Meeting Information
MINUTES
Subcommittee Meeting
Thursday, May 3, 2001 at 10:00 A.M.
City Hall, Room 263
Chairperson: Commissioner Eisenberg
Members: Commissioner McGoldrick
Clerk: Gregoire Hobson
SPECIAL AGENDA
(There will be public comment on each item)
1. Call to Order and Roll Call
The meeting was called to order by Chair Eisenberg at
10:10 a.m.
Members Present: Commissioners Eisenberg and McGoldrick
2. Discussion and adoption of the proposed scope
of work for the Sphere of Influence Study and analysis associated with providing
public power in the City and County of San Francisco, including the creation
and maintenance of a Municipal Utility District for San Francisco and San Francisco-Brisbane
Gloria L. Young, Executive Officer, introduced the scope
of work for the Sphere of Influence Study that is before the Subcommittee.
At the last LAFCo meeting, the Subcommittee indicated that they wanted to
review the scope of work and recommend any changes, modifications, and/or
the approval of the document to SF LAFCo at its meeting of May 18. This is
an informal setting for the Subcommittee to ask questions and for the Executive
Officer to respond and also to get public comment on the actual scope of work.
Public Comment
Dana Dilworth, Resident of Brisbane, stated that the City
of Brisbane has done a study with the intention of understanding what MUD
will produce, but what was presented to the people was basically a civic lesson
in public power. One of the series of facts that they used was reports from
1997-1998, which today would seem inaccurate because of the PG&E bankruptcy.
Unless it is the desire of this LAFCo to have an understanding of all public
power possibilities before us, it seems just the study of the Municipal Utility
District should be done. Secondly, somebody with financial expertise should
figure in how a bankruptcy fits into the information. She personally supports
anybody who has been approved by APPA.
Bernie Choden, previous Commissioner, has comments that
he read to LAFCo on his first reading of the proposed scope of work. He thinks
the Sphere of influence can include other entities such as Brisbane, Alameda,
and Berkeley and it should be less San Francisco centered when you address
a study. His recommendation is to change the study’s title to include Brisbane
and to possibly include Alameda and Berkeley, as other entities may be interested
in joining. This is much too brief an outline. The consultants should have
a more detailed scope of work.
Commissioner Eisenberg asked for the City Attorney’s input.
Dorji Roberts, City Attorney, stated that the scope of
work for the Sphere of Influence Study does include Brisbane as stated on
the last page, Item B1. The responses that the Commission receives from the
potential consultants should address the possibility of Brisbane and San Francisco.
Whether the scope should be broadened to include other entities such as Alameda
and Berkeley is a policy decision for the Commission.
Bernie Choden, previous Commissioner, handed in a revised
scope of work document for the Sphere of Influence Study outlining his comments
and suggestions.
Commissioner Eisenberg asked the Executive Director to
make changes to the title to say "LAFCo Sphere of Influence Analysis
of San Francisco/Brisbane."
Gloria L. Young, Executive Officer, indicated that she
did run the broad-brush of the scope of services past the APPA at the time
staff drafted this scope of work. The scope of work responds to the Motion
that was adopted by LAFCo in November, where it was specific to San Francisco.
It includes the Municipal Utility District, including the Brisbane area. It
includes some of the information that Mr. Choden spoke about. In addition,
on April 23 and 24, the Executive Officer attended a two-day conference sponsored
by APPA in San Francisco. The Executive Officer went through the study with
the City Attorney’s Office and made sure that our broad-brush effort did in
fact include an engineering and feasibility study that addresses some of the
legal aspects associated with a Sphere of Influence Study that is looking
at public power. LAFCo can amend the scope of work to include Mr. Choden’s
comments.
Commissioner Eisenberg stated that he would send along
Mr. Choden’s comments to the full Committee, but does not intend to change
anything at this time.
Gloria L. Young, Executive Officer, advised that the Subcommittee
will be issued a retyped copy with the changes italicized so they have it
in advance of the next LAFCo meeting.
No further comments were made on the Sphere of Influence
Study.
Public Hearing closed.
Commissioner Eisenberg reiterated that Gloria L. Young,
Executive Officer, stated that this Sphere of Influence is a procedural guideline
to a consultant. He has had input from other people stating their concerns
as to what they think is going on. He has been told that the energy crisis
could be solved if every home in the State of California were insulated. He
believes that the Sphere of Influence does not specifically address residential
or conservation measures.
Gloria L. Young, Executive Officer, stated that Item B1
addresses conservation efforts and that Supervisor Newsom introduced a resolution
that requested that LAFCo include energy conservation efforts in its scope
of work for the Sphere of Influence Study. The Executive Officer responded
that conservation was included in the scope of work for the Sphere of Influence
Study it was included.
Commissioner Eisenberg would like to add to Item B1 the
words "and residential conservation measures." He stated that an
intern from USF, who had done a survey of non-profits, found that the impact
of increasing energy costs on non-profits was significant. Chair Eisenberg
went to the University of Oregon in Eugene. He spoke on deregulation and had
an opportunity to talk to the head of the Municipal Utility District in Eugene.
Eugene and a lot of Oregon have public power, and they love it. But the head
of the Eugene Municipal Utility District said that they were doing a survey
of schools and found that one of the impacts on schools is that they are laying-off
employees because of their electric bills. He doesn’t know where in the scope
of work the impact on public and social services is specified.
Gloria L. Young, Executive Officer, stated that she was
not sure if this issue was specifically outlined in the scope of work.
Commissioner Eisenberg stated that he would like to add
this issue to wherever the Executive Officer thinks it is appropriate. He
would like the consultant to specifically look into specifically the impact
of public power options on public, educational, and non-profit social services.
Public Comment Reopened.
Bernie Choden, previous Commissioner, stated that the
City does have an official Conservation Policy produced by Lois Scott about
twenty years ago. It has been adopted and ignored. It has analysis regarding
insulation, conservation, and what should be done that hasn’t been done. There
is also a Women’s Energy Association, headed by Barbara Barkovich, an advisor
on energy to United Kingdom and France.
Public Comment Closed.
Commissioner McGoldrick stated that we should look into
the collateral consequences of public power options. We should understand
what is going on now and what we hope will happen if we embark upon the public
purchase of PG&E. He thinks we are covered under Roman Numeral II that
lists the seven important aspects that should be addressed by the study. He
is satisfied and wants to make sure we include the anecdotal situations and
quantify them. What effect will all this have on the local economy, people,
and the City? He hopes that potential consultants would look at these issues.
He would be happy to do a more detailed scope that looks at detailed socioeconomic
factors.
Commissioner Eisenberg stated that we should add a next
number and a next Roman Numeral that the consultant analyzes the effect of
the PG&E bankruptcy. We need to look at their failure to pay $3,000,000
in property tax. That should be part of the Sphere of Influence Study. The
second item should look at both the franchise agreement and the Wheeling Agreement
and their present status in the PG&E bankruptcy. The third item should
be that the study should also review the status of the Raker Act. The fourth
item should be the City is now losing $20,000,000 a year because of the Turlock
and Modesto contracts. He wants to make sure these areas are covered specifically
and asks that the consultant specifically address these areas.
Chair Eisenberg Moved that the scope of work for the Sphere
of Influence Analysis as provided to LAFCo by the Executive Officer, and amended
as previously stated, shall be forwarded with a PASS recommendation to the
Commission. Commissioner McGoldrick Seconded.
Vote:
Commissioner Goldrick: AYE
Commissioner Eisenberg AYE
Motion: Passed to the Commission
3. Discussion and approval of the process for selecting
and contracting with the consultant(s) for the Sphere of Influence Study.
Gloria L. Young, Executive Officer, read the recommendations
for selecting and contracting with the Consultant for the Sphere of Influence
Study. She indicated that consultants in the area have contacted our office
and attached to her memorandum is a list of potential consultants. We would
notify the public by advertising in the newspaper, posting on our web site,
and outreach advertising. In addition, we would post in Brisbane to make sure
we have an inclusive list of consultants, should the Commission decide to
approve this process. At this time, It is before the Subcommittee for consideration.
Commissioner Eisenberg asked if this recommendation was
drafted with the City Attorney’s cooperation and participation.
Gloria L. Young, Executive Officer, stated that she drafted
the proposal and that Paula Jesson, Deputy City Attorney, did review it.
Chair Eisenberg asked if this procedure is consistent
with state law and permissible?
Dorji Roberts, City Attorney, stated that he has no knowledge
that it is improper and stated that if there had been a problem, Paula Jesson,
Deputy City Attorney, would have brought it to the Executive Officer’s attention
at that time. He has no problem with the procedure.
Chair Eisenberg asked if there are City or State provisions
that the consultant will have to comply with.
Dorji Roberts, City Attorney stated that he does not believe
so, but there may be disclosures required under the Conflict of Interest laws.
Chair Eisenberg asked for the process of selection of
a consultant.
Dorji Roberts, City Attorney, stated that it would be
the action of the full Commission to decide which consultant to select.
Chair Eisenberg asked whether it would be unusual for
the full Commission to interview people as opposed to the Subcommittee?
Dorji Roberts, City Attorney, stated that selection could
be done in a number of ways. Sometimes it is done through the Subcommittee,
through a separate selection or evaluation panel, or an individual member
that is appointed to work with the Executive Officer to review the proposals.
The Commission has broad discretion as to how they wish to handle the evaluation
process.
Chair Eisenberg asked whether it is the Executive Officer’s
job to recommend someone to LAFCo?
Dorji Roberts, City Attorney stated that the Commission
could ask the Executive Officer to do so. The Commission has the discretion
to set up a different process.
Chair Eisenberg stated that he prefers that the Executive
Officer provide LAFCo with a list of the potential consultants and that the
Subcommittee make the recommendation instead of the Executive Officer.
Supervisor McGoldrick stated the procedure he has most
commonly seen throughout the City of San Francisco has been that the staff
would provide recommendations. We could ask the staff to provide one, two
or three recommendations and the Subcommittee would then provide input that
would be forwarded to the full Commission in the form of a recommendation
that might narrow down the multiple recommendations to one or more.
Chair Eisenberg asked the Executive Officer to provide
LAFCo with evaluations as to whether the consultant complies with the various
criteria, and the recommendation will come from the Subcommittee.
Gloria L. Young, Executive Officer, concurred.
Commissioner McGoldrick asked if the criteria for choosing
from a list of potential consultants would include an evaluation of their
depth of experience or is there a qualification process?
Gloria L. Young, Executive Officer, stated she would have
all of the consultants that submitted an RFP or an informal proposal for this
project provide a checklist of consistencies with not only the scope of study,
but the amount (price) they recommend, and if that meets our needs.
Public Comment:
No public comment.
Commissioner Eisenberg moved that the proposal set forth
as Item 3 and the procedures set forth in the Executive Officer’s proposal
be recommended to the Commission for passage, with the exception that it should
be reworded to show that the procedure will be that the Executive Director
shall evaluate the consultants in compliance with APPA and other relevant
criteria. The Executive Officer will present that evaluation to the Subcommittee,
which will make its recommendation for final decision by the Commission.
Commissioner McGoldrick Seconded.
Vote:
Commissioner McGoldrick: AYE
Commissioner Eisenberg: AYE
PASSED
4. Future Agenda Items
Gloria L. Young, Executive Officer, stated that unless
the Subcommittee wishes to meet again, there are no other agenda items before
the Subcommittee until after the Commission approves the scope of study and
then another Subcommittee Meeting will be set up at that time.
Public Comment
No Public Comment.
5. Public Comment on Items not on the Agenda
Chair Eisenberg stated that the chair of this Commission
next Wednesday is going to announce his candidacy for the position of City
Attorney. It is his present opinion that there is no conflict of interest
if he remains the Chair of LAFCo. He also believes that there are consistent
opinions from the City Attorney’s Office that there is no conflict of interest
for a Chair of a Commission to run for public office consistent with first
amendment rights and other considerations. He would ask if well before May
18, that the City Attorney’s Office provide him with an opinion if there is
a conflict of interest. If the City Attorney is of the opinion that there
is a conflict of interest or appearance of impropriety, he will resign.
Dorji Roberts, City Attorney, stated that he would ask
the City Attorney’s Ethics experts to look into this matter and will reply
to Chairman Eisenberg.
6. Adjournment: Time 11:00 a.m.