this case. i think it would be good to send a memo to the capital planning groups and say hey, this thing you did and put out to the voters and now it's coming and laying on our desk, we're having trouble governing this, please, again, don't do this. because this did get through and this is crazy. i mean, we're going to be dealing with this for three, four, five years. >> yeah, i think that's a good point. as i say, brian strong, who is the director of the capital planning committee and the city's chief resilience officer is a good resource. he's sort of -- i don't want to say a toll collector but kind of organizer for a lot of the discussions. i think that would be helpful. and he will be here in march.

we can bring it up at that point as well. >> would you be up for writing a memo? >> maybe the controllers office can help draft this. i guess -- do other members feel strongly that a memo sent by this committee to the capital planning committee to express our concerns specific to this bond and how the broad nature of the bond has ended with possible problematic ways for us as we oversee the spending of the bond. would the control's office help us draft -- i think what we would like to do is have a memo from this committee to the capital planning committee to

share with them the problems that we are encountering as a result of the broad structuring of the bond. >> you're welcome to send a memo if you like. i'm listening to your conversation and clearly we need to do a better job talking to you about the problematic design of this bond and answering these questions. i can rely the conversation you've had here to the capital planning committee, to brian and his staff and i'm looking at your march calendar, i'm not sure which item he would be reporting under? so city capital plan presentation is going to move to march 26th. okay. so i can ask brian to address some of the questions

specifically. i'm not trying to stop you from writing a memo but i could relay the conversation and work with him for his presentation to address it. >> timing wise, i wasn't aware they were presenting. if you would convey the individual collective concerns of this committee to brian and ask him to specifically address this particular point at the next meeting. >> i'm happy to. >> in addition to that -- >> i want to second what you're saying, i would only add without missing any other bonds, this is less of a general issue that we have come across of language in bonds being so broad that the public has an expectation that doesn't get fulfilled in the implementation of the bond. it would help us meet that desire if we had clear

understanding of what was going to be accomplished with the bond. >> the other issue the pre-bond planning work. not just the seismic stuff but some soil stuff and other stuff. and i'm just wondering -- who owns the content of the pre-bond planning and can we suggest a check list? >> you can definitely suggest a check list. obviously part of your charge is produce best practices. general matter, here are things you need to look at. you can do that. in terms of -- i think the question you were asking, who owns the pre-bond forecast and reports is that kind of --

>> when we say we do pre-bond planning. what do we mean by that? can it include seismic, soil and some of the other -- >> so, again, a good historical example again i think that better seismic and soil testing work was done in advance of the sfgh bond than prior large facilities and it's one of the things that contributed to keeping the cost of the facility right-sized. by the time we went to the ballot, we knew better what the project cost would be and it stayed relatively within that. there's allocation of general fund capital in the budget every year. some portion is spent for testing programs for future likely bond programs appearing in outyears of the city plan so by the time the bonds are coming to be sized, we have spent money on the testing and some of that

can be repaid back to the city's general fund capital pot when we issue the bond, but that is sort of the process that is followed. and again, it's partly to the credit of this committee's oversight and capital planning committee process that that's done. and our bond sizing has improved. >> i'm just saying let's continue to set the bar a little higher and say the pre-bond stuff probably happened years and years ago and maybe no one was thinking about soil then and learn from our mistakes and say next time -- >> i think we can learn from our wins. the general hospital gives a lot of credit for pre-bond in keeping the project on budget and scope and that was 2008. this is a bond issue in 2016 and i think we spent over a million and a half dollars on prebond work but failed to do the seismic or soil in some cases.

>> we don't know what we're building anyway. >> when the bonds were put to the voters, there was a bond report that went into some specificity. because that wasn't in the actual bond document approved by the voters, you're not held to that. but there was and it leads to voter expectations. >> i'll relay this discussion to brian and ask him to comment on the issues hopefully in an organized way when he presents the capital plan. >> thank you. >> any public comment on the presentation? >> good morning. i have two comments. there are funds set aside for a

hospital audit, will there be a comprehensive outside audit of the construction project, the $900 million size of the project merits a comprehensive audit and can it be seen on the future agenda with the project closing report requiring the final closing report is a great step forward and will that final report be posted on the csa web site. regarding additional bond controls that bring together seismic and actual spending, is there a pre-bond check list and does the check list include a preliminary seismic assessment. also would it make sense for the bond sponsor to present the bond check list in actual prebond spending compared to budget to

cgoboc prior to moving forward and will allow them to address problems as they arise. it would force the issue of what individual projects in the scope of the work and address concern of the kitchen sink aspect of the bond. a priority of projects in the pre-bond checklist would bring transparency to the projects that get funded. thank you. >> any additional public comment? next item. >> item five presentation from the city service auditor regarding the csa mid year report and possible action by the committee in response to such presentation.

>> good morning. peg stephenson for the controller's office. we are just past the half way mark of the fiscal year. this is the item where we give you status report and update on our work in the city services auditor. you have a slide deck from us and i will talk fast and then tonia will go through the audits part and we're happy to answer your questions at any point. just to refresh your memories, the cycle that we follow is key

to the city's fiscal year, we do work planning process during the spring in anticipation of issuing and finishing our work plan by june 30th. april, may and june and earlier than that is a heavy planning process with us. we look at a complex of different mandates, there are charter mandates we operate under, appendix f. there are requirements in the codes and grant and leases we're responding to and various other audit requirements. we meet and speak with a variety of stakeholders, mayor, board of supervisors, yourself, we look at civil grand jury reports and anything that touch once the operating compliance in developing the work plan. our budget looks like the city budget. we get a work order from all the different city departments with an allocation and do work with and for them under the work order and whatever we don't

spend is typically returned to the fund at the end of the fiscal year. there are a couple of departments where the last dollar is general fund dollars, so those are particularly returned to the general fund. in general, we spend something on the order of now 85% of the allocation, sometimes we go over on individual line items and then we have a balancing issue with those departments but we have never overspent our aggregate budget. that's how we develop the work plan. this is a list of our issued reports during the first six months of the fiscal year in reverse chronological order. we have all of our standard reports that we have to issue for the performance side of the house have been issued. those are, expecept for one, th performance report and scorecards and nonprofit monitoring report, the park

standards report, the nonprofit monitoring report. the one standard issue report we do every year is street standards. you'll recall there's language for street cleanliness and standards: we have a contractor under a program design in place for some years. we have good data set from them, very robust and geographic city wide. we're not happy with the data. we are looking at it and curious how it comports with other ways that the department of public works measures street cleanliness and maintenance and trying to make it match. we haven't issued that report yet. i suspect we will before the end of the quarter but that's a gap on my mind as manager of the program. just to let you know. so we'll go past the rest of the reports.

i hope you've had a chance to look at some of them when issued. just to highlight quickly, to give you examples and flavor of some of the work we do, we're profiling four projects, muni customer service is one, this was a high priority of mta. in essence, working with the muni people, the ones who take the complaints, assign them to divisions in muni and there's a very serious -- in case you have made a complaint to muni, i'm sure some people feel unheard, that's an issue but there's a detailed process, whether they're valid and act upon them. go back if they're valid, if

there's not enough information they want to fill that gap. our work was to sit with the people who do the intake, the investigations and video polls and go through all the processes and see where there's duplications and inefficiencies. i mention here a couple of the projects we came up with. at 311 they intake a lot of calls, sometimes they weren't going through questions to investigate it, bus number, time of day, line number. if you have those you can investigate, if you don't, you can't. we want to have the protocol for the 311 operators. modular housing, we had a request in a hurry from the mayor's office to review the status of the modular housing industry. to oversimplify, the labor

unions and community are concerned about how much or not the city might move to using modular housing as a possible approach or design particularly for homelessness housing and shelters quickly. they asked us to look at the status of the industry, have there been success stories, what are the implications in terms of cost and time to using modular housing. we did a lot of interviews with people in labor and craft organizations to understand their concerns. we looked at the projects and looked at the industry. we issued a report, which again i hope you got a chance to see. the very short highest level finding is that cost savings, somewhat moderate, probably there. time savings are really more the issue. so the mayor's office is still considering this. i don't think they have made

final determinations but they put out an rfq to test the market of housing providers responsive to the city's needs in this area. nonprofit monitoring program, you have heard me talk about this, just to give you an example, this program has gone on for many years and used to be we often couldn't see a problem with a nonprofit provider until they were in financial crisis or having a service issue or both, now failures of that type are exceedingly rare and you can see the improvement overtime. the number of contractors who have serious findings have gone way down, repeat findings is way down. the amount of technical systems has helped a lot of nonprofits straighten out their books and not fall into crisis. this program is a real success story and i hope the statistics are interesting.

and lastly, the score cards and performance measures, ken you have kept an eye on this program for us over the years. we continue to make steady improvements for it. the one upper most on our minds right now, there's a civil grand jury report saying too many measures, too complicated. we said okay, we hear you but we worked really hard on the performance score cards to make that the simplest version of the entity, which is a city. and then there's also the mayor's office before mayor lee passed away had been working on a strategic alignment. they asked all the departments to update plans and fit performance measures across city. we're trying to help align to the mayor's work plan. like anything else, it's somewhat affected by the interim nature of the management in the

mayor's office now, proceeding with all the departments who successfully updated strategic plans and now moving to aligned work performance measures to match. we continue to make design improvements to the score cards so they're more you'res -- user friendly. the last throughslide is currens we were trying to finish during the fiscal year. interdepartment working group, i could talk about it for a long time, but just to let you know, we're working with the departments who have responses in the area basically to make sure the metrics are good so we know if we have succeeded or failed in response to homeless response. police staffing when the mayor

or the board goes to make decisions on academy classes for the next fiscal year, they have a real data basis to make that decision on. we're working with all the departments in the design of the permit center with the new building. public health has a lot going on, well underway with electronic health records procurement. the lean partnership, we're nearing the end toward a successful partnership which we have used lean methodologies to look at ways to stem inefficiencies and do a huge clean up. if you have looked at the before and after, maybe i'll put pictures into the year-end slide deck. it's amazing what they have accomplished at the yard. and soon to issue charter required hours at the libraries, looking at the branch libraries

and if they're meeting needs being open as many days of the week and hours. we had a number of surveys and recommendations on how the libraries should expand open hours. >> good morning toniss tonia leu from the controller's office. we will conduct a close out audit once the claim is closed and finished on the rebuild. we have prior to the close out through the process we completed about four additional audits on this particular bond project. so every year our audit team really strives to provide as much audit coverage as possible across the 50 plus departments. looking at the various risks and

activities through our city government. so slide 10 shows the various buckets we work in which include performance audit and these look at effectiveness, efficiency and economy of operations throughout the city department and generally we're doing several large audits across the city from an operational perspective. with the city wide audit program, we're assessing the various key business processes across the department for compliance and effectiveness. generally that's really around contracts and are you doing what you say you're doing. as it relates to it and system audits, we look at system, security, design and controls regarding that work and helping around resillancy. we have the whistle blower program and provide audit related services to various departments such as the police

department as they're working to resolve audit recommendations from the blue ribbon committee and other regulatory organizations that look at them. we're also looking at the police department, helping the police department accountability program set up their audit function and helping the ethics commission with some audit work as well. at different times departments ask for assistance to shore up in their operational areas and we do so because of our expertise. construction, change management procedures, efficiency and effectiveness. just to highlight construction audit work for the g.o. bond expenditure for 2018 and 2012

program. you requested us to look at that work and audited two bond programs last fiscal year, 2008 rebuild and 2011 road repaving bond. for this year we added four more audits to determine if bond revenues are expended in accordance and no funds are used for salaries or operating expenses. we included 2008 and 12 clean and safe bonds. 2014 earthquake safety bond and 2015 affordable housing bond. through the assistance of cummings, we have initiated the 2008 and 12 part bond audits in the field work phase and we'll complete an issue by april 2018 on that work. the other two will begin by

quarter four of this fiscal year. i believe we're on track as it relates to the bond expenditure audits. relating to the committee benchmarking work that you requested us to look at, we have done that work, that work currently is in our quality assurance review process and just for a quick highlight, we have collected relevant data and identified other like committees and interviewed the committees and researched best practices. we benchmark five entities, four are in the city and one is out of the state. how you compare to the five benchmarks entities is that you're actually the only committee that has the mandate or authority to inform the public concerning the expenditure of general obligation bonds. we realize this committee is

working on the next recommendations, identify standard reporting measures for all bond programs, should consider developing and implementing orientation or onboarding for new members and review your web site and ensure it's user friendly. these are all the publicly issued reports by our team so far for this fiscal year. in addition to the 23 reports issued we have a host of other audit memos and deliverables we don't necessarily issue on the web site due to confidentiality and due to the potential of how the information could harm the city operations. that's in accordance to the yellow book standards that allow us to do so. so i just like to quickly highlight a few of the audits we

have issued. in july, we issued the cable card fair process audit. we actually took 30 undercover rides as auditors and found that because of potential fraud, we did additional work and as you know, if you're following the news and i'm quite sure you are, there was an arrest. and as a result of the work, we have a continuous monitoring program we have implemented as it relates to the cable cars and the actual work of the cash fare audit is part of the normal work process we do under the city-wide work.

in october 2017 we issued a report of six city departments. airport, puc, public works, port, rec and parks from 2014 to 2017. so these 15 audits included the work we completed on our g.o. bond programs and contain 31 findings and 65 recommendations. we really just wanted to summarize the overarching trends and look at the various internal control weaknesses. what we noted were the three key findings were departments should strengthen change order documentation, have a proactive strategic approach and better monitor costs. also in october 2017 we issued an audit report of sfmta it

function and rapidly respond to operational needs as it relates to technology and identify and mitigate risks as results of inefficient operations and what we found, sfmta is partially or completely following three of the five elements outlined by control objectives for information and relateded technologies, industry best practice standards developed by this particular board and the report recommendations aim at improving the division risk, value, delivery and performance measurement. they are actually on track for putting in all of the recommendations. they have a new cio there which is very involved and on board in moving the organization forward in the manner it needs to.

in july 2017 we actually were given a clean bill of health by the local government auditors association for the required peer review. we can be proud and confident as can you and the public that the controller's audit organization is high functioning and going about it the right way. we are proud to have passed our peer review. and finally, as it relates to our audit recommendation follow up program, what we realize and know is that the value of the cfa's work is not just in the recommendations themselves but the corrective actions implemented by the city departments. it's ongoing basis at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months from audit issuance, resulting in the recommendations issued by us from july 1st, 2010, through

2017 and 98% of the recommendations issued from july 1st, 2010, through june 30th, 2015, is just a testament to the work of the department and the seriousness they take from the audit work performed by our team. so of the 190 recommendations not implemented, which is only 37 or 1.7%, they are more than two-years-old. generally because either it's a major implementation or there needs to be some type of bargaining unit discussion before anything can occur. so that's the end of my presentation. >> congratulations on passing the audit and thank you and your

staff for the monumental amount of work that you do to keep the city on track. thank you very much. >> i have a few questions i want to ask. start with some of the deeper material you have in the report, i agree, excellent overview of what's going on. in terms of the nonprofit monitoring, you give us numbers of contractors who had findings which was a very low figure. can you tell us something about the dollar value of the contracts opposed to the fact that there was 21 contractors with one or more findings? what was the dollar value of the contracts? >> in order to be in the pool subject to city-wide monitor,

you need to have $250 million or more and contracts with more than one city agency. there are a lot of nonprofits that meet the threshold, the findings are not specific to any one contract, they're for the nonprofit as a whole. it's a little harder to answer your question in sense of dollar value issue in any one of the findings. say we have -- at least one of the organizations on the list is i think arts and cultural center that owns a building and administers community programs in the building, maybe does community arts grants or something like that.

there's a range of dollar values being worked by that particular agency like owning and managing the building to doing community grants so i don't know if that answers your question. >> is there a list that lists the contractors -- >> yes. our report that was issued from the program lists -- there's a couple details in the back where you can see by name all of the nonprofits that are monitored and the ones where they have multiple findings, they're named and then the few where we have what we call elevated concern status, which is high level of monitoring and specific action plan that's required of that agency to bring it into compliance, i think we had five agencies that we made that status designation for this fiscal year. >> also another way of looking at this is what areas of

services do the nonprofit contractors provide. for example, are you finding a greater compliance for those who provide human services versus administrative services or -- any kind of way of looking that tells us more? >> these are all nonprofits, they're all in different types of public and community service, health, substance abuse, social services, arts and culture, they kind of span the whole service side, not bricks and mortar, construction or anything like that. i would say that the issue is often nonprofit that doesn't have the infrastructure it needs to deliver services properly.

financials, making sure they do proper tax filings and a number of other compliance issues and then board members where being on a nonprofit is a lot of work, it's difficult to get people to serve on the boards and to function properly as an audit committee and review the financials, keep the staffing to a high level of compliance. a fair amount of technical coaching is helping get financials structured, beefing up staff or hiring outside staff if they need to and trying to get stronger people on the board capable of oversight functions and diversify fundraising and that kind of work. >> i know nonprofits are under a lot of pressure these days, so i'm -- i think whatever you're able to learn from this and

share with them is only going to benefit them and the city. a question on the whistle blower work you all do, i was surprised to learn the other day that the whistle blower law only applies to employment, and not retaliation for example in services. say you have a city contractor who is providing assisted housing and someone in the assisted housing files a complaint that money is being skimmed or people are jumping ahead on the list or what have you, in retaliation they're ehe -- evicted. that's apparently not covered in the law from what i understand. is that your understanding as well? >> correct.

as it relates to retaliation, the side of the house we live on is the investigation side. we don't handle the retaliation. that is on the ethics side. and i know that they're quite aware and are working on various pieces of legislation. >> do you investigate non employment whistle blowing? >> if it's around getting city funds, we'll look into the complaints. >> i believe a citizen can use the program to report abuse of funds by city employees. so -- >> so rigging a waiting list would be abusing the funds. >> yes.

>> i was looking at some of the audits you listed here and i didn't find all of them online. the one you did on ethics at the end of december. >> so as a -- just as a reminder, as i spoke regarding other assessments, that work is done under other assessments and the work belongs to the ethics commission, therefore it is not published on our web site. we have done the work and monitored it, and then we remitt it to ethics commission and they will then go through their process and determine where they will post it. >> but you have it listed as issued on 12/28. >> we did issue it. i was responsible for the work, monitored it and worked with the contractors but it won't be on my web site.

it's not under my authority. >> got it. thank you. >> i have a real specific question, last year department of supportive housing and increased oversight, do you as part of your order look to see if there's good coordination among the agencies -- i guess they would be agencies or what, nonprofits who are providing homeless services. i have heard numbers of in excess of $200 million a year that the city spends with outside agencies and i know there's a lot of them and that's a lot of money. i wonder if anyone is working hard to see there is good

coordination and isn't overlap of services. >> i think from a broader perspective with all of the work that has been done with the various agencies that are involved in providing homeless services, i believe this is why we have department of homelessness and ensuring we're using our dollars in the most effective and efficient way as going on currently today from what i understand and i can see. and then as we move forward in our audit planning, we can determine are we doing a compliance audit in that area or an audit that looks at operations and that hasn't been determined for this fiscal year but next fiscal year we can consider that. >> okay. >> at this moment in time if we went to look at it in that way, they really haven't had enough

time with the new re-- >> right, right. >> to move forward in a way that i think would be beneficial from an audit perspective. >> perhaps in the next fiscal year. >> yes, we will consider. thank you. >> thanks. >> no more -- any public comment on the presentations? >> good morning. the 2015/16 civil grand jury issued a report on the whistle blower program and the most recent change in the ordinance restricted the scope of protection under the ordinance as well as the point that was raised there, there is no protection for contractors. and frequently, especially with the subway project, where one of the contractors made some enormous disclosers, that

contractor had no protections. regarding the list of audit reports that are published on the csa web site, i think it would be useful to list all reports even though -- even the reports that are not shown on the site, so citizens can see what reports exist and if you know the report exists, you can sunshine say the ethics commission for that specific report. but i can't see any reason why an organization whose mission is transparency wouldn't post all reports even though they feel they can't post the actual report. thank you. >> any other public comment? >> item six. opportunity for committee members to comment or act on any

matters within the committee's jurisdiction. the first is fiscal year 2017/2018 work initiatives, of which there are seven. so we'll start with benchmarking and work through to the annual geo bond report. >> so i assume -- stop me if not, i will go through the list and brandon and or kristin can comment. tonia referenced the benchmarking report and they're finished and will have more presentation at the next meeting. standardized templates, i gave

you some of the differences at the last meeting that exist between the standardized templates and the things you liked the most in the year end report. and i haven't done any further work on it since then, that has not progressed but i now have a staff person who i can ask to spend some time on it during the current quarter. it's complicated by the reporting issues that were referenced when mr. carleton was asking and noted in the health bond. the priority is to get everybody paid and get reporting straightened out so they can do reporting. i haven't wanted to push forward with julie dawson and other people in public works and bond managers who would be responsible because of the band width.

that's where it stands. web site redesign, there's been work with our i.t staff people. there was a sheet in your packet that gives a sense of how a new design would work. tiles is the basic answer where there's a lot of performance web sites which use a design like this and it looks to me like each bond program would be a clickble tile. and then we would add detail underneath that where you would be able to look at recent bond program reports. we could include some things like the graphs available from the work done in our fiscal year 16/17 report. and so at least those two

things, which will be better organization of the bond program report that you already have and we know there's quality improvement work that needs to be done on sort of the administrative content of your site, where agendas and minutes are listed and that kind of thing. so maura, did you want to comment further? >> i don't think i included that in your packet. but i'll get that to you today. apologies. >> it was in the packet i had. just a copy of an e-mail from larry wilson which shows the tile design. sorry. i thought -- >> i thought we were going to hire an agency for this. >> we are working on a contractor for this. >> so we're not doing this, right? >> no. this web site and another section or two of the controller's web site that need design improvement.

we have a contractor available to us and we need to proceed with a small contract to get it done. >> to execute it or decide what we're going to put on there. are we going to talk about the strategy. >> you give them a scope of work, they give you beta test designs to look at and move through it in that way. >> okay. it seems these issues all sort of fit together, the benchmarking thing might inform what we want to put on there based on what other people put on there. the analysis on what people are going to the web site for right now, we want those easy to get to. i want to make sure there's actually an analysis discussion and not just a design. >> yep. anything else on that? public satisfaction survey. so i have a little bit better progress to report on this one,

included in your packet was -- we proceeded through a new rfp/rpq we do to have a pool of contractors available to us, you and any city department that wants to use it that do surveys, stakeholder engagement and outreach and choose a contractor in the rfq when we do the every other year big city survey. that's the purpose of the pool. i provided a list of contractors who qualified under the pool to get a sense of who the market is, some of the names might look familiar to you. some do a lot of survey work for the city, library open hours site testing for the last two rounds. fm3 as it's called, they do a

lot of survey work for the city. just to give you a sense of the market there. >> can i interrupt while we're on this. can you walk us through the four categories that you list in the top because it appears these are the categories we're going to consider in evaluating qualified respondents. and how important it is to have a checkmark in all four or as many as possible. >> for the purpose of the stakeholder outreach work you want to do, i think anybody who qualifies in one of the first two columns could respond to your rsp. the difference there is subtle. stakeholder outreach we make sure the people have experience doing survey work, survey design, sampling methodology. language facility, submit work that shows their capacity in

those areas. stakeholder engagement, a lot of the same issues but also focus groups and facilitation services. and then, you know, so again when we issue the rfp, anyone who qualifies in column one or two could respond to it and no restriction to do so. facilitation, this is us looking to have people we can hire to run group decision making processes which are sometimes requested by our clients or needed by us and the last column is city survey. >> this is the city survey you do once every three years. >> every two years. yep.

two other products that were sent to e-mail and there are hard copies on the table over here. those two products are a draft scope of work for what we might put out. sorry, i should take a step back and refresh people's memories, the desire on the part of the committee was to conduct a voter satisfaction or citizen or user satisfaction survey of bond built facility to test people's happiness in their user experience and experience of the facility. this is a good thought of going out and asking people do they like the facility, is it clean and maintained, is the city getting what it pays for. questions like that. so we needed to wait until we

had pfrq survey providers available to do the work. we went back through in my staff and looked at the other surveys in the same area done by us and other city agencies. we have done surveys ourselves a couple of times. we did it on rec park facilities years ago. we have done it on street cleanliness. you go to the facility, you stop people and say would you be willing to spend five minutes filling out a survey for me. sometimes people do it on site. sometimes they'll do it online. there's a couple of design issues that the survey contractors help us solve. so like i said,we have done it at rec parks and once for street cleanliness. we went through the rfp's

structured for those things. with marni's help here, my staff person in the back, pulled together the work to give you a sense of the kind of contract it would be. it's very simple. it's important not to overcomplicate this. i did try to put in for you some of the things which are definite. the survey design itself, it's language reach which is standard and then some other options which you may or may not include. just to call those things out, turn to the second page, i put down there deliverable five optional, develop a plan for existing standards and evaluations. you could do this or not do this. the most important thing is to be at the site asking people

questions about how they're experiencing the facility. but for rec park facility for example, we have stands in the city in our own inspection program that have to do with cleanliness, there may be other standards that i'm not aware of. design, lighting, things like that where there is a city standard of some kind you would want to have in there and then ask your contractor to compare what they're hearing from the public to the city standard. maybe you just want answers to questions you're crafting and literature is an option. you can choose to do this or not, review related efforts, again, value or not.

we could do this work opposed to a contractor. those are some of the choices you can make in this. so hold that thought -- here's the draft scope of work for your consideration and then i passed out two sheets which -- you'll need to do a little work to get to scope of work and a little bit of work to choose the facilities. i think what we have been talking about over a couple of meetings is completed projects in at least two park bonds, 2008 clean and safe and 2011 street repaving and safety bond. marni did some work to put together the lists. they're not complete yet. i apologize for that. we need to check a couple of different sources to be sure

that the project is ruled complete. we didn't have time to do the two tasks but wanted to let you know what universe you would choose if selecting those bonds. there are other options, we talked about choosing a larger facility like public safety building or something like that. i think we decided to focus on these types of areas. so that's where we stand. and i'm just thinking out loud on how to proceed with this. we can meet with liaisons and work through to completion on these two tasks and try to get the rfp issued before the next meeting so the work can proceed. i'm very sure we can get it done

before the end of the fiscal year, it's just how much you want to leave to staff. >> i don't remember making a decision on facilities. >> no, you didn't. >> okay, i really think we need to talk as a group about why we're even doing this. what would we -- facilities in particular. i have no idea what we would do with the information. >> i think the suggestion, sounds familiar at least, i think ben had suggested and we had this discussion at a prior meeting is since this is the first time we're doing it, this is the pilot, to choose some projects that have been recently completed and i think the two bonds, the parks and 2011 road paving bonds were mentioned as

possibilities. we haven't made a decision on it. that was just a suggestion made by ben. is my recollection correct? i think you suggested for us to consider. >> i think that's right. and i don't think we intend the update today to be leading in any way today. i think it's intended to be a current status. i suggest probably where we want this to be in terms of the project at the next meeting is have peg and marni work with the liaisons between now and the next meeting and by the time they come back to you, they would have some suggestions that would be driven by the liaisons on kind of a scope and suggested projects. and that would open it up for a fuller conversation here, does it feel right to the rest of the committee, what would other alternatives look like. >> i think we tried to do that and didn't get there. >> correct. >> that's why i wanted to remind

everyone -- the spirit of this was let's see what the voters think about what -- either how we're doing or the bond programs are doing. i don't know larry if you remember the conversation, it had to be six months ago. >> i do. >> the more we talked about them when we got together, i kept wondering to what end. what are we going to do with the information. i think it's important to make sure when you do the work, it's actionable at the very end and it does seem -- i think this does dove tail with the benchmarking report and web site design. >> one thing that occurs to me, a benefit from it, the course of implementing a bond various adjustments are made and as those adjustments are made, did that divert from what people expected was going to happen.