government someone who is necessarily weak and ham -hamstrung and lame duck when the which will evening, certainly coming from the crisis and the tragic events here in city hall, with the assassinations of the mayor and the supervisor, certainly those were times that called if strong leadership. while we're not coming out of that kind of tragedy, i think that -- that the crisis -- of our time that supervisor avalos has -- has brought up and injested in the discussion and brings up in most of our discussions here in terms of the budget crisis, in terms of a

very -- i think -- i think potentially of a mill crisis, not just in terms of this here in san francisco but in terms of what is happening across the country, which we -- we saw reflected in the mid term elections. what happened at the state level with the election of jerry brown and what potentially is happening. i think if you look at proposition 26's passage and what its implications are, i think supervisor elsbernd talked about -- talked about the -- the -- post employment benefits situation. if you take a look from any angle, we are in a crisis situation. i think to just appoint a caretaker mayor, like the san francisco examiner owned by the hearst in 1978, said about the same subject, it would be a

colossal mistake. i notice the supervisors over the last 10 years has done significant work to talk aboutualancing the power between a very strong mayor in terms of the coffman charter and this board of supervisors. for me, i think -- when i think of a strong mayor, i'm not thinking of strong and -- in comparison to the board of supervisors, because i would really like to see a mayor that that does more with the board and shares more decision making with the board of supervisors. i don't think that's necessarily what make a mayor strong. is putting another branch of government in a electorate position from where they are. i think a strong mayor can work with this board and the

resources of the city to address these challenges. for me and the city of san francisco, i want to see the challenge addressed in the most compassionate way possible, not in the most progressive or the most conservative way, the most cam passionate way possible. even in my movement on the progressive side, there is not necessarily union nimity on this question. i think for those that are struggling, we heard it in public comment last week, as someone said they're on unemployment and looks like the benefits aren't going to get extended. i think that's real. that's real stuff. the foreclosure crisis. that's real stuff. i want to see these kinds of

things, high -- high up on the next mayor's agenda. i don't know that we need to to have multiple hearings right now. i want to have at least one. i would like the opportunity to hear from my colleagues about what they want to see in the next mayor of san francisco. i think it is -- we're all not going to agree. the previous conversations -- makes that -- that -- that very clear if folks watching didn't already know. we're not going to all agree. we're not all going to agree on a fame, we're for the all going to agree on the values or what reasonable doubt basis of the decision that we're about to make. we might not agree on any of it. i think we owe it to the public and we owe it to this city to discuss it and have it in the

open. so they know where the decision comes from and what the motivations are. thank you supervisor daly and president chiu. >> i want to start off by saying, i actually agree with supervisor daly that today is probably not that time to have that public hearing. i do think it makes sense for us to hold a hearing and hear from the public on criteria that the public believes ought to be considered in our decision as well as if colleagues want to discuss that happening. we have a motion whether we should convene as a city as a whole to discuss taking nominations and appointing a successor mayor, i think the fact it is given the tuesday before thanksgiving and we don't have consensus and there are concerns about -- about whether

we can make a binding sdegs before january 4th, it probably doesn't make sense for us to move forward as a committee as a whole, i support supervisor daly's point about needing to have that conversation out of the spirit of engaging the public in a traps parent way for guest input. with that, back to the chair. >> thank you. mr. had president, supervisor daly. no. okay. colleagues, we have a motion in front of us that we set as a committee as a whole. any discussion on the motion or vote? we'll vote on the motion. roll call vote. >> on item 34, supervisor avalos.

>> before i vote on it, could i make a statement? i'm actually >> under the board rules we don't interrupt roll call as i've been advised. >> well -- >> unless we want to vote and then you want to make a statement afterward, i think that would be appropriate. unless we want to suspend. why don't we move to suspend? the roll call vote. no objection, back to the debate. supervisor avalos? >> to continue with my shakespeare theme, it is called on sick of heart and -- i would like to continue there discussion to next time we meet. i'm really in the in the mood to continue at this -- at this time right now. i have an interest in coming to a decision but i don't think we're going to come to it today.

is it possible to amend the motion to have a -- it brought back on december 7th? >> you're making a motion to amend the motion? >> amend, continue -- >> can i move to continue these items until the next meeting on december 7th? supervisor daly made a motion to continue this item to december 7th and any additional discussion, supervisor elsbernd? >> i move to table the item. >> excuse me? supervisor campos? >> motion to table it undebatable. >> any roll call vote on the motion to table? >> supervisor elsbernd who was

the second? elliot. on the motion to table, avalos? no campos no. chiu no supervisor chu aye daly no dufty aye elsbernd aye. commissioner mar: no maxwell no mirkarimi no el al yote toe pier eye. four eyes and seven nos. motion to table failed. now to take the motion. >> the motion to continue this item to the 7th. any discussion? any discussion. supervisor campos. commissioner campos: i voted no against the motion to table but i believe we need to come back

to the item later. i know that most of us feel exaste i do -- exhausted about -- i mean, give it everything -- given everything that happened today i don't think it makes sense for us to go down the road today of taking nominations. . yeah. so i think that. that makes sense to do that. >> supervisorance bernd. >> okay. the motion to continue this item, supervisor alioto pier. >> can we continue this item, it does have a date on it. about >> it was amended to. >> i don't remember it being amended. >> supervisor daly would you like to restate your motion to amend motion? >> then i will move to amend the item for december 7th date and continue to that date. >> i'll restate my second. >> motion has been -- manages to

continue. okay. the clerk is reminding me we haven't called item 34. why don't we call item 34. >> we haven't called 26 and 27. >> excuse me, 25 -- >> we can't call them until we decide what to do on this motion. so first thing, you call item 34. okay. and sprf daly first made a motion to aamend the motion and sit as a committee as a whole on december 7th potentially. colleagues with can he take that without observe objection. without objection that is amended. to continue to december 7th, why don't we take a roll call vote? >> avalos aye campos aye chiu aye chu aye daly aye dufty aye

elsbernd aye mar aye maxwell aye mirkarimi aye pier aye. there are 11 eyes. this will be continued until december 7th. madam clerk -- any items for today? >> we have three memories. the meeting will be adjourned on behalf of supervisor dufty, francis coleman, and jerome and fred bowlharper. >> any business in front of the board. sn >> that concludes our business. >> at this time we're adjourned, happy thanksgiving, everyone.

president vietor: good afternoon, i like to call the meeting of the san francisco public utilities commission to order. >> [roll call]

the entire commission is present, madam president. president vietor: of like to welcome -- i would like to welcome commissioner torres to the commission. >> approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of november 9, 2010. >> second. president vietor: all those in favor? next item. >> members of the public may address the commission on matters within the jurisdiction and not on today's agenda. president vietor: welcome, mr. decost. -- decosta.

>> i like to go over a little history of the bond measure, and i will send the general manager, i will send you some of the information that i have going back. i could start a long time ago, but let's start with diane feinstein. they affected the water department and the san francisco public utilities system. having said that, you know that we have the water system improvement project. there were a number of workshops, and they were all good. from time to time, i have come over here and i speak about a few issues. there are others, like

[unintelligible] they don't come, and i don't know why. i have been coming to keep the fire alive. in 2010, because of the economic situation not only in this nation, but all over the world, china, india, russia, brazil. we have to look at our resources in a different way. on this commission we do have commissioners to understand that. they must not forget that. we are very fortunate that we can pass an initiative and have

a $600 million bond measure. we have to think about it. finally, let me remind the commissioners that i brought the first people over here. i will bring them again. we have to remind ourselves that for thousands of years, we preserve the waters. it is our moral duty -- i know some of the commissioners are for conservation and sustainability. it is our duty to do the right thing. whether it is clean water or waste water, it is all connected. [chime] thank you very much.

i am off to the board of supervisors who are trying to do something over there. president vietor: thank you. >> we have no other speaker cards. president vietor: next item, please. >> the commissioners have seen received copies of all of the communications listed in the summary, and this is also the time that any commissioner might make a request regarding any items on the advance calendar as well. president vietor: commissioners? comments on communications for the calendar? many members of the public like to comment on this item? next item. >> any new business items that would like to propose at this time? >> i do.

there was a piece about water transfer. this is regarding the project, and the transfer. how would we be involved in that? >> the way that we would be involved in that is have a wholesale supplier, in this case, one of the developments being developed as apparently obtained a purchase agreement with a family in the county area that has received water from the state water project. the water could make its way to the public oppose the

development by transfer or exchange with a state water project contractor. there are a couple in our district. we share common customers with them. if either one of those were to have an exchange, then they would have to transfer a portion of their supply to the city of redwood city. they would have to provide more water to a common customer and they would transfer supply to redwood city. there is a line in the water supply agreement that says if customers wish to obtain water, there is a very limited role in determining if it is possible to move out water into the

customer that is the receiving transferee. the phrase is, not to reasonably withhold approval. it is very much, can the plumbing work? >> but it would be an even exchange. >> that would be correct. president vietor: thank you. any other business? hearing none, next item. >> the report of the general manager. >> before we get items on the agenda, there are a couple of things that i thought i should mention. the water system improvement program regional construction program has achieved 1 million

facebooking hours. it is really stunning. about 1 million save hours and includes the shutdown of the coast range tall and includes work on 17 projects in the region. it is a good mark that we should celebrate. safety has always been important to us. we have safety requirements in all of our contracts, but the contractors have really embraced this, really working as partners to make sure that all of the web sites are safe. the puc will start to recommend a state -- recognize safety achievement. we will be displaying banners and we will be presenting a project milestone to all of the people working on the projects.

this would not happen without our construction team headed by [unintelligible] in particular, the sfpuc and wsip construction oversight team. they stand to be recognized. [applause] president vietor: on behalf of the commission, i would like to think the general manager and the staff for this milestone. congratulations on behalf of the commission. >> the second item is less of the happy item. one of the press concerns was about the lease is that we have. we immediately went to the

comptroller's office and asked them to start scheduling transactions. so far, we have two audits that have been issued. their comments like, they did not report their revenues when they were required to. overall, the audit comments has said that the sfpuc does not adequately administered provisions of our leases. they have not uncovered any fraud, but in today's ottawa, the audit was covering the years 2004-2008. the title of the audit is -- resulting up to $635,000 with potential underpayments and other recoveries.

in their report, they have comments like misreporting the royalty rate return. they used an incorrect methodology, underreported company sales, incorrectly did not take groundwater testing costs. they owe late fees and interest on royalty payments. it also concluded that the puc made lease decisions that did not effectively monitor leases with hansen. they do not track compliance with all of these terms and did not verify royalty payments. it does now retain records necessary to ensure compliance. it is very damning, very daunting, and rather accurate.

to put this in perspective, however, the things they are talking about in many cases are incredibly sloppy documentation as opposed to fraud or a major loss of money. those are things we need to fix. you'll be seeing a reorganization of the real estate group. when we announced the new replacement for the assistant general manager, we took real estate out of that organization because we did not think it was being managed as closely as we would have liked. we are reassigning people to work directly for the regional manager or in our business services office. the other part i want to talk about, over the four years, we have received about $6.8 million. that is probably more than anyone else was getting for the

kind of work that we got. we have had a basically decent police. we had four of them that were never combined. as part of the confusion. when we say there is $643,000 of costs, it talks about potential underpayments and other recoveries. that means there is probably about 155,000 real issues. that is about 2% that is questioned. in addition, another big number is the audit costs. if you have problems worth more than 2%, you have to pay the audit costs. we are arguing whether they are a little above for a little below the 2%. it is not something that they would have thought they a load.

the last item is really an item of documentation. the $260,000 calculation related to the methodology of calculating royalties. they also bring in sand and other materials. in some cases, they take the aggregate and sell the country. they are allowed to deduct from that any kind of material that wasn't a source at or above property. the problem is, they did not do a very good job of documenting that. after a two years, they finally gave up and said they can't prove whether they did this right or not. the recommendation is that we hire a mining expert and try to recreate what happened.

from a cost benefit perspective, it might not be worth trying to recreate records that are 4-6 years old. there is probably about $150,000 that we really do think are problematic. we really do think that we need to change how we manage our leases because it is clear that we are not doing it well. there is another of that coming out in a couple of weeks that will say that we are not administering leases. there are $70,000 that would have been required. in each case, it is a matter of doing the work we are supposed to be doing. we will be reassigning staff. you will see a change in how we operate the real estate activities. i did not want you to be surprised by seeing something in the next day year to. i would be h