Meeting Information
MINUTES
Subcommittee Meeting
Friday, July 13, 2001 at 10:00 a.m.
City Hall, Room 263
Chairperson: Commissioner Eisenberg
Members: Commissioner McGoldrick
Alternate: Commissioner Gonzalez
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 Chair Eisenberg at 2:05 p.m.
Members Present: Chair Eisenberg and Commissioner McGoldrick
Members Absent: None
2. Approval of Minutes dated May 3, 2001.
Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve the May 3 Minutes; Chair Eisenberg seconded.
Public Comment
No Public Comment
ACTION: May 3, 2001 Minutes approved without objection.
3. Discussion and possible action regarding responses to Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 001 for Sphere of Influence Study for public power.
Gloria L. Young, Executive Officer stated that the process today would be to interview the two consultants who submitted proposals in response to the RFP. She suggested that the Commissioners interview the consultants in the order of the date the proposals were received. The first submission was from E. J. Simpson received on June 22. The second was from Project Design Consultants received on June 25. The deadline for receipt of proposals was June 25 at 5:00 p.m. Both parties are present.
Chair Eisenberg asked if the Subcommittee would be scoring the proposals.
Gloria L. Young, Executive Officer stated that when the SF LAFCo chose to interview the consultants, it was decided that the Subcommittee would review and score the proposals. She will present her review and answer Commission questions after the consultants have presented their proposals.
Chair Eisenberg stated that the scoring is set forth in the Request for Proposal so the Commission will assume that the applicants know the scoring system.
Gloria L. Young, Executive Officer stated that the scoring was set forth in the RFP and the consultants who submitted the proposals should be aware of the process. The RFP was available not only to the twenty-six consultants that indicated a desire to receive the RFP, but was also posted on the web, and the notice of the RFP was advertised in the newspaper according to law.
Chair Eisenberg asked the City Attorney to discuss the question of confidentiality in today’s hearing.
Dorji Roberts, Deputy City Attorney stated that the meeting today was noticed as an open meeting. As a preliminary matter, LAFCo has adopted the Sunshine Ordinance in which Section 67.24(e) reflects that responses to RFP’s normally need not be disclosed until after a contract has been awarded. The Commission had decided instead to go with the process of forming a Committee to review the responses to the RFP and then to make recommendations to the full Commission. This Committee is indeed a policy body for purposes of the Sunshine Ordinance. According to the Brown Act, Government Code Section 54957.5 and also under the Sunshine Ordinance Section 67.7(b), a requirement is stated that written material distributed to the Commissioners in connection with an agenda item in an open session must be made publicly available. Any member of the public may obtain copies of the responses to the RFP.
E. J. Simpson, Utility Consultant stated that he responded to and complied with each RFP item and limited his responses to those items. People on his team have all been involved in the acquisition of facilities in PG&E territory that led to the startup of a utility from scratch.
Chair Eisenberg asked Mr. Simpson for clarification.
E. J. Simpson stated that there was a community that had no public power and that a group of people wanted to investigate public power. His team worked with a committee to form a Municipal or Public Utility District. They provided the expertise to acquire those facilities, inventoried the facilities, set the price for acquisition, established personnel billing rates, and everything that is associated with operation of a municipal utility that is selling electricity to end users. One of the facilities was acquired in court by eminent domain. They negotiated the power contracts, worked with the finance people when the bonds were sold, and were an integral part of the entire project from start to finish. Finish was a utility in business, personnel delivering power, and the power company that was there was gone.
Communities that were changed into Public Utility Districts were Weaverville, CA, Trinity County, in 1982 and Hayfork, CA on December 30, 1987. A community that was converted to a MUD was in the Susanville area, Lassen County on approximately June 1, 1988. The difference between a Public Utility District (PUD) and a Municipal Utility District (MUD) is that a PUD cannot sell electricity in incorporated city limits, and a MUD can sell electricity in an incorporated city and in unincorporated areas. If you have a city involved, you would need a MUD. He was the director of a municipal utility in Redding from 1974-1981. They developed plans for power generation and power contracts. Redding is one of the few cities today that does not have rolling black outs and has reasonably low power rates compared to PG&E.
Mr. Simpson stated that he was not sure what the budget limits of the RFP were as it did not state a maximum amount. He responded $90,000 to answer all the questions in the RFP, but the RFP did not ask for:
· What would annual power costs for five years be?
· What would maintenance and operation costs be on a five- to ten-year basis?
· What would be debt-service cost?
· What would be the startup cost?
It would require another $90,000 for him to bring in a program that would answer these questions that would tell the Commission what this is going to cost. He cannot guarantee the price it will cost to take over PG&E facilities, but based on the experience he has, he has acquired many millions of dollars in PG&E facilities over the years other than the three stated.
An estimate could be provided that tells the Commission what a public power entity really looks like operating in the City of San Francisco with a MUD. This estimate would strengthen and provide the Commission with a lot more information to make a decision. This can be done by adding underwriters or legal counsel that provide information on exactly what your interests will be and what it would look like in this area. A Certified Public Accountant Company that is knowledgeable of utilities and provides a report would require additional funds. He does not believe this scope of work provided for this item. He is pleased to provide the Commission with the information as requested on the RFP. If that is all the Commission is asking for, he is pleased to do so. However, the Commission could expand the RFP to provide for more information that leads into the business and operation of a utility.
Mr. Simpson stated that although he has his office 200 miles from San Francisco, he has been in San Francisco many times and has talked to various groups about power here. He is familiar with the transmission lines coming into San Francisco and is familiar with many of the problems as San Francisco has held elections to determine whether they want public power.
Chair Eisenberg asked Mr. Simpson about his experience from 1950 - 1974 working for PG&E.
Mr. Simpson stated that he worked for PG&E for twenty-five years in power line design and transmission line footings. He worked his way up to district manager in charge of maintenance and operation of natural gas and electric facilities in the Redding area that took in parts of three counties. When he left that position at PG&E on friendly terms, he had made the decision to work for the City of Redding that has a Public Utility they called a Municipal Utility that was under the control of the City Council. The difference is if you are a director operating a MUD, you answer to your five Board members. If you are operating a Municipal Utility, then the City Council has control. The difference is that the city has every responsibility, and with a MUD, they have one responsibility of power, unless LAFCo has added other items. The MUD that they established in Lassen was copied from the successful Sacramento Utility District established in 1947.
Chair Eisenberg asked what Mr. Simpson thinks is going to happen in the next five years if on November 6 the Municipal Utility District measure passes, and that five directors are elected to take over PG&E.
Mr. Simpson stated that in the first month those five directors would be in an interesting position because they own nothing but a franchise. Bond counsels, underwriters, legal counsels, and consultants would be brought in and asked if they are willing to work on a contingency basis. The reason you do not have public power more in PG&E territory is the risk public officials have to take to raise money. The first few months he would work hard as the Commission’s consultant. He would be bringing in the same team that helped him do Lassen and secure lending provisions. Before they could secure a loan in Lassen, it was necessary to put up $250,000 to the state to secure tax exempt funding.
Opponents to public power say that conversion to public power can not happen until the transmission lines are repaired or built to complete Hetch Hetchy. Changing the name of the entity does not mean you have to change the transmission. The same transmission line works the same if someone else owns it. You just keep paying PG&E’s price. When you build your own transmission line, you should do a careful feasibility study to make sure that it will cost less every year to own your own transmission line than if you were to pay PG&E. When he joined the City of Redding, PG&E fed their transmission system. They eliminated PG&E’s transmission system totally and built a transmission line to federal government facilities. PG&E would provide backup power if needed. Once they had the transmission, they built the generation system. That is what would happen in San Francisco in anywhere from two to five years. Once you have the price of facilities, it is easy to borrow the money. It is the period of time from when you are elected to when you take over the facilities that you do not have the funds.
Chair Eisenberg asked if the MUD would start a condemnation action against PG&E or negotiate.
Mr. Simpson stated that the eminent domain procedure is specific. You would do an enabling ordinance act to do the acquisition. Then you would talk to PG&E and say that you prefer to negotiate a deal. PG&E would say they are not for sale. An offer would then be made. The next procedure is If you take PG&E to eminent domain, consultants are going to argue for original cost less depreciation. That means the equipment that was put in thirty years ago cost $100 to go in and now is depreciated for thirty years and its 80% depreciation will be gone and you leave the 20 percent to buy it. PG&E experts will argue reproduction cost new less depreciation.
Chair Eisenberg asked if Mr. Simpson’s study would provide these figures, or is Mr. Simpson saying that the amount to do this study has not been called for in the RFP.
Mr. Simpson stated that he is just answering Chair Eisenberg’s question as to what will happen in five years. The amount has not been called for in the RFP to complete this study.
Chair Eisenberg stated that the MUD consultants on one side would take original cost minus depreciation, and the PG&E experts will argue that what you have is replacement costs. There is a big difference between the two.
Mr. Simpson stated that both sides would prefer to not go to a jury. PG&E could beat MUD if their cost of acquisition is too high in the eminent domain. The only risk in this business is the price to take over PG&E facilities.
You can estimate maintenance and operation of a utility system within two percent. Before you can borrow money in the five-year period, you have to have a power contract. There is low-cost power if you do long-term contracts. PG&E employees are transferred over and you do not make the savings in public power by lowering people’s salaries. You just hire management.
In the first five years, you will be in business, operating, and you will have a long list of capital improvements to make. A question that will have to be answered in court if a MUD passes is whether the Hetch Hetchy power belongs to the people and a Municipal Utility District can use it, or does the power belong to the City of San Francisco.
Chair Eisenberg stated that he would assume that the Raker Act would have stronger enforcement in January based upon the charter amendment to the Board of Supervisors and the statements of many of the political figures. If the City prevails in the position that PG&E does not have the right to bring electricity into San Francisco and have direct access to Hetch Hetchy power, should the City enter into an agreement with the MUD to recognize that MUD is attempting to provide low cost electricity?
Mr. Simpson stated that he would expect the MUD and the City to cooperate and work together. If they did not, it would cost both entities.
He would like to be sure that we do not have to build another transmission line before we get Hetch Hetchy power into San Francisco that we are not getting now. Power will come from the same lines that they are coming from now.
Chair Eisenberg asked the City Attorney whether both of the applicants have each other’s applications. If he asked one of the applicants about the other applicant’s application, would there be a confidentiality problem?
Dorji Roberts, Deputy City Attorney stated that he does not know if the applicants have each other’s application, but copies are available to them. Under the Brown Act and the Sunshine Ordinance any member of the public is entitled to have these proposals at this time.
Chair Eisenberg stated that it appears that after reviewing both applicant’s qualifications that Project Design Consultants seems to specialize in LAFCo Sphere of Influence Studies, and Mr. Simpson specializes in setting up MUDs and public utilities.
Mr. Simpson stated that LAFCo requires a Sphere of Influence for each MUD and public utility. PG&E has always opposed the Sphere of Influence in other places where they have expanded the Sphere of Influence. He appears before LAFCo to argue for the feasibility, but he would not ordinarily draw the boundaries for the Sphere of Influence. County planners where he worked before would do that. Mr. Simpson would look at the electric facilities and say this is where the Sphere of Influence has to be.
Chair Eisenberg asked Mr. Simpson if he were to do Sphere of Influence studies, if he would be involved because he was the person that set up the district. Mr. Simpson is not someone who is a specialist in setting up LAFCo studies; he is a specialist in setting up power districts.
Mr. Simpson stated that was correct. If LAFCo were not doing power, he would not be a benefit to the Commission in setting up a district and providing information. If you were doing an electric entity, he would tell you where the substations are, where the transmission lines are, and whom the customers are that they can serve from those facilities.
Commissioner McGoldrick asked Mr. Simpson to describe his project staff and whom he might hire as sub-consultants.
Mr. Simpson stated that he has a small staff that includes his son who has been involved in the process and that he contracts staff when work comes in. He pulls people that are experts in other fields and will assure that the work will get done on schedule at the right price. Mr. Hamm, who was the Executive Director of the Street Light Association, would be part of his staff. He has acquired many streetlights from PG&E, some through eminent domain. Mr. Simpson stated that if were to fall behind schedule and would have to hire additional staff, he would request permission from LAFCo.
In doing the scope of work now he would not need additional help. If the RFP were expanded to include financing, he would hire Doug Charchenko, Sutro Vice President. As sub-consultants, he would hire Joe Hendricks who had worked with him on the other project and Dana Hall, Engineer in Saratoga.
Commissioner McGoldrick asked if Mr. Simpson’s proposal included references for the work he has done for Lassen, Trinity and Hayfork.
Mr. Simpson stated that the references he provided on the RFP would know of the quality of his work.
Richard Miller, Project Design Consultants, 701B Street, Suite 800, San Diego, CA introduced Project Design Consultants, Wayne Seden Associates, and Joyce Crosthwaite, project manager for Project Design Consultants. Wayne Seden’s group and Project Design Consultants comprise a team that represents two separate and distinct areas in expertise. The Project Design Consultants is the LAFCo link, while Seden’s team possesses a national perspective on policy and technical issues associated with the energy industry.
Project Design Consultants is celebrating its 25th anniversary. Their firm is a multi-disciplinary engineering, planning and surveying firm with over 235 employees located in six offices in California, Oregon, and Arizona. With this broad group they can draw upon a number of experts for GIS mapping, utility consulting and a number of other areas. He has been with the firm for over twelve years and heads their Public Policy Division. Joyce Crosthwaite and he met when they were both employed by the San Diego Local Agency Formation Commission in the early 1980s. He left LAFCo to become a planning consultant with one of his primary areas of expertise being LAFCo. His clients include several LAFCo’s, special districts, cities, and private interests. His current job includes working for the San Diego LAFCo managing the Sphere of Influence Study for ninety-five special districts and advising the City of Newport Beach on several controversial annexations. He has been involved with many sphere studies. In 1994 Project Design Consultants won an American Planning Association award for a Sphere of Influence Study they did for Escondido, CA.
Ms. Crosthwaite was a former Assistant Executive Officer for the Orange County LAFCo. She has worked as a graduate assistant for the Little Hoover Commission and the Commission on Local Government Options. She was awarded an outstanding staff award at the time she worked for the Orange County LAFCo by the California Association of LAFCo’s. Her current LAFCo clients include San Diego LAFCo, Orange County, Los Angeles County and Merced.
Mr. Miller stated that what is occurring is a response to deregulation and higher costs. Formation of MUD’s was not an issue ten years ago. The creation of a MUD, the expansion of a City department, the creation of another alternative like a County Service Area is a long term commitment. What is facing the Commission here is a government structure issue. The decision has not been made as to the best way to proceed.
Chair Eisenberg asked the speaker to clarify why he stated that the issue is a proper governmental structure. There is a Municipal Utility District measure on the ballot that the LAFCo Commission has authorized.
Mr. Miller stated that there is not a lot of experience in California with the way a Municipal Utility District is set up and the best way for it to function. LAFCo people are generalists. One of the reasons that they have a technical expert on their team, Mr. Seden, is that he has the experience with the energy industry that could be of assistance with a Municipal Utility District.
Wayne Seden, Seden and Associates stated that their background is in the energy field, specifically the electric utility industry field. His experience is in construction and design of power plants going back to the days of General Atomic when they designed nuclear plants. He received his engineering experience at General Atomic and moved in to the area of evaluation of alternative energy sources. He worked for the Electric Power Research Institute where he did planning and evaluation for the development of new energy sources. He spent time working for utilities and other agencies that were involved in the energy field, the California Energy Commission in particular. His background includes experience in the policy, technical issues and analysis of power plant design construction, business development, marketing, economic analysis, and assessment of energy supply and demand.
Mr. Seden stated that the major issue is the formation of the Public Utility District and the benefits and costs associated with that. Their strengths are not so much in the implementation, as it is in researching the problem and doing the analysis to give the Commission the best indication of the direction to take. He feels confident they can do this job based upon their experience with the organizations that have the knowledge from having formed their own public utility districts, municipal utility districts, and forming their own utility departments within the City government structure.
Chair Eisenberg asked the speaker if he or his associates have direct experience in San Francisco.
Mr. Seden stated that he does not have direct experience in San Francisco. He has worked in the past for Pacific Gas and Electric and for the Palo Alto Municipal Utilities.
Chair Eisenberg asked if his group has acquisition experience.
Mr. Seden replied that his group does not have direct acquisition experience. It is only through working with those utilities that they are knowledgeable about their experience.
Chair Eisenberg stated that they have a litigated question whether or not the MUD could go on the ballot prior to an EIR and referral to California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). LAFCo passed a rule that is referred to as the "Alioto Rule" which in fact incorporated the language of the Las Tunas case. The "Alioto Rule" states that in the event that a MUD did not specify a particular utility (the Commission calls a "Shell MUD") and in the event that it was forwarded to LAFCo that it could go on the ballot. It was the consensus of legal opinion after that rule was adopted that in the event that MUD passes, MUD would then be required to have an Environmental Impact Report and proceed to the CPUC in the event that it were to acquire facilities. Chair Eisenberg asked Mr. Miller if he has heard of the Las Tunas case and is familiar with this issue.
Mr. Miller stated that in his twenty-year experience with LAFCo the way this is moving forward is unlike anything throughout the state.
Chair Eisenberg asked Mr. Miller if his area of expertise is in the other type of proceeding in which a MUD would come to a LAFCo and there might be annexation and formation questions. He asked if what they do is study the various entities that might be annexed and then determine whether or not there is an appropriate annexation. In this case, there is a minimal formation in which Brisbane has been added onto the MUD and that has become a major question. The legislative counsel has said that if Brisbane opts out, the MUD would still proceed.
Mr. Miller stated that there are still legal and procedural requirements that the Commission will need to go through as a LAFCo. He agrees this is a unique circumstance, but the purpose of the RFP is to do a Sphere of Influence Study, and there are requirements in state law as to what that needs to look like. That, in terms of their approach is how they look at it, not so much as this is a formation application. At this point the Commission refers to it as a "Shell MUD" and that is how they view it. There is a district in which the boundaries are under consideration and level of service, types of service, funding, and financing are undetermined. The way a Sphere Study works is that an agency is formed, they come to LAFCo with boundaries, a budget, proposed staffing and more detail. An environmental review is an issue that will need to be addressed at some point if the Commission is adopting a Sphere of Influence line for a particular agency.
Chair Eisenberg asked Mr. Miller how he thinks it would happen if MUD passes in November and five members of the Board of Directors are committed by virtue of their promises to the electorate to proceed with acquisition of electrical facilities.
Mr. Miller stated that he sees how difficult it has been for SMUD and Lassen to start up and try to deal with the issues in terms of getting organized and provide a public function. He sees the difficulties with a number of other districts throughout the state. The critical issue from a LAFCo perspective is not to form a district that is a proliferation of one more district, but instead to form one that has the ability to deal with providing a service. The district should not be a public forum for people to register complaints regarding high-energy costs. He sees struggle in the initial period trying to get organized as any government agency would.
Chair Eisenberg stated that Mr. Simpson spoke specifically to the question as to how we get experts and whether they have to be brought in on a contingency aspect. He asked Mr. Miller if he has comments on how the experts would be obtained?
Mr. Miller stated that he agrees with Mr. Simpson that we are going to need more input into the process. He would like to go back to the comment that Mr. Simpson made about cost. You are going to have to find ways to negotiate a reasonable settlement with PG&E on the cost of the facilities that you would be acquiring. You will be acquiring distribution systems in the least, and how you arrive at those figures will be paramount to the success of this venture.
Gloria L. Young, Executive Officer stated that it is in the hands of the Subcommittee as to how to proceed. The Subcommittee has the scoring that was part of the RFP. She is prepared to give her report when appropriate.
Commissioner McGoldrick asked if reference checks would be done as noted under 3D of the outline of the criteria that would be used. He stated that the way in which the Subcommittee could judge the quality of recently completed projects other than through this interview would be through inquiries.
Gloria L. Young, Executive Officer stated that reference checks would be done once they were in the process of going through the actual contract with the selected consultant. If appropriate and if the Subcommittee recommends one of the firms to the full Commission for its meeting on July 27, during that interim period of time inquiries could be done.
Commissioner McGoldrick stated that the Subcommittee has been asked to judge the proposals under this point system today and he is inquiring as to how to proceed.
Gloria L. Young, Executive Officer stated that the RFP noted minimum qualifications--both of the firms had several years of experience. The RFP also noted project approach, the assigned staff, the experience of the firms, and sub-consultants. There were fifteen to thirty years of experience between the two firms. That is the basis she used for the approach to the point system.
She stated that the proposal requirements outlined in the RFP page 5, indicates that the proposals should contain the following information:
· Identification of the consultant
· Qualification and experience
· Percentage of time for each consultant to the project
· The approach and work steps
· Timing of the steps and final completion date
· Costs not to exceed
Mr. Simpson’s proposal did not respond to any of the specific approaches of the work steps involved in the specific criteria outlined in the scope of work for the Sphere of Influence. Mr. Simpson’s proposal does indicate who would be assigned to each of the steps identified in the RFP. In addition, a completion date was not stated, so she considers the proposal to be incomplete.
She would like to respond to Mr. Simpson’s comments about the issue of cost analysis that would result in additional dollars. The RFP has been through the Subcommittee’s review and LAFCo Commission, which amended the scope of work for the Sphere of Influence, and through public review. The RFP, Part 2 is reflective of what was approved and what Mr. Simpson has referred to. Incorporated in each one of the elements is the requirement of being able to provide the Commission with cost.
Chair Eisenberg stated that in Mr. Simpson’s Executive Summary, he states that the project manager has reviewed and responded to all items in the RFP and assures the Executive Officer that all work will be completed with timelines as stated by the Executive Officer. Although he does not give a specific date, he indicates that he will complete the work by the required completion date. Mr. Simpson stated that if there was advanced and detailed accounting, that the amount of the contract is not adequate, so he would have to make an additional proposal. Chair Eisenberg stated that in the last meeting the Commission was talking about a budget that could go as high as $300,000 or $400,000 depending on what the Commission was asking for.
Gloria L. Young, Executive Officer stated that LAFCo agreed with staff not to include a fee. if the consultants responding to the RFP felt there was a need to have subcontractors do the various components such as legal or financial support, it would be included in the response to the RFP. That was the approach that was taken with the RFP. Her hope would be to have proposals that indicated what the costs were going to be.
The Executive Officer stated that Project Design Consultants provided approaches although not with sufficient detail. The proposal failed to provide a cost not to exceed and indicated that there would be a cost of $104,300 plus expenses plus a ten percent above those expenses and requested an undetermined amount of LAFCo staff support. This is a particular concern to her because there is only a part-time support for LAFCo. The proposal also indicated that the rate was subject to change after June 30, 2001.
Her recommendation depending on LAFCo’s timing and needs is that the Subcommittee recommend to the full Commission that they reissue the RFP. She was concerned that only two proposals were received. Requests to receive the Request for Proposal were received after the June 25 deadline.
Commissioner McGoldrick asked the Executive Officer if there are recommendations regarding the project staff, the quality of the staff, and experience of the firm.
Gloria L. Young, Executive Officer, stated that she did not have concerns regarding the staff that was recommended, only with the issues she had discussed.
Public Comment
Richard Ow stated that he hopes that the Sphere of Influence can encourage the City to obtain renewable energy. He is a senior and is concerned that the rate structure should consider the seniors and low-income people. He would like to see the evaluation of how the rate structure will be obtained. Since jobs will be created, he hopes that first priority will be given to San Francisco residents if qualified.
Jeff Mills, Bay Area resident asked if the cost benefit of renewable energy versus traditional technology could be presented to the electorate.
Public Comment Closed
Commissioner McGoldrick asked if it would be possible to give the Subcommittee more time in order for more proposals to come in. He is disappointed to see only two proposals.
Chair Eisenberg stated that the Commission wants to have the RFP study completed prior to the election. Project Design Consultants has said they would be done October 2, which would give the electorate a month. Mr. Simpson said that he would be done at the point the Executive Officer indicates. If the process were reopened, the study would not be completed prior to the election. He thinks the Subcommittee has to proceed.
He would like to put both of these applicants together because they do things that are valuable to the process. Project Design does not do this type of LAFCo proposal. At the point that the MUD is created they would then come in and do an analysis for MUD, which would be at the Environmental Impact Report stage. Or they would have come to LAFCo had the Commission not passed the "Alioto Rule," and they would have given LAFCo a Sphere of Influence at that point. He thinks Mr. Simpson’s qualifications are suited to what the Commission needs at this point. Project Design agrees they do not have San Francisco experience. Mr. Simpson has been zeroing in on what the Commission is doing. He has been spending his life talking about acquiring facilities from PG&E and spent twenty-five years working for PG&E. Project Design’s experience is excellent, but Mr. Simpson’s experience is point direct to what the Commission is trying to do.
Chair Eisenberg stated that he would give Mr. Simpson a score of 95 and Project Design a score of 85.
Commissioner McGoldrick asked the Executive Officer when Mr. Simpson would have to complete the study if he were selected.
Gloria L. Young, Executive Officer stated that the RFP indicated a date of
October 10.
Mr. Simpson stated that the RFP indicates that from the date of award he has thirty-three workdays and guaranteed that he would meet that schedule.
Commissioner McGoldrick stated that the RFP states that the work would begin August 27 and be completed by October 10.
Mr. Simpson stated that he guarantees to meet that schedule.
Commissioner McGoldrick asked Project Design if there is a ceiling in the cost estimates they provided.
Mr. Miller stated that what they add on for reimbursables is approximately ten percent of the total which would be another $10,000. The rate sheet in his response to the RFP describes what the reimbursables consist of.
Gloria L. Young, Executive Officer stated that in the Project Design Consultant’s report, they indicated the use of LAFCo project staff and we have limited LAFCo staff. She is not only the Executive Officer of LAFCo, but also the Clerk of the Board. The part time staff that we have is limited. If that is something that has to be added to the budget, it needs to be discussed today.
Commissioner McGoldrick asked if Mr. Simpson and Mr. Miller anticipate having to use project staff.
Mr. Simpson stated that his figure did not include help from staff although they will be asking for contracts that they will be responding to. They will be asking for the agreements between PG&E and the City to deliver Hetch Hetchy power and the agreement between San Francisco and Modesto/Turlock. They did not anticipate that LAFCo staff would be doing work for them.
Mr. Miller stated he would request LAFCo staff to secure the agreements that were referenced in the RFP that they assume staff already had.
Chair Eisenberg’s scoring is as follows:
Mr. Simpson, Utility Consultant:
Project Approach 25
Assigned Project 15
Experience of Firm 20
Oral Interview 20
Budget 15
Total 95
Project Design Consultants:
Project Approach 25
Assigned Project 20
Experience of Firm 15
Oral Interview 20
Budget 5
Total 85
Commissioner McGoldrick’s scoring is as follows:
Mr. Simpson, Utility Consultant:
Project Approach 20
Assigned Project Staff 20
Experience of Firm 15
Oral Interview 19
Budget 15
Total 89
Project Design Consultants:
Project Approach 20
Assigned Project Staff 20
Experience of Firm 12
Oral Interview 20
Budget 14
Total 86
Chair Eisenberg stated that the Subcommittee would recommend Mr. Simpson to the Commission because his qualifications are absolutely necessary for the first phase of the scope of work. Both applicants have acknowledged that the full Sphere of Influence cannot be done for the amount indicated on the RFP. He encourages Project Design to come back and help the Commission at the second stage.
Commissioner McGoldrick stated that there is a stipulation in the timeline and a penalty for reaching the timeline because it is crucial to the process.
Commissioner McGoldrick motioned without objection that this Subcommittee would recommend Mr. Simpson to the full Commission; Chair Eisenberg seconded.
ACTION: Passed without objection
4. Future Agenda Items
No future agenda items.
5. Public Comment on Items not on the Agenda
No Public Comment
6. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 3:47 p.m.