and felt there wasn't adequate notice that was going to be agendized on your agenda. so i would encourage you to make sure especially all of those gripes that worked on cca, when you do talk about that issue, that you make effort to invite them so that they can hear about what you come up with at your committee. absolutely, absolutely. >> thank you. i think we got the letter as we were setting the agenda. but since we now have plenty of time frame, we should be able to invite anyone and everyone who might want to come. >> that sounds good, thank you. thanks. >> thank you, mr. jones. mr. allen. my name is dick allen. i've been a roller at lake merced for the past 20 years and i was co-chair of the lake merced task force. welcome, president torres. >> thank you. and also to commissioner moran, thank you so much as president for your continued

interest in the issues of lake merced. we appreciate very much your comments. and to michael car lan, i've not seen you sitting in that seat before. you look very comfortable. [laughter] anyway, i think i'm making the comment at the right time and stop me if i'm wrong. i have seen that your staff has delayed the next lake merced update to you for another two weeks. at the may 8 meeting earlier this year, you were very clear in saying that you wanted something very specific about the proposed m-o-u with rec and park department in six months. and since then that has been on the events calendar for a revisit on november 13. now, jerry calligan who could not be here today, but he is here in one sense in that he did make a recording of the may 8th meeting, commission meeting, and i'd like to quote one of the commissioners who stated, "not happy with the

m-o-u, want to put a tight timeline on things, come back in six months with a real plan and budget numbers, need real progress in the next six months." the commissioner repeated several moments later, "a six-month timeline is specific deliverables, so, why the delay"? the issue of who is really in charge of the lake that is owned by the san francisco puc needs to be resolved sooner rather than later. the fact that rec and park department has not come back with specific deliverables within the past six months disqualifies them from future participation in any management role at lake merced. rec and park department

promises more than they can deliver. we ask you to reschedule the next lake merced update to november 13 and arrange for a serious commission workshop on the many, many lake merced issues. thank you very much. >> thank you, sir. do you have something to read, madam secretary? >> yes, mr. president. ms. jackson asked me to read the letter that she distributed to the commission. dear mother jack on, i am pleased to inform you that you have been nominate and had selected to receive an honorary doctorate degree from humanities from the sacramento [speaker not understood]. on sunday, october 28, 2012 at the morning worship service at grace, 1121 oakdale street. the amenities are [speaker not understood] disciplines that studies human condition.

the seminary has deemed you more than prestigious of this academic honor because of your long-term activism and political social work in the city and county of san francisco. your tenacious and unwaivering [speaker not understood] marginal eyes and had disenfranchised people, your historical initiative to improve the rights of women on welfare, your contributions in securing the southeast facility that now housesedth southeast campus of san francisco city college, your contributions and support of your church and your pastor along with numerous other significant contributions in the field of humanities and social sciences. on october 28th, the letters of humd, doctorate of humanities will be entitled on you. you will henceforth be known as espinola jackson humd. on behalf of dr. mcbride who gives congratulationses for

this most deserved honor. >> congratulations. (applause) >> congratulations, doctor elect. and we look forward to your ministrations now from a higher level in the future. communications events calendar, [speaker not understood]. >> it's this, sir. >> i have one question. the letter summary includes a letter from the bay area water supply and conservation agency, and item e in communicationses was the regional water system report that was the subject of that letter. they made three specific requests of the commission and i was hoping that staff could give me an update as to what the disposition of those three

requests was going to be. who is that staff person? >> i can actually do it. so, to answer your question, the report we do is a contractual requirement with our wholesale customers. the letter specifically that the very water supply [inaudible] requests that we actually do an addendum to our september 1st submittal based on information we have specifically probably on calaveras dam. we'll have more detail at the november 13 meeting. the other letter is on budgets and schedules. we actually will address as well -- we see those as being voluntary items to be incorporated in the next annual report and we see no problem doing that either. we will have more detail on the first item november 13th and we'll talk to mr. jensen about incorporating the other two suggestions into the annual report that we submit to the state on september 1st. >> great, thank you very much.

letter summary. >> the letter summary was provided in the binder. >> any questions? all right, move on to the quarterly water supply agreement update. >> mr. president, these are presentations included in your packet unless you want -- >> i want to make sure we go through them seriatum and move on. any item a through e? we'll proceed accordingly. we've done number 6. now we come to the report of the general manager. >> i don't know if we are going to go back to the lake merced item, but i'd like to hear if it is going to be calendared or not. because i think the six-month -- as far as i can count, six months -- >> ends in november. >> and i know there was a public comment that rec and park should be disqualified from whatever it was. i think we did agree to a

six-month time period which i think is coming up in november. and i guess i just want to hear, just through the chair, if that is going to be calendared. >> you were the commissioner reference in the remarks. >> i may have been. [laughter] >> go ahead. >> stephen gee, assistant manager for water. we did recommend that we continue that item for two weeks to november 27th [speaker not understood], for two weeks partly because people involved in putting the information together particularly on the rec and park side are busy responding to questions about the park bond which is on the november ballot here in san francisco. and so it is just a matter of time management. there is nothing in any way, shape or form, despite the suggestion there was anything nefarious about the delay. that was far, far from the truth. >> great. i would hope that those extra two weeks would then help to provide a more robust plan and timeline for rec and park on lake merced. >> thank you, commissioner. thank you.

the update. >> thank you, mr. president. congratulations. thank you, president past, mr. moran, and welcome, vince courtney to the ranks of officers. i'd like to talk about clean power sf. >> thank you. >> thank you, commissioners. barbara hail, assistants general manager for power. this is the first of our regular week -- not weekly, every other week update on clean power sf. at our last meeting we described the board amendment to the clean power sf plan, primarily to incorporate customer notification and education, recovery of security costs and rates. and we had a conversation about how we would use any new survey results in informing our plan. what i have included in the packet for you today is a timeline and some background refresher materials on the two

prior surveys we conducted. staff continues to incorporate the board's direction in our plan going forward on november 13th. we intend to come to you with proposals on how we will encourage and allow customers to express their interest in participating in the program. what's been referred to as pre-enrollment. and how we will work that pre-enrollment concept with the statutorily required opt out and how we will use survey results in surveys to be conducted. and november 30th we'll have a joint puc lasko where we'll be able to discuss these more fully with the entities that have been so closely engaged on the cca program. with that i'm happy to take any questions, but i really think the information i have provided so far was just sort of to

prime the pump in for the upcoming meeting. >> the fairbanks are pulling, why were they hoe ebb he en[speaker not understood]? >> they have been chose tone conduct the prior polls under our contract, contracting method. if we go forward with any other polls, i'm sure or surveys, i'm sure we'll go through whatever the necessary steps are. >> we look for local pollsters that could be engaged as well? >> yes, absolutely. >> any other questions for members of the commission? >> mr. president, just a couple comments. i'm not going to be here for the next meeting so i just wanted to make a couple comments. first, i appreciate the more detail especially that you laid out. at our last meeting we talked about what the commission had anticipated there being really a final go, no go vote when this thing is fully baked and

we have all the pieces in front of us. it looks as though that's going to be coming up in march of 2013. so, a lot of work to do between now and then, but i appreciate your laying that out as clearly as you have. as far as the outreach program, one of the things that we have left unresolved when the commission acted almost a year ago, i guess, and sent this thing forward to the board of supervisors was the size of the program. and we said it would be somewhere between 20 and 30 megawatts to be determined later. and that's still in front of us. i assumed that you would want to nail that down before you go into the solicitation and outreach. the reason that i had sometime ago thought about scaling the

program back to 20 megawatts was of the various risks that we have in the program. most of them are covered by various cash reserves that have been structured. one that we don't really have covered is a risk of under subscription. and if we come up short, then -- and it's less than 5% below the amount of power that we've purchased where we do have a obligation to consume or pay for or dispose of that power, and there is a risk for us. the most recent polling that i saw, there was good news and bad news. the good news was that the people who really want to go with clean power, that number stays the same. that commitment is firm and it looks pretty good. the bad news was that some of the undecided people have gone to the no column where they would expect to opt out. and that means that your targeting has to be better

because your fall back is somewhat constrained. the ability to go out and say, well, we'll backfill this with an additional subscription. the odds of that are a little bit less. so, that's one reason. the second reason is that the board of supervisors compromised the reserve amount by putting some other things in there that they wanted to fund. and we are also looking toward doing brief qualification [speaker not understood]. all of that argues, in my view, for doing the initial offering at the lower level of 20 megawatts. and i don't know what staff has in mind at this point, but i just wanted to be clear to the staff and the rest of the commission that at least with the information that i have available at the moment, my inclination is stronger than it was before, that starting with something smaller we can make sure it's a success that it is

in good order. thank you for the opportunity to make those comments. * in advance of the next meeting. >> again, i'm sorry you won't be here at the next meeting, but maybe this is something that we can try and unpack a little bit with lafco on november 30th as well. and hear from the staff the 20 versus 30 options some of the pros and cons and associated risk in moving with the higher number because i think at a cursory glance i think there is financial risk to the higher number, but there is also greater opportunity from an environmental perspective, benefit perspective. so it would be nice to kind of hear about that and weigh that out a little more carefully. i also saw in the timeline that the community notification and education plan and budget is supposed to come before us december 11. and i imagine that is the item we were sort of talking about last time. are we going to be talking about that with lafco and that

is why it is appearing on the following -- because i imagine that lafco would have some feelings about that and want to have input on that as well and could help inform what that scope of work should be. so, i guess i would hope that the consultant that we have contracted with in the smaller amount would by lafco meeting at a minimum have something that we can at least a straw man we can talk about at that time so we can make an informed decision that can be informed by some of the board members and lafco for the following meeting. >> yes, if i may. at the lafco meeting we'll be talking about how the pre-enrollment or expressions of interest in the program, how we envision that working and how we envision that working with the statutorily required audithv out. embedded in that conversation will be a conversation about how do we -- how are we

actually engaging with customers or potential customers. * opt out how proactive are we being and with which customer groups, and how more responsive mode we're in with customer groups. because there will be an element, i think, given the size of the program that we're envisioning. there will be an element of us actively engaging with customers, but there will also be customers who will call us up. in fact, we've already had some potential customers call us already expressing an interest in participating in the program. so, we need to be ready to address sort of both levels of customer interest and that will help us shape our pre-enrollment and our statutory opt out portions of our roll out of our plan. i wonder if i may also respond to something you said, commissioner moran, about the solicitation and outreach.

and that you were imagining we would need to make a determination as to the size of the program before, if i heard you correctly, before solicitation and outreach. and i just wanted to say that from our perspective, part of the shaping of the program and the size of the program will be in response to some of the outreach we perform. so, you know, as those prior surveys informed us, we expect that we will need to be talking with potential customers to understand if they're still as interested in the program as they were at the prices we expressed when we last talked to them. now that the board has told us to incorporate the security costs into the rates, now that we're incorporating 20% discount for low-income customers and recovery of those costs from other customers, the price is going to be higher. and, so, we're going to need to see if those customers are

still interested. that will help us decide from a business perspective 20 megawatts, 30 megawatts. that will be one of the data points to help inform that decision. so, some of the outreach will need to occur before we answer that question thoughtfully for you, i think. and make a recommendation to you, i should say. >> well, no, thank you. and i guess i had jumped the gun a little bit in assuming you would want to know ahead of time. in party assume some of the pricing influence, construct you would be serving people with. >> yes. >> but it does get into somewhat circular. >> yes. >> the other thing that does occur to me on that, if we went out with a smaller program and if it turned out that the response was just fabulous, and we had an opportunity to do more than we originally thought, the potential problem we have there is that if we have to go back to shelf for a second increment of power, there is no guarantee the

second increment will be at the same price as the first increment. >> it does not promise the price will be more or less. correct. >> one thing that occurred to me is that because the board has requested that we build into rates a repayment of the reserves, i was wondering if it might be possible to potentially use that increment of rate to either pay back the reserve or pay a price differential if there was one for a second increment of power purchase and have that be a source of funds for second increment if it turned out to be more expensive. [multiple voices] >> i don't know if that's consistent with what the board ordinance says. but if there is room for that, i think it would be interesting to pursue it. >> it does sound interesting. >> it may require another action, though. >> the language and the resolution from the board indicated that we should

recover it, but it didn't indicate the time frame. so, there was sort of an expression of moving towards recovering those rates -- recovering the costs from that customer group. >> i think you and i are concerned about the time frame. >> well, yes. if it is in fact flexible, if you built in that increment in the rates and the intent would be that if the price stayed the same, you would start the repayment of the reserves. if it didn't, then you would simply postpone the repayment of reserves until the next time you set power rates, presumably a year out. >> this kind of discussion needs to take place at lafco. >> right. >> in terms of ferreting out the information. after reviewing the polls, which has been my nature since i was in the legislature, interpreting polling can be very complex and very difficult. and i think commissioner moran just mentioned some of the problems you confront with polling. you get a clear picture, at least a picture of that day where the voters and respondents are feeling. and i think we may have to do a little more polling in terms of the various groups that are

involved here to make sure we can meet the challenges that we have been -- and the burden and responsibility we have been placed with. commissioner, do you have any comments? anyone else? >> thank you. >> thank you. >> that concludes my report. >> it what very, very concise. >> thank you. >> thank you. the boxer report. welcome. >> art, art, president of the commission. members of the commission, first of all, congratulations. it will be fun working with you. >> same here. >> we had -- when he was president, president moran come down and address the board one evening just in september. we won't wait that long. we'll get you down sooner so you can see our board and they can see you. so, congratulations. congratulations, commissioner courtney, on being vice-chair. and thank you, commissioner moran, for all of your service and your coordination with us. >> i also don't want to leave

out the incredible women we have sitting on this commission as well. [laughter] >> they are definitely working. >> y yes, your binder, so to speak. >> i won't go there. [laughter] >> it's been a pleasure working with all the commissioners, let's just say. one thing i wanted to report to you today is we have been working on the prospect of issuing bonds to repay the capital debt. we talked a little about this before. it is a large issuance particularly for us because we never issued bonds before. $350 million in bonds is considerable for even some of our members. and it's been a unique opportunity to work with the bankers and attorneys and all the people that get involved because it's different for them. it's not a vanilla, you've done it before kind of issuance. so, it's been interesting, we've done some creative things. one of the things i'll be interested in sharing with your staff is how we propose to set the surcharge to collect the revenue to pay the debt service. it's somewhat unique.

it reminds me of the conversation we had with todd a couple of years ago, but it's a twist that may help stabilize revenue and make everyone feel good, which is a challenge. stabilizing revenue is important for the bond buyers making them feel good is keeping peace within the ranks of our members. we're also working closely with your staff, gathering information, exchanging information on how the billing might be done and so forth. all that's going well. we met with one of the bond rating agencies yesterday for a preliminary credit assessment. >> what did you find out? >> we'll out what we'll find out later. and their issues of protocol surrounding things like [inaudible] credit assessments. we'll cover those. but we're gearing up for a presentation to our board on november 15th. your staff will be there. you're invited to attend.

we intend to put before them a number of policy decisions related to the issuance of bonds and the allocation of debt service. we also plan to ask them at this time for the authorities to move forward immediately after the first of the year. so, we're proceeding in that timely fashion. we've already requested the member agencies of about resolutions to certify that they're on board with this. it's not a requirement, but it's a good idea. it allows the bond buyers let everyone know they're on board or not. we have even constructed the issuance so that if an agency does not participate for whatever reason and there is no -- no one said they would not, but if they don't get the resolution passed on time because of some bureaucratic hang up, that just shouldn't, shouldn't ruin the deal for everybody else or allow us to [speaker not understood] the market and take advantage of good market conditionses. so, we're trying to think of everything. i think we have. it looks very promising. hope we will get clear sailing

at the board level. we met with the board policy committee last week, which is an advisory committee to the board and to me. we had at times exciting conversation about some of the issues. got through them all and they voted to make recommendations to the board, which i certainly endorse. so, just want to give you a status report on that. thank you. >> thank you. >> any quiz? >> thank you very much, art. looking forward to working with you. * questions moves us to the consent calendar, members. we have some public comment on some of the consent items. >> i will read the consent items. item 9a, approving award contract joc 42 to not exceed amount to 5 million to the lowest qualifying responsible and responsive bidder power engineering. -- construction company. b, approve an award contract, joc 43 for a not to exceed amount of 5 million to the

lowest qualified responsible and responsive bidder synergy project management incorporated. c, approve modification no. 4 to contract ww 5 14 r with nkk construction corporation, completion of contract duration by 120 consecutive calendar days with no change to the contract amount. d, accept work performed by precision engineering incorporated for contract ww 455, approve modification no. 3, increasing the contract by $186,113, with a time extension of 42 consecutive calendar days [speaker not understood]. e, authorize the general manager to [speaker not understood] a revocable grant with mahakari for the use of sfpc land at 1155 junipero boulevard, san francisco, california at a use of $500 per month. f, authorize the john

bradivctionv manager to execute a joint funding agreement with the u.s. geological survey for an amount not to exceed $335,5 20 and with the duration of one year. g, authorize -- approve and authorize the general manager to execute amendment number 1 to extend the term of the memorandum of agreement between the sfpuc and the city of san bruno for project number cuw 301 03. the proposed amendment will extend the term of the agreement for 18 months with no additional funds required. h, accept the work performed by a roos construction company & associates for contract wd 263 4, approve modification no. 3, increasing the contract by 344,118, and authorize final payment to the contractor. i, accept work performed by a ruiz construction company for a total contract amount of 1,9 79,86 6 and authorize final payment to the contractor.

* j, authorize and ratify the execution of the extension of the joint exercise of powers agreement with the bayshore sanitary district through december 31st, 2012. k, approve commission appointment to the san joaquin tributaries authority commission. mr. pilpher has -- >> i'll use my time wisely. several items starting with 9e on page 16, the commission office address is still the market street address. i assume that will get updated in the proposed permit. i also found fascinating the lead from the spring valley water company to that certain land in the vicinity of what's now 19,000 [speaker not understood],