as the total 10 year. and some highlights of that are increases in street lights been $29 million plus another one hundred and 35 approximately in new proposals for street lights which is the consolidation of pg&e owned street lights and acquiring those by the city and efficiency, however, not anywhere where the level is where we want them to be. the other key summaries for water were discussed by a.m. richie. the new projects are summarized on slide 8. you can see in relation to hetch hetchy power approximately $135 million of street light related activity eaten some

additional need at the alice grifbt and a candle stick point. so sometimes, the new customers need up front capital investment so we have to count the new expenditures and sometimes the new expenditures is up front investments in the case of candle stick point they've over $99 million so the revenues come in over time then. the 10 year capital plan is summarized on page 9 shoig the shortfall but transitioning to slide 5 how to pay for the capital needs and budget and what does that mean for rate pairs and how to keep it

forcible. the slides i've mentioned it one behind stab 5 to summarize the new expenditures they're in red at the took up of the package. there are 3 reasons for pg&e about $24 million for the yearly manual costs that are new because of the transition and distribution charges and the elimination of the power bank and also additional proposed street light increases as pg&e has fidelity within the puc their generate case that assumptions rate increases that we pay for for the benefit of all san franciscans. the weshg richie talked about. that means bh about $6 million a year and mountain tunnel the

waterside it funded through water rates if we could figure out how to balance that and that's what is one of the single contributor. you see the check marks to the right. we've assumed the green light where you've given us approval on treasure island and hunter's point and alice griffith and a upgrades for the riverbank. we're assessing hunter's point and the warriors stadium and the seawall lot and sf hope sites. that leaves us with difficult choices for the general fund paying higher rates to get to cost would be $20 million a

year. if we concluded the new pg&e rates that would be 27 $28 million a year and if pg&e paid $0.40 for the utilities that's $28 million a year and so have some of the street light consolidation just pause on that for a moment. if we opportunity $100 million for the geofunds that's the prosperity tax bill would be $120 more a year. the only other place we use geobonds is for the fire desperation system that like street lights benefit ail san franciscans. the use of refers you hear about and we're meeting the reserves.

we have to look at all the unspent money to all projects we could fro up some refers there. that leaves us with an unpleasant opportunity as well as mentioned looking at others operating cuts all costs including staff. i do want to take a moment and pause on slide 2. a year ago when you adapted the capital plan you prudently adapted the plan that mountain tunnel was a water project. it's not move forward from water quality to catastrophic center. when you adapted the financial plan we didn't have the projected case for pg&e nor the heightened additional expenses

on the transition and disbruks buttock nor what the would be so those 3 pieces of addressed information are material and basically have created that new cliff when a year ago you didn't have. in fact, the black line shows the receivers and the how it was meeting it. fast-forward that to today and you'll see based on the new expenses on slow down one the blue line that goes into the negative material which is the magnitude of the fix we have 80 do. the green part on slide one, if we turn on cost of service from the general recovery fund if we turn on cost of service for the street lights from the general

fund if we assume the consolidation those will solve the problem but still further adjustments or cutting will be noted on the capital plan. the rest of the information is the detailed sumgsdz which you know; right well, the same format was used in the past. i want to point out slide 6 which has a red circle on it. this is one where if you look at the next 10 years you'll see lark or large negative numbers. the first two years are balanced but this is a concern for you that our fund balance refers would be down to $8 million. or about 4 percent so in order to have gotten back to the refer

plan in year two we have to figure out in this two year budget to trim $19 million of costs or fro up projects of the closed amount or other operating cuts are that's in the spirit of the general manager wanted to come back and talk about how we're doing and show you how close we are for refers >> commissioner torres. >> how much do we have in refer. >> $46 million. >> that's it. >> yep. the good ole days for hetch hetchy we really noted to spend those investments >> other than cutting staff and operations how do you cigarette suggest to make up. the shortfall

>> we'll continue the negotiations for the enter connection agreement that could go a long way for serviced like street lights that benefit all san franciscans. and also to look at the category of new customers that we haven't summoned the park merry ted sedate and we'll continue to look at quite frankly every possibility. no one will solve the promise itself >> so the scenario is based on a drought situation down the road what are the variables or critically criteria that's led you to this. >> the projects here in the

plan also assume immediate hydro year. in the last 90 we've having had dry years but this 10 years assumes the modem. so to the degree we have a drought and if it's a multi year drought we're looking at 8 or $9 million a year >> so what factors reduce the $19 milli $19 milli $19 milli $19 million deficit. >> whether it's open the negotiating table or the mayor to consider the generation bond it sits with us. >> so the first option my very well be to dip into the reserve

fund. >> would duo we don't want to wait we want to come up to you sooner. >> thank you. >> so commissioner torres asked before the rim foyer. we've been able to satisfy the emergency repairs for the country staff in particular and we've lights started to get some reimbursements so in concurrence with the mayor's office and other we've reported that and we're starting to see those recoveries and as we see the recoveries we'll replace and put that back to the original costs. we have already received some insurance precedes and if not every other day talking with fema and both the governors office and fema have been

critically good to work with. we're getting ready to file one our of our first claims so in summary we've got insurance recoveries and state recoveries and fema and both public assistance and hazard application filed for facilities that were not damaged so we've tried to put in an application every place that we could. what that means is at the end of the day our $56 million of damage that we would anticipate it be on the hook for is 6 and quarter part of the fema reimbursements so we'll look to reserve to cover that. with that, that's all we have

today we're happy to answer any answers >> commissioner moran. >> thank you. >> two things. first of all, i appreciate your north this out the way you have. the 3 hundred and some odd pages. two things. if looks as to we're going to prop to change the business model for stoplights. there's a lot of pieces of that. the acquisition of pg&e lights and charging for the power we use. i'd like to see something that sdusz duces that change in business model from where we wish to where we're going and specifically where the acquisition fits. as part of it is changing the

funding and an expansion of admission. i want to know how much that expansion of admission is costing us. and why we think that's a good idea >> so we would definitely come back and do a presentation. i think some of the reasons that we role looked at it is that as you knows we own a large portion of the street lights. we want to save a lot of energy costs. the problem out there is when a street light goes down you don't know who it belongs it to. so with the board of supervisors we were thinking as one opportunity is if we go through the geoprocess and unsuccessful put that as part of one of the

upcoming ballot measures we can obtain and maybe purchase some of the pg&e lights and make them efficient. and if they're not planning on macro them energy efficient we pay the costs. so that was the idea behind it. we can definitely come back and tell you what that will look like >> and i appreciate the complexity of that. it well may be that the presentation has to be in a multiple triple format. the other thing i think we need to know we're not going to own

all the street lights public works has a butch. this could be a significant step toward having unified street lighting but it won't happen. the other comment i had was goes back to this $100 million of transition upgrades. i think it would be helpful to think of the 11th year of the 10 year plan. it's stuff we know about that's hanging out there so we don't lose track of it and we don't put things there for convenience and see them so we have the internal discipline to know we have to dlael with them even though that need not be part of the 10 year plan >> that's a good point.

we presented the source program and that's a 20-year plan we do include that but whatever our wish is >> actually, i totally agree with this idea because two years ago we defer a lot of capital and when you balance the budget and if times are good you forget that you've move forward a whole bunch of stuff. we should make this visible all the things we're dir ways we have a backlog and if times are good we should pull them >> and that's not a full statement in the future we don't know in 20 years. >> i think it's part of my earlier comment of getting a

sense of knowing what is coming up in 10 years and beyond when does the tunnel reach the cat tropic situation you know what are the really big-ticket item moments when we need to step up to get a sense of 20 years mountain tunnel so we can help us prior itself. >> i should mention that the mountain tunnel effect is optional this good because we assume about $11 million in year two of the budget and down to year 5 it's 24. the big construction thought of hundred million doesn't hit until 20/20. this is as good as it gets

>> right so that's important information at least map out and give us a sense of what's beyond. >> thank you todd. >> well, i think as i stated before now you have a better understanding of some of the challenges. i want to say one of the things i've challenged the a gms we want to try to accomplish no new positions. and i think for the most part we're able to redirect a lot of our priorities but i felt that the week to week in the course was something that was so large we couldn't absorb so some other things as we present that i think we needed give some

visibility to because i've also for the last two years ago s am asking people to do more with less. believe me the message as we look at raising rates for a waste waterside the message is clear we have to focus those increases on just making sure the cost of inflation is absorbed and not adding new information but a lot of the increase in the capital. that's the message so you'll see a few things that i said to bring up to your attention faster additional resources >> and to beat my drum again. i think the weshg in the course should be funded

>> 6. >> how many positions in total the puc. >> 23 hundred employees well, is it 21 global? hose going to have the exact number public utilities that's close enough. my point there's nothing in the normal course of events that gets us to take a critical look at positions. and i don't think we're capable of doing a bottom-up budgeting process for an organization of this size and i wouldn't want to be involved in that. however, that discipline can be evenly 1yer7bd when you add you also intaubt so from the 20 thousand positions that must be vacancies i think drawing it to our at the scene a correct and

the need st. is clear. i'll support funding those are positions i ask you go and take another look and make it balance to zero >> so the unions want that number. >> pardon me? the number that we currently 2 thousand one hundred and 92 positions >> that's filed? >> those are budgeted positions. >> so - >> some of the challenges you have to for salary savings and so, i mean we can do a workshop on the frgsz of not having the resources to hire i heard plenty of. i do just wanted to put out there we did do this exercise

and believe me everyone came in with wanting to add resources and i wanted to say the folks worked hard to absorb as many things that we're prioritizing. but we'll stack another stab at it so your eyes can be focused on the bottom line >> before we move into any public comment? there were some comments i wanted to reserve so i'm going to reserve many of my comments until later but the presentations from the assist general managers was independent but easy enough to understand. we appreciate all the work you did. obviously since i've been here it's raining figuratively more

on us. one of the reasons i like working with commissioner torres he's seen this enough times he knows what the governor has done and a lot of pressure from units and employees and spend all the money we need it now and a lot of time we get fiscal responsibility from commissioner torres what's in the best interests of the rate pairs and the difficult balancing came back angle i know we have to engage here so i also appreciate all our comments. if there's no further comments we'll move to any public comment? commissioners is that okay. so the first card dave >> good afternoon i have a lot of things to say.

first, i appreciate all the work staff has done and read all the passage through. in terms of power i agree with commissioner vietor we need to investing invest nor in general if you happened if we can reduce the demand at the three or four kent to resell and the last time i went through the general fund department i found the libraries and museums suck up a lot of power and maybe we can do things with climate control. there maybe some investment there that could offset an increase. some of those with related with the budget and workshop. i'm not ready for the mountain tunnel cost. so i think we need to think about that and hear more about

alternative. some of the reductions i'm fine with but those are costs for the new mountain tunnel are huge. the intersection agreement costs makes we think about our lack of transmission line from newark to san francisco. it would be nice to know from staff like what the back of the envelope would be to complete that line that was never completed in nourishing to the city and the trade offices if we were to bond finance that versus pay the additional cost for pg&e for transition of power from newark to the city. the cost of service as it

relates to general funds and enterprise departments and actually all our customers. it's not just the single rate it is where it's delivered so from turlock to modesto it costs us less to get it that far then to power the city. i don't know how you get those costs. the rates certainly need to move closer to cost of service faster more than the half kent but not to the full cost next year that's unrealistic so maybe three-quarters or a kent and a half. i don't know but there small business different alternatives there. also on the street light purchase i'm not sure we need to purchase all the street light unless a geobond is going to pay

for that but not sure we need to purchase ail the old pg&e. if i can conclude quickly and the capital cost clearly we need to look at the new candidate projects for possible cuts in the capital budget. those things we need to do clearly we don't have a lot discrepancy on those those were we could reduce or defer we should be able to talk about those in greater detail that's where the balancing is going to have 80 happen for hetch hetchy. the balance for the need for the project versus the risk of the increased cost of maintenance. i recall and a cpr will remember the repair was a project we said we need to defer it this year and we can keep dir is but at

smcht we need to do that and as commissioner vietor asked which does that risk probably going to happen before it fails. i guess i can talk at a future meeting about staffing. the one thing i want to point out there's a small project that the department of environment has a small number of staff that does energy prestige there's a in and out to move that to puc and it would be a number of small positions it's transferring positions from one department to consolidate all the efficient position because it's split right now i don't

know if you want to do it but hesitates talk about that are. i'm happy to talk further at the next meeting >> give us 30 seconds on the newark power line. >> as i understand it the power is generated at the 3 powerhouses we have transition lines to newark california from newark we pay pg&e through the injecting enter connection agreement to move the power from newark on its lines to san francisco for ultimate distribution i hope i'm getting this right. the initial thought as part of the act and the build out we would essentially witness no. run lines into san francisco it didn't happen we got as far