a.m.. and we've had a very robust discussion and i'm comfortable with the wisdom and expertise and we want to be supportive of staff on the great things to do and i think it's appropriate to have these conversations as long as it's very clear what commissioners moran and vietor have requested and there is no objections from my other colleagues then it shall be the order and i will go ahead if there is no objections and i will call these items in the order that they appear on the list. is that okay? >> yes. >> all right. thank you vice-president caen. she's telling me to move these along. i will go ahead and call for a motion on item no. 9.

city clerk: would you like to call for public comment? >> i will do that. thank you for bringing that to my attention. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. i will call for a motion. >> so moved. >> it's been moved. >> i will second as long as we have discussion after my second. >> and seconded with the caveat that we have a discussion. let's commence that discussion. vice-president caen? >> i should have pulled it back down to 2 years where the motion fits. i appreciate you getting the line items to me to the departments. in so doing it really focused me on what's the difference bureau s and enterprises are planning to do because it's in their request for new projects. i was at first taken by something that we are all

very aware of. when you see it in black and white looking at you, it's all the mandatory fringe benefits. they are horrendous and you get the salary and benefits. it's something you can put in your mind there is nothing we can do about it but it's very sobering to see that. another thing i notice is a tremendous money that we pay legally for salary. i'm curious, it shows that it goes to the general fund. why doesn't it go directly to the attorneys office? why does it go into general fund? >> the city attorneys office is budgeted in the side of the general fund. four council that is dedicated to enterprise just like a work

order like electricity rates and water rates. any internal billings like this are done through that work order process. the general government purpose of the city attorneys means that for budgeting the general city general fund budget includes that department. >> and is that an hourly, is it billed hourly? >> and while the numbers are very large, we now run a billion dollar utility. so in the connect of that we are the largest bond council program as well that we have a lot of heavy lifting and technical items that almost all of them are somehow legal because of rates and the california constitution, prop 218 or otherwise capital projects. >> it's hard to direct a page

number because there aren't any. so it's the external affairs. i'm asking because there must be a reason why, travel and training and entertainment proposals -- promotion has increased so greatly. >> for our external affairs department and if miss -- ellis wants to comment that was part of our new benefits and a great new additional list has been occurring whether it's a discussion that the general manager that she's working on for getting more attraction at the u.s. department in washington for potential funding for the water infrastructure funding they are called wifia the

water to transportation. that could matter a lot to us. we are one of the big borrowers to the degree that if something larger like the water version of tiffia that will be from a half percent lower than the amazing rates we've already gotten. that's the order of magnitude of projection. part of that and the additional work of the communities and the fact that it was a department that largely didn't exist 3 years ago in community benefits and now we are seeing what type of travel and what type of work in community meetings that they need to have. >> okay. >> the only thing i would add to the assistant general manager to general -- affairs that when todd included this

in the program it only included line items for the salaries and there was nothing in that program for travel, nothing for printing and materials and things we response for in the community. they were really trying to fix that program because we had to borrow for the organization to back pay on those items in the past. >> i would request that it be reevaluated next budget time to see if that is in keeping to our direction that we want. >> for the television audience commissioner caen was referring to attachment c in the communications packet. >> thank you, todd. >> okay, this is under the

bureaus of business services. it's page 10 of 12. it's towards the end. no more hints. [ laughter ] >> is that in attachment d -- or c? >> attachment c. so it is the fourth item, the mail services. $766,000. my question to this is now we are sending out monthly so obviously that would increase this

particular line item. >> so we -- very good observation. we have been very good with our promotion of movement to online advices. we are doing a roll out to all of our customers for online portal for doing their bill for paying their bill. some customers are already doing that under our old system. so when we moved from bimonthly to monthly we already assumed that in the 2013-2014 budget. that's why you are not seeing further growth and this is to limit the cost increases. this is where commissioner moran to not have investments grow from online pay. >> thank you vice-president.

>> the item has been moved and seconded. of we called for public comment. i will call for a vote. all in favor say, "aye". >> aye. >> the motion carries. next item is item no. 10. commissioners? >> i would be prepared to move this with the understanding that staff will return with suggestions to how we might modify that to address the 265 issue. >> is there a second to that motion with the amendment? >> second. >> is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. i will call fore a vote, all in favor say, "aye". >> aye. >> opposed? the ayes have

it. the motion carries. i will call it. item 11. commissioners? >> i'm wondering if it might make sense to separate out the financial plan for hetch hetchy? >> 11a and b? >> i would move the financial plan for the water and wastewater enterprises. >> may i clarify commissioner moran? would it be acceptable to move the item hetch hetchy as a projection and not a plan so that we are required quarterly to come back to you to show you the next steps. that's another option. >> if the question would be what would you do with that projection? part of and harvey mentioned that we

should not be punitive and that is not the intent. you have done a really nice job of putting the issue out there. part of what i hope is that this can be incentive for dealing with it and coming to this. some of these things are issues that need to be resolved fairly quickly and not in certainty. we expect this to have an outcome. i want to keep the pressure on to do that, and i don't know what it means to have a projection. we are not obligated to do a projection. if the projection goes as to the satisfaction of our obligation to do the plan then it's called something else. >> it's not meant to be clever wording. our department is a special department that we have a balanced plan. other city departments have capital plans that show shortfalls

that show unmet needs. so our recent history to always being able to balance and always being able to have rates pay for everything in that capital has been unique. this is a unique challenge that mount tunnel has done for us. >> i think in adopting the plan is also you are adopting and recognizing that we have a problem. if you are not adopting a plan, it could be perceived that you don't think is a problem. so, i think the issue is showing a negative plan is saying that we have a real problem. so, i mean, it's going to take time to address that. so i would say it could be taken that you don't believe the situation and because you basically are saying that we want you to

come with a solution to bring us out of this cliff, but it also could be perceived that i don't believe a cliff exist. i think it could be looked at both ways. >> it would take an extraordinary miss reading of the discussion that's taken place here to come to that conclusion. i am very willing to do anything that basically says these are our current projections and there is a huge probable and we direct staff to come back to us with a plan for solving them. i'm very willing to do that. if that were a motion i would support it. adopting it as a 10-year plan, i'm not willing to do. >> the last thing i want to point out is the reason is that we are having some supervisors who are thinking this is an employee -- ploy

to get out of some things that they feel this commission should be moving forward. so i think it's at least important to me that you understand and kind of adopt that we have a situation that we need to get everyone's attention and focus on. >> let me ask the city attorney could that kind of motion be done? >> if i can draw the attention to the final results clause and the resolution because that's whenever we get where the commission is directing staff and not as status quo the projections are not acceptable and that you are requiring us to report back quarterly because of this difficult fiscal cliff. >> to my understanding is for

you to approve for the water enterprise? >> that actually wasn't my question but it was a fine one. [ laughter ] >> that was the first part. it's acceptable to do that. that was my assumption. the question was if i were to move the resolution that says that in essence that we have been presented with an estimate that presents a dire financial future that we separate that in raising and resolving issues that can result in a plan and come back to do that, that's not adopting of a plan, that's adopting a resolution to support and if it's okay? >> yeah, i think that's fine. it surely fits within the scope of this agenda item. >> i think that would be very helpful. >> okay.

>> okay, i'm lost. >> wait, i just want to follow up. i'm tracking. i want to follow up a little bit on that because we have a resolution before us, right? you put a couple of proposals out there, one is to pull out heche as part of the position adopted. if we were to move forward with that resolution excluding heche that we should also strike some kind of whereas in that resolution that we are moving forward with because many like because of the hetch hetchy calculations do not conform, the commission directs staff to correct financial short falls and report back to the puc on hetch hetchy and we are moving forward with the other two enterprises. >> that would be fine. >> well, i thought or at least i was hoping that what we were agreeing on is, i was hoping

that we adopt the three plans, but the hetch hetchy would be with the contingent that we have to come back acknowledging that we have a dire situation that we will come back with certain time that we will come up with more details of how we are going to bring it back into balance. >> that's not what i was suggesting. i was suggesting we adopt the two plans and that we make a statement that would clarify our intent with respect to the hetch hetchy plan. >> i have a question. can we mechanically do that right here right now. we are not saying that this is a 3-week or 3-month process, what i would like to see just in the effort of just getting it done is just adopt what we know we can adopt right now and have a conversation about the remaining piece. i actually i

want to own dire and i understand very clearly what you referenced about some elected officials and allegations that this situation is not dire and that a cliff does not exist and that doesn't serve any of us well. my own is to move whatever is not in dispute quickly and have a conversation of what's left over and maybe we do that today. is that possible? the motion was with respect to donna, item no. 11, was everything there except for what, commissioner moran? the heche thing? >> the hetch hetchy power and line would be removed. >> the final two items out of the four items there? >> wait. that was the wrong item. that's why i was suggesting the amendment on 11 which is slightly different.

i also would want to make sure as you are going through this that we have a plan. i think you have an item 12. i want to make sure we are getting this eagerness of piece resolved in short order. i don't understand what that's going to look at. i don't want you to be stymied in the budget process. if we move forward with this modified resolution to adopt the other two enterprises. let's figure out what we are going to do to ensure heche piece is going to move forward to address your efforts to address the shortfall. >> back to todd's point because then now we are going to get into some wordsmithing because this is public information. it going accrue is the hallway so you had

referenced earlier and now that i'm thinking more clearly instead of it being a plan, it was a what? >> a projection that we reviewed the financial situation and that there is a finding that the projection show a fiscal cliff of hetch hetchy. >> i'm sorry for interrupting. even if we, we find it necessary not to adopt a plan. we also find it equally necessary to convey a strong united front that this situation is in fact dire and there is no waiver erg from this body here, and to commissioner moran, my interest is that you are satisfied with that what looks like. if that's not a projection and if we can get there today, then we try to get there today and i don't know if there is the case. >> i think there is some

mechanical things we can do. the resolution and the first whereas, talks about it dully notice hearing for the water enterprise hetch hetchy. if you delete, actually you can leave that as is because it's about noticing. but in the resolve that this commission adopts 10-year adoption plan for 23-24 and add the water and wastewater enterprises and hereby finds the quarterly hetch hetchy power and including the power enter -- enterprise will be taken to balance. i'm looking for the word there. it not balance the plan. it's basically to enable us to have a plan. >> implement the plan? >> i don't know why we can't accept the projections. i

don't understand. it just seems very simple to say we accept what we are seeing and -- >> it's not a plan. >> it's not a plan. it's a projection. >> what we want to point out is that a plan basically if we were to look at what exist, this is what the plan would look like. and we know that is unacceptable but this is the plan that it looks like giving all the information we have now. it's a plan, it's not a good plan because we need to fix it. and so we have identified the things that we want to do to fix it. we are going to increase revenue, decrease operating cost. right? or combination of it. if you look at the revenue side, we've talked about new customers, direct customers,

look at cca or whatever we can do to increase the revenue. as far as operating, we are looking at deferring capital, we are looking at evaluating mount tunnel to see what we can do on that. so we are going to look at everything and that's why when i brought it up that we talked about workshops quarterly workshops. so, i do understand that there is some he is -- hesitating to a plan. it is a projection that we'll identify this is a current status. the question is what verbiage we put here to recognize that with the new challenges this is the projection, but but maybe us

have come quarterly to bring this back into balance. >> if we were to say that we, that the commission as a result of the commission adopts a 10-year plan for water and wastewater enterprises and a projection for hetch hetchy water and power with the direction to come back quarterly -- >> to bring the budget into balance? right? >> to bring the financial plan into balance consistent with the reserves policy. >> yeah. i would say in order to establish the hetch hetchy enterprise. >> that is acceptable plan. >> is that your motion, commissioner moran?

>> i'm fine with that motion. >> mr. president, can we have that completely read how you want it to read? >> how about it commissioner moran? >> sure that this commission adopts the attached sf spuk financial plan for 2013-2015 through fiscal year 23-24 for the water and wastewater enterprises and adopts the 10-year financial projections for hetch hetchy water and power including the power enterprise -- strike that and hereby find the quarterly updates for hetch hetchy water and power including the power enterprise will be under taken in order to establish a 10-year plan for hetch hetchy

water and power. >> commissioner vietor? >> is that okay as far as the budget process the moving it forward. is that going to address some of the concerns whether political and practical and tactical? >> from my standpoint, i think it serves the purpose of acknowledging the projection and the seriousness of it that we are asked to come quarterly and give you an update on the status. for me, it's a good language, today, what do you think? >> just practicalally, it allows us to submit our paperwork and be on track to come back to you and give you the next quarterly update as well when we give you the next quarterly budget report. it's been an incredible ability to have the balance in capital plan and 10-year financial plan for the last couple of years. that's not typical. so

it's been wonderful, but this is something that other departments including the general fund grapple with deferred capital needs as well and oftentimes show an unbalanced capital plan. so i think this gets to what we need to for today.> i would like to as a whereas. it says it until the calendar item but not on the resolution. i think it's important in this resolution to recognize that the reason we are taking this action is because it does not conform with our fund balances and shows an unbalanced budget. that language might be too much. but projection do

not conform to balance reserves. to item 11. >> does that agree with you? >> it does. >> it's been amended. there is a motion on the floor which has been amended and the amendment is accepted. is there a second? >> second. >> okay, someone will tell me i did that wrong. i will call for the question unless we call for public comment. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. all in favor say, "aye". >> aye.

>> the motion carries, well done, commissioners. next item please. i will call it. it's item no. 12 you have before you, commissioners? >> item no. 12 is the potential for consideration for an amendment or amendment of the whole recognizing and delegating to the general manager the authority to update this plan to be consistent with the board of supervisors approved general obligation bonds for earthquake safety. that item is before the board today as well. we didn't have a final number. that's related to the auxiliary water smie system that is general obligation bond funding. >> item of that is in the

file? >> item no. 12. it's the 10-year capital plan. and in front of you -- >> i would be glad to move the amended item with the same caveat that in terms of dealing with the 265 program. >> okay. if that's clear, it's been moved, is there a second. >> second. >> it's been moved and seconded. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. all in favor say, "aye". >> aye. >> opposed? the ayes have it. the motion carries. the next item, madam secretary read it item 13. motion to calendar public hearings on april 22nd #shgs