, -- like mission bay, mike hunters point. as a result, they have no continuing ability to capture that public financing tool there. that does not mean that the city as a whole will not continue in these areas. what will continue in some fashion in the city, the community revitalization work, the mayor's office of housing and economic development, those will all still continue. those will absolutely still continue. work force and job training, those will continue under the office of economic workforce development. skipping to what it means for you, hunters point shipyard phase one does not rely on any kind of tax increment. it was all private developer equity. we have entered into agreements there. i will wrap up. that work is ongoing. infrastructure work is just

about complete. we are moving on to park development. there will be a process of acceptance through the city, working with your staff. the balance of the shipyard development, we are relying on tax increments. $7 billion in incremental tax sources. the same can be said for mission bay. the same four components of trans bag, the different, as we're working with caltrans. we need to step through the process the state has laid out to make sure they agree with our interpretation. i will add that for those major legacy projects, the board also conferred upon this oversight board, which was required to create certain land use development permitting plan

design authorities for those major projects, mission bay, trans bay, hunters point. in terms of implementing cooperative agreements that we have in place with you, the terms and conditions on the oversight board will put on its land use hat. the oversight board also has a fiduciary at to the holders of those obligations, the bondholders and taxing entities. i am available for any questions you have. >> commissioners? i was wrong. >> i wanted to add treasure island. it is not a classic redevelopment project area. about last summer, i cannot

remember now, it was going on that be development path under the office of the treasure island development authority. because of this uncertainty last summer, they were determined to go into the past and use infrastructure financing districts, port of san francisco and recount held. it relies on tax increments. subject to the terms of the agreement you have in place. wanted to address that. >> thank you. >> so there are not projects that are not going to be moving forward that affect us? >> we have hunters point, mission bay. what else was mentioned? >> phase one will be harder to move forward. >> correct. the gap for infrastructure and development of affordable housing is quite large.

tax increments were going to fill that gap. in bill requires state legislation, and creativity, newmarket tax credits, to put together a program. but other than that, in terms of your jurisdiction and interest, things move forward as expected. unless it is a state, but the risk, as phase two, transkei, in the mission bay, gosh golly, we do not agree with those contracts. we do not think that that -- that is a narrow, a small risk. we are taking appropriate steps quickly, through the process described, working closely and directly with the governor's office to make sure that there are lots that with everything we are doing. >> thank you. >> thank you very much.

>> if you could call the consent calendar, please? public comment on the general managers' report? now, if you could call the consent calendar. >> item 8, consent calendar. all matters listed hereunder constitute a consent calendar, are considered to be routine by the sentences the public utilities commission, and will be acted upon by a single vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission or the public so requests, in which event the matter will be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item. item a, spauthorize the general manager of the san francisco public utilities commission to apply to the united states bureau of reclamation watersmart grant program for funding of up to $100,000 for the sf regional filter loading study, to be matched by sfpuc funding and in- kind contributions of $100,000. the total cost of the proposed study is $200,000 and it would

be conducted over a duration of fifteen months, to be completed in august of 2013. b, approve the selection of edelstein, gilbert, robson, and smith for legislative affairs funded agreement no. cs-231, state legislative representation and advocacy services, to provide state legislative representation and advocacy services to the san francisco public utilities commission and authorize the general manager of the sfpuc to negotiate and execute a professional services agreement with edelstein, gilbert, robson, and smith for an amount not-to-exceed $1,000,000 and with a duration of five years. c, approve amendment no. 1 to wastewater enterprise operations budget funded agreement no. cs- 989, biofuel technical assistance services, with biofuel recycling cooperative, to continue providing technical support to the sfpuc biofuel program established to collect and transfer waste cooking oil for conversion to biodiesel for use in the city fleet and authorize the general manager of the san francisco public utilities commission to execute this amendment increasing the agreement by $300,000, for a total not-to-exceed agreement amount of $600,000, and with a time extension of two years and four months for a total agreement duration of 5 years and eight months. d, approve the plans and specifications, and award wastewater enterprise, capital improvement program-funded contract no. ww-540, spot sewer repair contract, to repair existing sewer piping, on an as- needed basis, at locations to be determined throughout san francisco, for a total contract amount not to exceed $3,737,440 to the lowest, qualified, responsible, and responsive bidder, j. flores construction. >> thank you. commissioners, i have a

disclosure i need to make. i have a continuing business relationship with feldstein, gilbert, robison, and smith. they are retained by a client of mine. i have no direct relationship with them or financial interest in the firm. i have consulted with the city attorney that it does not constitute a conflict of interest, but it does constitute a disclosure requirement. i wanted everyone to be clear about that. that said, commissioners, are there any items that you would like separated from the consent calendar? >> item b. >> we will separate that. on the remainder, do i have a motion? >> so moved. >> any public comment? all of those in favor? >> aye. >> ok, the consent calendar

carries, with the exception of b. commissioner? >> what was the process by which this logging firm, as opposed to any other, was selected. >> ms. allison is here in she ran that process. >> i am the assistant general manager. i believe that the question was -- what was the process to select this firm for the contract. so, we did our traditional process, which is we issued a request for proposal on the scope of work that we were looking for in the new lobbying contract at the state level. we publicized it in sacramento through the newspaper circuits up there and threw the networks that we had there. we received three proposals. we had an outside panel that was completed with senior staff from

the airport. and then we had our director of budget and internal affairs. we had the deputy assistant internal general manager on the panel. they received training with regards to the contract in department and what we were looking for in a successful applicant. they did the interview proposals and scored and zero steam as the highest score in that process. -- battle steine -- delstein e -- edelstein as the highest score in the process. >> [inaudible] >> it was the same firm. yes? >> they may have been before that.

we have a process of not just letting it ride. we do go out, but i believe they have some representatives for possibly 15 years, but they tended to be five-year contracts. in some cases we have done three years with one-year extensions or just five years. >> the other two firms were? >> the california strategy, i think that there score is in comparison and should be in your packet as well. >> the third? >> i believe, and i will look to ivey, who was with us in contrast -- checking under 8. >> 8b. >> [inaudible] >> if there was lbe, i would be

fine. i believe that there was a requirement on this proposal. they may have not -- and may not have met the lbe requirements. i might say that it was 10%, but i would have to double check that. >> they were not considered responsive? >> if you do not meet the -- meet the hrc requirement. >> had didedelsteid edelstein mt requirement? >> they propose to work with the consultants for that. their proposals are to work with them at 3.5%. >> can you see any language on that? >> [unintelligible] >> i have a question on that

item as well. there are other utility checks that use in-house lobbying services. was there a decision -- how did the decision, about to contract out, rather than provide this as in-house? >> >> we had conversations within the leadership of the puc. historically, we have used lobbyists in sacramento and they have done that quite well. they have discreet, concrete work plans that they go off of. there was not a lot of interest in stepping up. you will remember that this past year, we hired a director of the budget of legislative affairs to town in how we are using our work locally. that was seen as a priority more

so than hiring an additional position. >> it has always been a five- year contract? fa>> the last ones were five years. did you know for how long? >> the last contract, and i have been here for the state and federal legislative lobbyist, it was two one year terms. >> at the same amount? >> yes. >> three year, plus two one- year's. >> yes. >> that sounds similar to what we do at the citywide contract in sacramento, right? >> one was the five-year, right? why the change? rather than a 311?

>> as we have talked about at both the state in the federal, we landed on five, assuming the time it takes to actually go through the process, we have more direction and oversight based on legislative affairs. it seemed to make sense to go through a five-year contract. we had conversations with the mayor's office as well, as we had worked closely with them around legislative work. they were also briefed and solve the scope of work and that we would go in for five years of the state and federal. >> if we wanted to change it to 311, would we have to bid again? if we wanted to make this change with an option for two

additional one years, is that a decision that we could just make? >> that decision would be in the scope of what you put out, as long as you were not making it for longer than five years. >> can i ask one follow up? say that he wanted to shift a little bit and add additional work, taking off the bid at that point? when you were renewing the option? >> that would be a substantial change. >> it would require an affirmative vote to exercise each of those one-year options. >> we are happy to do that, if that is where folks feel comfortable. if you want to do that in addition to the federal one, we just released the rfp last week. we could make those changes as

well. >> has it always been five years? >> that was also a three, plus a one and one. >> well, i think we are -- where those five-year pause came from -- five-years came from, there was making sure that no one firm had a lock on the business forever. we started out with longer-term as an recognized that there was a need to reopen the bidding from time to time. it was kind of from the other end as opposed to saying we want to go out for five years. the question is just -- i guess my question would be, what do we hope to achieve by doing that? we hope to create some degree

of paper churning in doing that. if that was for a purpose, i would be fine with that. >> a five-year contract would not necessarily work as hard as a three-year contract. maybe in the fifth year i would start producing more. also, the politics changed so radically in sacramento these days. i just want to make sure that we have -- and i know this, but i want to make sure that we have the best possible options. i do not think it is unreasonable for this contract to be consistent with a federal contract. waxman why not make it a federal contract, rather -- >> why not make it a three-year contract, then another? instead of may 3, 1, 1? >> we could do that, but that is

a lot more paper to continue. three, plus the possibility of one ioneand one, you just have o do those annual renewals, which i agree keeps people on their toes. to set a three-year contract, you have to go out into a process at the end. this gives you the option of doing that or not. >> i would move to amend this resolution for any term. i do not know what the language is other than a five-year term. >> second. >> on the amendment, and the discussion, commissioners? all of those in favor? a >> ye. -- >> aye. >> on the item as amended?

>> so moved. >> seconded. >> any additional comments? any public comments? seeing no one, all of those in favor? ay >> e. -- >> aye. that concludes the consent calendar. madam secretary, if you would call item 10? -- 9? >> item #9. discussion and possible action to authorize the general manager of the san francisco public utilities commission to seek board of supervisors approval and execute on behalf of the city and county of san francisco, a master license agreement with the san francisco unified school district. the mla provides for the installation and operation of a series of on- site photovoltaic systems at appropriate locations throughout the sfusd, in order to provide solar power to serve some or all sfusd load as part of a city and county of san francisco program intended to increase the city's page 5 sfpuc march 13, 2012 development of solar energy. this mla sets forth the terms and conditions under which sfusd will allow the sfpuc to use certain sfusd sites for the purpose of installing, operating, and maintaining solar power projects. >> thank you, commissioners. barbara hale, assistant general manager for power.

this will allow my staff and the staff of the unified school district to work together to identify good rooftops that the school district owns to install a solarpv o pv on and provide additional renewables generational resources here in san francisco. i am happy to answer any questions you may have. >> commissioners? >> i would like to move the item. >> thank you. >> i do have a question. i know that this does not authorize the building of any particular installation. in that eventuality, who winds up paying for the solar? >> the solar installation would be paid for by the puc. it would be owned and operated by gas. the generation from that system would be meters. the school district would pay for the productions, for the

generation they are using. they would pay, at the same rate -- it would pay, but did they say, at the same right? >> correct. >> it increases the amount of power that we have to sell on total. >> correct. >> it increases the average cost of that power. >> correct. very modestly. >> in it would be our hope to recover that by selling it to customers at the full market rate at the bank. >> yes. >> the reason that i mention this, commissioner, is that it is not unlike some of our water system acquisitions, where we are adding capacity and not adding demand, and it has the ear -- if that of adding the

average cost of the resource we are selling. the bottom line is how it works, that we have indicated we are one to pay premium in order to maintain certain environmental benefits. that this is the case in point and i wanted to make that point. >> correct. any system that would be invested in and installed, as we described, would be brought before you for a separate action in approval. >> thank you. >> does this help our standing in some way? >> yes, we will better serve you renewable energy credit from this. it will count towards our rps requirements. >> do you know what amount at this point? >> i do not. this master license agreement gives us the opportunity to

identify possible installations. >> break. -- great. it would be interesting to hear the range. i have the feeling that he will come back and say you have identified 120 schools that would be appropriate. if you could let us know the data that the commissioner was bringing up. >> probably not that many schools, off the bat. the school district is also concerned about doing maintenance work on the roof. and all of that does not happen right away. >> one quick question about -- if you do not mind -- would you be kind enough to develop a little bit on item k, prudent utility practice with references? >> can you give a page number, commissioner?

>> on the master license agreement. those methods and procedures as modified from time to time that are currently in common use by electric utilities to construct a electric power facilities for efficiently and economically. the question is, there is a reference to electric utilities. >> what we are referring to there is good utility practice. primarily under the electrical codes. there are standards to be met. buff faitwe are committing to tl district that we are applying those standards. >> this is on the global installation work? >> it is on the photovoltaic installation and electrical components.

the objective here is for safe operation of an installed system and ensuring the school district that allowing us to install a solar generation system on the rooftop is not going to compromise the safety and integrity of the building, from the electrical standards perspective. >> i understand that. >> the question would be -- does this in some way -- say that you use historical project -- practices? >> good utility practice evolves over time. we would be meeting the current standards and current accepted approaches. it should not hold us back from being an innovator, but we would

definitely need to stay within code requirements. phel>> does that apply to our employees and subcontractors? >> correct. >> i really do not want to belabor the point for a number of reasons, but my concern is that we are pointing to electric utilities -- to me we are pointing to electric utilities to give us some guidance about what is safe, prudent, and best practice. let's talk about pg&e. let's make a determination about how they rolled these things out into does that work. are we going to get into that conversation with the school district as well?

>> for us, when we talk about electric utilities, we're talking about the western electric system. not just out pg&e performs its work, but what the industry practice is an industry standards are. the references are there to apply to the state of california or the western electric coordinating council. we are casting a wide net in looking at the standard practices and innovations as they occur throughout the western united states. we are not constrained to look only at pg&e practices. >> i guess i am belaboring the point now. i guess that my concern is, because of what you stated earlier, this kind of tends to point backwards. item k, with respect to proving

utility practices, tends to point backwards to what the utility companies currently do, when in fact that public company is currently the innovator. i am curious as to whether this was a necessary component or something that the school district felt comfortable with. i do not know that it is necessary for that to be there. that it is material enough to delay moving this item forward. it does not seem to me to encourage the practice that the public utilities commission is engaging in. it in fact seems counterproductive to that. the you understand? >> commissioners, may i make a suggestion? this is in the definition area

and that might be useful to find out where it is used. we can take a look to see if in fact it is used, where it is used, and if that answers some of it. >> i appreciate that. >> let's do that and come back. >> then we will continue this item until the end of the agenda. i guess we are ready to move on to item 10. >> i do not know if you want to call public comment on the last one, but we have not finished it. items 10, lebron, and 12 are somewhat interrelated. somewhat interrelated. -- tan, a 11, and 12 or