tv [untitled] August 29, 2011 6:00am-6:30am PDT
an increase in budget which remains $1,709,000. through this contracts, texas was services provided relief to monitor and oversight of the remediation activities at treasure island as well as assisting treasure island development authority in property transfer negotiations with the navy. amec geomatrix also provides engineering services for treasure island. this resolution authorizing the amendment to the amec geomatrix contract is before this body as required by statute. this concludes my presentation. i'm happy to answer any questions that committee members might have. also, thank you, supervisors, for your past support of this project. supervisor chu: i do not believe we have a budget analyst report on this item, given there is no
general fund impact. if there are no other questions, why don't we open this up to the public. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? >> you have got city budget style that is what the city says i know you will bring it back today and i want it reached now there is something else i want to say you will fix it up with an geomatrix all over the city you will fix it up with geometrics all over, all over the city now supervisor chu: thank you. any other members of the public that wish to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. i have a motion to send the item forward with recommendations, we can do that without objection.
next item please. >> item 7. ordinance amending the san francisco administrative code by amending section 10.82 to authorize the controller to establish cash difference and overage funds for the use of any county officer or department head or judicial district handling judicial funds; to increase, reduce, or discontinue the funds; require any county officer or department head using such funds to report to the controller; and require the controller to annually report to the board of supervisors regarding the cash difference and overage funds. supervisor chu: thank you. for this item, for the controller's office or to the treasurer's office, who would like to make a presentation? >> good morning, i am with the treasurer's office. the proposed ordinance today amend the minister did code
section 10-82 to abolish the cash difference fund and over to fund and authorizes the control to establish and oversee castor prints and over to fund for any county officer or a department head at the authorized. the treasurer has worked closely with the treasury on this change. we would like to thank mary fitzpatrick and the comptroller's office for their work. we would also like to thank the deputy attorney for drafting the ordinance. the proposed change is in response to an audit finding this is included in the committee package. the audit found some departments were maintaining their own cash and were only reporting to the treasurer periodically, rather than daily, as required. this change is present -- consistent with california law. as i mentioned, we have worked " and nobly with the controller
and treasurer. this ordinance is recommended by the budget and legislative analyst. supervisor chu: anything in the controller's office would like to add to the presentation? >> we are just pleased with the cooperative nature of putting this forward. controller's office is prepared to take on this responsibility. supervisor chu: supervisor kim? supervisor kim: i was curious about the history of this legislation. it says that this was antiquated. how long ago did we put this legislation into place? >> i believe near 2000. supervisor kim: what was the thought process behind the ability of departments to report this on a daily basis? or what was the intent of this legislation originally? >> i think when the government
code was initially written, this was essentially for it if you had a cash tail and you had extra at the end of the day. when cities had much less complex financial operations, it made sense that all the money being funneled into the treasurer would account for that. given that we operate in a different environment now, this change, which is authorized by the government code, it is a good one and makes more sense for the department, and actually reflects what is happening. supervisor kim: i definitely agree. i just wonder how we ever thought it would be possible to daily report this to the treasurer's office. no response. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. mr. rose? >> madam chair, members of the committee, this legislation, if
approved, referring to your point, supervisor kim, will reduce the individual city department of paperwork by allowing the city to report to the controller on an annual basis, rather than on a daily basis. we recommend you approve the ordinance. supervisor chu: to the comptroller's office, based on my understanding of what the budget analyst as reported, there would not be additional expenses occurred -- incurred. it would be a door through the existing resources? >> that is correct. supervisor chu: thank you. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? item 7. >> please don't be mean, don't be mean i am begging you your budget is beyond compare and i hope you will be there i hope the budget committee will not be mean
you can have your choice of things and all i can do is sing and bring back the money do not be lean do not be mean. i am begging of view, bring the money. supervisor chu: thank you. any other members of the public who wish to speak on item 7? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues? we have a motion to send item for with recommendations. without objection. thank you. item eight please. >> item 8. resolution declaring the intent of the city and county of san francisco (city) to: 1) reimburse certain expenditures from proceeds of future bonded indebtedness; 2) authorizing the director of the mayor's office of housing (director) to submit an application and related documents to the california debt limit allocation
committee (cdlac) to permit the issuance of qualified mortgage revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $26,000,000 for 121 golden gate avenue (12. supervisor chu: we have teresa young from the office of mayors housing. >> this is to authorize our office to apply to the california debt limit allocation committee. the amount would be $26 million. this is, with financing and the city is not responsible for the repayment of those bonds. indeed, they would be repaid from the longstanding tax credit program, as well as hud section 202 financing. that is a very competitive process. that financing would be used to pay the bond.
we are only asking authorization to apply, and then we would come back to the board in the spring of 2012 to seek authorization to issue the bond. in terms of the project itself, 90 units of senior housing above the redevelop st. anthony's dining room at the corner of golden gate and jones. it will be a wonderful project was completed. with the redevelopment of this site, we will be able to serve more people in the tenderloin and surrounding communities. supervisor chu: just a quick question with regards to the ability, obligation to pay this back. this is not a general fund obligation? >> absolutely not. true, but financing. supervisor chu: supervisor kim? supervisor kim: i am excited about this project moving forward. i'm excited to be a partner in this. there is a lot happening on this block.
it is a very well utilize space for the tenderloin neighborhood. engine would greatly enhance our ability to serve more of our residents. i am excited about the 90 units of affordable housing coming down the line for seniors. there is also a lot happening with tndc ready ready one of their hotels around the block. hopefully, we will see some important but it -- revitalization in the neighborhood, but one that serves the tenderloin community. supervisor chu: thank you. given there is no general fund impact and no budget analyst report on this item, so if there are no questions at this time, we can open this up to public comment. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues? we have a motion to send the
item forward with recommendations. seconded by supervisor kim. without objection. item nine please. >> item 9. resolution approving and authorizing an agreement for the purchase of a permanent tie- back easement and a temporary construction easement over, on, and in portions of assessor's parcel no. 038-200-020 located in the town of hillsborough, san mateo county, and required for the crystal springs pipeline no. 2 replacement project, known as project no. cuw37801, for a purchase price of $87,570. supervisor chu: thank you. please also call item 10 and item 11. >> item 10. resolution approving and authorizing an agreement for the purchase of a two permanent access road easements and two temporary construction easements over, on, and in portions of assessor's parcel nos. 253-270- 17, 19, 21, 24, and 25 located in san joaquin county, required for the san joaquin pipeline
system project no. cuw37301 for a purchase price of $83,900. item 11. resolution approving and authorizing agreements with purchase of a permanent access verdi's men and a temporary construction these men over, on, and in portions of assessor's parcel numbers 253-170-05 located in san joaquin county, required for the san joaquin pipeline system. supervisor chu: these are all items related to projects that the public utilities commission is undertaking. they all relate to permanent and temporary easements. >> john updike, acting director of real estate. item 9 is related to the crystal
springs pipeline number two improvement project. this property, i have an overhead for you. this is in the town of hillsborough. what is before the committee today is the purchase of temporary construction easements totaling 6440 square feet and a permanent easements of 4600 square feet. the settlement agreement calls for a purchase price of 87,005 and $7, which is between the appraised value and the requested amount from the owner and is pursuant to an summoned by the puc general manager and commission, who will approve this resolution. this is in conformance with the general plan, and with your approval, we would be able to execute the agreement for sale and the eastman documents for this project. i will do 10 and 11.
if you have questions, i also have brian from the puc. item 10 is for the san joaquin pipeline system improvements. this location is in the city of tracy. this acquisition is on the tracy called country club, shown here. roughly where my finger is is where the pipeline cuts across the country club. this is two timber construction easements totaling 1.1 acres and two permanent easements. the agreement reached here with the country club calls for them to handle turf restoration and sprinkler and cart path issues. the city's obligation is simply to return the great back to its
existing condition. in the country, take it from there. the purchase price includes adequate compensation for them to do that, and that is in the amount of $83,000. again, approved by the puc commission. we do have a general plan conformity letter on this as well. ymitem 11 is the same project. the city of tracy, san joaquin county. across the street from the golf course. this involves the acquisition from the dole family of eroded easement and a temporary construction even that lies along the road of 1.39 acres. this is also a settlement slightly above appraised values,
below the requested amount. really, reflective of the temporary construction easement time line. so it is not above the appraised value. simply a technical issue on the settlement. $10,000 to acquire those two rights. again, approved by the puc commission through the same resolution as the prior item. general plan conformity as well. those are the three items before you now. supervisor chu: thank you for the presentation. from my understanding, and these items do not have a general fund impact. they would be paid for through the public utilities program. is that accurate? colleagues, why don't we open up these items for public comment at this time. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? had in his nine, 10, 11?
-- items nine, 10, 11? seeing none, public comment is closed. do we have a motion? motion to send items nine, 10, 11 to the full board with recommendations. without objection. item 12. >> item 12. resolution approving the exchange of a portion of city property located near the intersection of folsom street and essex street with a portion of abutting real property owned by 515 folsom street llc; adopting environmental findings and other findings that the actions set forth in this resolution are consistent with the city's general plan and eight priority policies of city planning code section 101.1; and authorizing other actions in furtherance of this resolution. supervisor chu: thank you. mr. pike? >> this item is a resolution authorizes an exchange of city property with a private property owner known as 515 folsom st..
i have on the overhead the general area in the transbay terminal area. in particular, it is this parking lot, here, on folsom. essentially, and the area in pink is being exchanged for the area in yellow in the photograph on a overhead now. tjpa and the city, which permitted the transfer of state property -- to the city, and subsequently we are before you now with this exchange agreement that squares off the ownership of the private parcel and city parcel. it facilitates the city parcel through the redevelopment
agency, a party to that agreement, to allow for the development of affordable housing in the future. so this is step one of a secondary step. the particulars of this exchange are 746 square feet going in one direction, 2278 square feet in the other direction. the benefit of that, a differential of approximately $69,637. those are funds owed to the city, providing more land than the seller is provided to us. therefore, it is not quite an even exchange, but the agreement calls for the payment to be made by the llc to the city. supervisor chu: thank you for the presentation. this item does not have a budget analyst's report, given the no impact to the general fund. why don't we open this item up to public comment. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on
this item? item 12. seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, can we send this item forward with recommendations? without objection. thank you. colleagues, can we take a motion to rescind the vote on items nine, 10, and 11, so that supervisor kim can vote on these items? without objection. on items nine, 10, and 11, a motion to send these items out with recommendations. can we do that? thank you. item 13. >> item 13. resolution expressing the non- binding intent of the city and county of san francisco to comply with part 1.9 of the california health and safety code, recently added by assembly bill 27, for the purpose of providing the board of supervisors with up to an additional month, until november 1, 2011, to consider adopting an ordinance allowing the city and county of san francisco to continue to undertake state-authorized redevelopment activities by agreeing to make ongoing annual
payments for the benefit of other taxing entities, including the san francisco unified school district and city college of san francisco; and adopting findings that the resolution is not a project under the california environmental quality act. supervisor chu: thank you. for this item, we have ever presented it from the redevelopment agency. >> amy lee. i will make this brief because this is more of a procedural issue. we will be back before the board for a more substantive discussion about the actual mechanics of the payment. as you may or may not be aware, the state, in implementing ab 26, called for the dissolution of the agency and temporary suspension of our activities. coupled with that was also ab 27, which permitted cities and counties to bring the agency's
back to life, to continue to do redevelopment activities once their funds were paid to the education relief augmentation fund. that amount is under the community remit amount. that needs to be paid some time in the fall. there are two payments in january and in may. there are some procedural things in ab 27 that permits us to have additional time in coming up with how we are going to make this payment. so this resolution before you just permits the additional month's time for us to discuss with the mayor's office, as well as within our own program, to figure out where the funds will come to make this agreement. after the board comes back from recess, we will come back before you to discuss the details of where this amount will come
from. after august 1, we will have a more final definitive amount. right now, we just have an estimate, and we believe we could appeal this estimated amount. supervisor chu: thank you. it makes sense, given that we do go on recess. in terms of state actions, i know that some things are already passed and then with. in terms of uncertainties, you talk about the fact that the number we have to make in terms of the payment is still uncertain? >> yes, i believe the department of finance will be providing agencies with the number they believe is the amount due, in order to lift the suspension. we believe they did not calculate some of our debt obligations, so as a result, would potentially reduce the amount we would have to pay. right now, we estimate the amount around $26 million. we think it might be slightly lower. once the department of finance
gives us a number, we will have a short window to apply and provide that information. so this provides some clarity. supervisor chu: will they also be providing with the ongoing obligation will be? >> we believe so, yes. supervisor chu: from my perspective, we do not have a budget analyst's report on this item, because there is not get a specific plan associated with this resolution. so today, as we are acting on this resolution, we are not committing the city to anything just yet. that may come later on as we have time. just for the department's understanding -- and i know i have a conversation with our budget analyst. i would really like to see even supporting this resolution going forward to understand how that payment will be pulled together.
one of the outstanding items when we pass a budget was the kindest thing that we would have to deal with this redevelopment agency issue coming up. we do not have a pot of money set aside for this redevelopment payment, whatever that amount might be. i would be interested in seeing what that is and what the trade- offs are of how we are pulling this together. of course, the other thing i would like to understand, going forward, we currently have every development financing package. we also have an infrastructure financing district package. that packet we have approved on two occasions through this board. given that we will be making significant one time payment, and given we had an ongoing obligation, whatever that valley will be, i would be interested to see how they're redevelopment financing package now compares to an ifd. in the past, the redevelopment financing package always succexceeded the ifd numbers,
but i imagine we will be set a better off with redevelopment financing. but i would like to better understand those costs, how it looks. thank you. supervisor mirkarimi? supervisor mirkarimi: i am curious. what other jurisdictions in california, do you know, are looking to pay this new membership fee? >> i understand certain jurisdictions, like los angeles and oakland, the council has already adopted the intention. we are just adopting the extension of time, but they have already completed their adoption and final in tension. supervisor mirkarimi: i support this, if not everybody, the house majority does. member should certainly has its privileges. this is a strange way to keep redevelopment alive, by requiring a $26 million fee, in
essence, to keep this retained. what do we get in return? >> certainly, as to provided to mention, redevelopment financing compared to other -- as supervisor chiu mentioned, redevelopment financing compared to the others can save us money. our project areas are very robust. those are the benefits that i will try to lay out and make the comparison, but the tax increment financing is a bit more lucrative for the city and county. for everyone dollar of tax income that they provide to us, the net effect to the city and county is 57 cents on the dollar. so it also helps from a general fund perspective, rather than using the entire dollar to get an ifd financing going. supervisor mirkarimi: does this also portend to potential agency changes its up? >> absolutely.
there could be changes in the law of how we could look for the funding for this payment. there are different mechanism that we're looking to do to make reductions in our administrative staff, personnel, as well as economic development. we will also look to rely report. our existing funds in comparison with our debt obligation as well. there will be some changes. as you know, it is difficult right now. we still have some very active areas. mid market is a survey area, and we are still committed to those areas, but we have not done new hire for quite some time, and we do not anticipate too. so we have to reprogram some of our staff, as well as some of our priorities. this will be a big hit to our housing projects. there will be some projects that we will have to delay because some of the money will have to come from housing. we could go into the details of those specific projects and
impact of that. some of it will not be as devastating because of the timing of the financing from the developer's expect -- perspective they allow us to delay our funding of it. other times, it would be a significant hit. we have been under dress for the past seven months. during the past seven months, we have not been a bit too many of our housing activity that we would have been. as a result, it will really impact the future pipeline. the work we should have been doing in the past nine months, we are doing to prepare for the housing construction that would have been happening in january 2012. so we will see the bigger impact in the next coming year. i cannot say today that i cannot build housing that will start september 1.