comprehensive report to you where we go over the planning effort. what the budget and schedule numbers are for the projects. and also identifying the decision points that the commission will have down the line in terms of environmental review, and budget approval, all of those facets. the land management side, we are taking certain parcels in the city of san francisco and putting them in the management of the natural resources division. that is the twin peaks land. those will come to the natural resources management. we are proposing a minor shift.

probably after a year or so of working, we will start to formulate the budget request for the future that might have augmentation of resources. it is premature to say what we are going to do. >> there is no urgent need that has been identified on any of those parcels? >> for example, we go back to $200,000 for an assessment of the trees. the look problematic in terms of both potential fire risk and the habitat. we might again in this coming year proceed to another. president vietor: i just want to make sure we are covered.

and that there are no potential funding needs. >> we have money that we can put in there now. a week in early prioritizes. >> and there is the water department. president vietor: any other questions on the water department? good afternoon. >> the first two are related, i know that several of you have some questions.

we will be coming to you february 22. we will talk specifically about this item. it is somewhere around $4 billion right now. if the commission decides what we are going to do, before billion dollars versus the $7 billion, -- the $4 billion versus the $7 billion. and how does it affect the rates? >> we will have the rate discussion and the sizing discussion at the same time.

>> white of the dilemmas that was brought to my attention. the other part of the dilemma was that when new contract with a program manager, it becomes kind of eight chicken-egg problem. i would like for you guys to figure out how to get us out of that. if we have a detailed review of that program, so be it. i would hate to adopt a program size based on our understanding.

>> we will be happy to try to do that. the odds are, we will conflict them out of doing anything. the other way might be a phase one and phase two. it might be based on the first discussion. >> the only concern is that you don't want -- >> in any case, the contract would not be a set amount.

>> any other questions? xinhua -- [unintelligible] >> at this point, we are sitting down and hopefully we can finalize that before we come back to you on the twenty second. i believe we can address that at that time. >> those were the only two items that were outstanding on waste water. >> any other questions or comments?

>> for the power enterprise, you had a number of issues that you wanted to discuss further. in the context of an area where we have key budget cuts and deferrals, we have $100 million in transmission of grades. it has been reduced. we reduced by $32 million, more has been taken out of the capital plan. 30 million taken out of the capital plan. $21 million for the go solar sf program. even with those reductions,

$62.5 million we have a high rain year. we had not budgeted, so the actual sales ijanuary and february amounts to a little over $3 million. the go solar sf program and community choice aggregation, issues that you talked about as a group and we have had further conversations with president vietor about.

we want to increase funding for energy efficiency and conservation programs. we have program funding shortfalls, and those high priority policy areas. i will take any questions that you may have. >> prospect. i guess it is still an open issue.

that depends on the capital investment structure. is this a cash flow issue. is this an ongoing funding issue that we'll have to deal with? i think it would be presumptuous and misleading to include the perception that we will issue that. rather than stir up the process of trying to be balanced with that, i would be comfortable removing that from the financial plan and showing the resulting shortfall. it becomes a problem that we need to deal with because i am not suggesting for proposing that we reduce the capital program to its lowest level of need.

i am very much aware of the issue and the sensitivity that flows through that. those are issues that we really need to work out. my objective would be to avoid the issue at the same time we are having that same level of subsidy that we currently have. i would propose that as a change to both the capital program and the financial plan. >> that would mean starting in 2014, it is about $62.5 million that will be funded. we will take those out. it makes us come back and continue the conversation about where does that come from? president vietor: i am hearing

is say, you are talking about the power revenue bonds funding and not that that we haven't heard. the clean renewable energy bond that we have done historically -- >> i got a note indicating that it has no cost. and that being the case, it would be no reason for eliminating it. hong >> i have heard this issue with the general fund. we will learn how to address that issue and look at it with some creative thinking.

>> that was at the last meeting also, so we have been tracking that. >> i want confirmation that the suggestion is appropriate? president vietor: i am supportive of it. i feel like it is really money on the table to get that cut in any way. it has really been troubling to see the decrease. go solar, the program should be funded as much as possible, understanding that we are saddling with our budget this year. i am supportive of that. i would love to hear from other

commissioners if they feel is a good use. and we're fortunate enough to have them. >> one other point of clarification. whee recommended be funded at $2 million, we recommended that there be a split between the funding available for low- income and nonprofit vs. the rest of the program participants. we recommended that $2 million be set aside for low-income and non-profit and $1 million be available to the remaining participants. thank you. >> afternoon, commissioners.

i like to speak to you about the reorganization of the real estate services. real estate services was assigned to me to take a close look at what functions were there, what were the capabilities? in the future, we will have much more complex types of negotiations in real estate services. i might point out there is a memo, and we do kind of clothes and some recent -- close some recent audits. they did not properly managed their leases. they did not adequately prepare annual rent paid in do.

we had a number of different properties, about 420. we currently have negotiations ongoing for treasure island and hunters point. we are not really real estate issues, but there is a question that always comes up. we do it through the mayor's office, so there is a complex negotiation that goes on. again, it involves some conflict in the negotiations. we have numerous property acquisitions. some of these will be very

complex and negotiations and the sales that are not something we have handled in the past. we are looking at and what our real capabilities are in carrying out these things. we have a lot of contracts that we have managed as part of the lease agreement. a lot of you are responding looking at what the auditor says that trying to upgrade those for the future. the water system improvement program has done a lot of work on the right of way clearance. in the future, we want to know how we will keep those clear. and we will start to overlay those with the complex land management policy that we will bring you in the very near future. these are the kind of things that we will see happen in the future. what we need to upgrade in the real estate services, they are

more in line with other departments that have gone through the same sort of analysis and organize there is to be focused on the particular enterprises. i would be glad to answer any questions you might have. commissioner courtney: i am looking at the memorandum i have received, and i believe there were some representatives from local 21. and the employees that were currently in the organizational chart, the job descriptions who were proposed to be in the organizational chart. can you give me some understanding or clarity about what the distinguishing features are between those that are currently employed and those that are proposed to be

employed? >> we have the job descriptions attached to the memo. it functions very independently. these are people that function either as the apartments or deputy directors. we substitute those out to be that new manager. the panel of analysts, they are very much experts and contract management and financial analysis. we don't see it in real property officers. i don't know if i was included in your packet. but it is not functioning at this high-level.

as far as overseeing some of the real-estate functions. we are looking at people that have that expertise. where are not talking about issuing permits for simple leases. we're talking about a master development leases. are we are talking about a lot of things that might be coming that way. for example, [unintelligible] but i think what we are looking for is somebody out with more analytical skills. we looked at the airport again, they have moved towards these more higher level analyst class'es. commissioner courtney: with

respect to the chain of command, the proposed manager position will report to the general manager. and reported where? >> prior to the organization that we had in april of 2010 last year, it was reporting to the manager of the external affairs. since that time, it has been reporting to me. commissioner courtney: i'll tread lightly here. the record indicates there are capacity issues. are there capacity issues with respect to the employees, or with respect to the classification numbers? the record to me indicates that there are concerns with the

current staff. is that ok? with performance in terms of the audit. >> the simple answer is, if there are performance issues, those are handled through evaluation and corrective behavior. those would not be public discussion. we believe that there is a general upgrade of the classification and it does not have to do with the individuals. >> with respect to the employees, those that are currently reporting to the manager, i assume those are represented by local 21? maybe this is a better question for counsel, but have we have

entered into negotiations or collective bargaining discussions about the proposed reorganizations? do we believe that we are required to do so? >> there would be discussion between the city attorney because the office, -- the city attorney's office. it would be further review by the reputation process. >> there is a lot of history.

my understanding is there is not a need to negotiate over these changes. maybe a fine line. i think that is the typical way the city attorney defines it. before changes actually occurred, and there might need to be a discussion. it is my understanding of the rule. >> with respect to the impact, it seems to me that it is indicated that the employees and those current positions are not simply offered in the event they meet minimum qualifications. they are offered an opportunity

to reapply. >> that is correct. >> my question is, are we of the opinion moving forward that we are not obligated to meet and c onfer with the bargaining unit rep? >> at some point, but at what point? there is no requirement to do it at this point in the budget process. president vietor: and does that answer your question, commissioner? >> it does. president vietor: commissioner torres? other commissioners?

>> those are the outstanding issues unless there are other issues. i know there are people here with public comment on these items. >> just to be a bit organized about this, i think we should take these items in order. we are at item number seven, i believe. we have capital plan, financial plan, wholesale water rates. >> hugh ten is just -- item ten is just calling for a hearing. president vietor: then we can take itenms seven through nine.

and ten after . items seven through nine, public comment? >> we have a number of speaker cards. if the other speakers could line up behind said there is not much delay. >> and i am the general manager at crystal springs golf course. i have a letter here to the commission that i would like to read if possible. the purpose of this letter is to acquaint you with our perspective on performance of the real-estate department. in the 14 years we have been your golf course.

we believe crystal springs is far and away the strongest revenue producer in the city. in 2010, we produced a financial loss, but the city received $1.6 million in grants. it might also be seen in how it projects the community values. crystal is operated according to a broad principles and hiring benefits. there is a prevailing wage and a minority contractor iting. and highly evolved environmental sensitivity. it is due to a commonly effective private partnership.

we work with 17 municipalities and public agencies. we have experienced and suffered the effectiveness of contract administration. the sfpuc is a shining example of cooperation and results. it guarantees against the kind of decline and so, and at other city-owned golf courses. it firmly express's and applies the values of the city that owns crystal springs. we have received prompt and helpful feedback on issues that are either acquired or could benefit from input from the sfpuc as landlord.