To view graphic version of this page, refresh this page (F5)

Skip to page body

October 05, 2001

Meeting Information

MINUTES

Local Agency Formation Commission
and Subcommittee Meeting
Friday, October 5, 2001 at 9:00 a.m.
City Hall, Room 263

Chairperson Eisenberg
Members: Commissioners Ammiano, Gonzalez and McGoldrick
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 Commissioner Ammiano at 9:08 a.m.

Members Present: Commissioners Ammiano, Gonzalez and McGoldrick

Members Absent: None

Commissioner Gonzalez stated that since Chair Eisenberg is not a member of the Subcommittee it is not necessary to call his name for roll call.

Gloria L. Young, Executive Officer stated that since there is a majority of the LAFCo Commission present for the Subcommittee meeting, staff was required to advertise the meeting as both a Commission and Subcommittee meeting. However, only the three Subcommittee member names had to be announced for roll call.

Commissioner Ammiano stated that he would be the interim chair for today’s Subcommittee meeting.

2. Approval of Subcommittee Meeting Minutes dated September 21, 2001.

Commissioner Ammiano moved to approve the September 21, 2001 meeting minutes; Commissioner Gonzalez seconded. No objection.

Public Comment

No Public Comment

3. Discussion and direction to the Executive Officer on scoping of issues for a Request for Qualification (RFQ) for consultant(s) to provide data and information to the Commission on public power options, including scheduling possible hearings at the San Francisco Local Agency Formation Commission on public power options.

Gloria L. Young, Executive Officer stated that per the Commission’s request at the LAFCo hearing of September 28, 2001, the Commission has before them a Request for Qualifications for an energy consultant(s) as well as the previous Sphere of Influence Request for Analysis which was adopted by the LAFCo Commission on May 18, 2001. The Commission also requested that a limited Sphere of Influence be prepared for review and indicated that at this meeting there would be discussion as to whether or not SF LAFCo would hire consultants, hold public hearings, or a combination of both. Donald Maynor, Esquire, will discuss the limited scoping of issues.

Donald Maynor, Esquire, stated that he had a list of more efficient rescoped SF LAFCO MUD Study Issues. A public hearing is suggested that is more of a public process where the Commission would invite experts to discuss various issues. PG&E and others would have an opportunity to give their point of view as well. The process would produce information in a timely manner, but the speakers would be centered on the issues outlined on the list.

SF LAFCo MUD Study Issues Items I and II would be the first phase in identifying and distinguishing the advantages and benefits of a Municipal Utility District versus being served by PG&E. Persons with expertise in this area would be invited to public hearings to address specific questions to help identify the differences between these entities. Part of the process is to find out what PG&E’s plans are for the future. There is a lot going on at the Public Utilities Commission (PUC). He thinks it is important that PG&E answers certain questions about their future plans in the areas of generation and what the PUC intends for them to do as a utility in the future.

Item IIA2 discusses generation options for a Municipal Utility District. To what extent is San Francisco interested in pursuing renewable resources? To what extent does San Francisco want to avoid being involved in nuclear power? People from Municipal Utility Districts or Municipal Utilities can talk about what some of those options were in the past and may mean in the future. Item IIA3 asks what the constraints of financing on PG&E are today. They are in a bankruptcy proceeding-compare that with the options using public financing.

Item IIB--how important is conservation? There are a lot of people in this area who could give insights on PG&E’s conservation programs, the types of programs allowed by the PUC, and who can compare these programs with other municipal utilities. A discussion can be held regarding past and future programs. Item IIC, Undergrounding of electric lines--PG&E’s program today is shut down as far as finance and underground programs. He does not know if that is important to San Francisco. A Municipal Utility may be more aggressive in this area. You are trying to identify a number of aspects that may be important to San Francisco in having a Municipal Utility or Municipal Utility District versus being served by PG&E. Item IID would be to compare operational expenses of a Municipal Utility District such as a SMUD. The Commission will get a sense of the differences between a Municipal Utility versus an investor-owned utility.

Mr. Maynor stated that he thinks the information presented by experts in this area will provide the Commission with balanced information because there will be an opportunity to get input from PG&E and the California Public Utilities Commission. Various experts should be contacted to determine their availability and to determine the logical sequencing of the hearings. As the information comes in, they may include written responses to questions the Commission may have. Staff members could summarize the information for the Commission to base future decisions.

Item III involves technical investigations that he suggests would not be susceptible to the public hearing process, but would be a study that could be done by an outside consultant. Items I and II could be the first phase, and then Item III would be the second phase that would contain a more technical study. Many issues from the original proposal were left off because they involved too many technical issues that were more in the nature of implementation. You would want to investigate issues such as existing contracts and the Raker Act when a decision has been made about becoming a Municipal Utility, as these issues would not be beneficial at an early stage.

Commissioner McGoldrick asked if Item IIIA4 "MUD’s capability of meeting future demand" would be better if it were completed when a decision is made as to whether or not the Commission should go with a MUD.

Mr. Maynor stated that he is looking for a pre-formation analysis as to what decisions are important in whether to become a Municipal Utility District and then what the implementation issues are. Sometimes the implementation issues involve a lot of technical analysis and involves different types of options. A technical analysis would be required If you want to take over the entire distribution process of PG&E. There may be a number of implementation options that should be considered by the MUD if it were to be formed. To ask someone to try and figure out all those options and begin developing analysis is asking too much. As far as future demand, there is a lot of that information available from the Energy Commission and submittals at the PUC. It may not be necessary to have that information done today. After conducting hearings on Items I and II, the Commission may conclude that they may want information on Item III. Roman Numerals I and II would be the scoping for the public hearings and Roman Numeral III would be a technical study by a consultant. The timing would be dependent upon the Commission’s judgement as to when it is needed. He is not sure how much of that technical information is needed under the LAFCo law for a Sphere of Influence Study--it might be a study that LAFCo counsel says is needed. However, he is not sure it needs to be as technical as the original study intends to be.

Commissioner McGoldrick asked about the required timeline for Items I and II.

Mr. Maynor stated that the beginning point for the Commission would be to direct staff to contact people with expertise in these areas and find out their availability for a hearing. Then a determination would be made as to how to logically group the issues and then schedule hearings.

Commissioner McGoldrick stated that he was in favor of this option.

Ms. Young stated that she has begun to contact potential speakers that have been discussed by legal counsel. The timeframe was the end of October or the first of November.

Commissioner McGoldrick asked who the typical invitees would be.

Ms. Young stated that she has spoken to the Utility Director for the City of Palo Alto, and his availability is the end of October, first of November. He will be at the ABAG Conference that she will be attending on October 18 and 19 doing similar kinds of presentations about energy. She has also spoken to a number of other utility directors in the Bay Area, and their availability is the end of October, beginning of November. Nancy Miller, legal counsel has contacted SMUD and they have indicated they would be available, as well as David Freeman from Los Angeles.

Commissioner McGoldrick asked if we would need to remunerate for expenses.

Ms. Young stated that the Bay Area speakers would probably not have to be remunerated. SMUD is in Sacramento. She is not sure about David Freeman from Los Angeles-his airfare and accommodations would probably have to be paid for.

Commissioner Ammiano stated that there is an election coming up, and the LAFCO members are hoping it is a positive outcome for public power. If that doesn’t happen, where does that leave LAFCo? Hoping that the outcome is positive, what is there left for LAFCo to do?

Mr. Maynor stated that he does not have the answer today. The question is what happens after the election either way.

Ms. Young stated that the Commission would still have the "Shadow MUD," and there would be a determination whether it would continue to be processed. If in fact the "MUD" passes in the November election, MUD would have to come back to LAFCo with a plan to indicate what services they were going to provide and how. The LAFCo Commission is required to review the plan. Those two areas are what was determined by the City Attorney’s Office as to why there would still need to be a LAFCo. After that, it would be up to the Commission and the Board.

Commissioner McGoldrick stated that paying speaker’s expenses should be left up to the Executive Officer.

Ms. Young stated that if that was the direction of the Subcommittee today, a resolution would be brought back to discuss LAFCO’s relationship with the Board of Supervisors with respect to reserves at a future meeting. There are existing issues associated with the budget so that she could get direction from the Commission to divert funds toward the payment for incidentals, if in fact speakers require airfare, etc.

Commissioner McGoldrick asked how extensive the hearings would get, and whether they would have to reimburse people thousands of dollars.

Ms. Young stated that it would be for incidentals. The question is whether or not it is in the hands of staff to put together the presentations, or as Mr. Maynor discussed, have someone help facilitate those hearings. An amount of money would have to be paid to facilitate those discussions.

Commissioner Ammiano stated that other Supervisors are being asked if they are interested in being on LAFCo. He knows that scheduling is difficult--he has MTC and Golden Gate Bridge meetings on Friday. Schedules have to be looked at to find out what might work for current and future members.

Ms. Young stated that there have been a number of suggestions that are being pursued.

Commissioner McGoldrick stated that his understanding, based on recommendations from legal counsel, is that the Commission would hold off on Item III and just go with the public hearings for now.

Mr. Maynor stated that there may be a need to have a small contract with one or more consultants for the purpose of getting more information in a particular area. It may not be appropriate to expect your invited speakers to provide all of the information, so there may be information that may be derived from a SMUD or a PUC. They have a consultant that is familiar with how to pull that information out. The Commission might ask the Executive Officer to enter into small contracts to gather that information. Performing a detailed study is not recommended at this time.

Commissioner McGoldrick stated that the Commission was going to agree on a condensed version for a scope for an RFQ. He asked whether the Commission should hold off at this time.

Mr. Maynor stated that if the Commission approves Roman Numerals I and II, the issues would be placed in the RFQ. Then a response from experts would be requested in any of these areas. The Commission or Ms. Young would then call on the expertise if the need came up.

Public Comment

No Public Comment

ACTION: Commissioner McGoldrick moved to proceed with the recommendation that the legal counsel and the Executive Officer have set forth today; Commissioner Ammiano seconded. No objection.

4. Future Agenda Items

Commissioner McGoldrick stated that he would like to schedule another closed session.

Gloria L. Young, Executive Officer stated that a closed session is scheduled for the October 12 meeting.

Commissioner Gonzalez stated to Mr. Maynor that the LAFCo did forward the MUD petition to the full Board to be placed on the ballot. Some of the Commissioners that made the decision sit on the Board of Supervisors and in their own individual manner have endorsed that measure or the charter amendment measure that deals with public power. As yet, the Supervisors sit here in a different capacity as the LAFCo. He requested that at the next meeting, Mr. Maynor or legal counsel make a few remarks about the nature of their role as the LAFCo as it relates to the November and March elections.

5. Public Comment on Items not on the Agenda

No Public Comment.

6. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 9:34 a.m.

Last updated: 8/18/2009 1:54:52 PM