please call i. no. 5. >> item no. 5, ordinance amending the administrative code to extend the sunset date of the public utilities revenue bond oversight committee to january 1, 2018. >> sponsor of that legislation is here, supervisor farrell. >> the revenue bond oversight committee was started by proposition p and i want to acknowledge former supervisor hall here. thank you for being here. monitoring and reports publicly about the public unumprovidents commission expenditure of revenue bond proceeds and there according with proposition p set to expire in 2013, january 1, so just a few months away unless extended by ordinance of the board. right now the puc is expected to complete its water system

improvement program in a number of years in september of 2016. so there are years to go on spending those bonds and it's going to initiate work on its wastewater system improvement program, which will continue beyond 2020 and will include billions of dollars of public expenditures. while i understand people have ideas about the flaws, current oversight is important talking about spending billions in san francisco. i would like to call on kevin chang the chair of the revenue bond oversight committee currently to talk about the committee itself and extending it for a few years. >> my name is kevin chang and in order to oversee all of the billions of dollars, $4.6 billion in order to implement systemwide improvements for water, wastewater and sewer lines for the -- power, sorry

for the city and county for all members of public to be able to examine how the money is being spent and whether it's being spent properly and more importantly this huge capital project will be on-time and onbudget. and this has been the primary focus of the program. as the implementation of these

projects, the first eight years was started around the design of the projects and now we're actually in the middle of all of the implementation in building of all the seats. this is the proper time to actually have the body extended in order to provide the public the assurance and the trust that they need that these funds are well-spent and well-placed thank you. >> colleagues, questions? >> i was wondering in the original proposition date was originally set for 2013? was that just a random date? >> i think the earlier estimates for what the projects will start and when they will end was designed around a ten-year timeframe. as can you imagine they go through a number of municipalities. largely some large projects were stalled due to environmental and community

input needs and also the participation number of government entities in order to ensure that the projects is well-designed reflective and sensitive to the communities that they trav erse. nower that designed barring any other stalls to the project they are anticipated to culminate september, 2016. >> thank you colleagues we'll open up for public comment. supervisor tony hall, thank you for being here today. >> thank you, chair kim and supervisor farrell and supervisor campos, good to see you guys in action doing the city's work. i am former supervisor tony hall and i was the writer and author of prop p that was passed in november of 2002, and

matt gonzalez co-sponsored that. now there was eminent need for the oversight committee because prop e eliminated thevores from weighing in, eliminated the need for voters to approve revenue bonds and we're not talking about hundreds of millions, but we're talking about billions. so the prop p, the revenue bond oversight committee was of eminent importance. that is why it passed overwhelmingly. what was its mission? how revenue bond were managed by the puc and city? how were they going to do this? obviously they had to employ

outside agency for outside audits and what happens is that the mayor at that time, mr. gavin newsom, along with the controller, mr. ed harrington who later became the general manager of the puc undermined the revenue bond oversight committee so they would have complete control over the monies and eliminating public oversight. the proof of the pudding the deck was stacked with staff members from the puc to contract with the city services auditing division of the controller's office. so what happened, the result was the fox was guarding the hen. >> supervisor, if i could ask you a question, so you are able to finish your comments. >> i appreciate it. >> i would like you to explain a little bit more what if you can go through your remarks in terms of what you were trying to say there? >> i don't want to take away

from the other people here and i certainly -- you know exactly what i'm saying. this was a political move to get complete control of those monies without any independent oversight. now i appreciate your effort to extend this committee, but let me be very clear here. this is not the committee i had in mind when i wrote the legislation and, nor is the committee that the board backed, nor is it the committee that the public voted on. this is a different committee. i'm not going to tell you how to vote, because that is your business and i appreciate the complexity of this matter. but please bear in mind that the allusion of oversight sometimes is worse than no oversight. and so to extend this committee which is not really the revenue bond oversight committee, you have an ideal opportunity and this snot a lecture, but you

have an ideal opportunity to get this train on the right track. if you live up to the oath of office that you took, representing the people's interest, now is the time to do it. get this thing back on track with true independent audits of how that money is being managed. i implore you to do that as a former supervisor and have i total trust will you take it that way, if you extend this committee. >> if i may ask, supervisor, do you think that it's possible to have this committee live up to the original intent as currently structured? or are there things that you think need to be changed to make that happen? >> i think that this committee and the board of supervisors has the integrity to take the right way. it could be strengthened so that the public is protected. right now you have the fox guarding the hen house and this has been going on for almost ten years. it's a joke and this is too

important. lisp i haven't been back here since i left the board of supervisors. but i said these people are reasonable and that is why i'm here. it's one of the most important issues that you could be dealing with because it eliminates the money that provides forruption. so really think about it. and again, i appreciate your concern on this. if you do decide to extend it, do it for the right reasons and i know you will. if you are going to terminate it, terminate it and form a committee that does something different. don't let it go on like it is, because it's an abop nation. thank you so much for your time.

>> good afternoon i feel i represent the 1.7 million suburban water customers that are paying the lion's share of the hetch hetchy rebuild. i think it would be prudent to contrary to what supervisor hall just said, i think it would be a good idea to extend the provisions for the following reasons. first of all, the $4.6 billion spent so far, 40% still has to be spent. at least one majority project is experiencing significant coast increases and that project is only 25%. and finally it's involved with the review of the hetch hetchy rebuild and won't be completed until april. if they were allowed to sunset, i think the board of supervisors' wisdom would be questions if there were questions tost city's stewardship of the bonds and

the manner in which they are managed. for these reasons the board should extend the sunset provision least for 2016, which is when the hetch hetchy rebuild is projected to be completed. as provided for in this ordinance. thank you very much. >> thank you. prior to 2002 all revenue bonds had to be approved by the voters. this changed with proposition e. the mayor's infrastructure task force put proposition e on the ballot to provide independent oversight of the vast expenditures then planned by the puc. this committee being the revenue bond oversight committee. this committee has never followed e. it has never hold an outreach

meeting, nor entered into a truly independent contract as mandated by enabling legislation. it's nothing more than a company union and a lap dog for those in the sf puc that need cover for their ineptitude. otherwise it's the fox that is being appointed to guard the hen house. this committee and its sf puc handlers have betrayed the voters. end this charade now. do not lift the sunset and an allusion of oversight is no oversight. tony hall had all right. go back to the drawing board and give us real oversight. don't rationalize that by keeping this cherawaed in place is just allowing the toxes toxes continued access to the

hen house. >> thank you. >> hi. >> i'm concerned about the impacts on the voters, the economy and the tenants. i actually went to that committee to see what was going on after hear something reports about problems there. i made a couple of visits and i did not like what i saw. i think i heard a lot of testimony this afternoon about things getting swept under the rug and you are hearing a little bit of that carpet being pulled up right now and we're seeing reports about some problems there. i think it's not the unusual expiring of sunset and committees. you are starting to see there are issues here and like tony and the other speakers, i think you are faced with a bit of a problem in that have you two choices. one choice is to do something dramatic, like say, no this is not the time we're going to

extend this committee. we're going to slow it down. and maybe reconstitute it and take a look at what we're doing and the other possibility is that because the function may be mandated by law, and we really do want to have that oversight work well, you might have to really take a look at the functioning of that committee. everyone agrees that the oversight is huge. there is billions of dollars at stake. it impacts the entire economy and that is one of the reasons that i think the problems are persisting. the other thing that is going on it's in the qwon connecticut context of the state mandate and the oversight that was intended from what i personally saw it's not functioning it's should. thank you.

[speaker not understood] i serve on the puc citizen advisory committee. i did want to speak in support of an extension. i'm not sure if this is the right amount of time, if it should be more or less. i'm happy to work with supervisor farrell and others to look at things that we could tweak about the composition or the reporting, so that it is more effective. i have heard a number of concerns over time about whether it's being too -- no effective enough -- no enough -- we certainly have a general obligation bond oversight committee and we have bond oversight at the city college. so we have a more tradition of bond oversight than in the past. if this is not extended my understanding is that there

would be effectively no oversight of the literally billions of dollars of [pwo-pbts/]s bonds that the puc has. so i would just offer those comments. on the legislation itself, sorry i did read it online 9-10, there there is no reference to section 1. there are section 2 and 3. unless you have any questions, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> through the chair to our city attorney real quick. does that make sense to have that in there, section 1? >> yes. >> we have it online?

>> right under "be it ordained." >> can i take time to answer the question why we put 2013 into the legislation? soly so i will give you an honest answer. i was the economist on it and the sf puc said give us a plan and we'll >> instructor:

>> instructor: so we picked 2013 for a reason, because state law, bay area water conservancy passed ab 1823 that said you must spend 50% of the money by 2010. 1 only% i hope you will take

supervisor hall's advice and take the whole committee under advisement. think about bringing it back to the board of supervisors and make sure they fill with positions of people dedicated to their jobs. if you have any questions. >> seeing no questions. thank you very much there are no questions from the committee [ inaudible ] [ inaudible ] is there any other public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed [ gavel ] supervisor farrell. >> thank you, chair kim and thank you to the member oz came to speak, both in favor and raising questions and supervisor tony hall again thank you for being here and credit for you to the vision

back in 2002. i think we have had heard some concerns about the committee for sure. and i have heard them before. at the same point in time we do have billions of dollars that are getting funneled through in terms of bonds through our public utilities commission currently, both ones that have been the subject of oversight and those that will be coming up. in my opinion i would rather extend this committee right now for a number of years, acknowledging there are areas of improvement. what we're going to end up january 2nd is no oversight at all and i think to me that is the worst of the two outcomes. i would rather fix it internally, if there are some issues. i think the composition of that committee rests with our rules committee and the board of supervisors and the other items that were talked about rest with the committee itself. we could certainly work and i know they have expressed a willingness to work together on

these issues. so i would very much be in favor of supporting it. it's legislationings that i sponsored. but it's a broader thing that i think that the puc would benefit from the oversight. so with that, i will go ahead and make the motion to forward this to the board with recommendation. >> supervisor campos? >> thank you. thank you, supervisor farrell. i want to thank all of the speakers for coming to this committee. and i especially want to acknowledge supervisor hall. you know, i am definitely in support of having an oversight body that looks at how the money is being spent. i do see the wisdom in what supervisor farrell is saying. with that said, the question that i have is more given that

the expiration date is not for another few weeks, i'm wondering if there is any benefit to at least thinking about ways in which the structure of the committee can be changed now. i worry, when you have a former supervisor, who is the author of the body of this type, who is coming to us and telling us his concerns, i have a worry about moving forward and simply saying that we will extend it and then deal with. it and so i am wondering whether or not we should i maybe at least have a conversation and i don't know if you have had an opportunity to discuss some of the ideas that perhaps supervisor hall has. so that if it needs to be changed, why not just take the time to do that.

you know, before it actually goes into effect. if it's not working and i don't have one way saying it is or it isn't. i don't want to move forward with something that is not working if we can do something about it. and i'm very mindful of the time. and i certainly don't want to be in a situation where we fail to extend the time because i think that we should. but it seems that we might have a little bit of time being october 18th. so just a question for supervisor farrell through the chair. >> and look, i have no problem doing that. i think -- and to me it's going to be a city attorney-driven question how much, because of the voter-approval legislation that we have the ability to amend, besides extension, do you know that off the top of my head? >> off the top of my head i would say that you could expend and if you want to change the composition, you would be doing what supervisor hall said, which is allowing this body to

sunset, and then creating a new body. that would provide oversight. now we would have to look into that, but that is how i think you would proceed. >> so i am happy to look into that, if you want to take it to the next rules committee. no problem. be mindful our last board meeting is in december. mid-december and we have to get through second passage. i'm happy to look into that. i will say off the bat batt if it's a choice of letting it sunset going back to the voters and having a policeman minimum period of time it's not in place i wouldn't be in favor of that. ? >> if it's a choice of having

something imperfect or not having something, i would be there with you. through the chair, supervisor hall, if i could ask a question. supervisor, do you want to add something? ? >> i just wanted to say that your discussion here is right on track. it's really good. i would be willing to work with each one of you, if you want, but i think as opposed to what the city attorney said. the original legislation is what you should look at. it's all there. you don't need to send it back to the voters and try to get that passed again. that ashard deal. look at the original legislation and this will be on track. i would suggest that approach, because trying to eliminate any oversight and getting it back to the voters is a tough way to go. but look at the original legislation. it's all there. whatpaques it not working is the illegality

of the way it's been operating. >> which to that point where i was going with it, there was nothing that we'll be able to change, it's more about the operations of the committee itself. which is fine, and we address it by our suggestions to them. >> supervisor farrell, allowing the revenue bond oversight committee to contract with outside agencies that aren't under the thrum of the controller's office, or the sf puc. that is the key. and because when the city services auditing agency is the watchdog, there is no oversight. >> if i may? >> supervisor, you may very well be correct that in the end legally there is nothing we can do and if that is the case, i don't really want to delay it. but if it's okay i would ask that we continue it until no later than next meeting of the rules committee and then i would be supportive of acting at that point. >> no problem. >> thank you.

>> thank you >> thank you. >> okay. so we can make a motion to continue to the next ruleses committee -- >> that would be november1st. >> let me make a motion to amend putting section 1 in twin items 9 and 10 and making sure to amend thats it is an extension until january 1,2014. >> january 1, 2016. >> we would have a motion to amend and without opposition [ gavel ] and we have a motion to continue this to the next rules committee of november 1st. i'm certainly open to hearing how to make this committee as effective as it can be over the

next two weeks and we have the motion and without opposition [ gavel ] at this time i would like to go back to item no. 3. which is our appointment to graffiti advisory board. mr. city attorney, i think we have a response to that question. >> yes although the legislation doesn't specifically address whether the members have to be legal voting age. this is designated for youth organizations and we agreed to allow for members under 18. >> great. so that is good news. i have already expressed before my support for mr. grgich and it's great to have young people and students representing on any number of issues here in the city, but particularly on our graffiti advisory board. >> supervisor campos is. >> i make a motion to move mr.

grgich's nomination forward. if he can sit through our rules committee i think he can do a great job. >> i hope you are not mad at us for keeping you out of [skao-fplt/] we have a motion and without opposition. thank you. madame clerk are there any other announcements? seeing none, meeting is adjourned. thank you. [ gavel ] >>