we were sort of talking about last time. are we going to be talking about that with lafco and that is why it is appearing on the following -- because i imagine that lafco would have some feelings about that and want to have input on that as well and could help inform what that scope of work should be. so, i guess i would hope that the consultant that we have contracted with in the smaller amount would by lafco meeting at a minimum have something that we can at least a straw man we can talk about at that time so we can make an informed decision that can be informed by some of the board members and lafco for the following meeting. >> yes, if i may. at the lafco meeting we'll be talking about how the pre-enrollment or expressions of interest in the program, how we envision that working and how we envision that working with the statutorily required audithv out.

embedded in that conversation will be a conversation about how do we -- how are we actually engaging with customers or potential customers. * opt out how proactive are we being and with which customer groups, and how more responsive mode we're in with customer groups. because there will be an element, i think, given the size of the program that we're envisioning. there will be an element of us actively engaging with customers, but there will also be customers who will call us up. in fact, we've already had some potential customers call us already expressing an interest in participating in the program. so, we need to be ready to address sort of both levels of customer interest and that will help us shape our pre-enrollment and our statutory opt out portions of our roll out of our plan. i wonder if i may also respond to something you said,

commissioner moran, about the solicitation and outreach. and that you were imagining we would need to make a determination as to the size of the program before, if i heard you correctly, before solicitation and outreach. and i just wanted to say that from our perspective, part of the shaping of the program and the size of the program will be in response to some of the outreach we perform. so, you know, as those prior surveys informed us, we expect that we will need to be talking with potential customers to understand if they're still as interested in the program as they were at the prices we expressed when we last talked to them. now that the board has told us to incorporate the security costs into the rates, now that we're incorporating 20% discount for low-income customers and recovery of those

costs from other customers, the price is going to be higher. and, so, we're going to need to see if those customers are still interested. that will help us decide from a business perspective 20 megawatts, 30 megawatts. that will be one of the data points to help inform that decision. so, some of the outreach will need to occur before we answer that question thoughtfully for you, i think. and make a recommendation to you, i should say. >> well, no, thank you. and i guess i had jumped the gun a little bit in assuming you would want to know ahead of time. in party assume some of the pricing influence, construct you would be serving people with. >> yes. >> but it does get into somewhat circular. >> yes. >> the other thing that does occur to me on that, if we went out with a smaller program and if it turned out that the response was just fabulous, and we had an opportunity to do more than we originally thought, the potential problem we have there is that if we have to go back to shelf for a

second increment of power, there is no guarantee the second increment will be at the same price as the first increment. >> it does not promise the price will be more or less. correct. >> one thing that occurred to me is that because the board has requested that we build into rates a repayment of the reserves, i was wondering if it might be possible to potentially use that increment of rate to either pay back the reserve or pay a price differential if there was one for a second increment of power purchase and have that be a source of funds for second increment if it turned out to be more expensive. [multiple voices] >> i don't know if that's consistent with what the board ordinance says. but if there is room for that, i think it would be interesting to pursue it. >> it does sound interesting. >> it may require another action, though.

>> the language and the resolution from the board indicated that we should recover it, but it didn't indicate the time frame. so, there was sort of an expression of moving towards recovering those rates -- recovering the costs from that customer group. >> i think you and i are concerned about the time frame. >> well, yes. if it is in fact flexible, if you built in that increment in the rates and the intent would be that if the price stayed the same, you would start the repayment of the reserves. if it didn't, then you would simply postpone the repayment of reserves until the next time you set power rates, presumably a year out. >> this kind of discussion needs to take place at lafco. >> right. >> in terms of ferreting out the information. after reviewing the polls, which has been my nature since i was in the legislature, interpreting polling can be very complex and very difficult. and i think commissioner moran just mentioned some of the problems you confront with polling. you get a clear picture, at least a picture of that day

where the voters and respondents are feeling. and i think we may have to do a little more polling in terms of the various groups that are involved here to make sure we can meet the challenges that we have been -- and the burden and responsibility we have been placed with. commissioner, do you have any comments? anyone else? >> thank you. >> thank you. >> that concludes my report. >> it what very, very concise. >> thank you. >> thank you. the boxer report. welcome. >> art, art, president of the commission. members of the commission, first of all, congratulations. it will be fun working with you. >> same here. >> we had -- when he was president, president moran come down and address the board one evening just in september. we won't wait that long. we'll get you down sooner so you can see our board and they can see you. so, congratulations. congratulations, commissioner courtney, on being vice-chair.

and thank you, commissioner moran, for all of your service and your coordination with us. >> i also don't want to leave out the incredible women we have sitting on this commission as well. [laughter] >> they are definitely working. >> y yes, your binder, so to speak. >> i won't go there. [laughter] >> it's been a pleasure working with all the commissioners, let's just say. one thing i wanted to report to you today is we have been working on the prospect of issuing bonds to repay the capital debt. we talked a little about this before. it is a large issuance particularly for us because we never issued bonds before. $350 million in bonds is considerable for even some of our members. and it's been a unique opportunity to work with the bankers and attorneys and all the people that get involved because it's different for them. it's not a vanilla, you've done it before kind of issuance. so, it's been interesting, we've done some creative

things. one of the things i'll be interested in sharing with your staff is how we propose to set the surcharge to collect the revenue to pay the debt service. it's somewhat unique. it reminds me of the conversation we had with todd a couple of years ago, but it's a twist that may help stabilize revenue and make everyone feel good, which is a challenge. stabilizing revenue is important for the bond buyers making them feel good is keeping peace within the ranks of our members. we're also working closely with your staff, gathering information, exchanging information on how the billing might be done and so forth. all that's going well. we met with one of the bond rating agencies yesterday for a preliminary credit assessment. >> what did you find out? >> we'll out what we'll find out later. and their issues of protocol surrounding things like [inaudible] credit assessments. we'll cover those. but we're gearing up for a presentation to our board on

november 15th. your staff will be there. you're invited to attend. we intend to put before them a number of policy decisions related to the issuance of bonds and the allocation of debt service. we also plan to ask them at this time for the authorities to move forward immediately after the first of the year. so, we're proceeding in that timely fashion. we've already requested the member agencies of about resolutions to certify that they're on board with this. it's not a requirement, but it's a good idea. it allows the bond buyers let everyone know they're on board or not. we have even constructed the issuance so that if an agency does not participate for whatever reason and there is no -- no one said they would not, but if they don't get the resolution passed on time because of some bureaucratic hang up, that just shouldn't, shouldn't ruin the deal for everybody else or allow us to [speaker not understood] the market and take advantage of good market conditionses. so, we're trying to think of

everything. i think we have. it looks very promising. hope we will get clear sailing at the board level. we met with the board policy committee last week, which is an advisory committee to the board and to me. we had at times exciting conversation about some of the issues. got through them all and they voted to make recommendations to the board, which i certainly endorse. so, just want to give you a status report on that. thank you. >> thank you. >> any quiz? >> thank you very much, art. looking forward to working with you. * questions moves us to the consent calendar, members. we have some public comment on some of the consent items. >> i will read the consent items. item 9a, approving award contract joc 42 to not exceed amount to 5 million to the lowest qualifying responsible and responsive bidder power engineering.

-- construction company. b, approve an award contract, joc 43 for a not to exceed amount of 5 million to the lowest qualified responsible and responsive bidder synergy project management incorporated. c, approve modification no. 4 to contract ww 5 14 r with nkk construction corporation, completion of contract duration by 120 consecutive calendar days with no change to the contract amount. d, accept work performed by precision engineering incorporated for contract ww 455, approve modification no. 3, increasing the contract by $186,113, with a time extension of 42 consecutive calendar days [speaker not understood]. e, authorize the general manager to [speaker not understood] a revocable grant with mahakari for the use of sfpc land at 1155 junipero boulevard, san francisco, california at a use of $500 per

month. f, authorize the john bradivctionv manager to execute a joint funding agreement with the u.s. geological survey for an amount not to exceed $335,5 20 and with the duration of one year. g, authorize -- approve and authorize the general manager to execute amendment number 1 to extend the term of the memorandum of agreement between the sfpuc and the city of san bruno for project number cuw 301 03. the proposed amendment will extend the term of the agreement for 18 months with no additional funds required. h, accept the work performed by a roos construction company & associates for contract wd 263 4, approve modification no. 3, increasing the contract by 344,118, and authorize final payment to the contractor. i, accept work performed by a ruiz construction company for a total contract amount of 1,9

79,86 6 and authorize final payment to the contractor. * j, authorize and ratify the execution of the extension of the joint exercise of powers agreement with the bayshore sanitary district through december 31st, 2012. k, approve commission appointment to the san joaquin tributaries authority commission. mr. pilpher has -- >> i'll use my time wisely. several items starting with 9e on page 16, the commission office address is still the market street address. i assume that will get updated in the proposed permit. i also found fascinating the lead from the spring valley water company to that certain land in the vicinity of what's

now 19,000 [speaker not understood], the area near ranchero south of, et cetera, et cetera. >> and the fascination was? >> i had heard that the spring valley water company owned some property in southwestern san francisco in the early part of the 1900s and this explains that. there was -- >> you could have called mr. houser and he would have told you. >> mr. houche? in the archive. >> i was at a presentation at the municipal rail ways history that did tie that to michael o'shaughnessy and talked about the establishment of muni and the water system at the same time. so, i thought that was all very timely. just wanted to point that out. on item f, i assume that the hrc form for the waiver of 12 b and 14 b is going to be updated in the future, given the transfer of the contract monitoring function from hrc to

the new contract monitoring division under the city administrator. on item g and actually -- let me go at it one at a time. item g, i would hope there would be a report back on what is found with the additional testing in san bruno and how that relates to the groundwater storage project on the west side. >> a point, mr. richy, is that the usually course of business? >> [inaudible]. >> okay. >> thank you. and on item j, the extension of the joint powers agreement with bayshore, i understand the need for that because it appears that negotiations are ongoing. it would have been better, in my opinion, had that come before the commission before the expiration of the agreement at the end of september. so, if that were possible in the future, i just would prefer not to see retroactive actions like that. and finally, on item k, on the

appointment to the sjta, which i did not even know existed, for bodies like that and other bodies on which members of staff or the commission served, it would be nice to get some periodic report as to what is happening, particularly in the central valley. >> you have a very good website. i've been on it many times. >> really? anyway, it would be nice to get periodic reports on those bodies which we appoint people eitherver through jpa, m-o-u or such other instrument. >> we will request such a report, commissioner moran and make sure the report is detailed and easy to read. thank you very much. otherwise, i'm good with all these items. >> so, you'll be back for 10 and 13, right. all right. any other comments on the consent calendar? chair will entertain a motion. >> so moved. >> moved and? seconded. all those in favor -- is there any further debate? all those in favor signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> opposed? all right, the ayes have it. the report is accepted. and now we move to regular

business, item number 10. >> item number 10, discussion and possible action to adopt the revised san francisco public utilities commission rules of order. >> you're on the docket. >> david again. i just want to speak in you is port. these are good clean ups and thank you for picking up the audio recording item that i suggested last time. >> you're most welcome. any other comments? commissioner moran. >> simply that we considered this at the last meeting and given that these were the rules in order for the entire commission, we wanted to make sure that both the full commission and the new president and vice president advised these are the rules we operate by. i think we haven't made significant changes here. it's really just updating it to current practice. >> i want to thank you for bringing that to our attention. well done. any other comments on item number 10?

>> excuse me, espinola jackson. i'm really not sure [speaker not understood]. but when i see roberts rules of order i get concerned, not knowing what the change is actually going to be. will it be that you will be moving from one area to 5 25 golden gate, all of your services and everything, from the building that you're now in? >> mr. moran. >> the changes are relatively minor, addresses one of them, the order of business that was in the rules of order were changed sometime ago, but we didn't bother changing the rules of order to reflect that. that has been changed. there was a change in law about noticing for rate changes. so, that's been conformed. we don't actually operate by roberts rules of order. we operate by our own rules of

order, which are much simpler. it gives the chair a great deal of authority to do whatever seems best at the time. and we do everything by resolution. and the other question would be whether or not you would be moving your meeting time to 5 25, you know, not meeting here. >> meetings will still be here. >> i think ms. jackson is addressing -- dr. jackson is expressing rule 7 where we had in your rules basically, we had special meetings at 1155 market. we are now moving to 5 25 market or another place -- 5 25 golden gate. >> golden gate, sorry, thank you. 5 25 golden gate or in other places as noticed under rule 9. so, we will not be conducting business at 1155 market any more. okay. number one, i was here last, i made a request of the fact that i would like to see the chc meet in bayview hunters point

because when the chc was set up, it was set up there on phelps street. that's where the meeting took place. and coming even -- coming here, i would have to go to 5 25 golden gate the other day and there is no parking in front of the area. and i called to see whether or not you all had a parking lot maybe where we could park and they said, no way. so, my concern is parking and i knew on market street, i stopped going because i couldn't park. i had to park in the alley, it was really dangerous. but i would like to see that, some of those meetings of the cac come back to phelps street so the people that live in bayview hunters point right where that sewage plant is, it is in bayview hunters point. it's not on golden gate and its wasn't on market street, that they can have meetings where i can attend if nobody else won't attend, i want to know what

they're doing. we do have committees that deal with projects that are going on in my community. and i would like to see some changes made with that, not that all the meetings be held at 5 25 golden gate, but there is no parking. you know, i parked in the white in order for my daughter to go into your building at 5 25 golden gate. and i had my motor running. so, when the police came and he saw i have a blue plate, you know, i said, i'm just waiting for someone to return. and by me being under the wheel i did not get a ticket. so, it's very bad, you know, here even at city hall. it's a shame. it don't have anything to do with you. but the fact that all the parking is for staff and for the supervisors and nothing for the residents, you know, that vote, that have areas to park. and i think something -- i know

you can't do anything about it, but i will later on make some concerns and matters known about the parking around city hall. >> we have to park in the lot across the street, too. you know, that's too bad. you park across there, but [speaker not understood]. >> duly noted, doctor. yes. mr. chair, let me point out to you an agenda item today, number 7. so, i put in my card because i thought it was pretty important that i speak about this item. and now, you know as a chair you have a lot of power now. from the audience i could have called point of order and brought that to your attention. >> you should have din that. no, no, i chose not to do because it would be a disruption. you went on very quickly for

the [speaker not understood] report and the consent calendar. but in the city and county of san francisco, i know you listen to a lot of the committee meetings. it's very important that we have public comment. and it's very important that we have public comment on matters such as this because very often we think that there are thing that go on with lafco and there are things that go on with some of the employees at sfpuc that whatever transpires within those areas is all the information, but there is much more. for example, we had a small committee way back in 2001 when there was no lafco, there was no barbara hill. there weren't a lot of the people here who are talking about cca. but we were the first group, focus group after the state legislation -- because we went

to sacramento and we were aware of that -- to do many things which i wanted to explain. but i'll do that at the lafco meeting. but i just wanted to bring that to your attention and i would very much appreciate here in san francisco public comment is very important. thank you very much. >> absolutely. and i know you have never been shy nor has dr. jackson to come up to the podium. so, please don't be shy in the future. just come up to the podium. i'm very new at this, so, give me some time to get used to the issue. any other comments? all right. item number 11. we have legislative director here, benita fox. >> we need to vote on item 10. >> is there a motion? >> moved. >> second. >> moved and second to adopt the rules of ard. all those signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> all those opposed? motion carries. ms. fox, item number 11, members.

>> item 11, endorse changes to the san francisco administrative code by amending section 14 b.2 to increase contracting opportunities for certified sfpuclbe. >> good afternoon, commissioners. robin fox legislative affairs director for the cup, manager [speaker not understood] provided a quick overview of this agenda item. so, the purpose of this japed item -- agenda item is to seek conditions we would like to propose to the san francisco board of supervisors for our city's local business enterprise lbe ordinance. and specifically, what we would like to do is change the definition of puc regional projects. the context for this proposed change or the context for the puclbe program is that in 2006 as the city was developing the lbe program, we developed the puclbe program to expand opportunities for small business he located within our

regional service area to access construction -- the water system improvement program projects. as you all know, the $4.6 billion program, two-thirds of which is paid for by our regional wholesale customers. so, we felt its was critically importantv that the small businesses located in those areas where those projects were taking place could compete. the program has been very successful in creating that opportunity for regional businesses throughout the sfpuc service area. with the water system improvement program in its later phases of implementation, we would now like to change the definition of puc regional projects to include, one, all regional projects that are cost shared with other jurisdictions. and then, two, any projects that are more than 70 miles outside of san francisco, even

if they're fully funded by city funds. there has been a really robust process in developing these proposed changes. veronica from the civil rights commission who is here today can answer any technical questions, worked closely with general manager carl kelly. and the advisory committee to develop these changes. and, so, we hope that you will endorse them and again, veronica is here to answer any additional questions you might have. >> i would like some public comment. lisa [speaker not understood]. >> i'm glad you guys can see

me. good morning, commissioners. my name is lisa [speaker not understood]. i am the chair for the sfpuc small permit advisory committee. and i'd like to thank you today for this opportunity to be able to speak to you. anyways, we are in favor of endorsing these changes and we hope that you would also see fit to do the same thing. you guys have done a great job in creating opportunities for contractors out there, the larger and the smaller contractors. myself, i'm going to kind of wear two hats here. i'm also a field representative with the carpenters union, carpenters local 152 in manteca in which i cover seven counties. and through this we've had opportunities for our members to work on that project and the several projects you've had out in our area. so, it's been really good in creating opportunities for the smaller contractors, micros, byness contractors and just for all. we've also worked with

community-based organizations here in our community. we just put a lot of local young men and women to work, sometimes coming right out of high school. some kids, -- spareable also here with you who is from the community-based organization out in my area. and it's been a great opportunity for these young kids because sometimes they would otherwise not have the opportunity to go into an apprenticeship program or any others. so, because of this language in which you guys have created out there in this area, you've also brought up to my area because some of the projects have been out there. likewise, we work very closely with brian thomas and iris martin lopez, and veronica. i also have with me mr. bryant thomas who is also the vice-chair on the small firm advisory committee. and with me next to me