r.p.s. generation and 45% from large hydro, including our hetchy system. so that means that the green customers will be reducing the electricity related greenhouse gas emissions by 65,000 metric tons. so that's 65,000 versus the 3,900 for super green. and that's equivalent to 13,900 passenger cars being taken off the road for a year or avoiding 159 million miles driven by a passenger vehicle. any questions there? i will move on to regulatory. okay. i've been reporting on the activities of reconsidering the methodology and how it's calculated. they're levied by pg & e.

california p.u.c. has delivered two proposed decisions in the rulemaking. one issued by a judge and the second a commissioner that leads the proceeding, called an alternate. the commission issued revisions to the alternate and they may be issued this week. we're trying to understand the impact of the revisions to the alternate. it appears to not have changed substantially. and that is the revised rules could impact the service. we prefer that the commission adopt the proposed decision issued by the judge. together with cal c.c.a., community choice trade association, we're trying to

make our preferences known. it's tough. there is no opportunity to make comments. meetings with the commissioners and direct staff are not allowed at this point, so we can't get clarification on the revised alternate through conversation. mayor breed and others have said that they believe there should be more transparent public review of the critical issues being raised. just friday, they issued this revision to the alternate. california p.u.c. is scheduled to vote on thursday, october 11. we're monitoring the activities and prepared to model the impacts in our proforma to our -- whichever decision is adopted, if that happens on the 11th we expect to have more information soon, so stay tuned.

thank you. >> commissioner courtney: thank you. next item. any public comment on the report? hearing none, public comment is closed. next item, please. >> clerk: the next item is bay delta water quality control plan update. >> good afternoon, steve ritchie, assistant general manager for water. if we could have the slides, please. this is part of our ongoing updates on the bay delta water quality control plan update. how can we make up the water supply shortfall, both in terms of projects and potential costs and timeline and how are we following up on the

nongovernmental organizations letter of september 24 to the commission where they made three specific requests. just as a reminder, to achieve our level of service objective, it would require -- first, the level of service requires 20% rationing over the 8-year scenario. to accomplish that after the state water board plan might be enacting, we may need 9,000-acre of new storage, 2 1/2 times hetch hetchy reservoir or water supply projects to deliver 100 million gallons of water a day or ability to move that water around. so specific projects that we're working on, which would allow us

to deliver roughly about 3 million gallons of water a day, doing potable reuse with silicon valley clean water, wastewater treatment facility at redwood shores. that could produce 6 to 12 million gallons a day, with water being blended into crystal springs water reservoir. part of the water would be potable. the reservoir expansion doesn't have a number next to it because it's a facility that would work with one or more of the projects to help to make it a reality. we do desalination. that's the next item. that could range from 9 to 20 million gallons a day over time. and, last, san francisco

eastside purified water, potable reuse of walter. and so in total, those range from 28 million gallons a day. and some are preliminary. some are advanced. i have to keep reminding myself, along with everybody else, the projects take a long time to develop for lots of different reasons. groundwater storage and recovery project was put forward as an idea in 1993. so projects do not come easily by any means. the current capital costs range

from $1 billion to $1.25 billion and it will likely exceed $2 billion to achieve 50 million gallons a day. so these are -- we're past the days of low-hanging fruit. it's new and different projects. in terms of timelines, they're grouped into three categories. near-term, which may be accomplished within 10 years. and even though it's a reservoir, has been on a fast track because of project funding from proposition 1 funding. there's been a lot of pursuit of storage projects.

and prop 1 provides that it makes it to conclusion. and that would be in conjunction with alameda county water district, where it would forego part of our supply that we could use for another customer. medium-term, again, incorrect potable reuse that would feed their so these are projects that we estimate could be accomplished within the 10 to 15 years. and could add 18 million to 19 million gallons a day. and longer term, up to 30 years,

a second phase in expansion of that. east side purified water, which would be from the southeast water pollution control camp. regulations to do that don't exist at this time. so that one is much further off for lots of reasons. and second phase, silicon valley clean water. so we tried to cluster these in terms of timelines. these are ones that we think are, frankly, optimistic, given our experience with projects. they take a long time to develop. and that's what we off with have to do to put it into effect. that's roughly the timeline. there are other projects that we can develop, but these are the cream of the crop, as it were. and we did ask finance to run

scenarios of what those costs would do to rates. so they gave me the carefully scripted lines and allowed me to say these, on their behalf. "if all of these proposed projects were im mrplemenimplem would require water increases 8% to 17% higher than those planned under the status quo," with everything being equal what it is now, over a 15-year period. for the average single-family residential customer, it would result in $9 to $20 higher bills by the end of the 15-year period. the ranges relate to the low end and high end in terms of the projects. so, again, these are very rough numbers. it gives you a sense of, you know, the time and the cost of actually implementing the projects, which, again, are on the front of our plate as compared to any other projects

at this time. so before i go on to the discussion of meetings with the n.g.o.s, any questions on this information? >> commissioner vietor: so that rate -- the rate payer numbers, does that include public financing? any additional -- i know we've opinion successful getting grants. >> this does not assume grants or anything. >> commissioner vietor: those projects, were they identified by p.u.c. staff or other input or bay work consortium or it has not been vetted beyond staff, right? >> a number of part of the bay area regional viability project and we just met yesterday morning, in fact.

alameda and bawsca, marin municipal among them. we decided as we started the desalination stud iies that it s starting to see opportunities. and so several of these projects, much more forward-thinking. and there are other projects in there -- i joke about as a magic marker line on a map. that would be a second time, for example. and also the silicon valley purified water is not on the list because that project is going slowly right now because of some disputes in santa clara county over, frankly, whose

water it is. so that's circling at the current time. these have been developed cooperatively, except for san francisco east side recycled water, that's purity san francisco. >> commissioner vietor: i do want to express appreciation, because i have been asking for this information and i know it's not a small amount of work to do this and i feel like we are getting there. and this question of how long and how much, really the big question, to really get to meeting our water supply with or without what happens at the state level, because we gnome that the climate is changing and we need to prepare for redundancy. so i am eager to hear next steps and there will be a meeting of the board november 7? >> that's been talked about. nothing has been scheduled yet that i'm aware of.

i do know that as far as the negotiations, there have been a couple of discussions on that count as well, that i'm not able to disclose any information on, but there's been further discussions. and also there's been discussions between the state and federal government relative to the state water project and central valley project, because they're part of this mix and, frankly, they're the two big gorillas in the room. and so people are paying more attention to them than puny old san francisco off here on the side, which we take offense at, but they are the big ones we're talking and where they come out in their conversations may have ripple effect for us and our tributary diversions. >> commissioner vietor: what about what are transfers and water banking? any program or further conversation on that?

>> in terms of transfers there, is a broader sense in that. i cannot get into details here, but people are talking about one question that comes up is releases of water and what happens to that water? can it be diverted by the projects and directed in their service areas, or does it need to flow out to the bay? that kind of question is going on. and if that water were put down, some people have said, we, should the projects pick it up? should they pay for that water? those conversations are going on out there for sure. >> commissioner vietor: and will -- when will that information come before this commission, if there is a decision to pay or transfer? >> if there is some -- well, i'm sure that we will schedule particularly a closed session if something starts to look like there's some reality there or if

it looks like there is no reality there. one way or another, we'll be back certainly at least in a closed session within the next meeting or so. >> commissioner vietor: i just -- i'm feeling the magnitude of this issue and want to express that to my fellow commissioners, because there could be a vote by the state board. and this could have significant consequences for the commission. >> that's correct. >> commissioner vietor: i'm really interested in continuing to refine and define what we're talking about here so that we can be as prepared as possible to respond as needed. i don't think anybody want to get into a lawsuit if we can avoid it. if there's any way to move the

ball down the field relatively quickly so we don't end up in -- whatever the sports analogy might be, fumbling the ball, you know, i for one would appreciate it. if that means further offline conversations to get there, i would be happy to participate and i welcome commissioner moran's thoughts as well, because i know he's been deeply involved in this issue for many, many years. >> commissioner moran: thank you. i want to mick -- make sure that i understand the numbers. you said at the beginning of the presentation, that in order to fill the hole created by the state board action as currently drafted, we'd need to develop 100 m.d.g. in dry years. the projects you listed ranged

between 28 and 50. at the high end, it would be half what we need. >> correct. >> commissioner moran: so the projects and rate impact that you described, doesn't deal with the impact of the proposed order. >> not completely, no. >> commissioner vietor: can i interrupt one second. i don't quite understand where that 100 m.g.d. number comes from. i do know we're below our projected use. we received a letter from someone unpacking that a little bit and saying 50 m.g.d., at current usage levels, which we're seeing decrease. i did have a question on what exactly is constituting that 100 m.g.d. and it doesn't seem to be based on actual usage. my assumption is that that's why you were presenting a 50 m.g.d.

>> no. the projects in the work come out to 50 m.g.d. the number comes from contract level of demand. so what we looked at, this was analysis we did last year, we looked at 265 m.g.d. and 175 which was the lowest demand we had during that last drought. and, you know, there was a shortfall in each of them for 223 and 265. you needed to produce about -- the exact number, i think, 93 million gallons a day to make up the shortfall and the 175 m.g.d. level of demand, it was closer to half that. obviously still substantial, but not as big.

the challenge we have is that we have the obligation to beat the 184 for wholesale customers. having to do that, puts us close to the 265. that's why when we're looking out 30 plus years, that's when we need to make sure that supply is available or something else has to change. >> commissioner vietor: this is the highest demand we've seen in the last decade and last your's demands with only 181. is that not correct? >> that sounds about right. looking forward to what we're seeing around us, we know per capita use has been coming down, but the pressures of growth in the bay area, particularly in the bay area, that density will go up and we'll have significant population and job efxpansions and on top of that, we have contractual obligation to

provide for our customers if the demand is there. so i think that's the struggle we go through. yeah, next year -- that's why we're not chasing those down frantically right now because there isn't that need, but you cannot be foolish and sit on our hands and wait. >> commissioner moran: when do we project we'll get to that level of demand? >> 2040, 2050. >> the 265? >> yes. >> commissioner moran: that's also fairly consistent with the time frames we're talking about and what it takes to develop the supply? >> yes. >> commissioner moran: okay. thank you. >> i have one more slide. if i could have the slides, please. we did have september 24 letter

from the n.g.o.s, which basically made three requests of the p.u.c. work with them to arrange for peer review modeled by independent sciences and this was talking about the model used by the districts. that was one request. the second was work to explore and develop alternative supplies, one of the things that we've been talking about. and, thirdly, publiclily pose the trump administration's 1 tear -- interference. we've got a follow up meeting scheduled for 2:00 this friday to work through these about how we might approach them. the first one, and i may have set this in the last commission meeting, the model they're talking about was actually produced under contract to the

irrigation districts and at the request of the federal regulatory commission. the owner of the model is really that commission. so we think a peer review would be fine and we'll promote that, but we'll have to rope in -- it's not san francisco's model to do with what it will. it's their model. so we need it have them as part of that package. and supplies, we'll talk and we will discuss the third and try to understand what that really means. one of the things that we've found, we've had success, working with the trump administration, such as funding for projects. even though their politics might be different from ours, i have couple there as well. if it's working, it's working. so we should not just blindly oppose something because there's something in it that works. we should take advantage of it. >> on the state or federal

funding, we've been working with staff for multiple years before the trump administration. so i think a lot of this is and we're working with career, federal folks, employees that have been there for a while. i want to throw that out there. >> commissioner vietor: what year was the model developed? >> relatively recently. i don't know. i could find out. >> commissioner courtney: i think it was before two years ago. >> oh, yeah. this model i'm sure was probably done within the last five years because, we've had to collect a lot of data and construct it. the process has been going on for 10 years now. the whole development time was part of that 10 years. >> commissioner vietor: is the

firc director a trump-appointee? >> i don't know. >> commissioner vietor: my understanding is that's how it's structured. we seem to have good communication with them. it will be a drag if there's a new appointee that comes in that has a new agenda that we don't know about that could, you know, blindside us. it's important and it would be smart to find out how the ultimate decisions will be made and by who. >> when are very actively in washington, d.c. with the water irrigation district on the firc issues to keep in touch with what the administration is

doing. so those are very active conover agency ises we've been doing for more than years, decades even. >> commissioner courtney: as we discussed last time, the biggest difference in answers that we and the n.g.o.s get is based on asking different questions the approach that firc takes is a more traditional approach. and it looks at functional flows, how much you have to do. there's a balancing against economic impact. and that thought process and modelling process has been going on for a long time. nothing i've heard has changed with them having a new administration, with the same, basic approach. the n.g.o.s approach and the state board's approach is quite

different. if you try to replicate natural hide -- hydrology, it's not part of that process. so you get different answers. i would be interested in getting clarity about how you reconcile the approaches. i don't think it's a modelling problem. i think it's a problem of how you frame the question. and that's where we're far apart. >> i think that's accurate. we see our approach as achieving benefits for the fishery, maintaining water supply. state board says, this is what we need from the fishery. let's back off from that and call it a compromise.

>> commissioner moran: and the premise is that there is benefit in trying to re-create the stream flow of patterns, even though there is nothing natural about the stream at this moment. the other comment on that and i guess you are meeting with the n.g.o.s this week and the last meeting submitted a couple of list of additional water supply projects that were not on this list. i would be interested in knowing what that list looks like and what else they can bring to the table in terms of ideas. what does 100 m.g.d. look like? >> we can generate that. the math is easy. you can put numbers together. how realistic those are and how

much will it take to accomplish them is a big part of the discussion. >> commissioner moran: they also provided some unit costs, as i recall. and it's easy enough to do the math. to say groundwater cost will cost this much. finding the groundwater is a bigger problem. >> in the material we submitted yesterday, it was basically, gosh, the city of los angeles is doing this, orange county is doing this. why aren't you doing these things? the answer is simple -- they're sitting on big groundwater basins. when you start with a really big groundwater basin, it will be there for use. we don't sit on a really big groundwater basin. we sit to what i call a boutique

groundwater basin. it's much smaller and less productive than what they have in southern california. that's a big difference with us and other places. >> commissioner moran: and it's the backhanded advantage of if you overdraft your groundwater basin, you have more space to put water into. >> commissioner vietor: what we lack in groundwater, we excel in innovation and there have to be projects out there that they can look at, even though they might be cost-prohibitive today or not well thought out or may take too long, that we could and should consider. we're a city that knows how and this is a mandate, an imperative for us to do as much as we can to meet our water supply and protect our fish. >> commissioner moran: i agree with that. there's a lot of work going on in the region.

and that's something that we're talking about a plan 30 to 50 years out. it should be on the table. >> commissioner vietor: absolutely. i was encouraged -- i didn't understand the 265 m.g.d., the forecast is that we will probably hit that by 2040, which, begins to start syncing up with some of the projects. it does mean we have to get moving and need to make decisions based on some formula that will include cost and sustainability and if we have the groundwater and what it is. it feels like the clock is ticking and we need to get moving on that. >> on top of that, we've not talked about san jose and santa clara and their desire to be permanent customers. that's the origin of some of these projects is to answer that question.

the answer may change because fulfilling our existing contract is a higher priority than making them permanent. that's why this job is fun. >> commissioner courtney: thank you. any public comment on this portion of the general manager's report? decosta. >> commissioners, i have been listening to this very intently. you know what is at the bottom of all this is spirituality. i will explain to you. nowhere in this deliberation have you involved the first people who preserved and protected. when they came and created the

supply and demand act. who the hell gave somebody the permission to bring all the n.g.o.s in and bawsca and other entities and make agreements with them where in the first place the hetch hetchy was created to fulfill our needs in san francisco. i never heard this discussion. you are all over the place and all we're concerned about are the legalities and disagreements that we brought upon ourselves. if you need one wife and you decide to have 20 wives, that's on you. that we're concerned about other al he'd -- alameda.

the first duty was to take the resources and we haven't had any meaningful discussion, to hell with n.g.o.s. and see because we're making the money, so we kept quiet. so we have the agreement with all the customers. we're afraid of the customers because we have fewer short-term agreements and more long-term agreements. finally, we haven't done due diligence. in the year 2018, with all the

discussion on this, that and the other and climate change and forecasting, we really don't know. some years say they it will be a drought and we get extra rain. as someone said, we have all this -- over 200 miles along that 200-mile run, we should have the ability to gather water and we can think outside the box and preserve that water with reservoirs or whatever has been done all over the world. thank you very much. >> commissioner courtney: thank you. any our public comment on this item? hearing none, public item is closed. mr. general manager. >> the last item is, you may have seen or heard on the news about some water quality issues

and i want steve to give you an update on the status. >> okay. again, steve ritchie, assistant general manager for water. we've conducted water testing in the sunset area after hearing concerns about water quality. and at this time, we have no evidence of water quality issues. none of the contaminant issues have been found. we take all water quality concerns seriously and we'll do everything we can to get to the bottom of these concerns. this morning, our teams spoke with a resident that used a home testing kit after believing it tasted different. our water quality team is meeting with her as we speak to determine what type of test kit was used and identify the test

source used and perform additional water quality tests. home kits are not as reliable and accurate. so that's something we're going to be engaged in very much. out of an abundance of caution, our crews will test additional sites and expect to get results in the next week. additionally, once we have -- excuse me, we'll make them publicly available when we have them. once we have the results, we will schedule a community meeting to talk through the results and answer any questions related toll water quality and the groundwater project because some of the concerns have been related to groundwater. folks are concerned that groundwater might have particular problems. we have not been adding ground water since october 2. and in the weeks, two weeks prior to that, we have been delivering less than 1% of

sunset reservoir supply with groundwater. it was a tiny amount for september and now the amount is basically zero that's going into sunset. so it gives me comfort that groundwater is not the source of the problem, but we'll test for sure. residents should report any water quality issues to 311. in answer to the question, is the water safe to drink, the answer is, yes. there's no evidence available that shows any water quality issues. we regularly collect water sources throughout the system to ensure that the water delivered meets or exceeds federal and state drinking water standards i would be happy to answer any questions. >> i'm thinking that perhaps we should put out a press release talking about the groundwater,

because that's what i've within hearing. and -- been hearing. it's premature, because we have to wait for the tests, but, i mean, it really hit strongly. i had calls on it. >> one of the concerns that we have is that the testing was done with the home kit and it purported to show two pesticides in it. if you look at the packaging and everything, it says, these are -- it didn't say these are not reliable tests, but it says, may indicate some problems. those particular contaminants had never been observed in any of the sampling we've done in groundwater or surface water. apparently calls were coming in from different places and one of

the residents reported that a san francisco water employee had confirmed there was a problem. we haven't been able to run that down. and i don't know. i'm sure that the customer heard what they heard. and so they feel that it was corroborated, but i can not find any information to back that up. there is nothing to indicate there was any problem in the drinking water system. >> commissioner vietor: the testing that will be done, is it going to be a general water quality test or just on the -- >> it will be for the pesticides that were tested and additional chemicals. we're collecting samples this

afternoon, f.y.i. >> commissioner vietor: out there? >> yeah. >> commissioner courtney: i wanted to thank mr. ritchie for being on top of it. i saw a lot of activity. i know that staff and executive staff has been working around the clock. i saw a lot of social media activity i think i saw something live. mr. gamble was all over it. to your point on the press release, i think we can be assured that as quickly as we get actionable evidence in the pesticide pieces, given what we did at the department of environment, it's the thing on most people's mind, but i assume we'll be quick with the response, right? >> as quick as we can. >> this morning, there was a good job of laying out the nature of the issue in "the krun

-- chronicle." i think that -- we succeeded in getting that word out. >> one thing we want to make sure is clear is the amount of groundwater that was in the water is really none, because they're building this about groundwater and having concerns and there is no groundwater or very little. >> commissioner vietor: that's my point. >> commissioner courtney: colleagues? thank you, mr. ritchie. any public comment on this portion of the general manager's report? seeing none, public item is closed. next item. >> clerk: item 8 is the consent calendar. all are considered to be routine by the san francisco public utilities commission and will be acted upon by a single vote.

there is no separate discussion unless a member of the board or public requests in which it will be removed and considered separately. >> commissioner courtney: any requests to remove? hearing none, i will entertain a motion. >> moved. >> seconded. >> commissioner courtney: any public comment? hearing none. public item clouds. opposed? moved. >> clerk: approve amendment, cs-879c and extend by three years. >> commissioner courtney: commissioners? >> i will move. >> commissioner courtney: it's been moved. second seconded. any discussion? any public item on item 9? hearing none, public comment closed. all those in favor? opposed?

so moved. >> clerk: item 10, job order joc-76r, for bidder of anvil builders. >> moved. >> seconded. >> commissioner courtney: any further discussion? any public comment? all in favor? opposed? ayes have it. next item. >> clerk: award job contract number joc-77, not to exceed $2 million, guaranteed $50,000 for two years to the response oif bidder, r & s. >> move approval. >> seconded. >> commissioner courtney: any discussion? any public comment? public item closed. all those in favor? opposed. carries. next item.

>> clerk: item 12, approve a five-year lease with three-year option to extend the term 1800 jerrold llc with rent $15,000 with price index increase. >> moved. >> seconded. >> commissioner courtney: any discussion? public comment? hearing none, closed. all those in favor? aye. opposed? have it. matter carries. next item. >> clerk: item 13 is other commission business. >> commissioner courtney: colleagues? okay. now that you elected me president, you can contemplate impeaching me after this. [laughter] there are a number of items i would like you to consider. first of all, we don't manage this department. so what we can do is try to agendaize things in a thoughtful, deliberate way to keep moving the ball down the

field, eventually so we can spike it, right? with respect to items 6 and 13 on the agenda moving forward, i'm going to propose, unless there's objection, that we connect other commission business to other commission business so my colleagues who are interested in seeing an item on the agenda don't have to go through any back channels. bring it up at this time and then we'll place it on the agenda unless there are objections. is everybody okay with that? with respect to work force development, moving this ball forward, i'm going to place an item on the agenda either -- it will be up to the general manager to decide -- in the general manager's report, standing item work force development or separate after the general manager's report. harlan, do you have a comment on that? >> i think it really would depend on what it is.

if it's 5 minutes, we'll put it under my report. if it's longer for discussion, probably want it have it as a discussion item. >> commissioner courtney: is it safe to assume that we'll work together with whoever else you designate, but we'll do it each meeting and determine prior if it's a 5-minute conversation or greater than that or if it will stand alone? i will give you a few examples of what i foresee we'll talk about and i will get through this quickly. for example, a report on new employee orientation. what we did before, what we do now, what is assembly bill 119, what is assembly bill 886, how we notify employees, calendar them, and whether or not we

provide new employees with current copies of the collective bargaining agreement. that would be one item. and another would be a reporter from the san francisco department of human resources. they oversee the public sector. they do the testing, civil service, all that. and they have apprenticeship sf. i'm not sure that our staff necessarily knows what apprenticeship sf is. that may be one of our many problems with this topic. a report from the mayor's office of work force development, specifically from the director of work force, josh arcey. he's come before the committee several times. it's somebody that the mayor trusts and was elevated from city build who can come in and offer assistance in the event we

want to take advantage of that. that with be something that would follow under this item. we're administering in wastewater and doing a great time. i wish we could hear from them. but they're doing a great job, using preapprentices at the wastewater division and endenturing them into the stationary engineers program. we discussed that a few months back. i anticipated we would hear from them, but we have yet to, but that would be another example of what we would hear. land management planning with respect to work force development. public utilities commission oversees a ton of acreage. we have all these projects, right? we build stuff. so you can put in apprentices. we're not just promoting, but

damn near bragging putting community folks to work, preapprentices and apprentices, and i don't know what the final number is, but we're missing the opportunity when it comes to land management and it's a public sector thing. why want to get into the garden project, but for a period of time, the garden project was doing a lot of that work. i'm not sure -- we may dig deep. i don't know if they're the best practices. they don't meet the objectives i've been talking about, but land management is one of them. community benefits. with respect to how we do requests for proposals, there are conversations that take place. we get a report on how it would communicate with folks on the processes, how they were ranked and what contributions that are making to a community benefit entity to meet their obligations

under our community benefits policies. i would think that at some point -- and i have heard no resistance -- but would i think that work force and career pathway is a priority within our community benefits policy and practice and administration. almost done, guys. i mentioned this not long ago. with respect to nonprofits, and garden project comes to mind, we want to know as a commission, if it's connected to work force development, it has to be connected to or work force policy. we want it know if there are any complaints filed. in many respects, it's work that would be performed by employees of this agency and i don't think that we should just give up on a

particular labor standard because that is not out of sync with our policy objectives. those are examples of what i would want to discuss. some are 5 minutes. some are longer. >> the one thing that -- i don't know if it's on your list, but the actual policy. >> i do. i will get to it. >> i thought that you were finished to. me, it was the first one we wanted to focus on so we can then go over how it fits into the policy. if you want to do it differently, i'm okay with it. >> commissioner courtney: it was to finalize the work force development policy. my concern is that -- it's football now. we're in the red zone now and it's about bottom line. it's not about enforcement.

or tying anybody's hands. but it's about -- and it's the heaviest lift. we have three downs to get in the end zone. i didn't want to put that on the next meeting. remember we talked -- >> yeah. >> commissioner courtney: and i'm doing the best i can, harlan. >> i understand if you want to do a couple of appetizers in work force, but i think the policy needs -- because that really helps to shape the programs we're implementing. and we can basically present them in a way that we know what the policy is. and we can say what's compliance and what's not complaint. and i don't know if you have clean power sf. >> commissioner courtney: yeah. that would be in work force. i just want to share, 30,000 feet, but going for the

full-course meal, so i want the appetizers. >> all right. >> commissioner courtney: the reason i wanted to spread it out, i don't want to be disrespectful of all of the many, many other things that are certainly priorities here, given our conversation today. so that was the other one, the finalizing the work force development policy. identifying the difference between public sector approach, private sector approach, and the good work we do, project pool, summer interns i'm focused on a narrow piece of pie. it's the piece of pie we're focused on when we put together the glenn eagles program, which i insisted on doing it and i insisted on it nonunion. it was department of human resources that begged us to represent this classification of workers. and i insisted we would not do that because there is no direct connection to the trade with that kind of an entitlement program. so i said, you have to make them

preapprentices. i regret it at this point. i sent something to ms. hood and council today. it comes from the recreation and parks department. it's a contingency fund. it's a commission-maintained fund and funds are distributed and they get to focus on their own projects. for me, it's work force devel developme development. i encourage you it look into what that is, if you want to see what documents are sent to donna or the attorney, i'm sure they will provide you copies. the base there connected to the open space fund. it's the fund that we sold the reservoir on bay street to. remember that? so i want to explore the contingency fund for the commission so that we can -- we're in front of some of the things that are pressing to us instead of behind the ball all the time.

so i anticipate we'll move a conversation forward, if any colleagues have an appetite for it. one of the things that we did accomplish, harlan, and i know why, golden pride. and i don't want to burden staff. it seems like it's an h.r. thing to me. i know they did a great job last year, with the videos and planning and i want to know that we have the staff or resources or that we don't and -- but we should talk about scheduling. >> we want to talk about it. we want it make it better than last year. >> commissioner courtney: i thought it was cool last year. we can go three-piece. >> black tie. >> commissioner courtney: and, finally, i spoke briefly with commission secretary hood this morning. one of the things that i know we all have had a comment or two about is not really getting all

the information necessarily. it's piecemeal. we get a good email from the general manager's desk, but i asked donna if she had any appetite for maintaining a calendar. you can add it on your phone. most of us use these devices. that way when there's a commission meeting or meeting in the southeast or an event or press or something like that, that donna's notified of those things and commissioners can participate, attend, look into it at their own leisure, however they want to do it. in this day and age, i think we as a body are missing that particular piece. i hope you agree. if you don't agree, we simply won't do it. donna and i would look out what that looks like and consult with the general manager. that's all i have. i will entertain a motion to

impeach the newly elected president. >> a question. the contingency fund for rec park, i wiould love to hear fro that department on how they're responding it. >> commissioner courtney: it's just a thought. i took it to heart when we watched that lady get interviewed. it's an honor to be here. hearing commissioner moran and commissioner vietor with mr. ritchie, i'm still delighted to be here. at the same time, we have to do stuff and sometimes it's not met with great enthusiasm. it's a big one. and i don't know if it's a report from rec and park, but i certainly encourage you to request the documents. it's the resolution. how it was formed. what it is connected to. and there's been a number of --

for example, tom harrison bought a truck and toro for the apprentices out at glenn eagles. there's been all kinds of expenditures made pursuant to this fund connected to the open space fund. let's take a shot. nothing will happen until we look at it and get a report on it and everyone's comfortable with it. thanks, guys. [laughter] >> how much was that fund? >> my understanding is that it was a ballot measure. >> mandated in the charter. >> so we would have to bring it to the voters to set up. >> sounds great. >> we would have it look into the legal mechanism for establishing that kind of a fund. >> commissioner courtney:

colleagu colleagues? any public comment on this item? >> i just want to say that maybe until we figure that out if people can ask what they want before setting up the fund. you do oversee through the budget process $1.2 billion. so if there is something that a commissioner would want to have, you can do it through my work plan or -- so, you know, while we're figuring it out, i want to make sure that i'm responsive to anything that you feel is a priority that we put the adequate resources in there. >> commissioner courtney: thank you, harlan. commissioners? any public comment? hearing none, meeting is adjourned.