president vietor: yes. commissioner: i think that is part of the purview, not we decided we give money to another agency. if the agency is lacking money, then they should go to the board for more money, a park bond, etc., or if they want to have an opportunity or democracy. >> while i would like to be clear, using the new four of the recreation. commissioner: and let the ratepayers' decide, not a small group of people. >> there are a number recommendations about what should be done with the future of lake merced. there are boaters. there is the pacific rod and gun club represented there as well. the audubon society and the coalition, a number of different folks. things that folks feel pretty strongly about lake merced. everybody's interests are a little bit different. >> are the conversations surrounding this? >> a lot of the focus of this discussion is on agreement, but there are some overarching issues. i think we're making good progress. the amount of fishing that takes place. how it should be pushed in

president vietor: next item. secretary housh: the approval of the minutes of july 12, 2011. >> president vietor: approved? next item. general manager harrington: -- secretary housh: public comment for members of the public may address the commission on matters that are within the commission's jurisdiction and that are not on today's agenda. we have no cards. president vietor: anyone? next item. secretary housh: identifies, -- i no. 5. -- item 5. general manager harrington: -- president vietor: can hold this until commissioner -- can we hold this until commissioner caen arrives? which item? yes. vice president moran? vice president moran: usually, it is a very detailed conversation about how we seek to balance these overtime. we really need to look get that and see what the implication is for rates for both water and on the power side, so i just suggest that we put this so that we can deal with the big issues before we get into the more detailed review of the budget. and then, there are a couple of policies that w

president vietor: they are on the website. [audience member] president vietor: are there copies here? >> they are always in the public folder. there are extra copies on the web. president vietor: i am not sure a truck load, but maybe a couple of copies would begin to puff. -- would be good to have. next item. secretary housh: item number 10, a public hearing and possible action to amend the nomination and election of officers. the first day of october each year. notice of this change was posted according to the requirements on july 8. commissioners, the main purpose of the change in the rules is to recognize that the city charter has a provision which allows commissioners to hold over appointments for a period of 60 days after their term in office expires. as you well know, proposition h changed all of the terms from january to august 1. this would take cognizance of the fact that they could have holdover commissioners at election time. and this would mean that the commissioners would be in office, hopefully, that were going t

president vietor: ok, thank you. commissioner: so do we want to call the vote on that particular item? all of those in favor of adopting item number nine? aye? opposed? and one no. president vietor: next item, please. secretary housh: the next item would be item 13, a discussion and possible action to approve an increase in the preapproved 10% construction cost contingency allocated to the water enterprise. there is a total contingency amount. and authorize the general manager to consider, and if appropriate, to approve modifications to the contract for a total of $105,412,376. >> good afternoon, we are looking to approve contingencies for changes that fall into four different categories, and before i go into that, i should tell you that this project is now 45% complete. we're trying to rehab existing infrastructures. this makes it more difficult. basically, the four categories of changes are site conditions, and those fall into two subcategories, geotechnical. a different condition and what was in the bid documents.

president vietor: right, right. commissioner caen: you have stated here to authorize the general managing to consider and if appropriate to approve. is that not a little wishy- washy? i would like to know the numbers as opposed to "if appropriate." >> the way it works, because you're in construction, decisions need to be made very qckly because of the standby cost a lot of times, the way we work it is whenever we go over the 10% contingency, all of these additional change orders need to get funneled through the general manager, which normally they would not, so that is kind of what that language states. basically by approving these agenda items, you are intrusting the general manager in making a judgment on whether he feels these change orders are justifiable, up to the limit that is sent into this agenda item, and in the agenda item, we describe what the area of these changes are. commissioner: you are asking us to go up to that amount but not to pay. >> yes. president vietor: all of those in favor? opposed? next i

president vietor: thank you. >> good afternoon. it seems to me that there are three discrete issues that are being clustered together. they are somewhat interrelated now. the first is cca and its issues colors, flavors, a renewable build out, that sort of thing. the second is rates charged to other city departments. the third is hetchy cip. let me address those briefly. it does make sense to me intuitively that 100% renewable product would cost more under current circumstances than -- and 18% sounds right. i am not willing to pay another $84 a year for the same power knowing it will be greener. i am not and i suspect other folks are not and that probably goes to the upgrade. what is not clear here is if we had a non-100% of renewable product, how much that would cost. i assume the previous efforts have looked at that. i do not know what the last number on that was. i would assume that is not as high as 18% because it is not constrained in the same way. if that were closer to pg&e rates, you get a higher top generate. you would be a

president vietor: thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. eric brooks. i have been listening in the audience and liking a lot of what i am hearing. this is exactly that -- the discussion we need to be having about what ratepayers will pay and financing for this program. when cca was created, it was never intended to be rolled out at a higher rate than pg&e to ratepayers. it was intended to mitigate that and make that unnecessary by building hundreds of megawatts of local, city on assets that you could amortize the cost of overtime of paying the upfront costs and project over time that you will receive a lot of revenue in savings. that is the discussion. that we have been having with stafford of last decade. especially in our last meeting. it became clear that the discussion is starting to bear fruit. we're having conversations about how the local build out and having a really comprehensive plan for hundreds of megawatts that would be built in the first three years of the program and start feeding into will help the program. off if you look at both the lo

president vietor: thank you. one last point i would make that was mentioned in the water supply memo -- there is not a study to quantify the amount of storm water and rain water we could turn into usable supply in san francisco. that would be another important piece to deal with. that hopefully will be a time line that could be relevant early to mid next year. >> that memo was helpful. it demonstrated that desalination is not the most expensive option by far, which is probably counter intuitive. but it is important nonetheless. any other questions or comments? public comment. >> we have a number of speaker cards. the first would be -- it looks like ms. corwan, then mr. wong, mr. abdullah, mr. brooks. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is hassan abdulla. i work for the east bay m.u.d. i have been project manager for the last few years. we have been studying this project since 2003. san francisco has been one of the original partners. now we have five partners. we are trying to figure out whether desalinatio

president vietor: the commission took no item -- action on item 16. could we have a motion regarding whether to disclose? >> move not to disclose. president vietor: all those in favor? opposed? >> any other items before we adjourn? president vietor: seeing none, the meeting is adjourned. >> with my artists, eight of them are working in tehran, iran, the capital city, and one is an iranian american based in san francisco. the problem is really a collective exploration in the day and the life in tehran. it is the largest city in the middle east. for the gallery, one of the first pieces you see is one piece which is a laser-cut peace, it taken directly from the map of the city itself -- a laser-cut piece. it represents the geography of the city. it is positioned right next to another work by an artist who took a 77 taxicab runs and let the potholes and the city turns of tehran dictate how the city would be portrayed. >> [singing] >> one of the other pieces that to experience in the one-day exhibition is from another artist, a recording of state radio fro

president vietor: i would take it a step further. i do not know if the commissioners would agree. maybe that get calendar or addressed via the legislative affairs folks to figure out the appropriate time and if we need to take some prior action to that in order to maybe not make a recommendation but urged a conversation happens in the spirit of transparency and getting the policymakers on board. >> two things will happen. if you have that joint meeting there will be that kind of discussion. based on the retreat and conversations we have had, we are looking at how we bring the rate package to the rate fairness board and start their process. should you choose to, you could have that repackage go to the board of supervisors. we're starting that to make sure that is available for anybody if you want to use it and if the board wants to use it. commissioner moran: none of this includes the performance bond. >> accept -- we posted a $100,000 bond. it is not faughclear what it -- it is not clear what might be happit might be. president vietor:commissioner >w this piece is out. >> i think

president vietor: how familiar is lafco and/or the board of supervisors with this scenario that the puc is currently in and it relates to cca and the big picture? >> at the committee meetings we have talked about the need to recover more of our costs for hetchy. on the tenure plan looking out, we have to be cutting things substantially and still not breaking even. in fairness, in budget hearings, it is the first year anybody looks at. a conversation about what happens in years three to ten, -- i would say it is not on the top of anyone's list. the discussion of cca having to charge customers more than pg&e, we have to discuss that with lafco. there are people that are unhappy with it. that is the proposal we have. they are not aware of the 19 million appropriation because we have negotiating that and this is the first time we're talking about that. that would be a new item to them at the joint meeting. >> president vietor: we need to have that conversation to really give them a bigger picture with cca

president vietor: ok, thank you. commissioner: so do we want to call the vote on that particular item? all of those in favor of adopting item number nine? aye? opposed? and one no. president vietor: next item, please. secretary housh: the next item would be item 13, a discussion and possible action to approve an increase in the preapproved 10% construction cost contingency allocated to the water enterprise. there is a total contingency amount. and authorize the general manager to consider, and if appropriate, to approve modifications to the contract for a total of $105,412,376. >> good afternoon, we are looking to approve contingencies for changes that fall into four

president vietor: how is the reserve account funded? >> the reserve account will be funded from customers, part of the rate. i will leave the rate and finance questions for mr. r ydstrom, if i may. through our conversations with shell and doing market research, what we have brought back and spoken to you about in the past, we really could be offering renewable power on day one. in terms of the rate premium, it is not so significant for customer preferences. we are heading that direction. >> how does that work? -- president vietor: how does that work? does it involve the grid? how do we know that that is 100% renewable? >> at least for me, when i was a physics major, energy was the most difficult, and water was a lot easier. just like when you have multiple rivers flowing into a central river, you do not know how much which glass of water or wherever it came from, but you know how much is coming in. but the same token, the amounts of energy coming from the system needs to be balanced, and there is a very strict accounting by an independe

president vietor: thank you. >> the board is scheduled to approve that -- that is my point , it is not scheduled. there is some question of whether it might be. secondly, the other issue is, what contact have we had with the rate fairness board that is part of our organization? >> we have not been setting -- >> we have briefed the rate fairness board on the state of the hetch hetchy enterprises' long-term sustainability concern. we have gone through the customs service -- cost of service and all the rage you have developed. that would have been last winter. what is next up for the rate fairness board, after the general terms of the term sheet and a green light from this body would be to update them on nine months of activity for the fund, tell them the terms here, and then go through the average bill impacts as well and the financial pro formas. that would take a process of 60 days for them to hear it delivered on that and prepare a report which would be their opinions and recommendations. commissioner torres: would that include the decrease? >-- increase? >> we have not done that toda

president vietor: i do not know what their calendar is. >> we would be happy to do that earlier. as well as what we know. commissioner torres: the more eyes we have done these decisions, the better decisions we can all make. not only this body but the board of supervisors. commissioner moran: the is the rate fairness board look at one rate at a time or do they look at programs? >> what they have done in the past as they have provided an opinion on the five-year rate increases for water. they have looked at the multi year increase for the public power rates. we would brief them on the four and a half year proposed program for this in the case of cca rates. commissioner torres: on the timing question, we may need to start before we have a final term sheet or anything from cpuc. that program could start out on one level and anticipate increases in future years. i think thei think that the reat we get from the board of supervisors and from the mayor's office on that first year of the program will be a pretty significant indicator on if we can take comfort in that or not. >> i will wo

commissioner vietor is excused from today's meeting. >> i believe that mr. shepherd as a substitute language? >> an alternative language is the redline copy in the folder, paragraph three, just a clarification that shows a significant a larger change in clarifying the understanding of what was said. following public comment and after additional comment, the commissioners address for wholesale customers through 2018 and beyond, there was recognition that the relationship with wholesale customers was contractual and long-term supply issues would have to be dealt with under the terms of a large supply agreement. customers represented by the bay area water supply and conservation agency, under an agreement as to how the short and long-term water supply needs can be met. this changes the post from the vice-president. >> thank you. this was a less formal meeting than most. we were struggling to put together something. if there are any other thoughts on that? and if not, i have a motion and a second. commissioner for me? all of those in favor? >> aye. >> the minute

>president vietor: how familiar is lafco and/or the board of supervisors with this scenario that the puc is currently in and it relates to cca and the big picture? >> at the committee meetings we have talked about the need to recover more of our costs for hetchy. on the tenure plan looking out, we have to be cutting things substantially and still not breaking even. in fairness, in budget hearings, it is the first year anybody looks at. a conversation about what happens in years three to ten, -- i would say it is not on the top of anyone's list. the discussion of cca

president vietor: the commission took no item -- action on item 16. could we have a motion regarding whether to disclose? >> move not to disclose. president vietor: all those in favor? opposed? >> any other items before we adjourn? president vietor: seeing none, the meeting is adjourned. >> the next time you take a muni bus or train, there could be new technology that could make it easier to get to your destination. many are taking a position of next bus technology now in use around the city. updated at regular intervals from the comfort of their home or workplace. next bus uses satellite technology and advanced computer modeling to track buses and trains, estimating are bought stocks with a high degree of accuracy. the bus and train our arrival information can be accessed from your computer and even on your cellular phone or personal digital assistant. knowing their arrival time of the bus allows riders the choice of waiting for it or perhaps doing some shopping locally or getting a cup of coffee. it also gives a greater sense that they can count on