between your capital costs and energy cutting. that's where my concern is, thiser $200,000 for the desal project and whether now is the right time for it. >> was this within our budget? >> this is within a promptic project which allows for $2 million for water supply planning efforts and this is one of a number of activities contained in that. >> and was it discussed during the budget process? >> i don't believe we talked about this project specifically at that time. we've talked about it over the time as one of the possible properties as we deal with the water issues before us. commissioner caen: so we can either go ahead and call the vote or delay this until the next meeting but it sounds like the commissioners have heard enough and that it might not

better inform us to make a decision if we delay. >> i have a question. if we hear it at another meeting, a future meeting, won't the same people come forth and discuss what was discussed today? i don't know what more we can learn. i mean, you help me. what more do you think he could -- we could learn to offer to the public? >> i think that maybe this was the public hearing that we needed to have and we've heard the questions that have come up. i know it was a concern at the last meeting that these concerns hadn't been agendized. my concern is still around the 200,000 -- it just seems like right now where we are as an agency and with all the priorities that we're having to cut that it seems like a pretty

big amount of money to do this study on something as far as i've heard is not that feasible project to do a desal project that has such high energy conservations. >> a from a cost-analysis poich the broader sheet is in there and at least based on the costs to date because there's no major plum lingts involved, this is on the low end. in terms of expense, this is not as expensive a project. it has lot of other questions that need to be oresolved but suspense is not one of them. commissioner caen: you mean as far as the capital or the study? >> the capital. the cost is about $1,000 per

acre foot. i don't know if that's the right number but that certainly makes it more cost effective than a lot of the other project we're spending on right now. commissioner caen: but that doesn't factor into the implications, the unknown. environmental factors. >> which is what we need to find out. i don't think we'll get any more detail for this project with're hearing. the one thing we could do potentially is to make another session more constructive is to bring a more robust outreach plan as part of that. that's something that we would be taking the lead on but we'd have to build on our other partners as to how we would accomplish that and get a lot more detail than the jeanties in appendix d. commissioner caen: let's do

that, then. let's put it off to the next month meeting and bring it back and if you could bring back an amentaled version as to what the outreach plan would look like -- if there's no objection if we could next meeting, we'll continue it for that time. which will be july 12. >> 12th. >> and i think it will give us some time to think about what we've heard today and to be able to have you do a bit more work on what the outreach pieces might be. >> a 30-day delay. and there's nothing to say that we won't sit down with some of the people that have spoken here today and try to talk through some of the issues that they have brought up today and see if we can kind of get to

some resolution. so we will try and work on an outreach plan and have that as part of this and we will sit down with some of the people who spoke here today about the project. commissioner caen: thank you, that sounds good. next item please, mr. secretary? >> item 13, discussion of possible action to askhend extend the agreement to provide a direct pay letter of the credit authorized 2002 proposition a for the water enterprise commercial paper program with bank of america n.a. [continued reading]

rydstrom. >> good afternoon, todd rydstrom. this allows us to continue our commercial paper program that ogses -- costs about 1% on average by the time we borrow on the short market. that compares to about % if we were to have to sell bonds in advance. commissioner caen: is there a motion to continue the cost savings program? >> i have a question. why is the annual fee so much more? >> when we previously renewed this contract, the market was very aggressive for commercial

paper programs. since then the investment banks and banks in particular are gearing up for the imp limitation of the basil -- implementation to have basil three initiative. what this compares to most recently, if you look at what we renewed with j.p. morgan last year, this is the same cost, the same rate that we got the j.p. morgan rates at a year ago so it's a very good deal for rate pairs, the continuation. in addition, we've locked this in at that rate for three years, so this will get us through the heavy lifting for the contract awards. >> i know there are additional costs when we issue the bonds, but isn't this a favorable environment? in order, why aren't we issuing the bonds? >> it's a great question. so we're issuing the bonds as soon as we need the money for

spending. what this $500 million commercial paper program does, which 250 is before you today for extension thorgization. it allows us instead to during that interim period, until we sell bonds, which we do on average every three to six months, it allows us to get access to funds that cost about a per vent to 1.25%. if we had to sell it up front. we'd be selling at an average cost of 5%. which is still a great deal that -- but this allows us additional savings if all right taxpayers. >> i hate the banks. i hate what happened to us and the taxpayers. and these sons of guns are still foreclosing on homes and here they ask for a $1.8

million fee for -- through 2014 just to borrow money. >> if i may, they asked for more. we told them no and we negotiated very hard. we ended up saying -- saving about $730,000 from what their initial proposal was. >> what president bush and the congress did to us on pushing this so us -- to us is unspeakable. look what it's done for you? no support for the homeowners out there for those who have lost their homes and are homeless. >> your points are well taken. this is the best deal we can get for rate pairs today so i feel good about presenting it to you for continuation. >> then they leave us for the south.

there are no other banks we can do business with? >> we also do work with u.s. bank and j.p. morgan. which is helpful to have multiple banks behind you. >> what about wells? that's a local bank. >> we do various work with wells. they're active participants in your purchasing. we next are up for our renewal of the other $250 million, at which time we will again canvas the market. >> so after canvassing this is the best deal we can get? >> this is the best deal we can get to be able to lock in for three years and that's a very important time period for us for the program. >> is there a motion to adopt? >> so moved. >> i'll second. >> public comment on this item? hearing none, all those in favor -- >> aye. >> opposed?

>> yes. >> motion cares. next item please, mr. secretary? [item 14 being read] >> todd read strofment assistant general manager and c.e.o. we were very fortunate to be awarded a $3 million allocation from the california energy commission. this allows us to be able to borrow at a low 3% rate over a 15-year term and instead of using fund balances which then we can use for other necessary capital improvements. i do recommend that you consider this for approval

today. commissioner caen: is there a motion to authorize general manager? >> so moved. >> seconded. commissioner caen: public comment on this item? all those in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? touch. item 15, please. [item 15 being read] >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is -- at this point deputy director. this tell is for the third

package to be awarded in the context of the last one. it's for $45.3 million. we had asked for 8%. they're offering 12.6%. this contract will be about 20% less than estimated. still, we are bidding from the competitive market. we had nine bids. bids ranked from 45.3, the lowest bid, to $57.5, the highest one. good contract. in the east segment. near oak dame. and continue down so we ask you to approve this contract award. commissioner caen: $45 million, huh? >> right. just $45 many.

plus some change. commissioner caen: plus some change. plus 329,000 in change. >> i'd like the commissioners recommendation to take the $200,000. >> we're saving you. keep in mind. >> is there a motion to so approve? comments, questions? all those in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? thank you very much. next item? >> item 16 being read] >> good afternoon, todd

rydstrom. we're asking for a 12-month extension. we are making progress. >> second. >> comments, questions? >> aye. >> thank you. >> madam clerk, the next item is closed session. if you could call for any public comment on any of the closed session items, you could entertain a motion to vote the attorney client privilege. >> is there a motion? >> so moved. >> seconded. >> all those in favor? >> aye. >> we have no speaker card. let me read the item. item 19. [being read]

president vietor: we have returned from closed session at 4:53. >> there was a motion that was approved and adopted on item 22 settle. the remaining items -- on item 20 to settle. we will not disclose items 19 or 21. there was no action taken. all those in favor? opposed? motion carries. next item, please. >> any other additional business before the end of the meeting? president vietor: hearing none,

this meeting is adjourned. >> good afternoon. thanks so much for joining us. we are excited to could be here today. the assessor recorder cost of this is excited to announce it again that we have come to the rescue of the city budget. over the years, we have been able to continue to bring in more money than expected. this year was no exception.

even given the huge hurricane of appeals, we are able to bring in about $50 million above our projection for the city budget. that will help this year's city budget and also next year's budget. behind me are some of the people who will talk about the very important things that the money will go to. just to give you a sense of what we are talking about, the $50 million is almost 20% of the $300 million budget deficit. we also want you to know, $24 million of that will go to the general fund. if it were allocated exactly as general fund was broken up, then it would be $9.5 million for public safety, $6.5 million for human services, $5.2 million for health services, $4.5 million for the seven credit of

five school district. we are using these numbers as illustrations, if there were exactly broken up into the dollar amounts that the general fund is allocated. what is so exciting is that just by making sure we do a better job and making sure that everybody pays their fair share that we are able to make a pretty huge impact on the city budget. what is critical as i know that when you hear the dollars, it is hard to comprehend what that means. i have a few folks here to join me who will be here to explain that in a much more detailed fashion. i also wanted to say we have been able to bring in extra money while at the same time dealing with over 12,000 appeals in the last two years and at the same time, down about 17,000 reductions in property last year, which we also will be reviewing. at the same time we have had to reduce money for some, it shows that even after making people

pay their fair share on the downside, we have still been able to bring in 50 million extra dollars. we promised the city almost $47 million, and we are able to bring almost $97 million in this year in what we call supplementals, and that is the additional revenue of property tax dollars. with me are a couple of friends. one is linda from united educators. she is going to talk. and then we have guadeloupe from ace. and then elizabeth from seiu 1021, and they will be able to share with you the real nuts and bolts. >> good afternoon, everybody. i am the executive vice president of the united educators of san francisco. as executive vice president of united educators of san francisco, we represent the teachers and classified staff

who work in our early childhood education program and our k-12 program. i have seen the devastation to the schools as the education budgets have been cut. you are all weary of stories of children without teachers, of classrooms without supplies, of schools dropping programs, and paraprofessionals and teachers being laid off. although at this point, 92 teachers and 10 paraprofessionals have been recalled from layoffs just this year. we still have nearly 200 fewer key school personnel with us for next year. that is our great concern. the difficult work done by our assessor and the dedicated men and women who serve in his office have made a dent in the juggernaut that is bearing down on the schools.

the $4.5 million that will go to san francisco unified school district banks to the collection of the nearly $50 million surplus, will poke a hole in the juggernaut of the gathering clouds and shine a little light on the school district. the children of san francisco, the members of the united educators of san francisco, and the school community of what phil and his office for the work that they have done in san francisco. because here, we see the san francisco values are more than just lip service. but our real and mean providing the resources to take care of our children. this is why we are pleased to be here. we thank filled for his efforts. -- we thank phil for his efforts. >> [speaking spanish]

>> my name is chris martinez. i am translating. she said good afternoon. -- my name is grace martinez. she said she is a child at the heart and a member of days. -- child at brett hart and member of grace. "my concern are all the cuts that have affected our schools." >> [speaking spanish]

>> it is necessary that we find funds for education and to improve services for our families. we need to be able to work and have the capacity to have good working jobs. thank you very much. >> good afternoon. i am the political action share for seiu local 1021 and a nonprofit worker here in san francisco. we represent workers, rn's and other health-care providers in community clinics and in general hospitals. we represent the classified nutrition workers and the school secretaries and the folks that keep your schools clean. we also represent many of the nonprofits, especially supportive housing and mental

health care. this is, for us, the third year of straight cuts in a row. we see things in san francisco that we have not seen before. we see recreation programs close, parks locked up during the day, basic city services take longer. lines are longer. and because of layoffs and freezing of front-line positions. workers in both nonprofit and the public sector have given out of their paycheck over and over again to try to help close these deficits, and it has been devastating. our family programs, youth violence prevention, aid services, and supportive housing. it is exciting to think that there is other ways of dealing with the budget deficit, not just cuts. there is actually weighs, and thanks to phil tin's leadership and the hard work of this office, we are able to see that being aggressive in a collection of existing revenues

is also a way that we can look at the budget, and it has given a lot of hope to our workers. it has given a lot of hope to people who are very concerned and scared in these times of budget. it proves that the good work and education of this office has brought a lot of hope to education workers and people who rely on these services. we hope to continue to work together. thank you. >> thank you. i think you heard that the money that we bring is so critical to make sure that classroom sizes can still be maintained, that teachers can stay in classrooms instead of being sent to the streets, that health glasses can continue to be open, and parents relying on these critical city dollars can really read some of the benefit. one thing we do -- i do want to make sure you all know -- is going into next year's budget, which we hope will be approved

by the board is we are asking -- we got from the mayor and additional 15 people on a temporary basis to come in and help to continue to clear up the rest of our backlog. we were hoping that by bringing in this team that we were able to do an additional $30 million that is already in the budget, so it is additional from when we first started our budget discussions a few months ago, and by bringing in this team, we will hopefully be able to reap significant benefits. all these numbers are already factored into the budget, so it -- there is no additional money that the mayor released, but instead of cutting that $30 million, instead of laying off people, we are able to keep those services whole and keep going. i think it is so critical. i think the people who should be thanked are the hard work and staff of this office.

let me just stop here for a second and see if we have any questions. >> [inaudible] >> great question. this year, we went in with a conservative number, given the fact that we thought the market was really not in a very good place. we also anticipated that we were going to spend almost all of our time doing appeals. part of it is as we were doing appeals, we looked at what types of revenue we were leaving on the table. about halfway through, i redirected the office and said even if it means pushing off some of the appeals to next year, we have to make sure we're bringing this money for the city budget. part of it was a slight redirection of staff this year and also the fact that there was actually more stuff anticipated in back -- in that. >> [inaudible]

>> the way it goes is just what any city and county, with the county brings in money, part of it will go into all the different cities, and part of it goes to the state. we get roughly about 57% of the money, and the rest goes to the state. san francisco unified -- their money is part of that state part of money. even though in theory it is going to the state, it is coming back to the city. the cost of the additional workers, my recollection -- i think it is under $1 million. the city spends $1 million to go get $30 million. it is a pretty good return. even wall street would think that. >> [inaudible] >>