Afternoon.

Today's meeting of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission will now come to order.

Can we please call roll?

President Arce.

Here.

Vice President Leveroni.

Here.

Commissioner Jandar.

Here.

Commissioner Stacey.

Here.

Commissioner Thurlow.

Here.

You have a quorum.

Thank you, Ms.

Near.

Before calling the first item, I would like to announce that the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission acknowledges that it owns and are stewards of the unceded lands located within the ethnohistoric territory of the Moekma Alone tribe and other familial descendants of the historic federally recognized Mission San Jose Verona Band of Alameda County.

The SAPC also recognizes that every citizen residing within the Greater Bay Area has and continues to benefit from the use and occupation of the Moekalone tribes aboriginal lands since before and after the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission's founding in 1932.

It is vitally important that we not only recognize the history of the tribal lands on which we reside, but also we acknowledge and honor the fact that the Moquema Allone people have established a working partnership with the SFPUC and are productive and flourishing members within the many greater San Francisco Bay Area communities today.

Item three approval of the minutes of June 23rd, 2026.

Thank you, Ms.

Nair.

Colleagues, are there any corrections to the minutes of June 23, 2026?

Seeing none, can we take public comment?

Remote callers, please raise your hand if you wish to provide comment on item number three.

Are there any members of the public present who wish to comment?

Seeing none, Moderator, are there any callers who have their hand raised?

Mr.

Mayor, there is no callers that wish to be recognized.

Thank you.

Can we get a motion and second to approve the minutes of June 23, 2026?

Motion to approve.

Motion from Vice President Leverone.

Second.

The second from Commissioner Stacey.

President Arceus.

Aye.

Vice President Leveroni.

Aye.

Commissioner Jamdar.

Aye.

Commissioner Stacey?

Aye.

Commissioner Thurlow.

Aye.

Item three passes item four.

General public comment.

Members of the public may address the Commission on matters that are within the Commission's jurisdiction and are not on today's agenda.

Members present who wish to speak are encouraged to complete and submit to the Director of Commission Affairs a speaker's card located on the table to the left of the public gallery seating area.

Please note that members are called to the podium to speak in the same order that cards are received.

Thank you, Ms.

Nir.

The Commission values civic engagement and encourages respectful communication at the public meeting.

We ask that all public comment be made in a civil and courteous manner and that you refrain from the use of profanity.

Thank you.

Remote callers, please raise your hand if you wish to provide general public comment.

Are there any members of the public present who wish to comment?

Mr.

DeCosta.

Commissioners.

I see a lot of changes happening.

People are jumping ship.

In the meantime.

Who lost the water department, the managers for documentation?

They refuse to give it.

If that's the way to treat our employees and the taxpayers, then we need to take this more towards the Feds and maybe apply the RICO Act.

They are very familiar with the RICO Act, the experts that I am working with.

Your commissioners have the right to read the policies and to see that the managers have followed the policy.

Confined space is not a joke.

Nobody can send anybody into confined space if they are not certified, if they are not trained.

So that's all I am going to say.

Because now, if we don't get the right replies, then we'll have to take this to the highest level.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Alita.

Thank you.

Good afternoon to the chair.

Haven't been to one of these in a while.

I don't know any of you.

But Ronald was very helpful in me getting the speaker card in.

So thank you for that.

I have been speaking at these meetings for a number of years on and off.

And SFPUC is very dear to me, especially in being one of the great leaders in clean energy.

Later you'll be talking about that on the regular calendar.

I seek a greater level of direct connection from you in helping to build the most comprehensive and cleanest grid that we can have.

Well, I have an answer for that.

It's called municipalization.

Because if we have a municipal grid, then I can have input sharing at meetings, which I don't have under the current uh status quo.

Uh but I ask of you and your work to remember not just the people of the city and county of San Francisco, but also the regional aspects.

I hope we can complete that power line from Newark, not New Jersey, the Newark down south, to come here so we can more directly bring our clean energy to the people of the city and county and of San Francisco and also those of us who choose to visit and spend time here.

Thank you.

Moderator, are there any college that have their hand raised?

Ms.

Lanier, there are no colors that wish to be recognized.

Thank you.

Item five, report of the general manager.

The first up is our SFPUC disclosure training for the commissioners.

It's going to be presented by Nikolai Skarloff and Oric, our disclosure counsel or Carrington Sucliffe.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

At your next meeting, we are going to be returning with a number of capital financing items, including the next wastewater bonds.

As we have done on an annual basis now, today we'd like to present to you disclosure training about the important regulatory commitments you make as part of this process so that we do this away from the piles of documents that you will be seeing in the coming days.

Today I'm joined by a number of uh guests, including uh uh Vincent and uh Mallory uh McCarley from uh uh Baxter McCarley Barry, uh one of our uh uh financial advisors who have been working with us on a number of these uh transactions.

I'm also joined by members of our capital finance team, the people who really do this work, and uh as well as the attorneys who had advise us on our disclosure.

Uh we are fortunate in San Francisco that one of the nation's uh largest and leading firms uh doing bond council work is actually based here in San Francisco.

Uh we have two of those attorneys here with us today, and they're gonna walk you through that uh disclosure training.

So with that, let me introduce uh uh Devin Brennan and uh Sean Yates.

Thank you, Nicolai, and good afternoon, uh commissioners.

Uh can we have the slides on the screen, perhaps?

Thank you.

So my name is Sean Yates.

I'm a senior associate with the law firm Oric Harrington and Sutcliffe.

Uh as Nicolai mentioned, we are disclosure counsel to the PUC on its uh bond transactions.

Um I'm joined today by my partner uh Devin Brennan, and we appreciate the opportunity to speak with you this afternoon.

The purpose of today's training uh is to provide is to provide all of you as commissioners uh with an overview of your responsibilities under the federal securities laws uh as an added bonus, it will satisfy uh the requirement in your debt management policies and procedures uh to have periodic formal disclosure training.

Um, as you are all aware, uh the SFPUC issues revenue bonds and it sells those revenue bonds in the public capital markets uh to finance and refinance its capital improvement projects.

Uh in connection with the sale of the revenue bonds, the PUC prepares a preliminary official statement or a POS.

The POS is the equivalent of a corporate prospectus for registered securities offerings, uh and its purpose is to provide a reasonable investor with information necessary to make an informed investment decision.

The POS is finalized uh or excuse is is finalized and delivered to potential bond investors prior to the sale of the bonds.

It is also delivered to the rating agencies in connection with their rating process.

The POS includes information on the PUC and the bonds.

It includes information like the preliminary bond terms, which remain subject to change.

So these are things like the maturity dates, interest rates, uh, redemption features, defeasance provisions.

It also uh describes the security and sources of repayment for the bonds uh and information about the PUC and its operations.

It describes the financial prospects that are relevant to the PUC's ability to make debt service payments on the bonds that are going to be issued.

Uh and finally, it contains information about the tax status of interest on the bonds to be issued, uh, as well as certain uh investment considerations and risk factors for investors to consider.

Uh the final official statement, or OS for short, uh, is delivered to actual investors following the sale of the bonds.

It contains all of the same provisions from the preliminary official statement, but it also includes the final bond terms, which are finalized at sale.

It's important to note that the POS and the OS are both prepared by PUC staff in consultation with the City Attorney's Office and the PUC's professional advisors, which includes our firm as disclosure counsel.

The POS, as Nicolai mentioned, is uh submitted to the Commission for review and approval.

The commission delegates authority to PUC staff uh to both finalize uh the POS to reflect the most current information available at the time, uh, and also to prepare and finalize the official statement.

Uh the POS and the OS are the PUC's documents, and it's essential for reasons that we'll describe on the next slide uh that they do not contain any material misstatements or omissions.

Unlike securities uh that are issued by private companies, the revenue bonds issued by the PUC uh are not required to be registered with the SEC under the Securities Act of 1933.

However, uh the information that is contained in the POS does remain subject to the anti-fraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

We've identified uh the relevant statutes and regulations on the slide, and the relevant text of those statutes and regulations is included as an appendix to this presentation uh for your review.

Uh the antifraud provisions, uh, namely Section 17A of the 1933 Act and uh Rule 10B or excuse me, Section 10B of the 1934 Act and Rule 10 B5 promulgated thereunder, uh essentially require that the POS does not contain any material misstatements or omissions of material facts.

Uh in addition, Rule 15C212 prohibits underwriters from underwriting municipal bonds unless certain conditions have been satisfied.

Uh those include uh obtaining a statement from the issuer, so the PUC, uh, that the POS has been deemed final as of its date, uh, and also requires uh that the PUC enter into a continuing disclosure agreement uh under which it will agree to provide certain financial information and operating data on an ongoing basis.

Uh now this training is primarily focused on the POS, uh, but it's important to note that the anti-fraud provisions apply equally to uh other circumstances, including tender offers, uh, annual reports, and any other time that the PUC is deemed to be speaking to the market more generally.

And with that, I think I will turn it to Devin to discuss uh determinations of materiality.

Thank you, John.

Is this mic working?

No.

Thanks, Sean.

Um we've thrown some information at you uh focusing on materiality.

Uh what does it mean to be material, though?

Umfortunately, there's no bright line test uh for what material is.

Material is determined in the context of the facts and circumstances under which statements are made.

Um the general standard for uh what is material is um if uh um there's a substantial likelihood that a reasonable investor would consider a fact to be important to the investment decision, the decision about whether or not to buy bonds or to trade bonds, then that's a material fact.

Um as we've said it sort of determined in the context of the entire circumstances.

The unfortunate part is that if there are issues, uh, let's say that there is a problem and an investor files a lawsuit, that materiality is then looked at with 2020 hindsight.

And uh what may not appear material going in may appear a lot more material if an event has happened.

And so we try and be somewhat conservative with our approach to uh facts and circumstances uh in terms of disclosure so that there is not um that sort of impact on uh on uh a future um claim.

Uh what are the commissioners' responsibilities?

Um the commissioners are responsible uh for determining that um uh that uh the PUC complies with all applicable securities laws, including these.

Um failure to comply can result in uh negative consequences ranging from um market uh perception, rating agency downgrades all the way to um SEC actions, investor lawsuits, and other um you know, sort of uh uh negative consequences.

Um in discharging your duties to ensure that there are no material misstatements or emissions here, you may place reasonable reliance upon staff to prepare the disclosure documents.

Um in order for that reliance to be reasonable, uh the commission should endeavor to uh create and sustain a culture of transparency where if there are challenging or difficult facts, those are raised and uh uh discussed among the entire team here that's preparing your disclosure so that they can be evaluated.

Um make sure that staff has policies and procedures in place for them to review and uh prepare the POS and raise those issues.

And finally, to read the POS yourself and uh look for big picture issues that perhaps only you are aware of, or perhaps only the commission is aware of and staff or or maybe only the general manager are aware of, and if there is something there that that's specific that that you're aware of and others might not be, to raise that to staff and the uh folks preparing it.

Um that, in addition to the downside, there's a genuine upside to this project that we're engaged in, which is that if you uh maintain a reputation for um uh complete accurate and forthright disclosure, that has a real upside for investors who appreciate that, and that upside is is helpful when times are good, but in when times are bad, like the 2008 financial crisis or other times when you really have to uh be able to communicate directly to the market and they have to trust what you are saying to them, that can have a really hugely positive benefit for the commission um as it uh engages with the capital markets to finance its programs.

Um for any questions about bond or disclosure issues, um, you know, uh reach out to Nikolai and his team in the in the debt management capital finance director um uh area um or for legal questions uh reach out to uh the city attorney's office, Cheryl and Estee.

And I think we may have time for questions if there are any, but uh that's the the sum of it.

Thank you both very much.

I'll turn to fellow commissioners to see if there's any questions or comments.

No, seeing none.

Very thank you for the very thorough presentation and uh the work that you do together with Director Sklarov.

Can we take public comment on this item?

Isn't it?

Remote callers, please raise your hand if you wish to provide comment on item number 5a.

Are there any members of the public present who wish to comment?

Commissioners.

The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission.

It's an enterprise department.

And when we have these bonds and um this investors that are going to help you, commissioners.

We have to pay attention to the ratepayers.

Several times the ratepayers have come over here.

And ask the commissioners.

Affecting the ratepayers who SFPUC, as you all know.

Take money from the ratepayers.

And the lit that money is linked to the bonds.

In some way or the other.

In the year 2026.

With artificial intelligence.

And other algorithms.

People are well aware of what is going on.

Like for example.

The water department is building this 400 million, spending 400 million to build this new type of building.

Millions are based on mountain tunnel.

It's all linked to the bonds in a way.

And it's also linked to ours.

The population 330,000.

That paid their dues.

So they should be some sort some sort of information given to the by these consultants who are paid, some sort of a pamphlet so that you can distribute it with the with the bills, the water bills, and et cetera.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Moderator, are there any callers that have their hand raised?

Ms.

Lanier, there are no callers that wish to be recognized.

Thank you.

Yes, we have a question or comment from Commissioner Stacy.

Thank you, President Arcee.

I just wanted to say generally, thank you for this information and sort of reminder overview.

I uh when I joined the Commission, I had a fairly steep learning curve on the you know all of the issues related to bond financing and all of the different types of financing that the SFPUC uses.

I have felt uh very comfortable that with each report we get a very thorough um look at what has happened internally.

We see all the documents with the description not only of the particular matter but also the PUC more generally, so that you know the public and the bond community is really aware of the SFPUC writ large as well as in particular.

So I think that on a case-by-case basis, I feel very comfortable that we have lots of information so that we as a commission can exercise our responsibilities.

I also have really appreciated over the years, Mr.

Sklarov's uh presentations more generally about what's coming and types of financing that are available to us, and I really appreciate all of the staff and the legal counsel roles in that.

But I just really wanted to confirm that I have felt uh very comfortable and am very appreciative of all of the information and knowledge that has been shared with the commission, at least while I've been on the commission.

So thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you all very much.

Back to you, Mr.

Flynn.

And that concludes the general manager's report.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next item is item six, the consent calendar.

And I have been advised that item six A should be pulled from the consent calendar so that it can be uh discussed and information shared with the Commission.

Yes, we're gonna um have that one right after the um consent calendar on the regular calendar.

You want to approve the calendar first?

Is what you want to do?

Um do we want to approve the consent calendar first and then go through?

Yeah.

So before us, colleagues, is a consent calendar consisting of items six B, C, D, and E on the agenda, those four items, not six A.

Is that correct, Ms.

Lanier?

Yes.

All right, is there questions or comments on six B through E inclusive?

Seeing none, can we take public comment on consent calendar items six B through E?

Remote callers, please raise your hand if you wish to provide comment on the consent calendar item 6B through 6E.

Are there any members present who wish to comment?

Moderator, are there any callers who have their hand raised?

Mr.

Lanier, there are no callers that wish to be recognized.

Thank you.

I was going to get a motion to approve item six B through E, our consent calendar.

So moved.

Motion by commitment from Commissioner Jamdar.

Second.

Second from Commissioner Stacy.

President Arce.

Aye.

Vice President LeBroni.

Aye.

Commissioner Jamdar.

Aye.

Commissioner Stacy?

Aye.

Commissioner Thurlow.

Aye.

Item six passes items B, six B through six E.

Item 6A.

Hi there.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

My name is Kendra Cox.

I'm with the Contract Administration Bureau at the SFUC.

I want to note that there's an error in the award amount for the agenda item 6A.

It lists the award amount as 17 million and some more.

And in one in fact, this amount includes a builders fee estimate, which is part of construction, and this initial award amount should only be for pre-construction services.

So that amount should have been removed from the award amount.

The actual initial award amount should be 13 million seven hundred and two thousand two hundred and eighty.

That's one three seven zero two two eight zero.

And I'm happy to answer any questions about that.

Thank you for the clarification.

Is there any questions?

Commissioner Stacy.

Can I just repeat back what I think you said?

Absolutely.

That that 17 million number in the agenda included pre-construction services.

Is that right?

It should include pre-construction services.

It also included a portion of construction services which should not have been included in it.

I see.

Okay.

Got it backwards.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

I would also ask that the resolution be amended to have to be in the correct amount.

Do we need that as a motion?

The motion to approve the amended resolution is is on the on the table.

Okay.

Um any other questions before we take public comment.

Thank you, AGM Flynn and Deputy City Attorney Bregman.

Any public comment?

Remote callers, please raise your hand if you wish to provide comment on consent calendar item 6A.

Are there any members of the public present who wish to comment?

Seeing none, moderator, are there any callers who have their hand raised for item 6A?

Ms.

Lanier, there are no callers that wish to be recognized.

Thank you.

Colleagues, can we get a motion to approve the amended 6A with the amount of 13,702,280?

So moved.

Motion from Commissioner Stacey.

Seconded.

Second from Commissioner Jamdar.

President Arce?

Aye.

Vice President Leverone?

Aye.

Commissioner Jamdar?

Aye.

Commissioner Stacy?

Aye.

Commissioner Thurlow?

Aye.

Item 6A passes.

Item 7.

Presentation by the San Francisco Department of Human Resources on the selection process for a new general manager.

Good afternoon, Commissioner Sean Sherburn with the Department of Human Resources.

This is a really important moment for you all.

And it's one that as I go through the overview with you of what the next few months are going to look like.

You all are in very good hands as we go through this process, and I will try to align some of that.

Any of the concerns that you all may have today.

With that said, the match also just concluded and Spain just beat France, so the timing couldn't have been better.

I'm now no longer in favor with the Commission, it sounds like.

Oh, okay.

So with that being said, uh I will I I will go I'll tread lightly now.

Uh there.

This process will be successful and it will be a win at the end.

So what I want to cover today is uh the steps that we collectively will all be going through, and then leave obviously some opportunity at the end for any questions that you all have.

So it'll be some version of me and uh your city attorney and uh executive recruiters and people from my team who will be working with you in lockstep as we go through this process.

So there may be a lot of questions or maybe a lot of concerns as we go through this, and I will be here to help you through that both in the immediate term and in the long term.

So your authority as a commission uh under the charter is to provide names to uh the mayor, in this case, at least three candidates from which the mayor may choose from.

Um it could be more, but the charter does say, and the mayor usually does ask for at least three names.

And uh I'll talk about some of the more recent recruitments that we've done, and this pretty much comports with uh with uh the charge that's in front of you.

So that level sets us, and what we will be doing is uh in line with that charter amendment, we will be working with an executive recruiter working with you to conduct a recruitment process to identify many more than the three candidates that you need.

If we have done, and we collectively have done uh the job that is in front of us, and I'm confident that we will, this will be a very difficult choice for you all.

There will be very good candidates, and you will have to decide.

That's how I measure success in this frame.

Um, as we go through the process and we work with an executive recruiter and we work together, uh very likely it will result in you all uh interviewing many, many candidates, um, grouping those candidates, evaluating them, looking at an abundance of resources and taking feedback from your constituent groups as we go through this.

And then, of course, like I said, those three candidates that you will need to move forward as a slate to the mayor uh for consideration.

So, one of the things that the Department of Human Resources has really done well in this space is this used to be each department would go out and solicit bids to a bunch of executive recruiters in this space, which would delay things in a way that wasn't desirable for any of us.

So we took a step a couple years ago uh and put out a very large um uh request for proposal from anyone in the space who does executive recruitments to put their firm in, do the initial work around uh bidding and contracting and get evaluated.

Uh and that has been very successful in expediting the time frame that we all have and taking a lot of the responsibility that would have fallen to each department on a contracting basis to now be much more succinct.

Uh and to that end, um we have at this point uh 11 firms that are in this pool that we can that we will glean are actually in the process of gleaning interest from that we will be able to very quickly, once those uh folks have been evaluated, be able to move forward and ideally have an executive recruiter in front of you in the next, I would I would hope the next few weeks.

Um but a lot of that will be based on questions and anything that you all would like input-wise.

So, what the executive recruiter will do and what they bid on when they put their proposals is really not doing the recruitment work because your HR team, my HR team at the Department of Human Resource, we can recruit.

We love to post jobs and collect applications.

There is nothing we love more than that.

And setting up interviews, we've got that space nailed down.

What you are getting with an executive recruiter, and what I have a limited ability to do, it turns out I don't know every director in this space, whether it's the port, which I was helping a few weeks ago, or Wreckin Park a couple months ago, or now the Public Utilities Commission.

We are bringing in executive recruiters because they have Rolodex of names.

They are out there calling people, they are getting referrals.

That's really what we're taking advantage of with an executive recruiter.

The other thing that they're going to be working hand in glove with you all on and do an excellent job of supporting you, supporting Tiffany, is any outreach that you all need to do, any surveys that you will be doing, setting up community group meetings, getting input that's going to be really formative in how you all make your decision.

What is it that we're looking for?

What is an ideal candidate?

When we see those ideal candidates, how do we evaluate them?

So this executive recruiter will be able to help you navigate that space as well.

And then on the other side, one of the key things, you know, having gone through executive recruitments myself as a candidate, I want to ensure that my own confidentiality is going.

I I do not want Carol Eisen to get a call that, like, oh, Sean was interviewing at the county of Alameda, uh, and then I have to like I want to be confident and uh that I can put myself out there and go through a process and have those confidentiality have that confidentiality maintained, and that's another thing that they do.

And then the successful, the good, the really good executive recruitment firms are also coaching and counseling candidates as they go through the process.

And there's going to obviously be more people who are not selected than are selected in this process, and they're going to help those candidates with their candidacy.

And you want that because you want we're the benefactors of all of the recruitments that have been done before, where they're going to bring candidates through into this process.

So all of that, and then at the very tail end, doing all of the vetting.

So I say that's at the tail end, but they're these these firms are doing the vetting as we go through the process.

They're talking to the candidates, they're getting all of the information in advance.

They're going to be helping us so that when you all make that referral to the mayor and the mayor makes their selection, we will have a candidate who is vetted and ready to move forward.

And having just seen that uh in the last couple of weeks with Wreck and Park and uh and the port, um, as soon as the the mayor's not waiting typically to have an iterative discussion.

It's this is who I want to hire, and I would like to make my announcement tomorrow.

So there isn't a whole lot of time between today and tomorrow to do betting.

So it's critically important that that work be done in advance, and all of these firms do that work.

A typical timeline, and as I was talking with my colleagues beforehand, they're like, oh my god, I would love every recruitment to be done in 12 to 16 weeks.

This is the ideal scenario.

And I share that because if everyone through this whole process is just like, absolutely, Sean, absolutely executive recruitment firm, this is what we want to do.

We have no questions, we have no concerns.

We all, everybody on this panel agrees this is the top candidate, then yes, 12 to 16 weeks is is a is a time frame that could potentially happen.

What we end up seeing is people go on vacation, there's things that we're navigating in different spaces, there's additional feedback, there might be some discussions around this.

It might take longer.

Um, but we shoot for 12 to 16 weeks, so three to four months.

Um those have been that is a little aspirational.

Uh I can say that we started the recruitment process with the port and Recon Park uh at the end of last year.

I think you've seen the announcements uh, and so you know, it took a little bit longer, but some of that was because of vacations, because of time off, not wanting to recruit during the holidays.

And those will be part of the iterative discussion that we all have together.

Um I heard the time go off, but do I have a few minutes?

Okay, thank you.

So these are the steps.

I outline them as we sort of walk through this process.

So this is just a visual for you all uh of how the process will play out.

I keep that in your packet for reference as you go through the process and happy to talk about any of those steps.

Um said, it's an this is a uh a process.

We've already solicited the group of firms uh pre-qualified to put their bids forward to talk about how they've worked in this particular space, public utilities, uh, how they will bring candidates forward, how will they work with you all to make sure that the community is engaged?

We don't just want to hear uh how they would do that.

We want to hear what they have done in this space.

And so those will be evaluated by experts to arrive at a uh a firm or firms that we can present to you all.

Um like I said, we're soliciting those now.

As soon as word came down, we start, we put the uh mini RFP out to those 11 firms.

Uh and then I included here updated as of yesterday morning as Tiffany was telling me that I needed to prepare a presentation and get it to her yesterday.

I quickly touched up some things and put it in here.

Um Rec and Park and Port were just two completed recruitments.

We had the director of art the inaugural director of arts and culture uh done a little bit earlier this year.

Um we've worked with these firms on the assistant general manager in 2023 and a couple others.

So there's a wide breadth here uh that we're tapping into of knowledge and more importantly, experience with the city uh because I cannot tell people, executive search firms enough how special we are as a city, uh not just with our boards and commissions, but with our structure as the executive branch and the mayor's role in this, but also how involved our community is in this process, including me, who in Noe Valley has a vested interest in this as well.

Um but these are important aspects that we want our recruitment firms to uh to understand and come in eyes wide open.

Um so we're evaluating those bids now.

We'll work with your department once we have successful firm in place to secure the purchase order.

Uh and as soon as we can, probably even as we're doing it, we can walk and shoe gum at the same time, be bringing the executive search firm here to have the same sort of forum that we're having right now to do that, and then there will be points where we will be in consultation with your city attorney, be going into closed session to talk about um how we move things forward.

But ideally, the next time you see me, at least from a proactive standpoint, unless you want to bring me back, we'll be with the executive search firm.

And then happy to take any questions.

Thank you, Sean, for the presentation.

Questions from the commission?

Vice President LeBroni.

Question for the Commission.

Um month of August, if I'm not mistaken.

So we're now looking probably further out to get just the recruiting firm unless we have special meetings or something like that, but probably not till uh September.

Is that a fair?

Or is it or will we have it by our next meeting, uh recruiting firm?

Uh the bids are are being solicited now.

So I think we're wanting to give as much opportunities as we can to the firms there.

So September is probably a little further out.

I NHR, I'm always happy with more time that you would like to provide us, but the timing is fine.

Whenever you all are ready, I suspect that we would have a firm, a top-rated firm uh and be able to move forward with the purchase order sometime, I would imagine next month.

Um but sometimes you know it's fine for us to take a little bit more time to make sure the T's are crossed and the I's are dotted, especially as we go through the procurement process with your department with the Public Utilities Commission.

Okay.

Um I'm gonna ask um general counsel is if we wanted to do something in August specifically for the um the firm uh of selecting a firm, is that a possibility or is that not uh even uh something that we could do without You could so you could schedule a special meeting.

Okay.

With proper notice.

Okay.

And then the names, whether it be three or four or five, whatever the number that we finally come down to.

Do we as a commission put those in a preference order, or is it just given to the mayor's office and the mayor to say here are the three or five that we've recommended in no particular order?

Yeah.

What I have seen most commissions do is uh I've step back a second.

I have very rarely seen a commission be able to agree, not just on the three candidates, but in rank order.

So usually through arm wrestling and headlocks that uh that you all will be putting each other in, it's you will somehow get to, yes, these are the three, maybe not rank order, and then the the commissioners, usually through the president or a representative of the commission, will identify pros and cons, things that they will want the mayor and the mayor's staff to consider as they're evaluating.

Like this is a this person's wonderful, they're ready to go, um, this is you know, but but there are some concerns that we would like you to vet out.

Or this is somebody that we're bringing forward because we need to have three that we're sending to you, but maybe there are some reservations that we have that can be communicated in other forums.

Uh very unlikely that you would be able to vote on a a rank ordering where you all would agree on that.

That would that we all can strive for that, but that would be very uh that would be a Herculean effort.

Thank you.

You know, um and I know Commissioner Stacy has uh is on the stack here.

I was looking at the calendar.

So it seems to me the options would be to have uh a firm that we could look at to approve either in two weeks, which sounds like too short of a timeline, that would be um Tuesday, July 28th.

Then we don't meet for a month plus until Tuesday, September 8th.

And then with those being the bookends or be an option to for a special meeting potentially in August.

I I am a little worried if we look at uh Tuesday, September 8th, another 12 to 16 weeks after that puts us into such time that our esteemed general manager has concluded his service with us, which is December 31st.

So I'm just thinking out loud, and that might be something that Commissioner Stacy is gonna opine.

Just something for us to kind of think about as we're discussing here today.

Commissioner Stacy?

Um I was actually going to ask a different question on that same topic.

I um if the Commission decided that we wanted Department of Human Resources to go ahead and select a firm.

Could we just skip that step that you have on the executive recruitment?

I don't feel qualified to pick one recruiting firm over another.

Couldn't we uh just ask the Department of Human Resources, and maybe this is a question for the city attorney as well, but maybe you've done it in the past so that we wouldn't have to have Commission approval of the firm, but we could just direct or ask the Department of Human Resources to move ahead with that firm so that we don't lose the month of August.

And we have another meeting on July 28th before we go on the summer recess, that maybe we could talk some more about the qualifications, get more public input.

We have a job description that was prepared maybe five or six years ago.

Um, but I would be very comfortable not choosing among the recruitment firms, but leaving that to DHR to evaluate if the commission also felt comfortable and assuming we can do that at all.

So that is typically the process.

So we have subject matter experts from across the spectrum that have expertise in this space.

So there will be a top candidate that will come out of this.

Uh most commissions that I've worked with recently, we just advise the chair or the commission president.

This is the top firm.

Would you like us to move forward with executing a contract with that firm?

Um typically that is a much easier, much more simplistic process.

We've had others that uh that felt no, we we want that firm to to come and provide a presentation uh to the commission.

Um that would delay things given your time frame.

And we're fine either way.

Um I will work with you all with the executive search firm, with your uh your internal contracting team to do whatever is necessary.

Um but yes, I I would say more typically uh we're our subject matter experts are selecting the firm or advising the chair of uh or the president of the commission uh who will then um uh probably through the secretary uh liaison advise you all that this is a firm that's moving forward with.

You can do some due diligence on the firm as well.

All of this is public information.

Um we can simultaneously work with the uh PUC's contracting team, and then we can actually also get the firm started on doing the back.

Here's the job description, here's information that we want you to get grounded on, so that when we are able to get in front of the commission, that you have all of this information and can speak uh with knowledge and wherewithal.

That that would be my preference.

Uh thank you.

And I I would be comfortable not voting on the executive search firm, but it's really it's up to the president maybe in the commission.

I I would like this process to be as transparent as possible.

And so would I think a conversation with the search firm would be very valuable if not at the outset, then as the you know search is underway and they can give us feedback.

But I'd be interested in hearing from other commissioners and the president about wanting to vote on the actual search firm.

I I'm comfortable with DHR using your expertise on the search firms and who which one seems appropriate.

But I'd like to hear from other people.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Commissioner Thurlow?

I guess it would help for me to have a little clarifying information.

I agree with what Commissioner Stacy has said.

Is there basically if we just have President Arsay make the decision to approve a particular search perm proposed by you in the first week of August, for example, would the firm be able to sort of move forward with their work without delay in the month of August without us meeting again until August 8th?

Or is there are they in limbo in some way until we meet again and they present to us?

No, we we have all of the information on the recruitment that was done in 2012.

So we're going to be apprising them of all of this.

This is a great opportunity for them to do their own due diligence and research.

I think the only caveat to that is wanting to make sure that the contracting gets done.

There might be questions the firm has about like, well, what you know, how how much will we get compensated for this or how quickly uh will we get compensated if we front costs, say for travel uh for candidates.

However, most of the the relationships I have with these firms, most are happy to start doing their due diligence, happy to even meet with the commission while those things um are falling into place.

So I I have every confidence that uh if that is the direction uh based on what Commissioner Stacy and I were chatting about, is how this commission goes.

We will not lose time that we will um get them moving forward, get them doing all of the due diligence works they can do.

Most can most executive search firm are going to want to start working on a draft of a job description uh as soon as they can um possibly do that.

Okay.

So you're confirming that it won't hold the process back if we don't schedule another meeting in early August.

Yeah, we're gonna move forward as quickly as possible.

Perfect.

Yeah.

Thank you so much.

If if I can clarify, so maybe Commissioner Thurlow to your question is if we do say we'd like you to come back and seek commission action before advancing with the search firm, that's probably going to put us into Tuesday, September 8th.

But if the Commission is comfortable to delegate to me the ability to take the recommendation that you, your colleagues at DHR, our team leads at the department say, here's the recommended search firm.

Let's keep in mind all these search firms are pre-qualified essentially.

They've gone through a vetting process to even be on a roster to be able to be considered to be a search firm for this process.

So they're they're known quantities, or most likely we're gonna get a firm that's conducted one or more of these other recruitments anyway.

So if we're comfortable to say recommendation from DHR to team PUC to Commission president, let's go.

It sounds like we can get a jump on getting that work done, preparing the job description, starting to recruit candidates, starting to fill out a candidate pool, uh, will be hitting the ground running, in fact, maybe even running itself by week the time we get back from recess Tuesday, September 8th.

Yeah, I believe that to be true.

Yeah.

Commissioner Jamdar.

Thank you, President Darcy.

I've had mixed experience with recruiting firms, and I would like I'm fine with this process, but I would like to see an analysis of why the selection was made and uh sort of uh, you know comparative assessment of the top three or the top two or whatever it is.

Um, you know, because I I I just think it matters what approach the recruiting firm takes, and that will yield a certain kind of candidates.

So I think it's important to weigh in on the firm.

But I'm okay with being informed why a certain firm was picked.

Is it possible to and let me maybe direct the question to Deputy City Attorney Bregman?

Is it possible to get a private and confidential attorney client memo that outlines to the commission the rationale for proceeding with the search firm if we go with this kind of um administrative process rather than coming back to the commission to vote on the selection?

We would have we would be there'll be there'll be lots of communications rolling through the through the process that are similar.

And in those lots of communications, could one or more of them include answers to the questions that Commissioner Jamdar has just posed?

Most likely.

Yes.

Be good with that, most likely.

All right.

Vice President Leverone.

It sounds I mean, there's 11 firms that we have vetted that we have on our and probably of that 11, there might be fewer that are say designated toward uh the utilities that specialize in that.

And not to be a contrarian, but would it be possible by the next meeting that as we're going to try to select um three or five candidates toward the end, is it possible to have your top two or three that you would present to us to say these would be the the one of these three firms, or you even make in I would prefer this firm, but to let us know and then that way go through um a a decision by next meeting to say, okay, the Commission would say we will accept that firm as of as opposed to just doing it one off.

Is that possible?

Or is it am I uh uh is it let me put it this way, not to put you in the middle of all this.

Is it possible that out of the eleven by next uh our next meeting to have two or three firms that you would say these would be my top three firms that I would recommend to do this search?

So I'm gonna say the thing that you all love to hear somebody at the podium say, which is I would have to look into that.

Um but what I what I can say is that there are things, like I said, we're soliciting for these firms to put their interest in, put an entire proposal together for us.

So I think that will help.

Uh I think you know, I can work through stacy uh I'm sorry, I can work through uh Tiffany and your uh general counsel to see what if any of that information can be shared, it might actually address some of the questions.

What were the things that were evaluated?

What were the bids, what did they look like?

Um that could be shared, but then the evaluation of it, I am uh not as familiar in the contracting space, so I don't know how much of that can be shared.

My concern is that we want to select a firm and move forward uh as quickly as possible.

If we're still in a selection phase, very few firms are going to want to do any of the due diligence work and put that effort in.

They are doing other recruitments uh as well.

So we're trying to get into get them select and get them locked in for their own time frame as well, because they're going to assign their own senior level staff, and in some cases, given the city's role, very likely is going to be uh a principal in the firm who is going to be working with us.

So there's a lot of moving parts, so it's a little bit more challenging for me to answer that question directly other than the way that we we've sort of addressed that um in discussion here.

No, well, you know, maybe it sounds like the uh Commissioner Jamdar said can I repeat?

In other words, no.

I thought I heard maybe.

And one thought I could throw out in terms of some of the feedback and not knowing where you'll be in the process in two weeks, which is our final commission meeting before the August recess is maybe exploring the potential for us to agendize a closed session item saying update on selection process if you, Sean, are available to come back and see us in two weeks, it would be a little bit more around the 3 o'clock P.M.

hour.

Um you're giving me that look.

Uh so let me just throw it out there.

Um, because I think it would satisfy some of what is coming from the commission, agendizing a closed session discussion that says update on selection process.

And update may be nothing more than we're still waiting to hear bids, or may say we've got some bids back from some of our search firms.

Here's where we think we're at.

I mean, that's at least something tangible.

Um Deputy City Attorney Bregman.

I'll I'll work with DHR and uh but it depends.

I know that's not also what do you want to hear, but it will depend on whether it's appropriate for a closed session or an open session presentation.

So I will um but I will work with DHR and work through uh what that might look like.

Okay, thank you.

And I suppose there'd be considerations about whether the subject matter isn't in fact requires confidentiality or whether it's still kind of along the lines of what we're talking about today, which is kind of uh more theoretical, I suppose, or more of a planning phase.

Okay, understood.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Stacy.

I I think I'm hearing from two commissioners that maybe you would like to weigh in on who that search firm will be.

If it's not available by the 28th, I suppose we could look and see if we could have a quorum for an August 11th meeting if another two weeks would be enough time for DHR to come up with a recommendation.

I sub I I think that's a that's another way of going about this.

Instead, I I would feel more comfortable hearing what your recommendation is.

Um but again, uh I don't know search firms and individual strengths or um how to evaluate uh the bids that they give you, and so I I I would certainly look to DHR and to you for your recommendation, but maybe maybe we see if we can get a quorum together for August 11th if July 28th really isn't going to uh be enough time.

So maybe we maybe Ms.

Lanier and Ms.

Ram, you could figure out if we have if we could get a quorum for August 11th.

So it sounds like maybe that's something we could revisit in the meeting we have in two weeks, which is either a open session discussion of update, which is kind of maybe still right before the process of recruiting bids or selecting uh soliciting bids rather has has happened, and if it's in process and council determines it's a closed session conversation, then we would have it in closed session.

But it seems like maybe that's where we could get a sense of whether we might benefit from a special meeting at that time.

Is it okay to put um unless someone else is on the stack, can we put things in that category, see where we're at in two weeks or when we get into agenda setting seven to ten days from now, kind of evaluate and get get something on the agenda.

Will that that work for everybody?

Sounds good.

All right.

Any other thoughts?

Thank you, Sean.

Any other thoughts before we take public comment from the commission?

Bless you.

All right, Ms.

Nair, can we take public comment?

Remote callers, please raise your hand if you wish to provide comment on item seven.

Are there any members of the public president who wish to comment?

This is the city and county of San Francisco.

And we have unique issues and need engineers.

Stellar engineers of the caliber of like say Richard Sclaw and Sun Marone.

And not attorneys.

You see.

Not attorneys.

And this is fun what you'll fundamentally don't understand.

If Richard Sklau was here, he would know everything about Hachachi.

He would know everything about the history of the indigenous people.

He would do the right thing when it came to the reservoirs.

Like when Peter Drackmeyer talks.

Yeah, the commissioning knows.

And he's a genius.

So this Mickey Mouse thing will come out in the in the newspapers.

I think there's nobody who attends the meetings like I do over a over the last 45 years, you know, checking out all these people who make general statements.

They don't love this city.

They don't love California.

They don't love the people.

They don't have empathy.

They don't have intelligence.

They don't have wisdom.

So I don't know how you all rely on this consultants or whatever they call themselves, you know, to pick somebody to do the work.

Look at a general hospital.

We don't have a doctor there.

They have a marketing expert.

Look at SFPUC.

We don't have an engineer or something.

Thank you.

Moderator?

Are there any callers who have their hand raised?

Mr.

Lanier, there are no callers that wish to be recognized.

Thank you.

Item eight.

Approve the terms and conditions and authorize the general manager to execute a no-fee, nine-year revocable license to the City of South San Francisco to use approximately 5.89 acres of San Francisco Public Utilities Commission land comprising portions of SFPUC parcel numbers 7, 10-1, 10-2, 24, and 25 in South San Francisco, California, for one, operating, maintaining, managing, and repairing an existing public recreational pedestrian and bicycle path and linear park.

Two, maintaining the surface of the pathway, including the existing landscaping in accordance with the SFPUC vegetation management policy three, maintaining an additional SFPUC parcel, and four, managing the surface water drainage.

Good afternoon, all.

I'm Rosanna Russell.

I'm the SFPUC Real Estate Director.

We seek your approval of a proposed no-fee, revocable nine-year license to the City of South San Francisco.

South South San Francisco wants to continue to use approximately 5.6 acres of our property for a widened public recreational path, a renovated linear park, and landscaping.

In exchange, South San Francisco would maintain an additional parcel and manage the surface water draining drainage within an area prone to occasional flooding.

The PUC operates the Crystal Springs Pipeline No.

2 and surface appurtenances on portions of the proposed license area.

So here are the benefits to the PUC if this Commission would approve the license.

We have a practice of replacing outdated licenses on a continual basis.

Unlike the 2011 license, the new license would require South San Francisco to maintain the entire width of our property instead of just the pathway.

So they would maintain the existing linear park and landscaping and not just the pathway area.

As I mentioned, South San Francisco would maintain an additional parcel, saving the PUC over 100,000 a year in annual maintenance cost.

The new license would require South San Francisco to remove problematic trees and move a sculpture, all of which now currently a PED impede access to the PUC facilities.

The new license would contain robust standard provisions regulating how and when South San Francisco could install new improvements in landscaping.

This is important to prevent unauthorized encroachments on our property.

The new license would contain more comprehensive indemnity language protecting the PUC as well as more modern provisions required by law and required by the City Attorney's Office.

The signage provides a would provide a high-level overview of the Hatchachi regional water system to all pathway users and including students of the adjacent school.

Finally, South San Francisco would continue to reimburse the PUC for its pro-roader share of the property taxes the PUC pays to San Mateo County.

So it's worth noting that South San Francisco has well maintained the property was supposed to maintain over the years.

We anticipate it would be a good steward in the future.

So for this reason, we ask that you approve the license.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Any questions?

Commissioner Stacy.

No question.

I just wanted to say that this sounds like a rationalization of a of a somewhat complicated situation that's developed over the years and an improvement in at least the clarification of who's responsible for what?

It is.

It's the 2011 license was issued by my predecessor in very short time.

I'm not sure that it received the entire analysis that the PUC's project review committee devotes to almost every single new proposal.

Yeah.

Thank you.

All right.

Other questions?

If not, can we take public comment, Ms.

Nair?

Remote college, please raise your hand if you wish to provide comment on item eight.

Seeing none.

Moderator, are there any college who have their hand raised for item eight?

Ms.

Lanier, there are no callers that wish to be recognized.

Thank you.

All right.

Can we get a motion to approve item eight?

Motion to approve.

Motion from Vice President LeBrony.

Second.

Second from Commissioner Stacey.

President Arcee?

Aye.

Vice President Liberoni.

Commissioner Jamdar.

Aye.

Commissioner Stacey.

Aye.

Commissioner Thurlow.

Aye.

Item eight passes.

Item nine.

Thank you, Ms.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Russell.

Authorize the general manager to execute an installment sale agreement to secure clean water state revolving fund loan for the Lower Alamany Area Stormwater Improvement Project.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Alexandra Gannell, Loans and Grants Director.

May I please have the slides?

So the item before you today is a clean water state revolving fund loan for Lower Alamanies Stormwater Improvement Project and a request that you delegate authority to the GM to be able to execute.

This is really similar to the approval that you all gave last year in late fall for the SINOL SRF loan.

But this one's for Alamanies.

So I'm going to go pretty quickly through the slides, but I'll take any questions that you might have.

I'll just do a brief background, explain the financing terms, talk about the loan administration, and then the good faith estimate is in there for your review.

So the SRF loan program, it's a federal program under the EPA.

The State Revolving Fund program or SRF is actually administered by the individual states, though.

So EPA grants the money down to the individual states, the individual states, then administer those grant funds, but the loan but loan them out or give them out as grants.

In California, it's administered by the State Water Resources Control Board.

As I mentioned, they provide a low-cost loans and they also provide grant funds for some eligible projects.

And they're typically for water and wastewater projects.

They total about 570 million.

And there are three uh water SRF loans that uh PC has executed, and those total about 479 million.

Um those have all been executed since 2014.

So this specific loan is for the Lower Alamany Stormwater Improvement Project.

Uh the estimated uh total project costs for this project is $364 million.

The loan is a partial loan for that project.

So the loan is $50 million.

There's an additional $5 million grant component or also called principal forgiveness.

Um just to get all the numbers straight.

The request to you is an authorization of a not to exceed amount of $60 million, and that's because it includes the capitalized interest that would accrue uh when you draw on the loan.

Uh the additional costs of the project are going to need to be funded through the wastewater capital improvement program.

Um it's also worth noting that we have applied for a WIFIA or water infrastructure finance and innovation act um loan directly from EPA.

If that were to be approved, then we would co-fund from both sources, both the SRF funding and the with the funding, and then if there's any remaining, that would be funded through the capital improvement program for the wastewater enterprise.

Uh we estimate that the interest rate is going to be 2.3%.

And it's a 30-year loan, so we'll pay that annually one year after substantial completion of construction, uh, secured by a pledge of not revenues from the wastewater enterprise.

And it's uh senior lien on parity with our other nine SRF loans and then the three Wi-Fi loans that we have for wastewater.

Loan administration, I won't go through all of these.

I did mention that um the funds originate uh on a federal level.

So a lot of those federal strings, cross-cutters come through and are um part of the requirements once we receive the funding.

Um have a long history with SRF, so the good news is we we know what is required and we have systems in place to meet those requirements.

Uh the good faith estimate is required because it is a form of indebtedness, and our finance team has provided the good faith estimate in your commission packet.

And thank you for your consideration of this item.

Happy to take any questions.

Right.

Thank you, Ms.

Gunnell.

We got Vice President Leveroni with a question.

Thank you for your presentation.

Um The SRF then is funded not by the State but by the Federal Government through the State?

Yeah, so it's actually a pool of of multiple sources of funding, but the primary source of funding is directly from EPA on an annual basis.

They get it what is called an annual capitalization grant that comes through the President's budget.

Um then the state is required to have a certain percentage of match, 20 percent.

And then sometimes they add in some other funds, like the most recent ProP one or um the climate bond, like different funds.

So this one actually is a source of funding directly from the Federal Government.

So therefore it has federal cross-cutter requirements associated with it.

Okay.

And then you mentioned WifiA.

Is it that would that, in other words, if we borrow the the 50-60 million, would that just supplement within that dollar amount, or would it be outside of that dollar amount?

It would be in addition to.

So the project is 300 plus million, and then so 50 million would be from the SRF loan at the very low 2.3 percent rate.

The WIFIA rate is a bit higher, but it also has some other um financing advantages, um, a longer repayment period and ability to adjust the interest rate once closed.

So that would be additional funding beyond the 50 million that we would get from the state, and that funding would come directly from EPA.

And and WiFIA, do they have a dollar ceiling on how much we can borrow from them?

Yes.

Uh they require that you not um borrow greater than 50 percent of the or it's 49 percent of total project costs.

So there is a yeah, there is a cap.

Thank you.

Sure.

Any other questions?

Commissioner Thurlow.

Um Thank you for the presentation.

I have a question about the um description of how sometimes reimbursement can be challenging, and so you might need to do short-term commercial paper financing or bond financing.

How frequent is that given our long history with the SRFs?

And then how does that impact sort of materially the actual interest rate that we pay for the project?

Yeah.

And I would I would have to check with finance so that they could tell you specifically like what the true interest costs might be depending on what their short-term borrowing is.

But generally, what happens is is that we have to pay the expenditures that are incurred on the on the project, and then we seek reimbursement back from the state.

And typically, uh my understanding is that our finance team utilizes commercial paper, typically not the bond financing, to roll over those costs and then and then pay off the commercial paper when the reimbursement comes through.

And what are typical time scales for the reimbursement?

Yeah, it can vary.

So uh there uh a slower reimbursement tends to be if you're including all soft costs, um, because it just takes longer for them to review, and that could take upwards of 18 months.

The construction timeline turnaround is much faster.

And because this is a partial loan, we would restrict it to just those construction costs and the um invoicing team and infrastructure has the ability to turn those processing um requests to the state quickly, and the state is faster at turning those back around.

So typically that's less than 12 months.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you.

Sure.

Other questions from commissioners.

Seeing none, thank you, Director.

Let's take public comment before we consider the item.

Remote callers, please raise your hand if you wish to provide comment on item nine.

Are there any members of the public present who wish to comment?

Seeing none, moderator, are there any callers who have their hand raised?

Ms.

Nier, there are no callers that wish to be recognized.

Thank you.

Okay, can we get a motion to authorize the general manager to execute this agreement?

Oh, yes, AGM Flynn.

Thank you.

Oh.

Good to go.

All right.

Thank you, AGM Flynn.

So what's in front of us is authorization to execute the agreement.

Can we get a motion?

So moved.

Commissioner Stacy.

Second from Vice President Leverone.

President Arcee.

Hi.

Vice President Leveroni.

Commissioner Jamdar.

Hi.

Commissioner Stacey?

Aye.

Commissioner Thurlow.

Aye.

Item 9 passes.

Item 10 approval.

Thanks, Director Gunnell.

Thank you.

Oh, sorry.

Approve Clean Power SF's 2026 integrated resource plan and authorize the general manager to finalize and submit the IRP and associated documents as a compliance filing to the California Public Utilities Commission by the August 10, 2026 deadline.

Sorry.

May I have the slides, please?

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

My name is Sarasa Vasene.

I am the acting manager for the Power Resources, Power Enterprises Resource Plan and Compliance Team.

I'm here today to present our staff recommendations for Clean Power SF's 2026 Integrated Resource Plan and to seek your approval and adoption of a preferred portfolio that conforms to CPUC's regulatory requirements.

This presentation builds from our June 23rd informational update on the IRP project.

With your approval, we will finalize and submit Clean Power SF's IRP compliance filing to the California POC by August 10th.

As a reminder, an IRP is an energy resource planning process used to guide the development of a utility's power supply portfolio in a reliable and cost-effective manner over a 20-year period.

Our planning process for Clean Power SF is focused on identifying a portfolio of electricity resources to meet our customers' demand at the lowest cost while also meeting local policy goals and state regulatory requirements.

We're required under state law to submit an IRP to the California Public Utility Commission for review and approval on a schedule set by the California POC.

On June 23rd, we shared that Clean Power SF staff evaluated three different energy supply portfolios.

A portfolio is a collection of energy supply resources and technologies that are used by a power provider to serve customer demand.

The Commission must select an IRP supply portfolio for submission to the California POC in our final IRP.

The first portfolio, which we call the 100% renewable portfolio, is designed to mean meet and maintain CPUC requirements and the city's 100% renewable energy supply goals.

The portfolio will continue to meet 100% of our customers' annual electricity demand from either resources that meets the state's renewable portfolio resources, uh sorry, renewable portfolio standard, or from greenhouse gas-free resources like hydroelectric power.

In addition, the portfolio will minimize grid purchases from 5 to 9 p.m.

when the grid is more reliant on fossil fuels.

The portfolio also incorporates new local projects to be built in the new nine Bay Area counties and CPUC mandated assumptions related to rooftop solar and energy efficiencies.

The other two portfolios use the same key elements and assumption as the 100% renewable portfolio, but also aim to achieve higher levels of time coincidence.

This means that these portfolio require that the energy produced meets at least 90% of forecasted customer demand in each hour of the year by 2030 and 2035, respectively.

This slide uh chart is a comparative summary of the resource build-out results of the three scenarios by technology through 2035.

For the 100% renewable case on the very left, the plan calls for the addition of twelve uh 1220 megawatts of new capacity to clean power SF supply portfolio.

This includes 400 megawatts of solar plus battery storage, 80 megawatt of new geothermal, 200 megawatts of new Mexico wind, and 160 megawatts of California one.

The average cost of energy supply for the 100% renewable portfolio would be $91.66 uh cents per megawatt hour.

The time coincidence by 2030 case call for more than double the additional energy supply capacity of the 100% renewable case.

In total, it calls for 2,580 megawatt of new resources by 2035, including solar plus battery storage, standalone solar, California wind, New Mexico wind, and geothermal.

The average cost of the energy supply for this portfolio would be 120.74 cents per megawatt hour, or 32% higher than the 100% renewable case.

Also calls for more than double the new capacity of the 100% renewable case.

However, the capacity is a bit lower than the time coincidence by 2030 portfolio, and it happens at a less aggressive pace.

This portfolio calls for 2,300 megawatts of new capacity with a similar mix of resources.

And the average cost of this portfolio would be 113.47 uh cents per megawatt hour, or 24% more than the 100% renewable case.

Here's another chart that we shared uh with you on June 23rd.

It compares the annual cost of the different IRP portfolios to the power supply cost forecast, and the Commission adopted 10-year financial plan for Clean Power SF.

The 100% renewable portfolio shown in green is slightly higher in some years, but overall tracks closely with Clean Power SF's adopted 10-year financial plan shown in the dash red line in the chart.

By comparison, the two the time coincidence by 2030 case in blue and time coincidence by 2035 case in purple show significantly higher power supply costs starting in 2030 and 2035 respectively, the year when the time coincidence begins.

Once the time coincidence is achieved in this portfolios, the cost continues to be higher through 2036.

Based on the criteria we discussed during the June 23rd meeting, Clean Power SF staff have evaluated the three portfolios analyzed for this IRP.

The table shown here ranks each portfolio for each of the criterion, broken down by Clean Power SF program goals.

A score of one is best, and a score of three is worst.

The portfolio with the lowest total score would be one of that performs best overall.

Under this rubric, the 100% renewable portfolio uh best balances the commission's adopted goals for Clean Power SF.

The 100% uh uh renewable case ranks best for affordability and long-term rate and financial stability.

As noted earlier, the time coincidence portfolios both require significant new energy resources development that would increase power supply costs and rates by approximately 24 to 32 percent.

While the 100% renewable portfolio lags behind the other portfolio with explicit time coincidence goals, it is equivalent to these portfolios from a reliability, compliance, and local investment standpoint.

Stas evaluated the 100% renewable portfolio for its time coincidence using our own demand forecast as opposed to the assigned demand from the California POC, and it performs pretty well, achieving at least 90% time coincidence in 88.5% of uh the hours each year by 2035.

Critically, staff believes the 100% renewable portfolio is the most feasible to achieve from a procurement standpoint.

The amount of new resources and schedule for adding them aligns better with our recruit procurement staff belief is achievable in today's market.

In summary, the 100% renewable case best balances the commission's adopted goal for clean power SF by better matching overall energy use with customer demand, the 100% renewable case minimizes ratepayer exposure to various risks, such as lower electricity demand, with less excess energy that must be sold to the wholesale energy market.

The 100% renewable portfolio also relies much less on volatile wholesale revenue to cover the cost of additional energy produced, procured.

Based on this analysis, staff are recommending the Commission approve the 100% renewable portfolio as the preferred conforming portfolio for clean power SF 2026 IRP compliance filing.

Upon approval, staff will finalize the compliance material and file with the California POC by August uh 10th deadline.

Um before I conclude my presentation, I just really want to thank that this project is a really really complicated and hard project, and I really want to uh acknowledge uh my team member Justin Shabara for all the work he's done.

Uh he's here in the meeting.

Uh just he's been really excellent, and he's worked extremely hard, and I think really I I really uh appreciate all the work he's done.

Uh with this I concludes my presentation, and I hope to take any questions that you might have.

Okay, thank you so much for the presentation and the recommendation.

Question from Commissioner Jamdar.

Thank you so much.

Thank you for that presentation, and this is amazing.

Uh I read through the document, and I think I missed I missed the last meeting, so I have some clarifying questions maybe that were asked, so I apologize.

So the build-out that you refer to, is that local build out within the city and county, or is that spread out across California?

Yeah.

So the build out we're talking about here is uh spread out across California and potentially also outside of California as suggested some New Mexico wind.

Okay.

Yeah.

So is there a prioritizing?

Because I know when we founded Clean Power SF, the emphasis was on doing a more local build out, certainly a California specific build out.

Is that still is that sort of the same across these three buckets?

Yes.

So in our procurement procedures, we do have a prioritization for local investments, and that is the investments within those nine uh Bay Area counties.

Uh that being said, this is uh the amount of energy that's procured here is really, really like just a large amount.

And in terms of what's available in and sort of what's economically effective, uh it's probably like hard to just do it from uh just the local Bay Area counties.

Um and also like sometimes, like for example, New Mexico wind, uh the reason why we procure we the the there's a benefits of procuring uh New Mexico wind is because it uh produces energy at times when uh sources of electricity, renewable electricity in California do not produce uh energy.

So for example, uh New Mexico wind uh has a good profile of production in in winter times.

Typically that's when we are really need a lot of energy in California, and California wind typically is not blowing uh very hard in uh in in winter.

So essentially like those are things that that we all take into balance when we are procuring.

That being said, local investment is one of our goals, and it does get uh an additional prioritization.

Uh but it also like the amount that we're talking about here of procurement is just so large that it would be um kind of difficult to just uh limit our scope to just electricity that's being produced within the neighborhood nine Bayer area counties.

How does the energy or recs versus build-out sort of play out into the future?

Yeah, no, that's a very good question.

So when you when you do a long-term contract, you guarantee that that electricity is g is uh is is delivered to you as well as the recs as well as other uh attributes such as resource adequacy attributes and such.

Um if you rely on the market, uh then you're exposed to that wholesale energy market, which is very volatile.

Um so sometimes, like if you ride the wave, essentially you could save money, but sometimes you could actually pay extremely high cost.

Now, in addition, there are uh also requirements for the, for example, renewable portfolio standard and for the RAA program that you have to have these things for long term.

So you have to contract them in the long term.

Uh especially this is true for something called the so the integrated resource plan actually has a separate track called the uh procurement track, where the state tells us that we have to procure certain amount of electricity in long-term contracts.

So we're actually mandated to procure uh things in a long-term contract, so you can't totally rely on the market.

In addition, the renewable portfolio standards also requires that at least 65% of the recs that we purchase come from long-term contracts.

Uh so essentially like long-term contracts uh are an essential component to procure.

Um if you do not procure things with long-term contracts, you are exposed to volatility from the market.

Because we try to kind of maintain stability in our rates, we cannot, as uh as an LSE as a load-serving entity, depend solely on uh market purchases.

That being said, we do have an open position that we try to maintain so that we are not fully committed to sort of like uh prices, so that we can actually get some uh positive returns if we think that uh prices are are going to improve.

Uh but that's generally like uh kind of like the balance uh of of in of different priorities that we have in in assigning how much we do from long-term contracts versus market volatil uh market uh purchases.

Thank you.

Uh just one more question.

So this build-out would be owned by the PUC?

It would be long-term contracts.

This would this is this these are all long-term contracts.

Our own facilities, it's just a contract with the correct.

We uh do long-term contracts with uh developers who build it out, and typically these contracts are more than 10 years, sometimes they're they're 20 years or so.

Uh but no, we're not purchasing these projects.

We're just contracting for the long term for them.

Thank you.

Of course.

Thanks, Commissioner.

Commissioner Thurlow.

Thank you for the presentation.

This may be a vague question and one that I should have asked last week, but or to when we last met.

You said that for the SFPUC's demand, the 100% renewable portfolio actually performs quite well in terms of its time coincidence.

And that's obviously it's a beneficial portfolio in terms of cost to ratepayers.

I guess I'm wondering how does when you're actually determining the portfolio composition, how does time coincidence versus cost play into the optimization of the portfolio structure?

Yeah.

No, thanks for the question.

So basically when we model those different scenarios.

For the 100% renewable case, we did not impose uh modeling constraint to achieve any any sort of time coincidence.

We just told the model meet all these constraints, like you know, we need you to be reliable, da-da-da-da-da, at the lowest cost given these technologies and so on.

When we put a time coincidence constraint, it actu the model actually has to solve to get us to the cheapest but meeting that particular constraint.

Um so essentially in the 100% renewable case, it doesn't try to do any time coincidence.

Uh however, when we imp uh superimpose that portfolio on our demand and told them to and told the model, okay, like how much time coincidence are we getting?

Um this that's where we got the number that we said.

So it's not solving for time coincidence in that in the 100% renewable case.

Uh while on the 2035 and 2030 time coincidence case, it is solving for that.

So it's it's it's trying it has to meet that constraint first, and then it tries to minimize costs.

So this might be also a vague question.

So if you actually did introduce um sensitivity testing to s to try to slightly nudge or enhance the time coincidence in above and beyond what's just sort of arbitrarily the output of the 100 percent renewable model.

Um do you know if there are big gains to be made in time coincidence at low cost?

I think I I think yeah, I and I see what you're going there with there.

Yeah, I and I think the answer is yes.

Um in terms of like if we take our like a like our forecast, and then we run the time coincidence to like we we optimize to get time coincidence there.

The issue was what would happen there is because our forecast is so much kind of lower than the CPUCs, it would result in a different portfolio than what the 100% renewable case would meet, but it will not meet the CPUC's uh requirements.

So it would be cheaper.

Okay.

I think, but it will not meet the CPUC's uh goals.

Um with with uh uh in the sense of like uh just because the the load is uh the demand is so much slower.

Right.

Um so it would I would think that yes, it would be definitely cheaper, but it would not meet the CPUC's requirement.

And for our own uh just following up on a question I asked last time.

For our own actual procurement exercises, we could adopt a slightly different portfolio in uh in operation.

Correct.

Yes.

Okay.

So yes, we we can, and we can impose uh uh like a time coincidence goal based on our demand for our procurement.

So that is something that we can run.

Uh and I think we've run something like that uh internally sometime uh a while ago, but that is something that we would continue to do.

So like when we do our our sort of like internal plannings, we are doing more of these scenarios.

But none of those scenarios would be able to be used for compliance with this IRP.

Right.

But but yes, that is true.

That is kind of the principle we'd probably uh follow.

And I would assume that you wouldn't necessarily need to threshold for a specific time coincidence.

You could just kind of see what the sensitivity is for getting better time coincidence at a reasonable cost.

Correct.

Yes, okay, perfect.

Thank you.

Yeah.

All right.

Unless there's any other questions, we can go to public comment.

Remote callers, please raise your hand if you wish to provide a comment on item 10.

Alita Dupree.

Uh thank you to the chair.

Uh Alita Dupree for the record, she and her with Team Folds.

This is one of my favorite items.

I've been speaking about this since I think 2013 at a rate setting meeting.

I think even before that.

I'm interested in learning more about time coincidence.

But at least we are pushing into a 100 percent renewable portfolio.

And this isn't just about doing good things, but it's about setting precedent.

We can show here in San Francisco that we can do large scale renewable energy.

I seek after this around the country now in my home.

I have an all electric home and I'm buying 100 percent renewable energy.

And I seek the deeper things of how we get there.

Storage is essential in this, especially at certain times of the year when there is an oversupply of electricity.

How do we get as much of that for ourselves?

I share about this in other places such as BART, which buys their own electricity, and Caltrain has 100 percent renewable electricity, and I share of this in New York at uh MTA meetings.

Uh they are known for operating a famous transportation famous transportation system called the subway, which I grew up on, and perhaps some of you have gotten to see it.

Two billion kilowatt hours it takes to run a subway.

But we can do that here, and uh I hope to see that happen in New York and uh I I support the regional aspects of getting our power, not just from here in San Francisco, but and in the region, but also from other states in Nevada, I'm sure we'd love to sell you plenty of solar power.

So I ask for approval.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Moderator, are there any callers who have their hand raised?

Ms.

Lanier, there's no callers on the wish to be recognized.

Thank you.

All right.

Well, thank you.

Thank you for the presentation.

Thank you for the comment.

And at this point, the items in front of us for approval, if we can get a motion to approve.

Motion to approve.

Motion comes from Vice President Leveroni.

Seconded.

And second from Commissioner Jamdar.

If I can just ask a quick clarification with the motion on the floor to our Deputy City Attorney, do we need to clarify that we're approving that specific recommendation, or is that included in the motion that's in front of us on the agenda?

I believe the warning is that it's included in the motion.

Okay.

In the agenda.

All right.

So just but just to clarify, because probably no no reason not to uh to clarify, we're approving the recommendation.

The motion in front of us is to approve the recommendation.

We have a motion and a second.

Can we call roll?

Thank you, Ms.

President Arceus.

Vice President Leverone.

Aye.

Commissioner Jamdar.

Aye.

Commissioner Stacy.

Aye.

Commissioner Thurlow.

Aye.

Item 10 passes.

Item 11.

Award contract numbers PRO.0336 HD, specialized and technical as needed services to Stan Tech Consulting Services Incorporated.

Jacobs Engineering Group Incorporated.

ACOM Technical Services Incorporated and Lee Incorporated.

Please bring up the slides.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

My name is Cheryl Sperry.

I am the Business Services Manager for Hed Hedge Water and Power, a division of the water enterprise.

I'm here to request approval for approval of PRO 336.

Thank you.

Specialized and technical as needed services for operations and maintenance support of the Hed Tetou water and power system.

Pro 336A through D will provide as needed technical and specialized services to assist the SFPUC with operations and maintenance of the Hed to do water and power system, including asset management support services, engineering services limited to condition and needs assessments, and capital plan development services.

The technical services included in this contract will include water services, including water supply, storage, delivery, and transport services, water quality services, and water and wastewater treatment services.

Power services include support for hydrogen and transmission equipment and controls, and operations and management services, including management improvement, asset management, specialized technical, operation maintenance, land management, security, asset control, and emergency response, environmental and regulatory compliance, hazardous materials and waste, health and safety, condition assessment, and project prioritization.

The services are to support the Hedgehogi Water and Power System, a system that provides water to 2.7 million customers and 400 megawatts of clean hydropower.

The territory covers over 150 linear miles and is comprised of approximately 15 billion in assets.

Much of the system is over 100 years old, and the average age.

Your slides are out of sync.

Oh, okay.

Thank you, Steve.

Thank you.

The average age of assets is 140% beyond the beyond their useful life.

We're asking the commission to award Pro 336A through D to the four highest ranked proposers, Stantec Consulting Services, Jacobs Engineering Group, AECOM Technical Services, and Lee Incorporated.

The not to exceed amount per contract is 20 million dollars with a five-year duration and an option to extend.

PRO 336 A through D replaces Pro 231 A through D, which extended from 2023 and concludes in 2028.

These contracts have provided access to proven expertise and extensive experience in water services, power services, and operations and management services.

The following slides illustrate some of the projects supported under these contracts.

One example is civil engineering services.

So the contract supports the operations and maintenance of Hedgehogi water and power system by conducting condition assessments of roads, bridges, large pipelines, and foundations, evaluating and designing repairs for high voltage transmission tower footings, and reviewing technical designs and engineering documentation.

Another example is the 115 KV transmission line assessment.

The contract is being used to conduct an inspection of 98 miles of 115 KV transmission assets to identify key defects and develop remediation proposals, including mitigation measures to enhance reliability and sustainability.

Another example of how these contracts are used are electrical maintenance planning development services.

So this particular task was to develop core competencies and a maintenance program for instrumentation standards and review and implementation of Hetchy Water and Power's high voltage testing program.

A final example is Hedgehogi Water and Powers Row bioaudit surveys.

So this particular task is to conduct annual bioaudits of the rights of way and other Hedgehogi Water and Power properties, including conserving monarch butterfly habitat, mitigating measures to protect the habitat and surveying and strategizing for future plot development.

Finally, the financial context for this contract Hedgehuty Water and Power Capital Program funding includes 180 million on average per year.

Operations and maintenance regulatory funding is 156.4 million on average per year.

So the contract represents about 6%, less than 6% of total annual expenditures.

This contract will allow Hedgehutchy Water to prioritize limited funding and address gaps in resources for successful implementation of capital regulatory and facilities maintenance programs.

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you for the presentation.

We have questions from the Commission.

Okay, well, seeing none.

Oh, I'm sorry, apologies, Commissioner Stacy.

Thank you.

Can you tell me?

You said this contract is replacing another one.

How much was the prior contract for?

So the contract was amended, had an original amount of $7.5 million per contract.

It was amended to increase each contract by $5.5 million for a total of $13 million per contract.

Times 4 is $52 million.

Yes.

Total.

And this new set of contracts would be for a total of $80 million.

Yes.

And I think you said the old contract goes until 2028.

Yes.

But that this four new contracts are going to replace the contract.

So have we spent all of the money on the previous all $52 million under the old contract?

No, we have approximately $11 million left on the old contract, and it's in various contracts.

So we anticipate there will be some overlap between the two contracts.

But this will allow us to tap in, tap into each contract as task orders or services are needed and utilize the best contract for those services.

So we have 11 million still to spend in the next two years before those contracts expire about two years to 2028.

These four new contracts go into effect in August of 2026.

So there will be some overlap.

There are some of the same firms.

So Stantech and AECOM, actually, Stantec, AECOM, and Lee are also on the old contracts.

Jacobs is new.

Okay.

How does that how does that sort of operate for you?

That these firms, I assume they're keeping very careful track of what they're spending where, but they three of these firms still have 11 million total to spend in the next two years, and then they'll start with a new budget of 20 million.

So they're uh are they working on different projects or how do you how do you sort of separate the two when it's the same firm?

Yes.

Um so uh actually on one of these contracts, we are almost out of capacity.

So the burn rate on the contracts is not equally distributed.

We try to distribute it equally, but some firms are better at at some types of work than other firms.

So for example, on the Stantec contract, we're very close to being out of capacity.

Um so we know that if we have any work that um Stantech specializes in, we're gonna have to tap into the to the new contract for those services.

So similarly, we look at what's left on the old contract, what kind of task orders do we have coming up, and we use the old contract capacity first, and then we'll tap into the new contract capacity.

Well sounds like you are very careful about budgeting and tracking, so thank you.

Okay, if there's no other questions, can we please take public comment, Ms.

Nir?

Remote callers, please raise your hand if you wish to provide comment on item 11.

Are there any members of the public president who wish to comment?

Seeing none, moderator, are there any callers who have their hand raised for 11?

Ms.

Lanier, there's no callers that wish to be recognized.

Thank you.

Can we please get a motion to approve item 11?

Move to approve.

Motion from Commissioner Stacy.

Second.

Second from Commissioner Jamdar.

President Arsay?

Aye.

Vice President Leberoni?

Aye.

Commissioner Jamdar.

Aye.

Commissioner Stacey?

Aye.

Commissioner Thurlow?

Aye.

Item 11 passes.

Item 12.

Approve the terms and conditions and authorize the general manager to execute a no-cost project specific maintenance agreement with the State of California, Department of Transportation for ongoing maintenance supporting proposed improvements under contract number WW-780, pump station security upgrades.

Cesar Chavez, Channel Griffith and Merlin Morris by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission at two wastewater pump station locations within Caltrans, right of way along State Highway Route 80 in the City and County of San Francisco.

Good afternoon, President Arce, Commissioners.

Joel Prater, Assistant General Manager for Wastewater Enterprise, here today to request your approval to execute a maintenance agreement between the San Francisco PUC and the state being represented by Caltrans for an ongoing maintenance and operational needs for our two of our wastewater enterprise pump stations located under and adjacent to Caltrans freeways here in the city.

These are the Cesar Chavez Pump Station, which is located at the intersection of Caesar Chavez and Bay Shore Boulevard and then the Merlin Morris Pump Station near the intersection of Harrison and Fifth Streets.

We recently awarded contract WW780 for performing security upgrades at various pump stations, including these two.

When we approached Caltrans for an encroachment permit to do this work, it became apparent to both parties that a new maintenance group, new maintenance agreement was needed between the two parties.

So staff from Wastewater Enterprise Infrastructure, PUC Real Estate, and our city's attorney, City Attorney's Office worked on this agreement in front of you today.

And I, along with staff from those respective teams, are here to answer any questions you might have.

All right.

Thank you, Mr.

Prater, AGM Praetor.

Questions from the Commission.

Okay, we don't have questions, but we would like to take public comment.

Remote college, please raise your hand if you wish to provide comment on item 12.

Are there any members of the public present who wish to comment?

Seeing none, moderator, are there any college who have their hand raised?

Ms.

Lanier, there are no callers that wish to be recognized.

Thank you.

All right.

With that, can we get a motion to approve item 12?

Motion to approve item 12.

Motion from Commissioner Jamdar.

Second.

Second from Commissioner Stacy.

President Arce?

Aye.

Vice President Leverone.

Aye.

Commissioner Jamdar.

Aye.

Commissioner Stacey.

Aye.

Commissioner Thurlow.

Aye.

Item 12 passes.

Item 13.

Approve an increase of 545 calendar days to the existing duration contingency for contract number WW709R.

Various locations sewer replacement number 13 with M.

Hernandez Construction Incorporated doing business as Hernandez Engineering.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Aileen Kelau, SFPC Project Manager overseeing contract WW709R.

The agenda item presented in front of you is a request for the construction duration contingency forecasting the additional time needed for the contractor to complete remaining contract work scope in the North Beach and Marina districts.

The time increase accounts for potential encountering of unforeseen site conditions, including higher than pres uh higher than expected groundwater, differing soil conditions, or existing utility conflict coordination.

Your approval of this contingency increase allows us to execute a contract modification needed to complete the project.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

All right.

Thank you, Ms.

Gilal.

Questions from the Commission.

Okay.

Seeing none, can we take public comment?

Remote callers, please raise your hand if you wish to provide comment on item 13.

Are there any members of the public present who wish to comment?

Seeing none, moderator, are there any college who have their hand raised?

Mr.

Lanier, there are no callers that wish to be recognized.

Thank you.

All right.

Well, thank you for the presentation.

Once again, can we get a motion to approve item 13?

So moved.

Motion from Commissioner Stacy.

Second.

The second from Commissioner Thurlow.

President Arcee?

Aye.

Vice President Leveroni.

Aye.

Commissioner Jamdar.

Aye.

Commissioner Stacy?

Aye.

Commissioner Thurlow?

Aye.

Item 13 passes.

Item 14, Communications.

Commission takes note of the communications that were received.

Item 15.

Items initiated by Commissioners.

Commissioners, are they any items you wish to initiate for future discussion?

No is the answer.

Oh, Commissioner Stacy.

I'm just trying to pull up the agenda, but there was a report that was part of our communications, the water enterprise environmental stewardship policy implementation 20-year report.

It was a very interesting read, and I know it goes it goes across many different divisions within water, but I think it would be interesting for the Commission to have a conversation about the environmental work we do in the watersheds.

If the Commission is so inclined, I would be interested in having a conversation about that and hearing from staff and the public about what we're doing, what we could be doing more of, what what we might be doing less of.

So that I I I would like to see that report on the calendar if possible.

All right.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Sounds like something good for us to share when when we um link up next with our general manager.

And uh and and knowing the great work of AGM Flynn, I'll bet you he'll even get there before us in sharing the request.

But since we do have an item and we did have a initiated topic, we should take public comment.

Remote college, please raise your hand if you wish to provide comment on item fifteen.

Are there any members of the public present who wish to comment?

Seeing none, Moderator, are there any callers who have their hand raised?

So on to item seventeen then, Ms.

Lanier.

Item sixteen.

Remote college, please raise your hand if you wish to provide comment on item seventeen.

Are there any members of the public present who wish to comment?

Item seventeen.

Motion on whether to assert the attorney client privilege regarding the matters listed on the agenda.

Commissioners can have a motion on whether to assert the attorney client privilege regarding the matters of closed session.

Second.

Commissioner Jamdar.

Aye.

Commissioner Stacy?

Commissioner Thurlow.

Aye.

Item seventeen passes.

Entertaining.

Item eighteen, report following closed session.

The commission is recommending that the board approve the items referenced under agenda item seventeen.

Second.

Second from Commissioner Jamdar.

President Arcee.

Commissioner Stacy.