history we have had has been very good. thank you. >> the next speaker is mr. summers. >> good afternoon, members of the commission. our company is currently the leaseholder for the mining site lease in sonora. we have been working on it for over five years. it is a unique release in that it mary's private lands and public lands together for the benefit of the watershed lands. another unique factor is that it obtains the support of the center for biological diversity.

for the last five years our main contact has been with the department of real estate. many divisions, and all have had their interests in this project. the department of real estate has done an excellent job of bringing these interests to gather. without the leadership and professional approach taken by the department, i do not believe we would have come as far as we have over the last five years. it is part of an entitlement process to expand the site, and we continue to work with the community and public agencies. we believe it is important to have continuity and hope they will maintain the current staff in the department of real estate as we move forward to get this approved. >> the next speaker is miss

jenkins. >> good afternoon. i represent the real estate department. i would like to say the puc has always represented the plan should be for the delivery and protection of the water. they were then responsible for generating income through properties. the new vision was to focus on real estate development, and they propose to hire more

people in the area. this has been attempted in the past. the puc has had little or no supply of surplus and excess land. to claim there is a need to create new positions due to lack of skills or expertise in certain functions is unfounded. they have always worked on complex transitions related to development, and those have been diminished. should the budget move forward, long time city employees with literally 150 years combined service who have already been trained are being who replaced with new hires who must be recruited, interviewed, trained, and worked years to develop the relationships already in place, and i say this

because there is no guarantee these employees will be hired. these are generalists classes we often represent. the 1823 series were attempted, they would essentially be replacing 41 ceres -- series of lesser pay. i would like to add that they have to circumvent the process. we have real concerns about the overlapping function and what happens when you eliminate an entire department and bring on new people. we felt there needs to be discussions between the

department and the union. the knowledge that will be lost should this decision be made will affect the department and the puc as awful. three j a -- as a whole. >> can you help me understand what took place related to this issue? have you attempted to initiate conversation? >> we have not attempted to initiate conversation. we talked to our members. we were told about this not too long ago. it was pretty short notice. management has had one meeting with our members regarding ethniit. >> the you consider it to be a unilateral change?

>> we do. it is something we have not seen done before. >> i will talk to bob. the ball is in your court. >> how many employees are impacted by this decision? >> it would be five employees. >> the is saying the foundlings are not accurate? >> the findings are not accurate, and another representative will be speaking about that. >> when do we anticipate the rebuttal? >> by next week. i do not have an exact date, and we are not claiming all of the findings are inaccurate, but we

do have some information. >> we would love to have your response. >> just one correction, since the same comments were made last time about a reduction in pay. it would be replaced by an 1825 analysts and increase in pay of $6,000. the real property officer -- they would be replaced by one position making $11,000 more to two positions making $3,000 less. it would not be cost savings. >> i am a union rep also. i did not expect to speak today. i do hope you set of demands for

deeper analysis on this issue. it does seem like it is some work for the department, and everything my colleagues said is on point. i do not have specific information on the audit. we will do an analysis and submit our findings. i think they evolved as the system they have and replace it with generalist's theories. i also want to mention there will be union issues, if this does come to pass. if that is part of the response, we see this as a disciplinary

issue. i do not think the functions actually go away, so it seems a lot of the responsibilities were with the department. it does not make sense to eliminate people performing in the role, so just to give you warning that if they are eliminated, we will treat it has a form of extreme discipline. that is pretty much it. >> i am hearing that there are capacity issues and reporting issues, made those comments -- so i made those comments to refer to the audit results that indicated things work being

missed was confusing me with respect to the proposed reorganization, but i do believe we are talking about issues that are surrounding the chain of command, reporting, and capacity, especially since this is not one of those things which are cost savings things. >> next speaker please. >> mr. randall. >> i am randall ramon. -- reynolds. we have worked closely with real estate services. real estate services have been a

very professional group. they will work to communicate effectively. right away we would like to see the puc with the existing staff. >> they have numerous

i am uniquely qualified to give technical expertise to this table superior -- to this table. it involved the purchase of property for the first expansion project, and the result is you ended up with $19 million sale of property, but most importantly the staff work really hard to determine the best pieces of property, so they are still making money.

that gives an idea of what they are capable of in the future. >> good afternoon. i am the manager and partner in south san francisco. and we are a small funeral home, and we are now on their superior -- now there. i am in a business deals with

real customer service. we need to satisfy the customer, and by nature of the business we have to accomplish this by stressful situations. i find that astonishing our relationship with our families -- and establishing a relationship with our families help us gain the environment. the people we have worked with have been overly professional, and i felt they all bent over backwards to make sure our business has not been deterred by construction.

real estate people have been very good of making sure it is equitable for the commission and also understand it is valuable for us to be there. it is what i do for a living. i have been very concerned as to what the thinking is. sometimes an audit is an opinion of how it works. in my business i find there is concern over the rope for --

concern that is going to be no more. take that into consideration to develop the report -- rapport, and i hope it is not jeopardized. they are representing you and the water company. gooa thank you for your time.

>> i do not think he is speaking on this item. >> the next one is mr. berger in superior -- mr. bourbon. we are currently in contract to purchase a piece of property. it is an extremely complex interaction that requires your service to be extremely involved and have a working relationship with us. i do not often find a department that is so professional.

i can only say it is my personal experience, and my concern is continuing to work for you during your -- work for you. my experience is extremely positive. >> if any additional speakers would like to come off during go -- come up. >> on this subject. >> i am representing hanson. we have four leases since 1978, and they are still ongoing. we are opposed to the changes

suggested in the real-estate department. one of the things i would like to do is make a statement that supports our company's position, and i would like to make a few points that to me point to an internal audit that is trying to frame this real estate group that i feel is doing an outstanding job in complex transactions we have. we are very disappointed by the office, and we are taken aback by the sensationalist it manar it was reported your your -- sensationalist way it was reported.

many are based on reinterpretations of the leases. it is also our position that many financial futures are inaccurate, exaggerated, or speculative. hanson is committed to fulfilling its business obligations to the puc. we intend to pursue a reasonable resolution as quickly as possible. as i mentioned, these were signed between 1978 answed 2003 and the revenue generated was $6.8 million. during this audit, which took to

your sense -- took two years, they have come up with money they claim and we owe them through the water at. research region we owe them through the audit your your -- they have come up with money they claim we owe them. they think somehow but we should pay done royalties on our own land as well, so we have 400,000 out of the 634, but the reality is that 154,000 is probably a legitimate. we have to say there could be issues here. we have had three ownerships

during this of it, so there is a lot of people moving in and out, so we came up and paid 70,000 of the 154,000 remaining. and we are still waiting for the audit to department to get back to us so we can pay them. and real estate is doing a wonderful job. we will take appropriate steps to protect the good names during your -- good names triggered -- to protect the good names. >> any other speakers bowman -- any other speakers?

commissioners, before we hear public comment on the other item in the budget. >> i would like to continue this, and the intent behind the request, i am specifically concerned with the labor union. i would encourage you to meet with management there may be

some things there, but it is not all wrong. that is my motion. >> i would urge us to get this resolved as soon as possible. are there any other comments?

>> i want to talk about the program. we are happy to see $1 million is restored to the fund, but it still represents a cut back to this program. it is the most successful program in san francisco. it is more successful than anything on the agenda to night. it has created more solar energy on low-income houses, on businesses, on community-based organizations and any other

country i know in the country. it has created jobs, and is seriously undermines the missions of the puc in the green energy field, and the industry will tell you the kind of yo-yo affect. they cannot absorber this up and down sunday -- up and down funding. thank you. >> other comments on the budget?

we are looking at an amendment to continue until the next meeting. if there are any questions and comments, we will take them on these items to adopt them and move them forward. >> continuing the real estate fees but also what we recommended. >> and the removal of the program. >> the addition of the $3 million, those are things we all discussed today. >> the several amendments we

have. it has to do with a continuance of the waste water budget approval, the continuance of waste water discussion, removal of that conversation, and a $3 million to energy efficiency. is there a motion to adopt these items? >> second. >> all those in favor? >> awye. >> thank you very much. >> i have three things we need to address in the next year that

will reflect the consideration, and one is to make sure we do a critical evaluation of the waste water we talked about just now o, a similar evaluation of the facilities consent -- plant, and the intent is to come up with the same level of critical scrutiny and that clearly the power they received over the next year commoand to make sure those are instructed as economically as possible