it's important to take a high-level view without going line by line of the budget. and someone will have to give here because this is happening. or maybe this cca budget piece could be a bit of a drive or two. and how that shifted the dollars around. and i like the idea, of this strategic goals and updates and key policy initiative updates. i don't really know what that means, maybe we can get specific on what an update looks like. which goal has fallen short. or maybe a redefinition that you provide in advance, forgotten some definitions of goals. and maybe a quick review, are we making progress or not. maybe a simple indicator, up or down. but to get our feedback to understand what you need to keep

those goals and initiatives moving forward. those would be what i hope for in somewhat structured mid-cycle review. >> if i may through the chair, a question to commissioner vietor, in the past you have given up additional initiatives or changed them. and this is to the degree that you have a new initiative that you want us to slice and dice the budget in that way. >> and maybe contextualize the review, and have the opportunity to add and delete, and an opportunity to say, is this still right. and if it is right, have we made progress or not, and why not. >> okay. commissioner moran. >> one other thing, you mentioned the score card activity.

and that kind of came out of the rate-payor insurance policy. what i intended in that, that policy has a bunch of specific things that we said we would do. and i was hoping for some way to come back and say, okay, we need to be able to certify it our rate payors that we are doing what we said we were doing. that's a little different than a score card. it's more general, did you serve water to all customers. very high-level stuff. i want to be sure that we don't lose track in the policy direction that we gave to the department. we were very specific. maybe it's an audit opposed to a score card. of the things that we said were important, how are we doing against those things.

it may be good to have a score card, but i don't want to lose track of policies specific. >> that got me thinking too, there are things that maybe we are not tracking that came up in the last year. aside from the capital but these policy initiatives. whether a water bond of 2014 and what the implications for that might be. or some fsip development that we have gone through over the past years. and the implications. what are these outliers that are not embedded in our current budgeting or planning. that we should at least have the radar even if not a part of the two-year budget cycle. >> what do you envision this to be? when you think a score card, what do you envision?

>> i think we owe it to our rate payors to show in a simple, concise way, just like the city has done on the street score card and the parks score card. to have a look and the department is happy to assist the city. to succinctly give the people the additional trust and we are spending their money wisely. there is a different story to tell, and oftentimes us telling it is not as an independent auditor. >> and sometimes at the risk of independent auditor it becomes unintelligentable. so let's move forward and see what we can produce. any other comments? >> i make a quick comment, when we talk about policy, there may

be multiple things that fall under a policy that. we can have score cards. when we talk about community benefits, there are so many things we are doing to apply a score card of how we are performing in each category. it could be a combination, of policy and break down the activities and apply a score card against each one of them. >> did you want to intervene at this point? or at a later point on item 7? >> this is the right time. >> okay. >> like a segue. what i feel is when we describe some of these policies, sometimes we forget the history. for example, when the (inaudible) act was written, certain entities were supposed

to be given a break. municipalities. the military. the military is gone down. public housing. somewhere along the line somebody took control of public housing, and charged them money. before they were getting things for free. not once have i heard that discussion. somewhere along the line like the city of san francisco makes a lot of money. yet they continue to get a break. and i can go on and on and on. what i am trying to say here is, we need to be fair to the rate payor. and we also need to show the rate payor in which areas we do their bidding. and not just going on increasing their rate and make it one-sided. i hope i am very clear on this.

i was just talking to a gentleman that runs a laundry mat, and he wants to close his business because he can't keep up are the high rates. if they go to public housing, it's a shame whoever the entity is, and in this case i think it's pg & e, and i don't know how they got in it. charge people 150 or $160 a month. now you commissioners have to find out if at one time there were no meters. i repeat no meters in public housing. suddenly how, who it is providing the energy and why are they charged so much. now one reason may be this. you have living in a unit and

the windows are broken or they feel very cold. and there are some elderly people or people that need heat, they are going to use the heater and whatever just to keep warm. and then the issue arises about -- two issues arise. first the larger amount of money they have to pay. and secondly who is monitoring whether they have some area where they leave. where it's windy and no conservation. we make deliberations about this, that and the other. and many times we fail to go to the source it find out if those mandates are kept. >> i done see your card. >> good afternoon, commissioners, eric brooks, san

francisco green party and the local grassroots organization in our city. i want to spin on mrs. hale's update on cleanpowersf. talking about the briefing that local power will give on january 22 about their work on the local build down. i think you have heard in the past hearings that i and others have said what they have developed in a financial model to get the entire power that advocates are asking for. and putting out in the same price by pg & e and by the locals in the first years of the program. but however the exciting new news in the latest stakeholder meeting between local power and

sfsgu and advocates. local power after heard from a lot of us, and after saying, listen, what you are putting together is good. but we have an issue that commissioner caen raised, pg & e is going to roll out their green program at a $6 premium. and it's lower than the 10-20. and hearing the comments from us and staff, local power developed a new model based on its previous models. that model will use renewable energy credits at the same level they are used in morion county. and something that environmentalists weren't thrilled about using credits.

however local power has worked credits and worked through hetch hetchy power sold outside of the city. what it's showing now that we can do the build-out of several hundred megawatts in the first years. and hire 27 workers a year, i think that's total job, i don't know about direct jobs. probably several hundred direct jobs. and it will also using the renewable energy credits actually be able to roll out this entire program. as we originally envisioned several years ago. to get to large-scale local renewab renewables, and to offer all customers in five years, 100% green, just like pg & e will offer. but at the same rates that pg & e is charging now. when pg & e go with their fancy

green option, we are charged less. and that's why we need to see what is presented in january. >> comments. >> maybe for todd or barbara. i am interested to hear, and i know that local power has been working hard to present this financial model. and i know that the great promise moving into this cca is to do the local build-out to be energy independent and create our own renewable power sources for the communities that need it the most. and that's why i was asking for this bigger picture conversation. because it all kind of fits together. and i don't quite have understanding if the rate hearing on friday and presented with a new structure in january,

and that's the same time we hear about the financial piece. and i don't know if you reviewed the financial information and now is not the time, we don't have it agendaized. and that's the comment to barbara hale, we need all of this information together so we can make an informed decision. and especially with the rates, and this local power seems viable, and that's what we hold up as the competition to pg & e and what it looks like and the communication strategy. i don't know when that conversation is going to happen for us to make an informed decision on the next step for the cleanpowersf program. >> to put into context, to tee things up so you have the available information for your late january deliberations.

your hearing from the rate board and review of the staff proposal. and to lead up to that, for example, this friday, the rate fairness board is getting a presentation from local power. that is also an additional presentation of the one they have seen. where staff went through the existing cleanpowersf program as you envisioned it and how the mayor's office directed us to move forward. now we are doing that at the rate fairness board venue. and review those lpi business assumptions. you will go through and walk through what our questions and concerns, and follow up and request of the contractor. so that by the time it comes to you it's really more flushed out. also in january, one of the deliverables that they owe us is

the sighting analysis. that's pretty important. one key assumption for example, and not to get into too much detail. >> i think you should get in detail in writing form to us. i think you have a sense where we are coming from. but i think it will be helpful to get in writing the deliverables so we can measure those what is appropriate and if they are timely. >> thank you, and we present that on friday. >> the rate board and come before us with that presentation. >> happy to do that. >> one other thing we could do at the next commission meeting that we always give an update. we can present the outcome of that presentation and kind of give the presentation we gave to them with their input or comments. >> by the end of the>> -- end of the year? >> okay.

>> that way for those who want to read over the holidays have something to read. >> you almost said that with a straight face. >> i know, but i am anxious to get to green test bed. >> up next. barbara hale. >> barbara hale, assistance general manager for power. thank you for your enthusiasias for the concept. as you know the commission adopted for the green test bed. the board granted that plan. we have concepts on the green test bed. and that's what is summarized in the memo provided to you. we are testing a light weight

solar system because we have the system and invertor and capacity. we tested that technology on the roof of musconnie. the firm we are working with allowed us to see what are the business relationships we need to implement on more broad scale green test bed. this is the first effort of proof of concept. it dovetails with the mayor's office of innovation and economic development. we are partnering with them to look at other areas to have innovative clean-tech ideas in the energy sector. the mayor's office of course is looking more broadly than that. our green test bed provides a

nice sector. and a list of accomplishments under that umbrella of innovative deployments here in san francisco. that the mayor's office has initiated. we will be coming to you with next steps. trying to launch this as a broader program. given the experience we are having with this early test. >> all right. >> thank you. >> any questions? >> how is it funded? >> this is a renewable project, we are funding through our small renewable item approved by the commission. our cost for this first initiative was a little over $11,000. most of that goes to dpw for installation. the equipment and supplies themselves were all donated by so-lon, and then we had a little

bit of management staff time here at the puc to bring it to $11,000 total. >> thank you. >> other comments. >> with respect to the installation, is this an installation agreement or some record between the public utility commission and the department of public works? >> yes, typically we have a work order. they provide with scope and cost, and we have a work order agreement with them, and that's documented within that process. >> so you issue a work order. and then they determine what the scope of work is? >> we tell them what our needs are, and then they provide us with a scope and cost. and then we say, okay, if we are comfortable with that assessment of the cost and the scope covers the work we identified that we needed. then we work order the funds to

dpw. it comes to us like a bid from dpw. >> is that in the record? is the actual response, the department of public works is that in the record? >> typically yes, it's provided to us and included in our support of the expenditure in our budget. >> no, in my record? >> no, in the packet, no, it's not. >> that's what i was getting to. >> thank you. >> so -- >> we are moving to lake merced now? >> yes, last update, mr. ritchie. >> make it quick, we have a p plethora of people to talk about your subject. >> thank you, and we have the

slide. on the map lake merced, an asset owned by puc. the lake and surrounding lands. and talk about the boat house, removal of abandon docks. and the funding for lake merced. and a little about the future. first on the hardening boat house, we are engaged in a project to restore the first floor of the boat house, we are providing $1 million for rudimentary clean up. we are substantially complete as of last friday. we have a few doors to install. but we have a presentable facility. and phase 2 with rec and park and for supervisor elsbernd to get additional funds for $1

million to make that space ultimately usable. that would include space for displays and exercise room and facility for coffee and fishing tackle. we expect that to be complete by may 1 of the coming year. i want to show the progress. this is the way that the boat house looked about a year-and-a-half ago. kind of dinghy, run down. not something to be proud of. nor the bathrooms there. it was kind of a wreck. here is a third photo of the top of the roof. and i will direct your attention to the corner of the lake, where there is a piece of wood floating. but the boat house was in sad shape. we have put a new roof on it. additionally the bathrooms on

the left side have been totally refurbished. i guarantee, i was there last friday and they are usable. and new paint on there and replacement of the windows and doors. these are the replacement windows. the crew working there. and replacement of windows on the outside. making it a presentable place, one that can be a value to the community. next i want to talk about abandoned dock removal. on the abandoned docks, there are some docks behind the vegetation there. those were old docks that were reachable from the shore line. and they were derelict over the years and eyesore. and we worked close with rec and park to get those removed. we took care of the permitting for the removal and rec and park provided the manpower to get

those out of the lake. and now that corner of the lake doesn't have floating eyesores out there. i think that's a big step forward. on the recreation front, rec and park has been actively programming recreation there during the summer and fall. classes and kayaking and active recreation around the lake. and that's an important thing they started doing that they had not been doing for. proposition "b" was on the ballot in november, which provided for recreational funding. and $2 million of that is for lake merced. that was passed. and that's to be managed by the recreation park department. and you will hear from stakeholders that you manage

that, but the city is clear that this is recreation for them to manage. they recommended that they go through stakeholders for the use of the funds. and there are recommendations for those funds. the boat house advocates mentioned starting work on the boat house. that's a possibility as well. that's something that rec and park will manage to determine how to spend those funds. we are working on the rod and gun club, and reached an agreement to establish a business relationship. and they have agreed to not contest. i got a note that, that passed the board of supervisors a few minutes ago. that's approved by the board and on its way to the mayor's

signature. this is what the shooting club and the facilitiefacilities. we will be moving forward to obtain the funds to achieve that. move -- moving forward we will complete the boat house improvements. and expect to get to the second phase and have a totally usable facility by this summer. and we need to address rod and gun club contamination issues and build on what was talked about before. rec and park has been doing more, and we have some momentum there with the activity caring about the lake, and that's a good thing. >> thank you.

>> any questions of mr. ritchie. >> the rod and gun club, the board just approved the month-to-month lease? >> yes, it was a package settlement agreement. so the lease is part of that. it's an attachment to the settlement of litigation that we filed based on the eviction notice. as part of the settlement, they have waived any potential legal challenge. ultimately if we ask them to leave the property. we won't have a hank-type of situation. >> was the clean-up part of the settlement? >> no, we provide the reports to the regulators and develop a clean-up plan with them over the next year to year-and-a-half. and at the same time work with the rod and gun club to find out through their own insurance if

resources to help bear the cost. we hope there are. >> we don't know who is liable on the clean up? >> we think that the gun club is liable. that's part of the 1934 lease, there are issues there. but how to get it accomplished and who has the resources to pay for it. >> thank you. >> the department of rec and park contribute anything to that clean-up? >> no, the activities there started well, when the puc managed the lease from 1934 to 1950. that's when the gun club was in full swing. and handed over to them as the manager of the lease, we still own the underlying property and have the ultimate responsibility for that. >> all right, on this item we have first mr. dick allen.

if you can take a seat on the front row. mr. tim colin. and mr. jerry (inaudible). mr. allen, welcome. >> good afternoon commissioners, dick allen. lake merced, i am out there four or six times a week rowing in the morning. there are other issues at lake merced you may not be aware of. and today i will comment on them. first i would like to quote a statement from the january 2011 watershed report referring to the boat house. the downstairs no longer adequate for the space. and it's unanimous for the need of