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 our document, not on

april 3rd, the plan will be heard by the budget and finance committee, and so i am wondering if you can presents the lessons learned to the budget and finance committee of the board of supervisors, because i think it is important as they think about ten years of -- the billions of dollars here that they understand that there's actually a lot of things that could make this more successful, in particular, i think it is a prebond planning, you know, i would love for that to be said stronger than maybe appropriate , just because the question manager may not be helpful. as a look at the list of what we are doing, i cannot imagine that it would be how -- there are some scenarios where we can actually -- i know there -- this is a per ticket or project , it results in a very

successful project. >> it is a very good suggestion , which i can make to the chair later today. >> fantastic. can you make sure that we are all understanding when that meeting is going to be in case we want to participate in the discussion with the board of supervisors budget and finance committee? >> i would be happy to do that. we spend a lot of time doing governance and we would like to make sure that there is success that is set up. >> thank you. >> the other thing i wanted to ask about is how can we coordinate the knowledge that you have around each of these bonds with our liaison program, particularly as we bring new members on, and it is daunting to have someone talk about housing bonds and making them work. i think that it would really help with the ramp up for all

of our new members, perhaps when they are meeting with the stakeholders at the bond, and have you there also to help talk through. it sounds like you are doing interviews also that are very much alike the kind of interviews that we do or would like to be doing. i think we might need to streamline that process and certainly the knowledge transfer. >> yeah, i would be happy to. i learned a ton through this process, so wherever i can impart that to others is great. >> great. i will be working with the new members of the old members to assign some of these new projects. i will make an introduction to the bond authorities, and in all of those, and you can be included. >> first of all, thank you for this report. we have been waiting for a long time, and the way the format is

bonded is very clear, very assistant, and i want to follow up on the chairman comments about how this report actually has reminded us that our oversight responsibility is tremendously challenging because what you have laid out is we oversee a total of $3.5 billion worth of bonds over nine active bonds, 43 components and 540 projects, so with this daunting tax -- task, i would suggest to our chair and vice chair that the practice we have had in the past to have each member be associated or be the liaison to each bonds, i think that is critical for us to continue

that task, because it is almost impossible to all of us to develop some level of subject matter expertise in all of these bonds and to be able to do a good job, so i applaud your willingness to be somewhat helpful going forward to each of the individual liaisons, because on this annual basis, you did it all on your own. and your staff, so, thank you left. >> the second comment i have relates to -- relates in agreement to the last recommendation you have addressing the preissuance, planning, and regular reporting i think that is critical because as the unit goes to request the preissuance

planning, they have to provide the reasons and why they need to issue bonds for the fund, so our responsibility comes after the bonds are issued and when they start making the expenditures. so to the extent that we can keep this same format elements reporting, it would be easier for this group to conduct our oversight responsibilities. i think that makes perfect sense, and i don't know what it takes for that to happen. >> getting to standardized reporting has been something on the list and our list, and we're making progress on it. we do look forward to spending more time with the community and extended it -- extending it to all of them.

we are looking forward to engaging with that. >> totally working on it. >> i did step out for a minute, and i thought we put this on the agenda on the capital plan for this. >> we briefly passed over it while a presentation was getting retrieved. >> i see. >> we will be going back to that. >> thank you so much. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> see none. >> things don't happen that quickly here.

>> thank you. they both work? okay, perfect. apologies. i'm so sorry for my confusion this morning, despite the huge coffee, still i somehow did not remember the thumb drive. here we are, i am happy to present you with the report and update to go back on the ten year capital plan. i'm heather green, the director of capital planning, and deputy resilience officer at the office of resilience and capital planning. it is very neatly on my business card. our office are always been the office at the city administrator, and our job is to promote the preservation and long-term sustainability of the capital assets and it's resilience, no matter the acute shocks and stresses that we as a city may experience. so the office of resilience and

capital planning is a merger of two offices that happened about two years ago, if that doesn't sound familiar to you, there is an office of resilience and recovery and the former director of capital planning became our chief resilience officer, and so we are continuing to think about our capital assets as we always have, but with a renewed emphasis on resilience broadly speaking, and so increasingly, we are trying to think about resilience challenges of all stripes. these are the six resilience challenges that are identified in our resilient s.f. strategy, and you can see some of them are traditional capital planning type concerns like aging infrastructure, certainly , and earthquakes, and the priority of san francisco capital planning. we are looking to the future and acknowledging the potential threats from climate change and sea level rise in particular on

our city, as well as the very real threats of social inequity and unaffordability that our -- our city faces and that we need to address as we address our infrastructure. we can't do any one of these things in isolation. the capital plan, for those of you less familiar with it, is a constrained ten year plan. it comes out looking like this, and we also reproduce it in for on our website. this was created first in 2006 to help coordinate and prioritize infrastructure investments. this was before my time, but my understanding is there is a wild west situation where whoever got the last word in got the bond, and we are trying to be more systematic. but we included in the plan our founding principles so we can, as a city, of something to refer to when we understand -- to help better understand and remember why we found what we

fund, and the current plan here is the most recently approved plan, which is now nearly ten years old. we'll talk about the plan going forward in a seconds. and the planet really focuses on three major programs. the pay-as-you-go program, which is a general fund cash program, the general obligation bonds of interest here, and our local data general fund debt and revenue bonds. the plan gets updated every other year. we're in the final stages of that update now, so i will tell you a little bit about what you can expect to hear at committee on april 3rd if you are able to join. the plan is a ten year plan. the service area has held constant for some time now. this view shows the distribution of where investments are planned, split by general general fund departments and external agencies. the plan is a place where we

try to capture what's going on with buildings in san francisco we don't control absolutely everything that we need in the plan, the external agencies are represented and include the school district, for example, caltrain, the city has a role in partnership with this agencies, but we don't exactly get to direct the course of the spending, before our general fund, and enterprise department , we record and help make decisions about where funds will go. you can see that the general fund departments represent about $5 billion of planned investments over the next ten years, at the enterprise departments are driving the shift when it comes to quantity of planned spending. we do what we can towards the general fund department needs which are many, but the enterprise department with their own sources largely are building heavily. the founding principles i mentioned, these are where we

strive to do what we need to before the things that we want to do, although we want to do the things we need as well. so we strive to support projects that address legal or regulatory mandates, things that we are compelled to do, and also those that protect the life safety of san franciscans, workers, residents, visitors and enhance our resilience, ensure asset preservation and sustainability, taking care of the things that we own before we built a new, obviously we are also building new, but to the greatest extent possible we try to be good stewards of the things we own and new construction as a last resort, and then we support the problematic and planned needs that our elected leaders and look for projects that support economic development which all construction does by virtue of a job creator, but they're also projects that explicitly support that field and that is

part of our plan as well. it is not one of the adhered principles, but we did add it to the plan this year as an acknowledgement of the importance of equity in our capital spending, and all of our major capital project departments have equity strategies that they work towards, so we hear those at committee and look at projects through that lens as well. there are a handful of policies that are represented and codified in a capital plan. these are all about the program , there's a growth right of the annual pageau program, which in fiscal 20 would be $157 million general fund and. >> chair peskin: streets and paving commitment as a blended program. we have a pavement commission index and the target is 75.

up until this plan, that was 70 and they changed the scoring without changing what that meant. we adjusted the target and we are at 74, presently and striving for 75 by 2025. we want to continue to prioritize accessibility and barrier access removal projects , and we have an ongoing curb ramp and right-of-way program that is supported through the pageau program, and acknowledged in a timely dollar commitment where it will be primarily for renewals to extend our youthful life. we know there will be critical enhancements, which is more building new or building above and beyond the original useful life of an asset, so we carve out a little bit of room in the cash program. this slide here shows how important bonds are to the general fund departments.

the pie on the left, you see funding sources across the general fund department, and you see the geo bond makeup of the funding there, all departments, and that includes enterprise departments, bonds are important, but a smaller piece of the pie, sa have many more sources available to them for major federal and state investing. this is the feel good but not too good chart. in the bottom, look at the bottom first, the blue line represents our recommended funding level, that is how we are trying to commit in cash towards our renewals, and then the red line is the level of needs. you can see in this chart, those lines cross, that was not the case last time round or the time before, so we are making progress. interpretation is that in fiscal 27, if we continue to fund the program at the level

we need, we will meet that annual need level. the bad news is up above where the dotted line shows the backlog, we are starting a $799 million today. we know we have intense need to , in that backlog need only barely starts to turn down even as we end off more in cash. this shows our funding outcome by type. you can see that there are some parts to the program. i will not be league or it, but if i can call your attention to the bottom where we see that even with this recommended funding level, we don't -- would get% towards our need at the ten year aggregate level. this is all just to say we are doing so much, and we have so much more to do and need to find ways and sources to commit towards our renewal means so we don't run to fail. as i mentioned, there are two

major dental programs that pertain to our general fund department. the first is the c.o.p. program or the general fund debt program, and i will just run through these in case everything -- anything is of interest to committee. the first is that 101 grove exit. is one of our seismic vulnerable buildings. this exit program is not to retrofit that building, but rather to create exit destinations. there's also the relocation of tom weddell clinic here from the back of 101 grove. it will go into 1064 and 1068 mission. the c.o.p. support for the infrastructure and hope s.f. projects. there is a need for a replacement family services centre. this is the replacement of offices at 170 otis that was

recently completed. that is a high priority projects for the same reason. there are over 600 staff in their, and vulnerable service populations and we need to relocate that office. we are looking for a location for that. the hall of justice, which i have been working on since i started at the city, i think -- the hall of justice is at 850 bryant. this is another seismically vulnerable building. with the jail jail and numerous city offices. we are solving with exit destinations. some of those will be solved. there are other components of the exit that our sight acquisition and tenant improvements at sights that we do own. on the controller charge at recommendation, we have programmed hundred $20 million over two years for critical appeals. we know that as a long time spending capital, it is a great use of one-time funds, but also

vulnerable in the event of a slow down and so the needs will not go away. we want to preserve some capacity there. we are still trying to figure out what exactly we need with regards to the public works yard consolidation and the hall of justice. one thing we need to do at the hall of justice is knocked on the bryant street wing to create space to rebuild the capacity that we need to. but the vision of the administration is a re consolidated justice campus downtown and for efficient operations. this shows that program against its constraint, which is not just spend in excess of 3125% of discretionary value on debt, and you can see that there is space. as we get towards the end of the ten year timeframe, we do hit the programs and their

constraints. the general obligation bond schedule is represented in the capital plan, and this reflects the programming from the proposed plan. the draft plan -- there was a significant adjustment from the draft plan to the proposed plan which is to invert the housing. in the draft plan we had housing draft plan and 2020, but those have been flipped and that is my understanding of what we can expect going forward, the affordable housing bond is program to $300 million and i'm sure you guys are all aware about the task force and working group that is coming together to help program and prioritize that. for the easter bond, there are a handful of programs that are named in the bond by -- s. the pots that we need to support. some of them are familiar, and some of them are new to the

current bond. and is a blunter programmatic programs and police facilities, but these also these one-time needs. we are looking at hundred $25 million for a neighborhood fire station, and a hundred 21 for police, there is a 9 million-dollar 911 call centre expansion project, so that is not a new building construction, but rather expanding within the footprint to accommodate the operational needs that they will have going forward, the workstations themselves are growing. the number of screens is growing, so we need to push out and relocate some staff. we need to build a new fire training facility. the one that we currently have -- we have one in the mission and one in treasure island pick the one in treasure island is being displaced due to development and that is expected to happen as early as 2024. the fire department has done some preplanning on that front

to understand what they need and how big of a site they need and that search is still underway. the emergency firefighting water system is another major part of the program. and the plan that is programmed to $125 million and the p.u.c. fire and public works city administrator have been working together very closely over the last two weeks to try and articulate the plan for those funds. you can expect to hear that in committee. there is a 70 million-dollar program for a seismic priority practices the earthquake city and response program. earthquakes are dangerous across the board but they are dangerous when they have the capacity to interfere with emergency response. there are a number of facilities and the public portfolio that have responsive roles, things like shelter, maps, care, and some of those

buildings are especially vulnerable, some of them even have predicted casualties in our modelling, so we need to get ahead of that. we can't really let that stand, said the idea is to retrofit ahead of time and avoid that. in the parks and open space category, $255 million bond program for them. there are a number of projects that are named as sample projects here. parks like housing will go through a robust community stakeholder process before the bond comes out. it would go for the voters. the kinds of projects we have been hearing about for a long time, and seem like likely candidates include portsmouth square, japan town peace plaza, golden gate park, india basin, we heard an exciting announcement this week, it is a major project that has means.

rucker amazon, and so on. this is another adjustments, not just from the draft, by from the last capital plan to this one. this had been programmed for 2024, but we understand there is a significant and important -- important cash flow need around the facilities for m.t.a. for their belgian progress program. with all the light rail vehicles that we have been purchasing, a new fleet, a longer footprint, the facility as we have need to be expanded to, and if we don't get to the cash flow sooner, we will run out of swing city his, to avoid inexpensive workarounds that would not really be a good permanent solution. we have push them to 2022. so as not to have competing measures. we've also pushed public health to 2023. deaf tales nicely with their modified schedule and projects they would include building 80

90 et seq. america and there are number of clinic needs. the waterfront safety bond is a new addition to the bond program, so we just half -- had the bond, it is very exciting. we know that that is a multibillion-dollar need over the long term, and so the inclusion of this a hundred $50 million acknowledges that we will need to keep spending to fight the threats that encroach upon us at the waterfront, and then the cycle begins again, earthquake safety and parks, and so that is a total of $2.5 billion in planned spending since 2008. the zuckerberg bond, which is the first past since a capital plan was published, we have passed the $.9 billion, you are seeing the major portfolio that we all have to oversee and it continues to grow, and we hope it will continue to do so.

last slide here, is just the geo- bond program against its constraint, which says that we will not raise property tax rates as a result of bonds that the city controls, so not represented here, for example, would be schools, bonds, city college bonds, these are things we have conversations about but they have their own decision-making body. you can see here that we program fully. we want to make the most of this source that is so vital. with that, i will mention the calendar. you had mentioned earlier april 3rd to the budget and finance committee and approval from the full board by may 1st. we don't yet have the date of that full board hearing, but we will take adjustments, comments , as they come, and we will work them into the final document that we will publish on our website. i am happy to take any questions. >> thank you. questions?

>> i just have a comment. it was very helpful to hear your verbal presentation with the slides, just to have your additional comment fleshing it out and telling you the origin. thank you for your detailed comments verbally. >> thank you. >> i do have a question of clarification in the slide that is labelled proposed that program towards the end. there is a reference to the bond capacity, and if i am reading this right, there is a redline. it seems like that's the ceiling, if you will. this 0.1%, what is it based on? a percentage of what?

>> that seems to be our capacity. >> that's correct. so that's based on the 2006 tax rate and it is a percentage of the assessed value, so as the assessed value of properties in the city grows over time, so does the capacity. >> so the chart should say that >> yeah. >> we should add -- >> there is no label. >> we can add -- >> in the bucket has a label. i'm so sorry. >> how long has that been zero-point 1%? >> since 2006, we look to the 2006 -- >> how often does a get raised? >> that was the first year the city produced the ten year capital plan effectively, so the financial constraints that was adopted then and has continued since has been basically a planning goal that the amount of general obligation bond -- bonds

outstanding and secured against property taxes then went to remain consistent as a way moving forward and we would only plan new as all bonds are retired it has been reaffirmed with each capital plan this is not a legal constraint, but a planning constraint, but i think most folks feel that it's been an effective way to constrain, but been awesome need to build a voter support for bonds and as heather mentioned, we have had -- we have not had a geo bond rejected by the voters since this planning process has been put in place. >> is there any thought of ever raising that? >> it comes up every time, because of course, there is more needs than even the billion-dollar program can bring ab. the housing bond that will be happening is going to bring up

this exact question in the coming months as the city considers a potential housing run. i will be shocked if there wasn't active discussion about whether we should live in the tax rate. >> i have another question. on slide number 5, with the label proposed capital plan, i noticed that there are several categories, and i am looking at the totals, and as i was reading it, i was interested to find out how the allocations of the dollars among these several

categories were arrived at. for example, transportation seems to have the largest chunk of around 45%, and then infrastructure has around 25%, and then economic and neighborhood development is about 18%. i understand these are all capital plans -- proposed capital plans. i was a bit surprised to find that something like health and human services has a very low number. so can you walk us through the process and thinking and planning behind these numbers that are assigned to these different categories? >> it really speaks to the difference in availability of sources to support different kinds of projects. so when you look at those like health incident -- human services, for example, which is

the second to smallest and general government, theories are entirely general fund components. and as i said earlier, there is not dedicated revenue as there is with enterprise agencies by the p.u.c. pulls in water revenue and can bond against it , so they have their own supply of debt that they can devote to infrastructure. the general fund universe is more constrained. there are more that need to be balanced. so when we look at those sources that are being applied to general fund departments versus enterprise departments, it is exactly that that you are seen. the bonds which are finite, have to be spread across a large number of needs and infrastructure types, and we see a spreading of the spending

, it's also worth mentioning that in those totals for economic and workforce development, for example, and transportation, they are seeing a lot of external spending as well, so that is caltrain, that is the joint powers board, those kinds of things that weigh into those totals. even within the enterprise -- enterprise department, it is specific. the federal and state opportunities that are dedicated to do those kinds of horizontal and transportation infrastructures, those forces are just bigger. >> if i'm understanding this correctly, of course, general funds is what is guiding some of these. some of these funds, some of these departments that do not attract revenue, or do not attract state support, they tend to get the lowest amounts, simply because of the way they are, unless of how much we want

to allocate to them. is that a correct way of looking at this? >> from the highest level, yes, there is less available to those kinds of agencies dedicated for capital differences and sources available, within the program, where we program the room -- renewal dollars to the state of good repair spending across general fund departments, that is a percentage by formula -- formula spread across all, so it is not the case that was in the renewal program that health and human services is getting less then the public safety department, or general departments. the uniform, planned allocations, that all gets pedaled over at budget time. in terms of what we recommend, we are recommending and even spread across those means. >> thank you. when you first look at it, it is almost counterintuitive.

>> yeah. >> thank you for the explanation. >> yeah, i know what you mean. >> i appreciate how thoughtful your approach has been over the years. i think that that trust and the 0.1 cent is something that as a voter, i believe in. i would be disappointed if they decided to ask us to change that. one of the problems that happens in the way that you are planning these things is you have some real general categories. every time you are going out for one more bond, and the bonds of these general categories, they seem to be these, charles for lots of different projects, and you went through them for us point by point, that makes it extremely hard to govern these. it makes it very hard -- i'm sure you were here for marnie

charge our presentation that causes us lots and lots of trouble in trying to make sure that the will of the voters is done when the bonds are so general that it's hard for voters to figure out what they will get out of it, and you compare that to your general fund debt schedule, and that is very specific, you are saying we will work on the hall of justice, and that is how bonds used to be, as you can look to something and say, yes, i understand how that is being used. i personally am working on the public health bonds of 2016, and that is just all over the board, multiple departments, it has been changed, the priorities are shifting, can you give us any advice on how we should be looking at this, as i said earlier, even when there's lots and lots of things , it is incredibly helpful to us in getting these

bombs right, but i don't see the board of supervisors -- and i don't see a mandate coming down from anyone. let's really do the planning so we know what the voters will do not just because of voters are saying yes to everything in front of them, -- >> it doesn't mean it is necessarily the best way for us to be spending dollars. >> accountability to the voters is paramount. it is something that the capital planning committee -- we hear annual updates on the bonds as well. i think the value of program level bond planning is useful because needs come up and some flexibility is important. that should not come at the expense of clarity or transparency or an obvious relationship between need and

funding, for example, around neighborhood fire stations, we know our neighborhood fire stations work. people live there, people work there, they are essential facilities, they need to work in an earthquake. the bay doors need to open so the engines can get out, that kind of thing. from where i sit, the need know is so huge that even the large bond program amounts are just chipping away at a massive problem, and so to your question about advice, the bond managers, the program managers who work at that programmatic level have studied the need across the portfolio of each program, and so asking for information about that need may help give some insight into what it is that they are doing.

the program type spending, one of the advantages that we want to pursue, that we have learned over the years, is the advantage of putting packages out to bid where you are bidding for the same kind of work across multiple stations, so the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing work that is so expensive, to do it station by station, and named each station that you are going to do, and bid that potentially separately will be much more expensive and slow, and not as efficient as bidding as a bundle. that bundling is good as long as you know that the work that is getting done is the work that is needed, and understanding the need would be the first step there, i completely concur with your remarks about the value of pre blunt -- prebond planning. that is something that we reprogram as bonds are issued and bonds come back to that fund and we are able to program again a new, that is something that we have been doing for the condo -- the coming bonds and

we will continue to support to the greatest level that we can. but i agree. that story some step everything about how we were able to deliver this project so well and is a wonderful way. it came in under budget. we are doing that when we have the resources to do it. nothing but agreement here on that. >> i think it is easy to do that on a project were you know exactly what you were doing, what it sounds like you are suggesting a whole lot of trust in the bond program managers, i don't feel comfortable saying, you know, find out the reasons, and it is my subjective idea. is there a quantitative way for us to look at these programs again, this 15 or 20 different things going on there.

>> absolutely. i wouldn't characterize it as subjective, so much, they have quantified the level of need across lots of different subsystems. for the neighborhood fire stations especially, and so you can see the total amount of plumbing needs, for example, or the bay doors, or the generators, to that level of detail, and then it's about what is most urgent for the operation, that's where the fire department ways in, so this is really what we need at this time in order to make the decisions were livable edward -- and more functional. >> that information could be beneficial. >> one of the things that occurs to me, if you'd be interested in trying it, each of these bonds, before they go forward goes through a long process including coming back through the same capital planning committee, and then the board of supervisors. there is a bond report prepared that while it's not illegal

text of what the voters approved, really i think it is fundamentally the expectation against. we are usually judging, it's one of these incoming bonds comes forward, we could start -- we could review the content of the bond report. is the information that could be included within the bond report to make judging it after the fact easier? >> the upcoming easter bond might be a good opportunity to ask ourselves whether we are presenting the right things in this report. >> that would be great. up until now, all we have is what we read as voters. we all know what these bonds are. it feels like there's tons and tons a plan that you guys have going on, but is literally what i saw on television. >> they are available as well.

>> okay. >> thank you. any other questions? thank you. is there any public comment? seen none -- seeing none. we will move back to item eight , b., standardized templates. >> good morning, committee members. i'm from the controller's office. and item h., you have a number of things that have been on your work plan during the fiscal year, and we have progress reports at each meeting, sometimes for all of them, sometimes for just a few, so we can just go down a through d. a. was the bond report, which you have heard from marnie, and

that's an important project that serves our interest and reporting on bond activity from our program, the performance program that controller's office, and your report that gets appended to your annual report as a substantive report on funds -- bonds, just to remind you this two uses of it. standardized templates has been on our request with you for the last fiscal year, and we have not done a lot of work on it, primarily because of the issues with the s.f.p. reporting that were discussed earlier. it took a long time to transfer and cleanup all the capital program data into the new financial system, and that's why marnie and heather's report was an 18 month period, not a twelve-month period. it is not completely done now, but i think it's almost completely done. all of the bond programs are now able to report to you with current data, the new financial system, so the noise in that area is gone, i hope, and we

can now work on standardized reporting. we can work with you on that between now and the start of your work program in fiscal year. i can't promise that we would have it finished by the time you started hearing bought -- bond program reports next fiscal year, but we can make good progress on it. i will set aside staff hours in my work plan. some in the fiscal quarter that's about to start, not a lot of time, but more in the first quarter of the next fiscal year to work with you and the department of public works and all the other bond program managers and stakeholders in that material to get some more standardized formats. >> that's great. i have offered to be part of that, but it sounds like lauren actually... [laughter]. >> i'm happy to report. >> anyone else interested in being part of the development committee? [laughter]

>> so then we will reach out to you, the chair, and vice chair when we are ready with a plan of action on that. >> that would be great. >> okay. >> expenditures audit. we don't have one before you right now, but just to give you a little verbal update from the audit program, they have seven complete, which you have seen before, there's one underway, which is the 2015 affordable housing bond, and that will be issued in june of 2019, and then they have two planting next fiscal year. public health and safety 2016 bond, and affordable housing 2016, so expenditure audits are planned for those two programs during fiscal year 19 and 20. and as i mentioned before, another item on the work plan with you is the public perception study, referencing commissioners posts and comments.

we are finished with that report, and it is ready to go. we knew you would have a long meeting today, so we didn't include it, but we will have it ready for your main agenda, and just to remind you, this is a desire on your part and hours both to test public perception and understanding of improvements that have been built with bond money. we have had a professional contractor doing surveys at two sites which you helped us with the choice of some time ago. one was their agreement kimball program -- playground, the other is the bartlett streetscape project which is a secondary street in the mission , and the report will be ready. we may actually publish it for your meeting, i'm not sure about that, but in any case, we will have our survey contractor here to give a formal report on the findings that your may meeting, and i will make sure the agenda accounts for a for that. we are looking forward to interesting findings. that is it for our items with you, and anna can't comment on

the public finance calendar which is also listed under this item. >> thank you. so on our forward calendar, we have a few bond issues. the one that is coming up soon is for the 425 million-dollar seawall bond that was approved in november of 2018. we are going to be issuing the first series of bonds under that program, expected to close in june of this year, and then next we will be looking -- some of the programs that still have outstanding authorization such as clean and safe neighborhood parks is about $3.1 million left. the affordable housing, 2015 bond, and then the public health and safety bond are all financings that could come to market before the end of the calendar year. >> to be have that written in

here? it wasn't in my version. >> we have a different -- there was a different chart this time which is actually the authorized bonds outstanding, and the authorized and unissued , but next time we will go back to our typical format. >> yeah, that was great. who created this? can someone walk us through this? >> sure. so this is a table that we use when we go out to markets, so when we sell bonds, we prepare an offering statement, and as part of that offering statement in the appendix, we include a table that is very similar to this one, so it has been updated a couple times a year at least. what this shows is -- i think if you look at the middle columns and the total there of the $2.5 billion, that's all of our geo- bonds that are currently outstanding, and then the way they are categorized you can see on the left here. so they are categorized by

authorization. so the seismic safety s.f. lp is with the repurposed thing because that was repurpose in a seismic safety, and then you can see there is the 2008 parks , and so on. those are all the different authorizations ending with the most recent seawall one, and then the next category, we also show our geo- refunding bond. so you can refinance your mortgage, you can also refinance general obligation bonds, so those are listed at the bottom. the issued column shows what has been issued to date of items that fall under these authorizations, and that's a total of about $4 billion, that as -- since we pay down debt after we issue it over time, the current balance of what's been issued is to $.5 billion which is the middle column, and then finally, the authorized by and issued, you can see, if you

look at the bottom, that total is a $1.1 billion, at the bottom, we'll be issuing the first serious for the seawall. we have $425 million that is authorized and unissued, and so that's just the balance of what's left, and what can be issued and will likely be issued in the coming years. and in tranches for some of them. >> for my colleagues, this is the scope, this is what we are responsible for. it also -- it replaces -- they're thinking about replacing this one in your packet which is a little bit harder to read, i don't thank you completely does, some of the things i see missing on here is what is called here and authorized amount. so i don't know what we want to do about reconciling these two

documents to each other. >> would it be helpful in our document to have an additional column that show the initial authorization? >> i think so. it was a billion-dollar bond. we have issued half a million of it, that is the interesting part is that half a million is unissued. the outstanding column, i'm not sure, that is a financing. >> i think that the investors care a lot about that. it is just how much debt is currently on our books. that is why we showed that column. >> right. >> we can add the authorized and then you can see -- >> i have a point for the outstanding column that is important. i think it relates to oversight because they are outstanding, the issues have been funding -- funded, and these are actually the dollars that end up in the expenditures that we are

supposed to oversee. do you think it -- if you think of it that way because the outstanding -- the dollars that have been issued -- >> i don't think it is a bonds that is paid for, i think the city of san francisco hasn't paid it off yet. which one of those is it? >> correct, when we sell bonds, we will get a lump-sum up front , but then we pay back those bonds over time, typically over a 20 year period , except for -- >> it is not, you know, you are right, you are missing a huge part of this, which is saying, you know, we gave you half a million dollars, and you have only spent near 20,000 of it, what happens, you're sitting on a whole bunch of cash, right? i don't know how to reconcile that. that is the interesting thing, from our perspective, is how much -- why is it going out for another issuance if they already have hundreds of thousands -- hundreds of millions of dollars? >> that is why i am saying the outstanding relates to -- it

relates to some of the ongoing expenditures, maybe i'm missing something totally. >> yes, maybe it's just a terminology issue. outstanding, the debt has been issued, we have the funds, we have spence them, they are in repayment schedules. >> or in the process. >> or in process of being spent [laughter] >> wait, we've got feedback. >> just to quickly clarify, the amount on the table that you are seeing is outstanding and that is the amount we have to pay back, which doesn't relate to the amounts that we are spending on the bond. so the yellow charge that you are referring to, that comes from accounting, and they are

tracking the proceeds that we received from the bonds and how quickly we are spending them, so if you would like, we can make sure the total authorization is reflected on that, and that might be useful for you. >> right, but in the outstanding thing, just to be clear, it is different -- >> that is different. that is how much we have to pay back to the investors, completely unrelated to how much is spent. >> right. >> that might be clearer if you separated it, but in my own thinking, we received the funds , that's why they are outstanding and we have to pay that back. because the fact that we have received the funds, those funds have gone into expenditures, part of which we are responsible for, so if we didn't expand them, we wouldn't have to pay them back. >> no. for example, like the sfgh bond from 2008, we have spent all the funds that we issued bonds

for and we got the proceeds. we spent those proceeds, with the bonds are still outstanding , that is still debt we have to pay back, so there are no more proceeds to conduct oversight over, but there's still outstanding debt that we have to pay back. that is what is reflected on the chart. >> no, i understand that. maybe it is just the way these numbers are presented that is making some of us ask questions , because it is not the other format we are used to seeing. >> right. >> any public comment? >> awesome. i think we are adjourned. are we adjourned? [laughter] >> i have -- sorry, for the chair, we need to, i think, define bond areas. i think some people are overworked because they are carrying two or three. how do you want to proceed?

okay, that sounds great. okay. >> awesome. >> thank you.

>> we can't hear you, is your microphone on? >> again, welcome to the commission on ageing and adult services. we have a new commissioner, and i would like her to introduce herself and just give us a few comments about her background. >> good morning, and i'm very happy to be here. i've always introduced my name is i am felicia elizondo. i am