answer was the second, is that an amendment to the current resolution that would get us there? >> that would be a substituted motion. >> going back to the proposed work plan going forward that. outreach process is part of the agreement among the agencies to do this. it's one of the four things that we expect to accomplish in this 18 months is to establish that initial and ongoing dialogue. i appreciate that there's $200,000 here but the investment on the plan would be something on the order of $20 million to $30 million. this is a small step to get down the path towards that bigger issue. this is a very important step we need to do. and doing it as part of this is what i would recommend. commissioner caen: i don't see

why we would be saying an outreach, because we don't have enough knowledge. and certainly the people that spoke today, i think all of the points are valid but what more would come out if we had an outreach besides the same things we just heard now? we don't know more about it. >> i don't know if we'd hear more about the validity of the project. i think some of the concerns are the dollar amount and making sure all the issues have been considered as part of the study. >> and i think you could have as part of like a meeting or something, have a little scoping so that people speaking out on this project understand it's not just san francisco rate pairs, it's contra costa rate pairs and so on. so you're talking about six or seven million people in the bay area. that's one issue and the second is addressing commissioner

caen's sort of question. there are things we don't know. can you go get us this information? yes, we can and here's what we propose to do it. that's what we were trying to lay out. i'm kind of caught in between but what i think i'd like to recommend is a substituted resident los angeles that would allow us to sign the m.i.u. so we can get that into play but having a workshop or greater meeting in the bay area for whoever is concerned about this. commissioner torres: the m.i.u. commits us to commit $200,000, now, correct? >> we stiff have fiscal control on that. >> i would be a no on that. commissioner caen: so i would then elect to put this off until the next meeting, to have a public hearing on it.

>> the next meeting is that the southeast community center, i just wanted to remind you have of that. so we have a very limited commissioner meeting at our next meeting. and when you say a public hearing i'm trying to envision what that means compared to what we had here today. >> have the other four approved? >> yes. >> if -- the other two have approved their portion? >> yes. >> just one vote here. if the three of you want to move forward, go for it. that's democracy. >> does it make sense for what comes -- i share the concern. we continued with this meeting in part to have a public hearing and that's what we've been having. we could ask for this to come back with a very specific addition and that is an

outreach program. it would be built into the new york annex structure of the study this. is something that provides ongoing opportunity for people who couldn't be here today to understand the projects and also for us to understand their concerns about it. that's a two-way street. but basically to ask it to come back and say m.o.u. plus a process to make sure that at the next step that we don't have the same apparent disconnect between what we're doing and what the public is anticipating. >> appendage d in your bind summer this was just brought to my attention. which addresses the outreach. identify the key stakeholders, + develop an outreach plan.

develop informational material. >> i'm sorry, this is legrande pump station number zphrvings that's what i have. >> 12 d or something. >> what about that? >> it's after the pink sheet. you'll see the things that are being -- the very last item is the public outreach.

commissioner torres: d is in dog? >> d as in dog. right before the sheet before the foldout chart. >> i just have the same concerns about the 200,000 that were raised. this public outreach piece feels like something that we should be doing anyway and that it shouldn't cost 200,000 -- >> it's not included be the -- in the budget. >> it's being done by staff. >> it's like what ann and i were talking about, the new emblem for stationer iny. there was nothing spent but the staff did it. it's still staff time. still money being extended. >> we've had so many budget conversations about all the things that we're cutting, 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.

>> san francisco is home to a renowned civic art collection that includes a comic works -- iconic works by local and national artists integrated into our public buildings and six basis. the arts commission has struggled to take care of the priceless collection because of limited resources. in an effort to gather more funding for the maintenance of the collection, the art commission has joined forces with the san francisco art dealers association to establish art care, a new initiative that provides a way for the public to get involved. the director of public affairs recently met with the founder

and liquor -- local gallery owner to check out the first art care project. ♪ >> many san franciscans are not aware that there is a civic art collection of numbers almost 4000 works of art. preserving the collection and maintaining it is something being addressed by a new program called art care. it is a way for citizens to participate in the preservation of the civic art collection. with me is the creator of the art care program. welcome. the reason we wanted to

interview you is that the artist in question is peter volkas. why is he so important to the history of san francisco art? >> he is a very famous ceramic ist. knowing the limitations of clay, he got involved in bronze in around 1962. he was teaching at the university of california, berkeley. >> your gallery celebrated the 50th anniversary of continuous operation. you are a pioneer in introducing the work and representing him. >> i have represented him since 1966. i was not in business until 1961. he made a big deal out of working in clay. the things he was doing was something never seen before.

>> it is a large scale bronze. it has been sitting here of the hall of justice since 1971. talk about what happens to the work of art out of the elements. >> the arts commission commissioned the piece. they did not set aside money for repair. it has slowly changed color. it was black. it has been restored. >> it has been restored to the original patina. >> there was no damage done to its. i do not think there were any holes made in it. they have been working on it for six or eight weeks. it is practically ready to go. i am very excited to see it

done. >> over the course of the arts in richmond program, we have added almost 800 works of art into the public space. maintaining that is not something that the bond funds allow us to do. this is why you came up with the idea of art care. >> i hope we get the community going and get people who really like to be involved. we will give them a chance to be involved. if you are interested in art, this is a marvelous way to get involved. there is work all over the city where every year ago. -- there is artwork all over the city wherever you go. my idea was to get people in the neighborhood to take care of the pieces and let the art commission have the money for

the bigger pieces. >> i was talking to the former president of the arts commission yesterday. the 2% ordnance is something he helped to champion. >> it is all over california and other states now. we really were the forerunners. it is a wonderful thing to bring the community into this now. people have seen art being put into the community. this has not been touched by any graffiti. it just faded over time. it is so open here. there is nobody watching this. i think that is a plus to the community. i hope the graffiti people do not go out there now that i am