for instance, is actually concerning in terms of the double counting issue but we knee there are going to be dozens of those coming up and looking forward to diving in deep so i wanted to thank you all. >> are there any other members that would like to speak on this item? seeing none, closing public comment. commissioner wynns. >> thanks. for the listening public we should say we interchangiblely use the term piece, the public education fund, and prop h >> thank you for the clarification. >> miss moran >> i wanted to mention we're really excited once we do the design with our stake holder council, which is from all the

different groups, we're going to have a number of city-wide meetings and focus groups. there's going to be lots ever opportunities to get folks involved and have that rich conversation across school board members and service providers. we hope everybody will come out and join these meetings and also come out may 3rd if you want to join the rallying cry and get it started. >> who is going to be chairing these meetings? >> we selected someone who has some history with us and they are going to be working with maria sue and i and the stake holder council. we want people who are representing the dicht stake holder groups to help us design the process. so, for example, the community coalition will have 4 seats on that stake holder council, we'll have the pta and parents for public schools involved so we're going to really co-design that process but we wanted to have the technical support of

an external facilitator so that all of us could engage in the conversation and that we could have one group capturing all the data as we go so we can get some good reports that we can share around all these questions. >> who is the facilitator? >> i'm not sure we, i don't think we can say it yet. we interviewed 4 different groups, there was an rfp put out and we should be able to announce that the next day or two. >> how are you funding this facilitation process? >> external funding. >> in kind (laughing). >> i want to reiterate what commissioner wynns and avalos said. historically both of these measures did come from the community, was initiated outside city hall. so as much as i can i think we should really honor that process and i think involving the community is incredibly important in many

ways because they will be the ones passing all of these ballot measures, both of these ballot measures. so i hope that we can keep that in mind and now that it's a reauthorization not make it too kind of city hall centered. the second question i had was how we would involve members of the board, either board, in that process as well so we can be engaged in that discussion. >> for our board this is something that we will be angendizing on what we call our committee of the whole where we can talk about things, you know, not in a formal board meeting but have more of a dialogue about that and get input. we can also bring things back to this group and maybe you can talk about the city side. >> well, for dcyf, we have a citizen advisory committee and we are engaging them, particularly the may 3rd event. we're hoping some of our cac

members would be able to be there so they can also learn about both funds. i would be more than happy to come back to this committee or to meet with supervisors and commissioners individually and find out how we can work together. >> i think it would be good to reach out to members of our board as well to see if any of us are interested in engaging in that conversation or at least having at least one one on one with dcyf, i know i would like to be engaged in this process, i have a lot of thoughts and feedback as well. hopefully i can engage too. i think there are a number of things that have come up in this committee. i will keep this item to the call of the chair so maybe we can hold this hearing from time to time since it's something we are proposing to put on the ballot next year. i think it's a good way for us to engage member s of the public and it's a good way for

us to have a conversation piece. the last thing i will say about the in kind services, hopefully we can have a greater conversation around that. i actually understand now from the controller that we did not specify the source of funding. i guess my concern is so much of the children's fund could be considered new funding for our schools and i think that's my main concern. when the puc or department of environment funds a staff person i don't think there's the same kind of public concern that anything the puc funds and anything the doe funds could be considered additional funding for our schools. but the children's fund is a large fund and i'd hate to see 7 million, 8 million, the maximum amount be considered new funding for the schools. i don't think that was the intent of the voters but i also understand we didn't specify that in the original prop h language and i look forward to having discussion around that. are there any other closing

comments? all right, seeing none, can we take a motion to continue this item to the call of the chair? we have a motion, we can take that without objection. madam clerk, are there any other announcements? seeing none, the meeting is adjourned. thank you for your patience in sticking around. (meeting adjourned).

>> i would like to thank the members of sfgtv covering this meeting as well as the clerk. do we have any announcements? >> yes, silence all cell phones and electronic devices and complete the speaker cards and documents to be included as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk. >> the items will appear on the board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> okay, mr. clerk, could you call items number one and two together. >> item one, the district attorney to retroactively accept an inkind gift of

technical assistance valued at $250 from the open society foundation. item number two, resolution, authorizing the office of the district attorney to retroactively accept a gift of design services and furniture valued at a total of $26,445, from various donors. >> thank you very much. mr. clerk, we will turnover to public comment in a second, but just as a preview, we are going to entertain a motion to entertain one and two, until the may 8th, budget and finance committee meeting due to a scheduling conflict that the district attorney had for today's meeting. with that i will open up one and two to public comment, if there is anyone that would like to comment on these items step forward. seeing none, public comment is closed. >> could i have a motion to continue these to pay 8ths to the budget and finance committee meeting. we could do that without opposition. >> call item number three.

>> just to confirm, to the subcommittee. >> i have the 1:00, to the regular committee. >> yes, thank you. >> item three, ordinance authorizing the public utilities commission general manager to enter into a long term enter connection agreement with the pacific gas and electric company to connect to a small reknewable energy project to the system. >> we have john doyel from the pfc to come and present on item number three. >> thank you, committee members and supervisors. my name is john doyel and i manage the infrastructure projects for the utilities commissions and this project just to give you, context is a small in-line hydroproject and it is the first of this kind of project that we have done in the city and it takes advantage of the energy in the pipes that

come from crystal springs reservoir now, as the head drop in the pipes, which creates energy, which at the moment is wasted. so, this project will actually be a small hydroelectric project that is incorporated into the pipelines and it will take advantage of that otherwise wasted energy and will generate electricity and it is a small project and it is the first of the kind that we have done and there are others that we are looking at later on. and it will be a 200 kilo wat, producing it per year and that is equivalent to 300 of the power provider. and we are preceding using the department of public works, and we are actually doing the design in this project for us. and the project is fairly well advanced in terms of the design and we then, when the design is complete and trying to go out

with our rfp for our construction and final design and bids on the project. and as part of that process, before we get to the final design and final cost estimate, we need to know, who pg, and e's connection requirements would be and that is why this is asking for your approval, and so this is pretty routine, we have done about 14 solar projects so far and all of them had pg&e and there is nothing really unusual about this, it is just allowing, the project to connect to pg&e system and to be able to distribute the powerfulness project and other city facilities and other lines. so, the interconnection, agreement will be fairly simple in terms of its scope, and the electrical requirements that go around installing the meter, and so, there is an upgrade

requirement for that meter and then there is a long term ownership charge. so, we have estimated of those costs that come into be 36, 765, that is a high number that we think will actually come in less than that when it is finally done and we will not have to pay that amount. and so, we are asking for your approval on the inner connection agreement and we wanted to do this now rather than wait so that we could know what the costs are and whether there could be a need to cure any problems or costs for pg&e, but it does not appear to be, it appears to be straight forward. so that is basically, what it is. i understand that there are legal issues that we need to talk about in a moment but we can take any questions before we get to that? >> okay. thank you, mr. city attorney? >> john, gibner city attorney, and just a few provisions in

the ordinance, and the ordinance approving the contract, waived the concern requirements. and two of those requirements that are proposed to be waived can't be waived because they are adopted by the voter initiatives and one is government comment code, which you are both familiar with, that prohibts contractors from getting campaign contribution to elected officials, and the other is administrative code section or chapter 12 g, that prohibts city money from being used for political activities and so our recommendation is that you strike those sections of the ordinance on page 4, lines 8 through 11. and the contract itself, provides that the parties will be subject to all applicable laws and so the contract

acknowledges that pg&e will continue to be subject to these provisions. >> okay. obviously we would completely agree to it accept that the amendments and leave it at that. >> supervisor avalos? >> just a couple of questions, is there any schematic designs so far of the hydroelectric generate ors? >> i am sorry i didn't understand. >> are there any designs that are available to see. >> from pgand e? >> no. from the project. >> yes. >> we have prelim drawings and they are going through the evolutionary phase and yes we have a set of drawings. >> is that something that you can send to my office or e-mail me? >> yes. >> please? >> make those available to you, no problem. >> just curious, thank you. >> okay. >> any other questions right now? >> okay. thank you, very much, we appreciate it. we have mr. rose from the

budget analysts office. >> mr. chairman, and supervisor avalos on page 4 of the report as shown in table one which is actually on page 5, and there is a department just indicated the total estimated cost to be paid to the pec to pg&e under this proposal agreement would be a maximum of $86,765. and we also report on page 5 that additionally, as shown in table two on page six of our report, based on the expected hours of renewable hours produced per year from this project the pec will pay an estimated cost of $8600, to 16,500 annually to pg&e for the transmission of the electricity and finally we point out on

page six, according to the pec, various administrative codes and standard contracting requirements must be waived to be in accordance with the federal energy regulatory commission, proposed agreement and so as a result, this proposed ordinance does wave the city standard contract requirements because of that reason and for that reason only, we consider the proposed ordinance to be (inaudible) for the board of supervisors. >> thank you, mr. rose. is that the reason that we have these funky inclusions that would wave the other requirements? >> yes, in other words, we listed all of the requirements that the pec represented to us must be waived in accordance with the administrative code. generally, we are supportive of this legislation, but because standard contracting requirements would be waived, for example, contractors that have contracts with the city, are limited to the amount of

political contributions they can contribute and that is an example of what will be waived. for that reason we felt that we should say to the board of supervisors that it is a policy on your part to wave those requirements. >> otherwise, we would have said to approve this legislation without qualification. >> thank you, mr. rose, i think that everybody in this legislative body is support of our laws and believes in them strongly, just to be sure, amending this legislation will not jeopardize. >> not to my knowledge. i don't see any problem with doing that. >> all right. if that is the case, in the future we could automatically make sure that those things are not included in there. you don't want to have to keep amending these things. >> that is fine. >> any other questions? >> okay. this time we will open up for public comment, anyone wish to comment on item three, step forward, seeing none public comments is closed.

we have amendments suggested from the city attorney? >> objection, we have a motion to do so, without objection. and then, a motion to move item number 3 forward to the full board, we can do so without opposition. >> as amended. >> thank you, very much. thank you. >> mr. clerk, could you call item four, resolution declaring the intent of staoet and county of san francisco to reimburse concern expenditures from the proceeds of the future bonded indeadedness authorizing the director of mayor's office of housing, to submit an application and related documents to the california debt limit allocation of committee to permit the issuance of residential marriage revenue bonds for 1280 laguna street. we have the mayor's office of housing.

>> litia eli, project manager. western park apartments is an existing affordable housing development owned by presbyterian homes which say non-profit. it includes, 182 affordable senior rental units. and in four different buildings and most of these, 114 of them are subsidized through the section eight program. and it serves households ranging up to 60 percent of median income and it was constructed in the early 70s so it is in dire needs to maintain it for the long term. the resolution that you are considering would authorize our office to apply to the state for tax exempt mortgage revenue bonds in an amount not-to-exceed $25 million. and so the owner is proposing to undertake a substantial rehabilitation of the project and would refinance the project using revenue and also, low income housing tax credits.

the schedule is to start construction to follow this year and to be complete within a year. and tenants will be relocated temporarily outside of the building but there will be no permanent displacement of anybody because of the relocation or because of the financing over all. you have seen a number of these finances before, we do about eight in a year of these. and they are a con due ent financing so they do not require the city to pledge the remraiment of the bonds, the only recourse for the payment is the project revenues themselves. should we receive authority to apply, we will need to return to the board, most likely at the end of the summer. for permission to actually issue the bonds. >> we have a representative here from the presbyterian homes if you have any questions about the project itself. >> i think that we are okay. >> all right. >> thank you. >> thank you very much.

>> thanks for bringing this forward. this was sponsored by supervisor breed. we have analyst report on this item? no, and we will open it up to public comment, seeing none public comment is closed. motion to move this forward to the full board with recommendation, we can do so without objection. >> mr. clerk do we have any other items? >> that completes the agenda. >> okay, we are adjourned.