item 63 is four arguments for submitted for the 2010 election. president chiu: the dust has settled on the items we would move forward, so i will ask that we can continue this next week so we can figure out who wants to write to various components and argument. it is my intent that the main proponents -- what i intend to do in working with the clerk's office is to have a version for us to consider next week, at which time we still have time for that to happen. so unless there is any discussion, if i can have a motion to continue, by supervisor avalos, seconded by supervisor mar, so this will be

continued. item 64. madam clerk: item 64, a motion directing the budget and legislative analyst to on this in the fiscal office of public defender. >> this board, the public defender's office, and the budget analyst, the budget, how it relates to the superior court budget, and i think that i mistakenly -- as a budget chaired deferred out of respect for the public defender. we do have openings in our

budget analyst schedule this year, and i know that supervisor alioto-pier is moving forward to look at children's programs in san francisco, and it seems that it may be a good use of our schedule to perhaps once and for all end the debate, the dance of what happens with the public defender's budget every year. there was a response this morning which talks about a review, and i would like to thank our budget analyst for staying around press to and to questions -- around perhaps to answer questions.

how the budget analyst would differ from the reviews with the fiscal audits that the comptroller's office has done. >> mr. chairman, mr. president, and members of the board of supervisors, a comprehensive performance of the defender would consist of reviewing the complete operation of the public defender's -- whether or not they were operating in an efficient manner. there is a difference. i would be glad to respond to any other questions.

president chiu: supervisor elsbernd. supervisors elsbernd: i do not think anyone has raised more issues than i have on this. tw reasons why i think this should be rejected. -- two reasons. truth is, there's been significant review. we have very limited resources. i think if we are going to use those resources, we should use those to focus on those departments that have not had any review. secondly, and perhaps maybe it

should not be raised, but i think it needs be raised, there have been things quoted by members of the board that retribution needed to be exacted against the public defender's office. i do not want to be a party to that. whether you agree or disagree with what the public defender has done, we should not disagree -- should not in any way exact retribution. we all know that is what this is. let's not disabuse our power for a sort of a political retribution. president chiu: supervisor campos? supervisor campos: one of the interesting things about being on the board of supervisors is you never know what is going to happen. chloé against this item in

reference to the public defender, so anything is possible in san francisco. we simply say that i like audits. but that said, i am not sure exactly why it is that this case we're focusing on the public defender. i think that it makes sense for us to look at the number of issues not only with the public defender but among the other law offices, perhaps. but i just do not see the reason to focus on it, so i would respectfully disagree with the author of this. i understand the spirit in which it is done. thank you. president chiu: supervisor daly?

supervisor daly: let me respond to both with the same answer, which is that for eight years, almost every other instance, i have sided with a budget analyst and his recommendations. when it came to the public defender, i come out of deference to the elected official, sided with the public defender over the budget analyst, 98 times up of 100. in terms of retribution, i think where this comes from is that is when you are politically aligned with someone, and supervisor elsberd, the administration, you

oftentimes are deferential to them. there are party-line votes, and you see it in the chambers of the time. who is where, but, typically, on the important stuff, you have a difference, and i am saying that i think i was wrong. and i am not totally sure that i was wrong in budget cycle of the budget cycle, but i think that a management audit would give some clarity as to who is telling the truth. you have an 80-page document from the public defender telling one thing, and you have a 20- page report saying something different. which one is right? they are both not right. i have never called it retribution. it is not to exact revenge on

the public defender. i think we should have more honesty in budgeting. making a mistake and siding with the budget analyst. i have had a relationship with him personal and political over the years. now u.s. realignment -- now you have realignment. we are seeing right now the opposite in terms of revenge being practiced by supervisor elsbernd. i made a mistake, and i think this board made a mistake in minicycles -- in many cycles. kaat disagreed with the head of the public defender's office. -- disagreed.

president chiu: colleagues, the item is before us. madam clerk, an roll call vote. madam clerk: [reading roll] there are two ays and nine noes. president chiu: that is not passed. do we have any in memoriams today? madam clerk: yes, these people.

president chiu: madam clerk, could there be any more business today? madam clerk: know. president to:chiu: we are adjourned.

captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- >> i would like to welcome everyone. we will now have roll call. >> [roll call] >> all right. for the moment i will ask for

public comment prior to workshop? hearing and seeing no one, the waste water system review workshop #6. >> good morning. today we have two workshops. we have a morning session, then there be a break and then an afternoon session. i printed some things out of large size sheets. the fall agenda -- the full agenda and some of the labs that are here that seem so big did not look that big when we printed them out on half size, so i wanted you to have the benefit of the larger size print. so, just to review from the

agenda, workshop runs from 10:00 until noon. we will be walking through the rest of the projects we did not get to on april 27, talking through some of the questions that have come up at previous meetings and responding to them, then moving on to level of service discussions. there will be words on technology from our progress engineering group. we will also talk about the rate of impact. workshop #7 will start in the afternoon at 1:30, where we will talk about flooding, community benefits, climate change, sustainability. at the end of the day there is a potential commission action to endorse the goals and levels of service and that agenda item that has been included in the program. first off, our morning session.

we will start with a quick review of the process we have been through for the last 10 months, talking about the expectations for today. we have about five projects that we did not get to. they are fairly similar and straightforward. there were two other questions. the first is on the sunnyvale area, the sec as on great impact. after that we will discuss the first level of service. to make things easier, in the back of your work book there is a large size worksheet. what it has on it are the goals , and in the next column the associated levels of service, the implementation strategy, and the projects that have been proposed. essentially you can follow from left to right. all of the projects discussed today are part of the proposed

program. but i think of this will help. we have been working from top to bottom in attempting to achieve checkmark agreements on goals for a level of service, which is how the slides are formatted. unfortunately these slides are fairly small. ok, let's get going. this is the sixth and seventh workshop today. we have talked about how the system works, how it operates challenges, differing performances and how we wanted to perform. we have discussed priorities. what has come out of the long term planning process over the last several months. public priorities, commission priorities, staff concerns, and recommended levels of service goals. we spent the last three meetings talking about those. today we have set goals and

levels of service that we can move forward with to get the program moving forward. to review, there are five goals. compliant, reliable, resilience and a flexible system. minimize flooding, benefits provided to impactive communities, modified systems to adapt to climate change, and lastly achieving economic and environmental sustainability. we will move into the expectations for today's workshop. today we are focusing on goals and level of service. really, this is an improvement program and a capital program that is the result of the master planning process that occurred over the last several years,

ruling in all of your concerns and conversations here at the commission, identifying how we will meet the challenges of the future. seismic issues, regulatory, sea level rise. we are not looking for project adoption but more endorsement for th goals of levels of service seeing the program through its 30 year life, guiding us as a plan project alternative and selecting other alternatives. those strategies provide the flow into the future. once again, this is our work sheet. this will be what we are following throughout the day. put together to make it easy so that all of the strategy is linked together with goals, levels of service, and proposed projects. you can essentially follow from left to right.

the source as an improvement report that summarizes the major outcomes of the master planning process, incorporating the work and discussion we have had here at the commission. as well as additional discussions and identification with a greater deal of detail about each goal and level of service. there are great deals of information about systems, regulatory requirements, how the system performs well, talking a bit about ongoing activities. once again, pointing out that the horizon is in 30 years. referenced in the report we point the readers to the technical work that was done during the process. white have -- white papers and technical memorandum's are

available on the web call all rolled into this document. we will be updating the website so that additional studies and analysis are included. so, once again, there are supporting volumes. i have viewed binders of information that will be loaded on. we expect that by friday we will have the technical information available on the web. during the course of our workshop we have discussed operations made mince and our and our. operations maintenance is a daily activity. monthly and annual life of these to keep things running, things like cleaning, flushing, and replacing. we have also talked about already are -- r and r.

what is the frequency we need to keep our capital asset system running? there are also things under there that could be transported through box repair, tunnel inspection, other items that will come from this institution in the future. what i wanted to emphasize is that while we have been talking so much about bill long term, long-range capital program, there will always be a basis. you will see it every year in the budget process. that is the groundwork. we have to do all of that work every year, every day that there is activity. this is different, a capital program with new facilities and longer-term.

just highlight again, probably again later in the presentation, there are three forms of investment as well as major capital investments. those are handled in the annual budget process. we will be returning to the commission to discuss the potential level of service for the program. one thing that affects both ssi p and r and r is asset management. we are trying to look to the future to stabilize life cycle

costs, making sure that we pick the right asset to replace. in a treatment plant, pumps the last 30 years. managing a condominium, each component makes sure you will have maximum reliability. later in the day we will have an agenda item that is drafted for endorsement service. lucky 13 take to that. -- pick that. we are hoping to get approval to move forward on the program. at this point, before i move forward, to refresh discussion of the projects, are there any questions?

>> [inaudible] how is that fought through with regards to the financial fixer? -- picture? >> todd will be looking at that. when we look at the complete business impact we have to consider both and what both would warrant in terms of rate increases or changes. but we have given him projections for the spending. ssip is different because those

are discrete projects that need to be laid out over time. r and r is a more predictable amount of work. in the future we will have other types that relate to the system, like changing of the ponds and other types of things, that is was being programmed into the financial were given to todd. >> i was going to rest a similar question. at the end of the day we will have to figure out how one relates to the other. to do the level of r&r that we think we should be doing will take a lot of money. by the time we start thinking about the impact we are capable of dealing with, it will be in

front of us. today we will have only one piece to figure out how the space out. >> our assumptions that have gone into the modeling, the process being used books every component r&r & -- component of r&r, of laying them out in time and doing escalation where warranted. that is the basis for his work. it is hard to have a snapshot that is out that far for these things in each category. we can come back with that at a subsequent meeting. that is a complete discussion on unsound. >> asset management pieces, are they primarily