to the left, we have the transition zone and the downstream shell. to the right, we have the upstream shell, which is the hard rock excavated from the quart quarry pit below. and then, just a photo of some of the activities that take place as the dam comes up. in the upper left, we have a bulldozer that's spreading the material ain lifts or thicknesses, layers, essentially before it's compacted. in the upper right, moisture conditioning of that lift of clay. and then, in the lower right, the track walking and continuing spreading of that material put forward for compaction. and then in the lower left, that's the import material in the transition zone between the core material and the dam.

and this is the day shift activities. we have day shift activities and night shift activities, but there's just as much that comes up with these zones of the dam. moving to the fish passage facilities and alameda creek diversion dam, this is a sub project of the calaveras dam replacement project, and this aerial photo shows the original concrete dam in the center of the photo that diverts water off alameda creek to calaveras reservoir. and to the right in the existing dam, you can see the fish ladder that is now essentially constructed. all of the in-stream work is complete. on the left of the dam, you can see the screens that take the water in and provide safe

passage for fish, both upstream and downstream as we divert water and pass water downstream through the ladder. this recent photo in april shows those drum fish screens that are self-cleaning. they actually rotate and there's brushes that clean them. there's a lot of dirt that comes into the rain during rain events, so we're able to raise the screens as those events take place, and we can lower them when it's safe to do so and start diverting water. another major project that will continue through the end of the program is the regional groundwater storage and recovery project. we recently rebaselined this project, along with the overall program, and as i described at that time, we are now moving

forward with phase two of the program, which has been modified to include two to three test wells outside of san bruno to really ascertain whether or not we can build viable well stations, you know, kind of on the edges of the groundwater basin. so we are installing those test wells currently, and we're looking forward to seeing how they produce. i like this photo, kids for the bay. we're able to bring the sunol glenn school fourth and fifth graders for an educational presentation at our watershed. this is one of our biorestoration sites last month, and all of the bhr sites are essentially complete with construction. there's some final activities taking place, but we will

continue the monitoring for some time as we monitor those plantings and mitigation sites. and another fairly substantial part of the program is what we call the whistle close out programs. we continue to work on those in the san joaquin and sunol p. i'd be happy to take any questions. >> thanks. the construction photos are good. i think all the photos are good. i appreciate each one. i hope my colleagues agree. i know the workers like seeing pictures of themselves, right?

are there any public comments on the general manager's report? hearing none, public comment is closed. general manager kelly? >> that concludes my report. >> madam secretary, please read the next item. >> clerk: item eight is the consent calendar. all matters listed here under constitute a consent calendar are considered to be routine by the san francisco public utilities commission, and will be acted upon 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. >> any requests, commissioners? any members of the public wish to remove an item from the consent calendar?

commissioners public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. seeing none, call the vote. all those in favor, say aye. all opposed? thank you. the motion carries. madam secretary, next item, please. [agenda item read] >> thank you, donna. welcome. long time no see. >> yes. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is carolyn chu, and i'm the project manager for the biosolids digesters facilities project. i'm here before you today to request award of this professional services contract, pro 0068 construction management staff augmentation services to the arcadeis team

who will be providing support to our construction manager staff in support of the biosolids project. i'm also here to request authorization for our general manager to negotiate and execute this agreement with or arca arcad arcadis in an amount not to exceed 42 million and for a period of time not to exceed seven years. so you might request back in march at the same podium, you approved the current project with the ceqa findings, so with this contract today, you will be able to bring on the last members of the project team who will help us construct the project at the southeast plant. so thank you, and at this time i can answer any of your questions. >> thank you. commissioners, questions? >> how do we come up with the figure of $42 million? >> well, basically, we have a puc construction manager resident engineer, and obviously, you know, with the

whole construction manager bureau, this is a staff augmentation. they looked at the job, and they developed -- it's basically a staffing plan and all the different expertise we need, and we looked at what we had for city resources, and what we didn't have and we needed augmented. that's how the rfp was developed and obviously the dollar amount, as well. >> okay. so it's a committee. >> well, yeah. >> what we do is we base it off of resources that we need, and then, there is a percentage that you should be within for construction management, but since we're supplying city, staff, and consultant, this number is a lot less than what you would normally have if you fully would use consultants. because if you think about the biosolids, the digesters, this project is how much total?

>> $1.3 billion. >> yeah, you're spending in seven -- seven years? >> well, this contract is for seven years. >> yeah. so... >> well, the reason i ask is there was just one bidder, so i was just -- >> yeah. so that is something that in going through our program, we have certain conflicts, and so this was pretty much the last team actually some of the team members who could have bided against each other decided to form one team and pursue this rfp. so we only had one bidder, but it's actually a really, you know, team with a lot of great consultants on it. and so that's why we ended up with one bidder, because everyone else is pretty much conflicted out. >> yeah. >> and i think as you -- you know, we recognized it was one team, but we met with them, and it's a very strong team.

it is primed by arcadis, but it has consultants with hdr and c.m. smith, so it does have a deep bench that we can utilize as we move forward with this project. >> i would like to move the item. >> the item's been moved. is there a second? >> second. >> the item's been moved and seconded. is there any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. call the question. all those in favor, say aye. all opposed? thank you. the motion carries. madam secretary, next item, please. [agenda item read] >> good afternoon, mr. carlin. >> good afternoon. [inaudible]

>> -- we thought it was a good investment working with the community down there to advance the more affordable housing. >> i'd like to move the item. >> the item's been moved. is there a second? >> second. >> the item's been moved and seconded. is there any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. i'll call the question. all those in favor signify by saying aye. all opposed? thank you. the motion carries. madam secretary, next item, please. [agenda item read] >> good afternoon, commissioners. charles pearl, deputy chief financial officer. this item before you today is one of several items that's on your agenda related to rates, and specifically, this item has to do with our wholesale water rates out of our water enterprise. we are recommending no change to our wholesale water rates for fiscal '19, commissioners,

and the rate that it's currently at $4.10 perccf. we are recommending a one cent decrease to customers that take raw water or untreated water from our system, but that's the only change included in this item that's before you. the reason we're able to hold wholesale rates steady for now. this would be the third year that we're able to hold wholesale rates at this same rate is because they're buying more water, so their additional sales are covering the revenues that would cover their additional expenses next year, and that's why we're able to hold the rates the same. with that, i'm happy to take any questions. >> commissioners. >> i move. >> second. >> item has been moved and seconded. public comment?

seeing none, public comment is closed. >> caller: the question. all those in favor, signify by saying aye. all opposed? the motion carries. madam secretary, next item, please. [agenda item read] >> commissioners, again, charles pearl, deputy chief financial officer. this next rates item is associated with our power enterprise and included proposed rates for our municipal generates customers for the next two years, so that would be for fiscal '19 and for fiscal '20. this ties with our budgeting process that you heard earlier this year. we did share this proposal with the rate fairness board who voted to support it when they met back in march, and i do have a couple of slides to share with you on this item. so if i could have the slides. i'll bach through a little bit

of background in terms of who our electric customers are. it can get a little confusing because we do have so many different customer groups and so many different rates, so i'll spend a few minutes about through that. i'll talk a little bit about our municipal generates history, and then -- general rates history, and then i'll talk a little bit more about what's in front of you. first, we have retail customers. those are primarily our customers who are served in the redevelopment areas however we do have some customers along the bay. those customers are pegged at a 10% discount to pg&e rates. you did approve this action back in 2016 to set these rates with an automatic adjustment each year, and on the agenda today in your communications section, you will see that memo to you describe the proposed rate changes for this customer group which is between 1 and 5% in terms of their rate change

for next year. so there's no action needed from you at this time. this is just more as a -- as a little bit of a background. the item before you today is about our general use customers, and that's the central box on this slide. we are talking about customers that primary are what our general customers. our general fund customers would be public service customers, public -- police, fire, city hall, those -- those customers, street lights, traffic signals, and it also includes the school district as well as community college. that is the primary focus of this action before you, and i'll come back to the details in a moment. we also have our enterprise customers. these are customers that, like the airport and actually the water department, the waste water department. these are all the enterprise customers. those rates are tied to pg&e

rates, and those rates are adjusted as pg&e rates change. we also have irrigation customers, modesto and turlock irrigation customers. those rates are based on contracts that we have with those customers. we have wholesale market customers. those prices do change as the supply and demand component changes on the wholesale electric market. then, we have clean power customers, and you approved rate changes in ifiscal 19 for our clean power customers back on april 10. so in terms of our general use customers, these were established back in 1989, and have been increased at various points since then. because some rate increases were not implemented over the years, and due to rising costs, the general use customer rates

are currently below cost of service. you may hear that we provide a discount to general fund customers or general use customers, that's what we're talking about, in that the rates that we're charging are below our cost of service. in recent years we have established an annual half-cent inperkilowatt hour for general customers to bring them to closer to cost of service. so again, we are getting them close to cost of service but it's on a slower growth path. in 2016 we completed the study that will guide rate setting for this next two years, so fiscal '19 and fiscal '20. and also, the rates that are currentlying in place f-- currentl currently in place this year. one of the central recommendations that came out of this study was to simplify

the rate structure, but that unfortunately was not implemented at that time, and here is the current rate structure that we have which can be a little confusing. we have six different current general use rates, and these rates were established over the -- over the past ten, 15 years or so in somewhat arbitrary budgetary decisions based on which department was getting which rate. and so what the rate study recommended was for us to consolidate all of these rates into a single rate, and we did receive an approval from the mayor's office for us to move forward in our budget that's being submitted through the mayor to the board to include this consolidation. i'll show you what that looks like. so this is the proposed rate. we've consolidated that six-rate story for fiscal '19 into a single rate, and for fiscal '19 going forward, so the two rates being proposed

are noted here. again, this does include the half-cent increase that i mentioned earlier. i think that's about a $2 million increase each year, and that represents about a 7% increase each year for these customers. so while they are still below cost of service, they are committing to additional revenues to help us meet or infrastructure and operating budget needs. now, some departments may see a slight decrease, some departments may see a greater increase in order to get them to get everybody to this single rate, so that's just the point that i wanted to -- to clarify here, is that consolidating a six or eight-story into a single story, might see some decreases, might see some increases, so we had to work with the mayor's office to help communicate with the departments themes in terms of understand of how their rates are going to be changing for next year. [please stand by for captioner switch]

cost of service may be higher than a half cent, so they aren't really closing the gap. at least they are moving up in cost. >> that's correct. yes. so as i mentioned, some departments will actually have a slight decrease, some are having an increase, and we have been working with departments to communicate on an individual basis how they need to adjust their budgets but as county manager kelly mentioned it still reaches the goal. >> i think it's great. i've been on this commission for ten years and i know this has been a constant conversation to at least get us closer to beating the service costs. so these are just for the next two years we are approving this, correct? the half cent agreement, if you

will, is just for two years or, is that, is there an opportunity, as our costs increase to figure this and figure out if the half cent will be for the long run what we need to be doing? >> i think the agreement with the mayor's office is to stay with this pattern of a half cent so we have included that in our long-range financial plan but we do a cost of service study t. will provide us again an opportunity to look at our cost base, customer base and how we are planning to move customers towards cost of service. so we will continue to have these conversations each year. >> great, thank you. >> the last slide i just want to share is the point you were all describing, this consolidated rate is still below the cost of service as noted here. the dotted line represents cost of service. we are happy to provide

discounted service, we would just like the customers to be closer to cost of service, which, as you can see from this chart, they are getting roughly a half or 50% discount off cost of service right now so we want to move them more toward cost of service. with that, i'm happy to take any questions on this. >> i would like to move -- sorry, do you have a question? i would like to move the item. >> the item has been moved. >> and i'll second it. >> it's been seconded. >> but i just wanted to share, i think this is brilliant. granted, it's the third time i've heard it. i do understand it fully now. no, really, as my fellow commissioner stated it's really something that's long been coming. terrific job. >> thank you. >> i would like to ask a question that's not really related to rates but it has to do with municipal rates. when those customers aren't

using hetch hetchy power are they going to be using our green power? >> assistant general manager for power, all these city departments will be using hetchy power. i'm not sure if i'm clear on the question you are asking. >> well, aren't there times we can't generate? >> we are still their power provider and we make the arrangements necessary. if, for example, the power houses are down and we aren't generating electricity, we are in the market procuring resources to cover that shortfall, so they are still a hetchy power customer. >> they were never with pg&e? >> there may be situations where they are renting property in another building and pg&e is providing the power.

it's very rare in those situations. >> yes, those are important clarifications. there are times because of arrangements the city has made for how departments are housed and what if a sills they are in, if they are in a facility not owned by the city as the general manager mentioned and they don't have a separate electric bill, we have trouble providing them with service. and then of course, there are times when pg&e objects to our provision of service to facilities and we have to wrangle it for a while before they become our customer but those circumstances hopefully are going to be in the past. >> eventually. >> eventually. >> barbara, can i ask a question while you are there. i think i know the answer to this, but i know how hard you all and the p.c. has been working to create the clean

power s.f. as a new line of business, if you will, and then i also know on municipal side we've got this cost of service conundrum. can we use, i don't know how to ask this. can we use the revenues generated, if it's above and beyond our cost of service for clean power sf to cover cost of service for municipal customers? >> we have segmented the rate payer groups and the budget and the financial statements between hetchy and clean power sf. so we are staying true to our rate payers and true to our, what's the right term, bond covenants to keep the separate rate payers to the separate programs f. there was a way we

could declare the surplus to the needs of one of the two, they could be, but no, as a general policy, we don't mingle, we don't co-mingle the revenues from the different programs. they are different sets of rate payers and they remain segmented in our budgeting and in our expenditures. >> and as you can see, you know, when we did the clean power sf, until, i think 2022 -- 2023, we wouldn't have the right amount of reserves. i don't want to borrow money from the infant. >> we know as we age we need to keep our money too. [chuckles] >> i just wanted to understand the parameters too. thanks. >> thank you. >> thank you very much both of you for that report. item 12 has been moved and seconded. is there any further discussion? is there any public comment on

the item? hearing none, public comment is closed. i'll call for the question. all those in favor vote "aye", opposed vote "no." the aye's have it, the motion carries. madam secretary could you call items 13 and 14 together. we will hold two votes and hold public comment for both if necessary. >> item 13, consider and approve revisions to existing fees, elimination of certain fees and adoption of new fees for one billion in account services to water service connection, three land use, four regulatory compliance and five laboratory testing related to the san francisco p.u.c.'s provision of water and wastewater service. if approved they become effective july 1, 2018. item 14, public hearing proposal to one reduce return check and turn off fee and turn on fee charge for customers of

sf puc power enterprise. >> good afternoon, again, commissioners, charles pearl, chief deputy officer. these two agenda items together represent a comprehensive review of the miscellaneous fees charged by the sf puc. done in conjunction with the cost of service study in that these fees offset costs instead of being recovered by our rates. so another way of saying that, if we collect a dollar by way of setting a fee and charging a fee for that service, we don't have to collect that dollar through our general rate setting. this is the separate or second category of rates that will be presenting to you today. in the water and wastewater enterprises we recover $8 million annually from these fees which is about 2% of our water and wastewater retail revenues. while it's not a big piece it's still relevant and important for us to go through with you.

and we also did share this item with our rate fairness board. in march who voted to support it as well. so if i could have the slides please. so this, i'll be walking through a little bit of background on the work that we did as it relates to the fees, miscellaneous fees. i will give you an idea of what the existing fees are. i'll talk to you a little about some proposed changes and new fees and i'll be talking a little about some eliminations and reductions of fees. so in terms of the work that we did, fees for service, as opposed to rates, as i noted earlier are associated with service provided to individual customers. if you are a customer and you are requesting a new connection or change in your service, that

is specific to you and your needs, those costs are paid by you, the customer, rather than recovering them through general rate making. just like our rates, these fees are also based on cost of service, such as the amount of time or materials to do the work. we review all of these fees periodically and propose changes to bring them in line with cost of service. these fees are then adjusted annually based on inflation, until our next cost of service study review. so here with this cost of service update, we go in and look at all the details and make adjustments as we need to, based on how much effort or cost it takes to perform that service. as noted here on the slide we created a master fee list which allowed us, frankly we are a big o. -- organization. we put all the fees on one page so we were making sure we weren't missing anything. we went in and looked at and

asked questions in all the departments about how much effort it costs to provide that service, both in terms of labor hours and materials and expense. we then asked departments if there are any new fees that they would like to be considered and we have a few of those to share with you. then we looked at affordability and impact of the fee on our customers and we will make a recommendation how to eliminate or reduce some of our fees. so this is a list of many, probably not all but we try to get them all here on one page. as you can see there's a lot of them. we are a very big organization. we do a lot of work and operations in a lot of various places and so the first check box we wanted to have with this work is we actually are looking at everything. you will see we do work as it relates to setting and

establishing fees in several different categories. so you will see billing and accounts related services you will see laboratory testing services, you will see water service connection services and you will see land use and facility rental services. so again, all of these fees are looked at as a matter of how much does it cost to provide the service, we don't want to over charge, but we also don't want to under charge, we want to get it right, that's the goal. most of the changes we are proposing for fiscal '19 and '20 are for inflation but we have a few changes in this item. the first area we are proposing in terms of changes are noted here with our water enterprise. we have two proposed changes. the first is the backflow tag fee which covers inspection of backflow prevention assemblis.

after they have passed their annual test. here is a little back story on this for you, article 12-a of the san francisco health code requires certain property owners to install backflow preventers and this obviously prevents cross contamination. the current $12 fee for the tags was set in 2009 and the proposal before you adjusts this by $3 each year for the next four years. the goal here is to get closer to cost recovery but even after this four years we will still be well below our cost recovery levels. we want to increase the fee but we don't want to increase it too quickly. the second item is the cross connection control test fee, which recovers staff time associated with performing cross connection testing. since 2014 the water quality division has been conducting cross connection tests in

buildings with non-potable systems at no charge to building owners. before they could be put in place they need to pass a cross connection test to make sure they don't contaminate the potable water system inside the building. so this test needs to be conducted every four years and this fee is associated with providing that test to that customer. on the wastewater side we have a new, three new proposed fees for service. this is the first one. the first one is called the storm water control plan review fee. storm water management ordinance, which was approved back in 2010 requires all development projects creating or replacing 5,000 square feet or more of impervious for a storm water control plan. this storm water control plan needs to be reviewed by our staff. since this ordinance was

approved back in 2010, our staff has reviewed over 700 of these plans and the number of these reviews are increasing so the creation of a new fee is needed to recover these staffing costs and time. the last items proposed is the pre-treatment application and inspection fee. generally these fees apply to multiple permits by the pre-treatment division, batch discharge permits, industrial user permits, construction site run-off permits. all of these require staff time and the notion of these fees are to recover the costs associated with reviewing those permit applications. so the last piece i wanted to

leave you with before concluding is that we also looked at where we could possibly reduce or eliminate fees. that's probably something rare you hear from an agency like us but we wanted to make sure that we were being responsive to our customers, especially our low-income customers. now this proposal is the reason why we actually have two items associated here. the first item on the agenda covers the water and wastewater enterprise in terms of these fee reductions and eliminations and the second item on the agenda reduces the power enterprise equivalent fees. so when i'm speaking about this, it's across all three enterprises. the first area is the new account charge. it's something that's a non-standard fee. we have been charging it as long as i've been at the p.u.c., almost 10 years now. it's a non-standard fee, if you you look across the our peer

agencies no one else charges a fee just to sign up to become a customer, so we are proposing to eliminate this fee, it just doesn't make sense. another thing we are suggesting to reduce is the return check charge or bounced check fee, currently $105, that seems excessive. so we looked at the costs that we have associated with this charge and we are reducing the fee down to $50, which is the fee that's charged to us by the treasurer/tax collector office. we are eliminating fees from bounced check, and passing on the cost associated with the treasurer's office, we will continue to work with the treasurer's office to see if we could further get this fee down but this is an intermediate step in terms of providing cost relief for our customers. the last area is our fees associated with our water and power shut-off process. we have costs, you may be aware

of this, we did share some of these details when we spoke to you about affordability about a month or so ago. we have the 48-hour notice fee, which is the notice that goes to a customer's premise if they have a late bill and we are getting up to the point where we may shut off their power or water service, we actually provide a notice to that customer. we are proposing to reduce that from $55 to $50. but at the same time we are also proposing to eliminate the shut-off and turn-on fee. the reason being first of all these tend to penalize our low-income customers. but more importantly we wanted to focus on the first fee, the 48-hour fee where we receive more than 80, or 85% where they are behind on paying the utility bill. once they get the notice more than 80% come in and pay the

bill and that's the biggest bang for the buck in terms of getting the message out. we felt the additional fees were not necessary. these fees tend to disproportionately impact low-income customers. so with that, those are the main changes that we are proposing. before i take your questions, i do want to thank my team who actually does all of this work. i'm merely just presenting this to you. i wanted to thank christina cordero, aaron franks and cheryl hooey who are here today. if you could waive. -- wave. i have some of my team, i have a really great team. this is a lot of work and to get it right is quite tough. with that, i'm happy to take your questions. >> totally support shouting out to the team. commissioners?

>> i have a question. so you are proposing, it sounds like, a couple of what seems somewhat significant but i don't really know because i'm not in the development world but storm water and cross connection fees it seems there's going to be somewhat of a range based on some criteria between, i don't know 1200-and 10,000ish. and i don't know what the implications for that are. are there any sort of unintended consequences that we might need to be aware of? >> well, i think the important piece is that we have the resources to perform the work. as the work comes in the door we need to be able to perform the service, this is a specific customer type requesting or requiring this because of the ordinance so we wanted to make sure we had it to step up and perform it. that's the main goal. but beyond that, we wanted to make sure the other customers

weren't unfairly burdened by it as well. >> right. i understand the goal, cost of service, covering that quickly and however we can. but i would want to make sure there's not going to be anything that comes back around saying here i am paying this huge fee, i'm already paying this and that. i would leave that to communications question, to do outreach. >> i think communication and education will definitely be needed. we are part of the citywide effort at d.b.i. we want to make sure this is all of that so the work is done in a very closed loop, other than that we will be reviewing it every cycle. what feedback do we getd, how will it impact customers in the

door, what are their comments etc., we will take that into account and adjust as we need. >> the other thing i would add, before we have to move folks from the sewer system improvement program and shift resources since it has a dedicated resource, we can assign folks who are dedicated to review these plans. >> right. >> and as you know, i'm a big supporter of it. i think it's great, i would just want to make sure there isn't something we weren't seeing here, i appreciate we have those numbers did stick out to me. i also wanted on behalf of the commission to also thank your team. you could tell the amount of work is significant. i appreciate that and i just want to echo the chair's sentiments. thank you.

>> very good. unless there's an objection, why don't we take, entertain a motion on item 13 first. >> i'll move the item. >> second. >> moved and seconded. i'll call for public comment. is there any? >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon commissioners. i'm laura cam from spur, i came to support the item related to reducing or eliminating fees, especially disproportionately impact low-income rate payers and we also wrote you a letter about this but seems like a really important equity move in the city of increasing costs. i thought you were going to talk about this today, but related to the 2018 rate study i also wanted to support implementation of a form water

service, an important step between separating water and sewer fees which our organization has been supporting for more than ten years. not a new concept. practiced in other cities. four years ago when we wrote the package we were hoping for the storm water and sewer fee to be separated. we want to encourage you before the next one in 2022. and while i'm here a want to make a comment about the rates, once in a generation opportunity to improphesied mic resilience, reliability, sustainability, and climate radiologist. i want the urban water shet collection we have been hearing about for a long time but we

still haven't seen, by the end of the year and to invite some public comment on those documents and we want to make sure that the planning approach ensures that environmental and social co-benefits for the city are maximized and prepare us as soon as possible for the risk and threat of edge quakes. mostly just wanted to say thank you for your attention to equity and supporting elimination of fees that disproportionately affect low-income people and encourage you to keep your eye on the storm water fee we are hoping to see get fully. and a copy is in your packet. thank you. >> thank you very much for being here. >> may i respond? >> yes, of course.

>> i am curious around the planning documents. i know we have talked about that. i wonder if at the next meeting someone could come back from the staff and let us know when those planning documents will be posted to continue that conversation? >> i think we may have that information when they will be ready. i know folks are lookinging at them. kathy. i think we still need a month or two. we also need our city attorney to review that document before we could share that with everybody. it will be before the end of the summer. >> great, thank you very much. >> on the equity piece, you know, it jumps out at me when we are having that conversation, i felt the same

way, the general manager just thought it was stupid, he didn't think it made sense to have these really disproportionately affecting people. we give them a fair chance. if there's anything we could do to make sure some of these workers could get drivers. that's a credit to the a.g.m. but i'm equally appreciate of that particular piece. if i'm not mistaken, item 13 has had a motion and second, we had public comment. all in favor signify by saying aye. opposed? the aye's have it. the motion carries. we will move onto item 14. commissioners, i will entertain a motion. >> i would like to move. >> it's been moved. >> seconded. >> any public comment on item 14? >> can i just say one thing?

>> yes, general manager kelly. >> with ms. spur, i know we met with and spoke about issuing the collection report but we had meetings and we actually looked at the report, we were able to tell a story and so we wanted to pretty much, rework a lot of it. so i just want to let you know, it's kind of delayed because we wanted to put more emphasis and i could probably talk to you offline about some of the things we wanted to make a little stronger. [please stand by for captioner switch...] ..

>> madam secretary, next item, please. >> i will read item 17, the closed session item, prior to your calling public comment.

item 17 is pending litigation, charlene maghzi versus city and county of san francisco, proposed partial settlement of claim with city to pay $510,698 for home foundation repair work and claimant to retain the services of an engineering firm with at least five years of sub grade foundation repair experience. >> any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> we need a . >> thank you, donna. i have an announcement following our closed session that an item number 17 was approved unanimously by the

commission. a partial settlement of the claim with the city in the amount of $510,698. is there a motion regarding whether to disclose discussions? >> so moved. >> it's moved not to disclose discussions. is there a second? >> second. >> and i'll call for a vote. all those in favor signify by saying aye. the ayes have it. the motion carries. thank you, matthew. so i did -- i'm sorry. do we have to call public comment now? okay. there being none, public comment is closed. new business. i had a special treat for us, but i think she left. so we're not going to meet -- miss ellis, we're not going to meet before the golden pride awards, so i was hoping we could have a conversation about

what the planning was 'cause the commission won't meet, but maybe we'll do that offline. [inaudible] >> okay. [inaudible] >> we won't meet, though? [inaudible] >> oh, okay. perfect. perfect. is there any other new business, commissioners? hearing none, is there any public comment? hearing none, public comment is -- >> wait a minute, i question. >> okay. >> no. >> please. >> no, i changed my mind. >> is there any public comment on other new business? hearing no public comment, this meeting is now adjourned.

in this san francisco office, there are about 1400 employees. and they're working in roughly 400,000 square feet. we were especially pleased that cleanpowersf offers the super green 100% clean energy, not only for commercial entities like ours, but also for residents of the city of san francisco. we were pleased with the package

of services they offered and we're now encouraging our employees who have residence in san francisco to sign on as well. we didn't have any interruption of service or any problems with the switch over to cleanpowersf. this clean power opportunity reflects that. i would encourage any large business in san francisco to seriously consider converting and upgrading to the cleanpowersf service. it's good for the environment, it's good for business and it's good for the community.

>> hi. i'm shana longhorn with the san francisco league of women voters. i'm here to discuss proposition c. the city collects a gross receipts tax from many businesses which receive revenue from the lease of commercial property, such as office buildings, warehouses and retail spaces. the current tax rate