thank you. >> commissioner vietor? >> i have questions on something that wasn't reported on and maybe we weren't focused on as much, but thing like the programs. as we start to move into sfip and possibility to later on the communities benefits for these programs that we do some measurement around the community measurement programs and even the public programs, the solo programs that these programs are really for public purpose that don't seem to quite be captured here? >> thank you. >> commissioner, moran? >> thank you. first, let me say that you have taken on an enormously difficult job. we are a large and complex organization and the idea of putting out a rational scorecard on one sheet of paper is daunting. and, as far as looking at this particular document that is important is the intended audience. as i heard you present it, it's something that we would use in public forums and it was referred to us as a lens through which people can see us in the quality of work we are doing. the first question i have is in the

. >> commissioner vietor? >> i'm concerned about the fee conservation issue. the report of november 2012 on storm water fees and really laid out a fact forward that i thought was compelling. i think it's important to look at that. the long range 2014-cycle as an introduction to this concept and addresses this question and i pretty much want to echo and my concern about the conservation approach and it do dove tails nicely and we start to monetizing and looking at the benefits as well as the parallel incentive program would be. i think you capture in your presentation and not much for a fee. i had another question on the infrastructure. it seems that is an opportunity especially on the water shed and roll out to do community outreach toond really have the communication be around look your rates are going to increase, but here is the additional benefits that you will get from your rate increase and to really use that green infrastructure programming as the communication vehicle for the rates. i don't know how to really capture that but it ties in with your slide

. >> commissioner vetore >> vietor. >> there is a difference in the process in regards to public comment. >> city attorneys office. i think that's correct. the administrative code has requirements with respect to protesting contract procurement process. there are no city ordinances mandating a specific protest opportunity for grant. it would be up to the granting department to provide inform -- for that. but certainly public comment would be due process for that to occur. >> commissioner torres? >> council, back to you, under the administrative code the grant producing agency would be the repository for a protest? >> the administrative code actually at this point does not specify any required citywide protocols for grant making. >> so if an agency receives a complaint, that agency can ignore it or does it have to act upon it? >> they have a process by which they would award a grant and then they would themselves determine whether or not the complaint warranted redoing the grant award. >> the witness has testified or stated that there were no protest otherwise you wouldn't know what to do

ially the face-to-face interview and maybe having someone on the panel and maybe getting francesca vietor involved and someone from our staff get involved and present that to the arts commission for their response. if there is no other comments from my colleagues, we'll move on to the second half of kelly's general manager's report. >> that was the first of six items by the way, and that is the easy one. the next update is the rim fire update. michael? >> michael, while you are up. commissioners, i had a question about the trees. >> the question about the value of the trees. as you know the rim fire burned extensive parts of the water shed and we hired contractors and removed all the hazardous trees. the trees don't belong to us. they belong to the forest service. we stacked them and the forest service contracts with the haulers. we got an estimate of the potential value of the trees. we don't have a value for all the trees taken out at this point. the estimate they gave us was about 1.5 and $2 million. a portion of that pays for the contractors that have pulled out in the mills and a por

commissioner vietor? >> thank you. and i would love at some point i think your recommendations sound right on to me and i don't know if it's today or the next meeting to hear from the puc staff what are those recommendations that will be followed up on and some response because it does make good sense to me. thank you very much. appreciate it. >> thank you. >> commissioner moran. i would like to second that. we have made a practice in the last couple of reports that bawsca has presented of giving staff the opportunity to review the recommendations and then have basically adopted them as the commission saw. and if we can head towards that kind of review and outcome, i would appreciate that as well. one thing i would also like to do and you mentioned the water supply level of service goals. we discussed that at some length at our last meeting. and there were several parts to that. one was the restoration of 265 mgd yield and the interruptibles and then finally the -- i guess dealing with the issue of maximum curtailment