also, i wasn't sure if the bayview opera house is also part of what was being considered, but i knew that was something i wanted to support. i have to add that at the time we passed the budget at the committee last year, last year, end of june, there was a consideration for using some of those funding from the state budget reserve for education as well for dealing with cuts in education. so that we had a vote early this year some of us on the board who had actually considered this funding to be appropriate for that. so, i would like to support this and would like to motion that we accept the budget analyst recommendations and move to the full board with recommendation. >> okay, we have a motion to accept the amendments proposed by the budget and legislative analyst. we can do that without opposition. and a motion to send the item number 6 as amended forward with recommendation to the full board and we can do that without opposition. all right, mr. clerk, can you please call item number 7?

>> item number 7, resolution authorizing the general manager of the public utilities commission to execute a 20-year lease, for $52,324 annually with an annual increase of 4 percent, with los altos hotel associates, llc, for approximately 47,916 square feet of land known as bay division pipelines 3 and 4, parcel no. 232a, located in the city of los altos, santa clara county, california, for hotel parking and recreation purposes. >> thank you very much. we have the puc here. >> good afternoon, chair farrell, members of the committee. john updike, director of real estate. so, this item is a lease of just over one acre of land owned by the sfpuc under their bay division pipeline 3 of 4 right-of-way in the city of los altos shown on the map here. it adjoins a marriott residence inn. that address is 44 60 el camino real.

so, this gives you a detailed look at the area. the lease is with los altos hotel associates, llc, it is for a term of 20 years. it's an existing parking lot. it was a prior lease of 10 years so this is a new lease coming forward with an initial term of -- a full term of 20 years. payment streams are detailed in the third page of the report from the budget analyst. it begins at a rate of 52,3 24 dollars in year one, increases 4% each year. [speaker not understood]. establishes a new base rent each five years at the discretion of the general manager and the puc. this rate was established through an independent appraisal as a rate with which i concur. given the leased area, only benefits from as you can see from the picture, the adjoineding property, the lease was not competitively bid as you would normally find. in this case we wanted simply

to be sure the rate was reflective of market and that appraisal gave us that assurance. this is a project that is exempt from c-e-q-a. it is an existing parking lot. there's no physical change to the area under lease. any questions, happy to answer. otherwise, we also have anthony with the puc here if you have a technical question. >> thanks. and i apologize for not recognizing you there earlier. >> no problem. >> just to be clear on this one, this parking lot, there's no ability for us to develop it or use it for anything but what it is being used for today, correct? >> that's correct, there are limitations given the actual facilities underground as well as the rights to traverse the property. so, the parking lot is actually the best use. >> okay, thank you. colleagues, any questions for mr. updike of the puc? okay, thank you very much. to the budget and legislative analyst. >> mr. chair, members of the committee, as mr. updike has indicated, the first year rent under the proposed lease is 52,3 24.

that's 4,141 or 8.6% more than the existing annual rent which is currently on a month-to-month basis of 48,183. under the -- and that was based on an appraisal and it's considered to be fill market valued. that has been reported to our office. as you can see on table 1 on page 39 of our report, that for the first four years the estimated rent given the 4% increase is payable to the puc would be about $222,192. we recommend you approve this resolution. >> okay, thank you. colleagues, any questions? okay, thank you very much. at this point i'd like to open up to public comment. any members of the public that wish to comment on item number 7, please step forward. seeing none, public comment is closed. >> i'd like to move approve. >> okay, we have a motion to approve item number 7, send it to the full board with

recommendation. we can do that without opposition. mr. clerk, can you please call items number 8 through 10 together? >> item number 8, hearing to receive a regular quarterly update from the public utilities commission on the water system improvement program to include information on projects completed to date, the corresponding costs for completed projects, and schedule and corresponding costs for upcoming projects. item number 9, resolution adopting findings under the california environmental quality act related to modifications to the san francisco public utilities commission water system improvement program calaveras dam replacement project, located in alameda and santa clara counties, including the adoption of a mitigation monitoring and reporting program and a statement of overriding considerations; and directing the clerk of the board of supervisors to notify the controller of this action. item number 10, hearing to consider release of reserved funds, public utilities commission (file no. 100337, ordinance no. 92-10) in the amount of $117,000,000 to continue the construction work on the calaveras dam replacement project and make project construction changes to address the unexpected geological conditions for the water system improvement program cuw395.

>> okay, thank you very much. and we have puc here to talk about items number 8 through 10. >> good morning, mr. chairman, members of the board. julie labonte and louisa director. if you wouldn't mind connecting the computer, please. so, we have three items today related to our program on your agenda. and since some of you may not be as quite familiar with our program, i said i'd start with a very brief overview of the wsip as well as the status report of where the programs stand as of today. then you'll summarize the issues that have triggered the need for some cost increases on the calaveras dam project. so, shown here is a schematic of our regional system. snow melt that is accumulated on the hetch hetchy reservoir is transported across the state 167 miles all by gravity all the way down to the city.

85% of our supply comes from the hetch hetchy reservoir while 15%, the remaining 15% comes from local reservoirs in the east bay and the peninsula. the calaveras reservoir is our largest local reservoir. it's located in the sunol valley near the city of pleasant on. and although our system has performed brilliantly for nearly a century now, * it is very seismically vulnerable as it crosses three of the nation's most active faults. the calaveras reservoir actually has the calaveras fault right underneath it. to ensure the continued delivery of water following a major earthquake, the city undertook the wsip about 10 years ago. this is one of the largest capital water program of the nation. and it includes 82 projects spread geographically over 7 different counties.

the current budget approved for the program is 4.6 billion. and all our projects, except the calaveras dam project, will be -- is on track to be completed by 2016, mid 2016. i think one of the key outcomes of the program will be the construction of what we call a life line around the bay area that will be able to withstand a major seismic event. and you can see the various components that makeup that life line. only three of all these components are still in construction. everything else has been completed and the major components actually remaining are the two tunnels that are shown in dark blue, the ones on the eastern side of the bay as well as the one under the san francisco bay. this is a status of the program as of the end of 2012. the number in parentheses are the numbers remaining in each phase and the dollar amount is the total value of those

projects. you can see that we've completed 59 of the programs construction, 59 of the 82 projects in the program. but you can also see at the same time that a lot of our larger projects are still in construction. we have 17 projects worth $2.7 billion currently active in construction. the good news is we only have six projects in pre-construction. i'll give you a very brief update on some of the key projects. the program involved some major improvements at the city's two major treatment facilities. on the peninsula, at the harry tracy water treatment plant, the photo on the left shows you the 800 piles that had to be put in in the foundation of a new treated water reservoir. there is work going on at that plant throughout the plant. it is pretty amazing that our operation staff is still able

to deliver water out of that plant. that project is now 35% done. the photo on the right is the sunol valley water treatment plan. there were 95% done and substantial completion is scheduled for april. state safety officials at qualified the ground conditions at the new irving ton tunnel to be some of the most challenging that they've ever encountered in california * . this is due to the fact that there is some great amounts of groundwater inflows as well as hazardous gas that are present in the tunneling of that project. and supervisor avalos actually witnessed firsthand some of the challenges encountered by the miners when we took inside the tunnel all the way up to the face of the tunnel. we have now excavated 80% of the tunnel and excavation activities are scheduled to be completed sometime mid summer.

the bay tunnel is a five mile tunnel under san francisco bay and this is really truly the first tunnel under the bay and we achieved a major milestone in mid january when the tunnel boring machine connected with the receiving [speaker not understood] in new work. now the next step is to install a 9 foot diameter pipeline inside that tunnel that will begin in april and will be completed by the end of the year. now, calaveras, when the original dam was built in 1925, it was the largest earth enrock fill dam in the world. and in 2001 * the state official ordered we lower the water level due to the seismic vulnerability of the dam due to the calaveras fault is within i believe 500 feet from the dam. with an original budget of $450 million, this is the largest

wsip project. we knew from the beginning that was going to be our most challenging project. all dam projects are always very challenging, involve a lot of risks because they involve a lot of earthwork and a need for a good knowledge of the subsurface conditions. the project consists of building a new dam downstream of the existing dam. that new dam will be of equal size. as you can see on this photo, the diet is very constrained. there are multiple fault zones within the site that has a lot of impact on the geology of the site * . and there's also a presence of very high concentration of naturally occurring asbestos that adds to the complexity of the project. in mid 2012, unexpected geologic conditionses were discovered above the slope, above the spill way of the dam. we conducted a lot of

additional exploratory work that led to the need to redesign that slope. * that redesign is generating a lot more material, 3 million cubic yard of material that had to be removed and disposed of. in turn, we had to evaluate the environmental impact of that additional disposal. that was done through an addenda through the project e-i-r. the finding of the e-i-r were that there were no additional significant impacts due to this additional disposal. however, there will be major impacts to the scheduling costs of the project due to this new discovery. we are estimating a delay of 25 months and additional costs totaling 157 million. yeah, million. now i want to point out that only 15% of the additional costs are what we call inefficiency costs that are

additional costs to what we would have to incur anyway if we knew about these features during design. >> what's that again? >> 15%. so, essentially, if we knew about these feature during design, we would have known that the cost of that project would have been 85% higher than the changes we're looking at right now and we would still have proceeded with the implementation of that project because that reservoir is so critical to the water supply of our system. this is really the last slide here and when we discovered these features back in mid 2012, production on the project was impacted by four months essentially. but since then we have picked up and we are moving ahead full speed right now on the project. we are 35% done with the project. and i'd like to highlight the fact that the sods 117 million

we are asking to you approve today to transfer to the project will only cover the construction, the increase in construction costs. there will be a need for increases also what we call the soft costs, delivery costs for the additional 25 months. and there are also significant risks remaining on that project. so, we are at the same time negotiating a final change order for the discovery of those features with the contractors. all that to say that we will need to go back to our commission and to this committee in about april or may. we will come back and seek from you an approval for additional revisions to the program costs. now, any increases in the program on that project in the program, we will want to compensate by with savings. so, at the same time we are undertaking a very comprehensive assessment of all remaining projects with the goal of identifying savings that will be able to compensate

for these known increases that are to come. listed here are the two actions that we are -- >> excuse me, ms. la bonte, supervisor avalos. >> with the savings we'll expect there will be a need to come back or to find additional revenue after that or we can actually accomplish this project with savings from other projects [speaker not understood]? >> what i know for a fact, supervisor avalos, is there will be a need to reappropriate funds from one project to the other. now, whether we can find enough saving in a zero net increase has yet to be determined and that's what we're trying really hard to do. based on what i know at this point, if it is not -- if we are not able to compensate for a lot of them, the overall increase on the program would still be a very reasonable -- very low. but you should know that my goal and the goal of our team is to, you know, find equal savings. >> and if there needs to be additional funding brought

overall with the project, what [speaker not understood] to go ahead and issue more bonds? >> this would be probably more a question for todd read strong. >> todd read strong, cfo manager. we would have to do an initial process as well as work with the mayor's office to come back to the board which would be * which would consider the supplemental as well as financing authority and require a three-quarter vote for us to issue more bonds. in addition to what julie has mentioned, while we want to constrain the costs, we have also been achieving a great deal of savings on our revenue bond issuances. we have refunded every revenue bond that we could, achieving $52 million of rate payer saving over the last three years. in addition, we sold sewer bonds on monday morning and we were the first city department to sell bond since the city's geo bond rating was upgraded. and the market received us

very, very well. we saved rate payers over $150 million because of the aggressive bidding buyers wanted to buy san francisco sewer bonds. we achieved foreign rates at about 3.58%. so, while julie and i give you the good news and the bad news, we're balancing the budget and we want to do that to make sure rates stay as affordable as we can. >> another option we would have, too, supervisor, we have an ongoing capital program for our water enterprise and there's been question that some of the improvements in that program could be deferred slightly and some of the wsip improvements could be moved into that program. not to surpass the budget of the wsip. so, there's a few options we can look at once we determine exactly where we stand budget wise.

>> earlier in the project we were seeing much lower construction costs than we had anticipated. how are thing looking now in terms of construction costs? >> very good question. the most recent bid we got was a smaller pipeline project, but still a project worth about $40 million. the winning bid came in 9% under engineer estimates. that's still good, but that's not what we used to see. so, based on what i read in the trade journals and, you know, based on conversation with my colleagues on other program, i think there is a slow picking up of the workout there and i think we're -- the bids are not going to be quite as competitive as they've been in the last few years. >> and our savings won't be as big as we had? >> exactly. and in our case, since i only have sick projects, smaller projects left to put out to bid, there is not [speaker not understood] for additional

saving there. * six >> okay, thank you very much. colleagues, any further questions? all right. to the budget and legislative analyst report. >> mr. chairman, and members of the committee, on page 44 of our report, we point out that if you add the requested 117 million to the previously approved budget for the calaveras dam project of [speaker not understood] 416,845, that would provide a total budget of 53 2,6 87,834 [speaker not understood]. and the puc reports the increased construction costs would be absorbed within the existing overall water system improvement budget which is presently forecasted at 4,585,5 56,260. so, this request of 117 million

together with available contingency funds for this project of 6.9 million would result in an increased cost of 123.9 million dollars or total cost of 123,9 [speaker not understood], the department has provided a detailed budget on page 45 of that report adding up to the 123.9 million dollars. by releasing this requested 117 million, we point out on page 46 of our report the puc's requested the water system improvement program management reserve which presently has a balance of 117.1 million, would only have a remaining balance of 103 thou dollars and that clearly is inadequate for a $4.6 billion water system improvement budget. so, * we believe that -- and those additional costs, by the

way, which could be -- which could result or explain on page on page 46 of our report. * are so, our recommendations on page 47 of our report, we recommend that you request the puc to report to the budget and finance committee by may 31st of 2013 on the puc's responses to the bay area water supply and conservation agencies 10 recommendationses pertaining to further cost savings measures which may take place. and then we do recommend that you approve the requested release of the reserve funds. >> thank you very much. colleagues, any questions? just quickly to the puc, obviously -- and i want to thank you for your detailed briefing yesterday. much appreciated and look forward to being out there as well at the tunnel. obviously the reserve amount is a question going forward. are you comfortable coming back

reporting on the bay area, the water supply and conservation agency -- >> my intention would be to go to our commission on the 23rd of april and seek their approval for revision, then come before you. and at the same time, i would report on the 10 recommendations. >> okay. supervisor mar? >> i just wanted to thank julie for the great presentation. could you re-explain how you're going to replenish that reserve fund over time for the puc? >> yes, there are different areas of the program that i know for a fact have savings right now. for example, there are a few projects where we have awarded bids like the one example i just gave you where the bids came in lower than our budget. so, what i want to do is take money out of those individual projects, move them back into the program management reserve. another example, some of our projects get completed. there is a balance left in the project as we completed them below the budget. i want to move that. bay tunnel, we just holed

through. they've got a lot of contingency money in construction. the risks are much lower. i'm going to reduce our contingency, move that money back to the program. andrew ross sorkin there's a few areas i know for a fact i have savings. the question is whether i'll be able to find enough to compensate for also some of the known increases. >> okay, thank you very much. colleagues, any other questions? okay, thank you very much. at this point i'd like to open up to public comment. any members of the public wish to comment on items number 8 through 10? seeing none, public comment is closed. all right, colleagues, we have a number of items here before us. let me suggest a few thing. with item number 8, if i can make a motion continue to the call of the chair even though we have a number of years left on the program. >> we can have the update from bosla at that point when we have the next update for the system. >> that sounds great. we'll work together with the puc. we can did the update on those 10 recommendation as well as have the next quarterly update together at one point in time. * okay, we can do that without

opposition. as for item number 9, we need to adopt c-e-q-a finding with the calaveras dam project. move approval. we have a motion to approve item number 9, the c-e-q-a findings. we can do that without opposition. and as for item number 10, the hearing, we have to this stays here in committee but we have to make a motion to release the reserve funds in the amount of $117 million to the puc. >> so moved. >> and we can do that without opposition. mr. clerk, do we have to table -- excuse me, mr. clerk, sorry. do we have to table item number 10 because it was a hearing itself? okay, thanks very much. so, at this point, mr. clerk, can you please call item number 11? >> item number 11, hearing on the budget updates from the mayor, controller, budget and legislative analyst, and city departments, including balance, shortfalls, strengths, and additional revenues. >> thank you very much.

and we have two items today. first from ken howard regarding our budget and the budget instructions that were given out earlier this year as well as a report from the controller's office on the six-month update. so, we will start with ms. howard. >> so, happy to be here talking a little bit about budget instructions. the presentation that you -- that i'll be sharing with you is similar to the one that i have provided to department heads. please stop me if you have questions, otherwise, i won't go into as much detail. but this is really just a preview of what the instructions are and why the deficit is where it is. so, just as a reminder to you

and to members of the public who may be interested, we have currently a $7.4 billion budget, $3.5 billion in the general fund and in the current year nearly 27,000 employees. our largest revenue is the property tax and our largest cost is and as you all know, our largest department is the department of public health. * last year we moved forward with the first year of two-year budgeting for all departments. we have [speaker not understood] two-year budgets, mta, puc, [speaker not understood] and all others are rolling. which means this year again you will see all of the departments for an update, two-year budget, 13-14, 14-15, 15-16.

those must balance. [speaker not understood]. so, just to refresh our memories about how we balanced the budget last year, largely revenue growth some one-time solutions, some departmental and city-wide solutions, we deferred full funding for capital funding, it funding and equipment funding in the second year of the budget which means that that's going to contribute to our deficit in the projection that you'll see shortly. and just a reminder that our reserves are strong and growing. and i know the deputy control will update you on the position of reserve shortly. so, strong general fund reserve position. we have a state reserve which we just talked about. and then our rainy day fund which is continuing to be drawn down on and will continue to be depleted mostly by withdrawals from the school district and finally our budget stabilization reserve. both the rainy day and the

stabilization reserve are of the same kinds of triggers about when we can withdraw from them, only when our revenues decline. >> just a question on our budget stabilization reserve. we just established that in was it 2010? >> two years ago, that's right. >> so, how has that grown over the past few years? if you can remind the trigger of that growth is. >> we feed into the reserve 25% of revenue above the five-year average of property transfer tax. and end of year better than expected fund balance. we've been feeding this reserve significantly both as to -- the revenue and property transfer tax has been quite strong, but also when -- at the end of the year when we close our budget, some of that money has to get deposited. >> i was