In observe the service and county that mayor lee gave for the city and council. Well resume the meeting. This meeting is now in session. Item two, opportunity for the public to comment on any matters within the jurisdiction that are not on the agenda. Good morning committee members, im dr. Derek kerr, a whistle blower. Why do organizations retaliate against whistle blowers . Its because whistle blowers have inside information about wrong doing and there by represent a threat. Whistle blowers are viewed as Insider Threats. Unfortunately the Whistle Blower Programs Quarterly Report issued in december includes a bulletin warning about Insider Threats. We are told these are employees who negatively affect organizational assets. That definition could qualify whistle blowers as Insider Threats because it depends on who defines what is a negative impact on an organization. The term Insider Threat is derived from National Security programs that were installed after the Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden revelations. Importantly, it applies to intelligence agencies that handle classified information, not to city agencies that handle mostly public records. This bulletin targets disgruntled employees without the difference of those who want to fix a problem and those who are criminals. Even speaking out is labelled as a red flag. The bulletin doesnt mention non disgruntled managers who contented contentedly harass subborednants, although they are true Insider Threats. The Whistle Blower Program promotes retaliation and deteres lawful disclosers of misconduct. So i hope youll Pay Attention to this idea when the whistle blower presents to you at the next meeting. Thank you. Any further Public Comment . Item three approval with possible modification of the minutes of november 20th, 2017, meeting. So is there a motion to approve . I move to approve. Second. All in favor . Aye. Public comment. Public comment on the minutes . Seeing no Public Comment, the minutes are approved. Item four presentation from public works regarding the 2008 and 2016 health bonds and possible action by the committee in response to such presentation. Can i go ahead, are you ready . Yeah. Good morning members of the cgoboc committee. Im here to give improvement Bonds Program from 2008 and health and safety from 2016. Let me go ahead and start with the 2008 program first, its a little shorter and hopefully wrap that up quickly. In this first slide, just wanted to point out that the original bond authorization was 887. 4 million, the new amount of 900. 2 million reflects additional interest acure for 10 years and has been appropriated to the bond program. For all intended purposes, the rebuild bond program has been completed just as a quick recap. The zuckerberg General Hospital was completed in may of 2016. Patients moved in and then the final project close out was completed that same year in july. The last remaining task before we can close out the hospital project at least in terms of oshpod is final reconciliation of permit fees and at this point, the team is working through the documents to get that completed most likely the First Quarter of 2018. I want to mention one item, there has been ongoing litigation between web core builder, the general contractor and one of the subcontractors. Web core builder has served the city with a cost complaint, primarily due to subcontractors claim of errors of omission. At this point, the claim has been forwarded to the City Attorneys Office for further review and direction. Just a quick recap of some of the accomplishments beside the new hospital being completed, the team has also been progressing three of the larger projects including the San Francisco building five tunnel and connection project, m. P. C seismic upgrade and low voltage installation project. All three are in project closeout phase. And the teams goal is to close out all three projects by First Quarter of 2018 with the remaining funds in the project, the team continue to work closely with the department of Public Health on any additional projects that involve operational enhancement and or patient safety. And then just moving on to the last slide, the only thing i want to point out, the total expenditures to date is 98 of the bond authorized to date. As i mentioned earlier, the remaining funds will be used to closeout the project, primarily focus on the permit fees as well as delivering any additional projects requested by the client. Should i go ahead with the 2016 or wait for questions for this program . Lets talk about 2008 first. Id like to why dont you start first. You know, i didnt have questions joe, i just wanted to report to the committee on the phone discussion we had last week about this project and closing out there of. I want to elaborate a little bit more on the subcontractor claim that is outstanding from khss, joe . Correct. Against web core and the action that web core has taken to involve the city. Im just going to say based on what joe told me, it doesnt sound like a real strong claim. Joe gave me the contact name of the woman, the person in the City Attorneys Office, elaine oneil. Ken, do you know her . Okay. Ill talk to you later then, about the scope of the claim and it sounds like whats called a total cost claim and theyre going to have a real hard time prevailing with that based on my experience. So as i said, i will follow up with ms. Oneil with the particulars and follow up. What is the total financial risk of this claim . 1820 million . Thats correct. Thats an estimate. I have not seen the actual documents from the subcontractor but there has been discussions of up to 18 million claims from the subcontractor. On a subcontract worth about 100 million . Thats correct. They have a tough road. But this is not a risk to the bond program itself, the bond program doesnt have 1820 Million Dollars left. Is that interpretation correct . Anybody know . I mean, i was just looking at this, its june 30th financial report. Back then there was a balance of about 12. 2 million. I can quickly talk about the 12 million remaining in the project, the biggest portion of the 12 million is for set aside for soft costs, for remaining project management and the permit fees. We anticipate about 34 Million Dollars of fees that need to be paid out still. Whats remaining outside of the 5 million is about 3. 6 million for construction contracts. Theres about 3 million of additional setaside for fall on projects and then about 3. 2 million of funds that are setaside for audit, csa services and another 1. 1 for program contingency. Do we know the legal fees being paid to pursue or defend against the claim . Are those being paid by bond funds . To the extent that the project Program Still has funds, we are allocating the City Attorney fees toward the project. This is my observation, in the very unlikely case that this suit against the city prevails, i would think that the contract is really between the contractor and the city. They dont care who pays the fund. If we have depleted the bond funds i would assume it goes to general funds, im not a lawyer, but were all at risk here. Further on that, the claim that brought is against the general contractor, i would say a good part of the exposure is to web core and not the city. Web core has named the city but it doesnt mean the city has that much responsibility inevitably. Even if its 5 of the value of the claim, they would name the city. A number like this, and given that they have already had some change orders that web cores that given via the city, the city has given via web core some change orders to kksns, this is a total cost claim, you guys have abandoned the job, im speculating a bit. Based on what i know, it will be hard to prevail. But again ill follow up with ms. Oneil. So given that brian is following up on the last issue with the bond and talking about it for about 10 years, i would like to propose that this doesnt make our agenda again unless brian brings it back with this issue. Ill follow up but i think we have heard from joe that theyre really close to closing it out, even though the final amount of close out with oshpod, any other agencies . Not to my knowledge. And the hospitals and service. Thats correct. Only. Thats what we like to hear. And has been for years. I think its agreed that pending this report that you talked about earlier, what is the next step we would deem to formally close this bond. The project on the bond. I think we had a final closing report in the past . I would have to check with our auditors to see if they scheduled this one for a closeout audit or anything of the type. Tonia will be here later this morning and might be able to let us know that. That would be the last item that would logically come to your calendar. I think the decision of this committee is pending anything that blows up, we will follow the normal kind of bond closing procedures that would be in reporting style and not be presented to this meeting for this discussion. Agreed . Yep. Sounds good to me. Thank you. Im done. Okay. So with that said, let me proceed on to the second half of the presentation, the 2016 Public Health and safety bond program. Good morning again. The public Health Safety bond program quickly consists of six project components that span across three departments, Public Health, Supportive Housing and the lions share for dph of 272 million, homeless support housing 20 million. Moving on to executive summary, the teams have been continued to focus on completing the design and permitting of the various bond projects with the goal of starting construction this year with the early part of next year, including seven of the 19 core projects that are part of the zuckerberg component. There are six fire stations in the neighborhood fire station component and 440 turk street for the site of the new homeless resource center. In terms of next bond sales, the team is working on the cash flow analysis so that we can sit down with the office of Public Finance and talk about the next bond sales. One of the risks in terms of risks for the entire program i think continues to be unprecedented bidding project that all projects are seeing probably due to lack of sufficiently skilled trained individual and subcontractors bidding. And the recent fires have made the situation worse because its pulling contractors to the north bay. Another risk that weve identified thats putting a strain on the Bond CommunityHealth Center component has to do with the poor performance for many of the existing Community Health centers. This poor seismic performance is necessitating the need for projects to add seismic retrofit as part of the base scope for projects at this point. And jumping to update for each of the individual bond components. First one is the zuckerberg hospital component. Overall budget and schedule remains the same as previously shown. Expenditures have been fairly low, primarily because activities have been on the design phase of all the projects. The team will be starting construction in the First Quarter of 2018. We currently have two projects that are in the award phase one is ready to be ntped, the second project which is right on the line of being awarded, unfortunately weve had to deal with a bid protest, so we had to rebid the project. This is our first time rebidding, were in the process of dealing with the bid protest again, only have two contractors, so you can kind of see the bid environment at this point. So thats the two projects for zuckerberg. The team is working on rsq, were intending to on board a construction manager general contractor to help deliver the next four projects, including seismic retrofit, Department Relocation and it infrastructure. All four projects amount to about 3040 Million Dollars of construction scope. The idea behind using the cmgc, minimizing schedule impacts to hospital operations. The zuckerberg component is completely different from the rebuild program primarily because all the work were doing is in a functional hospital, every project we deliver requires close coordination with the Clinical Operations and theres a lot of call them domino affects, in order for one project to start, it requires others to get out of the way. Were going to have the project is working on a lot of enabling projects that in order to allow the Construction Projects to proceed. Moving on to the next slide, this is the southeast Health Center component. Its located off of third street and keith street in the bayview neighborhood. The team is working on the design phase of a new two story 22,000 square feet new building adjacent to the facility. Construction anticipated to start in 2019. Here is kind of the most updated rendering we have for the new building whereas as a matter of fact this afternoon well present to the city Design Review for the first phase with cdr. Okay. And moving on to the Community Health center component. Theres two projects that the team is primarily focused on currently. Cash emission Health Center at 17th and pawn and maxime hall at pierce and ellis in the western edition neighborhood. Both are targeted to Start Construction december of 2018 in a couple of months. As i mentioned earlier, one of the huge impacts or risks on this component is the fact that we have added seismic scope to both Health Centers. Both projects have been deemed to be a seismic hazard rating of three plus to four. Four is a building that is subject to partial or total collapse in the event of a major earthquake. We did similar assessment on chinatown public and the results came back very similar with seismic hazard rating of four as well. So what that means is chinatown public will most likely be deferred to a future bond project so the team can focus on delivering a complete project for cash emission on maxime hall. Moving on to the facility, i do want to point out this slide does include a revised component budget 48. 6, showing allocation of 5. 1 to the fire station to adf allowing the team to deliver a complete adf. The original project budget was inadequate, it didnt include enough funds to address the conditions and market condition risk. So the team has been working closely with the neighborhood fire station project manager and the Fire Department so that the 5. 1 million can be allocated to adf. So at this point, the adf project is moving to 100 construction document in the Second Quarter of 2018 with construction to start around august of this year. And then moving on to the neighborhood fire station component, likewise, the project budget shows a reduction of 5. 1 million which has been allocated to the facility. Overall, the Fire Department budget remains 58 million, there really has been no change to the overall budget, just more of a reallocation within the two components. At this point, there are six fire stations identified for the seismic improvement, which includes the host tower removal scopes. That will then improve the earthquake performance of the six fire stations. The next big milestone, because of some historical issues associated with the fire stations, is to go through an Environmental Impact report process, which will take approximately a year to be completed and with that approval will allow the construction to start. And then the last component well talk about today is the homelessness and Homeless Service sites. The current project thats been in development for a while is the 440 turk street, this includes the purchase of the area of the space i guess. And also on board a designbuild contractor to help deliver this critical project. The current schedule is to have the rfq advertised by the spring of 2018. And then the last slide i have is a slide regarding the status of the budget and financial plan, as i mentioned earlier, look at the percentages across the board of the components, relatively low and the reason for that is because its primarily driven by expenditure toward design fees. As we move from design to construction, there will be a ramp up of expenditures for construction contract that will be awarded. So at this point, that concludes my presentation for the Public Health and safety bond program. Im here as well as other members of my project Management Team that can help specific 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, theres 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 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 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, thats when you get the legal rierequiremen of what you can and cant 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 thats one step not just the bond ordinance but any legislation to sell bonds has to go through. Thank you. I dont think well solve this issue right now but maybe ken as youre involved in consideration of the next bond thats 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. Im 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, controllers office. Its a very involved process and im 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 its coming and laying on our desk, were having trouble governing this, please, again, dont do this. Because this did get through and this is crazy. I mean, were going to be dealing with this for three, four, five years. Yeah, i think thats a good point. As i say, brian strong, who is the director of the