felt that the general fund rate should be increased and i think they now recognize it should be increased it's just a rate of increasing and just from the mayor's perspective, that increasing it at a higher rate it would really impact departments like school districts and city and community college, the fire and police so that was the basis behind the gradual increase and so there are still in this graph some unknowns that we are looking at. we still haven't resolved mountain tunnel in the process of negotiating -- and

there's still some risk so i still feel like i felt coming in although the picture may be a little better but we'd like to come back quarterly and just let you know how we're doing. now, the blue line that we show, if we were unable to do anything and just use the cca money and also do the half cent increase in the general fund, , you will see in the outer years we'll be in trouble and the dotted blue line we'd be on the 15 percent that line represents the 15 percent reserve policy that we have so that we can borrow money and we will be on the black line if we're able to save about $8 million a year and so the challenge that we have is you know not only with the ia negotiations mountain

tunnel but we're also aggressively looking for other customers and really defining our business plan plan and that's one thing that we're working on as a group but i'd like todd to come up and go over more details. >> so thank you general manager and todd rydstrom assistant general manager for business services and also the cfo this has been a very herculian task about a half a billion dollars over 10 years and we came to you on april 22nd nd to run through the various scenarios of difficult choices the combinations needed to be revenues and savings cuts and deferrals and a combination of

things. so the mayor's budget included technical updates and as well as well as well as fringe benefit reductions and so it took some good news and higher cost news into place but that's typical for our commission budget to get those adjustments in addition to that the mayor can make policy adjustments as well to the recommended budget that comes from commissions and is forwarded by his office to the board and as the general manager has said a lot of progress was made so our picture went from a half a million dollars to the bad to all above zero so we're

also able to project what would be above zero and satisfying the 15 percent reserve target for the commission so that's incredible progress over the course of 3 months. the key policy measures included capital plan cuts which we last mentioned and brought before you in the april 22nd packet and as well as as well as $155 million over 10 years and then the reprogramming of the cca funding reserves as well as the appropriation proposed appropriation for drought preparedness in the cherry drought situation so slide five the majority of the changes happened on the capital budget and you will see most of them are cuts and going from the top

to the bottom the san joaquin pipeline project that was reduced by by $11 million in the first 2 years however still $78 million is remaining in that project a lot of good work will continue but continue primarily in years 3 through 10 of the capital plan as currently assumed and every year you will get to revisit the capital plan and financial plan and as the general manager mentioned he's also tasking staff to come back and revisit that quarterly to make sure we stay on track and the other key updates the water quality project the water department determined that was no longer immediately needed so that was cut a hundred percent and with the mountain tunnel again it's no longer needed as a project because mountain tunnel makes

it unnecessary so moccasin rehabilitation that was reduced and there was prior year appropriations that the commission had already made so each one of these went through every single line item with myself and the general manager and michael car lin the deputy general manager what is absolutely needed right away or potentially deferrable and so we did that. >> commissioner torres? >> what is the criteria for deferrable? >> it was was it immediately needed to meet permits as well as health and safety requirements. >> that's it? >> that was the primary criteria. >> thank you.

>> thank you todd. >> thank you. >> a couple of others to mention the large one that helped achieve balancing was the streetlight consolidation project and in the capital plan discussed in february assistant general manager hail and myself brought to you many streetlight enhancement projects and this was one project purchasing streetlights from pg and e and we could not identify a funding source so that unfunded project was eliminated so in the streetlight funding in the proposed budget as well as as well as the capital plan still increases 30 times so your investment that you have still going forward and included in the mayor's budget is significantly larger both

repair and rehabilitation as well as a new streetlight work. the moccasin generator rewind was another project for example there's 2 units at moccasin that we were looking at one needs to move forward immediately but one of them doesn't need to move forward so each one of these projects was prioritized and revisited where we believed it was okay to do that at this time. those where the reductions totalled about 179 $179 million and then there were a couple of policy decisions in the mayor's office as well to increase so the first one mentioned by the general manager was the go solar moving that to $5 million in each of the next 2 years as well as hearing the

call to drought preparedness and aqueduct rehabilitation project. so that deserves a special call out. power reductions of 134 $134 million and water reductions primarily related to updates as well as the delays for joint projects like the facilities and you will see large cuts there in the facilities and we wanted to do more work in the moccasin facilities but it was chosen to cut about $31 million there and that leaves $26 million still in the plan but never the less it's not as high as it was. >> i have a question. looking over the list, i see that most everything is up country. are

we just putting that on hold for another time or -- because that was our conversation when we were doing the budging in terms of of what has to be done up country. >> it depends on the item for example the san joaquin pipeline yes we're deciding not to do that over the next couple years and in the case of the moccasin generator rewind only doing one of the units as opposed to both of them that we had planned to do those are examples where we're deferring them at some point they don't last more than 40 or 45 years and will be passed their useful life but life. so there was a trade-off there. >> so one thing i wanted to point out on on the 10-year capital plan is that we look at

all our assets and then we identify when would be a timing to actually address their deficiencies. the one thing that makes me comfortable is that every year we look at at the 10-year capital plan so if we identify something that we did not see like mountain tunnel, we then bring it forward and have to shuffle the deck and so we, you know, we're trying to make smart decisions, but the comfort level is that if something were to happen we have the ability to bring it back up closer in in the 10-year capital plan. >> in many cases there's money remaining the far right hand column shows you where it's not cut to zero where there's money remaining and in some cases it's cut to zero in the case

of the hatch ery because it's deemed not needed and part of that decision is that there was prior year appropriation still existing of about a million dollars in that case and lastly the light consolidation this was an idea that we discussed believed it was a good idea but to the degree doesn't have a funding source so until we identify a funding source, it's been cut. >> those are the key changes on the capital programs. on the next slide, slide 6, is the operating budget, and you will see here that the mayor's proposed budget largely leaves nearly as you last saw it the operating budget most of the changes were made on the capital budget in particular and updated where there are key differences are on the revenue side so it shows additional

revenue being at a penny versus a half a penny over the next 2 years and with the additional power revenues we have to spend less reserves so spending of less reserves out of the operating budget which means the budget is actually slightly lower than what would have been the last time you saw it in february and that's because we were able then to fund more of the capital using bonds over the next 10 years so a combination of solutions and penny versus a half a penny and those additional pennies add up and allow us to have more of a debt service program and pay the mortgage or bond service and cuts and all of those together plus the reprogramming of the 19 and a half million of cca reserves allowed us to go from what was a half a

billion dollars to a projected shortfall to go above zero and the possibilities of achieving a 15 percent reserve target if we get that $8 million of further savings over the next 10 years so those are the key changes. on the position side, i've also included this slide for you. the mayor's office did reduce further one position from what the commission had last seen and that was due to attrition or salary savings. i'm happy to answer any questions i should also mention later in your packet today you will see the updated hetch hetchy capital budget and hetch hetchy financial plan and it will then go into further detail on what we did on this item. >> thank you. >> commissioner vietor i have .

>> i have a couple of questions. and i'm sorry that i missed the presentation on thursday but i think you heard it, right? you were there at the geo meeting. >> i heard it i was not personally there but hale was. >> their program when they first invested in that program, mar inenergy authority. >> i don't know that off the top of my head. >> just looking at return on investment. >> barbara hail they had a modest financial outlay in the hundreds of thousands of dollars they are now financially stable functioning program 2 years in they have

doubled in size. >> what kind of revenue are they generating. >> i believe i can double check that figure for you, but i believe mar inenergy is now setting aside 3 to 3 to 5 $500,000 a year towards renewable programming because that's in excess of their needs for admin istering the program. >> i was curious about that and richard recently joined marin, cca am i right? >> yes they paid a $40,000 fee to determine whether it would be neutral to their existing customer base to add the richmond customers to the program they determined it would be neutral or beneficial

to their existing customer base and went forward with the richmond governing board saying you are welcome to join if you wish and they said yes and now they are members of the joint power authority. >> so seems like times have changed and this reserve we put aside might not be as necessary as it was to either launch or join the cca, correct? >> i think that's a fair statement. we've had nearly 2 years pass and the parking the market is getting more comfortable with the experience of cca's and one thing that's also unique when we last visited this program 2 years ago on the shell negotiations, that was for a product that was a 4 and a half to 5-year

negotiation known priced product whereas to the degree you are not having known rates over the next 5 years, that's, that's gives you less certainty it would really depend upon, you know, what all the particulars are of the program and the program design how long the rates are guaranteed or knowable or known, and so when we were negotiating with shell north america it was a price certain amount of power that came with reserve requirements that were included in that 19 and a half. >> and i have a couple of questions on the go solar program i understand now the proposal -- some of this might be for miss hale and some of it might be for you -- how much

have we invested so far in go solar since the launch of the program. >> $24 million and i believe the actual spending has $20 million out the door but i know miss hail has done a lot of allocations of the money some of it has been allocated but not yet spent since 2008. >> 20 million spent since 2008. >> so some still available and allocated but not yet -- >> how many jobs have been created short-term and then career jobs from the go solar program from inception 2008. >> i want to make sure we verify the numbers but i think it's appropriate. >> i don't know the job numbers off the top of my head but -- >> can you fill in here?

>> i have a slide we have 21 currently employed. >> 21 total people. >> yes as is shown here by zip code those are the disadvantaged san francisco san francisco san franciscans. >> how many total with the installers. >> i don't have the total. >> so for our $20 million ininvestment how many jobs have been created in the in the last 6 years. >> i don't have that figure. >> if we're going to have this kind of line of questioning we need to have verified numbers

we need to call a hearing this is about the mayor's budget right? if we have the numbers available we should put it on the table if we don't -- go ahead and continue. >> i'm just trying to figure out so $6 million so then my next question on the go solar program is ghd reductions that we've seen because this was the purpose of this money, so in the in the last 6 years for a $20 million ininvestment because the go solar's intent was for those two goals was my understanding. >> i'm checking my presentation from the hearing you referenced

to see if i covered that. when the program was established it was established to increase the number of solar installations in san francisco because studies had been done and that san francisco county had a lower uptake than other bay area counties and to incorporate a workforce element in the program and we were also in the policy documents anticipating that it would lower the cost overall of developing solar in san francisco which would provide benefit to our municipal program as well so those were the founding principals of the go solar san francisco program. >> so we don't know if it's meeting any of those goals or whether we've -- do you know how many solar installs has

increased. >> it has indeed increased. that's an uptake substantial in comparison to the trend line it was on prior to the program. i'll bring back answers that i don't have readily available to you. >> if we could at some point. >> and so if we could by that time at least have answers to these questions and somewhat embarrassed that we're going to deliberate on this budget without this information so. >> i'm happy to bring the information back to the 27th.

>> thank you. >> commissioner, are you wanting to know how much energy was saved -- do we have that information available? >> the 8.1 mega watts but i i don't know how that translates. >> the dollar savings i think that's important data to compare especially to those that advocated that we have this clean energy project and well let's compare the numbers not just apples and oranges. >> yeah i appreciate that and you know with the jobs and the reduction. >> so by all means continue but if we're going to have a hearing then i think we have to

properly notice a hearing. but go ahead commissioner vietor. >> if possible to come back. so i'd like to make a statement about the 19.5 to the chair. >> absolutely. >> last week i'm not sure if everybody was able to see that there was another very alarming climate change report released called the national climate assessment just in time for the record setting heat that we're now experiencing in the bay area which is already parched. so as we learned from our colleagues at the department of the environment clean power would have been the fastest way and accelerated our transition to the clean energy economy to

which president obama recently renewed his vowed and redoubled his efforts and i understand that 6 million of the 19.5 million would be used to fund more solar projects for the record i love solar projects and renewable energy but i only which there were more career jobs being realized but we're not going to get where we need to go with just going solar we need more. we need to realize the goals that the board of supervisors originally laid out to fight climate change we need a comprehensive plan and program to get us there i guess i was overly optimistic with

sonoma county coming online that san francisco would step up to ensure a livable city for future generations i'm still hopeful that we'll join mar inand richmond and sonoma to. so it is with great re-luctance that i'll vote to approve the revised budget but redouble or efforts to create a plan for the crisis we have ahead. >> i don't see any agreement i certainly don't see any among my colleagues that is one of the reasons why for me personally i'm enthusiastic

about opening the dialogue with the department of environment beginning to have a routine partnership with them related to these issues because i think often times we seem like the only opportunity for the public and the advocates to come have that conversation. you know, i'm an advocate of solar and an advocate of moving forward and an advocate in creating opportunities if they be one or 21 at a time so i think that probably we can do it all. i'm interested still in getting a report on marin if the numbers have changed and i'm interested in getting a full report on go solar and the actual impacts and savings and we'll continue to have both conversations. commissioners is there anything else to add? commissioner

moran. >> thank you. on your statement on the budget as a whole, i think the budget protection that we looked at when we passed the budget was dire indeed and we had some discussion about what that represented and the challenge it represented and i think where we are today in the decisions that have been made by the mayor's office i think it was a tremendous step in the right direction. it is a partial step. and i think clearly, these lines fall off in the out years and we can't allow that to happen. i think the reason it is the way it is, is the recognition that there's some big things in play. the general manager mentioned several of them and within the next year or within a year from now the five underlying

contracts will expire and need to be renewed okay so it is very difficult at the moment to say with the precision what the out years of the plan look like so the fact that there's still some challenge remaining in the out years is not especially disturbing it's especially note worthy and we need to approach this as a work in in progress and frankly there's a whole lot in play that will determine how this plays out we don't actually have this in front of us, do we? this is not an item for approval? >> we have the budget later in the agenda. >> oh okay. because we don't really need to do that do we? the mayor has authority to modify the budget?