. however, the commissioners should also know that sonoma county is getting under way with a c.c.a. sonoma county just put forward $250,000 to do a feasibility study for their c.c.a. and some of you might know that sonoma county has been doing prerptory work for the buildout -- preparatory work for the

buildout that advocates have kept advocating for here in san francisco, the full detailed plan for the buildingout for their c.c.a., so that they're getting ahead of the game on local distributed generation renewables and efficiency. and so i'd add that to the note on the progress at the local san francisco utilities commission, on dual tract that we've been talking about. in a really nice way, marine can represent the track that the sfpuc and lafco staff seems to be leaning towards, sonoma represents the track that we have finally gotten agreed to, to actually plan out the entire local buildout and so as we move both those tracks forward, we should be looking at sonoma to see how it differs from marine and how we can have sort of a dialect between those two to educate bus how to do our own and do both tracks.

one note on sort of statewide issues, i just noticed today and i just noticed it from one comment from one solar panel owner on a blog. so this would still have to be verified. but according to this person that was responding to an article about smart meters, he has solar panels, he calls pg & e to ask about the smart meter they wanted to put into his home in relation to his solar panels. found out from pg & e that the new smart meter, unlike the old meter, will not run backwards in order to measure electricity going back into the grid. dd marine -- and this guy told him he'd have to pay $500 to get a smart meet that are would run backwards. now, most smart meters do run backwards, if pg & e's alterior

mote sve to so that people are discouraged from putting solar panels on their roofs because there's no reverse metering, that is a huge deal and it affects all the things in the state and i would encourage all of us to agendaize this and have staff look into that and see if that is indeed the case so that the next meeting we can take a stand on it. and it would be good to get the san francisco utilities commission to support 790. thanks. >> thank you. chairperson campos: is there any other member of the public who would like to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. i guess we need to go back to the action item which is the resolution on the state legislation. >> that's correct. chairperson campos: so, colleagues, we have a resolution, can i get a motion, a motion to accept, to approve, by commissioner mirkarimi. can we take that without

objection? thank you. resolution passes. and, madam clerk, you can call item number four? >> item number four, report on the issuance of the request for proposal for a study on refuse collection, hauling and disposal in the greater bay area. chairperson campos: now we're going to hear from our expective director on this item. -- executive director on this item. >> yes, through the chair, nanny miller here, checktive officer. on february 28, the commission approved an r.s.p. to be issued for a study to compare the processes upon which -- under which the city and county of san francisco selects a refuse provider. and to compare that with other greater bay area jurisdictions. the r.f.p. was issued on march 1 and it was due on march 14. we received three responses from bidders.

we texted three references on each one of the bidders and we conducted interviews on march 21 and the lowest bidder and the highest scorer is r-3 consulting group. i have prepared a contract, it is before you. the scope of services was outlined in the r.f.p. and just briefly i want to just talk about the jurisdictions that will be reviewed. they're in the staff report and it includes the jurisdictions under the county waste management authority which includes alameda county, fremont, berkeley, emeryville, albany, dublin, castro valley sanitary district in oakland, city of oakland. it will look at marin county which includes all the cities within marin county, santa clara county which it also provides services for a number of cities within the county, including los altos, san jose,

mountain view, santa clara, gilroy and palo alto. they will look at jurisdictions that use barging techniques and the only jurisdiction in california is l.a. county, so we're going to have them look at a couple of other jurisdictions out of the state as well. and that is part of our r.f.p. which just to take a very brief summary and look at the possibilities of barging for refuse hauling for the city and county of san francisco. the bid by the consultant was -- $27,500 and i think i'll just stop there unless you have any questions for me. chairperson campos: thank you. colleagues, you may recall that at the last lafco meeting we approved to go moving forward with the issuance of this r.f.p. and gave the executive

officer the authority to begin the contract negotiations and finalize the contract subject to ratification by this commission. and we have been working very closely with ms. miller, my office and i, and have been involved in putting together of the r.f.p. as well as reviewing the results and i am confident that this is the right approach and we also wanted to make sure that lafco staff received input from the department of the environment, which was also able to provide feedback and our hope is that we can have an expedited review and that the vendor can come back to us in a short period of time to provide their results so that we can in turn provide that information to the board of supervisors as they make their deliberations.

>> i would just add that the department of environment was very helpful, very professional in assisting us in the development of the r.f.p. and also sat with us during the interview panel and we will be working with them as we conduct this study. the study will be due on march 14, or parred me, april 14. we will have a draft and we will be bringing that back to you. representatives from all three consulting groups are here if you had any questions for them. rick hutchenson, their principle, and melody lassiter, are here as well. chairperson campos: colleagues. any questions? vice chairperson mirkarimi: what do you think that the net effect of the study actually helps us with? is it answering the question about interest in the long-term condition placed on our competitive or not competitive bidding process or is it on stipulating conditions on those exact contract before us now?

>> i think that two things answer to that. we are looking at a comparison. we're not prejudging any kind of policy issue or anything like. that we're simply looking at a comparison of how this election process occurs in other jurisdictions as compared to others. and then there will be a section on barging and then there will be a history of how san francisco developed its process and out of that there will be some recommendations, i believe, from the consultant, we're requesting that, as to are there areas that you might want to consider as policymakers for further analysis or for discussion on a particular condition with the current contract or maybe looking at a longer term issue. i want to be hesitant about the longer term because i know it deals with charter issues and things like that. and we're not looking deeply into the legality or any of those kinds of issues with the

charter provision other than reviewing it, what it does and what its history has been in the development of your process for selection of a provider. and services that you've received. i hope that answers your question. vice chairperson mirkarimi: yeah, just in part. the timing of this, though, if the study is out by the 14th, when would we come back to review it? >> well, we have our lafco hearing, i believe, is set for april 25. if we don't have an sfpc joint hearing, the idea would be that i wanted that available for public review a sufficient time prior to our hearing. but it's available publicly at that time so we can set our hearing depending on what hearing we want to have any time after that date. i was thinking in our next regularly scheduled meeting. vice chairperson mirkarimi: so it sounds like there has to be

some kind of negotiation between us, lafco and the budget committee. two months from the time that this was postponed puts us up into early to mid april. from budget committee. and i know that budget committee would love to entertain this before we get into the significant depth of our budget process which are hits the ground in april -- may. i think we want to avoid that process. >> so the chair and committee members are aware, i started to have a discussion with superviser chu's office about doing a joint meeting with us and then on this very subject, we probably do it during one of the regular budget committee time slots that they already have, since we know their members are available and we know you are on that committee. so we're looking at doing a joint meeting so we can have a discussion about this item and move that process forward in a time-sensitive way. vice chairperson mirkarimi: would it be a special meeting? >> it would be a special meeting for us. it would be one of their regularly scheduled meetings.

it would be done jointly. vice chairperson mirkarimi: but it sounds like it would have to be pre or post the meeting. but pre or post? >> depends on what the budget committee schedule looks like as far as being able to schedule it. vice chairperson mirkarimi: that's the trick i'm trying to emphasize here. that you don't want to front load so many meetings that put the budget into may. you want to avoid that as much as possible. >> we're talking with the budget committee about some time in april that it would happen. i just don't know which april meeting it would be before the report is done. and perhaps as maybe of the budget committee you could help us determine which one that would be. >> we're very mindful of the timing issue which is why we tried to move expeditiously and we will continue to work with the budget committee to make sure that it happens as soon as possible and in way that is actually helpful to their deliberations.

>> and it may be, i don't want to put the consultant on too much paranoia here, but we may actually that have that report done a few days earlier, so we may -- what we can do is offline, we can work with scheduling the hearing. chairperson campos: colleagues, unless you have any questions, why don't we open it up to public comment. any member of the public who would like to speak on this item? you have an opportunity to come forward. seeing none, public comment is closed. this is not an action item, it's simply an informational item or do we need to ratify the contract so -- with we have a motion to ratify the contract? motion by commissioner pimentel. we take that wex. madam clerk, can you please call item number six. >> item number six,

consideration and approve of s.f. lafco budget for fiscal year 2011-2012. >> before you have a budget that is presented that gives us our statutory amount that we're allowed to ask the city and county for. as a reminder, according to state statute, the amount that we requested last year, they have to give us again or the amount that they gave us last year has to be given to us again this year unless we state otherwise. it is staff's recommendation that we move forward with requesting the same amount again so we have that availability in the future, but given the city and county's current budget situation, and our reserve accounts that we have available to us, we actually can go another year without accepting the actual money itself, but this reserves the amount available so future years we have that available to

us. chairperson campos: commissioner pimentel. commissioner pimentel: ok. so say lafco wanted the reserves money. what would be the time frame for them giving it back? have we ever crossed a situation where they could say that we used the money for something else and then not be able to give it back to lafco? >> every budget cycle, the way the city and county works, every budget psych that will they allocate, they're going through the cycle right now just starting it. they will go through that budget cycle and then starting the fiscal year which is july 1, the same fiscal year as us, so they would go through the process, they have to according to state statute, allocate the money to us. what will happen and what has happened in the past, i think it's three or maybe four years now, with the city and county being in the budget situation, we have told them, thank you, on july 1 we basically say, thank you for the money. we're not going to need the actual dollars this year, we

reserve the right for that money but in the future we want to come back and we will potentially reserve that right in the future. so technically july 1 they hand us the money and we give it right back to them and they understand that will be coming so they budget it accordingly. commissioner pimentel: but once we give it up, we give it up. we don't get it back. for that year. ok. chairperson campos: as i understand the process, this is the first of two hearings which has to be approved by may 1 >> sn >> yes. the first budget, the draft budget which you approve today has to be done by may 1. the final budget has to be done by june 15. we're getting ahead of the game but wanted to help doo that because it also helps with the city and county's budget if they know that they can count on us giving the money back, that helps them out. chairperson campos: and right now this is a hearing, there's no action to be taken today. >> you need to approve a draft budget which you can do today because there's action on the item. chairperson campos: ok.

colleagues, any other questions for staff? why don't we open it up to public comment is there any member of the public who would like to speak on item number six? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, any questions or if we can have a motion to approve the draft budget. motion by commissioner pim entell. seconded by commissioner mirkarimi. can you please call item number seven? >> item number seven. presentation of awards for the clean power s. -- cleanpowersf photo contest. >> this year, as you know, have mentioned in the past, we did a photo contest to try and help promote the clean power essence program. we worked -- it was le led by lafco staff but p.u.c. did give assistance and a hand where needed. we ended up getting 28 entries into the contest.

we narrowed that down to five and then the general public had a choice in who they wanted to see the winner. just as they will have a chance in who their electrical provider is. so today we were able to get our grand prize winner, it's a student, but today is an inservice day so she has the day off and was able to join us. we'd like to call emily up to join us -- us. she was the person in the picture and the submitter of the photo and then her brother was the person who took the photo. he also submitted one but his wasn't put into the finals. so on behalf of our -- of the lafco program we wanted to present her -- chairperson campos: could we see the picture? >> do i have the picture available. give me one second. chairperson campos: it's very

excite . -- exciting. >> this is the photo. it is in golden gate park. it is the water pumping station that's in golden gate park. it's a wind mill structure. it's a beautiful photo. we had some great photoses. we have been talking with some folks about potentially trying to get art in the stormfront program and maybe getting some clean power photos put into those places that will promote the program as well. on behalf of cleanpowersf we want to present a very -- we had a great prize pack. the biggest part, i think, is the $100 gift certificate to prints which donated this to us for the top vote, you can print up any photos you want and they have great photo services. so present that to you. as well as two tickets to the san francisco zoo, two tickets

to the explorer toum and two tickets to the museum of modern art. and then jodi, which are these little things where you can put your camera and they bend in various ways so you can get odd shots taken with them. also donated this. but all the finalists get one of these as well. we had a great prize pack available to all of our folks. so i wanted to get that and our intern will get a photo. if you want to come up, we can get a photo with our grand prize winner and the photographer of the picture.

>> and one other quick things. one of the things was to help bring awareness also to our facebook presence. we've had about a 10% jump in number of fans that liked our facebook page. during the course of this contest. so i think from that perspective it was also very successful. one final thing, we found one of our new interns in the photo contest as well. she submitted photos and was so excited. she's been doing great work for us as well. i want to thank everyone who participated. we also gave everyone that entered, the s.f. environment gave us great tote bags. everyone got one of those.

want to thank everyone for that. chairperson campos: thank you. commissioner pimentel: you can put the winning photo on the website? on the facebook page? >> the winning photo has not been put up on the cleanpowersf website itself. li talk to the p.u.c. about making sure that happens. but it is up on the facebook page, it's been posted there for some time. chairperson campos: i think we should publicize it. it's amazing to see the level of talent at such a young age. you can only imagine what's going to happen just a very short period of time. so congratulations to the winner and to all the participants. and thank you, staff, for the good work on this matter. thank you, mr. freed. colleagues, why don't we open it up to public comment is there any member of the public who would like to speak on this? seeing none, public comment is closed. why don't we motion to file this item. vice chairperson mirkarimi: yes. chairperson campos: file.

without objection, madam clerk, -- clerk, you can call out item eight. >> item eight, executive office report. >> i have no report for this meeting. chairperson campos: thank you. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. madam clerk, you can call item had nine? >> item nine, public comment for items not on the agenda. chairperson campos: is there any member of the public who would like to speak on any item that's not on the agenda but within the jurisdiction of lafco? seeing none, public comment is closed. you can call item number 10 >> item number 10, future agenda items. chairperson campos: colleagues, any future agenda items? any member of the public who would like to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. madam clerk, next item. >> item number 1 1, adjournment. chairperson campos: we are adjourned. thank you all for your time and enjoy your weekend.

>> i work with the department of environment and we are recycling oil. thank you. we can go into a refinery and we can use it again. they do oil changes and sell it anyway, so now they know when a ticket to a. hal>> to you have something you want to get rid of? >> why throw it away when you

can reuse it? >> it can be filtered out and used for other products. >> [speaking spanish] >> it is going to be a good thing for us to take used motor oil from customers. we have a 75-gallon tank that we used and we have someone take it from here to recycle. >> so far, we have 35 people. we have collected 78 gallons, if not more. these are other locations that you can go. it is absolutely free. you just need to have the location open. you are set to go.