the implementation strategy the reagan -- implementation strategy. >> as long as we do not go to a five-year storm. good >> everybody thinks they understand what that means. >> any further question? any other public comments? seeing none, i thank you. >> i will move that amendment. >> there is no issue with the amendments? >> second. >> there have been questions called. all those in favor of adopting its, say aye. ayes have it. >> i have a question. in item 13, it says beginning

in 2003. >> i am told that is in the report. i think the history goes by further for some of us when we recall it being put together. it was cut, and the needs we are talking about were not so drastically different from what we were looking for in 2001, and it got cut, so your history is correct. that would have been the baseline proposal. >> it is for 1999 or 2000. it probably started 10 years

before that, too. >> thank you. we receive all your checks. i want to thank the public for showing up. i think we can take this to the information stage. >> the next item is approval of the regular meetings of the meeting of june 22 and the special meeting of july 9, 2010. >> i will take a motion to except acce -- accept a and b. >> second. >> any public comment on those minutes? hearing and seeing none, all those in favor of item 14? >> aye. >> ayes have it.

any public comments? seeing none, off to item 16. >> item 16 is communication. >> the commissioners have received electronic copies, and if they wish a copy, they can be provided. and events calendar is also available, and if there are any changes, a comment can be made now. >> any colleagues on 16? >> i do not think i got a copy. >> [inaudible] >> it was a black-and-white copy showing the inspection. >> were we going to go through some of it? is that what that is for?

>> you say the great thing was the semi annual inspection report? >> 0, that. >> i got that, yes. >> we will take a moment to look at that and ask any questions. >> is there a part of this? this is inspection. >> under paragraphs c, we have

an odor control report. is there an odor control report? >> we have never done one other than the ones shown today. we can certainly include that. this is the inspection and replacement. >> why don't we work on this and get back to you? >> and the other questions? -- any other questions? >> do we have the funds to inspect from last year? >> the question was do we have the ones from last year?

>> 2010-11. >> that is what we were expecting. this is part of the sewer assessment. we are including it as part of the 219. >> my question is do you think the goal can be reached. >> we have reached every goal for the past two years. the reason i say that with confidence is we will have the equipment. the others are on their way. they will help us with this work. we will get them. anything else?

>> thank you. >> is there anything else on that? other commission business? >> the state water resources board issued a report. >> is the microphone on? >> the state water board issued a report, and i would like a staff assessment of that report and what implications there mayb be. >> we will do that. >> any public comment? hearing and seeing none, we are off to the next item. >> the next item is a report of the general manager, should he have any thing. >> just too quick notes.

-- two quick notes. if you recall from the joint meeting, we talked about having it by the end of the month. they asked us to delay that. they are having an additional meeting, and they wanted to take a look at our draft, so we delayed issuance. we were hoping to get that out next month should we have anything substantive. the other item that was alluded to, but if i can ask for you to have a little more detail. >> just a brief slide i have prepared, are good streak continues, so the news i mentioned earlier? -- so the news i mentioned

earlier -- we did get good borrowing rates. we are locking in as much as we need. it does mean that being able to get these low rates, $437 million -- what that means is over that time, it is $105 million in savings. we issued tax-exempt, and we refunded what averred that we have outstanding, and every time we sell bonds, we looked at every other bond we have outstanding.

this is a payment of $2.7 million of the 135, so it is very good. j.p. morgan bought all the tax- exempt at $103 million. it was 2.35%, and then bankamerica merrill lynch bought the direct pay subsidy bonds under the recovery act. we will next be in the market for the waste water.

we will be doing an energy von for the prize. congratulations. >> even though it is a market force, is there any way to communicate that to the general public? >> we have not concluded that. it has been discussed with our wholesale customers. >> these are important facts the public ought to know. we had this discussion about waste water. thank you for this. this is tremendous. >> we are taking this to heart with what was requested on measures of the effectiveness,

so the popular report we have yet to see a draft copy of it, but we are getting closer. this is one thing to communicate about the next 30 years. that concludes my report unless you have questions. >> thank you. it takes a general manager. >> we have no speaker cards on the report, so the next item would be 19. >> good afternoon. sorry i missed your retreat. we had a chance -- a chance to chat about it. i am sorry to tell you i do not think we won. i finally got away.

i also left nicole in charge of one of our most important board meetings were they considered the project, and the board did approve the $2.3 million study it. we have a three phase approach, and this is the first step of the second phase. the third phase is implementation, actually building things water comes out of, so we are very pleased. she did a good job. we are moving forward quickly. on the bond sale, that was a report made at the last meeting, and it has kept us up to speed with that, and it is good news, and good news is in short supply, so if there is a way to get that out, that would be a lot of us read with interest the article that

appeared -- that would be a lot of good. the article appeared, and i am not concerned working with other studies that are regionwide. i am not concerned with the quality. i think it is appropriate. however, i do expect concerns, because i want to get more facts. i will speak to the staff to make sure i am up to speed. i will make sure there are things you can copy so we can send those out to the directors. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> i will answer one question the reagan pacific northwest is

where we went. -- i will answer one question. pacific northwest is where we went. >> any public comments? hearing and seeing none, we are off to the next one. >> all matters listed here are considered to be redeemed by the san francisco public utilities commission and will be acted upon by a single vote of the commission. a, ratify the declaration of energy made by the general manager. b, approve the catalog, general construction. c, accept work performed for water enterprise water system improvement for the pump station

upgrade, approve modification, a decrease in the contract and increasing the contractor ration -- contract duration. d, except work performed by construction, installation for stanford heights and sunset systems, approve modification # one for the final contract, decreasing the contract and authorize final payment. c, approve the water main replacement insulation of stations for steel pipe water mains for the responsive better

-- bidder. the contract of various locations for sewer replacement and pavement renovation to the lowest responsive bittdder to replace the unspecified streets. g, approve the plans and specifications awarded wastewater enterprise capital improvement program funded and renewal and replacement program funded, south would way and pavement renovation to replace the existing sewer and street pavement. 8, construction company for

waste water enterprise renewal and replacement program-funded contract for a total contract amount of $927,674 worth of total contract duration and authorized final payment. accept work for waste-water renewal programs, howard st. for approved modification and for adjustments to actual quantities used, decreasing the contract for the time extension to allow for complete work due to unforeseen side conditions of low pg&e to relocate their facilities and authorize final claimants -- payment.

j, the replacement contract not to exceed $2 million $698,125 -- $2,698,125. necessary to implement the water improvement projects, not to exceed $25,000 for the properties adjacent. >> and a public, but instead of a hearing and seeing none, on the consent calendar, item 20 a through k. the you want to pull a and b.

>> second. >> we are going c through k. all those in favor? ayes have it. >> 20a reminded me of an old request i have four reports -- for a report about making assignment of contracts in emergency services, and i believe that was well under way to completion, and i would renew my request for that.

month ago, and it slipped throu gh the cracks. >> thank you. >> obviously, if it generates additional hearings, we would like to know. >> and we are really going to our choice of contracted methods of the work. we had 1 bidder, and as i understand it, there is specific knowledge of dealing with the

controllers for the turbines. a couple of things. the work was all pretty well- known and defined work, and the kind of work i would normally expect we would put out a straight bid. second is the grouping of the governor work and protective relay work a problem? should we have split that into 2 so they have the specialized skill to bid on that, but once it passes the relay, it is instructive? >> the first part, one of the advantages is you can identify the scope and utilize the contract over a 3-year period, and ou don't have to -- for

convenience, but as far as committing the money, it is $400,000 -- a lot more efficient. it could be that you could do that and probably get bidders online. i have to defer to steve on that. this is a very small pool of contractors that do this kind of work within the industry. only 3 proposals to do this

work, and we have outreached with a number of them. in this case, the only one is local, in sacramento. this is a small niche market without many people. there are not a lot of us. i think if we broke it up we would find the same bidders would do more with others. >> the concern i have is that i understand the flexibility, and that is something that has not always been with us, and that is relaxing the process against a

more competitive environment. i want to make sure we don't abuse the privilege, and where it makes good business sense, we should do it. i am prepared to support this and keep it moving, but that's something where i want to make sure the staff is paying attention as we go forward. it's a matter of paying attention to the issue and making decisions consciously. with that discussion, i will support both of you. 20-a and b. >> moved and seconded. i want to echo the comments.

thank you, steve for each question and how it was answered. >> seeing no public comment, all in favor, please say aye. ayes have it. next item. >> item 21. discussion to authorized the general manager for applicants on behalf of the puc to authorize the use of portable water supplies. >> another mindreading test. evidently this one did not go through. [laughter] i will have to work on my

technique. i asked earlier for information on various projects, and that is somewhere in the works an fhopefully will emerge. i asked about the dollar cost providing that, and for the commission reference, and and i can are criminals of the -- a

benchmark. the question for you, putting together -- cost is you had a couple with pretty high numbers here. jefferson off the plaza. what was the thinking that was included? >> we are going forward as part of park improvement projects, even if they aren't the most cost-effective in terms of water. this has come back through the board, and we talk about evaluating how good they are. there is one that is not in here, and that one --

>> the cutoff is somewhere south of 17,000. >> definitely south of 17,000. >> ok. and we did a study 2 years ago now with 10 parks. what could you do differently in those 10 parks that would make a difference? ni this program, we ended with them asking us for certain parks to be prioritized. we are hoping to get rec park kinds of things, and since the first year they only got 120,000