i got involved. i would not have had a chance to do what i'm doing now, working for a solar company, because of my history and some of the decisions i made. programs like asian neighborhood design -- in an alumni from that. the young people, we have messed up and some of us goes through that program with that hope i am thinking that we can still change our lives and be on the right track. go solar sf gave me the opportunity to get back on my feet. i feel like you should keep in mind -- cutting the program, you may be cutting some of our second chances and getting back into work and really doing something with our lives. thank you. [applause] supervisor chu: next speaker,

please. >> hello. i am 22 years old, born and raised in san francisco. i attended asian neighborhood design and i'm currently not workinworking with luminal thano go solar sf. we would like to keep a full funding for people like me. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. >> good afternoon. some of the people that have spoken today have installed on my house. i was the first to get solar in the neighborhood through puc. i was coined the name the ambassador of solar. i would like for you to write down three things.

one is commitment. committed to funds. go back 40 years, prior to the puc to the department of public works. the expansion of the sewage plant in my community. i would like to say to you that from that expansion of the sewage plant in the 1970's, we got a southeast community college. that is a responsibility that the city owed to bayview hunters point. i'm not like to talk about any other community. as most of you may know, presently, bay view hunters point has changed quite a bit. we have a lot of asians that do not speak english. we have a lot of latinos that do not speak english. what we need in bayview hunters point is truly education and

training for jobs for the people in the southeast sector. i really pray and hope that you take this under consideration. there was a task force set up two years ago because we are going to be having 5 coming into the community that will help create jobs. they just opened up job opportunities for the southeast facilities. we need education. i hope you take that under consideration. thank you very much. supervisor chu: thank you. next speaker. if there are any other speakers that wish to speak, please line up. otherwise, this will be the second to last speaker. >> thank you for the opportunity to speak. i'm steve hunter, the director for project open hand. we provide nutritional services for critically ill folks in san

francisco and east bay. we currently have a 30 megawatt system on our roof. by virtue of the legislation we are talking about today, go solar sf, it was a very successful program for san francisco. it seems to be a program that works. i saw new faces on our roof installing the system this time. i really think that when a government program does work -- because there are a lot -- that lot -- it should be funded. that's what i wanted to say today. supervisor chu: chu. -- supervisor chu: thank you. >> there are challenging decisions. i think general manager harrington -- i think we have

somebody we can work with to make sure we do everything that we can do. i'm here to advocate that we increase funding for this program and i hope we can work together to do that. after supervisor mirkarimi added a low-income incentive fees, an amazing little peace to add to this, as well as a work force component. as a result, we have seen the jobs created among economically disadvantaged communities. the job numbers have created a little confusion and questions that need to be resolved going forward. it allowed miss jackson to become ambassador jackson when she went solar on may 21, 2009. i remember it like it was go solar. -- we have 24 to 25 football fields worth of panels to superchu's question of how many panels, -- supervisor chu's question of how many panels. 85% of which happened when we

started this program. it's also a jobs program. in an industry that we now see the chance of becoming a unionized work force. at this moment we are starting this question of being a unionized work force which can't be under estimated. it's clearly not a 72 jobs that have been created. that's the work force hires. that does include nonwork force installers, nonwork forceed a -- force admin personnel. 400 to 500 needs tore clarified. i think no one would dispute when we look at a 40% cut to this program which would cut a lot of these benefits, clean energy and jobs. there's a lot of things we want to do as a city. i personally want to see us restores funding and find a way. and the city to pay the real rate for electricity. supervisor chu: thank you.

supervisor kim: do you have an understanding of what potential layoffs might be or reductions to this program or loss of jobs? >> supervisor kim, i think this is something that a lot of us wanted to put today, what this 40% cut would mean to layoffs in addition to stopping companies relocating here to be at the center of the solar policymaking. we don't have that number, supervisor. as this goes around the jobs piece, what a 40% cut does to jobs, it would be really pertinent. supervisor kim: thank you. i think it's also important to note as people are talking about the 40% cut going from a $5 million budget to a $3 million budget, in ackuality what we're seeing is -- actuality is a $2.4 million pot of money next year in fact the

usage has been $3.8 million. i think that's something need to keep in mind as we think about what that impact might look like. so thank you for your comment. >> there will be some spent in the next few weeks. supervisor chu: next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is jeremiah dean. bay chapter of the sierra club. i want to thank all the wonderful people who came out to our rally in support of solar, in support of funding this program. all of the different solar companies, environmentalists, community members, i just want to thank everyone. i really think this program is beneficial in so many ways, and we want to see the full funding restored. the number that's getting kicked around -- and i'd like to echo and respond to supervisor wiener's question,

the first two years they actually ran out of money for the program. it just so happens this year there's abbs and flows in the economy and we -- ebbs and flows in the economy and hopefully we'll see it next year with a $6.3 million budget that that will run out of funding. i'm very hopeful for this program. i brought along with me over 400 postcards that sierra club members and members, supporters of sierra club have signed to the mayor and in support of go solar and i'd like to take a second to read a couple i picked out. don't let the p.c. cut 40%. solar technology works even in the fog. let's continue this program, lead by example. i really like this one, september, 2010, i received rebates from california state and go solar s.f. many of my friends are now interested in going solar. do not stop them by reducing funding for go solar s.f.

thank you. supervisor chu: thank you very much. are there any other members of the public who wish to comment on the enterprise department budget? my time's up. for rent board, airport, environment, p.u.c.? seeing none, public comment is closed. ok. we got a number of items before us, colleagues. i know we have actually two sets of recommendations that have been before us, both the department of environment as well as the public utilities. i'm wondering if we can take action on the department of environment recommendations. from my understanding, the budget analyst recommendations are something that the department of environment is in agreement with. can we do that without objection? supervisor kim. supervisor kim: i missed a

question i written down for the department of environment. sorry. i missed it in my notes. my question is just around the retrofit california for buildings that consume high energy such as multi-family buildings which i think is a great program. i was wondering how the outreach happens to make sure it's equityible in terms of being distributed around the city. >> so we have a couple different programs going on right now. we have the home performance retrofit program and we also have a green home program. the green home assessment program, we actually worked with five different community organizations, still working with them, to hire folks to go out and do the green home assessments in communities throughout san francisco. so many of them are community organizations that already have reach in different neighborhoods like the bayview western addition. community organizations. one of them is -- actually, let

me get the list. do you have the list? i can get the list for you. there's five different -- rebuild together is one of them. apri is another one. i'll have to get the other three. supervisor kim: also. out of curiosity, do we look at s.r.o. buildings as well? >> we have looked at them. we have basically what we've done is given a couple different grants to organizations that work in s.r.o.'s to hire folks that live in the s.r.o.'s to do work. mostly on recycling. we haven't done as much on energy efficiency but that's something we can definitely build out. supervisor kim: yeah, i'd love to talk to you about that in the future. >> great. supervisor kim: thank you. supervisor chu: thank you very much. so we do have the recommendations before us. i'm wondering if there's any other discussions before we take that mokes on the department of environment. no.

i'm wondering if we can take the budget analysts' recommendations for the department of environment. we'll do that, without objection. and now there are some questions that is still outstanding and then of course the recommendation to dispense with. why don't we go to questions first. supervisor mirkairmi. supervisor mirkarimi: mr. harington, if we can circle back with you. >> supervisor. supervisor mirkarimi: the whole go solar program, i may have been out during the public safety committee for the few moments you started on this, but if we could back to the math of the dollars that roll over unspent into next year, this year to next year, go over with me quickly what the budget looks like that is unspent in moneys that would roll over for the next year, year and a half, however. >> certainly, supervisor. the budget has been $5 million a year for three years so it's

been $15 million altogether. we've spent -- actually, we've request -- had request for $13.3 million, and then there's about $300,000 administrative costs over the three years. and that's on one of your slides. we've actually paid out $11 million so there's $2.3 million that's been requested. those jobs are still ongoing that haven't been paid yet and that leaves about $1.4 million when we did the slide in the last couple of days, it's dropped to $1.3 million. in discussion with supervisor wiener we talked if it dropped between now and the end of june, why don't you call it $1.2 million. that would mean is it would roll over, you add $3 million to. you would have $2.4 available this year. if you spend all the money that's been requested, which doesn't always happen. usually it falls off. you would be spending about $3.8 million this year. it would be increasing the amount you would have available

to spend the $4.2 million for next year. so as supervisor chu said, the discussion of layoffs or other things is ironic. we would end up with more money next year than spent this year. supervisor mirkarimi: a two-year budget cycle, this satisfies the budget discussion for 2011-2012. what happens in 2012-2013? we project that it just terminates by then if all moneys are used? >> no. the projection for energy efficiency for the city, right now that would drop to $2 million. solar would drop to $2 million and any municipal projects would go to $2 million. again, we're looking at over the 10 years and we're running out of money. you also missed at the current projections, it stops functioning in about three years because we will run out of money. these programs would slow over

time. supervisor mirkarimi: so the ask here is, just so that we're clear, the proponents want to continue to see it. and i am one of those people, but i'm trying to understand the economics. is it a difference of us allocating, what is it, $7 -- $.7 million, $700,000. >> if you think this is the only program in the p.u. crumplet you should continue -- p.u.c. you should continue funding at full rates, yes. you would be cutting every other program in the p.u.c., including taking care of our power plants, including our transmission, include anything for work on city facilities, and this would be the one program you would leave whole while every other program in the city is being cut, yes. that would be what it would take. supervisor mirkarimi: can you make that statement any more powerful than that?

[laughter] supervisor mirkarimi: ok. it gives me something to think about. can we switch topics a little bit on the city college? >> sure. supervisor mirkarimi: i think rightfully the president of the community college board of trustees is making a good case. he's basing it on other agreements we have with other institutions. we have been charityible with other institutions in the past. i'd like to know how we can help them despite the fact that the p.u.c. is also struggling to figure out their budget quandaries too. so while we're all together, why don't we figure out what's possible here? >> sure, supervisor. i completely value what city college does. i'm appalled of the cuts at the state level. the school district is relatively speaking better off and they will not let me say that but basically they went to the voters a few years back and went -- ended up with access to

the city's rainy day reserve and also a work-aside to the arts, music in schools, the slams program. they are getting more of the benefits because the voters voted on that and said to do that. love to see if city college wants to kind of bring forward that kind of thing but i realize even if they did that that's a longer term discussion. the problem that we have, we have several different interactions with the community college district. one of the larger ones that mr. rizzo, or president rizzo, brought up was the southeast community. ms. jackson referred it was put there for the waste water treatment plant. there is real concern in the community that really be a job training educational place. and so one of the programs that particularly mrs ellis has been spearheading, we've had a number of meetings with the vice chancellor of the community college district, the plan -- and we're still talking

to the community to see if that's what they want -- but the plan is for us to take a much larger role to have a robust selection of classes there for the community college district to also bring sheriff hennessey's programs into that program. to have a contractor assistance center there so that contractors local in the city, especially small ones that are trying to get into business with the city, can come there and we can help them learn to grow and act as contractors and then turn around and say, here's some job training programs we can take care of. we have three acres of greenhouses. those acres of greenhouses right next to that facility are not really producing the kind of local jobs we want and so we talked to the mayor's office to really bring in additional kind of work with the community college district and those greenhouses to create jobs and training at opportunities there. so on that part we are reducing the amount of money we've been charging city college because we're spreading the cost to other people and we're picking up a bigger chance of that and we're really reinvigorating

that center. that's one of the partnerships we have. there's also a small amount of money that we charged city college for parking and rent on their book school. the p.u.c. art commission adopted the change to swap properties so we wouldn't be charging them any more. i believe the mayor's office has finally brought that forward as part of the change that relates to muni and everybody else. if they charge we won't charge for anything else because we swap properties. so that really leaves us with the power -- the power purchases. the numbers that you will see if you look at the $2 million number often used by the community college district versus the $885,000 or so that we use, the difference is gas. we buy gas for city departments through the state general services agency and we simply pass that through to the community college. or any other -- any other --

independent school district, police stations. that's not power that we're generating so we don't really view that as a city subsidy or not. we just happen to be the billing agent. we could in another month and a half get out of that arrangement. it wouldn't cost any more or less. so to think that the city charges them is an odd view to the world. it's a state charge that we happen to do the billing for. in fact, i think it would be easier for us to say, you pay the bill. it isn't our issue. that gets you down to the $885,000. and frankly i think the real issue there is even though i love the community college district i'm not sure that i could make the case that our rec park department or muni or somebody else should be paying a higher rate than the community college district. i also think that it would be great if this is the worst year. i have very little faith that this is the worst year. i think if this happens it's probably continues to happen, and right now we're saying that

if we don't actually raise the rates we're charging because we're heavily subsidizing the general fund and the schools, we're going to kill the golden goose and none of these programs will exist in five years. supervisor mirkarimi: so with the question on the gas, from the aggregate amount that city college would pay into for their utilities, separate out then for me what that relief looks like. >> i don't have their numbers. supervisor mirkarimi: ok. >> i don't have the schedule. i believe it's about $2 million. supervisor mirkarimi: right. >> p.u.c. charges for electricity and gas or about $1.4 million. supervisor mirkarimi: right. >> that would mean the remaining amount of $5 million -- i mean, $500,000 or $600,000 would be gas. if you take that down it would be down to $1.4 million.

that $2 million also includes not paying for elections that you typically charge the school district and community college to pay for elections. they would ask the general fund to pay for elections. but we are the biggest single number on the page. supervisor mirkarimi: do you envision a rate increase then for government -- >> yes. supervisor mirkarimi: agencies? when is the rate increase going into effect? >> you know, we are trying to figure out a way to do something where we can work on it together. we haven't come to that. that's why you haven't seen a rate increase, but we are saying that by 2014 we will have to severely curtail all the programs of the p.u.c. unless we can get a rate increase. right now we are subsidizing the general fund for about $25 million a year. if you you really are conservation-minded, we should be charging the people the full cost of power which would

encourage them to reduce their power needs. it would encourage energy efficiency and encourage conservation. if anything we should be charging the cost to deliver the power and then trying to give that money back in energy efficiency programs for departments. so that -- i'm saying this really is the cost of this, let's charge you that and let's give you grants to change your behavior and change how you do business. right now having a subsidy is a really nontransparent way of transferring $20 million to the general fund without any real power or conservation or sustainability benefit. supervisor mirkarimi: no. i think you tap on an excellent point. but i'm not sure. has there been an assessment of the efficiency of our institutions like city college, for example, that teaches us how much are they doing in order to meet the question of conservation efficiency? >> we have done a variety of audits. there's being audits at city college, is that what i'm hearing? [inaudible]

>> we've done hundreds of audits. i don't think there's any place in the city that's maxed out on energy efficiency. supervisor mirkarimi: sure, ok. i just want to speak to any inherent point that we don't want to subsidize that practice for bad habits. if they're doing their part, and this is a remainder of what their part should be in trying to increase conservation, how much remains of the cost to them and what's before us is, do we help, can we help alleviate that? you're right. any one institution is being wasteful and they haven't done their part -- >> i would not accuse city college of being wasteful. supervisor mirkarimi: i get it. i just want to bring us down to try to figure out where we are in this case. well, i think that's helpful. i think we'll go ahead and ponder our approach and what this discussion in just a little bit. i might come back to you. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you, supervisor. supervisor kim. supervisor kim: to keep on that line of conversation of

promoting energy efficiency, especially amongst our city departments, city college. i actually would be more interested in seeing us do work force development and energy efficiency in our buildings, particularly with our ratepayers but a it would help our ratepayers reduce their cost, it would help our general fund and p.u.c.'s budget as well. i get that solar may not be the most efficient use of our dollars in terms of creating jobs in green-collar work force. i'm wondering, since this upcoming year in essence the program will be somewhat whole. if we could work on developing programs that would actually route folks into energy efficiency and working with our ratepayers -- >> we'd love to do that. that's such a good use of money and that's a long-term training opportunity also. supervisor kim: great. thank you.

supervisor chu: thank you, supervisor kim. supervisor chiu. supervisor chiu: a couple questions to follow-up on involving city college. at the southeast campus you obviously have a lot of activities there related to your department's work. how did you come up with the $228,000 for that lease price? >> i have no idea. historically, the building was really almost taken over by city college. in fact, when we started working with different agencies, they thought city college owned the building and it was their building. i think historically the p.u.c. said, it's your building, you should pay for the upkeep on the building. it's been the last year saying, no, it's not. it's the p.u.c.'s building and we should be making a difference in the community and so we've been taking on a whole different view of what that rate and what the rent and who should pay for security and who should pay for all that. historic cost was really probably the cost of

maintenance on the building but i don't know because we're not trying to keep to that. supervisor chiu: ok. and then back to the issue of go solar. we were just handed a document from the office of economic and work force development, it was a status report april 5, 2011, and according to this document, oewd did state that the go solar program had led to 72 green-collar jobs. i'm not sure the other statistic as has been discussed is floating around. i know oewd is not here for this discussion which is unfortunate but i'd like them to respond as soon as they're able to on where that figure might have come from and if they could just again verify their position that this is their understanding of how many jobs were created. so that is a standing request. >> i think to clarify, i believe what they're saying and what we've been saying is that 72 low-income disadvantaged worker jobs, not total jobs. supervisor chiu: right. ok. thank you.

supervisor chu: thank you, supervisor chiu. supervisor kim. supervisor kim: i had one more question written down that i forgot to ask. so, there was 13 jobs that were created this fiscal year. and 72 crealted over the last three years -- created over the last three years but out of that only 23 is still employed. i wonder why this is such a huge dropoff and what happened to the roughly 50 jobs created or individuals that were trained. >> you may want to ask some of the installers here. in some cases they were doing some jobs in the housing authority project, for example, and they hired local people for that job. at the end of that job they laid them off. so it would be the kind of thing where -- in fairness, with a lot of crafts jobs, they are not 12 months a year. they tend to be seasonal. and people do come and go. it's also a training job. so i would bet you would have a number p