[roll call] >> clerk: you have a quorum. before i call the first item, i'd like to announce that due to the covid health emergency,

this meeting is being televised by sfgtv. -- press star, three. please note that you must limit your comment to the agenda item being discussed. please address your remarks to the commission as a whole, not

to and do not make any -- and refrain from using profanity. >> clerk: mr. moderator, do you

have any callers? >> operator: madam secretary, there is one caller in the queue wishing to be recognized. can you hear me now? >> operator: loud and clear. >> okay. david pilpell. good afternoon. it feels like it's been a month or so -- that's right, it has. i only had three minor edits on the minutes. i think they're from the set of june 8. i'll communicate them directly to secretary hood. the firefighting acronym was backwards somehow, and the closed session attendance was omitted for june 8. otherwise, i think they're pretty detailed minutes and

capture the call-in flavor of a month ago, and i think i had no edits at this time from a month ago, but i'll give them a quick pass. >> operator: thank you for your comments. i'll check to see if any additional callers from joined the queue. hello, caller. i've unmuted your line. >> hello, commissioners. this is [inaudible]. this is regarding the appointment of dennis herrera. i had sent in a letter that was written by a san francisco resident specifically regarding mr. herrera. it is extremely, extremely important for mr. herrera -- >> clerk: i'm sorry to

interrupt you, but this is regarding the minutes, item number 3. >> it's regarding the minutes, special meeting minutes. >> clerk: okay. >> mr. herrera needs to respond one way or another, to those allegations. he has misrepresented himself, misrepresented his career, misrepresented his experience, and he has been covering up the corruption in san francisco. so is that part of the minutes? you keep cutting me off, and i'm trying my best to just ask the right questions. furthermore, mr. herrera is still the city attorney. he's not part of the p.u.c., and for some reason, he went to a job site in san francisco

trying to convince a contractor in san francisco to cancel a billion-dollar project. is that in his purview? why is he doing this? do you have any idea what it would do to cancel a contract in construction and go and rebid it at this time, at this moment? so please respond to the allegations, mr. herrera. thank you for your time, commissioners. >> operator: thank you for your comments, madam secretary, there are no more callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. public comment on item 3 is closed. >> thank you. any comments on the amendments? >> i would recommend in your motion to approve the june 8 minutes, that you include the change to add the names of the

attendees to the closed session. >> all right. then may i have a motion to that amendment including that amendment, please? >> i make the motion. >> including the amendment to add the names of the people in closed session. >> the way you said it. >> thank you. is there a second on that? >> i'll second that. >> thank you. it's been moved and seconded. roll call vote on june 8 amendments and minutes. [roll call] >> clerk: you have five ayes. >> thank you. may i have a motion on the special meeting of june 11 minutes? >> i'll move approval. >> all right. and the second? >> i'll second that. >> it's been moved and

seconded. roll call vote, please. [roll call] >> clerk: -- ayes. >> thank you. next item, please. >> clerk: next order of business is item 4, general public comment. members of the public who wish to make two minutes of general public comment on matters within the commission's jurisdiction and are not on today's agenda may do so by call 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. 146-534-3327, pound, pound. please enter the queue by pressing star, three.

please refrain from using profanity, and address the commission as a whole and do not address a single commissioner or staff. do we have any callers? >> operator: madam secretary, there are four callers in the queue. hello, caller. i've opened your line. you have two minutes. >> commissioners, my name is francisco decosta, and you know, each one of y'all, there's a dark cloud hanging over the san francisco public utilities commission, and i was shocked to read the san francisco observer and how all the commissioners and others were using facilities at the

taxpayers [inaudible] without any consideration. now i hope that the commissioners and the heads of department of the sfpuc do not carry out the old policies. they already have a number of people indicted and over 20 being investigated, and i don't know how y'all had the audacity to choose a new general manager when there was a process going onto stall the process and anointed a new general manager, you commissioners. if you carry on down this path,

if you carry on down this path, and whatever i said before has come through, you will fall flat on your face. the sfpuc today is a dark cloud. it has arcished the good name of san franciscans -- tarnished the good name of san franciscans. thank you very much. >> operator: thank you very much. next caller, your line is open. you have two minutes. >> eileen [inaudible] san francisco water commission. on [inaudible] i am requesting that the commission ask staff to go into further details on this event at today's commission meeting.

the subject. regarding the civil grand jury report, act now before it's too late, recommendation six called for the p.u.c. to evaluate adding assault water pump stations for the emergency firefighting water system, especially on the west side. the aecom report has been issued regarding this recommendation. despite the title, the study area extends from south ocean beach north awards to land's end and beyond. -- northwards to land's end and beyond, presidio and fort mason. including these areas east of land's end is questionable and

complicates the report's title. it also adds to the complexity and cost of proepted projects, making them appear to be less feasible. [inaudible] thank you. >> operator: thank you for your comments. next caller, your line is open. you have two minutes. >> commissioners, [inaudible] again. you know, you guys really need to do something about the possible comments because i am commenting on the appointment of dennis herrera, and i continue to experience being cutoff. this is not fair. these are serious allegations, and they need to be addressed. either deny it or say yes, i did it, and move forward. that's one item. item number two, we're dealing with an epidemic of corruption. i want you to look at your

contracts. there's only one bidder each on contracts. commissioners, there is a huge city, 1 -- this is a huge city, 1 million people. who's funding one company to do this? you are, the rate payers, and you understand up with one bidder. you had a contractor that had a $16 million contract. he was booted out because harlan kelly and the mayor did not like him, because they're racist. what did they do with synergy? they replaced the synergy contract with another contract of $30 million. we're dealing with a gang, and you want to protect the gang?

if you want to protect the gang, then bring in dennis herrera because he's the head master of the gang. thank you for cutting me off at every opportunity you have. >> operator: thank you for your comment. next caller, your line is open. you've got two minutes. >> can you hear me now? >> operator: we can. >> excellent. david pillpel again. so i think four points under general public comment. first, the los angeles sewage spill in the last few days reminds us of the importance of electricity and critical redundancy in the next few

minutes. it would be nice to get a check in from [inaudible] and ritchie, perhaps a.g.m. hale, that we've checked the electricity and the pumps that were on top of that at all the water and sewer plants so we don't have any unexpected spills. i don't think we have, and recently, i hope we don't have in the future. once again, critical assets are so named for that reason. second, i believe that several p.u.c. staff recently retired effective june 30. i think we should recognize them at a future commission meeting. some had very long careers, and i think that's worth noting. i understand that alan johanson

is now the head, and i think he will do a fine job. and finally, i think we should consider decentralizing much of that infrastructure bureau in the future to the enterprises and elsewhere within the organization. i think that at least water and sewer have engineering groups already and if they were responsible for their -- the size of their own infrastructure bureau, i think i would start moving that under finance because it's really more of a control issue. we can talk more about that in the future. thanks. >> operator: thank you for your comment. madam secretary, there are no more callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. public comment on item 4 is

closed. >> thank you, and thank you for your comments. next item, please. >> clerk: item 5 is communications. >> colleagues, any comment on communications? seeing none, let's open this up for public comment. >> clerk: members of the public wishing to make public comment on item 5, communications, all 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. 146-534-3327, pound, pound. to enter the queue to speak, press star, three. we ask that public comment be made in a civil and respectful manner and that you refrain from the use of profanity. please address the commission as a whole and not to any

individual member or staff. mr. moderator, do we have any callers? >> operator: madam secretary, there are two callers wishing to be recognized. go ahead, caller, your line is open. >> commissioners, again as part of communications, i see there is a consultant, and he also gets a lot of outreach. he's a favorite person that gets outreach, and he has asked some subs, contractors, to endorse him.

commissioners, you know that a lot of corruption within the sfpuc started because of consultants linked to community benefits, which you commissioners did not take time to understand how it was done. grimes got a contract, and a -- primes got a contract, and attached to the contract was outreach. most were asked if they could do outreach, and they said no, and so the sfpuc consultant -- and they were even offered at 560 golden gate to perform the outreach, and that's how the corruption started. i was at all the meetings that

the task force was formed linked to community benefit. how can we have a consultant asking subs to endorse him so that he can be part of the project so that he can have, you know, some clout -- he thinks he can have some clout by the commissioners endorsing him -- thank you very much. >> operator: thank you for your comments. next caller, your line is open. >> commissioners, [inaudible] again. the previous speaker spoke of consultant. this is not a consultant, this

is a swindler, someone who is ripping off the city, someone who is linked and ripping off to small businesses in the city. not a single letter have the license number for the contractor as required by the [inaudible]. can you tell me, why all those contractors are being hired by dwayne jones? dwayne jones is a swindler. we had dirk butler before. dirk butler was given untraced credit cards, according to the wiretap, not according to me, and now, we have replaced dirk with dwayne jones. second thing, i have been working in the city literally since 2002. i'm on record with you, with a

sworn testimony that i've never got a single e-mail for any outreach from dwayne f. jones, not a single one. and why, all of a sudden, he's asking his constituents, the ones that he hired, to write letters on his behalf? did you ever think about it for one second? let me ask: is he under heat? is the city asking where it went, where the pockets are it went? commissioners, last time this was brought up, an f-word went through the air. aren't you ashamed of yourselves, supporting a person like this because you should be

ashamed of yourself. [inaudible] that are pocketing the money. >> operator: thank you for your comments. sorry, your time has expired. madam secretary, there are no more callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. public comment on item 5 is closed. >> thank you. next item, please. >> clerk: next item is 6, report of the general manager. mr. carlin? >> thank you, madam secretary, commissioners. we have a couple of items on the agenda today. the first is an update on the drought by steve ritchie. mr. ritchie? >> good afternoon, commissioners. steve ritchie, and i'll be providing the drought update. may i have the next slide, please? this is the drought monitor provided by the u.s. department

of agriculture, and the darker the color, the worse the drought is. you can see that we are in an exceptional drought, and most of the rest of the state is in a green drought. this is an indicator of what conditions are. just for information, these figures are produced to help the department of agriculture figure out where support is needed for farmers, but certainly, they tell a picture that is interesting to all of us. next slide. this is the reservoir storage for our system as of july 12, which was yesterday. we're looking at hetch hetchy being 85% full, water bank being about 55% full, and our system storage in total is about 73% full. so relative to many others, our storage is looking fairly good.

next slide, please. and here is that -- no, back one. here is that comparison with storage around the state. you'll notice in particular the ones in the upper sacramento valley, lake shasta, lake oroville, and folsom lake are really quite low, and those are the lakes that an sore the state and federal water projects. [inaudible] lake and don pedro are in better condition being relatively about 70% of historical average. there are lots of reservoirs that are quite low in the state. ones on the san joaquin side are not as bad off. next slide. and this is where we are in total deliveries, so this is just a real quick summary of where we are with things that are important to a drought. in this case, the green lines show the demand in 2021 through

the week of july 1 through 7, and you'll note that they are down below the levels we've seen in calendar year 2019 and in calendar year 2020 and the last five-year average, so it's pretty clear that people throughout our service area have gotten the met ang that there is a drought on. we may be in better shape than others, but certainly, we have to be responding to this drought condition. next slide. i want to give a little bit of a background here on how dry it has actually been, and those are comparisons between 2020 and 2021 compared to water years 1976 and 1977. these are important because water years 1976 and in particular, 19 #' 7 were the driest years in our history at

hetch hetch see. by comparison, 76 and 77 were 39.4 inches put together. 20 and 21 put together are 39.27 inches, so it looks like through the end of the water year, this is going to be pretty close. this makes 20 and 21 the second driest two-year period in our hetchy recorded history. next slide. this slide is of historical interest where we are in the past and where we are now, so it shows storage comparisons between 1977 and 2021. so on march 21 of 1977, hetch hetchy was at 24,500 acre feet, which is what we call dead pool, which is it's been taken down as low as it can go. we can't take it down lower

without throwing a pump down in the bottom of the lake, which is how it was operated at that time. in march 2021, we had 180,000 acre feet in hetch hetchy, and that's putting in place the water policy that we had for the last three decades. june 10, 1977 was at 1 is 28,900 acre feet, and june 10, 2021, hetch hetchy was at 321,302 acre feet.

we've really changed our operational patterns, so even though that things are basically as dry as they were then, we're looking at much better storage conditions going forward. >> before you move on, could you remind us what the water first program is? >> yeah. it's basically, we operate both hetch hetchy and the local system to maximize water supply, and that means particularly in the hetch hetchy system that we generate hydroelectric power as a thing that we like to do, but we don't do anything in the power generation realm to adversely affect water supply. just as a quick note, we are currently, because of the conditions relative to the dearth of hydropower overall and also the fires up near the

oregon border, there is a lot of concern about the delivery of electricity throughout the state, so we are actually operating a little bit right now to generate a little extra power at the critical time period of the california independent system operator. so i would call that a break from the water first policy, but given the emergency conditions that we seem to be facing, one that we are happy to [inaudible]. okay. next slide. from the 1976-77 drought and the 87 through 92 drought, we've gone to the water first category and really thinking hard about the scenarios that we're using from these long-term droughts that have come upon us, and the investments that we've made

over time particularly in legislation and infrastructure improvements so that we can operate in the way that does the job for water supply, so i think there's a lot of things that we can point to historically. i just wanted to point to this quickly that there's been a lot of conscious management actions to get us to where we are today. now we'll move to right now. next slide. so on may 10, the governor issued a drought executive order. there were a couple of things worthy of note in that executive order -- well, many, many things, but these two in particular, where it was indicated that urban water use is approximately 16% below where it was during the last drought, so the governor further urged all californians

to consider further actions. next slide goes to where the second point was headed, which is the state water board issued the notice of water unavailability in the sacramento san joaquin availability watershed. on june 15, 2021, they issued the notice of water unavailability in the sacramento san joaquin watershed. the 1914 water rights, state has more control over other than pre-1914 water rights, but they did indicate unavailability for pre-1914 water rights, so for post-1914

water rights, they were requested to completely questionnaires. will you cease diversions? do you have alternate sources of water? will you seek an exception to a human health and safety need? san francisco is pre-1914 water rights holders, along with the turlock and modesto water rights industries. we wrote back to the state, saying we believe that they were inappropriately curtailing us, and we never heard anymore on that, but here we are again in a situation where the state may move forward with curtailments of pre-1914 water

rights holders, so we are monitoring this closely. the curtailment of a water rights holder is intended to protect a senior water rights holder downstream or other issue the state feels is important, so we will he be watching careful lieu how those regulations come out. they may come out later this month or early august and could go into effect before this fall, so we'll be keeping the commission posted on what occurs there. next slide. and then last week, the governor issued a -- an additional drought executive order extending the order calling on all californians to voluntary reduce water use by 15% from their 2020 water

levels. next slide. so potential issues or actions that we have before us, i believe, are confirmed our voluntary reduction 15% from 2020 demands. we sent a letter to all of our wholesale customers yesterday, so we will be looking collectively to folks to see what they can do with that voluntary reduction, look at it as a system wide thing as opposed to an individual thing, but i think we're all pretty well aware that some areas have a lot more room to conserve water than other areas. we also are waiving the minimum purchase requirements. there's a clause in the water supply agreement that says if

the governor declares an emergency and there is a reduction in water supply availability, that those minimum purchase requirements would be waived, and so we did send a letter, as well, indicating to the four minimum purchase customers that we'd be waiving the minimum purchase requirements for fiscal year 21-22. since there are alternative -- their alternative supplies that they could use are state water supplies directly or from valley water, the chances of them actually trying to buy water from somebody else are slip to none. they really had -- slim to none. they really are in a world of hurt, and if they tried to do the 15% reduction, they would be in significant drought. we will be pursuing water transfers. those are something that, each

drought, we always look to irrigation districts in the san joaquin valley. we may not be successful, but we'll be looking at that again. we're hoping to start delivering recycled water next year to golden gate park, and we've also started construction on the alameda creek recapture project, so all of these things will have some near term benefit for water supply that we can look at in our system. so that's really where we are on the drought. the latest change with the executive order last week was very significant, and also what we see coming forward in curtailments are very significant, and i'm happy to answer any questions.

>> commissioner ajami? >> on one slide, you have this call-out, this table that you have -- >> next slide. >> next slide, please. okay. perfect. normal percent of maximum storage, and i wonder if that's a right terminology for what you're trying to say there? i wonder if it needs to be, like, more historical or something like that? just to, i don't know -- >> actually, if you'll note, there is a footnote number 5 with that. >> yeah. >> for ease of presentation, i cutoff all the footnotes on these. i'll go back and dig up the

actual footnote because it digs up that issue, why we chose the word normal. average, historical, are words that we tossed around. normal just gives you the sense that typically, it would be around this level. we could probably refine this more, but it was probably a carefully selected word. >> okay. >> the bottom line is normally, this time of year, we would be full, and we are not close to full. we did not fill hetch hetchy reservoir this year. we did really well, but we did not fill it. >> so is normal above average? because some years, you have some number that's would bring that number -- numbers that would bring that number down. >> yeah. usually, bring july 1, we fill -- by july 1, we fill up

hetch hetchy. so in a normal year, we would be just past peak of storage. >> okay. yeah, i -- just strikes me as a little bit of a -- i have a hard time with the word normal, but i can understand why they're having a lot of talk on using that terminology, but i would love to see that footnote number 5 whenever you have it. >> i will do that. >> and then, i think going to the end of presentation, we don't need to have it up, but i guess my question for you is imagine 2022 ends up being even dryer than this year. is it -- would it be a better strategy for us to be a little bit more conservative this year and have a little bit more proactive requirement on water conservation, rather than relying on the voluntary conservation, which it's not

necessarily reaching a lot of people at this point? i'm just having sort of a -- sort of a little bit of a problem. looking at this, i'm okay with us not doing enough in case next year would be dryer. looking, the san joaquin area has been doing a little bit better than the other areas? so what if next year is a year where we end up in a significant shortage? >> a couple of comments on that. one, this goes back to the origins of the system, the tuolomne watershed is one of the most productive watersheds in the state, so it's not by accident that our facilities are there, so it would be odd if we're not doing better than most other watersheds. make that comment right now. if it wasn't for the governor's

executive order, my comment would have been, if this fall is right, we will go to much more aggressive conservation starting january 1, and in my opinion, right now, people are used to be being warm and hot, and so they understand the need to conserve now, but what happens when you get into the winter when people start to feel like, well, it's just a little bit of a dry spell, but if i can water a little bit more, i'll keep my plants alive, and i'll beat the rain. we need to assume that the rain's not going to come in november and december, for sure. i would say 15% is a reasonable number, and i would expect our customers to respond. we were just looking into data yesterday that since we actually put out the notion that people should put back

their irrigation use by 10%, that was april 29, between then and now, we are actually 7% below our 1991 levels. i think people are already of the mind set of conserving, and we're going to push that in our communications and working with our wholesale customers for the same thing, so i feel like we are going to get a good response from our customers without having to take a more draconian measure. >> just to clarify, the 7% is for san francisco? >> that is 7% san francisco retail. frankly, when i saw 15% for customers for san francisco retail, our residential use is 42 gallons per person per day. 15% would be about 36 gallons

per person per day. to get there quickly would be a significant achievement, but to see 7% already, i'm very happy to see those results. >> and then, on the wholesale customers, do you think the whole minimum purchase requirement would -- because -- let me reformulate my question. do you think that we will see a reduction in purchases? because i know that you had a slide that showed 1 million gallons that are being purchased by wholesale customers. do you think that's sort of a temporary reduction or -- i'm

just trying to figure out, do we see enough of an independent reduction? >> on the minimum purchase customers, alameda water district is one of those. they are a direct contractor of the state water project, so in times of drought, the state water project is usually hurt more than we are, and they turn to san francisco to buy more. alameda water district is buying more from us than their minimum purchase, which they get right on the mark. city of mountainview, they did not get their minimum purchase requirements because they requirements were so low. they went back and said, we were already doing great on

conservation, so should we get rewarded by that and have our minimum purchase waiver put in retroactively? i think overall, my position is on the peninsula, we'll see good performance like what we're seeing from san francisco customers. >> okay. thank you, [inaudible]. >> any further comments or questions? commissioner paulsen? >> so mr. ritchie, thank you so much for condensing in a short report, you know, both history and science and, you know, the -- you know, the reality of the drought and, you know, as well as the political, you know, astuteness or awareness of, you know, what the governor is doing to address that on a statewide basis.

i just want to say that this is going to stand out more than some of the deeper technical questions that commissioner ajami was addressing, but one thing that did ring for me during your report was infrastructure, and i know that this is a national issue right now, and i think that, you know, what i just want to point out, you know, is that this department, as is the voters and the citizens of san francisco, you know, really have been behind, you know, putting together the infrastructure to make sure, you know, that the water and the sewers and that everything is going to be taken care of because we're never going to have, you know, the efficiency that we want to try to accomplish if, you know, everything is screwed up and broken and aging and whatever -- you know, the pipes and the reservoirs and the

tanks and everything else that we've done -- and i just really want to acknowledge that that is extremely important, you know, as we move forward because, you know, whether it's the gods that talk about the water, whether it's the human beings that actually are managing, you know, our utilities, that is something that, i mean, i really think we still have to continue to pay attention to. and frankly, we are, and i just -- you know, so i'm proud, and most of us were not on this commission when these decisions were made to spend the money. i know that some people, you know, nip at the heels to how this money gets spent and all that other kind of stuff, but the success rate has just been pretty damn incredible, and i just need to point that out,

you know, and that's one of the reasons that i'm proud to be on this commission because of that piece that is a priority. and i'm finished. >> okay. thank you. commissioner harrington? no, go ahead -- yes, commissioner moran. >> just one comment. steve, you pointed out that the comparison with 76-77. i think the other pair of years of note are 2014 and 15, which were also very, very dry, and i think what's happening there is that short, severe droughts like that used to be extraordinarily rare, and that was reflected on our planning, that we didn't expect that to happen very often. they're becoming more common,

and i think that, you know, as we look at effects of climate change and some of the decisions that we have around how we manage our system, that we have to take into account the fact that these very dry periods are -- seem to be more frequent than they have been. and i think the extension to that is what the climate scientists tell us is actually they don't point so much to the short nasty droughts, but they point to extended periods of drought, and for our system, that is even more damaging because we do have so much storage, during the short droughts, we can do really well on. it's the longer droughts that are hard to deal with. >> all right. any other comments or questions? seeing none, then why don't we

open this up for public comment. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment specifically on item 6-a, the droubt update, dial 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. 146-534-3327, pound, pound. to raise your hand to speak, press star, three. please note you must limit your public comment to the item being discussed. we ask that public comment be made in a civil and respectful manner, and that you refrain from using profanity. please address your comments to the commission as a whole and not to individual commissioners or staff. mr. moderator, do we have any

callers? >> operator: madam secretary, there are three callers in the queue. hello, caller, your line is open. >> commissioners, first and foremost, i would like you commissioners to zero in on the two glaciers that provide us with the water. we never, ever think about the two glaciers, and i have photographs for the last 18 years. and if you look at the two glaciers, the line and the other one, you will see where we're heading to and reflect on it. number two, one of the commissioners did make a statement about infrastructure, but i've been saying for the longest time, we do not have

real-time [inaudible] of the millions of gallons that leach into the watershed. you know this. we talk about upgrading the pipes, but we don't have the data. we talk about doing something to conserve the sfpuc, but we do nothing. san franciscans have been conserving water more than they should conserve, and you know that because they're conserving, you all don't get the revenue. but what the hell are you all doing to upgrade the pipelines?

what are you all doing? you talk in circles. mr. ritchie, i like mr. ritchie. he lays it down historically, chronologically. but then, we have two former general managers here -- >> operator: thank you, caller. i'm sorry. your time has expired. next caller, your line is open. you have two minutes. >> good afternoon, commissioners. this is nicolle [inaudible] and i'm glad to be able to speak to you today. i just wanted to speak in support of the governor's action and his call for voluntary water conservation. obviously, it's a critical time for our state, and i appreciate the p.u.c.s support of it, as

well. as finding out what was presented by mr. ritchie, comparing 76-77 to the past two years, you know, very informative and very useful, and in particular, i appreciate commissioner paulson's comments about infrastructure and investments. if you look at our current investment and demand and supply as presented by mr. ritchie, our situation really represents good policy decisions, water first, our emphasis on water supply developments as well as our interest and commitment to infrastructure investments. that's why we are in the situation we're in. that said, we are committed to continuing that efforts and other things -- those efforts

and other things to make sure that our water supply are used as efficiently as possible and we can move forward throughout this drought successfully. thank you very much. >> operator: thank you for your comment. next caller, your line is open. you have two minutes. >> commissioners, [inaudible]. i'm addressing the drought issue and specifically angles that were not in mr. ritchie's report. let me start by saying we're facing a lot of challenges. the drought is one, global warming is another, and the corruption in san francisco is another, including the corruption in the san francisco public utilities commission. having said that, we need to rely on professionals to address professional issues. we cannot rely on lawyers,

period. lawyers have one thing to do. they have one way of doing things, which is alternative truth. it doesn't matter if they're doing the right thing or not. they're lawyers. they think they can bend the rules. let me give you an example. if we're going to have a lawyer to run the p.u.c., i can only compare him to another lawyer that was a disaster. for your reference, he was tommy ammiano. this is what we have at the p.u.c. we're going to have a lawyer that is going to come in and run the p.u.c. to the ground just to make sure that the gang that is running the p.u.c. and the gang that is running city hall stays in place. that's his only objective. [please stand by]

>> vice president moran: >> caller: i think that's interesting. many thanks to the staff. we have more water today and good policy choices,investments in infrastructure, etc. . ongoing problems and risks that i can identify now and i call it the ccd f program. climate, microtek,drought, earthquakes and fires. there are other things but those are five big things we continue to deal with . if someone could please post the drought updatepresentation on 6a, the presentation on the pc website somewhere that would be helpful but i scrolled

through very quickly and it wa not with the initial agenda posting . as i was about to allude to , the diversity of our water supply sources is critical to maintaining water supply reliability for customers, retail and wholesale customers in the city and elsewhere. again, to my planning and source diversity. and finally, on the general manager's report generally i do understand customer service has reopened 525goldengate so i look forward to visiting and payinga water bill in person . what an amazing thing . thanks very much. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next caller,your line is open . >> caller: goodafternoon commissioners, this is elizabeth slagle, water resources managerfor the city of mount utopia .

thank you for the purchase requirements for fiscal year 2122 . as mentioned recently mountain view request you expand this labor to include fiscal year 2021. based on communications with sf pc staff we expect to receive the zone next month for $2.2 million in unused water charges for last fiscal year. in addition to the revenues july 8 drought declaration referenced in the one we received yesterday numerous other actions taken over the past several months i like the disparity ofdroughts and encourage conservation in our service area . in particular public statements from sf pc senior management acknowledged the drought and request their conservation well before the end of fiscal year 2021. on april 15 we received a statement of water supply availability from sf pc

requesting water usereductions. this notice emphasized the, the conservation benefits by maintaining water and storage for future use . on may 29 dennis herrera said sanfrancisco is in extreme drought and encouraged water efficiency statewide . these actions contributed to water customers maintaining 33 and 21 percent total potable waterconservation during may and june compared to 2013 . and it should be sufficient to warrant expanding the waiver t include fiscal year2021 . thank you for your attention and consideration .>> thank you foryour comments. madam secretary, no more colors in the queue . >> president maxwell: public comment on item 6 a is closed. >> item 60 isthe quarterly report , mister robinson will be presenting,take it away . >> commissioners, steve

robinson, director of wastewater capital programs. this is the quarterly report from january through march and if you recall the last quarterly report was that back in december and we based the programs at that time. the quarterly report itself includes the sewer system improvement program, facility and infrastructure program and renewal and replacement program but alsothe older wastewater enterprise capital improvement program sometimes referred to as the interim .we want to acknowledge this is the last time we will be reporting back with this program and we will have completion ofthe last project by june 2021 . project started in2004 and the last budget approved for that program was in fiscal year 2014 15 , perhaps $399 million and we will be bringing that one to an end and move forward celebrating every milestone so next slide please.

i'd like to start as usual with a reminder of the variety of work and construction as we go across the city. one of the last clean infrastructure projects i mentioned before, the contractor hasperformed work at rain garden . the walk was conducted in march and completion in april, final completion is now anticipated in july. the image there is of the learning lab . the pump station in the middle, this quarter of the building structure is near completionso we are very much above ground . the work will be completed and the image shows those for brand-new pumps that were being installed. alongthe right the plant switchgear upgrade project , construction to proceed was issued in october and contractors have installed 24 torque down piles and down about 60 feet and this project

is notable and worth mentioning because of its close coordination because it's next to the headworks project. so these pie charts show the program status for the phase i. now representing $3.655 billio . last quarter we closed 42.4 percent, this quarter we are 44.7 and we are able to move various projects between phases and i recall i wanted to know there was a comment on a previous quarterly report for water but we're showing these two charts here for the same time, the accounts made that direct comparison from one quarter to the next and my highlighted some of the text in blue that has changed so if you look at the green part, that

blue text indicates that change as we have 17 projects in construction and some of those advanced into the gray elements of the pie chart and now we have 42 projects in complete phase. so this next slide is a combination of tables from the quarterly report showing a summary of costs for system improvement programs. the last broken down into the phases, phase 1 where we just looked at and the priority projects that we initiated from what have been called base three back in 2018 and again last year. you can see the columns of expenditures to date. the current approved budget is forecast for cost variance. they slimed in december we noted several projects were over budget and behind schedule and the process allows us to align our project systems a two-year budget capital plan so we do see that zero dollars variance on the right which is what we expect but over all the forecasted costs are actually $3.3 million under thecurrent

approved budget which is good and for that , delta was added to the programmanagement project and as a reserve , we will balance the overall budge . so if you look at the facilities infrastructure program in the same way we see that zero dollars variance and it would be based on the end of last year. these are the five active projects with the change in scope and schedule to report. a few highlights on the next slide as we do advertise one construction contract for zero improvements and two construction projects were awarded for our major pump stations and the west side pump station near the zoo. for special completion for the sunset green infrastructure project we mentioned before in this presentation. i'm achieving final completion or thert improvements and then

finally completing the commission systems . so for these 40 presentations we've been covering what we call three southeast major infrastructure projects as well so starting with biosolids this is the same forecasted project budget schedule we showed last quarter, no change again and we've reported final completion and hopefully achieved in june i would say initial demolition work, utility work for the construction foundation work ongoing, it's still very visible around the community . but this third bullet is important and we are drawing attention to it. as part of our work recent dat came in significantly higher than expected . an offset was needed to take control of procurement activity toreassess our project delivery approach . this is significant for what is our large project program and

there'san item on the agenda later today that goes into it in much more detail . for the new headworks facility program, the same forecast budget schedule we showed last quarter, no changewe've been reporting the number of piles that have gone underground . there are 430 have been installed . starting at the beginning of june the demolition contractor came back and continued more demolition to create more space and to supervise the construction to keep going. a tower crane has been erected. you see the bottom element at the right image there and from what i understand is the first time a tower crane has been used or sometime if everso it's exciting to see this piece of equipment being used . the little pieces of design remaining post reduction, and the revised order control facility reaches 95 percent and

100 percent design will be thi month in july and one thing worth noting that's not written on here, pg and e have a cable and overhead complex around the western side of the facility . and where talking with pg&e to manage that conflict. >> commissioner paulson: this is commissioner paulson. [inaudible] >> very good. the last slide here is for the community center 50-50. again, the same forecast is scheduled, nochange. the work is progressing and now very visible from the street . building enclosures are underway so now you can work inside. power has been installed on the interior spaces are now starting to build out.

the delivery team of contractors are working hard getting the building finished and ready for occupancy . potentially i had a schedule, things are progressing really well and there is a separate effort working on the transition from the old to the new.we don't expect anything to report at this time. with that, i'm happy to take questions. >> the problem withthe cables, power cables, what are some of the solutions you're looking at ? >> as we've been working with pg&e, there arealways better solutions for underground and those cables . sometimes that's more ecstatically pleasing and helps to remove that overhead for construction equipment, working up high but also the longer-term space between the cable and our facility but we know that takes considerable time and coordination and it wouldprobably interfere with

our construction project . other considerations are to be located to the other side of the street or to a different place or can we do something with our walls and where the conflict arises the offset is different. it creates a buffer to keep construction of a long-term facility. >> is there room enough to underground it ? >> there's as much infrastructure underground as there is above and inevitably it's hard to do that and i think with the time framewe have that option would begin to move away with the time that we have . >> thank you. any other questionsor comments? seeing non-, public comment . >> members of the public who wish to comment on item 6b, the wastewater quarterly report

dial 415-655-0001, meeting id 146 5343327 . to raise your hand to speak press star 3. limit your comments to the topic on the agenda item being discussed and the chair can interrupt and ask you to limit your comments to the agenda item . refrain from use of profanity. least address yourmarks to the commission as a whole, not to individual commissioners . do we have any callers? >> president maxwell: >> clerk: there is one caller in the queue. hello color, i've opened your line, you have 2 minutes . >> caller: i want to address the comment that i heard with a

slightly higher cost. wow. that's a little funny. there's a reason why a distinguished engineer that worked for the sfpc, because she was driven out. that's what happens when we have people that are unprofessional and they are pushed out so they can be replaced by the shenanigans that are running the city right now. let me address why you should rehire. go back to the sfpc on the cost of construction. take a guess, 60 percent. 60 percent of federal money goes to federal time tracks cost 60 percent more. the reason why you have a slightly higher price is because one, all the bidders have to be connected . no buddy can bid onthe job . and then if you give a job you

have to pay off and they remind youof its worth . [inaudible] lastly unsafe contractors. two weeks ago i wrote you about a player who ended up on the contract the puc and when you look up his license he doesn't know what he's doing in construction. so anyone that works for the union and understands what construction is would not hire him to run a company and he had no idea what the hell he's doing. let me ask you one more thing . all of this adds money. many others cannot bid. we're not paying the gag in the city. do you understand the cost? some of you are not in the

commission a whileback. some of you did not know what was going on . >> clerk: thank you for your comments. madam secretary, there are no morecallers . >> madam president, that concludes my report. >> president maxwell: any further comments or questions regarding the report ? thank you. then it's not necessary to have any more discussion on this item. next item please . >> clerk: item 7, new commission business. >> president maxwell: seeing non-, public comment on this item . no public comment and no new business. itemnumber eight .

next item please. >> item 8 is the consent calendar. all matters listed on the consent: calendar areconsidered routine by san francisco public utilities commission and will be acted on by a single vote of the commission . there will be no discussion and less a member of the public so requests in which case the matter will be removed from the calendar andconsidered as a separate item. i'd like to announce item number h which is contract number ww 714 ocean beach climate change action . it will not be heard at today's meeting and rescheduled to a future meeting . >> president maxwell: any others taken off the agenda? seeing non-, then why don't we open it up for public comment?

>> clerk: members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment dial 415-655-0001. meeting id 146 534 3327. to raise your hand to speak press star 3. limit your comments to the topic of the agenda item discussed and the chair can interrupt and ask you to limit your comments to the agenda item three of remaining in a civil and respectful manner and refrain fromthe use of profanity . address your remarks to the commission as a whole. did we have callers? >> clerk: there are 2 callers in thequeue . hello color, yourline is a nudity . >> caller: commissioners, good

afternoon . on the consent calendar and on the construction project in line with the three previous elements that raises concern and why the prices of the construction are not going through. i justwant you to bear with me for a second . i'm not going to address one particular one, i'm just going to speak on this case. first of all you got contracts that only have one bitter. that's fine. two you've got contracts that have 27 percent growth and others that have 11 and some on the left. most of those don't even reach the eagle. do you know why? because one, there is something calleddisparity that is required in order to set the goals . the cmb is running from the culture of putting their hands in their pocket and saying we

will put five here, three here depending on who i know and who will be bidding . commissioners, i do want to bring toyour attention which is shocking to me , some of the contracts that i spoke about earlier but ... [inaudible] >> clerk: hello. hello. i'm so sorry. those contracts have bidding requirements for 60 percent of the contract so what that means is the other 40 percent is where the percentage that is going to graham jones where he can pick and choose and those individuals being picked and chosen are ones without a license by ones that are paying off the city individually and the ones that are engaged in corruption . ihope you understand why you got one bitter year, percentages that don't make any

sense . all of that is connected and all of that ison the books right now and we need to understand why the prices are going up through the roof . thank you for your time. >> clerk:thank you for your comment . hello color, your line is open, you have 2 minutes. >> caller: can you hear me now? great. david again. i'm sorry, i miss the brief announcement. which item was pulled from the consent calendar? >> clerk: item 8h. >> caller: that's what i was concerned about thanks very much . i think it either needed to reference that there was already an approval action if there was and if not that it needed notice it is an approval action under chapter 41 though it was anenvironmentalreview concern .

if it's pulled for a recent meeting that's good . >> clerk: thank youfor your comments. there are no more callers in the queue . >> president maxwell: thank yo . >> president maxwell: public comment on item 8 is closed. >> presidentmaxwell: my may i have a motion to approve the consent calendar ? [inaudible] may i have a second to approve the consent calendar minus 8 h. it's moved and seconded, roll call vote. [roll call vote] >> next item please. >> next is item 9, general manager to execute a memorandum

of understanding with the san francisco airport commission in an amount to not to exceed 3,800,000 under 11 months represented by agn hill. >> good afternoon, this is miss early.we are collaborating with our, one of our most important customers, the san francisco airport to support them in their improvements . and this item allows us to provide support to them and for us to coordinate on consulting services and in particular the engineering design work for the development and environmental review of the electrical capacity upgrades needed as the airport continues its improvement program. with that i am happy to take any questions . i have our deputy agm for power operations manager ramona a

blank on the call as well if you havetechnical questions. thank you . >> president maxwell: any comments? open it up for public comments please. >> two minutes of public comment on item 9. dial 415-655-0001. meeting id 146 534 3327. to raise your hand to speak press star three. note you must limit your comments to the topic of the agenda item and i remind you if you do not, the chair can ask you to limit your comments to theagenda item. remain civil andrespectful and refrain from the use of profanity . address your remarks to the commission as a whole . do we have any callers?

>> clerk: there is1 caller . hello color, your line is open. you have 2 minutes. >> caller: i have seen this over and over and it's a way to preselect companies that are not on the list. this is an old trick in the books of the puc. giving sanfrancisco airport money to do their dirty work . i have seen it in my own contracts and how they defeat my contract and give it to someone else because i was not paying into the game. that's one of them. how are you spending $3.8 million, why don't you give your staff money for theairport ? they're not qualified staff. they have been in the committee

for ages and ages and probably they're not going to leave until they are retired and so forth. save the money and get your staff to work on real work and start using this money. i did not see anywhere in the presentation a description of the substation consumption review.why is that being hidden? why are youhiding that ? it's a simple question if anybody can answer, i won't expect you to. thank youfor your time . >> thank you for your comments. there are no more callers in thequeue . >> president maxwell: public comment on item 9 is closed. mister paulson, do you have a question or comment on item number nine ? >> commissioner paulson: i was going to make a motion before publiccomment .

>> president maxwell: i have a second . so moved and seconded. roll call votes please. [roll call vote] >> clerk: we have 5 aye's. >> president maxwell: next item please. >> clerk: item 10, adopt an untreated water discount factor of $.60 per 100 cubic cubic feet for fiscal year 2122 for the coast side water district inaccordance with the terms of the 2009 water supplyagreement . >> . [please stand by]

>> a portion of our property along state route 84 so they can actually upgrade the road to meet express way standards, and also to have a utility easement, as well, to relocate some pg&e facilities. i would recommend approval of this item because it is in the public interest to make this road safe. i'm glad to answer any questions. >> any questions or comments regarding this item? yes. commissioner anson moran? >> michael, could you talk

about the easements. it wasn't clear to me. are we gaining easements or losing easements? >> if i could ask anthony barto to come onto answer that question, i think he has the information for you. mr. barto, you're muted. >> yes. there are new access easements to support the expansion of the roadway. there's an easement for a new retaining wall along i-680. there is a new electric utility easement that was displaced by this widening project, and then, there are abutters rights that are being transferred. >> do we have any -- >> i'm sorry. >> do we have any easement

transfer there for our own use? >> well, i don't fully understand the question because the -- we own the fee, so if we need to access the project, we have the fee to be there. >> are we granting an easement or are we selling an easement? are we getting rid of an easement? >> no. basically, some of the -- easements are being moved, if you will. if -- when we're expanding the freeway, we are granting fee interests for the expanded roadway, but then, we have to issue new easements that are

gobbled up by the expansion or widening of the roadway. for example, there was an access road along the quarry. that access road is no longer useful because the expansion is expanding into it. same thing with the existing utility. there was a pg&e easement that's going away because it was gobbled up by the fee interest that was sold to caltrans for the widening, so we're having to grant a new utility easement to replace the old. >> okay. there's none of our pipes or wires that are there or anticipated to need to be there? >> no. >> okay. >> now, i will add that this particular project, a construction agreement came to this commission last year

because a construction project did conflict. >> any other comments or questions? seeing none, why don't we have public comment. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make public comment specifically on item 11, dial

415-655-0001, meeting i.d. 146-534-3327, pound, pound. to raise your hand, press star, three. reminder, you are to stay on the topic of the agenda item discussed, we will be redirecting you to the item being discussed. is there any public comment? >> operator: madam secretary, we have one public caller. caller, your line is unmuted, and you have two minutes. >> can you hear me now?

>> yes. >> david pillpel. actually, i don't have anything on this, but i'm just going through this, and it looks like a good amount of paperwork for the easement being transferred. thanks very much. >> operator: thank you for your comment. madam secretary, there are no more callers in the few. >> clerk: [inaudible] on item 11 is closed. >> so moved. >> thank you. thank you. so moved, and may i have a second? [inaudible] so moved and seconded. may i have a roll call, please. [roll call] >> clerk: you have five ayes. >> all right. next item, please. >> clerk: next item is item 12,

authorize the general manager to execute memoranda of understanding number 4453 and 4454 with the san francisco public works for a period of 20 months with an option to extend for six months at no cost to the p.u.c. derek adams will be presenting. >> hi. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is derek adams, and i'm the project manager for the kansas marin project. i have a brief presentation about the project itself and the item before you for consideration today. this limited project is phase two. phase one was prioritized because it was in a more dense residential area to the west of highway 101, sending flows to the east at the pinch point of

kansas and marin, and that's what they're hoping to alleviate at that pinch point, to get those flows to slide creek. so the project itself is approximately a 900 linear foot, eight-foot diameter tunnel from the intersection of kansas and marin street to 2323 cesar chavez street to yslais creek, so we're connecting those two. because of the 24 hour operation nature of the public works yard and the alignment in yellow there is right through their drive aisle and the vehicle entrance for the yard, we're pursuing a trench

[inaudible] for this project. there was originally a different alignment to the south through private property, but unfortunately, that private property owner declined to sell us an easement after design had been completed, so in order to makeup some time on the schedule, we are doing this current alignment f as a design build. so our current schedule, we had environmental clearance back in 2019. we are about to have our imminent requests for qualifying, r.f.q., for design build out on the street. prior to releasing the r.f.b., request for bids, we have to have the m.o.u. it's critical for the project. we hope to have that in place by the end of this year, and then, the design build would start immediately and take us

approximately 22 months. next slide, please. so the item before you today is actually two m.o.u.s. first one, 4453, is for the construction of the kansas marin project, so it's that circled area there. that's our staging area for our operation, and we're taking up approximately 31 parking spaces in the public works yard, so this is a no fee, no cost m.o.u., but we do need to find additional parking for public works during this construction. we do -- that yellow piece of property to the south. that's called lot 31, and we

feel we can find 31 additional parking spaces at the southeast edge of this property? but we've looked at some other properties in the area, and we'll come back to the commission if it exceeds the minimum lease amounts for that authorization. the second m.o.u. is 4454. that's for the permanent allowance protection of the tunnel, so once it's in, it allows our tunnel to be under the public works yard in perpetuity, and in particular, there's a hatch where the staging area is, so it provides us maintenance to attach so we can get maintenance down there into the pipe, and it prevents public works from doing anything that would damage the pipe. and that's all i have. if you have any questions, i'd be happy to answer them.

>> okay. any further -- any comments or questions on this item? seeing none, then, why don't we open it up to public comment. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment specifically on item 12, dial 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. 146-534-3327, pound, pound. to raise your hand to speak, press star, three. please note you must limit your public comment items to the agenda being discussed, and if you do not, the chair can interrupt you and suspend your comment. please address your comments to the commission as a whole and not to individual commissioners or staff. mr. moderator, do we have any callers.

>> operator: madam secretary, there is one caller wishing to be recognized. hello, caller. your line is open. you have two minutes. >> david pillpel. comments here, it looks to me like the p.u.c. parcel 31 is the old railroad right-of-way with access to the industrial area there that i guess p.u.c. obtained, so that's good. i think it's interesting that it's 31 parking spaces for parcel 31. that's cute. i wasn't sure what sewer flow problem the project is solving. maybe that got glossed over and i missed it, but if someone could help me with that, that would help. there's also truck access to

the post office facility at 180 napoleon and some other businesses along napoleon, i hope those are being addressed as part of the construction mitigation for the project. and although it looks to me like the environmental documentation is right, i'm not sure if the notice on the agenda was properly captured, that this may be the approval chapter under action 31, so if francesca could check that, that would be nice. and i think those are my comments on this agenda item. >> operator: thank you for your comments. madam secretary, there are no more comments in the queue. >> clerk: thank you.

public comment on item number 12 is closed. >> to somebody answer mr. pillpel's first question regarding the reason for this? >> yeah, hi, commissioners. be happy to. sorry. i think i glossed over that, but the issue is historical flooding on cesar chavez between guerrero and hampshire street. and we are protecting the existing business owners that use that lot 31 parking. that's part of the deal. >> thank you. any further comments? questions? then may i have a motion and a second to approve this item? >> motion made. >> all right. >> second. >> been moved and seconded. roll call vote, please. [roll call]

>> clerk: you have five ayes. >> next item, please. >> clerk: next item is 13, approve the selection of m.c.k. americas, incorporated, the sole responsive, responsible, and qualified proposer, award agreement number pro181, for an amount not to exceed 3.3 million and a duration of three years.

mario lopez will present the item. >> my name is mario lopez, and i'm here to tell you why only one proposer is being considered. we actually received three proposals. prior to even getting into the actual evaluation phase with our panel, we do some minimum qualification reviews, threshold reviews. it's all outlined in the r.f.p. so the first proposer, a.b.a. global, actually, did not meet the minimum threshold requirements as identified in the r.f.p. more specifically, their submitted overhead and profit schedule, which is part of the actual submittal that we received, and it helps us evaluate based on fee, they did not follow the instructions as

required. tab, through my analyst, reached out, and their e-mail response was this is what we submitted, and just kind of left it at that. unfortunately, some of the requirements in the r.f.p., we ask that they don't manipulate this document because we have formulas buried in the excel file, and we use that to control costs with these r.f.p.s for construction management. we didn't do this when i first started this process years ago, but we weren't clear enough with our first proposer, so we refined this working with t.a.b. and the city attorney, so they were deemed not meeting

the requirements as the proposer. the other one, dabney, was deemed to not meet the requirements, and i can go into a little more detail if you'd like. in short with this, i'll just try and give you a high level is they opted -- there are two ways to meet the outreach requirement, and they opted to go with the 35% approach. in other words, if they meet their l.b.e. goal by more than 35% of the established requirement -- so for instance, this proposal, we set 20% at our goal, so 35% on 20% means they have to submit to c.m.d. a 27% requirement. unfortunately, they weren't able to do that. they were also under the impression that they met -- they qualified as micro and

small m.b.e., and unfortunately, they've graduated out of that program and they're now an s.b.a., small certified firm. as such, they can't use this 35% approach. so c.m.b. used this other approach, meeting the 80-point requirement, and this specific proposer did not attempt to meet that requirement, as well. as such, c.m.d. deemed them nonresponsive. so if you have any questions, i'm more than happy to answer them. there's a lot of information. we still did go forward with the evaluation. we still did evaluate c.m.d.s

proposal, but the other two did not move forward into the evaluation, and that was why. >> thank you. commissioner moran, do you have any questions -- >> well, i have a -- i guess, a comment that -- it is perennially frustrating to contracts go out for bidding in cases that involve fairly technical aspects of the bidding process. that's one part of the technical frustration, is that somehow we haven't managed to work with the bidders well enough or something to get them to figure out how to do it

right. and then, the second is a question that's not so much for you, but in the consent calendar, we closed out what appeared to be a very similar contract, which had about $6 million unexpended, and is there a reason why we didn't just use that other contract to do this work and make this one smaller so that we get back out to a competitive bid sooner? >> commissioner, i think you're referring to item 14 for that question. >> well, for the one that was closed out for an unused balance was 8-g. >> but the comparable one was

item 14. >> well, it sounded like what was needed was comparable contracts for sewer work for small sewer repair, and so i'm wondering if we had a disappointing result on this bid, and we had another contract that was available to us with a $6 million balance, why we didn't somehow use that $6 million balance to have more people involved in this work? >> valdez? >> yes. i'm a little confused, but i think i understand what you're asking. so this project is a project specific r.f.p. for the west side pump station, so it's specifically going to be funded by that project. it's $3.3 million, and it's

comprised of roughly different five different c.m. positions, and my c.m. colleagues have management of construction of the project. >> all right. i see what you're trying to tell me, commissioner harrington. yeah, my comments do apply to item 14, not item 13. my apologies. >> thank you. yes, commissioner ajami? >> i had a question. thank you so much, mr. valdez, for your presentation. i was wondering, what were the bids put forward by the other two contractors? whether they price wise the same or higher or lower? just for sake of comparison, i was wondering how this one sort of marks [inaudible]. >> sure. very good question. actually, with r.f.p.s, we

don't accept the lowest body. we put out in the cost a not to exceed amount, so the team will pull the project and write the overhead and profit schedule such that it comes in underneath. now the overhead and profit schedule under the r.f.p. is graded or they receive points on their total labor costs divided by the total base labor costs. the real purpose besides evaluation with the profit and overhead schedule -- and it's a big spreadsheet, and i'm happy to share it with people -- it helps us to lock in the base rates and the firm's multiplier. and the rate is used if another firm gets added to the contract. that then becomes their multiplier, what is reflected

in their overhead prefer rate. this also getted attached as an paendix to their agreement, so it's a really important document. >> let's say this wasn't something that you wanted to compare something against, but what about any other factors in those other bids that looked appealing that we could have used as we were looking at bids? in this specific case, as you mentioned, the other two were disqualified for various reasons. they were not responsive, they were not meeting all the requirements. i guess the value that they can bring to the table is some

factor, like, some parameters or factors that we can go back and look at and see how they fit. i've actually seen those spreadsheets before, but obviously, this question can be totally off the grid for what you [inaudible] work with, but i would be very curious to know how they could have leveraged those other two popals -- proposals to change this bid to a better -- >> right. so i don't know if it's a way to leverage their bids because we didn't -- as you mentioned, they didn't even make it to the evaluation bid. i did as the contract manager did what's called a contract for responsiveness.

we say the confirm has to have 15 years in business providing contract management, so i would go through the proposal where they have covered that typically somewhere in there. somewhere, it's covered by section, but sometimes, they bury that in other parts of the r.f.p. so i go through that process, and then, i work with my analyst before we go forward with the evaluation process. all three proposers met the in-queue review, and that's really what drives the process, is the qualifications that we're on-boarding. >> there was no evaluation on the other two, that's where [inaudible]. >> i'm sorry? >> so there was no formal evaluation done on the other two? >> that's correct. >> okay. that's it. thank you. >> i had a simple question, and

i don't want to muddy the waters because i don't really understand it because there's, you know, without seeing the, you know, and i think some of those spreadsheets can be more elaborate as the years go by. there's labor, there's profit, there's profit and the four kind of pillars of things, but when we get into that big excel sheet. here's what confused me. if you said somebody else throws their name in the mix, and i'm paraphrasing you, not quoting you verbatim, you said that changing some of the multipliers of a different bid in terms of the way we do our spreadsheet, and i really didn't understand what that meant. i don't want you to give me, you know, 20 minutes on this,

but what did you mean by a nonresponsive contractor saying, you know, the folks, you know, that we're going to be voting on, you know, all of a sudden -- what changed the quote, unquote, multiplier, to change your spreadsheet on this stuff and what that meant? >> okay. so it would be easier if i could show you the spreadsheet. the spreadsheet is fairly straightforward. it asks for a name, base rate, and multiplier. everything else calculates out based on formulas. so they fill in those positions, and we end up with an effective overhead and profit rate. whatever that score is per the r.f.p., they earn a number of points as part of the fee

evaluation. so this document's purpose primary is one, it gets attached to the agreement, so we lock in base rates firm and multiplier. >> well, let me ask this. does the multiplier change in metric based on the fact that somebody else throws their name in the mix? >> the multiplier does not change. each firm has its own multiplier. what happens with the effective multiplier, for lack of a better description is, if m.c.k., as the prime, throughout construction, we find that the project needs a new firm added, a new subconsultant, that subconsultant can only come in with its own multiplier that's reflected on that form. in other words, if h.d.r. was required to come in as a sub, and their multiplier is 3.3,

but the effective and prefer rate is 3.5, h.d.r. gets to come in and join as a 2.5 multiplier. they do not get to come in as a 3.5 multiplier. >> okay. got it. thanks. >> any further comments? seeing none, public comment on this item? >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make public comment on this item dial 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. 146-534-3327, pound, pound. to enter public comment, press

star, three. we ask that public comment be made in a civil and respectful manner and that you refrain from the use of profanity. please address your roshs to the commission as a -- remarks to the commission as a whole, not to individual members or staff. mr. moderator, do we have any callers in the queue? >> operator: moderator, we have two caller in the queue. >> why am i not surprised that there's only one bidder that was evaluated? let me show you how the p.u.c.

circumvents these basic rules, because qualification has nothing to do with price. as a matter of fact, it is governed by the brooks act. it's a statute that clearly says you have to base your selection based on qualifications, and then, you negotiate the prices. but what the p.u.c. is doing and has been doing for ages is to ask for the bid to be part of the qualification, so they've been lying to you. what they don't say is who m.c.k. is. this is the company that i blew the whistle on, grossing $17 million when the threshold was 2.5 in 2017. the owner of m.c.k. is no different than the other viewer manager of d.p.w. that was charged with a crime for selling a sole source contract

for double the price what the p.u.c. and the taxpayer should have been paid for. this is how it's connected, commissioners. so let me tell you something else. what he did not mention is the minimum requirements, and i want to read it to you. first of all, he says 15 years, and that's not true. it's ten years, so he's misdirecting the facts to you as commissioners. but here's the interesting part. you have to have experience with $30 million pump station. for heaven's sake, it's a pump station. construction management does not differentiate between a project and a pump station. they're limiting another federal statute in the state, government -- >> operator: thank you for your comments. sorry, but your time has

expired. next caller, your line is open. you have two minutes. >> can you hear me now? >> operator: yes. >> so david pillpel again. we're still on item 13. my only question is why use a contractor to augment staff rather than hire or reassign existing p.u.c. or in particular c.m.b. staff to the project? it didn't seem like there was specialized engineering work needed more. it just seemed like it was an issue of staff and resources, so it seems like there are on going p.u.c. projects, and either c.m.b. or staff could be reassigned, and if we need to beef up staff, they could be

used to work on this and other projects. i'm not sure if i got an answer on item 12, whether that needed to be noticed as an approval action under administrative code chapter 31. thanks. >> operator: thank you for your comment. madam secretary, there are no other callers in the queue. >> all right. are there any other questions or comments? seeing none, may i get a motion? >> so moved. >> second. >> all right. it's been moved and seconded. roll call vote, please. [roll call]

>> clerk: you have five ayes. >> thank you. item 14, next item. >> clerk: item 14, approve plans and specifications and award contract number 33-699, in an -- ww-699, in an kpmt not to exceed 10,176,957, and with a duration of 400 consecutive calendar days to the sole qualified responsible bidder, j. flores construction company. >> my name is [inaudible] for the pipeline replacement contract for the wastewater collection system. this is a request to work contract, contract number ww 699, to contractor j. flores

construction company, incorporated, in an amount not to exceed 10,176,957, with a contract duration of roughly one year and two months. this contract will perform as needed replacement of localized sections or short sections of existing sewer pipeline in san francisco at determines presented by the sfpucs wastewater and water staff. time spent mobilized on-site is typically three to fife working days at one work location. this spot sewer replacement contract with address urgent work in need of immediate attention and to stabilize the area which cannot wait to be programmed into our planned sewer replacement contract work. staff recommends that this commission awards this contract, and i will take any

questions that you have regarding this item. >> any questions or comments regarding this item? all right. commissioner paulson and then commissioner moran. >> so this is strictly maintenance, correct? >> this one is actually replacement, so just spot sewer replacement of short main sewer sections and laterals, as well. >> it would have been deemed nonsustainable. >> correct. >> and it's not maintenance, it's replacing the actual infrastructure based on the needs to keep up to date, is that kind of -- >> well, can you give us an example of what you mean? >> of course. so if we typically receive -- let's -- for instance, receive a request to replace a section of pipe that has structural

defects on our city streets, and typically, the segment length would be, let's say about 20 feet long. our block segments are usually about 350 feet long, so we have to get in there because there is -- there's a structural defect. we will notify the contractor and then set up the traffic control operation. normally sewers are buried about 10 feet into the ground, and so you would expect truss operators and such, and then, they perform the excavation operation to replace that short 20-foot section, for instance,

make sure that the pipes match the existing size, backfill the trench, and then, they will perform the immediate street pavement restoration of a concrete base and wearing surface, and then, the item would be complete in which the contractor would relinquish control of the site back over. >> commissioner paulson, does that answer your question? >> i have no more questions. >> okay. commissioner moran? >> now that we're on the right item, the question was if we have the unfortunate circumstance here where we have a sole bidder, and at the same time, we had another contractor

to do more than half of the work here, so the question is why didn't we use that existing contract and basically give ourselves the opportunity to get more competitors involved in another round of bidding? >> commissioner moran, this is [inaudible] existing manager of infrastructure. i'd like to answer that, if i could. >> thank you. >> when we were working with the other contractor, they were experiencing a significant backlog in the work orders. i think what they found out when they entered the contract that what eileen just laid out was not a work process that they could really facilitate, and the crews were not set up with that, and so they were having a real challenge, and there was problems on our side, on the sewer group side, and

the contractor actually reached out to me. and so we negotiated a way for them to -- to, like, get out of this -- get out of their contract and settle up with the city and then move onto other work that more fits their line of business. so they tried, but it was a challenge, this model, for them. >> okay. and that makes some sense. but my concern remains is that this is the kind of work that we put out quite regularly. it's the kind of work that we have, and to be in a position where we don't have a competitive procurement is unfortunate, at least, and frustrating, certainly. i guess what i'm -- and i don't think that that changes my view of this particular contract, but as a general matter of how we contract for these services,

it seems that we're missing something, that this is work that, you know, is worth a lot of money. the skill sets, you know, not to minimize them, but this is not, you know, the kind of thing where one contractor is going to have the skill set to get the work, and if there's anything we can do to our scheduling process or bidding process to make this more competitive, we should be looking at it, and i guess my question to you is, how are we thinking about this? is this just the kind of thing that happens to us, unfortunately, or do we think we can improve our bidding performance? >> i did follow up with the two other contractors that took out plans, and i got some of their feedback. one contractor in particular

said it was difficult, because unlike our other projects, where they lay out the locations that the repairs will be needed ad. i understand what you're -- will be needs. i understand what you're saying. >> let me ask this, and again, it's not with respect to this contract, but i would like something to come back to the commission that talks about how we choose to do this work, and what are the other choices that we could make that would improve the bidding environment? and that would include, i suppose, whether there is work that there's enough of it on going that we have.

>> and an idea of the work itself. >> we could give you an idea of the spot sewer respect itself and what does the work look like on an on going basis and then either increasing the contract outreach and how we can do that or, as you put it, what would this look like self-performed. >> can i follow up on that? [inaudible]. >> for spot water? >> yes. >> usually, it's a main break, and we from our crews perform. >> yeah, that's what i thought. >> yeah. >> so what's the difference between this and a main break because that's what i thought it was. that's how i looked at it. so it's not the same as a main

break? >> not really. spots are repaired. the sewers are old. they're basically down 10 feet, and they fail, and so we have to dig up sections once we determine they have failed. with a main break, it happens immediately. we tend to send our crews, and there's a lot of water associated with that. but spot sewer -- sewers -- spot sewers that readily failed are not determined on the surface. >> when you have water pressure, they can do a great deal of damage very quickly. sewer repair gives you a little bit more type. >> can i actually say we're exploring different technology instead of doing the traditional dig up and replace. there is some technology on

trenchless sewer repair, so we are going to explore that and start a program later next year or this year, so it may become that there are additional people bidding up on our contracts. we might not just be digging up a 20-foot section. it might be a 100 or 200-foot section. >> commissioner ajami. >> michael, i appreciate you bringing us some history on how this might have been done, because my first question is who historically does this, and why aren't they involved in doing this? another question i have for you is you mentioned, allie mentioned about these lines

being 10 feet below, and my question is why aren't we trying these trenchless repairs, and also, there's these new technologies, that they use the fiber technologies, that they can measure if something is happening underground so you have a faster way of approaching the breaks without, you know, needing, you know, to wait for a while or not knowing it for a while, so i wonder if that's something that you're considering to test? but -- so it would be really great to know who has been doing this and how we can -- if he needs to do it in house, what would it mean and how much would it cost and what size of a crew do we need for something like that?

and if the historical data could form this process moving forward? >> yeah. i think we could come up with a comprehensive sort of report on all of that for you and include that in our budget presentations later this year to you. >> yes, commissioner paulson. >> thank you for that offer. i think that would clear up a lot of the questions that we have. i mean as somebody who drives around town, and i see different contractors and the department of public works trucks, and i see different contractor trucks, i just know that this is a city that's fixing stuff, not just letting it fall apart. getting it done is just as important as putting it out to bid for 900 years or something like that. i don't say that as disparaging, but sometimes, you've got to get stuff done, and i think that's what folks,

you know, really have to deal with, first of all, you know, with all the types of construction that we have. i just think getting the blueprint, you know, of how history, you know, stuff is, you know, fixed and maintained, whether it's water or sewer, would be helpful. but these are many moving parts. driving through city -- through the city, we see that. the crews at the intersections, and people screaming and yelling i can't get through this, well, they're fixing it so sewage doesn't come up through your toilet and your pipes work. >> thank you. >> thank you. any further comments or questions? seeing none, why don't we go to public comment. >> clerk: members of the public wishing to make two minutes of public comment specifically on

item 14, dial 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. 146-534-3327, pound, pound. to enter public comment, press star, three. we ask that public comment be made in a civil and respectful manner and that you refrain from the use of profanity. please address your remarks to the commission as a whole, not to individual commissioners or staff. moderator, do we have any callers? >> operator: madam secretary, there are -- there is one caller wishing to be recognized. hello, caller, your line is open. you have two minutes.

>> hello, commissioners. this is [inaudible]. i think i'm going to be charged by the public defender's office with beating a dead horse, but that's okay. i am beating a dead horse. regarding the justifications that i heard, there was one accurate statement by the commissioners: are we missing something? a straight answer? yes, y-e-s. we've modified this to the point that nobody can do work in san francisco anymore. i have a lot of respect for [inaudible], and i do, and i think he knows this, but alan, i'm begging you not to use another four-letter word called outreach, that we are checking the box and doing something.

[inaudible] that's a fact. that's a sad fact about the most racist city in the union, san francisco. it's a city so racist, they can't see the racism that they're implementing on everybody except themselves in their own silos. i've given you the reasons that nobody is bidding. it is risky, contractors don't want to have to payoff anybody, but without paying them off, i guarantee they'll go after you. that is a fact. the second thing and the last point i want to makeup is we've discussed this so many times, government code 4525, you cannot ignore a licensed

contractor. an object cannot and will not and does not know anything about a [inaudible] alan. they can do the building, but they have more [inaudible] -- >> operator: thank you for your comments. i'm sorry, but your time has expired. madam secretary, there's one more caller in the queue. hello, caller, your line is open. you have two minutes. >> so commissioners, i've been listening to the various contracts that have come before you all, and i think you all need to review -- some of you all need to -- some of you have made some good suggestions, but you need to review how contracts are given.

paradoxically, back in 2006 [inaudible] to certify businesses. and then, work with other contractors so that people who were certified could get career jobs and become good contractors. prior to that, we had the human rights commission that had compliance officers. the human rights commission had a commission, and then, the contract monitoring division was created. the c.m.d., the city administrator, and the mayor, and the other lackeys, who i

call crooks. i work for the federal government. these people would have gone to jail under the rico act. the rico act has to be called in. this is a shame. i've been listening and listening, and i have four friends here who are engineers. they are all listening, too. you are not doing our city a service. thank you very much. >> operator: thank you for your comments. madam secretary, there are no more callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. public comment on item 14 is closed. >> okay. any comments or further discussion on this item? then may i have a motion and a second to approve the item? >> so moved.

>> i'll second. >> all right. it's been moved and seconded. roll call vote, please. [roll call] >> clerk: five ayes. >> thank you. item 15. >> clerk: item 15, authorize the general manager to negotiate a contract scope of work and price reduction of greater than 10% for contract number ww-647-r, with m.w.h. constructors-webcor builders joint venture, and if negotiations are successful, return for commission approval of such scope and price reduction through either a contract modification or partial termination or convenience. presented by steven robinson.

>> before you go forward, i've asked that we have an opportunity to discuss this further before we vote. i think it's extremely important, and i think we need to give it a little bit more time and ask maybe some deeper probing questions, so thank you. just wanted you to know how that came about, steven. >> commission president maxwell and commissioners, this is alan johanson. i'm going to start this off. >> all right. >> as steve mentioned earlier this year, the biosolids team was presented with contracts on two packages that considerably exceeded the budget carried for the work. at that time, the team put bidding on hold and since then have been investigating ways to obtain cost certainty. i'd like to introduce project manager carolyn chu, who will provide the history and describe the efforts that are

being taken to better control costs on the project. >> good afternoon, president maxwell, commissioners. carolyn chu, project manager, for the biosolids project. can you please advance the slide? yeah, there you go. i think as steve robinson noted in his presentation earlier, construction is well underway at the site. one thing that i wanted to comment on is when we put out the bids out for the work on your screen, some of the bids came in lower than what we estimated. but as alan just noted in the last couple of months, we did receive a couple of high bids -- can you go to the next slide, please -- that exceeded our budget. let me just walk you through one of them here. this one was for an electrical

installation package. you'll see here that the 95% cost estimate was at $67 million, and then, when we put out the 100% bid, that price came in at $145 million, and then, when the bids came in, which was 116% over the budget, and then, when the bids finally did come in a day later, that cost came in even higher, at 159 million. so you can see the cause for concern that basically the delta between the 95 and the 100% estimate was unacceptable in consideration of the budget. can you click the slide? and so, you know, we said okay, this is one bid, but then, you know, we held on until we get a second bid a few weeks later. you know, following the same

sort of phenomenon, except this package was for a mechanical installation for the project, and, you know, as similarly, the cost estimate was 72.5 million, and you could see that the 100% estimate and the bid cost were 73% and 98% above our budget. so once we received these two bid -- those two bids, we realized it's a trend now, and we kind of had a forecast that this trend may continue as we continue to put out more bids. so you can see, as alan noted, we had no choice, when we got these bids, to suspend the procurement until we got the bidding strategy for this approach and the rest of this project. we couldn't wait and see. we needed a better cost certainty.

you know, i think as we said several times in these commission meetings, biosolid projects are large and complex. perhaps too big for the p.u.c. to manage, especially now, in our current market conditions. and you have to couple that with the fact that we haven't realized the benefit of the cmtc approach when we formulated the job a few years ago. we would like to consider, you know, maybe we should think about breaking up the project to smaller for digestible pieces and delineate the scopes to other businesses that we can navigate over time to encourage competition from new bidders. so we're looking at ways to adapt and reevaluate the delivery approach now that we have a look at the current market conditions out there post pandemic and, you know,

obviously getting those two bids that were very high. next slide. so as a part of our evaluation, we looked at sort of contract wide considerations while still maintaining the original project scope and objectives because we also did a cost reduction, so we already looked at the scope and seeing how we could change that. so we were looking at, you know, possibly different delivery methods. so one of the options that was still on the table was that we maintained the contract that we have under ww-647 r. we also talked about possibly terminating the contract, but then, as you know and from looking at the construction, it's prudent to have that construction and the underground earth work being under the responsibility of a single contractor versus trying

to [inaudible] but now, we're landing toward what we've been calling a hybrid delivery in which a portion of the future construction remains under webcor, and then, the balance of the work can be billed via a p.u.c.-led occurrence because we already have the design work in hand, 100% design. so one of the things as a part of this hybrid, we're -- you know, there's a number of benefits of the hybrid as we're currently looking at the construction going on, and some of that includes, you know, understanding that having this hybrid and having -- okay -- can we just go back one slide? having that hybrid was that it'll minimize schedule

impacts, right, and avoid time gaps, for example, when the construction excavation sits untouched, right? if we don't try to think about how we can formulate that construction and keep it going, with m.w.h. webcor, with new bidders, we are working with m.w.h. webcor on the digesters, for us to evaluate and possibly accept, you know, over -- maybe in the fall, and i think as we speak, they're putting out bids for this digester bids to develop that proposal for us as a part of this evaluation if

it's feasible to continue doing this work as a portion of webcorand then as a portion of new bids. so now, next slide. so the commission item in front of you today is really to allow us to negotiate and think about reducing the contract scope by greater than 10% for the cmdc contract. this approval provides us the ability to think about breaking it up into smaller manageable contracts that would encourage that competition, that bid competition, and then, as i said, allow us to spread out or phase out these packages over time, and doing that without changing the overall objective of the project and its scope. and you know, as a part of this, we want to come back to you in the fall or in a few

months with the outcome of this, with an update on the delivery approach that we hope can give us a better value and a better project for the cmdc. and this is my part of the presentation, and i know alan would welcome any questions you may have. >> colleagues, any questions on what you've heard so far? commissioner paulson? >> yeah, i have questions and comments about this because one, i want to thank folks for at least putting a red glag in when numbers do get a little bit -- red flag in when numbers do get a little bit more than expected, but then, i want to circle back to when people -- i

know you have the design ready, i know, you know, you know, you know, what you want to build, but you put budget expectations what this is supposed to cost versus what the contractor has pencilled out what it's going to cost? did the contractor go, oh, what the heck, i'm going to add an extra 5% on this thing? i'm not saying that anything -- any of this happened, but, you know, the fact, you know, that you bring up this red flag, that those questions have to be asked, and those are two big questions, and i don't want to, you know, discuss it to death, you know, right here. at the same time, i know that the contractor that's responsible for this high-end

stuff has been responsible and has done a lot of work, not just at the p.u.c. but around town, including with the -- you know, with the join partnership that's there, and busting the thing up under the guise that we're going to get a better price, does that just encourage lowball bidding and make it complicated just because people see, you know, another opportunity to pick something up that they may not normally have picked up because all they have to do is go cheaper. and then, next thing you know, you know, you've got all this different sweater of, you know, bells and whistles and designs and stitches and whatever and then, you know, you've just opened everything up. so it wasn't like it was 200% or 300%, but it's still, the facts that -- the fact that

you've flagged it as 130% or 100%. but at the same time, i'm worried about turning this, you know, into, you know, a circus by acknowledging the fact that you want to do something like, you know, do some cost containment to, you know, keep it within whatever the budget is. and when i first read number 15, and i didn't know there was back chatter around what all this means at the commission meeting, you know, the fact that you're going to talk about the 10% in there, i was fully prepared to move that. it's, like, you know, there are costs that go up and prices go up, and who's paying attention to things, materials in particular? so that being said, based on what people are saying, it does look like there's more explorations that's going on, but if there's no other

solutions, then i need to be convinced that we don't move this forward, you know, with cost modifications done, in kind of a scalping, you know, kind of way. i've kind of put a bundle of stuff on the table there, and i do want to circle back as to the responsibilities of the department and the actual contractor who still, you know, doesn't want to lose his or her ass making sure this complicated project gets done. so there's a question embedded in the front end of my comments as to self-analysis as to what happened. >> okay. can somebody -- michael carlin?

>> thank you. alan, can i give kind of the history of what happened and what we're trying to do here and what was presented? >> sure. general manager carlin, go ahead. >> no, i think you -- >> okay. basically, to answer commissioner paulson, i think there's ownership on both sides. si think there's -- city staff side, there's things we misunderstood over the past year when we were look pg at the -- looking at the pricing, and i think there was more risk, and in order to handle the risk, they had to price more risk. i think just by putting this on pause -- >> if i could interrupt. >> go ahead. >> what do you mean by risk?

when you say they contracted this as a price? again, not a long explanation, you know, but -- >> i think i can do that pretty succinctly. we had a pretty large concrete package going out, and the mechanical package and the electrical side was supposed to be included in that. they were going to figure out the piping for both electrical and mechanical, so they put out these large electrical and mechanical packages that spanned a number of years, and there was very little work on the front end. maybe planning, maybe procuring of equipment, but then, there was a lot of risk on cost, wage escalation, costs going up, that the contractors had to put

a number on, as opposed to breaking it up into smaller packages. >> i'm doing what i said i wasn't going to do [inaudible]. >> so the equipment, you know, they could get those purchase orders written, but say you were going for conduit, stainless steel pipe, you're going to buy it when you need it, not the first year. they're going to have to guess what the market is going to be like. they're going to have to price the market going years ahead of time. >> the price of sheet metal, plywood, that kind of thing, is that what you mean by risk? >> exactly. >> okay. got it. okay. thank you. >> if i could also point out, when we sat down with the j.b. partners, we kind of made it clear that we had some issues

on communications on our side, we had communication problems on their side, and part of it was the team on their side, which they have replaced, and there has been a major shift on their side i think in communication. it's been massively upgraded, and i have been involved for the past several months on this. having them come back to us with a bid on what i call package a, the digesters, is that going to be acceptable? we're going to have to decide that going forward -- or you're going to have to decide that going forward as it's presented to you. it's such an important project for us going forward, and we need to make sure it's done right and done in a timely

manner at a price that's going to be acceptable. >> and my last question, unless something else comes up through another commissioner, in which case i'll ask the president to ask some more questions. this is more to our advantage of getting this stuff done in a tighter budget included than just starting, you know, from some level of, you know, of, you know, unknowns. that's my opinion as to moving forward, and mr. carlin, you know, thank you for talking about how you're engaged and your involvement. >> okay. commissioners, any further comments?

questions? >> i had a question. i wonder if we -- do we have any other contracts with m.w.h. rather? >> not other than this one. >> okay. have they been working on any of our other projects ever? >> well, they built 525 golden gate, but that was a project that public works managed. >> webcor. >> and that was a vertical building versus a treatment plant. >> yeah, of course. >> yeah. >> i was just wondering, i'm assuming that that didn't happen to that project since it was more straightforward and simpler? and then, just out of curiosity, are there any digesters -- i'm assuming there are -- being built around the bay area so we can get a sense of how much they're costing, what are the contracts?

it just would be valuable to know if, during this pandemic, this has been really -- the cost of construction has definitely gone up for various reasons, but i wonder if there's a way that we can think through this, is there some way we can rethink this process? and i appreciate this comment of hybrid approach to this. i'm just wondering if the hybrid approach would -- you know, would solve the problem or would it be, like, a band-aid? >> if i can address your question, commissioner, i'm not

sure that anyone else is building digesters here, but i know m.w.h. is building digesters across the country. i think it was dallas that they're building digesters, so we're calling our colleagues in the business and saying, how are things going with you? we also are talking to some of the people that they have built digesters for, and how did that go, and what is that relationship? did they deliver what they say they were going to deliver, did they deliver it on time, and did they deliver it on cost? so we're using some of that information to evaluate as we go forward and what we present to you. >> okay. actually, that's quite comforting to know that we are looking at all of those things. and i guess one other question that i have, though, obviously, we are working on this project. we don't want to pause it and restart, but i'm wondering if some of the issues with the

cost, and i think, carolyn, you mentioned this in your presentation, which you think this is a trend that -- and we don't expect that to -- the cost to go down after, you know, the end of this pandemic or some of the labor issues or material issues have gone away. but i'm wondering if we really think that's the case? do you think that if pausing this project and then revisit it -- and i know that it's not as simple -- i'm just trying to understand how we might be able to ride this wave and -- and, you know, potentially deal with this issue in the short-term in a different way? and again, i can imagine -- i can totally imagine the answer

to that question, but i'm just wondering if that's something we are considering or not. >> i think yes to all of the above. i think having these two bids back-to-back as high as they were, especially between the delta between what we were carrying the delta, like, the 95% of our budget and the 100. i think to key in to commissioner paulson's comment, how did the t.m.c. package this? there was something that webcor could have been preemptively. unfortunately, i don't think there's one single answer that we could mitigate away, but i do want to provide some reassurance, nod to other people that are building digesters now, it turns out that d.c. water built a giant

[inaudible] when they did have to break it up into several different bid packages that had several different design options. they did one part as a design build, another was a design build and operate. they did a whole different gam bit in that facility, so as we are considering breaking that up now, we are redialoguing with them to get that lesson learned. like, what worked, what didn't work, and if you had to do it again, what do you wish you would have included in your front-end specs? so we are talking to everyone that we can talk to that has gone through a project like this and had to reevaluate for cost reasons. it turns out that our par son's c.m. used to work for d.c.

water, so we're getting a lot of real-time consideration. thinking about start-ups, because those are treatment processes, not a vertical building, so all of that, actually, whoever showed you, like, our giant matrix of things to consider, they're all considered as not insur insurmountable in creating a project that meets our objectives. >> i think one other question. when d.c. water broke down the project into smaller pieces, do you know if, in the end, they came to lower to what the first bids was or -- is it just -- for me, it's a little bit different -- i guess i understand if you break it down into pieces then you open it up

to broader group of contractors that it come in and build different pieces of it, which is great so then you have options. but i'm wondering if collectively or cumulatively if the final number would end up being lower than what we're getting from m.w.h. because you're getting mumt i am overheads and multiple profit margins and a lot of other things. it's just a simple question of what did they do in this process? >> yeah. i don't have the cost [inaudible] but definitely, that is a question that we will follow up and ask. and definitely, we were working with them even when we started this project in planning stage. and one of these was multiple contractors who could fade into

each other's schedule. so fortunately, we made a good try. it was unfortunate that we didn't -- with the contract set up that we have, and with m.w.h. work flow, we didn't recognize the cmdc, all of the different ones that we've recognized, even on this call. so we're revisiting, we're vee evaluating so we -- we're reevaluating, right, so we know more. >> i just have a question, pertaining to caroline. your official position to the chair is? >> i am the project manager. >> you are the project manager? >> yes. >> let's get some -- let's get some organization here. commissioner harrington has been waiting for a while. he has a question. may we let him answer and get some dialogue in? thank you.

commissioner harrington? >> thank you, madam president. i can see why we started off looking at this as one megaproject because we were hoping for the best. but when we had to rebaseline because it was growing and growing and growing, those were more red flags already. these are red flags, and i guess i don't have a crystal ball. i don't if this will end up doing something better, but just blindly continuing the way we're going doesn't make much sense, either. we need to figure out whether there's a better way to do it, and this apparently gives us time to fend out what that might be and giving it back to us in a few months as a package. give me $1 billion and maybe this'll work next time, that's not really a good answer, either. i want to thank the folks that are saying, this is kind of the big deal to blow this up, but

we need to stop for a little while to see if it's the best thing to do. thanks for doing it. >> yeah, and i'd also like to -- i guess the concern is when you say if negotiations are successful, if negotiations are successful, what if they're not? where are we if they're not successful? and do we have a bottom line? what are we trying to get to, maybe in washington or whatever, what we can expect? how far do we go, and do we have any leverage with contractors? is there so much work out there, is there so much of this kind of work out there that they can just do whatever they want to do? is there any leverage, is there anything that we can look at, and -- you know, and how are we organized to do this? you know, i think i'd like to see how you plan to go forward, and i know in this -- this is a

short -- that's why i wanted a little bit more time, and if you're going to divide it up, how is it -- what is it going to look like? i mean, are you doing $50 million? $100? how are you deciding to divide it up? >> all excellent questions, president maxwell. we don't have detailed answers for you today. we have been thinking about that. we have been thinking about how we break up the project into two packages right now along the lines of how they fit together. we also are kind of looking at if this doesn't work, then what does that look like and what are some of the issues that we're going to have to address going forward because if we cancel the contract, that means the site will be vacated, and there's a lot of issues that we have to consider with that in

mind. if you like, when we come back to you, we'll have some of those answers for you, and it'll show you our thinking of where we're going with at this point. those are questions that we're struggling with and that we're trying to answer. >> commissioner ajami? >> one other quick question. have we experienced something like this with other contracts or other projects that we have, as well, or is this sort of a standalone situation? >> i probably can answer that, since i worked on a lot of the litigation associated with contractors and contracts. we have had these kind of issues in the past. it hasn't been on a contract of this side, and we have done some early termination, and it did result in some lawsuits,

and we did resettlement, so we're very cautious about how we do in, and there are some things that we have to consider as we kind of go forward with this. again, these are things that we would talk to you about in closed session, especially if it's going to involve litigation. >> i was just wondering during this past year, all the cost of labor and material and all that has gone up and all these contractors for various reasons are changing their prices, the comments that you made, was that related to this past year, 1.5 years or was it over y'all? but within the past 1.5 years, have we experienced anything like this because of cost of, you know, various issues. >> i'll turn to alan, but i

think the whole thing with this contract is they were delivering packages that weren't going to start to be delivered for two or three years, and that kind of put the risk of the cost back on us rather than on the contractor. >> right. >> so that's one of the things why we stopped the procurement process, and now, that's the good thing. and actually, we're looking at the packages that have to be delivered now, not the packages that have to be delivered later. >> and one quick question, was this contract -- what kind of a contract was it? was it design build own, operate? was it a design build only? sorry. i'm sure it's in there because -- sorry. the bids. not the contract, but the bids that they had, m.w.h. gave us. >> this is a cmgc contract.

>> okay. >> yeah. and to answer the question, what we see on escalation, luckily, for the p.u.c., during this time of extreme escalation, we didn't have a lot out there to bid, but i have had conversations with multiple contractors that locked in low bids with us, that they're going to be hurting. whether it's availability with cement on some projects s cost of plywood that they're using for form work, some mechanical items, too. they're nervous, and our contracts really do not have any way -- it can be tough on the contractors to have those prices locked in. >> thank you. >> thank you. and what do you think are the

things that could be in the way? >> sorry. if it's not -- i think the issue is whether or not the bid packages come back too high and don't reflect sort of what the bidding atmosphere is. as alan pointed out, materials are a big question mark. the ability -- they change project managers on their side, and the ability of that project manager actually to manage this project in a reasonable way, and the third thing, you know, i think that we need to be realistic about if this doesn't work, what are our real options going forward? >> yeah, because i think that will determine whether it's successful or not. i mean, you know, because you're saying here, and if

negotiations are successful, return to the commission, and if they're not -- i mean, i think that concerns me because i don't know whether we have a lot of choices, i mean, for them not to be successful. you know what i mean? if they're not successful, what does that mean? if they're not successful, what does that mean? i know you're successful in trying to get a 10% reduction, but what does that mean if they're not. >> i think we're going to work hard with them to make sure that they can be successful, by negotiations with that, and i've dub that with the president of m.w.h. webcor -- m.w.h., i'm sorry. this is what we need from you, this is what we expect from you, and if you can't deliver it, you need to tell me. you can't wait until the end of

october, november so i can come back to you, commissioners, and tell you where we're at and what our plan b is going forward. >> well, that -- i don't know -- i'm just concerned that, with business people normally, having a kind of a clear idea of how you make money. when you're just kind of floating around -- but all right. commissioner paulson? >> we're talking about finances, right? it's that simple. we're not talking about people not being able to do what they -- what you guys have decided for them to do. this is just about getting the prices in order. isn't that kind of the -- little bit too simple, but

still what we're looking at here. >> that's absolutely what we're looking at. we're looking at the economics of the project of the contractor, making sure that they're not passing on or padding the costs by putting their costs on the subcontractors. we -- we are going to -- we told them, they'd need to bring the price down, so it's all about the economics, and they need to contain the cost, and we need to see solid bids from subcontractors, and we need to say that they're not try -- see that they're not trying to self-perform work like they did in the past. we've told them that's unacceptable. >> that's good. >> yes, that is. any further comments -- what should we look forward to having at our next meeting that we don't have now? >> trying to answer some of your questions that you've

raised today. i think we'd try to address those, but the agenda item, the package, the resolution is the same that we will present on july 27. >> colleagues, anyone else? thank you. thank you all. thank you for your work, and thank you for hanging in there and your commitment to this project. it's amazing project, and thank you for your comment. why don't we open this up for public comment. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment specifically on item 15, dial 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. 146-534-3327, pound, pound. press star, three to enter public comment. we ask that public comment be made in a civil and respectful manner and that you refrain from the use of profanity.

please address your remarks to the commission as a whole and not to individual commissioners or staff. mr. moderator, do we have any public comment? >> operator: madam secretary, we have two callers in the queue. caller, your line has been unmuted. you have two minutes. >> commissioners, [inaudible]. just in the last few days, they published a report on the escalation of prices and why projects are not being built in san francisco. everything in their report is accurate to the point. and the second report is by the civil grand jury regarding the [inaudible] which is also cmgc approach, in which the report

blames the general contractor. this is what i'm having problems. a contractor that is building p.r.t. on van ness is having a problem just like the contractor here. let's stop blaming the contractors and focus on why you're exceeding your budget. you're exceeding your budget one because of your design. your design is flawed to begin with. the second is the risk factor, and let me just tell you one thing. the site is very limited. you cannot have multiple contractors on a very limited site, and you can not come up with this fancy word hybrid. either you build the t.m.c., either you build the design build, or you don't. the third is corruption. you're missing the main point, corruption. gentlemen, let me give you an example. dwayne jones. look at the contractors that are on the project.

midship, they were ranked with $8 million when the bid was $3 billion. how do you think they're bidding to webcor? pennies? azul is also on the project. [inaudible] and then, who do they give it to? azul, and what was azul doing for $30 million when the project could have been built for $16 million because he had to payoff mohamed nuru and the [inaudible] that we are still dealing with, cover up. >> operator: thank you for your comments. unfortunately, time has expired. hello, caller. your line is open. you have two minutes. >> you know, commissioners, you all will never, ever get it. i'll repeat, you all will

never, ever get it. i have information where they want to get rid of one of the digesters. oh, yeah? this is a scandinavian design. do you need to go to l.a. and see that design and learn something from it? you commissioners are [inaudible] putting our faith in harlan. why did you get rid of karen cubic? tony florez? you're talking in circles. stop it. $6 million, now it's $12 million, and now it's going to bids for $20 million. it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know who's behind this. we have half the contractors are crooks.

we need the rico act. you all won't listen, you all are part of the rico act. thank you very much. >> operator: thank you for your comments. madam secretary, there are no more callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. public comment on item 15 is closed. madam president, you're muted. >> there's not going to be a vote on this. supervisor ajami -- >> no, i was actually going to ask the same question, if we are voting on this item or not. >> no, we're not. we're going to have it again on the 27, and then, at that point, we can take a vote. >> just a question. do we have to make a motion to continue or no?

>> i don't think so because -- do we need to do that? i don't think so. >> i think the chair has the right to make that determination. >> yeah, and we did earlier. we took it off earlier, but francesca, guessing here? you're muted. >> it's at your discretion. the chair doesn't have the authority to remove items fully from the agenda, but you can continue this until july 27, and if you have any instructions to the staff on july 27. >> let's just do it through the chair. that's what i'd ask. thanks. >> all right. then through the chair, it's continued until 27.

next item, please. >> clerk: next item is report out from the june 11, 2021 closed session. >> at the meeting of june 11, 2021, closed session, the commission unanimously voted to forward the name of mr. dennis herrera as nominee for the position of san francisco public utilities general manager. madam secretary, public comment on this item? any other comments? public comment on this item. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment specifically on item 16, dial 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. 146-534-3327, pound, pound. to enter the comment queue, press star, three. we ask that public comment be

made in a civil and respectful manner and refrain from using profanity. please direction your remarks to the commission as a whole and not to individual commissioners or staff. mr. moderator, do we have any callers? >> operator: madam secretary, there are no callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. public comment on item 16 is closed. >> thank you. next item, please. >> clerk: madam president, i will read the items to be heard in closed session prior to calling for closed session. >> thank you. >> clerk: item 19, pursuant to government code 54957-b and san francisco administrative code 67.10-b, to consider public employee appointment hiring for the position of general manager

of the san francisco public utilities commission and pursuant to government code sections 54954.5-q and 54957.6, and san francisco administrative code section 67.1-a-5 item 20, conference with legal counsel, anticipated litigation as defend pursuant to california government code section 54956.9-d-2 and san francisco administrative code section 67.10-d-2. item 21, conference with legal counsel. pursuant to california government code section

54956.1-a and san francisco administrative code section 67 mr. moderator, do we have any callers? >> operator: madam secretary, there are no callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. public comment on items 19, 20, and 21 are closed. >> thank you. next item? [agenda item read]. >> may i have a motion and a second on whether to assert the attorney-client privilege. >> move to assert. >> may i have a second? it's been moved and seconded to

assert. roll call, please. >> clerk: actually, madam president, the motion is on whether to conduct the items in closed session. >> well, as i'm looking at it, item 18, that is a motion whether or not to assert the attorney-client privilege. >> clerk: yes. that was my mistake. it was whether or not to conduct the items in closed session. >> all right. so you've heard the motion. yes, francesca. >> so i just want to make sure i understand. the motion, are we planning to do a -- okay. so for items 20 and 21, we do need a motion to assert, so you will do that separately? >> clerk: yes, we can do that. i was not made aware of that. so on the motion to conduct the item, which would be item

number 19, we have a -- we need a -- a -- a first and a second on that. >> i make the motion that we conduct item 19 only. >> clerk: okay. >> okay. i think we need to start over here. >> i don't think we need three separate motions, i'm sorry. i just was meant to say that for 19 and 20, you are asserting attorney-client privilege. i think you can have a separate motion, but just include that in your motion. >> include what motion? >> i made a -- we move -- we move -- the motion and second on whether to assert the attorney-client privilege. that was my initial ask, and it was moved and seconded. now what do we need to do? is that okay?

can we -- >> clerk: yeah. >> okay. it's been moved and seconded. roll call on item 18. [roll call] >> clerk: you have five ayes. >> okay. now does that cover 19, as well? are we covered? she's gone. we must be. okay. thank you. then it's been moved and seconded, and roll called, then we should be able to enter into closed session. >> clerk: please stand by. . >> presidentmaxwell: we are back from closed session . madam secretary,would you read the next item please ?

>> clerk: item 2, announcement following closed session . >> president maxwell: there was no actiontaken in closed session . item number 23. >> clerk: item 23 is a motion regarding whether to disclose the discretions during those pursuant to administrative code 67.12(a). >> president maxwell: do we have a motion? >> motion not todisclose . >> president maxwell: roll call. [roll call vote] >> clerk: we have 3 aye's. >> president maxwell: moving and carry.

madam secretary,is there any further business before this commission ? >> clerk: that concludes your business for today. >> president maxwell: this meeting is adjourned . congratulations ed, hope all is well. >>

>> i strive not to be a success but more of being a valued person to the community. the day and day operations here at treasure island truth in family is pretty hectic. the island is comprised of approximately 500 acres, approximately 40 miles of sanitary sewer, not including the collection system. also monitor the sanitary sewer and collection system for maintenance purposes, and also respond to a sanitary sewer overflows, as well as blockages, odor complaints. we work in an industry that the public looks at us, and they look at us hard in time. so we try to do our best, we try to cut down on incidents, the loss of power, cut down on the complaints, provide a vital service to the community, and we try to uphold that at all

times. >> going above and beyond is default mode. he knows his duties, and he doesn't need to be prompts. he fulfills them. he looks for what needs to be done and just does it. he wants this place to be a nice place to live and work. he's not just thinking customer service, this is from a place of empathy. he genuinely wants things to work for everyone and that kind of caring, i admire that. i want to emulate that myself. that, to me is a leader. >> i strive not to be a success but more of being a valued person to the community. the key is no man is an island. when anything actually happens, they don't look at one individual, they look at p.u.c. stepping in and getting the job done, and that's what we do.

my name is dalton johnson, i'm the acting supervisor here at treasure island treatment plant. . >> can you please call the roll? thank you. >> clerk: (roll call) we have a quorum. >> thank you for joining us today -- >> clerk: madam chair, i apologize -- (feedback) due to the covid-19