breakfast which has been a big event for us and our contractors, for local businesses, to hear about what we're working on and what our upcoming opportunities are. these are examples of how we are leveraging our infrastructure assets or investments to support the local community and our local economy. we're proud of this work and we look forward to continue to expand these efforts. and with that -- >> i just wanted to point out, anand this is for francesca. i went back to rec and park conscience. >> yosemite creek, they are interested in teaming up with us but artificial turf because they're concerned of the gopher holes they have in the park and they female that they identify

artificial turf, which is more tornadmore -- i guess they movey from the rubber. >> there's a call for an update and that you let me know and i appreciate you bringing that back to life. i think it's an important highlight to explore and see if we can then replicate. i don't love artificial turf and it seems to somewhat defeat the purpose of green infrastructure.

>> how does that help our sewer system? >> that's a big fight at rec and park of having natural turf versus artificial turf. having sons that play soccer and baseball, you step in the gopher holes and that's why it's been something of contingency in rec and park. >> of course, i was going to say the same thing and i recognise the gophers and the gopher holes. there must be some way to do it because i can't do anything in my backyard because these gophers are rough but i think there has to be something rather naturally and creative that we can do because it does seem rather to defeat the purpose, but i think there are two different goals and that's what we have to reconcile.

>> whack-a-mole. [ laughter ] >> i think wea we're setting upe meeting. >> any other comments or questions? to the general public, comments, questions? oh, i have a question, actually. >> you are going to get to th the -- i have a question on greenways, very specifically like the sunset you reported on. why do they cost so much money and what am i missing? >> i mate hav might have to geto you on that. it took awhile tor u for us to k the pilot. that was one of the first ones we did and we worked with the public works to try to construct that and it took some time and probably still trying to

finalize what that cost was. we know better now. the bids came in well. we had a good contractor and we're anxious and happy to move forward on that project. >> i appreciate that. >> referring to the irving thing, the 8 million. >> it was 8.4. it just seems -- >> i just wanted to make sure. >> it seems so simple and i must be missing something that is involved with it. >> we could come back and report on that, to have you do that. than >> thank you. now if you could answer, commissioner, the next question. >> i was hoping to go through the waste water. >> i called the waste water first so you can answer it and wenandyou went ssip.

>> sarah, could you maybe speak to the cost because i have a better understanding because we've talked a lot about these projects. >> there's a couple of things with the pilot block. we encountered problems with the steep learning curve and no staff that new about green infrastructure. the public work's staff tasked with implementing the project needed to be trained from beginning to end on how to do it and ended up that the unit costs were higher than our engineer's estimate and since that was a learning block, we then said, ok, let's document or lessons learned and try putting the next piece out to bid and so we had help from harlen, saying o, we'lok,we'll try it this way ane how the different ways can reduce our unit costs. what we're finding is that teaming up with public works for

design can be fine but for construction, putting it out to bid is more cost effective. so with this bid that we're getting for the second phase of sunset, they're much more align wialigned with the engineer's estimate. it seems like it should be easier to implement or less costly. the reason it does cost that much is that we're not just managing rain that's falling on the project. we have to capture what's called the drainage management area which so that infrastructure is draining stormwater from impervious services around the rain gardens. so the design, the grrating, the soils and plants are sooned ando

capture unleinlet areas. it's engineered structured that requires site-specific building interventions during construction and that is what generates the unit costs that you see for storm water management. >> sunset boulevard has been our highest area, because we have infilinfiltration over 40-inchen hour. with infiltrated 90% of al it during the rainy season. >> i'll have to learn more.

it seems like a lot of money. >> we could do a presentation for you in more detail, if that would be helpful. >> our next one that we do, that would be good. >> ok, i'll note that, thanks. >> so we finished the sewer system improvement program update, and did we do a pub pubc comment. >> i believe so. >> you want to do the waste water one and start by responding to sophie's question. >> sure. you're correct, when we first initiated the emergency declaration, we really didn't quite understand or know the actual costs. i think we were projecting it to be 2 million or 3 million, i believe, originally. we brought on a contractor, power engineering, a marine

contractor and came in and looked at the project and the designs and they quantified that there's no way to build it for that amount of money. so we did change the first to a $5 million amount. starting into construction, we had to change some of the construction methods, as well. we had to bring in a barge and actually build a barge at that location because we had to cross two bridges. the bridges weren't working is we had to build a barge and walk our crane on to that barge and that required money. we had to change the shoring system to a coffer dam system. we had to change the shoring method and add a monitoring system, a vibration monitoring system for the palms t paper.

pipes. of course, soils themselves are hazardous and we had to dispose of those in a legal way and those are the extra costs that we are looking at now. the good part is, actually, that our pipe is actually constructed and conducted, and so that leak -- that temporary pipe is fully connected and we're looking to activate that in the effect couple onext couple of d. >> my concern is that it says that more poor soul conditions, limited waterside access, active

marine life and delapidated and larger than expected void underneath the pipeline alignment. so i guess my concern is, what is it that you're putting this -- why should we think it will be better and, you know, when all conditions exyoand you having to shore it up, i'm concerned of the lifetime and what can happen because of the sentimentsediments, we don't kns in it. >> it's a temporary piping system. we have a permanent project which will reroute around, further away and around this access area. >> sorry for the long story.

sounded like a typical day. [ laughter ] >> you can go ahead. i have to get the approval. >> ask for the slides because sfgtv. >> there are no slides for this one. >> i'm howard fung and for this, the waste water bee enterprise. our forecasting extensions by six months or more or have cost variances for 10% above the approved budgets. the first one is the southeast

plant, power feed and primary switch gear project. this is behind schedule because we need to rebid this project. bids were due and received in may, but we had to reject the bids. and as harlin mentioned, we're going do a prequalification process for this process, as well, so there's a lul little ln that time. the central bayside system, phase one, is behind the schedule. phase one is to complete the design for the 35% level and we are currently extending out and we're looking to reprioritize the remainder of the project and there's a little delay there. the permitted project, which is the southeast bay, the crossing replacement project, that's a long one.

this is behind schedule, around eight months. we needed additional tame to incorporattime toincorporate thr the emergency contract and we anywayed to complete, of course, the sequa review. the rehab project, this one is projecting above the baseline budget due to higher costs from actual bids received. we did have to rebid, as well welcome and completion is slated for next year and that completes my report. happy to answer my questions. well >> a question i have has been answered, but i'm concerned when i look through the report and see the red dots. for example, on page 9, and also

the time it takes to get up to speed on the project. and what can we do in the future so this isn't happening. overall, i could see that we've never seen a report like this with so many red warning saints. signs. some of these projects, a lot of interdepartmental projects, sometimes their schedules are out of our control. we deal with mta and public works and depending how their schedule is, we have to coordinate because we only want to dig the roads once. we partner and caugh coordinatee projects with those agencies and it takes awhile and we get dragged along. some of the other projects, we're gettin getting higher bidd our prices rest that and some of

the budget projects are higher. but overall, we're trying to look at that to recoupe savings as we can. >> that makes sense, thank you. put. >> i would just say that overall and this is -- we're actually getting some data, not only in the bay area but nation-wide, prices, construction prices are going through the roof with the tariffs and with the labor and we're reaching out to atlanta, chicago and other cities experiencing similar situations with the other costs to see what strategies to do as an industry. it's challenging because you have to do these projects. we were fortunate enough before the water system improvement program, before the olympics in

china, where prices went through the roof. and our program was trending a couple billion dollars over the program, but then, all of a sudden, you know, the economy just tanked and we're the only game in town and getting bids 40% lower than the engineering estimates and everybody was a hero. so i'm hoping that this happens again. >> is there any public comment

questions? we have the presentation to acquire pg & e asset. this is a let tear went out from the mayor and the city attorney to pg & e and we would just like to present to you what is in that letter so i ask barbara little to come up and present. >> thank you. this item will be our first time in public talking about the information, about the city's nonbinding offer to purchase electric facilities from pg & e. the offer was made on september 6th and it cover -- it was covered extensively in the news on september 8th.

the commission has, of course, been engaged throughout the development process in closed session. this will be our first public presentment and there will be another session today for further q & a and guidance from the council. slides, please. so the nonbinding offer was made after extensive staff and consultant work. that work was conducted at the request of mayor breed and the board of supervisors and under the guidance of counsel, the city attorney. this work was published in moose jaw. may. this is available online, on our website, sfwater.org.

if folks want to take a look, click power, about us and than n the link. let's make sure everybody has the basics first. sanfrancisco is a department -- sorry, sfpuc is a department of the city and county of san francisco. we operate a water utility waste and stormwater utility and it operates two retail electric service. it's hechhe power is a public utility serves city functions and new developments. city functions are like the muni system, the general hospital, the airport, fire and police stations, public schools. some examples are the shipyard,

mission rock, treasure island and clean power sf is a community choice program that serves electric supply only to businesses and residents here in san francisco. together, these two programs were serving 80 also of the electricity consumed in san francisco. and that makes san francisco the primary supplier of electricity in san francisco. pg & e provides the grid services, and that's depicted hear. here. the city has paid for both programs and that's $300 million a year if distribution fees by and over time, san francisco has been reducing the energy dependency but in that grid, that reliance, we do encounter

difficulties. these difficulties increase the cost luk like seen yes senior ae housing and there's safety and financial challenges. they have an alarming set of safety violations. they failed for bankruptcy protection and today's big news, they're attempting to manage wildfire liability with planned power shut-offs in 30 counties and northern and central california will be affected. mayor breed requested a report to explore the options and that report, which i said was issued in may, identified three options that are listed here.

and full independence depickettedepictedon the right,f public funds, oversight accountability, achievement of san francisco's climate action goals i and that was identifieds the best option for san francisco. so further exploration on acquiring pg & e lor assets continued. this put the cost at a few billion dollars and the focus became answering this big question. this big question governed our study paths and informed nonbinding offer submitted to pg & e and let's break this down. can san francisco purchase the assets? we're talking about electric

transmission and distribution assets that serve san francisco, the inventory and control, streetlights, everybody it takes to operate the system. invest and separation costs. that's the separation costs between that we will incur to modify pg & e to create boundaries that they would continue to own and san francisco would be the owner of between our systems and pg & es allan the southern border and provide reliable, safe public service. that's the cost to achieve the goals. these goals are included in operating, maintenance, administrative expenses and capital expenses. when we say consistent with our values on clean power content, we're talking about the same supply costs incurring as an organization for our clean power

sf program. since we're searching a portion of the city, it's really only looking here at that increment we're not serving, so about 20%, that last 20%. and equity. wear proposing here to spend the same amount of dollars that pg &es & e collects as an operag cost. while meeting financial requirements, it means this program and the way we look at acquisition of pg & e assets and operating a full scale utility throughout san francisco, it would need to meet the same financial requirements that we currently operate under and that our waste water operates under. and then this chart illustrates that. we know we wouldn't go forward if we expected it would cost san

francisco more electric service. so we set a revenue ceiling by this black line, base on the other hand a projection of pg & e rates over time and you can see this illustration goes out to year 2050. we calculated the operating costs and funded capital improvements for reliable, sustainable service and equity goals represented by the yellow line, the accumulation of cost to operate the utility, the electric utility serving all of san francisco. we factored in the cost of the purchase price and that's represented by this blue triangle and the net revenues, the greenish triangle shows that all costs come in below the revenue so the acquisition is fundamentally sound. and we anticipate future rate

savings for san francisco at a $2.5 billion offer price. that price was informed but our due diligence study efforts. and we utilized publically available information through the federal energy regulatory commission, securities and exchange and that pg & e makes and relied on multiple experts noted here with jeffrey's llc taking a lead role. jeffreys is the largest u.s. located independent bank. together with these experts, we arrived at the nonbinding offer and they're is the summary of that offer. the offer is the significant cash infusion to pg & e at $2.5 billion and that's a cash that the rate payers would not have to pay back. it would facilitate a timely emergence from bankruptcy with a

premium valuation included there due to the unique expedited circumstances we'd be in given the bankruptcy time frame. and it's an offer for targeted assets that are identified here. more specifically, the 230 230-150 kv transformers, street lights, warehouse service yards, systems, rolling stock, inven is in hope with pg & e.

also on documentation and ancillary agreements, such as an approval from you, the sfpuc and board of supervisors and outside approvals from the bankruptcy and regulatory agencies. as we said in our preliminary option's report in may, we also lacked furthelooked further at l fund. so first up, the pg & e, our analysis shows modest impacts on other pg & e rate payers that is fair to all customers. san francisco's leaving, we estimate, would increase other customer's bills less than a dollar a month, much less than a dollar a month. the pending request, that's the california puc, would increase bills by $30 a month. the premium value that we're offering in that 2.$5 billion

offer includes a gain on sale, some of which can be used to make remaining pg & e customers whole. san francisco is not pursuing this offer to avoid wildfire costs. the city will pay for and use the transmission services. sanfrancisco will pay for operation and maintenance costs on the transmission system and vegetations management and all things we're paying for, we would pay for even were we to be become the provider of electric services for all of san francisco. that's the impact on others. so now let's take a look at what the impact is on san francisco's general fund. the acquisition would be funded by revenue from electricity sales. these are funds that are only available if we actually go forward with the acquisition. wear not drawing funds away from

other city priorities. there has been a campaign by ibew, local 1245 that makes that assessoassertion and that's a m. the city would be compensated for revenue loss from the reduction in pg & e's business in san francisco as would be appropriate. again, that won't be funded from revenue, electricity sales. i'm talking about property taxes, gross tax receipts, fees, that sort of thing and we wouldn't be leaning on the city's credit rating at all or use the city's credit capacity. we would be relying on a post acquisition power enterprise credit using the authority the granted us a year ago june. and then i think the last impact we've been hearing folks ask us about is on the pg & e workforce. as you folks all know, the city employees a union workforce and

we have a long history of working productively with the unionized workforce. they will recruit willing employees who maintain the electric facilities. we value their knowledge, skills and abilities. san francisco offers stable careers with appealing wages and benefits and we seek in the offer letter, the cooperation of pg & e to recruit appropriate personnel. we would want to negotiate a transition plan with pg & e for a smooth hand-off that protects safe and reliable service. having said all of that, we know that this is a major complex undertaking that has risks. let's take a moment to talk about the risks and what our mitigations are. that's what you see on the slide. one of the risks is the asset condition. we've made some assumptions based on what is publicly available about these assets.

so there's a risk that we're wrong on that. the mitigatio mitigation is sube diligence and publication review. it will be in the system, required regardless of whether the city is the owner or pg & e is the owner. it's just now the city under this scenario would be responsible for making the decisions about updates. improv. everything wav we've talked abos based on projections. it's been independently verified and we're going through an ongoing refresh and review as we learn more. staffing up is a risk and challenge. we would be hoping to employ from pg & es existing employee base and then we would rely on contractors to fill the gaps while hiring efforts would opportunity. pace is a risk.

the bankruptcy proceeding is moving pretty quickly and they have a looming deadline associated with the pg & e to have a confirmed plan. we have an experienced, knowledgeablknowledgeable team s through that on the earlier slide with transaction counsel. financing and credit, this is a risk but as you heard from the debt manager, we're quite familiar with the municipal market and doing a lot of debt management today and that would continue under this new structure. and then, of course, there are benefits not quantified. and that's what you see listed here. this is the hope for a prospect of what we get after going through the effort to make the acquisition. with woulwe would have system c, control of the grid and that would help us to support our

project and program objectionives toward decarbonization, actually energization of city projects and businesses, business and residential projects, undergrounding, local generation, storage, energy efficiency and we would have rate-making control supporting city values, like modifying the eligibility reimbursementeligibe would be removing the opt-out risk through the business model and all of the regulatory risks that go with that business model. so that was a conduc quick run n the offer that we made to pg & e and with that, i'll take question. >> i have a couple of questions through the chair. one is, and the one that would

be the most important, to my heart, would be that if this transition took place, the people currently members of 1245 and local 20 that were for pg &est would not receiv & e wo. the transition and tons of people say, i don't care. if there is a gap, the listing of contractors to fill the gap, this is always a red flag for me because contractors, you know, are definitely wanting -- i assume they would be regular contractors. so making sure -- i'm talking about paychecks right now on this point. secondly, you know, there's a lot of federal laws, you know, involved in pension plans and

whatever, defined pension plans if they're working for pg & e or the pte local 20 folks and i know that there are certain things that have happened, including with the housing authority that is going through its transition and shutting down that the city has a history of maybe buying out credits from the plans that people do have and the vesting they have in the current pension plans and therefore, if they did come into the city plan, they wouldn't come in at step one and start accruing hours, but they would say if they worked for pg & e for five years and wanted to come to the city, that the city would be involved in using that as an expense to make sure people wouldn't lose their requirement. so those are two markers i want to put down and i don't know if you want to comment on that.

the second thing, which is a much smaller one, earlier in your program. you wondered if you could explain this. there was a piec piece when you talked about -- you don't require if the word was obstructions or problems. all of it, you know, gets into the san francisco system, the new wonderful system that you guys have been implementing over the last years. but when it comes to a comment that said some of the city's priorities, like affordable affe housing are obstructed by pg & e and i wonder if you can elaborate and why there's an obstruction to affordable housing, pg & e and the

relationship with the areas that have that would obstruct that. >> happy to, talking up first your comments with the workforce issues. the general manager and the mayor already sat down with representatives of local 20 and 1245 to express our sincere interest in having a pathway of employment and to be able to take advantage of the knowledge, skills and abilities of that workforce. the folks most familiar are the pg &es & e workers and we woulde an opportunity for the employees to join our workforce if we are successful in this acquisition. with respect to the question about obstruction -- >> i know that meeting happened. you didn't say anything about

details, about wages or pension, which is what i was asking about. you know that didn't get discussed in total depth, other than the city taking that policy. >> so as barbara stated, we had the meeting and i think both unions were pleased that the mayor reached out to rag out toe we put a proposal out there. i think both unions felt they would opportunity to support pg & e, keeping their assets. however, if they feel that the situation would change, that they would be willing to work with us on that, but they felt that the time is not ripe right

now to sit down and talk to us. we've received a letter, i think, from ibw, pretty much saying that. but meanwhile, we're looking at pensions and stuff and seeing what the difference is and seeing how we can address that. to make it enticing from folks from the pg & e to come and work for the city. >> and we know -- sorry. >> there kelly, i know that we have -- there's a glee about maybe going to the raw raws race bottom with rates but a race to the bottom changing the job compensation is a huge concern. and i'm glad you're studying it, but it's important that that stays furthermorel firmly on the

saying this is what we want to do. out we can't have collateral damage in a city like this, where you put in old letters. this is a union town. >> route. right. the second issue of unaffordable housing and how and the city's efforts are being hung up, if you will, by pg & e. when we interconnect to the grid, it's their grid. there's a wholesale distribution tariff with service that pg & e has at the regulatory commission. it lays out those terms that we're supposed to be able to use to get fair access to pg & e's grid. we don't object to the rates at all that were charged for wholesale service by pg & e but the terms associated with connecting to the grid have been

challenging for us. it's been very inconsistent with what we understand to be good utility practise.

there's a building footprint, i don't think think we need. >> it's not hurting the puc but the developers because they have to now reprogram space for the equipment that we feel are not necessary and then the other thing is that sometimes we make accommodation for projects for not allowing it and then saying we won't make that accommodation any more and makes people upset because they're feeling they're just doing it for that and i think a lot of folks are

frustrated with pg & e. it's just so indicate. inconsistent. >> thank you. thank you so much. for the public update. i have a couple of questions that i've asked before in different ways. but i just want to revisit a little bit, the whole clean power sf launch and programming and success that we've been realizing and some of our early goals in your presentation just to reiterate from an environmental perspective that the whole idea behind clean power sf was to really drive more quickly towards our city-wide goal of greenhouse gas emission reduction to be in compliance with the state. so ghg reduction emission. the second goal from an environmental perspective was to help us as a city reach our 100% renewable by 2030 goal that we

are driving toward and the opportunity that a program like clean power could provide. the third goal was a competitive cost for rate payers with the program and then a final one, which i appreciate commissioner paulson speaking to was around the opportunity for job creation. and i have been excited about this pg & e opportunity because of the opportunity to be able to accelerate those goals and move more quickly toward them. i don't really still have a sense and i'm wondering when we mate gemight get a better underg around renewables and reduction, what this opportunity will provide. will we be seeing a redoubling of reduction in ghgs for san francisco? will we be able to rage ou reacr

goals by 2030 and in a shorter period of time? how much shorter? >> just to talk a little bit about where we're at so far, and what the acquisition would mean, you mowyou know, with respect t, we're ahead of the state in terms of our goals on ghg reductions because we're providing 80% of the supply, we're almost there. you know, we're ahead of the state on that and we're almost there with respect to renewables. next year, 2020, you know, our policy that you adopted for the clean power sf program is to be 50% renewable and that's california compliant rps, eligible power, 50% of the content of the clean power sf default product, the green power will be renewable in 2020 and that's all part of the trajectory toward 100% by 2030,

that the city has adopted. so we're in good shape on the supply side because we've been operating the clean power sf program. acquisition allows us to then close that gap between the 80% and 100 of customers supplied in san francisco. they'll all be able to take supply from us once we acquire the grid and so we'll be able to close that gap for that 20% that we're not currently searching. we'lserving.we can close that ge these goals achieved across the full consumption of san francisco. so i kind of understand that. you guess my relatively high-level hope is to get to the renewable as a city and the cushion will help us to get there.

once we own the grid, we can close that gap. >> thank you. >> and so when we talk about equity, that's important, of course, because when you think of all of the debt that we're incurring and how we pay for it, and then who has to pay for it, sometimes people say, i would like to buy that house, but i can't afford it. so how are we going to make sure and a lot of them are probably for environmentally sound about the fact they cannot do what other people can afford to do and that needs to be taken into

consideration and to value them and maybe to approach it in that they have been environmentally conscious and we would like to see more of it and help you rather than think they are a burden. >> rate, and i think acquisition allows us to have that direct round with a customer that pg & e currently holds on the distribution grid. and we're looking forward with your rate-making control to ensure we're designing rates and the programs that we offer to customers with that kind of equity focus you're speaking to. we know that san francisco today contribute into pg & e's low income programs and other energy efficiency and conservation programs, contribute about $60 million, 6-0.

but we know that not all of that money is spent here in san francisco. so the way we looked at this issue was, we would be able to afford more of those program dollars being spent here in san francisco without having to contribute or expect customers to contribute more funds to pay for those programs. thank you. >> members of the public, any comments, questions? this is an excellent review. >> thank you. >> and very beneficial. it puts everyone no one place to refer to and i appreciate your effort. >> thank you. lots of hours worked. i'm pass that on to staff. thank you. >> that concludes my report. >> ok.

>> next item please. >> item 8, other commission business. >> i would just like to say a little bit about the conference that we went to, unless you were going to do that. >> no, no. i was going to, but go ahead. >> but we attended west-tech which stands for water environment federation technical subject conference and you think what struck me more than anything was we were like rock stars and maybe it's because of the 6 billion or $10 billion we're spending, i don't know. but people were excited about our efforts in a number of ways and there was one in particular. we went to -- what was it? water agency leaders alliance

and it was a meeting of the leaders of the agencies, you know, the water agencies. and before they were over, uncle one gentleman said to both -- he said, i just want you commissioners to know what san francisco means to the rest of us. that they have been leaders in any number of ways with equity, with diversity and really caused us to look at things differently. so it was a very proud moment, i must say, and that the work that we're doing and even the west-tech itself in the very beginning in the general session, their focus is on bringing in young people, people of color and women and that sounds like what we're trying do and i think it probably came from the water agency alliance and it just filtered upwards.

you just want to thank our staff for doing what they do and certainly were impressed with the technical on the floor and the new technology that we are getting and it's just amazing what we're getting and what the improvements are going to be in every single way. and i think when i look at it and i hear the money, i'm thinking of generations. this is not just what we're doing here and now. this is for generations. and we have to look at what we're doing and what we're spending and that term and if not we will be short sighted and not get the best. we have come to theconclusion that we're both geeks because we ask questions and looked at every little bitty thing. i'm sure they were very surprised. at the end we felt we could sell this ourselves. but it was a great experience

and i really appreciate our staff and what we're doing. >> if you. thank you. >> that's very well said. (please stand by)

with all of this wastewater technology. it was like it was on overdrive. it was so exciting. each machine, they even had designer colors. we could have everything read, or -- but, we went through every step. by the end, you know, sophie and i had a bucket of wastewater and we started at the beginning, at the end we had this no odor, wonderful, class a -- it's called class a sludge. i don't know if we have a name of our product yet. i heard one place we did. they said it's not named yet, but i think it is.

that was exciting to see. all of this talk that we have here at the commission to actually see how these systems work. the end result of what we are going to have. in 2025. >> i just wanted to say, from the staff, they really appreciate you coming. they thought this would show you around. but when you start conversing on details, and they start explaining, you know, all of the components of of the equipmen equipment -- of all the equipment, they thought you were really involved. they are so impressed have you. i think you're out there for like three hours or something like that. they were very impressed.

as it relates to a lot of the consultants, it's a great opportunity to really meet the top managers, or the consultant firms. if something happens you know who to call. [laughter] saying you need to bring a better staff, or let them know that the staff is doing well. we talked to them, a lot of these consultants, it's amazing. it's like professional sports now. there could be one team today, and then they are with another team. it's just a great opportunity, you know to stay connected. in fact, we have the ex- general manager from chicago who is going to come down on the 23rd of this month, to look at what

we are doing and give us some advice. on then we are going to have keisha powell. she is coming down as well from atlanta. she is the general manager. she is a great person. we will try to hook you guys up when they are down. so you can meet them. >> any other commission comments? council, are you giving me. [laughter] okay. -- giving me a dirty look? [laughter] okay. seeing none. the consent calendar please. >> do you want to call for public comment on item eight? >> any public comments on our comments?