tv Government Access Programming SFGTV November 20, 2017 6:00pm-7:01pm PST
larry bush. robert carlson, kristin chu, kevin hughes, brian larkin, brenda kwee mcnulty, alexander tonisson. item two, opportunity for the public to comment on any matters within the committee's jurisdiction not on the agenda. seeing none, item three, approval with possible modification of the minutes of the september 18th, 2017, meeting. >> our esteemed leader is under the weather today, i will be attempting to run parliamentary procedure on this meeting. does anybody have any comments on the minutes? is there a motion? >> i move approval of the minutes.
>> i second. >> any public comment? it's a team effort to keep this meeting going. seeing no public comment, are we all in favor? >> aye. >> item four, presentation from the mayor's office of housing regarding the 2015 affordable housing bond and possible action by the committee in response to such presentation. >> we are pleased to be before you to give you an update on the 2015 housing bond. as you recall, the housing bond was separated into four housing
categories. it's some cases very self descriptive, we wanted to serve vulnerable populations for whom housing resources are too scares and middle income households. so we're serving those middle income residents of san francisco as well as veterans, seniors and low income working families. we had really great demand for the down payment assistance loan, fully subscribed. we are making good progress on the other categories of expenditures. our first development is underway. we're thrilled about that. this is a development to transform public housing that
has been in the works since about 2007. so it was a great milestone to actually start construction on the first development. at sunnydale it's a little farther behind but expect to break ground in january 2018. for low income new construction housing, each one is well underway for predevelopment. we want to talk about reallocating some of the funds we had originally identified to go to two developments which hit development issues that are going to delay them and because we want to spend the bonds as quickly as possible, we're going to just shift the development to which the funds will go.
we want to allow people to stay in san francisco who otherwise might have to move away. as i mentioned, our down payment assistance and future programs are going really well. for middle income new construction, the production side, we have two developments we're thrilled about, also teacher housing at 43rd and irving and a component of the 88 broadway development which will be for a reserve for middle income households, in addition to other units there for low income households and senior housing at 88 broadway. so the reallocation, at 4840 mission as you may have read
about in the bond report we submitted, an opportunity came up with the parcel next door and there was a chance by partnering with that to increase the amount of affordable housing, and increase the amount of housing overall and provide the neighborhood with a brand new or renovated safeway. so we thought that it was an opportunity that would confer enough benefits that we were willing to slightly delay that development to create a broader more beneficial development. we would like to move the funds that were allocated to 4840 mission over to 88 broadway, which is well on track to start construction and already receiving bonds for the middle income housing proponent.
it will be the same just going to a different development that won't delay the bond funds. 250 laguna is going slower than we hoped. it has to complete an eir at the site. that's a senior housing development if you recall. we have another senior development scheduled to start in the first quarter of 2018. we want to use the bond funds for senior housing at that site. in addition, because of the demand for the down payment assistance loan program funds, which far exceeded supply, we are considering moving the funds that were previously scheduled for new unit production to down payment assistance loan funding.
the production costs for middle income housing are quite high on a per unit basis because there's no federal or state funds with which we can leverage our money. the city essentially has to pay the full freight of the cost of those, beside some mortgage that the funds can't produce. so it's very difficult to finance and more cost effective, we're seeing now in this high-cost environment, to use the funds for down payment assistance loans for which there is great understand. we'll be back to you as we continue the analysis of that change. and with that, i would like to -- unless you have questions you want to ask now, i would like to turn over the mike to my colleague to talk about the
seismic program, repurposing another bond that we have the ability to use in a broader way. >> we want to talk about this first, right? >> yeah. i have a couple of questions. on page 4, the low income housing slide, the money that was allocated to -- laguna and 4840 mission? and previously i think that money had been committed or encumbered with a developer. you're going to take the money away from the developers and give it to the new projects, how does it work? >> thank you for that.
we have issued loans, we're not taking that away. they're moving forward with the predevelopment work. it's the gap funding, the large infusion of $21 million for each of the sites that we'll be allocating to the new projects. the money encumbered for the developments will stay in place. it's great use of the bond funds, the predevelopment is well underway. it's the construction funding we're going to move. >> so maybe next time you have an overall budget, maybe you can show that transfer so it's kind of clear. >> sure. >> it's hard to follow in this. >> i agree. and there is a better table in
the bond report. >> okay. we just got that this morning. >> it's laid out there well, but we're happy to -- >> no, that might do it for sure. and the next page, the middle income housing. you have small sites but i didn't see any budget for small sites in middle income housing, should that be under low income? >> yes. that was a mistake. we just noticed that. small sites is in the low income category. the reason we accidentally put it into middle income is unlike the other low income developments that cap occupancy at households earning just 60%, the small sites program can go up to 120% of median income, it serves a much broader purpose and can serve many more
households. the buildings that nonprofit partners have bought tend to serve low income people. but thank you, that's a correction. >> and one more question that could be in the bond report, but taking the money from 4840 mission and 250 laguna and putting it in 88 broadway, will that keep the number of units generated equal, less than or more than what had previously been identified? >> the projection for 2840 and 250 laguna was 264 units. the number of units we'll serve just for seniors at 88 broadway is 96 and -- i'm sorry. seniors at shockwell, there's 96
units and 104 family units at 88 broadway. the number is going down slightly. >> thank you. >> kate, i have two questions. the first, the mechanics of the reallocation, brenda kwee mcnulty and i are liaisons -- i'm for the municipal railways and street repairs, they at the last meeting with them in september said they had to do reallocation for something that seemed less extensive than what you're doing and they had to go to the board of supervisors to get approval. did you have to go to the board of supervisors for this? >> no. we submitted essentially a request to reallocate to the controllers office, because the use of the funds is exactly the same from one development to the
other, controller advised us we did not have to go to board of supervisors because what we anticipated doing, we're still doing, just changing the name. >> i guess i should have this conversation with them, they seem to just thinking reallocating money from one project to the next, one bus line to the next, they needed to go back to the board of sups. maybe they could save themselves some trouble -- >> i have concerns about this. it is a significant change. what governance does the bond write in for that and i mean, what is in our per view is what voters are expecting. >> benjamin would love to speak
to it. >> deputy director for finance for mayor's office of community development. whether or not the board needs to approve a change depends on what the board approved the first time around and what level of specification they approved the first time around. i'm not familiar with the mga bonds but in our case, the board approved allocations just in the buckets of public housing, low income housing, middle income housing. they didn't identify specific projects in their board resolution and since we're staying within those buckets, there's nothing really for the bored to change in the resolution itself. i'm not sure, perhaps the mta resolution had more specificity. >> i think one is what did they
say and the other is understanding of the voters, what has been communicated to our community. i don't want to say they don't have to because it wasn't written down that way. i want to be as transparent as we can. i think it's important to make these important decisions, i'm not against using the funds in the most efficient way possible, i just want to make sure that, again, our responsibility is what is intended with the funds and what voters expect from the funds. >> i think that may be a distinction, i'm not familiar with what the voters approved in the mta bonds but in the housing bonds, there were no specific projects identified. and perhaps in the mta decision there was something different. >> i will check on the mta.
it's probable that it's budget control at the project level that was the issue and there are rules governing the allocation after the board of supervisors has approved the appropriation ordinance. i'll check on that. >> good morning from the controllers office, just to offer some clarification for what has been presented for the housing bond, a change in the plan going forward for future issuances of the bond, the voters have authorized the funds to be sent on certain categories and they're just fine tuning the plan going forward. the mta is a slightly different situation that miss stevenson said -- it's a previous --
>> taking them off the table completely, we're making a significant change about millions of dollars for voter improved funding. regardless of what the mta is doing, i want there to be governance and transparency with this. people know about this bond whatever we talked about what they voted for, being supplemented, so i think for me, i want governance and i want to make sure the governance in these decisions is made and transparent. >> that was what triggered the mta, they had to go for new ordinance to reappropriate the money. >> that answers my question as well as it will be today. for kate, i think it was last year your office provided us a
report, i thought i had it with me, i have a different one. but in it, you described the qualifications for, what, the low income housing program. and it had a pretty detailed description of how -- what i'll call residency requirements, for how long you would have had to have been in the system in order to qualify for that program. and i guess it was about this time last year, maybe more like september or october last year, i went back and forth with someone from the chronicle about something i said based on a quote from your report and they came back to me and said we checked with jeff at the office of the department of housing and supportive housing and said no,
a quote from the report was incorrect. i'll try to find the report and get back to you with it and see if i can get the requirements were resolved. even after i read what the office said and your office said, i didn't understand what the requirements were. >> this is for the homeless set aside we do in most of our buildings. it's not for the 80% of the low working income residents who reside in our buildings. the eligibility criteria specifically for the homeless households in our buildings, we got from homelessness and supportive housing. i know they're moving to a coordinated entree system now. that's part of a change. it's possible that there was
stale data we had from their office because they're now in coordinated entree. we'll be happy to get you exactly the eligibility criteria for homeless households. >> if i could get your contact information, i'll forward you the e-mail change that went back and forth and that should make it easier for you to understand what i'm telling you now. >> that would be great. there's no reason to doubt what you're saying and it's possible there was some miss information based upon a change in criteria going to a new coordinated entree, but basically we work with supportive housing and homelessness and they dictate for the low subsidy units and we defer to their criteria. >> okay. i'll forward you the stuff and
get it resolved. >> if i may, kate, thank you for the information. i have a couple questions on the movement of the money from 4048 mission into 50 laguna to the other site. i understand it's a no change in use and notice the scope of ballot measure. what i would like to ask about the 4840 mission and 250 laguna honda location, the predevelopment money has been allocated in is being used. what moved was the construction funding. where does that leave the two projects going forward, 4840 mission and 250 laguna.
are there dollars lecft inside the bond, if not -- i understand there may be a collaboration with an adjacent property owner that provides additional below market rate or affordable units as a result of that collaboration, but how does the hole created by the movement of the construction funds get filled and that's my question. >> we have other sources of funds, we have inclusion fees and housing trust fund monies. we're not at all putting the construction funding for those two developments at risk. we have just reallocated funds.
there's no gap for them. but we want to get the bond funds spent quickly, that's why we wanted to shift to developments of the same time, the same eligible uses that could use the funds as fast as they can. >> thank you. >> we can move on to the other section. for my colleagues i wanted to note for the sheet with the up coming bond issuances, this is intended to go out to another bond issuance for 82 million in march/april. in our role as making sure we feel the funds are being spent in accordance with the bond. >> good morning. i'm adam cray, i have been tasked with running point on the 2016 housing bond issuance as
well. so i would like to provide background here in terms of the issuance authority and funding terms for the bond. going the wrong way there. here we go. proposition a in 1992 started the program, set aside $150 million for affordable housing loan program with funds from the underlying loans to be loaned at 2/3 of the interest rate cost and a loan at 1% above the city structure cost. the seismic safety program was implemented by the administrative code chapter 66 and 66a at the time and described the conditions for participation in the seismic safety loan program, including
application, closing procedures and a like. fast forward to 2016, the voters voted to enact proposition c that allows seismic safety loans to finance the cost, acquire, convert at risk buildings to affordable permanent housing. and as of this year there are approximately $105 million in the affordable housing loan program left and $150 million in the market rate loan program left to spend for these purposes. in terms of potential uses for the proposition c funding, the first is a direct financing model where we would underwrite long-term acquisition or rehabilitation for projects and
then dispurse to buyers. and working with a bridge lender to provide short term financing later taken out with bond proceeds. following an initial execution of the models, we would pull the outstanding loan and issue securities to pay off the underlying loans and a purchase model similar to the pooling model but it would be whole loans purchased. in terms of the progress toward issuance and lending under the program. we have assembled the transaction team and began meetings and selected bond council, jones hall here in the city. we have conducted meetings with
the city attorney office and controllers office already. we have resolved many outstanding issues with structure for the program. some of the legal and administrative include prop c funds and obligation bond proceeds, timing of issuances. we've developed a general program structure to meet affordable housing finance needs and meeting the requirements of the program. we have drafted revisions to chapter 66a, the implementing legislation to the 1992 proposition and applicable to the 2016 proposition. we worked with the city attorney office to draft and propose the revisions. in terms of next steps, finalize and secure approval of the 66,
66a legislation and create a pipeline of the projects to be financed with the first bond issuance. draft general lending guidelines and loan papers to be included. we'll finalize and secure bond approval and then fund loans through one of the four methods i discussed earlier. in terms of a proposed timeline, february 8, 2018, is when we expect 66 and 66a revisions to be adopted and we hope to issue our first general obligation bond under the program mae 2018 and fund the first loans in july 2018 . with that, i will answer any questions you have. >> back to the first slide -- >> sure.
>> i wanted to make sure i understand, from 1992 proposition a, there was 150 and 200. is that where the 105 and 150 are coming from that, under prop c of 2016 there's no new money, it's just revisiting the left over money from the 1992? >> that's correct. between 1992 and 2016, these were not particularly popular programs it seems. there are 105 million left in the affordable loan program. those were funds authorized but remain in the programs. >> maybe in the future, you will produce a quarterly report with
more detail about the budgets and projects and status? similar to the bond report that we get now for the 2015 affordable housing. >> that's something we can do. >> i think generally we require a quarterly report on the bonds. >> then we'll certainly do it. >> appreciate that. you can look to that to maybe see a format. then the next page, potential uses, you had four different podles and i don't want to get too deep into it, is there a reason you picked four and not one and what is the most efficient -- why there's four different models? >> sure. so i think depending on the type of project and the type of loan that we like to fund, different
models work better. so for example, the take out financing model would work for loans that have to be issued quickly. a bridge lender can come in, underwrite the loans quicker than a city process and the city can take out the bridge lender. for loans that have a longer time horizon, the city could do the direct lending itself. and really, we haven't settled on one -- on using all four of the models, we tried to structure a program to be flexible enough to allow all four models. it may be the case that we spend the funds exclusively using the take out model or something of that nature -- >> what's an example of a bridge lender, is that a nonprofit or private organization and do they get fees and take a part of the proceeds? >> i can't speak for what most
would do in that case but i would imagine it would be a nonprofit lender. i have a few in mind and they would take a spread, but would move much more quickly than the city possibly could. >> kate hartley, i wanted to add to adam's response, the seismic safety loan program is different than the general obligation bond because it's broken into $35 million trenches. we can only draw down $35 million a year. once we do, we have to start paying debt service on those. so that's different. we will start incurring costs and so we don't want to incur the interest costs before we have projects lined up to pay
the interest. and because the acquisition rehab programs tend to be on the smaller side of what each program itself costs, it could be a six or seven unit building where they need three or $4 million of loan proceeds, the idea is to make it as cost effective as possible is to use a bridge lender, which is typically a community development financing agency -- >> what's an example of one of those? >> enterprise community partners. they make bridge loan. local initiative support corporation and private entities do, too. we would go for the best rate, the best term, aggregate those projects and as soon as we have the $35 million worth of
projects ready to go, we would issue the bonds and the city would not have to incur interest in size of the cost. >> are the bridge lenders picked through a competitive process or do you negotiate? >> we ask the borrowers to survey the market and bring the best terms to us. it's not just the interest rate. it's the fees and the term of the loan. it's possible that is not the best way. we may have larger projects come forward where we could do an issuance ourselves and forego the expenses of the bridge lender. that's why adam outlined the alternatives. standing here today, we don't know exactly what the projects will be and what their cost will be. we know what the overall goal is, preserve at risk housing and
stop vacancy control and stabilize housing and rent controlled apartments. but we want to be flexible to react quickly and put the funds to good use with minimal expenses. >> i think i have one more question, that's permit, generally they're used for capital construction projects and i -- i know -- i think we have talked about this before, but i'm wondering if there's a legal opinion, city attorney or public finance may have the answer to that. >> could you repeat your question? >> is there a legal opinion that use of general obligation bonds
for making loans is legal? >> yes. this is -- when we drafted this ordinance we had extensive conversations about the legal processes and procedures we would need to meet all applicable legal standards, specifically the state constitution standards. the answer is yes. >> did they issue a legal opinion? >> it's not a formal legal opinion, but when any other bonds are issued by the city, both our council and outside council have to issue a formal opinion that say that the bonds are in effect legal. we can't go to the market without them. there's no formal legal opinion
on that specific point but there is that point is necessarily inferred by the opinions of our office and outside council produces. >> i'm sorry i have one last question. these loans will be repaid? or -- they're not going to end up like being -- is there an expectation of a repayment and then a fund -- ongoing kind of fund would be established for the future? >> it will be hard debt, repaid over time. >> how is that accounted for and where are the funds going? >> depending on the model, for example, the funds under the pooling model would after a takeout would come back into the program to be lent out for the same purposes.
i think benjamin can answer that question. >> our office makes loans all the times for housing projects and we rely on the excellent fund accounting system that the controller's office has established. the very basics of our -- how we account for every transaction puts every single transaction in a single bucket that allows uses of the funds. when we receive a payment, we associate that with the original source of funds and we create revolving loan pools with those same restrictions as the original source of the funds. >> so is there a way to monitor when payments become late and or
loans need to be written off. there's data on that. >> we have an entire team in our office and our asset management team pays attention to all outstanding loans. >> i remember as a voter forwarding this and loving the creativity in the loan programs, but i think what we're spruistr this is not the type of bond we typically govern but we're responsible for the governance of it and that, i don't know about my colleagues but that particular area about how the money gets back in, i would like to understand better. and particularly because you have been doing it for years, you can tell us what the rates of return are and how it affects -- as a voter i felt this is great, this program is going to pay for itself and i had radical assumptions this was going to change our city for 50 years.
my guess is loan repayment rates and things like that, that is actually not -- there's a reality there that -- a financial reality very different than my assumptions. i don't know if my colleagues feel as strongly about understanding this aspect that affects both issues, seismic and non seismic one. >> there are two different bonds we have been talking about this morning are structured differently. the one adam has been talking about the repurposing of the seismic safety loan, it's hard debt with required repayments on a schedule. what we were talking about before, the general obligation bonds for general affordable housing, those loans don't necessarily -- they're not necessarily hard debt. for example, with that funding
source, a loan might be made to a nonprofit housing developer to build a building and our repayment functions on residual receipts, the loan functions to receive not only some repayment on the loan but a means of securing for the city that the building is going to be -- >> yeah. what i'm suggesting, we put this on the agenda for a future meeting. i think that nuances and assumption that all of that, i think we need to spend some time talking about and what mechanisms are in place to ensure that we're investing in the right properties that are going to do that. that why it comes back to the question earlier, moving from here to here, but all these other assumptions are built on top of that. i think we need to get into this
stuff at that level to feel -- i would feel more comfortable about the governance of this. maybe we can talk about that in the future. >> we can describe the two different models and also what we've experienced historically under the two different models to give you a sense of what repayment looks like. >> great. and the assumptions we're making. i think that would make me feel more comfortable with this. >> one thing to call to your attention, thank you for asking for this forward calendar bond issuances, it will be a useful thing to have in the packets but the amount proposed in the may issue, 15 million, the reason for that, as they were describing, they didn't want to have carbon hand that is ready to spend, the pattern will look different than bond programs. >> it will probably come up
faster too is my assumption. one of the questions for your office, you said when you were analyzing this, you came up with what would be the right way to do this, that would make it legal. are there processes that are governing what makes this legal and how do we ensure they're being followed? >> well, i should say first of all, i'm not involved if this first issuance, one of my colleagues is, i'm not hands on for that particular day-to-day work. but traditionally was happens in a transaction like this is when we draft the ordinance, if there are kind of new and unusual issues as this one presented, we collaborate with our outside bar, find out how we can do this and how we can't and work with outside council for the first
issuance to make sure those are in place. as far as i'm aware, we don't have written procedures. i can report back to you what we're doing if that's helpful. >> yeah. my concern is again, the nature of individual people making decisions based on applications that seem different than our big loans. my guess is, we couldn't get approval to use the bonds funds for this type of thing without saying for every applicant we're going to look at what they're saying equally. i would hope there's a lot of structure around that. maybe we can get that in a future one to understand all of this. >> sure. i would just note, sort of from a bond council and our office's perspective, those questions are not necessarily the questions we'll be looking at. >> thank you for letting me know. sorry to delay it. >> if i might, i recall both
bond measures or both ballot measures, 1989 we have an earthquake, 1992, proposition a that establishes this mechanism for loans for seismic work and by 2016 carried on the books, not utilized, in 2016 proposition c is on the ballot, passes by the voters that says let's use this money that has up until this point not been utilized or used for intended purposes, we'll reassign the use and the use is to finance a cost of rehabilitate and convert at risk multi unit residential buildings. so at some point there's got to be some criteria that establishes the definition of an
at risk multi unit residential building. in addition, so we've got existing language in the admin code in 66 and 66a for the dollars allocated in the '92 prop a or don't speak to the change in use authorized under the 2016 prop c and chapters 66 and 66a will go to the board at some point. what i would like to know, when that does occur, will those proposed revisions to the board of sups for chapter 66 and 66a come back to us for advisory
review. i think what we're hearing is some detail that this committee has oversight and some detail as if it relates to inside one time expenditure type bonds or doesn't. will we see revisions before it goes to the board? >> so as you said, the definition will be contained in the revision of chapter 66a and underwriting guidelines, which are passed by the city wide affordable housing committee.
so to some extent, chapter 66a will refer to the guidelines. but i think both could be presented to the board in advance of the legislation at the board of supervisors. >> i would just say, if when you do share that revisions to the code with us, you could give us the marked up copy, that shows what the adds, the deletions -- >> certainly. >> f >> any other comments? thank you for your patience. any public comment? >> item five presentation from public works regarding the 2015 and 2014 earthquake emergency
>> good morning commissioners, i'm the bond program manager earthquake safety emergency response 2010 and 2014. i'm going to lead off here but i'm going to ask each of the particular project managers responsible for the particular components to present briefly their particular component. i will speak on behalf of one of the managers not here today. this is our quarterly report as of 2017 with financials through june of 2017. the matter of 2010 and 2014 and would like to highlight for you some of the accomplishments we have achieved in recent time. for the awss water supply system have been completed.
fire stations 5, 15 and 35 are underway. specifically 5 and 16 are under construction. fire station 35 is just emerging. i don't want to steal the thunder of the manager. i won't go into detail on that front. the traffic company project is emerging as we speak. not to steal the thunder, you'll hear more about that shortly. up coming milestones. this is through september, most of these have been rendered so to speak or reached. we have issued a total of six for 2010 for the entire sum obliged to that bond. 416 million in earnings. the city has issued two bond
sales totally approximately 210 million of which the entirety has been appropriated. finally on the matter of risk concerns on budget, scope and schedule, i don't think are too different than public works projects occurring in the city now. we're in a very dynamic market environment that's not especially kind to project sponsors, public or private for that matter. it reflects rather in regard to increase costs certainly, that's the biggest sort of hit if you will. a lot of people are busy working, that's great news, but there are not as many of them as we would like to see. and in fact, the conversation in recent time has been what is to be the consequence of the north bay fires and how is that going to create further pressure within the market in terms of
availability of workers, materials and such. so we're in that mode of having to anticipate impact and to scope our projects even subsequent to having sort of established them against the perspective budget, having to sort of be more creative in how we do that. we can talk more about that at your pleasure. the first project is actually a project that's been complete for about two years now, completed in april 2015. that's the public safety building which if you'll recall is the new police headquarters. the relocation of southern district station from the hall and as well a new fire station number 4 serving the mission bay area. we're coming up on completing our warranty period and that's really been the activity that has transpired since
inauguration, looking after the warranty items that emerge during the period of occupancy. and we're involved with the financial close out of the project. pretty much one and done so to speak. and being successfully occupied, based on continuing conversations with the police department through our projects that are underway currently with them. next project is neighborhood fire stations. fire stations 5 and 16 within the context of neighborhood fire station component 2010. i'm going to invite the new project manager in regard to this aspect of neighborhood fire stations. you'll see her again shortly on another matter. she has completed the medical
examiner facilitator project which she'll share in a moment. if you want to offer remarks here. >> good morning commissioners, today is my official first day as a project manager, so i'll be brief. fire station number 5 the proceeding according to schedule. we have a ceremony scheduled in january. all good news regarding that station. fire station 16, we experience a delay, we are now going back and forth between the schedulers and trying to determine the substantial completion date and final completion date. we -- so we'll -- i don't want to commit or tell you any dates but it will be some time in the summer of 2018. but the details will come after our scheduler reviews the latest schedules submitted by construction company.
would you like to add anything? and then bond 2014 fire station 35 just like charles mentioned, we're in schematic design and gathering information for seqa. all good there. >> i would like to take this opportunity to have shari camps come up, she'll describe the program to you here. >> good morning. as charles said, i'm the project manager for all of the focus scope projects. the projects comprise about 25%
of the 81.22 million in the 2014, and there are about -- there are dozens of projects and they impact 35 fire stations. so current or recent milestones include the final completion of the generator project at fire station 13. as well as a notice award to dw nicholson for replacement of apparatus doors at 10 fire stations. in addition, the upcoming highlights are there are three bid advertisements coming up in the next six to eight weeks. two of them are envelope projects, one for fire station 22 and one for fire station 24
and 34 and showers package for three stations. and we'll be completing the roofing projects at six fire stations. >> so just to comment on the work for fire stations. as you can tell for facilities being replaced in whole, we're bringing them forward to modern standard if you will for their durability, reliability, places to deploy apparatus and personnel. where we have not the funds certainly to do that for all projects, we focus on the elements of work that speak to the durability again of the facility. if a facility is compromised, especially firehouses where firefighters live and work, then it impairs their readiness to respond when called upon. there are aspects and elements that go to simply the integrity of the structure and how the
work environment is appropriate for folks who live there 24/7. and elements and aspects about the ability to respond immediately, our engines and trucks apparatus, those doors are critical that they operate reliably each and every time. one of the projects -- we didn't go into detail, the department replacing the conventional door that would have a tendency to jam if the building frame racked a bit. we are replacing as many of the doors with folding doors. which are imminently more easily operated, they can be opened being mechanically and manually.