>> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm the director of the waste water enterprise project. that includes the csip, the sewer system improvement project. we need to customize existing procedures. they have a very active asset management system, so all of the improvements will have to integrate with that. any changes to operation or maintenance can be integrated into practices. we also include city staff training. these are some new things that

we are bringing, so we are including that. system optimization is something that is also unique. particularly on the collection systems side, what is the appropriate side? how do we look at this during wet weather and dry weather? those are things that we talked about during the workshop process. the program manager will be able to help us with quite a bit. other unique needs that won't be unique in the future, this is really sustainability at its height. we look at environmental performance, cost, integrating the public in the discussion about the different projects. i know it will be heard at the commission in december, and we

will be incorporating the policies that are adopted here into the program. we have parks, we know how to fix things. the use of virtual design construction. we want to incorporate 3d and design so we can avoid conflict. and also a 4d component so that we can show the time component. how will it look in one year, two years? these are the things we are discussing. also, the use of urban watershed framework. we have the west side watershed and the bayside watershed. there are eight different basins.

what we are looking at doing is characterizing what happens inside of the basins and having a system to do it. it will help us make decisions about the wet weather operations. that looks better on the page. for them to be successful, we'll have to fully integrate the a infrastructure machine that includes construction management engineering contracts and environmental -- we will have some new folks that come in that will be focused on the waste water capital program. the communications director -- who also have right away issues that will be easements and things we will have to require for some of the projects to be effective. in orange, we have the waste

water -- they will be helping us direct the program as well. we will have a liaison initiative. almost psychedelic on the screen now, something that is a bit different is that our engineering work and construction management work can be done by the sfpuc, the waste water process engineering group, or they may be using consultants. for the most part, we are sticking with the wsip model that worked so well. -- model that works so well. one thing that we used very successfully is designed at risk.

this is a pretty traditional way of delivering projects. our designer gets started, goes through planning. we determine what it is that we are looking to build. we're looking -- it connects to the environmental review process. some of the jobs will have a full environmental review. we hope several will have a clicker process. the design will continue during the environmental phase and be informed by the environmental work that is going on. at the end, you have a design that is integrated with the environmental. sometimes additional questions and details are required to be able to provide that. those will be treatments, channel tunnel, the stations. if you look at it on a timescale, it means that

engineers are doing alternative analysis, and we are determining what the best alternatives are. we are getting enough that we can start an environmental review process. there might be a year of planning in the year of work in order to get enough detail to start an environmental process. environmental feeds into the blue line at the bottom. we are designing in parallel with environmental, but we will see the line extends past environmental. it will be adopted here, and we would be able to finish the design packages and move to this construction to get the implementation phase going. this is where a different way of doing things where we might wait a little bit longer, the designer might complete conceptual engineering and

provide support. but probably stay between 35%- 50% where we have enough technical information to support the environmental review. when we are in the actual design, we want to have a lot of dialogue and a lot of issues or impact in the neighborhood. possibly the complexity of the permits. this is just a little bit different. planning is supporting the environment to reveal that the engineers are working on the planning side. the design would begin after the environmental review, but the challenge with this is, if the project for some reason changes, we might have to revisit if the environmental review was complete. there might be some give and take their where we might have to amend the environmental review.

i want to make sure that this is clear because we had a lot of discussion in the workshops about this. i think the design found it risky. there are also risks associated with doing a design after the environmental review. either way, the balance of having the public participate is going to be critical for us. president vietor: maybe we can take questions at the end because i have a question on that. >> i will go to the next one. we are also doing a lot of work with our team to develop the schedules and budgets, anticipating what the cost will be. we are looking at the cost breakdown for the $4.6 billion program. the program is well underway, and the brunt of the money is in construction.

the program management team is slightly over 2%. we did the same exercise with the upper source system improvement project and took a look at what money we are going to need for each category. how much is it going to be for environmental review? what will we need for construction? the difference is going to be that we will have an amount that is dedicated for community benefits. that was not the case specifically in the wsip program. >> the 6.7 $8 billion number is a number -- >> it's for the full program if we implement all of the projects. all of the treatment plant improvements, the treatment

plant at treasure island. it is the upper bound that we discussed on july 27. we eloquently got a presentation to give us an idea of what that would mean. this is for midrange, approximately $6 billion. we have to go through a lot of that. i just want to emphasize the reason for the importance. i know that there is still some way -- the types of functions that the program manager would be supporting is the program of financial control, making sure that we have adequate change management.

i meet with general managers, and the general manager has some comments that i want to a corporate -- incorporates. the program manager brings risk management for projects, risk- management for the program, and looking ahead at construction. how do we want to mitigate risk? quality, they talked about construction management, delivery mechanisms, what order of projects -- there are a lot of heavy things. this will be a long-term relationship. the preliminary design -- we have to take a look at the level

of service and make sure that we have the right thing for the right size. right now, we are laying out the projects with the best information for the schedule and the timing. this will be firmed up when we have the program manager on board. this is referring to the regional water control board. there are levels of treatment that we will have to meet. developing this new pla. a much heavier emphasis on staff training and actual curriculum for projects that will be added to our base level for new stuff

like flood control and will impact design. actual glasses that they can transfer and working on projects that are going to be worked on in the future. of reach, we definitely need to think about the project. we talked a lot about climate change and adaptation. but what we need have is a design that can help us. other areas within the city, how do we handle how do we get this to be information that the engineers can apply in use in design to that we can begin to adapt the system?

i am now going to go through briefly the upcoming professional services contract. seemingly, you will be seeing a lot of me because i will be coming to each of the contract as they come in front of you. the program management contract, it will be about $170 million for the program management and professional services contract. that rfp is in draft now. it will be going one more round, sitting down in detail with the engineers and the unions, trying to get that to you in february so you can get that out. we did have one contract awarded. the technical detail will be put into place, so we are of little

hoff -- off-sync. there is possibly up to 18 separate contracts that will be happening into the future. probably 2012 through 2033. on the design side, we got a channel tunnel out that what from mission creek -- went from mission creek. it is undersized. it is replacing the 1940's design to reduce odors. those are highly critical projects. with the city work being $71,000,000.140000000 dollars.

those would problem -- a $71 million, and 14$140 million. it would support analysis and design during construction so we would have a long-term contract to get these done and to build. the city was included in the numbers -- [unintelligible] i also have some cost engineering. we have process engineers through waste water, but we will have to have some additional as needed resources ultimately be available through waste water. several -- that would be later

in the summer. that would be going out through the project controls office. i'll -- will be having contracts let community benefits to have a wider reach. there is the slide that eds does not like. -- ed does not like. we spoke so much about the digesters.

we pulled that consultant in, and we pulled and maybe november 2011. is one of our most important projects. we would be experiencing a full- blown environmental review. that is approximately a three- year effort. we have one year of design work and from work to be able to start that. does that make sense? president vietor: go ahead, karen. >> so, harlan mentioned the work that we are doing. it is effectively a conflict of interest to talk -- chart.

the consulting team might have been selected for environmental review. i have a planning talks and that we don't have a -- [unintelligible] what it maps out, as you go from top to bottom, you know i love charts. you can see what the consultants will be eligible for. they have green, the program management contract. community education, community benefits, they would not be allowed to propose on design, environmental review, project control. that would not be a possibility. it would eliminate a lot of the problems and unable consultants to be able to get that decision. it is all of the difference, the

process working with a lot of the city attorney's to make it s accurate as we can. it is through one of the town hall forums where we had a contractor meeting to walk through and explain it and go through the upcoming contract in opportunities. we have a specific city attorney that just be conflict of interest issues. and in our discussions, we start to look at what can possibly happen. how can we make this as clear as possible for everyone. green being an ok thing to go forward with and read being that we can't. back to the slide.

we will have a lot of future discussion, namely the facilities siting discussion where we talk about how we move the product forward, and if we can streamline some decisions to select one site. we will be coming back in january to talk about the urban watershed framework and possible prioritization that we can perhaps focus our direction on one and run it through the whole framework and analysis. the outcome is the flood control project that would have gone through triple bottom-line consideration. we will also be coming back with levels of service. i of the commission has expressed an interest in having the technology discussion. several of our staff of just made a journey to look at some of the advanced treatments, and i would be interested in having

a debrief with the commission. we need to be on the leading edge. we like to see someone else in america do it first, then kick the tires and really see. but we have this huge opportunity in front of us to make things better, sustainable, greener. a good policy discussion would be something that had been requested in this out like that might be something that would be a little bit higher level. >> if i can summarize, we are saying that we would expect to have a mix of outside contractors staff working together, and we like to hear if that is a problem for anybody. we are going to do a mix from our point of view from some

projects where that seems appropriate. and we really want to come forward in much larger, longer- term project management programs along with some other good size contracts. just to be clear, the amount we are talking about are up to that amount. if we come back and have a discussion about the rate, it cannot absorb a furlough over the next 30 years. we wanted to give you the outer limits of what the contract might be. the general percentages, those kind of soft things will cost. if you have a question, if we don't come back to you, it doesn't follow what you would like us to be doing. >> i think it might make sense to take public comment on each of the items as it relates to

each item. why don't we start first with any comments or questions with commissioners on this presentation. very informative. >> the $7 billion over 30 years, are we planning to do the whole planning of the $7 billion at the beginning? or is this something that is going to emerge? record. -- no, we would be starting projects one by one and get in the planning phase going. each of the projects is listed here and we have planning,

design, environmental review, and construction. we are laying the projects out over time and it is an 80-year time frame. no, we and i doing all the planning at once. -- we will not be doing all of the planning at once. >> when we look at the projection of rates and also the schedule, we are both at the beginning of the process but also we need to have a pretty decent sense of broad categories of work that need to be done and how that might schedule out over time and the result of that is a pretty big number. that is almost twice of what we

have submitted. my guess is that most people in san francisco don't really know that. my question is how are we thinking about getting the public mind that we need to sustain that and how soon can we start that process? >> we are always doing public presentations and the hope is that through the program, management will get additional help on out region and get an outreach director through the communications department and then hit the city with public meetings like we have done.

we have a lot of meetings. we have occasional meetings we -- an occasional meetings. we need focus meetings and focus groups and maybe have baseline information established and see what the general understanding is of what the committee concerns are. during the planning process, we did that. we did the surveys and that is how we did a lot of these projects. that is how we got into this meat and potatoes list of fixing what we have. on going, this week it up over the summer -- we take it up over

the summer. the star within program look and then we began focusing on the outreach that focuses on each progress. >> we are in the third year of the five-year rate increases and there is the planning money that is in here. as we talk about 2013, 14, that is when we would see a lot of rate impact and a lot of work has to be done before that. >> in getting to a point of public except dance, there was a fairly uncomfortable process of getting here and it did result in the end that there was a vote and we said this was something that we wanted to do. at that point, it really legitimizes the rates that followed. it is a question that i don't

need answered at the moment but what i want to think about is if we get a general level of understanding of acceptance, all of the surveys that you have talked about, putting together the program and people who basically had a stake in the answer. >> even one survey with the general public -- >> my guess is that most cannot understand this. we need to get to a point where the rate payers will understand why this is a good idea. >> it would be very handy to go out and say that you have voted for this and we are on hand to get you the rates that we promised you. >> one of the things that gets up there is the rate policy and that was somethingt