appreciate the support of the public and being able to renovate and make these facilities ready for the next century. so to talk about the building progress program is jonathan who is our senior but it should -- budget manager and coordinator of the business progress program >> thank you. i am with the nta. in the last fiscal year, you will notice in the overall report we shifted a lot of our first issuance dollars to facility projects. the amount of the first bond that was approved by the voters is at zero so we have issued the full $67 million, and what we did is it was part of our strategy to support to spend the bonds dollars a little bit more rapidly. these projects that you see where all projects that had construction awards already in place so we could begin the process of spending down the bond, its latest phase is a 20 year facility in the making. it literally took 20 years of planning -- planning and negotiations. it is the m.t.a. cha-cha first new bus facility in nearly -- it

is the m.t.a.'s first new bus facility nearly 20 years. it stores motor coaches and has the most modern maintenance space. the five track project has to do with the changeover of the light rail fleet in san francisco, so there were five tracks added to the southern part -- portion of the site that will allow the m.t.a. to store an additional 19 vehicles. we will have new larvae and -- l r.v. the geo bond is paying a significant portion of the construction cost of the project it was a project where our central warehouse is located so all of the parts for all of munimobile, it is our central part location facility, what we did, with the same square footage, we increased the capacity of the facility and half of it will be changed into new munimobile overhead line facilities. it was a great example of an

efficiency project will betoken existing building, we added capacity and use, and building overhead lines to the new location will put them in a facility that will be saved during an earthquake because the overhead line staff need to respond in case of a major emergency in san francisco, and also opens at the former facility to be the new animal care and control facility for san francisco. great to use an efficiency, all in construction, phase i has since been completed, and we will hopefully have have phase ii completed april to may. >> the third set of projects we will focus on his pedestrian safety improvements. we did have someone here to present, but if not, i will speak to the slide here which is three of our completed projects that are most exciting in this area. the first is a potrero avenue road wait improvements.

mission street and the intersection upgrade which received substantial construction in august of 2017, including realigning the street to allow more conventional vehicular turns, pedestrian bulb outs to improve safety and paving remote -- these are specific safety benefits. for pedestrians egg it includes shorter crossing distances and better visibility, and slows down vehicular traffic wrong -- along the street. and the third when we wanted to mention was the eighth and market street transit boarding island, what you may have seen very close to here. it is open to the public to create a safer bicycling environment and one of the busiest cycling intersections that includes a two-stage turn boxes, green pavement parking, in a transit boarding design the summaries of bicyclists from traffic which results in the cyclist not weaving through traffic on market street in that location. these are the projects we wanted to focus on today.

there's many, many more that we are working on and we would be happy to answer any questions. >> questions? >> i do have a question. so you said it was the bird facility -- it will be the new facility for munimobile and the old facility will go to animal care? >> yes. >> does that building still belong to the city, or is it sold, least, how does that work? >> it is actually part of a complicated three-part trade that the city is moving forward with, so what we do with real estate facilities in the city is jurisdictional transfers happened between departments about who essentially manages the facility. animal care and control will get our former overhead lines facility. we will move into burks, and there's a facility that will be transferred to the m.t.a. as part of it. it is essentially old animal

care and control. it is in a location that is conveniently right next door to the scott garage and across the street from the flynn facility, operationally, it makes sense for all of us. >> thank you. >> we have a liaison report from our members. >> i am the liaison, the single liaison, though i am ably assisted by brenda. we met two weeks ago with staff, several of whom are here today. they were kind enough to come by and introduce themselves and take time away from the busy schedule for something of

marginal work. but one thing that i just asked this morning, actually, was about whether there had been, or they are expecting claims, potential or actual on any of the projects that were either substantially complete or near substantial completion. the short answer i got was none, there was maybe some question about van ness prt because that we know there are claims there, but we are unsure of how much of this bond money is paying for that. i wanted to clarify something that i mentioned once before, and that is a supplemental appropriation whereby money was shifted between transit projects and safer streets because the two groups of projects were spending, in some cases, quicker than they expected, and other cases, not as quick as they expected. it and it -- it ended up being a process intensive endeavor to make that shift. they had to go through the board of supervisors, and i've said several times that i don't see what positive effect has come of this because this is a clarify -- clarification i wanted to make, ultimately, both sides to improve transit and safer streets are made whole, whatever the breakdown is, between those

two of the sharing of the $500 million, will ultimately be made right. so it is just a matter of timing sometimes projects get delivered more quickly then others. there are things that are protest that would hold up the award of a contract, and there's no reason at the should be denied quicker access to the benefit of these projects because of something like this, so my recommendation, as a liaison, is that this process be streamlined to the extent possible. again, the bottom line, the punchline is that there is no shift, final shift of project funds from what the bond measures said, it is just a temporary thing to expedite the delivery of some of the projects included. the next thing i want to ask or say is more of a question. on some of these projects,

there's been a need to coordinate with the department of public works, and in d.p.w. granting some of these project contracts, and a lot of them involve utility relocation, does the responsibility for getting the encroachment permits get shifted to the contractor, or is that something that the agency does for it? and i am putting you guys on the spot a bit because i am asking a p.u.c. question -- pardon me, a d.p.w. question for guys who are not comfortable with it. >> our colic from d.p.w. is here >> he is on the spot. [laughter] >> are you able to answer that question? >> on the finance minister -- finance manager. in terms of the encroachment fees, we would handle that with the contractor through public works. if we are the lead agency delivering that project, in terms of if we are holding the

construction project. >> so you do get it, or the contractor is required to get it >> we would work with the contractor to make sure that all the permits are obtained. in terms of who is actually doing that, i don't have that information, but i thought we could have that. >> it sounds like a potential delay. if that is the way you do business, that's fine, that more in the way way avonex nation of why these projects get delivered late, and i have experience with getting encroachment. >> true, and we do it hard and diligently to ensure the permitting is not the reason for the delay. it is something very high on our to do list in terms of these projects to ensure it is not something that is causing a delay. >> excellent. i am glad to hear that. finally, there has been a report , apparently it has gone well. i see peg stevenson his here today and she would talk about it during the course of her presentation. if not, some other time, we will be here. and that is all that i wanted to say. and brandon, if you like to say

something, this is your time. >> i would like to make some additional comments, first of all, thank you to you and your staff for always being very agreeable to meet with brian and myself. i just wanted to share some of my experiences serving alongside brian and really tagging along to listen to that explanation to share with some of our new members. since this bond was approved and started funding, we have met with three sets of staff at the m.t.a., our liaison, if you will , but having said that, each set of staff have been very agreeable to answer questions. finally, after meeting several a few several times and over the course of over -- assisting

overseas bonds, i just want to share with my fellow members what i learned and finding to begin -- finally beginning to grasp the complexity of this bond. first of all, out of the 500 bonds, the voters actually agreed to split it into initially two main areas, 60% is really transit, about 20 7% safer streets. you have to think of that broad category first, and then within that, these two groups then split up into eight separate groups. if you look at page 3, it will help you follow what i am saying there are eight different groups , and out of the eight different groups, there are 55 projects, so the challenge, not just for the m.t.a. staff but for us to fulfil our oversight

-- is a very complex, so i think that two years ago last year, the board called m.t.a. staff to their meeting to explain why this right of spend was not as fast as they would like to see, and brian and i appeared in front of that meeting. the staff is doing everything within their power to advance the projects, but i just want to share this broad oversight that out of -- it is not impossible, but is it -- it is a huge challenge to really manage to report on 55 projects , and many of them are not similar, if you will. so going forward, whoever will take up brian's position and was going to assist him, i think if you keep these experiences and the comments

that i have, it will help us all to oversee the proceedings and the spending of the bond. but i just wanted to share that comment. other than that, i am satisfied that the questions that we haven't raised every meeting, we have always gone and answered. thank you. >> i have a quick question. this is probably for steve. in highlighting the accomplishments, and talking about the five, i was curious what impacts -- i know there was a second traffic circle in there that had to be removed. what kind of impact that had when we're talking about the efficiency of the spending on the project overall and if there are similar challenges with some of these projects that i am less familiar with in terms of reorienting how you went about spending it. >> yeah, i think that's a

fairly unique situation. i would hope it is a fairly unique situation where we implement a capital element and we go back and remove it later. we have certainly made post initial project changes in response to community concerns, on mission, for example. there were changes to some of the terms and based on some of the things we heard from the community and elected officials the thing that i will say, i guess -- i guess first of all is we do try to be responsive when we get a lot of feedback. the traffic circle that was removed, we had gotten a lot of feedback from the immediate neighbors, some of it direct, some of it coming through their supervisor, some of it coming through their former supervisor and now the mayor. the cost of removing it was relatively modest if that -- i understand that to be part of the question. i would have to go back and double check, do not take my word for this, but i believe the cost to remove it was in the order of $60,000.

we don't intend this to be the last word on the subject at that location. we are still looking into alternatives to hopefully provide some of the same benefit that the traffic circle was intended to provide, and the other thing i would say about that is we are, in many ways, although we have doing this for a few years, we are learning as we go. there's a lot of nuance, there's a lot of site specific contextual information that we are picking up as we go in terms of what sort of works better at one location than another. i did a lot of work around that particular location, and in retrospect, there were some challenges to implementation of that particular improvement, which was the traffic circle, including the grade at that location, some of the sidelines , the traffic volume, the side streets, we did a lot of research and we learned a lot of things about where traffic circles work. we feel like it was working

pretty well. >> thank you. i have questions and comments. this is my second meeting so forgive the newbie questions. i thought this report was excellent and i thank you for it, but do you have suggestions that speak to brenda's comments as well. we will get to the park report a little bit later in the meeting, and at the bottom of each of the waterfront park projects, were some very helpful tables about impact on scope and cost and timing of project delivery as conditions change, and it would be very helpful, and they know peg's team is working on consistency to this committee and the public among all the bond project areas, and so i would like to request that in the next quarterly report from the transportation bond sector that perhaps -- it is just a suggestion, and you can present

it how you choose, but at the bottom of each of these project summaries, perhaps adding something about scope, timing and cost changes, tying that to the project challenges in areas of concern, i appreciated reading the project challenges and areas of concern when there were some at the bottom of several projects, but i didn't see direct ties to what -- the effect of those concerns would be on the project completion and its cost. so it's in the future, what i like to request is a prose sentence or two in the project challenges and areas of concern section on how these may or may not affect timing and cost, and it can be sentencing with no effect. and then again, maybe flushing out the little charts and tables you have at the bottom, maybe similarly to the waterfront parks where it gives us a sense of how things will be affected going forward. >> thank you, very much.

his helpful feedback and we will try to make it so in the next report. >> thank you. i did have questions in one specific project, my guess is you all talked about it a lot. this is the van ness bus rapid transit. when it says the contractor continues to follow the referral process of public works, what does that mean? [laughter] >> bruce are you familiar? i'm sorry -- >> i'm sorry, i just don't know what that means. >> i apologize. >> that's okay. i'm happy to repeat the question. i'm talking about the van ness rapid transit improvement which we are all very familiar with. >> i'm sorry, -- >> i'm sorry, the contract continues to follow the referral process, i just didn't know what that meant. >> we will have to get -- >> no problem.

>> also, the contractor and the city have selected three dispute review board members for the contract. i was just wondering what was going on with that, and you can get back to us on that too. >> i'm sorry, we don't have the answers. >> a red flags. >> jonathan has some background >> let me make an attempt to respond to your question. since it is a management general project, we have set up a dispute resolution process, so might be referring to when we may have borrowed in the way they do their contracts. the referral may -- it may mean referral of a concern that a contractor has but a change order or other issue in the field, then we have a process by which those concerns are escalated through management, typically that would start with the construction manager in the field, or the resident engineer it might raise to the level of the head of program delivery and our capital division, all the way up to the director, maybe even and risking and his

colleagues in the public utilities commission, in the department of public works. especially on issues since van ness is a joint project. reporting and sewer and water work for the p.u.c., there's a road resurfacing work that we are doing on behalf of caltrain through the department of public works and our own bus rapid transit work. we have to work through all these departments when there is a dispute between the contractor regarding changes on certain elements of work where the mt may not control the budget or the scope. it would not shock me for using a process of public works uses and that that is the escalation path that we use to get a decision made. >> thank you. before you step away, or if it is into your purview, what is the upshot of this project? i mean, i read all of the project summaries, everything seems pretty smooth and then you get to this fund. if someone asks this, if one of our members of the public asked that van ness has been torn up for so long, what the heck is

going on over there, what would be the one or two sentence answer we would give people. >> there are two things going on. one is the major infrastructure repair that is going on on van ness avenue. despite the issues that we have in this current period of construction, the road needed to be repaved. we talk about the impact of people's cars and traffic, potholes and cracks, impacted driver on the car and cost an insurance back goes over that. is essentially taking the element of frail and putting them in a bus service meeting, a dedicated lane for transit, having dedicated stop. it will not have to deal with the congestion that goes with traffic on van ness. that benefits the transit rider and of course, the city needs to go through the process to replace the water and sewer

infrastructure through many areas of the city. so when again the city takes its opportunity to make century wide improvements, this is an opportunity, it is absolutely difficult to do that. it is complicated to do that, but we tear up the street, we want to get as much done as we can. >> that makes sense. thank you. >> one other thing, today was one of the first times that i asked about claims, whether they are potential or actual ones, in the future, i would also would like to hear about the status of any -- i will try to remember to ask, but i am one to forget, so if you guys could remember to include that in part -- as part of your reporting when we meet next time. thanks a lot. >> i appreciate how you have woven in outcomes in your

narrative when you were talking about the project you are doing and how you're measuring success, and i also appreciate from what steve was saying, we continue to measure after something is done, we continue to look at ways of improving, and that is a fantastic way of doing these improvements, because you never quite know what will happen in the end. one thing i didn't hear, and i think this is a timing issue, was how you were measuring success around the pedestrian safety improvement area. i think there's probably a very direct way to measure success in that area, but -- >> your microphone has stopped, now it is working. >> thank you for the question. the city and county of san francisco over on all departments, we partner in the program and you may hear about vision zero and our goal to get 20 traffic fatalities. that is the absolute measure. i believe we do reporting with controller's office and the m.t.a. does their own reporting on the number of fatalities annually, so the measure is, as

we continue to move that number toward zero every time, to improvements that we make are typically improved related to studies to do across the city. we recently put out our updated action plan with regard to vision zero which includes a heightened injury network, and those are the areas in which we will focus our improvements. >> any other comments or questions? any comments from the public? seeing none, thank you for your time. >> item six, presentation from the recreation and parks department about the following bonds and possible action by the committee in regards to such presentation. 2,000 park sponsor, 2008 parks bond, 2012 parks bond. >> great. good morning. my name -- i'm the director of

capital planning for the san francisco recreation and parks department. with me here today is anthony, our finance director. i was just informed moments ago that the port is not here this morning, but we will do our best to go through their slides this is a slide of the 2008 bond, all 12 projects from the bond is completed and open to the public. 99% of the fund is expended, the rest of the fund is being leveraged -- a really tiny amount has been leveraged for the 2012 bond trail project, which will be embarking -- we will be embarking upon later this summer. and some forestry money.

this is a slide of the 2012 parks bond current schedule. with the opening of balboa paul in february, this year, eight of the 14 voter approved neighborhood park projects are complete and now open to the public. the rest of the projects are either in bed or construction. the only last part that will be going out to build -- bid is rossi and judge christopher. we are currently very busy right now. willie wong, potrero, and high turk, they are starting construction as i speak. we aim to complete the rest of this project by spring of 2020.

this is a slide that shows our neighborhood -- our citywide projects, and i have categorized it and the different buckets as enumerated in the bond. the let's play s.f. program, which is the public-private partnership project between recreation and parks and parks alliance, to renovate about 13 playgrounds throughout the city washington square is complete. we have to say that. five projects will be going into construction this spring. they include merced heights, sergeant mccauley, allis chalmers, mclaren, and the panhandle. in mclaren park, the vision plan is complete. we continue to implement all of the projects that were prioritized from that program.

the community opportunity fund projects are also underway. they will get -- in our water conservation program, the square is complete, the plaza, and are open to the public. the last project from the water conservation park program is a washington square. we are slated to start construction for that project on may 1st. trails we had a great opening for the golden gate oak wood trails, this past february. this is highlights of some of our recent milestones. as i mentioned, balboa park, which is one of our nine pools in the area.

this is number 8 out of number 9. the last remaining pool will be rossi, which will be going into construction later this summer. the end of this program, we would have renovated all nine pools from 2008, and 2012 program. this is a milestone that we are deeply, deeply proud of. here is a picture of washington square playground. as i said, it is in construction now, so is potrero recreation centre. in terms of next steps, as i said, we are embarking on the last phase of the 2012 projects we want to complete in spring 2020. we are also embarking on planning as part of that effort we are currently assessing all

of our assets. we have a new program where we were trying to work on. we have assessed about 54 million square feet of linear and park assets, which we are proud of this informs planning. it will also help us to prioritize our deferred maintenance needs for our projects. we are also looking into props 68 to leverage some funds to be able to leverage funds to do some of the future bond projects also. we will switch over to the waterfront. >> i am the capital finance manager for the recreation and parks department.

the port could not make it today, unfortunately, so i'll try to go over their slides. it was great to see new commissioners here. the port is part of our 2008 and 2012 geo bond program. is about 16 of the entire program, about $30 million in 2008 and 2,012. 420,008, they have eight projects complete. the main project still in construction is a crane coat park which spans 2008 and 2012. as part of the 2012 program, their terminal plaza has been completed, currently in design, and environmental review. on the next slide, this is a schedule of the four court remaining projects. as i mentioned earlier, the parkas the main project that spans both the (200)810-2012 programs that is scheduled to

be seen spring 2020. if you have any questions about the program, i would be happy to give it a go, but i'm also happy to look forward -- to forward any questions in detail over to appropriate staff and with that, we are happy to answer any questions. >> to be have a liaison for this bond? i don't think we do. questions? >> yeah, i have one. you mentioned, at one point, a public-private partnership, i think it was about the let's play s.f. program. could you tell me a little bit about that, how you are implementing the p3 system. >> right, thank you. this is a great question. this is a public private partnership with the parks alliance. we are leveraging that was allocated 2012 bond, raising 15

there was a task force that was put in place about 12 years ago , which i 13 objects, six of those checks, mentions in my presentation, are you there completed construction. the next phase projects well start time. the private portion of this, they have raised close to $13, so the idea is to leverage armed with the money that is raised 13 projects all around the city. >> so the money you are raising , a contract or is that donations. >> oh, okay, i think i

understand. thank you. >> i have some questions. >> sure. >> thank you. >> i understand the representative isn't here. it wasn't clear to me about the park, has all the funding for that park been secured the. >> i'm not 100% sure on that. i believe most of it has. >> most meaning, nearly all? >> i honestly would have to check. >> if you could, it just wasn't clear in the description. thank you. >> could you guys have them respond by e-mail? >> absolutely. >> it has been on for nine years, and expands two bonds, thank you. >> for the 2012 report, again i found these reports to be very helpful. thank you for preparing them, again, i have a couple questions, maybe for the team

who is working among consistency on these areas, if in these individual project summaries, you could always call out for when there are delays, over budget items, just call them out and explain them, just a few sentences, just to make sure we all are aware of them. >> sure. >> thank you. i was thinking of the rossi pool, why there was a schedule delay in that, it wasn't clear to me why that was a thing. >> yes, is a combination of factors. one, as being resources in terms of project management resources, to be able to implement that project, we've also encountered with the really hot environment the cost for this project continues to go up, and it has been announced that we have secured all of the funding for it, and

we will be proceeding later this summer. >> thank you. on the george christopher playground, and noticed that the commission had approved the design in june 17, but construction would not begin until september of this year, over two years later, why was there such a delay? >> yes, the commission approved the concept design in 2017, and then subsequent to that, public works was a partner in this project and went into detail detailed design, it took longer than expected because the resources were on their side, but i'm happy to say we are out to bid last week. we are excited to implement that project. >> good, this is a general question. it might be to one of your colleagues, it is interesting, it speaks to some of the other committee comments to the transportation folks about analysis of projects after they are complete.

is there any city follow-up after parks have been completed to judge their success? and i don't know how you manage -- measure success, perhaps it is a number of people who use it, but is there any study or observations or something even more formal own is a park successful with the right amount of money spent, was it too lavish of a park, was it not lavish enough, san francisco is a very dense city ," some neighborhoods are denser than others, and if some parks aren't used too often, it we spent a lot of money to make them beautiful, is there any promotion or publicity done to get people to use these parks? that type of -- of thing. i was just trying to get why once parks are built, how we analyse if the money was well spent, and if parks are being used, and if they're not, why not, and how can we get the public to know about them and use our beautiful new parks? >> he separate questions. one thing i will say that's --

that there is never enough money to implement the project, first of all, but what we try to do is leverage the funds we have and just priorities that have been identified by the community. in terms of post- occupancy analysis, we are actually embarking on a program now with a planning group whereby we are actually studying park usage i am children's playgrounds before they go to construction, and then after, so there is a baseline of what's existing usage, and then there will be another survey that's done to measure how much usage we are getting. in terms of anecdotes, i can say that the success and

feedback that we receive from our social media channels, through the programming that we are able to offer, and some of the sites, have been quite positive, so it is something that we are studying, and we are starting to do it better. >> thank you. >> just to add to what he had to say, two things. he mentioned they have a new way of studying density and activity levels in the parks that they are implementing right now which should provide interesting feedback, and in particular, this subject has been on the go box work list and we recently completed user satisfaction studies at raymond playground which was completed some months ago. so you will hear a formal presentation on that from our contractor at the next meeting, and they did intercept surveys

and asked exactly the types of questions that you are highlighting, i thank you will hear a lot of value from that. >> thank you. >> any other questions? >> excuse me. my comment is directed to the controller's office. i see that we have, on our agenda, the three bonds, the 2,000, the 2008 and 2012 bonds, and we just heard being reported that the 28 bond is 99% complete, meaning expanded. so my specific question to the controller's office is, at what point can be close out the 2,002,008 bond? so we will remove this from the agenda, has i am sure we will probably see another new bond

for recreation and parks soon. >> good morning. the value outstanding on this bond is very low at this point, which is why recreation and park, in recent updates this year has devoted very little time and attention to it. there is a small residual value typically we would leave it until it is fully spent, it is part of what we need to do to make sure the bond funds continue out the door and be timely and get fully spent. i would hope that it would be within the year of headwear we will have a fully spent out bond. >> that is correct. we had been notified by the controller's office that there is $50,000 unappropriated in the 2,000 general obligation bond. before we close it out, we will do a final reconciliation. in 2008, there's roughly about

100,000 community opportunity funds. i think the big project left is the bernal heights trail, and we are also -- god as my witness, by the end of this fiscal year, we will close out forestry. as much as i love talking to you about old bond programs, i also want to close them out, and we're looking forward to a 2020 geo bond program. so we will have further discussions and we will do our best to get this done as quickly as possible. >> thank you. i raise the question mostly to discipline ourselves on accounting discipline issues so that we are off our agenda, so as not to distract the active bond. >> thank you. >> great. thank you for your time. is there any public comment?

>> seen none. item seven, presentation from the capital planning program of the updated capital plan and possible action by the committee in response to such a presentation.

>> apologies. my mistake, i did not bring the presentation on a thumb drive, i will run downstairs and got it. if you want to hear the next site and meanwhile, i'm happy to speak after that if that is agreeable to the committee. >> that is agreeable. >> all right, thank you, i will be right back. >> will proceed to our next agenda item, which i think is other reports. >> at this time, we will move to item eight for now. opportunity for committee members to comment or act on any matters within the committee's jurisdiction. >> i have a commenter and a question. >> the annual geo bond program report that looked like this in the center packet, this was a great, how often is this done? it was for an 18 month period,

obviously until the end of the fiscal year, but started in the 16, 17 fiscal year. do we get this every year? >> what a perfect segue. we have a short presentation on the report. if it would please the committee members, this is a report that it is a relatively new report that we have worked on. i believe this is a second time we have produced it. it is responsive to our request to produce a wrap up summary reports that our office takes. this is an unusual 18 month period that you are looking at here because it is issues related to the city each object cut over to the new financial system. but our new goal is to have this is a twelve-month report each year going forward. >> thank you. >> good morning. i am with the city performance unit of the controller's office i'm excited to share this overview of the soap -- scope,

schedule, budget for the generation bond programs that my colleague and i, in collaboration with the bond program staff put together. so thank you for the opportunity to present to you here today. this analysis represents an 18 month reporting period and highlights changes since the prior year's report. that is since january 2017 until the end of fiscal year 18 eighteen month reporting period accommodates the transition to the new financial system that was launched in the summer of 2017. the data in the report was collected from the department and the quarterly bond program reports, ff -- s.f.p., the office of public finance, and bond program account ten. we also conducted interviews with about 40 different program staff. the presentation is going to review a high level of scope, schedule, and budget status for

the active geo bond programs and their components. each bond program is made up of three top to eight different components and to those represent distinct project or work areas, and those are assigned to a leave department. within one bond program, you can have differently departments. for example, in the 2010 easter bond, that consists of the public safety building component and the neighborhood fire station component which are managed by public works, where as the p.u.c. manages the auxiliary water supply components. components can be standalone large-scale projects such as the s.f. gh rebuilt, or they can be ongoing programs that consist of smaller improvements , implemented over a period of time like the sidewalk accessibility component within the road repaving and street safety bond so this charge represents an overview of spending at the bond level for all nine active

geo bond programs as of june 30 th, 2018. as you would expect, the earlier bond programs have spent almost all of their authorized proceeds, so the orange bar is very close are at the grey line, which is the issue to date amounts. the later bond programs have larger -- have a larger remaining balance. so the blue bar, that is the blue bar, and not all of those have necessarily issued all of their authorized funds. spending has progressed for all bond programs despite delays to some individual components, and the rest of the presentation will step through each of the bond programs and its components, and focuses on changes in the reporting period , so that's from january 2017, to june 30th, 2018. starting with the 2008 s.f. gh rebuilt bond, which founded the zuckerberg san francisco general hospital and trauma

center, the new hospital opened in may, 2016, and was delivered under budget. the cost savings are funding four follow on projects and those are tracked in appendix d. of the report. they were about $17 million. of these four projects, only one remains to be completed as of october 2018. work in the miscellaneous setup project is underway and is being coordinated with the 2016 public health and safety bond program. so the 2008 clean and safe neighborhood parks program is very close to complete from a budget standpoint, 90 7% of the program such a budget was expended as of generally 30th , 2018. neighborhood parks, which was the largest component, is complete. other two components of the citywide programs on the waterfront parks are projected to be complete at the end of the year, by january 2020.

remaining in a citywide program 's component, are projects within urban forestry, trail restoration, and community opportunity funds. the parkas a final project in the waterfront parks components it's schedule was extended by a year and nine months. it is due to regulatory approvals from four different permitting agencies. those were big contributors to the delay. the 2012 clean and safe neighborhood parks program includes the same components as 2008 with the addition of the citywide parks components, and that is golden gate park, mclaren park, and lake merced park. neighborhood parks is the largest component with about half of the program's up budget the schedules for three of the four components were extended during the reporting period, and the last project in the citywide parks component is now projected for completion by january 2021. the delays are due to extended

community engagement processes, coordination with utility agencies, and other projects and regulatory approvals. one example of a delay due to coordination with other projects is the aqua vista park that is a waterfront parks component and that is the same area as several major capital improvement projects. the new basketball arena, the mission bay ferry landing, and the terry france boulevard alignment. the 2010 response bond is close to complete with 90% of the budget expanded. the building is the largest component in the bond and was completed in 2015. the other two components are projected to be completed by june 2021. neighborhood fire stations component is the main driver for the delay, the reasons for

this are that the program added new projects and also experience delays with contractors and regulatory approvals. the additional scope was possible because of cost savings from the public safety building and appropriated interest. there are five components in the 2014 easter bond, three of which are new to the project in 2014 and two of these are standalone facilities, the traffic company, and forensic services division facility and the office of the chief medical examiner facility. together these two new specialized buildings are over half of the program's budget. the office of the chief medical examiner facility was completed in late 2017. the traffic company facility is delayed by -- a new constructed date of 2021.

it is the last project to be delivered in a program, and the delay to this facility is due to added scope for permitting delays, and additional time that the program needed to align budget and response to high construction costs. the 2011 road repaving and street safety bond is also pretty close to complete with 91 projects completed. it was completed as of last reporting period and the street structures and traffic signals components are complete in this reporting period. the other two components, and streetscape pedestrian and bicycle safety, which are 80% of the bond's budget are projected to be complete by the end of 2019, and the end of 2020. the delays to these components are largely due to coordination and alignment with projects and other components, and other components.

although interdepartmental coordination can slow delivery, the program managers of this bond saw definite value in this practice for coordinating the timing of work across the city agencies to reduce impacts to neighborhoods and increase efficiencies. there are eight components in the transportation and road improvement bond. these fund improvements to reliability and accessibility, the conditions of the streets and to make the roads safer pedestrians, cyclists just cyclists and motorists. 30% of the issued funds have been spent since a program, at about half of the bond proceeds have been issued. the rapid network improvement program is the largest in the bonds and funds the restructure of transit service on the high ridership lines. it has about 30 projects planned for this. there were no delays in the reporting period, but individual projects in the

moving forward component maybe delayed. the program is currently expected to be complete by december of 2022. about 1400 housing units are projected to be produced across the four components in the 2015 affordable housing bond. the components fund loans to developers for the construction of low and middle income housing projects, and for the expedited development of public housing sites. they also provide down payment assistance to help households purchase a home. and reporting period, program managers made changes to the methodology for estimating the number of housing units to be built with bond funds. this resulted in a lower unit count projects -- account projection. for example, managers are estimating units produce because of extensive infrastructure development, but not for design and permitting, and both are part of the predevelopment process, and had

been counted previously. the program schedule is on track. three of the four components shorten their schedule by about a year, and the final set of projects in the middle income component is expected by september of 2022. public health and safety bond is a relatively new one to the bond portfolio, and as such, five of the six components refines their scope in the reporting period. the majority of the font is funding improvements to building five, which is the 1970s era building that was the main hospital until the new building was built. the scope of the building five includes 19 different projects. and examples of some of the projects that are included in these are seismic upgrades, roof replacement, i.t. infrastructure, also the relocations of services like the rehabilitation department, urgent care, and the public health lab.

the three year delay to the building five projects is due to better scope definition, a bid protest, unforeseen conditions, client identify scope changes, and an extensive plan review with the office of statewide health, planning, and development. building five projects of the last to be completed by the end of 2022. these lessons learned represent themes we heard in our interviews, and with bond managers and their staff, and stress the sources of delay reported by multiple bond programs. i just high construction costs are prompted managers to adjust their scope and schedule expectations. this is a significant factor for current and future bonds, i should be actively planned for assuming continuing construction market conditions. for instance, in the police facilities component for the easter 2014 -- the lowest bid

for one project came over original estimates. managers have to adjust by reducing scope or rebuilding projects when appropriate. project managers mentioned several project types are pre bond planning would help create more precise budgets and contingencies, for instance, with sight conditions and seismic assessments, prototype projects and and an over water such the fire about 35 -- fireboat station 35, significant belt and specialty buildings and extensive renovations. all of these were examples of types of projects that could benefit from planning. the ambulance deployment were also mentioned with the public health and safety bond managers where they could have provided better insight into the full and seismic needs. flexibility with the

construction project delivery method, for instance, using a double design build model for fire station 35, or construction manager general contract method was mentioned as a way that program managers can better manage risks for project delivery. interdepartmental clipper collaboration and engagement were highlighted in ensuring project success, but both do require scope and schedule accommodation. for example, the road repaving structure staff that should be did minimized instruction and repaving efficiencies to coronation meetings held with the p.u.c. and m.t.a. reporting standards -- standardization would enhance efficiency and accountability and transparency. for example, bond managers submit their plans in a variety of formats to the office of public finance prior to bond issuance, a standard format for these submissions would allow for quicker comparison of planned versus actual spending.

thank you very much, and i am happy to take questions. >> questions? >> could we get, or is there available more of a text -- >> oh, my god, i'm sorry. >> yes, you can. >> there it is. but the recommendations in particular? >> they're in the executive summary, and may provide even more examples of that support those conclusions and those recommendations. >> okay. >> to brian's point, i noticed in the capital plan, which is also in d