treasurer and each individual will have to check in and for instance the information will stay in a file until sent out. anything else? >> is there a motion to approve this? i move to approve that change to the sequa regulation. >> second. >> all in favor? okay. the motion passes. another computer issue we're going to be discussing and on

net files contracts the renewal of that >> so the commission has a contract with net file which is our electronic filing vendor and that contract will end in september of this year. the contracting process in this city is very length yes and requires approval by the civil serve commission. it is - the commission has previously entered into two contracts to provide the system for finance statements lobbyist statements and statements of economical interests. it's the only vendor that the state has approved so we only

have one system and the system is shared by 20 industries that lowered our maintenance costs and allowed us to improve the system. there are a brief memo and i'll answer any questions about it. m >> this memo represents a lot of time we spent on that. we do get some benefits and we think about that carefully as we plan ahead so the negotiations are crafted very careful. the city has a lot of requirements and we go through a lot of hurdles and hoops so this

represents a significant amount of time and care >> i have some questions. first of all, thank you for your your hard work and electronic system and thank you for your work. i.e.. a little confused about this particular me up 0 it's not clear we have a viable alternative. so what really are you asking? so >> so prior to 2007 from about 1999 to 2007 the city co- could file one finance form.

that then a department came to the commission and a announced they were discontinuing the practice in the commission. and they had net file that wouldn't rebuild the system because it was going to cost a lot of money >> we don't have any additional. if the commission decided i didn't want to go in this decision staff would very quickly have to come up with an alternate and we wouldn't know what to do. >> we could say this isn't

working for us but it is. >> what about the cost? >> for the first time we've maintained costs for 6 years static. in this it's going to go up. i think that net file has been for bearing to ask for more because the city has made strong pleas to the contractor of the city to recognize the budget and they've sort of recognized that. and another one is that by working with us to develop several different platforms set of xablts we've enhanced their ability to sell the product in other cities so it's compensation for it but the

reality of inflation it's not really feasible for them to give us what is ultimately a discount. and what we're looking at is we're asking for more so the costs will increase >> and do we know how many? >> i don't have the numbers here but the initial contracts what between 1 hundred and 40 thousand per year. >> i think it's 1 hundred and 17. >> it's reasonable. >> and my final question on this is do we just begin to negotiate the contract?

>> well, it's already been negotiated and we - we could have had the price the same for 2 years and then a steep increase but we decided to have it remain static. we need our approval and there's 17 different departments that have to sign off >> we need to see if contracting is the most efficient system. that's on the civil service report >> we're not here actually approving the contract. >> right. for example, the human rights commission has already approved it but we still need you to

approve it >> i'm supportive of it. i believe 1 hundred and 17 thousand though it seems high is less than a programmer in this city so if we did this in how is it would cost more. not that i'm giving a general assessment of the department of the technology. but >> - >> no comment. >> i think this is the best course of action. they really do have all the documents their subject to redaction and all the filings there's a lot we have relatively at low-cost. i'm very supportive of this.

thank you. did i mention steve is doing a great job? >> is there a motion? >> so moved. >> the decision is that we determine that this is the most effective way of filing electronic filing system that meets the needs of the commissioner. that's my motion and i approve that >> i second. >> all in favor? >> i should state that the department of technology cooperates with us and is very helpful. >> now next up agenda is to consider the minutes of the commissions special meeting on

april 1st the minutes of that meeting. comments on those amendments? any correction? changes? >> approved. public comment; right? >> i found no errors the record will show that it was too early in the morning. >> he watches the reruns and a motion to approve? >> second. >> all in favor?

okay moving right along >> there's two highlights in the director's report. i want to remind everyone that the regular meeting is on memorial day and the building is closed >> that's going to stop us? >> the meeting has been rescheduled for thursday the 30th. i'll send you a reminded in that. we also plan to address the board of supervisors report that was conducted last year and we expect that that that discussion any take some time it would be a longer meeting. and there's an attachment about

an information port all that they've been providing to the city of san francisco. 70 is trying to get the information out there for sort of a one stop setting for data. they've endorsed this product. it speaks well, for us and again steven left but for stevens work in keeping the information that we have out there and easily available and assessable to the public. i mean, it's not about us but it certainly sheds a favorable light on some of our efforts. any questions?

>> okay items for future meeting? oh, comments? >> under item 2 apparently, the staff done as i asked and noticed where gentlemen agreements have been approved and so i thank you for that thank you. >> finally items for future meetings? okay. and finally public comment? public comments from public on future meetings? no public comment?

what about public comments on information not on or on the agenda? well, i want to thank the staff and the public for making my first mooeft as the ethics committee as chair very easy and fast. this is the shortest meeting i've eve i've ev i've ever attended. okay. the meeting of the ethics committee is

>> 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.test .

>> okay, good afternoon and finally welcome to the city school district joint committee for april 24, 2013. my name is jane kim and i will be chairing today's meeting. i am joined by our board of education commissioners, mendoza. our clerk today is esther castro and we'd like to recognize the staff at sfgtv for taping today's session. we do want to apologize to the public and all our presenters. we have a budget