what's happening over here, i see the number 12 for the agenda items. i see the number 12 for all the agenda items. so, ever since this meeting began there's confusion. start the meeting, go into closed session, you come out and start barking at us about some nuances which i have read one of your commission used the f-word. and no apology. i have read one of your commission used the f-word with no apology. now, i know sometimes following the shenanigans for years i'm fed up with you all, and then we are forced to say something, not

because we want to say it, but because -- look at this. number 12 there, general public comment. i can guarantee you number 12 is general public comment. you come out from your closed session, for whatever reason, and if you are transparent, what your closed session was all about. closed session, any way you look at it, is about corruption. so much so that fbi had to come in and general manager. where is your assistant manager for external affairs. come on, man. human beings, educated human beings, let's have a good debate.

don't bark at us. and you want -- you want to know what your -->> thank you for your comments. your time has expired. madam secretary, there are no more callers in the queue. >> secretary: thank you. classes item on 12, general public comment. madam president, i think you are muted. madam president, you are muted. madam president, i believe you are still muted.

is there a way we can unmute the president? >> president maxwell: i'm here, thank you. i had technical difficulty for a minute. madam secretary, next item, please. >> secretary: item 13, communications. >> president maxwell: any discussion with communications? commissioner moran. >> thank you. i have a question on the advanced calendar. do we have dates yet for, i think there were going to be two additional deep dive sessions, i was wondering if we have times set up for that yet. >> secretary: are you referring to the workshops? >> yes. >> secretary: not yet. >> president maxwell: i think we are looking at march for the third one. and we, that's where we are

right now. is that right? >> yes, as far as i know. asked folks to get some dates for us and recommend those dates. i have not heard back yet. >> are we looking at 1 or 2 additional? my sense was that we needed another one on environmental issues and then on to the water supply, that would be two additional. >> president maxwell: i think there was the green infrastructure and then the third one, the third water workshop and then the -- you are requesting what, now? >> the water supply budget. >> president maxwell: yeah, i think that's coming up, yes, michael? >> yes, president maxwell. so, looking at the third workshop, probably the last week of march and i'm going to try and schedule the green infrastructure one fairly shortly, i have to meet with

staff basically to go over a proposed agenda for that. >> president maxwell: and then the water supply? >> that would be the water supply would be the one at the end of march. water demand, water supply. >> oh. thank you. >> thank you. >> president maxwell: any other discussion or communication? seeing none, madam secretary, will you open up for public comment on this item, please? >> secretary: members of the public who wish to speak on item 13, communications, raise your hand to speak, star three. please note you must limit comment to the topic of the agenda item discussed and remind if you do not stay on the topic, the chair can interrupt and ask you to limit your questions to

the agenda item topic. we ask it be a civil and respectful manner and refrain from the use of profanity. your remarks to the whole, not to individual commissioners or staff. mr. moderator, do we have any callers? >> madam secretary, no callers in the queue at this time. >> secretary: thank you. 13 is closed. reannounce that item number 14 has been removed from the agenda and will be rescheduled. next order of business is item 15, presentation of the department of human resources for the four highest scoring respondents to informal solicitation to a prequalified pool to a firm to recruit candidates for the sfpuc general

manager and possible action by the commission to select a recruiting firm and authorize to engage the selected firm po perform the recruitment for an amount not to exceed $100,000 and duration not to exceed a year. >> kate howard, i have a brief presentation to update you since we last met in january. i provided you with an overview of the process and shared more information about each of the four firms that we are interested in working with the commission, as you seek to conduct a recruitment for a new general manager of the public utilities commission. this document in front of you just reiterates the process, reminds you the first step is to

ask for proposals from a group of recruitment firms, review and select the firm, that's the step you are in at the moment. then the selected firm would work with the commission to build a candidate profile, conduct outreach and recruitment, select the candidates in the pool and then the firm would present the commission with a slate of candidates for you to evaluate and determine which of those individuals you would like to interview. the commission would conduct interviews, the firm would vet the finalists and the commission would refer up to three candidates to the mayor's office for the mayor's review and ultimately her decision who to select as the new g.m. next slide, please. so at our last, your last commission meeting i attended, you requested i provide

additional information for you. which i provided to you in your packet, this is the summary of the four firms that provided responses to this recruitment, alliance resource group, bob murray and associate, and the hawkins company, and another. proposed fees, any additional costs for additional stakeholder meetings beyond what they have each proposed. suggested timeline to enter, to go from the date of, the date which they start working with you to bring finalists to the commission for interviews, do we have recent experience either with the city -- or -- i'm in a meeting, excuse me, my apologies. do they have recent experience

with the city or public utilities recruitment and do they have experience recruiting a diverse pool of candidates. in the last meeting you requested i provide you some additional information regarding their specific experience with respect to conducting recruitments on behalf of large urban jurisdictions. their experience and approach recruiting a diverse talent pool, the cost of additional stakeholder meetings and provide you with some sample recruitment brochures. that information is provided in your packet, i'm happy to walk through some highlights of it. at this time. so this just for you and for members of the public, the brochures that each firm provided are listed here, alliance resource group highlighted their recent

recruitment, director of the municipal transportation agency, as well as the port of oakland finance director. bob murray highlighted their work with mountain house community services district, general manager, glendale agm for electric services. and highlighted for the metropolitan transportation commissioner and hawkins shared their recruitment brochure for metro water district of southern california. before we go to the next slide i want to make -- actually, let's go to the next slide. in terms of their experience working in large urban jurisdictions, each of them indicated that they had experience doing that work, those at the, ranging from sort of city manager-type roles to

department and deputy directors, and you can see a sampling of the cities, counties and other public agencies that these companies have experienced working with. as i mentioned in your pocket you have the detailed responses related to the firm proposed strategy with respect to diverse group of candidates to this opportunity. and each of them i think responded in a way that was satisfactory, indicating that they would each work with both with their own network professional network that they already have cultivated, as well as with industry professional network, as well as focussing on

targeted outreach to canons of color. i'm happy to answer any questions at this time. that does conclude my overview of the update i have for you, president maxwell, but happy to take any questions or further direction from the commission. >> president maxwell: is there any further questions or comments? in looking at this i guess two of them really stood out for my, alliance and hawkins. hawkins has worked for san francisco airport and they have done any number of recruitments. and that means we have gone back to them several times and they did the library and also looking at the water district in southern california for a g.m.

so what i thought is well, they are already out there, they are already looking, they know what's out there, probably would not take them as long to find people, and they, they seem to be used quite a bit for large big jobs, executives, people that they need. so they stood out and i think alliance stood out. but then when i looked at alliance they, i think they have done good work. i did not know about, when i looked at who they were, how diverse they were, whereas hawkins is diverse with women and people of color and so i think it just made it seem as if they were walking the walk and would have, and their outreach would be significant.

>> madam president, i would like to make comments, if you don't mind. >> of course. >> i had a similar observation as you did, and i think, especially hawkins really stood out because i know to your point that metropolitan water district of southern california has been in the process for a while and benefits from some of the support that's done. >> and i thought everyone's brochure was good. and i just think they are all very good, but again, that one stood out. >> my reaction was the same. >> that's three. >> would you like a motion? >> yes, is everybody comfortable with that, tim?

are you comfortable making a motion now? all right, ed, would you make that motion, please? >> sure, the motion to ask d.h.r. to follow through and set up a contract with the hawkins group. >> is there a second? >> i'll second that. >> all right. >> roll. >> two things, you'll need to take public comment before you vote on the motion. second, to clarify the motion on the description of this agenda item, it's said you may act to direct h.r. to secure a firm for amount not to exceed $100,000, and duration not to exceed one year. clarify that is part of the motion. >> yes. >> agree. >> ok. >> oh, gosh. >> madam president, would you

like for me to call roll? public comment, i'm sorry. members -- members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comments specifically and item 15, the general manager search, 1-415-655-0001, 1463502017 pound pound, to raise your hand to speak, star three. note you must limit your topics to the agenda item discussed and remind you, you do not stay on the topic the chair can interrupt and limit your talk to the comment on the agenda. and civil and respectful man and refrain from the use of profanity. address your remarks to the commission as a whole, not to individual commissioners or staff. mr. moderator, do we have any callers? >> madam secretary, one caller in the queue. caller, the line is open.

you have two minutes to speak on item 15. >> the way i look at this is that this head hunters are not doing a good job. and the way you commissioners are looking at this is blindfolders. do you know that we have -- if we take the plant, hunters point, who is the manager? plotted there -- [inaudible] who replaced, planted there by julia garas. so you are going to bring in an outsider as a general manager and you have corruption and corrupt employees planted all over the place. and you are not even giving it a thought. there's no fix here, there's no

morality here, there's no standards here, there's very, very, very poor leadership here. that's all i'll say. this is how you use the taxpayers. >> thank you for your comments. no more callers in the queue. >> secretary: thank you. that closes public comment on item 15. moved and seconded. madam secretary, roll call please. [roll call] >> secretary: five aye.

>> president maxwell: passed. next item, please. >> next item of business is item 16, report of the general manager. >> i am here, thank you. the first report that i have is the quarterly audit and performance review report, presented by charles peroll. >> this is our quarterly standing update for our audit and performance reviews. and this is for the second quarter for activities ending through december for the current fiscal year. the documents that we provided you commissioners include the report memo and audit summary for the current fiscal year. we did make some changes based on the feedback that we heard from you in december for the first quarter update and those

changes include a revised memo, or the report itself, which provides a bit of background on each report that's completed as well as a bit of a description on the findings and the relevance of the findings. and then the other thing we did was we, rather than adding the reports to the agendas, each commission agenda, we included links in this report memo so that you are or interested parties could click on and find the reports directly through the memo itself, and happy to take any further input. based on that, i'm happy to jump into the quick summary for you. next slide please. so again, at a high level, we have 25 audits, and this year,

and as at the end of the second quarter, again the end of december, 18 of the 25 audits were either completed or underway, so that's just about three-quarters of the audit plan. so, pretty good progress, and the summary of the audit data is attached to the report, audit by audit, you can go through the details there. we have two audits completed during the second quarter, those are noted here. the first is the wholesale revenue requirement audit for fiscal year 19, ending in june of 2019, annual report which looks at how costs are allocated between the wholesale water customers and retail water customers. completed last october, i'll go into a bit more details on the audit in a moment. the second completed report for,

was for the power enterprise, and that was the cal iso, california independent system operator, and this report was, is a biannual audit for 2018 through 2020, which looks at the details of the meter data that is provided to cal iso through our scheduling coordinator, and that essentially a performance audit to make sure the data is accurate and correct, and there were no exceptions or findings reported in that audit. so as i mentioned, this audit i'll go into detail here, wholesale revenue requirement audit. annual audit looking at how we allocate costs. we did have two findings, as noted here, that the auditor highlighted, and that we

remediated. the first finding was an employee cost was allocated to the wrong place, so we have made that adjustment. and then the second finding was receipt related to an error in debt service cost allocation, and the two of these together, the adjustment was a little over $300,000. to give you a sense of perspective, commissioners, the w.r.r., the wholesale revenue requirement, that what that stands for, for that year, $268.2 million, so while we do take any adjustments, you know, seriously and will look to do better in the future, the value of the adjustments are relatively small compared to the bigger picture. and we concur with the findings and work to improve our internal controls. in terms of what's coming up as a preview, for this third

quarter we are in right now, those are noted here. we have the wek and nerk, western electricity coordinating council, and north american electric reliability corporation. this is a reliability standards compliance audit. then we also have a performance audit for web application security assessment, that's coming out of the city service auditor and we are expecting that report to be issued any time now this month. we also have the financial statement audits, which were scheduled for this meeting, i believe they will be scheduled for your next upcoming meeting to be presented to you, and then the pg&e was issued today and provide you more details and a link to that report in the next quarterly update.

in terms of what's coming up later this year, community benefits audit out of the controllers office and then we also have a, some assistance from external auditors, the city service auditors out of the revenue bond oversight committee and that group and that set of auditors is looking at debt issuance and debt proceeds and how those monies were spent in accordance with the issuance documents, to make sure it was spent properly. we expect that audit to go for the next few months and should have a report to share with you later, probably summer. with that, i am happy to answer any questions. >> well, thank you for explaining the acronyms. very helpful.

mr. paulson. anyone else? that's good. i mean -- that's good. these financial guys, you are really doing well. ok. >> commissioner moran has a comment. >> yes, thank you. charles, thank you for that, and as you know, the audit program is one of the favorite things we do, i think it's necessary to maintaining the trust that people put in us when they give us all this money. one thing that was missing from this report that i would like to see back in, a table kind of an aging of responses and corrective action and that disappeared from this one.

>> i'm happy to add that as a reminder, we don't have any outstanding recommendations at the present time. so i'm happy to include the table but there's nothing to report as it relates to aging. >> that's the best combination, full disclosure. nothing to report. >> no problem, we'll add it back, we'll add that back. >> thank you. >> madam president, quarterly budget status report by laura bush. >> we need to call for public comment on item 6a. >> members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment specifically on item 16a, quarterly audit and performance review report, call

1-415-655-0001, 1463502701, pound pound. star three. limit your comments to the agenda item being discussed and if you do not stay on the chair they can limit you to the agenda public. and civil and respectful manner and refrain from the use of profanity. address your remarks to the commission as a whole, not to individual commissioners or staff. mr. moderator, do we have any callers? >> there is one caller in the queue. you are recognized. caller, your line is open. >> ok. so i want to remind the commissioners public comment is essential, especially when it refers to the san francisco public utilities commission that has failed us all. now, regarding this audit, we

need to put emphasis on the community benefits. one audit was done and relative to the information to the audit is missing. no mention has been made of that. so, rather this one audit, or partial audit was done, the documentation is missing. now the controller's office as well as the city attorney by the federal bureau of investigation because they can follow the money once another audit on the community benefits. some of the commissioners who have been there for a long time know i've been talking about this. those commissioners kept saying oh, it's all about, i mean, they don't care, it's all about

money. whose money is it? it's the taxpayers' money. but basically improvement project starts at 6 billion and is now 12 billion and will end costing us 20 billion, something is fundamentally wrong. so we can have 1,000 audits. this is something that is quite simple and is linked to ethics, morals and standards. thank you very much. >> thank you for your comments. madam secretary, no more callers in the queue. >> secretary: thank you. that closes public comment on item 16a. madam president, quarterly budget status report by laura bush. laura. >> good afternoon, everybody. i have a presentation.

everyone hear me? great. so, hi, everybody, laura bush here, sfpuc budget director, here to give the budget report to you. next slide, please. so overall we have a positive net result projected toward power prices -- driven by the pandemic, causing delayed economic recovery leading to reduced retail revenues and weakened wastewater. however, water wholesale revenues are strong. cleanpowersf, a recent rate decrease, and power positive results driven by one-time savings. at q1, personnel savings across the agency, q1 also we are

seeing significant savings in water usage debt refinancing, savings there. and then i explained this at q1, i can go over it again. we are seeing significant one-time benefit from close out projects we did through fund balance during our 19-20 rebalancing process. we are attempting these savings to be appropriated, and due to covid delays, not appropriated until the fall, so that's why they are showing up in this year's quarterly reports. lastly, financial results projected policy target. next slide, please. water.8 million, and $9 million

in prior year closeouts. drivers of this, reduction of $14.2 million in retail revenue, and also reduction of 5.5 million in nonoperating revenues, and reduced revenues collection moratorium. this is being offset by good news on the wholesale side, positive variance. we have savings and debt service as i mentioned and also savings and salary benefits. next slide, please. wastewater, the net operating result has weakened since q1, now negative 5.4 million. we also in addition have the project closeout, 10.8 million. so what's driving that negative operating result is the same story that we have in water,

reduction in retail service charges of 11.8 million as well as reduction in nonoperating revenue, offset by savings and salary and benefits. hetch hetchy, the net operating result is 15.5 million to the good. this is being driven by good financial news on both sides, mostly one-time savings. as i mentioned, each enterprise has the closeout savings, 27.3 million. in addition to further support our rebalancing efforts to the upcoming budgets, 9 million from projects, we have general reserve budget of 1.5 million

this year. so on the operating result side, this is, go back to the slide. thank you. we have a small variance in power, gas and steam sales, due to the departments continuing to be in pandemic mode. however, we have a couple of items of good news, $3.6 million increased wholesale sales due to unbudgeted attribute sales, cleanpowersf and national lab, water purchases, $3.3 million variance. q1, large positive variance in

nonpersonnel costs, mainly due to the closeout prior year forward, and savings in salary and benefits as well. lastly, cleanpowersf negative net operating results, this is largely driven by, as i mentioned before, a january 1st rate decrease of 16%, $10.2 million negative variance in revenues, offset by savings. lastly, all ratios -- that concludes my presentation. >> any questions or comments?

>> i have a question. >> thank you for your presentation. i wonder if we have any idea how these changes are going to hold. any forecast done to see where we are heading with all these changes and views and consumption and you know, a lot of these companies and different groups of changing their, you know, work at home procedures and people, i'm just trying to understand like do we know really what's going to happen after the pandemic is over. >> i wish i had a good -- of course we have been trying our best to make projections, particularly in light of the fact we have been recently redeveloping our fy20-21 budget.

i see eric has popped up on video. maybe he would like to take the question. >> i think you were doing a great job. we don't have a crystal ball. i think that over the next year we'll see how it plays out. we made some assumptions in the completed 22 budget something like what we are seeing now play out a little longer over maybe the initial forecast, but really it will be the developing of the following year's budget, hopefully see a trend of recovery. >> maybe another question is, imagine in laura, either of you, imagine in the next five years we have another pandemic, so are we foreseeing what we are going to do next, we would not be in the situation where we are now, see how we can use it as an opportunity to be a little more

strategic in the way we do budgeting and revenue and all that in the future. >> we actually have the city's economist who supplies reports in the future. part of that, is city-wide projections and helps on the retail level, especially for water, wastewater and power enterprises. don't have the same forecast on the regional level, so we have to work with the wholesale customers and what they are projecting. what you stated about like large water users rethinking how they come back after this pandemic is making us think about how they come back, so think about the large tech campuses, whether or not they come back in some way, shape or form. the second thing we are looking at, basically development in the city of san francisco, lots of pressure to build more housing and also large developments committed resources and commitments to anchor tenants and things of that nature, may

get delayed a year or two, but still will get built. we are trying to take that into consideration as we build out our budget models going forward in the next 2, 4, 6 years, and we have to do that as well because mr. sandler will point out we are going to go through a rate analysis over the next year and we have to have information how we build our rates going into the future. >> and i would also just add there are a number of different groups within the region that are looking at developing regional economic forecasts. i know the city has a robust economist, the airport has looked at doing its own regional recovery work initially with mckenzie and that has morphed into some work that's chartered by the bay area council, so we are looking at these opportunities to try to understand what's happening at a regional level and translate

that into a city-wide demand perspective. >> thank you. >> mr. harrington. >> thanks for that information, that was very helpful. on clean power, i know that we are dipping into our rate reserve because pg&e continuing to change things as california p.u.c. at one of these discussions, maybe not today, but could you talk more how you think you need to set that rate reserve for the next year and how we are going to fund it, and how it plays itself out? i think it would be very helpful to know how many times we can go to the well, so to speak, as the changes happen. >> that's a very good question and we can address that. either before at the time of the next proposed clean power rate adjustment. >> any further questions?

i have one. so, in the new covid money that's coming, is there any money in that for public utilities? for cities and public utilities? >> there is a fund in the bill just passed a while ago, stimulus bill, $638 million for public utilities. mostly on the waste and wastewater side. may be more for power. we are tracking in the proposed stimulus bill, $500 million available for public utilities. we think that's too low, given sort of the need across the country so we are working with our different groups and lobbyists in d.c. to see if we can have the money raised. the question that has come up is how is the $638 million going to be dispersed and we are working on that and it will come through the state and get to the

utilities as soon as possible. >> thank you. and mr. sandler, back to the question regarding looking at forecast for the future. when that happens, could you -- could we maybe have an item so that we have a good idea of where people are thinking that's going? >> definitely we can. we can keep you apprised. >> the presentation. great. thank you. any further comments or questions? then madam secretary, public comment on this item, please. >> secretary: members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment specifically on item 16b, 1-415-655-0001, 1463502017 pound pound, to raise your hand to speak, press star three. please note you must limit your comments to the topic of the agenda item being discussed and

remind you if you do not stay on the topic the chair can interrupt and ask you to limit your comments to the item topic. address to the commission as a whole, not to individual commissioners or staff. mr. moderator, do we have any callers? >> there are no callers in the queue at this time. >> secretary: public comment on 16b is closed. >> item c. >> nothing to report at this time. i have concluded my report. >> mr. -- sorry, mr. carlin, update on the bay delta plan. >> actually, we have nothing to report on that at this point in time. we, you know, are looking forward to working with the parties to move forward, the

proposal that we have. but we are also looking to our third workshop with the public on water supply and demands, and hopefully later in march. >> item d. >> public comment. >> guess you did say something, ok. public comment. >> i tried not to. >> public comment on c. >> secretary: members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment on 16c, bay delta plant and voluntary agreement update, 1-415-655-0001, to raise your hand to speak, star three. please note you must limit comments to the topic of the agenda item being discussed and remind you if you do not stay on the topic, the chair can

interrupt and ask you to limit your item to the agenda topic. civil and respectful manner and refrain from the use of profanity. address your remarks to the commission as a whole, not to individual commissioners or staff. mr. moderator, do we have any callers? >> madam secretary, there are no callers in the queue at this time. >> secretary: thank you. 16c is closed. >> 16d. >> i have nothing to report. >> president maxwell: read the next item, please. >> secretary: next order of business, item 17, new commission business. >> president maxwell: any new commission business?

yes. commissioner. >> quick question. i'm not sure if it is the right place to ask it or i can send an email later and follow up. but so -- do i ask a question here? >> president maxwell: you have a question. this is new commission business. so, if it's something that you would like, francesca can answer your question. >> i have a question about the bill that's going through the california legislature right now, and statewide water ability assistance program. do we know where we stand on that and -- >> commissioner, since this is not on the agenda, we can ask that staff bring back correspondence on that.

>> that would be great. thank you. >> secretary: you are welcome. >> president maxwell: thank you. public comment on this? do we need to open public comment? since -- public comment, please. >> secretary: members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment specifically on item 17, new commission business, dial 1-415-655-0001, 1463502017 pound pound. raise your hand to speak, star three. please note you must limit comments to the topic of the agenda item being discussed. and remind you if you do not stay on topic. chair can interrupt. we ask public comments be made in a civil and respectful manner and refrain from the use of profanity. address your remarks to the commission as a whole, not to individual commissioners or staff.

mr. moderator, do we have any callers? >> madam secretary, there are no callers in the queue. >> secretary: thank you. public comment on item 17 is closed. >> next order of business, item 18. consent calendar. all matters listed hereunder constitute consent calendar, routine by the utilities commission acted on a single vote of the commission. no separate commission of the items unless a member of the commission or public so request, which the item will be removed from the calendar and considered a separate item. >> president maxwell: item b. mr. moran. >> i was going to ask for the same thing, item b. >> president maxwell: anyone else? then let us have public comment on item a.

>> secretary: members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment on consent calendar item 18a dial 1-415-655-0001, 1463502017, pound pound. to raise your hand to speak, star three. please note you must limit your comments to the topics of the agenda item discussed and limit to the agenda item topic. we ask public comment be made in a civil and respectful manner and refrain from the use of profanity. address your remarks as a whole, not to individual commissioners. >> there are no callers in the

queue. >> secretary: public comment on 18a is closed. >> president maxwell: may i have a motion and second on the item? >> i'll move it. >> second. >> president maxwell: moved and seconded. roll call vote please. [roll call vote taken] >> secretary: five aye. item b, approve amendment number one, efficiency program, replacement of inefficient toilets and other devices for high efficiency models for the san francisco puc retail service

area and execute the amendment, increasing the duration by four years for a total duration of eight years with no change to the agreement amount. >> president maxwell: mr. richie. >> yes, commissioners. this is an extension of time only, not for money, for our direct install program for high efficiency toilets, something we have been doing for several years now and there is money left and we understand there is still more market out there for toilet replacements. i'm available to answer any questions you may have and also julia ortiz, our water conservation manager is available as well, depending on the nature of the question. >> president maxwell: commissioner harrington. >> this is a program near and dear to my heart. it combines conservation with equity, this discussion, and so it's great we have done 15,000 already, it's a little disconcerting we are saying it's kind of over, let the money run out over the next few years and

i would like to make sure we have done as much as we think we should do, or add more money to it. but also brings up the larger issue that we have a variety of rebate and grant programs that tend to be available to only certain people because that's the way the world is. [please stand by]

-- i'll make just one general comment because we have been investing heavily in conservation for so many years, investing heavily in our market penetration has become quite high so there's a diminishing return out there. i'll let julie speak to that. one quick comment, for this case for direct stall toilets we take the toilet there and install for the people so they don't have to do that. >> that's what is good about these programmes, yes. >> julie, do you have additional comments to make? >> yes, we have been doing a lot of marketing. we continue to do so, so we're always eager to find new pockets

of opportunity. we are at a fairly high saturation rate of efficient toilets in the city. city-wide we estimate that to be about 80%. but that remaining 20% still represents over 100,000 possible old fixtures. so that's really, you know, what we're looking at, like i said, we regularly do outreach. we try to do it across all of our customer sectors, particularly to low income, but we certainly, you know, we welcome ideas and thoughts on ways that we continue to reach out. moik commissioner moran? >> my question goes to the capacity of the vendor. it looks as though we're projecting that they'll double their rate of installations in the next increment.

how do we know they can do that rate? >> based on the remaining budget we have left in the contract, we estimate that we could install another 1,000 toilets. so it is based on remaining budget. we haven't had any problem with the contractor capacity. as noted, it is a constant effort to market and to get word out. we had a slowdown this past year due to covid. there were restrictions for a while and being able to enter customer homes. luckily we were able to put together a stringent health and safety plan that our contractor follows and with customers, you know, following those guidelines and interests, we were able to resume.

so we have a little bit of catch-up due to covid but we see that picking back up and we definitely, you know, know that there's still customer interest. it's just a matter of the constant drumbeat of us getting word out and connecting with those folks. >> vice-president moran: okay, thank you. >> president maxwell: commissioner ajami. >> commissioner ajami: i have a question. what is the penetration rate with the multifamily units and also the small commercial units, like, you know -- like small businesses, restaurants? just out of curiosity i'm wondering do we know how many of those are out there that we haven't really reached yet? >> well, the general rate i mentioned of efficient fixtures at about 80%, it is rolling out single family and multifamily and non-residential. it's a little bit lower for multifamily and non-residential,

although it's similar to that. again, that's based on our model estimates. and our program is currently open for single family and multifamily properties. so we are, in fact, working with a lot of multifamily properties. some are very large h.o.a.s or rental apartment buildings. so we're actively pursuing those. it's closed to commercial because of san francisco's commercial conservation ordinance, which required efficient plumbing fixtures as of 2017. >> commissioner ajami: so do we have like a map or a data source that you can just look and say, okay, this neighborhood has done more and this neighborhood has done less. or these commercial areas have done more. do you have something like that? or is this more -- i'm assuming that there's something, i'm just wondering. >> well, we have lots of ways that we track the data and we're always poring over that. and we can definitely plot those

locations of the places that we have served on a map. that tells us some, but it really has more to do with the age of the building and the level of facility maintenance staff they might have. sometimes just different styles of fixtures they have may have been a reason why some buildings haven't replaced them in the last decade or so compared to other places. so it's really a mix of things that we look at. >> commissioner ajami: so you could chart them? >> yes. >> commissioner ajami: i would be interested in seeing where we are as far as the neighborhoods are concerned. >> yeah, we can provide that information. >> commissioner ajami: good, thank you. >> president maxwell: any other questions or comments? yes? commissioner harrington. >> commissioner harrington:

thank you, and thank you, julie, for all of the work that you are doing on this. if you run out of money before you run out of need, can you please come back to us and add more if you're looking at other conservation programs where this kind of idea could be useful, i would really love to see more of that happen. so thank you very much. >> well, terrific. i would love to come back anytime and ask for more money. and we will be providing an update on our 2020 conservation plan, my understanding is coming out before too long. can i ask one more thing, madam president. julie, as you're mapping these, can you map the commercial penetration? i'm just really curious on how that is sort of working out since it was supposed to be done by 2017, right. >> we can map those that we incentivize through our program,

yes. >> thank you. >> president maxwell: all right. any further questions or comments? mr. carlin, do you have something to add? >> i was going to add one thing, something that we have worked on for several years. unlike efficiency rebates with our non-taxable, and we have been working with the national coalition for several years and it looks like we might be on the verge of actually getting that in one of the stimulus bills. so that this would make the program even more attractive to a broader audience. so i wanted, you know, to mention that to you. >> president maxwell: okay, thank you. all right, thank you. no further comments or questions? then may i have a motion and a second to approve item b. >> so moved. >> second. >> i'll second. >> president maxwell: thank you. roll call vote, please.

>> clerk: want me to call public comment? >> president maxwell: call public comment. thank you. >> clerk: the members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment specifically on item 18b, for pro.0049, call 1-(415)-655-0001 and meeting i.d. 146 350 2017. and pound. to raise your hand to speak press star, 3. please note that you must limit your comments to the topic of the item b and if you do understand stay on topic the chair can interrupt and ask to you limit your comment to the agenda item topic. the we ask that it be in a civil and you profane from the use of profanity. direct to the commission as a whole and not to individual commissioners or staff. mr. moderator, do we have any

callers? >> there is one caller in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. >> caller, you have two minutes. >> caller: i want to remind y'all that in the year 2021 you shouldn't be using green drinking water to flush out toilets. i see no solutions to that. number two, the last two years we haven't got a report about the pipes, the clean drinking water pipes, that have been replaced, upgrades. and i know that in real-time you can get the millions of gallons of water that are leaking out of leaky pipes.

you need to have the ability through a needs assessment. san franciscans will conserve water. in fact, they are. and if they go deep into conserving water they're not going to get any money. it doesn't mean they have to waste water. but stop telling san franciscans what to do when basically and fundamentally they cannot do a needs assessment on the leaky pipes and marketing on why should we flush our toilets with clean drinking water.

>> clerk: thank you for your comments. madam secretary, there are no more callers in the cue. >> president maxwell: thank you. any comments? >> no. >> president maxwell: okay, mic is on, thank you. all right, may i have -- it's moved and seconded. may i have a roll call vote, please. >> clerk: [roll call vote] you have five ayes. >> president maxwell: thank you. next item, please. >> clerk: madam president, i reannounce that item 19 is removed from the agenda and will be rescheduled and the next item is item 20, authorize the general mother to execute a memorandum of understanding with the modesto irrigation district and the turlock irrigation

district and the fish and wildlife service. and to have a separate agreement to not exceed $1,500 to fund the planning and design only of potential habitat improvement projects and return to the commission following completion of environmental review for potential authorization to construct any such projects. >> i call on ellen to present this item. >> good afternoon, commissioners. the deputy manager for water. so this is a memorandum of understanding with the irrigation district and the u.s. fish and wildlife service that essentially do early implementation of habitat improvement projects on the river prior to the issuance of the ferc relicense and the ferc license for la grange. and i'm happy to take any

questions. >> president maxwell: commissioner paulson? no? commissioner annson. >> three questions and then i have some -- two results that i'd like to move. the questions are -- this is an m.o.u. stating the intention to cooperate. and i guess that my first question is, what do we anticipate as implementing actions that follow this? second would be, what timeline we expect for those actions to be able to take place? and the third question is, what is the expectation as to additional flow levels that will be required in order to make the

test meaningful. >> so to answer your first question, this is intended to cooperate and in choosing projects. we, as you may recall, we have a lower river habitat improvement program which is estimated at about $38 million that we included -- the districts have included in their amended final license application and it's also a program that we take about with the voluntary agreement. and as part of this submission to ferc, we have included four projects as examples. and those types of projects are really about the augmentation to improve spawning grounds and to improve the habitat. there's some floodplain connectivity projects in there from the low channel habitat

projects, where the -- you're actually lowering some of the channel so that you can access more floodplain. the four projects that we have identified range in costs from $75,000 to $6 million. there's a lot of interest amongst the parties to do something and to implement something right away. like in this calendar year. so we're looking for activities that have gone through some level of planning already. and there are projects that have gone through some level of planning already. we actually have some projects that are at conceptual design. there are some projects that have gone through up to 30% design. and so we may be able to accomplish some of those projects and implement them this year. you know, specifically because we don't have ceqa we can't come to you asking to construct yet. so we're asking you for

additional planning and design money right now, but the intent would be to come back as soon as we have ceqa to have you to authorize the construction, for in many cases it's the placement of gravel. to your final question i guess about flows, these projects are intended to be activated under the current flow schedule. so they don't require additional flow at the moment. of course, the additional flows as we move forward with the ferc license and the amended finalized application, those flows were paired with these kinds of restoration projects. so that they could be activated and be more responsive and productive. but i think that the projects that we'll be looking at are really intended to take advantage of the flows that are there now. and as i said, some of these projects have already gone

through some stages of design with the flow schedule that we have today. >> vice-president moran: okay, thank you. the commission has been on record for -- seems like a couple years now, looking for early implementation of some of the kinds of projects that we include in the voluntary agreement. and so i'm encouraged that you are working on projects with some degree of development behind them. one of the things that's come out of of the workshops i think is the question about whether -- and to what extent -- predator controls actually works. and refer we've heard scientific testimony on both sides of that issue and i expect that we'll

continue to hear the scientific testimony on both sides of that. i would love to have this opportunity to do a pilot test and to put our money where our mouth is and say if we think this works, let's try it. even if it's not a licensed term, let's try it. and if we're right, then that helps the cause, and if we're wrong, then we need to know that. so i would hope that we can approach it in that way and also that the flows not be off the table for discussion. we have heard it said that if you -- if you did the flows without the non-flow measures it would be like throwing water away. it is also perhaps true that if you do the non-flow stuff, but you don't do enough water to

access floodplains, then that is throwing money away. it seems that to do a robust test of the theory you may well need to do both. and we should be open to that. so that the two amendments that i would like to offer, the insertion of two positional resolved positives. and the existing resolution has two, so that these two go in the middle of those two. and i'll just read them and i believe that the secretary has a copy of this. further resolve that this commission urge the parties to proceed with a sense of urgency. and be it further resolved that this commission urges the parties to size the proposed projects and to have appropriate related flows so as to ensure robust and meaningful tests of proposed actions. i would like to move for the

inclusion of those two. >> madam secretary, is this the appropriate time for this? >> yes. >> then i would second your -- it's moved and seconded, the amendment. then we'll have public comment. yes, francesca? oh, i guess that we're good. >> i was going to say public comment. >> president maxwell: okay. >> to clarify this is public comment on the amendment or the item as amended? >> it's on the entire agenda item. you have a pending motion for an amendment to the item but the public comment is on the whole agenda item. >> clerk: correct, thank you. members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment specifically on item 20,

private picture m.o.u., dial 1-(415)-655-0001. and meeting i.d. 146 350 2017. pound, pound. to raise your hand to speak, press star, 3. please note that you must limit your comments to the topic of the agenda item and if you do not stay on the topic you will be asked to keep your comments to the topic. and we ask that you refrain from the use of profanity. address your remarks to the commission as a whole and not to individual commissioners or staff. do we have any callers? >> madam secretary, there are two callers in the queue. first caller, your line is open and you have two minutes. >> caller: thank you. good afternoon, president maxwell and commissioners.

my name is tom francis and i'm the water resources manager for the bay-area water supply and conservation. and speaking today to voice our support for the proposed action before you today. specifically the approval of the pilot project memorandum of understanding with m.i.d., d.i.d. and the u.s. fish and wildlife service regarding the party's intention for cooperation and funding and early implementation of habitat improvement projects on the lower tuolumne river. and the ongoing license for la grange project. and it's consistent with the type of habitat improvements currently proposed in the tuolumne river agreement. and the entrance to the 1.8 million residents, almost 40,000 businesses and hundreds of community groups and alameda and san mateo and the counties

served by them. and the number of anxiouses that rely on the regional water systems to provide the majority of their water supply. and the new ferc license is critical to maintaining that supply. and ask that the early implementation of the habitat improvements will move forward the critical efforts necessary to enhance and to protect the fishery needs on the tuolumne and show merits of the ferc license and to illustrate to the public the commitments of the parties to address habitat needs. so thank you for giving boca the opportunity to voice our support for the m.o.u. >> clerk: thank you for your comments, caller. next caller, your line is open. >> caller: hello, peter direcmer. i would like to express my appreciation for commissioner moran's comments and my

appreciation to staff for moving this forward, it sounds very promising. and third my appreciation to boca as expressed by tom francis to support this. and, finally, i didn't have time to say this at the workshop, but it was mentioned that they contributed $2 million towards the fields project and i really appreciate that. that project is doing so well. our partners have been doing a fabulous job. so that's four appreciations in one minute which is probably a record for me. i also want to mention that there's another early implementation project that we brought up last year with our interim flow proposal that the ffpuc could voluntarily contribute its share of the unimpaired flows for at least two years. and if we were to hit a third dry year, you could take away

that voluntary contribution and still manage the 8.5 year design draft. and the response from staff at the time was, well, that would require approval and an agreement with the irrigation districts. and i think that we should ask them. okay, if we contribute this water -- we're not expecting anything from you, will you release it to the lower tuolumne. and they have nothing to lose from doing that, maybe some political chips. but as commissioner mora mentioned, non-flow measures without flow aren't going to be successful. and so why don't we give them both a try? so thanks again for moving forward on this. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. madam secretary, there are no more callers in the queue. >> president maxwell: that closes public comment on item 20.

the motion is moved and seconded. now on the entire item, including the amendment. or, no, is that right? or did we -- i don't think that we voted on the amendments yet. >> president maxwell: so we seconded them. so let's have a roll call vote on the amendment. >> clerk: on the amendment [roll call vote] thank you. you have five ayes. >> president maxwell: perfect. now on the item as amended. may we have a second motion and a second on the item as amended. so moved and seconded. roll call vote, please. >> clerk: on the item as amended [roll call vote]

you have five ayes. >> president maxwell: thank you. next item please. >> clerk: your next order of business is item 21, approve the general manager's february 8, 2021 determination under san francisco administrative code section 6.23 [c] [1] that neither further outreach efforts nor removal or modification of certainly requirements in the contract would likely result in contractors submitting responsive bids for contract nobody db-121r2, moccasin powerhouse generator rehabilitation project, and authorize the general manager to negotiate an agreement with any qualified firms and if such negotiations are successful, to return to the commission for the authority to execute such agreement. presented by greg leiman. >> good afternoon, president maxwell and commissioners.

i am greg leiman, in the bureau. the item before you today is a request to authorize the general manager to negotiate the qualified bidders in accordance with the administrative code 6.23. the bureau has assisted the water and power and the teams with three solicitations over the last decade. each time all bids received were conditioned by various exceptions to the commission. and the hydroelectric power stream is a very limited number of qualified contractors and we have had extensive outreach to them prior to and during the most recent cases. in coordination with the city attorney's office, staff is recommending that we begin negotiating with a number of qualified bidders to get the best terms for ratepayers. negotiations would commence

immediately and we hope to resolve the outstanding issues quickly to replace the first of these aging generators in about two years. upon conclusion of the negotiations, we will return to the commission to request approval to award the contract. i'm available for questions. >> president maxwell: i would like to know, can you give us two of the most outstanding issues? >> i can -- indem nisks and limit of reliability. the contractors wish to change the indemnification that requires to us go to the board of supervisors for approval. >> president maxwell: okay. and the other one was? >> limited liability. >> president maxwell: and is that because of the age of these generators? why was that? >> we will learn more by talking to them, but we suspect that it has to do with their exposure as

a result of what these generators do. these generators -- all water delivered to the bay area customers goes through these generators. and if the generators are not replaced properly and out of service it reduces our capacity to distribute water to the bay area. so i believe -- we believe that their concern is about that critical nature of these generators and the ability to restore them within the finite time that we're giving them to install the generators during the hundred days roughly of shutdown that we're anticipating. >> president maxwell: so if we were going to change in any way, what would that change be? if we were going to try to negotiate with them, what would that negotiation look like? >> right now we would like to find out what their day given or the language or the proposed changes to the limited liability

and this, and we would like to talk to them more about this language. that limits their exposure, both potentially in contract value and the dollar value as well as their exposure to overall. so to their corporations. so we would like to explore that with them to find out if there's a common (indiscernible) and the language that we started with, where they're fully responsible. >> president maxwell: okay, do we have a b plan? i mean, is there a back-up to this generator? >> no. i believe that the correct answer is -- (indiscernible) -- to step in at this time. >> the assistant general manager for water. there is not a back-up plan for this project.

so as a project team we should negotiate with multiple parties, but at the end we really need to have a contract with some entity. and to negotiate with the multiple parties gives us the best opportunity to do that on reasonable terms. >> president maxwell: i guess that we have looked into new versus re-do? >> yes, this is just basically replacing the generator itself. so what you typically do is that you have to basically rewind the electrical coil to make it work. so, in effect, it's a new unit inserted into the powerhouse. >> president maxwell: got it. thank you. any further comments or questions, colleagues? thank you very much. may i have a public comment, please, on this item.

>> clerk: members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment on item 21, db-121r2. call 1-(415)-655-0001. and code 146 350 2017, pound, pound to raise your hand to speak press star, 3. you must limit your comments to the topic of the agenda item being discussed and to remind you if you do not stay on the topic the chair can interrupt and ask you to limit your comment to the topic. we ask that the comments be in a civil and civic manner and you do not use profanity. do not address individual commissioners or staff. moderator, do we have any callers? >> madam secretary, there are no callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you, public comment on item 21 is closed. >> president maxwell: thank you, may i have a motion and a second to approve this item, please.

>> i make a motion. >> second. >> president maxwell: thank you. it's been moved and seconded. roll call vote, please. >> clerk: [roll call vote] you have five ayes. >> president maxwell: next item, please. >> clerk: next item is 22, authorize the general manager to execute a project partnership agreement with the army corps of engineers for the construction of ocean beach beneficial use of dredged materials project for an amount not to exceed $2,800,000 and a duration of two years. it's represented by anna rose. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm anna rose roche, the project manager. mostly with the wastewater

enterprise. i'm also the project manager for the ocean, beach climate change adaptation project which is a multicity agency project to address climate-induced sea level rise and associated erosion along ocean beach between slope boulevard and fort funstun. this applicant has three phases, one which is a partnership with the army corps of engineers to design and to construct or to place dredged material from the san francisco main shipping channel at ocean tweech, which is the item before you today. and the commission approved the design portion of the work on march 1th, 2018. by resolution number 18-00040. the design work is now complete. we are here today to request authorization to execute of construction portion of the agreement. the required funds of up to $2.8

million are available through the ocean beach climate change adaptation project, project number cww-sac01. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> president maxwell: any -- commissioner harrington. >> commissioner harrington: thank you, ana. just to comment about how long these things take. over 10 years ago we were trying to get the army corps of engineers interested in doing this project and we were talking to senator finestein and all kinds of folks in d.c. to try to push it. it's so nice to see it come to fruition, so congratulations. >> thank you very much. and it's nice to see your face. >> president maxwell: any other comments? >> i just have a question. (indiscernible) and the activity, where we have to keep replenishing the sand?

>> so the project will require a sand nourishment proponent in perpetuity once the project is built. that's part of the reason that we're working with the corps of engineers. this is one source of sand that we're looking at for this area of the beach. the other source of sand is ocean beach itself. you may be familiar with one of the other phases of the project where we moved sand from the north end of the beach down to the south end of the beach in trucks. and that's meant to sort of prevent the area from further eroding while this longer term project is being designed. and it's expected to go to construction in 2023. so, again, it's a very large project. it has three phases. the army corps of engineers' component is just one of those phases. >> thank you. >> president maxwell: just briefly, what is another phase? >> the short-term project, i

just described is where we are protecting this area, it's about a 3,000-foot stretch of ocean beach between slope and skyline where it abuts that area of the city. we move sand and/or we use sandbags to protect our wastewater infrastructure while this long-term project is developed. which is the biggest part of the project, which will be implementing a low-profile seawall to protect wastewater infrastructure. we'll be implementing a technique called managed retreat to address sea level rise and climate change. when we do that, we will be removing the highway between slope and skyline permanently, and opening up some open space amenities. that's why it's a multicity agency project and we're working with rec and park as part of our large team to be including the coastal access trail, parking lot and amenities in that area.

>> president maxwell: that's great. because you can see the parking lots are getting shorter and smaller and smaller. so are we doing this in terms of a great storm? what if we have a huge storm? and now they happen to be occurring more than a hundred years, so i don't want to say that. but are we planning for that? >> yes, the long-term project is designing for sea level rise through the end of century. we're following the sea level guidance developed for city-wide projects. so that area is designed with that criteria. in the interim, we have a pretty robust monitoring program that after certain sized storms we go out and we monitor the area and if the city needs to take action we have the ability to do that. >> president maxwell: it seems that the great highway is closed now more than it is open all the way through for any number of reasons. but, thank you.

>> just to, you know, we're sort of stepping away from protecting the highway because we'll be removing that eventually and more on the wastewater infrastructure in that area. >> president maxwell: that's smart. thank you. all right, any further comments or questions? >> i have a comment. first of all, i am so glad to see that dredged material is being used, being put to beneficial use. obviously, that's really key to kind of value a resource that we have, rather than trying to get rid of it as fast as we can. the second comment that i had was that you talked about the short sea wall. i was wondering whether the other options if you don't want to build a seawall, and if you wanted to protect the wastewater down there? >> well, we went through a pretty robust alternative analysis a number of years back, and we looked at different options. one of those options included

relocating the tunnel which is the most huge component of this large complicated infrastructure that has the oceanside treatment plant. the issue with that is that if we were to remove the tunnel, one, the cost at that time were expected to be more costly than implementing this project. secondly, it becomes a domino effect if we moved the tunnel, it would be -- i think we estimated approximately 20 years we'd be in this situation again because there's another piece of important equipment behind that. eventually reaching the oceanside treatment plant. so we did an alternative analysis a number of years back and we looked at all of those different options. some of the other options that we have heard that come up through particular people that are interested in what we're doing in terms of the public, we have large rocks on the beach

right now that we place under emergency -- emergency situations. folks have, you know, encouraged us to why not just leave that material and the coastal commission will not permit that. so we're working in collaboration with the coastal commission, and we're meeting regulatory requirements. so there's a lot of -- sort of threading the needle, you might say, trying to find the right solution. and this solution was developed through the ocean beach master plan which completed in 2012. and that went through a fairly robust public outreach process and we worked with all of the different agencies, including the army corps of engineers, usgs, and all of the city agencies and the national park service. and i really do believe that we're bringing the best option forward and the idea is that this project will protect this area through about 2060. and then we're going to

re-evaluate what is happening and given the uncertainty with sea level rise and climate change, and also with, you know, with what happens with how we're dealing with cleaning the water, all of those technologies may change by that period. and so then we'll have to re-evaluate where we are, what makes the most sense, what is the economic best choice, and what meets regulatory requirements at that point. >> so i assume that when you build the seawall you're aware of the other parts that will be affected by the seawall and that is taken into consideration? >> yes. and we just completed 35% design. we're moving into 65% design. and, again, it's a very large complicated project, a lot of people at the table, including some of the entities that i have just described -- the park service, usds, the coastal commission.

there's a lot of -- there's a lot of interest and a lot of smart brains thinking through the solutions here. >> all right, thank you. >> president maxwell: any further questions or comments, colleagues? seeing none, then thank you very much. and why don't we open this up to public comment. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment specifically on item 22 project partnership agreement, dial 1-(415)-655-0001. meeting i.d. 146 350 2017. pound, pound. to raise your hand to speak press star 3. please note that you must limit your comment to the topic of the agenda item being discussed and remind you if you do not stay on the topic the chair can interrupt and ask you to limit your comment to the topic. we ask that public comment be in a civil and respectful manner and that you refrain from the use of profanity.

do not address individual commissioners or staff. mr. moderator, do we have any callers? >> there is one caller in the queue. opening up your line, caller. you have two minutes. >> caller: eileen boken speaking on my own behalf. when the sanctuary was established in 1992, the waters off ocean beach were classified as exclusion area, known as the donut hole. one of the reasons for the exclusion is the dredging spoils the depoints off the beach. and to rectify this, the spoils are deposited at locations within the bay as part of the restoration, or being deposited in the deep ocean disposal site. in november of 2011, the board

of supervisors passed resolution 507-11 to support the northern and western expansions of the lines and the national marine sanctuaries. i personally have been advocating since 2003 for inclusion of the waters off ocean beach in either the greater area or the monterrey bay national marine sanctuaries. it would be unfortunate if the army corps of engineers project interfered with that. finally, the former p.u.c. g.m. was informed that sand mining in san francisco bay is a contributor to erosion in south ocean beach. the reaction was dismissive. and yet in 2013, dr. patrick barnard of the u.s. geological survey in santa cruz published a study that documents the relation between sand mining and erosion. i would urge the p.u.c. to also

resolve the sand mining issue. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. madam secretary, there are no more callers in the queue. >> president maxwell: thank you, that closes public comment on item 22. >> clerk: madam president, you're muted. >> president maxwell: you read my mind. thank you. may i get a motion and a second please on this item. >> president maxwell: so moved and seconded. roll call vote, please. >> clerk: [roll call vote] you have five ayes. thank you.

>> president maxwell: next item, please. >> clerk: your next order of business is item 23, approval the plans and the specifications and award contract ww-645r, westside pump station reliability improvements, in the amount of $48,328,300 with a duration of 1,020 consecutive calendar days to the responsible bidder that submitted the lowest responsive bid, anvil builders, incorporated. represented by mr. cargano. >> good afternoon, commissioners. good afternoon, president maxwell. my name is brian calimano, the project manager for the improvement projects. i'm here before you today to talk about the conservation reliability and improvements project which is part of the program. this contract provides redundant electrical power service in

replacement of the essential wastewater and mechanical and electrical equipment and ancillary, and plumbing and instrumentation and control improvements. as well as the construction of a new electrical building out at westside pump station. the completion is weather dependent and the potential delays to award this contract may jeopardize the critical sequencing necessary to complete the work while the pump station remains in operation. the original contract ww-645 was bid in december 2018 and was cancelled due to bids received or significantly over the engineer estimates. a request for qualifications were advertised in january 2020. where the p.u.c. received 10 applications and had prequalified eight applicants. the request for bids was opened for this contract on november

10, 2020. three of the eight prequalified firms submitted bids. the builders corporation, the apparent low bid, anvil builders and western water constructors. following the receipt of bids the p.u.c. received protest letters. protests against the apparent low bidder thompson builders corporation. and the p.u.c. received protest letters from anvil builders and western water constructors protesting the bids submitted by thompson builders corporation. and it was not responsive to the requirements. anvil builders alleged that thompson builders failed to comply with the p.u.c. procedures for substitution. and thompson builders submitted a response to those protests. after that the p.u.c. made multiple requests for supporting

administration from thompson builders corporation, and they were unable to make a clear determination on thompson builders corporation local business enterprise sub-contracting participation requirements. they determined that thompson builders corporations' bid was non-responsive for failing to meet the good-faith outreach requirements. a protest letter was also received from the apparent low builder, anvil builders. they received a protest letter from western water constructors protesting the bid submitted by anvil builders that it was not responsible to the minimum qualification. anvil builders submitted a response to that protest. after review of the protests and rebuttal, the bureau in consultation with the city attorney denied the protests on

january 14, 2021. and determined that anvil builders to be the lowest responsible bidder of the contract. staff recommends awarding the contract to anvil builders. >> president maxwell: commissioner paulson? do you have a comment? anyone? commissioner moran? >> vice-president moran: i think that it was thompson also has submitted a letter just prior to the last meeting and again prior to this meeting and their claim was that anvil also did not meet

the -- because have a standard, and we have received a letter -- i think that it was from c.m.d. saying that anvil as well as the first-ranked firm were asked for supplemental information at the same time and where the first was not able to come up with -- not able to come up with more information, but anvil did. is it the position of the city attorney and the contract management division that basically this matter has been resolved, that anvil did not receive any kind of preferential treatment? >> sorry. i'm the deputy city attorney and

i reviewed all of the issues including c.m.d.'s response and, yes, it's my conclusion that c.m.d. acted appropriately and based on its representations that it did go back and make anvil confirm that it complied with the good-faith outreach requirements of the r.f.d. >> vice-president moran: i think that there was also the -- there was more than a suggestion that some of the supplemental information provided by anvil was produced after the fact and was not with part of the proper documentation. have you taken an opinion on that? >> i have not seen any allegations in that regard. i did see the objection that

they sent prior to the first hearing. the one on february 5th. i haven't seen an objection since then. >> the c.m.d. is here today and prepared to respond to any questions about the letter that came in today. >> president maxwell: thank you. >> the director of contract monitoring division. yes, so we did review their letter as well. and we stand by our determination that anvil may be -- was compliant. and that based upon the facts with the timestamps and the info, there's no reason to believe that the information -- was not as presented that they submitted.

>> president maxwell: so then you're saying that all of the information was received on time and in a timely manner? >> was received in a timely manner, yes. >> president maxwell: okay. any other questions? or comments? i mean, this is a very involved process. and, unfortunately, i don't think that we know enough about it to know exactly how it all works. and so that's why we are asking the questions and when people bring it up we feel an obligation to try to get to the bottom of it in some way that they can understand and we can understand. any further questions or comments? would you stand by because there might be more after public comment. >> this is commissioner paulson. >> commissioner paulson: i'm going to say as commissioners

that i rely on staff, you know, to take care of the things that, you know, that i don't do on a day-to-day basis, and like any of my colleagues or commissioners to do. and i'm hearing the answer today and i need to be dissuaded if there's something that is different. so if they're saying that things got done timely, there's many contracts and there's a lot of money involved, and i assume that, you know, we are doing this, you know, with tremendous checks and balances that we have in this city. so i want to thank the staff for reminding us of that today. >> president maxwell: thank you. any other comments or questions? all right, then, madam secretary, may we open up for public comment on this item, please. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment on item 23, contract number ww-645r, dial

1-(415)-655-0001. meeting i.d. 146 350 2017. pound, pound. to raise your hand to speak press star, 3. please note that you must limit your comments to the topic of the agenda item discussed and remind you if you do not stay on the topic that the chair can interrupt and ask you to limit your comments to the topic. we ask that public comment be in a civil and respectful manner and you refrain from the use of profanity. address your remarks to the commission as a whole and not to individual commissioners or staff. mr. moderator, do we have any callers? >> madam secretary, there is one caller wishing to be recognized. caller, i have opened up your line. you have two minutes. >> caller: this is paul thompson with thompson builders.

i hope that everybody can hear me okay. this morning we submitted a detailed letter regarding this agenda item for the award of the contract to anvil builders. i have a simple request that we respectfully request that the commission in the interest of fairness and transparency to do the right thing and delay the award of this contract. this is a significant contract. it's a $47 million contract. and thompson builders corp was the low bid. to highlight the reason behind this request is that d.b.c. had a freedom of information request on february 5th regarding anvil's bid documents after our bid was disqualified. we received the information from the p.u.c. on february 17th. and this was supposedly all of

anvil's good-faith documentation. lo and behold, physical information was either intentionally or unintentionally withheld from our request. c.d.c. then became aware of the omitted information last friday, february 19th. and we again had to submit another freedom of information request for this information for the omitted information that should have been provided the first time. we finally received this information february 22nd -- yesterday. and based on this information, with a quick review, we scrambled and provided the best response that we can give in a short time frame. and i realize that it is a last-minute effort but there was the own doing by not sending us all of the information the first

time. we have all heard the commission and the p.u.c. talk about being transparent and forthright. now is the time for the commission to walk the talk. >> clerk: thank you, caller, your time is expired. next caller, your line is open. you have two minutes. >> caller: good afternoon, president maxwell and commissioners. i am a representative for anvil builders. i would like to point out that something that we're not discussing here is the actual determination of a non-responsive bid by thompson builders. not only due to their lack of good faith or inadequate good faith but due to their lack of meeting their requirements on this job. so while the comment and question is whether anvil met the good faith, anvil, in fact, made the l.b.e. requirements. so regardless of whether thompson builders had met their

good-faith requirement, they did not meet their l.b.e. requirement goals. anvil and some of you are aware has grown up through the l.b. process and is very knowledgeable about the process and what must be listed as contractors score their goal and that is where thompson actually fell short. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. there are no more callers in the queue. >> clerk: public comment on item 23 is closed. >> president maxwell: okay. any further discussion on this item? yes, commissioner harrington. >> commissioner harrington: is there a way to get a confirmation from c.n.d. to what the gentleman from anvil just told us that they had met it all

along? >> my staff should be able to answer that question, sir. >> hi, good afternoon. are you asking about the requirements for anvil? >> commissioner harrington: the comment in public comments is that anvil had met the l.b.e. requirements so the good-faith requirement was superfluous, and so that's how i heard that. did they meet the l.b.e. requirement in their bid? >> they did, yes. >> commissioner harrington: thank you. >> president maxwell: any further comments? questions? theurchg. thank you. is there a motion and a second to approve this item?

>> i'll move it. >> president maxwell: a second? okay. pardon? >> seconded. >> president maxwell: all right. it's moved and seconded. madam secretary, will you call the roll, please. >> clerk: i'm sorry. [roll call vote] you have five ayes. >> president maxwell: moved and seconded and passed. madam secretary, is there any further business before this commission? >> clerk: madam president, that concludes your business for the day. >> president maxwell: thank you,

then this meeting is adjourned.