if we had a policy public goods that would be a part of the discussion. >> i think sufficiency would be our obligations on more of a bricks and mortar. >> frankly as we were talking about it, i was trying to figure out where things like that would belong. they stands at odds with affordibility or there is a potential there. this puts the nonfutility functions on a very similar level of functions as the utility functions, which say fist we adopt a policy we ought to be serious about it and how we are go to fund it. and that is the assumption.

if we wanted the policy to be reflective in rates, than adopting one would get it into the significance part. >> when we are looking at a question like this through that lens we can't say it is insufficient. >> right. >> right. >> yeah. and frankly that is why i was focusing on what happens after this four years. if all we thought we would do is get four years of half cent increases i would have a problem with this program as well. it does not get us far enough. but i don't know how many years that i messed with budget stuff and we never had the city sign off on doing more than a single increase and then usually far below what we ask for. getting a four-year commitment to what can become an ongoing

program is a huge, huge step. now the other thing is that we can say that half cent is not enough. you can have is escalating. we can shove tel any way we want to. the sfingts things is that we have a understanding and acceptance if not support for the half cent. what would be the pleasure of the commission? this is an action item. we can take public comment first. if you would like. does that sound good to people? ok. ask for public comment. >> the public hearing, so, you know. so this really is very serious stuff, and i appreciate that

you are taking the time to work through it. it is not supplierly easy. there are simple concepts and more complicated stuff. i appreciate you walking through this. if we get somewhere with this it will be a major accomplishment for all of us who includes the president and general manager and todd, with all of their great wisdom, not yet to get to the promised land on this issue. fiam understanding it correctly, and i also want to see if i am getting this, those customers who are not paying at all now, city hall and hall of justice in particular, over four years that only gets them to two cents. even if we went with the half cent per year it would take 17 years to get to the current cost of service meaning that they would not pay the full freight until like 2030 when many of us will still be here. that is how long it takes to get those at the lowest rate up

to where other people are or could be. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> taking people from where they are today and adding a half cent to it. >> it seems like at a minimum someone could pencil out at least the next six years of a half cent per year to see what 10 years of bringing them to, and because it does not -- it is not a straight line calculation, not all of those customers are at answer and they are not all buying the same amount of power. at least doing 10 years of a half cent per year is worth penciling out to see what that generates for the capital project for solar and energy efficiency and all of the other things that are not yet being done. i certainly support at least doing this.

i am hezztoont raise the question about prop 218, but perhaps i should. under prop 218 are we at all obligated to bring customers to cost of service at all or by a certain time or are we not really bound by that as related to electric and the way it is for water and sewer. >> prop 218 is related to property related taxes or fees and are included power rates are not. >> ok. but at least it is still a good idea and we are prying to get there. as i say i am supportive of what it does as much as it does, it does not do all of the things we need to do. if the commission would like to express an intent of at least doing a half cent for the next 10 years, again, intent and not actual commitment.

that would help. giving staff direction to pencil it out would be good. i want to again agree with the commissioner that in-city energy efficiency is not important, if we are charging departments more than they ever paid and we are not at all compensating by saying that we are going to fix your bulbs and motion detectors and all of the other things we should be doing, it seems that it is -- it seems more punitive than it needs to be. whether that is with p.u.c. staff or department of the environment folks who may be cheaper to do the energy efficiency programs, we should find ways to fund energy efficiency, even if it is innocent this four-year period. i understand that. even if it is in years 5, 6 and after we should express that as in intent and not commitment.

hope that is helpful. thank you. >> just to be clear on that orkts energy efficiency the money left in there will allow us to do audits but not most of the work. there would be enough to at least do the audits. >> but there would not be incentivized to the extent that if they were paying more than they were currently paying. >> if they took the time to change out their light bulbs, they would save money. >> save on the bottom line. >> it sen couraging that type of behavior. >> all right. >> good afternoon one last time. i was go to say this when item 11 was supposed to come up. so, i stayed with this. i am eric brooks speaking on behalf of the san francisco green party and the local grass roots organization. first of all, it is very nice to come up to this podium and

agree with staff completely. that is not often the case. i think the fact that this is the first time in who knows how long that the rest of the city family actually said, ok, we will do this. that is a big deal. even though it is not enough money, the fact that we have gotten that far is a big deal and we need to go with that. with that said, however, i think that it is really key to focus on especially energy efficiency and municipal rooftops for solar and small wind, demand response and et cetera. you know, right now basically we have a boat that is filling up with water very quickly. we have been bailing with a ladle. what staff negotiated is giving us a bucket instead of a ladle. but we are still not plugging

the hole that. is what things like energy efficiency do. if we are letting the hole sit there by cutting the energy efficiency budget we are shooting off our nose to spite our face. i think what the commissioner said about bonds is absolutely crucial. when a few days ago the cca were talking with g.m. harrington about this and we knew that there was a half cent for four years proposal, the main question that we asked is will that give us the bond rating that the sfpc needs to do these projects and like installations on school buildings, city buildings, things like that so that we can actually create a program to go to all of these entities we are raising rates on that is a planned program. just like with item 12 where we say you need to have a plan.

this is the same situation. perhaps in this resolution or a follow-up, the commission can say to staff, all right. let's do an energy efficiency plan. one that draws on information that will come from the build-out work, but not just that work but let's look at all of these city buildings and state buildings and schools we are raising rates on. muni. find out where the opportunities are to get efficiency and renewables on there so that we can reduce the pain or do a higher increase. i would second in a different way why not charge city hall more than a half cent per year. the key message is let's use the bonding authority as fast as we can to build a plan

around it instead of just doing the increase and coming up with a plan later once we decide we can bond. direct staff to go for it and create a plan. >> i chair the c.a.c. power subcommittee. we voted on a resolution couple weeks ago to support this rate increase. to create a rate increase that met the cost of service. i know you have gone to various stakeholders in the city and there seems to be some agreement from various stakeholders. what i am concerned about now is that you need the political will. there is really not a political

part to back this. and what we are go to talk about tonight at the c.a.c. is that you need to go to the neighborhood groups. those that represent districts to their district supervisors and tell them it is an important feature. that it is supporting policies that the community generally supports. otherwise i see that it is a done deal. there is a lot of opportunity to cut it further down. please reach out and get this through. it is really paltry level. it sent sufficient. and there is community backing for this. thanks.

any additional public comment. >> is there a reason that we have to vote on this now? >> i think the rules do not allow you to abstain. >> i don't mean that. can we continue it in any way to get more information on doing some outreach in neighborhood groups or i don't know about city halls in the mix. ideas that came up. >> that was also requested by one of the supervisors we spoke to saying why now. we were hoping it to be adopted in january. if you don't have it will be different. so not knowing what it is until later in the year really changes the entire budget.

all the other departments and agencies we affect are doing their budgets in february and march. if we don't come to them until march, their response will be, great, but we can't do it this year. so if we don't do it early enough for their budget deliberations, the push-back will be "harper's harsher. those are the reasons for doing it now and not later. >> if i may. and i'm glad that we're talking about this now because i'm actually -- have some familiarity with negotiations with the city and the budgeting and i believe that supervisor campos earlier decided intentionally to touch on this issue to kind of give us a

signal that the elected officials understood our desire to move this thing forward. i also heard earlier today that we've built -- correct me, todd, if i'm wrong -- we've built in at least, you know, on paper, that the furlough days which have been negotiated citywide, we would be able to withstand negotiating back to pre-2009, i think it is. whether that's going to happen or not remains to be seen. am i right about that? so i think i'm certainly prepared to move forward along the lines of what david said, you know. sure, it could absolutely be more, faster, right but i think the sooner we get it done, the more quickly we're able to move forward just in terms of this

two-year budget, and i think it's -- i think, you know, we could fight. we could certainly fight for more, but i think mr. brooks raised a good point and i think it's important to recognize that staff has had an awful lot of success, the general manager, todd, and your staff, at persuading the other departments and the elected officials that this is something that we needed to do because of all the other things people want us to continue doing so i think, you know, there's a price. we may not have, you know, exactly, you know, what we really need but to not fight this year and to move forward and to try to address some of those things, i think it's a good course of conduct for us. i'm prepared to move there and have some confidence that, you

know, we'll get the support that we need. >> thank you. it does strike me that -- this is -- these are rates and we are still able to do anything that's cost effective to do. so that if we have programs that achieve conservation in city departments, if we have a place to sell that power once we conserve it and if that pencils out even during the four years we could do things that right now we haven't figured out how to finance but if it becomes financeable, we could do that. >> i would be very comfortable comfortable -- some of the best advice i think is not to let the perfect get in the way of the good and i think this is probably one of those circumstances. i do think it would be important for us to put in continuing rate increases into our financial planning documents so that the city family knows that this

doesn't get us where we need to go and we can expect this to continue and it's a gradual rate to reduce pain but that gradual rate will have to continue for some time and that's not a part of this motion, but i think just from a financial planning standpoint as far as informing people of our intent, i think that would be an appropriate thing to do. >> just on the timing, i would love for there to be stronger language at a minimum in this resolution. even if we committed to the actual numbers that said that we are really working towards cost of recovery, that we, you know, don't like that we have cut a lot of the service based programs that we provide. i wouldn't mind calling it conservation at a minimum but, you know, even if we just said that there are these programs that we've had to cut and then even some language around, you know, a plan to identify, if

possible, alternative sources of revenue or funding as part of the p.e.c.'s contribution to better inform in four years what the number should really look like. and i don't know if we can -- if we have the time to sort of do that or if we could draft -- just strengthen up this resolution. i would just feel more comfortable and maybe we're ready, but i feel like there's a lot of stuff that came up and it's such a significant step and maybe even acknowledging that there's -- that this half cent feels like it's palatable or however we want to put it in there. >> i think your expression of that is very clear and i'm wondering if it would be appropriate -- i was just looking at the resolution and it's -- it is a fairly comprehensive document. there's a whole lot of stuff in there and if we could leave it to staff to craft somewhere to capture that. >> or the other suggestion i might have because i was trying to figure out how much you can

put in a rate thing, we could do a transmittal letter that would come from the president of the commission or all of you or whatever to the board and that transmittal letter thank, and express concern, and that can be as detailed and collective as we would like it to be done over the next week or two. >> actually, that would probably have more impact. >> when it's in the 15th "whereas," i'm not sure it catches. >> no, i would feel more comfortable with that. >> is that something that the commissioner would like for there to be five signatures on? or just for expediency that i would sign? >> so the difference is, passing this resolution or sending a transmittal letter? >> no, no, pass this in any case. >> so you're talking about two documents. >> right. >> and a cover letter of love.

>> and one signature versus five, is that just how impressive you are as opposed to how impressive i am. >> precisely. the price of leadership rests in your hands. >> yeah, i would like to sign it. >> you'd like to sign it? >> yeah, i would. >> if you do, i'd like to sign it. >> we'll figure out how to do that without a having a sunshine act problem. >> ok. that sounds right to me. does that get us to a place where a motion is in order? i see mr. pillpull standing there. >> a bit of suggestion. if you take a transmittal letter and to the extent that you're infusing it with all the stuff we want to infuse it with, if you bring back a policy item to the commission next month, in four weeks or six weeks, to codify that as commission

policy, that would further strengthen your resolve going forward so i think doing both is a good idea, have a cover letter and then bring it back as a policy intention. that's my suggestion. >> thank you. >> i like it. commissioners, city attorney's office, maybe if we just add the direction to do the transmittal letter to the end of the resolution, that will take care of that, brown act, in directing the president of the commission to prepare a transmittal letter for the signature of the commission, then we will have done that in a public meeting. is that ok? >> move to amend. >> second. >> second. any discussion on the amendment? >> so, does that mean -- the resolution and the letter are going to come back before the commission at the next meeting? >> no. the resolution will direct staff to write a letter that we will all sign as transmittal of the resolution to the board. >> something else to do over the

holidays. >> i think i had a motion. >> i have a question. >> did i have a second? second, i'm sorry. and we didn't have any discussion. do we want discussion? we're ready for a vote. all those in favor? >> i'm sorry, i was writing. >> the last whereas to -- >> no, that's on -- that was on the addition of the final resolve. now we have to suspend rules for a technical but not important reason that doreen would be glad to tell us about if we wanted to but we need to suspend the rules and vote. >> actually, commissioners, in the notice for this, it's described there that there's a rule that references a noticing provision that's been superseded by other administrative co-provisions so we're asking you to suspend that rule and it

notes that newspaper and web notice was published according to the current procedures. >> so, we need a motion to suspend the rules. >> to suspend rule number 10. >> rule number 10. not all the rules. i have a motion, i'm sorry. >> second. >> and a second. any discussion? all those in favor. opposed? that carries. now we are clear to vote on the item as amended. do i have a motion? >> move it. >> second. >> and a second. any discussion? any public comment? all those in favor? opposed, none. the motion carries. thank you, folks. >> commissioners, the next item would be the close session item. if you could allow me to briefly

read through them and if the president could entertain a motion to invoke the attorney-client privilege. 24, consultation with agency chief security. 25, conference of legal council existing litigation of defendant. item 26, existing litigation of defendant. item 27, public employee performance evaluation, commission secretary, item 28, conference with legal counsel, existing litigation as defendant santa san mateo -- >> is there any public comment on matters to be discussed during closed session? >> david pillpo, wanted to take a brief opportunity with reference to item 27 to say what a wonderful job your committee secretary does. mike is an unheralded champion of all kinds of great things. i wanted to call that out, too. >> thank you very much. >> thank you for your time. >> any other public comment on

the closed session? if not, a motion would be in order whether to assert the attorney-client privilege. >> so moved to assert. >> moved to assert. and a second? >> second. >> and a second. any discussion? all those in favor, aye. opposed? that motion carries. we will now go into closed commissioner moran: we are back in open session. during closed sessions, the commission settled items 25, 26 and 28. it would now be appropriate for a motion as to whether to disclose the discussions during closed session. >> motion not to disclose. >> second. >> motion and seconded. all those in favor, aye.

it passes. which takes us to other new business. is there any other new business? >> none that i know of. >>. commissioner moran: is there any public comment? than we shall stand adjourned.

chairperson nolan: good afternoon and happy new year. welcome to the january 3 meeting of the board of directors of the san francisco municipal transportation agency. please call the roll. director bridges: [resemt/ -- present. director oka: present. >> announcement of prohibition of sound-producing devices at the beginning of the meeting. pagers and similar devices are prohibited. anyone responsible for one going off may be asked to leave the meetings. item four, the approval of minutes of december 6 regular meeting. chairperson nolan: all in favor? >> item 5, communications. there will be no discussion