comparemela.com



supervisor campos: good afternoon and welcome to the special meeting of june 3rd, 2011 of the lafco. my name is david campos. before we turn it over to the clerk, covering the meeting are john ross and derrick. do we have any announcements? >> no. >> item one, role call? >> supervisor mirkarimi? present. commissioner avalos? avalos present. commissioner smelts? present. commissioner pimlico, absent. supervisor campos: she is en route. >> mr. campos? present trfment is a quorum. supervisor campos: call item number two. >> approval of minutes from the may 6 meeting. supervisor campos: colleagues, you have before you the minutes of may 6, 2011. before we take any action, i am wondering if there is any member of the public who would like to speak on this item? if so, come forward. seeing none, public comment on that height so closed. we a motion by commissioner mirkarimi, seconded by commissioner schmeltzer. can we cake that without action? call item number three. >> report on the status of cca activities, san francisco pratch, legislative update and continuing status. supervisor campos: and mr. campbell, good afternoon. >> thank you, mr. chair and commissioners. my name is mike campbell, director of the city's cca program, which is commonly referred to as clean power sf. i see you have a full house. i am assuming they are not here for me. i will try to be brief. supervisor campos: you don't know that. [laughter] >> i don't, but i am guessing. three broad areas that i will be reporting out on. the status of negotiations, what is going on. a key decision made in the cp are uc? regulatory matters and efforts under way in the legislature. first off, not a long part of the report, but i do want to let you all know that we continue to make very good progress with our negotiations with shell. we expect to further the energy supply. they are very excited about it out in the ro tunch un -- row ton da. supervisor campos: yes. >> the energy play and needs, we think those are moving along well enough to start ramping up our discussions with noble for the customer services and electronic data interchange we will need to have with pg&e. we have had the benefit of not laugh do staff, -- lafco staff, but the general manager is participating in the negotiation sessions with us. on to the regulatory matters, the cpuc on may 26th, issued a decision thattings changes the structure of rates for classes, notably for residential economy classes. in the next 30 days,e will be filing new tariff sheets for the raise to come into effect. it adjusts tiers and changing care rates, low income rates and the like. the main big change that will have the most significant effect on cca's is the implementation of a conservation incentive charge that would be applied to a different part of the bill than it currently is approached. currently as customers increase their usage, the per kill watt hour residential rate increases as they move up in blocks and tiers of usage. that is appearing on the customer's generation side of the ball. the decision from the 26th would say as of july 1st, 2012, the generation rate would remain flat. so no the maer how many kill watt hours you use, you will pay the same kill watt charge. but it would be captured in a different part of the bill. between the end of june and beginning of july, a residential customer, their bill wouldn't necessarily change, but where the charges would be appearing on their bills would change. the reason i am mentioning that is it is very rely vent for -- very well rant for our program. the one part of the program that we would be affecting is the generation line. so in some way it makes our comparison a bit simpler. we will have a flat rate, and the customer will have to figure out how does my usage vary, and how does that change, how i might care to the clean power rate. in some ways that is not a bad outcome for us, which is odd since pg&e was asking for this rate change thinking it would advantage themselves with competing with what is going on in marin. on the legislative side, there are two bills that relate to cca. there is ab 976, which is a bill that creates challenges for ca. and then there are sb 70 which >> advocates of. on 976, it has been changed since tiffs first introduced. when it was first introduced, the language was extremely broad. it basically require that cca would never be allowed to use consulting services or outside contracter of any time that had provided services prior to the start-up of that cca. you can see why that would be a challenge. if you hired an expert on cca, you wouldn't be able to use them to help plan your program and to help run your program. taken to the extreme, even the process of trying to negotiate something with someone like a shell, you wouldn't be able to hire them after you have negotiated the contract. but the bill has now been changed so that it limits the language so that the firm that is involved in a feasibility study and identifies specific next steps, that that firm that worked on that feasibility study and identify the specific next steps would not be hired to do the next steps. something like that in san francisco, our contracting laws or rules wouldn't let something like that happen anyway. we wouldn't let outside firms scope assignments they would later be able to profit from. that wouldn't have an effect. on sb 970 i have good news. it clarifies and agoments of ab 117, which is the cca law. yesterday it was passed out of the senate with a vote of 24-12. we are very glad to see that is moving along. it is on its way to the assembly. we expect that will get heard in various committees in assembly in the latter part of this month. we are continuing to support that bill at hearings as well as behind the scenes. that is the general overview i have for my report here. supervisor campos: thank you, mr. campbell. ms. miller, anything to add? >> i just wanted to supplement mr. campos billion's statements with respect to the schedule. for cta we are on schedule. we are at the point of contract negotiations, which is the consistent with the schedule that was presented to you in the winter and spring of 2010 and 2011. supervisor campos: to follow up, on cta, wurpsuring the issue of the build-out on parallel tracks in terms of moving that forward, and i am wondering if you can say something about where that is his? >> i will let mcgoldrick start that out. >> thank you for reminding me. we are figuring out how to move forward on proposals to dustin tail in with our power supply. we are working with advocates on that. supervisor campos: my understanding there is something coming before lafco in july on that front? is that the case, or what is the timing of this? >> well, i think what we are trying to get is the r.s.p. issues. that is the sticking point -- or shouldn't say sticking point. but that is our objective. we have been working well with mike. we want that schedule accelerated a bit because we do want to make sure we are doing concurrent activities. and while it is a heavy lift of the contract negotiations with shell, we ought to always be able to do the r.s.p. >> what is the timing? when do we expect that something would be finalized? >> i'm going to say july. >> i think july is a reasonable prompe for when we could start coming to the various decision-making bodies about that. in particular, we need to figure out when to time is -- it so that we have the specific types of resources and how it would layer in with the broader program. we want to make sure that when we are issuing it, the customers say we are doing it in the future and they give us an immediate response. >> this is july of 2011? >> that is correct. >> thank you. supervisor campos: colleagues, any question? why don't we open it up to public comment? go ahead, mr. brooks. >> gooven, commissioners. eric brooks representing san francisco green party and the grassroots groom, our city. or the issue of ab- 76, this is very important. now that the sfpuc has decided for local reasons to pull back and not push against ab-976, what i have heard from people who are lobbying in sacramento on that, it is sort of giving a yellow light if not a bit of a green light to our opponents to move that forward. advocates don't see it as a big waste of political chips or resosses for the if you can -- for the sfpuc to write a letter. it has shockingly gained surprising tracks in sacramento that we did not think it was going to have. so we need the sfpuc to at least get back in the game to the extent it just sends a letter saying we are opposed to this so that the folks in sacramento are not misunderstanding the situation. thank you. supervisor campos: any other member of the public who would like to speak on item number three? seeing none, public comment is closed. on that note, i am wondering what the p.u.c.'s position is on that bill? >> sure. mike campbell once again. the position on the bill, we have been very active on this bill, as have our c.c.a. alleys there in sacramento. as you all know, the sfpuc has a strong lobbying presence in sacramento, particularly as one of the water agencies. when we speak, they do listen. the long i was describing before, it was very, very broad, and we were aposed. i let the legislators know that as it was drafted, it was a disastrous bill. that language has been change, and as i noted, it doesn't affect us anymore. our current position is neutral, and does not mean support. the legislators know that. we are watching it very closely, and should the language get modified to a point where it would start to adversely effect the c.c.a., we can change our position and start weighing in more heavily. right now we are working extremely hard on the bill that we have sponsored of sb-970. supervisor campos: are there other jurisdictions opposed to the bill and seeing this as the bill potentially having some detrimental impacts, is there anything wrong with us sharing those concerns, or is it the fact that we don't have the concerns that some of the other jurisdictions have? >> i am having a hard time with my microphone. i'm probably the wrong person to respond to some of the nuts and bolts lobbying strategy in sacramento, but i can take back the theme of the remarks here to the folks there. supervisor campos: the priority should be the bill that has an impact on our program, but we are part of a larger effort in california and the country. to the impolitician occasions on the larger evident, it is important for us to at least let people know what our feelings are. at least that is my view. i don't know what other commissions think about that, but i would ask the p.u.c. to consider that. commissioner mirkarimi? supervisor mirkarimi: we should jump to the chase, and that is ask the relevant question, what is pg&e doing in relation to this bill? >> again, i am not the one in sacramento, but my understanding is that pg&e isn't the one working the floor on this bill. it is coming out of, i believe -- ms. miller may know more -- supervisor mirkarimi: ms. miller through the chair. >> nancy miller. through the chair. it is not pg&e sponsored. pg&e does support the bill is my understanding. supervisor mirkarimi: is he the lab yist on behalf of pg&e? >> he is the lobbyist on behalf of a local union, mainly here in san francisco. the union does work for pg&e, the line workers, is my understanding. and i also know that marin remains opposed to the bill. so it is a good question, and i appreciate mike's comments because there may be a strategy that i don't know. but it would be good to have maybe an intent motion from the commission along the lines of the chair's session, and then i can take that intent motion back and talk with the sfpuc staff about if marin remains opposed, and we are not, even though it doesn't effect us, perhaps we ought to consider -- but it does affect them -- perhaps we ought to consider an opposed position as well. supervisor mirkarimi: i would agree. and if marin, who has been in front considerably, and san francisco, who has kind of been a back stop in this whole calculation as one of the two remaining and yet vibrant counties in the state of california that is pursuing this course of action, no reason to let marin be out in front all alone and for us, the headquarters of where pg&e is, and if their company union is going to go ahead and try to undermine our efforts, no matter what their approach is, we should not be wall flowers about this. the intentions should be expressed that we are against. supervisor campos: the way this note is written for this meeting is whether or not such a motion is appropriate. >> i know that, we are not taking a position on the bill. you are just giving direction to your executive officer to find the reason for the position on the bill and express your intent that the concern that marin remains opposed, and is there an issue there that we ought to be talking about. supervisor mirkarimi: right. supervisor campos: if any commissioner feels otherwise, i think that probably reflects the sentiment of most of us then. >> we are good then. thank you. supervisor campos: thank you very much. why don't we continue that item to the call of the share? motion by commissioner -- so we will just move on to item number four. >> item number four, report on the issuance of the request for proposal for a study on the refuse collection, hauling and disposal in the greater bay area. a 0 report on the phase -- a report on phase two of the study, and consideration of accepting the report. supervisor campos: this is a follow-up to a prior meeting and completes additional information that was requested of the consultant who conducted the initial phase of the study. mrs. miller? >> through the chair, nancy miller here. rick here is to present a presentation in response to some of your questions at our last meeting. i would like to introduce mr. hitch ins at this time. supervisor campos: before we do that, for purposes of the folks in the audience and people who are watching, the report has come out, the second phase of the report, and it has been posted online? commissioner miller: yes. the report has been posted on the san francisco lafco website and is also available through our clerk, a hard copy. it is a phase two. the original study is also available on the san francisco lafco website. supervisor campos: thank you, ms. miller. can we have the tv screen, please? >> rick hutchinson ith r 3. pleased to be here again. i did want to go through a brief smear of this report. as you know, you asked us to come back with information in four areas. information related to fees and services that were provided by the haulers to the jurisdictions. a correlation between service rates and diversion rates, fees and services, description of fixed assets held in the city of san francisco, and information regarding potential consequences and benefits related to barging. we have met with several entities, and the haulers, willed like to -- we would like to thank the i different team for this information. we listed 13 jurisdictions in the report. i am not going to go through that. what we were able to do is generate information that looked at the fees and services provided by the haulers. we divided that information by the gross revenues, and we calculated a fee and service percentage for each of the jurisdictions. there were a variety of fees that were provided, franchise fees being a good example. those are discussed in depth along with the few or discounted services in the report. what we saw in the end was that, as you can see from the graph -- yes, sir? what is you see from the graph is that each of the jurisdictions received some combination of services and fees, with san francisco receiving the largest amount. this is just a detailed chart of all of the information. it is discussed again at length in the report, but it shows you what the total fees were, the gross revenues, and what the fee and service percentage was. we then looked at nrks a-- in addition to this information, something to see if there was any correlation between the customer rates, the fees received and the diversion rates. this is an example of what we would have expected to see if there was a direct correlation. what we saw was there was not a direct correlation between those numbers. so cities with high diversion rates did not necessarily have high customer rates. cities with high fees and services did not necessarily have high customer rates. we were always asked to look at the fixed assets and infrastructure held by ricology in the city of san francisco. there are basically five sites. three of those are leased. the last two are property that is owned by ricology. the report gives you actual values for appraised value cost and book value. of course on the leased property there is no value there. finally you asked us to look at some of the benefits and consequences of barging, and there are many, particularly related to -- the benefits relating to getting truck traffic offer of your streets. reducing greenhouse gasses emissions. but on the other side, when you put barge traffic on the waterways, there is potential damage there. according to studies we have been able to read in discussions with port people here and in new york, it is sometimes more costly to actually use the barging depending on how much transfer time and transfer distance is involved to get the material to the barges and then from the barge to the final destination. that is a brief overview of what's in the report. we would be happy to answer any specific questions at this time. supervisor campos: thank you. one of the things that i began noting when we emembarcaderoed on this study is that one of the roles that lafco's play in jurisdictions throughout the state of california is to provide information. the whole point of this endeavor here with the lafco is simply to give the commission and in turn give the rest of the city information on where we stand relative to some of these other jurisdictions. i think the report speaks for itself. i want to thank our three -- as well as our staff for working very diligently to follow up on the questions raised at the last laugh do meeting. you have provided the information that has been requested. i also want to thank the staff of the department of the environment who have worked with lafco staff and with our consultant to get all that information, as well as ricology who has provided the information that has been sought. i would simply encourage members of the audience and people who are interested to read the report. i think the report speaks for itself, and i don't really have any questions. colleagues, i don't know if you have any questions for r-3 at this point? no questions. ms. miller, before we turn it over to public comment, there is no action that is taken here at lafco in terms of the issue of how refuse is collected and disposed of. this is simply a study, but i understand that at some point we need to simply accept the findings of the report and then provide that information to the board of supervisors? >> that is correct. there is an action item before you should you choose to take it. it is in my staff report, which is a resolution which merely accepts the report and forwards it on to the board of supervisors. supervisor campos: great. why don't we open it up to public comment? if there is any member of the public who week like to speak on this item, please come forward. i think there is one? go ahead. >> hello, commissioners. i am tony kelly. i certainly don't believe you should send the report back, but that doesn't really mean it is truly an acceptable report. let me point out three things quickly that i don't believe the report did. one, the evaluation of commercial rate still presumes that the average commercial raid in san francisco is 50% of what the published commercial rates are, which really doesn't make much sense. it matches what i have been hearing from merchant associations across the city. this was based on anecdotal conversations between the staff, department and others. there is no real reason for why that rate is cut in half for the purposes of the study. the evaluation of services. ricology in san francisco is credited for providing $18 million in free services. there is no break down for how that is considered. it looks like there is

Related Keywords

New York ,United States ,California ,Sacramento ,San Francisco ,Tony Kelly ,John Ross ,Mike Campbell ,David Campos ,Rick Hutchinson ,Nancy Miller ,

© 2024 Vimarsana

comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.