guidelines. and i think this rfp in terms of including the values of the community, et cetera, is much more comprehensive than we've done in the past, because we've taken that in consideration obviously, through the waterfront land use plan and all the discussion we've had with the committee so we are trying to be very balanced with it. but i think the guidelines of where we decide if it's maritime or financial feasibility, i think we've left it open in term it is of the uses so i don't think we've tried to preclude one or the other. but i don't think it has to be argued at the end of the process. it has to be included in the front end and the panel will evaluate if there's nuance or gray area, which there will be, to decide which is the best way for the port to consider. and they should show us the nuance and gray areas but we will look at that. but i don't think we're going to have a big philosophical discussion of maritime versus other but it will be nuances. >> i would hope that. but when i look

at the criteria i don't see anything that ponies to maritime. -- points to maritime. so all evaluation criteria will get points. the reality is they may impute it. but it is not a requirement from the pointing perspective. >> on page 12 of the staff report, we outline the scoring criteria with more detail than we saw on the slides. and if you look at 1b and 1e under quality of design development submittal, 1b talks about performance trust objectives which includes maritime and 1e calls out this balance that commissioner makras is pointing out. i agree it doesn't talk about how they are weighted but maritime is called out. >> so how many people are going to be on the

panel. >> at least four. and it's in the waterfront plan or include -- just a moment. >> i saw that. but is four a good number? don't you usually need an odd number? >> well there's scoring so i mean if there was a tie i guess having a fifth would be good. and we left it open. but at a minimum it has development expert, port advisory member and person representing city or regional interest. we thought if there was an additional need, we could add another expertise if needed. >> when is that decision going to be made? who is going to be included on the panel? >> we would -- in our schedule we were going to begin to put names out there internally, have the rfps out on the street and

have a final panel. >> when are you going to let the commission know? any involvement in who is on the panel. >> we could do that. we could recommend a panel. i could send you -- so in terms of forming a panel, there's the issue of expertise but also the time commitment. so sometimes it's hard to find panelists and especially the quality and caliber of panelists we want here. so what i could do is write you a memo of who we are planning to put on the panel and if there's anyone who wants a hearing or wants to talk about it, you could let me know in new business so we could put that step in. >> can you give me an example of what you mean by city or regional representation. >> as an example there might be a maritime group, a maritime individual that represents all the maritime business that we have or another one might be an open space

advocate in another consideration that's not looking at just a neighborhood or district's interest but really looking at regional or city-wide interest. >> okay. and within the timeline, where did you think we should put the presentation to the commission? >> i'm the wrong person to ask. i actually think -- i'm looking at rona, because does legal have a point of view on this? because you have been more advisory to us on -- do you think it should be before the panel comes together or after the scores are done? the second one. legal thinks it should be after the scores are done and embargoed. that's an interesting word i'm choosing. but can we embargo scores? no. >> i thought -- sorry i thought from my experience contracting with the city that until you inform the respondents, they could be embargoed. the department of public

health and mayor's office of housing often have scored decided internally and they don't notify anyone until like a month that they are embargoed. >> for the city attorney's office, i don't have in front of me but i think the rule is once the scoring is completed, it is subject to sunshine. so once the score is completed the names of the scores and scores themselves are subject to sunshine. i think -- i mean, i think it's a great discussion. i think what you are struggling with is -- yeah. i think what you are struggling with is the need for you to have information and understand what the panel is doing and the need to let the panel be in this very controlled setting so they can make sure that everyone is treated fairly. and when you have a presentation here, you know, there's really not necessarily fairness. so somebody

could take for five minutes, somebody else maybe could talk for six minutes. so when you want the panel to be in a very controlled environment and the public forum is not a controlled environment. so those are the two things that the staff is struggling to present you with options to meet your needs with those two competing objectives. >> could we say in the rfp that the commission will hear presentations on all proposals after the scoring however you want to word that but make it an opt-in. so if i scored only 20 points after that effort and work, i could choose to come yell at the commission or choose not to show up. and the staff do the five-minute presentation on what that project was. so to the point, we are trying to get a level of transparency to show to the community everyone who applied.

it would be unlikely for folks who are tightly scored might come use it as a forum as a public comment to argue their case. but you'll have some natural drop offs. >> i think the city attorney's concern is that the scores should be done before the public the uncontrolled public forum happens. so there's no possibility that the panel could be influenced by what happens. so the hard part of that is figuring out when to get the larger group to come to you. if that's what you want to do. there's really no problem in having the scores done, the presentation made, the scores -- you would see the scores, you have as many people as you want. at that point you could say we want the top five, we want anyone who scored over 90. because then the scores are done. so the hard part is getting the people in the public forum before that happens.

>> so it sounds like the suggestion is what we would do is we would -- i'll write a letter to you talking about who the panel would be, we may provide an informational memo just saying who came in the door and how the process is going then we'll have an info item at the commission where scores will be complete where all the proposers who met the mq have their seven ten minutes to present to you. then right after that, we'll have our info item where we explain what the panel did, the work of the panel and who is preferred or sequence, something like that. >> i didn't think we would be going this far into the rfp. i actually have a different take for the panel. i think the executive director should pick the panelists.

i don't think the bidders should know who the panelists are. and i think that they should be one meeting whether it be a phone meeting or not with their instructions and it be limited to one meeting where everyone does a meeting, so everyone as a rater has the same rules and there's no influence on them. i can tell you why. when the names are out there the private world is going to figure out who those panelists are. they will work very hard to payload their presentation to that person and try to get under their thinks to get the most favorable response just tailored to panelists. and i think that we should have the project tailored to the group as a whole. and that is a better way to get leverage. >> i think the oral interview should be in person. i don't think the phone is acceptable. i think you need to see

body language. >> i'm saying for the panelists. i'm only talking about the panelists. five or six. >> can we. >> i'm okay with it being face-to-face. >> can the panel do their work, come to us with the informational presentation where everybody gives their presentation and then the panel gives their recommendations and that's the informational presentation? can that happen? >> i think that could happen. it may be staff making the presentation just to summarize all the panelists comments. >> that's fine. that's fine. that's fine. >> no, no, no. >> so i think maybe what i'm hearing is that -- do you want to go or do you want me to? >> i wanted to make sure mike understood the proposal. that's what i wanted to start with. >> what i wasn't clear with was whether you were thinking that would happen in

one meeting or two. >> one. >> one. >> one informational meeting. >> so agenda item 1 is. >> presentation. >> presentation from all proposers. >> yes. >> item number 2 is. >> comes up, public comment happens end of item. >> staff panel recommendations. >> then we get up, we summarize the scores. >> but then you can't have any written material. >> so by the time we have the informational hearing where everyone presents if the scoring is done, under sunshine, there's public record, so everybody is going to be walking in the room knowing the scores. that's what i heard the attorney saying to us. so we are saying look, we want to hear from all of you if you want to talk to us, because we are curious what your proposals are. we haven't voted on who you can enter into your negotiations with, we can't

issue an award but the scores are public. and i'm actually supportive if we have one long meeting where this is the focus of what we do. and we might have some people really upset with their scores. and that's fine because it's part of being transparent, we can hear that and understand that. informational. >> it just seems like we have the recommendation which is actually now public because the staff report is public already. >> that's right. >> right? but the scores have always been public in any presentation when we tell in the staff report, it's always public. so then they present. so it's a little flakey. why am i coming to present? no. they are coming to present before the staff report on the panelists recommendations. >> they have options to present. >> that's part of the proposal is

to include a summary because we don't want to put someone's proposal in our own words so we have that part of it where we are asking for a short summary executive summary. so if a respondents aren't opting to present, staff can summarize those who did not come and share with the commission their proposal. >> the city attorney, it's not about our staff report. the minute that panel scores everything and hands them to the staff there technically can be sunshine to anyone who submitted them, even if there's a delay to our meeting. >> unless you are inside an appeal period. >> right. so that's why they are immediately public like when the work is done. so i guess that's what i understood the city attorney to say. our meeting could be three weeks later and people will still know their scores. >> so i think what we are describing

is certainly workable from our perspective. i think commissioner gilman has the point of between friday and tuesday everyone will have a list of those scores. if the commission is comfortable with that, i don't know that i see a weakness. it's sort of the flipside of not seeing the scores but seeing like if you are going to have everything in front of you and you are going to have the public in front of you as well. so if that concentration of information makes sense to you, i think i don't see a problem with it. it allows us to compress that period, which is a good thing. we'll ask for the executive summary, and that will form the basis of that staff report. we'll directly cut and paste. so we are not putting words in their mouth. and if they don't show up, we'll be able to walk through that executive summary. and i think the tenor of the presentations

is going to be very pointed in terms of -- those guys aren't as good as me. but i think that feels where. >> but they'll want to show up and present because we still have the option of rejecting the recommendation. >> exactly. we have other rfps. >> and they may want to set up themselves for the next set of pier projects. so i think this amended proposal works quite well. >> so just to highlight a question. so there's no action that day. >> correct. >> just information. everything is information. >> with an action item on the recommendation. >> right. >> and i assume we are going to then follow this framework for the next two rfps. 30-32 and when we do the northern fingerling piers. i feel like if this is a disaster -- [laughter] .

>> i think we should reserve judgment until we go through this process first and then decide if this is ongoing. because it is a change from the past. and let's not commit to everything at once. >> so i would suggest we are going to come in and propose this process for 30-32 because we are coming in two weeks. we won't have seen the success but we have said we want to hold back on the northern historic piers so the non-winning proposers can go there but that seems like a natural time to figure out. >> we will be using for 30-32 and 33. >> we will be proposing that so we can start here in three weeks. >> any other comments. >> all in favor with amendment. >> with amendment. >> resolution 19-43 has been approved with amendment. >> to remind everyone to please silence

your electronic devices. item 10a request approval of issuance of port of san francisco series 2020 refunding bond in the aggregate principal amount not to exceed $27 million with an interest rate not to exceed 6 percent per annum to refund the remaining outstanding balance on the port commission's 2010 revenue bonds to form a supplement to indenture of trust between the port and a trustee three the sale of the 2020 bond negotiated sale pursuant to a purchase contract, four

the form of a bond purchase contract, five, the preliminary form of the official statement relating to the bonds and the distribution of the statement. six the form of the continuing disclosure certificate of the port and execution of the contract. and seven the form of the escrow agreements. this is resolution number 19-42. >> thank you. katie before you start i know we had an informational presentation on this, and i know that everybody fully supported it. so can you just go over the highlights of what has to be presented today. >> brandon. i appreciate this so much. yeah. so the highlights are staff is here to ask the commission to approve a revenue bond refunding of nearly $30 million and outstanding 2010 bonds. we are requesting

authority to issue up to $27 million in new bonds. we expect to only use -- or to issue about $23.5 million in new bonds. and we are estimating that the port will realize approximately $13 million in savings from this refunding with the net value of $7.9 million. the maturity base of these bonds would remain the same. the key thing that i just want to tell the commission this afternoon is that we are asking for you to approve a resolution authorizing the sale of 2020 bonds in an amount not to exceed $27 million. we are asking the commission to approve a third supplement to be indenture of trust, a bond purchase agreement a

preliminary official statement continuing disclosure certificate and escrow agreements one for each of the series of the 2010 bonds that are being refunded. if you approve this item today we will be introducing legislation at the board of supervisors next tuesday. and we hope to have the transaction concluded and all of the outstanding bonds repaid by march 1 of 2020. that concludes my presentation. >> thank you so much. can i have a motion? >> i will move the item. >> i second. >> is there any public comment on this item? any questions or comments? all in favor? resolution 19-42 has been approved >> thank you so much. >> item 13, new business. >> is there any new business? is there any public comment on new business? >> item 14, adjournment. >> can i have a motion to adjourn?

>> i make the motion to adjourn. >> all in favor. >> aye. >> adjourned at 5:35 p.m.

[roll call] >> item number 2, opportunity for the public to comment on any matter within the committee's jurisdiction that is not on the agenda. seeing none, we're going to move on to item number 3, approval with possible modifications of the minutes of the august 26th, 2019 meeting. minutes, any objections?

>> i don't have objections but i did note a lot of typos in there. i marked several of them up and i can give them to you. >> i can go ahead and take them. >> reporter: they missed a bunch. maybe you want to take a look in addition to what i wrote down. >> okay. >> but it's nothing too major. there are a couple that may have confused the meaning a little bit of the sentence. for the most part you can figure what it is and they're bad for the agreement, and some of the tenses weren't right. >> this doesn't preclude us from approving minutes does it? >> other than that sure. >> with the correction of the typos but no material changes. >> yes. >> public comment? seeing none we'll move on -- oh, sorry. >> i'll move to approve the minutes with the corrections that brian has recommended.

>> second. >> any other objections? any objection? seeing none. moving on to item number 4, presentation from various departments regarding the 2000, 2008 and 2012 park bonds and actions by the committee in response to such presentation. >> good morning committee members. my name is -- i'm the director of capital planning for recreation and parks department. i have a short presentation for you today. the first slide, if you can turn that on. thank you. the first slide we have is such a short slide on our status of

the 2000 bond. the 2000 bond is officially closed. final reconciliation is complete. we're elated. there were a lot of projects that came out of that program. the biggest is the picture on the wall, and just of the center. there was approximately 87 projects that came out of the bond program. so this will be the last time you be hearing about it. on the next slide is a slide on our 2008 bond, which is substantially complete except there's a minor project which is the burner trails, which we're leveraging some other funds from the 2008 bond and 2012 to complete that work.

that work is slated to be complete in early 2020. this is our current schedule of our neighborhood park project. 50% of funding allocated for the neighborhood park program has been either spent or encumber with the plan opening of the project, which is coming up earlier next year. many of the projects will be open to the public. we're excited to hear that. there are many projects in construction right now. they include the garfield pool, margaret hayward, all slated to be completed by the spring of 2020. we aim to finish all of these projects by 2020.

this is the highlights of our city wide program buckets. under the project it's complete now, which is a square open to the public a couple months ago. five projects from that program is actually in construction. you're going to see a series of projects ribbon cutting openings in the next couple of months. we're excited about that. this is a public-private partnership between recreation and parks department and san francisco parks alliance where we're leveraging about $15 million from the bonds program with a 15 million that's been raised. it's a successful program. we're excited. highlights of mclaren park and

the group picnic project is under way. we have work that's ongoing, that will be ongoing. the concept plan was just approved at the commission a couple weeks ago. we're excited about that. on our committee opportunity fund project, the phase one of the project is actually under way. also it's slated to be complete in december of this year. a larger project, exciting project, the tennis center is under construction, which we're leveraging some community fund dollars with private philanthropy that broke ground this summer slated to be complete in time for the 150th anniversary of golden gate. and our order conservation,

which is in construction right now, slated to be completed this month. this is just some highlights and pictures of our recent, some of our recent work. the water conservation is one. it's under construction slated to be completed in december on an average when the water conservation project is complete we expect to save over 2 million gallons of water from this effort. we're deeply excited about that. another picture is that one of the panhandle with the ground breaking, with the mayor and our general manager and also the rec center under the neighborhood park project that they opened up last month. we're excited about that.

so what's next? so after nearly three years of work we have an asset management assistant called life cycle. it allows us to perform planned preventative maintenance to prioritize repairs and organize and replace our capital renewal. we assessed over 56 million square foot of vertical and linear assets in the last year alone. in addition it will form the basis for our planning for the next one in 2020. although a lot of work has been done through the last two bonds, there is still a lot that needs to be done. we're planning for growth that

is going to happen in the city in the next 10 years and we just sort of convened a bond working group that will help move some of these bond planning efforts forward. some of their goals will be to develop in-depth knowledge of needs and issues of city wide parks and facilities assist in the r.p.d. data analysis and goal prioritization, providing an overview of our 10 years of the parks and facilities. as part of that effort, for the asset management and the assessment of our facilities we identified over $950 million worth of different maintenance needs. we intend to sort of use that

asset management database to prioritize our work in the next decade. the next slide in front of you is sort of building upon the successes of the 2008 bond and the 2012 bond. we will continue to use the criteria that we use then. the criteria used then was our condition assessment, which was more robust now which our life cycle program will continue to sort of keep in mind growth in the city and our equity areas also sort of policy priorities for us. our multi-use side is another criteria that we will intend to use for our future bond planning and life cycle on our much more complicated complex bigger projects we're adopting some

strategies around project readiness and engaging with the community some moving forward with some design efforts to understand the complexity of the work. in the past as with the past two bonds, we anticipate that there will be two parts of funds which will be the neighborhood park projects named park projects and these programs have been highly successful. i mentioned the playgrounds our community opportunity fund program, which is essentially a grant program which neighborhood groups come together raise funds, and we match those funds. our water conservation park is also highly successful.

urban forestry trails and sustainability. the next slide sort of shows our outreach for the next bond. we intend to use some online efforts. we intend to take advantage of our existing advisory group direct park commission, and to go back into the community for extensive outreach, which in turn helps us develop the bond program and will be coming back to the rec park program in 2020 to show our findings. the last slide is an overview of the schedule before -- as we prepare for the 2020 bond. as i indicated earlier we have convened a bond working group that will be working to

prioritize our projects based on the criteria that i outlined earlier, so next we anticipate 20 to 30 meetings in the next couple of months. then the findings will be in early 2020 and turns over to the capital planning and the board of supervisors so they can get on the ballot in june 2020 for election on november 6, 2020. so that sort of ends my portion the rec park portion of the presentation. >> i can take it. >> antonio, capital fitness minister for the recreation and parks department. i understand they're very short staffed at the moment so i can go over what they're currently doing in the 2008 and 2012 bond.

so in construction using those funding is crane co park. all the other projects are complete. in 2012, the crews terminal plaza has been completed in design and environmental review and agua vista park and pier 27 public art and most notably the fifth issuance was completed. so for the port's final $3 million of the 2012 bond final issuance was completed so those funds are available for the port projects along the coast or the eastern part of the city and to summarize the 2008 bond program coming to an end 2012 is well on its way, at

least for rec park ending in 2020 and i think both departments are looking forward to next year for the 2020 bond schedule. thank you. >> i'll be happy to answer any questions you have. >> before we get into that we have a liaison report. >> sure. so my name is bart i met with antonio. basically, it seems that looking at the list and the completed projects, 87 completed project from the 2000 bond is a great record. one thing i did like about what they're doing is looking to stretch the money and getting private funding for some of the areas that are more an influential for these parks. i went to visit a few parks and i seen the work that's been

done. one thing that's a great point made is that our parks is one of our last democratic areas, you know. we can walk into a park and it's free for us. the thing is too i noticed how many water fountains there are and the question of whether or not to have restrooms. san francisco has some great parks and i appreciate what they're doing and i think they're moving in a good direction. that's basically my report. i do have some questions. if you can help me out with a clarification on the prosac what is that an acronym for? >> it's our parks and recreation open space advisory. cpc is the planning group which is comprised of all city

departments. that sort of looks at all of the capital investments for the next 10 years, for the entire city not just for rec park, transportation, health and all the other sectors. >> and the b.o.s. >> board of supervisors. >> i'm not hot on all these acronyms but i will be by the time this is over. one of the things i like to do through our committee is get a point of contact for the port of commission at some point. so aside from that that would be great. point of contact for the port commission. thank you. >> yes. >> one question on the 2000 bond. this is just for edification. this is a bond i'm the liaison

for. it says on page 3, under program management second bullet point, staff reappropriated $5.6 billion in remainders of completed projects into a master project for subsequent allocation. do you have to go to the board of supervisors? >> antonio? >> yes, we did. the 2000 bond was held at the project level. so for the specific projects, it was what's known as the deappropriation, reappropriation at the board of supervisors through a supplemental ordinance. so yes, it went to the board of supervisors. >> the reason i asked that is because i'm a liaison for one of the muni bonds. in shifting money between a couple of categories on a temporary basis, they had to go to the board of supervisors. this is the kind of thing i would expect that too.

the 2008 bond i had a few real in the weeds kind of questions and i'm going to skip that one. i think i know what that's about. on the raymond kimbell playground it looks like it's delayed about 2.5 years in actual completion. you were looking to complete it in november of 2012, and it didn't get completed until the 15th of june. was there a delay claim in particular? >> yeah, to answer your question actually there was an additional community engagement that occurred on the project and we had to really understand the scope of the project before implementing it. that community effort took a couple more months and then putting it out to bid and then

implementing it. >> i understand. okay, on page 16, under project status summary, the budgets and actuals were dollar for dollar exact. how did that come about? >> yes, antonio again. that's just the accounting reconciliation at the end of the day, we need to get to 0 in the bond. >> i figured it was something like that but i didn't know. on page 23, under the pier 43 bay link trail second paragraph, during the entitlement process. i didn't know what the entitlement process was. >> what page? >> 23. >> right here. >> that's the waterfront right? >> yeah. >> i think i will defer to the port in dealing with them.

>> the entitlement, oh sure. that is actually the process by which the project seeks sort of the environmental action approval through city planning. >> okay, i figured it was something like that and i'm glad i asked. while i figured that i can know that. finally, the only one you still have in construction you went from a completion date, planned completion date of february 15th to september of 2020. construction didn't happen until much later. was that it that major of an effort. >> on this particular one, we're going to defer to the port that is not here today. >> i'll hold it for them when they show up next. it's for edification. what's done is done. >> yeah i think i know what's

happening, but i rather have them speak to that. >> i'll be here next time. that's all. thank you. >> i have a question falling off of some of community member larkin's comments. i'm one of the people that been to these parks. i love seeing these investments and improvements but the timelines between estimated and actual completion is wildly different. there are a few probabilityjects completed early but most are delivered late. what efforts are you taking as you think of the 2020 bond, to try to get that to line up bt better so when people's expectations will line up better with what we're seeing. >> that's a good question. i think we continue to learn through the process. one of the things we're doing now is actually having a much more robust timeline for each phase of work.

so maybe sometimes we believe community engagement should take six months. what we're finding out is that it takes closer to a year plus. on much more complicated projects what we're doing is actually leveraging existing funds to understand the scope of our work better so that the issues around scoping, around costing can be realized early so we can implement the projects better. you know also the other part of this is i believe we're better staffed now. absolutely. we're better staffed as a capital team so we're sort of positioned to deliver it to 2020. so the other part of this is also entitlement through city planning takes time. anyone that's donnie -- done any

small to medium sized projects knows what it takes. storied properties take longer because we have to do additional analysis more questions and so forth. we're actually getting ahead of that and doing that work ahead of time now. we're trying to mitigate those times. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> i have a couple of questions and comments. regarding the port in particular do we audit the ports aspects of this bond? >> i'm from the controllers office. yes we do. we have the same authority on the ports project as anything else. i am looking at the schedule for audits to see when this may come up. february 2021 this group of park 2012 park bond will be in our audit sample. so it's not planned for our

construction audit until then. >> okay. >> the authority is the same. >> okay. >> so i'm telling you guys because you're here that i'm disappointed that the port didn't show up for this especially as we're heading towards the sea wall bond. i would like to calendar the port specifically for our next meeting and ask them to come in and actually present in more detail about what they have said here. there are no numbers on here. again you guys are not responsible for them, but they need to understand that if they're going to be part of these bonds, by something you said earlier around the 2020 bond, i assume they're going to have projects on that one too? >> actually, the port is not going to have any project in that particular bond according to the 10 year capital plan. >> it's helpful for us if they don't because it's hard to have

two separate groups hold responsible. that's the port. regarding the 2020 bond thank you for your thoughtful prework on that bond. we have seen that the bonds are much more thoughtful and well written when that type of work is done ahead of time. >> thank you. >> and it sounds like you're being thorough in trying to address that. you mentioned the deferred maintenance of 950 million. is that teasing the idea that you're going to put a bunch of deferred maintenance on that bond? it's hard to do that. >> the data actually just came in. in addition it's just to understand for our maintenance and operations team how to prioritize their work. you know in the past we're great at repairing the lot.

we're not great at being proactive. it's actually understanding the life cycle of all our assets. so with this effort with this asset management system it will allow our operations team to prioritize the work. through that effort it elongates the life cycle itself and part of the work we'll be doing as the next bond also and some of the future work i anticipate will happen. >> okay. because $950 million is a lot. >> sorry? >> $950 million is a lot for a bond. >> yes. that $950 million that you see is sort of a snapshot in time of what the deferred maintenance sort of needs will be in the next 5 to 10 years. >> yeah that's a very illustrative that we need to take care of our capital assets.

a i agree with that. what amount are you thinking about? >> it's been allocated as $255 million. >> and you said in that bond you're going to have named parks and programs. the named parks are much easier for us to govern. how are you going to split that 250 between named parks and programs? >> so as part of the bond the current bond working group, they will help split that up. i anticipate a mix. in the last bond close to 60% of the funds from that bond came from the named parks and the rest went to the programs. i anticipate some sort of balance and shifts in that manner. >> okay so just as a cautionary it can be difficult to govern that and for us the

voters to understand expectations when the money is being used. >> sure. >> in undetermined ways. >> yes and i think i should be actually very clear about that one. the last bond there were about 71 projects that came out of this 2012 bond. 15 of them were named projects. the rest of them are sort of in the program bucket. what it does is that in most cases not all communities or projects can get named projects on the bond. it gives the opportunity for smaller, sort of projects to get on the bond. it gives opportunity to force a stewardship project. it gives up a sort of build support for projects that need it small projects. they fall through the cracks too, sometimes.

so, we're able to do that through that program. so one thing i'll say is that our delivery rate for all of these projects so far is 100%. we intend to do that. >> yeah no i appreciate the ability to be reactive in both the community and what's happening because these bonds last. we're seven years into 2012 and it's not over yet. i struggle with how does bart look at these things and see how your decision making process in picking one thing over the other. >> that would be incumbent among the department in their reporting. they need to do what they need to do. if we're having trouble evaluate evaluating success, we need to work with them on how to help us understand. it has nothing to do with my opinion. it's their call on how to split the bond. that's not our call. >> okay. >> i see your point, it's just

being able to detract from our standpoint. as these probablingsjects come up my belief is that it's going to be an ongoing discussion. for the voters to understand, seeing $250 million and seeing 5 named projects they think it's all going there. it's also to be used on smaller projects. some parks are hidden. you take a drive or ride to the city, you discover a new park or a hillside open to the public. so to address your question, i think how do you frame that in a reasonable manner to the public? >> awesome. i'm thrilled to have this conversation about the question behind these bonds. >> what is an equity zone? >> so an equity zone is the san

francisco census track of our 20% of our disadvantaged communities. we're using sort of an e.p.a. standard a statewide standard that measures income level language isolation and so on and so forth to determine that. >> is it a state term? >> yes. >> equity zone. >> it's not a state term but we're using the california e.p.a. which has done a great job in understanding equity communities. >> yeah, i didn't know if that was a tax term why it's called an equity zone. is it because people will get tax benefits in investing in them? >> no it's not a tax. >> it has nothing to do with tax

volume. >> it's a way for us to understand better some of our under served and communities and to understand because historically they have been given the resources they need and we want to address those equities. >> and my other question, also had to do with the 2020 bonds. it looks like the criteria that you outlined it looks quite thorough and i just was wondering how you would describe the community engagement strategy right? the public planning process. my guess right now is that you already know what's going into that 2020 bond because of what the city needs yet you have to have a public planning process. i understand that. how extensive a public planning

process is it? how much time do you need to spend on community engagement for what you already know needs to be in that 2020 bond. i just want to make sure time isn't wasted. >> sure i agree with you. >> going into a neighborhood asking them what you want in this park and you already know what they want in the park. they have been telling you for 10 years. i deal with that in the neighborhood where i live. you have to have community meetings but we already know, the community lets us know all the time what they want that type of thing. >> that's a good question. in as much as we have an idea of what this project could be ultimately we don't -- i or i as a staff member don't make that call. it's made by our rec parks commission. it's important we do community outreach to really understand those needs. we may not be able to understand

since we're not hearing about it. this program part of money that might be able to fit into those needs. so i don't want to sort of assume that we know all the projects. i'm going into that to better understand, as i sort of mentioned our need always out lasts the resources that we need to do and prioritization of this asset, of this need is something that we will need the community to help us do. >> and i guess the ultimate goal with your new asset tracking program that you described, eventually wouldn't it be nice if there should be fewer and fewer community findings that