this point because we needed some feedback. we want to make sure that we have the principals correct and that we are doing what you would like us to do. i would like sfpuc staff to comment and assist with this. i know that they have been directed at this point not to do that because the budget issues and directions. i have always enjoyed my working relationship with the sfpuc and they bring a lot of issues to the table. they have a staff and i think it makes a lot of sense to have their input. i know that barb can't really address this, miss hale can. i'm going to keep working behind-the-scenes to make sure that happens. i think it's really important. we have the program all put together. one thing this rfp does not do is it does not, it acknowledges the shell contract. so that is one thing that we would want

direction on. if you do not want a consultant to assume the shell contract exist and to think of other things. that is not in this rfp. it assumes the program is designed and voted on and then it assumes the local build out and asks for a creative and imaginative praj -- program with specificity. i'm available for questions. >>supervisor john avalos: thank you, commissioner breed. >>supervisor london breed: thank you, miss miller for putting this together so quickly. i do of course want there to be a little bit more time for input and i'm sure you got feedback that there are some other organizations that want to take the time to review it and provide input. i would like to make sure that we have the time to do that before we finalize the rfp and i wanted to get a sense of

how my colleagues as well as how members of the public feel about how we move forward with shell. because there have been some challenges and i don't feel that they have been the best community partner in this community effort and there has been a challenge around communication and miscommunication. i'm not completely certain about how i feel about acknowledging that relationship or retaining that relationship. but i would like to hear from, especially from people who have been actively engaged in this process and whether or not we allow this particular project, whether we use it from a context of explaining the history of how we got to this point which of course makes censor -- or do we continue that relationship. it would be important for me to understand from my

colleagues on lafco as well as others actively involved in this effort to understand what their perspective is on moving that forward in the rfp process. >>supervisor john avalos: commissioner campos? >>supervisor david campos: thank you, mr. chair. my thinking with being open and flexible with the rfp is i want to get to as many options as possible. one approach would be to include information with shell in the picture but also to include information with shell out of the picture so we have some comparison point. what i have said about shell is that i don't think for anyone of us who voted for this that shell was always the ideal partner, was always the best response.

so as presented at that particular time. if there are options out there that are better that we have a responsibility to explore them. maybe one approach to have in the rfp to have flexibility to look at both to have as much information as we can. i don't know if you are open to that but that would be my thinking. >> okay. it's really up to your direction. i know when we had the meeting with the advocates there were some that wanted that flexibility. since it wasn't clear is why i brought it up. i just want to make sure how you want to approach that. i don't think -- i think it's possibility to do it. it may draw a cost because we talk about what would be the option if there were no shell, but that's

certainly doable. >>supervisor john avalos: the option being flexible to have one that includes shell and one that doesn't? >> right. along the line of what the commissioners have been saying. >>supervisor john avalos: okay. i think that's the right approach. and in the meantime, what was the timeframe for this rfp? >> well, the timeframe was to try to get enough comments and good robust comments to be able to feel that we heard everyone and we had incorporated or figured out why we were not incorporating what everyone was saying. in terms, that would include from my point of view the sfpuc. i don't know if we want to wait on a joint hearing or go forward. we have gone forward in the past with out sfpuc involved. it's up to your direction. i have not had a

conversation with the general manager. i have with mchale, very professional but they are not in a position to assist. we also wanted to meet with the advocates. we had a phone conversation, but we would like to have that, a couple more rounds of that. so i think we could, two options: i bring it back, maybe bring it to the joint meetings, bring it back to you and tell you of the conversation or go forward and tell you the vice-chair approved the rfp. it's a matter of timing and whether or not you feel like going quickly. >>supervisor john avalos: do you have any preferences on that? >>supervisor london breed: yeah, i think that given the fact that we do have a draft and there will be input and changes made in order to get us where we need to go, that we shouldn't have to wait

until the next lafco meeting in order to move this rfp forward. i do think that as much as we want involvement from puc at this point, we as lafco should take the leadership on putting out there to the public exactly what we are looking for because ultimately we want a comprehensive plan. i think we should maybe allow the chair to give the final say that this is good and we can put it out there once we get our feedback and make the appropriate changes to get it where we need it to go. >>supervisor john avalos: great. thank you. okay. item b within this item. is that miss miller? >> this item will be dropped from the agenda. our mou goes to the end of fiscal year

14-15. we have another year 1/2 on the mou. that was my fault. we don't need to hear that item. >>supervisor john avalos: great. if there are no other comments from the panel. we'll go to public comment. >> good afternoon commissioners, eric brooks local green party for the city. first once again thank you for the lafco for taking out the bold steps. we have had a couple moments like this in history where things got caught up and glad to see it moving forward. some quick technical notes. i think one thing that will really and we discussed it a little bit, i completely concur with exploring all possible actions with shell and without shell

and other contractors like shell or do it in house which i think the advocates are most supportive of that. one thing that i have noticed is that we have not heard from the sfpuc or from any other source that i know of exactly what is going on right now with the shell contract. that was put on holdback in august and we have not heard. i think we should ask sfpuc to clarify what's going on with that. as far as the whole thing, i think the key here is that even if the sfpuc gets considerably more involved and starts doing it own work on build out and cleanpowersf and gets back in the game. i think back where we let them take the ball back. this is the moment where we need to lafco stay the drive of this. this

is politics. the key with the sfpuc is that as an enterprise agency that is in charge of rate payers and keeping the system secure, they are mandated to be secure about this. lafco can really push the envelope in developing an rfp that will face the compliment crisis and we need to you keep this in-house. >>supervisor john avalos: thank you. >> hello commissioners. chad hose skin. we didn't hear too much about the cleanpowersf program. i was at the january 14th puc hearing and i strongly urge you to checkout the power enterprise budget

information presented. a memo was available which i believe was the 14-15 two year planning cycle and indicated i think in one sentence that no work would be done on cleanpowersf by power enterprise. the focus seems to be on new high revenue customers and not on engagement. definitely a lot of information in those documents in terms of what the puc is thinking going forward and i don't think it do have dove tails what the lafco board is expecting. in-house scheduling is a comment that someone made earlier is something we heard the puc staff say they can do. and as mr. freed indicated that could actually not only not add to, but maybe even alleviate some of the funding issues that

the puc is having. going to the rfp, we did as a group of advocates send a letter to the lafco staff and urged you to check that out and looking forward working on the lafco rfp going forward and assuming the shell contract is going forward seems questionable, but also maybe might not even matter that much. 20-30 mega watts for four 1/2 years while substantial may not purely maintain a plan this scope in scale. thank you very much. >>supervisor john avalos: is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. there was a question that was raised in public comment. i want to ask puc about that and that is the status of the shell contract. i can speculate probably accurately but i want to hear from you. >> barbara hale from power.

we have not engaged with shell. our department let us believe that we are not going forward with the cca program as was conceived since we did not get authority though go forward. we have not been engaging with shell. >>supervisor john avalos: thank you. seems like a land with a big thud. okay, i thought the puc, the commissioners just did not approve not to exceed rates. but have they made an occasion that cleanpowersf is dead and gone? that wasn't my understanding. they just didn't approve not to exceed rates. >> i think it's accurate to

say there has been no formal vote on the status of the program. the general manager and the commission have engaged in public dialogue about the program. we've been given direction at the staff level to focus our efforts on the need to get our financial house back in order. so that's where our focus has been. >>supervisor john avalos: okay. we'll have a presentation on that at our joint meeting. hopefully it won't be difficult to schedule. okay. commissioner campos. >>supervisor david campos: thank you, mr. chair, i think it's the fact that rates were not approved doesn't necessarily mean that the puc still doesn't have an obligation to continue to do work on the program because as much as that issue on rates

remains open, you still have a board of supervisors decision to proceed. and i think it's interesting that the proposed budget does not include any money for clean power because i think it's an interesting thing to see an agency introduce a proposed budget that has to be approved by the body that approved a program that they are leaving out of the budget. so, i think the board of supervisors certainly will have an opportunity at the budget committee when the budget of the puc is reviewed to make sure that the budget of that agency reflects the priorities that have been set out by the legislative body of the city, the board of supervisors. and i think that

there will be a number of supervises who will expect that there will be an allocation of funding to continue with community choice aggregation. >> if i can clarify, you may recall in the past two or three budgets we have not included additional funds for cleanpowersf. we have funds available in the programmatic account that is set aside to fund cleanpowersf. as i mentioned earlier, that's on the operating side. we have the $19.5 million on reserve that remains on reserve. on the budget as it's proposed, though funds stay where they are. i would characterize that more as in stand still. i think last time we brought a budget to you it did not include additional funds just like this budget won't

include additional funds because there was no perceived needs for additional funds. that doesn't mean there are funds that are a part waiting for cca and further direction. hopefully through the joint meeting process we'll get some additional direction. >> i guess my question had to do more for instance with the work on the rfp. >> i understand what miss hale is saying but i think there are funds that are available, remaining available for cca. she indicated which is sort of contrary to the direction that's been given, i think internally to staff to not work on any longer. >>supervisor john avalos: if that's the issue, then it's a version of the question that i posed earlier because if the puc expects it's budget to be

approved, i would imagine that it would allow it's staff to do work that the legislative body in this case anticipates or expects that will be done on this program. >> i think that's true. the item that we drop, the mou which talks about working cooperatively with one another on developing the program and particularly dealing with issues that are a contention. which i recall when there was a no vote on the rate, there were a number of issues that were expressed as the reasons why. part of the rfp is to explore answers to many of those questions. >> >>supervisor david campos: i would hope the general manager reconsider working with staff on this. >> i do too. >>supervisor john avalos: i

was hoping that they would work with them through sfpuc and we have funding as well and next year is what should be in line. is there currently staff that can be helpful and that are budgeted in our budget to do this work? >> the cleanpowersf program is funded as a program. staff can charge to it as they work on it in that program index code. so those funds are sitting there, staff is not working on it. they will continue to sit there. so to the extent we are given direction to do particular community choice aggregation, clean four sf work, we have the financial resources to perform that work. that's the point i was trying to make. >>supervisor john avalos: okay, the system of the rfp could do that work? >> where we are direct to do

that work yes. >> by your staff, by your commission? >> yes. and through the joint meeting process, perhaps that's the venue to discuss these items and to come to some sort of agreement as to what the going forward efforts should be. thank you. >> thank you. i appreciate that. seems like a road we've been on before. experiencing a yogi bear moment. okay. we can go to our next item. >> item no. 5. executive officers report. i have no report. oh, i'm sorry, there is an announcement for our public seats are vacant. there will be applications available online, they are available right now on the lafco website for the sitting member and

the alternate. we'll be posting a notice on our website. we have it up, right? the information is available. thank you. >>supervisor john avalos: thank you, colleagues can probably do some help with the outreach to fill those vacancies and get the applications in for the seats. let's go to public comment on the executive director's report. we have no one coming forward for public comment. close public comment. next item. >> item no. 6, public comment. >> our next item is general public comment. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> next item? >> item no. 7. questions or comments. >> colleagues, any questions or proposals? seeing none. public comment.

>> for sf green. especially for agenda items if you are going to have a meeting with the puc. the budget issues were raised earlier today . i know a big problem that was part of the budget. it's now $20 million more per year. it's good to find out how we got stuck with a new inter connected agreement that is going to be that much more money. i don't -- i think it due to be approved in 15. especially that brings up another item besides cleanpowersf for their 10-year projected budget, the sfpuc has agreed to remove $30 million when we have been trying to get it up to $5 million a year. we need to

find out what's going on with the pg & e interconnected agreement and find out why, when we've seen evidence that minnesota solar is beating fossil fuel or price, in usa -- austria -- this is benefit for these departments and not liabilities. it doesn't make sense when we are in a budget crunch to be cutting things. we need to find out from the sfpuc what the heck is going on. that is the key number, that $20 million a year that's digging in. they have a big water project that they say is a surprise and we have to look at that because it's half a billion dollars. those energy things are something we should

really dig into. >>supervisor john avalos: perhaps, sfpuc staff are not here but they can comment. we have a joint meeting in the inter connect agreement. i think there is a discussion that they are -- appealing that 20-minute price tag. >> jason freed. lafco staff. what i remember and what they are planning is now is they don't have the agreement. when they are projecting farther out. i will double check on it and i think they are projecting all the stuff may not be there so they have a higher price down the road. it's better to do it that way because the current one will be continued and to find out it's not right. i think budgeting towards the worst case scenario in that case. i will double check that for you.

>> thank you. okay. we just had public comment. we can close public comment. our next item. >> item no. 8. adjournment. >>supervisor john avalos: colleagues, we are adjourned. have a lovely weekend. [ meeting is adjourned ] >> >>

hmm. [cell phone beeps] hey! [police whistle blows] [horns honking] woman: hey! [bicycle bell rings] turn here. there. excuse me. uh.

uh. [indistinct announcement on p.a. system] so, same time next week? well, of course. announcer: put away a few bucks. feel like a million bucks. for free tips to help you save, go to ♪ feed the pig >> january 21, the meeting of the entertainment commission. just a couple of things, please turn off your cell phones, if you have them on, or leave them on vibrate. if you have a comment to make about something on our agenda, we have speaker cards, at this desk right up here.

and feel free to fill that out and let us know who you are. and thank you to sfgov tv, and media services for presenting this and airing this to the public. we are going to go ahead and start this meeting with a roll call. >> commissioner akers? >> here. >> commissioner hyde. >> here. >> joseph. >> here. >> lee. >> here. >> campagnoli. >> here. >> president tan. >> here >> we have a quour. e >> great. >> our first item is public comment and this is for any item that is not currently agendaized and if you are a member of the public and you would like to address us on anything that is not on the agenda feel free to come up. >> good evening, commissioners my name is steven ocastidato. and i would like you for the more tore um on broad way and

the insightful comments from the commission and for that purpose, all of the general comment from the public. i wanted to, share with you one comment that you know, commissioner joseph made which i thought was very prudent observation. she asked some of the stewards of broad kay if they are going to pursue a policy, what would be the back up plan if a two-year freeze or a moratorium did not work? and when i left the commission that evening, i thought about it and i thought about it and my way here today says that you know what? i am going to address that and i am going to step further. what is going to happen to people who pay the assessment fees, who own the buildings on broad way into the cdb? and then, know that that assessment fee is going to go to a group of people that supported a moratorium and would not allow them to lease a

property, or even invest in their own property for the purposes of entertainment and something that would go in that value? that would possibly add insult to injury, in other words, you would not be able to adjust your business model and you would not pursue a business model and you would have to pay the fee every year and you are paying it while your building is vacant, and over a period of time, there have the bitterness could set in, and so i want to thank all of the commission, especially commissioner joseph for that astute observation. thank you, is there any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. we will move on to the next agenda item, which is review and approval of the minutes from january 7, 2014. >> i move to approve. >>