>> in this staffing plan, we see this increase in other programs. at bull capacity -- maybe this does not project fully adult -- at full capacity, are -- maybe this does not play fully adult. -- fully adult i would imagine this going to go up again if we go further out. >> if we have a better idea of what the commission decides for the project and the digesters is a big driving force and it is a whole conversation about when do

we want to do it and do we want to work on it and that drives the staffing plan. if you put a project on hold, i would rather know that before so i can move projects to fill in. >> i agree completely. this will have your projects at larger dollar amounts than recent, so that will change some of the staffing pattern. a big chunk of that will go into the southeast facility. >> the other thing i would point out is there was a lot of work we were not experts in performing. we have very good knowledge and some of the older people were involved. we plan to do a higher

percentage of work on that. >> we are looking at 10 years. would you say the $200 projecting staff will will stay at 200 for the next 10 years? >> 200 positions? i would have to look at the curve. really assess the workload. what i'm trying to do is have a balance. local 21 would like to mediate -- would like for me to hire as many people as possible and the consultants would like to invest in small liquid businesses. the other big thing is space. we're squeezing in the 525 and

other factors are involved. >> you have been trading out old positions that are probably not used anymore. as i look at that, the one exception is there is about six positions that appear to be genuine new positions. they don't show up because you are transferring some folks out. it does appear to be new positions. my question is, given the low workload is decreasing and there are people we value and want to continue as it transitions, are there not opportunities or why are there not opportunities to do that kind of substitution and transfer instead of hiring new

positions? >> good question. if we did not transfer 13 positions to another part of the organization, i would do that. i would substitute these positions, but it made sense that those people who have worked on it and have the knowledge and classifications already have, it paid better sense to move those over and the type of positions i'm asking for when you look at it is more administrative. we are requiring everyone to put information and construction management information system. we're having engineers spend a lot of time putting information into systems and so we want to supply them with adequate resources so that they can be more efficient and effective

performing their core duties. >> that makes absolute sense. when i saw those transfer positions coming in, i discounted them. my own arithmetic -- i did not count those because they are not really new hires. the other side of the coin is as they disappear, they shouldn't be coming to me. if there is the opportunity to recognize there is a shift in the workload and a decrease in one and increase in the other, if we could do that through substitution, it seems like it would be more appropriate. >> it's a challenge because on one hand, engineers, you can move into construction management and they have -- part of their scope is to do construction management. if you have a civil engineer and

the mechanical engineer, you cannot shift them. if you need an environmental manager, you cannot detect construct an inspector. -- you cannot get a construction inspector. we don't look at doing staffing plan by organization. we do by functional groups. >> you make a good point on that. what i would ask you to do is before you come back on the 14th, take a look at what would take to do that through substitution where you get rid of some vacant positions and use those to fund those. >> by be transferring the number of vacancies to reduce -- >> you would look really good. >> not a problem. >> any questions from

commissioners? >> i have one on the budget as a whole. we had a couple of resolutions from the citizens' advisory. one was supporting the action we took on power rates and that was appreciated. they also raised a question about the money we provide to city apartments for their services for work orders and it suggests a couple of things. one is we try not to let those increase in to the next budget and we establish a nexus between what we pay and what we get. one thing that would help in approaching that -- i'm not sure what the appropriate budget resolution would be but if we

could have a listing of what those work orders are and what they are projected to be in the next few years and a sentence that talks about what is at work, that would be very helpful. >> any other comments? >> yes. are we provided a one pager as to how much this budget is proposed to be cut? how many positions are not going to be hired so we have a macro view of the budget as opposed to individual departments? >> you have not been provided with that. at the next meeting, we can do that. you will find some much there are that many cuts. >> i think that is important, but it is also important, the

various bureaus and departments, what does it look like at the macro view so someone can say this is what is occurring and this is where the burden has increased on current employees. thank you. >> i was going to mention the work order summary. we will now see it again in two weeks. some minor points on infrastructure. i did not know we named it the hetch hetchy program said that it is more consistent and because the department of the environment has a home improvement program --

[inaudible] on the staffing plan, i appreciate the updated slide and to it gets closer. i still have not fully reconciled the projected staffing level with the overall budget at the chart on page 3 which suggests 382 positions. if there is a way to throw up to all positions, whether they are direct or support so it all adds up.

i would note in the last several years we consolidated and they used to be separate and all got merged. all kinds of new things -- i do think they should have some flexibility to move things around. if there are positions that are not going to be filled and just sitting there as budget numbers, those positions ought to be axed.

there is a tension there but staff can work through that. finally on local 21 and contracting out as opposed to in house, where there is specialized peak workload, i support using other resources to make that happened to the extent there is an ongoing need -- to make that happen to the extent is an ongoing need and can be done in house. that's better to do for management and cost perspective. at a minimum, it doesn't matter with the contractor is, they are going to charge a much higher hourly rate plus their overhead. those are all management and tension issues that can be resolved. >> thank you very much. >> good afternoon,

commissioners. i have a question about 525 golden gate. in addition to the annual lease payment, there -- i did not see any positions associated with that. are there any positions associated with the clause and who is overseeing the function? >> it might be better to come back with a written report. there's a mix we're planning on using an outside contractor for cents is the first smart building we have and use it as a trading opportunity for our stationary engineers to use. we plan on using the sure if forced security for the work order and there are different ways we're doing at where we are not necessarily adding a lot of staff by taking carry of it and

we can give you the details of that. -- taking care of it. >> any other comments? mr. president, i turn the meeting over to you. >> the next item is to have a motion to continue the budget consideration until our next regularly scheduled meeting. >> >> the motion passes. item 23 is other new business. do we have any other new business? thank you very much. this meeting stands adjourned.

>> 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