i've been working to reduce the reduction of unpermitted housing demolition in san francisco. i've filed two whistle blower complaints on the failure of the department of building inspection to enforce demolition without permit. in both instances, the department of building inspection issued demolition permit after the property owner removed the building, so it's clear the building removal met the building code criteria for a demolition without a permit. d.b.i. failed to enforce the penalty enumerated in the section 1038.3. if the penalty on the n.o.v. was consistent with the building code requirement, a very basic compliance audit. one of my complaints was referred to the city attorney,

and the second complaint, 655 alvarado was closed. when i sent an e-mail inquiring on the status of 655 alvarado, the response i received, and this is a quote, appropriate action was taken and the whistle blower program now considers your complaint closed. the answer is incompetent consistent with the mission of the city services auditor, which is to promote transparency and accountability in city government. not satisfied with the answer, i exchanged four sunshine request e-mails with the city services audit i don't remember, i have my last -- auditor. you have my last two e-mails and the response, when you read the e-mails, you will find several administrative weaknesses in the administration of the whistle blower. i recommend cgoboc retain an outside firm to conduct a complete review of the san francisco whistle blower program. i will review a few of the weeknesses. the whistle blower program

outsources some of the complaint investigations to the department where the violation occurred. the whistle blower program policy and procedure manual does not identify the circumstances where it is appropriate and inappropriate to outsource the whistle blower complaint. also, the manual does not address the over sight required by the c.s.a. for outsourced complaints. two, when i tried to inquire about the status of 655 alvarado, i was told i was not entitled to receive an answer on the investigation findings. the excuse was that san francisco code and the state code which deal with protecting the investigation materials and identity of the person who filed the complaint. the state code, however, allows for releasing findings that service the interest of the public. the public deserves to know why d.b.i. is not enforcing a section of the code they are sworn to enforce. you have the rest of my

comments. thank you. >> any additional public comment? >> yes, dr. derek kerr again, a whistle blower. the whistle blower program labors under a moral hazard. it's part of the city family and therefore not independent. great care is taken not to ruffle departmental feathers. complaints are shared with the city attorney, who defends accused city officials against whistle blower claims that land in court, an obvious conflict of interest. too often, goboc liaisons to the program are cheerleaders who do not represent the public and conduct little critical review. they absorb passive information without looking behind it.

they have not looked into the rate of complainant interviews by program investigators or why that rate of interview is not disclosed. none have examined whether referring complaints back to the kpuzed departments enables cover ups oregon jeopardizes whistle blowers. they haven't investigated why some complaints take over six months to investigate. we don't know why political interference, stone walling or r is why it happens. all we're told is complexity is why long delays occur. my december 2016 complaint about the human services agency

took 18 months to investigate. all i was told was that the case is closed, appropriate action taken. what does that mean? in sum, i agree with mr. dradler that this program is too secretive and it's too city hall centric to adequately serve the public interest and whistle blowers. as for the citizens audit review board, why not recommend an audit of the ethics commission, and why it has never sustained a claim. and we can't just accept the findings. we could say many city agencies and even the u.s. navy made findings that hunters point was perfektly safe, but when you

listen to whistle blowers, look under the surface, you find that's not true. that's why we need to probe and look under the surface. thank you. >> any additional public comment? seeing none, let's go to the next item. >> item seven, presentation from public korworks regardinge 2008 and 2016 work bond and possible commediscussion by th committee on such presentation. >> good morning, madam chair, members of the cgoboc committee, joe chen, public works program manager. i'm here this morning to provide an update on the public health and safety bond program 2016. i'm also joined by other members of the public works project management team and

finance team members as well as client representative to support -- in support of the program as well as to help answer any questions that i cannot answer myself or other specific projects. so quickly, want to give just a quick recap of the overall bond program. it's a 350 million bond program, approved by voters in june 2016 that provides funding for three client departments. it includes 272 million for d.p.h., department of public health, 58 million for the fire department as well as 250 million for the department of homelessness and supportive housing. moving onto the executive summary, one of the -- i want to spend a few minutes to just talk a high level about some of our accomplishments and upcoming milestones. on the zuckerberg building five

component, we've completed one -- one of our core projects. is the urgent care relocation project. as well we've launched three additional projects in construction. we've also evolved the 19 core projects, we've also -- are in various phases of the project life cycle, whether it's in design, construction, or in planning, so we've also initiated seven new projects that are in initial phases of design or in programming, and once we complete that, we can move into design quickly. on the community health center, we have maxine hall that we've also finished design and also moving into construction, wholly targeting the early part -- first quarter of 2019. and on the ambulance components facility, we've also completed the design and permitting, and

pernow moving into -- and we are now moving into fitting with construction starting in october 2019. and with the homelessness service site component, we've also made headway on 440 turk street, we awarded a design build contract with fisher development which will allow us to fast track the design construction with construction starting toward the end of the year and finishing up next summer of 2019. and then, just quickly, on bond sale and appropriation, we have completed two bond sales to date for this bond program. the first bond sale was completed in march of 2017 for 174.1 million, which provides funding for all six components. in june of 2018, we completed our second bond sale, which fully funds now the a.d.f. as

well as the homeless service side components. and now moving onto the next slide, i wanted to spend a few minutes to just focus on each component. this is a slide, page number four, to look at the -- so first up would be the zuckerberg general hospital building five component. in terms of the overall expenditures and encumbrances, there is an uptick since our last presentation. it's primarily driven by the award of two construction contracts total 16.1 million. -- totaling 16.1 million. and then, another accomplishment we've also received plan approval for the seismic upgrade project. this is one of our flagship or

key projects on the 19 core projects. this is upgrading, doing a seismic retrofit of building five, which in my opinion could be one of the most challenging of the 19 core projects. it involves going into 206 rooms within the building and surgically doing seismic retrofits while the building is occupied. so that's going to be a tough challenge moving forward. one reason that we've taking the -- a two phase approach on this project, we are launching our phase one, which is focused on the south side of the building and some of the interior columns so that we can then vet out some of the restrictive infection control requirements as well as some of the noise impacts or potential

noise impacts and then coming up with the most -- coming up with mitigation measures so we can address that before we do the full project. so the start date of our phase one is targeted for -- in the next -- within the next two months, before the fourth quarter of 2018. okay. moving onto the southeast health center component, this is a -- one of the heaviest used health center facility within the d.p.h. network. it's located at 3rd street, off of 3rd street and keefe. we've completed our civic design review phase one back in january . we are targeting our phase two review later part of this

month. and then, in terms of design, we've also completed our -- our schematic design earlier in the year, and moving toward a design development, and then looking at construction to start probably the third quarter of 2019. then, on the other community health centers, we're focused on maxine hall health center as well as the castro mission. maxine hall is located in the western addition district and then we also have castro mission which is also in the castro district. maxine hall is -- has already completed design. we're in the d.b.i. plan review, and we also anticipate starting construction first quarter 2019. there is one potential risk impact. we're working closely with d.p.h. and staff to identify

some possible location to see relocate the clinical and administrative staff been -- within the building. there's been a lot of concern about staff from noise, impact, so that's one thing we're working closely with staff and their public relations person to really flush that out at this point. castro mission is not too far behind. we are anticipating finishing design by the end of the year and probably starting construction in the second quarter of 2019. on the ambulance deployment facility, this is one of the fire department projects, we have completed our design permitting, as i mentioned earlier. bidding started in june. we actually received bids last week. we did get two bids that is currently under review, so currently, the start date for

construction is october, of -- later part of this year. on the neighborhoods fire station component, we're really focused on two scopes of work. the first one is a hose tower removal project. really, what we're doing is mitigating the seismic risk by taking away the seismic host tower. the host tower is what's causing the issue, so one of the issue -- what we're trying to solve is to figure out how to do that without mit -- without affecting the -- or addressing the historical concerns. we've -- we've had numerous discussions with the planning department, and there is historical significance to the host tower, so initially, we were working with planning department to go through a full cultural e.i.r. that was going to take about 18 months. we've had further conversations with planning department, and we think there's a quicker

route to getting that -- getting through the entitlement process, which is a more interpretive program, they call it. so we're working with them to go that route and hopefully be able to expedite the entitlement so it can start construction sooner. and then, the last scope is the generator, which is currently scheduled for fire station 18, and we're on boarding a design consultant to do that work. and then just moving onto the homeless service site component, there's tlhree scops that we're tracking, which is the 440 turk street, which is going to be the central ad stiff office for h.s.h.

as well as a client access point. and then we also have three city owned shelters that we are working on various improvement projects on those sites, and then, the last scope is a new project. 1064-68 mission, and this facility -- this new facility's going to be the -- i guess it's going to be the office and service space for the san francisco homeless outreach team, the sf h.o.t. team, so that's currently in design. so one of the accomplishments i mentioned earlier is that we have selected a design builder to work on 440 turk street. that is underway. we expect construction to start the later part of 2018, and then wrapping up construction by summer of 2019. and then, the other three service sites, we have completed kind of our draft

facilities condition assessment report, and right now, in addition to just finalized report, we are finishing up the seismic assessment of these three facilities, and once that's done, then we'll have a complete report that will help define the project scope for these three sites and to inform what design should be moving forward. and then, the last slide i have for today is attachment one. this is a high-level summary of the overall program budget that shows the allocation of the bonds between the first bond sale and the second as well as encumbrances to date. it's the same point i brought last time is we're still in -- a lot of these projects are still in design, so that's why the -- it's moved most of the

expenditures toward professional fees. as we go into construction in 2019, i do expect an uptick of expenditures encumbrances for all the construction contracts. i know one of the discussions that's been going back and forth is the accuracy of the financial data. i do want to just bring up that the financial data that's part of this report is still an estimate. includes all of the data up through may of 2018, so the -- they are much more accurate than what was presented earlier in the year. they're not perfect, but i know our design -- our public works accountants and financial team is working on kind of cleaning -- doing the final reconciliation of all the labor -- labor expenditures, and i foresee finishing that effort in the few months.

at this point, that concludes my presentation, and my team and i are available to answer any questions you may have. >> so will the bond liaison share with us your conversations with the project manager. >> yes. so i have a number of comments, a lot like last time, i think, comments, but before i get into that, i want to thank the client department for coming to these meetings. responsibility -- coresponsibility for these efforts. my question is does anybody -- anybody from client department have any comments or issues you'd like to bring up? this is -- we provide governance on behalf of you also so we want to make sure that you have the opportunity to speak. don't know who to look at, but in general. okay. we're here for you. if you ever -- if you ever want to talk about the bond and the

services that are being provided. it's my interpretation of the services that are being provided by d.p.w. is -- is -- is -- is very good. i mean, i think that they're -- you -- you know my opinion about these types of bonds. if this report seems confusing with lots of different aspects to it, that's because it's confusing with lots of different aspects to it. it is very hard to keep up with. that is the nature of the way the bond was written, and d.p.w. and under joe's leadership is doing their best. i think that they are constantly coming up with new ways of working to deal with some of the most challenging aspects of this, particularly around what's going on at zuckerberg general hospital, and i appreciate your efforts towards that. one of the things that i'd like to recommend, and i'm sorry, i should have said this when tanya was in the room. i think that there are -- that

in this type of bond and how it's structured, it is costing the city more money because there's so many projects, because d.p.w. is constantly going back out to different design firms, different bidding. this is not like building general hospital where you're getting -- you know, you've got -- stages you're going through, you're going through them directly. so one of the things i noticed, the -- the easter bond is also -- 2014 easter bond is also like this, a lot of different projects. so i think i would love for the easter bond audit that is scheduled for this fiscal year among the auditor department to include some scope around what is the cost of this? what is this type of bond costing us, and from my personal position, you know, how -- how do we govern this? i mean, again, this -- the reports are fantastic.

thank you, joe, but it's -- i don't know how to get to uncovering, you know, what the challenges are without directly asking the client departments who also are getting the same kinds of reports. so that -- that's -- you know, when we look at something -- as joe said, there's a challenging bidding environment. when you're bidding many, many projects -- 19, i think is what you rolled up to, is a small number, that is a lot of work. and so again, this is -- i'm getting back on my soap box. you guys heard this from me before, but i would like to at least get some understanding how we can move forward if these types of bonds are continuing to come, but we all believe that they are from the capital programming presentation, i think that we need to figure out how to handle this mode of governance. >> question on the ambulance

deployment facility. you said just two bids were received. i was just curious how they -- the value of those bids related to the engineer's estimate and if they're having potentially any impact on the overall budget of 48.6 million. >> umm, so the a.d.f. project, we're using a new delivery method as well by chapter 6, it's called best value, so we've gone ahead and received bids, but we're not evaluating the price that we're receiving, the cost ponent. that's about a two week process, and once that's done, we can look at the total best value between a percent of the noncost criteria versus the cost criteria. >> okay. so there's still a chance you might not accept either bid. >> yes.

>> okay. and i just, again, want to thank you for the presentation. but i don't know if i'm right, but this may be the first detailed quarterly report, and it really -- i was a little confused, but when i read this, it explained a lot of things, answered a lot of questions, so i really, really want to thank you and the staff for doing the detailed quarterly report. and i'm really looking forward to when that red financial data disappears because again, i think that having complete, current and accurate detailed project expenditure budget information is critical to this committee to oversee and ensure bond funds are being spent in cordance with the voter -- accordance with the voters. also, they did present a voter bond summary report for the

first time, and i really appreciate that. >> joe, i wanted to follow up on, because i did have a comment on the -- the data that the red -- your red comment. it said that the data is as of june 2017, and we all know about the new financial system. and it is disturbing that we're using old data. do you -- do you have any idea when you will be able to be up and running with more -- with really accurate data? i know different departments have different timelines both arriving at that spot, so could you share with us a little bit more on that because that is critical to our job here. >> sure. i'll defer that question to our julie dawson. she's our deputy finance director with the department of public works, and she can probably provide a more

accurate timeline of how we'll ged that added corrective. >> yulia dawson, public works. i guess i think i need to say that the reason the numbers are estimated is because they're not whole, but that doesn't mean that they're just reflecting numbers from june. so any number that we can verify that's not labor and it's not in the right place, it's in the report. but the bigger issue for us is the labor. we're about 93% done moving the labor and verifying that it's all in the right place, and we're in the home stretch. in the next two weeks, we'll be done. once we're done, then it's up to the analysts to confirm, and there may be adjustments that they need to make, but the bulk of the costs will be there. you already know that about the challenges. many of the charges in this bond are actually in the right place 'cause it's a new bond and it benefited from being setup a little later. some of the older bonds that

are more complex and have a lot more projects that are old, like easter bond, had a bit more work to do? one of the big issues for us is allocations, so we can show you direct labor, but we have a very complex overhead model, and that had to be done manually. so -- >> so it sounds like you're very close to being -- to having some numbers that you can rely on. >> yes, we are. >> so hopefully, the next time you publish something on your website that's definitely that would be prior to your next hearing in front of this committee, the public will have fairly accurate data, you would have removed this footnote. >> right. but i do want to let you know that even though it says estimated, that's really out of a sense of caution on our part.

the bulk of the good charges are there. it's still there they may be still a -- that they may be still a little understated. >> okay. thank you. >> and also, may i note that the quarterly report that we got from the transportation and root improvement which is primarily m.t.a., but it also had the same caveat on the financial page, so i'm hoping that we're getting very -- >> i was going to say, we're going to have a liaison meeting with them, with the m.t.a. on that 2014 transportation road way bond before the next meeting, so i'm not going to go into this bond -- well, i will go into that with them when we meet, but i'm not going to say anything about it today. >> i have a couple questions if i may. >> please. >> with respect to sf general building five, if i understand you correctly if i read this accurately, it is anticipated to do a seismic upgrade to

building five, which is its current use as a hospital while occupied. so in san francisco, just to give you some context and i'm sure you're aware, there's lots of hospitals. sometimes they build entirely new wings next to the existing hospital. sometimes they demo a floor or two and vacate or what have you. it's as far as i can recall, unusual to do a structural seismic upgrade for an occupancy of a building whose use is hospital while occupied. and in my mind, there is a potential -- you know, mentioning challenges in how to administer and have over sight over expenditures, there are challenges related to that. seismic upgrade of an occupied hospital building, there are

challenges related to that proposal that are beyond the average number of challenges that are usual and customary, you know, like hose towers in a fire house. the potential for cost over runs related to these unforeseen, unexpected events that may occur being higher than average, in my view, i'm wondering if you share that view, number one, and number two, if so, what steps, if any, can you take to anticipate as much of the complexities that are unforeseen at this time as -- as a -- as a reasonable valuation and can -- can include. the third question is when hospitals get upgrade does systems, plumbing, electrical,

hvac, demolition of floors, what have you, there is an analysis, vacate those floors, go in, knock it out, reoccupy the floors as opposed to work around them because many times, you know, hospital floors are being refitted and they're worked while occupied on certain systems. there's an analysis that occurs. here, we say we're going to do seismic upgrading, structural upgrading of an autopsioccupie building. i'm wondering if there's been an analysis done where it will be cost effective as opposed to vacate this thing, do the usual and customary seismic upgrade as quickly as possible.

those are my three questions, do you think that it's higher than average potential for unforesee challenges in this project. if so, is there any steps that you can containing, and has an analysis been done that pencils those unforeseen -- potential for unforeseen expenditures versus what costs are associated with vacating that building, and that's not going to be inexpensive, and then, knock the thing out and reoccupy it? thank you. >> so thank you for the question? it definitely is a great question that keeps me up all night in terms of how to do that? i think the reality is there is no space that's big enough that will house all the occupants of the building that we can move into? that definitely is a higher

risk. we are managing that risk both from -- kind of going with best practices. we are, as i mentioned earlier, we are doing kind of a phased -- a two phase approach that allows us in terms of the design team, the -- and as well as the department of health and safety with d.p.h. to really understand how do we do it using a best practice and to minimize impact? we know there will be impact. that's a given, but what are some of the ways we can mitigate that. so we are kind of trying to dial in the right approach and kind of a -- on the parallel path, we're also on boarding a cmgc contractor similar to some of the larger projects we did, similar to the hospital on zuckerberg, where we can bring on a contractor that can help us flush out the phasing details.

we're having weekly meetings with the department of public health to really map out what locations we can really work on first, k'cause really, we're - i'll clarify. we're not doing work when the patients are the in the space. let's say we have two rooms that are in the works to do seismic retrofit. we're going to have to vacate those two or three rooms that are being impacted. they'll have to relocate to a temporary space whether it's in the building or somewhere else, and then we'll have a contractor on board quickly to get that work done, do all the scope, get approved, get it approved, then recommissioned and move the occupants back in. so doing that 206 times is the challenge. >> and there's foundation work. >> yes. >> yeah.

>> so -- >> so for instance, the building we're in, city hall, when they did the seismic upgrade, most of the work's in the basement. it's put on pads, close the building because it was less expensive. so i'm sure you've -- well, have you looked at that, and if so, you have mentioned that there isn't room. and i'm sure you've contacted -- you've arrived at -- you've reached out and made that determination somehow that there aren't other hospitals out there where we can find 20 beds there and 30 beds there or whatever, correct? >> that's correct. it's -- it's also an effort that's been through department of public health. i work with the client representative, and they've -- that was one of the first questions we've looked at is, you know, are we able to vacate building five, but unfortunately, there is not enough space. there's seven floors in building five with a lot of services, and it's used, you know, all the time.

so there's no such thing as shutting down for a year to do the work. in terms of foundation, the foundation work is limited to one location where we're doing a -- a new seismic joint, we're putting in a new seismic joint -- actually, we're increasing the joint from 6 inches to 2 feet. and once we increase the joint, we have to do the associated structural improvements at both end. so we understand the challenges in front of us, and we're -- we're doing what we can. we know this is also a old building, 70's, we have hazardous materials that we know are there. we've already done thorough sampling of all the spaces to make sure we address all of those issues that we can anticipate, so hope i answered your question. >> you did. thank you. >> any other comments?

>> yeah. joe, i want to ask about the ambulance redeployment or pardon me, deployment facility. did you say that this was a rebid or was this the first bid? >> this was a first bid. >> okay. >> yeah. >> and you said a best value procurement, is this a design build contract? >> it's not design build. it's taking a model similar to design bid build but we've added a noncost criteria, and the two costcyte plus the noncost criteria, whichever -- cost criteria plus the noncost criteria, whichever gives us the lowest price. based on that, we can then award the contract based on the best value of noncost versus cost criteria. >> i don't think i've ever heard of that before.

usually when it's designed-bid-build, you put a price on the street, and you get a price for it. what difference do you expect to see between the two bidders, or any of the bidders in something that is design-bid-build. it's a contract of ad heernher >> so with the best value approach, it allows the design team or the project team to include certain criteria. in the technical schedule, if the project is able to reduce the overall project schedule then there are additional points awarded to the contractor, then that, coupled with a -- the bid that they submit to the city will then

determine the best value. so we do have a full design that's already been permitted approved, it's just the selection of the contractor includes a noncost criteria. one of them i think is the schedule component. >> so schedule would be the primary one. >> that's one component. i -- if you'd like to have more questions specifically about what the items are, i can ask the project manager to provide explanation or we can talk offline. >> i'd like to hear about that and then i'll report back to the committee maybe at the next meeting. you and i are going to be talking about something else, any way, so it'll be a good chance to lengthen that conversation. one last question, under project controls, those pie charts that you put -- included with each of the project, in that scope, does that include design, for example. >> yes, that's correct. project controls is a -- it's

a -- it's your typical soft versus construction. the project controls is everything that -- nonconstruction related, which includes design fees, permitting, any kind of professional service, keert construction management, project management support, everything that is nonconstruction related. >> yeah. >> i'm sure i've asked that before because the numbers are pretty high for project controls. usually project controls, well, you know, the processing the pay applications and giving a schedule updates, i say yeah, you've got to do that, but i wouldn't want to pay a third of the construction project value for that alone. that answers the question. i'm almost certain i've asked that once before. finally, just for everyone's benefit here, i haven't reported on i guess it was the 2008 bond for the new facility, that if you want to take a look at a new picture of it, on the

cover, the thing off to the left of the area that's kind of outlined in orange, that -- there's nothing much -- that project is done. it's occupied, but the only outstanding items are some pass through claims, and i will be talking to the attorney who is working on that for the city. last name is o'neal, elaine o'neal, and i'll report back on what miss o'neal tells us at the next meeting. >> may i invite public comment, if any, at this point -- oh, i'm sorry. >> thank you. >> you were next. >> thank you. i just wanted to foul up on something that commissioner chu said about the fact that d.p.w. is responsible not only for this project but a number of others. our responsibility is looking at whether things are on scope, on time, and on budget. from these experiences, are you

learning information that you're passing through about how to better design future bonds? because we have a number of bonds that are in the pipeline. >> yes. it's definitely one of the things we've learned on every project we deliver, we have lessons learned. obviously, one of the -- on the community health center, one thing we identify is a seismic scope or seismic retrofit is one scope that really should look at first. so we've done that, we've got back and start doing seismic assessment on all the primary care or community health care facilities. we're also starting three additional clinics that will undergo a seismic evaluation. so the -- based on the results of the seismic evaluation that would then help us better size the project scope for the up coming bond that d.p.h. is

working on for 2022. >> may i invite public comment, at this point, if any? seeing none, let's proceed to the last item. >> item eight, opportunity for committee members to comment or take action other any matters within the committee's jurisdiction. madam chair, do you want me to go through them one by one or at we get to them? do you want me to read all of them off now? >> i think you can just read them off real quickly. we're running out of time, so i'd like to be able to get as many of this done as possible. >> so there are several here, a, up coming issues from public finance, website redesign, the public satisfaction survey, expenditures audit, standardized templates, the goboc annual audit for fiscal year 17-18, and the fiscal year

2018-19 work plan. all of these items are found in other reports in your packet. >> perhaps we could have a brief update from public finance because it's just giving a heads up on your pipeline. >> sure. good morning, committee members. director of the office of public finance. we've got three bond issues that we anticipate in the next 12 months. the first will be to fund affordable housing, about $35 million. the second will be for waterfront park, about $3 million, and then finally, last would be public health, $127 million. so those are scheduled. the first would be the seismic safety loan program, which is also for affordable housing, would be scheduled to close first in the spring of 2019, and then, the other two in the

summer of 2019. >> good. thank you. can we proceed with the next item. >> website redesign. >> and again, we've been talking about this for a couple of meetings. it is now live, so please go and take a look. nice, clean look as we have discussed. just call a couple things to your attention. the front page here is general overview of the committee, and then, there's a next meeting and last meeting with the first two things that can come, and you can click on those and get to the agenda and all the supporting documents. there's a graphic for each of your bond programs, and when you click over to those, you'll see the most recent status report and the most recent presentation. the archive is five years of historical reports going back. we certainly from the -- all old ones, but no need for more

than five years of reports on the site. so each of the program areas is like that. just call your attention to two your things, as they call it a hamburger. so when you click on that, you can go to any of the supports areas or information on the committee itself, which is listed in the banner at the bottom of the page. i've tested all the links. they're live. if you see any tweaks, let us know, it's easy to change this, but we think it's much easier to find your information, and it's nice not to have that old archive material getting in the way of viewing the current. so that's the report on the website. >> i'd like to point out that it would be good to have the whistle blower program specifically called out on the webpage. it says city services, but it

doesn't have whistle blower. i think it would be good to note for people that go there that there are other places besid besi besid besides goboc and others that people need to know about so they don't think this is the end of the road. >> i think that i may make a suggestion, we have several items to go through in the next ten minutes or so, one of think requires kind of action on this committee. this is a good beginning. may i please encourage members, if you have any specific ideas, please address them to peg relating to ideas or relating to the website and not to. >> whistle blower, if you go to the c.s.a. link, whistle blower

is one of the links there. but if you'd like, we can move onto the front page. >> front page, please. >> i agree. it looks fantastic. thank you so much. >> again, very quickly, public satisfaction survey, we included a sample in your packet of the pretest of the public satisfaction packet. we have made a couple of adjustments to it. we had really good response rate, willingness of people, so they are happy with the pretest and they're going to go ahead and do with all the translations and things that are needed to proceed with the public satisfaction survey. >> excellent. it's very well thought out. can we put on our future agenda seeing the results of that.

>> absolutely. >> okay. there'll be analyticals and a write up that might be available by december, so i'll let you know as it proceeds. >> and at that point, we'll evaluate the value of doing this. >> right. the next item expenditures audits, they were listed in tanya's presentation, i believe, if you have any comments or thoughts about those, you're welcome to get back in touch with tanya. standardized templates, we agreed in our premeeting with brenda that we'll work on that later in the year after you've stablized your work plan. no other updates on that. the goboc report for the fiscal year, brenda, do you want to speak to this? >> yes. we -- members, you'll recall that we do an annual report that's sent to the mayor and the board of supervisors. and for this year's, you will

be asked to write a short report on your liaison bond or program that you are involved with, and i believe she will be sending us a sample of what was done last year. and she will be sending it to you, and will be giving you a due date of when to write your report and get it back to her, and our report will have a cover page and will list several pages of our report, which should -- i believe it was like a paragraph or two. >> in the past couple years, the controller report has also been, i think attached? >> yes. >> will we be able to see a draft or have that before we write up -- >> i don't think the timing

will go with your properreport just because some of the same issues, he hawe've talked abou financials with f.s.t., we need them to be done before the year's end for us to do our report, so the sequence will be clean financials, cafr, and i think you want to issue your final report before all that will be completed. >> so this year, we may not attach that report. again, i think the financials at least in my -- >> just one note, i gave you a sample of what you did last year, your packet, but i'll get you the template out today in case -- >> so the last item is the workplace. >> the work plan, but also, just to note, peg, you did include the financials to this committee. that is in your packet, under

other reports. >> so the last item is work plan that you've been given that shows the group of bonds and the expected presentation in this current -- in the next fiscal year. are there any comments? we have pretty much structured the same. each bond will receive -- will be required to give two presentations this year. each bond and each program. >> yeah. i -- i think i said this before, that i have concerns about our time, not just today, but in general, and i think one of the ways we could be more efficient with our time is to focus on the highest response and less than the others, and so looking through all this, my recommendation is we just -- you know, so in june, the parks

bonds had an audit. the audit came out very, very farchl. i forget what tanya's title because, but it's very -- was, but it's very favorable. i would recommend just talking about it march 26. i think there's a parks one on the ballot, so that would be a good time to talk about parks again. and then, move something from, you know, sort of moving something up and just sort of rake it out a little bit. >> we did discuss this. peg, maybe you could share with us the justification, some of these older bonds -- we've been looking at a group of bonds, and when you look at a group of bonds, you know, some are older than others, so the time that we -- the presentation -- the presenters will be encouraged to kind of scale back, if you

will, the almost finished bonds, but for ease of overseeing and monitoring them, it makes sense to look at a bond group. peg, could you -- you maybe clarify that. >> yes, that's true. the parks bond, again, if you look at this, three different sequences being reported in the presentation, 2008 is almost spent out. the others, less so, and we'll encourage the presenters to focus their time on the things which are current. i'm not sure i respond to the comment about the -- i can respond to the comment about the parks bond in particular. there's a lot of movement there. that might be a good reason to make sure that you see them twice, but that's up to you. >> but i think that we could

have further discussion szs as -- discussions as far as we could swap one bond group with another. >> yeah. i think that we, if probably -- again, there's four audits that tanya's doing this year, so if we can coordinate both the -- i mean, you know -- so the parks bond audit went out in june. it would be great to hear tanya talk a little bit about their findings while we come up and talk about it, and if we can coordinate some of the that timing with other audits that are scheduled. >> the timing is really trying to think up the presentations with the actual planned audits. >> we'll do that. >> okay. >> i'd just like to say that while the agendas are generally set at this meeting for the next coming meeting, it would be a good idea to touch base

with any of us shortly before the meeting is in time so that additional items can come up. for example, since the last meeting that we had, we've had a mayoral election, a new board president, and all the rest of that, and so it could well result in a decision that the review and update what we were planning on the agenda once that was set in may. so i'd like to ask that. and then, the second thing is i'd like to say that again, i'm going to bring forward the issue of more omnibus audit, outside audit review of how the city protects the taxpayers and the citizens from wrongful actions and so forth of which the whistle blower is a part. >> i'd like to just comment on your first point. what we have laid out are the work plans and the scheduled

meetings themselves, so any member who wishes to put or suggest an item on the agenda, they are -- they are perfectly free to send an e-mail to the chair, vice chair, and ben as the controller, as to any additional items -- agenda you would like to put on the meeting agenda, but it is the purview of the chair and the vice chair in conjunction with the controller to finalize that agenda. so you know the meeting, so if you have any specific ideas or suggestions, you are free to send them to us. >> also, may i just note, i need to be included in that 'cause i do draft agendas. and the -- if you're adding things to the agenda, it can't be added the week the packet is going out. we need to have that additional item in sync with when the chair and vice chair do their

premeeting. it's a good ten days ahead of the meeting just as a general courtesy. >> that underscores my point of advance notice. >> well, you haven't agenda -- you have a date, the next five -- this is the first of our six meetings, so you have five meeting dates. so if you have an idea, you have a suggestion, you are free at any point prior to those dates to address it to the chair and vice chair and to ben as controller because he staffs us as to which to be included. >> we had to go through several iterations to make sure we were having this meeting this time. >> the only reason we had this meeting, it was scheduled, buzz we couldn't get d -- but we

couldn't get availability. this meeting was established in the last fiscal year, however, it was delayed due to people's availability, so... >> you understand my point. >> so do you have more comment? >> so do we need a motion to approve the 18-19 work plan as may be amended to coordinate with the controller's planned expenditure audits? i so move. >> second. >> all in favor? [voting] >> good. any other public comment relating to any matters? seeing none, meeting is adjourned.