half cents and the supergreen premium will be reduced from 1.4 cents to one cent. so, that change is, as ms. hale mentioned, proposed to go into effect on march 1. the value of that change is about $137,000. the programme has sufficient reserves to cover the cost of this change and, of course, we will roll this into our rates package that we come forward to talk to you about in the next couple of months. as ms. hale mentioned there's also administrative changes included in this item. also i wanted to let you know we did speak to the rate fairness board on the 19th last friday about. this they didn't seem to raise any concern about this proposal in front of you. and then lastly we will make sure that any changes that are reflected in this change are reflected in the next rate

update that we'll provide you in march. with that, i'm happy to take any questions. >> i have a question. how are we going to absorb the 27% reduction in revenues? >> the programme has sufficient reserves to cover this. and as i mentioned, it is about $137,000 on an annualized basis so our programme reserves will be sufficient for that. like i said, we'll -- when we adjust rates for the upcoming fiscal year, we'll make sure to look at both green rates and super green rates to see if they need to be adjusted based on the rate proposal from pg&e. >> ok. something that comes to me, i can see this spiral going that

we have to always stay competitive to pg&e. but they're larger and bigger and i just would like to have your feelings in terms of the future and how we can withstand these reductions. >> yeah. i think that this will be something that we'll need to take a look at as we're working on the next set of rated adjustments for basic green power. we need to make sure that it will be very competitive. we continue to see competitive pricing in terms of our bids that we're getting. and i can assure you that whatever we present will not only tie with the budget that we're going to be talking to you in more detail on thursday, but also as it relates to the rates that we're going to propose to you. everything will be in sync. i can't speak to exactly how

that will look as of right now, but we will work through those details. >> maybe you want to get up and talk to this, but we were very mindful. we're trying to be competitive that pg&e have the ability to maybe subsidize the rates because they have a larger rate base. and so we're very concerned about that. and we're -- robert can talk about all the efforts that we're doing to make sure that that doesn't happen. but we will try to be as competitive as possible. however, if it gets to a point where their price is lower, then we would probably have a more expensive product versus going in the poor house. >> and i would add that this is a programme that's providing better value to customers, that

value comes in the form of rates but also comes in the form of product and responsiveness and the ability to know that what you are spending on your electric bill is reinvested in san francisco by san francisco. so, it is more than -- you know, we're actually talking about this clean power s.f. programme as more than just a rates value. right? it's important for us to be affordable and conscious of that. but you're right. we're not -- we're not designing this programme to chase pg&e's rates. the rate changes that deputy c.f.o. pearl described to you are just to the supergreen component of our rates, not to the green customer base. remember that 4.1% of our customers are in supergreen. so, when you reflected back, 27%, that sounds big. that's a 27% reduction on a very small portion of our

customer base. just keep that in context as well. ok? >> but if we're successful with the supergreen products and programme, obviously this would be a growing pentserage. >> absolutely. as we grow and become a more robust organization, we'll have a reserve and weather the ups and downs of what's going on where pg&e's rates. as i just described, pg&e has proposed generation rate increases in march. they've also proposed pcia changes as well. it is a sort of roller coaster of rate changes and effects that flow through to our programme and the competitive view of our programme. at the end of the day, customers pay bills, not rates.

so, what is going to matter is the bottom line on that bill. and we're very conscience of that. as we procure more energy to grow our programme, we're paying very close attention to the cost profile and running the proforma to make sure that all costs are covered by the rates we are charging. so that we are meeting ours revenue requirement from this customer base with no subsidies from our other electric rate payers. >> so, is there any other other downside, besides this potential future guessing game at this point, i guess. or like from an optics perspective that -- is there a downsides in setting these rates, reducing these rates? >> we don't see a down psi. you know, we are staying

competitive, which i think is important for continuing to market the supergreen component of this programme. the object civ to grow that component of our programme. i think staying competitive is attractive and that's part of what is accomplished with the reductions that were just described. but, again, we're still covering our costs so i think we're overall good and have the right balance. >> the other thing i would add is with the green product, it's opt-out. but for supergreen, you have to opt-in. and if there is a solar choice that pg&e is offering that is cheaper, then when you start looking at your options, you may choose to go with pg&e options. so, i think that is why we really want to be competitive so that we can have both and supergreen customers. >> and then, of course, we're staying active at the cpuc to make sure that the rates that

pg&e is charging are cost compensatory and they're not subsidizing across rate groups that. was the regulatory item i mentioned in the clean power s.f. update. we're seing their current supergreen rate dos not account for all the costs to provide that -- sorry, i'm saying is supergreen. solar choice service. and that's problematic. so we are advocating at the cpuc to make sure that all the costs of the solar choice programme are being borne by solar choice customers. >> ms. hale, can you comment on other c.c.a.s, how they're dealing with their rates and pg&e? >> mm-hmm. so i'm seeing -- as i work with the other c.c.a. directors, i'm seeing that all of them are talking about rates and their programmes as being competitive.

recognizing that through the course of a year, they are not always going to be charging a rate that results in a bill that is lower than if a customer had stayed with pg&e. there is a general recognition, i think, within this growing second is to of the industry that the growing proposition offer a customer is more than just that bill component. it really comes down to broader services as well and responsiveness to customer needs, that local investment is key for all the other c.c.a.s as well. the other c.c.a.s don't have as high a participation rate in their 100% offering. so they aren't as active in a

debate we're engaged in on the solar choice offering that pg&e has. >> interesting. >> i would also mention that the -- i'm talking a lot about -- when you are asking me about the other c.c.a.s, i'm mentioning primarily pg&e with respect to the solar choice. edison, southern california edison and san diego gas and electric have both requested authority to close their 100% offering programmes in their service territories. they have such low participation, they're saying it is not worthwhile for them to continue their programmes. thank you. >> commissioners, anything else? >> move the item. >> second. >> any other discussion? any public comment?

>> thank you, president kwon and commissioners. happy new year. 350 bay area. we definitely support this and i support everything that ms. hale said. i wasn't planning on speaking, but to commissioner caen's point, about the spiral, i think it does bear, you know, just elaborating a little bit more. we're in a bit of a unique situation because a lot of the other c.c.a.'s roll in their whole service territory within six monthings or a year and so there is kind of this critical period where folks are us -- us is -- susceptible, if you will, to the choice and opting out of pg millimetre e which is a pretty beefy choice which is what's in front of them. we're in a situation where, for multiple years, people kind of think of clean power s.f. as an opts-in programme because that

is how it is for folks, except in certain neighbourhoods right now. until the remaining traunches of folks are rolled in citywide, it leaves us susceptible to pg&e marketing and their plans. as people look to go 100% renewable and google that, if they don't know about this programme, they'll hopefully find two choices if not just theirs through search engine optimizization and then they'll have a choice to make. we don't want them to make that choice. we want them to be in something that makes them happy and is local and puts money back into the community instead of shareholder dividends and executive compensation. we really need to get the roll-in happening as quickly as possible and i just wanted to say this is why one of the reasons why we've been advocating that all along. very supportive of the p.u.c. and cal c.c.a., you know, fighting at the california p.u.c. and at the legislature, but ultimately as long as the

utilities are able to set the ground rules that we have to play on, in my opinion, at the california public utilities commission and through certain legislative offices, we're going to continue to face this reactive roller coaster, spiral like you are suggesting. and i think anything that we can do to increase political pressure and bring kind of the full weight of the city and county to bear on the california p.u.c. and the legislature, we have a much larger hefts than any of the other operating c.c.a.s. l.a. county will obviously dwarf us. but as of now, i feel like we in alameda county have a big voice. lastly, you know, reducing our exposure to the market where we need to buy energy to spend money and create costs for the programme. that is really the other way off of this hamster wheel and that is why we're advocating for sklerltsd local bill. once we have products

generating energy and we can sell that to folks and don't have those extra costs we won't be subject to market change. thank you. >> thank you. next item, please. >> we need a vote. >> oh, we need a vote. let's vote. all in favour. [laughter] >> aye. >> all opposed? next item. >> item 11. approve the form of a credit agreement and associated fee agreement with j.p. morgan chase bank a not-to-exceed commitment amount of $15 million and term up to six years to provide clean credit support of the s.f. power programme and execute the credit agreement and associated fee agreement subject to board of supervisor's approval. >> may i have the slides, please? commissioners, eric sandler, c.f.o. of the p.u.c. i'm here to talk about a proposed credit agreement

supporting citiwide roll out of clean power s.f. i wanted to spend a few minutes -- what i wanted to talk about today is first our initial launch financial strategy, talk about the growth plans and our financial strategy for growing this programme and then get into some of the specific terms of the agreement. so, you may remember that september 2015, we were trying to organize clean power s.f. as a separate entity with its own sets of revenues, expenses, assets and liabilitieses. in order to -- with a separate net revenue pledge from the power enterprise in order to establish a ratable credit going forward. and what this meant was, as i mentioned, separate accounts as well as an endenture that, for the power enterprise that excluded can clean power revenues and expenses. when we were talking to banks and we went out with an r.f.p., no banks were willing to extend

credit to clean power on its own. and so it required limited financial support of the power enterprise. and that support came in the form of an $8 million loan as well as a very subordinate backup security pledge for letter of credit that was issued by j.p. morgan on behalf of the power contrapartis that we signed contracts with in order to provide launch power for the programme. on may 9, 2017, you approved a city-wide plan to roll out service to the entire city. over a multiyear period. wi are continuing to build a plane and strategy in support of that. that growth plan that identified the need for letters of credit to provide collateral to power contra parties like the -- like during the launch

as well as a potential need for working capital. and so we went out with an r.f.p. to banks again for this type of credit facility. and the goal was to try to have these agreements be nonrecourse to the power enterprise and only clean power s.f. revenues and where as in 2015 we were not successful and no bank was willing to loan clean power s.f. money, there time around there were several banks willing to offer credit on a nonrecourse basis and j.p. morgan offered the best terms -- >> sorry. why was that? >> why do we think that they were -- >> why did it change? because revenue was starting to come in or -- >> i think it was multiple thing. one was a track record. we had year track record of history for clean power s.f. and there's been a lot of growth in the c.c.a. world. and there were a couple of banks that really wanted to jump into the market opportunity.

so, there were many more banks unwilling to do it than there were willing to do it. >> in 2016. >> this year. >> this year. >> so, what we have before you is a credit agreement that is nonrecoursed to the power enterprise so it's recoursed solely to clean power s.f. revenues. it is for an amount up to $150 million total. it is a term of three -- five years, sorry. credit capacity can be used for multiple purposes. to issue letters of credit to provide power contracting, security obligations and then also as i mentioned to provide working capital. it is recourse only to clean power s.f. revenues and the cost depends on particular -- a particular use that we require of the facility and that also the debt service coverage ratio of clean power at the time. so there is an undrawn fee for the total amount of the

facility which is 50 basis points. there is a feeze for any letter of credit that is issue on behalf of power contracting, counterparties which ranges depending on debt service coverage of the enterprise and then there is a charge for revolving credit which is based on one month libor, plus a spread. this agreement is not unlike many of the other credit agreements that we have for the water and waste water enterprise. it contains a number of covenants and commitments that we make, that the commission makes to counterparty. and the covenants that we've made are consistent with the clean power business practice policies as well as the commission's reserve policies that it's established. i wanted to highlight three of

the covenants. you're familiar with debt service covenants and waste water and set rates and charges to meet debt service coverage level of 1.25% and the commission policy is 1.35%. this particular covenant in this agreement is to set rates and charge for a target of 1.1. and then if the debt service coverage target goes below 1.05, that is considered an event of default. if there is a required minimum debt service level in other words to initiate l.l.o.c.s and extend credit and that is at 120 and then at a level of 150 we start to benefit from reduced pricing. now i'll just mention that the, you know, when we look at the base case performa for clean

power s.f. and even when we look at sensitivities, we're seeing debt coverage raich -- ratios of 150 to 30. the next series of covenants relates to reserves. the agreement builds on the business practice policies of clean power s.f. which are an operating reserve of 90 days expenses and sa rate stabilization reserve of 15% of revenues. the ko*f nanlts requires that any excess revenues or 80% of excess revenues be dedicated towards those reserves to meeting those targets. and then there is a test in your 20-21 and 21-22 that we need to meet 50% of the proforma or 80% of the performa in 2022. and we have done sensitivity analysis and in downside

scenarios we're meeting those targets. but it is important to mention that this credit agreement doesn't do away with the risks, the underlying risks in the c.c.a. business in clean power s.f. as we discussed, the business is still exposed to market and regulatory risk and we have the mitigations that we deploy ands a.g.m. hill talked about those when you had your initial launch for clean power and we'll be talk about those again next month, february 13. looking at how we manage the various risks of the programme. and we've run a number of sensitivity analyses with a third party financial consultant to make sure that we meet these tests that we're covenanting to under a range of scenarios. so what happens if we don't meet the financial targets? well, a failure of covenant

results in a suspension event which means there's no more credit extended beyond what has already been extended. there are not meeting the reserve targets which i talked about. which is 50% and 80% of our proforma levels or dropping below 1.05 debt service coverage. considered an event of default. in that case, we would meet and confer with j.p. morgan, re-establish a baseline and renegotiate the terms of the agreement. what is important to note, that in all cases, this is not recourse to the power enterprise. the rest is its own inspects financial operation. so the forms of the document before you are one, the form of the credit agreement and it takes -- sets forth the terms of the agreement including repayment terms and includes the form of an irrevocable letter of credit issued to central power.

power sales, counterparties. it also contains the fee agreement and the terms of which are -- i specified a little earlier. so the requested commission action is to approve the form of the credit agreement with j.p. morgan for not to exceed amount of $150 million. and to authorize the general manager to negotiate final terms and execute the credit agreement. now this agreement wouldn't be signed until we were at the point of executing power purchase agreements that would come before you in february 2013. or february 13. next month. that completes my presentation and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> commissioners? south carolina

>> -- >> i have a question on how this relates to the proposed power bond charter amendment. does that need to go forward in order for the power enterprise to issue bonds or is that a separate? >> that is a separate -- clean power is a separate financially inspects revenues and expenses. >> so clean power can go ahead and do that without that charter amendment? >> clean power s.f. has -- there is the authority to issue bonds for clean and renewable energy. clean power s.f., however, does not have a credit rating currently. [please stand by] [please stand by]

entering into long-term contracts. >> i think what you are referring to, if we get to the point where we are purchasing renewalable projects to provide power, then i think that will, i guess, the question is, can we use for like revenue bonds to build infrastructure, and my

understanding, clean power, we have ability to build clean power. >> we have the authority to issue bonds to finance clean power facilities, or renewable facilities. >> right now, without a charter amendment. >> cleanpowersf does not have a credit rating. >> we don't, s.p.c., apples and oranges to be able to -- we don't have the revenue to be able to issue bonds to build infrastructure for the power side. >> we don't have the authority. >> that's why we were looking at a charter amendment. >> exactly. >> i just want to make sure the charter authority needed is for the distribution. you know, to fund the distribution, so -- assets. barbara, you want to take a shot at -- >> sorry. >> just, i guess -- i just want to provide some more context.

so, power enterprise. >> we have existing authority as an enterprise to issue bonds. that's for replacement of facilities primarily, right? and then we also have the authority that c.f.o. sandler was referring to for issue bonds for clean power facilities, for renewable facilities and conservation facilities, ok? what the bond measure associated with the charter amendment would allow us to do, so the charter amendment modifies our bonding authority to allow us to use bonding authority for new facilities. it doesn't specify what they are, so yes, it could be distribution as the general manager just mentioned. it could be other facilities. it could be clean power. it could be clean power. >> we already have that

authority. >> we already have authority for new clean generation, right? what we are missing, the gap we are trying to fill with the charter amendment is the rest, you know. all the other things that we need to invest in in order to serve our customers with clean power, you can have a generator that generates clean electricity. if you don't have the transmission and distribution facilities and the transformer, you can't provide the service. so we have gaps the charter amendment is intended to fill. the authority is power enterprise authority, so it's not specific to clean power assess program or the hechi power program. assuming it will get adopted, available for use by either entity. a challenge will be we don't have a credit rating for cleanpowersf, we need to get that in order to use that

capacity, ok? so, hopefully that helped clear things up rather than cloud it further. >> because i'm, you know, it's helpful, that's the first i've heard and i don't know if any other commissioners understand this charter amendment that we are going to be considering and looking at. i understand, and i don't know if it comes for a vote or review by this commission, but in june. right? >> it's moving through the board process. supervisors peskin, tang and new safai have associated themselves with it. it has had one reading at rules committee, the second reading is tomorrow. and then it will be before the board for consideration and it is targeted for the june 5th ballot. >> but i just want to make sure that the main purpose and we

talked about it as part of the business plan is that right now for new facilities, distribution, stuff that we can't fund through revenue bonds, we have to pay cash. and so this gives us a vehicle to debt finance using our revenue. and so we are unable to do that on any new facilities. so, that was the thinking of trying to make the power enterprise. we always had the ability for clean power, not cleanpowersf, but clean power, we have that authority already. but as barbara and they have said, we are separating the business units, or we have hechi and we want clean power to stand on its own. so we started having clean power, you know, at a really relied on the power enterprise and initiation or the start, but

now we have it where it's true and not co-dependent, so we want to continue that. >> right. >> i understand that. i just was surprised to first learn about the power revenue bonds charter amendment, you know, at a board meeting, frankly. this is the first i've had it explained. i approach -- appreciate it. >> i have a number of questions. so, basically this is a line of credit. >> yes. >> in simple terms. i'm fuzzy on the agreement terms and one area the -- where am i here -- the line of credit, i don't mean the line of credit -- where -- just a sec.

oh, the debt service ratios. why is it lower, why is it -- >> than our other enterprises? >> right. >> because we wanted the maximum flexibility that we could have for compare. >> and then for the l.o.c. fees, with the range of the percentages, 1.85, how does that co-exist with the debt service coverage? >> ok. so, depending on the debt service coverage, so, let's say we are in the middle of this agreement and barbara and mike come to me and say eric, we have a great opportunity to procure power at a low cost but they want a letter of credit to back up the commitments under the agreement, which is not

uncommon. i would say ok, let me look at our financial statements, let me look at what our debt service coverage ratio is, and if it's above 1.50 we get the best terms under the agreement and we pay j.p. morgan 1.85% to issue that letter of credit. if our ratio is below that, if it's between 125 and 150, we pay a little more. if it's above 120, we pay the higher rate. >> ok. so, is that the debt service coverage in the -- we don't have that for clean power. so that would be the power enterprise. >> it's actually clean power. that's a very good question. so, for the purposes of the agreement, any outstanding credit as well as the loan to

the power enterprise are considered debt service, that's what's being compared to the net revenues. >> ok. >> uh-huh. >> and getting back to the basic loan from the power enterprise, has clean power paid that back? >> there's a schedule of repayment and clean power has made the payments on schedule. >> and that's over how many years? >> it's a five-year loan. >> thank you. >> i have one more question. trigger and what is the estimate time you think clean power will have its own rating? >> a track record of operations, a track record of c.c.a.s growing and being successful, a number of them have approached credit rating agencies to receive credit ratings. we have talked to a number of agencies as well. they are working their arms around how to rate these

entities. i can't give you an exact answer. what i can say is the terms and conditions of this particular agreement are consistent with an investment rated enterprise. so, if we operate in these parameters, it will enhance our ability to secure ultimately an investment grade rating. >> thank you. >> i think we had a motion and second. some discussion. any public comment on this item? >> hello, 350 bay area. thanks to mr. sandler, mr. heinz, ms. hale and their work. to commissioner vietor's point and the discussion that happened, we definitely want

cleanpowersf to have its own credit rating so we can use the existing authority to issue revenue bonds versus general obligation bonds to build stuff, energy infrastructure that we keep talking about over and over. so, anything that we can do to get that credit rating, which we definitely made very clear to staff, we are supportive of and to the extent that this holding to this for a year or two might get it done, we really need that credit rating. the power enterprise does not want to take the weight -- cleanpowersf to the commission and the advocates have had for many, many, many years now. i think the question which hopefully could get elaborated a little more now is how the cash reserve covenant that was mentioned will impact local buildout. i know in the -- i can't remember the name of the financial document but kind of the allocation of revenues going

forward through i think 2022 that we had originally seen maybe last year, i know that investment in what was called supergreen projects or local build was starting i think in 2020, and we raised a bunch of heck about that at the time how we needed to get started sooner than that, based on what i just saw. it looks like the accumulation of reserves might go well beyond that, and this covenant through the early 2020s unless i would assume that excess revenue could not be diverted to such projects until after that. so, if it pleases the commission, i would think that it's useful to, to discuss how this financial agreement will impact our ability to, will positively impact our ability to build our credit worthiness, but

negatively impact our timeline. >> thank you. >> we did not have a motion or second, so can we have one, please? >> so moved. >> second. >> any other public comment? all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? next item, please. >> item 12, approve a plans and specifications and work contract number wd23 -- 2838 for amount not to exceed 5,965,300, for e the -- >> good afternoon, president kwon, commissioners. this item is before you because we have only received one bid for this construction contract, this contract is to address taste and odor issues at sunol treatment plant from local water sources. if we have negotiated with the

contractor, and it's still roughly 10% over the engineer's revised engineer estimate. we will continue to negotiate, if the commission approves this item, we do need, we actually received five contractors picked up packages. one of the contractors, one contract in sunol valley for the system, another contractor chose to bid on moccasin project, and the other contractors were nonl.b.e. and did not choose to participate. if we went out to bid again, i don't think we would get additional bidders. this project is also time critical because we have scheduled mountain tunnel shutdown for january 2019, and so we would need to get this construction substantially complete before we could do mountain tunnel shutdown for additional repairs. >> i'll move the item. >> second.

>> thank you. >> discussion, commissioners. >> i have a question. why is there such a vast difference between the original engineer's bid and the revised? >> to be honest, the consultants' estimator made a mistake and left out several items. >> any public comment on this item? ok, let's vote. all in favor? aye, opposed, next item, please. >> item 13, discussion and possible action to authorize the general manager to consent on behalf to the development agreement between the city and county of san francisco seawall lot as i relates to the matters under the jurisdiction, consent to the mission rock project

interagency agreement and seawall and monitoring and reporting program. >> good afternoon, deputy general manager. title speaks for itself. another development agreement. this is mission rock, giants, across from the stadium. it's been in the works quite a while and we would like permission to sign a development agreement. >> i'll move the item. >> second. >> discussion, commissioners? any public comment? all in favor, aye. opposed? oh, public comment? we have time. now we are all looking at you, all right. no public comment? all right. all in favor, aye. opposed, moving on to closed session. >> read items prior to calling public comment. we will hear item 16,

anticipated litigation as plaintiff. would you like to call for public comment? >> yes, public comment. for matters to be discussed during closed session. do we have anyone? ok. we have a motion on whether to assert attorney/client privilege regarding the matters listed below as conference with legal counsel. >> clarify item 17 is not being heard under closed session, so only, you are entering closed session only for item 16. item 17 is not being heard. >> move to assert. >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? >> all right.

>> motion not to disclose. aye. ok. next item is item 20. other new business. anything, commissioners? >> i would just like to bring up something, it would be nice to have our, our screens working again. >> yes, it would. >> what do we have to do to make that happen? >> a hammer. >> from my understanding, i think the equipment is old and it's hard to get parts, and i think they are scheduled to put new systems in, but i don't know when. >> i can check. >> i can relate to the comments about being old. >> replacement parts are hard to come by. >> can i -- make a request? can we prepare a save the date

for the second annual golden pride event? can we do that? because still, i was speaking with colleagues, and they did not have it calendared. >> what is the date? >> second part of my two-part question. >> oh, sorry. i think it's may. >> right? >> but if we could get a save the date to distribute that, it would be kind of awesome. >> the monday before memorial day. >> i would have that information, i'm going up country to moccasin and talk about the golden pride award in the event, and so, did you go to c.d.d.? >> i'm doing that tomorrow. >> so by tomorrow you will have -- because, but yeah, i think we should send out save the dates but while you are up there, i think we should hand stuff out, because a lot of folks don't receive email. >> my hope is we will receive

some branding, if you have a conversation on some low go and, but when i was speaking with some of my colleagues, we did not have it calendared. my hope is we'll have a save the date distributed and hard cope and electronic, as a formal commission. if there's no objection. >> nope. >> no, good idea. >> perfect. >> and tomorrow we are tabling it, i think. >> yes. >> golden pride. >> are you going to be with me at c.d.d.? i think you are in a different location. >> i think i'm in southeast. >> i know. >> c.d.d. >> you are going to c.d.d., i'm going to moccasin, and just came from millbray today. >> ok. go where we are told. >> any other new business? >> thank you for your service.

>> my pleasure. >> any other new business, commissioners? nothing else? >> public comments? >> public comment. ok. this meeting is adjourned. thank you very much for your time, everyone. .

>> hi i'm brandon the mist at sfpuc my role to support the employees between our yosemite location to

san francisco and the typical things we deal with are puc recommended and network relate an telecom i like my role it varies day to day it is a unique challenge from providing in that user conclusions i solutions on their computer or a the president on a task they're trying to complete the training is very important there are many things to stay up to date my manager has helped me making sure any skills are up to date with the skilled in my field it is about right time of day and about you know the percentage of resagsz for water and power are posh to the citizens of san francisco and keeping those systems up and running for this is one of the challenge to progress within the organization

and commit count i commit to the local government is where i wan >> raise your right hand please. >> i mark farrell. >> i mark farrell. >> do solemnly swear. >> that i'm support and defend. >> the constitution of the united states. >> and the constitution of california. >> against all enemies foreign and domestic. >> i will bear true faith in allegiance. >> to the constitution of the united states. >> and the constitution of the state of california. >> i take this obligation freely. >> without any reservation or purpose of evading. >> and that i will well and

faithfully discharge. >> the duties upon which i'm about to enter. >> and during such time as i hold the mayor of city and county of san francisco. (cheering) >> good evening everybody. it is an honor to stand before you this evening. the past six weeks have been an incredible roller coaster for the city of san francisco. for those of us who knew and worked with mayor ed lee, it has been an incredibly challenging time. he was someone i admired greatly, both personally and professionally. he was incredibly kind to my family, in particular our three

children, and he's gravely missed. agree or disagree with his politics, we can all agree he was a great human being, a devoted public servant to the city of san francisco and someone whose life i hope we celebrate as a city for years to come. i personally want to thank london breed for her grace and leadership during this difficult time. she led our city during the mourning of mayor lee and i know she works tirelessly for the residents of san francisco. i want to thank my colleagues on the board of supervisors for trusting me with this position. i assume this role with great pride and humility. the most important concern for me is the continuity of the government of the city and county of san francisco. residents waking up tomorrow morning, expect muni buses to

run on time. they expect police officers to be walking the beat, public works cleaning our streets and all vital services that the public expects us to deliver as a city and we'll do exactly that. and it means tackling the most pressing issues, getting homeless off the streets and into shelter and housing. making sure our streets are safe and clean for san francisco residents. continuing to build on mayor lee's legacy of housing and addressing the housing crisis. the next six months will be incredibly active. san francisco residents deserve nothing less. san francisco's future, our future is incredibly bright. and despite our issues, we live in the most amazing city in the world. thriving local neighborhoods, the booming economy, natural

beauty unrivalled anywhere in the world and adversity and inclusion. this is a time for leadership. it's a time to look ahead. i look forward to the road in front of us all. thank you very much. >> will you take a couple of questions now? go ahead. >> reporter: the reaction to your nomination and vote to point you in this position were very emotional, people were very upset in the board chamber, claims of racism. there's a division in the city and how will you bring people together and what's your reaction? >> to me this is not about politics. it's about moving the city forward and the continuity of our government. all i can say is i will work to represent every single san

francisco resident, no matter the race, ethnicity, religion. it doesn't matter. my job for the next six months is to build on the legacy of mayor lee, to build on what supervisor breed did during her time as acting mayor and make sure san francisco residents get everything they deserve out of the city government and that will be my job. >> reporter: did you see the nomination coming for mayor? >> again, i have heard many different rumors as many people had. but, again, to me, this is not about politics. my focus is not now on the past. i thank my colleagues on the board of supervisors for entrusting me in this position. i appreciate their support and trust. in my office this is about moving the city forward though. >> reporter: mayor farrell,

perhaps -- or wait for june. which path do you choose? >> to me there's one path, making sure that the city and county of san francisco continues to function, deliver the services it does for the city and residents. there's going to be a heated mayoral election and campaigns that have already started over the past few weeks and that will continue through june. my job over the next half year is to make sure our muni buses run on time, we do everything we can to get the homeless off the street. have police officers on the street, make residents feel safe and deliver all functions that residents expect. >> reporter: you didn't touch on affordable housing. that seems to be the biggest issue. >> affordable housing is top of the list. that's an issue mayor lee spent

his entire time in office focusing on and i will continue to build on that through housing and everything else in the city that san francisco is as affordable as it can be for every resident. >> reporter: [indiscernible]. >> to me, again, this isn't about politics, this is a situation that our city charter contemplates. my colleagues, i do trust their -- i appreciate their trust and their judgment in putting me in this position. i look forward to leading the city of san francisco for the next six months and making sure that everything that our san francisco residents expect continues to get delivered as a government. >> reporter: there were people so passionate and so upset tonight, what do you as mayor now say to them and the people they represented tonight about

what has happened and how you plan to charge a path forward. >> i heard the emotion in the room, i was there as well and felt that also. people were passion on many sides of the discussion. over the course of the last month as i have talked with people and residents across the city of san francisco, those emotions have come through. what i will say, i will be mayor for every single san francisco resident. my focus and job as mayor is to represent everybody in the city of san francisco. no matter what their race, ethnicity, religion. my job is to represent everybody and i will do that over the next half year. >> thank you everybody. >> what is

>> they tend to come up here and drive right up to the vehicle and in and out of their car and into the victim's vehicle, i would say from 10-15 seconds is all it takes to break into a car and they're gone. yeah, we get a lot of break-ins in the area. we try to -- >> i just want to say goodbye. thank you. >> sometimes that's all it

takes. >> i never leave anything in my car. >> we let them know there's been a lot of vehicle break-ins in this area specifically, they target this area, rental cars or vehicles with visible items. >> this is just warning about vehicle break-ins. take a look at it. >> if we can get them to take it with them, take it out of the cars, it helps. >> january 18th, laura thomas sitting in for bryant tan. please turnoff cell phones. thank you for sfgov tv.