tv Government Access Programming SFGTV June 6, 2018 12:00am-12:59am PDT
projecting a shorter window to arrive at these numbers there. is so uncertainty with in particular transfer tax and volatility at the general hospital. and other thingsre creating uncertainty when it comes to public health revenues. and our next update from our office will be what we call the revenue letter, which is our commentary following the mayor's budget in early june regarding the revenue assumptions in the coming two years. with that, i'm happy to answer any questions might have. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. you answered my question about transfer tax. alnswed the question that i had around the volatility around zuckerberg general, and that has to do with the cost of service. we have more people accessing department of public health source thananticipated.
is that what it was? >> pubealt h revenues in the current year have outperformed the budget, if weooack einal budgets today. and it's being driven by a number of things. a census at the general hospital that's higher thanbudgeted. more patients mean more ye theer ratio of those that have insurance versus those that don't is continuing, which is a multiyear trend. so the hospital is receiving more revenue, and some of that is associated with the aca as well. and in this report, you have a very large, one-time payment, which is from the federal government associated with the medical association. rianhose are the drivers in the . >> supervisor cohen: thank you. ou he any questions for the controller? all right. thank you i have much. -- thank you very much. let's take public comment on item 7. any member of the public that
would like to comment on item 7, controller's nine-month budget status report. seeing none, public comment is closed. thank r f presentation. is there an action on this? can i get a motion to -- supervisor yee or stefani. visosuper stefani made a hearing to file this hearing as heard, seconded by yee. we're taking it without action. oth buss before this body? >> clerk: that completes the agenda for today. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. we are adjourned.
please? well, for the rest of the audience. thank you. good morning, my name is jerry. first, i'd lik commend controllers' office for embedding the links for the supporting documents into each meeting agenda topic on the sfgovtv website, it's both useful and insures that supporting documents are available to meeting attendees. the benchmarking report that was discussed in the april meeting, it contained usefulescriptive statistics, but in the 84-page report i could only find six slides that benchmarked the financial performance of san
francisco against other cities, that would allow the reader to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of city services, which is the mission of the city services auditor. the first slide was page 27 of the report which dealt with street resurfacing cost. san francisco spends $1134 per square mile. actually, san francisco's overhead cost of $242 per square mile is 80% of seattle's total cost. so it looks like, as you can see from the graph, the san francisco costs are way out of line. one thing i would comment on that the material used in san francisco are dramatically different and have a longer life, but the amount of
difference is way beyond that difference. slide 2, deals with the cost to maintain a tree. it cost per maintained tree, $530 in san francisco. which is three times more than the average in sacramento, san jose and san diego. so something seems lout of line there. -- out of line there. and the last slide is the daily jae.at so yu can see the rate in san francisco is $250 a day. and it's tough to see those little bubbles, but the average is $149. [bell ringing] so my discussion is the liaisons work with the departments to identify the difference, or in the annual
work plan, cgoboc retains detailed audits of the area, because obviously the costs are way out of line. thank you. jerry, in looking at the jail population, san francisco is carrying a large number of people who don't have bail. that's an issue that has come up. yeah. i think -- but what they're talking about here is the cost to house one pers. are we housing people because th're no out on bail? there are bail reform efforts being done. >> there is also the issue of people who should in mental health programs, shouldn't be in the jail. this, i think, just deals with what it costs to house somebody,
not why they'rethere. and irrespective of why they're there, the city should be doing a better job in maintaining or administering the cost per day. i agree a the issues. >> i'm looking at how to reduce the cost since you highlighted how much it cost. thank you. mr. bush, through the chair, ben rose enfeld, controller, we have done other work, and i would be happy to provide them after the meeting. >> any other public comment? if not, let's move to the next item. >> item 3, approval with possible modification of the minutes of the april 21, 2018 meeting. >> motion to approve? >> seconded. >> approved?
>> yes. all approved aye. >> through the chair, deputy city attorney, we need to take public comment first. >> oh, yes, pardon me. public comment on the draft minutes of the last meeting? seeing no public comment, are the minutes approved? minutes approved. next item. >> item 4, presentation from public works about the 2011 road repaving and street safety bonds and possible action by the committee in response to such presentation.
>> good morning, chair mcnulty, members of the committee, john thomas with public works on the road repaving and street safety bond. as reminder, the bond was approved in november of 2011 for $248 million. as of last june. and i'll just prefacehe comment by saying the financials have n been updated in some time as we await the final closeout numbers for this year. i won't go into detail on that, but we are largely completed with most of the work envisioned under the project. as i go through detail in the next slide, we can talk about that. in the upper right, you see
images from several of our street scape projects that are finishing up. the laurell village, irving street scape, top right. the wiggle area, which is the bike route from market street. hen chinatown living alley which is a joint project. with the puc. so for highlights, public works has completed 48 street resurfacing contracts with four currently in construction, paved 1355 of the planned 1423 blocks at this stage. or 95% of the total. so as these four contracts are closed out, we will hit the goal and exceed it. the wiggle street scape and pedestrian improvement project reached completion this year and work on the irving street
project as well as columbus, stockton and valeto was also completed. in june of this year, we'll complete the cnatown living alley. in september, the polk complete street project. and also in september, gary park pedestrian improvements and then e california laurel village street scape is expected to be. pa lieu, i believe the last of the street scape should advertise in june. this is a bit more detail on the street resurfacing. 48 projects have been substantially completed and four are currently under construction. one other thing to see on this slide, is thehart on the
bottom right which again indicates our pavement condition index and how that has improved since the bopd funds were added. the oerng to note as of this year, there is change how the mtv scores streets. so the score has jumped up, not as a result of a significant change, but as a result of the metric itself being changed. we're essentially still in the same place we were under the old scoring criteria. so we were at about a 69 with a goal of a 70 and now we're at 74 and shifted our goal to 75 to match that. >> moving onto street scapes. mentioned most of this already, but just in summary, the projects are now largely
compte. palou is the last of the projects that we have remaining to begin construction. moving onto the curb ramp and sidewalk programs. both of these have been completed. and as you cee here, the curb ramp program completed 15 hundred 63 -- 1563 projected on that, we had an original goal of 17 hundre-- 1700. we were able to exceed the revised goal as you can see here. the programs again, completed and both exceeded the goals that were set out in the original bond report.
moving onto the roadway structure program. 100 had hundred percent of appropriated funds have been expended or encumbered so 39 of 40 projects wer completed and 41 structures repaired. the rich land avenue bridge, we have completed design work under the bond and are anticipating other fun ioue that as a construction contract and that will complete the work, but that's the reason we're still tracking that open project. lastly, traffic signals, we're now completed with all phases. one, two, and three, traffic signal priorities. at 10 intersections and the infrastructure upgrades are now all in place and 97% of the prapriated or exp
or encumbed as near as we can tell at this point. and the last slide i can take us to is the changery slide. rather than go through specifics there, i can answer questions. that concludesy presenon. >> ms. chu: thank you, mr. thomas >> mr. hughes: as a liaison from the committee to this bond, i met with mr. thomas and his staff on april 16 of this year. and without belaboring this too much, i'll just run through some of the thing that we touched on at that time. on road repaving and street safety bond -- first of all i want to preface it with you have either reached the goals that
were set out at the time of the ballot measure ed on those complete. and those that arepending, are pending completion are very close to the original anls that were met. so on road repaving the street savings bond, you were at % of the goals had been reached as of that time. and it is currently projected that you will meet or exceed the original goals set out at the time of passage. so, thank you. and to your staff. outstanding. ationmis i, the metropolitan revised pci scores, there was a
change in the way that was determined. and that resulted in a n score. and we understand that the old score was69. the revis scoreorhe city is a 75. and if i understand you correctly, you mentioned that was e a no change, it was just a change to the method of determining the score. but it is still reflects a 3% increase from 2013. evendjusted for the different methodology used to reach the score, correct? >> yes, it does. >> mr. hughes: outstanding, thank you. on the streetscape pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements,
74% of the 73 projects are substantially completed, 12% ar. could you g ue just a little bit moinrmation? of the raing 12%, how close are they, what is the status, please? >> so, on streetscape there were, as you may recall, two types of projects. the larger, 24 of those, and initially we had 49 of what we called following the paving projects. out of the 24 streetscape projects, now that we're closing out within the next month four more projects that, will take us to 23 out of the 24 will be done by the winter of this year. out of the 49, there were a number of projects that were cancelled. as you can see --
so on this slide, on the far right, you can see that 10 of those projects were actually ncelled. so we had a total of 39 of those. so the 73 was reduced to 63. and in any event, those projects are now largely completed, so we're really down to one streetscape project, and that will complete our streetspe overall. >> mr. hughes: fanttic. i know we discussed the criteria, or what triggers cancelled projects. maybe fort benefit of the other commission members you could exn howrojects are cancelled. >> so when we developed the initial 73 projects, it was in
conjunction with all city departments, planning department, mta, puc and others to determine what the bes implemeation or the use of the funds would be under criteria established in the bond report. several of those projects were by other sources, in other words, took advantage of projects that were out there before the bond project was ready to move forward. so they were already done. others were determined to be infeasible, things that the mta wished to do, like add in a bike lane, or change the configuration of an intersection after they did more detailed analysis, it was determined not to work the way they wanted to, and we would cancel those projects as well. it was a combination of those scenarios and in our report we will define where the projects went and the funding was
reallocated to. >> mr. hughes: fantastic. thank you. i'm almost done. madame chai if i could, on curb ramps, we're at 115%. we won't -- so congratulations. and thank you. and the richland avenue bridge project, what is the status on that? >> so as i mentioned, the design is completed and at this point the project manager is looking at other fund sources so fund the complete work. we used this -- the funding within the bond to sort of jump start that project and get it ready for the construction funds. we anticipate having those funds later this year an commencing the work in early 2019. >> mr. hughes: and there is
reference to 1 thousand -- 100,000 bond funds that would be returned back to the bond fund? tt is a option. we have not decided. but what i mention here is that given t delay inng money to that project, one option would be to -- because you have to complete any work you started under b anoe can take this money out and apply to it a smaller project that we can get constructed within the near term. because the richland contract is roughly a two-year construction projeco we sould hold open the bond until that completion, even though there would be no additional bond funds expended. it's something we haven't quite made a decision on, but that's the option we have there. >> mr. hughes: and madame chair, i appreciate your patience. one last question.
let me just check my notes here before we let mr. thomas go. that's it. thank you very much. >> ms. chu: thank you. i think mr. carlsonas a comment. >> mr. carlson: actually, a question, page 3, the street repaving and reconstruction. i'm not sure what the current labance is right now, i'm not sure anybody does, but is that balance allocated to the four remaining projects? >> i think. at the time this was summarized, it was a combination of things. it was either remaining projects or outstanding support costs like construction administration costs and/or work authorizations to the mta for striping and support costs associated with those projects. >> mr. carlson: and when is the expected completion of this
program? the project, when do you expect this one to be complete? is there a completion date? >> the paving team is here, they can probably answer specifically on the paving projects. palou is not going to advertise until june, so roughly 20, 21, beginning of 2021 before that finishes. the paving program? >> ramon, paving program manager, public works. we have basically four contracts with paving out on the street righndt now construction. the first one is irving street, which is joined with streetscape, that started six months ago. >> mr. carlson: i'm sorry, just a real quick question. there is four projects under construction. but there is still another project to be advertised? >> yes. >> palou.
>> mr. carlson: when is the estimated completion date of palou, maybe you don't know that? >> i believe it's 18-24 months. >> mr. carlson: that's all i needed. all right, thanks. and then second, on the streetscape pedestrian bicycle. are the improvements currently under way on masonic street part of this program? or were they funded by different? >> they were not funded by the bond. >> mr. carlson: ok, thank you. >> ms. chu: any other comments? >> i have a couple of questions. in terms of pedestrian safety, mta says it's going to expand the amount of time allowed for people to walk in crosswalks by a second or up to even five seconds, but it will take a number of years for that to take
place. what role does youror w have in relationship to that? and why will it take years for that to take place? >> i can't -- i don't know if we have anybody -- i don't think cheryl is here today, so i can't speak to why it would take as long as that. sounds like they have to update grade the signal timing cards for each one of the intersections. >> they said ten years, te yearsis a long time. >> it is. i can reach out tthe mta representatives on that and work on getting you an answer if you like. for the most part, our streetscape projects incorporated any safety improvements that the mta recommended were added to those projects. some of that included bulb outs, including visibility. there was streetlighting added to some of the projects. intersection improvement, signal changes, all of those things
combined, obviously, the paving and curb ramps also enhanced the safety of the intersections. but those are the lions share of the elents we would add. >> according to the report, 50% of the deaths in crosswalks are people who are 65 or older. so it seems like theres a population that is certainly heavily impacted by this. one of the things that is a correlary to safety for seniors is the accessibility of handicapped parking. when was the last time tha you people or anyone took analysis of whether or not we needed more handicapped parking available? i know for example in the castro, right by the walgreens, which is a place you would expect to park handicapped, eight spaces have been removed for buses and no single space is available for handicapped people. how does a decision like that get made? >> so there is a representative
again at the whomt focuses on painted curbs throughout the city and determines whehore t go. i will say when we do streetscape improvement project, that element is analyzed. in our accessibility coordinator usually recommends that we add in blue curbs on some locations to meet code required numbers. but in general, oaving projects, to my knowledge, it is not something that is evaluated. >> it's a piece of the safety in the city that matters to a lot of people. one last question. when you are undertaking major construction, it has impact on commercial businesses, especially small businesses that require some pedestrian access. or at least people being able to drive up, i notice this is certainly true on market street where a lot of work is being done. it goes o f a long period of time. in other cases, for example, when the central freeway was
being done, there was a program that provided some compensation to businesses for the loss of business they had. does your program take look at the commercial business losses and what its impact is in the neighborhoods, and whether or not you have funds, either through the bond or elsewhere, to provide compensation? or whether you review whether or not the construction is taking much longer than anticipated and so the period of inconvenience, putting it mildly, is much longer than people had been led to believe? >> i mean, certainly our department is sensitive to those issues. we have been working with the mayor's office, workforce development as well as members of the board of servirs who expressed similar concerns, came up with measures.
i'm only aware of one program, central subway, which looked into compensation for the businesses. it has not typically been done and certainly not in my career, although it has been something we've been discussing for some time with members of the board. >> we might look at that when we do analysis of the post construction survey later in the program. thank you. >> ms. chu: thank you.ther comments from members? >> mr. hughes: the last question that escaped me earlier, any idea when we'll get numbers. i know it's not years. >> i can pass that one off to the controller. >> good morning, again, committee members. so in talking with the finance officers, department of public works, current status is the majority of non-labor related expenses have now been cleaned up. not complete, but the majority
have and they're in the process of a systematic allocation of lar costs. the expectation that i've heard from public works is that work will be completed by the end of june. such that by the time you have your next update here, you should see refreshed and validated information. >> mr. hughes: thank you. >> ms. chu: thank you. any public comment on this bond presentation? >> good morning, my name is jerry. i'd like to commend the department of public works on their package and i'd like to focus on page 10, which is change orders. the reporting is greatly improved, of course that leads to more probing questions. when you look at page 10, they've done a nice job of breaking out the four types of
change orders and it's safe to say that change orders as a percent of total cost are at least 7% of the project, which bu quite high. the other thing that is quite interesting, too, when you look at the four reasons, for change orders, is client request. i would think on road resurfacing the manager and the client are the same department. that's interesting. street structures, relatively a small expenditure has 39% change order rate. which is pretty dramatic. so i guess in the closeout process, it's been called out in many of the csa audits, we have a change order problem in the city. so i would like in the closeout
process, analysis looking at the cost, the change orders and what is driving them. thank you. >> ms. chu: any other public comment? seeing none, let's move onto the next item. >> item 5, presentation from the mayor's office of housing and community developme abouthe t 2015 affordable housing bond and possible action by the committee in response to such presentation. >> good morning, kate hartley, i'm the director of the mayor's office of housing and community developmen we are pleased to be here today to report good proess on our $310 million affordable housing bond. as you recall, we had three categories of expenditures, public housing, affordable
housing, low-income housing which had a subset of low-income housing for the mission neighborhood, and middle income housing. the first bond issuance is projected to be 93% expendedy 2018 and ful expended by 2019 and we do have a little bit of news to just follow up on. we presentationed this information at our last meeting and we did reallocate funds in our low-income housing category. we took funding that we had reserved for 250 laguna honda road for senior housing and applied it to senior housing at 296 shotwell. 448 mission, we moved that to family housing in the embarcadero neighborhood at 88 broadway. i want to state for the record and this is something you'll be
interested in, there were some news reports regarding our reallocation of funding for 250 laguna honda that suggest thad the reason we pulled away from that project was because of neighborhood opposition. and there was strong neighborhood opposition. most ot does get neighborh opposition on every project we work on. it's a job hazard for building affordable housing in a dense city. but i want to assure the public and you that the reason that we pulled away from 250 laguna honda was solely due to the need to be cost effective in our application of bond funds. there was site due diligence that our team did on the site, is that showed a very unstable hillside above our parcel. and the geotechnical engineers
advised us there would be a stream of debris constantl flowing down onto our project. in addition, more seriousl that there was severe seismic safety risk for the homes above our parcel and that created what we thought was potentially an unsafe condition with serious cost implications. as well, there was a church on the site that had been deemed historic resource. and so we were unable to use that land that we thought we couldeplace with housing for housing. so the combination of fewer units and high costs and high long-term liability led us to the decision that it made sense mo cost effective development. and into a development that we could get going immediately. so the public could see the bet of the bond funds. so just wanted to state that for
the record. also 4840 mission, that has a better story. by our engaging in development at that site, it opened up on t opportunity at the adjacent site which will lead to an aitional 75 units of affordable housing through a sort of joint venture arrangement. so we're really excited about that. ok, so you can see the level of disbursed and encumbered and the funds for the various categories. i can tell you now that all the funds have been 'em cumbered, so we're well on our way to expending those bond proceeds and this money will help to develop 840 affordable homes. and we're also really excited about the next bond issuance,
$146 million, it will be the second issuance wrapped up by next week. and we expect all the funds to be fully disbursed by the end of 2020. i'm happy to answer questions. >> ms. chu: mr. bush? >> mr. bush: i had an opportunity to talk to kate hard hartley, she was very informative. i think -- a minute or two, to put context into the housing bond. because the housing bond is a little different than the bonds othave. s we have the city doing the cruction and this one, it's not the city. what happened in many bonds is that there is not as much specificity as you expect, which makes it harder to evaluate, that people are getting what they thought they were getting.
that can be advantage in how w spend the money and it can be a concern for people in the community. for example, if you thought a park was coming in by you and it's not going to come in by you, you don't know for sure why that is. t i make clear is the that the city is not gaining the bond, it's not playing politics with it. there are developments that require the city to be more nimble in how its spending money. some of the ones that need to be acknowledged is the north bay wildfires, that destroyed hundreds of homes. the explosion in construction in the city. both of which created a heavy demand for trained workforce and fort heavy demand on materials for construction. then you can look ahead and say, well, we have a pretty good amount of money intended for public housing, but that public
housing will require section 8 vouchers for the residents in order to stay there. and now, the trump administration, and secretary carlson from my old agenc of hud, wants to change the rules. and the rules would be you would no longer be able to deduct the cost of medicalare or childcare. so in effect, it's goingo relower the amount of money that residents will have and some of thil wl lose their housinhousin. so it's important to realize that as we work in this environment, whether it's natural disasters or a political disaster in washington, we still ha t beble to adjust to it. it doesn't just trickle down on
us, it cascades down on us. we will never have the money to build our way out of the houses crisis. what we cano psvide some sort of bulwark that protects some tenants from the worst effects of what is going on. it's going to require that we listen to the community and communicate well with the community as changes take place, rather than after the fact say this is what happened and why we did it, but thiis we're going to do and this is how we'll do it. 250 laguna, is a good example. there were a large number of people that came to our meeting and asked us to a their an while the effect of the change does meet their concerns, it wasn't prompted by their concerns. it was prompted by real situations on the site. one kind of wish they did the
same work at the millennial towers, but that's a problem for somebody else than us. is there anything in addition in looking at the context of this stuff you want to say to the committee? >> i would just say that there is a new report out by the research and consulting firm, turner and townsend, they do global analytic work on the construction industry and san frano is they have determined that san francisco is the second most expensive place to build in the world, behind new york. they also have found that in 2018, we can see further cost increases in construction to the point where they've called san francisco an overheatedrket. and that we have -- we're really struggling with a lack of skilled labor. and so i think that we as
li, need to be cognizant of these changes, because they will affect our workforce, and to protect our most vulnerable residents and maintain a safe and healthy community and city. so this fund is important and it's part of our larger effort and we really have to think wholistically given the macro economic challenges that we have. >> mr. bush: thank you. i took a little more time than ordinarily, but i think the context of this is important. we're about the only place that the public gets to hear answers to these kinds of questions. it really doesn't take place at this lev at any other city departments. that before us, goe beyond our
jurisdiction, more apprentices being trained. they're all issues we need to be aware of andwhat it is we're doing. so thank you. >> ms. chu: thank you, ms. hartley, the consulting catastrophe -- study that you referenced, that san francisco is the second most expensive place to build, could you haot to us? >> i would be happy to. >> mr. hughes: the public expenditure dollars that are shown, that's outside of rad, correct? >> yes, that is outside of rad. >> ms. chu: mr. carlson? >> mr. carlson: one, on the summary report, it's quite watered down from last report. and did not include the fact that these are the 2015
affordable housing bonds. and as of what date? i would appreciate on future reports go back, so it's a littlemore. >> sorry about that. arlson: a i really appreciate the detailed report. there is a lot of great information in that. on page 27 of that report, the total number of affordable units that are projected to be created is a 1388. and in the last report it was 1785. so somewhere along the line we lost about 400 units. it looks like about 250 are in the low-income housing that may be from switching from laguna honda to the other two. but the middle income housing that dropped by 170 units and i didn't see discussion of that. maybe you could comment on that. >> there was a loss of units
projected in the low-income housing unit because of the reallocation of funds. elso because of rising co w have been able -- we have had to spend more on per-unit bas foprojects. also, the same is true of the middle income housing. we projected, even a year ago, we projected a certain per-unit subsidy that because of the costs and also at the federal level, i didn't mention this, but with the federal tax reform act that was finalized in aroximately $50,000 in equity per unit from our low-income housing tax credit program. the only source of replacement we' facing dual challenges, less assistance at the state and federal level, and higher costs. so that is resulting in higher
gap funding on a per-unit basis from us. but we can go back and give you more specificity on exactly where those differences are. r. carlson: ok,nd then on page 29, there was an ed progress towards construction completion. and it looks like in public housing from six month ago, that estimated construction prss b5%. so there was a 5% -- each of the other categories remained exactly the same, does that mean in the last six months, there has been no progress on on those other categories? >> no, it's just -- it reflects the fact that the completion date -- sorry, the progress date on paper tends to be static as your predevelopment process
ensues. so we might be in predevelopment for one, two, three years and it looks like -- it's called predevelopme i bct we make strong progress towards the big milestone of a construction loan closing and construction commencement. so we have made good progress on all of our projects. as i mentioned, all of our first issuance bond funds are encumbered, we actuallyroke ground on sunnydale parcel q, the fir public housing project in sunnydale, after march 2018. so it wasn't reflected here. so there is good progress happening. and we will have expended all those funds by the end of the year. >> mr. carlson: is there an opportun f members of this committee to tour a project site and see some of that progress? >> sure, y we would be very happy to have
you tour potrero parcel x. that was the first public housing development at sunnydale and pore it's scheduled completion this year and ud bond funds for the development. and seeing the new construction relative to the existing conditions at the site, would be great. it would be really instructive. >> mr. carlson: thank you very much. >> i'd like to go on that. >> ms. chu: i do have a question. on the quarterly report on page 27 that mr. carlson just referred to, if you look at the lower part, under the heading, middle income housing, $80 million allocated, the line items are quite specific below that, and i was just wondering, going down to the third one,
middle income teacher housing 43rd and irving. can you shed some light and elaborate a little bit on this type of assistance, the teacher housing, how it is rally, the concept, how it is actually the policy is? and this is specific, it caught my eye because it said 43rd and irving, what about some of the other areas in the city? >> well, the city has worked with san francisco unified for many years to try toevelop housing because -- teacher salaries are in my personal opinion, not what they should be and teacher's salary, it's hard to afford market rate housing in san francisco. tas lot of back-and-forth for a long time and then finally mayor lee couldn't take it anymore and directed us and the school district to pick a surplus site that the school district
controlled and gosh darn it, build house organize on it. so -- housing on it. we have b working successfully with the school district. they have a site at 43rd and irving, they own it, control it, so they c donate that land. one of the obstacles was fair housing limitations on your ability to restrict occupancy in a building that is publicly ized to one employment categ so we worked with then senator mark leno to get legislation passed at the state which allows us and every locality in california now to create teacher housing on publicly subsidized -- with public subsidies on school district lands. so all that put in motion what is going be, i think, a great development at 43rd and irving.
so teachers, in addition to having a hard time earning -- arfot rate rents, they typically make too much to afford our housing that we build with low-income housing tax credits. so this is middle income housing for in-class room educators that this bond will be funding. in addition, we're going to have a component of this development funded with low-income housing tax credits to serve para professionals. really vital employees like, special needs aides and classroom aides and other in classroom instructors who are not teachers. their income is lower and they do qualify for tax credit housing. we picked a developer about a month ago. and we're on our way to the
design. >> ms. chu: thank you. you gave us a lot more information than i wanted, but i'm glad to know that you're actively working to clap collaborate with the school board to carry out the fus. >> sorry about the long windedness, i'm reallyxcit go b tha -- about that project. >> ms. chu: public comment on the bond? seeing nonext it. >> item 6, presentation from various departments about the 2010 and 2014 eser bonds and possible action by the committee in response to such presentation.
charles, i'mr s project is manager and program manager for the safety and emergency response programs, 10 and 2014. you all are very familiar with the components of our respective bonds, 2010, 2014, so i won't belabor those. i'll jump right into the overview, executive summary. regard to highlights and accomplishments, we're very proud to tell you that of the 30 cisterns we committed to deliver upon for the sake of the reliability of the aw/e system, they are all complete.
that's quite accomplishment. in regard to fire facility, we have also recently completed the deal for fire station 5. those who drive down turk and webster will have seen that impressive array of steel up in the air and our project is well under way. our project manager will elaborate on that more in her portion of this presentation. similarly, fire station 35, the fire headquarters is moving forward quite well. parenthetically we're presenting to the conservation commission in the month of june. and that's a very important date tothat. again, our pm will speak on the police side of equation, we have recently demolished the old paria bakery. that is a most certain sign of the construction work to emerge.
again, our manager will speak to that. and finally, as you all know, bears repeating, the medical examiner facility inaugurated last year, is fully in operation an we received final completion of certificate in march of this year. i won't touch on upcoming milestones because i don't want to steal my pm's thunder, so i'll ask them to speak to those. in regard to bond sales and appropn, wriatiohave sold a of the bonds that pertain to eser, certainly 2010, but in most recent time, 2014. t fse f the bond sale will be this week, may 23. in regard to risks iues and other concerns, you know we've said this mveyr the pllae ofye is, tk, we have a very challenging marketplace that really puts us in a very interesting position, sometimes at a disadvantage in
. >> i'll speak about the neighborhood fire station first. i'll start with fire station number 16. so as charles already mentioned, structural steel for fire station 16 has been completed, and roofing and building envelope has progressed, and we experience a very small delay due to the weather condition. rain delays -- that has already caught up, so we are already on
schedule. and utility wrap ins are alread scheduled. the final completion is projected in september of this fire numti five,till completion ceremony was held on the 26, and that was capped by th pouring of the concrete and second and third floor. almost a month ago weoured the concrete slab on grate, and this project is tracking on completion and budget. completion is scheduled for december of this year.