so, it's coming up. but the backlog is so huge we only slow the growth of the backlog at this rate. so -- we have to keep investing. it's the take away from that slide. highlights of high profile projects that we are planning to fund up top. everything from the seawall to exiting one of the most seismically buildings across the street here, 101 grove, expanding at the southeast health center, auxiliary water supply system, rebuilding an ambulance deployment facility, continuing with the a.d.a. curb ramps program, bridge program, you know they are going on in that part of the city and margaret hayward playground, and some things deferred and actively trying to figure out

how to solve for them. these include the very long-term challenge of sea level rise atap addition, dealing with 170 otis street, police station replacements coming due, public safety training facility need across the public safety agencies to figure out how to deal with that. the pavilion in golden gate park needs improvements, and the india basin facility, and i'll get to the debt program. so, our c.o.p. program, these are bonds secured by us, revenue bonds secured by assets that the city holds, not revenue, certificates of participation the city holds and this is the

planned schedule of programming for those c.o.p.s over the next ten years. as i mentioned the one up top, it's our seismic concern at 101 grove and exiting from that building, there were plans potentially to relocate that, the juvenile admin building, that has not progressed since the plan, although master planning for the facility, that remains to be seen. and the last plan since we have been in such an economic hot zone for a while, we wanted to plan for what feels like it should have been already but has not come, economic down turn, knock on wood. so, three years of recession allowance allocations, $50 milli $50 million apiece. saying if times are so tough the capital cash budget feels a big pinch, that there would be something set aside in the debt

ram to take care of what is most urgent at that time. and below that, the justice facilities improvement program. how we get out of the hall of justice. i can talk in more detail if folks have questions and then some further outprojects toward the end of the curve, public works yard consolidation and retrofitting 101 grove, so people can move out but what do we do with the building, historic. and this is how we represent these debt programs against the policy constraints, so the red line at the top, by the office of public finance and it shows anticipated discretionary fund, 3.25% of those, not a fixed dollar amount but percentage of projections and this shows we never go above that constraint

with there plan. and the g.o. bond program. a bunch coming up. next planned is the seawall project, november 2018, followed by parks and open space and esar one year after the other and public health for november 2022, and transportation 2024, and the cycle begins again. this will be up for revision as goss the c.o.p. when we reopen the capital plan. thinking about what comes next. and this shows the bond program against the constraint, and the red line is the property tax rate as of fiscal 2006 and the shows that we don't exceed that with the program planned. i have a few slides in here about the next upcoming bonds that's of interest to the

committee. next is the seawall as i mentioned, i have a few slides here from the port, so thanks to the port. but this shows kind of the area affected, and solidified by the seawall. all buildings, infrastructure and activity along the northern waterfront, extending back to 1ststreet, are possible by the embarcadero, from aquatic park at the north, due north, down around to the ballpark. and it was built more than 100 years ago over several decades, and the project manager from the port can give you a wonderful history of this, but i mean, it's kind of crazy when you hear the story basically it's just fill, gravel and rock and everything, just smushed in and made a port behind a wall. it's amazing our city stands on it, but it does.

and the seawall needs repair and strengthening. there are a number of challenges facing the northeastern waterfront. from the acute risk of earthquake, one rendering of how an earthquake might damage the waterfront. basically the soil on which it stands is prone, and the wall itself may push bay ward by five feet. and the piles that support the piers buckle, and the bulkhead buildings would be significantly damaged and all the horizontal infrastructure that runs right along the waterfront that is vulnerable as one. that's one nightmare and you have also the flooding that we all see, this is a couple years old now, that picture of the

king tide, so we see water coming up and over the wall already. in san francisco, so proud we believe in science and know it's not going to get better but worse, and we need to prepare. picture at the bottom, speaks to the more long-term sea level rise issues. the flooding we see today is surges in the tide and storms but over time, we have sea level rise coming, we need to deal with that as well. just no way around it. one of the challenges we know we have with this project and program is just social awareness, general understanding of what we are talking about here. seawall is largely invisible. you have to look over and down, but it does hold up that part of the city. so the port has been actively working to make this feel urgent

to the people of san francisco and every day outrage, last summer they went to sunday streets and did a whole bunch of interaction with people around the city and you know, we know it's important for so much, not just the skyscrapers but the emergency response, all the small businesses that line the waterfront. preview of what might come to this committee would be making sure we spend on eligible program costs and all drafts and proposed eligible uses for the bond that legislation will be going in the next few weeks for a november ballot measure. and you can see what they have pl planned, and earthquake improvements and flood, immediate flood the two primary categories of spending, and, but

because it's a multi-generational project, and the port in the city, we are doing our best to think smart for the long-term about how what we might do in any one spot would affect the waterfront going forward and so making sure that we were thinking holistically and in the future how we may improve the waterfront as we go, and any opportunities for addressing some of the chronic sea level rise issues before us. just to set expectation, the estimated all-in costs for just the seismic and flood control and prevents are $575. $575 million a mile. and as i mentioned at the top, the seawall is three miles long. so this bond, even if it passes, is not going to take care of it, but those dollars will be used

too address the most urgent needs of that part of the city. and that takes me to the next capital plan. you know what's coming, probably in about a year, maybe a little sooner. over the summer, our office will do the data update for the renewal part of the plan and en this kick-off with departments, we'll take in a whole bunch of data and plans from our departments and partners and a drafts out on january 1st, and worked over in committee, proposed capitol plan done on march one, and then that final approval by may one, and we come to goboc somewhere in there. that is the end of my presentation. i'm happy to take any questions that you all have. >> thank you. any comments?

>> of course. >> thank you very much for the presentation, very thorough and complete presentation, thank you. you mentioned a set-aside recently passed for reckon park, and in addition, not to exceed 3.25% of the general fund discretionary dollars. >> for the certificates of participation program. >> oh, certificates of participation. >> yes, general fund debt, that program constraint is that we not spend more than 3.25% of our annual discretionary revenue on payments funded through that debt instrument. >> participation debt. >> those are separate. >> ok. all right. and certificate of participation

debt is a secondary method of funding, not the prefer, prefer is a general fund bond. >> general obligation. an yes. >> it's less expensive. so, and there is no link, not cap, not to exceed or general fund discretionary dollars as it relates to general obligation bond funding? >> general obligation bond funding constraint is on the property tax level. so, general obligation, your property taxes, and the constraint of the program that was set out when the capital plan was first established was the bonds that the city is putting forward will not drive your property tax rate above what it was when the capital

plan began. so, the constraint for that program has to do with how much the property tax rate adds up to, with all the different bonds that hit a property taxpayer in a given year. that the amount for any given bond that we add does not force that rate higher than it was in fiscal 2006. the way i think about it, we only new debt as we retire old debt. >> so, and what -- thank you very much. and so what i'm getting at, trying to ascertain, is if this is an increase reliance on set-asides, seems to be the trend over the last 20 years, is there are a growing number of set-asides and less discretionary funding. what impact, if any, might that

have on the long range capital plan? >> it's -- >> don't know the entire budget but as the money getting earmarked, more and more. what might be the potential impact, i'm wondering. >> yeah, we feel the impact of set-aside and the most acutely and the pay as you go program and the cash program and that goes back to this slide here, where we are already unable to meet all of our renewal needs in the public right-of-way and for our facilities, so if the set-aside dollars don't align with where they say we need to spend those dollars first, then that pot gets squeezed. >> i'm sorry, what? >> gets squeezed. general cash budget, how it

might affect our debt programs in the long-term. and i think, always depends where the set-asides go. the library had one, and able to take care of the branches through the set-aside, and most neighborhoods now v seen major renovations to their branch library, that's wonderful. very visible and voter driven desire for set-aside dollars. it's hard when you get to things invisible or less popular we need to do, and nice to have the flexibility of cash to draft the programs, made in the context of the entire city's portfolio of needs when parts of that get sectioned off, it gets harder. >> those set aside dollars in

the case of the library were not designated as capital improvement dollars. >> library preservation. >> they happened to utilize them, and there was some relief in that as it results to capital plan. >> uh-huh. yes. so, i mean -- for this, for the capital plan document it's -- oh we represent all of that. >> it's something that should be considered by, in my opinion, the board of sups when they rely on set aside, create them, to sort of unintended consequences and spillover effects of those set-asides. >> yep. >> thank you. >> i just, following up quickly from kevin, the c.o.p.s, if i'm, my recollection is correct, they do not require voter authorization. >> that's correct. >> and the revenue stream to pay that debt service comes from -- >> it's general fund. >> comes from the general fund.

>> that's why the constraint is tied to the general fund. >> ok. so it does come from taxes. >> yes. and to back up the constraint on that then is -- aren't they limited by having assets? >> yes, you need to have assets you can pledge. >> and that sets the constraint on how deep in debt you can go? >> well, i would defer to the office of public finance. i don't know which is the actual constraint, whether it's the -- 3.25% of discretionary revenue, i believe that's more of the active constraint, but you are correct, that the city needs to have an assets to pledge. >> it does not compete with the g.o. bonds against -- >> correct, that's right. the g.o. bonds hit the property tax directly, you see it on your property taxes that you are paying x dollars to fund x bond,

by bond. whereas the taxes the general fund bucket that does not appear on the property tax rate. and so the debt payments for the c.o.p. program are competing for all other general fund, and that's why we cap it at 3.25% so we are not going above and beyond and spending all of our revenue on just debt payments. >> ok. page 11, the seawall, earthquake safety program, eligible programs costs. there's an audit report out now on the prebond sale and lack of specificity, and i would venture the capital planning committee plays a role in that.

below these programs that are highlighted in yellow, those programs, have you -- has your committee seen specific projects at this point? within those programs? and a dollar amount? >> not specific dollar amounts tied to a particular project along the seawall. i think that question that you are raising about program specificity all the way down to project specificity and dollars, i think it's really important to keep in mind the nature of the program at hand and how valuable the flexibility can be and actually delivering projects, especially in a market leak ours. comment earlier about the bidding environment. costs are high, there's no question about that. and we are seeing in some cases one bidder, sometimes none and things have to go for rebid. things cost more than even our best plans think they will at

this point. so having the programmatic flexibility is really valuable. and thinking specifically about the seawall program this is a major endeavor. a great deal of planning work still to do and it's so making that it's size appropriate for a bond. we can't fund all of this program with cash. it's a decision to be made. but i don't see it, and so there is some ambiguousness which location would be served by bond dollars, but the seawall is a linear asset and all needs shoring up. so what we need to know as a voter, to understand how projects will be decided upon, what oversight there will be, and what problems the dollar

should be used to solve, and i think if we have that and we know that there are experts in place who are striving to make the best use of those dollars for our public safety, the purpose of the program, then that's a good place to be. you won't, i don't believe, see project level specifics on the waterfront, like this pier and that pier, i don't believe you'll see it for this program. >> the voters, when they vote on this come november, will not know if they are going to get 100 yards of the seawall seismically upgraded or all three miles? >> well, there would be an extensive bond report. not get all three miles, i can tell you that, each mile is $575 million just for seismic. so, nobody is planning for the first chunk of money at the seawall to fix the whole seawall, that's not possible. it's going to take multiple

phases. the bond report, though, will spell out in the greatest detail the plans for the dollar and there will be discussion about uses beyond just these bullets rather, you know, what kinds of fixes are possible and i've seen some draft versions of the report and includes the nature of the construction that may be possible, and various approaches to shore up the seawall, the whole planning effort, the first use of dollars, figuring out the best approach. you could go in for the bay, or go in from the street side and just figuring that out is a major decision that has significant implications for the cost and timing. >> so, that work is going to be done after the bonds are authorized and sold and then continue planning work. >> correct. but as with all of our bond programs, they would be sold, so the first issuance paying for the dollars needed in the first

slot of time. you are not going to sell 7 or 8 years wort of bonds all up front. >> no, but back to reckon park issues years ago, they have project specificity, and i think it has worked really well and i understand the need for flexibility, but curious, is this like a generally appropriated bond -- you say there is a bond report. >> still being drafted but released this spring. >> is there any chance it could be shared with this committee to have an understanding? >> like i said, i saw it in draft form and as soon as it's finalized, it could come to this committee. >> the final decision on what level of detail projects exist in the voter authorization and bond report, is that a decision of a capital planning commission or the port?

>> it's about -- it's the legislation that goes before capital planning committee. >> presented by the port. >> uh-huh. >> and just one last question. in spending the money on the road repaving, keeping the p.c.i. at 70, approximately, how many miles of repavement is done every year with that? >> oh, that's -- i don't know it off the top of my head, i'm sorry. >> ok. >> any other comments? thank you for sharing, making the presentation to us, even though you know, this committee doesn't have direct, we don't have direct responsibility for the bonds, once they are issued, but this is helpful to us to get our input to understanding as

you planning for the next bond and to see how the g.o. bond is one of several sources of funding for the city. thank you for making your presentation. >> my pleasure, thank you. >> any public comment? seeing none, move on to the next item. >> item 7, opportunity for committee members to comment or act on any matters within the committee's jurisdiction. item one, the fiscal year 2017/2018 goboc work initiatives, several listed. start with the benchmarking report, go to the website redesign, public satisfaction survey, upcoming issuances from public finance. >> good morning, committee chair, members of the committee. mark dela rosa, here with the

san francisco fellow and team member, alice duncan graves, giving you a very brief overview of the results of the benchmarking study which we issued to the committee a little over a week ago, and most of the materials from the slides are actually in your packet as a memorandum. let me introduce now alice. >> thank you, mark. good morning. so, conducted the analysis, to fill the oversight roles and activities. ben marked against five peer jurisdiction, one outside, state of austin, texas and other resources and leading practices including the committee

guidelines from the two others, and in order to aggregate the information to form recommendations in this report, we aggregated interviews with the benchmark committee, committee members and staff and compared committee information, including bylaws, meeting minutes and annual reports, and looked at the leading practices from calboc and the reports mentioned. overall, it follows many of the leading practices identified in the report. committee follows all leading practices regarding meetings and annual reports. the only committee to provide a handbook to its members and 1 of 2 committees that televises the committee. and liaison model for overseas

bonds. and six recommendations. first two recommendations to measures and reportings. first being that the committee should complete the process of standardizing the reporting format used by all bond programs. will ensure the committee is receiving adequate information from all bond programs to enable it to confirm that the proceeds are spent in accordance with the relevant bond measures. further, stake holding engagement. in regards to orientation and training, the committee should consider instituting an enhanced orientation plan for new members. this will ensure that all members begin their service with an adequate understanding of bonds and finance and should development supplementary training for continuing committee members to enhance knowledge and effectiveness. in terms of public transparency and access to information, the

committee should ensure it provides to the public adequate information about its activities, functions and members, by enhancing the cgoboc website and more frequent audits to ensure bond proceeds are spent as the voters approved. thank you. >> thank you. any -- would you like us to comment at this point? or do you have more to present? >> no, that's pretty much it. yes, i think this is now the opportunity for the committee to discuss any aspects of our memo. >> first of all, let me commend you for really having done a very good job in this survey. it's very thorough. i read through it and i'm personally very pleased with it. i have some comments that let me invite my fellow members to

comment on the presentation. >> yeah, i, too, thought it was a great report and appreciate it very much and did notice that two of the recommendations are covered in our work initiatives, standard identification of website design, may be on the right path or road and orientation of new members is a great idea as well. so, again, thank you very much for this report. >> let me just remind our fellow committee members, this was a study that we had commissioned the staff to do, so they are just coming back with results, what we asked them to do. >> i would like to also thank you for the report. i think it's been something we have needed for a long time. i think the recommendations are all solid and good. questions i have are whether or not in reviewing what other -- did you find trouble spots that

you needed to make us aware of so we could avoid the pit falls that others may have fallen into? my attention was drawn to the p.u.c. bond where i understand there are now criminal investigations underway for bid rigging. and i'm not sure to what extent we would be aware if there was bid rigging going on. >> certainly on that note, that we conducted, one of the authorities is also to enlist any analysis or audits of the commission. it is within your authority as cgoboc to also ask the controllers office for commission any types of audits

or investigations or more audits in the purview of the committee. so the extent that you do ask controllers office to conduct such types of engagements, that's something that we have considered in the past. >> but nothing came from your review. >> no. >> as a warning sign. >> one of the things that you also recommend is increased audits asked for by the goboc committee. any particular audit areas that you think should be priorities for us? >> so, within the authority that is given to the committee, i think what you have asked the controllers office to conduct, which are the expenditure audits, certainly a great start. i think it's within the realm of the authority of this commission, or this committee to

ask us anything that relates to bonds expended appropriately, and any related to overhead or continuing costs. those are things that you have asked us in the past. what other jurisdictions have typically done, and correct me if i'm wrong, alice, on similar engagements, compliance audit to ensure the bonds are expended, that the measures that are actually being either voted on by the jurisdictions are completed, performance audits can also be commissioned and those are things that and speak to effectiveness and economy of programs. again, those are the types of engagements from other jurisdictions. >> i think commissioner larkin had asked at one point about the use of change orders increasing bond costs.

and asked that we had done more to look at preplanning to avoid cost overruns and change orders. >> i think that was responding to the public comment about change orders, and explaining what change orders were. but -- yeah, change orders are bad. so while we can look at expenditures, does that look at the planning that goes into the bond that's put on the ballot? >> i know we can't comment itself, esar 2014, that will probably be shared the next meeting, the audit report. >> right. so, a month ago we issued an audit of the preconstruction phase of the 2014 -- to the extent that the committee would like for us to present on it

while you are also hearing the 2014esar update, we'll be more than happy to do so. >> thank you. >> i just want a clarification on page nine, functions and activities exhibit 8. the first paragraph below exhibit 8 said follows three of the four leading oversight practices related to monitoring bond projects and expenditures, that they identified. and in the table you identified four items, and cgoboc got a yes on each. is one wrong or did i just misread this? >> it looks -- >> one thing we included in the report on the appendix, the results of our benchmarking.

there are -->> looks like that is incorrect, it should be 4 of 4. i'm sorry about that. >> no, actually looks like you are doing -- we are doing better than we think we are, which is what i always thought. >> so, i would like to thank you for a very thorough report. appreciate it very much. i think it's going to be really useful going forward. it's a great analysis to begin a review to see what steps going forward are appropriate.

and accurately reflects the criteria that we use, how it measures against other existing, within the city and other similarly situated cities. so, thank you very much. yeah. we have other committee members that are not here today, so i'm sure this will be an item of discussion going forward at some point. but a great starting point. thank you. >> seeing no other comments, invite public comment on the presentation. >> i heard the report, jerry durantler. released a week ago, it's also not on the website, and there is some public reporting requirements. so basically what we have done

is we have discussed and reviewed a report the public had no access to. right, but -- the requirements -- >> under reports, under reports. it's on the controller's website under reports. >> i'm told that under public under the controller's office, and this -- this committee is being staffed by the controller's office. >> just share a comment. >> so i was unable to realize nor see these materials prior to the discussion. and i think that's inappropriate. thank you. >> mark blake, i'm covering for kim ru, and i staff the sfmta oversight committee and the

p.u.c. revenue bond committee and one of the items that we have talked about at the other committees, and i don't know if it's taken up with this committee, but the benchmarking study was very good. but one thing that we have talked about from time to time is how we transfer knowledge from each of the oversight committees, each of you have, i would say, 90% overlap in terms of your tasks and your responsibilities, but the knowledge that may be obtained from the, for example, the p.u.c. revenue bond committee if they discover practices or something that they make improvements for don't necessarily make it to this committee, don't necessarily make it to the s.f.m.t.a. so, what i've been kind of a small champion for, somehow figuring out how we can transfer knowledge among the oversight committees, all performing the same function for taxpayers. so, maybe at some point you

know, this committee, along with the other ones, could figure out a way to take it up. not sure how. >> that's a good suggestion. at some point, someone should spearhead this discussion, and if you can tell the oversight committee was one of the survey subjects if you will, for their practices. thank you. can we go to the next item, and that would be standardized templates, website redesign. >> so maybe also address that, her staff and her department have been working on many of these. so, maybe peg, you can just comment on them, standardized template. >> sure. and just so you know how this agenda item will appear, every time you meet, all the things that were put into your work

plan for the fiscal year will appear on the agenda so it gives us the opportunity to present and you the opportunity to comment on any of them. not necessarily an action report or progress report, but that's how the agenda item seven will show every time. so just running down the list, you have heard about the benchmarking report, i don't have an update on standardized t templates, largely due to the financial reporting you discussed on the other bond programs. we have had a process with the department of public works that does the bulk of the reporting to look at their reports and moved on some of the recommendation that is have arisen. it's on hold while the capital reporting getting approved but we do plan to show progress on it during the fiscal year. for website redesign, we have good progress to show. i, we have engaged a contractor,

i think i mentioned in the previous meeting an available pool of website designer through the tech store we can go to very easily. we have had them working on a redesign of your website. we included a paper copy of the landing page in your packet so you will have seen that. we, i'm not going to show you the live designs right now, just for time. but i will at your april meeting, and i hope by the time your next meeting, by the time that comes, we will have each of the improved pages populated with content that we plan to put there. so, just to, you know, comment on the landing page, we borrowed a lot of the design actually from the capital planning committee which has a good framework for this type of work. there will be a large format photograph across the top. a mission statement there. which actually i drafted, just because we needed a place to

have one in the page, and maybe a good thing to do is to have that as a discussion item for your next meeting when we are looking at the website and more completion and see if you would like to make any edits to it. i just tried to make it short and simple. the landing page will have your current meeting and your most recent meeting shown. the bond programs will have an icon each below them and just chose icons available in the standard library. when you click on each icon, jump to a page about that bond program, which will just have a 2 to 3-line blurb about the general purposes of the bond program and then the most recent quarterly reports, rest of the material archived, probably not more than five years. you are archives on the existing website going back to 2002 or

something like that, probably more material than is really useful. so, i will check the record retention rules but i think five years of archives will be plenty. and then is simple drop down in the upper right, allows the public to go to standard, charter and ad min, bylaws, and about us section which lists the committee members' names and responsibilities under the charter assignments. very good progress. a frame on each of these new pages and we will pull the content that's involved by the time you meet again and we'll show you the frame live. we talked about brenda in the premeeting and i would certainly be happy, if you have any comments on the landing page, please email me and let me know

and i can take your comments when we look at it live next meeting. happy with the progress and thanks to tamara, who helped with the designs. moving on to -- >> stop here, and thank you for the update for the members. kristin, who is absent here, she had initiated or supported this project, and i had joined her in a couple of the meetings. since this website redesign, i think it's very important to this committee. if anyone has an active interest to join, you know, if there is a next meeting, you know, please let me know. i don't think there are going to be five members, but i think it will be a small enough group if you are actively interested,

have something to add as we work through with peg and the designer. but thank you very much. this is progress and i think that next meeting, which is just next month, we'll be able to see something, a sample live that you are going to load some of these, one if not all, maybe an example, so that we can visualize and see the walk through how to find information. thank you. >> right. >> may i say something? i would like to come to the next meeting, but on terms of the landing page, one of the things that i think is going to be important for us is a higher profile for citizens to comment or make observations. perhaps under each icon, because it's clear that we are running into problems of the public not feeling like they are getting

enough early opportunity for feedback. and so this is one of the places where both transparency and feedback can benefit our process. i would like to see, you know, you have contact us at the bottom, i think it should be a stronger encouragement. >> let me check into, there's a standard public comment tool that's used on some of the city's other committees, let me look into that, and we can look at it as something to add to your pages. >> we can talk about that in the april meeting. >> so, having no comment, why don't you carry on. >> so, the next item is public satisfaction survey, and again, good progress here. to refresh everybody's memory, committee discussion here has been to, as part of your mandate, to add survey of, to

the public, on the satisfaction and opinion about some of the bond constructed projects. we have a lot of practical information, milestones, completions, costs, you know, it's also important to add to your data opinion information. we do thin the controller's office where we do city surveys and many agencies that use public opinion data and complaint data as standard reporting tools, idea to add opinion data, feedback you are getting on bond programs. we have a pool of contractors that we use for opinion and public satisfaction survey, focus types, a project type in the pool used for surveying, so what we are proposing is to choose two projects, one from the 2008 park bond, and one from

the 2011 road repaving and streets bond, and ask our contractors to give us a bid price on doing a public satisfaction survey on those projects, so we would use the contractors expertise here to advise us on all the elements of it, what types of surveying should be done. intercept survey where you are standing at the facility and saying would you mind filling out a form or would you answer some live questions. should it be a web survey where you are asking users of a facility like a recreation facility to respond to something on the web. focus group where you are getting, a couple of different ways to get this kind of information and experts in our pool can also talk to us about sample sizes, geographic distribution, those types of things. so, what we would do is take the r.f.q. draft, put a not to exceed dollar value and put it

out to the pool asking for bid prices doing public satisfaction surveys on two facilities, and we are ready with the r.f.q. i have updated it to reflect current language with the city's current tools of this type. what i would recommend, just looking at the list here, we talked about this briefly with brenda when we came in for the premeeting last week, we talked about choosing a facility which has completed relatively recently, 2008 park bond, the lists that i provided, back to 2012, probably too old. we should choose something more recent and currents in people's minds and something moderately scaled. mission delores park is probably too big. other things on the list, what i would recommend, if it suits your approach to it, to choose the raymond kimball playground. it's complete, we have known costs, relatively moderately sized and 2015 was a while ago,

but not too long ago that i don't think we could have good public feedback on this. so, that would be my suggestion for the park bond. for the road repaving bond in our discussion with brenda, it came up here that we have also done work with our office of economic analysis on measuring the economic impact of city construction project. it has come up in the board of supervisors and used sales tax data and other data to do a detailed report on how much impact city construction has on local businesses to help inform the board of supervisors desire to have some pots of money available to help local businesses that are affected by city construction projects. that type of data is really most strongly available on just two of the projects on this list, 24th street urban village, castro to church and the

bartlett street scape improvements, a significant retail corridor nearby both of those projects. so, in keeping with the notion of being able to cross reference against our sales tax study and choose something that's recent, my recommendation would be the bartlett improvement project. these are my suggestions. if any committee members have strong opinions or you want us to look at further lists of projects, please stay so. >> petrillo avenue, that's a huge project. what are the reason the large projects are not -- >> it would be perfectly possible to put them out to the bid pool and find out what they think it would cost to survey on it, but i think that's probably the issue is that something like that, a couple of miles long and years and also affected by the hospital project, i'm just, a

little leery about the size of the bite that you would be taking and might want -- >> that would get confused with the hospital. >> yeah. i would recommend the first outing to go relatively small or moderate and see what kind of data we get back. >> i have no problem with the two. >> i think relatively small, moderate and recent are excellent criteria for selecting it. ill agree with both suggested recommendations. raymond kimball playground and bartlett street improvements. i don't know if it takes a motion, or guidance. >> guidance is fine. bartlett convenient valencia and mission, a number of pedestrian

improvements, a farmer's night one night a week. >> wanted some diversity -- >> and raymond kimball playground, the western edition, bounded by gary, l.s. pearson steiner. >> so it's -- appears the committee accepts your recommendations. >> great. >> for the reasons that you cited. >> we will go forward and hope to have the contract out to bid in the next month and report back at the next meeting. upcoming issuances, public finance, i'm sorry we did not get a moment to do this earlier, but the right place to introduce our new director of our office of public finance, anna van digna, not sure if i'm pronouncing properly. just a moment to have her introduce herself and she's taking the job that was -- we

are very happy to have here. >> thank you, peg, for introducing me. good to meet you all. i want to just touch upon forward calendar through the rest of the fiscal year, planned bond issuances. at tomorrow's board of supervisors meeting consider three resolutions that would authorize the sale of three series of bonds, 2018 c, d and e, estimated 388 million to fund projects for esar, affordable housing and public health and safety. >> and -- >> thank you. >> anna had worked with the city before through the firm that she

was at, so she's very familiar with public finance and has a significant background and we are again, very, how happy we are to have her and nadia has a big shoes to fill, but anna is going to be a huge addition. >> thank you, peg. and just to add a little bit to my background, i spent 17 years working as an investment banker and 15 in public finance here in san francisco, so working with cities, counties and other public agencies throughout the state at a firm that was originally known as stone and young, but later acquired by stefal. and this is my third week here, so -- definitely new to the position, so bear with me. >> well, thank you and welcome. i think that we started presenting as part of our meeting materials upcoming, you know, bonds, so it will help this committee get a sense as to what is coming up and what to

expect. so, thank you. >> one quick question on the upcoming bond sale, 388 million. will there, or is there an official statement being produced for that sale? >> yes. there is an official statement being produced, just in draft form currently. that is something that will be finalized before the offering to the public which is expected for may. >> and so that would be available if we came by and wanted to see it. >> most definitely, yes. >> great. that concludes my presentation, we don't have updates on items f or g at this time, but you will at your next meeting. >> just one question, peg. i see mark is here, maybe you have the answer, because -- we are getting fairly late into the fiscal year, and we had three expenditure items, scheduled for this year, 2014 earthquake

safety, 2012 clean safe neighborhood works and 2018 -- do you have a status on what phase we are in in those audits? >> certainly. actually, an hour ago, we just issued the 2008 parks bond. this is the series as you all know coming construction management on our behalf. we just issued it publicly about an hour ago, the 2008. 2012 is currently in the fieldwork phase, and should be completed before the end of this fiscal year. so, by may, june, it should be completed. just last week issued the notification to start our audit of the 2014esar, so starting in the next few weeks. >> one quick question you may or may not. do any of those audits cover

expenditures made in the current fiscal year? >> one we issued were costs that were through, yeah, june 2017. so not this fiscal year. >> because i'm real curious if we can maybe in the 2014, get some of the fiscal year cost in the scope, maybe through december or something. >> we will consider that as we are just initiating it and scoping out the scope of the actual audit. >> well, there being -- let me just add, to ask if there are any other matters that committee members want to be brought to this meeting. >> as we are coming to the end of the fiscal year, more or less, are we going to have a summary of what unexpended funds we have in the goboc budget, or

can we get that for the next meeting? >> do we normally request that, peg? if not, this would be -- >> i'm not aware that you have, but we have a current report on that all the time. so, yep. we can bring it. >> talking about adding audits and so forth using the goboc. >> that probably is appropriate as we approach the end of our fiscal year as you know, some, an item to say that, to show the data that mr. bush asked for. >> sure, yep. >> thank you. >> so there being no other business, we'll consider the meeting adjourned. >> so moved.