really inform us in the direction we want to go and as it relates to cca we're looking at ways where we can make cca work for us in the past cca -- how can we make it a lower cost and use hetchy power and now looking at going after customers and getting more customers using heech hetch hetchy so as far as go solar is concerned we recognize that there is a benefit for go solar and when we were planning to look for other ways to look for funding other than coming to hetchy since we have a financial situation so they can be self-sufficient so i talked to david hofstraw so you can't do a property tax so maybe you can look at transfer tax as a vehicle for funding i mean there's other i think thises that we can do to help move the needle instead of fighting over what program is best. so i think that the dialogue that we have will have at the department of the environment will hopefully be very fruitful and informative but we as a power enterprise our work is not done we plan to meet to meet quarterly there's a lot of challenges and demands put on that agency so we'll come to you with hopefully more information on how we're doing. >>

balancing solutions we had capital cuts deferrals and to be above zero and includes reserves and cca cca $19.5 million reprogrammed. the recommendations before you are consistent with the mayor's proposed budget instead of a half a penny increase over the next 2 years one penny over the next 2 years and that allows us to also resize and borrow more funding and then have a a $155 million worth of capital cuts and deferrals the majority of which are power related we have several next steps before us in the budget process but these two capital plans and with you here today in particular the capital plan as well as the financial plan, we plan to come back at the general manager as we do in the quarterly budget report and review. and i'm on slide 6 right now. we'll also give you updates as far as where we are on the pge negotiations and anything to do with debt service as we go into borrowing funds the first time in the fall and previously i should point out before the mayor's proposed budget now we only need to borrow about $45 million so a significant amount of progress has been made over t

cca and all the other ccas that were being contemplated or that now have come to life in municipalities throughout the state of california. that was an amazing victory for us. and i tell you, in the shadow pg&e's reach, we were holding secret meetings at the golden gate bridge authority office between marin clean energy, their attorneys, and former supervisor who authored the creation of marin clean energy, charles mclash in, who has since passed away, a very untimely loss, and myself and members of the city attorney's office here in 2009 and 2010 for the express purpose of envisioning a jpa with marin. we were not sure if we were going to be able to break out of the yoke of pg&e back in those years so we were investigating efforts on several fronts. and one of those fronts was the legal construct of developing a jpa with marin should marin be able to progress. and i have to tell you, what they have been able to do in marin is quite impressive. and i don't think we should let their lessons be lost on us and shy away i think from what had been envisioned some years ago, that if san francisco can't do it on its own, then what we should do is huddle with the other municipalities, small, medium and large, and begin to rethink how a cca can grow, strength in number. and we may want to do that, i think, with marin and with any other municipality. and that's exactly what should happen. but i am so disappointed to see actions by city hall, present company excluded, that would at least attempt to gut or attempt to bury for good any effort of cca. and i want to thank the supervisors who have come to the rescue, i think, of this very critically important endeavor that goes back now a good 10 years since the first major public power campaign of 2001. thank you. >> thank you, sheriff. are there any other members of the public who would like to make public comment at this time? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> supervisor avalos, thank you for joining us. i know you were rushing over here from another meeting. so, appreciate you being here. we've gone through the item. we've had a great discussion about it, and i would like to know if there is anything that you would have to say since you are the person who pu

and already action needed at that point is for the community to ask the required cca ordinance watching the cca program and requesting formal membership in the program. we'd need to revise our implementation plan to add the new community and the signature page and we formally add a new director to our board of directors from that community so that they can sit on the board and participate in decision making and policy setting going forward. so, that's the process that's set up for affiliate members. i should also mention at the point for that membership occurs there are no other costs that the community is asked to pay for. at that point m kirk kerkorian -- mce takes care of all the marketing procurements, reserve cost of all those costs recovered by mce after membership occurs. so, i just want to emphasize that i spelled out the process for smaller communities. the process for a larger community may be different, may be more costly, but that's something that our board would likely be willing to take up if a formal request was made. >> thank you. >> thank you. okay, we'd like to open this item

cca partnership with marin were similar to that of richmond. that didn't require the money down and so -- >> and i do appreciate that, but i just don't think that a conversation about the cca reserves should be happening within the context of the overall budget. i think that should be a separate conversation. if there's a desire to reprogram cca funds that should be brought to us separately and not within the context of the budget. i wouldn't be supportive of this budget that reallocated cca money and i want to make sure you understand that and i would prefer that conversation be completely separate. until we have something on the table to support cca and some clarity around what we're going to need to spend, i'm just not on the same page as what p ec and the mayor thinks on this particular issue and i want to make sure you know that. thank you. >> any further questions? supervisor avalos. >> just wondering if there were any other options available from taking funds from cc a a reserve? >> the other option is a larger rate increase for the general fund. or more cuts, potentially lay offs in the event they kind of big if picture for a moment, in water and sewer we have rates and charges that cover costs. for our third enterprise power, we don't have that same issue. in fact, our key customers, and luckily we've been able to do

cca work which i will now take over so we should be okay if we follow the patterns. if there is a interest to do things not cca related we would need to have a discussion but we can have that discussion as time moves on. >> okay. i am just reviewing the chart here that you provided with the budget. it seems like the biggest changes to the budget are service of other departments where there is a $25,000 reduction. looks like that is almost wiebed out. it was $28,000 to begin with and we will have $3,000 left. $15,000 from lafco staff and legal and consultant services. that's the next big ticket item and proportion to the largest allocation we have for this fund. everything else seems shaved off. do you see any challenges in place while the 44,000 that is being removed from our budget? >> as long as we stay fiscally prudent, no. one thing i should mention some of the numbers are shaved down because they're not to exceed rates and talking with the clerk's office i asked what have we spent in the categories over the last years and all of the numbers -- even if we continue to spend at current pattern with inflation we would stay within that amount. at one time we brought for other stuff and now it's brought in house to the clerk's office and we don't pay others but just the clerk's office and wrapped into the services we pay them so that's why that number dropped dramatically and we haven't come close to that amount in the last years. >> i am concerned about the reserve of other lafcos around the state if you could do work and understand what the reserves typically are or a range from. that would be good to see. also this budget if we were to approve a budget of this size we basically and we fund cca work but we don't have other work that will be budgeted or this budget would allow us to do other non cca related work including research or researching other issues, possible municipal w fior banking. could you respond to that. >> yeah. if you take the assumption we will continue with the pattern of returning the money we would have 300,000 less in the act so we spend 100,000 to 125,000 and make it easy and make it 150 that would leave 150,000 in the reserves for other projects and things in the course of the year but that spends down the reserve if we spend the entire 150 but we have room to do side projects as needed if requested by this commission to do so. >> great. thank you. and so are you recommending any particular action? >> well, you need to approve the budget and the question that comes in and discussion at the last meeting and i yield to the commissioners themselves to determine if we give back the money, or one of the things we could do is we're reserving our right and i

cca is already hired and is already getting paid and is available to be dedicated to cca. so the upshod is that none of the financial woes of the sfpuc has nothing to do with whether they spend time on this program or it goes forward because it's self-funding and there is staff already paid to deal with it. i want to specifically speak to ab 2145 and ab 25159. 2159. these are both urgent, it's especially urgent to stop ab 2145 because if it passes cca will essentially die in california and it will be as if prop 16 passed. the leaders on both ever these issues are definitely calling on individual supervisors to make the trip to sacramento next week on monday for ab 2145 and on wednesday for ab 2159. to make the case, we really want you to go the extra mile on this and i will email you later today letters that you can sign onto and the people to contact about those sign-on letters to get them to the assembly members. thanks >> thank you. there are no other members of the public here and we'll close public comment on item 3 and go on to items 4 5 and 6. >> item 4 is approval of the contract with the enernex for tasks under a not-to-exceed budget and item 5 approval of the contract with san francisco community power on an as-needed basis subject to the prior approval by the commission for tasks not-to-exceed amounts and item 6 approval of the contract with the mrw and associateds an as-needed basis subject to prior approval by the comm

cca. the power revenue boundz bonds are needed the first time and the capital cuts because the rate increases were not as much ever with the programming of cca and another millions plus was cut the general manager and i shadow here last year we're still cutting a large number of critical capital we go through every project and they score antonio's across four regulatory and financial and the implications we know we had to take two off hype with the rim fire it's impersonal potentially he million dollars of dollars of potential revenue lost because of the providing critical electricity to the muni sf entertainment commission system and the stoplights in san francisco. that's the difficult balancing we do. there's over $2 billion of capital needs over the next 20 years what you see in the capital plan and we've required to update that every year and bring that back to the commission and discuss the finding $1.2 billion in house/senate over the next 2 years and that's the cuts and deferrals so the cuts that mr. kelly mentioned will be sixth and we've been talking in the billion dollars for heft and this is what mr. kelly mentioned on the voters told us to do this largely there budget a few has come in over the supplemental more money for the damn replacement and the power infrastructure we've been discussing that and i'll share about the street lights needed additional money for this is needed so our 8 point plus million dollars capital plan the largest will be the sewer system over the next 10 years about $5.5 billion of the 8.1. in water we're seeing smaller numbers and thank you to the board for previously passing more water places being built. larger pooimdz is providing millions of glances of reliable water to the bay area. we've completed 3 to my left $.4 billion has been that issued in bonds we're averaging 4.3 percent we'll need additional money if the supplementals their 89, 10 and 11 items before you today >> mark call 9 through 11. >> yes. mr. chair. item 9 the appropriating approximately $360 million for the prepayment bond and water depositing for the capital improvement from 2014-2015 to 2015- 2016 and item 10 the ordinance prostrate approximately 2 hundred and 15 million house/senate cap and trade for the house/senate power improvements for the fiscal year 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 and 2015- 2016 and ordinance amendmen amendments. item 11 ordinance prostrate 9 hundred and 61 million of revenue bonds for wastewater improvements for 2014-2015 and to 067 and amending ordinances >> and finally on the water system improvement the proposal is 15 miles a year of water main replacement interest so the key water projects that are still under law part of the 19 percent of that's not done the placement to be on track by 2018 and 2019 as well as the bay tunnel under the bay. >> todd sorry. what was the actual date that was programmed for the cal berries damn i know we have the conditions on the hillside do you recall >> it was 2018 from about a year ago so this is a few more months that's been detailed with the mitigations we've dealt with. the sewer system improvement program the average utility the biggest cost the digest rebuild in operation since 1952 so it's $7 billion over 20 years and $2.7 billion has been endorsed by the commission and that's included as well as many our 10 year capital plan as well as the supplemental being requested. the largest supplemental being sewer related that's $951 million in our agenda today and other key work is in the 15 miles of sewer remnant you'll see several sections of road we're cooperating with other you'll see activities for the next several years making sure we replace what needs to be retained. the sewer mains includes over one hundred miles a year for condition assessment we're targeting those surgeries that are month at risk for collapse and we've spending and stretching the dollar. the house/senate program that includes the programming of 19 and and a half million dollars assumes $1.2 million i've seen over $2 billion over the next few years the numbers will be large every year. we've we've tried to stretch out by issuing power revenue and water revenue bonds for water and where it's warptd and looking at whatever cash funding and that will be inclusive of the cca money being reprogrammed. the financial solvency item this is to supervisor avalos point in addition to the details numbers we've provided your respective offices they summarize into this slide as well as the key alternatives what they could have been without the cca programming they have higher generated increases faster and the revenue bonds that is a higher general fund district rates over the next 10 to 20 years. or one other item is the general obligation bonds as recently as the 1970s some of the equipment needs and facilities meets for example, the street lights used to be funded by the geobonds there's a lot of needs for the geoprogram and the needs to out strip the property taxed affordable so it means higher property tax that's a trade off. the capital deferrals every time we look at this we're trying to balance and minimize the risks so we've made one hundred and 55 million cuts on top of that that's the best if we have more cuts in capital deferrals i have to responsibly t

cca, correct? >> i think that's a fair statement. we've had nearly 2 years pass and the parking the market is getting more comfortable with the experience of cca's and one thing that's also unique when we last visited this program 2 years ago on the shell negotiations, that was for a product that was a 4 and a half to 5-year negotiation known priced product whereas to the degree you are not having known rates over the next 5 years, that's, that's gives you less certainty it would really depend upon, you know, what all the particulars are of the program and the program design how long the rates are guaranteed or knowable or known, and so when we were negotiating with shell north america it was a price certain amount of power that came with reserve requirements that were included in that 19 and a half. >> and i have a couple of questions on the go solar program i understand now the proposal -- some of this might be for miss hale and some of it might be for you -- how much have we invested so far in go solar since the launch of the program. >> $24 million and i believe the actual spending has $20 million out the door but i know miss hail has done a