we bond. i know we have discussion about a billion dollar bond. do we have really that type of bonding capacity. it would be good to have perhaps the controllers office does a lot around the financing and from the p u c at those levels based on a program that is still not providing actual generation of electricity at the local level. it would be great to have answered for us at the next meeting about what kind of bonding capacity we have. rpi local power has provided some analysis about build out. i think it's not something we have discussed today but important look at. we did have a party to look at

it's feedback and viability and if there is anyway for a preliminary discussion by the next meeting would be important. those are my thoughts. colleagues if you have any other comments to add? >> thank you, mr. chair. again i want to thank the president of the commission and all the commission members for being here. also to both the p u c general manager and the sflafco staff. this is a very complicated subject matter and i know there are very strong opinions on different sides of this issue. the reality is the complexity of this program is such that you are never going to be able to make everyone happy on either side. people who don't want it clearly, people who want it but they want to it look a certain way and some people in the middle.

i think the way that we as a city have been able to get to where we are right now with community choice aggregation is to really try get through all the noise and really figure out where there is a path that leads to a result that makes sense for the rate payers and for the city. oftentimes that means finding a middle ground. my hope is that we collectively, not only at sflafco but at the p u c find the middle ground and the middle ground is striking a balance between trying to get a low a rate as we can for rate payers but at the same time moving with a robust build out. that i think social is the challenge here. i think there

is more to do to lower the rates where they are. in that sense there is agreement on all sides that we need to do everyone -- everything we can to make the rates as low as possible. from fine see from people who have trying to go get us to move and we are not putting it off in 8 months and come back and have a plan buchlt but we have to be honest. there are some advocates that are never going to be completely satisfied and i think that's a fact of life and we need to figure out what is real and what isn't because i don't agree with the approach that unless you get a hundred

percent the program that you want, that you tear it down. i don't believe that. as much as i hate to say it, i do think there are some within the advocate community that are willing to do that and i'm not going let that happen and likewise p g.e. will do everyone they can to make this program not successful. ironically, where the two extremes at some point meet each other and if those that want to see this program succeed in a meaningful and robust way so we can do right by the workers but as we don't take years as we have been doing. i don't think it's just

about the rates, i don't think california benefit from slowing this down and has nothing to show for years to spend lots of money to make this happen. we are at a critical juncture where i actually believe we'll be able to do that, we'll be able to make sure we have the lowest rates we possibly can and in the meantime move forward with a robust build out. i have always satisfied -- said that to the extent in the p u c and the higher to what this build outlooks like to use the discretion to hire someone to do a peer review. there is a contract where we can use some of that money to provide guidance to both sflafco and the p u c as to

what can be used in terms of the work product that has been date of birth and -- done and we have that focus to move this forward. i think this survey, i'm sort of a glass half full kind of person where some people see x percentage opting out , i also see a percentage opting in. i think it depends on how we do this. but the expectation that every member of the board of supervisors who voted for this program was that we would have a program that moved forward quickly, that we would have a slow set of rates as we possibly could and in the process we would move expeditiously in the build out. i think we can do that and i look forward to coming back so we can keep going with this endeavor. thank you. >> thank you, commissioner

campos. commissioner reed? >> thank you. i would like to list a few things and move forward but clearly lower rates are one thing that i think is extremely important. i'm hearing from john reez oh that lower rates is actually exciting for me because i think that's what i'm looking at. i want to see the rates reduced, i want to see somehow there being an incentive for getting more people to participate in this program. i don't want to us move quickly and then have the program not be successful. i would like to if at all possible, see what the build outlooks like, what the plan looks like and i know there are explorations around the amount of money it would cost and whether or not the financing through bonds are an option but

i want to really understand what that actually looks like because i think that's really extremely important because they be and only then with a specific plan around the build out we can expect when the jobs will begin to roll out. so seeing a clear concrete plan is important. i want to be able to advocate aggressively for this program but i want to have facts and want to say to my constituents this is my program and i want to make sure we are doing it right. so i would like to understand exactly what this means in terms of jobs and in terms of the impact of industries, in terms of the build out and what that means as well as what does this other county do to keep the rates down. i do want to figure out a

way in which the rates can be reduced. i think we all have that same goal, but i would like to look at those particular avenues. thank you for being here today. the public input was extremely helpful as well as the information and i would like us to take it a step further so i can be confident when it comes before us and see the rates that in fact this is the best we can do >> thank you, every aspect is trying to look at how we can minimize the rates and working in california as well. i think the important thing is to have those questions answered and why our rates are what they are in san francisco. that would be worthy of bringing it back to the commission and sflafco as well if we can have that at our

next meeting. i would agree with that. any last words on the public commissions that we ask for? >> i think they are totally acceptable and we'll move forward on that point and i want to incorporate the executive producers, i agree with you completely in terms of the agenda and thank you for the labors union and the environmental representative and to the citizens of san francisco for coming forward. when they pointed me to this position they said you are now the rate payers representative and i take this position seriously and i move for the next meeting. >> colleagues, can we file these items? okay. thank you very much. we can move on to our next item, 5.

>> discussion regarding the m o u dated between the public utilities commission. >> i have discussion of item 5? >> yes that is the item i was expecting as well. >> we can call that item. it's one of the agenda we have. i think we have 3 agendas. that's why it's confusing. >> it's the item on memorandum of understanding. >> public utilities commission. >> we just wanted commissioners to bring to your attention the fact that our joint m o u has expired and we wish to renew

relationship. it's successful from staff perspective. we participant to continue under the rules and responsibility described in the existing memorandum up of understanding. for purposes of the public utilities commission we'll be presenting and item for your consideration on the meeting to amend the m o u. simply to extend it. >> do you have anything to add to this discussion item? no. no. just to clarify there is no budget impact with it. it's a continuations under of the original term. >> with that i think we have covered everything we need to address. >> okay. we can do public comment on item no. 5. seeing none, we close for comment.

our next item we have a closing remark is item no. 9. closing remarks? >> we did give some direction to the public utilities commission? public comment on item no. 9. seeing none we'll close public comment that concludes the sflafco commissions meetings. we are still in recess for sflafco. we were going to discuss? no? okay. >> we can an adjourn. >> we would officially have to cancel our meeting on the record. >> if i may we'll call you are

adjourned on your next meeting. the call to order the public -- call the roll. >> you could actually cancel the regular meeting without adjourning. you have as the president of the commission you have the capacity to cancel the meeting or the other way. >> the meeting is will canceled to our next meeting of april 23rd. >> okay. thank you so we can give it due to our public commissioners. we have we have

still have some sflafco. can we keep the recess going for another 3 minutes. >> okay. we are back from recess. we are back to our sflafco agenda. can you call item no. 2. >> item no. 2, from february 22nd. >> can we open for comments.

seeing none, can we prove our minutes from last meeting. second by commissioner breed and we'll take that without objection. can we go on to our next item, no. # # 3. >> approval for consideration of budget 2013-2014 for government code section 5.6381. >> the budget once again from last year have not changed. all the price points what you are doing is coping last year's budget. because san francisco is in a bit of a budget crunch, staff is recommended that while we reserve our rights to the money according to state code

that we return the money back to the general fund of the san francisco city and county and reserve the right to return the money itself. so we have the right to it in the future. if you have any questions, i'm happy to answer? >> that goes back to the clerk of the board is that correct? >> yes. it goes back to where the money comes from okay. comments or questions? >> i know the budget is going to come back for us again, it would be helpful to have more of a detailed break down in terms of where this is going. i know for example you have a proposals sflafco budget explanation and it talks about what these categories are but it doesn't specify the amount per category, so i just wanted a lot more detail around the budget to have a clear understanding of what we are spending for things. >> i will be happy to follow-up with you on that.

>> thank you. >> okay. thank you very much. we can open for public comment. any member would like to comment on the item no. 3. no one comes forward we'll close. this is live before us. commissioner campos. >> we want to have -- i was of the understanding that we would be voting on it today and it would come back to us once more. yes. i'm fine with that >> make a motion to prove that we are going to get an understanding to get another opportunity to vote on it. okay. we'll take that without objects. thank you very much. no. 4, please. >> item no. 4, studies update on how jurisdiction seeks to elect officers between election cycles. >> sflafco staff, at each of your desk i did drop off an

executive sum -- summary and data points we collected so far. i had expected to present a full draft, i ask the chair to give me a few more days to ensure that we have more in the report and we are correcting any of the errors. because there is so many data points involved. i don't want to have an incorrect output. i wanted the give you very briefly and quickly summary of what we did. we looked at san francisco being the city and county, a charter city and county, we are the only one that exist. we took multiple data sets of looking for information. we looked at -- there is other places in the nation that have cities and counties and jurisdictions, like in new orleans they are called the

parish rather than the city. there are 12 charters counties in california and compared to the state level to how to government runs. charter companies, you have no mayor, in the cities you have mayor's and counsel but not a board of supervisors. we are check to see where it's going on and we don't have an exact city. for board of supervisors and sacramento counties fill vacancy depending on how far the vacancy and how far it is from the election itself. the

information is there. when we do a full report we'll break it out. we also want to look at how one of the things we did is for mayor's office that immediately steps in san francisco, that's now how they permanently set to replace the mayor's position. we won't be looking at that aspect of it. we are looking at how to mayor's seat gets filled. the one thing that we had initially intended on doing and with the permission of the commission we are looking at the 10 top cities nationally like new york and one of the things we realize that three of california's nationally top cities. if we wanted to we can go there but since they are outside of california they are

different election laws that would take more research and effort to make sure we are comparing apples to apples. i hope to get the spreadsheet out by the end of next week. i just want to make sure we have the correct points w . with that i will answer any questions. >> i will be interested. are you the sponsor supervisor avalos? >> i think we discussed this prior to your coming on sflafco and that was a report suggested to do. it's one of the things i'm interested and one of the commissioners is in this report. >> i would like to see other states and some of the major cities how they actually make appointments. that would be really helpful. thank you. >> okay. we'll do that and we'll release the draft report

but we'll add in for the final report the top 10 cities so we are not delaying the draft report itself if that's okay. >> okay. thank you very much. so then the next meeting we can have a fuller report. >> my goal would be to have the final report for the next meeting. >> this item we can open up for public comment. anyone interested in providing public comment, please come forward. since none come forward we'll close pub -- public comment. >> item no. 5. >> i just want to report on our m o u, there are funds providing puerto rico unit pursuant to an agreement to

cover our cca cost and consultant cost. you have already approved that action. >> just want to remind the commission that your form 700 and sunshine are due by the end of next week. if they don't get it they are going to be assessing fines. please get your forms in or you will be paying fines. >> the deadline? >> friday. object form on that will fill out. >> we can open up for public comment. seeing none we'll go forward to next item. >> item no. 6, for public comment. seeing none come forward we'll close public

comment. >> our next item? >> item no. 7, future agenda item. >> an opportunity to discuss any items that you would like to see this body work object on? okay. we will -- >> if i could, just in our last joint meetings i heard the issue of peer review and what i heard i want to confirm at our meeting is we can go ahead and have john who is under contract with us and has still money left under this contract to pursue that in looking at the l p i. contract and we'll put that under future agenda item. >> okay. we can go to public comment for future agenda item. and again seeing no one come we'll close comment. last item? >> the last item is an

adjournment. >> we are adjourned. thank you very much. >> >> >> >> good morning and welcome to the special meeting for today march 25, 2013 directors sartipi is not available to attend. metcalf

present, reiskin, kim present as well. madam chair you do have a quorum? >> thank you, is there any new business? seeing none we move on to the directors report. >> good morning everyone. we have a full agenda today. i'm going to report on one item, preparatory school in palo alto shadowing us and they are from grades 6-12. all of these students graduate and go to college. i want to thank you for attending. that concludes my report. >> thank you. at this time we'll move to item # 6, which

is a public comment. >> we don't have anyone who wishes to comment on this item. thank you, patrick from san francisco. i know you are looking for areas to save money, i think you can save money in position decisions which include buildings that is right going to attach to the dooept. a policy decision that could be made easily. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. part patrick. any other m members for public comment? thank you no comment. item is closed.

next comment? item? >> update and vulnerability assessment in the construction document. >> directors will be part on this item? >> thank you, chair. executive members, board. bob with p a. i want to provide you on an update today on two aspects of the design flt . in the past 2 board meetings we've updated you on the project. in the