assuming it was done through lafco. it could be paid for by other means and manners but if lafco did that through the cca fund we would come back with approval for a not to exceed for that process as well. >> and do we get any indication of what the study could potentially cost? >> we know what it cost for richmond and for napa which just had their study done. theirs was in the 40,000 to $40,000 range and don was up front and closer to the higher number and there is something they want to do a study because of san francisco politics and what it would meep to their program and do broad base research to what it would look like a program and the appetite for their customers to join and they don't want to scare off their customers and san francisco is going to take us over type of thing and also the appetite for joining a marin style program and i don't know the cost of that would be. >> what do you see as the work, the research that the city and county of san francisco have done so far that might help them and they're goin

fried lafco staff again. as i mentioned to you i presented the first draft budget at last meeting. this is the second required hearing. there is however a difference from last month to this month in the budget. if you look at your packets you will see there say re-- is a reduction in the budget. that was as the city and county of san francisco was going through their process and changes to staffing and how lafco can interact with staff i noticed an interesting difference between what we say our budget was and what they were saying and i did research and worked with the clerk and by state mandate the minimum amount that we can request be ag indicated to us and it's 300,000 so you will see the budget reflect the lower amount. once again we do have enough in reserve to pay for one year of our budget but after year we will be below that budget and next fiscal year we will be below that amount. we're at 300,000 now in the reserve act so we can go one more year if we want to return the money and i will suggest that

> jason fried lafco staff. in your package you have the proposed budget to do -- just as a reminder within lafco statute we pass a draft budget by may 1st and final budget by july -- middle of july, if i am not mistaken, june, i'm sorry. this is our chance to pass our draft budget and come back, unless there are changes that are suggested today drom come back with this budget for final approval at our may meeting next month. the budget itself you will not see very many changes within it you will see minor changes, like non-personnel services a different line item that used to be under "other services and other departments." that they separate out now. so we have separated out in our budget to be more in line with the clerk of board office and how they do their budgeting. you will see an increase in the clerk of board salaris and benefits, because the contracts that the city and county has with the clerk staff last year did not have any increases. this upcoming fiscal year will have increases and so we'll have t

lafco has a special fund for cca activities. so, there is the potential that it would come out of that fund, which is just to be fair, that fund comes out of the sfpuc but is dedicate ford lafco's discretion to use. so, there is some possibility of us paying for lafco paying for that, although i can't commit because we haven't had that discussion. we have a meeting next week and that is going to be one of the items on the agenda to have the discussion whether or not we could fund once we have a better idea of the exact costs would be on this program. >> and then are there any other approvals in addition to the ordinance that we are passing potentially at the board? are there any other approvals to allow us to be able to go and do this feasibility study? [multiple voices] >> i would have to yield to the city attorney or to the city process because as a lafco representative, i don't represent the city on this step. i would yield to them to say what the process is. my understanding is this would go through the board process. depend

>> jason freed, lafco staff. i just wanted to come up -- the local agency formation commission and its review of how we can get a cca program up and running. this is a request that was done by the board of supervisors back in '07 to have us be the ones to help give some options to how we get this program up and running. and joining another program is an option considering that the sfpuc commission back in august of last year decided to stop doing any work on getting the program for the folks. as you heard from our representative from marin, it is a great way for greenhouse gas emission reductions -- they have -- their portfolio is lower than pa knee's portfolio. for trying to hit our goal in san francisco through the climate action strategy plan, while this doesn't get us to the 100%, the product is not 100% renewable, it still would get us closer and get us that much better than we currently are today. so, this is one of the things we can look at and lafco will continue to look for other options as time comes. >

multiple voices] >> i would have to yield to the city attorney or to the city process because as a lafco representative, i don't represent the city on this step. i would yield to them to say what the process is. my understanding is this would go through the board process. depending how many votes it gets, the mayor's approval or not approval, that would be the [speaker not understood]. it would still have to come bag before any program is launched. [speaker not understood]. it would go through the board and the sfpuc would have to at that point both agree to do -- moving a program forward if we were to go down this model. but the feasibility study would give us an idea of what it would take to actually do that. >> um-hm. and so, then, in terms of the marin side, was there any sort of approval that has to take place on their part for us to be able to do the feasibility study? >> i would yield to the representative from marin to answer that part. >> our board has not yet set policy for how we might expand to community the size of san francisco. we do have policy and a process set for commu

as san francisco clean energy advocates who has been working with folk on the board as well as in lafco on getting a strong clean power [speaker not understood]. i'm also an environmental scientist. i'm frustrate that had i've lived here since 1999 and i've heard about cleanpowersf for i believe 10 years now and that we still don't see a clean energy program in the city. so, i'm very glad to see the board looking at pursuing all means of moving this program forward. clearly we need to offer power to san francisco citizens that is cleaner than pg&e at the same price or cheaper and marin has shown that that's imminently possible. however, san francisco's program has long had a primacy on new generation and local generation. so, i think as we go forward, we just want to ensure that san francisco has local control of the parameter of our program so that we can accrue the co-benefits like thousands of local jobs that we have seen from previous planning documents. particularly in light of the legislation which president chiu just pushed forward in the previous item, as you are funding strateg

the board of supervisors and lafco have been promoting cleanpowersf and cca, community choice ag re ~ aggregation for 10 years now. i think what the lee administration would like to see is a dead end, but i'd like to see us at the crossroads, that we are doing everything we can to make sure that we can provide an option for san francisco residents for 100% renewable energy in their homes. the cleanpowersf program is that program or what we have designed for that program. we had approved that program in september of 2012. and since that time we've been stalled, but i want to make sure that we have options for moving forward to make sure that we can have san francisco meet its clean energy goals. our climate action strategy is very ambitious. on paper, it's probably the best municipal climate change strategy in the country, but it's on paper that way because when it comes down to really doing the work to implement the program, we are falling way behind. cleanpowersf is a big part of our effort around climate strategy. in fact, the mention of cleanpowersf and the cleanpowersf goals were

for fiscal year 2014-2015. >> jason fried lafco staff. in your package you have the proposed budget to do -- just as a reminder within lafco statute we pass a draft budget by may 1st and final budget by july -- middle of july, if i am not mistaken, june, i'm sorry. this is our chance to pass our draft budget and come back, unless there are changes that are suggested today drom co

. >> item no. 2, approval of the lafco minutes from the january 24, 014 regular meeting and march 3, 2014 special joint meeting with the san francisco public utilities commission. >> colleagues my comments or questions of the minutes? okay. seeing none, we can open this item up for the many people who are in our audience -- wait, there is no one there. welcome. and we'll close public comment. colleagues do we have a motion to approve the minutet minutes? motion from commissioner breed and seconded by commissioner schmeltzer, without objection. next item, please. >> the community choice aggregation activities report. a, status update on the cleanpowersf. b, status upare date on the proceeding at the california public utilities commission and c, status update for the request for proposal to provide build-out strategy and plan for cleanpowersf energy-efficient, facilities and local jobs policy. >> we have a presentation from barbara hale. >> thank you, commissioners, assistant general manager for power. as you know, assembly member amaino introduced a bill that would allow the city to j

i also think the study that was done by the lafco on this piece -- on this issue is very informative because it actually shows that san francisco is the exception, not the norm. but in fact, in most other jurisdictionses, the voters are the ones who decide who fill a vacancy. and i think that consistent with the democratic process, certainly consistent with the statements that i have made in the last few months, i want to make sure that i add my name as a co-sponsor. the last item that i, that i want to speak about, you know, i just want to just simply note that it is interesting that even in the year 2014 there are still lessons that even in communities like san francisco people learn and i specifically want to talk about what happened at san francisco sacred heart cathedral preparatory school where you had a pretty incredible and courageous individual, jessica urbina, a senior at sacred heart, who saw in the course of a few days becoming, you know, the center of attention and the subject of discussion. over the very simple fact that she, looking very sharply, had a picture in the y

last year the local area formation commission, lafco, studied how other jurisdictions filled vacancies in vacant offices. one unique san francisco's appointment process is the mayor has discretion to [speaker not understood] to fill vacancy. that process let alone the democratic process for how the mayor makes these [speaker not understood]. there are no time constraints when the mayor make these appointments. [speaker not understood], she was not appointed to be assessor until february 2013. and there are no -- there are virtually no other examples of this lack of public process in filling vacancies in many place around the country. the colorado governor makes [speaker not understood] to fill a vacancy [speaker not understood]. the mayor of philadelphia make appointment of vacancies in their city, but there is no other executive office where they have this ability. this will bring us in line with processes for filling vacancies in our state and federal legislative bodies. example, appointees that happened over the years. there have been 23 appointees to the board of supervisors since

. >> item two is approval of the lafco minutes from the date regular meeting. >> colleagues you have reviewed the minutes. any questions? i see know none. we will go to members of the public. there are no members here and we will close public comment. >> i move approval. >> moved and seconded without objection. item three. >> item three is the community choice aggregation activities report. a status of update on cleanpower sf program. b status update on proceedings on california public utilities commission. >> c status update on the state legislature proceedings. e update on the request for proposals to provide build our plaj for cleanpower sf and e status update on the board of supervisors proposed ordinance for community choice aggregation joining supervisor mar. >> as far as to go down the issues here we have worked on the study from the study approved from the last meeting. today we received the draft from the first task. there are multiple tasks involved. i forwarded that to each of your offices so it's in your emails and if you need hard copies let me know. the first part of th

. >> item two is approval of the lafco minutes from the date regular meeting. >> colleagues you have reviewed the minutes. any questions? i see know none. we will go to members of the public. there are no members here and we will close public comment. >> i move approval. >> moved and seconded without objection. item three. >> item three is the community choice aggregation activities

our panel consisted of not only sfpuc, but a member of the department of the environment and lafco staff member, as well as an outside member from the sonoma energy authority. as a result of the scoring, we had pretty much unanimously recommended enernex to do most of the tasks. they were -- they are an international group. they are based in many cities and overseas. they are an electric power and engineering consulting firm that has staff both locally and of course as i said overseas. as part of our rfp, i just want to just rereiterate what we are looking for, universal access and equitable treatment and providing 100% renewable and energy-efficiency and installations. so on our enernex proposal, they have been engaged in multi-year solar and wind generation program for many of the investor-owned utilities, san diego gas and electric, including los angeles department of water and they have been consultants for the california energy commission and awarded the 2013 project management distincted project of the year for smart grid. these are primarily engineers, but they work a lot in inter