Public Utilities Revenue Bond Oversight Committee
Wastewater Working Group 

MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING

Monday, March 27, 2006
1:30 p.m. – 2:30 p.m.
1155 Market Street (between 7 & 8th Streets) 4th Floor
San Francisco, CA  94103

1. Call To Order and Roll Call

   Chair David Sutter called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. and roll call was taken.  Wastewater Working Group members present were David Sutter and Patrick Sweetland.  Lisbet Sunshine was absent.  Also present were Tom Franza, Assistant General Manager for the Wastewater Enterprise, and Manfred Wong, Program Manager for 5-year Capital Improvement Program. 

2. Presentation by SFPUC staff on Wastewater Enterprise interim capital improvement program and possible discussion.
    
   Mr. Sutter expressed disappointment that the Quarterly Report was not provided to Committee members with sufficient time to review it before the meeting.  He also said he was disappointed that the “funding plan” for the interim Wastewater CIP wasn’t available; he would like this prepared in the next month or two, including a spending timetable.  Ms Ostberg said that Mr. Sutter could review all legislation going to the Commission or the Board of Supervisors and his input would be welcomed.  Mr. Sutter repeated that he would like to see a funding plan in the next month or two.

   Mr. Sweetland said he would like to get a sense of the projects, and how they link to approximately $150 million budget over the next 5 years.  He said he would also like to see a schedule for the Wastewater commercial paper program.

   Manfred Wong then delivered a PowerPoint presentation on the 5-Year Wastewater Capital Improvement Program (CIP), a copy of which is included with these minutes. Mr. Sweetland and Mr. Sutter asked several questions at the project level that centered on management of the schedule and budget.  Some key points included:

   • The CIP is designed to address the needs of the Wastewater Enterprise prior to completion of the Master Planning process.
     
   • The Master Planning process will take 4-5 years to complete; implementation may take an additional 2 years; the programmatic EIR is tied to the Master Plan and therefore cannot be expedited.
     
   • The 5-year CIP addresses projects that need attention prior to the completion of the Master Plan, such as aging infrastructure and flooding. 
     
   • DPW and PUC coordinate closely on sewer design. 
     
   • The CIP is a “living” document, always being adjusted to meet current needs.
   
   Mr. Sutter requested that the project spreadsheet be included in the quarterly report; instead it was agreed Mr. Sutter and the Committee would receive project spreadsheets as they are updated, approximately every 1 – 2 months.

   Mr. Sutter asked Mr. Wong to elaborate on what kinds of major re-designs might be involved in the Master Plan. He also asked the expected impact of Mission Bay and other UC development on the Wastewater system and to what extent are these developments bearing the costs for upgrades and increases in WW capacity. Mr. Wong responded that everything is on the table for the Master Planning effort and no final decisions have been made.  He also explained that the system has capacity for dry weather flow from the Mission Bay development since the Southeast plant is currently operating at 65 MGD with a design capacity of 86 MGD.  Wet weather flow won’t affect system capacity because Mission Bay has its own system to treat wet weather flows.

   Mr. Sutter asked whether if the Master Plan might be driven by political objectives and not just engineering objectives. 

   In response to Mr. Sweetland’s questions regarding project costs, Mr. Franza said that it was clear there were a lot of projects that needed attention whether or not a Master Plan was being developed; $150 million worth of work was identified whether or not the Master Plan was pursued.  Mr. Franza said the goal is to publish a Master Plan by the end of this calendar year, which presented the preferred alternatives for 30-50 yrs. 

   Mr. Sutter asked Mr. Wong about the major challenges. Mr. Wong referred to Chapter 2 of the Quarterly Report that stated that keeping project engineers in place is critical to keep project costs down and on schedule. Mr. Sutter asked whether the active construction market in Bay Area has had a major impact.  Mr. Wong agreed that this is a very critical issue and explained that there has been a problem generating multiple competitive bids for contracts.  Mr. Wong offered to provide information on bid history to the Committee.  

   Mr. Sweetland asked if the funding plan could be available at the May 1st RBOC meeting and Ms. Ostberg indicated that she would try.

3. General Public Comment
   There were no comments from the public.

4. Adjournment 
   
   Mr. Sweetland motioned to adjourn the meeting and Mr. Sutter seconded it; the meeting was adjourned at 2:45 pm.