framework for assessing financial institutions. i look forward to developments moving forward. thank you for having us. and for doing this great work. supervisor kim: thank you. prentixx i am in district 11. i recently opened a credit union account and i was asked where i had heard of the credit union. i explained supervisor avalos had attended an acce demonstration and encouraged everyone to open a credit union account. the advisers said several new clients had mentioned supervisor avalos. i wanted to thank supervisor avalos for the suggestion and tell you it is working. since participating i have heard many stories about foreclosures with homes sold by the bank a day after promising to work

with the borrower on a modification. i have heard no stories from banks about how they have adjusted the mortgage and worked with the borrower. we need to work on correcting this imbalance. based on a sensitivity toward presidents who have suffered financial loss i feel it is more important to evaluate banks on the merits of their performance instead of their promises. i support reviewing many financial institutions based on their record, especially noting predatory lending practices and other abuses before permitting them to function as a bank for the city. there should be a code of ethics -- ethics that institution must adhere to once they're selected. thank you. supervisor campos: thank you. -- supervisor kim: thank you. >> and want to speak in support of the idea of a municipal bank. it builds on a long tradition of benevolent societies and mutual aid societies where working

people in ethnic communities pooled their resources to help each other out in a tough time whether unemployment, the birth of a baby, funeral costs and to think about bringing the resources of the city to bear in that kind of project. i had a question listening to the testimony. it seems the treasure was saying we would ask these questions about factors of social responsibility. it would not be required if they answer them or if they did them, they would be extra credit -- there would be extra credit. i suggest it is part of what is required in this process as it moves forward. thank you. supervisor kim: thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am with the green party and the local grassroots organization and our city. standing in strong support of a municipal bank and localized

socially responsible banking. especially in municipal bank. we need to remember that during the big financial crisis, canada weather that storm much better than other countries. that is the power of the government bank. i want to talk about a specific thing, an example of how this could help us. right now under the redevelopment agency's, we're working toward a transition toward our handling of redevelopment processes. we use this weird wasteful mechanism called tax increment finances which means you are borrowing from your children's future from taking tax money that would have gone to the general fund and giving it to developers to encourage them basically to puff up their real estate development project better than they should be and more market rates than they should be and puff of that financing.

if you have never seen the movie the corporation and you have learned about the idea of externalizing, that is an example of externalizing the costs of the corporation does not have to pay for if we had a municipal bank that was doing direct financing, we could avoid some of that tax increment financing and even if we felt we had to do some of the tax increment financing of the municipal bank would get some financial benefit from that instead of big private wall street banks. i would also second what others said about this idea of giving extra credit for answering the questions in a positive way. it sounds like good faith efforts. we need to aim toward requirements on these things so that we know we're getting a bank that will do what is right for our community. thank you. supervisor kim: are there other members of the public who have not spoken on these items would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is

closed. supervisor? -- supervisor avalos? supervisor avalos: thank you for all who commented. i agree. i think that it will be wonderful if we could make the requirement to provide information, we could make in the rfp to require information if it is just an extra credit, i do not believe we will get the bank for the buck that we can get and i would agree with the last speaker. i was thinking the same thing. it sounds like good faith efforts and that is not quite have been able to achieve the goal of -- they saw to achieve. i would like to encourage the treasurer to consider that. it has been almost 10 years since we had our last rfp for our transactions for our city.

i think it makes a lot of sense that we could use our other power of our purse strings to be able to leverage greater compliance, at least to get the answers on these questions. i believe that -- we have crafted these questions in a way that financial institutions should be able to pull off this money in a fairly easy way. it is not like we're asking things that will be esoteric or difficult to find. and so to be able to comply with that, if the banks want to do business with the city and county of san francisco, it makes sense they pony up this information. also, we have heard from several folks today, a small fraction of many people who are affected by the foreclosure crisis which does exist in certain neighborhoods. specifically in the southeast sector and the southern sector. wells fargo is one of the banks

that have been responsible for that. i think we should be able to craft an rfp that can address their need to provide information about how -- what they are doing to support local residents or not. how -- with the record is in terms of helping households deal with the foreclosure crisis. i would like to encourage the treasurer to do that. i really support his efforts in some many ways that he has looked at our economic system and how we can help local households to be stronger with their financial stake and -- in their future. looking at good investment practices, but i think there is one area that he can make it big difference as well. i would love to encourage the treasure to follow up with that and we can talk further as we continue before the end of the week.

supervisor kim: thank you. supervisor kim? -- supervisor chu:. supervisor kim? supervisor kim: it was an issue i was interested in and it is great to find -- getting hearing on the research that has been done thus far from our budget and our treasurer's office and many members of our community. i want to appreciate everyone who came out to speak. the support for this is much wider and broader. we have state laws that we need to do with that prevent us from starting our own banking as many folks had hoped we would. i want to concur with the supervisor and members of the public. i was hoping we could figure out a way to make these questions mandated as part of the rfp process. i am sure many of the banks that

go through the process will want us to fill out this questionnaire in hopes of enhancing their ability to gain business with the city of san francisco. i do think it is important we learn about the activity of our banks. thank you. supervisor avalos: i do want to thank the community partners and my staff who are working on this project. seiu, the california of the investment institution, and many others. thank you for your work, some of you were here today. i want to thank erica and my office. she will soon be leaving for a bit. i want to thank her and others on my staff. i would like to moshin this

move -- motion this move forward without recommendation. i could reissue a new hearing request. my motion would be to file item #3 and to approve item number four with recommendation. supervisor chu: we have a motion to file item #3 and to send forward item number four with recommendation and that motion has been seconded. i want to thank the treasure for all his work and for staying through the hearing enter the public comment on this item. it is an important issue and it is a big question for us how we handle it. i do want to emphasize for my point of view, it is important for the city to make sure we are investing with and we're working with a sound financial partners and people can make sure all transactions are safe, secure, accounted for.

that is what our taxpayers demand of us. that is what our residents demand. as you are looking forward with any new efforts or any options, i hope that will always be paramount in your mind. that is absolutely what we have to make sure we're watching out for. and so we have got that motion and we can do that without objection. [gavel] do we have any other items before us? we are adjourned. new

>> it afternoon, everyone. welcome to the -- good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the january 27, 2012 meeting at the san francisco local agency formation commission. my name is david campos, i am the chair of the committee. we want to thank the following members of sfgtv staff who are covering the meeting, tom and nona. >> item number one, call to order and roll-call. call at the role, commissioner avalos. present. commissioner campos. present. hope schmeltzer.

present. we do have a quorum. supervisor campos: thank you. call item number two. >> item two, election of the chair person and vice-chair% for 2012. supervisor campos: colleagues, i do not know if you want to take action on this today or wait until the next meeting. supervisor avalos: i was ready to take action, but if we feel like we need more members, that is critical. if not, i am willing to renominate supervisor campos says the chair of lafco. i think your works beats -- where it speaks for itself could you have done a great job steering as the past year, looking add cca as well as the waste contracts in san francisco. i think your leadership has shown in many ways, and i would like to nominate you. supervisor campos: thank you, supervisor.

commissioners? >> i would like to nominate supervisor of the los for the vice-chair -- supervisor avalos four vice-chair. supervisor avalos: thank you. supervisor campos: we have nominations for a chair and vice-chair. let me add to the vice-chair, i have worked with commissioner avalos in his capacity as a member of the board of supervisors, and i cannot think of anyone who better embodies the leadership qualities that you want to see in an elected official. so i would be proud to support that nomination. why don't we turned to ms. miller to advise us as to the best way to proceed. >> nancy miller, you can proceed on the item concurrently. it can be by affirmation. supervisor campos: we have

nominations for a chair and vice-chair. before action is taken, let's open it up to public comment. >> good afternoon. i represent the san francisco green party and the local grassroots organization in the city. i know you'll probably get through the agenda pretty quickly today, but i cannot let this moment pass without saying how important it has been for myself and other advocates that commissioner campos has exercised the incredible leadership on this issue. between him and ed harrington at the at that -- at the sfpuc, we have made incredible advances because of that leadership. i would just say that i would very much second the idea of having supervisor of a los -- supervisor of a lusby the vice- chair, because i have worked

with them on various grassroots issues for very long time, and i think that he would be a very good advocate. there things coming up that i will suggest later that will be helpful on a digital inclusion that we should start taking up here, too. i think the commissioner would be excellent for that, as well. i wholeheartedly support both your motions. supervisor campos: thank you. is there any other member of the public who would like to speak on item number two? seeing none, public comment is closed. we have nominations. madam clerk, take roll call, i guess. >> on the motion to appoint chair person campos and vice chair% avalos. avalos. aye. campos. aye. pimentel.

aye. supervisor campos: i want to stake my colleagues for their nomination and for their confidence. i think it has been a very exciting year for the local agency formation commission. the year has maybe been more exciting in 2012, and i look forward to continuing the work with the members of this commission, and i know that we will be gaining another member on the commission soon. my understanding is that supervisor olague is interested in serving on the lafco, and i look forward to welcoming her when that appointment is finalized. the last thing that i will say is to simply think the public utilities commission and the advocate community for all the work that has been done on this important issue. it really has been a team effort, and i think that the fact that we have made it this far is only because of that collaborative approach, and that will continue.

ultimately, that will ensure the success of community choice aggregation and any other endeavor that lafco undertakes. with that, madam clerk, please call item number 3. >> item 3, approval of lafco minutes from october 11, 2011 special. -- special joint meeting. supervisor campos: colleagues, we have the minutes. i do not know if there is any changes. before we take action, is there any member of the public who would like to speak on this minute? seeing none, public comment is closed. we have a motion by supervisor avalos. a second by commissioner pimentel. madam clerk, please call item number four. >> item four, lafco calendar for 2012. supervisor campos: this is the proposed lafco calendar from the 2012 year. let's hear from mr. jason fried. >> what you have in front of you

is a calendar for meetings to help us make sure we're able to get the schedule far enough in advance. we take the traditional fourth friday from the previous year and continue to that, with some exceptions in may. we went to the third friday because the fourth friday, and that leads into memorial day weekend. i wanted to make sure we have a quorum. in august, we take a break. in november and december, we can find those two meetings for the holidays. it will be at the beginning of december. that is the schedule that is proposed of the board wishes to accept it or not. supervisor campos: colleagues, we had a schedule that is proposed. i do not know if any of you have any comments to the schedule or any proposed changes on the schedule. of course, you know, whatever

action is taken here is taken with the understanding that there could be amendments to that calendar as things come up. and as we also get in the additional feedback from the community. >> absolutely. at any point in time, we can always call a special meeting. that occurred last year. we wanted to do a joint meeting with the puc. they have some issues meeting on friday, so we may need to address with special meetings at that point. supervisor campos: thank you. i will open it up to public comment. any member who would like to speak on item four? lafco calendar for 2012. seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, we have the proposed calendar for us. this is an action item. motion to approve by supervisor avalos. second by commissioner pimentel. we can take that without objection.

i want to note that we have a special guest this afternoon here at lafco. we have little lawrence, who is an honorary member of the local agency formation commission. so we want to thank the honorary commissioner for being here. item number 5. >> 5, community choice aggregation activities report. status update on cleanpowersf program. and then the status update on proceedings at the california public utilities commission. supervisor campos: mr. michael campbell, good afternoon. >> thank you. i am the director of cleanpowersf, often referred to as community choice aggregation to work in the sfpuc as part of power enterprise. i will be brief. taking the theme of this meeting here today. as you all know, we're very

excited that the board of supervisors is set to take up the big parts of the contract approval. we hope to make cca a reality with the contract with shell for the power supply. and a contract appropriation for funds as necessary for collateral and to manage unforeseen events, starting off at launch. i know that is being set to be heard, most likely in february. we are excited to have that move forward. where that leads us is needing to have all the pieces in place so that one week -- when we do get the approval launched, we have got what we need. one of those is having a service agreement with pg any extended. we already have one in place with pg&e. we are set to head that included

before the end of february. we also need to is a bullet -- submit updated information plant. we have one that is already certified. we need an updated one that has been certified with the firm that we have been negotiating with in 2010 as our supplier. obviously, that is not correct. pretty pro forma. i expect that to get approved pretty quickly once we submit that. we're also doing the final word on finalizing the contract with noble americas, some back office services, that we require. the term sheet has been made public. the deal points have already been arranged, and it is the hard work of putting that into a contract language. the other item that i have is a big one, which is the cpuc update, where things stand. we're waiting to hear on what

will be the method for calculating the bond amount for any cca, legislation that allows cca stipulates that all cca's must post a bond designed to cover the anticipated costs of, should a cca terminate abruptly, with the ink from a da costa that might be to the utility. cpuc has been charged with determining the method for calculating that. in the last year, we have gone through the regulatory process for that, but the cpuc has not yet issued a proposed decision or comment. at the very least, we know we are a bit least a month, maybe more, from a final determination on that a that is critically important because of our mission. sfpuc has made it clear that

they're not willing to launch until they know the specifics of what that bond and that it would result in for calculation. so we are anxiously awaiting that. that is it for my report. happy to answer questions. i know that ms. miller had comments to add. supervisor campos: thank you. ms. miller, if you want to add anything? >> i just wanted to add, your interim executive officer, that in my memo to you, there is a date that is erroneous, which is that the matter would be going to the budget committee on february 1. that is no longer the case. we're meeting with the advocates next week to try to sort out some issues with them. so the meeting for the budget committee will not be on february 1. it will be postponed until a later date. i also wanted to bring up this issue of the bond amount that mr. campbell just talked to. i think it has been under submission with the hearing officer for at least four

months. so i think it might be a good idea to contact our center and a couple of our representatives, maybe having them sent a letter to the cpuc requesting action, maybe from the chair of lafco, to make sure it does not get lost in the many, many critical issues they're dealing with over there, because it is critical to us. we need to know that answer soon. supervisor campos: is there something specific we need to do? >> if the commission can just direct as to prepare the letters, the requests to go to our representatives, and the chair to authorized to sign the letter, that would be all we need. supervisor campos: colleagues, would there be any objection? i think that makes sense, and we should do that as quickly as we can. >> ok. supervisor campos: i have something that is not specific to committee choice aggregation,

but something with respect to the california public utilities commission to there was an interesting editorial today in the "san francisco examiner" that talked about a piece of legislation that was introduced by senator yee that is trying to address the issue of the revolving door of the employees between the california public utilities commission and the utilities that the commission actually regulates. what the bill does is it changes the current law that basically has a one-year prohibition against current cpuc staff or commissioners going coming in a, from the puc and then turning around and going to work for the very utilities that they were regulating at the puc. the current prohibition is one year. senator yee wisely has proposed that we increase that by two years.

the interesting thing here is that the examiner editorial has actually advocated for a longer time span. it is actually calling for a five-year time span that people have to wait before they go from being a commissioner on the puc to then turning around and working for the utilities that were regulated by the puc. i do not know if there has to be a future agenda item for us to take a position on it that, but i personally believe that, given the work that we have had the puc, weighing in on the importance of stopping this revolving door would be important for lafco to do. my preference would be to advocate for that five years that the examiner is asking for. i do not know what the process for that would be, but i think that it is important for us as

lafco, one of the objectives of lafco is to promote good government, best practices, and i think that stopping that revolving door is basic good government. ms. miller, do you have any thoughts on that? >> jason fried, lafco staff bit of that is a very good idea. the end of february is one of the legislative bills have to be introduced at the assembly or in the senate. one thing i was planning on was actually coming to you with all the bills that might have an impact on sunday that lafco is looking at the that would definitely be one of them. we can take a support or oppose position on each of those bills as needed in the february meeting. lafco can take those positions. supervisor campos: i think it would be helpful for us if we can track that and bring it to the next meeting, because that is something that impacts not just cca, but everything