90 years old. Have you made a Needs Assessment on how many millions of gallons of water leach into our watershed . We talk about it in very general way. We talk about some gap that was arranged in the 1980s, we talk about certain targets, on always thinking about how are we going to make more money . Those in San Francisco are conserving water, and in our previous discussions i used to be here, and the only person that had a vision about something was tod, the chief financial officer. I never see somebody with a vision. They are always talking about generalities within some subject where you can throw some arrows in the air. So if we have over 1100 miles of clean water pipes in San Francisco and they have a percentage of maybe 70 of them leaking because they are over 90 years old, what are we doing about it . Do we have a responsibility . We talk about a common footprint, this, that and the other. Do we have a responsibility about this precious water that was stolen to get it for free that we spend some money with the pipes, but the water was stolen. You have to read it. What are we doing about that . Now, i want you to think about that and we have no clue what is happening in our regional pipes. We need to have some Needs Assessment so that we really know that we have this precious water like gold if we really care about the water or still continue to flush our toilets with clean drinking water. Thanthank you very much. Thank you. Are there other comments on this topic . Next meeting. We had spoken about a joint meeting with the Planning Commission several meetings ago to talk about in advance of additional water supply requests coming before us. I think all of that has been settled. What has been settled . The joint planning meeting. Was there an upgrade . The last meeting. We didnt discuss it at the last meeting . No, we did not. Now, i know what it is. Go ahead. There is an information item scheduled for the december 12th Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission set it up that way where the planner who works with these issues will present what the Planning Commission does on the issue and i will present on what we do with our urban Water Management and water supply to give them the best information as a starting point to have further consideration that is established at this point. I was under the understanding we were going to have a conversation or some kind of back and Forth Communications before we continued to approve these Development Projects that were requesting additional water in light of what we might be facing from a regulatory perspective. That is where i left it. Maybe i missed something. I am not going to be that comfortable approving additional Water Supplies for large projects without, you know, a sense that the Planning Commission understands what we are in. We talked about a policy document, all kinds of steps. We have to be clear here. We did not set any policy. We were asked about the availability of water. We were asked the question by the Planning Commission, and we answered them. That is when this whole topic came up. We have nothing to do with the Planning Commission approval or disapproval. The Planning Commission takes environmental review. It is the discussion we wanted to have to provide them information what we do so they understand when we do a water supply as assessment what does it mean and they do assessment of that. Several things have been suggested. One of those there would be a combined meeting. Other suggestions were that we make presentation, and i believe staff talked to the Planning Commission staff and there was back and forth how they would like to receive that information, and this is what we came up with. In addition to that, i had suggested that it might be helpful to the Planning Commission if we add adopted a policy that helped explain our rationale and how we would, you know, be reviewing these things in the future. There was a policy that we adopted a couple meetings ago which went partway there and i think that is as far as legal folks were comfortable with us going. There were concerns about saying what you are going to do before you do it. We have some steps to where this commission talked about. We have a policy that gets partway there, a presentation that is not the same as a joint meeting, but as far as the general purpose before the Planning Commission, our thinking process, i think that is happening. What i hope goes into that presentation is that we are potentially facing, with the state boards water plan a significant water supply problem in the city that will take significant investments in order to fix. The projects that we have been approving dont change that picture in any material way. Sort of like we are in a jam either way, and it changes that a little bit, but not by a significant percentage. One of the objectives i had in getting to the Planning Commission was to let them know that in our future we may have to come to them with projects to help fill a water supply deficit that will require the Planning Department approvals. They need to know that. Because we are making approving water supply assessments, that is the correct thing to do, but they also shouldnt take that as evidence that things are okay. As we look to the future there are challenges that they will be in the position of helping us make. Commissioners, i would advise we agendize this for a future meeting. This is just new purpose and the purpose is to ask for future items for the calendar. I think we need to cut it short for now and through the chair if yoyou want to agendize this fora future agenda. I would like to request that we agendize it for the december 8th meeting, if possible. I dont have the understanding that is what is going to be conveyed at the Planning Commission. I would like a presentation. December 10th is the next meeting. December 12th is the Planning Commission meeting. It was scheduled for october 24 but they had hours and hours of testimony so rather than make a presentation at 9 00 at night we rescheduled to december 12th. It is such an important issue we need to continue being with them, whatever that looks like. We can do that. What exactly is the agenda item, council, or through the chair . It seems to be some confusion about what this. You know it is mentioned what this role of our commission is versus the Planning Commission. Maybe the agenda item could be discussion of water supply assessments and Planning Commission. Management plan and how they interact and water supply projects we are looking at. Informational sessions to know the respective roles under this issue. We will work on a better definition of it. Whatever definition we would hear mr. Richys report that he is going to give to the Planning Department. However that goes. Sounds good. Thank you. Any other new business . Next item, please. Public comment . New business. It was just suggested. Okay. Item 10 consent calendar all matters listed hereunder constitute a cons sent calendar and are to be considered to be routine. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission or the public so requests in which event the matter will be removed from the calendar and considered as a separate item. Any items you would like removed . To the general public, any items to be removed . May i have a motion . So moved. Second. All those in favor. Aye. Opposed . The motion carries. Next item please. Item 11 approve amendments to the Grant Program rules. This is an action to modify the large landscape Grant Program rules where the Commission Awards grants to various recipients to help improve water usage on large landscapes. The specific amendments to reduce the minimum landscape size from half acre to 10,000 square feet to provide recycled water projects and to eliminate Grant Eligibility for Synthetic Turf projects. You cant put in astroturf and ask for a grant to do it and make administrative and clarifying changes. It would delegate authority to make potential further modifications consistent with the program approved after consultation with the City Attorney. We would request your approval of that action. So move the item. Second. Any discussion . Any comments, questions . To the general public any questions or comments . All those in favor. Aye. Opposed . Motion carries. Item 12 public hearing discuss and possible action to adapt revisions to the Debt Management policies and procedures. Good afternoon, commission. Manager of the p. U. C. We ask adoption of the Debt Management policies and procedures as revised since last adoption in 2017. First i will provide an overview and describe the key revisions being made for your consideration. The p. U. C. s debt policies are a Public Document providing clear guidance to the ratepayers that they are conducting the Debt Administration in a manner that meets market standards and practices compliant with all laws, rules and regulations. Having robust policies demonstrates that the p. U. C. Is meeting the objective of being a good financial steward and is financially sustainable and it is consistent with the best practices of the Government Finance office gfoa a Bond Organization that represents and advocates for agencies such as the p. U. C. Our debt policies were established in 2004 and because of the ever changing nature of the markets have been revised most recently in 2017. Our debt policies cover many areas including types and purposes of debt, debt authorization and approval, debt over site, debt limitations method of sale and debt structuring. Ongoing Debt Administration including disclosure compliance is also covered. Having comprehensive debt policies allowed us to benefit including maintains and improving the aaa credit ratings, financing the enterprises in a costeffective manner, managing the debt effectively within the objectives and parameters, achieving the highest credit ratings, retaining Financial Flexibility and keeping compliant with all relevant laws, reporting and disclosure requirements. So this next slide we summarize the key revisions we ask to be made. This focuses on the most important related to reporting compliance. Since disclosure is so important we set forth this section as its own appendix. What has changed . Security and Exchange Commission requires all issuers of public debt disclose the occurrence of certain events that could impair the bond holders rights. Such disclosures have to be made within 10 Business Days of learn of the events. There have been 14. This include Debt Service Payment delinquencies, nonpayment related defaults, bankruptcy of the debt obligat obligatetor. There are now two new listed events first the occurrence of financial obligation that could affect the bond holder security. The default of some other similar event which reflects Financial Difficulties of the debt obly gore. The debt policies are revised to include the two new events along with the other listed events i mentioned earlier. Staff and Team Management at the p. U. C. Does an excellent job of monitoring our financial and debt obligations including monitoring of Financial Stress or difficulty and proposing to revise to reflect the creation of disclosure Practices Working Group to monitor the financial and debt obligations to ensure the requirements effectively discharge in light of these two listed events. The Disclosure Working Group will consist of the cfo, two deputy cfo and debt manager with consultation with the City Attorney and outside disclosure meeting semiannually or as needed. This effort is done in a coordinated manner with our other city agencies, including the debt issuing bodies, controller, Public Finance and airport. This slide briefly summarizes the proposed revisions to did debt policies along with disclosure. First is bond indenture to provide market provisions for the variable rate obligations by the wastewater enterprise. These amendments will now be included under the variable date obligation center. The other is the formal addition of the low cost loans to be entered into by the p. U. C. Last year the p. U. C. Entered a 699 million loan with the federal government under the water in from structure act that i hads water solids which is the project. With the low cost Revolving Fund they are loans we have been executing with the state will be adding the loans to the debt policies as form of low cost Debt Financing instrument p. U. C. Can enter into. So that concludes my presentation. I am happy to take any questions now. Why do you think that they have added the two new events . That is a very good question. I think it has nothing to do with the p. U. C. There are probably other agencies in the United States that are not disclosing these types of events. They impair the security of bond holders. Sec decided to make this a formal required event. It has to cover everybody. They are protecting the bond holders interest. Can you give me an example of a new event . For example, and actually you know that we over the last couple years and i was here last meeting asking you to approve two state revolving loans. These are just loans between did p. U. C. And state of california. These are issued the state has the same rights and securities as the bond holders, wastewater revenue bond holders. One of the listed events says when ever you owe cura financial obligation within 10 Business Days we have to file a notice saying that we have executed the transaction. That goes to the whole investment community. They now know that we entered into the loan. Otherwise they wouldnt know that. Because it is with the state . They wouldnt know because it is with the state . It is a direct transaction between the p. U. C. And state of california. To be honest with you, over the last couple years irrespective of this new requirements, we have decided to be good citizens and we have been disclosing our loans. The white field loan another one. On a voluntary basis. Now we are obligated to do it, but we have been doing it. Let me ask the public any questions or comments . Madam president , we have acorns received a the korrespondence that was entered this morning that i would like to enter for the record. I guess there is a time when we do say to ourselves no, right . It just seems like there is an awful lot of money. I am just getting it from my vantage point. I work with the cfo, we monitor our obligations very, very closely and carefully. Good. Thank you. Any other questions . I have a motion. I move it. All those in favor. Aye. Opposed . Motion carries. Next item, please. Item 13. Authorize the issuance of 850 million of the 2019 series abc d taxable water Revenue Bonds consisting of four bonds and delegate to the general monger the authority to award to the highest bidder. For this item we ask the commission to authorize the bond sale, specifically water revenue bond sale primarily a refunding of the outstanding wattder bobbeds to provide water bonds. This was not included in the 20192020 Capital Financing plan, i did at the end of my presentation mention we would be bringing this transaction in the near future. Here we are. Just briefly, i will show you proposed sources and uses of the proceeds and set forth the documents we are asking you to approve in form. I will walk you through the transaction followed by informing you of the timetable and reciting the commission action. The transaction in front of you is if proposed 2019a, b, c, d water Revenue Bonds to be sold up to 850 million. The transaction consists of four sub series of bonds, a, b, c, d. The first three sub series would refund rate payer savings outstanding water bonds. 20 11 00 a. M. , b, 2012a water bonds. Sub series d will refinance a small amount of previously issued commercial paper. Staff recommends the bonds be sold with Morgan Stanley selling the bonds. They were selected by staff pursuant to request by proposals process. Most of the transaction will refund outstanding water bonds at lower Interest Rates. If you have a Home Mortgage and you got that at a certain rate and rates the lower, you can refi. Based on the current Market Conditions the refunding would achieve 88 million or over 14