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 effective ways to provide for the emergency firefighting water that will be required in the event of a major catastrophe, most likely a seismic event --

pardon me. [cell phone ringing] >> i'll move on. the police facilities report pertains to eser 2014, approximately 30 million. we have substantially completed or have underway, rather, the projects. we have completed some key projects, as you'll recall, the firearm training simulation facility, that was completed in the late summer of 2018. work to make police stations much more conducive to the work that occurs there in. we have been underway at three stations -- northern, richmond, and taraval -- regarding their generator project and related

structural enhancements to ensure the function of the building before or during a major seismic event. upcoming milestones are the continuation, certainly, of that work. there is a special note here that two projects, mission police station and the police academy renovation are on hold until next year, and that relates to a project i'll speak to in a second. office of chief medical examiner was complete in november of last year. it's fully occupied. it's operating according to need or expectation. and there's always the matter of closing out the project administratively, and that is continuing. traffic company and forensic services division project is the largest project within eser 2014. it is moving ahead. we have been developing it to its intended full integrity.

that being said, there's been quite a bit of revisiting of design and cost cutting in order to better align the project budget with the funding that we have. considerable time actually has been spent in that regard. i mentioned at the outset, the impact of a very dynamic, active marketplace, and it's come home to bear very heavily on this project. we are still at a deficit of we estimate 8.65 million, and we are looking to discover of ourselves at a true cost when we look at the roll out of all the packages which in the spring-summer 2019, and that is in correlation to the two projects that i mentioned to you that are put on hold whether we

need to pursue ourselves of the savings of not going forward with those projects on construction. the fire department is being asked to put two projects on hold. the total sum between the four projects, if you will, between police and fire, to relieve the deficit of the traffic company and forensic services division project. we'll know better, as i said, once we bid out the work. are we going to find ourselves below and not in need of any of the funds of those projects, or are we going to be beyond. i do want to underscore -- i've already said it once, but i think it bears repeating, there's been a nearly heroic attempt to cost cut this project to take out of its scope without

sacrificingity functional integrity. i think that's something we very much guarded jealously, if you will, to ensure that was not one of the casualties of this marketplace or cost cutting efforts. as you might expect, eser 2010 is effectively spent down to within 94%, and i've described to you the projects such as they are, and that remain to be installed. eser 2014, we're still in the midst of pursuing a spend down on the funds that we've already appropriated. as i said, all of the projects are underway on the bond components. they're initiating, and once they get underway, we'll see better expenditure against budget or appropriation. so with that said, i'll stop there and kindly ask for your

question. >> thank you, mr. legeres, just for information, our prior liaison appointed to those bonds, robert collson has retired -- resigned from this board because he's been termed out. let me just add and be noted on the minutes that even though mr. collson is not present, the committee would like to thank his service for having served on this committee for the past four years. his expertise will be sorely missed by ourselves. so having said that, do we have any comments and questions for mr. hegaris? >> i had a very simple one on definition. ceqa pmnd. >> commissioner, what page number are you looking at?

>> it's on 5, under recent accomplishments. it's next to fire station 35. >> oh, it's the final mitigated negative declaration, so ceqa clearance. [inaudible] >> fmnd. sorry. you threw me with the p. final mitigation negative dec. it's imminent. given when this report is presumably through september, i believe we did actually collect that in october. >> commissioner hughes? >> i had a couple of questions. first of all, charles, thanks so much for an excellent report.

>> and i apologize -- >> no problem. somebody wants to get ahold of you. these are changing times, and there's a lot of moving targets. trying to stay inside the costs that were originally projected must be quite a challenge, and i think you've done a great job. >> thank you. we do aggressively manage the situations, so to speak. we do have, and we had anticipated a few years ago facing, you know, the challenges of this kind of marketplace, so we held us -- or i should say we held a healthy reserve for the anticipated impact, which we didn't know. and we do believe that what we have in reserve for both eser 2010 and eser 2014 will be sufficient to help us get through this difficult period. >> you mentioned that the police department had agreed to put two projects on hold, and the fire department had agreed simile for a total of four, two and two. what are the four? what are the two that the police

have, you know, ten at thtative agreed. i'm not putting words in anybody's mouth and what are the two projects similarly for the fire department? >> so perhaps a term of context or clarification, the request for hold on the project was from the capital planning committee. >> oh. >> yeah. the two projects -- the four are the police academy project and the mission station. the fire department are historic rehabilitations of brick exteriors at fire station 24 and 34 and improvement of fire station in the mission district. the sum total of those, as i said, are approximately the sum of money that we're in deficit in the traffic services and

forensic services division. >> thank you for that information. in looking at this report, i can't help but notice that, like, northern police station, isn't that old, but i'm sure it needs some sort of psych mistake upgrade. there is some analysis, some determination as it relates to necessity and degree of necessity, i'm sure. >> we have been able to collect full engineering opinions of the structural strength and ability to resist seismic events for all of the police facilities. we've done about a quarter of the fire facilities. there are only -- no, i shouldn't say only. there are 10 or 11 police facilities; there are over 40 fire facilities. so we've been able to get opinion their ability to withstand seismic event and remain operational.

that's impacted how we address specific sites. >> mission police station, same thing, relatively new. >> one of the newest stations. >> yeah. >> it was built, however, before the northridge earth quick. the northridge earthquake produced some insights on how steel performed after a major event or during a major event, and that was built into the next code cycle, but that was after when mission was designed and built, so we have recognized conditions at mission that, pursuant to that code change, requires additional structural work. we're seeking to accomplish some of it now, that which we consider most pertinent to life safety, but there's still considerable work to do at mission. >> and the reason i ask is i'm not question the need to have safe, reliable public safety

structures, but just how we determine the use and the allocation of priorities as it relates to those seismic improvements. so for example, you mentioned the fire department. they have 40 structures of varying ages. some of them are very, very old, and some are not so old. >> correct. >> same with the police station. but i think with the fire department especially. mar some of their structures are ancient. >> well, and to the -- i'm sure you've heard of the seismic hazard rating that the city maintains, four being collapse probability. so when we do these engineering studies that i alluded to a moment ago, we take into effect how it affects the seismic hazard rating. when we find category four facilities, those are the ones we pursue diligently with addressing their deficiencies. we work with the fire department specifically because there's so

many facilities to look at the most critical tactical and strategic importance in the deployment of services throughout the entire network of stations. and so typically, those are batallion and division stations. we are looking at eser 2020. we're in the midst of looking at what would be the project list for that bond, and we're recognizing certainly the opportunity or the obligation of addressing a number of facilities that are really in dire need of seismic repair or replacement. >> thank you. >> any other comments? mr. higares, i do have a comment for you. if you could go to page 3 of the public safety building. first of all, thank you for giving me a tour of the building. it's a really state of the art.

and the one comment that i want -- wish to make, it's -- the word surplus for any project is a very rare thing, that this committee has seen. so i see that you have a surplus -- you're in the closing-out phase, so congratulations on being under budgeted because you're on a surplus. if you remind this committee, when you close out and you have funds, what happens to those funds? >> well, they can become reappropriated. it's a savings from the delivery of the project. we are expecting to reappropriate that to assist the traffic company and forensic

services project. so relief if you will of the deficit for the tffsp is reappropriate and it still results in this $8 million additional need. so we're literally pulling from wherever we can to help it sustain its functional integrity. >> well, thank you. i wanted to congratulate you and your team on this project because it's really plechbtly surprised when you see a surplus in any of these instruct well projects. >> thank you. thank you very much. >> i will now invite any public comment if there are any on this presentation. >> my name is jerry dradler.

i think president -- president's comments regarding the lack of transparency regarding surpluses or savings and the allocation process is critical, and then, perhaps the cgoboc can implement policies and procedures to make the process more transparent because there's an inherent ability to hide problems by moving dollars which should receive public oversight. thank you. >> any additional public comment? seeing none, thank you for your presentation and then, let's move onto the next item. >> thank you, commissioners. >>clerk: item nine, opportunity for committee members to comment or act on any matters within the

committee's jurisdiction. there are five. a, goboc annual report for fiscal year 2017-18. b, public finance for up coming issue. c sur public railroad have as. d, templates, e gsh ---surplus public surveys. d, templates. >> we have in our packet a proposed copy of a cover letter including individually a son reports and as per procedure, we usually send this packet, this reporting to the mayor and to the board of supervisors. in addition to this, and you

haven't seen it in your packets, there will be a detailed annual report that's prepared by the controller's office, and that report is still in production. and miss stevens, can you tell us the timing of that because the plan i would like to propose is that when that report, which will be an appendix to this committee's report will be send as the package to the mayor and the board of supervisors. so could you comment and remind us a little bit of when that report is going to be completed to give us an idea of the timing when we can send it. >> sure. peg stevenson from the controller's office. i think our discussion is the annual report, the docs you have in your deck today can be submitted and shouldn't wait for ours. we're going to be a little longer completing our financial

status updates and interviews with all the project and program managers for their milestone updates and creating the graphs that are wanted for this report. and we're hoping to have it done -- all our research done by the end of the calendar year and the report in production in the first -- in january and february . but this report can go ahead -- your report can go ahead without ours, and ours can follow. >> yes, i recall now. so we -- we are ready to send our packet to the mayor and board of supervisors and reference the detail controller's prepared report that will be forthcoming. so is there comments? >> so should we make a motion to submit our reports? do i make that motion? >> yes, we -- >> second. >> and there was a word left out on the liaison report, the word

and. >> amended. [inaudible] >> so we should -- we're -- we've agreed to pass a motion to pass -- to send these -- this -- this report to -- to the mayor and board of supervisors upon correct of this grammatical error. all in favor? [voting] >> good. next, go onto the next item, public finance -- [inaudible] >> oh, i'm sorry. the public comment is at the end for all items because this is one item of our administrative tasks. the next item is public finance, upcoming issuances. >> hi.

my name is ana, and i'm the director of the office of public finance. we are currently working on the -- one of the -- a bond issue for one of the programs that jonah described earlier, the bond safety that's been repurposed, so we expect to sell about $60 million worth of bonds in january or february of 2019. and next, we will shift our focus to a small issue for waterfront parks as well as an issue for public health in the summertime. and happy to answer any questions on our schedule. >> how do you account for the payback of the loans? >> so we are still in the process of coordinating that, but the way that it will work is the moneys that do come in from the payment of those will go to

offset tax -- the g.o. bond tax rate. so while we might not get 100%, but we definitely expect a significant offset of our debt payments. >> okay. and what number are you presenting -- are you assuming that is going to be repaid? >> in terms of our interest rate? >> no, of the repayment of the loan. >> so there's -- for the market rate, it's a spread of 1% over the city's borrowing rate, and then, for the below-market rate, it's a discount to our bond rate, and we can present more information at the -- on the program at our -- our next meeting. that would be helpful. >> yeah. i think we've asked questions about this repayment and how this is affecting multiple times, and be great to understand it. >> that's a great idea. so i suppose in our next

meeting, you'll give a little presentation as to how that works as to the repayment process. >> sure. and i do have my colleague, michelle here, who can probably help answer that question. >> good afternoon, commissioners. it's laid out in the 1992 proposition a, the repayment of the loans comes back to the city based on the category of whether it's a market-rate loan or below-market-rate loan. and at this point, it's not clear what portion is going to be allocated toward the market-rate or below-market-rate. the bonds will be subsidizing

those below market-rate loans at two thirds of a percent. >> okay. i'm not completely understanding. >> yeah. i'd be happy to make a chart. >> because i don't understand borrowing rates and all that. okay. thanks. >> next item. >> move on, but for the next item, i'll just come around to the mic. project satisfaction surveys, this is the request of yours that we've been working onto get a better sense from the public of their knowledge of bonds and how they're contributing to the city's improvement and infrastructure through direct contact, so we have intercept surveys going on at rec and park site and as a streetscape site.

the research is almost complete, so they did intercept surveys throughout the fall and collected a sur sample for both purposes. they asked a certain number of the participants if they would agree to do a follow up telephone survey with some more detailed questions, so now they're just finishing those. i'm pretty sure all the surveys are now completely and they're doing data analysis and compiliation which they'll be sending to us at the end of the year. we'll be doing analytics in january and then can have a preliminary report for you at that time and have a final report in march. i'm really happy with the progress. the company has done a lot of work for the city on different types of satisfaction survey. they've done a really great job problem solving just inevitably at any public site, you stop people and do surveys, you get questions from the public or users from the site or any

folks, and they've done a really, really good job of explaining to people why they're out there and just being very communica communicative. i hope we'll learn a lot from it. standardized templates, either you, mis-chu -- miss chu or miss mcnulty may want to comment on this. we can turn some of our staff energy to standardized templates. and we talked a little bit about the volume of bonds that are going to be coming forward to the committee, both the current ones and future issuances, and trying to contemplate the load being anticipated by the liaison meetings, and a couple of things that have changed since the last time we looked at creating a

standardized template, but we would be underway with that work starting in the next quarter, calendar year of 2019. >> may i add here, maybe miss chu could elaborate a little bit on this topic for the rest of the members in regard to templates because standardized templates, and it actually begs the issue, what type of information do we wish to see in the slides? so maybe miss chu can share a little bit of our thinking -- our collective thinking with the members. >> yeah. thank you. we're having a lot of turnover in this commission, and sort of in anticipation of that and sort of with our chair leaving also, we've been talking about what is the right cadence for and what is the right agendas for these

meetings in order to focus on -- make sure we're focusing on what our missionaries, what we're required to do in the areas of highest risk. so the templates themselves are just a factor of that, and what we do each month. so we've started something those conversations with the thoughts of bringing that back to this group so what could be a more efficient way of managing -- one of the things that i was really surprised about recently was the controller said when i was previously on this committee, i think we had four or five bonds that we managed throughout total, and now we're up to very, very -- more, and we see it happen -- every time we have an election, we have a couple more coming on, and it's getting over

when wi -- overwhelming of what's being asked. we've seen in some of our work this year that all of these bonds have other places that they are being governed, also. so one of the things i think that would be good for us is to focus on, again, the areas where we have authority and also partner with the people that are coming in front of us to be as efficient for them as possible because we've all worked closely with them and seen the amount of work that they have. so any thoughts because this is really the beginning of a conversation. this is certainly not the end of it. >> any thoughts, you know? we of course don't mean to put you on the spot, but we wanted to share with you that there is this review and thought process going on, and to prepare this committee going forward for additional bonds and how we

could better fulfill our mission, be more effective and more efficient by focusing on the level of information that would be necessary for us to carry out, you know, our responsibilities. so if you have any ideas, please e-mail -- >> excuse me, commissioner? >> i would just say it sounds like this is going in the right direction, and i'm interested in getting more information on what your thoughts are and what these templates are. i think it would be great for any new member to have that in addition to the training that's already provided, which is good. i think focusing on what the core issue are and our motivation should be here is important rather than getting off on tangents, so i think that would definitelye