commissioners, ellen levine, steve richie is traveling for business so i will be giving the drought update today. the first slide you are looking at is the top 14 lowest per capita consumers in the bay area. you will note that of the 14, 12 of them are within our service area with very low per capitas for the month of january. this is starting out with some very good news. next you will look at our reservoir storage levels. i think interesting to note here, this time last year hetch hetchy was at about 59 percent of maximum storage capacity. i think what is even more interesting to note is the total system storage without water bank so that's the usable amount of water was at 61.9 percent this time last year and we're at 66.4, so we have more available water to deliver to

customers this year in march than we did last year. on the cumulative precipitation, you will see where we're tracking on hetch hetchy. we're at about 37.4 percent of the average annual total so we're quite behind as we all have known. and if you look at the 6 station precipitation index, we're at about 55 percent of annual year to date so quite behind. one thing to note, 30 percent of our precipitation comes from march to june. so if you're looking at the glass half full, we still have some time to make up. on the bay area precipitation index, as i noted at the last meeting we really started to lag. we're still at about 90 percent of annual precip to date on the local side but february ended up about 50

percent. so still pretty dismal. the snow pack side we're at 20 percent of the april 1st conditions. we completed our snow surveys for march early last week and noted about 15 percent of normal for the month of march so snow pack has melted, the lower elevation snow pack has melted and the east facing slopes are pretty much devoid of snow at this point. this gives you perspective on where the state is in terms of statewide snow pack for march 1st. you'll see in our large drought periods we have 76-77, then where we are for this year and (inaudible) consistent. here our tuolome river available to the city, we have gained about a thousand acre feet since the last time you

saw this chart. just thought we would show a historic view of water available to the city. this is showing you about 32 years and you are seeing the blue years of above normal and wet, the dry and critical years are sort of in that mustard yellow and dark yellow color. what you'll note is the 87 to 92 drought highlighted here in terms of water available to the city and really looking at the last 3 years it's the worst 3 consecutive years for this 32 year period of water available to the city. a lot of variation here in dry years, though if you take a look at that. our total deliveries, we have seen some increases in delivery in our service area mostly as a result of warm temperatures. the last period we have here is february 19 to 25 which was a pretty warm week. again just the need to urge our customers, particularly when the

temperatures are rising, to keep the irrigation systems turned off. but the good news on it is we're still above our cumulative water savings target despite seeing some increase in use. to note the state water resources control board is very active right now in looking at our fourth year of drought and determining what to do. there was a february 4th order for additional information from pre-1914 water right holders basically reaffirming water rights and providing information about our diversions and our projected diversions. those reports are going to be due every month. we filed our first one last week. they are also considering next week a set of additional water use prohibitions. if you recall last july they passed a set of water use prohibitions that were targeted at end users and also water utilities across the state. those prohibitions actually

expire in april and so in order to reup them they have to adopt a new order. they are considering adding some additional water use prohibitions to that. i've listed the ones that are in the draft order right now and we're looking at them. the first two are related to the end user just prohibiting irrigation during rain events and right after rain events, ensuring that the hospitality industry, restaurants, are asking customers if they want water rather than just serving it, and then in the hospitality industry providing placards asking the visitors to decline having their towels washed and their bed sheets washed on a regular basis. for the urban water suppliers they are proposing that urban water suppliers adopt their stage of water shortage that requires no more than two days of irrigation watering per week. and there are some alternate ways of doing that.

right now we have a 10 percent reduction requirement on our irrigation users and we've set an allocation 10 percent of their use from last year. there's an excess use charge that you folks adopted last year that would go into effect if they went above that allocation so we're looking at how this order is written as to whether or not that would be more beneficial to keep in place than to go to a two-day irrigation requirement. some of the concerns about a two-day irrigation requirement is there's no limit on how long you could irrigate for two days so we could actually end at seeing more use. so we just want to make sure that however this prohibition is written, it's written in such a way that we continue to see the savings we're getting. and then --. >> ellen, could i ask a question about that? how do you monitor that? how do you know it's excess irrigation versus a leaky leak or a running toilet? >> where we applied that is

for our irrigation accounts. those accounts are established strictly for irrigation. we have about 1600 of those accounts in san francisco. >> right, right. >> so we know it's all outdoor use. another one targeted to urban water suppliers is promptly notifying customers of a leak, particularly that it's in the control of the customer to eliminate that leak. i've talked to about our leak notification project and pilot project that we intend to start next month, so we should be well in compliance with that. and then there's some additional reporting requirements on compliance and enforcement. so in summary, precipitation is running below median and the snow pack is deteriorating. the 10 percent system water wide use reduction needs to continue which means delivering maintaining delivery of 209 over the year and then nid-april we will be completing our final estimate of water

supply to our customers. any questions? >> thank you very much. you know you are supposed to be delivering better news. >> i know, i know. >> i know, i know. >> that concludes my report. >> thank you. next item. >> would you like to call for public comment? >> oh, thank you. public comment? >> good afternoon, commissioners, eric brooks, san francisco green party local grass roots organization our city. and san francisco clean energy advocates. just getting up to note that there's not really anything on the agenda except for some letters about clean power sf and i, of course being a primary clean power advocate would like to be at least a small topic of discussion today. the advocates just want to know

that, want you to know that we're excited about the direction things are going, we're excited that staff has put forward a timeline that is fairly decent but we do have, still have this primary concern that we don't see any reason to go through an overly long process before setting not to exceed rates which we know are going to be the same as pg&e rates. there's no reason to set them at any other rate. so we think may 1st is way too late for the not to exceed rates and we would like you in your next meeting to angendize sending a not to exceed rate that matches the pg&e brown power rate to the rate fairness board and get them to meet on that right away so that we can speed up the process of getting the not to exceed rate passed by the board of supervisors right away. we know that staff views

setting that rate as less important than it used to be for technical reasons. >> mr. brooks, sorry. we have to do things as we are to do them. so you are talking to what item? >> general manager's report. >> okay. >> it wasn't brought up in the general manager's report and we would have hoped that it would have been. so anyway, that's -- the point is we'd like to have you next meeting have the general manager bring forward a proposal to take to the rate fairness board to ask them to approve a not to exceed rate that matches pg&e brown power rates right away. that's really important to us. we don't think we should wait until the beginning of may. so thank you for your indulgence be. >> thank you. any other comments on the general manager's report? okay next item please. >> we have one more speaker.

>> item 8 is the consent calendar. all matters listed here under constitute consent calendar are considered to be routine by the public utilities commission and will be acted on by a single vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission or the public so requests in which event the matter will be removed from the calendar and considered as a separate item. 8 a, approve modification no. 1 to joc44, time extension to 365 consecutive calendar days. b, approve plans and specifications and award contract wd2750 in the amount of 9,210,716 to the lowest qualified responsible and responsive bidder engineering remediation resources group inc..

c, accept contract d accept contract no. ww foif fuer 7, approve modification no. 1 by $128,5 vich and authorize final payment to the contractor. e, accept work perform for contract no. ww-568 and authorize final payment to the contractor. >> is there any request to remove any of the items? any requests from the public? do we have a motion? >> i will move approval. >> second. >> further discussion? all those in favor. opposed? the motion carries. next item. >> item 9, approve amendment no. 5 to agreement no. cs-820 with urs corporation and authorize the general manager

to execute this agreement, increasing the amount of 1 million with no change to the contract duration subject to the board of supervisors approval pursuant to charter section 9 poupb 118. >> i will move the item. >> second. >> any discussion? call for the vote. all those in favor? opposed? motion carries. >> public comment? >> i don't know about me. is there any public comment? seeing none, next item, please. >> item 10, approve amendment no. 4 to agreement no. cs893, extending the agreement duration by one year with no increase to the duration amount. >> would you like a presentation on this? >> move approval. >> second. >> further discussion? public comment? all those in favor,

aye. opposed? the motion carries. >> item 11 terminate for convenience in the best interest of contract no. hh-974e, lower cherry aquaduct emergency rehabilitation with flatiron west, inc., authorize the general manager to terminate and issue final payment. >> okay, mr. cruz. >> madam president, members of the commission, emilio cruz, the item before you is lower cherry aquaduct project. this was an emergency project entered into after the declaration of general drought emergency and it was to allow us flexibility to allow us to move water from cherry creek down through the aquaduct which was an antiquated aquaduct in disrepair and additionally was

damaged during the rim fire. we started that contract in april of 2014 as a cmgc contract in a state of local emergency. all of the work was to deal with the immediate urgency of repairing the aquaduct sufficiently to be able to pass water through the aquaduct to give us operational flexibility. we have reached a point in the contract where we have completed work sufficiently to use the aquaduct, but more work that was anticipated in phase i than what was to actually put a full pipe in the system so that it would be a closed system. from a schedule perspective we are in the process of doing the additional permitting necessary to do the pipe work, which involves a national forest service permit that we are scheduled to receive approximately july of 2015. once permit is in hand we are allowed to go for our army

corps permit which takes an additional 10 days then we could start work. we are negotiating with flatiron for the costs associated with that but are getting costs substantially higher than the engineer's estimate, so what we are evaluating right now is our ability to negotiate with flatiron, bring their costs closer to our own budget, in which case once permits are in hand we could finish phase work and finish at least the first reach of pipeline, which is the most critical piece by november of next year, which is when the work needs to be completed. absent the ability to do that, we are prepared to go with a regular contract since we have the design in place, and go with a traditional low contract while we are acquiring those permits and again complete that work at the same time. so what we are asking from you today is authority of the general manager to finish those negotiations and if

unsuccessful either close out the contract or terminate the contract, whichever is more feasible, and then go out with a hard construction. we have gone through the process of bringing a third party estimator as you might anticipate that third party estimate was somewhere between the engineer's estimate and flatiron's number. and so it at least tells us that there is room and so basically what staff will determine in the next two weeks or so is whether the puc will be better served by ending this contract and going out to hard or if the estimate that flatiron comes in with a lower number is within the third party estimate and worth pursuing given our current schedule. and with that i can answer any questions that you might have. >> i understand there's a change. >> oh i'm sorry, i should have started by announcing that there is a change. the intent of the resolution was for you to authorize the general manager to terminate the

contract. it was originally written as terminating the contract. but since we are still active in negotiations but wanted to be prepared to act if necessary before your next meeting we came with a request for permission. so the replacement resolution corrects the intent which is for you to give the general manager authorization to terminate the contract. >> right. i think you all have that in your packet. questions for mr. cruz? >> just a comment. i appreciate your taking (inaudible) for the costs in this, it was not being competitively and we need to be doublely conscious of what the price is under that kind of a circumstance. i appreciate your doing that and i move to give the general manager authority to terminate if you aren't able to come to terms as

seems appropriate. >> any public comment on this item? i'd like to move the item. >> i will second it. >> all those in favor. opposed? the motion carries. next item. >> item 12, approve an increase in the construction contract duration for contract no. wd-2629 and authorize future modification to the contract. >> i will move approval. >> second. >> my apologies, i was making sure i didn't get anything wrong in the presentation before that. the item before you is an extension of seismic work related to beta division

pipeline. it is an extension -- i'm sorry, i will pull this up -- which would allow us to continue the work associated with the, in this case it is an extension of duration ton contingency. we don't often use the term duration contingency because we have a fixed date. in this case we ran into delays associated with the connection points with some of our users, some of our customers, and it was not in a typical situation where you would go through what's called a usa process where they identify all the underground utilities they start construction and the reality is that the utilities weren't where they were supposed to be based on as built. we ran into delays associated with that. contractor's working to mitigate those delays but we anticipate there may be a delay so in this case we're asking for permission to give us

contingency for the duration in the event they can't mitigate it. we aren't actually working for the extension because we are working with the contractor to try to bring them in as close to the original schedule as possible. so it's rare where we come to you where we say we're not delayed but we might be. we don't want to give up this schedule that's why we're calling it contingency. >> i'd like to move the item. >> i think we did. it's been moved and seconded. >> oh, it has, that's right. >> i have a question. as i recall, we had, there was the sliding plates. has that all been corrected? >> that has been corrected. there were some delays associated with that as well. the original design they did not get the adequate bonding with respect to the two plates, they had to go through secondary and tertiary vendors but that problem has been solved.

>> it's solved and is not going to come up again? it's been connected. >> yes. >> all right, public comment on this item. i will call for the vote. all those in favor? opposed? the motion carries. next item. >> item 13 approve an increase in the construction contract cost contingency for contract no. wd-2641r in the amount of 522,328 and increase in the contract duration of up to 376 consecutive calendar days and authorize future modification to the contract. >> emilio cruz, assistant general manager contractor. in this case we know we have an a15 tif delay. this is primarily because of the drought conditions and the need to bring in additional water. as part of the wisa program and part of our commitment to sustainability we committed to establish new watershed areas,

new wetlands areas. and as part of that contract, the contractors responsible for developing the wetlands, bringing them to maturity and then once mature they have a 3 year maintenance requirement. because of the drought conditions and because of some of the conditions with regard to some of the plantings that were outside the control of the contractor, we do anticipate the need for another year to further establish these plants which allows us to then extend our maintenance period. so the start of maintenance is also delayed for a year, which gives us more confidence that at the end of the contractor's term we will have fully maintainable and fully grown wetlands. >> i like it. any other comments questions, of mr. cruz? >> thank you. >> may i have a motion? >> sure. >> second. >> do i have any public

comment on this item? i will call for the vote. all those in favor. >> aye. >> opposed? the motion carries. next item. >> item 14, discussion and possible action to authorize the use of state revolving fund loans in addition to waste water revenue bonds for an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $819,035,941. >> i believe the number is 13 not 14. >> 14. >> okay, yeah, on mine it -- may i have that back?

okay, so we are on no. 14, item 14. >> good afternoon, commissioners, charles pearl, deputy chief financial officer. this item before you today is to request your already-approved authorization for the waste water enterprise to issue debt. a year ago you issued an authorization for us to issue waste water revenue bonds and what we have before you today is some great work that our senior management, dluiing general manager kelly and deputy general manager carlin and former cfo readstrom, they have been in communication with the state in looking at what the state revolving fund loans and we are in the process of executing agreements and we would like your authorization to expand your existing authorizations to include these loans. so this

is not new authorization, this is essentially re-upping the authorization you approved a year ago to add the loans to that authorization. what you have attached is an ordinance that we'll submit to the board of supervisors. again it's not new authorization, we're just revising the already-existing authorization to include these loans. so i just wanted to first for the record say what this is all about and i'm happy to walk you through the program if you would like me to do that. >> commissioners, would you like to --. >> i don't think we need to -- at least i don't need to go through the program. the debt that you are talking about is state money and how does the interest rate compare to what we are able to get on the open market? >> sf puc had tlees loans back in the 90's and the current rate is pegged at the state general obligation bond rate

which is right now, and that's 50 percent of that rate, so right now our rate would be about 1.7 percent. once you add in our financing costs and capitalized interest and that sort of expenses the cost would be about 2 1/2 percent or so for our borrowing expense, compared to our revenue bonds if we were to issue a revenue bond that would be in the 4 1/2 percent range, so it's about a 2 percentage point savings if we were able to secure these loans. so the first step is for the commission to take action on this today. the state is actually looking for this resolution to be part of the loan application process. it would go to the board of supervisors as well to have them approve that, that ordinance, then we would package these documents up and submit that to the state for them to consider our future loan application. >> thank you. that's a significant reduction. >> wonderful. >> so i just -- to further understand that a lilts bit -- that translates into two

million per year for every hundred million financed? >> that's right. that's right. >> and the total is 800 million, approximately. >> the state has looked at our need. in particular we're talking to them about the sewer system improvement program and all of the future revenue bonds that we would have to issue for the waste water enterprise. in that light we've come up with a listing of projects that could qualify and so right now the estimate is a billion or maybe a little more than a billion dollars is potentially available, but this approval today and then the board of supervisors' approval would be the first steps for us to formally submit our loan application for the state to weigh in on that question. >> so we could potentially get as much as a billion dollars in loans and that would translate into savings of --. >> yes, significant savings. for each hundred million dollars it's about a two million dollar savings per year

in debt service. and how that translates to the average customer, that's about a 40 cent savings on your monthly bill, so for every hundred million you can just multiply that out. so a significant saving. >> one of the things that we've been doing is going to the state and looking at low cost finance and on the waste water side they actually increased the term. before it was a shorter term which, you know, not 30 years it was, like, 15 years. >> 15 or 20, yeah. >> 20 years so it wasn't really feasible but now they have a longer 30 year so these become more attractive and we're trying to promote that on the water side for water projects as well. >> i'm pleased to see that one of the projected projects would be the digesters. >> that's right. >> always looking out for my digesters. >> actually one of the larger projects. >> i think it's marvelous.

any other comments, questions? may i have a motion? >> i will move the item. >> i will second. >> do i have any public comment on this item? seeing none, i will call for the vote. all those in favor. opposed? the motion carries. next item, please. >> item 15 public hearing under the california water code section 10723 and action to establish the san francisco public utilities commission as the ground water sustainability agency for the downtown, marina, lobos, and south san francisco ground water baifbs and the northern portions of the westside, islais valley and vezation valley ground water basins located within the city and county of san francisco.