bond. this bond measured is almost double the one passed in 2015. the bond allocates 150 million for public housing, 220 million for low income housing. 80 million for middle income, 150 million for senior housing and 20 million for educator housing. the first issuance of almost $250 million in program funds will close at the end of this month. this will be the city's biggest issuance of affordable housing bonds to date. this is primarily driven by the increased need to finance the city's affordable housing pipeline. not in this report, we have presented a list of the projects to be funded and it was approved by the capital planning committee and board of supervisors. next slide please. you will see projected spending of the first issuance.

the bulk of the funds will be spent in 2021 and 2022. here we have a breakdown of the bond sources provided by the office of public finance. next slide. we're happy to answer any questions. >> do we have committee member questions? >> none from me. >> okay.

is there a report next roseanne? >> yes. >> hello. so i am the liaison for 2015 and 2016 and we don't officially have a liaison for the 2019 affordable housing but i met with them prior to the meeting. i had a lot of the same questions many of you had, especially about covid impacts as it relates to scheduling definitely was curious about the past program. had a good conversation with everybody. and do feel like, especially as mentioned with the program, tolerances. it's not materially affecting the program. i was definitely curious the first time i read through what impacts the forebearence was going to have and especially

thinking about our obligation to the bond. did dig in more about what is potentially financed for 2019 as well. just asked general questions. given that that was approved by capital planning board of supervisors. i think that is probably sufficient interest to the committee as well to just kind of see what is come nothing the pipeline and what is being potentially funded there. i don't know how much everybody else is paying attention. i have a pretty good idea what projects are coming in the pipeline or just getting started now. i had an idea just in general of paying attention to a lot of this stuff. overall, i felt this is a complex project, it is hard to

evaluate. the metrics are like are we producing total number of affordable housing units. there are a lot of things that don't have bearing here but have a huge impact on how long it takes, how much it costs per unit. all of that, trying to set it aside, i felt pretty comfortable with where things were. it seemed the covid impacts were not anymore significant than in looking at past reports. sometimes the impacts are timing. many of the challenges of the environment still remain the same. things like labor costs are still difficult to predict.

still competing over the same limited resources when it comes to getting the projects built. it doesn't feel like any of that has materially changed and i was satisfied after speaking and asking more questions about where we are with that and we welcome any other questions in general about it. the other thing i want to flag that we have been discussing is some sort of -- we had the previous surveys about different programs. that is still on the back burner with ted being so busy, they haven't had time for other priorities and that is something, when they get a little less busy, i would like to work with them on that. that's something we as a committee have been interested in. given the impacts of covid on

the folks supporting us, when it comes to that sort of work, that still remains something we haven't moved forward with yet. so that's my short piece on where we are with the 2015/2016 and a little bit of the 2019. my only aspect, if we could get the list to the committee about what is being funded, i think that's something people would be interested in seeing. >> we can take public comment. >> members of the public who wish to provide public comment

on this item should call 415-655-0001. i see one hand raised. let me unmute the speaker. speaker, you have been unmuted. you have three minutes. >> thank you so much. this is patrick again.

shocked that member natoli just acknowledged that apparently the list of projects for the 2019 bond approved by capital planning and board of supervisors has, if i understood correctly, has not been presented to goboc a year and a half after voters passed the bond? did i hear that correctly that you have not seen the list yet? i know you don't have to answer direct questions but i am formally asking that i be e-mailed that list of projects.

i'm wondering if they have started naming specific street locations in each of the categories, say for senior housing. what happened to that set aside for senior housing and why haven't any of you members asked what is happening with the senior housing funding.

covid cannot be responsible in the entire delay of sharing information with members of the public about what is going on with the $600 million bond that you promised for affordable housing. where's the housing? i noticed on the 2015 bond, the teacher housing at francis scott key is not going to open until 2025? after it was funded by the 2015 bond? is that a ten year delay in bringing teacher housing online? >> i'm sorry speaker, your three minutes is over.

>> okay. i'll be submitting written testimony on this item. >> okay. thank you for your comment. i don't see any other hands raised in the que. can we move on to item 5? >> yes, please. >> presentation from the city services auditor regarding the 2016 affordable housing go bond expenditure audit report and possible action by the committee in response to such presentation and report. who shall i make presenter? >> can you please make me

presenter? >> yes. >> good morning. mark de la rosa for the controller's office. today we're going to provide you with a very brief overview of the results of our recently issued audit of the 2016 affordable housing bond expenditures that we issued on march 11th earlier this month. i am joined today by the director of cumming management group. cumming is the firm that we have been working with over the last five years who is the contractor that has been assisting us with our bond expenditures audit program. and i'm joined by hunter wang,

acting audit manager for audits helping us to navigate the slide deck and leading our bond expenditure audit program and the various construction audit work. next slide please. just for the benefit of the new members of the committee, i know the last time we presented before you in terms of our audit program was back i believe in january of 2020. and just to provide a very quick background, about five years ago, this committee asked csa audits to initiate an audit program to determine whether bond funds or revenues are expended in accordance with ballot measures and no funds were used for salaries or operating expenses. since 2016 and to date, we have through the assistance of

cumming have completed a total of 10 bond expenditure audits so far. before i turn it over to simon for a quick background on cumming, just wanted to say thank you to the mayor's office of housing and community development and their team for their cooperation and assistance throughout the audit. i'll turn it over now to simon. >> thank you. good morning committee. as mark mentioned, i'm director for cumming. we're an international cost firm. we were founded in 1996 and we have over 950 employees initially. next slide please hunter. >> we were contracted to perform an audit on 2016 affordable

housing bond. as mentioned in the prior report, the 2016 bond was repositioned of 261 million from proposition a in 1992 set up to seismically upgrade reinforcing of buildings in san francisco. that money has been repurposed into 2016 bond. this bond is being administered by the mayor's office of housing and community development. this is made up of two programs. affordable loan and deferred market rate loans and there's a market rate of 156 million that forms the basis of the bond program. next slide hunter. we tested all expenditures through june 30th, 2020, that totalled 32.4 million and this covered 13 properties. we decided that we would test

100% of the 34.2 million and we were provided with the executed loan agreements between the city and venders. we had reimbursement requests and invoices and transfers and wire documents so we could verify the expenditures to date. next slide please. throughout the testing, we found that 100% of the 34.2 million was spent in accordance with for legal text of the ballot and everything was good with the bond. we had no recommendations at the time other than to ensure that all expenditures were spent within the ballot measure. that's it. very brief. very quick. any questions?

>> before we conclude, so thank you again cumming for the assistance on this. just to provide kind of our quick update. i know this is part of the later agenda. this is the 10th one we have completed. the ones we have not yet audited that are active bonds are the 2018 seawall safety, the 2019 affordable housing program and recently approved 2020 health and homelessness parks and streets program that we'll be including in the future work plan as we progress in the months ahead. and we'll be happy to answer any questions you have.

>> if there are no questions, should we move to public comment? roseanne, are you muted? >> thank you. public comment. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call 415-655-0001. access 187 104 1784. then pound and then 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 comment. you will have three minutes.

madam chair, i'm checking the que. i do not see any hands raised. so may i close public comment for this item? okay. madam chair, may i move on to agenda item 6? >> yes please. >> presentation from the city services auditor regarding the whistle blower program. fiscal year 2021, quarter 2 report. liaison report on the program and possible action by the committee response to such presentation and report. whom shall i make presenter? >> i'll take them.

>> mark de la rosa again. i am joined by dave jensen, our lead manager for whistleblower program. we'll provide a quick overview of some of the activities and initiatives that we have been working on highlighting some of the new information since we last reported before the committee in december 2020. >> thank you for this opportunity to present before you. here today to give you a quick update on some of the program's recent activities and initiatives. we'll go on to the next slide

please. the authority to derive from city and state law. i think most of you have seen this. we'll move on to the next slide. the whistleblower program is aprized under the city and county law and state law, excuse me, to investigate or attempt to resolve complaints concerning the misuse of city funds, allegation of -- and wasteful and efficient government practices. next slide. per the charter, the whistleblower program is mandated for certain complaints, often in areas where the charter has carved out authority for other city departments,

including complaints where another city's department is required by federal, state or local law to adjudicate and established by a bargaining unit or contract, any violation of criminal law, mandated to the district attorney's office and we refer out any matter subject to existing violation of government ethics laws. next slide. quick overview of the staff currently assigned to the program. the program is staffed by a diverse group of employees, including investigators, auditors, city fraud examiners, trained policy analyst and we have a college debate champion and attorney as well. next slide. this next slide will give you an idea of the volume that our

program has been experiencing since fiscal year 2013, increasing reports over the previous years. report volume fell in q-4 of last year in lockdown. however, through q-1 and q-2 of this year, if numbers appear to be rebounding. and as of this morning, through q-3, since the start of january this year, whistleblower has received 151 reports. next slide please. over q-1 and q-2 whistlelower has been working to close out previous reports. i want to say thank you to the staff that has put in the efforts the close out some of the older complaints on the books. from the start of the fiscal

year on july 1st, we have decreased the number of open cases from 105 down to 66 open complaints as of december 31st. and as of this morning, we had about 62 open complaints. 61% chose to remain anonymous and we continue to see that the vast number of reporters continue to choose to file reports online. that's the trend that we have seen increase during covid. prior to the shut down we were able to take complaints on a walk in basis. we obviously can't do that at this point. but people are still filing. we take that as a good sign. next slide.

whistleblower closed out 75% of reports received within 90 days. there's a number of factors that can cause a report to linger longer, the complexity of the topic involved, the number of subjects involved or the number of allegations involved. since the close of q-2, we want to point out whistle blowers close out several of the older reports you see on the right-hand side open more than 365 days. next slide please. this demonstrates that 50% of our reports that we closed in q-2 have been investigated. we want to point out something quickly, that would be in q-2, we saw an uptick in the number of matters we were unable to investigate with the information presented to us. that would be the 42 complaints

that were closed without investigation. so fourth column in from the left-hand side. for whatever reason, we a complaint opened 24-hours seven days a week, open to everybody to file whenever they want to, we have seen over the last quarter, uptick in the complaints that didn't have actual information to look into. as a result, we're seeing a spike in the number of complaints we are closing without investigation. that said, whistleblower takes every complaint and gives thorough consideration in the complaints that we don't have enough information to investigate, we generally give the reporter at least a week to present additional information to see if we can bring the matter to resolution. next slide. the next slide is about the

disposition of closed reports. again, we point out the uptick in the number of complaints that we are unable to investigate and you would see on the far right-hand side in fy-2021. last year we had 8% unable to investigate, now up to 16% unable to investigate because of the spike i have been talking about in the complaints without actual information for us. next slide. the next slide shows the percent of investigative reports that have resulted in corrected action and that has remained fairly consistent within the 40% to 31%. and the next slide. next slide is a quick overview

of some of the fy-20/21 initiatives. we continue to issue our quarterly public reports, most recently the q-2 report was issued a week ago and that was included in your packet of documents for the meeting agenda today. a little bit about the ongoing efforts to ensure a best of class program here in san francisco. we have a new case management system online. and we are all enjoying the new bells and whistles included in that. with the q-4 report, you'll start to see some of the additional new detail we're able to provide given the new management reporting system. i would condition to train our partner liaisons on remote

investigations and provide information and support to peer districts. i spoke to oakland and san francisco county about what they're experiencing and how we can help them and they can help us as we share information about practices. we are also hosting our national webinars. we already had one this year. the next one is scheduled for late april or early may. any questions or comments we would welcome them. happy to answer questions you have now or through the contact information provided on the last slide. thank you very much. do we want to take member

questions before the liaison report? >> i have a question. lauren post. i was wondering when you mentioned in the presentation it is only about a third of the investigations that actually yield some changes in the department or whatever the outcome is that stem from the complaint, and then you mentioned there, you have been talking about to jurisdictions around the country, how does our action percentage compare to other cities? is that sort of normal, is ours higher or lower. obviously a lot of factors weigh into that to the extent of complaints and problems within the city government that people are complaining about. it seemed pretty consistent, the