i know there was a letter circulated about the meeting. this goes to support the extension. i did not appreciate some of the language. they might be forced to request that lafco take independent actions. if we did not approve the contract, i want to reiterate that we really view lafco as our partners and we have worked hard to get to a place of mutual trust and respect, i believe. i would hope that we would really try as much as possible to operate in tandem and conjunction with them, so i thought that the tone of that letter was threatening and it was a little strange and i know that that was a publicly circulated letter.

i just wanted to speak to that. i don't know if there are questions for mr. campbell on the extension of the contract. i saw that there was an amendment that was submitted but my understanding is that without reissuing the entire new unrest p -- an entire new rfp, maybe we could ask the attorney to speak to that. >> i know the staff has proposed an amendment that does not change that scope of work. the general manager and the staff have the authority within the contract that was competitively bid to issue orders pursuant to the original

rfp. i just saw the materials that were passed out in the scope of work that was drafted by the consultants and my only point before the meeting is that that is a little the regular to have the consulted propose an amendment to the scope of work, that would usually go through the contract process, the purchasers office and that is not our usual protocol which follows the administrative code and the competitive bidding process to have a scope of work at it as an amendment written by the consultant. >> why don't we put a motion on the table and then we will take public comment? is there a motion to approve item number 12? >> so moved. >> is there a second? >> second.

>> why don't we take public comment before we take a vote? >> good afternoon. we represent the green party and the local grassroots organization. i would like to clarify what the advocates are asking for. what we're asking for is not a change of any of the current terms of the contract. that is not what this is about. the scope of work document that you have looked at which is about 19 pages, that is a product of ourselves, the advocates for local power, and the staff of the puc working together to come up with the tasks under the current contract that would be played out under this contract

extension. this does not change any terms at all, all it does it specify that the puc staff is planning for this contract to do under the current contract. this is just a description of the work tasks. maybe there are some things with the legal thing, if that is a problem, we would just call this a set of tasks words. at any rate, to get to the substance of what was brought up in the previous item, so what this two page is from advocates asking you to attach that scope of work to your resolution, not as an amendment but just as indicating the expected work that local power will do under its current contract and we have

advocates. the stuff of talking about, we have come up over many months, worked diligently with the staff to come up with all of these work tasks. we have gone to a bit of an impasse in that we want them in the scope of work that you have all seen. the puc said they would prefer a different approach and not only between ourselves as the groups that showed up today but in consultation with a lot of stakeholders, environmental justice groups, labor groups, community justice, jobs justice, have received what the pcr result proposed saying that those are not adequate to get all of those things that i was talking about in the last item and how this would affect the overall program. it is crucial you not only approve this contract but had

this set of amendment to your resolution and attach the work we want done so it is clear that you are saying to staff that those are the tasks we want to see so that when we too powerful program, this actually has good economics, etc. >> of course, if we had agreed, we would not have this conversation and the staff would oppose this because the point is that we don't believe that this is the appropriate work. this is not something we would want to pay for. >> mr. brooks is giving a scope of work and he just to find it as the language which is not in scope of work but rather an indication of what would be done anyway. >> i don't want to get hung up

on the terminology. we believe that we can amend the contract. we can work with whoever to figure out what those tasks are. mr. brooks would like you to accept the list that has been prepared that we have objected to. we do not believe these of the tasks that are appropriate. we would like it to be included so that you can force the staff to agree with them rather than the regular negotiation process. >> we should not because -- i would be happy to go over this. this continue refers back to the 2007 ordinances which talk about a 360 megawatt program. we offered you a 30 megawatt

program and one was to reduce debt and some because of the risk involved. trying to implement a program that we are not trying to implement is a strange thing to try to get someone to do. we're looking at a rollout and having someone to work for the 60 megawatt program which would make no sense to me. that is the general concept. >> can i ask for clarification? the 30 megawatt was for the shell portion. that peace is on a local builder out portion, right? >> let's talk about the financing. what we want to do is to financial assistance. the way that you build something is that you have investors or customers. what they would like us to do is to build something with need their.

the only investors would be the puc. if we don't have any program, we have no customers. thinking that there is a program that you could build out local generations without a source of funding does not really work. i think that some of the stakeholders have understood which took us several years to explain that they're not free. if you issue bonds, someone must pay them back. if you're going to issue bonds, you have to of customers to pay them back or have some revenue stream to pay them back. that is not a clear concept that is in this scope. this scope says that you should be building. that is not something that works for me. there is a lot problems to try to go out and see how you might

do a pro forma so that you could build something, be happy to work on that. if you would do solar, how you would afford to pay for it, all the regulations that you deal with, that would be a great scope of work. you have to go out and change the permits or two different things to be able to do these build ounce, happy to work on that. if you want to pick out the sites and figure out where you will build something and you have no financing plan to build it and to avoid the discussion, that is not make any sense which is why now we have had any. >> they have not said there was an interest in doing that.

>> i would like to talk about the general manager to work more closely with the stakeholders and see if we can come to some sort of agreement on a scope of work that feels like value added to this program because this would build the pieces. there's a lot of value to be added from this group and we need to figure out the best way to come to terms with what would work. >> that is why i think the general manager's position is reasonable. >> i have been at the table for a lot of meetings with the puc

and they did put forward their version of the plan which is to do it at an early meeting. it was not going to produce the sort of comprehensive information we need to veto a local builder out plan. if you can't do that and look at this work and see which one you think would actually get you a comprehensive information you would need, the kind of scope of work they have been offering is the issue that has been at the project here and there without a full understanding of the analysis of what is needed and different financing offices -- options. i must say that i did not like the misrepresentation that advocates use of the bonds. i don't know if that was directed at me or someone else but i wondered who was it. are really think that is in his characterization of what we're

doing and what our understanding of these issues is. i wanted to say the commission that the language in the e-mail, the town of it or whatever, i did not draft it and i would not have chosen that tone or whenever. what we were trying to do is express that we feel that we need to get this information to deal with the questions and concerns that were raised about the other aspects of the program and to not lead us forward into the real strategy. if we had had that information earlier, i feel like the questions are coming now that came up for us in february. we are just getting stalled without having staff really get this information and maybe they don't think they need it. looking at the sticker shock of what that is costing, i look at

the sticker shock of those rates as making the program very hard to be accessible. what we were trying to do is try to inform that if we're not able to get the puc to get this information and to form the program, then we will be looking for a place where we can get the information for you we would rather that the commission to reps -- rather the commission directed staff to do this. we would like to get this

information so that we can move forward. >> thank you. >> i would like to follow-up on that and say that as a further correction perhaps at our meeting, we could have a report back on what has happened with this conversation and if this is not work, it will be really specific to local builder out. it sounds like there is information they need in order to put together a comprehensive plan and whether it should be information -- it seems to me that mike is the director of the program and is the navigator of the ship. if we can get some of that information and depends on what the resolution will be in the

next meeting, as part of the terms of discussion, that would be quite helpful. >> in terms of giving staffed direction, we are at a point that is considerably down the road. i think that has been significant progress. i am interested in getting the information we need to deliver our program. we're the people who will be responsible for it working or not. whatever scope of work is given to whatever contractor is part of our effort to get the interest in need to deliver our program and not part of an effort to create some the else's program. i think that is part of the direction. >> thank you.

question afternoon. to grab an analogy used earlier to look at the situation with you blind men are in a room with the elephant and they are unable to see it for what it is, one man will grab the trunk, say it is a snake. perhaps, another will grab a leg.

the jobs are absolutely critical. sometimes, you get caught in to analogies and they can be twisted and for those that have offended, i apologize. >> thank you. >> thank you. are there felt further public comments on item 12? >> i would like to bring up -- for a moment

>> can you talk about a local builder out? >> this is to do generation and the efficiency contact. earlier, there is a discussion of jobs. this is an essential portion to the program. >> we had an issue related to studding something and this

seems to me like you can put that on the blocks but sometimes that is not always that easy. with respect to the job opportunities in the southeast sector, what does that look like? >> this can range. this can range from electrician jobs and solar panels and from labor, this entails a variety of different aspects that people have and that people will be able to build a towards. >> thank you. >> i want to reiterate my support for any bill that because i feel that that is one of the great promises. this is because of the jobs component and transport and energy long distances, we're not contract in. that will get us through this

first phase. i encourage the staff to work with stakeholders and work with the staff to come up with a viable financial plan to make it happen. >> and generate as many jobs as possible. any other questions or comments on item number 12? is there a motion to adopt? >> there was a motion. >> thank you, the item carries. >> the next item is a closed session. is it any item on the closed session?

>> 15, a threat to public services. 16, conference with real property negotiator. 70, conference with legal counsel. >> is there a motion to move to closed session? >> so moved. >> closed >> there was action taken on item 16.

and no other items. is there a motion to not disclose any further items? second? all in favor? opposed? any new business? hearing none, the meeting is adjourned. >> you can see that it is amazing. you can hear that it is refreshing. you reach for it because it is irresistible. and the taste. simply delicious.

san francisco tap water. it engages the senses. 311 is an important resource for all san franciscans. should ♪ >> hello, and welcome to the department of elections right choice voting instructional video. it is part of the department of elections right choice voting outreach campaign and is designed to educate san francisco rig franciscoht choice voting. today we will learn what it is and who is elected using this voting method. we will also talk about with the ranked joyce l. looks like and how to market correctly. finally, we will see how the ranked joyce voting process works and to you an example of an election using ranked choice of voting. so, what is ranked joyce voting?

in march 2002 san francisco voters adopted a charter to implement ranked choice of voting, also known as instant runoff voting. san francisco voters will use it to elect most local officials by selecting a first choice candidate in the first column on the ballot and deborah second and third choice candidates in the second and third columns resect to do -- respectively. this makes it possible to elect local officials with the majority of votes. more than 50% without the need for a second runoff election. in san francisco, ranked choice of voting is for the election of members of the board of supervisors, the mayor, sharon, just -- district attorney, city attorney, treasurer, this is a recorder, and public defender. ranked joyce voting does not apply to elections for local school and community college

board members. number the election of state or federal officials. ranked choice of voting does not affect the adoption ballot measures. when voters received their ballot, either at a polling place or an absentee ballot in the mail, it will consist of multiple cards. voters will receive cards with contests for federal and state offices, as well as for state propositions and local ballot measures. for ranked choice voting contest, voters will receive a separate ranked choice ballot card. it will have instructions to rank three choices, which is new. the ranked choice ballot is designed in the side by side column format that lists the names of all candidates in each of the three columns. when marking the ranked choice ballot, voters elect their first choice in the first column by completing the aero pointing to

their choice. for their second choice, voters selected different wind by completing the arab pointing to their choice in the second column. for their third choice, voters elect a different candidate by completing the arrow pointing to their choice. voters wishing to vote for qualified write-in candidate can write it in on the line provided. and they must complete the arrow pointing to their choice. keep in mind, it voters should select a different candidate for each of the three columns of the ranked choice ballot card. if the voters elect the same candidate in more than one column, his or her vote for that candidate will count only once. also, a voter's second choice will be counted only if his or her first choice candidate has been eliminated. and a voter's third choice will be counted only if both his or her first and second choice candidates have been eliminated.

we have talked about how to mark the ranked choice ballot. now let's look at how ranked choice of voting works. initially, every first choice vote is a candidate. any candidate that receives a majority, more than 50% of the first choice to vote, is determined to be the winner. if no candidate receives more than 50% of the first choice votes, a process of eliminating candidates and transferring votes begins. first, the candidate who received the fewest numbers of first choice votes is eliminated from the race. second, voters who selected the eliminated candidate as their first choice will have their vote to transfer to their second choice. there, all the votes are recounted. fourth, if any candidate receives more than 50% of the votes, he/she is declared the winner. if no candidate receives more than 50% of the vote, the

process of eliminating candidates and transferring votes is repeated until one candidate has a winning majority. now let's look at an example of an election using ranked choice of voting. in this example, we have three candidates. candidate a, b, and c. after all the first choice votes are counted, none of the three candidates has received more than 50%, or a majority of the first choice vote cast. candidate a g-205% ofb the votes% received 40%. and c received 35% of the boats. because no candidate received a majority, the candidate who received the fewest number of first choice votes, a candidate a, is eliminated from the race. voters to pick a candidate a as their first choice candidate ll