>> i don't mean to overcomplicate this, but just to say that if it was felt that there was too much burden being taken to do supplemental appropriations and move money around, one of the ways to control that is when you do the original allocations is to appropriately sized the projects or the programs are the level at which the control is exercised so you can avoid that as much as possible. we are happy to take a look at the m.t.a. bond and make sure that those things are done appropriately so the lease burden is presented. i'm just saying both issues are going on. >> let me follow up and clarify a little bit. monique, correct me if i misrepresent what the situation is but what you are looking to do in moving funds around is not necessarily to make a permanent change in the allocation, but just if one set of projects is moving more quickly than another set from a different subcategory , you just want to

temporarily move funds around and make it up later on, rather than delay one set of programs because they are outpacing the anticipated cash outflow for any given category. you just temporarily take money from another category and give it back later on. is that's not right? >> that was the case with the supplemental that was approved last year. there were funds moved from the moving forward category to the facilities program. in order to move the amount from category to category, we did have to go through supplemental appropriation. i want to be clear that at this point in time, we don't see a need for that -- for any substance that -- subsequent supplemental appropriation. >> i will not make any phone calls today then. >> it was something that happens that was in the last 20 years.

we don't anticipate it happening again. >> i am glad to hear that. i was troubled by that and i think what was at their government audit and oversight committee at one point last year had some complaints about how quickly you were dispensing and implementing some projects. and some contracts. i think this was one of the things that was holding up the process. it was worth noting and worth following up on it. but i appreciate what kevin has said too. >> no other comments? as i noted, are there any other public comments on the presentation? >> good morning. my name is jury. if i understand the problem that was defined correctly, there was a timing program but not of

problems with the total funding for these individual projects. so as a c.p.a., i don't understand why you would have to move money between projects when really, what you need to do is move money between time frames. so it sounds like, procedurally, we don't understand the problem and the current solution is more cumbersome than it needs to be. thank you. >> any additional public comments? seeing none, let's move onto the next agenda item. >> item six is presentation from the recreation and parks department about the following bonds and possible action by the committee in response to such presentation. a, the 20 -- the 2,000 neighborhood park bond, 20 -- 2,000? park bond, and the tweet -- of the 2012 clean and sale -- safe park bonds.

>> great. good morning, committee members. my name is tosa. i am the director of capital planning for the recreational parks department. with me today is andrea, the finance chief and also david from the port. this will be a joint presentation. i will try to be as distinct as possible. just looking back a bit, all of our 2008 bond projects are complete. all 12 neighborhood parks are complete and open to the public. there some minor expenditures on our citywide programs that are ongoing now and that will be complete shortly. next.

this slide shows you where we are at today. this is a period of immense activity for us in 2019 and 2020 as we move towards the second phase of our bond projects. we are in the implementation phase of these projects. with the opening of the recreation centre in march, seven of the 14 voter approved neighborhood park projects are now open to the public. the schedule for the remaining park projects listed on this slide all remaining shows all remaining projects are now in construction or going through the bidding and award phase. sixty-five% of funds allocated for the neighborhood parks program have either been spent or encumbered.

this is a slide to show you the program highlights. six projects from our program are either starting construction or will be in construction in the spring of this year. we completed a very, very successful community vision process early this year, which was adopted by the recreation and parks commission. there are some projects that came out of that. they are going to be going into implementation later this year. we continue to make progress in our community projects. they will get tennis projects as one of those and a car barn which is in construction as i speak. it is slated to be completed in may of 2019.

and the water conservation program, we have completed alamo square, alto plaza and the recreation center. and on this program, we would have been to achieve tremendous amounts -- we will be able to achieve tremendous amounts of water savings of up to 50% on average on all of these projects the last project will be coming out of the water conservation project. it will start in the spring of 2019. next. this is just recent milestones for us. the first picture you see here is the playground which is slated to be completed in december of this year and open to the public. this is coming out of our let's play program. this is a program that is to address a lot of our old

playgrounds in the city. potrero rec center is also in construction as i speak. that is slated to be completed in february. willie wong, which is in chinatown, started construction in september of this year also. as i i do updates, the next steps at the end of this program , we would have completed renovations to all of our recreation and park swimming pools. that is a tremendous amount of achievement for us. we would have completed renovations for all but six rec centres in the portfolio. we are embarking on a new life

cycle assessment of our portfolio right now, which is -- we are doing assessments of up to 54 million square feet of assets assessments throughout the portfolio. that work is slated to be complete by the end of this year we continue to be at capacity. i will now turn it over to david to finish the presentation. >> thank you. on with the ports, planning and environment division to provide an update about the 2008 and 2012 bond for the 2008 bond, we constructed our second to last project and opened it in august, which was a partnership with the arts commission on the arts enrichment program.

we had the bayview gateway art which is photographed here on the left, completed with a grand opening in august. with the exception of the funds from the 2008 bonds that are going to a park at pier 70, our 2008 bonds are spent. moving to the 2012 bond bonds, we have everything underway. the port commission awarded it the last commission meeting the contract to complete the park and we are moving forward with the other park -- other parts and they are projects. that essentially is where we are at today. the next time that we are in front of you, we should have fully expanded the two and eight bond, the other park projects which are being funded by the 2008 and 2012 bonds which is about a 13 month project. we anticipate -- we anticipate that being open to the public and ready to use in january of

2020. and with that, i am available for any questions. thank you. >> thank you, presenters. mr thomason, do you have any comments? >> i am the liaison for the bonds and i met with them on september 20th to go over the current status of the bonds. we spent over an hour together going into more detail. a couple of things i wanted to highlight, number 1 is, as was presented today, the 2,000 bond is completed. it is done. that is great news. the 2008 is very close to being done and the 2012 bonds are on track, and it's really amazing the project -- the progress that has been made. especially as was noted before, the work being done on some of

the more complicated projects such as the swimming pool areas is very complicated work and those are big changes to those facilities in san francisco. in terms of how recreation and parks has been handling the bonds, i want to highlight the fact that the problems with the s.f.p. have been overcome. there still might be lingering issues but it seems like in terms of reporting, recreation and parks has been able to take care of that which is great news and then, a couple of other items, one was in past meetings, it was presented that there was difficulties lining up contractors because of the nature of working san francisco and the demand for that type of work. it sounds like those issues have been overcome by the department department too in terms of being

able to build relationships and plan ahead so that they are not having the same problems finding the contractors. the same goes for the staffing problems that are happening. staffing has been taking care of this and it sounds like they are not having the staffing shortage they had before he. all and all, i want to give a hats off to the work that has been done. if you ever go towards the facility is, i have young children. i am in the facilities all the time throughout the city. the work that has been done is really incredible. i wanted to say i really look forward to hearing about the planning that will happen before the next bond, because as was presented today, the 2012 bond is wrapping up. these projects are going to their final phases, and there should be planning happening soon for the next round. i am very interested to hear about how that happens. >> thank you. any other comments from this

committee? >> yeah,. thank you for that report to. that was great to hear. i also am excited about the assessment process that you guys are starting and it sounds like you are doing it very thoroughly at one point, $6 million. i'm sure that is a kind of planning that this body likes to see before bonds go to the voters because if they don't have that kind of planning, it is very hard to govern. we sort of see that in the process of getting things done. and to address the contractors and the staffing issue, i hope those are all top of mind during the assessment process. >> yes. >> i do have a question or a comment. i was leafing through the quarterly report that shows this project status. each of them in qualitative and quantitative, which is very

helpful for the pictures. each of the cart -- parks, the pictures, the commentary, and the brief counting -- accounting of the funds. as i read on, it appears that only this treatment had been given to specific parks. meaning, whatever specific park we have a playground. however, when we go to the citywide parks parks program and we talk about forestry, replacing trees, i don't really see that type of an update or reporting. all i see would be a description of what needs to be done and the plan of doing that without actually reporting what is holding us back in more specific -- specificity. we need to decide how many number of trees we really need to replace and manage.

can you comment on why that aspect of the bond programs are not receiving the same level of detailed attention as specific parks and neighborhoods? >> thank you for the question. it is a very good one. a couple of things. one, in terms of priority, the actual bond language itself places priority in the neighborhood parks projects. as i indicated in the past to, we had issues on capacity and resources to be able to implement projects. we have brought staff on board and we continue to make progress on that. we have made a tremendous amount of progress on the neighborhood parks and we are now shifting those efforts to the citywide his. we have made a lot of effort on the let's play program. we made efforts on the community opportunity fund programs.

i know the first few have lagged behind. we now have a project manager who is dedicating about 20% of his time in implementing that work in the coming years. >> thank you. obviously that is what we suspected. one suggestion is that as you make your next quarterly report, it may be helpful in executive summary to give some specific mentioning of how you are carrying out these priorities. or some updated -- i think what you are showing in quarterly reports on the citywide parks, especially golden gate park, requirements haven't been updated for quite a while. that would be helpful. >> we will do that. thank you. >> thank you. any public comments on this presentation? seeing none, let's go onto the next agenda item. >> item seven is presentation from the mayor touch office of

housing and community development about the 2015 affordable housing bond and possible action by the committee in response to such presentation >> good morning. my name is benjamin. deputy director for finance and administration at the mayor's office of housing and community development. i also have with me today my colleagues mara and jonah. in addition to the 2015 general obligation bond for affordable housing, we also have an update on a 2016 bond which has not yet been issued to, but we wanted to spend some time giving you an overview of that, because if the general obligation bond for affordable housing is different than things that you normally see, the 2161 is even more strange.

to go over the 2015 bond, just to refresh your memory, the bond is categorized into profit large buckets of spending. public housing, low income housing, low income housing serving the mission district, and middle income housing. this allows us to serve a broad swath of san franciscans. with regards to the first issuance of the bond, over 94% of the first issuance funds are encumbered, and 76% has been spent. we anticipate the first bond issuance will be 93% expanded by the end of this calendar year, and fully expended by sometime mid to late 2019. the second bond issuance for $143 million was completed in may of 2018. when we next appear before you, we will provide an update on

spending for that second issuance, but we are moving ahead with spending those funds as well. the bar chart and to the table that you see before you illustrates our spending on the first issuance. we haven't had as many issues with s.f.p. as other departments have had. so this is accurate as of september 30th, 2018. you can see that we are moving along in spending in a timely manner. i wanted to address, on the next slide, one of the main things that we heard from the committee the last time we were here, which was that it was confusing to the committee how we were counting progress and units. the slide that you see before you is very slightly updated from what is in your pocket. we noticed, by not including -- the version in your pocket did

not include predevelopment units for middle income doubt and middle income tnd. i have added those 84 and that 45 in the first column. in doing so, makes the totals on the percentages accurate at the bottom. we are doing something that we haven't done before, which is doing a lot of reporting to you as far as units and progress of units and thinking about how to count a unit as produced when it's given, for example, infrastructure money in sunnydale and potrero. how do we tie that investment to the production of a unit? we have been doing a lot of thinking about that and thinking about how to present our progress. this is the best summary table that we have for you today.

each of the program areas and investments are broken out in the rose and then we have accounts of units that are in predevelopment phase, under design, site preparation, that kind of thing. how many units are currently in construction, and then how many are completed? as we progressed through to completion, we will be seeing those numbers move from left to right in the table. i. i will mention that we will be seeing, as we get towards completion of spending, it takes a little bit longer even after that for a unit to be fully completed and occupied. we will have a little bit of lag between finalization of spending and actual occupancy of the units, but that's understandable and to be expected. as far as the second issuance is concerned, as i said, we have already begun spending, and we

anticipate that the second issuance will be fully expended towards the end of 2020. that's a presentation on the 2015 geo bond. may be i will go ahead and introduce my colleague, jonah, who will go through the 2016 bond and explain that to you and then we can take questions on both. >> thank you, benjamin, and thank you, members. as was discussed a little bit earlier, this is a little bit different from some of our previous issuances, and we thought that the best way to go about discussing the topic was the first -- to first get some history, and then to talk about how the new reallocated funds will be used, look at a typical

-- prototypical project that might receive some of the financing, and then a quick overview of the next steps. first in terms of history, in 1992, prop eight was passed. it was a 350 million-dollar bonds to fund seismic safety retrofits. unfortunately, it was underutilized as the program was initially designed. we only issued about $90 million of the $350 million that was authorized. and that was really the rationale for the ballot measure in 2016. prop c. which was passed by an overwhelming majority of 76%. proxy essentially authorized -- prop c. essentially reauthorize the reallocating of funds from prop 80, specifically allowing for the acquisition, preservation and rehabilitation of existing housing to convert it to affordable housing,

permanently. as i said, the remaining $260 million was repurposed and the language in prop c. specifically allowed for the acquisition and improvement and rehabilitation of at-risk multiunit residential buildings and the conversion of such buildings to permanent affordable housing. i just want to note that the remaining funds can still be used for seismic safety retrofits as well. so what is eligible for the re just -- redistribution of these funds? and the preservation of affordable housing, small sites. sites with less than 25 units, as well as larger multifamily sights and mixed use residential , as well as s.r.o.s are all eligible uses. what is not eligible is new

construction or acquisition without any rehabilitation. on the slide before you now, the 4830 mission street project and the excelsior, this is a great example of the type of projects that are likely to receive the financing through the repurposed funds. this was a 21 unit site with 21 residential units and six commercial units serving low income households in the excelsior. it was acquired by meta in july of 2018, with the intention to rehabilitate and preserve it as affordable housing. the expected financing through prop c. is anticipated to occur in the spring of 2019 with a loan amount of approximately nine and a half million dollars. one of the things that's great about this loan is that this long-term and low-cost funding through prop c. will not only

serve to protect the existing residents, to prevent displacement, but it also can reduce the subsidy needs that an o.c.d. has to put into the project through its associated small sights program funding. [please stand by]

. >> mr. hughes? >> thank you. thank you, madam chair. i have a couple of questions. so this was bond dollars that were passed as a result of proposition a in '92 for $350 million. only 90 million of the 350 are utilized by people because we don't know, but that's what it

was, 90 million was utilized. that money then sat for at least 15 years or longer. >> longer. >> prop c now in 2016 changes the use and eligibility to use those funds. my question is, so -- and then, i'll get to the other presentation after i have another question after that, but for the prop c bond dollars, my question is for the preservation of low-income housing -- so preservation in the physical sense -- in other words, we're going to rehab this building, correct? >> it's preservation both in the physical sense in terms that there would be rehabilitation and in the regulatory sense in that it is preserving units that

are at risk of being converted to market-rate housing or opting out of their existing regulatory restriction. >> and that's a condition of eligibility of accepting the funds or receiving the funds? >> correct. >> yeah. okay. very important. and then -- and i know it's in the bond measure. it was broken out -- oh, i'm sorry. that's the other bond measure. so this will be an interesting sort of bellwether as it relates to utilization to see how it rolls out in the out years. looking forward to it. >> sure. hopefully, the person who was standing here in 1992 was not promising a robust pipeline of

30 projects. but in truth, and our record for issuances speaks for itself in our record to deploy capital to meet the goals of the housing plan. >> yeah. excellent utilization of the funds, absolutely. i have a question on the other bond measure, quickly. on page 5, i can see that the mayor's office of housing and community development spent a significant amount of time developing this information, so i thought we should at least look at it and make sure we understand it. so when we're in public housing, starting at the top, and you can indicated working on or trying to develop some methodology to

attach infrastructure improvement to a unit count in some fashion. >> yes. >> so with that, in looking at this sheet, we've got potrero partial x vertical, and so it reflects a number of affordable units in construction, and so why i ask these questions is potrero partial x we're buildin

projects in phases. that's important both because the projects are so massive and because there are residents in these properties. these are occupied public housing neighborhoods, and so what we're doing is we're building new construction building that allows us to relocate existing residents into a new construction building so that we can tear down an existing building, and then, it kind of creates a domino effect. parcel x is a new construction

building that the infrastructure that is labelled here serves multiple other parcels other than parcel x, and we've determined that the amount of the bond investment in the infrastructure for that portion of potrero, we can reasonably attach that investment to 217 units that are separate from parcel x. >> okay. i understand. i understand this is the -- after applying some methodology to establish some equivalency of -- of affordable units for infrastructure physical grounds improvements for potrero units as described other than parcel x

would value at 217. >> yes, that's correct. >> and then, the same for sunnydale and what-have-you? >> yes. >> and middle-income dalp, what's d what's dalp. >> the down payment low-income program. so middle-income dalp and tlp are loans to first-time home buyers in san francisco. so the programs offer up to $375,000 in down payment assistance, and that's allocated through a lottery process that we've been holding once a year. so the values -- that's why what's before you in what we provided had n/a because there's not really a predevelopment

process for those units, but what we've realized in the slide show that we showed today, we allocated -- put them in the predevelopment category, even though they're not really the same kind of predevelopment as the others. >> i understand. and they're market rate? >> yes. those are market rate condos or single-family homes. >> yes. consistent with the language of the bond that was in there. >> yes. >> and my last question, middle-income teacher housing -- >> so middle-income teacher housing is a site that we've identified at 43rd and irving streets. we are partners with the school district, san francisco unified school district, and we're in

partnership with the school district. we're going to be building a new building for educators who are employed with the school district. >> employed with unified -- sf -- >> sfusd. >> yes. >> city college doesn't qualify? >> no, i don't believe so. >> excuse me. while we're on this table, i'd like to make a comment. i'm pleased to see that you, as we progress along the spend of this bond, that you've stayed true to the original allocations of the three broad categories and the mission, that one being separate. so if i did my numbers correctly, first group of public housing, you know, they're -- currently, the numbers they're showing is around 37%. the second number, low-income, if i ad all those numbers is

about 33%, and then, of course, mission, it's 143 units, and that's kind of stated, and that's 10% of total bonds. and then, the fourth category, that's a total housing. that's at 20%. this is helpful because it helps us to see in the initial allocation before any of the projects have received funding, that you are staying true to the categories. i just want to make that comment. >> yes. and it's nice to view in parallel side-by-side with the financial side. it indicates we are sticking in those parameters, as well. >> any comments, commissioner chu? >> yes.

there's a lot of flexibility in these loans, and i appreciate some of the things that you're doing to be as efficient with that money as well. however, it brings up the question of governance because you are making quite a bit of decisions and there's quite a bit in both of these loans where you're, you know, giving out money -- you're choosing who to give out money to. i like the lottery system, but i'd like to know who's governing this at that level. it makes me very nervous to look at these numbers differently -- you know, like, the fact that you can show them differently over and over again means there's an ability to tell a story with the numbers. and a lot of the bond work that we do or a lot of the numbers that we look at are just very

traditional, so you learn to trust when they come in that way, but because of the complexity of this, you can't put it in that format, which gives you the ability to tell that story how ever you want, so it makes me nervous. >> sure. i understand. i think part of what you -- and we've described this in the written report, part of the change that you've seen in units over the course of us moving through this first bond was learning, us learning ourselves how the best way to report these units in report. we of course regularly report to the public, the board, the mayor's office housing construction in this way, on a unit basis. what's been different for us is we usually report units when they're completed. and we are -- we've been -- over

the last year or so, we've been learning what's the best way to report on units as they move through the process, as we identify a project preliminarily, and then, if we invest a certain funding source in that project, and then, it's delayed, and we invest construction financing from another funding source, we don't want to be doing any double counting. so we've had to think through all of those different steps. as far as governance of the funding allocations are concerned, we have a citywide affordable housing loan committee, which reviews all of the multifamily housing investments that the city makes, and on the single-family, the down payment assistance loan programs, we tried to be as transparent as possible with the

individuals who are participating in the lottery process. we have a very described process and set of rules of what you need to do in order to be able to enter the lottery. and then, we have a public lottery where each and every person knows what their rank is, and if any preference is applied to their participation in the lottery, how that plays out. it's all publicly shared. >> what's the makeup of the governance group with the citywide multifamily? >> mara? i think it's the director of mohcd, the director of ocii, a representative from homelessness and supportive housing, and executive director of the san francisco housing authority. >> i would recommend someone from the -- from the controller's office on that -- or at least that would make me

feel more comfortable how the money is being spent and diagnosed are being made. >> noted. >> i have a question -- clarification, really, on the repurposing bond. it looks like you've identified, you have a pipeline of projects, and by the nature of the use of those bond dollars, they're not for construction, so therefore, they're existing structures that are at risk, like you said. so by definition, they will likely be smaller-type projects because you're expecting to spend 9.5 million, and you have a pipeline of 30 projects worth 65 million. so i'm going to guess that the average of these projects is going to be small. so we have 260 million to spend.

so my question is, do you have -- you know, have you scoped how long it will take you to spend the money, number one, and do you have any plans to be more gressive in identifying eligible projects so they could be funded? because you've only spent, like, 10, 15 million. you've got another 250 to spend. i would imagine you'd be a lot more aggressive in identifying projects to fund. >> no, that's a fantastic question. and for starters, we -- the -- in rolling out the program, we're targeting projects that have already participated in the small sites program, so that's why the existing pipeline that we -- that we discussed in the presentation reflected projects that are of a sort of smaller, between 5 to 25 units.

those are the projects that we're actively working with today, and immediately stand to have a significant benefit by participating in the new prop c program. one of the goals in terms of leveraging the program to do more to actually put the remaining 250-plus million out the door is to transition out of small sites -- or to leverage into small and big sites. so bhas what's not including in pipeline are the larger 50, 60 units, but don't anticipate funding in the next three years. this pipeline of 30 projects really represents the pipeline over the first three years, the first three years of closing, beginning in 2019. and i -- you know, i don't want

to -- to promise that we would be able to deliver all of the funds in the next five years, but my -- my sense is that, you know, we will certainly be able to spend all of the funds within the next ten years. >> thank you. it's just maybe next time you come before us to give an update, i think it would be helpful to at least give some update to let us know, in addition to these smaller-type projects, so we're working in collaboration or cooperation with other stakeholders in larger projects. and i know that with these type of real estate redevelopments, you know, you're not talking about months, you're talking about years in negotiation, so it would give us a sense that part of your efforts are being spent in these other larger projects so i don't worry, wow,

you know, we have a lot more money to spend. and it's almost that the city had found a bonus, if you will. when you look around at some of the at-risk areas, you shouldn't have trouble finding buildings that really need city funds to be refurbished. it's more complicated than that. it would be nice if you could give us an idea of what you're working on even though it may be of more on a long-term basis. i'm glad you're looking at larger units so we have a better opportunity to spend down the funds. >> noted.

>> on the 2015 g.o. residency bond, is there any funding of housing that it supports? >> so the straight simple housing is no, but there is a preference for all of our housing programs, a live or work in san francisco preference. and the effect of the preference is that if you don't live or work in san francisco, there's basically no way that you could live in any of these units because the live and work -- all of the live and work in san francisco people would be placed first before anyone else. federal housing law prohibits us from having a lot of different

kinds of preferences, puts a lot of boundaries and rules around what kind of restrictions we can place on our buildings, but it does allow us to offer this preference. >> okay. thank you. >> seeing no committee comment, any public comment? [inaudible] >> does the mayor or your

department have proposals or programs to address the pg&e and construction labor problems? thank you. >> any additional public comment? seeing none, let's move onto the next item. >>clerk: item eight, presentation from various departments about the 2010 and 2014 eser bonds, and possible action by the committee in response to such presentation.

>> well, good morning committee members of t members. my name is charles, and i'll be presenting myself for the sake of brevity and the time allowed here currently. are we intending to close at 11 or are we going beyond? >>clerk: oh, it's the normal, noon. >> oh, it's noon? >>clerk: yes. >> apologies. >> take your time. >> well, then, i'll take my time. >> now you're in trouble. i didn't say sweet time. i was going to rush through and give you the highest of highlights, but it's -- so eser, earthquake safety and emergency response bond program 2010 and 2014. on this title slide, you'll see -- 'cause you can't see very well from this title slide, but

you can see from your title slides, the projects that we've been passing in eser in 2010 and 2014. our principle clients are police and fire who have representatives here this morning should questions arise that go to a particular question or concern or operational issue, they're here to speak to anything of that kind. as well, we have our other project managers, the project managers, i should say, who manage the components of work. and that includes the public utility commission which, as you know, is principlely responsible for the management of the auxiliary water management supply system in 2010 and eser

2014. so some milestones, with regard to the efws 2014, pump stations one and two are continuing. i should say that construction of pump station number one, which is at police headquarters, is complete. it is operational. there are some minor additional items of work that continue, but for all intents and purposes, pump station one is functioning as intended. pump station two at aquatic park is in the thick of it. for those of you that might not be familiar with it, it is a real jewel in the system, and it is being maintained with its historical project. fire stations 5 and 16 are

continuing. fire station 35, the fireboat station, which i'll talk about separate, is undergoing process, and our next project is moving along. not as quickly as we would like, and i can speak a little bit about that in just a moment. upcoming milestones are various. i wouldn't go through each one of those, but it demonstrates that we're progressing the workplace. in regard to bond sales and appropriation, you might expect we have fully sold our bonds for the two programs, and we have spent out substantially in regard to our first bond program in 2010. now in regards to risks, issues, and concerns, we have and i think it's been mentioned already before me, a very active and dynamic marketplace that is producing some undesired

dynamics of scarcity of labor, and that often results in fewer bidders and often higher costs than we would anticipate. and also, the responsiveness of particular trades not only to the bid but also once they get the work to the contractor's management of that work, which can create difficulties for the builder to maintain schedule. but that, unfortunately, bubbles up to the surface and affects our own expectations for kpleelgs. we also have this kr orollary for the bond measures that we set in 2014 was another era altogether compared to the world we now live and work in. so in that respect, what we do -- and i can speak to this a bit more on a couple of the projects, we really seek to

constrain a lot of ambition for the project but still maintain its functional integrity. so there's redesign, there's cost cutting involved, but always with an eye to the integrity that we committed to the project. i'm sure you heard of the f.s.p., the finances system is not allowed us to access as much of the precise reporting that we like to rely upon to understand our expenditures. public safety building, not much to be said about this, other than it is complete. and the financial closeout continues. as you know, that is an administrative effort or activity, and that can become a bit labored, but we're shooting for the first part of 2019. the building is occupied. it's operating certainly as one would expect, certainly as the police department needs it to

be. you know, too, that fire station number four is in that same building complex, so again, operating according to all expectation. fire stations are present in both eser 2010 and 2014, as i mentioned earlier. eser s-2014 is mostly complete. there's some issues related to the doors of two fire stations, but mostly, the concerns of eser 2014 are fire stations 5 and 16. 5 is coming to completion, 16 soon, though not as soon as we would have liked. 5 is just around the corner in the first part of next year. eser 2014 mostly is about focus scope projects and one big

project. mostly in regards to those aspects of our facilities that directly create in the sense of the facility of the station to respond to calls for service. so the apparatus bay doors, which are all important to that effective deployment of personnel and apparatus are being replaced as completely as we can. in fact, you may have heard earlier or from another bond measure that there's some of that work occurring in the public health and safety bond measure, too, especially generators. generators are aged, and they're coming to the end of their useful life, and so we're seeking to replace all of them -- all of those, i should say, which are substantially most of them at each of the stations. because when the station should lose power, it can't not have power, if you'll pardon that expression, it must have emergency power provided to it. the one large facility or a project, i should say, within

eser 2014 neighborhood fire stations is the fire station 35. that's the fireboat headquarters at pier 22 1/2 on the embarcadero. the project is moving ahead, moving through the bay conservation development commission permitting, which we expect this month. so moving ahead of pace, and everything going well in regard to that particular project. efws is in eser 2010 substantially spent if you will. the sole remaining project of greatest consequence was the one i mentioned earlier, pump station number two. it is the largest of the projects in the total cost of 2020 -- and look back to david. 18 million construction-plus

project development costs. so eser 2014 is substantially underway, as well, and that approves principleally to pump and pipeline and station to enhance the station so it can assure the delivery of water upon being requested throughout the city. as you know, historically, the awss served san francisco of 1913, principlely, the northeast portion of the 125city, and we' seeking to develop sort of a new system approach that doesn't look to replicate what was built in 1913 buecause that would be prohibitively expensive. we believe there are more efti