program is really important as you see it meets a special need in the community where it has people of color participating in employment and some of those who have gone through problems such as law enforcement problems and come back strong this wonderful lady over here. and just looking at how jeanine and her group has put together the good solar program you can't turn our backs on them i know we have to work out deals but ask you to consider not holding puc's budget hostage i don't know if i should have thrown that in there but i ask that all of you think, you know, y wisely

and look at the effects you have before you and i know you're all bright and i know you'll all make the right decision >> is there any public comment on items it through 4. seeing none, public comment is closed. so 3 budgets in front of us can i make a suggestion we set puc next and there's no additional budget so i suggest we move that we consider that one towards the june date the retirement system we have the recommends from our budget analyst that the director was in favor of the department of real estate what make that happen i suggest we look at the retirement budget so can i ask

for the retirement budget be moved >> supervisor mar's can we take those without objection? okay. now we're left to the discussion of puc. supervisor avalos >> thank you supervisor farrell. i'd like to talk to the budget director ms. kate howard. so i really want to avoid the kind of show down we're at right now but have a show down. the show down today i'd like to actually table the puc portion of the budget. and then i want to see if we can actually talk. and communicate about our joint and different concerns about

infrastructure of the puc and the programs that are basically infrastructure like green power sf that what work together i know that the public utilities commission has greatest needs around the power enterprise just before we approved the clean power sf program two years ago we knew we were looking at a cliff. i've had numerous conversations about the needs of the program. we also have a policy direction that the board of supervisors has indicated with a very strong majority vote that we'll have a clean power program to provide san francisco residents with a choice based on renewable energy

that's been taking taken away but to have a program in go place. i think there's ways to accomplish both and that we have to find a way as a city to accomplish both. but right now we we don't have the conversation of proper leadership sending a signal like not approving approving this budget can bring us all to the table to craft a new version that can meet our differences and our joint needs. and so i'm going to do table i move to table see if we can get it done and if the mayor wants to come back with the same budget i think it would be incredible to me that is what he would did he has that option to

come back with the same budget that's not how to make city hall work. i think the mayor is better than that. so that's my challenge. of course, i've been challenged by the colleagues but to challenge the mayor to show the leadership he can provide to bring this together to approve a budget that will have something for our clean and renewable power program cc and a a and to make sure we can move forward with our needs around the other projects that are part of our power enterprise go solar and all to make sure we have the for sight to make the proper investments in our power enterprise program as a critical need right now. i want to do all that and i want to welcome my colleagues to be part of the process.

that's where i want to go so i ask you if you can save it and came back with not the same budget but a new budget that reflects our joint needs. >> thank you supervisor avalos through the chair kate howard the mayors budget director thank you for your question and authenticity on the puc budget and cca. you know, we've worked closely with the puc to put this proposal together we've spent a lot of time thinking it through i can't tell you we'll come back with a new proposal when the mayor submits the budget on june 1st >> i was told that the mayor's office told the puc bucket for the deappropriation of the

19. million on reserve so when you say we've worked closely with the puc that's not been indicated to me. >> i can't tell you what you've heard we've worked closely with the puc to put together a financially responsible budget for hetch hetchy enterprise. i want to say i can't tell you what do i if you table the budget today. of course, i'm happy to a talk with you and the mayor will work with you on this issue if there's further discussion to be had my sense it there are many of you who want to talk about this with him. i'm encourage you to continue the budget rather than tabling it the reason is it gives an

opportunity for that the discussion to happen before june 1st budget will be submitted >> colleagues, i think we're going to consider this in a second i do have a question and to frame it and give mr. rawlins field or the it is a there's two options if so we table we make an decision to sever certain items then the mayor will have the opportunity to look at that and we will have the period of time afterward to consider the budget. if we continued the item today as we were going to do with the other departments we'll revisit this next week there will be the period of this week to have the

discussion with the mayor's office and consider it next week and framing it i want to get to a few details does that sound appropriate >> john gibner, deputy city attorney. yes those are your two options i want to make two technical points one is that rather than just sever out the puc's budget i believe that supervisor avalos proposal would be to duplicate the file and amend both to have one file it is just has the puc's budget and one file everything but the puc's budget and table the puc budget and keep the remainder if you do take that option the puc budget will not be before the committee

next week but the committee can consider the reminder and the puc will be tabled or reconsidered after the mayor looking at it again >> and one of the discussions here i open this up to my colleagues who have obviously strong feelings mr. kelly as well i know it was put if reserve for the cc a's and this is down to $8 million well 19.5 is not the right number just to frame the order of magnitude it's important because for instance, mr. rose proposed $10 million in cuts we can consider in next week or if we back the table and consider it

down the road when the mayor resubmits i want to get a magnitude to the puc what dollar amount would be appropriate given where we are. recent theirs talks within the framework not to brown-bag the puc commission and there's the discussion will joining the marina and we should have is a discussion >> we do know, we don't have a final number but based on the recent board hearings that was testified to it appears that approximately 4 to $300,000 will be all that is needed. we have part of our appropriated $6 million to start up and 1 opinion $8 million is unspent

separate from the 19 and a half million we'll have the capacity to do the study work and to have about a million dollars and and a half left. we don't know the final number because it depends on if we moved as supervisor avalos has proposed in his legislation the richmond model per they were able to do it with no money down or is sonoma model this is a municipal operated model it is more in line with we we talked about two or three years ago so it depends on the variation of the puc owned and operated or another propose. but either case the numbers that significantly lover lower than two to three 4 years ago because

the market is more comfortable with the merry run energy so we believe the numbers that are significantly less. this two to $300,000 but the latter of the different scenario what's the magnitude of costs here. i did behoves our committee to ball park that >> so in the case of our 19 and a half 6 millions was for customers and 13 and a half was related to reserves and of the 13 and a half of the reserves 11 and a half was shell for termination risks and lockbox issues so those two key categories of 11.5 the richmond model were not required to put

up liquidity so by order of magnitude if this were a model like richmond the numbers would be less that's good news but we don't know it depends on them and i as policymakers and others in the building requires us would you require us to do center local builds or center energies efficient that depends on how fast the policymakers wants 80 us to really out. if you take the 19.511 and a half was completely within shell energy and there are two key reasons the cash flow is $7 million related to termination risk of the multiple

contact so it 19 and a half went down to 13 and a half would be further reduced 11 and a half recommended to shell requirements that's an amazing difference if a year ago or two years ago >> so another way to think about this if we're taking out shelf. we're down to $8 million for the reserve requirements. mr. rose to our potential cuts here you're suggesting or your proposed cuts today are being renegotiated to the tune of $10 million over two years and ongoing; is that correct >> mr. chairman and mercedes benz let me clarify the

recommendations and again, i'm looking at page 16 of our report. for fiscal year 2014-2015 it would be about $4.5 million of that amount about $4.3 million for 2014-2015. in 2015- 2016 the total is 4.4 million and $34.4 million are ongoing and i previously mentioned we're still working with the department >> i understand. >> good afternoon mark farrell those are in the house/senate enterprise and the first year were $3.3 million i'd have to defer to water and power so the percentage of power i can't tell

you at this moment. >> thank you, ms. kimble i can so based on that approximately, $600,000 is related to power so with all our customers mr. rose mentioned because of the prop 18 the water and sewer cuts have to stay with the water and sewer funds to house/senate water and power under propping 218 to carve off what's water related so we have $606,000 a year. >> we're going to talk about the bonds too. my whole point i think we're going to have a choice here but we can make the statement i appreciate why or we can - part of my discussion prospective is you and the budget analysts

haven't had a final discussion we as a committee have always let those discussions play out we'll make those discussions but you have not had a final destruction maybe it's not directly house/senate but we might be able to fund cca with the cuts we maybe making and i think that's something to consider we might be able to consider this and wrap up in a bow i appreciate the comments but i really want to talk about technically >> there are cuts to power and water they don't adu add up for what's available. >> mr. rose maybe you can comment on that. >> i just wanted to make one comment the $600,000 is the

initial recommendation but in terms of comparing that to the 19.5 million one of the options in the policy is increasing the amount of power bonds and find ongoing savings towards debt payment. >> that's itself technical adjustment i was making a typically we imagine the amount on bond precedes you'll the evidence will then show is something like this 10 to 11 to one it's a $600,000 in oncosavings up front with the evidence will then show in excess of the revenue bonds. >> so alright colleagues so i'll turn the floor over to anyone but from my prospective i

understand why the community is not i'll support i'll like to continue this for a week for a reason one we haven't had our budget analyst discussion and second of all i'm frightened what that means if we continue down the road the future budget committees and lastly from my prospective i know if you go through the symbolic and a half we're only detailing this discussion and next week we can have the puc before us and then delay this a few weeks and people will be more anger that's my prospective i appreciate the will of my colleagues i'm going to turn it over to supervisor

avalos. >> thank you know barking wants to defer to your request and the positions i've held i know how changing this is you often feel like your herod cats to approve the budget. i'm considering your request about continuing vs. tabling but i have concerns i've put this before the mayor as of sunday evening he's my text to mayor ed lee sorry to both you on a sunday night but we're running into a show do you think there's are 3 votes not to approve the puc budget it would be good to work out before those general fund budget t is introduced. i believe there's a way a packet

forward to work out and hope we can check in this week radio silence there's no deal to want to discuss that. i've talked to the general manager this week it was a good conversation and a krofls conversation i asked for the controllers to ask with us about the options to pit them in writing before us. i think there recent options we don't need all the 19.5 million and that's not been, you know, brought before us. so all this throb why to work things auto i don't trust ashamed on me for making that mistake again, i'm torn supervisor farrell and i'm torn

because i understand your precinct we don't have a fair playing field >> supervisor i appreciate those comments. i think another road to go down to the end is give it the chance from my prospective give it a chance this week and if nothing changes it will likely go through and in the same spot with the reintroductions on june 1st with the puc budgeted that's another option given the chance publicly within a week if nothing happens so will be it but my prospective it will be

better for this committee to give it a chance to have the discussion. that's my prospective but we'll open up to the public and entertain solutions here >> supervisor wiener. i move to continue the item one week. >> okay to clarify that would be a motion to continue items it through 4 to next wednesday budget. >> and items 9 through 11. >> okay. so supervisor wiener has made a motion to continue items it through 4 and 9 through 11 to techniques budget meeting on next wednesday. second?

city attorney can the chair second a motion >> yes. he can if you have a 5 member committee you can and i'll second that motion why not have a roll call vote. on that motion supervisor mar. no. supervisor avalos. no. supervisor breed. no. supervisor wiener. supervisor farrell. there are 2 i's and 3 notice >> okay. the motion fails. >> supervisor avalos i have a motion to duplicate the file. and one file to shed all of the references to the puc budget. and to move so it will be all the departments operate from the

puc that will be remaining and the a l s o the files of one and-2 and 4. to duplicate that file and one version will have all the references to the departments separate from the puc and all the puc references will be didacted and the remaining file i move to table. and i guess my question remaining is the file with the other vice presidents we ready to move that forward and if we are we've made our recommendations so i'll move that b my last part of the motion to move that file to join the rest in june >> second. >> and to our city attorney is that a clear motivate. >> that's clear supervisor

avalos mentioned 2 and 4 you're talking about duplicating two and three and tabling 9 through 11 i understand. >> those are the supplementals. >> art table or continue that's our choice. >> i think we can say enough with the failed appropriation in item 10 so i'll table that item included and the other ones i'll keep. i'm not sure where the impact tabling one and continuing the other items >> you can certainly do that. >> we'll do that table two and three the motion applies to two and three and the other ones to continue based on other instructions. >> yeah. you continue those

items to the to the call of the chair rather than to next wednesday. >> that's my motion to add that to continue the other items 9 through 11. >> okay. >> can i. >> supervisor wiener. >> could i get a summary of motion my essentially or essentially you're taking the puc's budget out of the a s o and tabling it. you're taking the remainder of the budget that's before you today and continuing it to june and you are continuing the appropriation the puc related appropriation to the call of the chair and for after the puc is resubmitted and okay. thank you >> okay. so this is a complex

motion on 2, 3, 4, 49, 10 and 11. >> so we have a motion by supervisor avalos and second supervisor breed. >> madam clerk. >> supervisor mar. supervisor avalos. supervisor breed. supervisor wiener. no. sxhaefl. no. there are 3 i's and two notice >> the motion passes and colleagues, we're at on justice. get to get live >> welcome back to the san francisco budget & finance committee for wednesday, may 21, 2014. my name is a mark farrell i'm chairing this committee joined by supervisor avalos and

supervisor mar thank you, mr. i did not know and the sfgovtv covering covering to meeting call items 5 and 6 >> item 5 hearing on the budget to create a mental health facility in addition criminal matters involving criminal offensive and the pedestrian safety in the immense in the district attorney's office to hold offender accountable on case progressing and make that be prevent and predict crime. >> thank you very much. mr. da welcome the floor is yours on both items >> thank you with our approval i will do the crime data first, we have