>> nice plug. >> i hope you all come. that's directly as a result of this grant opportunity. thank you. >> thank you both for being here. >> the last speaker card i have is from ace on the case. >> good evening, commissioners, this is my first time appearing before you commissioners in recent memory. i ran out of tape. i guess i will get a copy from the government channel. before there was a government channel, there was an ace on the case that recorded the supervisors. some of our black community people where they took our ideas they made it city government. here i am channel 29. i hadn't seen. what

i see evaluating. this is not really everybody's fault, but as some of the people mentioned that it's' new era here in san francisco. we have no time for eras. i'm glad i'm speaking about the role, the puc, it's taking on a roll now. the out migration. you have mr., i forget his name, that's working with him. theo, he's doing a great job. let me get back to the arts. the young lady that comesen here. the same process happened in the west edition with the arts commission. we got shambled and you can find it through the redevelopment agency with an audit and they

put people in contract that weren't in our community. even on sunshine commission they came in with there, how can you put it, unsufficient evidence and they used the title and city and county. let me just centeres this here. i think there is a new day in the community which i'm presenting as a community reform. you got reforming everything else except community reform. now, my concept is that i'm not going present it now because somebody will steal it but it's about changing and dropping and flopping it. this means bring forth what we call community driven programs that come from the community. basically we don't need to you bring your consultants from your department and do something in our community wechl don't need

white individuals speaking for black individuals saying what we need to do. we are all well capable. we know all about the city and county. ladies and gentlemen, this is ace on the case and i will speak on public comment on something else. >> thank you for your last words. that is the last item for public comment for item 7a. i will try to summarize and my colleagues will correct me if i miss anything. we did hear from the arts commission. it was scheduled originally for november 26th, that meeting may not take place so we bumped it earlier to have this conversation sooner rather than later. i would like to consider that we have two issues before us. one is potentially a legal

issue and we leave that up to council. that's our responsibility and obligation. i expect that we'll get something back from noern and ambrose. the other issue is the willingness of the arts commission and staff to accommodate our needs moving forward, right? because that's also something we want to do. commissioner moran hit it on the head. right now we really want to tighten it up. i think it was excellent that we had folks attend public comment that were recipients of the grant money and not recipient of the grand money and that gave us an opportunity to hear from both sides. my hope, if there is no objection, i'm going to ask that through general manager we have staff review the tape and transcript and provide to us given all the issues raised some proposals

that we would ask that the arts commission adopt moving forward for this next funding that i believe in january with respect to the appeals process potent ially the face-to-face interview and maybe having someone on the panel and maybe getting francesca vietor involved and someone from our staff get involved and present that to the arts commission for their response. if there is no other comments from my colleagues, we'll move on to the second half of kelly's general manager's report. >> that was the first of six items by the way, and that is the easy one. the next update is the rim fire update.

michael? >> michael, while you are up. commissioners, i had a question about the trees. >> the question about the value of the trees. as you know the rim fire burned extensive parts of the water shed and we hired contractors and removed all the hazardous trees. the trees don't belong to us. they belong to the forest service. we stacked them and the forest service contracts with the haulers. we got an estimate of the potential value of the trees. we don't have a value for all the trees taken out at this point. the estimate they gave us was about 1.5 and $2

million. a portion of that pays for the contractors that have pulled out in the mills and a portion goes out to the u.s. forest service. i don't know if that answered your question. >> who gets the money? >> us. >> do we get the money for the removal? >> the contracts for the removal? we are trying to recover that through fema process and today will be able to talk about that as well. we might also be able, i don't know if we can get that on our insurance. today can address that and that's about 2 contracts with $75,000 each. it was quite a significant effort to make sure the right of way stays clear at this point in time. and the sequestered because the trees were stacking up. >> i just want to go on record as far as salvage logging goes

and questions in the community about whether logs should be savage because of the water shed and the decomposition of the erosion issues as we talked about water quality. i think it's important to be tracking that as well. i know there is legislation put forward to pass bye pass some of the federal laws about the water act and the salvage logging. i would urge the puc to tracking those efforts and ensure the water is not compromised moving forward. >> very good comment. we are doing assessment and our folks -- focus was on imminent danger to allow others to get through

safely. >> r you saying it should be left there? >> there is a lot of issues associated. there has been a request that it be sped ietd in some of the federal laws and bypass but also because of the economic issues before they start to rot and deteriorate. a lot of the environmental groups are saying that at a minimum we should not be bypassing our laws and to make sure we are not compromising the forest lands and water in anyway. >> i'm going to give you a quick summary. the fire is

fully contained afc now which is good news. hopefully with rain it will douse out anything from this point in time. we have our powerhouse back to green lodge in case anybody wants to go there and stay. part of the area was actually burned. really the good news is that our service was really up affected to our wholesale customers and resell customers and our water stays within normal bounds. just to give you a quick update. the presidential declaration was denied on november 4th. we did not meet the $51 million threshold. and after the fire management assistance only $42 million was approved. there is an appeal under way now and we

are attending a briefing what stated the applicant tomorrow and we are finishing the claims as quickly as we can. >> todd, general manager and cfo. the numbers reflect about $3 million lower cost of damage estimates we are finalizing those and meeting with the california office of emergency services tomorrow in sonora as well as going through our updated figures then. the funding updates, we are as discussed priestley -- previously with the commission using an appropriation and we will file for every potential dollar whether it be insurance

or federal funding. the funding now is the assistance grant funding and in addition to the governor's declaration for california disaster act funding as well. the application tomorrow is for the state money. and then we will also be file an insurance claim over the next few weeks. so with that, happy to answer any questions and, we are working on the presidential declaration appeal as well with the governor's office as well as the state. >> that was answering my question. thank you. >> next item i would like to reverse the order, the quarterly budget status report. >> this will be a very quick

item. this is our quarterly report to show how we are doing with our operation with our nearly one $1 billion budget and we like to show where we are saving in cost to help to keep rates as low as we can. this report does that. there are a couple of brief slides in your packet. the news to report is that retail water and revenue are better than budget from sales, however due to some timing difference because of our wholesale customers prepaid us a large sum of money last fiscal year, you will see that is reflected here at the timing difference. the reserves are all very healthy and thank you to everybody and their hard work on that. you will see the water department has nearly

$278 million in projected reserves and water department and heche and $46 million. the scorecard the fund balance adopted by the commission showed that we are meeting or competing all of the reserved ratio as well as the debt coverage and we are in very good financial condition. any questions? >> vice-president caen? >> i have a question about the coverage ratios. with the three enterprises, right now you are showing 1.25. is there one of the enter -- enterprises.

>> at that time we'll look at what specifically that coverage ratio needs to be. if we had to sell the bonds today, it would be 1.25. that's what the market is demanding. >> okay. i thought that was an on going figure. but you say not. my other question is under waste water, the sewage service charge? footnote a, i don't really understand it. >> so the sewer service charge is projected to be a little bit over or better than budget because we are collecting and treating more flows than what we had originally assumed in the budget. this is part of the fact that we are now doing 2-year projections for the budget and last year we treated

more sewage and that heighten treatment levels are into current year. that leads to a slight positive surprise in sewer revenues. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> next item is our draft rate pay era insurance scorecard. >> next i will present you nancy -- she's done the quarterly audit report and performance review. she and i have been working with city controller's team and nancy will introduce them in developing as you have required

us to do under the rate pay era assurance scorecard. nancy will give you an update. this scorecard will be a public lens and will be communicated not only on our website but -- on our mailers. as we are gearing up for our new rate study, we want to attend nearly 700 neighborhood groups and association. it's a potential for a lot of visibility and we want to reflect well on the commission and all the work it has done. nancy? >> good afternoon, i'm joined today by my colleagues, and

project manager. as required by the commission adopted assurance policy i'm pleased to introduce to you today. the development of the scorecard is required by the assurance rate payers. it's the best management practices and cost-efficient -- our department collaborated with the controllers office to develop the rate pay era insurance scorecard and benchmark report and parks and recreation for park maintenance. the rate pay r scorecard for

over 114 from the strategic plan. covering four areas in the area of management, personnel management and asset management and sustainability inclusive of 5 goals. 1 sf puc values and 114 sustainability metrics. the strategic for the framework includes 114 benchmark measures each addressing one of each facet important to the sf puc. each facet is linked to the goal and the measures are updated twice yearly separately and reported to the mayor's office. at this juncture i would like to introduce jennifer to introduce the scorecard today and

highlight key elements. thank you. >> thank you. as nancy mentioned the development of the scorecard was a collaborative everyday with the massive puc and controllers office in reaching a broad audience a visual approach. to walk you through what you are looking at, there are nine measures illustrated here in three categories which represent the four components of the rate payers assurance policy. the top row is management infrastructure safety and product quality. the middle row is comprised of two policy categories, mission management and sustainability. what this aims to measure, cost-effective and sustainable

service through affordability, cost and environmental stewardship. the final category in the bottom row is personnel management, this aims to measure service excellence and to a community involvement and positive working environment. as you can see the measures are graded on a standard academic grading scale centered around the b, a measure of industry standard for a benchmark receives a b and to receive an a and others would fall below a c. the average is an a minus which shows here for 2012 and 2013. the measures for selected through a collaborative effort through sf puc staff while keeping in mind that broad public audience. measures of selected based on fit with the

rate payer policy and framework with the national utility standard in measured performance. other factors include the availability of data in a timely manner and reoccurring basis and the measures in the strategic ability plan. finally a major factor in the selection were benchmarked against an industry standard or relevant policy. lastly on page two, there is summary information provided. the top provides the main purpose, the next is a detailed academic grading scale and a category measure and enter prize. i will hand it back over the nancy who will close with a next step. >> to receive feedback on the

scorecard from the extended public audience and ensure completely. we'll introduce the scorecard for input at the october meeting. the remarks and suggestions are going to be shared here today at our citizens advisory committee. these are a few of the questions that had come up. they are inclusive of how we are ensuring this grade. inclusive of measurement as well as those at the dbi departments and water effects and currently only measure electricity are provided to the

bayview hunters poise and shipyard and treasure island. some think that the information presented in the form of graphic was confusing and others like them and confusing benchmark including an authorized budget for reference and we'll come back for future update. on september 25th there was a lot of focus on health and safety and seeing the score was not desirable and there was a lot of interest in what we can do to bring that up. other considerations were potentially asking to weight scores and the service goal. other public response including how does the puc manage puc rates and also thinking about now that we are potentially benchmarking performance and publishing that

for just rates to the higher score at the puc. one of the questions included is innovative. it's the first time and sf puc the first one. lastly how does the scorecard impact the sf puc ratings. we also had internal stakeholder feedback and measurements to ensure that perhaps is it a measure of missions for service and it's considered measuring, sit breaking or not working and our ability to plan. another one is inclusive of sections to different views, one regulatory and one critical. our next step, i would like to welcome the feedback from the commission and incorporate any recommendation in such

considerations would include are we looking at the right measures. are we properly weighting them against each other and time, is it better to have it around december or around the prebudget hearings. what you are seeing today is a live document. so it's definitely subject to change. our communications team would like to also lay over a puc graphics makeover once the score hard has been final and the controllers office would like to public this in the spring of next year for 2013. with that i would like to thank you and welcome your feedback. >> commissioner torres? >> the last point in terms of the input from us, how is that going to be implemented? your last slide.

>> under next steps? >> yes. there you go. controllers office to public scorecard for data as of calendar year 2013. that's not going to happen in 2013? is it? >> likely not. it's something that can definitely be postponed. i would prefer to hear all feedback and comments from all parties and we can finalize before we jump to that. >> what's the process for doing thachl that. what is our process? >> i'm open for discussion. i'm available to meet with anyone at the same time. >> you are the correct foreign talk -- person to talk to? >> yes i am. whether it's through meetings and consolidated list of questions. i will be more than happy to provide answers to. thank you. >> commissioner vietor? >> i have questions on

something that wasn't reported on and maybe we weren't focused on as much, but thing like the programs. as we start to move into sfip and possibility to later on the communities benefits for these programs that we do some measurement around the community measurement programs and even the public programs, the solo programs that these programs are really for public purpose that don't seem to quite be captured here? >> thank you. >> commissioner, moran? >> thank you. first, let me say that you have taken on an enormously difficult job. we are a large and complex

organization and the idea of putting out a rational scorecard on one sheet of paper is daunting. and, as far as looking at this particular document that is important is the intended audience. as i heard you present it, it's something that we would use in public forums and it was referred to us as a lens through which people can see us in the quality of work we are doing. the first question i have is in the outreach that you did and in the review that you had, there is a couple of outcomes and one is what are you measuring. as far as what you are measuring is there a concurrence that those were the right nine things to be looking at? >> we have shared the scorecard in a preliminary draft form internally with our agm and

management and also with the citizens advisory committee and fairness board. we have received some feedback and that is likely to change pending new information. >> in terms of the public, i assume that the primary audience for this is not the agm. that the audience is the people who are at the board and cac and others. so how much concurrence is there from our public review that these are the right nine things to be looking at? >> thank you for noting the daunting opportunity we have. it really is the fact that we collect the 114 measures which they include the community measures in our stability plan and most people don't make time to read all the 114. we try to figure out which ones are representative and i don't