Proposing a five dollar fee for that service i should note pg and e has a similar cost for their service as well. This rate package abides by the policy this commission established. This scorecard as noted here was derived by the Controllers Office a few months ago gave us a score of a minus and theres a couple of areas for improvement and thats what well work on and in particular the lost time incidents but again we wanted to show you the a minus score were fairly proud of. And lastly, the rate notice its a little small actually very small on this slide we have copies here over on the table for the public and i can give you a copy if you want a bigger version of this this is a copy of what was sent out to Property Owners and rate pay ers this is the prop 218 notice the formal notification of changes in rates and the protest is noted on this form thats why you received the protest letters of almost a hundred and in order to cause a requirement for protest, a majority of the Property Ow
From Lorraine Lucas. Hi lorraine good afternoon. Happy earth day. Happy birthday . Earth day. Oh im Lorraine Lucas and the coalition voted at the april meeting the following resolution we represent 48 Neighborhood Organizations throughout the city whereas the programs included in the category of policy expenditures in both water and Wastewater Enterprises whereas the cost project tree and the 10year cash flow models is un sustainable 1 billion and 176 million and 569 thousand and 9 36 and together with annual payments related to debt in the next 10 years projected to increase 7 fold makes the cost of water and Wastewater Service prohibitive for the families of San Francisco whereas water and wastewater rates must adhere to the cost of Service Requirements of prop 218 of the state constitution, which requires property related fees and charges do not exceed the proportional cost of providing the service to the individual property. Whereas this proportional requirement is violated embedde
Exactly. Exactly. Thank you. Good question. All right. These are the lists of the projects i think weve given you a package that gives you pretty good information about why things changed where they changed these are the summaries of the five projects we actually saved money and the five projects which actually required it and the savings are the Water Treatment plant has been completed it gave back 5. 4 million and we look at the contingents and look at what the risks are there and reduce the funding from 5 million and this is a really technically challenging project but on the other hand the project has made very Good Progress now i believe its pretty much been handled and as a result we reduced 3. 1 million out of the contingent and same with the pipeline which has been done which is also done and contributed a million plus. Now, the newer tunnel is going to require besides Calaveras Dam is going to require 15 million. Further more i think it is the access to the size we wanted and
Do the approach is whats going to take extra funding the transmission upgrade has been a challenging project it has changes in it its going to require extra funding and the recapture project also the scope has changed and need 5 million were still actually working on this project really to fine tune it and see if we can come up with a better approach so this gives you in a nutshell i have a question on the recapture project and i cant find the reference in my notes but i recall in the reconfiguration of the project there was a range of water production depending on the approach you took and it looks as though were choosing to fund at the low end of the range and im wondering why that is. I cant answer you that question right now i will get back to you on that but we were coming up with a different combinations if we recover this water and have to mix it and how do we the Treatment Plant and i think those combinations are the ones giving us extra design features. So commissioner if i ca
Proportional cost of providing the service to the individual property. Whereas this proportional requirement is violated embedded in rates not essential and not core to the mission of the sfpuc to provide water and Wastewater Service and do not benefit the individual rate pay er and policy expenditures if desirable and if necessary should be funded by the general Fund Departments whereas Community Benefit programs and other policy expenditures may have benefits to some interest groups, they do not benefit all rate pay ers whereas city rate payers have not bought into the value of these policies because there has not been a venue and aggregate costs of these programs therefore resolved strongly urging the puc Commission Policy expenditures and also on the cap program as you know the big horn desert California Supreme Court ruled in 206 that this type of program is illegal the city needs to ask the board of supervisors you do to fund these programs if you find that low income water rate