MINUTES
Special Meeting
Friday, October 18, 2002, 2:00 p.m.
City Hall, Room 263
Chairperson: Commissioner Gonzalez; Vice Chairperson: Commissioner
McGoldrick
Members: Commissioners Ammiano, Hall and Schmeltzer
Alternate: Commissioners Peskin and Fellman
Clerk: Monica Fish
SPECIAL AGENDA
(There will be public comment on each item)
1. Call to Order and Roll Call
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Gonzalez at 2:09 p.m.
Members Present: Chairperson Commissioner Gonzalez, Commissioners Ammiano,
Hall, and Fellman.
Member Absent: Vice-Chairperson Commissioner McGoldrick and Commissioner
Schmeltzer.
Gloria L. Young, Executive Officer and Nancy Miller, Esquire were noted as
present.
2. Approval of Minutes for the Commission Meeting of September 20, 2002 (Action
Item).
No Public Comment
Chairperson Gonzalez moved to approve the September 20, 2002 meeting Minutes.
Duly seconded. The Minutes were unanimously approved with no objection.
3. Resolution adopting the Energy Services Study and Recommendations for Electric
Utility Service (Action Item).
Public Comment
Mr. Landis Marttila, Business Representative with IBW 1245 stated that his
associate Hunter Stern submitted a two or three page letter regarding his
comments. One thing that was absent in his letter that he would like to get
in the record is as follows: Although the study alludes to General Order 95
and 128, what the study does not allude to is General Order 165 for a rational
reason. General Order 165 is an inspection and maintenance California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC) Code that is imposed on all of the privately-owned
investor utilities in California. General Order 165 compels privately-owned
investor utilities to do inspections, record those inspections, and make the
results of those inspections and the follow-up repairs a matter of public
record with the CPUC. IBW 1245 fears that a municipal will be in the interesting
situation of policing itself if it buys a distribution system. They feel that
is an onerous and difficult position to be in and believes there will probably
be a deterioration in the distribution system because other legitimate priorities
will come up regarding the City budget and the expenditures to maintain it,
which is a very expensive proposition.
Chairperson Gonzalez asked Mr. Marttila if he or Local 1245 represents employees
that work with public utilities.
Mr. Marttila stated that he represents employees that work with PG&E
and various municipal utilities throughout the state, between 19,000 and 20,000
members.
Chairperson Gonzalez asked Mr. Marttila if he wants to reconcile the General
Order, the concern that he is raising at today’s meeting, the representation
that has been given to the unions working for public utilities.
Mr. Marttila stated that he does not understand the question. He was commenting
on the Energy Services Study. The Energy Services Study refers to construction
standards. There is a chart that refers to similarities and differences between
a public municipal utility and a privately-owned utility. What is absent there
is essentially any illusion to the Maintenance Order, State General Order
165, which they worked very hard on. He personally worked on that Order to
get viable inspection of maintenance regulation on the books with the State
of California.
Nancy Miller, Esquire stated that she believes that Mr. Marttila is saying
that he has a concern that if there was a municipal utility, that that particular
Order isn’t subject to them. However, she works for SMUD and does not totally
concur with the conclusion that that means that maintenance is perhaps done
at a lesser scale.
Commissioner Ammiano asked if it is scale or standard?
Ms. Miller stated that standard would be a better word.
Chairperson Gonzalez asked Mr. Marttila if he represents employees that work
with the public utilities and if he is alerting the Commission that there
is something missing from the study.
Mr. Marttila stated, yes. Also, the other paramount piece is that even if
you include a reference to General Order 165 like you have to the construction
standards that dictate what size pull, what size wire, what you have to do
under General Order 195 and 128. The reason General Order 165 works is that
there are sanctions. The State of California will fine them or require Southern
Cal Edison in an expedited fashion to make necessary repairs if they are out
of compliance with General Order 165. He does not know how the City can impose
sanctions on its own entity if they do acquire the electric distribution system.
Chairperson Gonzalez asked Ms. Miller why the state wouldn’t be stepping
in and handling the standard issue.
Ms. Miller stated that the state has certain minimum standards. What Mr.
Marttila is saying is that in terms of recourse with private-investor utilities,
many times rate payers don’t have recourse where there might be failure to
maintain. In the public utility system, basically what happens is a march
on City Hall. There is a different kind of check and balance. In a municipal
utility, you have the political aspect which you don’t have access to in the
private-investor utility.
Commissioner Fellman asked Ms. Young if with respect to the letter from Mr.
Stern, even though the public-comment period had been closed on the report,
if his memo could be incorporated as one of the official comments on the report.
Gloria L. Young, Executive Officer stated that staff would incorporate Mr.
Stern’s memo that the Commission has before them today as part of the public
comments on the Energy Services Study. In addition, Commissioner Schmeltzer
stated that she regrets that she is not here today, but strongly wanted to
encourage the adoption of the Resolution before you today.
No further public comment. Public comment closed.
Chairperson Gonzalez stated that the Commission was not able to vote on the
item because of the manner in which it was previously agendized and asked
if the Commissioners had any comment on the Resolution. He stated to Commissioner
Hall that the Commission is going to vote on the Resolution adopting the Energy
Services Study. The larger question is what the directive is for the agency
in the future and what the Commission is interested in doing in the future.
Commissioner Hall stated that he would have to vote against the Resolution
because of his stand on the November ballot measures D and E referencing the
Resolved clause on page 3 of the proposed Charter Amendments. He stated that
since his vote would not alter the direction of the result of the vote, the
Commission understands that voting for the Resolution would be inconsistent
with his position.
The Resolution adopting the Energy Services Study and Recommendations for
Electric Utility Service was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Ammiano, Fellman and Chairperson Gonzalez
NOE: Commissioner Hall
ABSENT: Vice-Chairperson McGoldrick and Commissioner Schmeltzer
4. Discussion and action regarding the San Francisco Local Agency Formation
Commission’s Future Work Plan (Discussion and Action Item).
Ms. Young stated that the Commissioners have in their packets a memo indicating
their desires for LAFCo’s future work plans. The primary comments submitted
by the Commissioners were to follow-up with the recommendations the Commission
just approved as a part of the Resolution. Secondly, there was interest in
looking at participating with the City in the study of a tidal current generation,
as well as the implementation of the use of recycled water. As a part of this
request, a request was made to R. W. Beck to provide the Commission with a
letter that is included in the packet that identifies the costs if the Commission
wishes to move ahead with the recommendations made in the Energy Services
Study. R. W. Beck did indicate that the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
had contracted with them to do the Risk Management Plan, and that would provide
a portion of the work that would be required if the Commission wishes to go
forward with the risk management portion of the recommendations. Commissioner
Hall had indicated that one of his interests would be reviewing the services
provided by publicly funded non-profits. Legal counsel was asked to provide
us with information regarding the possibilities.
Ms. Miller stated to the extent that you have non-profits that are receiving
public funds to provide a municipal service, you may study that service. It’s
called a municipal service review. It is done in other LAFCo’s where government
is contracting with non-profit entities.
Commissioner Hall asked if Ms. Miller knows which jurisdictions have undertaken
such a study.
Ms. Miller stated that she could provide the Commission with a list. She
is familiar with a study done in Sacramento about twelve years ago on some
of the water providers, which are private companies. Then they also had a
study that was done on non-profits that provided recreation services to the
City through Parks and Recs to park districts. She can provide other examples
from other LAFCo’s.
Commissioner Hall stated then it is entirely possible that this agency could
undertake a study of non-profits providing a service in "xyz" field.
Ms. Miller stated, yes. There are a lot of cities, particularly smaller newer
cities that are called contract cities that contract out for a lot of their
services. You will see many times the LAFCo’s when they undertake their municipal
service reviews are actually not looking at a municipal entity, they are looking
at whoever the contractor is that is providing the service.
Commissioner Hall stated it is all under the title "municipal services
review."
Ms. Miller stated that is how you would want to structure it.
Commissioner Hall stated that was his strongest recommendation. Another recommendation
is regarding recycled water.
Ms. Young stated that she did not mention Commissioner Fellman’s other item
which was to explore desalinization. In addition, correspondence has been
received that there will be a great deal of discussion at the LAFCo conference
in Santa Barbara about municipal service reviews and what is going on in other
organizations.
Ms. Miller stated the state has actually just issued Municipal Service
Review Guidelines. It’s a draft and fairly lengthy, but it is available.
Ms. Young stated that we would request a copy to send to the Commissioners.
Chairperson Gonzalez stated to Ms. Miller that it would seem that much of
the continuing work of the Resolution that has been adopted in large part
necessitates entering into further contracts, perhaps with R. W. Beck to do
further work. The actions that LAFCo, in terms of the kind of role that we
play, is somewhat different than what it would be if we took up let’s say
public hearings related to municipal service reviews and other forms of energy.
It seems that the LAFCo can do both. We could essentially have an entity doing
this kind of study work that would later report to us, but we ourselves could
be conducting hearings in other areas of government efficiency.
Ms. Miller stated that makes sense. You are under the law required to do
some municipal service reviews. You are supposed to periodically be doing
those. In addition, you have the proposal that you received two years ago,
and the study is really an outgrowth of the issue of utility service in the
City and County. It’s entirely appropriate to look at different kinds of studies
as a LAFCo.
Commissioner Fellman asked what the LAFCo’s legal obligations are with respect
to municipal services review.
Ms. Miller stated that LAFCo is to periodically review a City’s municipal
services every five years. It’s a global term. It is typically tied to their
Sphere of Influence, which really isn’t germane to your situation here because
you are a City and County. Typically, what other LAFCo’s are doing every five
years is deciding how big a City should get ultimately, should there be other
cities, and what the continuing role of the County is. That is where they
are looking at their municipal services review. You are also supposed to,
as you decide periodically, to review municipal services that are being provided--Recreation
and Park, Health, Welfare, and Housing. There’s no statutory requirement that
you look at those specific services at any particular time, but you do have
the authority to look at it whenever you deem necessary.
Chairperson Gonzalez asked Ms. Young and Ms. Miller to assist in the individual
topic areas that the Commission may wish to explore and get into. Perhaps
we should be thinking about getting our colleagues at the Board of Supervisors
to weigh on whether or not they are interested in having us take a particular
direction. I know a number of us are Board of Supervisors. To the extent that
there is that existing relationship, it would be helpful to introduce a Resolution
at the Board saying that the Board of Supervisors would like to see the LAFCo
pursue certain areas, let’s say municipal service reviews or some of the issues
related to the R. W. Beck original findings. The idea is to essentially have
a few more eyes take a look at what the future has for LAFCo.
Ms. Young stated that as part of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg bill, the SF
LAFCo Commission did adopt as their Sphere of Influence the General Plan of
the City and County of San Francisco, which includes looking at the areas
of land use, parking, transportation, and economic development. Chairperson
Gonzalez asked that the request for information from the Work Plan be distributed
to the other Board members so they would have an opportunity to input their
comments. The Commission might want to consider having a joint meeting with
one of the Subcommittees of the Board of Supervisors or the Board of Supervisors
once the Commission determines which issues to move into in conjunction with
the Energy Plan.
Chairperson Gonzalez stated that he was thinking less of having a joint meeting
because there are a number of LAFCo Commissioners that are on the Board. LAFCo
can work on everything that has been proposed--there is no problem. Before
the Commission continues on a particular path, it would be beneficial to open
it to a discussion at the Board and see what other members are thinking. It
could very well be that we might be surprised about something that we are
not thinking of that might be helpful. He would not be surprised if any one
of the various suggestions that had been made would be approved.
Ms. Young stated that perhaps putting something before the Board of Supervisors
in the form of a Resolution or legislation would engender the same kind of
participation. Her concern is that we sent out a memo, and we haven’t gotten
any response from the other Board members other than the ones that sit on
the LAFCo Board. Perhaps some other opportunity to meet in a different way
or to have it on the Board’s agenda so there is the dialogue that needs to
occur.
Chairperson Gonzalez stated that one way of doing it would be to offer one
Resolution instead of separate Resolutions. The Resolution would say that
these are the issues that LAFCo is considering pursuing and ask if the Board
concurs.
Ms. Young stated that could be done once the Commission determines whether
these or other items are the ones they wish to pursue.
Ms. Fellman stated that she would request that the Commission go through
a public comment period. She thinks it is a good idea to go through the Board
of Supervisors and then put together a Work Plan that is available for public
comment. We do have a number of dollars left in our budget, and we want to
make sure that we spend that in the best way we can.
Commissioner Hall asked Chairperson Gonzalez for clarification on his recommendation.
Once the Commission decides what general areas the LAFCo wants to look at,
would the Commission send a notification asking for comments from the Board,
or would there actually be a hearing?
Chairperson Gonzalez stated that he is thinking more about a Resolution that
the Commission would put on the agenda for Board adoption without Committee
reference. If there is a member that wants it to go to the Board Committee,
that would be fine. That discussion should be expedited. He certainly has
not heard anybody make a suggestion about an area of inquiry that he thinks
is not appropriate. All of these items fit well as to what the charges the
LAFCo has. He asked Ms. Young to put together a Resolution to consider at
the next LAFCo meeting. The Commission can review the wording and then have
someone introduce it at the Board.
Ms. Young agreed to put together a Resolution to consider at the next LAFCo
meeting.
Ms. Fellman stated that in putting together the Resolution, there is overlap
in what the Commissioners wanted. There is really a water topic there that
addresses areas that might not otherwise be addressed in City and County policies.
Perhaps we could group all the water/energy nexus. Tidal generation. Desalinization
is very popular now in Southern California as a water source, which always
entails in the new proposals a co-generation plant associated with it, so
you are getting it cheaper there. Recycled water is another thing you can
use. Maybe you should clarify what your recycled water is.
Commissioner Hall stated that we are the last county in the state that doesn’t
have a recycled water program. It is going to happen sooner or later. We might
as well dictate or study at this working group how it should be done. If we
follow tradition around here, it is probably going to be done the wrong way.
It’s going to happen sooner or later. San Mateo County just adopted theirs,
and there were two counties that did not have a complete recycled water program,
of which we are still remaining. I think it’s an excellent opportunity for
us to do something for the City and take the lead on this issue. Desalinization
is certainly important. He would rank it second behind recycled water because
of its necessity. The sooner we deal with it the better we are able to address
the problems all the way from Hetch Hetchy to Lake Merced to our water supply
to how we are using water to irrigate our parks and what not.
Commissioner Fellman stated that she thinks that is a separate topic, and
it would be worth some elaboration. With Commissioner Hall’s summary, she
thinks it would be useful to put before the Board.
Public Comment. No public comment. Public comment closed
Chairperson Gonzalez stated that we would agendize this item in the future.
5. Biennial review of San Francisco LAFCo’s Conflict of Interest Code (Informational
Item).
Ms. Young stated that LAFCo is required to adopt LAFCo’s Conflict of Interest
Code every two years and asked if there were any changes to the Code. This
item is before the Commission as an informational item. There is no need for
changes, so it is provided for the Commission’s information and comments.
Chairperson Gonzalez asked Ms. Miller if the Commission would simply approve
the item.
Ms. Miller stated that since there was no change, there is no approval necessary.
Public Comment. No public comment. Public comment closed.
6. Future Agenda Items.
Chairperson Gonzalez stated that he talked with Ms. Young informally about
discussing the terms of office of the members of the LAFCo. He knows that
was somewhat open-ended. Rather than drawing lots, he would be inclined to
adopt a term of office that applies to everyone equally and then when we get
to the expiration of that date, figure out what we are doing. He would be
interested in hearing Ms. Young’s thoughts on the subject.
Ms. Young stated that the Commission did not set standard terms and at some
point has to do that. We could bring back a Resolution, a change in policy.
We have not had a chance to talk to legal counsel about this issue, but we
will bring it up after discussion at this meeting.
Chairperson Gonzalez stated that he was suggesting that the Commission try
to resolve the question of the LAFCo terms of office. It was something that
was left open-ended because there was some degree of uncertainty as to how
long the LAFCo would be in operation.
Ms. Young stated that the terms are four-year terms, but we do not have Commissioners
that are staggered. Generally, you draw lots and some of the Commissioners
are two years and some are four years so you can get continuity and changes.
That did not happen.
Chairperson Gonzalez stated that Commissioner Fellman made reference to the
budget, and we should probably have an update on where we are.
Ms. Young stated that a budget update will be put in the Commission packet
for the next meeting, as well as a Resolution detailing the Commission’s comments
about the future Work Plan that the Commission can review and comment on.
We also need to have a closed session agendized as well.
Chairperson Gonzalez stated that the other item he was thinking of was the
hearing before the Public Works and Protection Committee recently. Supervisor
Daly called a hearing recently, and it addressed reporting that appeared in
the Bay Guardian around the Long Island Power Authority. There was an economist
that apparently looked at the extent to which a publicly-owned utility was
able to invigorate the local economy because the local dollars essentially
stayed in that economy. He thinks there are a number of assumptions made in
the data to reach that conclusion. He is wondering if there is some way that
we can look into the question of whether or not those calculations made sense.
The testimony was fairly compelling. The data had been put together by a professor,
Irwin Kellner, at Hofstra University.
Ms. Young stated that she would get the information for the Commission regarding
this issue. A couple of years ago, there were representatives from the Long
Island Authority at the APPA meeting that she attended. We do have the ability
to get someone who is knowledgeable about the subject speak before the Commission.
Chairperson Gonzalez stated that in particular, there was a position that
for every dollar in the local public authority, there was a multiplier of
five in terms of the amount of money that was stimulated in the local economy.
Ms. Young stated that it sounds familiar, and that we may even have those
records on file. When the subject of municipal utilities was at the forefront
a couple of years ago, there were a number of people at the APPA meeting that
spoke and documentation was handed out. She will check the files to see if
we have the information.
Chairperson Gonzalez stated there was continuing discussion about representation
by the City Attorney. He doesn’t have the legal case in front of him. The
City Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco, Mr. Herrera, made
available to him an interesting case that he believes was decided in San Diego
or one of the other counties here in California. It related to what had happened
visa vie the conflict that his office declared in the litigation over the
Elections Commission and Civil Service Commission. Although he has been a
critic of the requirement to declare a conflict, the case he had provided
appeared to so conclude. He had problems with some of the reasoning in it.
It was interesting that much of the reasoning would apply to a LAFCo, the
idea of a Civil Service Commission had a certain quasi-independent function
that he thinks the LAFCo would qualify under. What came to mind was that it
would be a strong argument for the Commission’s need to continue a relationship
with outside counsel, but not necessarily for everything that we do. In the
event that we are ever in a situation that the City Attorney feels that they
need to declare that kind of conflict it would be better that the Commission
is not in a position where we are starting a whole new relationship with outside
counsel. It would be better if we manage over time to keep a relationship
going so there is not this startup energy going out looking for a new attorney.
Ms. Young stated that we currently have an ongoing contract with outside
counsel. The inside legal counsel support item was deferred until after November.
We weren’t planning on bringing that back on the agenda until after the first
of the year.
Chairperson Gonzalez stated that he would forward the case to Ms. Young and
asked Ms. Miller if at some future date we could have a discussion.
Ms. Miller stated that she thinks she knows the case. It is entirely appropriate
for the City to say there might be a conflict because in fact you might be
reviewing an entity or a department that already has City Attorney representation.
She works with County Counsel, City Attorneys with LAFCo. You can decide what
you want to do. You can have an independent counsel, you can have two. You
can use the City Attorney when you want, use an independent counsel when you
want or simply use the City Attorney. It is up to the Commission legally.
You can do all of the three. The City Attorney would have to let you know
that there is the potential for the conflict.
Ms. Fellman asked if in the meantime we are on a month-to-month contract
basis with our existing counsel.
Ms. Young stated that it is ongoing until it allows for the thirty-day termination
period, and we have not terminated.
Chairperson Gonzalez asked for a date of when we should have a future meeting
related to the Resolution that we would want presented at the Board.
Ms. Young stated that if the Commission wants to meet in November, we could
prepare the Resolution and have it ready.
Chairperson Gonzalez recommended the second week of November.
Public Comment. No public comment. Public comment closed.
7. Public Comment on Items not on the Agenda.
Female speaker asked if the Commission could introduce a new Resolution to
preserve and stop the eviction of the Musee Mecanique, the Ordinance amending
Sections 3305, 3307, and 3310 of the Police Code to prohibit discrimination
against business establishments. The File Number is 021463. She handed in
a petition to the LAFCo Commission Clerk regarding ballot-measure M that was
originally scheduled for the November 5, 2002 election. It was not adopted
and refused to be put on as a ballot measure. The people of San Francisco,
California want the Musee Mecanique to stay open, not be evicted and to restore
and not demolish the Cliff House by designating the whole area historic. Also,
to ask that funding be provided by the federal government and other organizations
for this private business sector to restore and not demolish the Musee Mecanique’s
Big Camera, snack bar and Sutro Baths.
No further public comment. Public comment closed.
Chairperson Gonzalez stated that a number of members of the Board are concerned
about the issue, but he wouldn’t want to pursue this issue at the LAFCo unless
somebody feels otherwise.
Ms. Young stated that she concurred with Chairperson Gonzalez.
Chairperson Gonzalez stated that the public speaker is talking about an issue
that many Board members are concerned about.
8. Adjournment.