Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    November 16, 2011 11:00am-11:30am PST

11:00 am
bonds. i would like to think the budget analyst for the report. >> a quick question on the qualified energy conservation bond. can you tell us how the federal tax credits were there? >> the way that they work is that they are allowed a 7% reimbursement for the issuer. this is to reduce the effective cost of borrowing. this is the current vintage of the tax credit bonds. >> thank-you. if we don't have further questions at the moment, let's go to the budget analyst report. >> on page 6 of the report, regarding this file based on the federal subsidy, the total estimated debt over 16 years is
11:01 am
9 million, 150,000. this includes the estimated interest costs, and the estimated principle of the $8 million. regarding the other file, on page 8 of the report, similarly based on the subsidy, the total cost over 60 years would be $7 million, including the estimated total interest cost -- with a total principal cost of 6,600,000. we recommend that you approve both of these proposals. >> thank you very much. why don't we open this for public comment? and other members of the public
11:02 am
who wish to speak on items #8 and no. 9? >> good morning. i would like to oppose all resolutions, for the same reasons i oppose these two, for item number two. there is no need to repeat that. we're talking about $16 million, i am surprised there are not that many people here to question the spending. it is boring to read over what happened in harrisburg, pennsylvania and jefferson county, alabama. i am learning a lot by examining these situations. we're going to allow $15 million to be approved with just a few
11:03 am
comments being said, and i look around in this room, and it is discouraging that no one else is coming here to comment about $15 million. in the spirit of occupy san francisco, i am the only one who will speak out against -- opposing $16 million. the biggest evidence to support what i have just said is that even walter does not think that this is interesting enough. >> thank you. and are there other members of the public who wish to speak on these items? public comment is closed. just a question, with regards to the investment that we're looking at, with the proposals
11:04 am
to these headquarters, it also wondering, we are making an investment to find solar energy, for the energy consumption at these buildings. we're not looking so much into the solar panels and the construction. >> this has been effects, having electric generation, locally. there are the other distribution costs. solar panels on top of city hall allows for us to have a very efficient cost or service. this will be more expensive on the kilowatt issue. where this benefits both people
11:05 am
of san francisco and system reliability, they have the complementary form of generation, to complement the hydro-electric facilities. so this is really the best that we can get right now, based on the mix of energy that we have in keeping with the standard of being green, and as affordable as possible. >> in terms of the city government usage of electricity, do we exceed this capacity? >> we would have to purchase the electricity. we have had a great deal of rainfall and we have had extra hydro-electric energy that we were able to send to the market to create revenue.
11:06 am
we have some surplus, but in the typical year, we have to buy and we will benefit from this. and in the drought years we will benefit from having our own reliable, renewable energy in the city. >> thank you. we have opened this item for public comment. and these two items are before us. we have a motion to send these items forward with recommendations. item number 10. >> the existing contracts between the city and county of san francisco with the department of elections, for an amount not to exceed $400 million. >> thank you very much. >> the resolution today is a
11:07 am
two-part resolution. the current voting system on the contract, this is a four-year contract. this allowed for two one-year extensions. there is a second question for the board to consider. i request this beyond the one- year extension. we purchased the system in 2008. this was in april 2005. it took this long to execute the contract, and when we used this
11:08 am
system for the first presidential primary in 2008. the purchase of the system was nearly $9 million. we are now renting mess. we bought most of this, and the purchase of the equipment was by mostly the federal and state grant funds. the actual equipment purchase was not from the general fund. this was basically free to the city. in my thinking, for us to have a four-year contract for a system costing $9 million is probably not the best place for the city. it makes sense for us to exercise these options so that, additionally we can extend out for three years, to go through
11:09 am
the selection process, and the contract talks. the one thing about this system, it is the only system in the country that can run this system. there is nothing out there to replace the current system. the current vendor has a system includes the rank-choice voting, for this process. the system that we have is what we can use for san francisco the system that we bought only four years ago.
11:10 am
i asked for the board to approve this option, contract the us for an additional three years. i don't know of any other funding source and no one has come forward to say that the money is available for new system. >> can i ask a few questions? but the conversation that we will have, many of us are wondering if we should do this, and if this fits into what we are trying to do. we actually purchased the system and own the equipment that we got with the investment of $9 million about four years ago. it makes no sense to buy this and equipment for $9 million,
11:11 am
and use it for four years and then toss this out. there could be a couple of scenarios planned out. this may completely go way, or we could have the rank choice boating, from what this is now. if we would approve this extension, how will we deal with this? we can turn off the module but if we tweak the system, how would we be able to manage this if we approve the contracts -- >> we have the existing agreement with the vendor, to provide the choice, and if the
11:12 am
contract is expiring, i don't know if we can continue with redeveloping with the process at the state and federal level, to bring this to the city for us to use this. we can have the contract in place to modify, which would potentially limit the motivation for the vendor to make these changes. >> with regards to the machines that we currently have, they are certified for us to run the election results. if we had to purchase a new system, we would have potentially higher standards that -- than currently exist. >> the current system is the 2002 standard, this was when the
11:13 am
testing requirements took place. i think by the time they announced this -- this takes care of the testing for the voting systems. and now this is the 2005 standard. this system would not pass the testing requirements. we will not purchase our own system back. we would not have the earlier testing cert. the 2007 requirements, this has not gone into testing or even -- we're looking in a situation where this system -- this is certified with the older standards but we have the current agreement with the vendor that will let us make some changes to the system.
11:14 am
>> supervisor? >> i just want to make this very clear. if, the voting is no longer utilized in the voting process and we turn this off with the machines, is there a potential reduction in the contracts in the future? >> there is a $70,000 license fee that we pay, annually, and if rank-choice voting goes away, we would not pay $70,000 for 2012. the other costs are not dependent on this, and so, they identify specifically now. >> there is the wrong choice
11:15 am
component with the dominion? >> we pay up front, to bring this component into the system. >> only dominion is able to work with what we have now. >> the only software license that they have. this was the first vendor in san francisco that ran this by now they do not do rank choice anymore. >> thank you. let's go to the budget analysts report. >> on page 5 of our report, under the first alternative, to extend the existing agreement by two years, the total cost will be $2 million, and similarly under the second alternative, to extend the agreement by five years.
11:16 am
the recommendation is detailed on pages 7 and 8, and the recommendations do not consider the impact of the pending rank choice charter amendment. we recommend that you approve the first alternative, with the recommendations that were made on page 7. to extend the agreement through two years. we consider the approval of the second alternative, with the recommended agreement on page 8 of the report, to extend this by a total of five years to december 10, 2016. we consider this to be a policy decision because these did not provide for the additional agreement.
11:17 am
>> thank you. let's open this item for public comment. and other members of the public who wish to speak on item number 10? public comment is closed. the item has heard public comment and is now before us. >> before coming into the budget committee i was going to request an amendment, for one of these extensions but after hearing this, i feel comfortable presenting the 21-year extensions. i understand the rationale with the equipment having been purchased, to extend this three years but i would like the flexibility of coming back to the budget committee, knowing what will happen so we have all the alternatives open to us. i would like to hear from my colleagues about how they would like to move forward. >> i appreciate these comments.
11:18 am
i do think that your recommendation is a good one. we should exercise this option. given the large investment in the equipment, and depending on what the system looks like in the future, we would like to make certain that we keep this investment, and we're not finding a new system if we don't need to. i don't think it hurts to have this item come back to us once we have a little bit more certainty about the voting, and with the requirements may look like if there are any changes. i would support moving forward with the two years, and this option to go forward and holding off on the decision with the additional three years. >> and is there any additional comment? >> do we have the motion to accept the recommendation, at least the first recommendation
11:19 am
to exercise these options? >> there are several technical amendments that we have made, and they are all listed on page 7 of the report. >> just to articulate what these are, regarding the proposed amendment, to amend the proposed resolutions title, for an amount not to exceed -- and to extend the contract through 2016, to oppose this -- to replace this language for an amount not to exceed -- to extend the term of the contract and it indicates to amend the resolution on page one, at a cost of 2.26, with the exact value of 2.264.
11:20 am
and can we take this without objection? the amendments? and then, just to the city attorney with regards to the city amendments, are these substances? with the items recommended, can we move this forward? we will do so. and are there any other items before us? thank you very much, we are adjourned.
11:21 am
11:22 am
>> i have been a cable car grip for 21 years. i am a third generation. my grand farther and my dad worked over in green division for 27. i guess you could say it's blood. >> come on in. have a seat. hold on. i like it because i am standing up. i am outside without a roof over my head and i see all kinds of people. >> you catch up to people you know from the past. you know. went to school with. people that you work with at other jobs. military or something. kind of weird. it's a small word, you be. like i said, what do people do
11:23 am
when they come to san francisco? they ride a cable car. >> california line starts in the financial district. people are coming down knobbhill. the cable car picks people up. takes them to work. >> there still is no other device to conquer these hills better than a cable car. nobody wanted to live up here because you had to climb up here. with the invention of the cable car, these hills became accessible. he watched horses be dragged to death. cable cars were invent in san francisco to solve the problem
11:24 am
with it's unique, vertically challenged terrain. we are still using cars a century old >> the old cable car is the most unique thing, it's still going. it was a good design by then and is still now. if we don't do something now. it's going to be worse later. >> the cable cars are built the same as they were in the late 1800's. we use a modern machinery. we haven't changed a thing. it's just how we get there. >> it's a time consuming job. we go for the quality rather than the production. we take pride in our work and it shows in the end product.
11:25 am
>> the california line is mostly locals. the commuters in the morning, i see a lot of the same people. we don't have as tourists. we are coming up to street to chinatown. since 1957, we are the only city in the world that runs cable cars. these cars right here are part of national parks system. in the early 1960's, they
11:26 am
became the first roles monument. the way city spread changed with the invention of the cable car. >> people know in san francisco, first thing they francisco, first thing they think about is, let's go francisco, first thing they think about is, let's go tick. tick. tick. tick. tick. tick. tick. tick. heat waves. massive heat waves. tick. severe droughts. tick. tick. tick. tick. tick. tick. devastating... devastating hurricanes. tick. tick. tick. tick. tick! tick! tick! tick! tick! tick! our future... tick! tick! is up... to you. tick. go to while there's still time.
11:27 am
>> welcome to "culturewire." today we are at recology. they are celebrate 20 years of one of the most incredibly unique artist residency programs. we are here to learn more from one of the resident artists. welcome to the show, deborah. tell us how this program began 20 years ago. >> the program began 20 years ago. our founder was an environmentalist and an activist and an artist in the 1970's. she started these street sweeping campaigns in the city. she started with kids. they had an exhibition at city
11:28 am
hall. city officials heard about her efforts and they invited her to this facility. we thought it would coincide with our efforts to get folks to recycle, it is a great educational tool. since then, we have had 95 professional artists come through. >> how has the program changed over the years? how has the program -- what can the public has an artist engage with? >> for the most part, we worked with metal and wood, what you would expect from a program like ours. over the years, we tried to include artists and all types of mediums. conceptual artists, at installation, photographers, videographers. >> that has really expanded the program out. it is becoming so dynamic right now with your vision of interesting artists in gauging
11:29 am
here. why would an artist when to come here? >> mainly, access to the materials. we also give them a lot of support. when they start, it is an empty studio. they go out to the public area and -- we call it the big store. they go out shopping, take the materials that, and get to work. it is kind of like a reprieve, so they can really focus on their body of work. >> when you are talking about recology, do you have the only sculpture garden at the top? >> it is based on work that was done many years ago in new york. it is the only kind of structured, artist program. weit is beautiful. a lot of the plants you see were pulled out of the garbage, and we use our