Inspection required which is to have what they call an inspector of record, which is an additional cost carried by the project sponsor to make sure the work is done according to the specs and these employees need to be certified by the state as an inspector of record. Okay. That would be some money. Joe, a couple of questions. Back on the Community Health centers, i think you mentioned but i didnt get it. Were working on mission and maxime hall and regards to chinatown and Infrastructure Improvements, are there still budgets for those or theyre going to be deferred to a future bond . Very good question. For chinatown Public Health center, the team is working with our consultant to better understand the seismic scope. We have learned that i think one of the best things to move forward with the next round of projects is to understand the total project scope. One of the things we learned earlier for both were identified as tender project when added to the bond program but since then weve had to encure the cost of the seismic retrofit. Were working with the team to identify the scope and identify other needs for that project so when we do move forward with chinatown Public Health center, we have a much more realistic project scope. For the infrastructure project, we are moving forward with that scope. Its a costsharing between the project the bond program and puc. Im sorry thats puc Community Health centers. Public utilities commission. The Infrastructure Improvement are a Capital Project working in c conjunction with Public Utilities to identify mechanical improvements for Energy Efficiency for the Community Health centers theres been a couple Community Health centers identified and the payment will be split 50 50 between the bond program and Public Utilities commission. Okay. So, again, when we spent prebond funds to identify projects and these were initially tenant approved projects and then later became seismic projects, there was no effort to look at the seismic issues back of the prebond work . I can speak to what i do know and in regards to the i think the focus was to improve the clinical work flow was the scope of work for both permitting all the Community Health center was to better integrate the primary Care Services with Mental Health and as the project was developed through the various design phases, a question was asked about the existing the performance of the existing building and thats when the project team hired a consultant to do the seismic assessment. Thank you. One last question on the 440 turk, your november report, you were thinking construction was going to start in december of 17, this past december and now in the spring of 18. That seems like quite a few months. Is that considered has it been delayed for any particular reason or so what happened for 440 turk street was october 31st there was a resolution submitted to the board of supervisors to move forward with the project as emergency declaration. Since then, the request has been withdrawn and then so at this point, the team is intending to deliver this project using the more traditional chapter 6 method, doing an rfq solicitation and to allow the team to select a design build contractor. Im sorry, just finally the other three projects that have been listed under Homeless Services are 1001 poke street and 260 golden gate. Is there work being done on the projects as we talk . At this point my understanding is everyones focus is on 440 turk street. The remaining three sites identified was more of a coderequired various types of mechanical upgrades to the space itself and accessibility upgrades. To this point there has not been much effort on moving those projects forward. Thank you. As i understand on the 440 turks, theres been some controversy with the community. How has that affected moving forward . Ill do my best to address your question mr. Bush. Obviously some of the concerns from the community may have resulted in the declaration being withdrawn. There has been an impact because of delivery method. We were hoping to use the mercy declaration build to move faster with the project, without that happening there will be a longer procurement process to bring on board the contractor. Will that process result in a better relationship with the community as you move forward . Thats what we expect for the team to work closely with the community to address their concerns. I have questions about the Health Centers. Those are were designed at a time when we had varying Health Issues that required facilities. Currently we are facing a real crisis with addictions in the city, especially opioid addictions. Are these facilities that are being built adjustable enough to handle changes in the population for services . Ill be honest, im probably not the right person to speak with you about how the end can be adapted for various services. I know one of the parameters when we do design is to have an allowance set in for various spaces to be modified as needed. I think its one of the benefits of the Health Centers, theyre flexible enough, certain rooms can be set aside for Specialty Services but i dont know the exact details. I just know in my experience, its easy to get locked in to bricks and mortar setup that really serves only a certain type of client. We do it in housing for example. We say two bedrooms is a family unit when in fact we have a lot of people who need three or four bedrooms. So we have an exodus of larger families from the city. Im looking at the castro where i live and theres spillover and all kinds of other aspects from police to homeless and wondering what are any adjustments that might be needed in the future to better serve that population. We went through it with the aids epidemic and with the aids epidemic, there was a need for different kinds of facilities than you would find at San Francisco general for example. Much more Community Based nursing as opposed to doctoring. And then i look at whats happening with the addictions and i think its almost residential rehab programs but those programs have to include occupational rehab and physical rehab. And im not sure that im seeing anything underway and i just want to know if what youre looking at in construction is going to help us as we meet the citys needs. Can i address that . So one of the concerns i have about this bond is the sort of kitchen sink nature of it and what were starting to see already are the stakeholders like the Fire Department making program decisions, they just move 5 million from one thing to another to meet their Business Needs, i like the idea of meeting Business Needs but at the same time, this money is not just a big pot you can change things around. I think what youre asking for is really important but i dont think public works is going to be able to tell us about the Business Priorities of dph. And the fact that theyre making the decisions on the fly well after the voters have committed this money to them. I think these are if were going to put these types of bonds out to the voters that are really openended and i know there are six general areas here, but even within the six there are many, many projects. And so i think, you know, i dont usually think we should say why are you picking this over that, but if theyre going to do this kind of bond, i dont know how we stop from saying why are you picking this over that and not addressing the Community Needs around addiction or whatever it is. I understand and i concur with your point. All im really asking, has there been a collaborative process and how does that process moving forward and what do we know from it. Im not trying to tell them what to do. I think its fair, but i think it has to be department of Public Health. Dpw has a role in that. On some bond funds, the project managers have brought in representatives from like Public Health and the puc or whatever and Fire Department, Police Station that can answer some of the questions. Maybe if this is mature enough the next time and there are changes that need to be addressed, you might want to think about bringing in somebody from the departments. I want to make a comment. I appreciate the individual comments of my fellow members. This is very early stages but from what we read in the literature you give us, that the approach is really to try and integrate primary care with behavioral and mental needs. There is talk of using a more holistic approach to healthcare. This is positive to me as i read it. Were not boxing ourselves into any specialized or individual type of mental needs. Theyre looking at more holistic where family members are drawn into the healthcare process. Thats only my comment, so joe, maybe in the next presentation you can convey some of our concerns to the people you meet with and try and, you know, get them to think about our concerns and see how it would affect the planning of the centers. Okay. Thank you for your comment. Ill take that back to my project team, including department of Public Health and maybe i can have a representative from tph next time to address specific questions about the program and the healthcare needs of the community and so forth. Thank you. Im sorry, i dont mean to put you on the spot joe, but i noticed in your report and i think later today were going to get a report from ben or one of his staff on the citys accounting system. But from looking at the notes, it sounds like there have not been bond Financial Reports you and your staff can review to make sure costs are accurate, complete and current and in accordances with the authorizations for six months or more. Can you briefly comment on how you and your staff are managing the finances during this period . Sure. Excuse me. So overall, the team has been it is true that it has been fairly more difficult to get realtime updates on all the financials on the project. We are able to do estimates and projections and trends based on the previous expenditures. So well continue to track it using the more manual methods. We are able to for consultant contracts, those are easier to track. But for the labor portion, we are utilizing manual methods to make sure were still within the budget. Thank you. I appreciate that. I think mr. Hughes as a comment. Joe, i have a couple of quick questions i hope. On 440 turk, its a 20 million bond, 440 turk was owned by hud and occupied by San Francisco housing authority. Did the city buy the property . Is that in the 20 million . What i what i do know is the real estate is working toward the purchase of the property so that in order to develop the 440 turk street, the numbers i have seen before at least for the majority of the 4. 7 million that were part of the first bond sale would be allocated toward the purchase of 440 turk street. The remaining funding would be from general funds. So the remaining funding excuse me. The remaining funding for the purchase. Correct. Okay. And so additionally then inside the 20 million bond there are Homeless Service sites and additional sites, correct . Correct. And we will get a breakout on those also . At some point . Currently we have on sheet nine, we have got the executive summary for the Homeless Service sites, the 20 million bond, citing one location and there are others pending, is that correct . Thats correct. If you were to refer to attachment two slide 17 there are three other locations identifi identified renovation. Thats all in the future. Okay. All right. Speaking of lack of specificity. Its hard to envision not anticipating seismic upgrades to some of the structures when the dated the structure is built is a matter of record and a matter of code compliance that it be seismically upgraded on a significant infrastructure development. Those are costs that i think have to be incurred and may impact some of the other projects like the ones you just mentioned inside the bond. Some of the addresses that you just mentioned as far as Homeless Service sites may go away depending on how the 20 million goes. Depending on how far the 20 million goes, it may be gone by the time we get to some of these additional sites. Correct . Thats a possibility but i think based on our current budget, we feel there will be money left over after delivering 440 turk street to do Additional Service renovate additional sites. Anticipating seismic upgrade requirements, correct . That got missed in sure, i understand. That will be looked at by the design team as we move toward the development of the project scopes for the other locations. One of the things we have to do, look at the scope of the bond and what were the voters promised when the bond measure was voted on and passed. Thats scope. Thats why im asking. On the Community Health centers, which is page six of this, we have got, as i understood it, Castro Mission and maxime hall, did you mention there were going to be changes to those as result of seismic costs not anticipated in southeast Health Center . So thats a stand alone bond. In the Community Health centers bond, there were seismic upgrades that were not factored in and the costs are going to have an impact on, if i understood you correctly, on these two Community Health centers. Did i understand that correct . Let me explain a bit better or more detail. The impact of the seismic scope is only within the Community Health center component, the 20 million set aside on castro, maxime hall and discussion about delivering chinatown Public Health as part of the component. Because of the additional seismic scope we identified for the first two Health Centers, chinatown will end up being deferred to a future bond but we are going to proceed using the current bond program to do a further assessment of the project. We understand the project scope and a better budget going forward. The bond did not peg these three Properties Within the language of the bond as the scope. Not that im aware of. Okay. Thank you. Id like to follow up a comment. If you go to page 2 where you have the allocations of the total bond proceeds among these various projects, i see that theres here referenced to a second bond sale. My question is as ms. Hughes has eluded, if we run out of money on a pot, can you raid another pot but this statistic seems to say no. If you run out of money because of unexpected seismic work, you would go to a second issuance in order to get the additional funds. Is that understanding correct . Or another way to ask it, these allocations,first of all whoever allocated them, do they have the authority to allow reallocation if we run out of money in one of the projects. Good question. The simple answer is the allocation that are legally maybe somebody else can speak better to this than i can, it has to do with the bond ordinance that was passed. For example the adf and fire station, the ordinance speaks to 58 million allocated to the Fire Department. Within that as long as theres agreement with the client department, that can be reallocated. Likewise for the other components, i believe i dont have it in front of me right now, but the bond ordinance may speak to specific amounts allocated for each. Zuckerberg i know had 222 set aside for that and so forth. Ken, can you comment on that . If thats the case, then these allegations were built in to the actual bonds. So if i understand it, the question is what degree do we have flexibility in the overriding ordinance language to allocate funds among projects. Is that correct . Well ordinance is a wider term. Each bond issuance has its own bond to say these are the funds, so this bond identified the various number of projects and the allocated number amounts that are associated with these projects. These identified early, the actual bond it depends on the specific bond. I dont have the bond ordinance in front of us. I think this is a subject that comes up repeatedly in this committee and when were drafting the ordinance before going to the voters, the degree to which there is tension between providing a high degree of specificity for the voters so they know the bargain theyre getting, agreeing to allow you to raise our taxes and in return these are the projects were going to get. Against the idea that our sense of what we want to finance over the next five, 10, 15 years changes and can change radically. What we try to do there is no answer. Theres no formula for that, is try to find a balance between those competing objectives. Peg stephenson from the Controllers Office. What joe commented on is probably the rough answer to your question. I believe within this bond theres allocation to health, allocation to fire, and allocation to homelessness and thats the promise made to the voters and thats how we need to adhere. But within each of the Program Allocations theres flexibility on the sites. I believe thats how its structured. I would have to check to be sure. I think this is my colleague to my right has said i understand we need to have a balance when we go to voters. So if thats the case, maybe we should be addressing some additional controls after