supervisors around the power enterprise budget and this is the initial draft and more work to be done. we're literally talking about a week or week and a half to work on this and it gifses a high level synopsis and you have million to $1.1 million that could be available to the power enterprise to pay for cleanpower sf. they would pay them. it doesn't solve their entire budget deficit and i don't think we would do that with the clean power program but it solves part of that program so that's good news from that front if we had a cca program they have another option to utilize that. >> what was the response of the utility commission when you mentioned that? >> we just got it this morning and i haven't talked with them and unfortunately their staff

hasn't arrived on. state legislation. there were two bills we were monitoring and tracking. one is that was introduced by assembly man tom amiano to give san francisco a choice in how it does its energy cca programs. unfortunately that bill died in the local government committee. they had some concerns about t the forces on the other side that didn't want to see it said it violated the city charter but we said it didn't but the bill did not move forward. the other bill we're monitoring is the brad ford bill 2145 which would change cca programs -- it and the bill

would get through the committee. it's now sitting at appropriations committee where it will get a hearing next week. should it go from there to the assembly floor and pass that to the senate side so we're monitoring that. i believe ms. miller on behalf of chair avalos and sent that and i will keep you up-to-date as the legislature moves forward on the process and on the final one i will talk about here on the list is the -- as the three of you know since you're on budget committee and approved by the board unanimously this tuesday was they're looking at how do we potentially join marin as an option to our program. one of the things talking with marin as going through the process we are a new way of doing things we

are a much larger than they looked at before. we would dwarf them if we did it at one time and their program so they have more considerations to do than like richmond did or napa was just approved to move this forward so we have to deal with that, so what they have asked for if we can approve a $5,000 not to exceed rate they can start looking with the consultants and what would be the cost with the bigger study? if you give us a want to exceed rate but they would go so high it right scare people off so we wanted them to look at and pay for that part of the study and what would it take to join them? they said $5,000 is more than enough to do that so there is a resolution in the packet that would authorize that. i would say we would only moving forward it gets through the second board hearing because

the ordinance going through the board of supervisors process had the first reading and approved unanimously. i am guessing it's going to have a second one but not to delay and wait until june we're coming to you for the $5,000. >> and how long would that work take >> i would say it's a about a month or two to come back and there is the full price for what we need to do lafco and the board of supervisors could have that discussion whether or not that made sense to move forward at this point. >> and at this point we will by resolution pass allowance of funds to go, allocation? >> yes. assuming it was done through lafco. it could be paid for by other means and manners but if lafco did that through the cca fund we would come back with approval for a

not to exceed for that process as well. >> and do we get any indication of what the study could potentially cost? >> we know what it cost for richmond and for napa which just had their study done. theirs was in the 40,000 to $40,000 range and don was up front and closer to the higher number and there is something they want to do a study because of san francisco politics and what it would meep to their program and do broad base research to what it would look like a program and the appetite for their customers to join and they don't want to scare off their customers and san francisco is going to take us over type of thing and also the appetite for joining a marin style program and i don't know the cost of that would be. >> what do you see as the work, the research that the city and county of san francisco have

done so far that might help them and they're going to have access to that information? >> i told them they would have access to the information. on the market research side their concern it was a couple years old and none of our research incorporated commercial customers which they're interested in having and not incorporate anyone outside of san francisco and is a concern for them and whether to join up so they would have to do brand-new market research on their own. on the study side we have information and i hope that keeps the cost down on that side. >> what is the size of the customer base now. >> the size is about 130,000 although i haven't checked in for a while to determine the current numbers are but i want to say around 130. >> all right. thanks. >> colleagues, any other

comments, questions for the executive officer. okay. we can go onto public comment and it's open and seeing no one come forward we will close public comment and this is an information item or action item. we have a resolution with the packet with the 5,000. >> yes, there's the not to exceed 5,000 and the only action item needed today. >> okay. i will entertain motions whether to move forward. okay. motion by commissioner breed and second by commissioner mar and we will extend this for the study and we will take that without objection. [gavel] okay. next item please. >> item four consideration and approval of the final lafco budget for fiscal year 2014/2015.

>> jason fried lafco staff again. as i mentioned to you i presented the first draft budget at last meeting. this is the second required hearing. there is however a difference from last month to this month in the budget. if you look at your packets you will see there say re-- is a reduction in the budget. that was as the city and county of san francisco was going through their process and changes to staffing and how lafco can interact with staff i noticed an interesting difference between what we say our budget was and what they were saying and i did research and worked with the clerk and by state mandate the minimum amount that we can request be ag indicated to us and it's 300,000 so you will see the budget reflect the lower amount. once again we do have enough in

reserve to pay for one year of our budget but after year we will be below that budget and next fiscal year we will be below that amount. we're at 300,000 now in the reserve act so we can go one more year if we want to return the money and i will suggest that at a future lafco meeting once i review other lafcos and what is a good amount to have? we were up at a million dollars and we have spent it down and we should have a policy in place and most lafcos do and we should stay within the budget and be fine and the choice is up to you to return that back to the city and county for a year but let them know we're reserving our rights to the full amount in the future. >> what are we spending a year?

>> i went back the last years from what i consider our general fund, not the city's fund but lafco's account. we tend to spend 100,000 or 125,000 a year and most goes to the clerk's office for clerking the meeting but also the back office, hr, it, copiers and that goes to them and the bulk of the money and the rest is paying for miss miller's time to do non cca work which i will now take over so we should be okay if we follow the patterns. if there is a interest to do things not cca related we would need to have a discussion but we can have that discussion as time moves on. >> okay. i am just reviewing the chart here that you provided with the budget. it seems like the biggest changes to the

budget are service of other departments where there is a $25,000 reduction. looks like that is almost wiebed out. it was $28,000 to begin with and we will have $3,000 left. $15,000 from lafco staff and legal and consultant services. that's the next big ticket item and proportion to the largest allocation we have for this fund. everything else seems shaved off. do you see any challenges in place while the 44,000 that is being removed from our budget? >> as long as we stay fiscally prudent, no. one thing i should mention some of the numbers are shaved down because they're not to exceed rates and talking with the clerk's office i asked what have we spent in the categories over the last years and all of the numbers -- even if we continue to spend at current

pattern with inflation we would stay within that amount. at one time we brought for other stuff and now it's brought in house to the clerk's office and we don't pay others but just the clerk's office and wrapped into the services we pay them so that's why that number dropped dramatically and we haven't come close to that amount in the last years. >> i am concerned about the reserve of other lafcos around the state if you could do work and understand what the reserves typically are or a range from. that would be good to see. also this budget if we were to approve a budget of this size we basically and we fund cca work but we don't have other work that will be budgeted or this budget would allow us to do other non cca related work including research or

researching other issues, possible municipal w fior banking. could you respond to that. >> yeah. if you take the assumption we will continue with the pattern of returning the money we would have 300,000 less in the act so we spend 100,000 to 125,000 and make it easy and make it 150 that would leave 150,000 in the reserves for other projects and things in the course of the year but that spends down the reserve if we spend the entire 150 but we have room to do side projects as needed if requested by this commission to do so. >> great. thank you. and so are you recommending any particular action? >> well, you need to approve the budget and the question that

comes in and discussion at the last meeting and i yield to the commissioners themselves to determine if we give back the money, or one of the things we could do is we're reserving our right and instead of giving back all 300 only give x amount and keep some in the account and i yield depending what is going on you could do that or return the entire amount. you all serve on the budget committee so you know what is looks like for the upcoming year. >> okay. why don't we open this up for public comment. anyone for the public like to comment please do so. seeing none we will close public comment. typically we give back the funds? >> that is correct and we have enough money in the reserve act for an -- account for an entire's year budget at this point so we could do that for a

year or if you want to figure out -- >> i am fine to do that for one more year. i think i want to look at the budget process if we want to reverse that in june but more time would be -- that's my suggestion. okay. i am seeing ascent from commissioner mar. do we need to make a motion on that? >> yes, you need to make a motion to approve and accept the staff's recommendation if you give the money back. >> i move that we accept the recommendations. >> second by commissioner breed and i will third that and without objection. [gavel] okay. the next item please. >> item five executive director's report. >> do you have something else to say? >> one last thing. our public seats have been up for reappointment now for a couple months. the current members are in those seats until we

reappoint the seats. we have at least two applications in for the seats so we will hopefully move it forward at next meeting so if you know anyone else that wants to apply i encourage them to get the application in a week before the meeting so we can review them and i will get them to you to review them long before the meeting occurs. >> okay. we will open up item five the executive director's report for public comment and seeing no member of the public come forward and we will close public comment and we will go to the next item. >> item six public comment. >> we have public comment open on any matter related to lafco and seeing no member of the public come forward we will close public comment and our next item. >> item seven future agenda items.

>> colleagues any comments or questions on future agenda items? and we will have public comment on future agenda items. public comment is now open and we will close public comment for lack of a commenter. [gavel] and we will go on to the next item. >> item eight adjournment. >> colleagues we are adjourned

all right, everybody. it seems we got our issue resolved. our interpreter is being featured. if everyone can take their seats we should begin momentarily. >> first of all thank you for coming here today. welcome to mayor's disability council here on may 16, 2014. my name is derek zarda. the new elected cochair. i will be handing it out to mr. wong. >> good afternoon and welcome to the mayor's disability

council this friday may 16, 2014, in room 400 of san francisco city hall. city hall is accessible to persons using wheelchairs and other assistive mobility devices. wheelchair access is provided at the van ness and mccall street. and entrance is provided via a wheelchair lift. assistant listening devices are available and our meeting is open captioned and sign language interpreted. our agendas are also available in large print and braille. please ask staff for any additional assistance. to

prevent electronic interest parents to -- interference with this room's sound system and for everybody's ability to focus on the presentations, please silence all mobile phones and pda's. your cooperation is appreciated. we welcome the public's participation during public comment. you may complete a sticker card available in the front of the room or call our bridge line at 415-554-9632. where a staff -- excuse me. person will handle the

requests to speak at the appropriate time. the mayor's disability council meeting is held the third friday of the month. our next regular meeting will be held on june 20, 2014, from 1 :00 p.m. to 4 :00 p.m. here at san francisco city hall in room 400. please call the mayor's disability office on disability for further information or request accommodations at 415-554-6789 voice or 415-554-6799 tty. a reminder to all of our guest today to speak slowly into the microphone to assist our

captioner and interpreters. we thank you for joining us. >> thank you councilmember wong. now we proceed with roll call. >> cochair chip supanich, present, cochair derek zarda, present. councilmember at tatiana kostanian, absent. councilmember star laura, absent. councilmember denise, present, harriet c wong, absent, councilmember roland

wong. present. >> item 1. welcome introduction, and roll call. >> item 2, action item and reading and approval of the genetic. >> item 3, public comment. items not on today's agenda but within the jurisdiction of the mdc. each speaker is limited to 3 minutes. >> item 4, information item. report from cochair sup initiate. >> item 5: information item. report from the director of the mayor's office on disability. item 6. information item. bart new train cars, design and public input. the presentation will provide an overview of the fleet of the future project which will replace bart's aging fleet and expand the number of cars to relief crowded conditions on the bart system. it will include an overview of outreach that has been conducted and

information on accessible features of the new trains that have been included in the design based on the input from the bart accessibility task force and other disability organizations over the last 3 years. presentation by aaron wine stein, bart chief marketing officer and lead design are on bart' new train cars. >> break. the council will take a 10 -minute break. >> item 7. information item. feedback from the disability and senior organizations on the bart new car design. brian bashin, executive director, lighthouse for the #3w4r50i7bd and visually impaired sfravenlt jessie lorenz, executive director, independent living resource center, san francisco. jessica lehman, executive director, senior and disability action. >> public comment is pensacola. item 8. information item. report from the disability

disaster preparedness committee. >> item 9. pensacola comment. items not on today's agenda but within the jurisdiction of the mdc. each speaker is limited to 3 minutes. >> item 10, information item. correspondence. item 11, discussion item. councilmember comments and announcements. >> item 12, adjourn. >> >> thank you. next we proceed to agenda item no. 3. public comment. items not on today's agenda, but within the jurisdiction of the mayor's disability council. i have three cards here. we'll start with john lowell with the safety and advisory council. >> good afternoon, my name

is, thank you derek for the introduction. my name is john alex lowell. i hold the seat no. 4 on the disability organizations. i come to you on my public comment on this section to make some announcements regarding p sac. the acronym for the selected advisory committee. it selected a new chair to carry out the rest of the term for 2014. her name is sonya kauf. she's in south market housing services for seniors. her name is sonya kauf and she's very well engaged in the community. that's my first point to inform you on piece act. the enact is timing on pedestrian safety signals. there was a general bill introduced to

the state legislature but it was not in time to find a legislator to care it. it would change the default time from signals from 3.5 as the default and 2.8 exception to transform it to 2.8 feet per second with 3.5 feet being the exception. we could not find a legislator this year. there is some debate whether it could be a tagalong amendment to the transportation bill or will it wait for 2015. that will be a general improvement for pedestrian safety. for we who have disabilities and age and other increments which slow us down. those are provided by the safety committee. thank

you. >> next we have bob plan hold. >> i'm bob plant hold. i came to publically sg -- suggest for all those listening that the city council handle the lack of accessibility for the #2r7gs -- transportation network company such as sidecar, wings, uber. who knows what else. there is a great deal of neglect here in city hall and state capital about this problem. the california public utilities commission even said, well, they is survey passengers this fall to see if the needs of the disabled are met by

current services to see if they consider anything about tnc. none of these officials thought to ask are their websites accessible? that the fact that you can only get through the service for smartphones and those with no smartphone are denied services. you can hail a cab. those are ignored here at city hall as well as sacramento. there is even instances where there have been people who use a guide dog denied service after asking for a ride. they are biased. no one is taking action against them because it seems the city attorney thinks it c puc service and they are ignoring it all. i'm asking for you to get publicity

about the services they do or don't meet. they are a public accommodation. that is a term and concept that just hasn't occurred to c puc. they don't understand and they don't deal with and they don't respond to that phrase. thank you. >> thank you. moving on to agenda item no. 4. information item. report from cochair supanich. >> thank you >> my apology. is there anymore public comment for item no. 3? my apology. >> hello, my name is keith dennis. councilmembers, i would like to say