talk about community planning, an area where we've heard legitimate feedback is when we are going to implement the kind of projects that we're authorized and demanded by the voters in prop a and community forward and giving each supervisor's office and staff member access, to individual staff engineers and plannerrers who will be in a position to get to know the stakeholders and get to know the local issues so you're not asking a different. >> thank you mr. mcguire. e' ka

p gp p e' ka pr b onl th c nly vo es th mun in 2001 t pl for in 2001 t pl for t star commission and department with sfmta to manage muni. mta is too big and too self-empowered to implement their plan. staff says they want to get their input, when they receive it, they ask the m.t.a. board to approve their game plan. we learn that our ideas are margin liesed or i go -- marginalized. there is no way for us to appeal their bad decisions. m.t.a. has a one size fits all of improvements they force on us. we're not viewed as a residential community, we're a family, kids, and singles who all need to use muni to shop, to get to school and use the parks and go to church. we deserve better treatment from

our public servants. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. >> i'm carl with the taxicab industry. i came to support m.t.a. -- or your ballot measure and open is it does go forward in november. i see the new ordinance is a stop gap. i know that the taxi industry is not included in having the checks and balance mechanism. i hope you'll look into tweaking it to include us. i do want to talk about traffic congestion in the city. for four years, we heard that california public utility commission has the jurisdiction over tncs, nordz in other words, lyfh and youtubeer.

you have jurisdiction here in the city and duty and responsibility to enforce violations ever state vehicle code against people who arew3ç operating illegally. to that end, it doesn't take sherlock holmes to see that all the vehicles with tnc has private place that violates the code. and 90% of the people do not have commercial insurance. whether the tax collector or the police department would start to enforce it, i think the city needs to make every tnc driver prove they have commercial insurance, otherwise, the city officials are aiding and a -- and abetting a price scheme. it murtz people getting taxis who are handicapped. people's insurance rates are going up. general hospital is paying for

accidents where tnc drivers are getting hurt. i hope you look into this. i think you can reduce the traffic congestion by doing so. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i also represent medallion holders. this proposed amendment is to take back the city streets. and the major problem that we have after m.t.a. or the city or everybody else has spent millions and millions of dollars in bicycle lanes, bus lanes, this and thatllk

in mind we need a vibrant taxi industry in this town because you, yourself, have forecast the population of the aging is going to increaseñrç enormously inçe city.[vçgixñ they're going to need taxis. they're going to need assistance in getting in and out of vehicles which youtubeer is pro uber is prohibited. there is no physical contact allowed between the jers and drivers --çóqç passengers and drs+ers.ç a congestion naks this city for all vehicles -- tax in this city for all vehicles of hire. this congestion tax needs to be a substantial tax in order to bring the level of pricing of

tmcs and p.u.c.s to an economical level. the demand will drop and amount of vehicles will drop, but you have to be tough about this. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. >> hello. i'm jody maderas, i'm the executive director of "walk us up" walk us up strongly opposes the ballot amendment to break up the m.t.a. into separate agencies. besides increasing bureaucracy, unnecessary process and contradicting the policies, it will put more lives at risk. walk san francisco is one of dozens of organizations and agencies working on zero traffic

fatalities by 2024. in 2017 we started to see progress on our investments. in order for us to move forward, we need more coordination within the sfmta, not a break-up of components of the transportation system. the most recent is the taravel project. this is an identifiable safety improvement project involving necessary coordination between muni forward, livable streets and parking. in order to redesign the street and adding boarding islands so they don't get off into the lane of traffic, parking had to be relocated. a group of well organized residents and businesses were strongly opposed to the relow case of parking and they had to reweigh it and making lives more

important than parking. if a decision had been made separately from the needed safety improvements which is what in charter amendment would be about, the boarding ieldz would not be possible on taravel. we need the agency to have jurisdiction over all aspects of transportation planning on our streets. without that, we'll see a slowdown in projects and the vision goals we're working on will be lost. >> next speaker. >> i'm joe crawford. good afternoon. i'm here today representing the san francisco transportation alliance, which is a group that is now forming. we're doing the drafting of the statement that will be out shortly. i want to say it's nice to be able to come here and support something, sometimes we're out there opposing, but the way that

your chairman has described it, we believe fully in holding on to the existing board because of a simple probable that occurs when you scatter these functions around different departments. i was here in those days, and it was a constant battle between public works and muni. putting it under one house makes sense. i think absolutely the muni should be elevated in stature and be more visible, closer to the board and close tort political structure. that might produce real advantages. and last but not least, you said you're going to look at what goes on in the next few months and take nur further action if necessary. that could have great effects. we'll issue a statement that deals with many of these items. , not bus stop by bus stop but functionality of the department.

one thing we're a little bit disappointed in, we strongly agree there should be a different way of selecting the board. having it all from the mayor, even if it's sub zero confirmation is not enough of a diversity of how you protect it. one of the things we're going to recommend is there be an independent, outside management audit of that huge 6000-person organization at least once every two years and that the results be published and they be paid attention to. this group is totally independent. we need it. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hi, i'm doug buckwalled. i right muni multiple times every day. sfmta has too much concentrated power. it is not accountable to anyone except the powerful groups who

cooperate to elect our mayors involving corporations, real estate developers and not the general public. because they don't have that accountability, they decide who they want to listen to and who they don't have to listen to. and they do not listen to the public. believe me, i've been to so many meetings of m.t.a., they want to manipulate the public at the meetings and that's what they do. they don't want to take the needs of the public into account. there are philosophies that underlie policies, always there are. traditionally, transit policies were, we want to make transit convenient for everyone to use. that means, if you have -- i see a few people are leaving -- bye -- that means if you use a transit stop not as popular as

another, you still get the same convenience as those that use a popular stop. now the philosophy is changing. the priority is not individual human needs, but end to end transit time. this serves the needs of developers who want to putç new multifamily properties way out at the?mbçw3=)ko end of themyy you can get downtown in 20 minutes. that is a tradeoff. sfmta is misusing the power to prioritize the needs of one group and penalize residents that need the same convenience for their stops. if you are els'tly andç have t walk two blocks, three blocks -- >> thank you, appreciate it. >> thank you for your time. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon. i believe i know almost all of

you personally by now. i'm speaking as a citizen. g

interestingly enough, i believe you're doing exactly what i wasó )sq)ucççç ago, i don't know if my suggestions got outt there with my bringing them, but decentralizing power is where it needs to go first which is my suggestion. each individual supervisor should be able to communicate easier with their residents and their businesses about what their needsñrç areç and they d be dealt with as individuals. that would be a really good first step and perhaps like some meme wer -- people were saying,t pressure on and see how they react. but at certain times, redo the amendments, maybe it will be necessary to change the way the board is appointed. maybe it won't. maybe this department will get the news that the supervisors

are goingg/>>p4v listen to their constituents. thank you. >> thank you.ççç3w next speaker.uwççç >> good afternoon, david pilpel, i want to thank the board for expressing sympathy for the recent loss of my farther. as to this charter amendment, i think there is general consensus, not complete agreement that this board should haver imççñrçshouldhaveççe m.t.a. and the specific decisions. i had a moment to review the legislation introduced yesterday. i'm sure that will be the subject of a separate hearing or hearings. we'll talk about the specifics there. i think it's a good first start. it will be need in my view some amendments. i think the m.t.a. needs to hear clearly from this board that they're onç noticeokç to chae things in some of the ways that

they've already described and perhaps in otherççç ways. that there is great dissatisfaction among various people in the city on what m.t.a. is doing and the way they're doing it. in addition to the meetings they talked about with you as individual supervisors, i would strongly urge you ask them for a memo memorializing the changes that they're intending to make over the next few months, and that a copy of the memo be ing#a public file both on the charter amendment and on the ordinance creating the process that supervisor safai that you introduced yesterday, and that they be very open with the public about the changes that they are intending to implement over the next few months so we can all be aware of that and make comments and they be open better, recognizing we can all do better in how we goçóçç abt this. that includes outreach about

projects, outreach about construction and environmental review and noticing public communications, all sorts of things. as the budget process comes -- >> thank you. any other members of the public wish to comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel]?ebxsevçrm2î( want to be clear. the intension of what we're trying to do is to not pit and have the old arguments that have been hashed in the past. we're not trying to pit cars versus pedestrians. or cars versus buses. we're trying to create more efficiency. i've worked in the city almost 20 years, my colleagues have worked in this city for decades as well. i have to tell you, i have not worked with a less nimble

bureaucracy than the sfmta. that is the the truth. that does not mean they are pea not smart, dedicated. committed people that want to do wonderful thingsxfç for san francisco.çzv their presentation, we've made tremendous advancement as it goes to pedestrian safety. we in no way intend to undermine that. that's why we ploa pose keeping the same commission, same commissioners, same level of oversight, but the reality is, if you create a separate department that's focused on public transportation, it's our belief, and we've heard overwhelmingly since we proposed for hig hi hyperbolly, but 8 ton

favor of doing something dramatic with the sfmta because of the level of frustration is real. that does not mean we're not çñri vehicles or institute mo) !"9kç lanes and more alternative formç of vehislm and be thoughtful about pedestrian safety. we have a supervisor here that has championed so many different ways to think about vision zero and think about pedestrian safety. but he also shares in our conversations the same level of frustration with this agency. we need to beoi3zoyç thoughtfut that. this proposal for that is a step in the next direction. we want to be thoughtful about alternative biking proposals coming out, but the reality is that folks want to be more voice in the say in the final outcome. that doesn't mean when we're

talking about pedestrian safety or removal of parking, or muni! center, that doesn't mean we wouldn't end up with the same outcome. but people are saying they're not happy with the process, and that is very important. i'm going to -- unless any other members of the body want to make a comment on this item -- supervisor tang. thank you forçi] joiningñrnb?ç, supervisor. >> i'm here for another item,ite nom a member of this committee, but since i saw sunset residents come out, i wanted to speak briefly to this item. i think this opened up an important conversation that we need to have. yes, the m.t.a. as an agency is much too big, too bureaucratic. we want efficient, reliable transportation that is also safe. i know i've spoke ton staff

directly and the director directly. my staff spent an incredible amount of time on m.t.a. issues. one of my staff needs to be paid an m.t.a. salary for what she does. this measure can open up the conversation on how we can improve the department internally, i think that is really important. i think staffing an grown way tooç much overçq the last sevl years. over the course of five to 10 years and where does that lead us to? i don't know that -- we're the ones who tend tom get beat up over the service and complaints, yet, we can't do anything about it. i look forward to working withñç supervisor safai and others on this topic. >> i'm going to ask for one slight amendment. we want to make this now the targeted torld th -- toward to e november ballot. we'd like to see it move and

we'll table this item -- or continuing this item to the call of the chair. without -- can we make that amendment to say it would be for the november ballot? >> you can make that motion.t( >> seconded without objection, that is approved and we'll ñs çhp &c% great. thank you. [gavel] please call item 3. >> clerk: charter amendment for the june 5, 2018 election to authorize thew3 commission to power facilities when approved by ordinance receiving a two-thirds of the board of supervisors. >> we'll continue to work with you. we're joined by supervisor tang and this is her charter amendment. i'm handing it over to supervisor tang. >> i'm the cosponsor of this measure. but since supervisor peskin is not able to be here, i want to

continue this item to the end of the meeting. >> is he intending to come? >> i believe either him or his stap will come. >> we'll continue this item to the end of the agenda. let's move on to -- do we have to take public comment? >> we can come back to it. >> we'll come back to this item. >> through the chair i see sunny. >> hi, we're actually working with the city's office to finalize a slight tweak to expand a few more options that the p.u.c. would have available to them in terms of financing large infrastructure projects. if this item could be referred to the end of the meeting or -- >> that's what we said. you didn't hear us. window we'rwe're going to refere end of the meeting.

please call item four. >> clerk: number four is the charter amendment for the june 5, 2018 election to establish as a condition for non-citizen voting in an election for members of the board of education, that the board of education, that the board of implementing ordinance 270 days before that election. >> thank you miss somera. unless there are initial comments from anyone else, i'll hand it over to the primary sponsor, supervisor fewer. >> thank you. i recognize any proposal impacting the hard-fought victory, they need immigrant communities to be united in support. i've heard from leaders about the need to protect their communities to have the voices of the parents heard. this charlotter amendment came out of a year of discussion sphrdiscussionsfrom advocates a. i've heard from many immigrant

right groups both in support of the charter amendment as well as those expressing concerns. i've decided to withdraw and table this charter amendment. however, i firmly believe we need to identify and prioritize funding that provides resources and guidance for the department of elections to implement non-citizen voiting using best practices. there is a tremendous need to partner with community organizations to do in-depth education and outreach to diverse and hidden communities in a competent manner. if any voter registration organizations or candidates running for school board are soliciting the votes of a non-citizen parent, i believe they have a moral obligation to inform them that if they register to vote, their information cannot be kept private from the federal

government. in our current times, it's important for individuals to understand their voting rights the risk involved. in order for individuals to make an informed vote, they need to understand the individual risk. we must clearly communicate both the rights and risks to prospective non-citizen voters so they're making an informed choice about registering to vote and i look forward with working with my colleagues and community advocates to shake theu make sus given to the department corrections. i'd like to thank angelina who spent siem hours on this and tirelessly worked very, very hard with advocates, our city attorney's office, other attorneys to come up with a solution but we've decided to table and withdraw this amendment. but thanks to angelina for all

her hard work an diligence. >> unless there are additional comments from colleagues, we'll go ahead and take public comment on this item because it's been a jean diesed agendized. is there anyone who wants to speak on this item? you have two minutes, please state your name. >> hi, supervisor fewer and others, i'm from innovate public schools. i want to congratulate this new solution. i think that our families, many of whom are widows, we're supporting the original proposition and felt like there could have been a better solution than the charter amendment. we support this. we're committed with working with supervisor fewer to figure out more implementation and community education. >> thank you. any other members of the public wish to comment on this item?

seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] so would you like to make a motion, supervisor fewer? >> i move to table this item. >> seconded without objection. we'll table this item. [gavel] thank you mr. somera, please call item five. >> charlotter amendment for the june 5, 2018 election to provide that whenever the projected budget deficit exceeds $200 million, the city is not required to increase funds for museums or cultural centers pre provided the funds remain unspent or uncommitted and maintain the symphony orchestra. >> thank you. and so, unless there is additional comments, i'm going to hand it over to the primary sponsor, katy tang. >> i think we had a great discussion last week, i heard from a lot of members of the public. then following that had several

meetings with different organizations to explain what exactly this charter measure would do. in the process, i'm realizing it doesn't do even enough what have i had originally intended to do. but i think supervisor peskin and i feel this has opened up the dialogue on budget set-a sides and what the impacts are on the general fund as well as on other set-a sides or existing baselines if new ones are add. i think there is a lot of education around this issue. because sometimes budgeting matters get complicated. it's been a great experience trying to explain to everyone what exactly this measure does and how it relates to the rest of the city's budget. with that said, we certainly heard from folks that they wanted more time to chime in on this. at this time, i'd like o continue this for discussion on the -- like to continue this for discussion on the november ballot. i don't know if we table it or

discontinue it. >> deputy city attorney. >> deputy city attorney john jon givner. if you table it to the chair, it's best to amend the date as supervisor safai did with the charter amendment so the clerk doesn't file it after the march deadline. >> per that recommendation, i'd like to amend the date like supervisor safai did on the m.t.a. measure so our intention is to continue the discussion as it relates to the november ballot measure. but of course, as i said last time, if anyone wants to reach out to our office to learn more and gain a better understanding of what this would do or suggestions you you have, please contact my office. colleagues, after public comment, i would like to have you make a motion to that effect. >> thank you, any other colleagues wish to comment on

this item? right now? let's take public comment. any memples the public wish to comment, please come forward. waw to line up to the right. -- if you want to line up to the right, you have two minutes. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm co-chair of the [inaudible] coalition. i'm here on behalf of the coalition. we're happy with supervisor tang to continue this item to the november ballot. many of my colleagues stated at the hearing last week, we're strongly opposed to this legislation in the current form for attempting to claw back funding from the dignity fund as it was intended to be as the

voters stated in the 2016 per dedicated funding, that's what we wanted it to be. we needed to grow for future needs of the growing disability and senior community. we are dedicated to having a dialogue with supervisor tang and her office between now and november. we appreciate the supervisor tang wanting us to have a dialogue. we look forward to communicating more with her office in expressing our opposition to any future legislation. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker.

>> i'm margaret broadkin and i have a deep interest in the children's fund as i believe you know, having been involved in the creation ever the children's fund. i'm so happy to hear you are going to continue this. this has not been a conversation, there needs to be a much more robust conversation. i did want to point out that it is a cut when you propose a flat budget to any program or labor group. it's a cut in their ability to provide services. it's a cut in a family's ability to support themselves. i don't think it is fair to say this isn't a cut. i would propose that the current measure has a lot of problems in it. some of which are specific, but very general problem that i see if you want to continue with a discussion, i think we should start again. i think we should ask ourselves

the question of why in this very rich city are we talking about budget deficits and that when we have that conversation, that all of the players with who are stakeholders in the budget participate in that. that would include labor. that would include capital costs. that would include departments. that would include police and fire. not just have a conversation about the very things that the public has voted on as priorities and were voted on because they weren't given adequate attention in the budget. thank you. [applause] >> next speaker. >> goomp. my name is reese, i'm -- good afternoon, my name is reese. i'm with friends of the public library. i want to thanks for continuing this conversation. as we discussed last week, there is a number of concerns, i think, that we would like to address.

there is a number of concerns generally that i know you are trying to address. i'd be happy to and i know our organization would be happy to talk with you and work with you further on your interests in this overall issue and how we can work together on it for the future. again, just like margaret seed, you know -- margaret said, the library happened through this because originally there were a number of cuts happening before the citizens took it to the ballot. we'd like to talk with you further about how this would move forward. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm michael bleker. i want to speak in opposition to the charter amendment and hopefully it will have some changes. specifically, i want to speak on behalf of the dignity fund which

is opened the system up for seniors, the growing problem of seniors and disabled adults in san francisco. where i work, we see an increasing number of seniors. there are approximately 30,000 veterans in san francisco. 30% are seniors. it's a problem that has not been addressed by the current budget process. this is a way, this is what we do, went directly to the ballot and vets were called out in that proposition. it was a way for us to get into the system which hadn't been addressing our needs. it calls for an assessment of the what needs are for seniors in san francisco. that will be -- we'll follow that and look to that for the direction, but again, this charter amendment is not really

the way to handle that. we'd love to see, you know, the flawed system addressed in a transparent way. we know that it could be improved and we look forward to that. thank you. >> hello supervisors, debbie from the san francisco human services network. i also spoke last week. i'm going to not repeat myself and just say that i think margaret put it so well, that i want to parrot everything she said. i also keep thinking about something supervisor peskin said last week that it's a practical matter. this is a ready-made charter amendment with built-in opposition from everybody i can think of. people with children will hate it, senior also anticipate haight it. people who go to the park also

hate it. it's going to be a difficult haul on the ballot with such built-in opposition at every level. without a conversation, and a good solid policy conversation with stakeholders, i don't see how satisfied reform is going to even work or is going to pass. so, because of that, i really appreciate you listening to the stakeholders. and having this deferred to november will take into account all the set-a sides we have in the city and hopefully something can be agreed upon to address those conversation conversationt picking winners and losers. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon.

my name is lisa. i'm here with the [inaudible] i wanted to thank you first for listening. last week we came and we spoke and especially to supervisor fewer and supervisor [inaudible] when they said at the moment they could not be in support of this. to you too, because i think that it is great that for the first time in so many years that i've been coming here, i feel like you guys started to listen to the community. thank you. and i hope that something better can happen and that this measure

doesn't lead to be impulsed. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hi, katie norman. you know me. sueser pfeifer. i'm a member of the fdr democratic club for seniors and people with disabilities. we've been part of the dignity fund coalition since the passage of it. i know the legislation called for real needs to adapt to the changing needs. right now the funds can be rolled over and used for other needs as the year goes on or the next year. the fdr club gave the dig noit - dignity colaition their award because i've witnessed the carefulness with with which this organization issued the funds,

they know this is precious money and it saves and enhances lives. this protects people's lives. they have been so careful with administering the funds. i would hate to see it go away. this is something historic and i'm proud of san francisco for passing. and i hope we can keep it going. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> i'm the organizer of [inaudible] we'd like to add our voice to everyone who has spoken. also, many of the society-asides built in inequities. hting for the same things and set-asides protect our population. trigger cuts somehow, i don't think we need them because there

is a built-in reduction. many of the set-asides go down. that's how i understand it. i appreciate this chance to talk more about this. i think these are voter han vot- voter-approved mandates. we have to honor that. we are san francisco. we want to protect the programss that are near and dear to our hearts. thank you very much for listening to us and for considering more discussions and make it a meaningful amendment, if needed, thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon committee members. i'm john osaki.

seeing how the legislation is going to get delayed, i'll represent them. i didn't get a chance to express my views on this last week, so i thought i'd talk a few moments do that here today. i think all of us should be concerned about the so solvencyf the city and finances. if this measure is meant to help address that, then in the months ahead, i urge you and all of you to look at this, not just from the standpoint of how set-asides effect the solvency of the city, but how many factors affect the solvency of the city. i don't think i have to tell you that the projected deficits we're looking at in the future are not because of set-asides. there are many factors contributing to that. if that is the goal, then let's look at this in a holistic

manner and not single out specific issues and, in this case, resources that are -- i have to say this, that many of us feel that when times get tough, they're seen as nonessential. they're seen as services that are not critical to people and i think what i feel, and i think what many of the people here feel is that the services are vital to the people we serve and well-being of san franciscans. if we're going to address the issue of solvency, let's take it from a holistic view. thank you, very much. >> next speaker and if anyone else wants to comment, please line up by the podium. >> good afternoon. i was here last week.

i'm working for the population homelessness for over two decades. 24 years. so what i want to talk about is our families, homelessness. first thing i would like to ask you or tell you, if you want to do changes, if you want to do these amendment changes in doing something different for better, i would love to see you guys go into the community and involving all the community. i don't think the process is involving the community. it can be at some point, but i really, when you guys go down to the community and assemble with them and collect recommendations from the community, these kinds ever changes can be more valuable.

when it comes this way, and doing the changes, this way is not going to work. you want to make noises. we have to understand that we have so many homeless people in san francisco. we have more than a thousand meme that need to go to a shelter. it's cold like hell. imagine if you and your kids or if you want to go to sleep at night, this a serious issue. i would like to work together and create something more realistic about how we want to end homelessness. how we want to create housing. so i would like to be part of this process and would like to invite the families and homeless people together to come together with us and decide how --

>> thank you. thank you. [off mic] i apologize because i have to cut your time off because everybody needs the same amount of time. >> [off mic]

>> thank you. thank you for your comments, sir. thank you. and any other members of the public who would like to speak on this item? seeing none, i don't know who the vice chair is here, but if he can close public comment. okay. >> i think public comment is closed. have we made a motion on this? >> no, i wanted to respond quickly to the members who came out and thawpg for your input. as i -- thank you for your input. when supervisor peskin took up this measure, we knew it was unpopular to do this. but being the two members of the board who care a lot about our city's financial health, we felt it was a conversation definitely worth starting. as you can see, many of you work hard in your fields, care a lot about your work and all of your baselines set-asides that you helped get on to the ballot and

successfully reflect the value that all of us share in your work. i want to acknowledge that. we as solemakers, when we're -- policymakers when we're budgeting, we have to make really difficult tradeoffs that i think, you know, members, if you care about the libraries, you don't have to make the tradeoff. if you care about children funds, you don't have to make the tradeoff. we do when it bad budget times, we're forced to decide whether we close the homeless shelter or increase the baseline. that puts us in an unpopular position. but this is a dialogue i think is worth having. with that said, i look forward to the conversation. this is not the only measure or only tool i think to address our budget issues. i know many people are working on a variety of things to address our city's financial

health in the future. this is not the only thing. in fact, i don't think this does very much. with at that said, colleagues, i'd like to ask a committee member to make a motion to amend the november ballot and amend to the call of the chair. >> i'll make that motion. but before we finish this up, i'd like to say again, i want to thank supervisor tang and peskin for bringing this issue forward as a discussion. i think it's only fair, i mean as some of the public mentioned, that when you look at what is causing any type of deficit, is it because of these set-asides alone? or are there other issues. as we all know, one of the things we keep on talking about,

as an issue we need to tackle at some point, we just keep on kicking this issue -- kicking it down the line, which is really, the pension issue. i think at some point, ey a fewf us need to bring it up and say, by the way, to keep us healthy financially in the city, we need to take on this issue. once again, thank you very much. i made a motion. >> i second that. >> okay. can you repeat the motion for me, please? can you repeat -- we're amending iuntil the november ballot. first and seconded the item is moved and ordered. please call the next item. >> we're going back to item three which has been called but for the members of the public, it's a charter amend regarding revenue bonds for the power

facilities. >> we've been joined in the chamber by supervisor peskin workinworking with supervisor tn this item. >> thank you. we have one small amendment. i apologize for not bringing copies. but the city attorney can read it to you and hopefully my staff will come with a hard copy for you to see. it is a very small amendment suggested by the former general manager of the public utilities commission that seems to be acceptable to all parties. >> can i ask a point of clarification on your amendment. will this require us to have an additional hearing? >> yes, any amendment to charter amendment will require an additional hearing. >> is this amendment that you're making, is it -- can you talk a

little bit about it? is it something that is necessary? >> so, i think that staff from the p.u.c. feels that it will give them more flexibility. so to that end, i think -- because you don't have another special meeting. >> we would have to schedule an additional meeting to have an additional hearing. maybe john, can you come forward? or -- i didn't see you there. >> general manager for power. so as the supervisor mentioned, we've taken some additional input from former general manager and controller ed herrington who has been working in his retirement on change tots rules. the rule changes will be coming out. they're the accounting rules that apply, lay the foundation

for bonds and our relationship with the bond community. the legislation will provide us with more flexibility, the changes that are coming forward through the accounting standards board are allowing for additional assets to be capitalized. we want to make sure that the language in the city charter supports that. so we are supportive of the amendment that the supervisor has brought to you. >> now to read it into the record, the language, thank you to my staff. you see in red, and adds otherwise for any lawful purpose of the clean water or power utilities of the city and furtherance of the purposes here prprovided,. >> okay.

any additional questions or comments? seems like that sentence repeated itself. but that's okay. they say that's what we need to have. i guess -- or otherwise any lawful purpose. that sounds like that's the operative change. deputy city attorney, givner, do you want to opine on this? for those of us who are not attorneys, it sounds like the sentence repeated itself. >> deputy -- >> you say three things in the same way to make it 100 percent clear. i see water, clean water and power. can you tell us why this is necessary? >> it's a policy decision for the board whether to amend this charter amendment. the p.u.c. is requesting it.

-- requesting it because of a concern the current charter language constricts the agency's ability to issue revenue bonds for certain types ever projects. >> it look hr -- types of projects. >> it looks like "for any lawful purpose" is the operative word there in addition to everything else. it repeats "of the water or clean water or purposes herein provided." >> if it was for any lawful purpose, that would be an extremely broad delegation. it is related to water, clean water and power. >> okay. i see a lot of conversations going on. do you want to just -- you feel okay about it? this is what you want? it looks like it says the same thing five times over. i think the -- or otherwise, any

lawful purpose, is the operative word. >> as set forth by staff. this will allow for more flexibility and would recommend it. and i thank you because i know it will require one more special meeting. but i promise it will be quick. >> okay. we can -- we'll -- i think we have time next week, end of the week if you guys are around. we'll work with your staff to make sure that we can. does anyone want to make a motion to accept these amendments? wait, we have public comment. public comment first. any members of the public wish to comment on this item, pleads pleads -- please come forward. seeing none, public comment is closed. >> i make a motion to accept this amend.

>> a second without objection. this item is ordered. then this item will be continued to a special hearing either the first or second of february, it looks like. then we'll work with your staff to make sure that works. any other items before us today? >> it will be continue to the kawfl the chair? >> continued to the kawflt chair, yes, sorry. any other items before us today? >> that concludes our business for today. >> thank you very much. we are adjourned.