i would like to get an idea from lafco or p.u.c.'s staff side the level of assertiveness so people were thoroughly briefed when they took hold in their power of position. >> there were -- mike campbell once again with the sf p.u.c. one of the parts of the presentation i skipped over was about the numerous presentations made in public about lafco and s.f. p.u.c. so there have not been many votes the current commissioners have taken on this matter. there have been public presentations. there also have been some private briefing that's i know of. but perhaps if this is a broader issue, it should be taken up at the giant p.u.c. lafco meeting. >> when is the joint meeting, sfleeze >> we don't have a date. it is something we started talking with mike about today. but i am serious about going to meet on our own -- hopefully with mike, with each commissioner, to talk about what their concerns are. as to the joint meeting, i did have a conversation with the -- with ed harrington about trying to set up their special meeting in august, which is

meeting prior to a lafco meeting so that the p.u.c. could approve the term sheet at that meeting and then we at lafco could consider that term sheet. so i think it's important to understand it's into the we hope they have a special meeting or that there is action taken in august, but we expect it has to happen, is that a hope? i think it's every expectation that it has to happen. we're already late in this process. but something does trouble me, which is this. that i hope that it doesn't take having to have a joint meeting for the p.u.c., for the p.u.c. commission to actually take a positive step approving c.c.a., because, you know, it shouldn't have to require lafco -- the lafco commission being in the room for the p.u.c. as a commission to make that commitment and the fact that they're unwilling to make that commitment or unable for whatever reason to make that commitment when they're on their own, that's really troubling. i do think that we need to have a joint meeting as soon as possible but i do think it's quite telling and distur

, et -- lafco would work with it. the program would be discussed. the puc staff to begin up and say, "that is not possible to do." they got up and did a report at the time saying it was not possible, so you had the puc staff and the city comptroller's office singing you cannot buy more expensive power and deliver it cheaper. they would say, "yes, you can." so every month, there was this, which did not make much sense to me, so the market would prove which way it would go, so in 2009, we petitioned a supplier, and we did go to the market and said we wanted to meet the goals that have been established. we did select a provider. they were not able to meet those goals even though they said they could when they responded, so those negotiations were ultimately unsuccessful. we went back to the board with the revised plan in march 2010. that changed those goals to talk about the rates, and green power and things that were important to us in that program, and then the puc issued an additional rfp last year, and no better actu

that brings me to the timing of your joint lafco meeting. the november 11 date is too late. we need to get something -- we need to get something this month of weekend. we need to be able to show sfpuc how the local building program affects the deal with shell. if we do not get that six months not going to be able to show you how to fit the local build out into your rates and on security and our security for the program. you will be in a position where you have to decide on a contract without that information. please make sure and get it underway as quickly as possible. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. i wanted to support the statements that have been made about compressing the time line to get this going, to get the discussion happening. i think that the idea of having a meeting to discuss all these things and move forward is the only program that we have. this is something we are talking about putting our renewable energy future, our local green jobs energy in. three months is too long. if we can go with those earlier dates to do the joint member -- meeting, if you approve

we have to discuss that with lafco. there are people that are unhappy with it. that is the proposal we have. they are not aware of the 19 million appropriation because we have negotiating that and this is the first time we're talking about that. that would be a new item to them at the joint meeting. >> president vietor: we need to have that conversation to really give them a bigger picture with cca as a piece of it. it could have a significant impact on the fund. at least on ratepayers. >> outside the range of the budget discussions, in a year to. president vietor: i would take it a step further. i do not know if the commissioners would agree. maybe that get calendar or addressed via the legislative affairs folks to figure out the appropriate time and if we need to take some prior action to that in order to maybe not make a recommendation but urged a conversation happens in the spirit of transparency and getting the policymakers on board. >> two things will happen. if you have that joint meeting there will be that kind of discussion. based on the retreat and con

we appreciate lafco moving this process forward. this item is a portion of the scope of work. rather than in the and all or nothing from , it is more a sequencing matter. this portion of $100,000 would be funding falls on the earlier portion of the scope of work that we've been looking for the sfpuc to fund. it is not all or nothing. it is just that a lot of the $100,000 portion of work would not be engaged and would not happen if the earlier portion of the analysis work that needs to be done -- that would need to happen first before this 100,000 zero should be appropriate to be engaged and spent out. we have been part of this negotiation. we do have a lot of eyes on this. there are a lot of people engaged right now that very much want this to succeed and are looking for this to be productive work. it is critical work for the program to be successful. there will be a lot of eyes on the task sheet and deliverables. it is written into have monthly chickens to make sure the product that is useful is being delivered and that decisions can be made about the next steps with the prod

i think it is important for lafco to strike the right balance in san will only pay what is needed. at the same time, we need to make sure we take actions to move the process forward. this action does not guarantee the $100,000 will be spent. is simply authorizes the executive officer to finalize and enter into a contract that specifically provides for work that needs to be done for the bill out. that is all it does. it went beyond that, i would not be comfortable with it. that is why i am comfortable with that. commissioner pimental. commissioner pimental: is local power interested in a negotiation on their proposal? is it an all or nothing proposal? commissioner miller: i have heard both depending on the level of frustration. sometimes people say things that they then retract. i also do not know the total answer to that question. i have received in writing and have heard from the advocates that it is an all or nothing issue. i have said that is not how is for us. i am willing to go forward with this particular piece of this. it remains all or nothing, i will not enter into the con

campbell, and p.u.c., but lafco, we're dogged about this. so to not expect this conversation to take this total quality would be fool hearty foolhardy because this is the year this must be done. this is a time where i think people will appreciate the contrast between what woe have to offer and what pg&e cannot. and i think this is absolutely the right time, where sentiment i think in the public, general public, would be i think receptive to something we had to offer. there's nothing stopping this from this program succeeding but that must require these two organs of sfee hall to come together. and there's something that seems to be amiss every time we get to this one place. it worries me. so the commission, if it's a new p.u.c. commissioners, i'm feeling like this is the dog ate my homework excuse. get them in the room with us so we can make sure that we have a meeting of the minds together. and i just told the commissioner compos, chair, that i insist this driver should not be a p.u.c. commission. it's being co-driven. exactly what i had ex

and -- meeting with lafco? did he say the 23rd? that was an option, october 4, 11, 7, 14. >> are friday's bad for you? >> october 11, since we're having a puc meeting, maybe we could do that. >> we have the room but in case we need to meet earlier, so we have the option of using the room that morning in the gives sufficient time between then and now to get all of the paper work together. if october 11 works at 11:00, that might work. >> i will cancel an event that i have to the act, but i can do that. >> we will need a two-hour meeting, probably. >> it will leave a half hour break between. >> well, that worked. >> check with commissioner courtney. >> i will track him down and that interestingly thwould be 11.11.11 at 11:00. >> better at craps than at meetings. >> would you like to move back to the regular agenda and returned to this item? >> we can continue this discussion unless there are members of the public anticipating coming later. why don't we return to the regular calendar, just in case there is somebod

i -- if we are going to meet with lafco on october 11, there must be some way to reach out to the rate fairness board so they understand what is occurring. president vietor: i do not know what their calendar is. >> we would be happy to do that earlier. as well as what we know. commissioner torres: the more eyes we have done these decisions, the better decisions we can all make. not only this body but the board of supervisors. commissioner moran: the is the rate fairness board look at one rate at a time or do they look at programs? >> what they have done in the past as they have provided an opinion on the five-year rate increases for water. they have looked at the multi year increase for the public power rates. we would brief them on the four and a half year proposed program for this in the case of cca rates. commissioner torres: on the timing question, we may need to start before we have a final term sheet or anything from cpuc. that program could start out on one level and anticipate increases in future years. i think thei think that the reat we get from the board of supervisors and f

there is still interest and commitment, we have the lafco meeting coming up and that will be a place to air these considerations. people have been working on this for many years, and it feels like the time has come for us to really decide on the best way forward. we will continue to drive this and move it to what is hopefully a successful conclusion. if there are no other comments, in the interest of time, i will move us along. >> if i could skip to 7c, it will be a fairly short discussion. on june 28, there was an item before the commission that was providing grants to job training agencies. a resolution that you adopted had various whereas's. it also talked about the project labor unit. and the building trade council came to us said that they were quite disturbed that it confused the issue and it seemed there was a connection with the private labor agreement that did not exist and they were quite concerned that we were mixing things that were inappropriate to mix. you have a lett me clarify that that resolution did not in any way try to change the rules of law that we have with us

>president vietor: how familiar is lafco and/or the board of supervisors with this scenario that the puc is currently in and it relates to cca and the big picture? >> at the committee meetings we have talked about the need to recover more of our costs for hetchy. on the tenure plan looking out, we have to be cutting things substantially and still not breaking even. in fairness, in budget hearings, it is the first year anybody looks at. a conversation about what happens in years three to ten, -- i would say it is not on the top of anyone's list. the discussion of cca having to charge customers more than pg&e, we have to discuss that with lafco. there are people that are unhappy with it. that is the proposal we have. they are not aware of the 19 million appropriation because we have negotiating that and this is the first time we're talking about that. that would be a new item to them at the joint meeting. >> president vietor: we need to have that conversation to really give them a bigger picture with cca as a piece of it. it could have a significant impact on the fund. at least on rate

they might be forced to request that lafco take independent actions. if we did not approve the contract, i want to reiterate that we really view lafco as our partners and we have worked hard to get to a place of mutual trust and respect, i believe. i would hope that we would really try as much as possible to operate in tandem and conjunction with them, so i thought that the tone of that letter was threatening and it was a little strange and i know that that was a publicly circulated letter. i just wanted to speak to that. i don't know if there are questions for mr. campbell on the extension of the contract. i saw that there was an amendment that was submitted but my understanding is that without reissuing the entire new unrest p -- an entire new rfp, maybe we could ask the attorney to speak to that. >> i know the staff has proposed an amendment that does not change that scope of work. the general manager and the staff have the authority within the contract that was competitively bid to issue orders pursuant to the original rfp. i just saw the materials

. >> approval of minutes for the june 3, 2011, lafco meeting. supervisor campos: colleagues, you have before you the minutes of the june 3, 2011, meeting. i do not know if you have comments or questions. commissioner schmeltzer: i move we approve the minutes. supervisor campos: before we act on that, is there any member of the public that would like to speak on item two? seeing none, public comment is closed. we have a motion and a second by commissioner avalos. can we take that without objection? so done. can you call item 3? >> item 3, report on the status of cca activities. a, approving a resolution authorizing the continued implementation and definition of a community choice aggregation program. b, a california state legislation update. c, status update on proceedings at the california public utilities commission. supervisor campos: great, and mr. campbell is here to present for the public utilities commission. before that, i just want to ask the executive officer if you wanted to say anything before mr. campbell spoke. >> we have arranged t

they might be forced to request that lafco take independent actions. if we did not approve the contract, i want to reiterate that we really view lafco as our partners and we have worked hard to get to a place of mutual trust and respect, i believe. i would hope that we would really try as much as possible to operate in tandem and conjunction with them, so i thought that the tone of that letter was threatening and it was a little strange and i know that that was a publicly circulated letter. i just

>president vietor: how familiar is lafco and/or the board of supervisors with this scenario that the puc is currently in and it relates to cca and the big picture? >> at the committee meetings we have talked about the need to recover more of our costs for hetchy. on the tenure plan looking out, we have to be cutting things substantially and still not breaking even. in fairness, in budget hearings, it is the first year anybody looks at. a conversation about what happens in years three to ten, -- i would say it is not on the top of anyone's list. the discussion of cca

>> lafco access at retail and mail order level. it is important to keep all the prices competitive. we do not choose one versus the other. most of our clients, who are sophisticated, want access. we supply access. with respect to the actual pharmacist's -- >> i want to interrupt and ask if your resistance to walgreen's promoting 90-day prescriptions to retail customers -- is that at least partly motivated by your desire to fill prescriptions for your own pharmacy? >> it is not. the 90 day prescriptions are set by plan design. we do not govern them. we shall the costs. mail order is cheaper. we can sell over 100,000 prescriptions a day with six sigma quality, less than two defects per million. that is very, very low. what ends up happening is the plant ultimately decides what because structure is to be. a company in economic trouble is much more confined. those clients that do not have economic issues may be less forceful in these areas. for example, setting co-pay levels. the more a company has to say, the higher the co-pay. we set those levels. the plants at those levels. we a bann