jason fried lafco staff our legal services is on a year to year basis one small change ms. millers firm is meeting with 0 another firm made up of city attorney's this is a positive thing not only do we get ms. millers continued experience but should we have questions own other things in the city ms. miller will have someone else to go to i think that is a positive step in the right direction we're asking for a not to exceed rate the same as last year should the commission wish to be in the extended agreement we can terminate the agreement at any to me time i see no reason as

staff we don't want to discontinue it relationship. >> we're doing an amendment. >> correct. >> it included the new entities our new parkinson's correct. >> congressmen's questions or comments okay. on to public comment i'm hold my bracket for any members of the public that wishes to comment that being said. >> colleagues a motion to support the amendment. >> motion from commissioner crews and second by supervisor mar we'll take that without objection. great item number 6 please. item 6 status update for the study of implementation and opportunity for underground wires in san francisco.

>> jason fried lafco staff we now have a definite out that is under review today is the last day for people to be presenting comments i'll be on vacation i'll not mind i'll view the at that time as turned in today i'll add those items the basically a highlight of the what's in the report if sfgovtv put on the laptop there we go. >> the objective u objective to expand the underground wires and network within the city we've looked at major areas we looked at the old 96 under grounding program and 200 under grounding possible way to reduce the potential fund resources we go looked for while in doing this study the high-level viewing

view it is funded through rule 20 pretty much all under grounding is done and rule 20 a a source money that taken out of all folks bills we get a small allocation st. system wide there's a 0 whole portfolio one small problem it is a small amateur of money to compared to the costs of doing the work the system got in trouble pr before they gave us a cost estimate of one million dollars it was more than 3 and a half million dollars going up to $5 million for $45 million we over spent the amount of money in that account and we're still paying

that amount back 17 years more to pay back and that's where we end up where we're at we can't do any more under grounding so we look at the major obstacles not able to find funding sources that are not known about before the other obstacles f from pg&e were grossly under stated and the process that more pg&e's submits the bill to the uc and they sign off we can't get details they're not obligated to share under that process san francisco has a little bit higher cost her mile because the density and supervisor mar. >> mr. freed can you repeat

what the task force estimated the cost per mile is several years ago when they looked at the cost. >> there's been several estimates the most recent one the b l a did a report you are somewhere between $5 million range and not able to come up with a exact amount there is a variety of where the costs are one of the things i'll get to in a later slide but that's a good question it is not it truly known cost san francisco having parts filed and solid rock it varies depending on where your installing and how many buildings need hookups on the blocks is an important factor so one of the things it comes up

the high density we pay more than san diego per mile it is a little bit more expensive for us pg&e frafrp is although we don't have the ability to open up in san diego they opened up other easier and increased the franchise fee and took that money and dedicated that towards under grounding a second source of money a source we don't have through your franchise agreement not to say with penguin couldn't do something to reopen penguin is not likely to come up with a brand new agreement that collects other money but that requires pg&e willingness to do that and the city and county as p had a lot of conversations and

not had luck with the negotiations i'm not holding my breath it's a potential opposite at some point and the other thing the lack of coordination between the 9 of work pg&e was fully responsible for that the under grounding they did some with the gas line one thing we are suggesting better coordination but pencil has the ability to release the work of under grounding 2 to 3 the city and county in this case san francisco to do some of the kwofrptd efforts pg&e will have to voluntarily do that and have oversight but while you're doing this other work san francisco we'll let you do the work and come out and check and they'll have a stamp of approval before it is used for their own oozed

uses it will require pg&es willingness to let that happen and hard to get that happened but it should be looked at and the access to you private property only one building not giving you access to keep the city's wires a lot of ground a lot of buildings are renter and the owner didn't live here not an absence at the landlord but not interested in the process it becomes hard to actually get every single building to agree in my locations that is partly what happened then in 196 low income were not the wunz ones they couldn't find all the owners to get approval how to

get that access to low one building not blocking the inspire street so we look at financial options that require voter approval so anything of the options we're talking about low require in most can see under prop 36 that might not be universal in nature we can use general obligation bonds we're expediting against general obligation bonds this year this is a talk about of housing or the seismic measures or the rebuilding of general hospital you'll have to take into account the general obligation bonds or are there another higher priorities a list that the city has permanently i'm not convinced that is the best option and make sure that all options were on the table

there's the utility tax 7 by 7 and a half average it is average for all the top cities it requires a voter approval. >> what is it 10 percent in la. >> yes. la is 10 percent that's a whole bunch of categories and some places we're not charging in that category other places do some cities don't charge in some categories you have to balance how much it raise and the question what use would it be used for in this case there's the utility connection fee the emergency response fee it is charged to phone lines it requires the voter approval and the rate construction fee a voter approval is needed and the final

one is residential surcharge on on electricity bills this is what san diego uses in rule 20 b the project i talked about earlier how san diego was able to open their franchise fee and that was part of that agreement once again another theoretical one that could be done but requires in our case pg&e to work with the city to create that and take it to the voters for approval so conclusions from the report is once again no new funding sources we are identified we identified the sources as recorded one of the goals of this some suggestions that i forgave were on what did you say to reduce koeftsz using big ones and the meat and the bones of the process is important to understand a way to reduce the costs maybe we're not finding

new money but use one of the options should voters decide to increase by a certain amount taxes or whatever the line item and you'll have a master plan type of approach which helps reduce costs a lot of things in the city was a one of approach i suggest the city and county is every year going and resurfacing streets a sewer or water pipe needs to be dug up or respected and where the under grounding is not happening to share some costs if you have the crews digging and the streets afterward you can get some savings the question how much i did go to the capital plan committee and talked about that some were a 5 percent savings

that roles up over time but other reports puts the savings higher than that i suggest the city and county do open in-debt look at we know where we were and how many streets under grounding it is the cost traffic from the things going on in the city at the same time this pipe under 3 one and figuring out where everything goes if we figure out out it will be great what's not in the report but if we had had this done during the last economic downturn with the stumping u stomachs money we could go ahead and do extra blocks and streets this year that's one of the things hopefully, will coyote of that to sit down and look at in-depth

e in-debt look so at this point you'll be able to get to the advocates on the private citizens level of like here's how much you need to raise can you figure out how to raise 10 or (2) 000-0000 they'll say this is the best route and do the poll and see with the app it's of the community what's the hard number if we follow this approach you'll ludicrous some fist diversity whether we're doing this water and sewer in this case but you'll get something done and completion to an underground proposal. >> there are cases we're able new areas building out hunters

point each other visitacion valley treasure island those will be underground right. >> bayview hunters point i can guarantee that's all completely like blank canvas and not pg&e's service material territory the hunters point shipyard is public power it is a little bit different those are being done some of the other stuff may not be underground they may not be undergrounding that that is something the city could look at i didn't include in the report i'm going to include that the definite draft i think the city as policy how we're able out into the neighborhoods not just building but the neighborhood

lib the former shainl between bayshore and treasure island is another place. >> treasure island is public power. >> but the schlage lock i believe is a model to point to in the report are i believe also when we talk about the costs savings you said 5 to 10 percent cost savings by going underground there's already construction made that is 5 to 10 percent is meaningful when you add we're public health together streams that's one the fund streams the cost savings as a significant incentive along with other you know revenue streams to make that happen. >> i agree that's one of the

reasons i was bring it up to say you may see a small amount but another small amount they add up and perhaps the current estimate if we did nothing new it takes 6 hundred years to underground but knocking off costs i'll get done quicker. >> if you want to tie to together the cost savings combined with other revenue streams it is important to pull out and mentioned. >> no yeah. i've gotten that comment i'll be flushing it out in the report emancipation proclamation especially i'll put if step 1, 2, 3 type of an approach so may be getting give more advise to the city and

county and finally since this report is done more reports released we have on the fiber side we had supervisor mar his office had ablas report and it ties in well since then this new report will not be duplicate but sxhaefrlz will look at broadband whether public-private or full public broadband which is mentioned in our report as well so some things that part will be a much more moving pious a lot of activity that will be the key on that so for next steps the draft report i'm requesting but again i'll be out next week if anyone want to send any comments

i'll incorporate them into the final draft and depending on the changes i may release a second report i'll release it back to folks to double check that my goal to try to finalize the report at the june meeting and put this to for the city and county with that i'm available to answer any questions. >> thank you, colleagues any questions or comments thanks for the report great to see before the next you said the june 19th the meeting we'll be seeing. >> if people want to take a little bit longer we'll push that back to o a future meeting. >> work closely with supervisor tang office she she made the

original request their speed is probable what you should be following but but drafts i appreciate the report. >> i've received comments from supervisor tang's office i'll be notary republic those into the final draft i wanted to make sure their comfortable if there's a delay in the final report there was a little bit more time to do more researcher on the next draft. >> great, thank you so this was an informational item you got direction from us and so let's open up for public comment members of the public want to comment public comment is closed. and go on to the next item. >> item 7 executive report. >> imagine to add. >> a couple of items to bring

up earlier this week and released the open section election report it is sent on around and on the website we're looking to get comments and come back to the just that meeting with a presentation and june 19th our next meeting for the period and go through the same progress with draft with the july meeting potentially with the final product for that report once again since this is emulated out of supervisor wiener's office i'll check with them to make sure we are answering their questions and look forward to having this implemented on that timeframe but things may slip if we need more time on other items not listed on the agenda calico is having their annual conference

in september norman i don't bring those items up but two items might be of interest a break out session panel open climate change a different break out on broadband and lafco role those are two items we deal with in lafco i wanted to brought to your attention those are in the thursday afternoon break out sessions they dodd do in the afternoon they haven't determined a list of them different break out sessions those are the two interesting one not the first group or second group or maybe both items at different times so if anyone is interested in attending there's a cost to attend it i'll be talking with the cal folks to

see if we can get a reduction we'll be looking for an average seegs maybe that's cut us a deal to be there for the session we're interested in and thereafter and not have to pay for the full conference. >> where. >> september 3rd in sacramento i don't have the hotel information but tyler normally held at hotels september 3rd their afternoon break out sessions is when both items are presented. >> what week day. >> thursday. >> so if anyone is interested i'm looking to go out for this one a good opportunity for carpooling if people wish to do so and the final thing i've mentioned i'll be off next week if you need anything let me know today or i'll get back to you on

the 268 of may when i return. >> very good commissioner crews. >> under freed would you let me know in terms of process is there a progress by which we get travel if i was interested in going. >> that's an interesting question i'll be looking for you. >> great, thank you. >> okay. so we'll open up for public comment any public comment on this item? we'll close public comment is closed. for lack of a centimeter and our next item. >> item 8 public comment. >> i'm holding my bracket for public comment is there any

public comment? please come forward okay. we'll close public comment next item. >> item 9 future agenda items. >> colleagues future items commissioner crews. >> i just mr. freed i wanted to check in with you i know you said to me previously or maybe mentioned in our previous meeting there is had been some items that lafco had tabled that like report that you may be starting doing or discussed being done and i wanted to see for the next lafco meeting we could have just a summary of reports that have been start and not finished to get a pipeline of projects going forward and i'd like us to start to that

about what to study after the undergrounding report and the open for election report for final as we look at the next 3 to 6 months out where do we go from here if that is of interest to others we could put that on the agenda for the next lafco meeting and start to think that about and open up to other supervisors who may have an interest in using lafco for the great work we do. >> happy to do so. >> thank you a good suggestion also want to reiterate my request for a hearing in a couple of months what the market is for power purchasing and i'm not interested in the people

providing the empower but products where they're from is that an in state market general description of the market looks like we'll pretty sure and the other players we'll n be in competition. >> happy to do it sound like ms. hale you'll bring it back in two months i'll work to make sure it is incorporated into that presentation. >> great, thank you. >> including like the size of the contracts as well in terms of energy production and megawatts and that. >> happy to do so all right. open up for public comment any member of the public want to comment we're very open and seeing none, public comment is closed

and i believe our next item didn't require public comment could you call the north america. >> item 10 adjournment. >> colleagues, we're adjourned thank you, mr. mayor for the staff and jim smith ape charles kremenak for broadcasting thank you