>> $210,000. >> thank you. i really appreciate all of the work that was done and the puc involvement as well, and reviewing the respondents. we can go ahead and open this item for public comment. any members of the public that would like to comment, please come forward? >> good afternoon again commissioners. eric brooks. san francisco clean energy advocates. very pleased to say that even though we didn't have much time to look it over, only about one day, we didn't see any red-flags come up in any of these contracts with one small exception, with the sf community power. if i ran out of time, i would appreciate it if you would ask me to elucidate that. the upshod is that we can support this. it looks like it's good enough for us to move forward and for the advocates to be supportive

of it. enernex looks pretty exciting in its abilitis to get this work done. we do want to make sure that what the work that they do is really oriented on what is called a virtual power plant where you mix together a lot of different types of resource and not just solar and wind, but a lot of other things and we're hoping it will be that comprehensive. some specifics that we want to make sure you guys consult us on and that enernex keeps in mind as it goes forward is that we want to keep that focus on the 50% local clean energy in ten years,. that kind of build-out. thousands of jobs over that ten-year period and sufficient economies of scales and good rates for rate-payers, meaning a good program, hundreds of millions of dollars and hundreds of megawatts and first diverse and integrated resources to create a virtual

power plant. and then importantly we think that the idea of a two-tiered system the way marin and sonoma both have, is actually pretty important and makes it much easy to beat pg&e's price. it makes it easier not to use rex. we'll get rid of a lot of criticism if we get to a two-tiered system instead of this all 100% thing. and same thing with the shell contract, we don't think any reason now that we have pushed the reset button that we have to own that liability and let's just do it in-house with the puc. >> i would like to hear your thoughts on the community energy. >> on san francisco community power, i know steve moss. he is very upstanding guy and does great work. there is one small concern that we would like staff to explore with him and that is historically his firm has been

pretty dependent on the public good charge funds that come there pg&e's bill. there may not be a conflict of interest there, but if there is a possibility that pg&e could at some point threaten his business, that he does for them, we need to find out about that? because we don't want him to be in the middle of working on this and suddenly face this issue of being pressured by pg&e. so if you could all just check on that, that would be great. thanks. thank you. just the comment about rex. i don't necessarily have a problem with rex. my concern and my questions about it has been that the lead administration and some of the commissioners have talked about rex as "dirty energy." and that is just not the case. and so if we -- you know, i think rex should be a tool that we could use to kind of build in a level of affordability for what power we generate. and as we go through the years of providing power, we can probably replace rex with renewable energy that we

generate ourselves. so to me, it's not necessarily the worse thing. i just think that we should be consistent how we talk about it and how we use it and that has not been the case with the lead administration and by some of the commissioners on the public utilities commission. if there are no other members of public we can close public comment and exactly what is before us here is to approve all three of these as contracts that work together in terms of assessing our generation needs. >> that is correct. if you approved all three items as presented by staff, it would authorize the signature of the contract with enernex with an initial task as discussed that we would bring back at your next meeting or the meeting after having to do with the initial assessment of the sfpuc

versus an energy service provider? and how does that work? and remaining tasks would be [thao-rz/]ed authorized as well. if we were going to actual authorize them to do a task, i would bring that back to you to have you authorize the task and the budget related to that under a not-to-exceed amount. >> okay. and then on the enernex deliveribles are for september of 2014, i heard. is that correct? >> that is the final for all deliverables. the initial deliverable would be within your next meeting or the meeting after. >> okay. and then in terms of by probably the fourth week of may, is that adequate time for enernex for a series of deliverables. >> probably not, just to be honest, but i think it may give them -- i just hate to go back a whole other month. so

we'll look at that. they might be able to give you a status report of where they are going and answer some questions that might have and figure out a way that they have a partial draft. >> i think that would be the better way to go about it, to get a check-in and status report. >> right. >> if we can get a partial draft, i think that would be great. and then by june, right? >> right. i know we have a time frame here and so i'm hoping -- >> are we scheduled for a meeting for the fourth week of june? >> yes, we are. we will get before our may meeting the one item that i know you are interested in around the budgetary issues. that will actually be done and not technically be presented necessarily for us until the end of may, but available to the city and county for the budget. that one item, but separating that, the rest of it, i would agree with miss miller, in all

likelihood june is more realistic to get a more in-depth look. >> i am hoping that we would could have assumptions and definite answers and then maybe the report to follow. something like that. >> okay. very good. colleagues, i'm entertaining motions? >> we called them all together, so however stated to approve all three. >> so moved. >> and second from commissioner breed. the motion was from commissioner schmeltzer and colleagues can we take that without objection? very good. i want to thank commissioner breed for taking the leadership on moving this forward and we have a dual pathway like now for how we are looking at our

community choice aggregation programs and clean power programs and looking at the build-out assessment of local jobs that we are doing here today. and the other is also looking at studying how we could perhaps join marin clean energy as well. so those present various options for us or two options for us to move forward and i'm thinking that we might need more, but two is good for right now. appreciate your work. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> i will just say quickly thank you to the staff for working really hard to get this done in a really timely manner. i'm really excited about this possibility and how we're going to be looking into this program and looking forward to the outcomes. i know we already voted on the matter, but thank you eric brooks and some of the other advocates who have been working on this and full-speed ahead. let's get it going. >> okay. very good. let's go on to our next item. >> item no. 7, consideration

and approval of the proposed lafco budget for fiscal year 2014-2015. >> jason fried lafco staff. in your package you have the proposed budget to do -- just as a reminder within lafco statute we pass a draft budget by may 1st and final budget by july -- middle of july, if i am not mistaken, june, i'm sorry. this is our chance to pass our draft budget and come back, unless there are changes that are suggested today drom come back with this budget for final approval at our may meeting next month. the budget itself you will not see very many changes within it you will see minor changes,

like non-personnel services a different line item that used to be under "other services and other departments." that they separate out now. so we have separated out in our budget to be more in line with the clerk of board office and how they do their budgeting. you will see an increase in the clerk of board salaris and benefits, because the contracts that the city and county has with the clerk staff last year did not have any increases. this upcoming fiscal year will have increases and so we'll have to increase our budget for that line item to pay for the great work that we get from the clerk of the board's office and all of the services that they provide for us in this purpose. so you have seen an increase there. we did decrease the department of technology quite a bit. as it turned out we had a line item a lot higher than what we have spent on that in quite some time and what we'll need to spend on it next year. so we lowered that amount to mainly offset the increase in costs to that. so that is the

thing that we have in front of you. we have been living our reserve budget for the past seven years or this is the 7th year that we have lived off our reserve budget. we had a hefty reserve with the mou with the sf puc and that is the bill that actually pays for that work. if you want, we will have enough in riche our reserve in our one-year budget. some lafcos have a policy of what the reserve amount should be at minimum? and in some cases maximum. so we might want to in the future have that discussion, but the mou with the sfpuc will expire at the

end of this upcoming fiscal year. so we won't have access to that money necessarily unless there is is an extension of that mou. but we should be planning and preparing ourselvess for it not to happen just to be on the safe side. so if that is at the discretion of this commission if it wants to give back allocated amount that is given to lafco or that the city and county and gives to lafco. under state statute once an estimate has been established the city and county or in this case the city and county of san francisco needs to give the exact same amount it gave in the previous year for the next year. they cannot reduce the lafco itself is the only body to reduce the amount. we have accepted the money and then realizing the budget issue that we give the money back. i know that you serve on the board of supervisors and you are well aware of budget for the city and county and it's up to you that we continue that

practice for this final year. one of the things i was talking with miss miller about, maybe we keep some of the money this year and not return all of it. we tend to spend $100,000 to $120,000 overall paying for the clerk's office and paying for other things that are done. like some of miss miller's time and this coming year, now that i am allowed to work on things outside of cca, i pick up costs with putting agendas together and adding up to $100,000 to $125,000 a year for staff and clerk to do this work. so we could keep our reserve where it's at for i year. the choice is really up to the commission what it wants to do on that front. >> thank you. budget recommendation is that we approve the same amount as last year? >> yes.

i would always recommend that we approve the same amount. the question is do you want return the same amount? as along as we are accepting the full amount we have that going into the future. if you said we're going to only accept $200,000 this year, our amount would be set and in the future we would have to go and ask for a raise from the city and county. i would recommend that we keep our minimum amount, but the question is do we return this year? >> okay. miss miller, do you have anything to add? >> just what the impact of that would be. because by returning it, we have no impact on your general fund. if you don't return it, then there would be potentially a portion of the general fund paying for lafco's services. so that is the question for your budget committee members is we can take it all out of reserve? so there is no impact on the general fund.

or do you want to allocate some of the general fund? i think our recommendation was this year to just do it like we have always done and take it out of the reserve and deal with the budget issues next year. >> okay. i would not want to have an impact on the general fund. >> right. >> we're hoping next year is a better year. >> that would affect the clerk of the board aspects of the general fund, correct? >> right. and quite frankly, i haven't had a conversation with the clerk's office with that impact and i would hate for you to do smidge on anything on that score without me talking to them first. >> if we gave back a portion of the reserve, what would that enable us to do? >> we're not giving back a portion of the reserve, but giving back a portion that is set aside each year. our reserve account is our reserve account and i don't think staff is recommending

that we give that back. >> right. >> the money that is allocated within the budget process, we have it down as $344,445 a year. we reserve the right to it in the future, but we're going to give that money back to the city and county, because we can continue to operate another year without having to accept the money. but that gives us the right next fiscal year or the fiscal year after this one to go and say we now need this money and we're accepting the money and unfortunately not giving it back because our reserve is depleted from a lafco perspective. >> i'm fine to approve as-is? >> thank you. >> colleagues have a preference? >> i am fine with not accepting the general fund allocation and utilizing the reserve for another year as along as we have the ability to

access those funds in the future. because it appears that the money that we have in reserve is enough to get us through this particular process for the coming fiscal year. so i am content with that. >> i just want to make one technical correction. you are accepting the money and then returning it rather than -- the way that you described it would mean that we actually lose our ability to have that right to the money in the future and we need to make sure that we protect those rights. so accepting the money from the city and county and immediately returning it to them for that. so that way we protect our rights to the money going into the future. >> yes. that is fine. >> i support that as well. >> great. we can open this item up for public comment. any member of the public wishing to comment, please come forward. >> good afternoon again, commissioners, eric brooks san francisco clean energy advocates and grassroots our city and first on the mou on

cleanpowersf with the sfpuc it's vital that we keep that money in play after next fiscal year ends. as i recall you have to check on this, that mou was done as sort of a thing to clarify, what the relationship was? so whatever the board of supervisors needs to do or staff, or the departments need to do, we need to make sure that that money has been allocated to cleanpowersf and we need to make sure that we continue to be able to spend it after the end of next fiscal year. also on the budget not really to do with the reserve or general fund question, but actually making sure that you maintain in some flexibility, if we continue to get resistance from the commissioners of the sfpuc, we may find ourselves in a spot where we need to do some more expensive work, like site-selection and more detailed work that staff was saying that they did not contract enernex to do.

if we're forced into a position that that planning work needs to be done, it's going to be more expensive and we need to be prepared for that. one other item that i will speak for on the green party and our city and also public net -- public net was the coalition that helped stop the earth link/google takeover. if that happens san francisco internet customers are going to be in a very bad place and it's definitely conceivable that public net will come to you and ask to do a broadband study to create a public broadband system in san francisco. so please allow yourself a little budget flexibility in case we ask for that. we're hoping that you can figure that in. >> thank you.

colleagues we have a suggestion on moving the budget forward, should we take that without objection? >> yes. >> without objection the item carries. okay. can you call the next item, please. >> item no. 8 executive officer's report. >> no report. >> okay. next item, please. >> item no. 9, public comment. >> okay, no members of the public wishing to speak on this item. public comment is closed. okay. colleagues, any future agenda items? >> madame chair i need to call item no. 10 >> okay. >> item no. 10. >> no future agenda items? >> public comment on future agenda items? >> just to recap on future agenda items we talked today about coming back on the legislative issue. >> yes. >> and also with an update

approximately halfway through this contract with a briefing on where things are. >> miss miller, if you could provide us with a copy of the letter that is being submitted and review it with the chair before it is submitted to state legislature. >> i will review it with the chair and vice-chair and send a draft. >> great. >> thank you. >> thank you. any members of the public wishing to speak on future agenda items? >> eric brooks again, san francisco clean energy advocates and i'm wondering on the last item that you discussed, is it possible four you to authorize the chair to sign off on that communication rather than have another meeting about it because this is moving very quickly through the capitol? >> we are. thank you. >> all right, public comment is closed. adjourn. thank you for being here today. [ gavel ]

>> we're here to raise awareness and money and fork for a good accuse. we have this incredible gift probably the

leaders. >> hi everyone i'm patrick the director of earthquake safety forever for the stoifbl and we have the ryan white fair to teach people about the made sure soft story ordinance and connect them with the services they need you can save thousands of lives and if those buildings are rooiftd people will be allowed to sleep in their own beds while the city is recovering.

>> we're here at the earthquake ryan white center for people to comply with the ryan white or do a ryan white on their property to connect with the resources they need. i came here wondering what to do as a owner of an apartment building moderate to comply with the must rules that went into effect last year >> we don't want to go to 10 different events people said so we advise people of the event. so we try to be incentive not everyone is going to be able to

come 0 so this fans the afternoon and the einstein >> i've decided to be here it's amazing to see all those people's here it's critical to be prepared and to recover from disasters as finishing as possible. >> i've been to a lot of shows and this one was a trufk turnout a. >> since the structure the building represents the super structure the lower part of this particle on the buildings on the corner they shack quite a bit. >> so for the floors above as shaking that top floor is fog go-go have no more mass and we saw in 1984 more structure

destruction where we're ryan white this by adding a steel frame typically you want to brass in both directions and see how strong the building is. >> we've adapted a thirty year implementation program i worry about that was a retrofit requirement this is what we do to mitigate the shom and have's evacuation for the people and our partners. i had questions about what kind of professionals are involved in this i want to start to put together a team of people to help me get through this. i'm a structural engineer and i'm thrilled at the quality of

the contractors and engineers >> we've taken one civic awesome and put all the vendors in one place. >> you have financing and engineers and contractor and they come here and every we're rebuilding are that the office of the city of administer and the depth thought i environment and other partners. >> all those things one little piece of a resilient piece of - >> and i felt more positive about things i thought about how to pay for this. >> we didn't want to have one financing option it didn't work. >> we found information about

financing they are different options for different types property owners. >> we've seen them offering financially and a pool of styles for a complicated way of saying they'll be able to pay back their loans over the next two years. >> we have 3 options and secondly, to get a loan for the ryan white and the third becoming in the past program participants in that. it is encouraged along coastal easier where we have set time like sand and a high water table to a cause the sand to shake i'm

going to get this visitation on the same bridge you'll see the water come to the surface this knocks the foundation over and pushes out the ruptured pipeline >> it is intimidating i'm talking to people as a layman who needs help. >> this is a difficult process for people to navigate we're only focused on outreach so we've got the informational and we've spoken to many different owner groups and community groups all across the city. >> outreach is critical for the retrofitting program the city

has to get out to the community and help people said what they have to do and do it and raise finances so this program is an advocate and resource for the community. >> so why not skip to the theme. foremost and most to come we've been presenting community meetings and going face to face with community owners and helping people understand what to do >> you may be wanting to know about the sf green but this will allow you to have is a loan for the property so if you have the property the loan will be summoned by the new owner and this is pay back for your property taxes and the low rates