tv [untitled] September 3, 2012 5:07am-5:37am PDT
to agree to reduce the amount of collateral that would be going into escrow from $15 million down to $7 million, a reduction of $8 million. that is 3 positive. it increases to $4.5 million. that frees up $6 million from the initial 19.5 appropriation. the appropriation ordinance that will go before the commission, before the board of supervisors , it keeps the $19.5 million appropriation, but we are using that additional $6 million that has been freed up to allow us to start out of the gate at $2 million for energy efficiency for participating customers for
a solar incentives and have $2 million available for getting studies under way to have the bailout -- ability to do local builder out sooner. the $6 million is all contingent upon the program getting under way. it is before the board of supervisors. minders getting is that the items are up for consideration -- my understanding is that the items are up for consideration on the 12th. they could be a proving that legislation by the end of september. there is also regulatory update. do not have much to their that is very exciting -- i do not have much there that is very
exciting. supervisor campos: i knelow commissioner shmeltzer had a question. commissioner shmeltzer: it was put together to review documents that were to be produced for the program by of local power. the last three or four meetings have been canceled. my understanding is there has been no work product submitted in several months. could you clarify that? >> the next set of deliverable that are due from local power on their time line is a financial model that would demonstrate the cost effectiveness of the various types of programs and proposals they think could help
the program achieved local bailout and better economics. we have not seen any deliverable in three months. that is the reason the meetings have been cancelled. the various groups have been clear that without something to discuss, they did not want to just meet. commissioner shmeltzer: there are quite a few people from a pretty diverse bunch of organizations, nonprofits and other government entities, and i know your office did a lot of work to schedule and coordinate people amongst all of those people. the last meeting was in may. i think the consensus on the work product was that it was not -- the usability of it could be improved.
we have not seen any further response to the input we are asked to give. there were supposed to then work product submitted before each of those meetings. we have a time estimates? -- do we have a time estimate? >> i have been assured that the local power is working very hard on the is work products. -- on these work products. all of the deliverable slow at of this financial model. but unfortunately, the representatives have not been able to provide me with estimates of when they would even be delivered. commissioner shmeltzer: is this holding up other parts of the community? their failure to submit these products? >> it is holding up whatever
parts of the program that local power might gets rolled then. we can still launch the program without it. we can still have the legislation gets considered in september without it. we have designed the program in a way that -- as we do various methods of build out, we can later those then as those become available. commissioner shmeltzer: how much was the total contract? >> $380,000, i believe. commissioner shmeltzer: have they been submitting invoices? >> i have not seen an invoice for awhile. i would have to double check the precise numbers. i think about $180,000 has been spent. commissioner shmeltzer: $180,000 has been spent and we have not seen it work product in three months. >> that is correct.
commissioner shmeltzer: must be nice. supervisor campos: i appreciate the questions. i think we want to make sure that we get as good a work product as a possibly can. i also do want to acknowledge, though, that my understanding that the puc has been working closely with the consultants and they are monitoring the work. i am confident they will ensure they meet the obligations that are required of them under the contract. absolutely, it is important for us to monitor this. and that we request that the work product be surprised -- provided as soon as possible, so i appreciate the questions. >> mr. campbell touched on most of the items i was going to bring not. beyond the budget hearing,
there'll also be an informational hearing in front of the government audit oversight. that should also be occurring in september. it is tentatively set on september 17 -- september 13. supervisor campos: why don't we open it up to public comment? in a member of the public who would like to speak, please come forward. >> good afternoon. san francisco green party. to kind of dovetail on what you said, mr. chair, i would first say that it's every once in a while i am in contact with local power.
the logjam is not having the financial model ready. it is a concern that things are slow down. we are really glad that general manager harrington decided to stay on until september so we can make sure and wrap this up because it will give us all more time to get everything nailed down. i would also say i think maybe staff might have misunderstood that even though there has been a delay in deliverables, the advocates would still like regular meeting so that we can get some information from local power at least by phone. so that we can communicate in
general about the whole program. we would ask that we go ahead and schedule meetings even if the deliverable is not there so we can hash things out and get the advocates point of view across. commissioner shmeltzer: are you authorized to speak for local power? >> from my contract with local power, i have a different view. i agree that it is a concern that we have had a three-month delay. the thing i really want to get to is the general manager harrington and the puc commissioners have been really strong on cleanpowersf. we finally got a strong local
bailout component integrated into this program -- billed out component integrated into this program. we have been hearing rumors that the commissioner might be replaced on the public utilities commission. he is to be a director in the department of the environment, it is extremely strong on environmental issues and clean energy. with this program for building hundreds of megawatts at stake and with what we have been seeing in colorado and the rest -- and record heat waves, a lot depends on getting this right in san francisco. i would ask the commissioners of this commission, the staff, and anyone watching this hearing on tv, please contact the mayor's
office and asked that we retain this very important environmental commissioner for the public utilities commission said that we can get a clean power sf off the ground properly. supervisor campos: public comment is closed. i do not know if we need to take any action at this point. it is an informational item. >> item number four, presentation of a final report on the voting process, including ranked-choice voting for local offices in the city and county of san francisco. supervisor campos: we have a presentation from jason fried. >> for brevity of time, i will skip over giving a full presentation.
we've got comments back from the public and other folks better interested in this issue. we did do a little bit of an update in the report. you have the final version of the report in your packet for review. i did want to address a couple of the issues that were brought up at the last meeting to help address the questions that were asked. the first one was asked by commissioner pimentel. it addresses the question of the curiosity, how many people were ranked one or two or three people on the ballot? using his numbers, although there was an error in one of his lines. the percent under the rank 3, they are often little bit.
-- those are often little bit. all of the other numbers are pretty close to the correct number. most folks tend to put three people, but not all people do. there was a question as well about it being able to rank more people like portland, maine, does it. their state law and what they do there is they do not release any of the information other than the actual tabulations themselves. you can never look at the ballot images. there is no ability for us to look at any data and be able to -- look at any data. i cannot believe report back anything of good information other than after 60 days, they
destroy all of their ballots. i cannot report any other information than that. we did update a couple of the definitions. i do know there were some comments that came and that were outside the scope of what i was given to work on. some good information, but it gets into the questioning of the analytics of ranked-choice voting. i submit the report to you. if more work needs to be done, you can instruct me to do so. perhaps we forward this report to the department of elections and the elections commission for their review. i would be happy to do so if instructed by the commission.
supervisor campos: do we have any comments, colleagues? why don't we open it up for public comment before we proceed? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i appreciate all the work that has gone into this. i think it will add a lot to the discussion around ranked-choice voting. i would encourage you to explore a few more options. you do have a section on voter turnout. it would be very easy to include voter turnout from september elections used in other cities. that information is readily available. we have already done a brief study on it. since that was -- it seems like including that information in
your report would be of value. of course, you also have reported on over the votes in the elections. but your report only goes up through 2011. we just had a new election in 2012, the june 5 primary, and reports on statewide primaries. the 2012 primary elections, we saw a huge increase in net over vote. in the u.s. senate race, we saw a rate that was four or five times higher than what we have seen for the mayor, for example. particularly in minority neighborhoods, it was even higher. it seems like it would make sense to include that information. that information is readily available. we already produced a report on it.
there has been a lot of discussion about whether or not supervisors and office holders are winning with the majority. it seems to me that you were almost there in terms of producing a report that can respond to this. you just have to do what is called a whole contest analysis. we have done that sort of analysis. they are comparing the first round to last round. they did not compare first-round to last round with rafik systems. if they did that, it is a simple analysis to do, you would see a whole different picture emerging. we have a report that we have done around ourselves. finally, i have another sheet that we have done on looking at things like the number of races
that would decline in the winners of votes. with the runoff, eight out of 14 races, the number of votes declined by quite a lot. that is an easy analysis to do. supervisor campos: thank you. >> i have copies i will leave with you. commissioner shmeltzer: are the reports on the web somewhere? >> some of them are. thank you for the work you have been doing. supervisor campos: next speaker. >> thank you, commissioners. i would like to thank the commissioners and staff on working to produce the reports.
it will inform future discussions on how san francisco conducts its elections. i want to highlight three areas. for voter participation, the metric the report uses is not what most people understand asie effects of low turnout elections inevitable with any runoff system. as a result, the historical comparisons failed to fully reflect the voter turnout. for over vote rates, the so- called multi candidate rate is calculated in a way that is not camp broke -- comparable. those contests have high rates
of under the votes, which are being used to inflate the denominator and reduce the rate reported. a comparable calculation would double the rate and should be included in the report as an alternative to what is there already. finally, the report provides a brief discussion of exhausted ballots. but only for ranked-choice voting. they should be done also for exhaustive votes if the topic is included in the report. giving information only about ranked-choice voting reinforces the misconception that is unique to ranked-choice voting.
a fair comparison with the alternatives would show ranked- choice voting does quite well in this regard. i would encourage you to either provide a fairer comparison or to take that topic out of the report altogether. thank you very much supervisor campos: next speaker. >> good afternoon. i was very thankful to see that all three of the proposed repeals of ranked-choice voting did not go to the ballot this year. i want to reiterate what i wrote in an e-mail to the board of supervisors about to the votes that happened a couple of weeks ago. even the executive branch, even
the mayor's office, it is crucial to have ranked-choice voting because when you have a runoff, even if you had ranked- choice voting before the runoff, you create a situation where big money can dominate and win because all they have to do is get past that 51% mark. the more money they spend, the less likely it is that the voters will decide and money will decide instead. a lot of people reference the 2003 race. what i remember about the 2003 race is because it was a runoff and because there was the threat of a green party member becoming the mayor of a major city,
democratic leadership council in washington, d.c., and everyone of its high-power leaders to shift that vote in san francisco. what i saw in that runoff election was not the people of san francisco deciding whether mayor was, but the democratic party in washington, d.c., deciding who the mayor was going to be. that is what runoffs do. they said to up for a situation mark corporate money and political power dominate an election. -- a sets you up for a situation where corporate money and political power dominate an election. especially when you have these big blockbuster runoffs, nonprofit groups, grass-roots groups cannot handle runoffs. it drains us of money and energy
and resources. we could be using to help fix the budget problems connected more funding to homeless, housing, aids projects, environmental issues. i would like to thank mr. fried for his awesome work on this. i would ask that the lafco give mr. fried's some time to continue to do his work. supervisor campos: thank you. any other member of the public who would like to speak on this? public comment is closed. colleagues, do we have any questions? i am wondering if you can respond to some of the points that were made in terms of adding more work to this report, whether or not he is think that
is necessary. i'm wondering if you have any thoughts. >> i will start off with mr. hill's comments. i lived for the top 20 cities in the united states with a system that had was separated. i could go back and look at that. that is also tied to state offices. since we have our mayor and other citywide office is elected in a separate election, i did not incorporate those cities into this mix. i believe there were three at of the top 20 that have a scenario where there are separated.
if it was the desire of the commission, i could go back and add in all the other cities. i purposely excluded those because i wanted us to be more about a scenario like san francisco, where it is separated completely from everything else. as far as the primary, i was only looking at november of general elections. if you want me to look at the primaries, that would require me to go look at every other primary prior to that. there is a different type of voter turnout, so there is a little bit of a difference there. i do not think it ties -- over votes would be important for education purposes. i am not sure it is exactly there. but if the commission wishes to, i to do that.
there was a comment about first and last round information. i did not want to make a decision. there were people coming at me from about sides. -- both sides. i inc. first-round and final round to allow people to compare the two. i did not want to get in the middle of that discussion. supervisor campos: anything else? >> i understand there were some comments made about how you looked at over votes or how many ballots being cast. i did get an e-mail about some
of the concerns. i did look through all of those. they are not needed for this report. it got away from what i was tasked to do it for the report. i was tasked to look at a very analytical point. why are people voting the way they are voting? that gets away from a statistical analysis. i did not include that information for that reason. i feel that we addressed what we could given the parameters the commission gave me. i have not had a chance to look at what was presented for the final point. it is always something we could do as a supplemental later on. supervisor campos: in terms of the point that mr. fried was
making and you were talking about jurisdictions where they have elections that are tied to statewide offices, do you have any response to that? >> new york city, for example, has september elections and even years and odd years. the election for mayor, for example, there are no federal elections on the ballot. in minnesota, they use september elections in odd years. it seems to me including those is comparing apples to apples. in terms of the state primary, all i was suggesting was using the most recent 2012 data because you are already using state primary. you already have said in the report. it stopped 01