S.F. power district may not need Brisbane after all                                             
 	 		 		 		
SFBG News | March 28, 2001
 		 		 		 		
Tale of two cities

By Rachel Brahinsky
 						
San Franciscans can form a municipal utility district even if 
Brisbane voters reject such a plan, according to a legal opinion 
released this month by the state legislature.
 						
Public power supporters say the March 9 opinion, which 
contradicts a prior opinion by San Francisco city attorney Louise 
Renne, could help clear a major hurdle in the creation of a MUD. 
After Renne told city officials last April that a MUD could not 
legally be formed by a single city, MUD supporters included 
Brisbane in their proposed utility district. Renne maintains that 
both cities must vote to approve the district.
 						
But in his opinion, state legislative counsel Bion Gregory writes 
that an S.F. MUD is not contingent on approval by Brisbane. "If 
the voters in Brisbane reject the measure, the municipal utility 
district may be established in San Francisco," Gregory writes.
 						
Ross Mirkarimi, volunteer campaign director for the Coalition for 
Lower Utility Bills, welcomed the development. "With each turn of 
the corner, on the state level and at the local level, we're 
discovering that the ability to form a MUD is more of a reality," 
he said. "The barriers are being knocked down."
 						
CLUB gathered more than 24,000 signatures last summer to qualify 
the MUD proposal for the ballot. On Nov. 6, San Francisco and 
Brisbane voters will weigh in on whether to create the MUD, an 
independent public agency that could compete with PG for the 
region's electricity business. The best-known MUD in the state is 
SMUD in Sacramento.
 						
Renne's office did not return our call for comment, but on June 
29 she sent a memo to the city's Registrar of Voters stating that 
a MUD would be created "only if a majority of the voters in San 
Francisco and in Brisbane vote in favor of formation [emphasis 
added]."
 						
Others have argued that Brisbane's vote essentially could be 
overruled; if San Franciscans voted for the MUD, the new agency 
could then annex tiny Brisbane, even if voters there tried to opt 
out. Some Brisbane officials have balked at the MUD concept 
because of that threat.
 						
"Brisbane did not want veto power over it, [but] Brisbane has 
rights as a sovereign entity," Brisbane mayor Clarke Conway told 
the Bay Guardian. Conway added that he and the rest of the city 
council have not taken a position on the proposal.
 						
Neil Eisenberg, chair of the San Francisco Local Agency Formation 
Commission, which oversees MUD proposals, told us he's seeking 
consensus between all the parties involved – San Francisco, 
Brisbane, S.F. LAFCO, and CLUB. Eisenberg hopes they will agree 
to abide by the legislative counsel's opinion that a Brisbane 
veto would not sink the MUD. LAFCO will discuss whether to enter 
into the agreement at its April 5 meeting.
 						
Meanwhile the San Francisco Department of Elections is still in 
the process of determining the filing fees and other requirements 
for candidates seeking one of the five seats on the MUD board of 
directors, which will also be elected in November. Spokesperson 
Christiane Hayashi told us the department plans to announce its 
official guidelines in mid April. 
						
E-mail Rachel Brahinsky at rachel@sfbg.com [ rachel@sfbg.com] .
 						
[http://www.sfbg.com/searchit.html]