tv Government Access Programming SFGTV January 16, 2018 4:00pm-5:01pm PST
recruit the next group of people? we're very proud of them. i believe they've come and talked during our selection panel but there are probably other ways to think about doing that. >> commissioner sanchez: i will heap on the praise as well, thank you, guys and gals, for all the work you have done to bridge the gap to get teachers in classrooms, so we don't have that gap has we have historically. [please stand by]
working on their credentialing. perhaps chris can add anything to that. it can be up to four years, and we're thinking creatively about -- for folks where some of the prerequisites to get into state to finish their bachelors is the problem. how do we continue to support them and give them career counseling so they can be more successful. >> and of how many are in the program, how many do you think would be done in the next year or two. >> yeah. i think the number is not a giant number, but six to eight a year. and we've had some -- i don't know of those that went from parent to teacher to pathway, because that's a logical pathway. sorry to overuse the term, but that helps. >> i think one of the things, too, so we're trying to think
of these four programs as options for different types of folks who want to give into teaching. i had an experience in one of the sf emat. one man didn't want to be a multiple subject teacher, he wanted to be a single subjects. so knowing how to give them that connection -- oh, you want to be a spanish bilink well teacher, here are your options. here's the pathway. what's better for you and how can we give you that? i do have data to looking at who's on target to complete, but i'd have to look that up, but i could probably get that to you. >> and lastly, you mentioned for the pathway to teaching model, it's a commitment.
why is there a commitment at all? that's one of my biggest critiques of tfa is it's a commitment. makes them look like they're a peace corps, so what's the reason for commitment? >> it's past practice. we're opening to considering it. >> commissioner santos, i know that's also been the case of sftr. what role the commitment makes in the retention makes is something we don't know. it could be several things, but it has been part of the program for eight years that sfmtr graduates sign an agreement with san francisco. >> what's the leverage if they leave before two years? >> the same in the case where any other teacher leaves. i mean, we have had to have conversations about the role of
hr. >> bad karma? >> bad karma. folks leave, but it's some combination of having made a commitment to a district that's also giving you a high level of support seems to be working in some context, and so we've taken that idea and applied it to the other program. >> okay. thanks. >> great. so i just have a few comments. so i'm really excited about everything that you guys have just shared with us because it's all -- the whole grow your own concept of -- is a beautiful thing, and i'm really glad that we're taking care of our parents in particular. they seem to have been an untapped resource for us in a long time. these are folks that have been in our schools and know our kids and are beloved, and i'm excited to help support them through the program.
i'm also excited about the cohortive teachers of color. i had the opportunity -- were you with me on that, mark? we went to the reception for the teachers of color, and it was just really great to -- that we have a targeted team that really seeks out our teachers of color. i'm curious about san francisco state. in the past, they've been kind of our largest resource for recruitment and just wondering how if we still have a strong relationship with them. i'm seeing that we're working with other universities, and just wanted to check in with them -- i mean, with you on them. >> yeah. great. san francisco state is the largest partner in our ihe, our network, and we do make a point of meeting with them separately, as well, because
they are a critical partner in filling a lot of our positions. so one of our initiatives that we're working on now is being more strategic in how we place interns and student teachers from san francisco state so that it's more strategic and more focused towards our pipeline needs. so similarly what we're doing with our other pipeline, we're targeting t working with the folks at hr. a lot of this happens by relationships, that folks at sfsd has with a lot of principals and teachers, so we're broadening that. >> i think we're doing this with a lot of new programs, but also with state. i also want to make sure we provide the appropriate supports and on boarding for those teachers as well, because
that seemed to be a little bit of a deficit in the past and something that we've heard from teachers in the past, like, you know that wasn't happening at readily. and i'm really glad that we're doing a lot more focus on a lot more robust onboarding, because i think that makes a huge difference between our district and another district. if a teacher makes a decision to go to a district down the road than ours because we're going to provide the type of support services that they need to feel welcome and to feel like they're being honored and appreciated. so -- and i know several years ago, we did a whole onboarding for teachers through the ilab. did any of that stuff stick? are we using any of those new onboarding pieces that came from the ilab? >> yeah. confer he continuing -- we're continuing to integrate people
with ideas coming from the ilab, and we're doing what are people doing from the time that they are hired until they're hired by the schools. i think that we've identified through the survey data that that's been a weak spot, and so we've implemented some of those new initiatives last year, and we aim to implement some new ones for the coming year to better support folks that are coming both from san francisco state and across all of the different areas where we hire, both with a two-day -- two full days of orientation that is both technical and also specifically focused on curriculum. as well, we've just launched an on-line professional development catalog where folks can begin taking courses around our core curriculum once they're onboarded with the systems. we have worked really diligently with the department of technology and human resources to make sure that the
office of professional learning and leadership knows exactly who all the new teachers are, which one of those teachers are emergency teachers or interns or earning their preliminary versus teachers on clears, so we can make coaches we have for the first couple of weeks of school versus assigning them at the end of october, and we think that'll help at well. >> and leslie, one of the things that i'm working on is some kind of a teacher incentive or payment program, you know, looking to find some funds that we can use to support teachers in some way. are any of the programs that we have here -- do any of the teachers incur their own loan or fee or tuition that has become burdensome or if -- and within any one of these programs if there was a way to support these funds or -- in
some capacity as an incentive. is that useful to you? >> well, the right answer is yes. we -- we would love to talk. if you're identifying sources of funding that can support any of these programs, we'd love to talk. >> okay. let's do that at some point because we've kind of conjured up some ideas, but i think if we can make them a lot more concrete and attach them to programs within that speak specifically to teacher recruitment, there could be some really great alignment that could come out of that, so we'll find some time to do that. >> great. any other questions or comments from my colleagues? all right. seeing none, thank you all so much. this is great and exciting. we look forward to having zero vacancies in the fall.
yeah. [ applause ] >> all right. section i is the consent calendar, items removed at previous meeting. there are none tonight. section j is the assignment of proposals to committee. there is one item, board item 13390, and unless i hear different from legal, this policy is referred to buildings and legal, grounds, and legislation committee, so can i hear a motiand second for firs reading of this board policy? >> second. >> so moved. >> section l is board members reports. standing committees. we have no committee meetings that have taken place since our last board meeting -- oh, last night. you already reported on that. >> i have a little more. >> okay. >> board policies and community
meeting met last night. some good news, there's a basic prediction with the governor's 2018-19 state budget preliminary proposal, which will be released tomorrow. we're hoping that school spending authority could rise by $5.3 billion, including prop 98 going up about $650 million, base funding up $2.6 billion, and $1.1 billion in full funding from the current year. we could reach full lcf funding in 2018-19, and still ranked 46th in the nation even with that funding in education funding among states. so the good news is we'll get all of our money, probably. the bad news is we're nowhere near even the state median. so we talked a little bit about what we as a state could be
doing, and obviously, prop 13 has been at the forefront of everybody's mines over the years, to split that so that corporate or agro businesses were taxed differently and part of that money would make it to education funding. we locally are looking at a ballot initiative, living wages for educators in 2018. there's another pushing the envelope on funding, not just adequacy. and then, focusing on increasing the lcff base. and a lot folks now that la unified as a board resolution that's promoting $20,000 perkid by 2020, and there's a get to the real 2007-08 level and add to that. really, in my mind, though, prop 13 reform is the real way to get to adequate funding
overall for californians. there's a number of state legislative priorities that we would like to see shored up. funding for cte, special ed, focus on funding and distribution. child care focus on availability of slots and reimbursement rates, foster youth and children with incarcerated parents funding, filling the teacher pipeline and charter school reform. and then, there's been talk and it's been ongoing. we've talked about it, about having a 51% parcel tax threshold. that's it. i want to thank counsel very much for helping us through the discussion, and council member cascio. >> any other standing committees? >> i just want to announce that the curriculum committee will meet on wednesday, the 17th, at 6:00 p.m.
>> any others budget -- commissioner wong. >> we will have a budget and finance committee meeting on that day at 9:00 p.m. >> the personal labor and affordablity committee meeting will be meeting on thursday, january 25th, at 5:00 p.m. >> great. thank you. and then, the links and grounds will be meeting on the 22nd, and i am going to check to see if we can move the time on that, as well, to move it to 5:00 instead of 6:00, but i'll check with my committee members. okay. so any other -- board members
>> second. >> thank you. >> okay. roll call. [ roll call. ] >> that's seven ayes. >> great. thanks. and then, i will read the actions from tonight's closed session. in the matter of one case of anticipated litigation, the board voted by a vote of 6-5, the board by a vote of six ayes and one absent, haney, approved the statement of charges and resolution to dismiss one teacher. the board by a vote of six ayes, and one absent, approved a resolution to suspend without pay one teacher in the -- in the matter of sfusd versus lm, case number 2017110545. the board, by a vote of six
start over -- ok, this is a meeting of the budget and finance committee for thursday, january 11, 2018. yes. i am supervisor norman yee, vice chair of the committee and joined by supervisor katy tang. supervisor malia cohen is excused from today's meeting. can we have a motion? >> motion to excuse supervisor cohen. >> supervisor yee: madam clerk, linda wong, and i would like to thank somebody, here. thank jesse larson and jim smith from the s.f.govtv for
broadcasting this meeting. clerk will also provide your names. madam clerk, do you have announcements? >> clerk: silence all cell phones and electronic devices, and items submitted to the clerk. items acted on will be on the january 23rd unless otherwise stated. >> number one, resolution authorizing the resolution and second amendment to the ground lease mission bay affordable housing with the refinancing and minor rehabilitation, king streets and rich sorro commons. >> good morning, chair yee and supervisor tang. so, item number one before you is a resolution that would authorize our department to amend the ground lease for rich
sorro commons. this project is an existing affordable housing project, located in mission bay neighborhood. it is owned and managed by the mission housing development corporation and provides 100 units of housing for low income individuals and families at a maximum of 50% of area median income, ground for retail and a child care center managed by the mission neighborhood center. this project was previously funded with bonds from the former redevelopment agency. mission housing is seeking a new loan with freddie mac to pay off the remaining balance of the original bonds and to get capital to rehab the community room. the new lender, freddie mac, requested the city revise the ground lease to include some protections in case there a default of the loan. specific changes to the leases are, in a document captured in the supporting file, supporting document in the file called the
second amendment to the ground lease. and those changes are specifically additional language in sections 1-5, that provide reasonable commercially reasonable protections to the lender in case there is a default by the property owner, and also language added in section six that would bring the ground lease to the city's current legal requirements. since we introduced the resolution back in december, the lender has also requested some additional changes that our department has come to agreement with. these changes are in an updated version of the second amendment that we are, that i have copies of currently and i can ask madam clerk to circulate to the committee members. so, specifically the updated second amendment version that you are looking at now has a couple of additional changes
that we have agreed to with the lender. we have added a new section 2, number 2, outlines the lender's right to foreclosure and assign the ground lease, provided the transfer of the property would go to a non-profit organization. also revises section 5 to slightly modify the participation of the lender in condemnation proceedings related to the property and section 7 adds language to limit the liability to the lenders prior to foreclosure and acquisition of the property. none of the changes that you are looking at now or the changes in the earlier version of the second amendment alter, would change the lease payments, the term of the lease or the levels of affordability for the project. so we ask to forward with positive recommendation and joined by my colleague, jackie
zoe, the city attorney, and from mission housing, in case the members have any questions. thank you. >> supervisor yee: in regards to the amendments you are asking for, in terms of the language, is this pretty standard language? >> i'll ask maybe our jackie, jackie from our office to talk to the amendments and the ground lease. but we are not actually making any amendments to the resolution. the supporting files, the second amendment to the ground lease is where we have made some changes based on the most recent negotiations with the lender. jackie, can i ask you to speak to the supervisor's question to the ground lease changes? >> good evening, so, the question is about the language in the ground lease amendments. so, the bulk of the changes which are now reflected in item
number 8, those bring the ground lease up to the city's current ground lease standards. so, that is standard language. the amendments that amy spoke about, number 2-7, those are -- those are the lender-requested language that we have discussed and negotiated with them and have come to agreement. >> supervisor yee: thank you. good. no other questions, any public comments on this item? seeing none, public comments now closed. could i have a motion? >> supervisor tang: motion to send forth item 1 to the board with positive recommendation. >> clerk: resolution fixing
prevailing wage rates for various workers performing work under city contracts. >> supervisor yee: ok. patrick -- patrick mulligan, can you please come up and from the office of labor standards and enforcement to do a presentation on this item. >> thank you, supervisor yee and tang. annual adjustment for prevailing wage rates for work performed under city contracts and some cases for private work performed on city property. office of labor standards enforcement compiled this data. mostly through the california department of industrial relations. that would include the 66 classifications that are identified in the submittal. within that, there are many s subclassifications, many, and ten classifications unique to the city and county of san francisco adopted by the board
of supervisors, gathered data from the appropriate labor organizations, collective bargaining agreements and collected those for approval as the prevailing wage provisions for those classifications. >> supervisor yee: no questions, any public comments on this item? seeing none, public comment is now closed. a motion, please. >> supervisor tang: make motion to send to the full board for recommendation. >> clerk: i believe the budget analyst has a report on this item. >> supervisor yee: you know, i was not trying to ignore you, but yes, go ahead. >> good morning, supervisor yee, supervisor tang, the impact of this on the city in terms of the prevailing wage rates would really depend on the negotiated amount in contracts going forward. we do point out that the
administrative code requires the civil service commission to propose these wage rates to the board of supervisors, however, the board does have discretion in considering information beyond what the civil service commission provides, so we do consider this to be a policy matter. >> supervisor yee: no questions, motion on the floor, and no objection, motion passes. madam clerk. 3. >> clerk: authorizing the department of public health grant in 7.3 million from san francisco general hospital foundation, zuckerberg patient care quality improvement fund, octobers 23, 2017, through june 30, 2020. >> dr. susan erlich.
file 171163, zuckerberg patient care quality improvement fund, $7,000,34 $7,000,346 -- $7,300,000. to improve the quality of patient care we provide. three different categories of projects. the first category includes continued optimization of building 25 for access, readiness and safety. the second visitor experience and the third category, projects that invest in the future by enabling our leaders to transform patient care. the full three-year project as i said is $7,346,000.
the breakdown is approximately, as follows, in the first year is $4.8 million, the second year $2.5 million, and the last year is $100,000. i'm happy to answer n i questions about this project. >> supervisor yee: no questions. as always, a positive thing to use foundation money. >> yes, it is, thank you. >> supervisor yee: ok. are there any public comments on this item? seeing none, public comments now closed. >> supervisor tang: motion for item 3 to send to the full board, positive recommendations. >> supervisor yee: motion passes. >> clerk: item number 4, authorizing to accept and ex pend grant for the san francisco park alliance, for the playground renovation initiative, let's play sf, for
15 million. >> supervisor yee: ok. i have linda branson. from rec and park department here to present on this item. >> good morning, supervisors. good morning supervisors yee and tang. linda branson, item 4, resolution requesting authorization for the parks department to accept and ex pend a grant for $15 million, for 13 playgrounds as part of the let's play sf initiative. i want to start with some bookkeeping, there was some confusion in the supporting documents regarding the date the department wants authority to receive the grant funds. so, revised documents with the correct dates will be provided for the file. and due to this change, i want to request the following two
amendments to the resolution. page one, line three, strike out the word retroactive, and then page two line three, include the term dates of january 2018 through january 2026. ok. so then on to the program. so, just a little bit of background. this initiative is a partnership between the san francisco recreation and parks department and the parks alliance to renovate the city's worst playgrounds. these playgrounds serve 20,000 children and they contain unhealthy wood or low to moderate income neighborhoods dense with children. initiative has roots in the 2012 clean and safe neighborhood parks bond, contained $15.5 million pool of funding for what was then called failing playgrounds. after passage of the bond, the rec park commission appointed a
task force that met for six months in 2014 and considered a number of different criteria for determining how to prioritize playgrounds for renovation. they settled on three primary criteria for priority. first, the wood not healthy long they remember for children and playgrounds in neighborhoods with low, median income and high youth density. this led to the priority of 13 playgrounds across the city. since 15.5 million was not enough to address all 13 playgrounds, the department and the parks alliance, which had cooperated on hosting the task force, agreed to continue to partner in order to raise private funds so that we could transform all the sites more quickly than would be possible with public funds alone.
i want to add here we are grateful to the parks alliance for the partnership, we believe will help transform communities and lives for many san francisco residents. and just a quick note on why this is so important, playgrounds transform community, they, we know that outdoor play and play in general promotes creativity in children and of course getting outside to run around and play is the big promoter of youth wellness. so -- the details. this is a map that shows the playgrounds, the task force prioritized for renovation. tier one by orange dot and tier two are marked by a yellow dot. and again, 15.5 million was about enough to renovate the tier one playgrounds, but the partners were committed to
renovating all 13, and thus the partnership and the grant from the parks alliance. and this is the preliminary budget for the initiative. the expenses are the same in both columns. the only difference really is the size of the grant from the parks alliance. right now we are aiming towards 11 million, but we, depending on how costs come, the grant may be a little bigger because both parties are committed to getting all 13 playgrounds renovated. in tier one, costs from 1.7 million to just over 3 million. we are aiming to provide somewhat similar playgrounds in every neighborhood and the biggest reason for the cost variation is really size and site conditions. is pathway work necessary, grading necessary, do we have to
touch a bathroom and do a.d.a. so, that's where the budget comes from. we are doing cost estimating for tier two. we do expect that the end price for tier two will go up a little bit from what we originally thought but again, the partners are committed to raising the funds to do all of these playgrounds. and just to show, although we have been hard at work on this for, for two years now, we have started in 2016, and we have all six tier one playgrounds are in design. we are expecting the first playground, expecting to break ground on the first playground, washington square in the next few months. the rec and park commission has approved concept plans for let's see, for four of the six tier
one playgrounds and also west portal playground, a tier two, but has separate funding through a community opportunity fund project. and actually, also we'll begin design work on uri commons later this month. and i just wanted to end by saying one of the really nice elements of this partnership and this project is the enormous amount of community engagement we have had. so, to date on the first seven playgrounds, 56 community meetings, focus groups and neighborhood meetings. there have been a total of more than 1,000 people at these meetings. we have done 11 public surveys, and more than, gotten more than 1200 responses to these surveys, so we are deeply engaged with all of these communities in providing playgrounds and
listening to what they want and providing what makes sense for each neighborhood. and so with that, i wanted to thank you, and i hope you'll recommend authorizing the department to receive these funds. >> supervisor yee: i have to think about whether the city wants your funds or not. well, first of all, i would like to say thank you to the parks alliance for partnering with the city. >> actually, i, drew becker, the c.e.o. of the parks alliance is here. >> supervisor yee: i want to thank you for being a good partner, a great partner with the city. so many of our parks are in need of fixing, and i see that three of the tier two are in the west side, and a lot of times the west side gets sort of ignored.
and i want to say that i personally have been trying to get west portal playground renovated ever since i've been on the board of supervisors, and the fact that again i'll remind people when we did the 2012 bond kick-off, it was kicked off at west portal playground so i assumed it was part of the bond measure and lo and behold once i got on to the board of supervisors, it was not on there. so -- and thank goodness the community had probably the same thought in mind, that you know, we need to mobilize and actually start the process before the parks alliance oreck and park started their process, so i've seen, and really encouraged by the activism around that, and people, they made their own
designs, they had numbers of meetings that we, they have had fundraisers and so forth. so, i'm hoping that in the next three years before i leave office we'll get this done. >> that's fully our intention. >> supervisor yee: thank you very much. any public comments on this item? >> good morning, drew becker, c.e.o. of the san francisco parks alliance. thank you for your kind words and we are happy to partner with rec and park. i really truly believe this program is really setting the bar high for future partnerships and what we can do for citywide initiatives and raising funds to invest in our public play infrastructure. the partnership has just been -- we go to funders or whoever, it's great to walk in and like
playgrounds, we love playgrounds, we want to give you money. we wish that happened all the time, but it doesn't. it's been great and we are excited to invest in our neighborhoods. as lisa said, we have talked to and invested about 2,000 people throughout this, these community meetings, which has been really great. we have seven projects in construction and i think one of the big things we want to talk about is the ongoing friends groups that will be created around those playgrounds. with the 2,000 people we have engaged, we don't want to have them go away after the project is complete. so, we are actually actively engaging them throughout the construction process to create friends groups, to have them program and care for these playgrounds and greater parks and obviously their neighborhoods. so, we are really excited to be a part of this program, excited that you are excited about this program, and off the record, the west side is the best side, so
we are investing in that. thanks. >> supervisor yee: i think we agree here. thank you very much, and by the way, i just met with some parents about a playground, and they are interested in actually, it's a park, and it's a friends of the park, they might want to form something, friends of the playground piece. because i don't know, there's a lot of parents involved with the friends of golden gates heights park. ok, any other public comments, seeing none. now closed. >> supervisor tang: motion to first adopt the amendments previously stated regarding page one line three, page two line three, and send forth as amended to the full board with positive recommendation. >> supervisor yee: thank you. no objection, motion passes. >> clerk: item number five,
ordinance appropriating 300,000, cigarette litter abatement fees, public works street cleaning program, 2017-18. >> good morning, supervisor yee, tang. we are before you with a $300,000 supplemental appropriation from cigarette abatement fee revenue, use the additional revenue for additional staff to provide enhanced manual cleaning throughout the city and additional steam cleaning resources through areas that need additional clean-up based on our 311 data and our internal data that we have identified for areas that need additional cleaning. the cigarette abatement fee is determined by the controllers office, based on numbers that public works provide and the current year, we have received approximately $4.8 million, so this $300,000 is addition l an amount on top of that. and with that, i have tom smith,
assistant superintendent for the bureau of street and environmental services. >> supervisor tang: we enjoyed working with public works and environment and surf rider foundation to pilot the cigarette butt ash can project over in districts 1 and 4, and so far i think at least what i heard, it's working pretty well and encouraging people to put their cigarette butts in the ash cans instead of on the ground. i do have a question, though, looking at the dollar amount here. we did on tuesday see that supervisor kim had introduced a supplemental of $800,000 for clean-up of the streets, and wondering, given, it's no secret i don't like supplemental, is there any way to use some of this funding for some of the clean-up that i imagine she's probably trying to get at as well? >> supervisor tang, i don't know if i'm the best person to answer that question, having not seen
her supplemental appropriation. i would assume there is some overlap between this and what she's proposed, but i have not seen it. not well positioned to speak. we can speak with her office and provide additional information later. >> supervisor tang: i think that would be great and if the mayor's office could look into that, i would prefer we don't have supplementals mid year, so great if we can figure out where there is overlap, whether the $800,000 amount could be reduced or what have you. so -- >> supervisor tang, my understanding is there will be the comprehensive annual financial report will be coming forward this week and show some surplus funds, made available for the supplemental. i have not seen the supplemental either, but i do know that more information coming forward when that is introduced. >> i think regardless of whether there are supplemental funds, i mean -- additional funds available, i want to make sure
that we are not duplicating what it is that people are asking for, right? so, it's all to clean our streets. so -- anyway, i'll follow up with staff afterwards. >> supervisor yee: the question i have in regards to the efforts. did you know how many pounds of cigarette butts you pick up? >> supervisor yee, a number that i don't readily have. i do know that is a number we track and can provide you after this meeting. it's our performance and sat team tracks and maintains those numbers, so it's something we can provide. i don't have the number readily available. >> supervisor yee: that would be interesting. i assume that that's what you based your performance on. would you have answer to that? >> good morning, supervisor yee and tang. we do track it, i don't have it right now. we can get that for you. >> supervisor yee: additional
300,000, what are you hoping to accomplish? >> to help better the streets -- more tonnage and service requests in our department and it's skyrocketing, we just need these people to help maintain, keep the city clean. >> supervisor yee: i commend your efforts on this, and anything where we could keep these tobacco, or these cigarettes out of our ocean, better for the environment. ok. >> ordinance appropriates $300,000 in cigarette litter abatement fees. appropriated 4.7 million in the current year, most to public works for street cleaning, some amount to treasury tax for administrative fees. our understanding that the $300,000 represents a surplus in fee revenues from 16-17 and
17-18. it would fund approximately 8900 hours in additional services and we recommend approval. >> supervisor tang: i just wanted to clarify, i just got confirmation that the supplemental was not formally introduced, just discussed during introduction and it was in the news, but anyway, i still would like for us to work together on figuring that piece out, if it is introduced formally. >> supervisor yee: ok. any public comments on this item? seeing none, public comments closed. >> supervisor tang: motion to send item 5 to the full board with positive recommendation. >> supervisor yee: motion passes. >> clerk: 6, resolution accepting the mental health services act assignment and assumption, related loan documents between the california housing finance agency and the department of public health,
benefit of the willie b. kennedy senior housing development at 1239 turk street. >> supervisor yee: ok, i think we have -- ok. emile momo, from the department of public health to present. >> good morning, supervisor yee and supervisor tang, happy new year to you. here on behalf of the department of public health on the mental health services program, and requesting approval by the board of supervisors, assignment and assumption agreement from the california housing and finance agency for the loan agreements for the willie b. kennedy apartments senior housing. the project was developed by the tenderloin neighborhood development corporation, and the rosa parks. eight units for low income seniors.
this project was completed in 2016. the total cost for the development was $49 million. three units -- individuals experiencing serious mental illness, at risk of homelessness or recently homeless. other units made possible by an award by the california finance housing agency, and those, the dollar amounts construction for the three units. some pictures of some of the units. so, this -- this assignment, this agreement, a natural for the program, we oversee close to 100 housing units for individuals who are seriously mentally ill. by accepting this agreement, no liability to the city. the city would have the lender's role, and all agreements will be
nullified. the city would have everything including compliance, reporting to the state department of health care services. assignment and assumption of agreements agreed and approved by the united states housing and urban development, california housing agency and the san francisco city attorney. so, respectfully ask for your approval of the resolution. >> supervisor yee: seeing no questions, any public comment on this item? seeing none, now closed. a motion, please. >> supervisor tang: motion to send item 6 to the full board with positive recommendation. >> supervisor yee: passes, thank you very much. call 7, 8, 9, 10 together. >> yes, sale not to exceed 177 million aggregate principal amount of bonds, 8, appropriate
yating 177 million transportation agency bond, transportation agencies, street and transit projects in 2017-2018. item 9, directing sales not to exceed 76.7 million city obligation bonds, clean and safe neighborhood park bonds, and item number 10, ordinance appropriating 76.7 million, proceeds from the thirds issuance of the 2012 clean and safe neighborhood parks general obligation bonds, series 2018 to the recreation and park department foreign vagus, repair and construction of parks and open spaces. >> supervisor yee: here to present on 7 and 8, director at
reskin, and later to present on 9 and 10, antonio guerra from rec and park. >> good morning, chair yee, and member of the committee. ed reskin, director of transportation to respectfully request your approval of all four items. i will be speaking for the first two. but as a member of the capital planning committee, fully support all four items the first two, the second issuance for the 2014 transportation and road improvement general obligation bond. you'll recall that is a $500 million bond that was recommended by the transportation 2030 task force, it was approved with 72% of the vote by the voters in november of 2014. the first issuance was about 67 million, this authorization would be for up to another 177 million and you can see the proposed subsequent issuance
schedules on the slide and the next two years. this just as a reminder was the overview of the recommendations from the transportation task force. the $500 million geo bond was the first of a number of local measures that recommended both that bond and a subsequent one in 2024, incorporated into the city's capital plan. a few other recommended revenue measures that are currently being rereviewed by the transportation 2045 task force, the report for which should be out i believe this month. this is a picture by expenditure category of the overall bond as well as the, what was approved in the first issuance, after a supplemental appropriation you approved last year, and that you can see what is in the second issuance in terms of what we are proposing and what the balance would be.
so the first issuance thanks in part to the supplemental that you approved is largely expended. i'll show you a chart later that shows where we are more specifically, but fully expended in early calendar 2019, but we have a number of projects that are ready and waiting for these funds that would come from the second issuance which is why we are bringing them before you now. just a little bit of a timeline in terms of the bond approval, you can see it took a little while before the first issuance came and some of the highlights in terms of actual projects and expenditures from that first issuance, and here you can see as i said, we are already about 80% expended, and we'll be largely expended by the end of the year, by the first -- by about this time next year. so, in terms of the second issuance, the 177 that is before
you, here are the categories at a high level later in the presentation, a specific list of projects. but one of the main areas of expenditure proposed in the bond was for the moving forward program and this issuance has essentially the expenditures, level of $50 million, and as you know, moving forward this is the capital part of muni ford, making capital improvements in the streets to reduce delays and increase liability of muni service, focussing on the rapid corridors which are those corridors that serve the highest number of muni riders. this, the other element of the transit category is san francisco's remaining share of it's commitment approved by the board of supervisors, for cal
train electrification, got the grant last year and issued notices to proceed for the two main contracts, the vehicles and the infrastructure. these funds go to the infrastructure and now that they are ramped up and spending money, they are eagerly awaiting our issuance of this next, next set of bond proceeds so that we can support their project. the next category in transit regards muni facility. renovate a warehouse we have. upgrading the facility, burke street off of third in the bayview. modernizing, shrinking the footprint of what is used for warehouse and bringing in our overheadlines unit which is i