of san francisco to bring the rates down with clean power sf so they can be brought into parity with what pg&e is charging right now, and then a further iteration just recently came out in our last meeting on the build out work is that local power has recommended not only doing that, but also to -- has configured a way to keep those same ways that pg&e or roughly the same and get to the 100% and buying them like the county of marin has done so i encourage environment staff to dig deep into what local power is working with the local puc and there is one caution i would like to raise and that is when local power came forward some of the environmentalists in the room we were a little bit -- even though what they're doing is great and will compete with

pg&e's 100% green option we need not to focus so much on purchasing. i think what we should do is change the 100% 2020 goal to locally produced energy from facilities beyond that date. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> hello commissioners. my name is paul congressmanus and part of. >> >> bon hundred% solar. there is a way to get to one heard% -- 100% and ignored in this country by the media so you might not have heard of it. it's a solar payment policy. it requires pg&e to pay 54 cents kilowatt hour to homeowners that put panels on their roo. i know a

hundred people in this town that are generating surplus and pg&e is basically stealing this surplus energy at the rate pg&e is paying, so it's simply a policy that the mayor can institute under executive powers, and get around pg&e that way. in germany it's created 400,000 new jobs. it's created $4 billion in cash flow through the economy and making the german economy the strongest in europe and it's the -- it basically is a policy that pays the homeowners so it makes investing in solar attractive to homeowners. right now it's not attractive to put a hundred solar panels on your roof, but under this policy germany has made tremendous advances. there is one country in the world that

is 100% solar power as of last month. cca cannot possibly do what they need done. the word -- you can boil this whole argument down to one question, one word and that is "inevitability". we are running out of the oil. we are drowning in our own waste. we need to stop burning oil and the way you could do it is putting a couple hundred solar panels on each house in san francisco. this was indirectly mentioned in the guardian editorial but they don't say it and it's because they don't understand it. it's important to understand what being done in germany and other countries around the world because by doing this they're creating a massive cash flow to homeowners in these countries and it's an investment that the homeowners are glad to take the money out of equity and buy panels with. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. next

speaker. seeing none public comment is closed. colleagues this is just a discussion item. mr. . fried. >> i wanted to thank danielle for the work that she did. there were two co-chairs one left the city family and got another job and she tooked over the work herself and even though i have criticisms i want to acknowledge she did an excellent job getting this through the process it went through and there were a lot of ideas that people had. there were other stuff want in the report and nothing to do with renewable energy generation and it could be used by the in the future and i wanted to acknowledge that. >> thank you mr. fried and we do acknowledge her hard work and

excellent presentation and we look forward to working with you. unless there are other comments madam clerk if you could call item four please. >> item number four, 2013 lafco meeting schedule. >> great. colleagues, as we're nearing the end of the calendar year this is our opportunity to talk about what our calendar looks like for the next coming calendar year, and i think you have a memo in your packets that's also available to members of the public that provides some recommendations from staff as to when our meetings could take place, so with that i will turn it over to mr. fried. >> thank you very much. jason freed and tradition with lafco i tried to make all of the meetings the fourth friday of the month and with some

exceptions and there is a break in august and then for november and december because of the holidays we try and combine one meeting at the beginning of december and we normally -- there are only two board supervisor meetings then so this is the friday that falls between the board meeting and the final adaption to that fourth friday is in may and it leads into a three day weekend where we have monday off we don't meet that friday and move it up one week so in may the meeting is the third friday rather than the fourth friday so that's the schedule as we traditionally did it. i put down the dates to make sure there are no major issues and if accepted by the body it will be the calendar for next year. >> thank you. i don't know colleagues if you had a question and i had a question mr. fried

or ms. miller one of the things we know for sure that will have to happen is we will have to have a number of joint meetings with san francisco public utilities commission to ascertain the progress being made on community choice aggregation, so i am wondering whether it makes sense to identify possible dates of the ones that are listed -- times as to when we could do that. do you have any thoughts on that. >> my initial thought is and as much as i enjoy meeting with our puc friends they can be difficult scheduling far in advance meetings with them. i know at the joint meeting we had there was a discussion of finding a date in february. we schedule the regular dates. if we could get them to join us we do and if not we create a special meeting to meet with them and figure out what dates

works for our of the busy commissioners. >> and my preference would be -- i don't think we have to adopt this as part of that that if we have a meeting in february we set it up as soon as we can. colleagues any questions or comments? if not why don't we open it up to public comment? any member public would like to speak? seeing none public comment is closed. so we have this item which is actual action item potential so so if we could have a motion to adopt the 2013 lafco meeting schedule. a motion by commissioner mar. seconded by vice chair avalos. can we take that vowt objection? thank you very much. madam clerk can you please call item five. >> work plan and objectives for 2013. >> great. this is our opportunity to have a

conversation about what calendar year, the coming calendar year, 2013 will look like in terms of goals, objectives, priorities for the local agency formation commission, so with that i will turn it over to ms. miller. >> thank you chair. i was wondering if you wanted to call the next item as well and we could discuss both at the items at the same time and has to do with staff structure. >> sure. unless there is any objection madam clerk if you could call item 62. >> item six is lafco structure. >> great. ms. miller. >> yes we're at the end of the year and we had a great year in terms of staff and what we accomplished and we try to look forward and in discussion with the chair about lafco's rules and responsibilities and next year type of work plan we discussed the -- first the fact i have been the interim

executive officer for five years now and that was supposed to be a temporary thing while we hire additional staff to work with the cca program and train that staff and hopefully turn that over to a staff person that is full time here at the city and of course i am not, so in looking at the work plan for next year jason fried, our senior program officer, has been working with lafco for two and a half years and has done an excellent job so the plan and work structure is based upon a transition of my duties as executive officer transitioning to your senior program officer and also a work plan that talks about expanding addition to the executive officer role what is we do at lafco here for the next coming here. cca obviously will be part of that and we

know what those responsibilities are, but also there are other activities that lafco has performed in the past and will continue to perform which are special studies on subjects as they are raised and are of concern to this commission and to the city and county of san francisco. we have done that in the past with a number of different issues that are outlined in the memo. i won't go through those here, but the idea here is that with jason as your on the ground executive officer here in san francisco he will have more time and ability to ferret out the studies and needs that are addressed in your commission so what we have before you for an action item is basically a resolution that will go authorize the board of supervisors to amend the position that jason current

sits in to be expanded to also include the executive officer position and also the work plan before you goes through some of the ideas that staff has regarding work plan for next year, but obviously that is subject to your direction approval, and authorization. >> if i may ms. miller thank you for that brief introduction. you do have a memo with respect to item six that outlines some of the options. let me say for me there are two main areas in terms of staff structure that we need to address. the first one which i think is more of sort of a technical area that deals with the mechanics how lafco can do the work we have been doing has to do with the ability of

lafco staff to focus on issues that go beyond community choice aggregation and legislatively we have to make sure we introduce something at the board of supervisors as i understand it that would allow lafco staff to actually be able to do that because i know there are a number of issues that we want to look at, and i think it would enhance the ability of lafco staff to do that, and unless -- i wanted to make sure people were aware of that and they had the opportunity to comment on that, but if it is the case as i imagine most of us feel it's appropriate to pursue that and make that change we will proceed to make that introduction at the board of supervisors. that's one area. the second area has to do with the structure of staff functions and for me this is not about and the individual

here with the interim executive officer who has done a great job and really navigated and helped us move forward for so many years in a very exemplary way. i do think as a general matters matter of principle, concept, policy it makes sense that the position be in house and have full time staff doing that and not to take anything away from ms. miller and our hope and expectation is that we continue to utilize her services. i think there would be savings if you come have that position being brought in house saving certainly in terms of the amount of money that is being paid under the contract that we have

with ms. miller which contract necessarily requires her as the interim executive officer to spend time doing things that would be accomplished by a permanent executive officer, so that's one thing. the second thing is in terms of bringing the decision in house there are two options that were outlined in this memo, and one of them would be i think option one, as i understand it is to consolidate both the executive officer and both the senior program position into one, and then the other would be to simply take from the senior officer -- i mean the senior program position, take away some of the restrictions so that position could be used to fill in the executive officer position, so those are the two

options, and i personally think that we should pursue bringing the position in house. i also believe that we have very capable staff that can step into that but i also want to make sure that we have this discussion, and that we have a discussion not only about the outcome, but the process that we want to follow because that's very important, and it maybe that you decide that you can bring the position in house but you follow a different process. i just want to make sure that we have that discussion, so with that i will open it up to my colleagues. commissioner avalos. >> thank you chair campos. i would like to see it brought in house and i think a process for going through that. i think

it's important that when we have a position open up and go through a search as part of it. i think that's just the process i feel most comfortable with overall all, but that's the i talked about that a lot last year when we had major openings in the mta, in other departments in the city that it's important that we just don't approve people, but we actually have somewhat of a process to say that we did look through the range of applicants to be able to understand the type of position we want to have in the position ideally and how to move on there from. >> commissioner mar. >> thank you. i just wanted to say i appreciate ms. miller's work over the years, but i'm in agreement with our chair,

supervisor campos, it will bring us significant cost savings but really an ability for lafco to be more than it is right now and i appreciate working with jason fried as well and i hope he applies for that position and i hear what supervisor avalos is saying and it makes sense. >> colleagues, any other comments? questions? commissioner olague. >> now, i was just going to comment and if i missed my opportunity to comment on potential items -- is this the time? >> yes. >> well, i wanted to mention that i'm not sure if there are other examples of it, or how to even approach this, but in san francisco i guess there are few commissions that are still picked partly my the payor and partly by the board of supervisors. >> >> and i'm just wondering is

there a way of sort of reflecting on their kind of decision making processes? or you know because -- for instance, park and rec is a commission selected fully by the mayor and you have planning commission which is like a three-four commission. you have mayor and board but i am wondering if there is anyway of looking -- one functions better than the other or any market differences in how these bodies function? just because they have a lot to do with -- they do make some decisions and have to do how the city is run. i think they have some influence. >> so you're talking about a potential special study there? >> i guess so. >> and that's something that is certainly the commission is authorized to look into. appointments and commissions are governed by either your charter

or by state law so it's easy to go down the road to figure out is it something that can be changed or a discretionary act within the board of supervisors or the mayor and to go about change that so it's something you could look at. >> i guess in the charter -- i am wondering in terms how they function or not, and i don't know how we get into that really. maybe it's not worth it. i won't be here obviously but it's something i was something about. i guess i am thinking out loud here. >> point well taken. >> commissioner schmeltzer. >> i'm sorry. i was misunderstanding commissioner olague's question -- >> i think commissioner olague -- >> yeah, i was wondering because you have some commissions that are selected entirely by the mayor and some aren't and i am wondering in terms of the

outcomes -- whatever. >> i am with you now. i was responding to what i thought you were asking but you were asking something different. >> okay. >> let me just say -- yes commissioner? >> actually one other clarifying -- so under this proposal ms. miller would remain as the legal counsel but only providing services on legal issues as needed? is that right? >> i think -- that's correct. i think what we would do commissioners depending what the sediment of the commission would be. >> >> sentiment is that we would introduce something at the board of supervisors to provide the legislative mechanisms so that lafco staff can focus on a lot of other things besides community choice aggregation which i imagine is something the commission would like to see,

so we would proceed along those lines. if there is a desire to keep the current structure, nothing would change. if there is a desire to keep the -- to have the -- to bring it is interim -- the bring the executive officer position in house we would proceed to do that. again with respect to that it would be a question of how we want to do that, do we want to consolidate the two positions, or if we want to take away the restrictions from the senior program position, and so that's something that we would do. mr. fried. >>i wanted to get clarifying points on what i consider the first option and if you go down the road of search for a new executive officer and create a new position you have to go through the city process and have the board approve it and d

and r and its processes, get the mayor to approve. you would have to take a lot of extra steps to creating that position so you could go out and do a search for an executive officer position. just for fairness if that occurred and supervisor mar said i would apply for it and i would and i would take myself out of that and not fair to being on it obviously and it's actually a lengthily process at least the impression i got from the clerk's office and lengthy process creating the position. the way you would do it and get it through the dhr process and eliminating my position. you're eliminating the other position that we have, the community position, and that's how you get your cost savings in order to have executive officer position so there is -- there is some length of time between all this occurring and putting it out

for people to submit their application and all that. >> is there a process -- with respect to option two, option two would simply work by -- how would option two work? >> option two is basically lifting the restrictions on my position. when the board of supervisors created the position they put restrictions on what i could work on and do. if the board of supervisors would simply lift the restrictions i could do all of the items that the executive officer currently does. once again the clerk's office did check into this and they determined my base position can do all work that an executive officer of this body would be working on. not necessarily of any commission but the work that this commission does and do all of that work. you wouldn't have to go through dhr at all and as far as they're concerned by

position is covered. >> could there be a selection process under option two along what the members talked about? >> i guess if i resign my position and apply again you could potentially do that. >> i see. ms. miller. >> well, i think -- we're in the process right now of in our budget with sf puc allocating sf puc resources because we do have sf puc money for cca, so there is some latitude to you from a budget standpoint about the position, so in terms of flexibility with option two. i don't think you need to say there is only one position available and

we have two positions authorized and we're going to cut the one, and then maybe what you would be saying you want to authorize the other, but with cost effectiveness if you go out figure out in the interview that you could do the two with one you would do that if that makes sense to you. >> okay. commissioner avalos, did you want to add anything? i think -- >> i would have a preference that we don't -- we have a search process that doesn't go through the rigga mo rol that jason discussed right now with the ideal and we could have a flexible process for option two, but i just thought jason was shaking his head. i wasn't counting on the process so involved with the process and the mayor process -- the mayor be part of that process. that

to me doesn't seem like a real easy process to go through. i know it doesn't seem like one that has the best interest of the lafco members, commissioners in the driver's seat. >> okay. do we have a response? >> my response is from what my understanding of it is that in order to have a search process you either -- we would create that new position, have to go through the city process to do that or i would have to resign from my position. i am asking our clerk to call over and see if we could get somebody from the hr folks over here. >> i have a suggestion on this, but commissioner schmeltzer i want to hear from you before. >> thank you. just following up on commissioner avalos' point and what mr. fried is saying i guess i find it hard to believe that somebody can't be acting in a position and be considered

for it. that seems to happen regularly and there is a search process but someone is the acting or interim during that time and fore does it seem possible he would have to resign to be considered so i think we need to get clarification on that. maybe we don't need to do that today. >> exactly. my suggestion is this and we want to make sure we hear from the public on this and unless i hear objection and obviously want to hear from the public on this and clearly we will proceed to make sure that that there is an expansion of duty so staff can focus on these other things, but besides that that we actually figure out what the most expeditious way for us to have a process for a formal selection of an executive officer would be, and that if

it is possible the preference would be that we pursue option two and still allow for a selection process, and maybe it is as mr. fried is saying that's not possible, but one possibility might be there is an acting appointment that happens. i don't know that we know enough to know for sure that that is not a possibility. i think that between now and the time that we have our next meeting that we can come back to the commission with a more detailed recommendation that says this is the most expeditious way to have a process. i think that would be the way they would approach it. my preference is that we find -- i do think that there are --