there is 98 of them. that is a significant body of work. instead of having 103 new position we have 5. the traditional approach on budgets from this kind of a body is to basically say figure it out make it 0. i have been in your shoes and i don't want to do that to you. it hard to get to what i'm talking about. there is a lot of resistance to it. there is a lot of times in the areas that it's not obvious and it doesn't stick out there. that's why i have framed it the way i have. it's not to force you to do something right now that might not be the best thing to do. you have done good work here but to take it from where you are to say okay, where is the area, i don't care where it is in the enterprise. it doesn't need to

be zero by enterprise. it can be anywhere. maybe somebody comes up negative five and that balances it somehow. i don't care where it is. i wanted to leave it to you and staff to figure out how to accomplish that. >> all right. we'll give it a shot. >> again, the process has achieved part of the objective. i will say two-thirds of it. you have done a lot of work already to trade things off and it's also very transparent. i can look at those and the objectives. it's the closed piece, that last piece is what i'm looking at and also it should go without saying that it doesn't sacrifice my favorite projects or the president's favorite project. that's often the tendency and that's how we gain budget process. second item is the desaul

project. some of the defunding for that has been deferred. i don't know what the answer is. let me tell you what my concern is: we need to be able to restore the yield to 265. there is only handful of projects that have a chance of doing that. the ground water storage and recovery ones have some problems to it. the water transfer project at the moment isn't going anywhere. desaul is one of the big ones. it's without that we have no plan for how we get there. i don't want to see that put off and even if it's a matter of saying we can't do that we are going to have to come up with 9 md from someplace else, we ought to find the money to get there. and i also don't want to where water supply we

don't solve to proceeding. when the 265 projects aren't. so, and we have some of those. so what i want and i'm not sure what timeframe you can do it in, but i don't want to have the capital program go through to completion and through the mayor and the board with this current kind of imbalances there and the documents that we have in front of us don't accomplish that at the moment. third item -- >> sorry, so what you are you proposing? >> i would suggest you take a look at the capital program. part of it is put off because of the calavera project and you need to balance that and understand that. there are other projects in the mix. this is the one that's been

chosen. it's the one that happens to hurt the 265 and impacts the wholesale customers to projects that impact san francisco customers, the retail customers are untouched and that's not right. we into ed to somehow balance that. i'm not going to tell you how to do it. i have my favorites, but i'm not going to tell you. that's something you and staff should somehow accomplish. >> the only thing i want to highlight is that this is a 10-year plan we have budgeted every 2 years. the thinking was that we are still funding the environmental and planning process so we know the timing and the amount and what it is and at anytime as you know if we get any information we can put it back in. i do understand that it's sending a message that we are not committed because we have

limited capacity in the 10-year plan and so, just want to know that our intention is to keep going along the pursuit of the desaul and that's why we haven't cut any of the funding for the planning design. >> okay, now was that a correct statement that no money has been deferred from planning and design? >> we have already appropriated for desaul $2.5 million. what is predicted is $200,000 additional. >> what did it used to be? >> i don't know it by year? >> my recollection is more than that. it's not like you are not saving anything. i'm assuming something was put off. >> we'll look, the 10-year

total was reduced because the consumption of the construction was out year 11. the prior appropriation for 2005 was augmented by $200,000 each year. someone will quickly find what it used to be. >> part of this is make insuring that everything we do conforms, we are not saying one thing here and another here. in our water supply planning documents are the documents that we are saying that we will have this project online by i think 2025. i think that's the date. however, four slipping that, then that changes not just the budget but it changes a lot of other stuff. we are also trying to speed up the process of trying to figure out really dealing with those 2018 questions. if we can't beat 265, we can't say yes to anything. it's a really important project. and we need to make sure that not only

our planning documents but our financial documents are budgeted to conform with that. there is timing question. how do we make those adjustments perhaps after this commission has acted assume we have today. i assume that will come back to us that you can amend a budget before. if aid quick answer today that would be as well, if you don't i would like to see somebody come back. third item is the hetch hetchy financial plan is not a financial plan. i cannot vote for it. it's a description of a disaster. the not a plan for survival and i can't support that. i don't know what the impact is of us not adopting a financial plan today, but if for some reason we have to

proceed, it won't be with my vote. fourth item is just a note and that is that we have talked to the heche budget about the possible $20 million additional dollars per year to fund transmission distribution cost under new agreements in the future. the note to all of us is that is not reflected in the power rates for water and wastewater and presumably if you have that kind of a hit that there would be that kind of impact. that is an area of discontinuity between financial plans for water heche and power and that's as you develop the heche plan would need to revolve that. the final is a question, one of the things that i had asked for at the beginning of this was some kind of review of the commission adopted policies to see how this budget either

accomplishes or fails to accomplish the objectives this commission has set up in policies. i know you have done a lot of work on that. todd has this incredible binder on every policy we have on that and going back on it. are we going to get a summary of how that looks? >> there are over a dozen policies. we are comprised in the enterprise tab we break it down by key commission goal as well as key commission objective much of overlap your policies to community investment and final stewardship and ratepayer assurance and we worked with the controllers office to public our ratepayer

scorecard and as commissioner moran mentioned we have as the companions to that a detail checklist of all the budget discretionary items that show before we asked for a new position we did the hundred plus substitutions, before we asked for a new position we asked for the hundred plus reassignments. it shows through that before we ask for a new vehicle or replacement that add here to the policy that fleet vehicles are 10 years old or older and 100,000 miles or older an all of those are the checklist that we work with the controllers office and we say indeed the general managers and our office did that. that won't be ready until next month because they won't review it until the proposed budget is complete. whenever we would be between now and may is to finish the

ratepayers checklist and i was able to go through other policy checklist to show you how to budget included those. >> i appreciate the detail that you have on that when you showed that to me i was no. 1, impressed and no. 2, i didn't really want to read it but i'm glad it's there. what i do love is the disoelgs of that. how are we doing on our own policies. we said that we would have a periodic document for key areas of technology. membrane filtration or such as different technological

areas, digestion process and what are the identifiable areas to update them and do we have a technical resource to go to. my understanding is that it's not implemented today. >> that's probably a five step process and where we have implemented today is behind the tab four materials to review and all the new capital projects included a checklist that adhered and then we've also included in the proposed budget the other technology and information technology, the update to the strategic plan do we have for you today a new annual report on just technology? we do not. but we have made two very large steps forward. >> that's the kind of thing that i'm looking for. i'm not, my goal is not to bust chops on whether everything has been accomplished or not. progress is more important than the

old direction is as important as speed. and we should at least identify and acknowledge that we've done a bunch of good stuff, but here is some stuff that we have not done and the commission has asked for it and we need to know. i would hope as the controller can take a look at that and boil it down to major talking point how are we doing on the major policy that we've adopted. how are we doing against that. i would also like to build that more into budgeting process so as we approach future budgets we can say this is what we want to do and we have not done it yet. it starts with the first level of review of what this budget accomplishes and if may is the date. >> we have the possibility to do this during the mid-cycle review to do in more detail.

there is a large binder with full information we do every 2 years and this is something we t up between now and the mid-cycle review. >> commissioner torres? >> i'm intrigued by your list of projects. should we come up with projects. i don't have any list. i'm concerned, i'm behind. >> that used to be called the if fireman, effect, the mayor would ask for a list of the department. >> you don't have a list? >> i have my own list. >> how much time do you have? >> the project that meets the 265 objectives those are on my list. i don't want to see those cut and i have been clear about other areas like that. there is a budgeting

tendency to identify things for cut that nobody in their right mind would want to cut. that was nature of my comment. we shouldn't be playing that game and we haven't been playing it thus far and expect we won't. >> i think we've been very fair with each other in terms of priority. i was astonished that you had a secret list. >> it's a general human tendency to offer this. >> the second question about the hetch hetchy plan that you are not going to vote for it because you describe as a disaster and not a solution. what did you have on that? >> it's called the cliff. under current policies of the city if we do nothing that we are not going to be able to meet any kind of debt service coverage or even maintain sooner lvency through the 10-year period. that is not a

plan and they have been identified ascertain series of things that might get us there but they don't all get us there. the plan is that these are the five things that we are going to do and they will change the financial outcome so we can stay in business, that would be a plan. we don't have that today. >> so i think we have identified the things that we would like to pursue to hopefully bring us back into balance. the problem is that we don't know how much or how successful we will be in each one of those pursuits. we are actively talking about the ia, the mount tunnel and the regulatory requirements. so we are looking at everything and

one of the things that i just want to be very careful about is that if we start assuming things without having a conversation. we mention about things about talking about street lights. we went around talked about maybe there is a possibility we move in street lights to general fund. well, one of the supervisors took that and ran with it and wanted to automatically stick that into the bond without any conversation without any process. so i think the plan is that here are the steps that we are going to pursue to bring it in balance, but just don't want to start putting numbers on there without having those conversations. so. >> i appreciate the wisdom of that and i would consider not adopting until those are

taking place. right now if we do everything on the page, nothing can fail. it still won't have us even. >> just to clarify if we did everything on the page that was quantifiable at this time. not doing further on the capital program or further layoffs on the program. this is the need where the charter requires us annually to adhere to a capital plan and a financial plan. and in years passed we have come to you and showed a hetch hetchy plan and that is one of the rigors in the protection in the charter that this commission has to look through a 10-year lens. that for over the last two cycles was solved because of the generate increase before we released mount tunnels and before we had increases on the ia. in the passed we have

reviewed and shown a document. in the last 2 years it's been wonderfully balanced for all three of our enterprise and that has been a unique circumstances for us to have all three enterprises like that. now again, the plan in front of you shows that we are not balanced but that means the rigor of the requirement is that we then point out to the policy makers where further work needs to be done. so there was an addition added to the resolution this time that was proposed that while the first 2 years are in balance that we have to come back to you to show you what additional activities and solutions are under taken as we can quantify more things to balance out the years of the plan. that was the best we can think of at least as of today as a compromise, the first 2 years are as a balance. >> the final obligation to adopt the 2 years would be

fine, but it's not. it's to adopt a 10-year plan. and we don't have one. i understand there are conversation going on at the moment one on general fund rate. i would encourage they continue before this budget cycle is complete. that we have a plan that we can vote on. >> commissioner vietor? >> one thing to bring the elephant in the room and that

hasn't been mentioned for the ia and it was one of the promises and the hopes that i had with clean power type program that we would be building a customer base and putting that aside and not looking as a residential base. the rest of the conversation has been a commercial base and going as part of the ia negotiation to generate the revenue to help with our fiscal cliff. i also had discomfort with how to hetch hetchy plan was laid out because the understanding that takes negotiation and identification and without a sense of what those real opportunities are and whether we can bring them online, it seems i am prudent to be adopting some kind of a hetch hetchy plan without that component for revenue in addition to the pieces listed

and identified already. >> so we are looking at customers. it's just not defined who they maybe as customers. these documents are public. it's very difficult for me to start laying everything out in this document without having those conversations. >> i understand and there is all these variables. >> i think that you have to give us some flexibility to work this out. i don't know what it means that not adopting a 10 year plan-year plan i just feel that giving mountain tunnel we realize the magnitude of that and then the t and d cost which was more. that just happened. so, we need some time and we need to talk about everything. but to

tell you the first thing i wanted to do was bring to everyone's attention is that we have some serious problems and for a lot of people who enjoyed the benefit of this enterprise to realize we are in trouble. i just want to point out by me doing that, i think having the commission need to be really supportive in helping us and in that direction versus penalizing us because we don't have a plan. i think we have a process to get to a plan. i would maybe encourage you to encourage us to go on with this process and hopefully we can get to a place where we are back in balance. >> yeah, i appreciate that and understand that. i would just hope and i don't really understand if there is an opportunity along the way because it just feels a

little nerve racking adopting a plan knowing that we have all of these issues facing us that have come up. i want to express my concern there and i understand and i appreciate you brought these up to our attention. at some point, probably pretty soon to have a sense of how we are going to address them is going to be pretty critical so we can have some sense of comfort to make progress and able to address these issues. it's my 1 piece. i also wanted to ask a little bit about these positions. and how this is kind of a question for you, todd. i'm stuck on this gallon of water cost 1 cent to deliver. we are looking at where it's going to cost $0.04 to treat. 1 1/2 cents over the next 10 years. >> it's really over a

treatment disposal question right that we are going to be addressed as we see the rate increases and these budget issues. it's really prudent and i don't know how it plays now the budget to be investing in retention which i know we are talking about around green infrastructure and porous pavement but keeping the water out of our system like we keep the wastewater out of our landfill. can you address that a little bit and if we are making the appropriate investment in keeping both water out of our system so that we are not incurring the hit that we could potentially be saving on. does that make sense? >> i will take a stab at it and if the general manager, if you would like to go first? >> yeah, when we look at the wastewater side a lot of our

facilities are built for storm water. that is where we look for opportunities to shave the peak off. one of the challenges is the combined sewer. you have to take out the storm water. the whole challenge to expand this system because it's hard to take the storm water because it's with a combined system. that's why this whole process of okay, if we are going to improve the system, we need to start looking at the storm water piece before it enters into combined system. and so that's why we are looking at all of the sewer system improvement programs and the triple bottom line and green infrastructure. so we are actually doing that. it's just would be very challenging to look at you know how can you do some of the stuff when you have a combined system.

>> right. it just seems to me, so it gets back to these positions because two of the positions i think are around the storm water guideline implementation which seems lie a pretty good investment as they are online. you can quantify that readily, right? >> yes. with that what we have done is talked to the tommy mole an about reprioritizing the positions so that they provide more resources and so for me, it's that, but also applicants waiting a long period of time before we engage. the backlog is so large so we are going to redeploy staff in doing that. but what you have to keep in mind is affordability. these

services are not really paid for through the process, the permit process and which goes to another point that getting a permit is just while these death by a thousand cuts. the wastewater is funding all the capital and operating and all this other stuff and now we have some unfunded mandates which are good for the system, how do you balance it. so we went through exercise that commissioner moran talked about is realign staff to accomplish this and so you may not see new positions because getting a direction that we don't want any new positions and we are trying to realign the current staff. >> i would push back on the no new positions piece special fully light of some of these numbers and i don't know if

todd, you want to talk to those numbers but it strikes me from a financial investment perspective that it's a good investment to me. and maybe i have that wrong. >> if i can just respond to that. my focus is exactly not on those five positions. they sound like they are important positions to fill. it's another level of thinking that says at the same time that new needs come up, old needs go away. we know what to do about the new needs. we ask for new positions or we substitute old positions. very hard institutionally to get at the stuff we don't need anymore. what i'm aimed at is trying to figure out how we can get to that. and/or can we afford to do the things we need do. the reason i want to do that, we

have monstrous rate in creases coming. it's really important that we be able to demonstrate that we are controlling operating cost. that the rate increases are a function of capital cost. that these are physical things that you bought and put in the ground and last 100 years. i think people can accept that. what they can't is this mushrooming bureaucracy. that's why i put so much importance on it. one of these days there is going to be a reaction. it hasn't happened yet but it is going to happen and we need to say we have done everything to manage cost. >> can i put a point on some of the numbers. the budget is growing as we went through last time for pre domently because of an investment capital. the debt services