Meeting Information
MINUTES
Special Meeting
Friday, January 11, 2002, 1:00 p.m.
City Hall, Room 263
Interim Chair: Commissioner Ammiano
Members: Commissioners Ammiano, Gonzalez and McGoldrick
Clerk: Monica Fish
SPECIAL AGENDA
(There will be public comment on each item)
Call to Order and Roll Call
The meeting was called to order by Commissioner Ammiano
at 1:02 p.m.
Members Present: Commissioners Ammiano, Gonzalez and McGoldrick
Members Absent: None
CLOSED SESSION (Continued from November 16, 2001).
Public Comment
No Public Comment
Public Comment Closed
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL
Motion that the San Francisco Local Agency Formation Commission
convene in closed session under the provisions of Government Code Section
54956.9(a): Winchell Hayward v. San Francisco LAFCo; City and County of San
Francisco Case No. 324661, for the purposes of conferring with or receiving
advice from legal counsel.
Question: Shall this Motion be ADOPTED:
Commissioner Ammiano moved to take the agenda out of order,
discuss Agenda Item 3 next, and move this item to the end of the meeting.
Commissioner McGoldrick seconded. No objection.
Approval of Minutes of the Commission Meeting of November
16, 2001.
Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve the Minutes of
November 16, 2001; Commissioner Gonzalez seconded. No objection.
No Public Comment
Public Comment Closed
Interview and possible appointment of Public Member.
The candidate is Bernard Choden.
Gloria L. Young, Executive Officer stated that the Commission
has received one application from Bernard Choden for appointment as a public
member.
Commissioner Ammiano stated that Bernard Choden is the
only applicant, and that he prefers that there be a range of applicants for
this position. He stated that LAFCo might be embarking on a feasibility study,
and that an outreach be done to obtain the necessary expertise. With the compliance
of the other Commissioners, he would like to continue this item to the next
meeting after an extensive outreach. Mr. Choden would still be in the running
after an outreach has been done.
Bernard Choden stated that organizational feasibility
happens to be his professional specialty. It has been the lack of that specialty
on the Commission that has been one of the largest problems. What is the best
means of delivering energy despite the various conflicts that are basic to
the pursuit of energy such as water and energy, tangible needs, public goods
that benefit the public as a whole versus specific benefits such as cost,
and the environment versus cost? A feasibility specialist has to deal with
consequences, probability, and industrial complex analysis. There is nobody
in government at this moment that has the scope or integrity that he would
bring after further expanding a search that has been going on for two months
and would stymie the Commission. If there are personal difficulties, he would
bow out. If the Commission is looking for expertise with integrity, then they
need somebody on that side of the table now in order to not pursue feasibility
studies by consultants who may be prejudiced in pursuit of other contracts.
He fully respects that the Supervisors have little time and broad agendas,
and he would not continue the agency for the purpose of looking at other aspects
of its purview.
Public Comment
Richard Ow stated that he has known Mr. Choden for many
years and he is a public-minded person. He works very hard for MUNI, and there
is a slight improvement that he should get credit for. Mr. Choden is an early
supporter of public power and believes that he has done a lot of work for
Propositions F and I. Mr. Ow supports Mr. Choden as the best man for the LAFCo
public member vacancy.
Public Comment closed.
Commissioner Gonzalez asked about the timeframe that the
Commission has to appoint a public member.
Gloria L. Young, Executive Officer proposed March 1st
as the next meeting in order to have an extension of application time to February
15th, or it could be later depending upon whether additional outreach
is done.
Commissioner Ammiano stated he would like to meet sooner.
Commissioner Gonzalez recommended that the Commission
meet in February.
Gloria L. Young recommended Friday, February 15th.
The deadline for the applications could be set for February 6 or 8.
Commissioner McGoldrick stated that he could not attend
the February 15th meeting.
Gloria L. Young recommended Friday, February 8th
and asked the Clerk if the deadline stated on the advertising of applications
to be received could be February 1.
Monica Fish, LAFCo Commission Clerk concurred.
Commissioner Gonzalez asked the Executive Officer what
qualifications she thinks the Commission should be looking for.
Gloria L. Young stated that the requirements are identified
in the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act. She believes the Commission needs an individual
who is interested in participating, available, and has the discretion and
discernment in assisting the existing Commissioners in the decisions that
the Commission has to make in the next couple of months with respect to what
we are going to do with the "Shadow MUD," scoping of issues, and
looking at the feasibility of providing energy. Their ability in having strong
utility experience and knowledge is critical. The Commissioners need to determine
what area is missing from their collective knowledge and determine what to
add in order to complete the Commission.
Commissioner Gonzalez stated that the Commission needs
a fourth member of the Board.
Gloria L. Young stated that Supervisor Hall has indicated
that he may be interested. A meeting will be set up for further discussion.
The Commission agreed to establish February 8th
as the next meeting of the SFLAFCo.
Commissioner Ammiano moved to continue this item to the
February 8, 2002 meeting and interview whoever else may apply. No objection.
No Public Comment.
Public Comment Closed.
Election of 2001-2002 Officers for the San Francisco
Local Agency Formation Commission (SF LAFCo). (Continued from the November
16, 2001 Commission Meeting.)
Commissioner Ammiano stated that because of the lack of
applicants for a public member, this item should be continued to February
8.
Commissioner McGoldrick asked if the Commission is allowed
to proceed without appointed officers according to the LAFCo rules.
Nancy Miller, Esquire stated it is legal to proceed with
an interim Chair.
No Public Comment
Public Comment Closed
Resolution regarding SF LAFCo Budget/Revenue Understanding
with the San Francisco City and County (Continued from the November 16, 2001
Commission Meeting)
Nancy Miller, Esquire stated that this Resolution is attempting
to define the process from which funds are released from the Board of Supervisors.
There has been discussion between the Executive Officer and staff regarding
a procedure. This is unusual because you are a consolidated City and County.
Normally the funds are directed to LAFCo. Here there is a process that is
desired to be put in place by LAFCo and the Board of Supervisors where there
is an approval process. We put in the request, the Board of Supervisors sees
it, approves the request, and the money is released. The second need for the
Resolution allows the Executive Officer to move money within budget items
in the event of a shortfall in one item to transfer to another item with full
disclosure in reporting to your Commission prior to doing so.
Commissioner Gonzalez stated that he understands that
if the LAFCo as a state agency makes appropriation decisions, that the City
and County is essentially liable for those decisions.
Nancy Miller, Esquire stated that was true. LAFCo has
a budget and cities, counties, and special districts put money into the budget
that becomes the LAFCo budget to do what it deems necessary in accordance
with its adopted budget.
Commissioner Gonzalez asked what would happen if this
state Commission would spend money in excess of its budgeted amount.
Nancy Miller, Esquire stated that the LAFCo would then
be in a deficit which would have to be rolled over into the next budgetary
year. The Commission has no ability to assess additional funds. The Commission
could hold another hearing with the City and County and request additional
funds, but would have no ability to demand it. There are emergency provisions
that are available in case of issues such as lawsuits.
Commissioner Gonzalez asked if legal counsel could state
the rules for the Executive Officer.
Nancy Miller, Esquire stated that the first rule is that
the Executive Officer will request funds from the City and County of San Francisco
in amounts not to exceed the adopted budget . The second rule is that the
Executive Officer will then request concurrence by the Board of Supervisors
for such funds and their concurrence may not be unreasonably withheld. Upon
concurrence the funds are transferred. The third rule would be that the Executive
Officer may reallocate funds received in the event of an increase and decrease
in certain budgeted items, and in no event shall the overall budget amount
be exceeded without prior amendment by both this LAFCo and concurrence by
the Board of Supervisors.
Gloria L. Young stated that the LAFCo was formed in 2000
and the $754,250 that was approved by the Board of Supervisors was set in
a separate sub-account. What has occurred over the last two years is that
that account has remained the same and has been reduced by the expenditures
that this Commission has incurred over the last two years. That budget has
not been replenished. Currently, there is $364,000 still in reserve, and the
existing operating budget balance is approximately $125,000. Depending upon
the longevity of LAFCo, there is a legal requirement that by June of this
year LAFCo hold a public hearing to adopt a budget. That process was held
last year but was not reflected in the budget adopted by the Board. One change
was included with respect to the stipend that the Commissioners received.
Commissioner Gonzalez asked if LAFCo would be bound by
this Resolution if adopted. He stated It would seem that as a state entity,
to the extent that the City and County makes an appropriation of a LAFCo,
the Commission can spend the money. There may be natural constraints related
to having to go back for a supplemental appropriation or to keep the Finance
Committee informed of what is going on. Having been a member of the Finance
Committee, it does not make sense that a Commission that is going to include
four members of the Board has to go get approval from three members of the
Board.
Gloria L. Young stated that this response was made because
of a direct request by the Finance Committee to the SFLAFCo Executive Officer.
At the time, we brought before the Finance Committee a requirement to get
some funds from the reserves to pay for the services of the City Attorney's
Office, outside counsel, and the consulting contract. The Finance Committee
requested that the Executive Officer provide a formal relationship between
the Board of Supervisors and LAFCo. This was directed and approved by the
Finance Committee, and subsequently, the proposal allows an opportunity for
the Commission to either adopt the process or not.
Commissioner Gonzalez stated that the discussion that
took place at the Finance Committee was prior to the discussion that took
place at the full Board where the City Attorney, Mr. Delventhal, explained
and made clear that this idea that the LAFCo is going to be treated like a
City department that is asking for a release of funds that have been put on
reserve is not really the dynamic that is going on between a State Commission
and the Board of Supervisors. He found that advice to be compelling. The rules
that should be put in place should be about informing the Finance Committee
or other colleagues of the Board of Supervisors when action is taken in either
changes in the LAFCo budget or in the appropriation of certain dollars. A
scenario of the formal requirement that we go to the Finance Committee before
releasing money would slow down the Commission's ability to take action. The
Finance Committee is trying to put together rules with City Departments whereby
they don't spend money and then ask that money be released. He stated that
the state Commission be given different consideration because of the nature
of who is on the Commission and the nature of the Commission as a state agency.
Gloria L. Young stated that she concurred with Commissioner
Gonzalez. Deputy City Attorney Delventhal agreed that if the Commission and
the Board chose to have a resolution that represented their relationship,
that was between the Board and the Commission.
Public Comment
Bruce Brugman, Bay Guardian stated that it is critical
that the Commission not take any action that precludes paying for a consultant
and a proper feasibility report.
The report that R. W. Beck is doing for East Bay MUD costs
$400,000, is due at the end of this month, and is a nine- or ten-month project.
To have a feasibility study done and to have a consultant in place to defend
and explain it considering it will be on the ballot again in the Fall, does
not present a large window of opportunity. He urges the Commission in going
through these procedures to do everything they can to move the process along
expeditiously with adequate funds.
Public Comment Closed
Commissioner Gonzalez stated that in a given year, the
Commission is not going to meet that many times. When making a decision about
the appropriation of money either to hire counsel or to engage consultants,
the Commission does not want to be put in a position to have to send an item
to Finance. The Finance Committee may want to continue the item to get up
to speed with the specific issues that the Commission is dealing with and
would have to give approval before the Commission can move. He has no problem
adopting rules that require the Commission to remain within the budget that
is allocated by the Board of Supervisors that requires our Executive Officer
to inform all of our colleagues including the Chair of the Finance Committee
of any action that the Commission is taking.
Commissioner Ammiano concurred.
Commissioner McGoldrick stated that this Commission has
the authority to expend funds, and that the City and County of San Francisco
would be in the position to pay for those funds.
Nancy Miller, Esquire stated that the Commission does
not need to seek concurrence from the Board of Supervisors. She stated that
by deleting Number 2 of the Resolution, the Commission would accomplish their
intent.
Commissioner Gonzalez asked if Number 2 could be moved
to the bottom and that way we give notice of transfer of funds or reallocation
of funds, and that the notice should go to all the members of the Board and
the Clerk of the Finance Committee.
Nancy Miller, Esquire stated that number three, the third
line of the Resolution would read "shall report such transfer or reallocations
of funds to SF LAFCo, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, and the Clerk
of the Finance Committee."
Commissioner McGoldrick asked if the Commissioners should
take those actions rather than the Executive Officer.
Gloria L. Young stated that her concern is that we are
paying two outside consultants with a small budget. Depending on the activities
that LAFCo has, there may be a need to transfer funds within our existing
available balance in order to make sure we can pay them in a timely manner.
Right now, the Commission is operating under the $125,000 that is in our available
balance, and our reserve would have to go back to the Board and the Commission
for approval to have any other transfers and then to the Board to have those
funds released. We have performed a good job in maintaining the funds for
two years within a small limited budget, and any changes would be brought
to the full Commission unless otherwise authorized.
Gloria L. Young stated that the $364,000 is out of the
total budget of $754,000 which the Commission has been operating out of for
the last two years. The Commissioners will get an expenditure report as to
what those costs have been charged to. We do have some obligations under that
$125,000 for temporary services, fringe benefits, and materials and supplies.
Depending upon the urgency to pay our legal counsel or start a process in
terms of advertising or publishing whether it's RFQ's etc., it is necessary
that we have flexibility to move those dollars until we can come back and
ask for a release of reserves.
Commissioner McGoldrick asked why the full amount is not
available and why part of it is called reserve.
Gloria L. Young stated that when the LAFCo first came
into existence in 2000, the Board of Supervisors provided for a modest budget
to begin the operation and to look at a scope of services study with respect
to the MUD. So they released $254,000 and kept approximately $500,000 in reserve.
About five months ago, she went before the Finance Committee after coming
to the Commission for approval and requested additional funds from the reserve
to pay an outside consultant and to hire legal counsel. It is an action that
has to go back to the Board because the Board put those funds in reserve.
Commissioner McGoldrick stated that it is money that is
appropriated, but not allocated.
Gloria L. Young stated that was correct.
Resolution adopted as amended. No objection.
Discussion and action regarding direction to the Executive
Officer to reallocate the existing budget to provide for appropriations for
consultant services and additional temporary staff support (Continued from
the November 16, 2001 Meeting).
Commissioner Ammiano stated that the Commission should
defer any large expenditures because they want to retain as much as possible
for the potential costs of a professional feasibility study.
Gloria L. Young stated that this action is associated
with if the Commission wanted to go ahead with the scoping and the RFQ for
services to assist with providing the Commission with public power. Given
our existing budget, we have the ability to reallocate those funds if we have
support for that effort. We also made a request to get a release of reserves
depending upon what our financial situation is. Currently the Commission's
budget calls for a half-time temporary position. What we did is have the Committee
Clerk work a full time schedule over the last year because of the amount of
effort towards the SF LAFCo MUD issue that was placed before the voters. We
have expended those funds allocated for the temporary position for the half-time
position, so we need to reallocate if the SF LAFCo plans to continue and if
there is a need to have ongoing support in that area.
No Public Comment
Public Comment Closed
Commissioner Ammiano moved to approved this item; Commissioner
McGoldrick seconded. No objection.
Recommendation and action regarding the SF LAFCo Subcommittee
recommendations on scoping of issues for a Request for Qualification (RFQ)
to provide data and information to the Commission on public power options,
including scheduling possible hearings at the SF LAFCo on public power options
(Continued from the November 16, 2001 Commission meeting).
Recommendation and action regarding direction to the
Executive Officer on the selection of a consultant(s) to assist on scoping
of issues and providing data to the Commission on public power options including
participating in possible hearings at SF LAFCo on public power options (Continued
from the November 16, 2001 Commission meeting).
(Both items will be heard together.)
Commissioner Ammiano stated that there has been talk of
an RFQ process in order to get qualifications from energy consultants. A public
meeting would be scheduled in which experts would advise the Commission as
to what the scope of services should be. That is fine, but to allow for the
time for a report to be completed by June, a public meeting to discuss scoping
should occur in February. The Commission should then be prepared to direct
the Executive Officer to issue a Request for Qualifications at that February
meeting. His office has been in touch with Mr. Smeloff and the PUC, and he
has agreed to review the scope of services as it stands now, to take into
account the energy plan which is under development to comply with Supervisor
Maxwell's ordinance, and to propose a scope of service for an independent
consultant. He would like to ask that the Commission direct the Executive
Officer to work with the PUC and the Department of Environment staff to develop
a proposed scope of work for a Request for Qualifications, develop other documents
required to issue the RFQ, develop a mailing list of qualified consultants,
and to research other public notice requirements to report to the Commission
at the February 8 meeting. In addition, in consultation with the attorneys,
develop a draft bid package for LAFCo review at the February 8 meeting.
Public Comment
Ross Mirkarimi stated that he supports Commissioner Ammiano's
sentiments with the resurgence of purpose for LAFCo in expediting an RFQ towards
the implementation of a feasibility study so that the many of the supporters
of public power are enabled to re-aim their focus and bring back to the voters
in the near future the opportunity to decide for San Francisco's conversion
for a municipal power. He supports this body and the Board of Supervisor's
instincts in effectuating a feasibility study post-haste, so that it concurrently
runs with overwhelming and important decisions that we witness in the Chronicle
and the media about PG&E's existence as it stands today. As our campaign
had projected and much of which is coming to fruition, we are seeing PG&E
trying to broker its particular status so it circumvents state regulatory
control by negotiating a deal out of bankruptcy so that an out of state unregulated
utility company becomes the supplier and servicer to San Francisco City government.
He thinks a feasibility study, once implemented, would affirm the protection
of San Francisco consumers while PG&E's fate remains to be decided by
both state and federal entities. He looks forward to supporting the Commission
from a number of community advocate positions and looks forward to working
with the Commission to make sure the feasibility study, public policy, and
civic minded interests of San Francisco come to support the fruition of public
power.
Bruce Brugman, Bay Guardian stated that he wanted to affirm
what Ross Mirkarimi stated. He provided the Commission with the actual press
release that came from the Attorney General's office because it raises a lot
of issues as to whether the City and County of San Francisco should join in,
when and how. The issues may not fall in LAFCo's jurisdiction, but is part
of the context and background for the feasibility study. This is an extremely
important and complicated study. As was found out in the last campaign, a
good independent study to go up against the PG&E onslaught was needed.
One of the reasons the measure was beat was because a feasibility study was
not in place. He has been told by the public power people that have done these
studies within the country that there are only a couple of firms that are
really strong and qualified enough to take on this type of study and the fact
that they will be facing a massive onslaught by PG&E. It is a firm that
has done a lot of public power work that is on the web and is doing a study
in Berkeley. At one time, it was the public power consultant to the PUC in
San Francisco, who has credentials and previous history here. He urges the
Commission to move expeditiously with the process. This is the key element
of the oncoming battle to have a strong feasibility study with consultants
who can stand by and defend their study here and in court.
Commissioner Gonzalez asked legal counsel to address this
issue. He wants to make sure he understands the RFQ process and whether or
not the process of doing this study should be a public process or a matter
of turning it over to someone to bring the Commission a finished product.
Don Maynor, Esquire stated that he thought the Commission
was going to conduct a series of hearings and at the same time hire a consultant
who would take the benefit of those public hearings, as well as use their
own expertise in producing the feasibility study. He thinks there would be
a great advantage to the City and County to conduct a series of hearings.
You could begin the process right away without selecting a consultant in advance.
Commissioner Gonzalez stated that he would be interested
in hearing what legal counsel would have to say about the manner in which
the public hearings would be set up. If those public hearings are going to
be incorporated in the essential records of what our expert has taken into
account in terms of a sphere of influence, shouldn't those hearings begin
once that expert has been hired?
Donald Maynor, Esquire stated that he has contacted some
people who might participate in these hearings, and they would like a couple
of months notice just for planning purposes. If the Commission wants to conduct
meetings a couple of months from now, he assumes that would be adequate time
to retain your consultant. By the time your hearings are ready to go, your
consultant would be on board. You would want to get a thorough investigation
from experts in public power as to what the advantages are. You would want
to get PG&E and PUC to come in and explain what the alternatives are,
to have an opportunity to look at special issues, and to hear from the public
as well. At the end of that process, you would have a good record and then
issues and questions would come up where you would want further information
and studies done. That is when a consultant would be of great assistance to
you.
Commissioner Gonzalez asked if the Commission could adequately
conduct those hearings with the budget that we have for the LAFCo.
Donald Maynor, Esquire stated that the people he spoke
to were not asking for fees. The main thing he heard is advance notice so
they can plan their schedules.
Gloria L. Young stated that she concurred with legal counsel.
She contacted several people in the Bay Area (such as APPA in Sacramento and
other cities) who are willing to participate and have not asked for stipends
or any other funds. She does believe the public hearing is crucial, and that
the arena be set up so that we get a full record of the information that is
transmitted from those experts that are invited to participate.
Commissioner Gonzalez asked Mr. Maynor to address the
question as to whether the consultant should be hired prior to the public
hearing.
Donald Maynor, Esquire stated that it would be advantageous
but not essential to hire the consultant first. You have a lot of expertise
in the City already. In addition to inviting speakers, the Commission could
hand them a series of questions and encourage them to prepare written information
as well as oral comments. Using the expertise of your in-house people, they
could ask the appropriate questions.
Commissioner Gonzalez asked if Mr. Maynor has seen this
kind of public hearing done with this kind of scoping.
Donald Maynor, Esquire stated this process was done at
the PUC looking at the deregulation of the electric industry that occurred
over a two year period. They brought in people from all over the world. The
advantages were that you got a good sense of what the issues and risks were
such as the risks that you would be facing in the future. It seems like every
decade or so there are many critical issues that come about. Utilities, whether
municipal or privately owned, have to make critical decisions. There are a
lot of changes going on right now–changes in technology and changes in regulatory
landscape. The Commission would want to have a good idea what the key issues
are and find out what the PUC and PG&E have in mind. If you don't agree
with them, you will be in a better position to make decisions.
Commissioner Gonzalez asked how many hours in public hearings
would be estimated.
Don Maynor stated that he was anticipating four hearings,
possibly one day each (six hours each).
Commissioner Gonzalez asked how the RFQ could be changed
to take into account what legal counsel is suggesting as to how the Commission
should proceed in terms of coordinating the public hearing with an independent
study.
Donald Maynor, Esquire stated that he would not change
the RFQ.
Commissioner Gonzalez recommended thinking of a timeframe
and setting up a date to have a consultant in place. Is Mr. Maynor talking
about four public hearings, probably over a scope of two or three weeks?
Mr. Maynor suggested a couple of weeks between hearing
dates.
Commissioner Gonzalez stated that we are then looking
at a two-month period of hearing dates. Possibly we can look at March, April
and May if that is not too soon.
Commissioner McGoldrick stated that if we do not have
to have a consultant in place, a consultant could avail himself or herself
around the public record that would develop around these hearings. He would
prefer not to tie the Commission to an acceptance of a consultant by the date
when we want to start the public hearings.
Donald Maynor, Esquire asked who the Commission would
want to moderate these hearings. Sometimes a consultant could perform that
role, but it is not necessary. When the RFQ was originally discussed, it was
with the idea that somebody gather information about these hearings, and not
in terms of preparing feasibility studies. It may be useful to modify the
RFQ to make sure they have experience in preparing feasibility studies.
Commissioner Gonzalez stated that he understands that
counsel can participate as well.
Gloria L. Young suggests that the Commission conduct the
hearings prior to going for the RFQ. She is concerned about the timing and
with the RFQ you would be requesting some indication what that type of RFQ
would cost from those submitting the proposals. We would also have to go back
to the Board if the reserves are not adequate. There is $364,000 in reserve
that we have to keep in mind. You may want to think about whether or not it
is more crucial to have the hearings and make sure we have the record available
to the hired consultant.
Donald Maynor, Esquire stated that the other possibility
is to have two phases. Have the consultant available to assist in the hearing
phase (Phase One). After that, have the consultant come back with a proposal
to perform a feasibility study (Phase Two). At that time, you would be in
a better position to decide what you really need in a feasibility study. If
they come back with a successful offer for Phase Two, fine. If they don't,
you have that public hearing record, and you could always go back and get
another consultant to do the Phase Two work.
Commissioner Gonzalez stated that he would be interested
in making a commitment to meet a sufficient number of times in the next month
and a half and may want to consider more frequently to make sure these things
move along.
Commissioner Ammiano stated that was more of a reason
to appoint the fourth member and a public member.
Commissioner McGoldrick stated that the Commission also
has an alternate position for appointment, but there is no person in it at
this time.
Commissioner Gonzalez asked if the schedule for LAFCo
meetings last year was monthly.
Commissioner Ammiano stated that the schedule was monthly,
but there were sub-meetings that were also held. People dropped off and then
joined.
Gloria L. Young stated that we could start setting meeting
dates and could get preliminary dates from those experts that have been invited
to participate.
Commissioner Gonzalez suggested meeting twice a month
for at least the next two or three months.
Commissioner Ammiano asked if the Commission has a recourse
if there is no quorum.
Commissioner McGoldrick asked if there would be no quorum
if the Chair and the Vice Chair were not present, even if there were three
out of five sitting Commissioners.
Nancy Miller, Esquire stated that the procedures could
be changed to allow for a quorum if in the event the Chair and Vice Chair
aren't there, and the Commission has a total of five Commissioners but only
three are in attendance. The item would have to be put on the agenda. She
stated that Mr. Maynor and her also discussed putting out an RFQ for qualified
consultants that could be available during this hearing process at an hourly
rate or whatever rate is negotiated, not necessarily under a contract to perform
a study in order to not lose any time.
Commissioner McGoldrick stated that eventually the Commission
would have an alternate so there would be a total of six that could meet together.
Any three would comprise a quorum.
Public Comment
Richard Ow stated that he heard so much about consultants
and the RFQ. He urges the Commission to give the consultants direction. We
have lots of poor people, working class people working below the minimum wage,
and also pensioners in San Francisco. Electricity is needed by everyone and
is not a luxury.
Ross Mirkarimi stated that he appreciates the direction
that LAFCo is heading, especially with the process of having comprehensive
hearings, while considering the RFQ process for consultants to conduct the
feasibility study. He wants to highlight an important fact that the feasibility
study is a six- to nine month process. This corresponds with late-breaking
news what PG&E is experiencing in San Francisco and the state of California
and for tactical reasons, that we find greater emphasis to be placed on the
completion of a feasibility study. With such eager desire by community leaders
and citizens, we can bring this back to the voters in 2002 instead of 2003.
Public Comment Closed.
Commissioner McGoldrick asked if we are moving quickly
enough to have everything in place for the voters in 2002.
Commissioner Ammiano stated that that is the Commission's
intention.
Discussion and action regarding recommendations, options,
and alternatives for the "Shadow MUD."
Commissioner Gonzalez stated that this issue was discussed
at the last meeting and there was a question as to whether this item should
be tabled or be placed on the agenda. He motioned to continue this item to
the Call of the Chair, and in the event that we want to discuss the item,
it is available to us. He thinks that specific considerations about a MUD
would likely come up in the process of the public hearings and or feasibility
inquiries. Commissioner Ammiano seconded. No objection.
No Public Comment
Future Agenda Items
Change/modification to procedures to allow three Commissioners
to sit in session.
No Public Comment
Public Comment for Items not on the Agenda
No Public Comment
CLOSED SESSION (Continued from November 16, 2001).
(Item 2)
No Public Comment
Public Comment Closed
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL
Motion that the San Francisco Local Agency Formation Commission
convene in closed session under the provisions of Government Code Section
54956.9(a): Winchell Hayward v. San Francisco LAFCo; City and County of San
Francisco Case No. 324661, for the purposes of conferring with or receiving
advice from legal counsel.
Public Meeting adjourned at 2:10 p.m.
Closed Session convened at 2:12 p.m.
Closed Session adjourned at 2:19 p.m.
Commissioner Ammiano called to order the meeting of the
San Francisco Local Agency Formation Commission at 2:21 p.m.
After a closed session, if one occurs, the Chairperson
shall (1) request the Legal Counsel to identify the subjects discussed in
the closed session, and (2) direct the Clerk to report the vote taken on any
motion in the closed session.
[Elect to Disclose]
Motion that the SF LAFCo finds it is in the public interest
to disclose information discussed in closed session, and directs the Chairperson
immediately to disclose that information.
[Elect Not to Disclose]
Motion that the SF LAFCo finds that it is in the best
interest of the public that the Board elect at this time not to disclose its
closed session deliberations concerning the litigation listed above.
Nancy Miller, Esquire moved that the Commission elect
not to disclose the matters discussed in closed session and stated that no
action was taken. No objection.
Adjournment
The meeting of the SF LAFCo Commission adjourned at 2:23
p.m.