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 know if these are the right ones but i'm thinking that just like we've done with the citywide parks, the scorecard and citywide streets scorecard, i think at some point we have to just try it and get a larger scale input. that being said, the community benefits idea, we put a local hire one on there as an example on 9 and there

are so many great things that puc does and though greats 114 things we do well, people don't necessarily have time to read that. whatever the 9 end up being, if we put it on one page people would have the opportunity to look at. whatever those measures are, we really do want to hear from you that they are the right ones and there are things that show an organization that you can be proud of and are conveying the hard work of the men and women of the puc and doing it responsibly. >> i guess i would encourage it as you review that to take significance guidance from the public audience. i want to make sure that how we are portrayed is accurate but if it's useful for the intended purpose it should be what the public cares about. as far as how we measure

them, there is a couple, i think you have answered my right -- question. the power we are talking about is the treasure islands and hunters point. that is not something that the city enjoys or has relevance for. in item 3, you talk about the combined power of sewer and water of being less than 2 1/2 percent of average income. we have used the two 1/2 for water and sewer objective and this through power in there. >> i wanted to correct that, i'm glad you mentioned it. i will take the brunt for that. the correction measurement is

two 1/2 percent excluding power. >> you should know that i hate that measure. the reason i do, and we've been using this for years and it makes absolute sense in the bond rating business. it's a measure of stress on a community's economy. from that standpoint it makes all the sense of the world. where it doesn't make sense is to an awful lot of people. the average income that we are basing on is over $70,000. there is a lot of folks that don't make $70,000. for them, this amount for the people who earn lens -- less than that, this amount of money is going to get worse. i would ask you to think about other ways to amplify that issue.

what i'm attempted towards is the idea that how many people or what personal of people -- personal percentage of people in san francisco spend two 1/2 percent of their income buchlt some other way of measuring what the real stress is on folks because i think we are going to be dealing with aw that more and more. comment on the excellence one. good news is we don't of any permit violations. i would say that's not a measure of excellence. that's a measure of doing your job. the whole motion of the permit process is that you do not violate those. that's the fundamental requirement. so doing that is an important thing to know and to highlight, but it's not a measure of excellence. so i would encourage you to keep looking on that >> on that point, if i may, mr.

president, so what is the appropriate? >> it's a horribly difficult thing to measure, very frankly. i don't know how you do that. it's a tough one. but when you say that excellence is measured by the floor, there is just something wrong with that. i don't have an answer to that. that's why instead of suggesting i ask that they take a hard look at how they might define. >> wouldn't other agencies auto that criteria as a measure? >> like the street, they have a street index in terms of how bumpy it is and for the park's clen lens anliness -- cleanliness and the values.

with that being said, this is something that folks would resonate knowing that we didn't have violations. >> perhaps excellence is too high of a standard. >> it's our goal. >> we have set that objective. >> how do you measure that objective? >> that's really tough. i don't think this is how you do it. i think it's an important thing to tell people. it's important to not have violations. if we had violations, it's not that we are not excellent anymore. >> maybe we shouldn't use the word excellence but let the readers decide it. >> it's not measuring what we are saying we are measuring. so that's a problem. you can change what you are measuring or change how you measure it.

>> move on to item 6 dhz customer service mentioned which is measured by whether you answer the phone in 20 seconds. without being facetious whether you can use an answering machine. i can't say it's quality. sometimes if we have customer satisfaction surveys. a lot of places you call in and you say will you hang on and you hit a survey. if there was some other way of measuring the quality, not that we got there quickly but what the quality of the response was, i think it would be more useful. >> as to the thing that started all of this which was the rate payer insurance policy. this doesn't help me assess whether we are meeting that policy or

not. todd and i had some discussion about that and as part of the budget process what we are working on is a more detailed response to the policy. my interest was that this commission has spent a lot of time defining what it wanted to do, what the criteria were and the staff would work on that broad criteria and we wouldn't to have get involved in that. i want to make sure those expressions of policy don't go on a dusty shelf someplace but that we revisit and show an example of how we are doing. for example, there are i counted 9 policies that we had laid out as part of that. some of them had two parts to that so you can make them larger. things like we

should be sensitive to the notion of mission creek. we should be looking at whether we expanded our mission on this or not or whether the mission shrunk. that's an important element. they are working on a much more detailed check sheet for not only that policy but will is the community benefit policy and others that we can get through budget process. i think that will help us much from the commission standpoint understand whether our policies are being add hered to and to what degree and there is also the need to have possible in that process a discussion. some of those issues are not yes or no kind of answers. a lot of them aren't. so we'll need to have some discussion on that. whether that discussion is best done within a budget hearing context anywhere we go through

item by item and have discussion about that or whether that's more easily dealt with as a report that comes back. the nine elements of the rate payers assurance policy and do that for each of the policies we have and that's already being worked on by staff and that will at least give me a more detailed presentation of how we are doing that will be useful for my decision making. that's the end of my comments, thank you. >> we have grap pled with these exact same issues. i appreciate your comment. as far as the 2013 timing, we wonder if it should be on the calendar before you during your budget deliberations and before the new proposed rate package as

before you early next spring and in february. so that was part of our timing going back to commissioner torres question as well. >> thank you. so the next item is we sip quarterly update. i would like to have emilio come up. he has some news to share with everyone. >> good afternoon commissioners, emilio cruz. i wanted to introduce this item specifically as you know miss julie lan bont will be leaving

us soon and we have replaced her. dan came to us from montgomery watson who was vice-president and ran the water resources division. since coming to us he's woshthd -- worked as the regional manager to parks and $1.3 billion worth of work and the project that we are most in construction. it's a very good transition for us to move dan from the regional manager to the project director role and i hope that you will support him in his future role endeavors. thank you. >> i think you have also answered one of my questions that will this be the last time that we hear from julie. >> unfortunately i will be out of town during the last two remaining meetings. >> that will force me to say

nice things now then. >> i was going say nice things. >> let me beat you. first of all, i like to see people getting their just reward. you have given this enterprise and the city far more than a hundred percent for a long time. and you are having the opportunity to move on to a better opportunity i think is just wonderful. we will miss you but i think that's a wonderful thing inform are you. you have managed to inspire us with some of the work that is done for the water work people that is not part of the job description and not something that everybody does. you have done that in an exemplary way and something that we have shared and had glory and paid for by you and you have also earned the highest thing we can

give which is trust. you have been honest and a straight shooter and told us when things went wrong and you have told us when things went well and i value that a great deal. so we will miss you. we will celebrate your good fort tune but we will miss you very much. >> thank you so much. [ applause ] well, i would like to take a portion also to thank you for exactly that, your trust and the support you have given me since i took on the direction back in 2006. i think your insist ence on transparency and accountability is a reason why we are where we are today. this has been trul the job of a lifetime for me and the reason

why i'm leaving, i'm not sure, but i have all the confidence in the world that dan will do an excellent john -- job and i think it will be good for the program to have new energy and new leadership. certainly i wouldn't be where i am without my colleagues on the team. it's because of their hard work and dedication that we are now 80 percent done on the delivery on the $4.6 billion undertaking and people can't forget that. that's a combination of city staff and consultants. fortunately, whatever reason the file i have is not coming up. i'm going to have do this with a projector in black and white. it's not a great way to go out but nonetheless. you will get a colored one in your packets. so this is the quarterly report for fiscal

year 2013-2014. it covers the period of july 1st through september 30th. as you can see here from this pie chart we've now completed construction on 63 of our projects and those projects are worth $1 billion. during the reporting period, 1 project moved to close out and two projects were closed out. the majority of our work does continue to remain in construction but that is about to change drastically as in 2014 we are forecasting to complete six projects worth $783 million. as with the last few quarters, we still have four projects remain in construction and that is about to change with the approval of the peninsula pipeline size

eismic upgrade in october and that project will now be bid by the end of this month and the habitat restoration project which involves 12 contracts and only two of those contracts remain in preconstruction and one of those two will be bid by the end of the year as well. this is the latest cost trend. you can see we are reporting $7.1 million over the approved budget and primarily almost exclusively by the forecast of $9.6 million of the tunnel. that includes the purchase of the property that is required to maintain ground water, watering operation that is needed. this is an asset that we'll be able to resell later on. that offset, that variance is partially offset by a

predicted under run of $2.4 on the water treatment project. here is a list of our accomplishments. you can see that we have a significant decrease from the peak of construction activities which was last august. we are now reporting construction work hours to be 40 percent lower at it's peak. this is a strong indication that the program as a whole is coming down. during the water we achieved complete protection contract and final completion on the sun ol valley completion of the water contract. with $5.7 million recorded work hours, we have a great record and we have continued to loss timeless than

the industry average. we have been also very successful with our shut down record. we have now successfully completed 80 percent of the 185 shut downs that are required to build our 82 projects. what i would like to point out is with so many new facilities in 2014, the shut down requirements will remain high which does involve some operational risk. however this coming season will be our last big shut down season and i'm sure that dave briggs and richie will be very happy about that. we have one project remaining in planning, two remaining in designs. out of the two in designs one is a seismic reliability and the other one is a water supply project. the one remaining is the water supply project the alameda creek capture project

and you will recall we have significantly altered the design concepts of the project tied to the calaveras dam and we are currently on track to complete the planning phase and initiate the conceptual engineering phase. the pipeline project as well as the document we are now getting era ed to advertise this project by the episode of this -- end of this month and if all goes

>> well by 2014. the properties that are be required for the construction of 16 wells and finally we need to complete water supply agreements with our project partners. we are now evaluating that project schedule and we will be be able to provide an update with updated schedule forecast as part of the q 2 quarterly update. now i will walk you through some of our project, starting with the calavera