. . . during the coronavirus disease, emergency covid-19, the citizens general obligation bond oversight committee will convene remotely, legally to meet in person. each speaker is allowed three minutes to speak. comments or opportunities to speak during the public comment period are available by calling

415-655-0001. access 146 289 8016 code and then hit pound and pound again. you will hear the meeting discussions but you'll be muted and in listening mode only. call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly and turn down your television or

radio. item one, roll call. (roll call) thank you. we have a quorum. it's 9:36 a.m. for the record.

chair mchugh, would you like me to call item 2? >> yes please. >> opportunity for the public to comment within matters in the jurisdiction not on the agenda. members of the public who wish to provide public comment should call 415-655-0001. access 146 289 8016. then pound. and then press pound again. if you haven't already done so, please dial star 3 to line up to speak. the system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and then you can start your comments. you have three minutes to speak. i'm checking public speakers.

i don't see any hands raised. so, madam chair, would you like me to go on to agenda item 3? >> yes. >> approval with possible modification of the minutes from the december 14, 2020, meeting. >> i make a motion to accept. >> i second. >> clerk: was that member mathews first and who was second? >> i'm going to take roll for this. >> before we take roll, we need

to see if there's public comment on this matter. >> okay. sorry. okay. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call 415-655-0001. access 146 289 8016 and then pound and then pound again. if you haven't already done so, please dial star 3 to line up to speak. the system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you can begin your comment. please note you will have three minutes. i'm looking at the que and i don't see any hands raised. so can i go ahead and take roll then? >> yes, if there's no public

comment. >> thank you. (roll call) okay. we have a quorum on that vote. chair mchugh, should i go on to agenda item 4? >> yes please. >> presentation from various

departments regarding the embarcadera seawall earthquake safety bond, liaison report, the embarcadera seawall earthquake safety bond and possible action by the committee in response to such presentation. this morning we have carlos colon presenting. >> good morning. i'll be presenting with brad benson, the program director. let me -- >> there you are. >> let me go ahead and share. >> thank you carlos. my name is brad benson. i'm the waterfront director.

this is our first time presenting to cgoboc, we're happy to be here. i'll give reasons as to why it's the first time. we have been delayed in the bond issuance since recently but today's presentation -- we want to give you an update on that. we were involved in some litigation that held up the bond fail and the resolution of the mitigation. what we are doing with the embarcadera seawall program and resilience program at the port is developing a long range capital effort so we'll give you an overview of that planning effort. we'll focus in on two main prongs of the effort. the embarcadera seawall program, covering the area from

fisherman's whatever to mission creek and then we'll talk about the plan. we're at the point in the planning effort we're starting to develop seismic and flood measures to deploy along the waterfront. and then carlos is going to walk through our first 2018 proposition a quarterly report and describe next steps. next slide please. so, as i mentioned earlier, the city was sued by regarding the way the city published its ballot question and ballot simplification statement among other issues. the city attorney successfully defended the city's action at

trial and that decision was upheld at the california court of appeals. just recently, the california supreme court denied a petition for review. so it was really because of that litigation that the port and controller's office were not in a position to issue the first bond fail until june 2nd, at which time we issued the first bonds in the amount of over $49 million. in the interviewing period, the port has been using city and port operating revenues and state grant funds to advance the program. we do have a plan to reimburs eligible expenses using procedures and bond sale. next slide please.

so the program was formed by director forbes to address seismic and flood across the waterfront. the most of the work was in the embarcadera zone but has been expanded. i'll get into this more. we have very significant spread risk in the fill areas of the northern waterfront and in blue, sea level rise mapping that shows that overtime with increasing amounts of sea level rise, we have very significant impacts beyond the port's jurisdiction to the city. next slide please. we have developed a draft statement. the port's waterfront resilience program will take action to reduce seismic and climate change risks that support a

safe, equitable and vibrant water front. next slide please. underlining that, draft principles that we have been working through with the public. we have been out in a series of engagements with the public over the last two years keeping them aprized of the work we're doing. the first goal is to prioritize life safety and disaster response, including city and regional disaster response. we want to advance equity throughout the waterfront resilience program looking at not only the communities we engage but contracting and job opportunities through to the decision making process. we are looking for opportunities to enhance and sustain economic and ecological opportunities. people love the water front. we want to continue to inspire an adaptable water front that ensures public access, preserves

the historic resources along the water front and provides opportunities for diverse families and neighborhoods to thrive. and throughout all of this effort, we want to lead a transparent program. next slide? there are a number of efforts that comprise the water front resilience program that vary by geography. some are bond funded, many are not. support wide, we're developing an adapt plan and this is looking ahead for the next couple of deck odds at the work we have to do to make the water front resilient. and port-wide is this army corps flood resiliency study i'll tell you more about. the embarcadera seawall program is focused in that area between fisherman's wharf and we have

been working with the planning department and sfmta and other departments on an adaptation strategy, that's cal trans grant funded and seismic assessment is port operating funded. next side please. getting into the embarcadera seawall program. i'll start by saying the seawall was built in segments over a 40 year period well over 100 years ago. a marvel of engineering. but it is in need of significant investments because of risks identified. we just completed more than two year multi hazard risk assessment to inform work on the embarcadera seawall area. this was -- efforts called out in the bond report of

proposition a. next slide please. this program is in a planning phase from 2017 through 2021 this year. followed by design and construction, looking at both seismic and flood risk associated with the seawall. we're very grateful to voters for bonds of support in 2018. and our big concern, you know, we have the embarcadera historic district which is highly at risk. next slide please. so what is the multi hazard risk assessment? it's a very refined investigation of seismic and flood hazards along -- and the consequences of those events along this stretch. the engineering team looked at four different earthquake levels, a range of different sea

level rise scenarios, quantityfied all the assets and services in this zone that the city owns or port owns. the city has quite a bit of infrastructure in the embarcadera. it was an advanced geotechnical investigation that took about a year to support this effort to better understand soil conditions in this area. and then, a team developed models to predict damages from different events to these assets and services. next slide please. so, the final is it's very high level up to $30 billion in damage and disruption by the end of the century. the geotechnical program did identify some areas that were less at risk. we're happy to find out there's low lateral spread risk in the

south beach area south of the bay bridge. there's very deep mud in this area. we identified that the bulkhead warf and buildings along the embarcadera north are at the greatest risk of seismic damage and we'll show you why in a moment. from the sea level rise perspective, very significant flood risk between 2-3 feet of sea level rise. it's a very flat water front built on a certain elevation. once you get to the top of the shoreline edge, there's extensive damages into downtown. next slide please. we found that the embarcadera

roadway, that has very important transportation and utility assets in it is at significant risk to ground shaking. in fisherman's wharf, it is vulnerable to ground shaking. a vulnerable area of the city. next slide please. this gives you a sense of how the seawall was initially constructed, they went out to deep water and trenched, created rock dive about 100 feet wide at the base and 30-40 feet tall. and then they constructed wharfs supported by piles driven through the rock and then the piers extend out. it's an unusual manmade shoreline with a lot of infrastructure and development

in it. behind the seawall and mud under it are very weak soils. their performance was not good in a seismic event. this is what we're concerned about happening in some areas of the water fronts. very strong shaking, we're talking about a strong event, soils begin to cause damage in the roadway and in that bulkhead zone i was talking about earlier. to the right, you can see pictures along the embarcadera of this kind of phenomenon. this was near pier in the

earthquake. the wharfs serve another function, they provide flood protection where they exist. we're studying and developing a wide range. the army corps of engineers uses curves that you see at the bottom of the left hand graphic. they have a low, intermediate and high curve. state of california published its guidance just a few years ago and you can see the state of california one in 200 chance and

significantly higher than the army corps. on the right, you get a sense of what happens with sea level rise. you know, initially we're worried about 100-year-old flood event that came over top the seawall. they're 1% storm events with waves could overtop the shore line. but as sea level rises, we start to worry about high tides and daily flooding and it's permable shore line, we could see increases in ground water with high tide affecting infrastructure below grade. now we want to get into the army corps of engineers flood study. we're very lucky to have this

effort ongoing. next slide please. we do have during king tide events and storm events a couple times a year was really -- continuing authorities program investigation with the army corps of engineers that they recommended doing a broader flood risk study for the entire port water front. the benefit of working with the army core, a third of the nation's coastal flood experts. we think it's a seven year effort with the army corps subject to a 50/50 cost share. port pays half the cost and the army corps pays the other half. we're working broadly with community to gain input. if they find interest in a

project along the water front to reduce flooding, it could open the door to significant federal funding. two thirds paid by the federal government and one third match on a local basis. so, army corps opens a specific process of developing studies like this and i will say that the word study is a bit of a misnomer. what this effort is driving towards is a tentatively selected plan for flood risk production that would be recommended to congress if the army corps finds federal interest. this is really developing a project. that's a way to think about it. where we are, working on the future of the project, this is a comprehensive model effort looking at flood risk including private building, in the future

flood plain through 2090. it is calculating the potential flood damages overtime because that will affect the nation's economy. the army corps uses a planning construct of looking at problems, opportunities, strengths and considerations. we go through a planning process where we develop an array, meaning a range of alternatives so we can evaluate the cost efficiency. this is driving towards a plan, a plan for the seven mile area that would be endorsed by the army corps and the city that would undergo environmental review under the national

environmental policy act and be included in a feasibility report to congress with recommendation of funding, we would expect that to happen by 2026. next slide please. this gives you the sense of public and private assets that are in the future flood plain that we're looking at. more than 40 miles of roadway, 25 miles of cable car track. 2600 residential and commercial buildings. it's a very diverse area and includes major waste water infrastructure affected by sea level rise. we're collaborating with the san francisco public utilities commission. next slide. going to share briefly the kind of planning work that we're

involved with now. what kinds of actions can we take to reduce seismic and flood risk. so we're looking at a range of seismic measures. we have a very strong engineering team that has started the concept design of different approaches. as you see in the seismic measures table, there's a top row, shoreline stabilization. if we want to eliminate the expanding, a new seawall. that would involve creating new land along the embarcadera. similar concept, a land side doing ground improvement in the embarcadera to create a stable

shoreline. we're looking at targeted measures, retrofit as a way of reducing the seismic risk exposure. for each we have cost estimates, impact analysis and looking at adaptation for sea level rise. and this is going to be significantly disruptive work, it could end up in a position of having to close the northbound lanes of the embarcadera and reroute traffic.

so in our -- minimizing seismic risk along the embarcadera. next slide please. in the army corps study, we're at this sort of high level focused array but we have been looking at conceptule approaches for flood risk. we looked at break waters and i think we eliminated it as an effective mechanism for the san francisco water front. deployables are options for the near term. we have the embarcadera muni tunnel that is potentially exposed to a 500 year flood and deployables may be an approach there on the interim basis and looking at ecological measures

to reduce flood risk, more or less applicable in some areas of the water front. this has more room to deploy ecological improvements. next slide please. now, i want to give you a sense of where we are in the schedule and then hand it off to carlos. next slide please. we have done this existing conditions analysis, very detailed risk assessment and understood the consequences of earthquakes and flooding. we have been in the process of developing seismic and flood measures. right now, we're in a process of developing alternatives for consideration by the port commission. we think this will be a presentation to the commission of different alternatives in april and may time frame. then we'll go back in june or

july to recommend the initial proposition a projects for the committee's understanding, we think it's a multi billion dollar program we're dealing with just along the embarcadera zone. proposition a is a down payment on a broader program of improvements over time. we're going to focus on life safety and disaster response improvements for the first set of expenditures. when we have the commission's endorsement of proposition a, we'll start sequel and do a detailed investigation and start design of the projects with the goal of starting construction in 2024. the adapt plan i mentioned earlier will provide context for the public about how we plan to overtime address remaining risks along the embarcadera. carlos, do you want to take over

from here? >> sorry, had to unmute. good morning i'm carlos colon, the water front program administrator. i'm going to let you know right now i have a toddler and infant at home and i'm going to put my head phones on because they are back. one second. this is the overview scope of budget and bond from the accountability support before the first bond fail. this is what we projected back in 2019.

things will change. as brad described, we're in the selection process which will be finalized by the summer and so probably in the third or fourth presentation to the committee, these numbers will be adjusted. these are some of the highlights and accomplishments, upcoming milestones we have accomplished so far. brad has kind of gone through most of them. the multi habit risk assessment was a two year effort. let me move the screen here. we are developing alternatives and should have that done by the summer. the main thing here, the risks because i deal with the money, this is the biggest risk for me,

the second bond fail. if we don't have the funding needed to continue this work, then the work will stop. luckily we are in a good place right now. we have sufficient funding from the first bond fail that should get us through this calendar year and i believe the first half of 2022. so right here, this is sort of the overall program and all of the funding that has been used to support the program. right now you can see it is about 78 million that's been allocated to the program to the bond. we've had a $5 million grant from the state as well as port funding. now what i want to point out here, we did receive $9 million from capital planning, the

evolving fund to jump start the program. we did reimburs them 6 million after the first million and we will reimburs them another 3 million in the next fiscal year. you'll see that in the gray from capital planning. this is a snapshot of what it looks like now but the 3 million will go away the next fiscal year and be part of the bond funding. the port supported this program with a loan when we presented from the first bond fail. they gave 11.5 million to continue this work. i would say after rereimburs them the next fiscal year, the total will be reduced by about 14.5 million. we'll go from 78 to 54.

now, this is focused just on the bond expenditures. as you can see here, we have sort of spent oral , allocated half of the bond. we do have 9.3 million in our contract. now, this is a snapshot of what it is right now. so we will be abaiting some funding of port labor and contract later this fiscal year and we do project that -- they project to spend about 12 million this calendar year. we do expect to spend about 3 million in port labor this calendar year. as you can see in the balance, we do have 23 -- project about

14 calendar year and expenditures, you can see we have enough money to get through the calendar year and i believe the beginning of the next calendar year. we expect to start the new bond process in january of 2022. this is another way to show the categories in the accountability report back in 2019. this is just describing what i already described and i would be happy to answer questions at the end. and so that's the end of the funding and bond presentation. brad and i are here to answer any questions you may have.

>> well, i had one. can we go back to the schedule? on the right side of the schedule out past 2022, you've got the lines broken, preliminary design only goes out so far, goes beyond the end of the schedule. what do you envision as being the end dates for those two things? >> so, this is brad. we expect that it will continue through 2023 and into 2024. and that construction will start

in 2024. however, the reason we're not showing that schedule here today is a lot of the schedule depends on the projects that the port commission selects for bond funding. so, you know, some of those could be much more complicated or simpler for purposes of the design and permitting processes. we don't want to give false confident about that in the schedule. next report will come back with revised information on the longer schedule. >> and i wasn't looking for solid dates, just wanted to get an idea of the time frame and you answered that question. for the construction projects that you are in design or about to start design for, are you going to go into pe for, do you have enough money in this bond

to pay for those projects or do you need a subsequent bond to pay for them? >> well, we think there's about -- within this bond, we think there's about $300 million worth of improvement that we'll be able to make. we think this is multi billion dollar effort. which is why we're very pleased to have the army corps working with us in a move towards federal funding, we're pursuing other state options, we're very pleased there's a resilience bond in the city's go bond schedule. i think it's about $130 million for 2026. we're going to need to build on the success and identify other bond sources overtime.

and that's part of the program development effort we're in right now. >> on a related question, the public outreach you have been doing, what have you been saying to the public? it seems to me you have a lot more information that you still have to acquire before you can make any real presentation to them about what they're actually going to see. at this point you're showing options of what might happen. >> we've been carrying the public along during the risk assessment project. we actually had a pretty successful series of community engagements in all three geographies of the port's water front over the past two years. more work in the embarcadera seawall area, that's when the program started with its focus. and walked people through the hazards, walked people through

understanding of what city and public infrastructure this given area -- gotten a sense of public priority in terms of what to focus on, what they value about the waterfront. i actually think we have a strong public understanding of where we're headed. i think there's alignment on the principles i mentioned earlier, focusing on life safety and disaster response resinated with people. i think that's a strong foundation for moving into the next phase of project selection. so we're hoping that with that investment of time and energy, we'll move into permitting with as little public controversy as we can manage. we expect public controversy.

>> you haven't gotten real serious negative feedback like let nature take its course and -- >> we hear a broad range of ideas but i think people love the waterfront and they are things they want to preserve. of the work i have done at the port over 20 years i have never seen such public support for the effort. i'm cautiously optimistic. >> i hope it stays that way. i enjoyed your presentation. it was a lot of information though. i look forward to hearing subsequent ones. >> thank you.

>> i want to commend your team on the presentation, brad. both the written and oral was fantastic. thank you. i presume it's published on your website and members of the public will access it. it was very clear and answered a lot of my questions. i also took one of the port's tours of the embarcadera ferry building area and that is very dramatic when you can see where the water level is now and where it could be, etc cetera. kudos to your team. if mark is still on the call, as brian was pointing out, this is going to be a huge project for the city and seems to me time is of the essence and can't happen fast enough but there will be

vast quantities of money going out for it. mark in the controller's office, the audit team, i presume you'll really kick into gear to make sure all funding is proper since we'll have a lot of contractors involved and giving the public assurance that the seawall bond as much or more than others given the massive size of the project we're talking about here, you guys are on this. >> that's right. member post, members of the committee, yes. the 2018 seawall safety is next step in line on our work plan for expenditures audits. we're working on one on affordable housing, i'll give you the details in the update. but definitely noted and we have this on our work plan. >> thank you. and again, great work and keep

going, keep moving forward brad and carlos, thank you for the presentation today. >> thank you. >> i was sent an e-mail that member pontoja couldn't make the meeting and will give his presentation at the next meeting. madam chair, would you like me to take public comment assuming the q&a is over with. >> yeah. and we'll hear from member pontoja next meeting. >> members of the public who

wish to provide public comment on the item should call 415-655-0001, access 146 289 8016 then pound and pound again. if you haven't already done so, please dial star 3 to line up to speak. a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. please note you will have three minutes. i don't see any hands raised for public comment. so madam chair, may i go on to item 5? >> yes, please. >> opportunity for members to take action or comment on any matters within the jurisdiction, number one fiscal year

2020-2021, expenditure audits, public finance, up coming bond issuances. number two, other committee business. fiscal year 2020-2021 work plan. fiscal year 2021-2022 work plan. housing survey, follow up on public integrity review, independent review of the whistleblower program. >> hi everyone. this is peg stevenson. unless the chair or vice chair have comments on the items, i can walk down the agenda item. >> go for it peg. >> okay. thank you. good morning everyone. actually, let's just suggest we

take one item out of order. our public finance manager has to leave for another meeting. if you have any questions or comments about the upcoming bond issuances and the schedule that was in your packet, it would be great to get her before she leaves. if we can go to item c and just ask anna to refresh your memory about the content of the memo and then you can ask her questions before she has to depart. anna? >> sorry about that. having some technical challenges there for a second. so we've been very busy to date with our go bond issuances currently the next few we have

on our calendar are the affordable housing bond issue. following that, we will be looking at our next nta bond sale, we're developing also the first health and recovery bond sale. and then as you heard today, seawall will be next and finally it's looking like we could have another issuance. with that i'll see if folks have any questions. >> okay. if there's no questions about the upcoming bond issuances and

i know anna has to go. if you guys have questions we'll be available. going back to item 1a standardized templates. the way it is listed is we have everything listed for action or not. we can bring them up as needed. movement on standardized templates. i think member chu was designated to be the liaison for it and do work with my staff when we can make time available to look over the templates being submitted and the format of the bond program materials you get.

expenditure audits. i'll call on mark to let you know where they are on that. >> thank you peg. controller's office, actually may i share -- just wanted to give you a refresh on what we have completed so far and what's lined up. can you see -- let's see -- >> you may want to switch to reading view, mark.

>> yes. i've been having issues this morning. i'll just walk you through what i have. so as you probably know, we have completed nine geo bond expenditure audits so far. there's one currently in the pipeline that we had some delays due to the covid pandemic response. we currently have the 2016

affordable housing geo bond audit that is currently ongoing. we resumed that in december of 2020 and we plan to issue that by march of 2021. in a couple of months. the 11th one in the pipeline that i mentioned, per committee member question, the 2018 seawall safety improvement geo bond is planned for the next round of geo bonds. as soon as we complete the 2016 affordable housing, we'll resume that seawall safety as part of the expenditure audit program. moving on to other committee business. csa work plan. again just to refresh your

memory, we would normally have continuous updates on published work plan for the fiscal year. because of covid deployment, we didn't publish in the normal format. just to give you update on the performance side and then i'll ask mark to do the same for the audit side, my staff have been 100% deployed to covid except for mary hawn who is our business administer and doing committee administration. we have paused work on almost all our other work except for basic maintenance on nonprofit monitoring, performance metrics publishing and a few things charter mandated in that way. what we're doing now, between the january, february, march quarter, we are trying to reduce covid hours a little bit to do work on basic charter mandates we need to execute like support

to the performance program, the performance measures can be published in the mayor's budget book. the nonprofit program requires basic work to keep it carried forward and on schedule and we're supporting a critical path project with human rights commission on the city's office of racial equity development. during the april, may, june quarter, we hope to reduce covid deployment hours a little further so we can work with your committee on the list of items on your work plan and start work planning for next fiscal year. there's a public safety project that is of high interest that we're interested in carrying forward. everything depends on how the covid emergency goes. should people have been following this we are now getting underway with the vaccination program and the city

is putting effort into preparing high volume vaccination and preparing community based vaccination programs and at the same time, a new reopening effort starting now. the bay area will emerge from state restrictions this week. (please stand by...)

>> a good portion of our staff are responding to the covid-19 through our cost recovery function. what this means is we are basically leading an effort that is trying to get as much of our fema dollars and cares act dollars as possible. this is part of our emergency response plan for the city, with the c.s.a. audit being the

lead cost recovery function. so most of -- or a good portion of our staff's time is really devoted to gathering documentation from the various city departments in terms of their covid-19 response costs, and we then pre-audit them and submit them to fema, and then on the cares act relief finding, c.r.f. funding, really our staff has been tasked with also doing some pre-audits of the costs that are being devoted to the covid-19 response efforts. so that's about a good probably 45to 50% of our time. the remaining hours really are devoted to the other ongoing work that we continuously do, given that we cannot stop our audits and oversight function. so we continue to conduct

audits and assessments since i think we last reported, and we've completed a few of our performance audits, issued our medical examiner drug audit, our d.p.h. option program, our force data option we issued back in the fall. we continued to do our construction audits, as have been mentioned. we are continuing our geo bond expenditure audits. and we're doing something very similar requested by the s.f. p.e. group, and so we're doing revenue bond expenditure audits on behalf of the commission as well. in addition, we're doing our security audits and other mandated audits. in addition to that, as you know, we are also conducting or public integrity assessments. we completed four preliminary assessments so

far, and we have three in the pipeline that relates to the muhammad new room, as well as the harlin kelly case. and as you also know, we continue to do our whistle-blower program administration. we continue to follow up on our audit recommendations, and, also, we continue to complete our obligation as internal auditors to comply with government auditing centers, and we're repairing for our review that will be coming up some time in the summer or the fall. that's the required government auditing standards, the effort for us to say that we are in compliance with government auditing centers. we're going to go through our training review sometimes in the next few months. that's all for us c.c. audits. >> chairwoman: questions or comments for mark?

>> thank you, mark. >> you're very welcome. i'm sorry, i don't have my video. i've been logged off every time i tried to share my video this morning. so i apologize for that. >> chairwoman: and then, mark, remind me -- i'm sorry if you said so and i missed it -- but you are planning on issuing affordable housing bond audit report -- >> that's right. >> chairwoman: what's the expected date? >> march, actually, 2021. we are continuing our field work right now, and we're hoping to complete that in the next few weeks and go through our quality assurance process. >> chairwoman: okay. if there are no more questions or comments for mark, the next item is your own work plan for the committee. and i made some updates to it, and there was a draft in the packet of materials that were posted.

so i want to say where i think you are, and then ask the chairs for their feedback, and we can it it rate on this going forward. you had a pause in your meetings during 2020 during the covid-19 situation, and it picked back up in the fall, and then you had what i would describe as a grueling series of hearings, when you heard from all of the bond program managers. i know we all appreciate everyone sitting through that. having the seawall bond on today catches you up to the full program of bonds under your oversight. so for the meetings that are going to go on for the rest of this calendar year, we can have a more normal cadence. i tried to drop in the see sequence of presentations into your calendar for the next calendar year. and let me actually --

rosanne, if you can pass my the presenter ball, maybe i'll try to pull that page up while we talk about it just for a second. >> while you're doing that, would this be a nice time to introduce our newest member. i don't know judy, and i would like to welcome her and say hello. >> chairwoman: sure. why don't i stop and -- >> since we're talking about our work plan, and she'll be a part of it, it might be a nice time. welcome, judy. >> thank you. nice to meet you all, to see your faces. i guess -- do you want me to tell you a little bit about myself? >> yeah, just for a minute. >> okay. well, i'm kind of new back to the city. i'm an army brat, and so i've lived all over, but

this has always been my home away from home. i've been back in san francisco for a little over to years. i'm a controller, and i have been there for little over a year. so i'm a finance accounting c.p.a., by background, but i have a long history of office improvements. so that's kind of my interest. i live here with my wife, and i have two grown daughters. one is in college in north carolina, and one is in florida. what else? i'm a member of the grand jury, which is how i made my way to this committee. >> i was wondering what -- [simultaneous talking] >> i'm a grand jury appointment. >> good. >> so i am learning a ton about the city and how it works, and this just adds to my learning. >> thank you, judy.

>> thank you. >> chairwoman: are people seeing my screen? >> yes. >> chairwoman: and do i have the correct tab up. it's your work plan draft update? >> yeah. >> chairwoman: because i have a couple of tabs open. so, here you are on monday, january 25th, and then i'm trying to scroll down to the rest of the meetings for the calendar year. i think the date that you settled on ends up being the fourth monday of the month that you meet. so we would fill those dates in here. you would go to a cadence of having one major bond program at each meeting, instead of multiple. and then if there is also an expenditure audit that is related to that bond at the time, you would have that on the same agenda. so that's what is shown in march. affordable housing bonds and the audit that mark

and i just touched on. and then i think the decision was you wanted to see and hear a report from the whistle-blower program probably twice a year, so i need to drop that in in one of your meetings in the fall. i'll update that. and then the next meeting in may, you would have the park bonds programs, all years together, and the port park bond at the same time. they got out of sequence as well, but you would hear them together. i think this notion of the sea own annual report is not correct, but we can come back to talking about what you want to do about that. and then we would have the city-wide capitol plan, and i think they'll have a draft of that. and this is where we have the city administrator's

capitol program, come and present to you on their updates and projections for sort of overall need for bond funding, preferred maintenance, their analysis of the city's buildings and facilities, and the long-time horizon that they view and how it would impact bond programs going forward. and then you wouldn't meet in june or july. so you would normally have skipped may to july, but july is a very busy month for everybody that works on budget and finance here, due to fiscal year-end close, so it seems prudent to skip that month. so you would meet in august. and you would have the all year's earthquake safety bonds. by that time, we'll have a fully completed work plan for the fiscal year that will be under way at that time. and then, again, we'll roll that into your other business. at your october meeting,

you'll have both the transportation and the road improvement, and the paving and streets safety bonds, all years, before you. and your last meeting in december, the public safety bonds and the housing bonds again. although you heard them in march. but it feels that the way you've been running these meetings, there is a strong enough interest in the housing bond and the rapid development, that having it back on your calendar in december makes sense. there is reference to the city-wide bond report, i think, is not correct. but i can update you on our thinking about that. so any questions or feedback on the sequence there? >> no questions from me. it makes sense. it has been a little while since we've heard from housing, so it will be good to have that up next. happy to see that in march.

>> i don't know, shavan, have you worked with judy to help with the bond programs, to help spread the workload? >> not yet. there are a few open liaison spots, but we can touch base on that off-line. >> chairwoman: okay. i'm going to take the presentation down, if i can figure out how to do that. okay. can you see each other again now? okay. and we can always make adjustments to this based on what happens during your hearings. i will work with staff to drop in the whistle-blower program event at the right moment. so let's just talk for a minute about your own annual report. and then the bond report that our office produces

and supports it. and just to refresh your memory, and since you have new members as well, my office, the controller's performance group, does a sort of wrap-up report on all of the programs, the geo bond programs, where we look at scope, schedule, and budget. we publish it at a high-level summary level, with a little bit of narrative on the status of each bond program, and common graphics to show their achievement and the schedule and budget. this is something that the controller values, and we've been doing it to support your report and generally for public transparency on the bonds. we were trying to do one fiscal year at a time, but that was blown off by the long development it took to get all of the capitol program information into the city's knew financial system, s.f. p., when it was built.

we had one recorder that ran from january 2017 to june 2018, and then be caught up with a normal report for 2018/'19. that's what you heard presented on during your last meeting. typically you have written a summary report on your own activities. doing it on a fiscal year cadence seems to make sense. sort of the thought process here was that after the close of the fiscal year, you would get reports submitted from each of your liaisons, summary of their activities, we would submit an documentation from our report. the two don't have to go in concert, but it takes us some time to get all of the correct information and do what we need do do with all of the bond managers. so by the time

june 30th, 2021, rolls around, you probably will want to be doing an annual report of your own that you won't want to hold up for our report, but you can think about that as a committee. i believe what our reporting will do, again, is wait until the fiscal year closes on june 20th, 2021, and we'll do a two-year report, looking at fiscal years '20 and '21, and we would publish that some time during the fall, as long as it took us to get the information. we certainly hope to get it done before december. so that's our plan and the supporting bond program report. and you can, again, decide as a committee what you want to do about your own report. i just wanted to make people aware that our report essentially serves as a supporting documentary report. so you don't have to worry

about having a lot of detail in your report. i'll stop there and see if the chairs want to speak to that. >> i don't have a strong opinion about that this year. i don't know how much sense it makes to not align them. what do you think, james? or does anybody on the committee have more experience with this? >> yeah, brian and i have done this before. >> yeah. >> and we would submit or comments -- they're fairly brief. they're basically reiterating what you would have said in your liaison report, or the report from the prior fiscal year, just in summary form. three paragraphs, not three pages, to supplement what the city puts out. i guess -- i think we should do it, right? just to be on record that there are members of this committee, and we do pay

attention, just so that it is in black and white somewhere, right? rather than archive videos of the bi-monthly meeting. as i said, it is not that heavy of a lift, just keep your notes from the liaison report, and you can just chin up two or three paragraphs for the annual report each year. and it tells you what the deadline is, when you need to submit them to her staff, and that's that. it is usually during the summer. >> it is our only tangible work product, so we should definitely do it. three paragraphs is fine, as lauren said, but they should be complete and bring home the point of what we did, that we've earned the massive amount of money we get for doing this, and prestige (laughing). >> okay.

i'm happy with that, if everybody on the committee is? >> definitely. it is not too much, in my experience. so it shouldn't be a problem, i don't think. >> okay. >> at your may meeting, you can make a decision about the timing of it. and i'll have a better idea, by that time, of when we might be able to expect to finish the work on the wrap-up bond report. >> chairwoman: okay, any other comments or questions on the work plan? housing public perception survey, so, again, for new committee members, one of the products that our office ran at the commit's request in recent years was a public perception survey. this is where we went out and asked members of the public what their

experience was on bond improvements, were they aware of the connection to the bond program, their satisfaction level with the improvements. we touched on two bonds the first time we did this. there was a parks project and a street improvement project. and i think we all found it a really valuable exercise, to try to come up with a short survey that elicited that kind of information from users of the facilities and improvements. the controller's office usually has a pool available of survey firms because we do surveys for other purposes, including the city-wide public opinion survey. so we had this work done through a personal surveyor. they're out in the field, stopping people at the site and asking them questions. and then they do a rigorous analysis, including demographic analysis of the responses, and we publish a report. again, we were all really happy and found the

product of that very valuable. wanted to do it for more bond programs. the highest interest of the committee after the first one was done in having something done for the housing bond programs, given your interest in the performance of the city's affordable housing bonds. so that is next on our list. it would be an interesting -- ie an interesting sort of design issue there, where there is a couple of different audiences that we have talked about. the people who are users and tenants of affordable housing, the builders and developers that participate with the city, the citizens who supported the vote on the bond issues, and other shakeholders, so very interesting sort of design task lies ahead of us. again, i think it is probably smart for us to reach out to the professional survey designers that we have to do this. we won't be able to do work on it in the current quarter, but i'm committed to doing work on it in the

april, may, june quarter. that's the update on that. i believe with member notoli being liaison to the housing bonds, that she would work together with us on the design when we pick that up. i'll stop there and see if jane or everybody have as comments, but that's where the status is. >> no, that sounds good to me. i know you've been backed up due to covid, so i've been waiting to pick this up when you get some capacity again. definitely there is interest in housing. i'll be curious to see what the survey firms say in terms of how we can construct that. i'm a little curious what that product will be. but i think there is a solution, so i'm looking forward to that. >> peg, do you know what format we could even use during the covid era of contact-free surveys?

>> again, that's one of the interesting design challenges. i mean, we had other issues where we would have been doing intercept surveys in other areas of our work during covid. the street cleanliness and other things. and we just haven't been doing it for all of the reasons you can imagine. even if it would possible to keep socially distanced and all of those requirements, we think all of the skews you would get to the data due to the current conditions would make the data unreliable. if our professional surveyors think that intercept surveys would be not a good idea by the time we have this in the field, we'll ask them to do phone surveys and web surveys, each of which have their own sampling biases, but they can work with us on the design to deal with current conditions. >> that would be interesting, because even

if there were three groups looking to survey, we know who the users are, i would think, and we know who the contractors and developers are. it is just getting to the public opinion that would be difficult. but maybe it is worthwhile doing an even more indepth survey of the contract and users, even if we can't get to the public for an overview. although that is probably a pretty important part of this. maybe we can hear some more about how they're doing that, and if it is even a possibility. but you're saying we might not have time for that this quarter with covid, anyway? >> chairwoman: not this quarter, but during the april, may, and june quarter. so we can carve out some staff time to begin working with you on the scope, and put a scope together so we can get something out to bid for our contractor pool. again with housing, intercept surveys were important for the parks and street improvements, and not so much with housing. i think we should be able

to go forward with a survey design. >> yep. okay. >> chairwoman: so public integrity reviews. here i'm going to ask mark to speak to where they are on the sequence of work that they're doing in the public integrity world. a quick update. >> certainly. as i've mentioned earlier, we've completed four so far. so i think the last time i reported before the committee, we've completed -- id on the first two, which were the public works contracting and then gifts to departments through non-city organizations. we have since completed our report on the department process, which we issued in early november. just a couple of weeks ago, on january 11th, we issued our fourth public

integrity assessment on the ethical standards for contract award process at the airport and other commissions and wards. so those constitute the four that we've completed so far. we do have, as i mentioned, three that are currently in the pipeline. one is the city-wide ethics reporting requirements that we hope to issue next month, in february. the other two are currently ongoing. the sixth one is the one on the department of building inspections policies and procedures regarding their permanent work process. and the other one on the s.f. p.u.c. public utilities commission contracting process. as we also mentioned before, we are going to be working on a final final report that will basically incorporate a lot of what we've reported so far, as well as those that run

across these various assessments. i think i've mentioned in the past, being one of those topics that cut across the various issues that have come up. so that is our current plan. and then we hope that by the next -- let's see, next month is when we will be issuing our next deliverable and ethics reporting. i'd be happy to answer any questions you have. >> so next month being march, or end of february? >> end of february, yes. >> and when do you expect the other two? >> so the d.b.i. will come next after the ethics one, that is forthcoming, and we're anticipating about a march or april -- i'm hoping -- probably april, based on our data

collection, and the p.u.c. will be sometime in the spring, as well. >> chairwoman: if there are no more questions or comments for mark, item 2d, the independent review of the whistle-blower program, and, again, just for new members, this is a desire the committee has had to have an outside entity take a look at the design metrics success of our whistle-blower program, best practice review, trying to give ourselves confidence that it is accomplishing the purposes set out in the charter. i will stop there and -- i'm sorry, i've forgotten who the whistle-blower liaison is, who will speak to it is. >> it is me. i think this is very important, and we're still just trying to figure out how to get the request for

qualifications, right, peg? >> that's right. again, there is a pool that the controller's office has of outside firms that can perform audit work and various types of workforce. but i think the desire of the committee ended up being not to use the pool either. which means a slightly more complex and longer task of designing something and putting it out to bid and the broader market. so that's where we landed the last time you discussed it, i think. and i think the organic limit on this may be our staff time to support it, you know, once your committee has worked on the scope. >> has there been an independent review before? >> mark may be able to speak to this, but not in so many words. not like a published

report. but -- >> that's right. the last review that pertained to our whistle-blower program was the civil grand jury report. and i cannot remember when that was issued. it has been at least over five years ago. but that was the last one. there has not been any external review of our whistle-blower program. this is one that really -- that actually our own whistle-blower program has tried to, more recently, reach out to our peer whistle-blower administrators in other jurisdictions, given that we do have a network of whistle-blower hotline administrators throughout the country. we're trying to assess whether any of them have actually gone through some sort of a review or a peer review process, and we're awaiting response from that survey that i believe was just deployed by the

program last week. based on our understanding, none of them have gone through a peer review, but we will try to confirm that. and if they have actually gone through a peer review, we'll try to find out how they've gone through that process. >> okay. great. if you can send any information like that my way, it would be appreciated. and we've been talking about beyond an independent review of the whistle-blower program, that it would be useful to do a user -- potential user survey of ease of use or confidence, or perhaps roadblocks to using the program, and that could be really valuable as well. >> that's right. >> so that would be predominantly to city employees, or just the general public, i guess.

so we'd like to do that as well. >> okay. that concludes the agenda items listed, unless members have any other questions or comments for me or for mark? >> thank you. >> chairwoman: so, rosanne, do you want to go ahead and take public comment on this? >> sure. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call 415-655-0001, access i.d. 1462898016, then pound and then pound again. if you haven't already done so, please hit star 3. please wait until the

system indicates you have been unmuted, and you may begin your comment. please note you'll have three minutes. i'm checking for raised hands. there are no raised hands. can we close public comment and adjourn the meeting? >> chairwoman: yes. thank you, rosanne. >> thank you, all. for the record, it is 11:03. >> it is a miracle, you get 25 minutes back on your day. congratulations. >> thank you.