and that is the qualification of someone answering our rfp? that sound like something was not shepherded along the way to qualify interest. then for us to have to extend it again the rfp process to get documentation that we are getting right now, i would have hoped that we would have got this documentation in the first place. so what it is doing unintentionally is feeding concerns that we are drawing down the clock, drawing down this process, and dollars, since you mentioned the budget, of city attorney time, law attorney staff time, of everybody, so that we get to a place that there is a determination that there may not be a company out there, that there may not be information that suits our standards out there. so i think some people are coming full circle and understanding, if this is in tune with what the sfpuc is doing, why not step up to the plate and the the aggregate themselves, or a hybrid-type of relationship? so if there are concerns about a third party actor in this case providing that, well, sfpuc has the history, infrastructure,

first is a status update, where we are with the rfp process.you know, we issue our initial rfp in the summer. we made a revision in september. responses were due november 3. i have a chart to talk about the time line. following what we received on november 3, we found there were four responses. i believe everyone has been briefed on those. they were from consolation energy, shall energy of north america, and what was formerly sempra. all of those responses were lacking some of the key information we were looking for in the rfp. what we did was, along with staff, puc staff, we met with each one of the four respondents. we have that meeting on a monday. we'd describe what we really need it. we gave them a tailored message of what was needed to be able to have as far as having the reviews. we asked for those to update their bids and perfect them, and provide that for this meeting. we were hoping to have that on december 6. we got a request. one of the firms needed more time. we acted to accommodate that. they ask for december 10. bids are due late

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, no complete bids, we are done with that round of rfp, we decided to sit down with each respondent and have a one-on-one with them where we could demonstrate our strong interest in having a perfected bid submitted to us. we were also cognizant of the fact that with the holidays, we might not have all bidders respond if we did not extend the period. so we extended it from december 6 to december 10. we had it staged so that we would be able to bring you the results of the process in a more wholesome way today, but could not because of that need to extend. on the issue of the puc's motivation and interest in evaluating, self-providing the cca services, we have been about the wedding that at the staff level. we do have some information on the boundaries of risk, ideas on how we could shape a program. we are hearing your interest in being ready to talk about those issues soon after a january meeting, in the event of tha

they are part of the requirements in the rfp. that is another reason why -- at the very end, i want to get back with them to make sure we are all comfortable and all on solid grounds with everyone. >> thank you. thank you. >> any of our questions? >> i always like to be reassured on the account. how much money do we have for this? >> between us and planning for the total, we are around $7 million. >> $7 million. >> yeah. we have given information to the mayor's office and the mayor's office's people so they are aware of what the request planning needs to make next year and what we need to make so that we are making sure we have enough money set aside for this project. >> there $7 million set aside. >> yes, between the two departments. >> we are paying our part and they are paying their parcht. are we paying for planning as well? >> we are not paying for planning. we are going to pay for the enterprise license -- at this point. any planning specific types of applications, they will pay for those. >> ok. >> we always pay for planni

>> they were respondents to the last rfp that was ultimately unsuccessful. we got a response from a firm called noble america's. we got a response from consolation and a response from show energy -- shell energy. commissioner mirkarimi: these are not small companies, to say the least. >> three of them for sure. commissioner mirkarimi: interesting change from the first effort until mal. >> we are excited to sit down with the firm's on monday. commissioner campos: just a quick question about the larger strategy before we go forward. i think it is great that we have made progress, but i wonder that going through this process, are we not thinking of another option that would be exploring the possibility of the city simply doing this on its own? it might very well be that we get to the right result in terms of the rfp process. but i think it may be other advantages. >> the city policy is to try to work with other vendors and achieve all the goals. that is what we are pursuing. we have already begun internally to try to figure out what would be another option. we

that is taking far too long to get the rfp out there. commissioner murphy: the only thing i can say is i'm still as frustrated now as i was when i

that is taking far too long to get the rfp out there. commissioner murphy: the only thing i can say is i'm still as frustrated now as i was when i came around six years ago. we had a public speaker came in then and he said that we're talking about the tracking system when he was 62. he said i am now 74. and that was six years ago. so do the moth. it's been a long -- math. it's been a long, long time. commissioners. public comments? >> good morning commissioners, luke o'brien, coalition for responsible growth. you know, just as some feedback, it's not a real satisfactory situation right now in terms of feeling like, well, i understand exactly what is going on and i understand where it's going. as far as the past is concerned, i probably would prefer to look to the future and let the past go, although there seems to be an awful lot of unanswered questions. it might be better to just let that be as it is and look forward. i came here and testified at a previous meeting and i indicated that logistically this is not an impossibility. sure, it

that is taking far too long to get the rfp out there. commissioner murphy: the only thing i can say is i'm still as frustrated now as i was when i came around six years ago. we had a public speaker came in then and he said that we're talking about the tracking system when he was 62. he said i am now 74. and that was six years ago. so do the moth. it's been a long -- math. it's been a long, long time. commissioners. public comments? >> good morning commissioners, luke o'brien, coalition for responsible growth. you know, just as some feedback, it's not a real satisfactory situation right now in terms of feeling like, well, i understand exactly what is going on and i understand where

we are ending our long marathon on putting the rfp together. we will be talking to the city tomorrow for the final review along with the controller's office review. everybody is out in last month and a half at different times. departments are skeleton crews or less than that, so we are finding where people are not available at the time frame we would like them to be available, but i'm still looking at -- i do not think it will happen next week, so it will be early january. but we have gotten down to probably a handful of issues that we have to discuss with the city attorney's office. commissioner walker: i just said -- in-line -- commissioner hechanova: the efforts on here seem to be perplexing because at one time, it was supposed to be awarded. >> it is awarded. it was awarded, and we got it called back. commissioner hechanova: there was the canadian organization or company that it was being awarded to and then was retracted and then, if it was to have been awarded at that time, at what point with the additional work to get to this new rfp? >>

that has been keeping us pretty busy, as well as the rfp process. now i want to introduce dawn weiss from the marin energy authority and david orth. supervisor mirkarimi: right before we bring up our guest, would not you say from the tenor of the senate panel hearing that you and i, and others, attended, that there is a sea change in sacramento recognizing the level of interference or obstructionist practices by the private utility so that it is now on the radar. municipal governments should be free to pursue, in a unfettered way, their ability to become a cca. would you say that that have now captured the attention of others? lines have potentially been crossed where now cpuc is being involved. >> absolutely, there is frustration with utilities for not meeting their targets. sacramento may be thinking that municipalities like ours can help to achieve the state's targets. as well, general frustrations that pg&e and its other transactions -- they have definitely demonstrated that they have very much changed their posture since ab 117 was enacted. pg&

we are learning how to navigate around the rfp process for the prospective bidders. i recognize that that has done been easy, since this is un chartered, both for the city and county of san francisco. i want to say how much i appreciate the lafco commissioners, i colleagues, and the puc commissioners for your commitment to this. we conclude this year on hopefully the highest know we can, and that is, with that reinforced commitment that we will deliver upon what we have set out to for the last few years, and even before i came into elected office, that my predecessors had wanted to see. that is that san francisco has a seat at the table in deciding what its destiny should be, as well, it's destiny delineated by our goals and objectives while diversifying our energy portfolio as much as possible. so thank you, everybody for collaborating in this meeting today. it will certainly add to that more institutional step to get us where we need to go. director vietor? >> thank you, i could not have said it better. i would also like to welcome our new commissioner, mr. torres,

is contras are a result of a large rfp process that we referred to as our mega rfp, where most of ouror help services were rebid this fiscal year. these are results of that rfp process and they represent most of the contracts that will be going to the board for approval. i would also like to introduce joe robinson. she is our new direction of community behavioral health services. she and i are available to answer questions. supervisor avalos: let's go on to the budget analyst report. i think we could probably have a robust discussion based on the report. we would like to hear your response and see where we can find a pathway to possibly approve the contract today. mr. rose? >> the best way to summarize the report is to go to page 4-16. based on our increase, the budget analysts increase, the number opposed contracts will be revised numerous times by the department of public health. we have had this item in our office or close to six months. the proposed 22 contracts between the dph and other organizations equal $688,000, which is 14.7% less than the original dph total of $77 million.

as supervisors low -- most likely no we issued an rfp this year and we did receive responses and was asked to affect the bids in the questions that we thought were more important. those responses were due on september 10. those funds fall into two broad categories. the first is the negotiation efforts that we will undertake with the highest ranking firms. the second is doing the outreach efforts that we think will be important to the community, of provided to every customer in the program as well as general marketing when we thought we would get an onslaught from the incumbent utility. saying things that are not necessarily true. so, the budget analysts office as i understand it has recommended the release of funds for those negotiations but not for the opt out process. from our perspective that would just require us coming back again and asking for another release of reserves. in terms of operations moving forward we do not have a problem as it is presented. supervisor avalos: thank you. mr. rose? >> on page nine-nine of the report be pointed out that the issue was selected tuesday

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 mirkarimi: thank you. any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. i do not b

whenever someone has to write an rfp for something, they need to be using the correct language. i, i've seen rfps that have been written and i can see by the language that's being used, that they are not, they're not moved to this whole framework of recovery, but they're still being awarded. so we need to help people to begin to use, and if we do that, they're going to pick it up immediately because people need, organizations need funding. i believe samhsa has done a great job in, in laying the framework for, if you will, for the type of discussion that i think needs to happen. and i think it's around recovery in a system of care model that's person-centered and it's based more on the holistic approach. that it's, it's person-driven if you will. and i, i think we just to build upon that. i think that's the way we begin to have the kind of conversations where all of a sudden, instead of 200,000 recovery advocates, you're making greater head roads into the 20 million people in recovery that miss hyde talks about. so instead of reaching less then 3 million and providing services, w

we twice issued an rfp. we also did that in 2008 and 2009. the department was not able to enter into a long-term lease with an operator for the operation of the stow lake boathouse. on december 17, 2009, the commission approved an rfq package soliciting an entity to operate and perform improvements to the stow lake boathouse. the commission directed staff to undertake a community outreach process and to incorporate certain amendments into the rfq. both of those actions staff undertook before publishing the rfq. on april 5 of 2010, the department received three timely responses to the rfq that was put out by the department. i should add that the commission and prove to -- r commission-- rfq -- commission-approved rfq included various items. as i said, on april 5, we received three timely responses. the selection panel selected ortega family enterprises to operate the stow lake boathouse. on august 19, the commission selected ortega and recommended that staff enter into negotiations with them for the operation of the boathouse. before we get in

in july, we approved an rfp to increase the amenities and provide revenue for the department. they approved the selection of twirl n' dip. the commission approved the selection to operate at the scott street entrance from 3:00 p.m. until 7:00 p.m. a one-year permit with a one- year extension. as i noted, it will be at golden gate park right off of martin luther king drive

in july, we approved an rfp to increase the amenities and provide revenue for the department. they approved the selection of

they are going to provide us with some templates on an rfp and what we should look at if we were to have somebody from outside the school district to come in to look at future challenges. we are not interested in putting in dollars that we do not have into opening a new facility. >> before it is over, we will get some sort of feasibility discussion. >> we are doing preliminary conversations on what this would look like if we move forward. >> i want to go deeper into what commissioner mendoza just said and that was not part of what was said at the other meeting. it was somewhere else that you have the discussion. i want to be clear about that. president kim: the next report is from commissioner yee. commissioner yee: we overheard the action item results. one of the items as being the overview of special education and financial issues. i am going to make this quick. the result of that discussion was what was presented actually raised more questions than answers -- or it raised a lot of questions. there was an agreement for the committee to take this issue up again in a few months so that w