tv Public Utilities Commission SFGTV December 3, 2021 9:00am-12:01pm PST
>> madame secretary, please call the roll. [roll call] commissioner maxwell? commissioner pahlsson will be joining the meeting in progress. commissioner harrington? >> here. >> you have a quorum. >> thank you. if you would read your statement. >> yes. due to the ongoing covid-19 health emergency and given the public health recommendations issued by the san francisco department of public health, and the emergency orders of governor and the mayor concerning social distancing and lifting the restrictions on teleconference, this meeting is being held via teleconference and is being televised by sfgov tv. for those of you watching the
live stream, please be aware that there is a brief time lag between the live meeting and what is being viewed on sfgov tv. on behalf of the commission, i would like to extend our thanks to staff and sfpuc staff for their assistance during this meeting. if you would wish to comments on an item, dial 4 415-655-0001 meeting i.d. 146-782-3999. we ask that public comment be used in a representful manner and refrain from profanity. i see that commissioner maxwell has joined. >> thank you. before calling the first item, i'd like to announce
that the san francisco public utilities commission acknowledges that we all are stewards of the unceded lands located within the historic territory and other familial descendants of the federally recognized mission san jose band in alameda county. the sfup cruxer also recognizes that every citizen residing within the greater bay area has and continues to benefit on the use and occupation of the tribe's aboriginal lands since before and after the san francisco public utilities commission's founding in 1932. it is important that we not only recognize the history of the tribal lands upon which we reside, but also that we acknowledge and honor the fact that they have establish add working partnership with the sfpuc and are flourishing members within the [inaudible] -- >> hi. >> bay area communities today.
madame secretary, if you would call the next item. >> first order of business is item number 3, adapt renewed findings under legislation to continue to allow remote meetings during the covid-19 emergency, continue remote meetings for the next 30 days and dprekts the commission's secretary to agendaize a similar commission at the meeting within the next 30 days. >> commissioners, any comments or questions? if you would open public comment, please. >> members of the public who would wish to make two minutes of public comment specifically on item 3, dial 415-6555-0001. meeting i.d. 146-782-3999, hit pound twice. again, this is for item number three.
mr. moderator, do we have any callers? operator: there are no callers wishing to be recognized at this time. >> thank you. >> thank you. public comment is closed. may i have a motion and second on the item? >> so moved. >> i saw commissioner maxwell's lips move so that is a second. call the roll, please. [roll call] >> you have four ayes. >> and the item passes. next item, please. >> next order of business is item number 4, approval of the minutes of november 9,
2021 and i would like to note that i did receive a substantive edit to the minutes for item number 2 on roll call. it should be noted, it says ayes and the commissioners president. that should read "present" and i need to indicate on these minutes that commissioner present was not present and that was omitted. those are two changes that need to be made to the minutes. >> ok. any additional questions or comments? public comment, please. >> members of the public who would wish to make two minutes of public comment specifically on item 3, dial 415-6555-0001. meeting i.d. 146-782-3999, hit pound twice. again, this is on the minutes of november 9.
mr. moderator, do we have any callers? operator: madame secretary, there are no callers wishing to be recognized at this time. >> thank you. public comment on item number 4 is closed. >> ok. thank you. and then on the item with the corrections indicated by the secretary, could i have a motion and a second? >> so moved. >> second. >> second. >> both been seconded. call the roll, please. [roll call] >> you have four ayes. >> thank you. next item. >> next item is item number 5, general public comment. >> members of the public who would wish to make two minutes of public comment specifically on item 3, dial 415-6555-0001.
meeting itself 146-782-3999 ##. to raise your hand to speak, press star 3. mr. moderator, do we have any callers? operator: madame secretary, there are three callers in the queue. >> thank you. operator: hello, caller. your line is open. you have two minutes. >> caller: hi, the redistricting process for the city's districts has already
begun. sunset parkside education and action committee will be advocating for the oceanside treatment facility, the reservoir and lake merced to be redistricted from the 67 to district 4. since the redistricting would have no impact on p.u.c. operations, the expectation is that the p.u.c. would take a neutral position on these issues. speaking about the oceanside treatment facility as a water pumping station. in, god forbid, the p.u.c. should actually move forward with drinking water [inaudible], the merced manor reservoir would play a key role. lake merced which has had a slimy green film on it for decades. if lake merced was used, i would get all over [inaudible] schools, homes and businesses. if the green water was used, the drinking water pipes would need to be flushed out afterwards and it could take about one and a half to two days. if merced manor reservoir and sunset reservoir basin were drained for fire fighting they would also take about one and a half to two days to refill.
it should be noted that sunset reservoir south basin has not been seismickically retrofited and. the p.u.c. has no plans to do so. in conclusion, there appears to be a number of major logic flaws in the potable water [inaudible] concept. thank you. operator: thank you for your comments. next caller, i've opened your line. you have two minutes. >> caller: thank you. this is policy director for the river trust. at the last meeting, we were very pleased with the comment that commissioner harrington made that it would be nice to have some metrics in the water supply update that looked at environmental indicators. such as the health of the salmon run. and dave horder, i'm not sure if he is on this call today, i think he is on vacation. but he sent you a letter with a sample, which i thought was
really well done and i would encourage you to direct staff to include that in the report at each meeting. and dave really deserves a commendation. he's done a lot of great work over the years, a couple of years ago. he put together a probability analysis of looking at the likelihood of the eight and a half-year drought occurring. he found it extremely unlikely and we did find some evidence in the long-term vulnerability assessment that supports that. your staff has never done a real probability analysis. it would be fairly easy to do and occurrence interval for design drought and we encourage you to direct them to do that. dave also did the scatter plot that showed that earlier run-off in dry years will benefit the sfpuc's water entitlement and it is nonl
wet years that you lose entitlement. so, we do a lot of work. we try to give you ideas to provide information to help you make your decisions. staff doesn't just run with these things. they really need direction from you. i hope that you will murder sue -- purchase those three items i mentioned today. thank you very much. operator: thank you for your comments. next caller, i've opened your line. you have two minutes. >> caller: hi, i'm the chair at the southeast facility commission and i just wanted to say a couple of things. one, thank you so much for the investment in the 5050 evan facility. it is beautiful. it is coming along well. we would like to invite you to come and take a tour if you haven't. a recent tour, if you have not. the last thing i was curious about, the hetch hetchy reservoir, how is it doing with the drought and with it being more increases in costs
for san francisco residents. thank you. operator: thank you for your comments. next caller, your line is open. you have two minutes. can you hear me now? loud and clear. >> caller: great. dave pillpal. good afternoon. first thing on the commission's rules of order, i had an opportunity to go look back at those. apparently they have not been revised in just over two years. i would encourage someone to take a look at those and perhaps bring back revisions at a future commission meeting. i would clarify the public hearing notice section. i found it interesting with today's hearing on declaring a drought emergency, which is pretty significant.
did not require a prior public hearing notice. as opposed to change in rules or bylaws or, you know, $100,000 program for green infrastructure or something. which does require a prior public hearing notice. i might add some verbiage there about certain types of public hearings requiring additional notice beyond what's otherwise required in law. you could also add language in there clarifying the the consent calendar procedures that have come up a couple of times in recent meetings that the only way something can get pulled from the consent calendar is orally, at a meeting, by a member of the commission or the public, etc. i think that is understood that it's not on the rules of order. next item, i anticipate. the revenue bond oversight committee annual report at
the next meeting. i did notice on the advanced calendar that there are now proposed budget meeting dates in january. i'm wondering what the times are so that i can get those special meeting times on my calendar because, hey, the p.u.c. budget, that is very important stuff. and finally, i look forward to the power distribution infrastructure development investment scenarios. that are referenced -- that work is referenced in the contract advertisement report later on on item 6b. i hope when that work is completed or -- operator: sorry. your time has expired. next caller, your line is open. you have two minutes. >> caller: hello. i just heard i was unmuted but i was not planning to speak on this item. operator: apolicies, peter.
there are no more callers in the queue. >> thank you. public comment for general public comment is closed. >> commissioner harrington? >> i realize we don't normally respond but there were two items that came up. one was the request for information about hetchy and i think that will be item 11 today so it would be noise if the person could stay online until that item. and our budget meetings, i believe, are from 9:00 to 1:00 on those different days. >> you're muted. >> next item, please. >> next item is item number 6, communications. >> commissioners?
>> there are requests that are not either responded to or scheduled for a commission consideration. so, just call that to the general manager's attention. any other comments? >> thank you, mr. president. we'll get on that. >> ok. public comments, please. >> members of the public who wish to make comments dial 415-6555-0001, meeting i.d. 146-782-3999 ##. to the raise your hand press star three. do we have any callers in the queue? operator: madame secretary, there is one caller in the queue.
hello, caller. i've opened your line. you have two minutes. >> caller: thank you. i'm going to talk about 6b in communications about solar on reservoirs. thank you for bringing this report forward. i mentioned this before, taking you back to my time of living in the outer sunset and i noticed that sunset reservoir was half covered with solar panels. and i've advocated to you that i think certainly the higher and better use for that property is the extent of leaving it simply as bare concrete that the remainder of it be covered with solar panels so we can continue to generate more clean and affordable energy for the
people of the city and county of san francisco. we must leave no stone unturned or square foot of [inaudible] unturned in order to achieve our goals of producing this clean, locally produced energy. not only because it is clean, but it is resilient because the more that we can produce within the boundaries of san francisco, the less we have to be reliant on having it transmitted from other places. so i think we should act on these recommendations in this report as it seems to me. and certainly build more of this solar capacity. it's good for the city. let's not lose this empty space uncovered. thank you. pray thank you for your comments. madame secretary, there are no more callers in the queue.
>> thank you. public comment and item number six is closed. >> any further comment? seeing none, next item, please. >> next order of business is item number 7, the bay area water supply and conservation agency update presented by nicole sandkulla. >> good afternoon, president moran and members of the commission. i wanted to speak to you today about the potential for a multiparty voluntary agreement for the tuolomee river. as an alternative to part of the delta bay plan. the governor's secretary for water policy stated in a letter to you on october 20, that to date the angsts do not meet the threshold requirements for state board's analysis and approval. that is unfortunate, but it
is the reality and you must deal with it. bosca agrees that the fish and the environment around the river must be protected while, at the same time, this commission must continue to provide a reliable water supply to bosca constituents and alameda and santa clara counties. san francisco and the districts have been actively negotiationing an agreement with the states for two years. in the letter, the governor's secretaries make it clear that they maintain hope that such a multiparty agreement with san francisco and others is still possible. your commission is responsible for the san francisco regional water system which gets 85% of its water supplis from the river and which provides essential water suspect please for 1.8 million residents, 40,000 businesses and hundreds of communities in three counties. rejection of a voluntary agreement for the tuolomee river threatens its system and water users with a reduction of 90 million gallons a year of drought
use, requiring them to reduce their use by up to 50%. today, other water sources are not readily available. this is not acceptable. so i ask what is your plan to protect the water issue. ignoring it is not an option. kevin mullins from san mateo county who represents more than 500,000 water users in his district has acted, asking to organize a strong support group in the three counties to help get this issue settled. it includes residents, local governors, governments, legislators, union leaders and hundreds of silicon businesses. the group is ready to help and it seems obvious that your commission, as the water provider, also must act. basca believes that they should confront this issue and act without further day and debate. it is your responsibility to provide a reliable supply of high-quality water at a fair
price for basca's water eyesser and preserve the river with adequate protection for fish, other wildlife and the environment. i was impressed by your new general manager's comments about these issues at basca's board of director meeting last week. his agreement with these responsibilities and his determination to meet them. i look forward to working with you, mr. herrera. so, my question to the commission is, what are you going do about this issue now? bold, creative leadership is needed and i know the commission can provide it. basca expects nothing less. we're ready to work with you and mr. herrera to resolve this challenge. that concludes my remarks. let me please answer any questions and wish you all a happy thanksgiving. >> thank you, nicole. i note that commissioner paulson has joined us. welcome. any comments or questions?
ok. i'm sorry. vice president? >> thank you so much for your commentary and i personally don't think we are trying to ignore the issue, it's just trying to figure out the smartest way forward from here and hopefully planning the right path forward that we can do all of those things to be bold and making sure that we're protecting the environment while also providing water for the needs of our broader community. but thank you for keeping us on point and on our toys. >> my pleasure. thank you. >> any other comments or questions? public comment, please. >> members of the public who would wish to make two minutes of public comment
specifically on item 3, dial 415-6555-0001. meeting i.d. 146-782-3999, hit pound twice. mr. moderator, do we have any callers? operator: madame secretary, there is one caller in the queue. hello, caller. i've opened your line. you have two minutes. >> caller: hello. it's been almost three years since the state waterboard adopted phase one of the water quality control plan and lawsuits and pursuit of voluntary agreement have stalled out that process for three years. last year the salmon run was about 1% of historic numbers and this year it looks like it is half of what it was
last year. and you know about the fishery service peer review of the science behind the river voluntary agreement. very scathing. basca had a presentation about a year ago. we responded with a 15-page letter. never heard back from them. i don't think they're that confident with the science. but it is convenient to be able to point to something that doesn't require the river receive anymore water. i ask you this. do you think the tuolomee river agreement would do anything for the bay delta? after all this is the water quality control plan. in an average year, only half of the fresh water that naturally flowed into the bay delta [inaudible] and only one-third. the river voluntary agreement produces a very, very little additional water and you heard the number again, 50%
rationing. i remind you that is based on an 8 1/2-year design drought that is extremely unlikely. it is based on 25% higher than it is today. and it assumes the sfpuc isn't developing any additional water sources. all those are very highly unlikely that makes it suspect. they don't want to run out of water, but they are not getting the facts and it is really time for this commission to take a look at the design drought and modify it to reflect reality. operator: your time is expired. madame secretary, there are no more callers in the queue. >> thank you. public comment on item seven
is closed. >> any further comment, commissioners? next item, please. >> next item is item 8, report of the general manager. mr. herrera? >> thank you, madame secretary. mr. president. the first item is a quarterly audit and performance review report from charles pearl will be presenting. >> good afternoon, commissioners. this item is our quarterly update for our audit and performance review for the first quarter of this year ending september 30. the documents that have been provided to you, commissioners, are -- include a cover memo as well as audit summary and the progress by audit in terms of where it is in the queue. as well as this presentation. next slide. so here is a high level audit review of the audits that we
have in our plan for the current year, commissioners. 24 current audit plans and you'll see we had tremendous amount of activities happening just in the first quarter while only three have been completed, we have another 10 that are under way. a little over half of our planned audits are either done or progress to speak of. and i'll provide a little more color on that in a bit. next slide. so, here's the three audits that were completed during the first quarter. the first one listed here is the 2020 post audit and that is for calendar year 2020. this review is a controller's office overview of the accounting transactions at the sfpuc. it looks at internal control practices and, of course, compliance with city laws. and the report was completed in august and it highlighted some area, of course, the
strengths that we have as an agency beinging able to handle incredible numbers of transactions and being organized and the typical sort of strengths were highlighted but also focused on some of the weaknesses and, of course, areas of improvement and, again, being such a large agency with many, many transactions. there's always room to grow and do better and our general commitment and response to the findings were that we would do that. some of them were just wanting to take advantage of early payment discounts, making shhh you are that we get the proper sales tax correct on our invoicing. and paying invoices in a timely way. so, the standard sort of things and our accounting
team, along with the decentralized processing of our transactions are focused on making improvements where we can to take advantage of those early payment discount and that sort of thing. the second report is the wholesale revenue requirement audit for fiscal year 2020. this annual audit is a function of our water supply agreement with our wholesale water customers and this particular report was completed in august as well. this looks at our operating and capital costs and how those are allocated between our retail water customers and wholesale water customers. there were two observations or findings in this report totaling about $230,000. again, the main issues here were the cost was allocated one way and should have been another way. and so our overall magnitude was a cost shift in faifrp of our wholesale water customers, again to right around $230,000. to give you a sense of magnitude, the wholesale revenue requirement was $260 million for 2020 san this is
about 1/10, 1%. but dollar-wise small and still important that we get things correct. and we concurred with the auditor's findings and we began by looking at ways of grabbing these issues and making sure that we don't make similar sorts of allocation errors in the future. this one was performed by the california department of tax and fee administration and it was conducted as a city-wide review. and so the controller's office was responsible for this review and really the main review here is to make sure that the proper amount of sales tax or used tax was pay on our procurement as a city. there was $170,000 in findings and about 14% of
that or just around 24,000 was allocated to the p.s u.c. and that was based on the number of transactions that we have. relatively small but we do our best to make sure that our payments are as they should be. here is the open audits and i'm pleased to tell you -- sorry. audit audits and open recommendations. we currently do not have any at the moment. we had one audit recommendation that was closed during the quarter as noted here related to the energy center audit but the controller's office composed this recommendation. so, currently we don't have any findings. we have quite a number that are in progress so stay tuned for future recommendations that we'll be keeping track of here. in terms of things under way in the second quarter this year, we have several audits
noted here, quite an amount of progress as i noted earlier has been made. the physical inventory count is a function of our financial statement work. again, just trying to tie a physical inventory and our warehousing to our financial system and accounting systems in the financial statement. the verification audit is a clean power assessed audit. again, associated with that program's energy certification. that is an annual audit and also i believe has been completed in the current xwaerts and that was for 2020. -- quarter and that was for 2020. the revenue bond oversight committee is looking at water, waste water, bond proceed spending. we have a draft report that we're currently viewing and that audit report will be coming out shortly with some recommendations as well.
and the community benefit, program audit, also draft report, is being reviewed and will be -- that report will be coming out shortly as well. this quarter. probably early december. in terms of audit reports that are coming up, we have the fiscal requirement audit for last fiscal year. we have the sfip program management contract audit. that is an infrastructure audit looking at overall contract program management activities. their field work has gotten under way for that program management audit as well as data gathering and staff interviews. we also have the annual financial report. these are the fiscal year-end, fiscal '21 year end financial statementss for each of our three enterprises as well as the popular financial report. i will -- i did want to let
you know that our financial statements normally come around, normally are issued thaner time. -- around this time. there are issues citywide with actuarial variation of some post employment benefit expenses. so we're looking at a late december-early january issuance of the financial statements for fiscal year 2021. there's been a lot of activities in this area of audit work. again, the social impact partnership program audit draft is currently in review. and we are expecting that report to be issued in early december. so, later and later this quarter. we also have some staff interviews and data gathering for the main public integrity audit that is under way for
the sfpuc, again associated with our former general manager and the charges -- the federal charges that were associated with some of the activities with the former general manager and those will be -- those interviews and those activities will occur over the next three or four months. and so we're expecting that report to be issued in the third quarter. so, after the new year, probably later in -- later in the third quarter of the current fiscal year. and then the program management audit, that is expected to be issued later in fiscal year, probably closer to may or june of next year. so, just to give you a sense of the timing of the issuances of these reports. a lot of activity has been under way, a lot of data gathering and meetings have been occurring with the auditors. with that,i'm happy to take
any questions from you all now. >> thank you. and thank you for your highlighting the public integrity elements of the program as well. i know that is high on the commission's interest i list and we look forward to seeing those. any questions or comments? commissioner harrington? >> thank you, president moran. on these audits, is there a process where we automatically get copies of them, where you send copy where is they're important or we get them as part of this ?rortsz for example, public integrity audit. we'd all like to see them as soon as they're ready to go. i'm wondering what the normal distribution process is. >> yeah. we will receive -- well, i'm assuming that we will receive draft reports as we do with our other audits in advance. and i think that, you know, at that point, we will, you know, just work on providing any clarifications that are
needed to make sure that the reports and the findings and the findings are correct and accurate as being the main goal for us. once they become public, we'll bring them back and include them as part of this quarterly update. >> i'll asking that we not be wait for that. when these audits are ready to go, i'd like to get copies of them. >> you have my assurance that once they're finalized, you'll get them before -- you will not have to wait before there is a quarterly update. they are important enough and you deserve them as soon as possible. once they're finalized and ready to go, we'll get them to you. each commissioner. >> that would be great. thank you. >> vice president? >> thank you so much for the presentation. i've asked this before as well. i'm curious if we have
concrete ways that we can improve our process and procedural things to make sure that, you know, things are going to run smoothly and there will be no problems in the future. obviously audits are very valuable. regardless of, you know, certain -- specific circumstances. but, you know, i just -- i'm just wondering if we are coming out of these -- and i asked last time, too, when we had this conversation. i would like to know what kind of concrete changes are we making in our -- in the way we do things. >> as i mentioned, for all audit reports where there is findings, there are -- there is a summary that is provided that provides a management response to the recommendation n. that management response, of
course we'll work on an internal statement and work through the general manager's office to provide a written statement to the auditor in terms of what our commitment is to the recommendations that are coming out of the audit report. and those are very -- they can be, you know, -- they can be easy. they can be -- they could provide more information or be more complicated. please reorganize your process. some of them could be done very quickly or done a little longer. the thing to look for will be the management's response to the recommendation and what timeline we're on for providing the follow-up. of course, commissioner, there is other ideas that you and other commissioners have where we can take the recommendation in a particular direction. we are happy to work towards that. no question.
>> and who oversees the implementation process? >> well, we -- so each audit has an audit manager within the respected area where the audit is occurring. me and my team handle this piece of the coordination and communication publicly of all the variances i noticed. there is a lot of audit activity going on. so it's just trying to coordinate and collaborate and ultimately every manager that has the audit occuring in their space is responsible for figuring out what is our recommended response to the recommendation and how can we go about making substantive change to our operations as needed?
of course, we'll make sure that those are, you know, they make sense. the approach makes sense and they're truly meaningful in terms of the recommendations. as they -- as you said, the new sort of -- send it down the chain of command, it becomes sometimes more difficult to see if they're implemented, if they're working. if this is the right thing to do. so they're making sure that there is a central way that we can have, you know, two-way feedback loop communication would be very useful. maybe that is what you're saying. but i just want to make sure that things aren't lost in the process. >> so the controller's office will -- they keep track of
the recommendation and they report out on them publicly, every six months. we are held accountable. we as an agency are held accountable to the recommendations that come out of their audit report. in that we not only are stating the management's response as x and we'll get to x done by y date, but they want us to show that we've been able to get done what we said we would do. and we do what we say we would do, essentially. again, we're happy to expand or elaborate as we get the -- there will be some recommendations coming out of the audits that are currently under way and we're happy to think of doing this in a different way. no question. in terms of information sharing and follow-through.
>> there was the tracking of open audit items. there was a time when we actually had quite a backlog of unresolved audit items and that has been brought down, as you see to 0 at the moment. the other thing i hear in your question is that certainly i expect from the management team within the p.u.c. is that not all integrity functions are a question of audits. there is the need to take that on as a fundamental part of what the management process is and to make sure that their procedures are being followed. and that is every manager's [inaudible]. >> yeah. >> any other comments or questions? mr. herrera, back to you. >> sorry. mr. president, public comment on this item? >> ok. go for it.
>> members of the public who would wish to make two minutes of public comment specifically on item 8a, dial 415-6555-0001. meeting i.d. 146-782-3999, hit pound twice. to raise your hand to speak, press star 3. mr. moderator, do we have any calls? >> there are no callers in the queue. >> thank you. public comment on item 8a is closed. mr. g.m.? >> thank you. the next item is a quarterly budget status report. laura bush will be presenting. >> hi, everybody. hi, commissioners. laura bush here. i'm here to present the first
quarter of fy-21-22 budget variance report to you. overall, we're seeing positive operating results projecting for power and operating shortfalls for water, waste water and clean power s.f. and water and waste water, revenues are down significantly from budget due to firstly the impact of water conservation effort due to drought all cost by a 5% drought surcharge effective april 2022. secondly t delayed economic recovery from covid-19 negatively impacting volumes. as a reminder, we set this budget about a year ago and recovery is not taking place as quickly as hoped. you'll remember from the last time i went presenting to you in q4, the last fiscal year, the results were driven by the same issue as well. the revenue projections include the impacts of the covid-19 emergency customer assistance program.
the power of revenues are expected to reduce budget due to higher energy prices and this is partially off set by increased [inaudible]. clean power s.f. is showing a slight operation shortfall and are set for a [inaudible]. while this is concerning, the financial results are meeting the our policy target. next slide, please. i'm going to quickly dive into each of the enterprises to explain what's driving the results. in water, we have a net operating result of - $31.6 million. on the sources side, total sources down by $32.9 million. largely driven by slower recovery than expected, combined with a drought conservation measures
impacting volumes. these projections do include a drought surcharge of 5%, beginning in april. and the value of that is $3.4 million. offsetting those negative variances in sources of 1.3 million promised savings. with waste water, similar story. net operating results are - $25 poise 7 million. on the sources side, this is largely give driven by slower recovery than expected and drought conservation measures.
again, this includes a drought surcharge beginning in april. and the value of that in its projection is $4.3 million. on the usage side, they are offset by a 1.3 million projected savings in salary. hetchy, we have a positive net operating result in hetchy. this is dr*ifpsen on the sources side. largely by wholesale sales being higher than budgets due to higher energy market prices. we are seeing a $4.9 million cost savings and this is actually mainly driven by close-out of purchase price due to higher power prices as well as reduced generation. we wanted to note that this is something that we're still working on. any curtailment could lead to generation in wholesale sales and increased needs of our purchases meet demand. this is not assumed in the current projection. we'll provide an update in q2. in clean power s.f., as i mentioned before, slight -- just slightly negative net
operating results. sources are up by 29.2 million due to the rate change and then on the usage side, resulting from higher energy market prices. lastly, slide. all the ratios are on target to meet the sfpuc policies. that s a it. any questions? >> commissioner paulson? >> just one question. the very few million in the salary and benefits, is that based on attrition or could you explain what those few people are aggregate in the report? >> it seems there are savings across waste water and clean power s.f., driven by vacancy positions to date in each of those enterprises.
so, if a position is vacant up until the end of q1, we can count on saving in the projections. it's vacancies. >> thank you. any other questions? seeing none, public comment. >> members of the public who would wish to make two minutes of public comment specifically on item 8b, dial 415-6555-0001. meeting i.d. 146-782-3999, hit pound twice. to raise your hand to speak, press star 3. mr. moderator, do we have any callers? operator: there are no callers in the queue. >> thank you.
public comment on item 8c is closed. >> and back to you, dennis. >> i have nothing further to report. >> ok. thank you. next item, please. >> next order of business is item 9, new commission business. >> seeing none, next item, please. >> next item is item number 10, the consent calendar. >> commissioner harrington? >> commissioners, i have a question on item 10a. i'm not sure i have to pull it up to be able to ask a question. what is the procedure? >> if it's a quick question, just ask it. >> great. thank you. the idea of having the kubota -- nothing in here tells us
the difference in price, though. while it is a great idea, how much more is this costing if we use what we would have regularly used? this is the question. i'm not sure if that is quick or not. >> well, the question was, ms. miller? >> good afternoon, commissioners. just to give you a shortened, abbreviated response to that, the materials themselves are about twice as expensive as normal pipe and fitings. however, materials cost is about 10% to 20% of our total contract cost so, overall, it increases the contract by 5 to 10%. >> thank you. >> ok. commissioner maxwell? >> you're muted. >> on b, i just have to pull it. because i have a couple of questions.
on 10b. >> mr. president, you're muted. >> anything else, commissioners? ok. then let us open this to public comment on the consent calendar with the exception of item b. >> members of the public who would wish to make two minutes of public comment specifically on the consent calendar, dial 415-6555-0001. meeting i.d. 146-782-3999, hit pound twice. to raise your hand to speak, press star 3.
mr. moderator, do we have any callers? operator: madame secretary, there are no callers in the queue. >> thank you. public comments on the consent calendar, minus item 10-b is closed. >> on the consent calendar, except for item 10-b, do we have a motion and a second? >> so move. >> second. >> both been seconded. roll call. [roll call] >> you have five ayes. >> consent calendar then passes. for item 10-b, any discussion? >> yes. i have discussion requested. on item 10-b, is the increase
because of the new delivery method? originally we had one delivery method and now we changed so did the price go up because of our change of the delivery method to a design? >> commissioner? >> hi, commissioner. yes. with the change in delivery method with a standard design build, we went to design-build-process so that was attributed to that. >> all right. so why -- why -- why the increase? >> the increase has to do with -- with the fact that originally when you plan a design bid build you bring it to a certain level and then
with the increase, it actually -- we were producing technical bridging documents so that's a function of our -- more of our specification layout drawings that we needed to perform. to develop that. >> so, it took phase one to come to that conclusion. i mean, it says that after phase one, you came to the conclusion that you needed to have one person that -- that one entity that would be in charge. >> um -- >> it says -- it says that staff determined that the most effective delivery method to meet these objectives on treasure island development authority and phase two work was rescoped so that the design-build project delivery would
provide a single point of responsibility. but it took you a while to decide that. i'm just wondering, what was your -- you know, when you first came to us, the $4.8 million, why did it take that to decide to come become and ask for another $1.2 million? >> so, usually when you start a promise, you go through the planning phase. and within the planning phase, you go through your needs assessment, your alternative analysis and conceptial engineering report and that helps us wrap up the planning. as we were wrapping up the planning process, the c.a.r., we went through our management and then, from that, it was more determined that to deliver it quicker, sooner, it was more efficient to go through a change from design to build to design-build. and then that the time, the
way we had scoped everything, it was to help wrap up our document. typically we go to bid and award phase where the consultants help us support, answer questions during the bidding. then at that point it was the most expedicious to rap up the amendment with the cmd. then knowing in the future there could be a possibility for us to come back to you. at this point we didn't exactly know. until we wrap up all of the documents and everything else, we thought it was more expedicious to come in, get the amendment done or the wrapping up of the bridging document and helping us with the award.
>> maybe i can help a little bit. initially, commissioner maxwell, when the contract was let, it was going to be for planning only. at the end of the planning phase there wouldn't be preparation of bid documents. at this point when we go to design-build we need to wrap up to have documents to put out on the street so the proposers can bid against. that is what we are looking for now assistance in wrapping that up to get the documents out to the street and support us during the bid and award period. adding to that is support during construction when the reviews come in and the support r-5 and that kind of thing that is what the additional amendment be would be for later on for design support during construction. >> would that have happened if you had gone with original method of delivery?
>> we still would have had construction support during design. it would have been increased. this will since the design-builder is designer and builder designer will resolve issues in the contractor's team. it will be less in this delivery method. >> that's it for me. thank you. >> thanks, commissioner maxwell for bringing that up. i have the same concerns. cost overruns. it concerns me when this comes up if this 4.8 contract for certain things ends up being 7, 8, $9 million, i wonder if we may have had a bit different for
folk that bid on this. we may have selected a different firm to do the work if the work is changing that much. how much lee way do we have. we selected you for this. we want a different thing instead? is it okay with civil service to do that? it is partially a question and partially a comment. at some point it has to be changed so much that someone says you can't just amend this contract. you have to go out and try again. that would be for you, mr. duran. >> typically we would look to the city attorney's office for that advice on contracting. i think it was the scope of the work significantly changed that would be the case.
>> has that ever happened? changed scope on some of these things dramatically. >> i think our cmgc contracts probably at one point during the evolution of designs we switched to cmgc. you are looking at the planning stage to look at different delivery methods and going through the alternatives. once the memos develop by the team and reviewed by the general manager the decision is made on delivery methods. for design services, they are somewhat parallel in the early planning phases. they change a lot during the delivery method in terms of responsibility. >> maybe you could take a look at having a policy that says this is too far. this is enough that we can make
these changes. this is too much of a change. maybe we need to do something different or bring in a different way to make a decision whether it is the right contract? >> i hear your concerns, commissioners. now that we have a new general counsel at the city attorney's office that is something we can task the office with working within from structure folks to, number one, go back and look at scope of changes. it seems like you may be interested in. number two, to see if we can going forward set up guidelines about how we look at what is the proper amendment and what might require going out for new bid. i will call in cheryl with the
infrastructure team to review back so we can do something going forward. >> that would be great. thank you. >> i have another question. is there a way that when we start looking at a project that we can evaluate the best way to go move forward? now we have had experience with any number of delivery methods and any method of kind of projects. is there a way to get something checked, make the checks. this is number 3, number 5, check marks to think about which delivery method we are going with. when you present something to us, we have a reasonable understanding of how this is going to go forward. this is another huge project. how are we going to do that? when will we have an opportunity to -- i don't think i was here
when we looked at the scope. i would like to have an opportunity to look at the scope and what we are doing here. >> couple of things. one is the item itself. the other is the question raised about the process. commissioner maxwell, as far as the item itself, have you satisfied or do you want to continue this to a future meeting? >> i am satisfied with it. i would like to red flag. >> commissioner paulson. >> listen, i am wanting to be as diligent as all of us. that is why i took this particular position. coming from at least part of my career from the side of construction, especially some of the massive things going on right now with the public
utilities commission, sometimes things take too long and then nothing gets started or gets done. i hope this does not turn-out to be more than just due diligence. it is wonderful that he said i am here right now and we are going to take a look at this and see if we can have other goal posts. all commissions have to be as dill get as they want when there are things that are contracted out. i have been on a job where all of a sudden some machine got built in some factory that nobody knew what the heck it was. when it finally came in. they said move the wires up 2 inches. a contractor said it is rubbing
their hands they want to gouge us. $10 million. we go crazy. not necessarily public project but like this. the diligence over gouging and people taking change orders and running with them is something we need to be diligent about. setting up a process that is going to just slow and delay and continue to not get these many things we are working on, that part raises a red flag to me, also. i am going to be as diligent as my colleagues want to be. i like the answer you had, mr. general manager. listen, i have a new attorney. let's see what is going on. let's explore how to deal with effective nonobstructive way what cost overruns are. on a construction job you have a five year project and 0% -- 90%
is taken care of. then something is zoned differently. there are changes that are made that is just the nature of what construction is. you don't get a bid and get everything that when you have hundreds of million dollar projects. i don't want to slow down that process. i am telling you that is what i am hearing as a concern. i will be as diligent as my four other colleagues to make sure we have better methods to lead the way by agencies in the city. i am not going to be an obstructionist. thank you. >> a couple thoughts. we have before talked about the way in which progress on capital projects is reported to the commission. one of the difficulties is when
you start with an idea you have a program of projects going to cost $100 million. things are added to the list. it is hard to track when an individual item comes to the commission what is going on here. i know there are staff looking into that to see how to improve that. i think that is related to this. second thought is that when an item comes to us, often it is not easy to pick apart the various things going on. this one several things are going on. it would be nice if the discussion in the written material had a pattern so the obvious questions were answered ahead of time. we knew not just all five things added up to a price but the various things going on here. the third item is that in our
thinking about the capital program in general, we end up getting trapped into putting pretty high expectations on some very flimsy estimates. when you have a 10 year capital plan, you are dealing with very summary kind of analysis and they would probably tell you 5 to 10% complete design. very tenure us numbers. those go public and we answer for. it would be great to figure out a way of somehow splitting that so at some point we say, okay, we have done enough exploration here that we have the as builts, we know what is in the ground. we looked at the problem. we have come to a conclusion as to the scope of the project, the
price estimate is better than 10%. at that point then we lock it in. that is a process question that will take considerable thought. as we look at how we track the capital program, all of these things. i would encourage you to try to come back with a process that not only makes senator the sense construction side but also for the general public. >> vice president ajami. >> maybe we have this. do we have some tracking system to collect data on all of these projects that we do, cluster
them around topic area, for example, recycling plants we designed and built. these are the, you know, other projects or main breaks. all of these things. they are all like the work in different categories. i wonder if you have a ready available tracking system for not just for us but for you guys. actually for people who come in as brand-new employees to be able to say, you know what? we built three of these things. every time it cost this much. this is how many times we had problems. this is who did the job and the problems that happened along the way. something more readily available to and accessible to the broader
group. maybe we have that. i am wondering if we have that. >> i think -- i will give an answer based on my experience with the commission. we have a lot of data. the amount of data is not the problem. it is how flexible it is. >> i am looking for a place where these are organized and i can say these are the projects that have been done over time and this is how it has happened. these are the projects in this topic in this area. somehow we have to use data, not just collecting data. how you take it and turn to knowledge, information and efficiency at some point. i wonder if you have something like that. >> we did start to develop that towards the end of the water system improvement program.
we collected data. we don't have a system to make it easy to click on and sort. that is the challenge. we actually need to increase our staff in that lessons learned area. our audit area, too, that is something we need to improve on. >> thank you. i think that is laying out a rich agenda for a future discussion. with respect to item 10b. public comment, please. >> if you have public comment on agreement number pro0073. dial 415-655-0001 --
(146)782-3999. (146)782-3999. >> do we have any callers? >> there are two caller in in e queue. i have opened your line. you have two minutes. >> commissioners, i was listening to this agenda item. i haven't be been listening to the agenda items prior to this. i would say in the private sector we would not have so many change orders. fundamentally when the bid is put out, you choose the low bid. from in lies the crux of the problem.
one of the commissioners wants to know if previous projects were done she would get the many change orders. sfpuc. the subway started with $600 million. now it is close to $2 billion. it is also with the improvement be project that started with $6 million. -- $6 billion and we are at $12 billion. intelligent human beings would think like the commissioner who wants to know, okay, if a project was done before what type of line items or timelines and goals were set so i can refer to it? nobody wants to be transparent.
nobody wants to have accountability. thank you very much. >> thanks, caller your line is open. you have two minutes. >> david pill plow. can you please give the callers a 30 second warning. i have been cut off before. you can't time myself while checking notes and watching the screen and everything else here. it is too many things to do. 30 second warning would be good. on this issue i have said before and continue to believe outside engineering staff augmentation should be limited, should be for
specialized services or for short term project work. i continue to be concerned that where there are ongoing needs for staff for engineering, design management, design services, construction management, etc., that we should increase staff and manage the staff within the various infrastructure burrows, reassign staff as projects ramp-up and ramp down, and rely less on outside consultants. i am not saying don't at all. rely less on outside consultants. the more we do outside consulting the more we run into issues without side consulting and problems. i would really try to minimize that on a slightly different be topic i noticed at the beginning of the meeting vice president
ajami took water from a cup. i hope it was metal cups with the logo i love the brand on camera. there you go. thanks. >> it is hahhachi water. >> public comment on 10b is closed. >> thank you. commissioner maxwell. i know staff is trying to reconnect. she indicated her comfort with the proceeding on the item. public comment. >> i will move it.
>> commission mer paulson. >> second. >> roll call, please. (roll call). >> you have four ayes. >> the consent calendar item b passes. next item, please. >> next item is item 11. public hearing, discussion and possible action to declare a water shortage emergency for the san francisco public utilities commission. presented by mr. ritchie. >> i will share my bottle as well. it is always on my desk. thank you, commissioners. good afternoon. assistant general manager for
water steve ritchie. i am here to talk about the water shortage emergency. something clear and has been for the better part of at least a year if not more california is in a drought. in response to the question that came up earlier in the meeting. the storage is at 267-acre feet. it is a decent place for this time of year when taken as a single thing by itself. there are bigger issues. total storage is about 72.7% overall which is below about 80% which would be normal for this time of year. as i begin this discussion i am going to focus initially on some of the curtailment issues. they actually put a dent in those number that is significant. last thing to say is i think i have been talking about this since about june that we were
probably going to need to take some action at least in early january if conditions did not get better in the fall. they haven't gotten better. the initiation of curtailment of diversions made a difference in our outlook. those curtailments went into effect for the river diversions on august 20th. curtailment be orders are in effect one year managed by the staff. it was a month to missouri -- month-to-month basis. now it is day-to-day. the curtailments eliminate access to the water bank for our benefit. it represents loss of currently about 340,000-acre feet of storage that is not accessible to us that we can benefit from
it. curtailments were suspended october 19th by the state water board staff in anticipation of the large atmospheric river coming through to allow people to divert water to their systems. that was a bit of a help. certainly those could be reinstated. the expectation is the state is going to reinstate curtailments as early as next week given the current conditions. it doesn't look like storm on the horizon. rent storms helped. the drought remains. >> what are we doing? we asked eliminating. because of the way the water bank is set up and operates it would be best if the state could
take action to allow us to utilize as intended. if curtailments remain we look at health and safety exception for diversions to allow enough water to supply 55 gals per capita per day for the service area. through the tributaries we have filed suit against the state. we think they are actually not appropriate and do have some issues in terms of implementation. what we are facing is uncertainty what the state board staff is going to do at any time relative to curtailments. they keep modifying what they are analyzing to carry the curtailments forward. i will show two scenario slides here. not meant to scare anybody. these are dealing with the facts we have before us.
what this graph shows is a projection of the design drought storage. the blue line from the upper left corner 1.4 million-acre feet of storage down to dead pool at the end of year 8.5. that is the design drought we have used in the graph cal form. that is the average change intoration if --toration if curtailments were in effect. the yellow curve is what is happening this year or last couple of years in terms of drought where it is below and above the line. then you see the effect of losing access of water bank during curtailment period which drops 340-acre feet there. you see that little bump at the end of that was the october
storm. we projected hear what 10% -- excuse me. 10% water use reduction would do system-wide for us during that remaining drought period and what 20% water use reduction over our system and whole delivery system would effect during this period. you can see that if curtailments remain in effect that the amount of water use reduction or rationing really doesn't make a big dent. you have to get extreme level to do something. by itself given curtailments water use reduction doesn't do the job. next slide is a different picture. this is one which is a little more realistic but still projecting what we don't know in the future. what we did in this curve was to take those same conditions in terms of the average storage
change in design and had the low line is the current drought. put on to that assuming hydrology going forward that is similar to the 1987-1992 drought. you can see in this case that 87-92 period did have a couple wet spikes in it. you can see there at the end of year 3 there is a bump up in water supply working under the assumption the state water board as they did during the past period were to temporarily lift curtailments. you see a similar bump up close to year five. these are projecting potential wet conditions during a drought period that we have experienced in the past and could experience in the future.
they are not unrealistic. applying to that the 10% reduction and 20% demand reduction would achieve using the red dash line. what you see is you end up being able to survive much deeper into the drought if we end up with slightly moderated hydrology. still drought but moderated hydrology. that is what we are taking into account to plot the course forward as we move into more dry periods. we hope not too many more. we don't know and that is the challenge we have to deal with. this slide basically shows the effect of those declaration of water supply emergency. it goes through the step in the process. first box on the left is urban
water management plan a water shortage contingency plan. that is what do you do when you have a water shortage? that was written the water plan. this would trigger that plan. it also triggers a drought surcharge which we will talk about later. basically the purpose of the drought surcharge which was something we established in the rate package in 2018 would be to provide the condition was able to increase rates with still within the cost of service but in a way that maintains revenue stability, which is an important thing in a system like ours. the water shortage contingency plan triggers the water supply agreement water shortage allocation plan. that plan within the water
supply agreement lays out a method for how to divide up water between the retail customers in san francisco and the wholesale customers. we refer to that as tier one split. we designate how much water is available to the system and split by defined formula between san francisco and the wholesale customers, taking into account san francisco uses overall a much lesser amount per capita than the wholesale customers. the next step is one which is not actually triggered. reductions are not mandatory. if the commission were to decide that the reductions should be mandatory there is a retail water shortage allocation plan with a process by which water is allocated through retail customers. voluntary, not mandatory.
i want to make sure it is there for your information to know that is the next step in the process if things get worse. this results in call for conservation folks and communication team working hard on outreach to make sure we achieve the desired level of water savings. what we are proposing with this declaration is baseline fiscal year 1920 with 1 the -- 19-20 we propose that because it was realistically the first two-thirdsway pro-pandemic. we are looking to reach back for a good measure of performance.
also just happens to be the last period by which and the wholesale customers agreed on the immediate results. we are in agreement on the data using going forward. that baseline 197.4 million gals per day. that resulted in overall target of 177.7 million gallons per day. i note at this point if we achieve that that will be a good step. if for some reason we don't see performance among our customers retail and wholesale, we could come back to the commission in a few months looking for a higher level every deduction or put it into mandatory restrictions. it is a more detailed matter to deal with. >> you are beyond your 10 minutes. how much time do you need? >> three minutes more.
>> go for it. >> okay. the split for the water shortage allocation 64% wholesale and 36% retail. wholesale 113.7 million per day 13.7%. retail would require 2% reduction. under water shortage allocation map we agreed that the retail water target use would be 5% reduction. those are the water actions. potential rate actions are on the retail side declaring the drought surcharge is triggered by the process and not to exceed 5% surcharge for water and wastewater in april 2022. eric sandler is here to answer questions on this topic.
higher whole sale rate increase in the wholesale side. recent water use. san francisco shows big number in reduction. we believe that is largely driven by the fact the economy has not recovered. not due to conservation. we think that will come down. wholesale customers achieved 9%, we think 8% reduction. we could declare victory but we think it will change and we need to keep on top of this as we move forward. basically, the drought persists. curtailmentses order damage ability to manage storage and add to uncertainty. the severity of emergency. we believe customers can achieve
the reductionsness and a chief revenue. the water rates will likely be increased. thank you very much. happy to answer questions. >> questions, commissioners, for mr. ritchie? >> vice president ajami. >> thank you. can you at some point make some sort of a slide or something that shows the situation we have with our water bank? i still cannot wrap my head around the limitations we have there. i would like to have that as a reference to better understand what needs to happen in the future. do we need to change our strategy there? it would be wonderful to have that.
you know how that functions but i would like to also like to have that. >> we can try to do that. the simplest version. the water bank was set up in the way it is the district water. they will take that in lieu of river water when we are in dry times. that is district water. they can't take river water at this time. they are not able to pull water out of the water bank. we are not able to get the benefit of them pulling water out of the water bank. that is the crux of this. the agreement was not designed to anticipate curtailments with people's ability to divert water. >> the question becomes how do we need to change the strategy,
especially when it comes to water bank and trading water in that way in order to make sure we are protected as a city and the river is not going dry. the districts are a playing partner in this process and getting more droughts. everybody is trying to figure out how to deal with it. the state is getting much more involved and trying to put different management practices in place to deal with the environmental quality or ecosystem quality. there needs to be rethinking. i would like to do that rethinking now to be ahead of the game. >> i take that challenge. we should keep in mind this is the first time the state scatter
board issued curtailments. it was never anticipated. we will work this in. we have myriad issues we are in constant communications on. this is one more to add to the list. >> i recognize this is the first time. i am not saying it was before. i would like for us to anticipate what is coming next. >> commissioner harrington. >> thank you for the information. when we heard about the curtailments, i thought there would be a huge issue. when i look at your slides, it seems like the real issue is the curtailments affect on the water bank, not the system. we have heard that it may be that the state board could change that and have a curtailment of the system as posed to each individual
reservoir. if i look at your slides and your graphs, it looks like if the water bank didn't have that curtailment be. the issue being it is the concern much more than between the reservoir. we would be on target with the regular drought with curtailment if we could fix the water bank issue. am i looking at that right? >> i haven't looked at it exactly that way. that would be cautious to say that is right. we have looked at it without curtailments, but experiencing the drought. at the level of demand we are talking about, which is basically where we got the last drought, we end up in a decent position. i would say that, yes, curtailments would be an issue. yes, if it was done in a different way, we probably would have about a much better chance
of success through extended drought. >> do we have anyway of helping the state make a decision on water bank curtailment discussion? we have asked. i don't get the impression it is moving or we are just mott hearing? >> a little of both. it is not moving and we are not hearing. i know there is a letter that says peter talked to somebody there. they think it can workout just fine. the devil is in the details. the version they were looking at had two issues. one was the details actually probably mean water transfer, realistically. flat-out water transfer from districts of san francisco which is a tough thing to do. second was the comment, of course, all we care about the state water board is to control the solidity at the pumps.
it didn't say delta outflow. does that mean we are arguing about water curtailments to protect the pumps? that is not a position that i reallish being in. >> if i could add a couple things. the last point first. state law has the obligation to maintain water quality at the pumps. that is the legal obligation. that is one of the reasons we have been reluctant to take on responsibility for the delta because as it stands it is not ours. that is one point. as far as water bank. it is worth a discussion about the bank. it can be a limited discussion. one factor of it, though, that is in the pedro and belongs to
the irrigation district and they can ask it. state boards says come up with agreement with irrigation district. why would they want that? they have 340-acre feet of water to use to irrigate crops if it comes to it. that is especially value when the state board is doing curtailments. there is a high negative incentive to agree to any other way of managing it. that would be a complicated negotiation that would have to be something on the other side to make that happen. >> i want to say that is why as you are going to experience more of these droughts, longer, more frequent, hotter once, everybody has to adjust to them in different ways.
we have to figure this out. systematically, yes, absolutely we have to look at the system. as a utility we can be ahead of everybody figuring out what needs to happen both at management side and at the demand side to figure out how to come up with different programs. this is broken. how can we go to the next one that will work for everyone. >> i agree with that. i think we have made the task more difficult by virtue of the state board order. as matter of routine as water agency forever we have had to deal with the hydro uncertainty in the system. the added uncertainty of not knowing where the delta plan is going to do adds another layer of uncertainty. now there is an additional level
of uncertainty not knowing whether the board is going to impose or lift curtailment restrictions is another one. every time we add uncertainty the planning has to be more conservative. as we try to look at more flexible way of doing things, all of the signals we get from the state say we should be more conservative, not less. we have made our job tougher. >> i would say some of those uncertainties you are talking about are in response to these more extreme events that we are getting. it is not just normal uncertainty you deal with. it is more intensified climactic conditions we are experiencing especially during the last 10 to 20 years. at least projecting forward it t
is not going to get any better for a while. i think we should -- again, we are saying the same thing. we should be much better at managing the various level of uncertainty. not more conservative, more strategic. nor flexibility in the way we operate. we think that flexibility is in place. the water bank is giving us flexibility. now we are sort every thinking how to do -- we are rethinking how to do this. >> that is for a very large discussion. that whole conservatism thing is very difficult. we have it inherently flux
waiting water supply. we should develop water supplies less dependent on the weather and regulartory action. reclamation is the biggest. that is part of the process as well. >> who said the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns? >> rumsfeld. >> it goes back aways. >> any other comments or discussion? commissioner paulson. >> i just have been really impressed that i am sitting on the commission that has two former general managers on it and somebody who deals with water for a living. i think that is an incredible bonus to have this discussion. i know that with brown act and whatever else, the quote-unquote
discussion has to happen in a certain way. i am sure that can be maintained. i am in -- i should say less well enunciated terms that is exactly what i am thinking about. that is aberration of the curtailment and actually looking at, you know, in one particular place all of these different reservoirs and who has access to what and putting that into the context and looking at it as to what else can we add with our discussion to steve and his team that are dealing with this every day even before the drought in terms of managing the stuff? this was part of item 11 was very fruit full discussion. thank you, commissioners and
steve for spiriting this discussion under the drought conditions. thank you. >> thank you. are we ready for public comment? i think we are, madam secretary. please open public comment. >> two minutes of public comment. to raise your hand to speak press star about. call (415)655-0001. >> there are four callers in the queue.
>> i have opened your line. >> commissioners, i want you all to listen very carefully to what i am stating to you today. because of the infrastructure bill, they have stated to us that billions of gallons of water are leaching into the ground. why are they talking about this and something else when we don't pay attention to our water pipes and how many millions now considering the san francisco public utilities commission are leaking into the ground? in realtime we can find this out. we don't discuss this. we built around it.
secondly, if we take the. [indiscernable] we have to find out. [indiscernable] why have we taken on i.b.m. and gave them millions of gallons of water. sometimes if it is toxic water. now, many in san francisco do not penalize because they conserve water. you know they are going to have turkey day soon. about this and that and the other. you don't go to what i have been speaking forever. how many millions of gallons of
water leach into the ground from our pipes? come on, man, give me a break. you must we educated on issues. all of this talk can be technical and technicality doesn't take you anywhere but to that place. >> thank you. your time expired. >> next caller two minutes. >> i want to express support for the staff recommended action. the state is personsing the record drought. also impacting san francisco regional water systems available water supply. at this time it is important for all of us to do what we can to reduce water use.
member agencies and customers are using record low amounts of water we will do more to best prepare four selfs for this continuing drought. in fact. you are making 20 residential customers and 30 of the agencies use less than 55 gallons per person per day which is a threshold for public health and safety and the average residential use was 63 gallons per person per day. 10% reduction results to achieve 14% cut back. with our low water use right now this is not going to be easy but our water customers have stepped up in the past. we are committed to working to step up again and a chief each critically important water use reductions. thank you very much.
>> you usually have a slide on reservoir storage. mr. ritchie did give numbers. last thursday he presented one of those slides. total system storm was at 1,048,000-acre feet. delivery last fiscal year 2020-2021, enough to last four and a half years. the second slide showed if the curtailments were lifted during wet periods, sf public utilities
commission could get through year 7. they could manage a doubt other than we have seen in the last 17-years. they are trying to manufacture another crisis. they have done it before. i have asked mr. ritchie have you approached irrigation district about voluntary water sharing agreement? he did not answer. you need an answer. if he did approach, what was response? was it that they wouldn't have interest because now they can make off 340,000-acre feet in the water bank? that wouldn't be be in good faith. all you are asks is to honor the water bank we agreed to in the agreement. second thing is wise to ask
mr. richy what is the urgency here? we have time to negotiate an agreement with the irrigation district. i don't think this needs made today. we know the state cares about state in the san joaquin. they have an agreement. >> your time has expired. >> next caller. your line is open. two minutes. >> david pill pow. 30 second warning. i don't expected to need it. i support the declaration and understand from the staff report and discussion this may change in the future based on water and snowpack conditions, demand usage, continued negotiations with the state, district, god,
anybody else. i would hope that there is a regional message in the media and elsewhere that includes sfpuc, east bay mud, potential customers about the need to conserve and if it rains on a given day we are still in a drought condition. my thanks to steve, ellen, paula, julie, debra and the rest of the staff for their work. [please stand by]
drought emergency that does exist. it's not an unusual thing that we would be doing at this time. it's how we implement the plan that we have already agreed on. any other comments from the commission? seeing none. can i have a motion and a second? >> commissioner: i'll move. >> commissioner: second. >> president: roll call, please. >> clerk: [roll call] you have five ayes. >> president: okay. next item, please. >> clerk: next item is item twelve. accept and expend federal funds sourced by the american rescue plan act of between 21. this will be presented by erin
frank. >> hello commissioners. i'm here to talk about some funding we're expecting to receive from the federal and state governments for our customers' crude utility bills. next slide, please. the american rescue plan act a.k.a. the covid stimulus bill allocated the state of california funding to choose how they would distribute. california's one of the only states that chose to get some of those funds to pay off customer bills, the utility bills that accrued during the pandemic. i especially want to note our own external affairs advocated for the creation of these programs and so this is something we're really excited to come to fruition and sfpuc did play a part. the two programs that were created, one is for water and waste water, one is for power. they're administered by different state agencies and different timelines that have roughly the same lay-out and
framework. in general, customers who had unpaid bill from march 2020 to june 2021 are eligible to have a portion of their debt paid off. in the case of the water programs, they sent out a survey to all across the state asking what are the total accrued interest. that means we'll get our full amount that we've requested and there will also be money left over for the waste water program after the water in the spring. on the power side, the funding is split between municipal utilities, community choice advocators, and industrial utilities such as pg&e. the survey there found that there's actually not enough funding in the program to meet all the administrative need. so in the case of our power program, it's only going to get
about half of the funding they've requested. and you can see this on the next slide. so this table is showing the estimated amount that we expect to receive from all three of these programs. you can see waste reporter there, we do think we'll get funding, but we don't know how much at this time. one thing that i especially want to point out is that on the water side, the program has determined that it can not only pay for arrearages, customers with unpaid bills, but also can pay for discount programs that we ran during that same time period. that means the emergency discount programs will be implemented as well as our low income discount will be paid for by the state. we're really excited about this decision. i mentioned that the clean power programs are only getting about half of what they requested. so the total that's shown here is the allocation that the state has told us to expect. one thing that's really important to note is that these numbers are not totally final. there's a really big need to
roll out these programs and get the money to customers as quickly as possible. you know, they are still suffering. customers aring looking at scary debts accruing. we want to make sure we get these funds out the door. as a result, we have a strict timeline for when we need to get the money to disburse it to customers in order to meet state requirements. so we're in the process of submitting our final application and we won't know the total amount we get until we are literally applying it to customer bills. so what this agenda item is structured as an amount up to or expected funding. in fact, in the last couple weeks, since we finalized the agenda items, we did get good news from the state from the water program. the one thing i particularly want to ask of you commissioners is that we're suggesting an amendment to the resolved clause as written to add another $500,000 to the 'up
to' amount to get it out to customers as quickly as possible. i have that amount, i can definitely answer questions on that request if you have any. next slide, please. so we're applying for right now and we expect to disburse the funds for the power program and the water programs in december and as i mentioned in the spring, we will have the process on the waste water side. obviously, we are required to do outreach about these programs, but we're also planning a pretty comprehensive outreach to customers. it's important to note that this program while it's a huge win, we're really excited about it, will not pay off all the debt that our customers have accrued. it's only for that specific time frame. so we will not be able to reach every customer. as a result, we're li thiing about right now, this commission has passed a collections moratorium.
so what that means is we are not shutting off customer's water or power. we're not putting property tax leans on unpaid bills and we're not assessing late fees. that's currently expected in march of 2022, at the end of march. we are proposing that we do not restart our collection until all state funding has been disbursed to customer bills. it's obvious that's a better way to do it than to just start shutting people off when they are still expected to reef money. we therefore think it's going to be back with this proposal to extended moratorium from its current end date and a full comprehensive plan to restart collections in a phased manner for customers who still have unpaid bills. we're trying to strike the right balance of being generous to those customers suffering from covid-19. so, you will hear a lot more on
that. there's a lot of discussions ongoing about the supports we can offer, discount programs. expanding our existing payment plans and i expect that you will see a presentation on that in the near future. with that, i'm happy to answer any questions. >> president: vice president. >> thank you so much for your presentation. a couple questions one is about the waste water. is that money going to come out of that extra $500,000 or is there a different allocation for that. i'm just wondering how that whole thing is going to play out. >> i think we'll have to have
another agenda item for that. >> so we have already put a request, they have not told us how much we will receive on that. >> they haven't even started the waste water program. they basically said they want to complete the water program, get the funds out the door and then they'll return to the waste water. >> so the $500,000 will be divided between water and energy. >> we think it's the water program for the total that we're expecting to receive is going to be higher than what's currently listed in the agenda items. >> okay. and what was the reason we did not receive the full amount for what we asked for in the energy side? >> there's a total amount allocated to all power facilities at the state level. so they did this survey that asked what are are your total arrearages and funds available.
so the state did an allocation based on kind of bare end of the legislation what the requirements were. so we're getting about half. >> okay. got it. thank you so much. >> president: commissioner harrington. >> thanks to all the staff getting this done. how does this relate to the item later in the budget? you know what the connection is? >> yeah. with the two power programs, the clean power sf, we included an assumption of the amounts we expect to receive on the quarterly budget report. on the water side, we did put a number in there because we've been getting mixed messages from the state on what exactly the total will be. so by the time we're back with the budget forecast and january
and the budget reports, we will have those final numbers and have them incorporated. >> great. thank you. any other questions or comments? let's proceed with public comment and the comments should focus on the item as included. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make public comment on item twelve, dial (415) 655-0001. to raise your hand to speak, press star three. moderator, do we have any callers? >> madam secretary, there is
one caller in the queue. >> secretary: thank you. >> hello, caller. i have opened your line. you have two minutes. >> caller: can you hear me okay? >> loud and clear and i'll give you a 30-second warning. >> caller: excellent. david pilpel. i think there was a typo in the staff report, but i'll focus on the resolution on the last whereas and in the resolved clause i think in the last whereas where it says disbursed p.e.r.s.a.t. and in the resolved, the first line the commission hereby authorizes the accept and expend up to -- maybe of up to and perhaps with the resolve that the commission requests board of supervisors approval. anyway. just something to clean up those last two clauses.'
it's not entirely clear to me if the funds actually go to customers because there's some language in here that it goes to customers. it seems like it probably stays at the p.u.c. and arrearages, the outstanding bills. my thanks to aaron and friends and to marge viscara and friends at customer service. i'm assuming at the board of supervisors, this may require both and apply for or not an apply for, but both accept and expend resolution and supplemental ordinance to appropriate the fund and just so i don't have to call again and this could be it, my prior comments on engineering services also apply to item 14. thanks very much. happy holidays. thanks for listening. >> thank you for your comments. madam secretary, there are no more callers in the cue.
>> secretary: thank you. public comment on item number twelve is closed. >> president: thank you. and if we can have a motion and a second on the resolution with the additional $500,000 and the spelling and grammatical errors corrected as appropriate. >> commissioner: i'll move. >> commissioner: i'll second. >> president: moved and seconded. thank you. roll call, please. >> clerk: [roll call] you have five ayes. >> president: the item passes. next item, please. >> secretary: next item is item thirteen. for a term of five years with one three-year option to extend the term. this will be presented by mr. dunn.
>> good afternoon, commissioners. my name's charlie dunn. i'm a prop f employee with real estate services. the item before you is -- for consideration is to extend the child care lease. with wu yee children's services. the use of space is for license by the california department of social services for up to 70 infants, toddlers, and preschoolers. first preference is for children who've permanently reside in the 94124 community. the proposed lease is for five years with one adoption for an additional three years and the city has certain rights to determine the lease. the proposed rent is one dollar a year.
some of the unique included on scholarships for the 94124 residents, quarterly attendants reporting to the southeast community facility commission and the parents before the southeast commission to answer any questions the lease also includes a provision which allows a negotiation which passes the universal child care act. wu yee has been a long time partner of the sfpuc and 1800 oakdale. they currently provide for head start programs in child care for up to $40,000. the lease is on a month-to-month. this would replace the lease at
1800 oakdale and terminated by the commencement of the 1550 lease. on the premises provides good child care. the proposed lease exspandz child care access to serve 70 children from the fought. wu yee was the federally selected through a selective process. if sfpuc were to select somebody else, they'd lose the 40 head start slots. the attorney has approved a sole source contract. the proposed $1 a year rent allows wu yee to provide
$124,000 of child care scholarships or subsidies to residents in the 94214 and those are for people that earned more than 85% of the state's medium income. the lease includes a progressive table distribution of those scholarships. the proposed lease is custodin't with other city child care leases. the proposed leases was presented and is being recommended by the southeast community facility commission and staff also recommends approval of the lease and i'm here to answer any questions that you might have. >> president: thank you. commissioners, any questions?
>> commissioner: not a question, but obviously it's not a welcomed thing to have a sewer treatment plant in your neighborhood and so the whole idea of a southeast community center is something we try to give back and the idea we can have more kids with more space and scholarships is great. so thanks to the staff and the people working to make this happen. province thank you. any other comments? then public comment, please. >> secretary: members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment on item thirteen dial 1 (415) 655-0001. 146782399 pound pound is the meeting id. press star three to speak.
do we have any callers? >> madam secretary, there are two callers in the queue. hello, caller, your line is open. you have two minutes to comment. >> caller: so commissioners, first and foremost, i want to ask the gentleman who presented this agenda item. why has he chosen the zip code 94124 when zip code 92 -- 94124, 94134, and 94107 are all adversely impacted. so since when -- who has given this gentleman the permission to choose just one zip code? secondly, i want to know how many child care centers that wu
lee operate besides the one. and i would also like to know and i'll find this out to the freedom of information act some other issues because we need the children especially the african american children to get i would say -- i'm not going to call it special education, but some quality care and treatment when it comes to their education.
and i also want to know what steps have been taken environmentally because of all the particlates in the area and other things in the area, what steps have been taken to help our children? and i don't like the statement -- just making general statements and not taking care -- >> thanks for your comments. i'm sorry. your time is expired. next caller. your line is open. you have two minutes. >> caller: hi everyone. my name is america sanchez and i'm the vice chair of the southeast community facilities commission and i'm really happy today to just, you know, personally support the renewing
of this lease with wu yee. so i've been on commission for almost three years now and i've been affiliated with the center for over seven years and i know that the priority is always to make sure that residents, children of residing in 92414 are reserved and so i just wanted to take time today to support this particular tenant of our building and i think they have been prioritizing the youth in our area and i just want to continue to support them in this capacity. thank you. and happy thanksgiving everyone. >> thank you for your comments. madam secretary, there are no more callers in the queue. >> secretary: thank you. public comment on item thirteen is closed. >> president: thank you. any additional questions or
comments? seeing none. motion and a second, please. >> commissioner: moved. >> commissioner: seconded. >> president: roll call, please. >> secretary: [roll call] you have five ayes. >> president: the item passes. next item, please. >> secretary: next item is item 14. approve the section of the four highest-ranked proposers, kennedy/jenks consultants. stantec and mott macdonald group incorporated. pro.0167.a-d multi-project as needed. each in an amount not to exceed
$5 million. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is margaret haniford. i'm here today to request approval of our contract, pro.0167 as needed. it's responsible for operating and maintaining the water and power project. our facilities stretch from the valley to newark. dams, tunnels, pipelines, hydrogen ration units and power transmission and distribution lines. we also maintain buildings, roads, bridges, water and waste water treatment facilities and communication systems. the replacement value of these assets of the water and power assets are estimated at about $11 billion. to keep the assets in good
repair, we maintain a ten-year billion dollars capital plan. large capital projects like the mountain tunnel rehabilitation and the rehabilitation of the power house are typically managed by the infrastructure division. however, a renewable and replacement group who are responsible with managing smaller projects usually under $5 million. the renewal and replacement or r&r project serves a critical bridge between maintenance and large capital projects and are essential for responding to our aging infrastructure needs. for example, we often find we have small failures that have an immediate negative impact on our operations. we immediately need to identify resources to handle these situations so we don't impact larger capital projects. the r&r projects keep the
system running for plans, designs, and construction. second, some facilities are made up of many assets. a good example is a power house. we may perform an overhaul of these assets every 30 years. however, not all assets in the power house may have a life expectancy of 30 years. the r&r projects include replacement of these assets when they fail. the r&r projects represent about 25% of our capital plan or about $20 million to $30 million a year. engineering services will support the engineering planning and design of our r&r projects. today, i'm requesting the commission authorized the general manager to improve our four agreements at $5 million each for a total of $20 million
to support the water and power projects over the next five years. thank you and with that i'm happy to answer any questions. >> president: commissioners. vice president. >> commissioner: thank you so much for your presentation. a couple questions. one is do we have like a list of these projects and the scope, how much they each cost like in the past. i'm assuming. i mean, this is the first time i'm seeing this, but i'm assuming this is something that you have been doing for awhile. it's just really would be good practice to kind of see what it is. i mean, i know that a number compared to our capital project might not sound that big, but the reality is that's a lot of money and it's important to be able to see that we are getting
the best value out of the money we have. and, one other comment i think mr. pilpel said this and i've actually brought this up a number of times before as well. you know, i do understand we have such capable engineers that they're doing work on a daily basis, but it would be good to know if we can actually build some of these capacities in-house. if they cost this much money to constantly keep people on the payroll not on payroll, but on these contract amounts to do projects that are repetitive. why don't we actually invest that internally on our own staff to be able to do them. i'm sure there's a lot more anecdoting to this beyond what you just presented here or the fact sheets that we received, but i'll be very interested to
hear your perspective on all those things. >> sure. i would love to share. for our historical projects, we can provide that information of what we have worked on, the value of those projects and we can also provide you a plan for the next three years. and so we do have that information and we have specific projects that we can share on the cost estimates. we'd love to share that. the second thing is there's just a lot of work. i do not have enough engineers or have been provided enough engineers to do the level of work in some of the expertise that i require for some of the jobs. i'm also struggling with the fact that the infrastructure bills have now passed and many of my engineers are being sought after and i'm going to have to continue to maintain the system and hopefully we're going to maintain our engineering staff, but it is a
struggle for us. >> if i might, vice president. just something i'd like to add in my three weeks here. the number one complaint that i have heard from not just the infrastructure, but throughout the organization for staffing issues. and it's not through a lack of trying. i can tell you that the number one complaint that i hear across the organization is the difficulty in recruiting staff because of how long it takes and from especially with engineers and in the i.p. space, the competitive atmosphere we see here in the bay area. and it's something that i've committed. we're going to try and get our arms around it and i've already reached out to the airport director. we had a meeting yesterday. the airport director at the m.t.a., public works head together because it's a collective challenge that we all face and we're trying to come up with strategies going
forward about how we can help alleviate some of this log jam because it's creating real promise. what you're saying is not wrong and it's a challenge throughout the organization. >> i guess maybe this is a bigger discussion around how much must be paid externally to do some of these jobs and how much of that can be brought in-house and be potentially paid for better quality people or provide, you know, carry a development opportunities for people because we really want to make sure we have high quality people at every level and obviously you want it built up, but also we need to bring people from other places as well. we should be able to be competitive to bring people in rather than losing them all the time. so, you know, for example, and, again, not to pick on your item ms. hanford, but, you know,
$20 million every number of years, you know if we can spend half of that bringing in high quality people, paying people more. it will be very use. to have a better strategy in place to train our staff and to make sure we have all the right staff and we can maintain them and i know i'm so glad to hear that you guys are looking into that and i appreciate that. thank you. >> president: commissioner maxwell. >> commissioner: do you think maybe this happened when there was a time we thought it was cheaper to contract out because of not only the pay, but benefits as well and then we have part-time people. so, you know, do you think that maybe this was the part and now
we're beginning to see that indeed that was not the case that so many people said it wasn't and, indeed, we're running into a lot of problems right now because those same people that were contracting out are also very competitive and i'm sure people are wanting them to support in other places as well, mr. herrera. >> i can't say, commissioner maxwell. but this is something that is a priority. i can say from just things that i've heard, there is some concern that the way that our system is here in san francisco makes us not competitive with the marketplace and in terms of civil service rules and vhr rules that don't just go here but go beyond. they slow things down and really, the pace of having to get somebody and then a list being posted and by the time
you get that all done, the job is fold or a candidate goes somewhere else. these are really systemic issues that impact the p.u.c. and a whole variety of other departments, but i think it requires all of us to really try and get our arms around doing what we can to either modify rules or work within them because it's causing problems throughout the city and you'll see vacancy rates that are incredibly high. so i think it's a lot of things working together, commissioner. >> commissioner: all right. thank you. >> president: commissioner paulson. >> commissioner: commissioner, your question was spot on just in terms of the concept and the whole idea of having staff in-house, you know, working for the city is, you know, is a wonderful premise and something that, you know, that i would advocate for in any city department that was working on it, so that is fine, but it is, you know, this goes through
cycles. there are times when everybody wants to work for the city and there's times when all of a sudden, people are trying to bid them out at prices that are higher than what civil service has put together. so i mean, that's the running dance over, you know, the period of san francisco and we're, you know, one of the most despite all the headlines or whatever, we're frankly one of the most transparent major metropolitan areas in the united states in terms of making sure that there aren't side deals made and we're hiring people over other people and promoting people just because we absolutely need it. so that's why i'll signal the support for, you know, the report that came back from ms. hanford to put these small contracts in place because these are the safety net things we need, you know, to monitor that it's not a lot of money in
our big budget for these four small contracts. but, again, your question, you know, your initial question is spot-on in terms of, you know, that should be the desire. we have all the engineers we can get to do the things that, you know, this particular contract is going to need a stop gap for. >> this is another area like procurement policies in the sense it really is a city wide issue and if we really want to attack these issues, we should be willing to take it to a city wide level. one of the things that employees are really good at is coming up with work-arounds, you know, when the rules are crazy and get in the way of getting the job done are pretty good and figuring out a way to make it happen. and, sometimes that has some
negative effects behind it. so, you know, it is very common that during a budget process, requests for permanent positions will be eliminated. positions however that are against temporary funds are considered less onerous or less permanent and they get through pretty easy. and, you know, so it's doesn't take a smart manager to figure that out. so a lot of this is, the system is working as designed unfortunately and we have to be willing to take on some of those basic things if we really want to rationalize the way we hire people. any other comments?
seeing none. public comment, please. >> secretary: members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment specifically on item fourteen dial (415) 655-0001. meeting id 1467823999 pound pound. press star three to speak. mr. moderator, do we have any callers? >> madam secretary, there are no callers in the queue at this time. >> secretary: thank you. public comment on item fourteen is closed. >> president: okay. any additional questions? seeing none. a motion and a second. >> commissioner: i move approval. >> commissioner: second. >> president: moved and seconded. roll call, please. >> secretary: [roll call]
>> president: okay. next item, please. >> clerk: the next item is the reading of the items to be heard in closed session followed by public comment on those items. the follows item will be heard during closed session. item number 17. conference with legal council regarding existing litigation as plaintiff petitioner in the sacramento san joaquin water shed. s002635, s002636, s002638,
s002637, s014379, s015858, so18734, and so18735. the city and county of san francisco versus the state water resources control board et al. versus the control board. members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment specifically on item seventeen dial 1 (415) 655-0001. the meeting id and then pound pound. please press star three to raise your hand to speak. mr. moderator, do we have any callers? >> madam secretary, there are no callers in the queue. >> secretary: thank you. public comment on closed
session item number 17 is closed. >> president: okay. then the next item is for a motion as to whether we should assert attorney-client privilege. can i have a motion and a second? >> commissioner: make a motion. >> president: to? >> commissioner: to not disclose. to assert. >> yes. >> president: do i have a second there? >> commissioner: i'll second that. >> president: roll call, please. >> secretary: [roll call] and you have five ayes. >> president: okay. then we will go into >> closed session, there was no
reportable action taken. can i have a motion whether to disclose discussions during closed session? >> i move not to disclose. >> second. >> seconded not to disclose. roll call, please. >> president moran: aye. >> vice president ajami: aye. >> commissioner maxwell: aye. >> commissioner paulson: aye. >> commissioner harrington: aye. >> you have been five ayes. that motion passes. any other business before the commission? >> no, mr. president, that concludes your business for today. have a good thanksgiving. i hope you have time to pack. >> i do have time to pack for the red-eye tonight. >> we're in good shape. >> okay. >> bye, everyone. >> happy thanksgiving.
>> this is one place you can always count on to give you what you had before and remind you of what your san francisco history used to be. >> we hear that all the time, people bring their kids here and their grandparents brought them here and down the line. >> even though people move away, whenever they come back to the city, they make it here. and they tell us that. >> you're going to get something made fresh, made by hand and made with quality products and something that's very, very good. ♪♪ >> the legacy bars and restaurants was something that was begun by san francisco simply to recognize and draw attention to the establishments. it really provides for san francisco's unique character. ♪♪
>> and that morphed into a request that we work with the city to develop a legacy business registration. >> i'm michael cirocco and the owner of an area bakery. ♪♪ the bakery started in 191. my grandfather came over from italy and opened it up then. it is a small operation. it's not big. so everything is kind of quality that way. so i see every piece and cut every piece that comes in and out of that oven. >> i'm leslie cirocco-mitchell, a fourth generation baker here with my family. ♪♪ so we get up pretty early in the morning. i usually start baking around 5:00. and then you just start doing rounds of dough.
loaves. >> my mom and sister basically handle the front and then i have my nephew james helps and then my two daughters and my wife come in and we actually do the baking. after that, my mom and my sister stay and sell the product, retail it. ♪♪ you know, i don't really think about it. but then when i -- sometimes when i go places and i look and see places put up, oh this is our 50th anniversary and everything and we've been over 100 and that is when it kind of hits me. you know, that geez, we've been here a long time. [applause] ♪♪ >> a lot of people might ask why our legacy business is important. we all have our own stories to tell about our ancestry. our lineage
and i'll use one example of tommy's joint. tommy's joint is a place that my husband went to as a child and he's a fourth generation san franciscan. it's a place we can still go to today with our children or grandchildren and share the stories of what was san francisco like back in the 1950s. >> i'm the general manager at tommy's joint. people mostly recognize tommy's joint for its murals on the outside of the building. very bright blue. you drive down and see what it is. they know the building. tommy's is a san francisco hoffa, which is a german-style presenting food. we have five different carved meats and we carve it by hand at the station. you prefer it to be carved whether you like your brisket
fatty or want it lean. you want your pastrami to be very lean. you can say i want that piece of corn beef and want it cut, you know, very thick and i want it with some sauerkraut. tell the guys how you want to prepare it and they will do it right in front of you. san francisco's a place that's changing restaurants, except for tommy's joint. tommy's joint has been the same since it opened and that is important. san francisco in general that we don't lose a grip of what san francisco's came from. tommy's is a place that you'll always recognize whenever you lock in the door. you'll see the same staff, the same bartender and have the same meal and that is great. that's important.
♪♪ >> the service that san francisco heritage offers to the legacy businesses is to help them with that application process, to make sure that they really recognize about them what it is that makes them so special here in san francisco. ♪♪ so we'll help them with that application process if, in fact, the board of supervisors does recognize them as a legacy business, then that does entitle them to certain financial benefits from the city of san francisco. but i say really, more importantly, it really brings them public recognition that this is a business in san francisco that has history and that is unique to san francisco. >> it started in june of 1953.
♪♪ and we make everything from scratch. everything. we started a you -- we started a off with 12 flavors and mango fruits from the philippines and then started trying them one by one and the family had a whole new clientele. the business really boomed after that. >> i think that the flavors we make reflect the diversity of san francisco. we were really surprised about the legacy project but we were thrilled to be a part of it. businesses come and go in the city. pretty tough for businesss to stay here because it is so expensive and there's so much competition.
so for us who have been here all these years and still be popular and to be recognized by the city has been really a huge honor. >> we got a phone call from a woman who was 91 and she wanted to know if the mitchells still owned it and she was so happy that we were still involved, still the owners. she was our customer in 1953. and she still comes in. but she was just making sure that we were still around and it just makes us feel, you know, very proud that we're carrying on our father's legacy. and that we mean so much to so many people. ♪♪ >> it provides a perspective. and i think if you only looked at it in the here and now, you're missing the context. for me, legacy businesses, legacy bars and restaurants are
really about setting the context for how we come to be where we are today. >> i just think it's part of san francisco. people like to see familiar stuff. at least i know i do. >> in the 1950s, you could see a picture of tommy's joint and looks exactly the same. we haven't change add thing. >> i remember one lady saying, you know, i've been eating this ice cream since before i was born. and i thought, wow! we have, too. ♪♪ >> my background is in engineering. i am a civil engineer by training. my career has really been around government service. when the opportunity came up to serve the city of san francisco, that was just an opportunity i really needed to explore. [♪♪♪]
[♪♪♪] i think it was in junior high and really started to do well in math but i faced some really interesting challenges. many young ladies were not in math and i was the only one in some of these classes. it was tough, it was difficult to succeed when a teacher didn't have confidence in you, but i was determined and i realized that engineering really is what i was interested in. as i moved into college and took engineering, preengineering classes, once again i hit some of those same stereotypes that women are not in this field. that just challenged me more. because i was enjoying it, i was determined to be successful.
now i took that drive that i have and a couple it with public service. often we are the unsung heroes of technology in the city whether it is delivering network services internally, or for our broadband services to low income housing. >> free wi-fi for all of the residents here so that folks have access to do job searches, housing searches, or anything else that anyone else could do in our great city. >> we are putting the plant in the ground to make all of the city services available to our residents. it is difficult work, but it is also very exciting and rewarding our team is exceptional. they are very talented engineers and analysts who work to deliver the data and the services and the technology every day. >> i love working with linda because she is fun.
you can tell her anything under the sun and she will listen and give you solutions or advice. she is very generous and thoughtful and remembers all the special days that you are celebrating. >> i have seen recent employee safety and cyber security. it is always a top priority. i am always feeling proud working with her. >> what is interesting about my work and my family is my experience is not unique, but it is different. i am a single parent. so having a career that is demanding and also having a child to raise has been a challenge. i think for parents that are working and trying to balance a career that takes a lot of time, we may have some interruptions. if there is an emergency or that sort of thing then you have to be able to still take care of your family and then also do
your service to your job. that is probably my take away and a lot of lessons learned. a lot of parents have the concern of how to do the balance i like to think i did a good job for me, watching my son go through school and now enter the job market, and he is in the medical field and starting his career, he was always an intern. one of the things that we try to do here and one of my takeaways from raising him is how important internships are. and here in the department of technology, we pride ourselves on our interns. we have 20 to 25 each year. they do a terrific job contributing to our outside plant five or work or our network engineering or our finance team. this last time they took to programming our reception robot, pepper, and they added videos to it and all of these sort of
things. it was fun to see their creativity and their innovation come out. >> amazing. >> intriguing. >> the way i unwind is with my photography and taking pictures around the city. when i drive around california, i enjoy taking a lot of landscapes. the weather here changes very often, so you get a beautiful sunset or you get a big bunch of clouds. especially along the waterfront. it is spectacular. i just took some photos of big server and had a wonderful time, not only with the water photos, but also the rocks and the bushes and the landscapes. they are phenomenal. [♪♪♪] my advice to young ladies and women who would like to move into stem fields is to really
look at why you are there. if you are -- if you are a problem solver, if you like to analyse information, if you like to discover new things, if you like to come up with alternatives and invent new practice, it is such a fabulous opportunity. whether it is computer science or engineering or biology or medicine, oh, my goodness, there are so many opportunities. if you have that kind of mindset i have enjoyed working in san francisco so much because of the diversity. the diversity of the people, of this city, of the values, of the talent that is here in the city. it is stimulating and motivating and inspiring and i cannot imagine working anywhere else but in sannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
>> and the office of mayor london breed would like to welcome you all to the american indian heritage celebration. my name is ariana. i was born and raised here in san francisco american indian community. i currently work at the california consortium and serve on the board of directors of the american indians of san francisco. i have the immense honor of being your masters of ceremony this evening. [cheering and applause] >> befo