City and County of San Francisco Thursday, February 16, 2017
You
>> good morning and welcome to the
government audit and oversight committee for February 16th.
My name is jane kim, and to my left
is -- I'm sorry to my right is
supervisor aaron peskin and to my left is supervisor President London breed and I want to thank our
committee-I would like to thank our committee's clerk, erica major
and also recognize the staff of sfgovtv, charles kremenak who make our meetings available online, as
well as transcript.
Madam Clerk, any announcements.
>> please silence all
cell phones. >> thank you, Madam Clerk and can you please call the first item.
>> item no. 1 is ordinance amending the environment code to adjust the incentive in the solar
energy incentive program.
>> the author of this item is President London breed, if you would like to make opening comments.
>> yes, thank you I know we have laurie mitchell here who will be making a presentation shortly, but I
just wanted to make a few comments about your go solar program in the city.
We're making a few technical amendments to this program today. Despite the fact that other utilities
around the state are ramping down their incentive like the
city of palo alto and silicon valley, for example, I'm happy to see the go solar program in the city is still going strong and that we as a city are continuing to
invest in incentives like this particular program.
We must continue to support renewable energy and energy-efficient programs so it's accessible to everyone.
Since the program started in 2007, go solar has helped low-income residents, nonprofit organizations and businesses install thousands of kilowatts of solar energy units on their rooftops across san francisco.
This has helped not only reduce participants' electricity bills, but our carbon footprint in the city.
There will be a few amendments to
this today, and I know that Ms.
Mitchell will talk about that in her presentation, and with that I'm happy
to turn it over to Ms. Mitchell to discuss the program, the changes, and
the proposed amendments. Thank you. >> thank you very much, supervisor breed. My name is laurie mitchell
and I manage the renewable energy group at
sfpuc and we have slidess on the
ordinance here. I'm not sure if you can see it. There is something --
there we go. Really what we're trying to do with this ordinance is to look forward and
to expand on the success of the gosolarsf program to include
additional programs such as rebates for electric vehicle infrastructure, energy storage and to expand upon our energy-efficiency programs.
So the new programs, as well
as the current gosolarsf program is funded by the cleanpowersf and hetch hetchy
power rate-payers. The agenda of what we'll cover today. One of the many things does is to integrate the program with the go solar sf program and it's important to know that they have both common policy goals. Both programs seek continue vest in
local programs and projects
such as energy-efficiency, storage, ev
charging and affordable, cleaner, climate-responsibility electricity and to invest in local jobs [Sph-fplt/] Background on the go solar sf program was established in 2007.
And it designates the puc as the program administrator. It states the objective eh providing an appropriation of $2-5 million
annually over the ten years, which
can commence in 2008.
It also directs the puc to review
solar and to adjust incentives and coordinate administration of the program with the implementation and
administer of the cleanpowersf program. So here is the summary of what we have paid out over the years since 2008, when the program started. So you can see in total we paid just over $24 million.
The majority of that has gone to residential installations with a
large portion of that going to low-income residential. >> I'm sorry before you move on,
could you explain what you mean by low-income residential? >> we have several categories of incentives that people can apply for.
They can apply for residential, so they don't need to make any type of income requirements for that
incentive, but for the low-income incentive they get an additional incentive-level if they qualify to be low income.
>> no, I understand that you provide additional incentives, but what qualifies? >> so we work with the mayor's
office of economic development, and we use the hud guidelines in san francisco. So for a family of one,
it's about $60,000 a year, and for
four, I think it's about
$80,000. >> you use the hud ami
definition? >> yes for san francisco. >> and what ami-level and below did you select?
>> so we get guidelines from the mayor's office of economic and workforce development. So the numbers that we're using today for household of one is
$68,000.
For a household of four, it's $98,000
>> so roughly like 90% of area
median income and below, is that the threshold maximum income? >> I can double-check and we can can get an answer. >> I know it's ami, but what ami, 90%? 60% of ami and below?
>> I'm not sure. It's median. I can get you that answer and can definitely come back to you on that.
>> okay. So we're talking about middle-income households. >> right.
>> okay. >> so what is residential
low-income? Is the red stuff -- what is the difference between the dark blue stuff and the red stuff?
>> the red is just a normal residential incentive and the dark-blue is residential low-income and those are applicants that quail
hollowed qualified for the additional incentives. >> I'm curious of the range of household incomes that apply to what you consider "low residential
income." it still seems with the installation cost going down and
incentives it's still really expensive for actual low-income
household to actually put on a solar panel. Do you have a range of households that have applied over the last couple of years.
>> you mean the range of incomes
for the holidays? Households. >> we don't have that today, but we can get back to you. >> sure. >> I'm sorry did you have any additional questions? >> no. >> this goes to your question on what the cost of solar is.
So this
table shows you first column is installed cost of solar.
You can see in 2008 a 2.5 kilowatt project is typical in san francisco for residential project costs about $25,000.
At that time, we offered an additional -- I'm sorry, at that time the regular go solar incentive was $3,000 and they would
are have
qualified for the california solar incentive, about $3400 and the net cost of solar would be $17,000.
You can say today the solar cost have dropped pretty dramatically and that same system today costs $14,000 and qualified for $17,000 from the go
solar sf program that make their net cost over $12,000.
Today we have some of the lowest net costs in the program's
history. And this is just a review of some of the changes in the market and what other california utilities are doing with their solar incentive programs. so most programs have ramped down their incentives and many are fully subscribed.
So the california solar initiative
was fully reserved in 2014, although low-income program does continue. The city of palo alto is fully reserved.
Alameda is reserved.
Silicon valley and smud is fully
reserved in 2016. So we knew we wanted to look forward
with the go solar sf program and engage stakeholder as round make the
good solar more efficient and work
better and also to get feedback on new programs that they would like to see us develop.
So we met in April of last year and gathered fee bac and came back in June with recommended
changes that you will see today and we continue to follow-up with them and brought the
changes to the commission in oct.
.
One is to require go solar sf recipients to be a customer. So they would either need to be a hetch hetchy customer or sign up
as cleanpowersf customer available to all residents and businesss in the city now. We are also recommending that we market and outreach the programs
together.
So providing assistance and outreach to demonstrate the benefits of
installing on the rooftop and
becoming a super green sf
customer and attractive net metering. Another one of the changes that this ordinance will do will allow us to
simplify the go solar sf incentives to dollars per kilowatt, which is how most solar incentive programs are run. Currently we have a pretty complex table and that will make the program more efficient.
We're also proposing to
step-down all incentives to reflect the lower cost of solar and stretch the program budget. The last time we adjusted incentive was in 2013.
And we are proposing to step down incentives to make sure we grow here
in san francisco.
Another of the proposed changes is that we -- I believe it's really important to continue to support nonprofits and low-income residents and we're recommending to continue to offer higher incentives for low-income and nonprofit customers. And we're also recommending that we
develop an invertore replacement incentive for previous low-income and nonprofit customers. So the inverter allows it to connect to the grid and many of those components will be at
the end of their useful life.
This is when the new incentives will look like.
You can see residential customer gets about $500 a kilowatt today.
If this ordinance isa approved, in April, reduced to $400 and still would qualify for the additional low-income incentives of
$2,000 and the environmental justice inverter in staller is applicable. And then the last thing this ordinance would do would allow us to develop complimentary distributive energy programs. so we know it's important to not only
install solar, but to be complimentary programs like electric
vehicle infrastructure and energy storage.
So there is a couple of clean-up items in the ordinance I wanted to mention. No. 1 we wanted to clarify that we want to continue our support for go solar sf and our commitment to develop these new programs.
Then we just needed to fix some typos and no. 3 is inserting the correct
fund balance of the program.
So should read $7.275 million instead of $11 million. That is the end of my program. >> I had a couple of follow-up
questions on the low-income and nonprofit programs.
Do you require them to be a cleanpowersf or puc customer? >> today? Today we do not.
This ordinance going forward they would be required to sign ups a cleanpowersf customer, but today they are not required. >> I just remember -- by the way,
I'm a big supporter of cleanpowersf, but I remember one of concerns about the program was because there were
-- it's a slightly more expensive program.
That we had concerns about low-income residents, you know being a part of the program. For budgetary reasons. So
it seems to me counterintuitive to require
low-income residents to be a cleanpowersf customer when it's a more expensive power in order to
qualify for stay deeper subsidy for a solar panel. Shouldn't we provide an exception for low-income?
>> that is a good comment and we can definitely consider that.
We have made a commitment to not enroll customers if the clean foyer
sf program is more expensive.
What they would otherwise pay pg&e. So the requirement is that had he sign up for a cleanpowersf customer,
but they would not be automatically enrolled unless the rates are at or below parge. >> I don't think I really understood that. >> sure.
>> if I qualified to your low-income
program, and I did not want
to opt-in into the cleanpowersf program, would I qualify for the deeper subsidy? >> not under the new ordinance, if this ordinance goes forward. You wouldn't qualify. >> I just feel like how are you going to get low-income customers if they are not willing to pay more on a monthly basis? It just --
>> it's a good point.
So right now about we want -- we
had a commitment to clean power
affordability and our rates where
below pg&e.
Today due to some of the pcia changes, our costs are slightingly higher.
But it's very slight. And we're currently researching whether we need to do a rate adjustment to catch up with that? But we had made the commitment to our
commission not to pre-enroll additional customers until at or below the pg&e rates.
>> I appreciate your work to protect
our customers and I want as many of our residents to sign up as possible. I'm just worried about requiring low-income residents to be a cleanpowersf customer in order to
qualify for the deeper subsidy for go solar sf. But to move on to my second question and maybe I can understand that in the course before this comes to the
full board.
So I'm looking at the cost today, and it's amazing how much it's gone down. Over such a short period of time, but even with the subsidy it takes you
down to about $10,000 or --
well, the incentive, I'm curious how low-income residents can consider that and I don't consider myself low-income and don't qualify under the ami that it seems that you work with.
But I don't feel like I could afford
$12,000 for solar panel. >> it's a great comment.
Just a couple of things to clarify: that $12,000 does not take into account the additional $2,000 a
low-income customer would get. >> you said it's $14,000 today. So I did take the $2000 into account. $14 minus 2 is $12,000. >> they qualify for the $1700 on top of that.
>> I thought it was $400 plus an additional $2,000.
>> so it's $500 kilowatt. >> oh, I see.
By kilowatt. >> 2.5 kilowatt system and would qualify for the basic incentive,
which would give them about $1200 on
top of that they would get the additional $2,000 for being low-income applicant and on top of
that, if they lived in an environmental justice district, and
use a city installer, getting additional incentives.
>> that takes them down to roughly $10,000 -- how do low-income residents afford? >> it's a great point and one nice thing about the solar market right now there are financing options available. So there are many companies
now that
will allow them to enter into a power purchase agreement or a lease. So they can spread that cost over the life of the system and they can still reduce their bill from what their paying on their pg&e rates. So there is a lot of additional options that are available to people that are considering solar in general
right now, which is nice.
But yeah, we understand the other important point is the california solar initiative still runss a
program called sash and they provide additional incentives to low-income applicants that they could also qualify for if they are in the right locations for that.
So we are really trying to incentivize low-income residents to
be able to afford solar, as much as we can. >> I would love between now and the full board meet ig would love to understand how that actually works for a real person? >> sure. We can get you some specificks.
>> and also the area median
income-levels that are eligible for the low-income program. >> sure.
>> thank you your work and i appreciate supervisor breed's leadership on it to incentivize our residents to go solar. >> thank you very much. >> any other questions or comments from committee members? >> I would like to move the amendments.
I think you received a copy of the
amendments sfpuc language clarification. Fixing the typo, and changing the
amount which were explained by Ms. Mitchell. So I would make a motion to move those amendments. >> subject to public comment, I'm happy to vote in favor of them.
>> so we have a motion and we can move those amendments without opposition [Gavel]
So if there are no further comments from committee members? We'll now move into public comment on
this item.
>> hi jason fried executive director of lafcko and wanted to
speak to some of the items supervisor kim you brought up about the low-income and a couple of things to keep in
mine on the rate structure, the sfpuc set up a once a rate structure rather than changing the rates quarterly as pg&e does. So right now while the rate is slightly different, you will see in the summertime, hopefully, if
everything is worked out correctly,
you'll actually see cleanpowersf customers paying less than what pg&e pays. Over the course of the year, you need to average it out over the course of year and while I get your comments about low-income not being able to pay more and being profocus of
tective of that, which is extremely important, in theory, it should be
the same -- they should be paying the same. You might pay more in one month, but less in another month.
To keep in mind a lot of
other ent or incentives and programs, doing
low-income installation. Taking gosolarsf funds and money from other organizations and groups and are able to put it -- able to be much more cost effective for low-income customers. The final thing I would put
in on the low-income side, we're lowering their bills. So while even if there is a
is a slight price differential, their overall bill will go down.
We're not just talking about generation, but transmission, distribution and the other line items. So they are able to save a lot of money in the program. I appreciate supervisor breed's legislation and would encourage to you move it forward to the full board. Thank you.
>> thank you. >> if there is no further public comment on this item, public comment is now closed on item no. 1
[Gavel] Can we take a motion to rescind on the amendments and take it again after public comment? We have a motion to rescind and do that without opposition. [Gavel] , we'll take a motion to move the amendments as proffered by President Breed and que do that without opposition. [Gavel] is there a motion on item no. 1?
>> I just want to say thank
you to Mr. Fry for pointing out specifically
the balance of what we are trying to accomplish with our clean power
program, which I believe is definitely a better program than what pg&e has to offer and I would encourage everyone who is interested
in signing up for clean power, go to cleanpowersf.Org. Thank you, with that I would like to
move this item as amended to the full board with positive recommendation. >> thank you, President Breed and we do have a motion to move this forward with positive recommendation and I
see a second and we can do that again without opposition. [Gavel] >> thank you. Madam Clerk, please call item no. 2.
>> yes, item no. 2 is a resolution retroactively authorizing the sheriff's department to contract with global tel link to provide inmate telephone services which will [Phao-eurpl/]Ize inmate phone call rates that reduce the cost of the
average local call by 34%. >> thank you, Madam Clerk. We're joined today by the office of the sheriff.
And today by crispin hollins, thank you so much for being here. >> thank you very much and good morning supervisors, crispin hollins
the cfo from the sheriff's department and happy sf clean power customer and I'm here before you today to request
approval with a new contract with global tel link to provide inmate
telephone services. Global tel link has provided services
for san francisco since 2010. Oover the years the department has made progress in reducing call rates
and most recently recussing
the cost from $2.35 to $1.54 in June of last
year and the contract before you
today memorializes the June 2016 rates and 3-year contract with two
one-year options to extend.
As I think you know the proposed rate caps and while these rate caps have been challenged and not yet implemented the rates in the contract
before you today are lower
than the fcc proposed rates.
The main point of had this slide is
to show progress to lower the cost of an average call and finally this last
slide shows the benefits of lower calling costs inasmuch as it results
in greater call volume and greater call duration.
When the rates were just last June
volumes and duration increased roughly 20-30%. >> great.
Thank you so much for the presentation
are or are there any questions from committee [Stph-ebz/] Supervisor peskin? >> thank you, Madam Chair. A appreciate the fact that the reduction is in the amount of 34% and I had one house cleaning question, why the retroactive nature of the resolution? And after the fact contract signing
on December 1st of last year?
>> we were anxious to move forward with this contract, and we wanted to
make sure these were memorialized, but we had it signed with the
understanding that the
contract would
not be formally approved by the city
until it was approved by the board of supervisors
>> so somewhere in this 24-page
contract is some clause to that effect, counselor, Mr. Givner. >> not looking at the contract in front of me so I'm not sure, but all
of our contracts become effective only if the board approves the
contract, if it's subject to 9.118. So occasionally departments will enter into agreements, but those agreements are not binding on the city unless the board
approves.
I don't know whether that is memorialized in the contract itself
-- I believe we have some boilerplate in our contract to that effect. I can double-check as I see you are
right now.
>> it's okay just as long as you
don't make a habit of it. >> understood. >> all right. any other comments or questions? President Breed?
>> thank you.
So when I first became a member of
the board, I made it my mission to address these particular issues, specifically with the contracts as it
relates to phone calls for inmates and also the commentary,
which I know former sheriff ross mirkarimi worked with the team at the sheriff's department to come up with
what I believe was a fair change, a significant change and drop in rates.
And the drop in costs overall for inmates, who rely on these services,
and who I believe sadly we're being taken advantage of. So in this particular case, with the
phone calls, I do appreciate the significant increase and the continuous decline, especially in
light of the fact that calling locally is traditionally free, and I know that there are some other layers that go with setting up the appropriate phone systems in our jail system. I realize there are costs associated with that.
But the one thing that I'm continuously concerned about, and
wanted to know if you could address
that with some more
specifics: the money that is collected, and used specifically for programming for inmates, and we have had this
conversation in the past, and expressed the desire to see an alternative, and not to develop these
programs on the backs of the families of these individuals.
And so just wanted to know what the
breakdown is for the anticipated revenues annually for this particular program?
And what is anticipated to go
specifically where? Because it's not necessarily spelled out in that way in the
contract. >> we estimate roughly that this contract would bring in about $500,000 to the inmate welfare fund
and then the inmate welfare fund provides services -- it's required
to be spent only on services for
inmates. It funds salaries for prison legal services and other jail program staff.
The other big expense that it funds
is for community-based organizations, primarily community works, which provides our one-family program and our "stop the violence program." >> have we done any work -- because I know that again, when this
contract was up before, I had
expressed a desire to look at
alternatives in an effort to
reduce the costs associated with this
particular program. So have we explored alternatives? Is this the only money for this particular program? Are there other means to support this
program?
>> well, so we have reduced our reliance on inmate welfare fund by reducing the costs here, but there is
still half a million dollar
amount that comes to the department to help provide these programs. If we were to go significantly lower than this, we would need to come to the general fund to ask for it to
make up for that difference.
>> so do you know what the amount is
from the contract for the commentary? That goes into this particular fund?
>> I know that in -- for last fiscal year from 2015-2016 that
amount was about $600,000.
>> so the total is a little bit over a million dollars for this program.
Do you know what the cost is to have
this program in general?
Separately from -- we're talking about $1.1 million and the total cost to operate the program?
>> total expenditures in 2015-16 were $1.2 million.
>> and it all comes from basically -- the inmates themselves?
>> yes; we had a beginning fund
balance -- July 1, 2015, fund balance of $2 million. There was an addition to commissions
and phone calls there was commission from some of the signage in the jails.
It brought in total of $1.3 million and we expended $1.2 million and
ended the year with fund balance of
$2.1 and this year, the expenditures will be roughly maybe $1.5 million.
>> and then where does the
additional.4 -- I mean, because
this contract along with the commissary generates $1.1 and there is still an outstanding need and where does that money come from?
>> from the general fund. I mean, these -- the programs that it funds are larger programs.
We do quite a lot of work with community-based organizations, and our prisoner legal services program
is much larger than what is funded by
just this program. So those funds primarily come from the general fund.
>> and for the inmates that are in 50 bryant, the biggest
feedback that I get is there is no location for
services and so how is that particular population getting served? Even though they are clearly paying into a fund that is supposed
to be
used to serve them? >> 850 brian -- there are challenges that go with 850 bryant.
But we do have programming at 850 bryant, particularly with regard to this program.
We have the one family program
operates there. And recently we have augments that
program, if you will, by inmates who participate in that program.
We have been giving them phone cards $20 phone cards.
So that once they -- after having contact with their families, with their children, through the one-family program, they can then make free phone calls to their loved
ones after the program is done for the day. >> thank you. Again, I appreciate the continual efforts of the sheriff's department
to try and make sure that these programs are cost-effective for the inmates. Because ultimately, as you know, the families are the ones who have to deal with the bills associated with the phone calls, the commissary and
all of the different layers that
exist. Because clearly, as these inmates are in custody, they have no means to generate any revenue and this money
comes from a lot of these families, who unfortunately, tend to be
low-income families. So I appreciate the work done by the department to continue to decrease these expenses, as much as possible. Thank you.
>> thank you. >> thank you, President Breed. I appreciate you bringing up all of the comments and concerns that you raised.
When this contract came to us before
slough then sheriff ross mirkarimi, I expressed a number of concerns about the high cost of staying connected with your family and
friends, which evidence clearly shows supports rehabilitation when the inmate returns into the community.
So charging them a lot of money to do something that we know will help our
community later on, seems counterintuitive, but also to use the program to charging the families in order to provide additional services to the inmate also felt somewhat wrong.
So I do appreciate the work to reduce
the costs. Allowing inmates to stay in better contact with family and friends. Thank you for your work. >> thank you, seeing no further questions or comments from the committee. At this timely open up for public comment on item no. 2. Are there any members of the public that would like to speak on the item?
Seeing no comments public comment is
now closed. Mr. Hollins thanks for presenting to the gaoc committee. Do we have a motion on the item? >> so moved with recommendation.
>> supervisor peskin moving forward with recommendation and without opposition. [Gavel] . >> thank you, Madam Clerk, please call item no. 3.
>> would you like me to call all of them? >> yes, please call all the remaining items on the agenda.
>> except for --
>> item nos. 3-27 are various collective bargaining agreements between the city and county of san
francisco.
>> thank you, Madam Clerk.
Nicki callahan, director of human resources for city and county of san francisco and thank you for
presenting on the mous before the gaoc committee. >> this is a fairly simple thank you for calling all of the items
together. We were successful in reaching tentative agreements with every -- regarding every expiring contract for the spring of 2017.
And as I sat here I just learned that seiu ratified by 94% margin. So at this point all of the unions with the exception -- the second
page is
sightly out of date now. The largest remaining union to ratify
is local 21 and they'll ratify in the first week of March. A couple of smaller groups, three smaller groups we expect to hear from
the attorneys next week. But ratification margins,
low est we
heard is 59%, but some have been unanimous and been in the 90s. So I think our labor partners agreed
with us it was a good plan of action, given the uncertainties we're facing as a city. I'm happy to address any questions. I'm sure you have seen the terms.
It's 3%, each of two years. Which what I will call a little safety net in the second year, if we
should have major drop in revenue, or recession, we'll be able to save some money by delaying the increase by six months.
Although we wouldn't have to go back into bargaining, which is good for he everyone. We'll know the outcome. And I'll be happy to take questions. >> Madam Chair, I just want to note for the record we have been briefed about this as an entire board in
closed session, as the negotiations were ongoing. And I have a question, which is should we -- do you want us to
remove the ones where the tas have
not been approved, item 10 for
muncial attorney as the association and twu items and continue those? Or do you want us to move those ordinances while they are still voting? >> we would request that you move
them all forward in unt unlikely event that someone fails to ratify, we would request it to be pulled off the board's agenda.
>> thank you, Mr. Callahan. See nothing questions or comments, we'll open up for public comment on these items. So any -- >> thank you. >> good work. >> thank you. >> any members of the public that would like to speak on these items? Seeing none, public comment is now closed. [Gavel] Ms. Callahan, thank you so much for
all of your work. We appreciate on behalf the board. So committee can we take a motion on this item?
>> I would move items 3-27 to the full board with recommendations. >> we have a motion to move items 3 through 27 to the full board with positive recommendation. We have a second only that. And we can do that without opposition.
[Gavel]
>> thank you. Ma'am clerk, do we need to take the motion to convene into closed session? Can we make the motion to convene into closed session? >> public comment? >> before we do that, can we take public comment on these
items? >> 28 and 29. >> seeing no public comment on items 28 and 29, public comment is now closed. [Gavel]
>> May we take a motion to convene
into closed session for items 27 and 28? >> would you like me to call the items? >> excuse me. >> would you like me to call the items? >> that is what I asked.
>> item 28 is ordinance authorizing
the lawsuit file by yu ern phan and gai thi fan nguyen again the city and county of san francisco and item 29 authorizing settlement of lawsuit filed by willie crawford filed against the city and count of san francisco. Can we make a motion to convene into closed session? >> so moved. >> we have a motion and do that without opposition. [Gavel] . We just ask members of the public to
exit the room.
>> all right. We're now back in open
session. >> our city attorney jon givner.
>> during the closed session, the committee voted unanimously to forward items 28 and 29 to the full board with positive recommendation. >> thank you, Mr. Givner.
Can we take a motion to not disclose items from closed session? >> so moved. >> we have a motion and we can do that again without opposition. [Gavel] >> Madam Clerk, any other items? >> there is no further business.
