some of them are at people puc -- are at the puc, but a lot of them are in our offices. a lot of folks in my neighborhood want to be able to work where they go to school. right now, they have to come down here. that is a community benefit for you all to make sure they can work at that plant that is near their home. that is the kind of thing i am talking about. we get 80% of all the sewage through bayview hunter's point. we see it, we smelled it, we feel it. community benefits. we have another place at north beach. that is kind of what i was expecting. this program is great, but to me this is a city program that should be -- that every high schoolers should know what the puc does and should prepare for this. engineers and all the things you have. the community benefits is not -- the part of our discussion is when you guys came in with a list of community benefits, we had questions about what was the community benefit and what was not. i think you guys need to go back to the drawing board again. the reason i am harping on this is because the puc does a lot, and people need

they are doing work for the puc. then we have to capture the city staff that are supervising, the time they're putting in. there are a lot of things for it is hard to get a number. we want to give a robust number. we do not want to say 50,000 of our 30 million. i am just trying to make -- chairperson maxwell: you all are engineers, and i understand that. but we are not necessarily engineers. you are into the science and everything needs to cross and meat. i understand that. however, i need you to relax a little bit on this and give us some ideas. come back with that. i know engineers and i know how you're thinking. but we need to relax a little bit and give us some overall. then you can come back with some of the details later. you know how that works. we do want the details. thank you all very much. any further comments from you all? i have not done public comments yet. we of not called for public comment. sam murray? >> i am present and accounted for. thank you for this opportunity. in one thing i would like to men

we have been following the trail of documentation between puc and the bidders themselves, and when i look at the chronology of the information, i am surprised that that information had not been on the front end, but based on the back end, which is raising questions for us why that is the case. i apologize for any level of their not being support in my comments and questions, but we are all feeling a little bit edgy at the fact that we are at the end of the year now and we are expecting things to be more packaged and processed that does not take time for granted. if you would like to speak to that. >> i may begin the response. barbara hale. we very much share your concerns that the marketplace's response to our second request for proposal was not as complete as we have asked. all the issues you delineated in your comments, mr. chair, that we came back to the bettors and asked again was just that, our second request for that information. so the initial rfp cover that information and requested it from the bidders. we did not receive complete bids. rather than coming to you and saying, n

we have a finance person from the puc. we have folks from our sister municipal agency down in palo alto, as well as a member from marin. we appreciate their efforts. they are doing this without compensation. they are doing this to further renewable energy. that date we set for orientation is on the 15th. next week. the next bit of the timeline, we're looking to have the final provide written scores the first week of january, conduct oral interviews the week after that, have final scores on january 19, then go to the sfpuc to get the formal guidance to be able to have the sfpuc instruct the general manager and staff begin negotiations. lafco has regularly scheduled meeting set for 2010. we would be able to provide an update on what transpires in the rfp process at that meeting at the end of january. that is what we have on there. another item i wanted to give you a status update briefly, some of the members of lafco are on the budget and finance committee. we sought release of reserves. commissioner mirkarimi as on that boa

both are being hired by lafco, one by puc, that our experts in cca are navigant and local power. many of us have pushed hard to have those firms, who know this process, draft the rfp first. i can envision, had that advice been heeded by the sfpuc, we would probably have much more robust rfp's and rso's. that may get us into a situation in the future where we do not have to do follow-up with the bidders. and on that note, i recognize, as chairman for restated, that the budget is tight. -- kercher mirkarimi stated, that the budget is tight. however, having a buildup of local nobles and efficiencies is one the best hedges against market risk, against the battling pg&e on market price. a couple years ago, some of us advocates pointed out, we need to do a few hundred thousands of work -- a few hundred thousand dollars of work, but we need to do some preparatory work first. i would strongly urge lafco to put that on the next agenda. we need to start that works so that we can get ahead of the game with pg&e, and not be in the situation that we were a couple meetings ago. supervisor mirk

debris -- they are required to benefit the puc and our core mission, but they also benefit the communities we care about. we are most excited that the program will allow us to conduct our business and operations in a manner that will increasingly reflect our responsibility to local communities, regional communities, as well as reflect our commitment to being a good neighbor as well as taking care of our resources. as we present the different categories of initiatives and some initial cost estimates, it is also important to note that many of our initiatives impact several important community benefit categories. a specific contract initiative that is categorized under work force and economic development may also and oftentimes does have significant positive environmental impacts while also playing an important educational role. if you look at the categories, we will go through how much we are spending in each of those categories. keep that in mind. we will present you with a few specific examples to clarify this later, but we wanted to explain that although a few initiatives may be categoriz

they work with a garden project staffed, puc staff, gardeners, learn about the environment, and leave a tangible mark in the community. again, this is a program that has such immediate impacts for the young people going through the program, but it also allows these young people to be able to have access to healthy food that they can take back to their families. looking at the young people coming through this program, it is often communities that do not have a lot of grocery stores in their community. they are able to keep their families around healthy eating, and they get a paycheck at the same time. similar to the street conversion program, the birth storage program -- the first stewards program has mutual benefit both for the sfpuc as well as the communities we are partnering with for this program -- the earth stewards program. as we were talking about the program, developing inventory, we realize the level of macro impact that it has intentionally for the puc. the puc is a large property owner, and we have a lot of properties that need to be managed, whether it is the landscaping a

the puc focuses on puc facilities. the land use facilities to think of the entire city. when we look at the port docklands, when we see these maps -- these things are going to be under water or under high tide probably within a generation. the land use committee released to ask itself how we are going to arm our this land. are we going to write it off right now to the tides? moving the digesters -- moving the entire treatment plant to the back plans creates a tremendous opportunity protect port infrastructure. it creates an opportunity to open up what one of my neighbors has called the industrial force field around bayview hunters point that so divides our communities -- the northwest portion from the rest of the city. it creates a tremendous opportunity to redevelop the land, about 12 acres, a to 10-- 10 yo 12to 12 acres, right nexta prospective caltrans stopped coming into something that will help the neighborhood. as you watch this develop over the next few years, please think about this in the broader context, not simply focused on puc infrastructure, as they do. cha

part of supervisor maxwell, your question around how much is the puc spending, and what is the process for determining those types of expenditures -- what we

did this matter come before the puc commission? >> no, it did not appear supervisor mirkarimi: you are aware -- you know, it did not. supervisor mirkarimi: you are aware of the meeting this friday? >> yes. supervisor mirkarimi: why was this matter brought to us now when it was not released or analyzed by it their own commission coming out this friday? >> it is just the way the wheels work, as i am learning. i had sought to get those funds released several months ago. so that we would be in a good place. i was thinking along the timeline of what be expected to have back on november 3. as you know, the negotiation process is 1 maketh, if the last round was any indication, is a 60 hour per week effort. i wanted to make sure that i was being prudent and that funds were released in advance. there were many questions from the budget analysts office. it has taken two months to get here. we had thought this would be handled previously. supervisor mirkarimi: understood. i appreciate the fact that in this go around we have companies like she

part of supervisor maxwell, your question around how much is the puc spending, and what is the process for determining those types of expenditures -- what we found with the catalog we were able to develop with our consultants is we apart -- we are spending tens of millions of dollars in community benefit efforts, whether it is employment opportunities, partnerships we're doing with the school district -- we have not been as methodical or intentional around that we have a community benefits program. in the short term from our last meeting in october, it is hard to come up with a concrete number of we are spending exactly this much money on community benefits. chairperson maxwell: maybe not concrete, but it has spent almost a month and a half.

it sounds like the next step for the puc is more of an implementation plan for the community benefits ordinance. >> that is exactly where we are. as we have had conversations over the last couple of months with both the commissioners as well as several of the board of supervisors, what is interesting is as you look at the inventory and look at how the investments have been taking place in the past is that we have been doing it, so it is not like there has not been community benefit activity happening, but it has been somewhat scattershot and not as intentional as both the commission and leadership within the puc would like to see it happen. we are in the place now with the passage of community benefits policy that we are celebrating that this is the direction we want to head, and the question comes into play as to how we operate, how we coordinate the good things we are doing, amplify what should be growing and create new initiatives. it crosses each of the enterprises, which is also extremely exciting. there's so much overlap between wastewater and arts and jobs and what we are doing

puc saying it needs more inspectors.xperts saying there's a whole lot better way to inspect p pipes than use inspectors. there's hi-tech devices and pg&e is not using them. some came from the meeting feeling better, that's true, but not everyone did. >> we need to put more stringent guidelines in and hopefully with legislature have something in place so we can control pg&e a little better. >> what we heard here today was almost a carbon copy what we heard at the last town hall meeting. >> one of the recurring topics last night was $5 million. that is money that the utility received through a rate hike and was supposed to use to fix the san bruno pipeline that ruptured. that was approved back in 2007. the question is where is that money? and a puc official was out here to say he couldn't pinpoint it, say exactly where that $5 million went. >> thanks, terry. it's 6:05 now. looks as though marin county supervisors are ready to ban plastic bags in grocery stores and charge a 5 cent fee for every paper bag. supervisors say th

what would that take in order to instruct the puc to begin to calculate what that particular role would be? >> i think the guidance from my own commission, the priority -- i can tell you that during the time of issue in the r -- issuing the rfp, what is the process and what should we be doing to answer the question and provide the services internally? what might be the limitations that we take into consideration to up to buy as benefits for san francisco. commissioner mirkarimi: one of the challenges ahead to be the question of liability. it is a pretty stiff bar. at least we are able to minimize that particular concern, at least to some extent in the consideration of why the sfpuc should step up and compete, for lack of a better phrase. >> one item to recall, we discussed this a bit when talking about the credit rating. one of the benefits of going with a party supplier is that it is a third party for providing credit to engage in the energy marketplace. with these types of contracts, whether it be us or a third- party with power suppliers, you have to be able to demonstrate that they

puc has brought their proposal. that is close to being passed as well. >> do you want to say something, commissioner walker? during the public comments? >> no public comment. item three c. >> pamela 1levin. >> this is a more in depth report. we issued -- we prepared a draft rfp. we completed that in mid october. we sent that draft, because we're still trying to review with the internal agencies of the city. we sent it to the office of contract administration, we sent it to the city attorney, the human rights commission, and we sent it to some of the members of the joint coordinating committee. the joint coordinating committee is the governing committee to make sure that we take into account the city regulations and what is on the approval path for the city. that anincludes the department of technology, the department of planning, and the mayor's office. in this case, we send it to the head of the department of technology. we also send it to the comptroller's office for their comments on the initial draft. we finally

and lastly, the city processes as well as teh puc -- the puc mentioned there would have to be a ceqa process. and they brought this up regarding conjecture in terms of overhead wiring and things like that. the next step sounds like petrasolar would have to have a pilot project. they went through some of the items they would need in this proposal. and the proposed efficiency of such a program, trying to measure the output and qualification. we're going to be waiting on petra how to see if they will submit a proposal. the you have any questions? commissioner mirkarimi: when would we know potentially? do we encourage them to go ahead and submit horovitz register their interest? >> from my meetings, it did not sound like there was any time line. i know that a representative is here today. we did not talk about a specific time line. commissioner mirkarimi: can we ask the representative? thank you. >> regulatory manager for petra solar. commissioner mirkarimi: are you interested in submitting a proposal? >> we are hoping to get you guys a draft next week commissioner mirkarimi:. commission

commissioner murphy: have you any discussion about puc staff'? we have staff on the fifth floor now or not? >> yes, we have two currently. they have been with the department now for a least three to four years. there's puc staff on the floor, but they will not be the same staff working with this landscape ordinance. the landscape ordinance has to go through the department of public works. it is a different program. it is going to be similar to -- we will be plan checking and mounting civil drawings were we have not in the past. commissioner murphy: have we had any discussion with them, what that process is going to be? is this going to be another black hole for plans? >> no, it is not. we have had several discussions with them. in fact, we are ready to roll out their new plan check. they have a list, when the project sponsor will be filling out in the beginning of the project, notifying us whether they will be disturbing more than 1000 square feet of ground. we have and we are working with them almost weekly to get the programming completed in ti

that does take into account those large mega-contracts we are seeing at puc. supervisor chiu: these are all 2009 numbers? >> these are for fiscal year 2009-2010. the start july 2009 through june of 2010. supervisor chiu: july of 2009 through june of 2010. i think your charts are mislabeled. these all seem to be 2009 numbers, which is before the legislation passed from last year, unless i am mistaken. >> the legislation passed in the middle of the fiscal year. the legislation passed -- was passed by the board in january 2010. it was signed by the mayor in early february and became effective in march. we have not had more than six to nine months of operation under the new legislation. supervisor chiu: your data goes to the end of last year, but we are not looking at any data per 2010, right? >> we are not looking at data that specifically isolates' only 2010. supervisor chiu: i am looking to the entire presentation and it seems like there is no 2010 data. we can talk about this later, but i am trying to understand what the 2010 picture looks like. >> we do not h

we have a finance person from the puc.ave folks from our sister municipal agency down in palo alto

it is a discussion item for the puc. we could take action. i think you could take action enter next meeting. we don't have to do this jointly. commissioner mirkarimi: we get to have all the fun. ok. commissioners, is that something -- do you mind if we do this right now? do i see any problems? we will do public comment after the of the speakers. commissioner schmeltzer: as far as moving forward, can we give authority -- can we take an action to give authority to our staff to work with the puc staff to craft a joint resolution? commissioner mirkarimi: yes. seconded by commissioner campos. very good. without objection. so moved. do you have anything further to say? >> no, thank you. >> i do have one question. could you spend one minute talking about the phase-in approach and how you came about the structure of that from a business perspective and financial perspective? what has worked and what hasn't? >> sure. we initially planned to do a phase-in approach many years ago. that has been the plan. one reason was we wanted to work out the kinks be

further going on towards the end of the page 7, it is the opinion that the puc that the most efficient option for habitat restoration with primary environmental monitoring with short duration as a result of wildlife breeding cycles and weather patterns. if you have not responded to those questions at our office, we are satisfied in your recommendation of approval. supervisor avalos: very good. we can go on to public comment. making ♪ make the water better for you and for me. that is what i would say. i would like to better. fix it please. i can see the water at night. in the dark i think it is time with water all of the way all around. that is all that one. will you not do that? please fix it. ♪ supervisor avalos: thank you. if there are no other members of the public, we will close public comments. taken without objection. moving on to the full board with a recommendation with adams -- items 13 and 14. >> item 13. hearing before the budget and finance committee to review the fiscal feasibility and responsibility, including analysis from the budget analyst, of the city hosting the amer