Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  November 28, 2019 10:00pm-11:01pm PST

10:00 pm
demand were to grow and you were part of the group that said that is part of my pie, i am not sure i am willing to relieve you of that burden. the developing supply at the same time. >> normally your supplies depend, right? >> it is difficult with the interruptibles and all of the other factors and regulatory environment as well. >> well, thank you. >> thank you for sharing that with us. it was very informative. is there any public comment on that issue? >> i think this is one of the better presentations that should teach us a number of very serious issues that this
10:01 pm
commission hasn't been paying attention to. now, if i ask you, commissioners, within san francisco how many miles of clean water pipes we have and if you go to our website, it says that a very high percentage of those clean water pipes are over 90 years old. have you made a needs assessment on how many millions of gallons of water leach into our watershed? we talk about it in very general way. we talk about some gap that was arranged in the 1980s, we talk about certain targets, on always thinking about how are we going to make more money? those in san francisco are
10:02 pm
conserving water, and in our previous discussions i used to be here, and the only person that had a vision about something was tod, the chief financial officer. i never see somebody with a vision. they are always talking about generalities within some subject where you can throw some arrows in the air. so if we have over 1100 miles of clean water pipes in san francisco and they have a percentage of maybe 70% of them leaking because they are over 90 years old, what are we doing about it? do we have a responsibility? we talk about a common footprint, this, that and the other. do we have a responsibility
10:03 pm
about this precious water that was stolen to get it for free that we spend some money with the pipes, but the water was stolen. you have to read it. what are we doing about that? now, i want you to think about that and we have no clue what is happening in our regional pipes. we need to have some needs assessment so that we really know that we have this precious water like gold if we really care about the water or still continue to flush our toilets with clean drinking water. thanthank you very much. >> thank you. are there other comments on this topic?
10:04 pm
>> next meeting. we had spoken about a joint meeting with the planning commission several meetings ago to talk about in advance of additional water supply requests coming before us. >> i think all of that has been settled. >> what has been settled?
10:05 pm
>> the joint planning meeting. >> was there an upgrade? >> the last meeting. >> we didn't discuss it at the last meeting? >> no, we did not. >> now, i know what it is. go ahead. >> there is an information item scheduled for the december 12th planning commission meeting. the planning commission set it up that way where the planner who works with these issues will present what the planning commission does on the issue and i will present on what we do with our urban water management and water supply to give them the best information as a starting point to have further consideration that is established at this point. >> i was under the understanding we were going to have a conversation or some kind of back and forth communications before we continued to approve these development projects that
10:06 pm
were requesting additional water in light of what we might be facing from a regulatory perspective. that is where i left it. maybe i missed something. i am not going to be that comfortable approving additional water supplies for large projects without, you know, a sense that the planning commission understands what we are in. we talked about a policy document, all kinds of steps. >> we have to be clear here. we did not set any policy. we were asked about the availability of water. we were asked the question by the planning commission, and we answered them. that is when this whole topic came up. we have nothing to do with the planning commission approval or disapproval. >> the planning commission takes
10:07 pm
environmental review. it is the discussion we wanted to have to provide them information what we do so they understand when we do a water supply as assessment what does it mean and they do assessment of that. >> several things have been suggested. one of those there would be a combined meeting. other suggestions were that we make presentation, and i believe staff talked to the planning commission staff and there was back and forth how they would like to receive that information, and this is what we came up with. in addition to that, i had suggested that it might be helpful to the planning commission if we add adopted a policy that helped explain our rationale and how we would, you know, be reviewing these things
10:08 pm
in the future. there was a policy that we adopted a couple meetings ago which went partway there and i think that is as far as legal folks were comfortable with us going. there were concerns about saying what you are going to do before you do it. we have some steps to where this commission talked about. we have a policy that gets partway there, a presentation that is not the same as a joint meeting, but as far as the general purpose before the planning commission, our thinking process, i think that is happening. what i hope goes into that presentation is that we are potentially facing, with the state board's water plan a
10:09 pm
significant water supply problem in the city that will take significant investments in order to fix. the projects that we have been approving don't change that picture in any material way. sort of like we are in a jam either way, and it changes that a little bit, but not by a significant percentage. one of the objectives i had in getting to the planning commission was to let them know that in our future we may have to come to them with projects to help fill a water supply deficit that will require the planning department approvals. they need to know that. because we are making -- approving water supply assessments, that is the correct thing to do, but they also shouldn't take that as evidence that things are okay.
10:10 pm
as we look to the future there are challenges that they will be in the position of helping us make. >> commissioners, i would advise we agendize this for a future meeting. this is just new purpose and the purpose is to ask for future items for the calendar. i think we need to cut it short for now and through the chair if yoyou want to agendize this fora future agenda. >> i would like to request that we agendize it for the december 8th meeting, if possible. i don't have the understanding that is what is going to be conveyed at the planning commission. i would like a presentation. >> december 10th is the next meeting. december 12th is the planning commission meeting. >> it was scheduled for
10:11 pm
october 24 but they had hours and hours of testimony so rather than make a presentation at 9:00 at night we rescheduled to december 12th. >> it is such an important issue we need to continue being with them, whatever that looks like. >> we can do that. >> what exactly is the agenda item, council, or through the chair? it seems to be some confusion about what this. you know it is mentioned what this role of our commission is versus the planning commission. >> maybe the agenda item could be discussion of water supply assessments and planning commission. >> management plan and how they interact and water supply projects we are looking at. >> informational sessions to know the respective roles under
10:12 pm
this issue. >> we will work on a better definition of it. >> whatever definition we would hear mr. richy's report that he is going to give to the planning department. however that goes. >> sounds good. thank you. any other new business? >> next item, please. >> public comment? >> new business. >> it was just suggested. >> okay. item 10 consent calendar all matters listed hereunder constitute a cons sent calendar and are to be considered to be routine. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission or the public so requests in which
10:13 pm
event the matter will be removed from the calendar and considered as a separate item. >> any items you would like removed? >> to the general public, any items to be removed? >> may i have a motion? >> so moved. >> second. >> all those in favor. >> aye. >> opposed? >> the motion carries. >> next item please. >> item 11 approve amendments to the grant program rules. >> this is an action to modify the large landscape grant program rules where the commission awards grants to various recipients to help improve water usage on large
10:14 pm
landscapes. the specific amendments to reduce the minimum landscape size from half acre to 10,000 square feet to provide recycled water projects and to eliminate grant eligibility for synthetic turf projects. you can't put in astroturf and ask for a grant to do it and make administrative and clarifying changes. it would delegate authority to make potential further modifications consistent with the program approved after consultation with the city attorney. we would request your approval of that action. >> so move the item. >> second. >> any discussion? >> any comments, questions? to the general public any questions or comments?
10:15 pm
all those in favor. aye. >> opposed? motion carries. >> item 12 public hearing discuss and possible action to adapt revisions to the debt management policies and procedures. >> good afternoon, commission. manager of the p.u.c. we ask adoption of the debt management policies and procedures as revised since last adoption in 2017. first i will provide an overview and describe the key revisions being made for your consideration. the p.u.c.'s debt policies are a public document providing clear guidance to the ratepayers that they are conducting the debt administration in a manner that
10:16 pm
meets market standards and practices compliant with all laws, rules and regulations. having robust policies demonstrates that the p.u.c. is meeting the objective of being a good financial steward and is financially sustainable and it is consistent with the best practices of the government finance office gfoa a bond organization that represents and advocates for agencies such as the p.u.c. our debt policies were established in 2004 and because of the ever changing nature of the markets have been revised most recently in 2017. our debt policies cover many areas including types and purposes of debt, debt authorization and approval, debt over site, debt limitations method of sale and debt
10:17 pm
structuring. ongoing debt administration including disclosure compliance is also covered. having comprehensive debt policies allowed us to benefit including maintains and improving the aaa credit ratings, financing the enterprises in a cost-effective manner, managing the debt effectively within the objectives and parameters, achieving the highest credit ratings, retaining financial flexibility and keeping compliant with all relevant laws, reporting and disclosure requirements. so this next slide we summarize the key revisions we ask to be made. this focuses on the most important related to reporting
10:18 pm
compliance. since disclosure is so important we set forth this section as its own appendix. what has changed? security and exchange commission requires all issuers of public debt disclose the occurrence of certain events that could impair the bond holder's rights. such disclosures have to be made within 10 business days of learn of the events. there have been 14. this include debt service payment delinquencies, nonpayment related defaults, bankruptcy of the debt obligat obligatetor. there are now two new listed events first the occurrence of financial obligation that could affect the bond holder security. the default of some other similar event which reflects financial difficulties of the
10:19 pm
debt obly gore. the debt policies are revised to include the two new events along with the other listed events i mentioned earlier. staff and team management at the p.u.c. does an excellent job of monitoring our financial and debt obligations including monitoring of financial stress or difficulty and proposing to revise to reflect the creation of disclosure practices working group to monitor the financial and debt obligations to ensure the requirements effectively discharge in light of these two listed events. the disclosure working group will consist of the cfo, two deputy cfo and debt manager with consultation with the city attorney and outside disclosure meeting semi-annually or as
10:20 pm
needed. this effort is done in a coordinated manner with our other city agencies, including the debt issuing bodies, controller, public finance and airport. this slide briefly summarizes the proposed revisions to did debt policies along with disclosure. first is bond indenture to provide market provisions for the variable rate obligations by the wastewater enterprise. these amendments will now be included under the variable date obligation center. the other is the formal addition of the low cost loans to be entered into by the p.u.c. last year the p.u.c. entered a $699 million loan with the federal government under the
10:21 pm
water in from structure act that i hads water solids which is the project. with the low cost revolving fund they are loans we have been executing with the state will be adding the loans to the debt policies as form of low cost debt financing instrument p.u.c. can enter into. so that concludes my presentation. i am happy to take any questions now. >> why do you think that they have added the two new events? >> that is a very good question. i think it has nothing to do with the p.u.c. there are probably other agencies in the united states that are not disclosing these types of events. they impair the security of bond
10:22 pm
holders. sec decided to make this a formal required event. it has to cover everybody. they are protecting the bond holder's interest. >> can you give me an example of a new event? >> for example, and actually you know that we over the last couple years and i was here last meeting asking you to approve two state revolving loans. these are just loans between did p.u.c. and state of california. these are issued -- the state has the same rights and securities as the bond holders, wastewater revenue bond holders. one of the listed events says when ever you owe cura financial
10:23 pm
obligation within 10 business days we have to file a notice saying that we have executed the transaction. that goes to the whole investment community. they now know that we entered into the loan. otherwise they wouldn't know that. >> because it is with the state? they wouldn't know because it is with the state? >> it is a direct transaction between the p.u.c. and state of california. to be honest with you, over the last couple years irrespective of this new requirements, we have decided to be good citizens and we have been disclosing our loans. the white field loan another one. on a voluntary basis. now we are obligated to do it, but we have been doing it.
10:24 pm
>> let me ask the public any questions or comments? >> madam president, we have acorns received -- a the korrespondence that was entered this morning that i would like to enter for the record. >> i guess there is a time when we do say to ourselves no, right? it just seems like there is an awful lot of money. i am just getting it from my vantage point. >> i work with the cfo, we monitor our obligations very, very closely and carefully. >> good. thank you. >> any other questions?
10:25 pm
>> i have a motion. i move it. all those in favor. aye. opposed? motion carries. >> next item, please. >> item 13. authorize the issuance of $850 million of the 2019 series abc d taxable water revenue bonds consisting of four bonds and delegate to the general monger the authority to award to the highest bidder. >> for this item we ask the commission to authorize the bond sale, specifically water revenue bond sale primarily a refunding of the outstanding wattder bobbeds to provide -- water
10:26 pm
bonds. this was not included in the 2019-2020 capital financing plan, i did at the end of my presentation mention we would be bringing this transaction in the near future. here we are. just briefly, i will show you proposed sources and uses of the proceeds and set forth the documents we are asking you to approve in form. i will walk you through the transaction followed by informing you of the timetable and reciting the commission action. >> the transaction in front of you is if proposed 2019a, b, c, d water revenue bonds to be sold up to $850 million. the transaction consists of four
10:27 pm
sub series of bonds, a, b, c, d. the first three sub series would refund rate payer savings outstanding water bonds. 20 11:00 a.m., b, -- 2012a water bonds. sub series d will refinance a small amount of previously issued commercial paper. staff recommends the bonds be sold with morgan stanley selling the bonds. they were selected by staff pursuant to request by proposals process. most of the transaction will refund outstanding water bonds at lower interest rates. if you have a home mortgage and you got that at a certain rate
10:28 pm
and rates the lower, you can refi. based on the current market conditions the refunding would achieve $88 million or over 14% of the refunded bonds, which is an important metric to determine the success of bond refunding. anything over 10% is considered really good. what is different about this than previous advanced refunding. these will be sold on a taxable bases. tax rates are lower. we have done the refunding transactions. we can no longer do those any more. advance refunding when we initially issue bonds.
10:29 pm
they have a noncallable period, usually 10 years. you can't redeem the bonds until 10 years. that is the first option redemption date. in the past you couldish who tax-exempt bonds in advance of the first optional redemption rate. if interest rates are really good. in to year seven of the first 10 years. in the past we were able to issue the bonds at low interest rates and achieve debt service savings. we have done a lot of those. in 2017 there was a federal tax act authorized that took effect on january 1, 2018na prohibited the tax-exempt bonds.
10:30 pm
it didn't prohibit taxable bonds. they can no longer issue the tax tax-exempt refunding bonds. >> why was that. >> in their wisdom thinking they could save money, which is another argument or discussion. when you issue tax-exempt bonds the bond holders don't pay federal taxes. that is why they are taxable. they have to pay taxes on the interest they earn. the federal government decided with the tax act to try to get more revenues by eliminating this tax-exempt vehicle that had benefited government agency including this organization considerably in the past. now they are prohibited. we can do taxable refunding
10:31 pm
bonds. we are in a unique market position. taxable interest rates are at low levels so that even if we issue the tax refunding bonds we achieve savings that are significant. for an example we did the bonds for the water enterprise in 2016, 2017 and 2015. those were on a tax ex embases. the savings today if you approval this on taxable basis would exceed the savings we gained and those were good savings. issuing taxable bonds rates are so low that we can achieve
10:32 pm
significant savings and better than what we have done in the past. we are not the only agency taking advantage of this unique market situation. count less agencies are doing these so-called taxable refunding transactions. they will continue to do so while the market rally continues. >> question. if interest rates go up, then it is not. >> it is not worthwhile to do. that is why we want in the market as quickly as possible. this is another reason why we don'don't want to wait until the first call days. that is not for another two or three years. we don't know what the market will do. we have lost the opportunity. the opportunity is now and we are proposing to do this refunding on a taxable basis.
10:33 pm
it makes sense. in terms of the overall structure of the transaction. the bonds will be fixed rate bonds, sub series a and d will be green bonds. we have done them before. those two sub series are bonds that we have had certified for green bond qualification. hopefully we can pick up more investors with green bonds. they are issued under charter 9.9 and 142.18. i would president spend a lot of time on this slide. this table shows the sources and uses of the bond proceeds by series. as you can see, most of the bond proceeds are series a.
10:34 pm
they represent all of the billions of dollars worth of funding we have done through 2006ible. this shows two documents you are being asked to approve. they are typical. most important the preliminary statement. that is the pos. it is disclosure document describing bond terms and condition of the water enterprise in the p.u.c. so couple years ago we did a disclosure presentation to this body and to inform you of the commission's disclosure
10:35 pm
responsibilities when ever it approves a transaction of this nature. you asked we provide when we do a debt transaction. the next two slides is q and i. the purpose of the issuance of the bonds are to refund previously issued bonds. d is to refinance outstanding paper notes with bonds. structure. long-term fixed rate debt. method of sale so a negotiated basis. repayment from the net revenues in accordance with the water bond indenture. how many debt? that is not including this transaction. we are swapping old debt for new debt. the total won't change too much.
10:36 pm
how will the bonds impact savings? there will be safings. the savings related to the bonds. the last question is what will the impact of the bonds be on the p.u.c. credit ratings? i have very good news. we got our bond raidses yesterday and today. yesterday moody's up grated water from double a three to two. the higher the rating the lower the interest rate you pay. you want that. it signals to the bond holder that you are more of a credit. they are willing to pay lower interest rates to buy the bonds.
10:37 pm
in there layer. they cited strong water supply and liquidity and strong management of the p.u.c. including the water enterprise. a shout out to steve richesy and his team for that. then today we received the ratings and they affirmed the ratings. we got one upgrade and we are happy with trap. >> on behalf of the commission i would like to congratulate you. thank you so much. that is exciting. >> steve along with cfo and myself. we get on the phone with the rating, communicate.
10:38 pm
>> that is wonderful news. >> we are proposing the week of december 9th and close in late december or early january. the pricing is the key. the december 9th date is when you establish the interest rates. you commit to those interest rates. authorize $150 million of revenue bonds under 9.109 and 124 prop b affirm the docs and authorize the sale of the bonds and delegate the general manager obligation towards the bond on the lowest cost. with that i conclude my presentation. thank you.
10:39 pm
>> very good. further questions? to the general public comments or questions? may i have a motion. >> i will move it. >> second. >> all those in favor. >> aye. >> opposed. the motion carries. thank you. >> next item, please. item 14. discussion and possible action to authorize the general manager to consent on behalf of the san francisco public utilities commission to the development agreement between the city and county of san francisco and laurel heights for the project at 3333 california street block 1032, lot 003, as it relates to the matters under the sfpuc jurisdiction and adopt findings pursuant to the california environmental quality act and a mitigation and monitoring
10:40 pm
reporting program. >> the development agreement is approved by the board of supervisors. that was referenced in the approval was the auxiliary water supply system and the community benefits to the p.u.c. to bring the awss system to the out skirts of this development project. you are authorizing the general manager to consent to the development agreement as it relates to the fee 1.05 $5 million and adopting the findings. that is it in a nutshell. >> one question. can you speak for the trees? >> i can't speak for the trees. it is not in my jurisdiction. >> i don't want to take things out of order. >> from the office of economic
10:41 pm
and work force development and i am the project manager on this. what is the question about the trees? >> i have heard there are significant mature trees cut down for this project. i understand there are twice as many planted. in the world of trees and the planet. it is not really a quid pro quo, shall we say. >> the quick answer you are ask is about the nature of the healthy trees or the number of the healthy trees proposed to be removed. the project sponsor team and landscape architectures will work with the bureau, dpw folks. the number being forwarded around didn't account for the fact they were in poor unhealthy condition. to add to that this came up. there are 11 trees considered
10:42 pm
healthy or mature they redesigned the project around to make sure those don't get taken out. >> good. i hadn't heard that. so the healthy ones will stay. >> that makes me feel better. thank you. >> go hug them. >> i am going to. >> do we have any public comment? any questions. may i have a motion. >> i make a motion we move forward with this. >> i will second. >> all those in favor. aye. proposed. the motion carries. >> next item, please. >> adopt a decuria coloration the property located at 639
10:43 pm
bryant street is surplus and provide for the city's transfer in exchange for acquiring 2000marin street. this is relocation of the sfpuc power enterprise utility field service for the port property and developers reimbursement of certain sfpuc costs subject to the approval by the board of supervisors. >> this is land swap for the corporate yard. we are surrendering the lease for the warehouse as well and we are acquiring 2000marin. one of the things we need is corporate spaces within the city. it is getting hard to locate corporate yards for our people. this is an opportunity to go from a site 1.37-acres to almost
10:44 pm
8-acres, the site does have issues. we have investigated. we feel it is prudent to move forward. we have received additional concessions from the developer to pay for the improvement costs at pier 23. this will allow us to move the enterprise yard to that location and basically have them in a place where they can reach many of the areas where we have facilities. i think the agenda item is self-explanatory. i will answer any questions. i don't know about any trees at this site. >> do you know about soil contamination? >> i do. we did borings there and we know the site was contaminated as most sites are that have been used for industrial purposes.
10:45 pm
we put a conservativesty mat up to $10 million based on preliminary analysis where we would put buildings and we think when we go through the real process of building out a corporate yard we can be much smarter where we place the buildings and how big they are and minimize the remediation costs. all properties in the past couple years try to purchase them have issues. we think this is very manageable from that standpoint. >> okay. >> are we getting any cash? >> no. this is a complete land swap. this is where it is interesting. 1.37-acres at 639 brine and 2000marin site are both praised at $63 million. that is based on the location,
10:46 pm
purpose and we are doing up right or transferring the two properties we need the space at this point. >> so it sounds -- i went by there the one building you can see on marin is beautiful. we probably will not use it. i was concerned about water. that is near the creek. how is the water issue going to work? iis there an opportunity for us to be able to deal with that in any way that is environmental or people can see it? we can't just cover it up. >> we have a lot of facilities in that area underground at this point. as we develop the site maybe we incorporate a feature of the creek into our plans moving
10:47 pm
forward. >> we feel that and i know you have been working on this a lot. i want be to thank you and the team. >> thank you the team. >> this is incredible. i have a concern about talking about money and over the course of time we are going to have the build something because there is nothing we can use. we are going to teardown and rebuild. what are we thinking? we have considered all of that and saying, i'm assuming this is all worth it. >> we have. we haven't done what i would call programming for the site at this point. we thought what we want to put there because we haven't gone through the approval process, but i think we have considered all of those factors and looking at the cost to build out a new corporate yard for future activities makes a lot of sense from many different angles. >> okay.
10:48 pm
thank you. >> interesting point. may i have a motion. >> i will move. >> second. >> all in favor. >> did you call for public comment. >> i probably did not. it is clearly rerigh clearly rif me to call for public comment. please come forward. >> good afternoon, commissioners, i represent teamsters 665. behalf of the leadership we want to add our voice in support of this declaration. we have had a partnership which included our members who lost jobs at chariot using that former facility to transition to muni drivers and not members of the union. we were very grateful that
10:49 pm
opportunity was extended to those members of ours and the city is benefiting by getting the drivers as well. we wanted to add our voice in support. thank you. >> thank you. that is great. any other public comment? >> i want to say i wish we had heard a little bit more because as we were saying. that is a good story. we don't hear those good stories, especially when we desperately need muni drivers. that was excellent. thank you. i will call for the question. all those in favor. aye. opposed. the motion carries. >> so madam secretary could you read the items for closed
10:50 pm
session. >> 18 anticipated litigation the city is defendant settlement of 17cayuga avenue with the release of all claims and the city to pay $47,000. item 19. pacific gas & electric. city and county of san francisco versus pacific gas & electric. 21 city and county of san francisco versus pacific gas & electric. >> any public comment on the items to be discussed in closed session? may i have a motion on whether to assert attorney-client privilege ledge. >> so moved. >> second. >> all those in favor. aye. opposed. the motion carries. i have a question. we are going to take a break.
10:51 pm
we will take a 10 minute break. would you like to go into >> we are now back in open session. the announcement following closed session is the follow: item 18 was settled. no other action was taken. may i have a motion regarding whether to disclose? >> motion to not disclose. >> those in favor. >> opposed. >> motion carries. this meeting is adjourned at 4:11 p.m.
10:52 pm
sustainability mission, even though the bikes are very minimal energy use. it still matters where the energy comes from and also part of the mission in sustainability is how we run everything, run
10:53 pm
our business. so having the lights come on with clean energy is important to us as well. we heard about cleanpowersf and learned they had commercial rates and signed up for that. it was super easy to sign up. our bookkeeper signed up online, it was like 15 minutes. nothing has changed, except now we have cleaner energy. it's an easy way to align your environmental proclivities and goals around climate change and it's so easy that it's hard to not want to do it, and it doesn't really add anything to >> claim at change is real and we need to -- climate change is real. environ stewardship plays to change the fuel source from
10:54 pm
carbon based to re. anothe--ry newable power. >> the city is responsible for developing and procuring electricity that is delivered by pacific gas & electric to end users. >> i go to the market to try to find appropriate energy product to buy and usually that is renewable so we can ensure that is in the grid and supplied to consumers. >> the contracting workerrin ant they provide keep the lights on in san francisco. >> i started on the team almost four years ago and transitioned in 2017. we are a new team working together with across functional
10:55 pm
role. >> every contract her team is involved in executing helps san francisco reduce its climate impact by reducing greenhouse gases remitted. >> what i am most proud of is the long-term energy contracts to get new renewables in california. >> before she was doing this, we probably executed a cunpel contracts a year. it is a huge expansion in our operations and aaron is in the middle. she is centrally involved in entering more than $650 million worth of power contracts, much of that is renewable energy. the lasting impact of her contributions is helping us develop a modern utility power purchasing division. that is why i nominated her for this award.
10:56 pm
>> this award was surprising. i feeling grateful to be recognized. a lot of people do good work and it is nice to have my accomplishments valued and recognized in the environmental stewardship realm. >> a lasting legacy is creating a modern process to help new employees that come here understand how we do business. we couldn't have done it without her. >> i am a utility specialist on the power supply team and the power enterprise.
10:57 pm
10:58 pm
10:59 pm
11:00 pm

12 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on