municipal finance officers for the whistle blower's program's outreach and education effort and awarded the whistle blower program with the 2018 innovation program award. and there was an article actually published that you can also look at at csfmo's website, so we're really proud of that accomplishment. as it relates to the various initiatives, we have four bulletins that we issued in 2017-18 and we really believe that to have a high substantiation rate to be achieved, we need to have well informed reporters so that they make high quality reports that can be effectively investigated. it's very difficult to investigate claims when the information is really sporadic, and sometimes, even when we reach back out to the

complainant, we don't always get a response. and so when we have enough information, we're able to really work the complaint, and so that's really important in our program. we want to ensure that we give every complaint the attention deserved, and we want to work those complainants. so this initiative as it relates to putting out these bulletins has helped our complaintants to give full disclosure of what they believe has occurred. also, the whistle blower program uses a code source investigation model to resolve reports, and whistle blower program staff believed certain investigations whereas others may be referred to a city department involved in the allegation or with jurisdictional oversight for investigation and response. so coordinating with other departments, using their expertise, leverage -- and

leveraging resources at other departments also ensures that allegations are resolved in a timely manner. and so management must report to the whistle blower program on any action taken in response to the report. so just like in our audit process, we have a follow up process and a response process with the whistle blower program. they have 60 days to respond to us once they have received a complaint. we follow up. i will assure you that even after receiving that information, we just go over the investigation with a fine toothed comb. we ensure that the facts are appropriate, the evidence is appropriate, and if we have any questions, we do follow up. and there have been times that we have launched an additional investigation on the work already performed. so we really are careful about the work performed not only within our own group but as

well as with the investigators at the department. so the whistle blower program has also focused on investigation excellence by collaborating with and disseminating hotline and investigation best practices to jurisdictions throughout north america. so we have hosted our fraud webinars, and we had four this past year, and we will have additional webinars in this current fiscal year. if you're interested, let us know, and we'll add you onto our list. we do record those webinars, so if you can't sit in while it's live, you have an opportunity to review after the webinar has actually occurred. and that will be it today. thank you. >> just one quick question.

are any of the c.s.a. staff certified fraud examiners currently? >> yes, they all are. >> okay. great. >> going back, tanya, to slide eight, disposition of closed complaints, the number in the second and third rows refer to department with charter jurisdiction and merged with another complaint for fiscal year 16-17, that totalled 25%, and then, it's up for fiscal 17 dr 18 17-18 it's up to 31%. in those cases, you have found something that there should be further investigation. is that not right? >> no. >> oh, so generally, with the first category you referred to

a department with charter jurisdiction, the complaint has come into us, upon review of the allegations and information provided, we realize that the complaint needs to be investigated by another city department they have jurisdiction over the matter. so we'd inform the complainant of that being the case, and we'd work with the complainant to have the issue addressed by the other department or refer the complaint to the other department for investigation. >> for example, it might need to go to the district attorney. it might need to go to the department of human resources. >> okay. all right. so it would be someone other than, what is it, the fox guarding the hen house kind of thing, where the d.a.'s office is independent, so if there were a complaint about community, and you decided that it should go to the d.a., the d.a. would have jurisdiction. not that you've given up or made any finding one way or

another, just that this is their purview, and merge with another complaint is similar. >> so with those complaints, it's not uncommon or not unheard of, whistle blower program to receive multiple complaints about the same incident. perhaps multiple people witnessed it, multiple people then decided to file a complaint. the allegations are the same, the subject of the complaint is the same. we wouldn't investigate the complaint separately, we would merge them into one complaint and investigate it at the same time. >> so -- but the rest of these things, like outside of jurisdiction -- though investigated and closed, does that -- does that give me any indication of whether there was wrongdoing or is it just meaning we looked at it and this is our conclusion, yea or nay. >> in and of itself, investigated and closed would be represent whether the allegations were substantiated

or they result in a violation of city rules. broadly said, allegations were present today us, we did look into -- presented to us, we did look into them and investigated to take appropriate action. >> so i wouldn't infer results from this, just that you looked at it, and you're done. >> right. so if you go to our quarterly report, you'll have -- they're more broken-down as it relates to we will report on some of the allegations that were sustained. >> okay. that's all. >> i have a question. >> please. >> if i might. a member of the public earlier in this morning's meeting suggested that authority of jurisdiction for claims or assertions of retaliation land under the ethics commission, and since they have had authority of jurisdictions on those assertions, that they

have had findings of zero -- zero findings of retaliatory actions based on a whistle blower complaint. and a member of the public suggested that well, maybe that should be audited. so my question is, in my mind, if they have no findings, they have no findings. i mean, zero is zero. that -- the question is, then, well, was it appropriate or not, and their findings are their findings, whether like any -- any overview board, what their findings are are their findings. if you want to challenge that person, then challenge them in court.

i don't know what more an audit would produce other than a finding of zero or five or whatever it happens to be, and i'm wondering if you see any benefit beyond that as far as that would warrant an audit. the audit -- the ethics commission's findings, the merit of their findings, i don't know how you do that. >> well from our perspective, if i just apply the audit standards as it relates to independent, from an independent perspective as an auditor who has a relationship with this agency in terms of whistle blower program and they're the fire wall -- we have the fire wall, they handle retaliation, in order to maintain that fire wall, that independence, it would not be advisable that i, the city service auditor, would audit

the ethics investigation program because i already have a fire wall where they're responsible to look into the retaliation claims, and i'm the receiver of complaints from a whistle blower. so in order to maintain that independence, if someone should determine that an audit needs to take place, it needs to take place outside of the controller's wall. >> i understand. >> to maintain the independence of the whistle blower program. >> i understand. thank you. >> i am the rep on this committee assigned to this program, so i'd just like to say a few words. while i meet regularly with the program manager, and we met recently, at these meetings, with you go -- we go through the statistics that this committee sees.

questions are asked, and i have been overseeing this program for the last couple of years. first of all, i continue, based on these discussions and the data and reports that i have read, i continue to be -- have great confidence that the actual process of the investigation is very sound. and you have heard, in addition to that, the follow up and the type of regularity that the whistle blower staff conducts just to make sure that if we do refer complaints to other departments, there is regular follow up to that department to make sure that the investigative process is continued. the other area of follow up is also their recommendations to, in a certain case, where they recommend some action be taken.

they also take some time to follow up to that department to make sure that those recommendations are indeed carried out. so i continue to have high confidence that this -- the process of investigating these claims are carried out efficiently and in a very timely manner. you can see the statistics for yourself. the other thing i do commend the innovation and professionalism of the whole staff, in particular, the manager, steve. he has initiated both the internal training program which is necessary because as tanya says, the more informed city employees are, the better equality of the actual complaints. and the second initiative that steve has started is this -- is the webinar program. i have attended most of these

programs, and they are very -- they're very instructive. and what he has done is to really source different types of professionalism in the city so that his staff and other people could be shared. so i think that the combination of an internal and internal areas of increased training has -- has really raised the level of professionalism and competence his group has achieved, so i commend both of them. and steve, the other thing i would like you to share with -- with the committee is -- and it's a question we've asked you before, is a lot of times, the ageing -- in that chart where you have the ageing there, there are a couple of, one or

two cases, that have extended beyond i guess a year or close to a year, can you just explain to the rest of this committee why there are some cases that take so long to investigate and close. >> yeah. speak in general to some of factors. sometimes it has to do with the availability of the city employee. sometimes the employee is out on leave for a long period of time. that can be one factor. the other factor might have to do with the number of complaints. sometimes the allegations run from everything to poor customer service to financial mismanagement or poor operations. going through that and making sure that each of the allegations is addressed can sometimes take a deal of time. sometimes the complexity of the

allegations mentioned, it -- sometimes, it's a complaint that we cannot refer over to a department. it just would not be appropriate organizationally for them to look back and report to us, so in that case, we have to build up our expertise of the department, maybe look at the contract and the contract provisions mentioned in the agreement or grant agreement, that can add to an investigation as well. sometimes, i think as tony mentioned, we reach out to a complainant, they indicate they have evidence, and we make efforts and arrangements to try and obtain that evidence, but it's just -- stuff comes up, it's not always brought forth as fast as we'd like, but we keep pursuing that and those avenues. >> and also, sometimes, the complaint, we've done the work, and it's ready to go, and then, there's a whole nother process on the department's side

eventually at the city attorney's side, just policies and procedures that must be followed before it can be completely closed out. so there are a gamut of thing that hold up a complaint, but be assured we pay close attention and we're moving as fast as possible, but we also work within a structure that afford certain rights to all employees, as well. >> thank you. any comments from -- >> i'd like to say something. i accepted brenda's invitation to sit in on the last briefing on the whistle blower program, and i have a couple of observations from all of that. first of all, i think there's no question that the outreach that you've done has resulted in an increased number of complaints coming in. i think that that's exactly what needed to happen. what we've seen happen with some other agencies, and it's a good thing because of two things. people need to know if there's

something going on that's wrong, and secondly, we need the public to believe that filing a complaint matters and gets some sort of a result. so it improves public confidence. when talking in the briefing that they provided, we discussed that there are other complaints that don't come to the whistle blower. as you said, there are things that get referred on. so in some cases if it's a workplace issue, it goes to d.h.r. in some cases, if it's a sex harassment case, it can go to the department of the status of woman. it can go to the department of human rights. i always sound like i was there in the garden of eden with adam and eve, but i was there when they created the whistle blower program, and it started off as part of the mayor's office. when the ethics commission was created, it was moved to

ethics. and ed harrington asked that it be transferred over to the controller's office at the time they did prop f, so that became a split thing, where they would say well, we'll keep retaliation with ethics and keep the investigations with the controller because the controller does do investigations. meanwhile, if it was a workplace issue, it was going to go to d.h.r., and if it was a criminal issue, it could go to the district attorney. mr. hughes asked about the investigations at ethics on retaliation, none of them had been found. it did not necessarily mean that nothing happened, it was most often that ethics determined that it had no jurisdiction. so for example, complaints were coming in about wrongdoing in city bond measures where there was a contractor, and the contractor would file a complaint, but they were being told something, and ethics would say we have no jurisdiction, and so it would

be dismissed. and so what -- if you were doing an audit, you would not necessarily look at did they fail to find something, but rather, the question is, did they have the jurisdiction and what needs to be done to make sure that the jurisdiction exists? i asked d.h.r., which is supposed to provide regular reports on the complaints that they get on workplace problems, and i got back somewhere between 50 and 100 findings, most of which involved settlements for city workers. it was very impressive that all of these complaints are going on, and we don't even know about them. i mean, not at goboc, but just in general, i've never even seen a number article about it. all of this led me to think it would be a good idea at this point to ask for an outside audit of how our whole system works of ensuring that people are protected, if they file a complaint if something's wrong,

and the complaints are followed through in the right places. because you have these different pieces that were not created intentionally to be different, but because somebody fell down over here, and somebody fell down over there, and so it all got split off for one reason or another. and i say that now because a few years ago, the civil grand jury, i am the appointee here from the civil grand jury found that the ethics -- the whistle blower program needed to be revamped, and they sent that to the ethics commission, and the chair of the ethics commission asked me to work would them on drafting a response, which -- work with them on drafting a response. in two years, there has never been a single hearing mostly because different city agencies whether it's d.h.r. or controller or ethics or somebody else have been having

discussions behind close doors, what the issues are that are being flushed out. so my believe is that it's time for us to use our funding to have an outside audit of the whole universe of how all of this is working, and is it accomplishing its purpose? so i'm putting that out on the table. i had a message, i wrote about that to go to each of us. by the way, i did send stuff to everybody on the goboc. it's my understanding i can do that as long as i'm willing for that to become a public document. it doesn't become a question of a public meeting unless people are actually asked to come to a meeting. but just providing this only means that it falls under the public records act rather than the open meetings act, and i think that those issues got conflated. but here's an example of

something that took place at hunters point a number of years ago, 18 years ago, in fact, about retaliation against a contractor over reporting toxic and cleanup problems at hunters point. the contractor had their contract pulled, and after that time, nothing was done. we are living with the consequences of these things, and it's going to be millions of dollars and possibly some health risks to people. so these issues linger from one year to the next if they don't get addressed. it is a significant and serious concern, so i'm just putting that out not as a motion at this point, but to say that i would like a proposal to be made from c.s.a. at the next meeting about how you would

design an omnibus high level audit to be done by an outside group that as you said, you want a fire wall between your work and the work with some of the others to see where things stand and where they need to go. >> any other comment on that? for the benefit of the committee, i think mr. bush, over the weekend, circulated an e-mail relating to a topic, and i had requested that the members not respond to mr. bush's e-mail because we had been told by the city attorney's office that an e-mail being circulated to all members may be deemed to be a

public meeting of sorts. so can i please request the city attorney's office to comment on that and to train us as to what we should or should not be doing if one member is circulating an entire e-mail soliciting discussion on a topic to all members. >> this is mark blake, deputy city attorney. i think that the issue really is just kind of more of a process of it. it's okay for members to circulate commentary as long as it goes through your work or your secretary, and that that document be made available at your next meeting and it's a source of discussion at the meeting, but there should not be back and forth between the committee members about that item prior to the meeting. i think a direct communication in some ways promotes kind of a

back and forth versus a i'm circulating this document, giving it to the city attorney to be distributed to you or at the next meeting. i think the question is if there is a circulation, and i'd like support on this item, somebody contacts you and then they contact another person in support, that can be deemed a serial meeting. i think it's a question of just process, and a direct communication lends itself to a potential violation of the background ac background -- brown act. i think that's the admonition of the city attorney. >> it was my understanding that this had something to do with a liaison problem, to. the magic number's four. three people can talk to each other, and we do, but the minute you add a fourth person to that e-mail chain, you've got an issue. >> but i think developing a

consensus outside of the public meeting, and that's the concern. >> yes. >> so discussions amongst members about agenda items prior to the meeting, i think, are problematic. >> yeah. no, i know, but at some point, we just need to get -- we have to be able to have some type of conversation, so i've always been using the rule of thumb of four. >> no, it's not a -- i don't think it's a quorum issue as much as a communication that members can't circulate documents amongst themselves and communicate behind the scenes on those documents and be safe if only that communication is limited to less than a quorum. >> i think that what's happening is to some extent there's a conflags between the public records rule and an open meeting rule. a public records is something as you're saying, something that went to everybody and

appropriately through the clerk of the group is a public record that can be available to anybody. it doesn't then trigger into a meeting unless, as you also indicated, there is a request for feedback and comment and the decision based or at least commentary on what was in the -- in the e-mail. and in the case of what i just sent, i did not ask for any feedback until the meeting took place. i said i would -- you know, i look forward to your comments at the meeting. so i was doing what i thought was due diligence to ensure that all i was doing was putting something out that could be a public record but would not cross into a public meeting. >> thank you for clarifying your intention. i think for the benefit of all members in fact future, if you do wish to do what mr. bush did, i think it would be best to send that piece of document

or your ideas to the secretary of this group, so that she can make sure that that piece of information is made available to other members. >> can i add, you know, city attorney's office will follow up with this committee on permissible communications. it's an area of concern, ambiguity, so let's see if we can't get you some training back on that specific point, so at your next meeting, if you'll allow, we'll follow up on that. >> okay. any public comment to the presentation? >> i have handout, please.

good morning. my name is jerry dradler and 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, unexpd