tv Government Access Programming SFGTV January 22, 2018 10:00am-11:01am PST
questions you have about each bond component. >> joe, i wanted to get a quick review of what is included in project controls, you have that pie chart. >> okay. is this in general or particular -- >> well, i have to say in general, it looks like the range is a quarter to a third of the construction costs. i wanted to see what was in there. >> so in project controls, this is everything outside of the construction contracts. so it includes all the design fees associated with design of the project, includes the construction management support services, which also includes additional inspections, whether for special inspection, in particular for the oshpod components, there's a layer of
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 didn't get it. we're working on mission and maxime hall and regards to chinatown and infrastructure improvements, are there still budgets for those or they're 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 we've had to encure the cost of the seismic retrofit. we're 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. it's a cost-sharing between the
project -- the bond program and puc. >> i'm sorry that's 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 there's 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 pre-bond 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 that's 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. >> i'm 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 everyone's focus is on 440 turk street. the remaining three sites identified was more of a code-required -- 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, there's been some controversy with the community. how has that affected moving forward? >> i'll 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? >> that's 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? >> i'll be honest, i'm 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 it's one of the benefits of the health centers, they're flexible enough, certain rooms can be set aside for specialty services but i don't know the exact details. >> i just know in my experience, it's 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. i'm looking at the castro where i live and there's 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 what's happening with the addictions and i think it's almost residential rehab programs but those programs have to include occupational rehab and physical rehab. and i'm not sure that i'm seeing anything underway and i just want to know if what you're looking at in construction is going to help us as we meet the city's 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 we're 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 you're asking for is really important but i don't think public works is going to be able to tell us about the business priorities of dph. and the fact that they're making the decisions on the fly well after the voters have committed this money to them. i think these are -- if we're going to put these types of bonds out to the voters that are really open-ended 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
don't usually think we should say why are you picking this over that, but if they're going to do this kind of bond, i don't 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 i'm really asking, has there been a collaborative process and how does that process moving forward and what do we know from it. i'm not trying to tell them what to do. >> i think it's 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. we're not boxing ourselves into any specialized or individual type of mental needs. they're looking at more holistic where family members are drawn into the healthcare process. that's 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. i'll 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. >> i'm sorry, i don't mean to put you on the spot joe, but i noticed in your report and i think later today we're going to get a report from ben or one of his staff on the city's 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 we'll 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 we're 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, it's 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? >> that's correct. if you were to refer to attachment two slide 17 there are three other locations identifi identified renovation. that's all in the future. >> okay. all right. speaking of lack of specificity. it's 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? >> that's 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. that's scope. that's why i'm 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 -- >> that's 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 i'm aware of. >> okay. thank you. >> i'd 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 there's 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 there's agreement with the client department, that can be reallocated. likewise for the other components, i believe -- i don't 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 that's 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 don't have the bond ordinance in front of us. i think this is a subject that comes up repeatedly in this committee and when we're 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 they're
getting, agreeing to allow you to raise our taxes and in return these are the projects we're 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. there's 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 there's allocation to health, allocation to fire, and allocation to homelessness and that's the promise made to the voters and that's how we need to adhere.
but within each of the program allocations there's flexibility on the sites. i believe that's how it's 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 that's the case, maybe we should be addressing some additional controls after the voters approve these broad categories, when we implement them to have some control so the decisions are not made like willy nilly. >> just to step back up to 10,000 feet for a moment, i really believe the presence of the committee has made a big difference on the issue in the time i have been looking at it, parks bond is a good example. we had a lot more openness in prior parks bonds and fair amount of unhappiness on the
part of some citizens and community organizations that felt there were facilities promised and not delivered. the next couple of park bonds learned the lesson and there was a more specific listing of what was going to be included. this is one of the things that i think the board oversight has made a big difference over the years. >> i agree. i was the liaison for rec park and there was a lot of specificity and so their feet were held to if fire. some of the subsequent bond authorizations by the voters are at a fairly high level. when we issue the bonds, go back to the board for a supplemental aappropriatation, that's when you get the legal rierequiremen of what you can and can't spend. >> i would add the capital planning committee in addition to this committee has proved to
be an effective step in the process. i think a lot of lessons were learned from the laguna bond. we have a lot of capital intensive committees with their stewards and that's one step -- not just the bond ordinance but any legislation to sell bonds has to go through. >> thank you. i don't think we'll solve this issue right now but maybe ken as you're involved in consideration of the next bond that's going out for similar type project, you might kind of reflect our input as you, the team discusses how specific the bonds should be. >> absolutely. i'm happy to do that. and i would say just to sort of reiterate a point i made earlier, obviously each
ordinance has specific questions and language. but as sort of an overriding principle, when we first start the process of drafting the ordinance, this is the question that always we return to, how much flexibility and how much specificity and stakeholders are involved in that, our office, controller's office. it's a very involved process and i'm happy to include these insights in that. >> it sounds involved and feels like the process did not work in this case. i think it would be good to send a memo to the capital planning groups and say hey, this thing you did and put out to the voters and now it's coming and laying on our desk, we're having trouble governing this, please, again, don't do this. because this did get through and
this is crazy. i mean, we're going to be dealing with this for three, four, five years. >> yeah, i think that's a good point. as i say, brian strong, who is the director of the capital planning committee and the city's chief resilience officer is a good resource. he's sort of -- i don't want to say a toll collector but kind of organizer for a lot of the discussions. i think that would be helpful. and he will be here in march. we can bring it up at that point as well. >> would you be up for writing a memo? >> maybe the controllers office can help draft this. i guess -- do other members feel strongly that a memo sent by this committee to the capital
planning committee to express our concerns specific to this bond and how the broad nature of the bond has ended with possible problematic ways for us as we oversee the spending of the bond. would the control's office help us draft -- i think what we would like to do is have a memo from this committee to the capital planning committee to share with them the problems that we are encountering as a result of the broad structuring of the bond. >> you're welcome to send a memo if you like. i'm listening to your
conversation and clearly we need to do a better job talking to you about the problematic design of this bond and answering these questions. i can rely the conversation you've had here to the capital planning committee, to brian and his staff and i'm looking at your march calendar, i'm not sure which item he would be reporting under? so city capital plan presentation is going to move to march 26th. okay. so i can ask brian to address some of the questions specifically. i'm not trying to stop you from writing a memo but i could relay the conversation and work with him for his presentation to address it. >> timing wise, i wasn't aware they were presenting. if you would convey the individual collective concerns of this committee to brian and
ask him to specifically address this particular point at the next meeting. >> i'm happy to. >> in addition to that -- >> i want to second what you're saying, i would only add without missing any other bonds, this is less of a general issue that we have come across of language in bonds being so broad that the public has an expectation that doesn't get fulfilled in the implementation of the bond. it would help us meet that desire if we had clear understanding of what was going to be accomplished with the bond. >> the other issue the pre-bond planning work. not just the seismic stuff but some soil stuff and other stuff. and i'm just wondering -- who
owns the content of the pre-bond planning and can we suggest a check list? >> you can definitely suggest a check list. obviously part of your charge is produce best practices. general matter, here are things you need to look at. you can do that. in terms of -- i think the question you were asking, who owns the pre-bond forecast and reports is that kind of -- >> when we say we do pre-bond planning. what do we mean by that? can it include seismic, soil and some of the other -- >> so, again, a good historical example again i think that better seismic and soil testing work was done in advance of the
sfgh bond than prior large facilities and it's one of the things that contributed to keeping the cost of the facility right-sized. by the time we went to the ballot, we knew better what the project cost would be and it stayed relatively within that. there's allocation of general fund capital in the budget every year. some portion is spent for testing programs for future likely bond programs appearing in outyears of the city plan so by the time the bonds are coming to be sized, we have spent money on the testing and some of that can be repaid back to the city's general fund capital pot when we issue the bond, but that is sort of the process that is followed. and again, it's partly to the credit of this committee's oversight and capital planning committee process that that's done. and our bond sizing has improved. >> i'm just saying let's
continue to set the bar a little higher and say the pre-bond stuff probably happened years and years ago and maybe no one was thinking about soil then and learn from our mistakes and say next time -- >> i think we can learn from our wins. the general hospital gives a lot of credit for pre-bond in keeping the project on budget and scope and that was 2008. this is a bond issue in 2016 and i think we spent over a million and a half dollars on prebond work but failed to do the seismic or soil in some cases. >> we don't know what we're building anyway. >> when the bonds were put to the voters, there was a bond report that went into some specificity. because that wasn't in the actual bond document approved by
the voters, you're not held to that. but there was and it leads to voter expectations. >> i'll relay this discussion to brian and ask him to comment on the issues hopefully in an organized way when he presents the capital plan. >> thank you. >> any public comment on the presentation? >> good morning. i have two comments. there are funds set aside for a hospital audit, will there be a comprehensive outside audit of the construction project, the $900 million size of the project merits a comprehensive audit and can it be seen on the future agenda with the project closing
report requiring the final closing report is a great step forward and will that final report be posted on the csa web site. regarding additional bond controls that bring together seismic and actual spending, is there a pre-bond check list and does the check list include a preliminary seismic assessment. also would it make sense for the bond sponsor to present the bond check list in actual prebond spending compared to budget to cgoboc prior to moving forward and will allow them to address problems as they arise. it would force the issue of what individual projects in the scope of the work and address concern of the kitchen sink aspect of the bond.
a priority of projects in the pre-bond checklist would bring transparency to the projects that get funded. thank you. >> any additional public comment? next item. >> item five presentation from the city service auditor regarding the csa mid year report and possible action by the committee in response to such presentation.
>> good morning. peg stephenson for the controller's office. we are just past the half way mark of the fiscal year. this is the item where we give you status report and update on our work in the city services auditor. you have a slide deck from us and i will talk fast and then tonia will go through the audits part and we're happy to answer your questions at any point. just to refresh your memories, the cycle that we follow is key to the city's fiscal year, we do work planning process during the spring in anticipation of issuing and finishing our work plan by june 30th. april, may and june and earlier than that is a heavy planning process with us. we look at a complex of different mandates, there are charter mandates we operate
under, appendix f. there are requirements in the codes and grant and leases we're responding to and various other audit requirements. we meet and speak with a variety of stakeholders, mayor, board of supervisors, yourself, we look at civil grand jury reports and anything that touch once the operating compliance in developing the work plan. our budget looks like the city budget. we get a work order from all the different city departments with an allocation and do work with and for them under the work order and whatever we don't spend is typically returned to the fund at the end of the fiscal year. there are a couple of departments where the last dollar is general fund dollars, so those are particularly returned to the general fund. in general, we spend something on the order of now 85% of the allocation, sometimes we go over on individual line items and
then we have a balancing issue with those departments but we have never overspent our aggregate budget. that's how we develop the work plan. this is a list of our issued reports during the first six months of the fiscal year in reverse chronological order. we have all of our standard reports that we have to issue for the performance side of the house have been issued. those are, expecept for one, th performance report and scorecards and nonprofit monitoring report, the park standards report, the nonprofit monitoring report. the one standard issue report we do every year is street standards. you'll recall there's language for street cleanliness and standards: we have a contractor under a program design in place for some years.
we have good data set from them, very robust and geographic city wide. we're not happy with the data. we are looking at it and curious how it comports with other ways that the department of public works measures street cleanliness and maintenance and trying to make it match. we haven't issued that report yet. i suspect we will before the end of the quarter but that's a gap on my mind as manager of the program. just to let you know. so we'll go past the rest of the reports. i hope you've had a chance to look at some of them when issued. just to highlight quickly, to give you examples and flavor of some of the work we do, we're profiling four projects, muni customer service is one, this was a high priority of mta. in essence, working with the
muni people, the ones who take the complaints, assign them to divisions in muni and there's a very serious -- in case you have made a complaint to muni, i'm sure some people feel unheard, that's an issue but there's a detailed process, whether they're valid and act upon them. go back if they're valid, if there's not enough information they want to fill that gap. our work was to sit with the people who do the intake, the investigations and video polls and go through all the processes and see where there's duplications and inefficiencies. i mention here a couple of the projects we came up with.
at 311 they intake a lot of calls, sometimes they weren't going through questions to investigate it, bus number, time of day, line number. if you have those you can investigate, if you don't, you can't. we want to have the protocol for the 311 operators. modular housing, we had a request in a hurry from the mayor's office to review the status of the modular housing industry. to oversimplify, the labor unions and community are concerned about how much or not the city might move to using modular housing as a possible approach or design particularly for homelessness housing and shelters quickly. they asked us to look at the status of the industry, have there been success stories, what
are the implications in terms of cost and time to using modular housing. we did a lot of interviews with people in labor and craft organizations to understand their concerns. we looked at the projects and looked at the industry. we issued a report, which again i hope you got a chance to see. the very short highest level finding is that cost savings, somewhat moderate, probably there. time savings are really more the issue. so the mayor's office is still considering this. i don't think they have made final determinations but they put out an rfq to test the market of housing providers responsive to the city's needs in this area. nonprofit monitoring program, you have heard me talk about this, just to give you an example, this program has gone on for many years and used to be we often couldn't see a problem
with a nonprofit provider until they were in financial crisis or having a service issue or both, now failures of that type are exceedingly rare and you can see the improvement overtime. the number of contractors who have serious findings have gone way down, repeat findings is way down. the amount of technical systems has helped a lot of nonprofits straighten out their books and not fall into crisis. this program is a real success story and i hope the statistics are interesting. and lastly, the score cards and performance measures, ken you have kept an eye on this program for us over the years. we continue to make steady improvements for it. the one upper most on our minds right now, there's a civil grand jury report saying too many measures, too complicated. we said okay, we hear you but we
worked really hard on the performance score cards to make that the simplest version of the entity, which is a city. and then there's also the mayor's office before mayor lee passed away had been working on a strategic alignment. they asked all the departments to update plans and fit performance measures across city. we're trying to help align to the mayor's work plan. like anything else, it's somewhat affected by the interim nature of the management in the mayor's office now, proceeding with all the departments who successfully updated strategic plans and now moving to aligned work performance measures to match. we continue to make design improvements to the score cards so they're more you'res -- user
friendly. the last throughslide is currens we were trying to finish during the fiscal year. interdepartment working group, i could talk about it for a long time, but just to let you know, we're working with the departments who have responses in the area basically to make sure the metrics are good so we know if we have succeeded or failed in response to homeless response. police staffing when the mayor or the board goes to make decisions on academy classes for the next fiscal year, they have a real data basis to make that decision on. we're working with all the departments in the design of the permit center with the new building. public health has a lot going on, well underway with
electronic health records procurement. the lean partnership, we're nearing the end toward a successful partnership which we have used lean methodologies to look at ways to stem inefficiencies and do a huge clean up. if you have looked at the before and after, maybe i'll put pictures into the year-end slide deck. it's amazing what they have accomplished at the yard. and soon to issue charter required hours at the libraries, looking at the branch libraries and if they're meeting needs being open as many days of the week and hours. we had a number of surveys and recommendations on how the libraries should expand open hours. >> good morning toniss tonia leu
from the controller's office. we will conduct a close out audit once the claim is closed and finished on the rebuild. we have prior to the close out through the process we completed about four additional audits on this particular bond project. so every year our audit team really strives to provide as much audit coverage as possible across the 50 plus departments. looking at the various risks and activities through our city government. so slide 10 shows the various buckets we work in which include performance audit and these look at effectiveness, efficiency and economy of operations throughout the city department and generally we're doing several large audits across the city from an operational perspective.
with the city wide audit program, we're assessing the various key business processes across the department for compliance and effectiveness. generally that's really around contracts and are you doing what you say you're doing. as it relates to it and system audits, we look at system, security, design and controls regarding that work and helping around resillancy. we have the whistle blower program and provide audit related services to various departments such as the police department as they're working to resolve audit recommendations from the blue ribbon committee and other regulatory organizations that look at them. we're also looking at the police department, helping the police department accountability program set up their audit function and helping the ethics
commission with some audit work as well. at different times departments ask for assistance to shore up in their operational areas and we do so because of our expertise. construction, change management procedures, efficiency and effectiveness. just to highlight construction audit work for the g.o. bond expenditure for 2018 and 2012 program. you requested us to look at that work and audited two bond programs last fiscal year, 2008 rebuild and 2011 road repaving bond. for this year we added four more audits to determine if bond revenues are expended in
accordance and no funds are used for salaries or operating expenses. we included 2008 and 12 clean and safe bonds. 2014 earthquake safety bond and 2015 affordable housing bond. through the assistance of cummings, we have initiated the 2008 and 12 part bond audits in the field work phase and we'll complete an issue by april 2018 on that work. the other two will begin by quarter four of this fiscal year. i believe we're on track as it relates to the bond expenditure audits. relating to the committee benchmarking work that you requested us to look at, we have done that work, that work currently is in our quality assurance review process and
just for a quick highlight, we have collected relevant data and identified other like committees and interviewed the committees and researched best practices. we benchmark five entities, four are in the city and one is out of the state. how you compare to the five benchmarks entities is that you're actually the only committee that has the mandate or authority to inform the public concerning the expenditure of general obligation bonds. we realize this committee is working on the next recommendations, identify standard reporting measures for all bond programs, should consider developing and implementing orientation or onboarding for new members and review your web site and ensure it's user friendly.
these are all the publicly issued reports by our team so far for this fiscal year. in addition to the 23 reports issued we have a host of other audit memos and deliverables we don't necessarily issue on the web site due to confidentiality and due to the potential of how the information could harm the city operations. that's in accordance to the yellow book standards that allow us to do so. so i just like to quickly highlight a few of the audits we have issued. in july, we issued the cable card fair process audit. we actually took 30 undercover rides as auditors and found that because of potential fraud, we did additional work and as you
know, if you're following the news and i'm quite sure you are, there was an arrest. and as a result of the work, we have a continuous monitoring program we have implemented as it relates to the cable cars and the actual work of the cash fare audit is part of the normal work process we do under the city-wide work. in october 2017 we issued a report of six city departments. airport, puc, public works, port, rec and parks from 2014 to 2017. so these 15 audits included the work we completed on our g.o. bond programs and contain 31
findings and 65 recommendations. we really just wanted to summarize the overarching trends and look at the various internal control weaknesses. what we noted were the three key findings were departments should strengthen change order documentation, have a proactive strategic approach and better monitor costs. also in october 2017 we issued an audit report of sfmta it function and rapidly respond to operational needs as it relates to technology and identify and mitigate risks as results of inefficient operations and what we found, sfmta is partially or completely following three of
the five elements outlined by control objectives for information and relateded technologies, industry best practice standards developed by this particular board and the report recommendations aim at improving the division risk, value, delivery and performance measurement. they are actually on track for putting in all of the recommendations. they have a new cio there which is very involved and on board in moving the organization forward in the manner it needs to. in july 2017 we actually were given a clean bill of health by the local government auditors association for the required peer review. we can be proud and confident as can you and the public that the controller's audit organization is high functioning and going