Skip to main content

tv   BOS Government Audits and Oversight Committee  SFGTV  January 20, 2022 10:00pm-1:01am PST

10:00 pm
businesses. there are five areas and those areas are going to be part of the rules and regulations that everybody will get to vote on but within that people have to be free to pick themselves and the community has to be free to present to them and to the vendors this is why you should be supporting. this is why you should support labor or nonprofit or whatever it is .it plays such a critical role that is going to be implemented. >> that goes right into my nex question in terms of scoring . we know how does the puc evaluate the proposals and make sure they were fairly put forward. you just don't know without rules and regulations for any kind of transparency so i'm
10:01 pm
wondering how does the puc plan tochange that process in the future ? those buckets you listed, what is the scoring mechanism though people candetermine whether or not they feel things have been fairly put forward ? >> there's a lot that goes into making that role. i imagine what will have to do is look at we have rules and regulations onhow things are stored on best value . what does it mean to make a commitment ? is this a responsive or not responsive ? i'm going to be a good neighbor and not be totally responsive becauseyou're not saying what you want to do . there has to be rules and regulations about what does me to be responsive or not and as we roll through regulations about the amount ,we heard about that. what that means . and maybe it's proportionate. if we're awarding a $10 million contract, is an
10:02 pm
agreement to get $80,000 in community benefit, or the source proportionate totheir value their ?the key is the $10 million of goods and services. there has to be a way of having rules and regulations that we are valuing the community benefit commensurate to what is actually being purchased by the city so there's all kinds of things that have to go in and then you end up with a real sheet that people can go in and score and determine whether this person is for a five. we don't know what made that determination before. >> you mentioned how those contracts have been closed out and the audit identified
10:03 pm
instances where contractors did not fill their commitments and i'm wondering how that puc plans to change that going forward and whether thereare any plans by the puc to recoup the value that wasnever provided ? >> there's a couple parts of the question . i'll get away from going forward. and yes going forward we plan on coming up with key metrics to be monitoring. for current ones that are bein closed out for you have rules and regulations , that's the liquidated damages in the future and there's recommendations about how to restructure that better embedded in the audit. for current ones which don't have those but they are contract terms, it's going to bereally looking at what's coming up in closed out. how are going to enforce those
10:04 pm
contract terms and having those hard conversations withpeople. for past contracts these are contractual agreements so we have to do an analysis . we have to look at it because this is a writing that said we will do ask and we know they didn'tdo ask . what did we say in the closeout. did we agree to that they couldn't or did we , we really have to have those contract by contract analysis . we don't want to be in a position of having to look at meetings where we want the next exit number two closeout in a positive way. there's precedent for this. people make led commitments, people make local hiring commitments and there are ways in which we go about enforcing their own ways in which we go about saying wow, that didn't work. can you do this other thing. we need to look at these as those enforcement mechanisms to get those values out. what we don't want to do i think is half a situation where the fine, the penalty is really
10:05 pm
just a benefit that comes through the city as opposed to the community so we have to sort of be clear on it sort of like what happens when someone does. how do we leverage that back. this is supposed to be money from a contractor that goes to the community. it's not really supposedto be city money . how do we make sure that is happening and that we continue to keepthat focus as we build in thesedamages ? yes , we do, enforcement and closeout is a big part of this report. it's fully half of the report is about endorsement. >> thank you for that and i have one final question in terms of the program side. it looks like it has doubled in size over the last six or so years which may have been oneof the things that contributed to
10:06 pm
a lot of the issues identified in the audit . and i'm wondering whether or not the puc has any plans to the size of the program or whether that's somethingyou're thinking about as you figure out a legislative position . >> i frankly thought about that and i haven't talked to the commission about that. that is the type of thing i think this is the example of the city we can look at. it has grown large because there has been some very large contracts that have been put on the street in the last few years so to digest the headlands work project spark some very large under construction projects that have sit commitments soit is the size of it has grown to the size of the contracts that we add to the strength. i will say as i sat here today we have not . i have not had discussions with any of them about eliminating
10:07 pm
the size so that is something you can certainly look at .>> that's all i have, thank you s much . >> thank you supervisor and next supervisor mandelman. >> i will be brief. i just want to thank deputy general manager quinn for that i get the title right? chief of staff. okay. for your work on this and i had my comments earlier to the controllers and you heard them clearly. i think it's also clear that your commission is very committed to this program or some version of this program but i think for me, it will be important tounderstand and i can see the appeal . i can see the appeal of getting
10:08 pm
particularly larger companies making money off of san francisco doing something to benefit the poorest and most vulnerable communities in san francisco but i think the story of how that works and actually putting some structure around the benefits and making sure they are real and as i said telling the story of what that benefit actually is will be important for me because i can clearly see the cost. i can clearly see increased complexity,potential for abuse . potential for all sorts of bad things happening. when we are attaching entirely a set of programs and expectations that can go in one of five program areas where presumably you would need some setof standards for each if you're going to apply this in a
10:09 pm
fair way . with additional supporting being thought through and all that again in addition to the regular old contracting process that the city seems in many differentdepartments , i don't know. i would include actually puc in this. many different departments have trouble making sure we're getting downand that we get our products delivered on time and on budget . all of this plethora of things that we worry about in terms of making government work for san franciscans and this program just doesn't add a huge additional level with it . strikes me that has an additional level of complexity and necessary complexity if it's going to be done fairly and with structure . so i just want to understand that it's actually has beneficial to the community as it is costly in terms of efficient and effective delivery of government service .
10:10 pm
>> message received. >> supervisor, by asking questions. i wanted to, we talked about the committee by unpaid funds and i think you pointed out what i think is accurate that some of these contracts have not yet expired. it doesn't mean it's on track necessarily. and i think it's probably in my opinion fair to assume thatthe track record of the first batches that were closed out . i don't see a shift in policy that would suggest where on a different trackwith the remaining money. that's our challenge is to change that . but i did want to ask mister flint, is there any evidence or claim that the puc has reduced
10:11 pm
or waived any of those investments? in other words are you aware of any evidence or claim whether kelly or anyone else actually reduced those commitments or is it of course your understanding that i'll leave it at that. any evidence of that? >> i have no evidence of that. i don't want to make the commitment that we're going to enforce the contract when we're not able to. so i don't know if that has happened on the past. on the closeout ones. iwould also point . >> let me interrupt. i'm actually not just reporting on the closeout. i'm singling forward we have a chart that shows us how much has been paid, howmuch is outstanding . i'm asking whether that outstanding amount is in dispute at all. in other words if there are any of these folks that needed
10:12 pm
contracts that over those funds claim that puc has waived anyof those commitments ? >> i'm not aware ofthat at all. i'm not aware at all . these are contractual commitments and i think that's a piece of this method that this audit highlights that we need to look at these commitments and see what's happening. i would say in the report there is an analysis of the subset of audit contracts that are open. which theywere lagging behind and there were five or six that were listed . some that go through all the way through i think 2028, and like it's 30 percent done, 28 percent so those are ones are going to look at in particular attention. it's just look, we need to do this across the board to see if
10:13 pm
people are doing their commitments and if they're on track there is an insight into what is happening for ongoing ones. that the auditors did look at and they did look at like ongoing performance so that's been helpful as a jumping off point to start the deep flow. >> then looking forward here at the outstanding commitment, one question that i have is around payments of those amidst all the uncertainties and scandal. i understand that general manager herrera and yourself and others are trying to set a different tone at the puc as you moveforward and institute changes at the same time what happens to allthese payments ?
10:14 pm
i just wonder has there been any consideration ? i'm speculating a bit. i'm just imagining for a contractor operating in good faith here there may be some reluctance and distrust of the program. i wonder if there's been any consideration in trying to get these payments, depositing them in some third party. how does someone else have control until the programs you're puttingforward are adopted and in place and hopefully some confidence restored ? what happens before those changes in terms of trying to get the payments and have the trust from folks who are supposed to make those payments that they should continue? >> the payments, there has not been discussion about opening up escrow accounts for payments so we can sort of talk about that. the payments that are made to the puc barmaid to keep
10:15 pm
voluntary hours in kind, different kind of direct money benefits that those organizations . there are three different kinds of direct money but if benefits that go toorganizations . and i think embedded in your question is are there recipients who we have distrust of? we have not found patterns that show ... i think embedded in your question is if there was in fact an area that wewent to , nonprofitask . what do we do about that? so the nonprofits that are
10:16 pm
getting this are not under suspicion by the puc as to not doingreal community benefit work. they are nonprofits . some of them have large sums o money. some of them get small sums of money . part of that process was supposed to bebetting them . the small sums of money, the group that we had before here the magic has received small volunteer hours of small amounts of money whereas other groups , the san francisco housing developmentcorporation, young. it offers . those who receivedsmall commitments .but we are not aware of the nonprofits themselves or the organizations
10:17 pm
that are getting them asbeing suspicious . we have not opened ... that's not a path ... the department has been focused since it's come out on how to make this program work, not one investigation ofthat nature . idon't know if that answers . >> i think i get the picture. if no one is doing that level of investigation that would restore confidence to the folks making the donations, this is the problem. it's one thing to say that those days are over but if that hasn't happened it's a pretty big miss and no one is actually
10:18 pm
at least publicly confirming. maybe it's happening privately but nobody's publicly confirming an investigation into that or an actual like investigative audit that takes it apart. all i'm hearing to yourcredit you're saying puc isn't going to do that . but that's an in-house look at the details of this program. that does not inspire a lot of confidence i would say. i would think the people putting the money in as they're obligated to do and as i think the city is trying to enforce that they do also need to have some level of confidence that they know what did or didn't happen with respect to the commitments the organizations selected and i guess it's less of a question for mister flint. it sounds like right now nobody outside of the in-house work you're going to do nobody is
10:19 pm
planning a more comprehensive accounting investigation with detail of what went down around this program so i would love it and correct me if i'm wrong i'm just concernedthat kind of investigation is happening and if it isn't , it seems every hard to have confidence that if you don't there's not or some light on this and transparency on the history. it is pretty hard to have confidence going forward and i think the underlying questions remain about the future of the program. >> i want to correct. i did not mean to suggest weare doing an investigation of that issue. we do not . we are doingan investigation on the deliverability , whether or not we really doing whether or not thecommitments made are
10:20 pm
being delivered. that's the transparent portion that came out in the audit . embedded in is that they agreed to give these things that we want those given. so it's almost theopposite . we're looking at contract whatever it is. you agree to give thanks to this nonprofit, thismany volunteer hours, have you done , what is your plan to get it done not should you be doing that so iwant to be clear . maybe you heard me say we're doing something different. we're looking to enforce these commitments thatwere made . which is based on their ballot commitments. so we're not undertaking, i don't want to pretend. >> but nobody has undertaken
10:21 pm
that more detailed investigative look at the program that i've described. >> from an audit perspective and as you know we are limited in our ability in terms of what we can share on our investigations especially in the public forum. but in terms of an investigative client, we do not have an idea related to the topic. >> and mister flint, i'm curious. is there any litigation that has been filed by any contractor, by any beneficiary regarding the program? >> not that i'm aware of. so i think that's, so number. >> and thank you to your team
10:22 pm
mister flynn. we have inquired yesterday around trying to get a more comprehensive list of all the intended beneficiaries and i think we got that. what we're hoping we could get is a little more detail around the amounts committed to those groups. the amount received, when contract expires . if you can provide us that kind of breakdown. not onthe fly , i'm saying the data and. >> not on the fly. it's theexact type of information that i am asking for to beable to do the drill downs . when i get it, we will make available . it is that type of data that i think is critical to be able to sort of look to see patterns and then to startenforcing .
10:23 pm
>> but you don'thave that . you're going tohave to assemble that as part of your in-house ? >> i don't have that. the puc had built into that for the audit made clear some of the information in that dashboard is not accurate based on the fixing of that, i'm asking for underlying data that says just in that format that you talked about that we can share so people can see for themselves what commitments were made and cross-reference it.so there is there are efforts underway to make that stuff accessible not just to run flint, not just the supervisor but to the public. it's important information. >> thank you, supervisor.
10:24 pm
>> thank you chair.i appreciate your line of questioning around investigations that investigation that's really needed on these 84 contracts that were awardedwith community benefit commitment . and actually i have a question for mister delarosa for the controller's office because i was hoping that this follow-up public integrity review that you're doing on the contracting of procurement contractors would do something that would include looking at whether it was any fraud or misconduct in the actual awarding of these 84 contracts with that work awarded at least in partbecause of their community benefit agreements . >> let me clarify that
10:25 pm
supervisor. the puc assessment we are doing as part of our work will not cover the set specific ones. what we are focusing on for that assessment is really looking at the examples. using the contracts that were mentioned in the federal report related to former general manager kelly and we're using that is kind of a springboard for our what the conditions were that might just prevent these from happening. so it's not specific to contracts that are before you today. it's more of a broader look at the process that led to the allegations. got it, i see. i feel like there's a need for
10:26 pm
a follow-up audit or investigation on the set program that goes beyond just a performance audit and looks at actual contract awarded and whether there was any fraud or misconduct. and in the awarding of the contracts and also any direction from the staff and leadership on which organizations the contractors should be providing their financial contributions to or other community benefits so these are allegations that have been raised for years and so yeah. i just wanted to raise that. that's i think what's really missing from the reports that you're presenting today and i find that disappointing and frustrating so this issomething that i'm committed to continuing to following up on .
10:27 pm
>> thank you supervisor mar and following up on your point about this being known for years, i know it's creepy to you as a recent arrival but when did the mar first become aware of programming programmatic concerns? my understanding is this goes back years in terms of the public. is there a starting point of when these concerns were raised publicly and the leadership made aware of the problems with this program? >> i don't have an answer and i apologize. i just don't have it. it is true that there have been questions about this program
10:28 pm
and they at least back to when supervisor mar was calling for an audit, we know that at this point in time but i don't know when they rose to that level of the management. i'm hearing about it and what decisions that they were going to respond tothose questions . >> i don't know when things were firstmade public . i do know in looking through the public coverage and discussions of this, i was forwarded a clip from a puc commission back in 2016 in which commissions were publicly discussing the lack of
10:29 pm
transparency of this specific program. i just think there's obviously concerns with a lot of what management do because they may be part of the problembut it's another thing when something becomes public . either a public hearing or made known through programs and other ways of making complaints that isn't public but by other departments. i'm just very concerned we're looking at things in the public record that now have existed for over five years and that is suggests some kind of structural i think problem with the way we address it. but that is a comment, not a question and unless supervisor mar or other colleagues have questions i'd like to open it up for public comment . >> we're checking once again. see if we have any colors wish to provide public comment on thisagenda item number three . for those watching our meeting
10:30 pm
on cable channel 26 or via a streaming link or through sfgov tv or elsewhere, call innow. dial 415-655-0001 . today's meeting id is 2492 838 5397. after you've entered the meeting id, press the pound symbol twice and press start followed by a three if you wish to speak. for those on hold continue to wait until you are prompted to begin. you will hear a product that indicates your line has been unmuted. i understand there are five callers who wish to provide public comment and could you connect us to our first color ? >> good afternoon supervisors. my name is lisa ramirez, public sector business agent for 261 and in today's hearing on the
10:31 pm
puc community benefits audit we have the opportunity to ask questions on a long-lasting paper plate collection scheme that robs and exploits the community but only if you receive the benefits. there are people present in various city departments that will not be able to claim a variance for the findings of the audit or on thecorruption that occurred in those that engaged in . we know this to be true because in january 2019 both local 261 filed a complaint with the controller's office and city attorney's office which pointed to corruption and granting contracting and especially at the puc. that was well over a year before any indictments. we began in april 2019 unofficial transcript notified the city attorney's office and city administrator's office and hr about the corruption in dpw and specifically in puc community benefits program only to be told that what we did by
10:32 pm
blowing the whistle was scorched-earth. repeatedly over the last three years we've written letters, named names and provided the receipts calling for someone to please investigate the community benefits scheme. throughout these years 261 and our membership have been met with nothing but severe retribution that continues to this day. so we want those engaged in retaliating against us to know that we will not besilenced because our membership has said that we have nothing to lose at this point but hope itself . what is right andjust will prevail. you are and the communities supervisors we have faith in you. we beg you to continueto ask the hard questions . we don't believe the ball those that may be co-conspirators or attempting to cover up this scheme . >> you for sharing your comments. we have the next color please. >> supervisors my name is ali and i am shocked to hear what
10:33 pm
i'm hearing today from this staff. first of all our public report had to be conducted by an entity that had been segregated to begin with. he does and did takeplace . i have seen it firsthand and it will continue by the general manager still promoting the people involved like wayne jones. that is a fact and they are being promoted to continue that. thereport itself is the controller's report. it does not reflect the fact. let me tell you something not listed in the report that is so damaging and its undisputed fact . a any contracts at anywhere between eight and 10 percent profit scheme. that's with the audit overhead on top of the audited overhead rate. these tell me which publicly traded company pays out of a
10:34 pm
good heart 50 percent of their profits and jeopardizes their stockholders and managers bonuses ? the short answer is none. so where does the five percent or equivalent to the 50 percent of their own profits come from western mark the short answer is it comes from slopping the invoices, extra billing hours and funneling money through the same non- licensed lbd projects companies.that is the fact ladies and gentlemen. so paying any money as a result of winning a contract is a bribery no matter what. and a page to play is just a marvelous way of scheming the program. if you want to look into the bribery, look at the straight line between companies that are paying the mandatory voluntary community benefit payments as a condition to make rents higher by the five percent.
10:35 pm
that is the straight line. >> thank you for sharing your comments with the committee. sorry to cut you off. all speakershave to money and once they've reached two minutes we must move on first. could we get the next color please . >> eileen bogan, coalition for san francisco neighborhoods being on my own behalf. thank you to supervisor mar and the other sponsorsand participants in this audit . hopefully this will be the first of other audits focused on the puc, especially on work related to the emergency firefighting water systems including ongoing work on pump station number two. thank you. >> thank you for sharing your comments, could we have the next color please ? >> caller: supervisors, this investigation comes under the
10:36 pm
rico act. so you all are wasting our time. i started the investigation way back in 2002. i provided the controller's office with all the data that they needed. your supervisors talk in generalities. you all have to beinvestigated by the fbi . for not doing yourdiligence . you don't even understand that this is a 6 billion now heading towards 12 billion. five percent of 6 billion is 300million . where is the accountability? and the joke about the sfpuc designed to give your presentation,i don't know where it's coming from .
10:37 pm
what planet but not on planet earth it's not coming from our earth . you're talking bullshit. you're not doing duediligence. you're talking in generalities . [inaudible] sherman walton, supervisor brookter, how many do i have to name? you have no clue the task force formed by the community. this is after the five percent was shuttled, that's $400 million and they were given 150 million for workforce and there's hundred 50 before that.
10:38 pm
>> thank you mister dacosta for sharing your comments. could we have the next color please ? >> good afternoon members of the board. rudy gonzalez, secretary-treasurer. so we represent workers at the puc.they were understaffed and under difficult and dangerous conditions not only in the city limits but beyond that there probably the work they do. unfortunately more out has taken a heavy hit with the mismanagement and very public corruption cases that have plagued the department that said i represent the majority of construction workers are on these jobs and the community benefitprogram i think on paper and in the could
10:39 pm
be something good . but without adequate oversight and without the public trust i think we and up in the situation . iwant to see the timing a little bit . in february 2019 this issue was raised and not in the abstract . the majority of unions in the labor council and city adopted a resolution calling for this very and i want to flag gratitude to all of you in this process because nothing else is accomplished the line of questioning, the diligence is in itself a measure that will restore public trust whereit needs to be we can accomplish the things that we confront us . aspirations forempowerment and so forth but that was february 2019 . this has been long-standing and ongoing the only thing that materialized out of that was leading with myself thatthe general manager at the time . you don't want to talk about the workforce as a general apprentice and they want to shift theblame to private-sector contractors . private-sector contractors
10:40 pm
demanding accountability for years at the puc asking that the money they are asking today to get those competitive points be available for auditing purposes and you'll see those contractors only willing to perform in time and voluntary work and i'm not surprised by the until we can restore even their faith in theseimportant programs.thank you and i urge you to continue . >> iq mister gonzalez. mister baltazar do we have other commenters in thequeue ? >> there are several colors remaining in the few. >> with no more colors in the queue public comment onthis item is closed. supervisor mar .>> thank you chair preston and colleagues for this really informative and important hearing that we have today. i want to take a second tothank
10:41 pm
the san francisco labor council and asked at building and construction and trades council for their advocacy on this issue . and also every member of the public who called in and mark delarosa and ron flynn for being here and engaging in the discussion and the staff for their work on this.i want to acknowledge john from puc who has really taken every call, concern, complaint and inquiry from ouroffice dutifully and professionally . thanks again chair preston for allowing this hearing to happen and supervisors chan and mandelman for your partnership and also acknowledgethe work of my legislative a on the inquiries that led to it . i think again, we had a full discussion today about the findings and recommendations from the audit . this particular audit reports . i look forward to seeing the
10:42 pm
puc follow through on their commitment to implement all the recommendations by the end of the year but i wanted to thank supervisors chan and mandelman here in your line of questioning about whether the value for the benefits of this program testify the costs especially as it's been implementedover the past 10 years . and again, my specific issue that i really want to follow up on his what was not included in the report but has been raised publicly and has been a big part of my inquiry and that's looking at a potential fraud and misconduct in the awarding of these contracts worth over $2 billion awarded in part through the social impact partnership, community benefit impact . and also the allegations of directing contractors to provide financial funding and other types of support to
10:43 pm
favored community nonprofit organizations so i'm not sure. this is something i'm committed to solving and figuring out th best way to do that . so thank you. >> thank you supervisor mar vice chair chan's supervisor mar i want to thank you for the work on this . and one of the things if i may just quote what the editor of san francisco examiner wrote yesterday about corruption. the quote was very interesting but i think that i'm sharing it with you colleagues because when i read that quote i think of you here and supervisor mar today. the corruption is a couple gated labyrinth of
10:44 pm
relationships that can be hard to explain. it takes motivated participators with long attention spans to keep track of winding narratives and dramatic consequences and i think that's what this is about. it'sactually really complicated . it takes a lot for us to unpack and i think there are multiple tracks of inquiry and hearings that we're all coordinating. i picked apart the little piece of the parts alliance and you take the piece with the sfpuc and chair preston overseeing the committee to make sure that we schedule all these hearings in a timely fashion that goes to midtown and making sure that we have compliance from our partners and making sure all of that. that leads to sort of the fundamental of governance that corruption and even just the
10:45 pm
perception of it. that is what been very challenging for all of us especially in the legislative branch to hold our city apartments accountable to deliver equitable city services. at the end of the day this is not to embarrass anyone or try to put downanyone but this is really to fundamentally store public trust . to root out corruption because we know that is how we can deliver equitable city services that we deserve so thank you so much. i want to thank youfor your leadership on this and whatever it is you decide to do today , i'm definitely in support of and i look forward to continuingworking with you on these issues . thank you so much .>> thank you vice chair and i just want to an those comments and also the point you made on kind of the appearance.
10:46 pm
part of restoring public trust after so many different corruption scandals is the merits of the situation but also it's the appearance of propriety and i think i appreciate and frankly have concerns on the appearance of some of these two. supervisor mar raised the issue around someone from mar was at the controller's office. i don'tthink anyone's alleging that , i certainly have no reason to work to think that but it's just that when you're folks who are overseeing have these relationships that you're saying supervisor chan, it's i think becomes that much more important that you have oversight so i appreciate that there was a third-party
10:47 pm
independent auditor here. my concerns were with the scope of their audit but i take comfort in the fact that an independent auditor looked at this because one of the things that i've pointed this out in multiple performances in the city people tend tomove around between these various departments . we may not be the best about bringing in outside folks from outsidethe so-called city family to oversee .we have the city attorney who had responsibility over the last few years presumably. we've heard reference to them now running the puc. i have every reason to believe the general manager is committed to rooting out problems in the puc but from a public perception point of view those people moving between
10:48 pm
departments, between the watchdog and the watched essentially is problematic. i think this issue certainly we are not at the end of it. i will urge that further audits be investigated type audits, there really forensic accounting here and investigating what supervisor mar has referenced in terms of what the fraud, waste or abuse or not. that has to happen and i think it has to happen ideally with folks who are outside of a lot of those existing relationships and potential for the appearance of conflict. so on that, i would just ask supervisor mar is your preference we filethis hearing or that we continue it ? >> thanks chair. obviously this conversation is
10:49 pm
far from over but i think we will have other hearings and legislative items to continue this conversation. so i would request a motion that we file this hearing toda . >> thank yousupervisor mar and thank you for yourleadership . do we have that motion from anyone ? supervisor chan, so moved. please call the role. >> on the motionthat this hearing be filed notice has been heard . [roll call vote] >> mister chair there are 3 aye's. >> thank you again supervisor. and let's go ahead mister clerk and call the closed session items 4 through 13. >> 4 through 13 are seven ordinances and continuing resolutions settling lawsuits
10:50 pm
and unmitigated claims against the city. members of the public who wish to provide publiccomment should call the public comments call in number, it is 415-655-0001 . enter today's meeting id which is 2492 838 5397. after you'veentered the meeting id press the pound symbol twice and star followed by 3 if you wish to be entered to speak . >> let's go ahead and open up public comment on this item. >> checking now with mister michaelto see if we haveany colors who wish to provide public comment on the litigation agenda do we have any colors ? >> there are zero in the queue . >> public comment on these items is now closed and i'll move to convene in closed session clerk, please call the role. >> on the motion by chair prestonthe committee convene in closed session for the committee agenda . [roll call vote] there are
10:51 pm
three ones again. >> the motion passes and we will now convene in closed session with parting instructions from the mister clerk. >> members of this committee will be leaving this live meeting and connect to the closed session meeting that we have. after the closed session is concluded the members will reconnect to this live meeting and i will present a summary of the actions we took while litigation and discussion of
10:52 pm
10:53 pm
>> it did take a village. i was really lucky when i was 14 years old to get an internship. the difference that it made for me is i had a job, but there were other people who didn't have a job, who, unfortunately, needed money. and they were shown to commit illegal acts to get money. that is what i want to prevent. [♪♪♪]
10:54 pm
today we are here to officially kick off the first class of opportunities for all. [applause]. >> opportunities for all is a program that mayor breed launched in october of 2018. it really was a vision of mayor breed to get to all of the young people in san francisco, but with an intention to focus on young people that have typically not being able to access opportunities such as internships or work-based learning opportunities. >> money should never be a barrier to your ability to succeed in life and that is what this program is about. >> there's always these conversations about young people not being prepared and not having experience for work and if they don't get an opportunity to work, then they cannot gain the experience that they need. this is really about investing in the future talent pool and getting them the experience that they need. >> it is good for everyone because down the road we will need future mechanics, future
10:55 pm
pilots, future bankers, future whatever they may be in any industry. this is the pipe on we need to work with. we need to start developing talent, getting people excited about careers, opening up those pathways and frankly giving opportunities out there that would normally not be presented. [♪♪♪] >> the way that it is organized is there are different points of entry and different ways of engagement for the young person and potential employers. young people can work in cohorts or in groups and that's really for people that have maybe never had job experience or who are still trying to figure out what they want to do and they can explore. and in the same way, it is open for employers to say, you know what, i don't think we are ready to host an intern year-round are all summer, but that they can open up their doors and do site visits or tours or panels or conversations. and then it runs all the way up to the opportunity for young people to have long-term employment, and work on a
10:56 pm
project and be part of the employee base. >> something new, to get new experience and meet people and then you are getting paid for it you are getting paid for doing that. it is really cool. >> i starting next week, i will be a freshman. [cheers and applause] two of the things i appreciate about this program was the amazing mentorship in the job experience that i had. i am grateful for this opportunity. thank you. >> something i learned at airbnb is how to network and how important it is to network because it is not only what you know, but also who you know to get far in life. >> during this program, i learned basic coding languages, had a had to identify the main components and how to network on a corporate level. it is also helping me accumulate my skills all be going towards my college tuition where i will pursue a major in computer
10:57 pm
science. >> for myself, being that i am an actual residential realtor, it was great. if anybody wants to buy a house, let me know. whenever. [applause] it is good. i got you. it was really cool to see the commercial side and think about the process of developing property and different things that i can explore. opportunities for all was a great opportunity for all. >> we were aiming to have 1,000 young people register and we had over 2,000 people register and we were able to place about between 50 and did. we are still getting the final numbers of that. >> over several weeks, we were able to have students participate in investment banking they were able to work with our team, or technology team, our engineering 20 we also gave them lessons around the industry, around financial literacy. >> there are 32,000 young people
10:58 pm
ages 16 and 24 living in san francisco. and imagine if we can create an opera skin it just opportunity for all program for every young person that lives in public housing, affordable housing, low income communities. it is all up to you to make that happen. >> we have had really great response from employers and they have been talking about it with other employers, so we have had a lot of interest for next year to have people sign on. we are starting to figure out how to stay connected to those young people and to get prepared to make sure we can get all 2400 or so that registered. we want to give them placement and what it looks like if they get more. >> let's be honest, there is always a shortage of good talent in any industry, and so this is a real great career path. >> for potential sponsors who might be interested in supporting opportunities for all , there is an opportunity to make a difference in our city. this is a really thriving,
10:59 pm
booming economy, but not for everyone. this is a way to make sure that everyone gets to benefit from the great place that san francisco is and that we are building pathways for folks to be able to stay here and that they feel like they will belong. >> just do it. sign up for it. [♪♪♪] [♪♪♪]
11:00 pm
tuesday, january 18, 2022. i would like to welcome members of the public streaming this live and to the staff who will be participating in today's meeting. the guidelines set forth by local officials at this time, the members of the commission
11:01 pm
are meeting remotely to ensure the safety of everyone, including the members of the public. so thank you, all, for joining us today. madame secretary, please call the first item. >> thank you, mr. chair. the first order of business is item 1, roll call. commission members, please respond when i call your name? commissioner brackett? commissioner scott? >> commissioner ransom-scott: present. >> vice chair rosales: present. >> chair bustos: present. >> it looks like commissioner brackett is absent. and all other members of the commission are present. next order of business is item 2, announcements. item a, the next regularly scheduled meeting will be held remotely on tuesday, february 1, 2022 at 1:00 p.m.
11:02 pm
the announcement of time public comment procedures. each member has three minutes unless the commission adopts a shorter period. during the public comment period, viewers online will be instructed to dial 1-415-655-0001, enter access code which is 2483 655 4943. press the pound sign and then the pound sign again to enter the call. when prompted, press staff 3 to submit your request to speak. when you dial star 3, you will hear the following message. you have raised your hand to speak. when you hear your line has been unmuted this is your opportunity to make your public comment. please speak clearly and slowly and you'll be placed back on mute once you're done speaking. you can stay on the line and continue to listen to the meeting or you can choose to
11:03 pm
hang up. it is recommended you call the public comment ahead of time to listen to the meeting life. today's meeting materials are available on our website. under commission, then the public meetings tab. the next order of business is item 3, report on actions taken at previous closed session. there are none. item 4, matters of unfinished business. there are no matters of unfinished business. the next is item 5, matters of new business consisting of consent agenda. a, approval of minutes, regular meetings of december 7 and december 21, 2021. mr. chair? >> chair bustos: do we have anyone from the public who wishes to provide a comment?
11:04 pm
>> at this time, if there are any members of the public who wish to provide public comment, you should call 1-415-655-0001. enter access code 2483 655 4943. press the pound sign, then the pound sign again. then press star 3 to be placed in the queue. if you're already listening and would like to provide public comment, please press star 3. mr. chair, it does not appear there are members of the public wishing to comment on this item. >> chair bustos: hearing no request to speak, i close public comment. commissioners, may i get a motion for this consent item? >> mr. chair, i move that this be approved. >> chair bustos: thank you, commissioner scott. may have a second? >> i second. >> chair bustos: thank you, vice
11:05 pm
chair. madame secretary, please take roll. >> secretary: please announce your vote for the consent items when i call your name. commissioner brackett is absent. >> commissioner ransom-scott: yes. >> vice chair rosales: yes. >> chair bustos: yes. >> mr. chair, the vote is three ayes and one absent. >> chair bustos: thank you, motion carries. please call the next item. >> next is regular agenda, item 5b, authorizing a nonbinding term sheet for operations agreement with a transbay joint powers authority and the east cut community benefits district for the development of the under ramp park project, transbay redevelopment project area discussion and action, resolution number 2-2022. >> thank you, madame secretary and good afternoon, commissioners. this is related to the open space project in transbay which
11:06 pm
is the underramp project. that will likely not be the permanent name, but the owner is the dgpa and they've been working closely on a plan to manage the operations of the park once it is complete. they have developed a nonbinding term sheet. since they play a key role in the project as the capital funder, the item before you is to acknowledge that term sheet. with that, brandon, our project manager will walk you through the manager. ben? >> thank you. good afternoon, chair, commissioners and executive director. sally just mentioned, i'm ben brandon, the project manager. the item before you today, staff is requesting that the commission authorize the executive director to acknowledge an under ramp park sheet for operations agreement between the east cut community benefits district and the transbay joint powers authority. as you're aware, the transbay
11:07 pm
development area is split into two zones. zone one is ocii authority and zone 2 is the planning department. it's bounded by howard street to the north, fulsome to the south and essex to the west. on this map, the project area is the shape identified in red. the park will approximately be two-and-a-half acres in size. the park will include a range of programming, including a dog park, area for children play, walking, biking, adult and youth sports, relaxation, areas for events. a beer garden or concessions building, lounge space and game area is planned adjacent to
11:08 pm
clementine street. a two-story pavilion building is planned at the fulsome entrance to the park. the upper story is going to include three food kiosks with a small area serving park patrons. outdoor seating and tables will be provided outside of the food kiosk on a large plaza overlooking the park. the lower story is located at the same level as the park and will be used as office space and storage for the community benefits district. adjacent to the office is a space, that will be used by the cbd during the weekdays. a little bit of background on under ramp park. this term sheet maintains that the existing rules on under ramp
11:09 pm
park, but it firmly establishes that the east cut cbd will be a new partner on the project. the tbja owns most and it will own the improvements once the construction of under ramp park is completed. ocii is funding, managing design of the park and will manage the construction. the t.j.p.a. through this term sheet and the future operations agreement, they're delegating underramp park operations and maintenance responsibilities to the east cut cbd. there are two primary funding needs. first, capital costs covering all design and construction of the park. and second operations costs once the park is completed and open to the public. you'll hear more about the sources of funding later today
11:10 pm
when we present the 2022-23 rops, but we're using bonds, fees. the currently identified sources of funds to cover park operations are property tax assessments and revenues. next slide, please. in 2006, the former agency approved the open space plan, which identified the under ramp areas of the future t.j.p.a. and the off ramp as opportunities to provide additional public open space in the project area. in 2011, the former agency contracted with cmg landscape to design the projects. between 2013 when ocii approved
11:11 pm
the original design and 2017, the agency worked with the t.j.p.a. and caltrans to resolve critical project issues. in 2018, cmg completed a draft schematic, but the project was placed on hold. staff worked with consultants and identified a projected operating deficit for the park whereby the anticipated revenues do not cover its expected costs. therefore, the t.j.p.a. asked ocii not to advance the project further until they could identify a park operator and work with that partner on an operations funding plan. i'd like to provide a little bit of background on the east cut cbd, its role in the project area and relative to the neighborhood parks. the community benefit district later renameds the east cut was
11:12 pm
formed in 2015 to provide special benefits including secures, beautification and upkeep to the rincon hill. the cbd management plan identified as cbd within the east cut neighborhood and under ramp park is one of the specified parks their services are meant to cover. as such, the east cut cbd sets aside $235,000 a year to support under ramp park's operations, but these assessment dollars in conjunction with the revenues from the park are not expected to cover under ramp park's operations costs. based on the park's anticipated operating budget, the tjpa has
11:13 pm
established that $3 million are needed to cover the operating costs for the first five years after it opens. the focus on the first five years is because in 2030, the cbd is up for renewal at which point they will pursue increasing assessments such that the cbd will cover on assessments and revenues alone. they will raise the $3 million to close the park's expected shortfall. in order to memorialize this fundraising effort, the tjpa and cbd negotiated a term sheet that establishes two goals. the term sheet also clarifies the roles and responsibilities for the tjpa, the east cut cbd and ocii in operating the park.
11:14 pm
the term sheet specifies that the east cut cbd intends to operate and maintain under ramp park using revenue dollars, and money generated through this fundraising effort. the term sheet also confirms that the tjpa and cal tran will continue to own the land and tjpa will own all of the parks' improvements once completed. cbd will be the operator. additionally, the term sheet provides an overview of the park project. it establishes ocii as under ramp. it establishes cbd as operator and tjpa as owner of the project. the document confirms that east cut will have a maintenance plan for underramp park, along with a refined operations budget.
11:15 pm
finally, it details upon execution of the term sheet, the cbd will commence its fundraising effort and the money generated will cover the shortfall for the park. i mentioned earlier that urp fundraising plan is comprised of two milestones. in order to meet the first, the cbd must raise $1.2 million. half of which must be in cash in hand, while the remaining half can be commitments from donors. once the cbd meets this milestone, the tjpa will allow cbd to advance and pursue all permits for the construction. for the second milestone, the cbd must raise $1.8 million to achieve the $3.2 million total. at that point, it all must be cash in hand. upon achieving the second
11:16 pm
milestone, the tjpa will allow construction of the park to begin. here's an overview of the target schedule. first the cbd will begin the fundraising efforts following the execution of this term sheet. later in the year, staff will bring the schematic design for approval. the next year we plan to issue bonds for funds necessary to generate construction of the park. you'll hear about that later in the rops agenda. we anticipate it taking about two years to build the park. and we hope to see it open to the public in 2026. so this concludes my presentation and i'm happy to address any of your questions following public comments on the item, but before we do that, i would like to introduce andrew
11:17 pm
robinson and john updyke. until the last year, john served as the tjpa director and is now going to a new role. in his previous role, john served as the tjpa staff person managing under ramp park from there. thank you very much. >> chair bustos: thank you. madame secretary, do we have anyone from the public who wishes to provide public comment? >> if there are any members of the public who wish to provide public comment, call 1-415-655-0001. enter access code, 2483 655 4943. press the pound sign and then the pound sign again. then press star 3 once you're in the call to get placed in the queue. i'll allow a few moments for the public to call.
11:18 pm
>> chair bustos: hearing no request to speak on the item, i will close public comment. i now ask my commissioners for any comments or questions they have. commissioner brackett? all right, let's move on to commissioner scott. any questions or comments? >> commissioner ransom-scott: mr. chair, no questions. mr. brandon, thank you so much for the presentation and the work that you've done towards this project. i don't have any questions at this moment. thanks a lot. >> chair bustos: thank you. vice chair rosales? any questions or comments? >> vice chair rosales: i didn't have any initial questions, but
11:19 pm
i guess the only question that pops up on the presentation is regarding the estimated timing of next steps. is this the -- is the schedule that we have here that you've presented to us the same schedule that was envisioned on the project? >> no, commissioner. we have been delayed. so as i said earlier, in 2018, we did complete a schematic design for the project. and at that point we were hoping to bring that before the commission for its approval, but at the same time as i was working on overseeing that schematic design, we were also working on the draft operations budget. so we presented both the budget in conjunction with the design to the tjpa for its review at this time. when they realized we were looking at this operating deficit, they asked us to not move forward in taking the
11:20 pm
design ahead until they could, one, identify an operator for the park. and then, two, work with the operator to come up with this operation's plan that would allow for the successful operation. so to be fair, we are delayed or behind schedule on developing the park, but i do think we're in a much better position now that we have identified this operator and we have a set plan for moving the project forward. >> vice chair rosales: okay. i do remember your last presentation or former presentations and i just wanted to make sure that my recollection was correct, so thank you. >> chair bustos: vice chair, you have a memory like an elephant. >> chair bustos: a court reporter is better. >> chair bustos: i'd like to go to commissioner brackett for question or comment? >> commissioner brackett: i have a question for the shortfall for
11:21 pm
the project that you have. you have robust campaigning and capital campaign plans on how to raise money for that. you mentioned some of the money would be revenue from the beer garden and park. i wanted to get a feel for how much you're actually generating in revenue right now and what is the expectation to increase that? or what percentage of the shortfall of the $1.5 million that you are looking for that to cover? >> thank you for the question, commissioner. to be clear, the park is still in the predevelopment phase. so all of the operations budgets that have been prepared to date have been based on estimates of what we anticipate the revenue to be. for both the beer garden as well as the pavilion building. we won't really have a clear,
11:22 pm
clear sense of how much those income producing of are generating until the park is open, but i can tell you when we put together this original operations budget, we did it in conjunction with two consulting firms, financial consulting firms, that helped us put together the expense side as well as the income side. so we've taken a very conservative approach to that budget. the $3 million that we are -- that the cbd plans to go out and raise is intended to cover the shortfall for the park for the first five years of its operations. and, again, that will give the cbd time to understand operations and then in 2030, when they are up for their renewal, they will both seek their renewal, but also seek to increase the assessments such that there is a dedicated
11:23 pm
funding stream to cover fully the park's operations. i hope that answers your question, but if not, i'm happy to elaborate further. >> thank you for that. i guess my other question, because we're talking about it being a five-year plan and knowing that the costs for doing any kind of maintenance on parks ends up getting exponentially higher after the first five years, just wanting to hear from you guys if you're having concerns about that, being that any new assessments may also continue to show short falls? >> thank you for that question as well. so i think -- i think where we're going to land is that the five years of initial operations, right, is -- take that short fall to cover it, the
11:24 pm
tjpa in putting together this term sheet with the east cut, has required that the cbd is going to update this operations plan and budget. so one of the tasks they're charged with is not only going out to raise the $3 million, but also to take the initial operations budget, refine it, work with a consultant if needed to ensure that it is current and up to date, because the tjpa is looking to the cbd to be the sole operator of underramp park. what i'm trying to clarify there is the tjpa will not be financially on the hook for the operations of the park. so i can turn things over at this point to my colleague at the tjpa, john updyke to address how they're evaluating this partnership with the cbd to ensure that all of the budgets are covered.
11:25 pm
john? >> thank you, ben. and good afternoon, commissioners. good to see many of you again. part of that budget we look by the cbd will include the concept of a capital reserve. that needs to be established so that as -- certain items begin to expire, they are ready and capable of addressing capital renewals and replacements as they are required over a longer -- because that will factor into what the revised assessment figures will be when they see it. i don't want to get too far over on this, because -- [indiscernible] -- that is the expectation of the tjpa. ensure long-term financial viability of the facility. >> thanks, john.
11:26 pm
>> thank you for that. i have one final question. i know that this tends to be kind of the format for which dealing with public-private partnerships and ensuring that our parks and public spaces with properly cleaned and maintained over time, but i noticed that community benefit districts need to in the future need additional funding. do you see needing additional funding from the district supervisors, et cetera, to maintain these parks in the future? or et cetera? >> commissioner, i'm going to turn your question to andrew robinson, executive director of the east cut cbd. >> commissioners, thank you very much for having me here today. it's a great question, commissioner bivett. i will say when the cbd was formed in 2015, i think there
11:27 pm
was underestimation of what park costs would be. we've gained a lot of experience in our short time already and look forward to going to renewal with the experiences we've had in the neighborhood already managing park spaces, but also looking at the mission bay park system, and validating what we think are the future costs. i hope that answers your question. >> thank you so much for that. this is really exciting. this project is coming about and is almost slated to come. i know the community is growing a lot, so as many more park amenities would be welcomed in the area. so thank you for your hard work and research. >> thank you, commissioner brackett. may i get a motion for item 5b?
11:28 pm
>> mr. chair? >> chair bustos: commissioner scott. >> commissioner ransom-scott: i move that we authorize a nonbinding term sheet for operations agreement with the transbay joint power authority and the east cut community benefits district for the development of the under ramp park project, resolution number 02-2022. >> chair bustos: thank you, commissioner scott, may have a second motion? >> i second the motion. >> chair bustos: thank you, commissioner brackett. >> commission members, please announce your vote for item 5b when i call your name. >> commissioner brackett: yes. >> commissioner ransom-scott: yes. >> vice chair rosales: yes. >> chair bustos: yes. >> mr. chair, the vote is four ayes. >> thank you, the motion carries. please call the next item. >> next is 5c, workshop on
11:29 pm
annual certificate of preference marketing and outreach report fiscal year 2020-2021 from the san francisco mayor's office of housing and community development. >> as you're aware, the san francisco mayor's office of housing and community development prepares an annual report of the prior fiscal year activities. and they're here again to provide that for fiscal year 2021, but also with additional information about the new law that is now in effect, 181584 that expands housing to -- so we're happy to bring this new information to you today. and so with that, i will turn it over to eric shaw, the department head of the san francisco mayor's office of housing and community development and he's joined by maria benjamin as well. eric first, eric?
11:30 pm
>> i'm sorry for that. i didn't have my headphones on. i'm eric shaw. we appreciate the partnership of ocii and have worked closely on the task force and regular means myself on the report. i've asked the deputy director to actually do the report and i will make myself available to provide any perspectives on this or any questions you have after this presentation. so i'm going to turn it over to maria. >> thank you, director shaw. and i'm going to turn it over to pam, because pam really wanted to do the introduction to our report. maria benjamin, san francisco mayor's office of housing and community development, and i have the honor of implementing
11:31 pm
the certificate of preference program. pam? >> okay. good afternoon, chair, commissioners, interim executive director, again, i'm pam simms, a senior development specialist in the housing development. i'm here to talk about the fiscal report 2021. today maria and i will be providing you with a summary of the cop holder activity. also, maria will provide you with under on how they're operating and. and that became effective on january 1, 2022. and finally, the implementation plan for the program expansion in 2022.
11:32 pm
first it's a very brief refresher. per state low, the certificate of preference program was created to provide an affordable housing preference for low and moderate income households that were displaced due to activity. it provides cop holders with purchasing an affordable oci or mocd unit. they must meet the income requirements for the project they're applying to. currently there are 899 active crop holders who are -- cop holders who are receiving new information. of this number, a total of 311 individuals have used their certificate once. and for fiscal year 2021, oci had one development and that was 500 fulsome. while 12 cop holders applied for the 108 units available, no cop
11:33 pm
holders chose to live at 500 folsom. as i stated in february, 2021, the reasons for not being housed include no response, overcome, underincome and withdrew after initial contact. it may have affected the applicant, which is covid, which increased hesitancy for all applicants to in 2020. and which continues today, actually. now, i'd like to turn it over to maria to provide her update. >> thank you. we are -- you couldn't have said it better about covid affecting folks' desires and abilities to move from where they are.
11:34 pm
mohcd had 23 new developments, a mixture of ownership and renter developments during the reporting period. we contacted all of the 889 certificate of preference holders about those developments. there were 68 certificate of preference holders that submitted 155 applications during this period. and of the 135 applications, 70% of them were not passed -- [indiscernible] -- only 18 people actually moved into new opportunities during the period. between new rentals and re-rentals and being added to wait list, the wait list-adding is a really significant thing. a lot of our certificate of
11:35 pm
preference holders in that pool of active people applying are seniors. and we were able to work with a good group of seniors to be having -- to help them add their names to existing wait lists and so nine folks were housed from being added to senior wait lists. as the 18 that actually were housed, 15 certificate of preference holders required subsidies, financial assistance, to be able to secure their housing. they returned from various places across the bay area. and the interesting thing is nine of those certificates were used within six years of receiving the certificate. they found out they had the certificate, the ability to use
11:36 pm
the certificate and within six years, nine of them used it. 12 have been held on for 40 years before they were used. so, it just goes to show that folks, certificate of preference holders, are still needing to use the original -- still needing to use the certificates and they're using it to get into senior housing. as i said, 70% of those did not move forward. and there is a high rate of withdrawing, people withdrawing from the cop preference. a lot of folks apply and then when they look into it more, they're not interested in moving forward. there is a lot of factors that could go into play there.
11:37 pm
but the pain reason over the last year and a half has been covid. people just, you know, they're applying, but they're not really ready to move in a pandemic. dahlia. we are pleased to tell you about dahlia. and the progressions that we've made in the last year. there were over almost 124,000 electronic applications made for affordable housing across the city. and the vast majority were for rental projects. we finished our -- or implemented our dahlia partners portal in 2020. and the partners portal is put there to assist our developers
11:38 pm
and to help them keep track of all of the lottery applicants, the preferences. you know, easy, seamless matter. they used to have to do a lot of data entry, spreadsheets and we were able to make this tool for agents and may be more efficient with the leasing process and more efficient with the lottery and leasing process. it allows the developer to keep in better contact with applicants, which is very, very important. it gives them automatic confirmations of the information that they're sending, be it the application or other documents that are being asked of people to send so that it's -- so that our leasing agents aren't having to make those contacts
11:39 pm
themselves and our people are really much more informed about the status of their applications. and we're able to also monitor them a little better to make sure things are going more smoothly. the commission -- the committee that was put together for the cop expansion happened in early '21 and the committee was made up of a combination of both cop holders, city staff, ocii and mohcd. ocii commissioners and representatives from the western addition as well. and the premise of the committee was to expand the certificate of preference program to include the descendants of individuals who had been displaced.
11:40 pm
that committee was very active. and that committee did a lot of energy work to be able to go to the state of california and get ab1584 passed. governor newsome signed ab1584 which allows -- provides the ability for us to have -- expand the preference -- the certificate of preference to descendants, direct lineal descendants of all of the redevelopment areas that have a preference for affordable housing units in those project areas. and mohcd's successor is the agency that will implement the descendant's preference.
11:41 pm
we are really excited about this. this is very -- can be very impactful and we are, right now, as of july -- excuse me -- as of january 1st, we are accepting applicants for certificate of preference descendants who feel that they are eligible, that they are a descendant. they're going to have to provide a birth certificate that links the direct lineage to the originally displaced household in the same way that any certificate of preference holder needs to provide documentation that they are actually who they are. our first major step is to hire expansion program staff so that we can ensure that we are --
11:42 pm
have the capacity to implement the preference. we are currently requiring that the descendant language and marketing materials for all ocii projects for 2022 or that come from marketing in 2022 will have language that says descendants are eligible for these opportunities as well. the first is block 52, which is nine ownership units. we're pretty excited about that. shipyard ownership units. and for earlying marketing -- early marketing during this time period is mission block 9a and that's 148 ownership units, so we're really hopeful that we'll be able to provide the preference for descendants in
11:43 pm
that project. mohcd works with h.s.h., block 9 also has a direct h.s.h. directly refers folks for some of the housing that is coming there on block 9. mohcd works with hsh to ensure that those who are assessing folks to go into the units are aware of the preference and that are utilizing it for folks that are in need in that way. we're also really excited about coordinating with ocii using the lynx search that we -- we are looking -- the lynx folks are looking into more modern ways, i want to say, of identifying
11:44 pm
people from the original records that we do have about displaced households. so, they're looking to -- for more contact information. our original displacies and that is going to make it so much easier for us to find their descendants if we know who they are. so we're looking forward to that. and to inform our comprehensive outreach plan for outreach to descendants. we'll be do you meaning the policies and procedures and making sure we have a very clear program for folks. and then modernizing that historic data. so this preference will apply to areas that -- not just the two areas hunters points and the
11:45 pm
western addition areas, it applies to all of the displaced of the former redevelopment agency displaced areas. so there is going to be a lot of rolling up of our sleeves to look at that historic data. and then actually modernizing it so we can use it more readily for the other s.f.r.a. project areas. so we're looking forward to working through that. so we can make sure that all of the displacees are aware that they have access to this preference as well. i think that might be the end of my presentation. thank you very much. >> chair bustos: thank you, maria. pam, are you done with the presentation in total?
11:46 pm
all right. >> yes, i am, sorry. >> chair bustos: madame secretary, anyone from the public who wishes to provide a comment? >> at this time, members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call 1-415-655-0001. enter access code 2483 655 4943. press the pound sign and then the pound sign again to enter the call. then press star 3 to submit your request to speak. if you're already on the phone with us and want to provide public comment, press star 3. i'll allow a few moments for the public to call in. mr. chair, there does not appear there are any members of the public wishing to comment on this item.
11:47 pm
>> chair bustos: thank you. no request on this for public comment, i'll close public comment and turn to my commissioners with questions they may have. i would like to start with commissioner scott. >> commissioner ransom-scott: thank you, mr. chair. to the committee, i thank you for your report and i'm just certainly on the page of knowing we need new, fresh 21st century ways of seeking out, searching, digging -- because i get calls all of the time and questions, i'm the boots on the ground and out there in our religious community as well as the community around me. and there are people asking about their cop or how do they get help with helping the city to find their information, because many of us know one another. i've known families that have lived in certain places, didn't
11:48 pm
move and yet they can't find their records. it even stands true of some of our workers, colleagues, that they couldn't find their information and we all went to school together. neighbors. so a new fresh 21st century, but also added to that, a boots on the ground native way of talking to families, getting information out to churches, or outreach organizations, that will help us reach all of these people that are ready and, yes, covid has, you know, pushed these back to the side, but i'm sure as you know, these people still want housing. they still want help. so, i look forward to hearing more about what the 21st century way of doing this will be. and what that means and how you plan on using it.
11:49 pm
who you plan on including with this information for japantown, district 5, district 10, all cultures that should be included. >> chair bustos: thank you, commissioner scott. commissioner brackett? >> commissioner brackett: yes. i wanted to thank the city for the presentation. just some points of clarity that the cop committee created to have input on varying cop issues, not just expansion of the program, so we'll be continuing to meet moving forward on some of the issues that dr. scott brought up, which is around what type of 21st century tools we may be using. whether we're using genealogy or any other forms. i know that the contractors were
11:50 pm
contracted through the r.f.p. process with lynx, online search tools and that in combination with a community group that will do the boots on-the-ground work. but i think in addition to that, the general outreach that mohcd is doing, i would like to see there possibly being a quarterly or biannual workshop, similar to the workshops being done around how to participate in affordable housing, or how to be a first-time homebuyer, because the cop program is a little specific and does have information where a lot of people want to know how do they qualify, what documentation do they need to submit, how do they -- you know, different issues like that, that cannot be discussed in the general kind of
11:51 pm
housing workshops that are being done by our housing providers, like san francisco housing development corp, meta, et cetera, so i think there needs to be some type of cop workshop that is done for the larger community so people know what this program is, what it does, historically what it's for and also could be a good tool in helping to recruit and make it easier for mohcd to find people. i also noticed in the report, there was a mention that 51% of the participants who applied for housing under the cop program did not respond to a leading agent or the alternate contact. and i was wondering if marie or pam, could you explain to me what the process for contact and follow-up looks like? because 70% nonresponse is a pretty high number when people are going through the process of actually submitting applications
11:52 pm
through dahlia for these properties. so just wanted to know what that contact and follow-up looks like. >> sure. leasing agents are required to first, by e-mail, then by phone, then by text, and then by regular mail. and we follow up to make sure that those are being done. the alternate contact we have on the application that folks are filling out on dahlia. there is a place on there they can put their alternate contact. in case you can't reach me -- sometimes folks have phone vulnerabilities, they get a new phone number and they can't -- or they don't have access to e-mail. here's an opportunity for you to put someone else down that can be contacted if they can't reach you. and, so, most people put their
11:53 pm
alternate contact -- it might be a case worker or a housing counselor or just their daughter or their son, and so what that statistic is showing is that after the developer tried all four of those ways of reaching somebody, and called their alternate contact, they were still ignored by that person they're trying to reach. that person still did not get back to them. what we found out in -- we call folks. we're not a leasing agent. we just call and say why didn't you respond? oh, i didn't want to move. and, you know, that's -- while it says that they didn't respond, most often that's intentional. >> commissioner brackett: okay,
11:54 pm
that was very helpful. because i went to workshop last week with mohcd and i heard there was a response time of 3-5 days and if someone didn't respond within that window, they would be passed over and their application wouldn't be seen. so it's helpful knowing there are these other points of contact that came about before someone was actually rejected. so i kind of like to attend the workshops just to know what people are experiencing and like what they're learning and the information piece. then i had a couple other additional questions. i know you guys also mentioned there were many people who were overincome and underincome. do we have the stats on how many were over or under-income? >> we do. >> commissioner brackett: was it based on the properties? i know we have several properties that have different thresholds for the floor level
11:55 pm
and the ceiling? >> yes, so it is based on the different projects. and we do have the data. i can tell you for the project that we were reporting on which is transbay block 9, there were -- there was only one person under-income that did not get a subsidy for that. and that was because there was an age requirement with the subsidy. and she was not able -- she wasn't at that age senior subsidy. so, you know, mohcd actually prioritizes folks and our partners prioritize cop holders when they're distributing rental assistance. it does depend on the project, because some of the rental assistance like i say is for
11:56 pm
certain populations and if they don't fall in that population, then they might be under-income. >> commissioner brackett: this is my last -- well, this is just a comment. i know it's come before our commission several times around there being some economic challenges for cop holders, to either have enough money for deposits, just to be able to cover their portion of the rent. do you see that as being kind of a real issue that we should look to try and address in terms of i know we have different pots of money available for teachers and we have pots of teachers for more elderly populations, we have several different pots of money for our law enforcement, et cetera. do we see that as being something that be a policy moving forward or something that, you know, maybe the city may want to address on its own where cop holders can ensure that they have an opportunity while the units are available?
11:57 pm
>> sure. we do -- i'm sorry, director shaw, would you like to address that? >> yeah, commissioner brackett, tau for the question. -- thank you for the question. there are a lot of programs out there that have that invest based on income, location, other needs as well. we've been working closely with our community stabilization team, working closely with h.s.h. and the homelessness and supportive housing, department of public health. so in those instances right now, i think we continue to assess the resources that we have and make sure that we are connecting people that have this opportunity through cop with the existing programs. i think we can continue to look at what additional resources are needed, but i also know that we are working really hard with our
11:58 pm
other housing partners to make sure that people understand that resources are available to them now. i think going forward this may be worth a conversation to have in the future, but i think right now in terms of the resources and alignment of process, that it's happening in the city in a more intentional manner and we have an understand of the mayor's commitments, but then with our respective projects and placements and we're working hard to align those together. >> commissioner brackett: i respect that answer, eric. i know there are a lot of different pots of money coming from different places and trying to put them together. prop c money and other different sources, trying to get them streamlined so people aren't looking at 16 different programs versus looking at three larger pots that is more efficient. i was more asking the question because we see this as a barrier for a while now. so just was putting that out
11:59 pm
there. but thank you for that update. and with that, there was one last question i had. i did have a question around -- in terms of -- there was language in the beginning of the proposal that said something regarding the new ab1584 would be applying to only ocii properties. so just getting clarity about that because i know in the 2008 resolution all of the cop participants were supposed to be eligible for all mohcd properties on their preference, not just ocii. i was wondering if that was a typo or if there is some other clarification that needs to happen? >> so, commissioner brackett, as we work with the consultant this year to understand the breadth of those that are eligible for
12:00 am
cop under that legislation, there are two things that are happening on the mohcd side -- three things. once again, receiving properties from ocii. we're understanding that. we're trying to understand the development timeline for our new projects that are coming online and then once again working closely with the team on the turnover and requirements on units as relates to that. [please stand by] [please stand by]
12:01 am
. >> -- i'm sure maria's going to know and go, oh, that's not a surprise, so one of the things
12:02 am
that comes to mind when i hear about this partners launch, and just looking at the slide, is i'm assuming that this tool, this portal tool that we have, we have the ability to draw analytics for it. what do i mean by that? i was just looking at the total number of applications, 123,000, approximately, but 68 c.o.p. holders are part, a very small fraction -- well, 68 c.o.p. holders with 155 applications, right, but 155 applications is a small percentage of the total applications, and 68 is a small part of the total of the c.o.p. applications. so do we -- just going off the top of my head, how is it that
12:03 am
c.o.p. holders know about dahlia? to dr. scott's question or commentary about there's a lot of people seeking information about the c.o.p. program, can either you remind me or let me know -- how do folks know that dahlia is available to them so that they can access it, reminding you that a lot of folks are senior. just looking at members of my family who are seniors, accessing technology is not their strong suit. so how do you reach people to know this seemingly easier for sure application process than the lattery system that we once had is available to them? >> sure. it's it's a constant, doing it
12:04 am
always, and -- lottery system that we once had is available to them? >> sure. it's a constant, doing it constantly, when we initially launched dahlia, and periodically, we did do outreach campaigns, and the more useful our housing counseling agencies and our case managers and working with h.s.h., working with all of the other city families, our grantees who are working on the ground with folks to make sure that there's availability and the help to work through it and informed by it, the library is a huge partner, and oewd and
12:05 am
their computer labs. we're doing a lot of outreach in that way. during the pandemic, they're -- there was -- otherwise, no one would have been able to apply for housing because -- unless we were set up to do it electronically, and we have built dahlia in a way that it's just as accessible on a phone as it is on a computer or a laptop. you know, you don't have to have a computer or a laptop to actually be able to access it. and, you know, the ability -- we are excited about the analytics that we are able to see now. that portal has been active for about a year, and on the
12:06 am
information that we're gleaning from it, it's phenomenal. it's great, and we're going to be able to glean information from that on what folks need. we actually do user testing with dahlia before they implement something new on it, so we'll have seniors on there and try to figure out, how do i do this, and how do i do that? and that information testing, they put it into dahlia so that we can make it more accessible, and we will continue to do those efforts. we will continue to provide resources on internet access, private resources on available tools that folks can get in their homes, and then provide direct services as we can. >> in other words -- sorry.
12:07 am
>> go ahead. >> something on analytics, and this is something that maria told me last year, we've found that people don't apply multiple times. what we've found with maria's leadership is to be more culturally competent. so if you didn't choose this one, then what's an alternative? please apply again if you see another property that's interesting, but we're working to make sure that we're proactive in making sure that people are utilizing this opportunity and the way that the process works, so it's not from the interface itself, it's also responding and being more customer service oriented with those who want to engage and getting housing opportunity through dahlia. >> thank you for that explanation, and i guess what comes to mind, based on my own
12:08 am
experience in the mission, where i constantly tell people about these tools, there are people that know about the tools that are regulars, if you will, with the community organizations. and then, there's family members, and some of them are in need of affordable housing. and i keep saying to them, go to meza, and go here, and go there, and get that information. because we -- i don't know if my fellow commissioners are registered in dahlia, but we, at one point, were all registered in dahlia, so i get the information in real-time, right? you know, i'm one of your quiet marketers. i send the information over in real-time, but what i find is that it's usually the -- i don't know about it or yes, i know about it, but i don't know where to go about it, or i know where to go, but i'm not
12:09 am
getting the help, those kind of barriers, especially before the pandemic. there was a time during the pandemic, and i remember i smiled because there it was on the muni bus, dahlia. so i'm wanting us to be as creative and proactive as you say to be sure that the messages is out. when i look at the units coming on-line, you know, especially the ones with homeowner opportunities, 68 c.o.p. holders, some folks holding onto their certificates and using them decades later, i think we're all doing the right thing. i just want to make sure that we're spreading the word as broadly as we can so that people understand that there are these additional resources or help available, and we need the community based organizations are not necessarily the only place they
12:10 am
can go. so workshops, there's just so many opportunities to keep the top of mind for this particular population. so those are just my -- my, you know, top of mind thoughts on the marketing side. but i did have a question because i'm not sure how the wait list process works. >> oh, sure. >> so can you breakdown so that i can, again, broadcast that to anybody who's willing to listen? >> sure. a certificate of preference holder can present themselves to any former redevelopment agency developed building or c.o.o. developed building and request to be put at the top of the wait list if the wait list is closed. if the wait list is open or if they're accepting applications, they get in at the top. and we are -- right now, we're
12:11 am
working on generating a list of those buildings, especially for c.o.p. descendants. i can be put at the top of all of those buildings? great. so we're working on that, and sonya mcdaniel, who is our c.o.p. program coordinator, this year, worked with dr. davis when they're building their wait list because it was a chance to get at that wait list. that building is a covetted building among people on our wait list, so we worked on that, and that got a good number of c.o.p. holders at the top of their wait list. and those nine people that were
12:12 am
housed there, they were not only housed there, but housed at other housing developments. >> okay. good, thank you for the report. >> thank you, commissioner scott. -- commissioner rosales. commissioner scott, i believe you had another question. commissioner scott, i believe you're on mute. >> thank you. thank you. my question is this information, this agency has been in the city since the 40s and the 50s, and i've watched so much happen, transform change. one of the things that i'm looking at right now as a clergy, as well, too, is the ptsd behind and with many of
12:13 am
the people that are not responding. it's not that -- i heard i went so far with my family, friends, and then, they said that i did not make enough, so i'm so grateful for what commissioner brackett asked about the funds. there was the queue program that worked, so looking once again, some of them suffering and feeling hopeless and helpless because they're not on drugs, so there's no help for them, you know, not addicted, and all these different things that create hopelessness for them, because then, they're disappointed and say you don't qualify because either you make just a little bit too much or you don't even make enough, and affordable is for those that
12:14 am
don't make enough, and it's, like, well, what's to happen? so i'm hoping that we will look at where those funds could come from and program that will support those that are overwhelmed when they don't know how to get on a computer, they don't have access to the technology. we can look at george davis, we can look at san francisco housing and development, what they're doing, and there's got to go something, like mara said. where do they get the support to even go do this overwhelming work and support to translate what this means when it asks x, y, z questions. it's taking it to another level during this pandemic, and they just don't want to do it alone,
12:15 am
alone. so again, with this 21 century thinking, how do we help those folks with that? some of these c.o.p. holders, they're challenged with a handicap, and the paperwork, the way, the push off, the put-back, and they do everything and then are told no. so you see people, because of their stories, turning around and just saying, i can't go through that, so there's not enough help. there's no support, so i'm hoping we'll care enough for everyone and not just for those that are homeless, and not
12:16 am
homeless, and looking for a better brighter support. >> thank you, commissioner scott. so i just want to jump in on what commissioner scott just shared and what we've heard from others, and i think we've said this before, and i may have said this when i was on the redevelopment commission about the solution. the people that were pushed out of the program were not pushed out because they didn't make sure, they were pushed out because of the color of their skin, so i think we need to begin to think about how do we reduce these barriers for
12:17 am
people because, again, they weren't kicked off of some number, they were kicked off because they were black, and as a result, intergenerational wealth was taken from many of the families who owned their buildings. i know several who owned their buildings, and if those families still had those buildings today, like my friend gigi's grandmother, they gave her $6,000 for a 60-unit building. imagine what a 60-unit building would be worth today in san francisco? and that's generational wealth, so i hope that there are things that we can do to reduce those barriers, so i notice that a lot of people in your report say they made over. they did not make over the amount that the city took away
12:18 am
from them, so we have to think of this as a justice issue. we have to think of this as a reparations issue, and it's no coincidence that the population of this city has dramatically shifted since when i grew up, and it hasn't shifted in the right way. and so we have to see the urgency. that's the way -- that's the reason why, when i was on the redevelopment commission, and, you know, our mayor was a member of the board of supervisors representing district 5, i told her we need to do something similar to the certificate of preference, and that's how we came up with the neighborhood preference program. we needed to do something to begin to stop the hemorrhaging of people of color from this incredible city. so i know that if this commission and this staff believes that we have to be
12:19 am
urgent about this, and we have to be creative, and we have to think outside the box because we owe it to the people who were pushed out not because they wanted to leave, but they were pushed out because of a racist redevelopment director by the name of justin hermann, which, i think we need to remove that name if it still hasn't been done. but we need to do something, and if that means we need to go to our governor to say, hey -- i mean, our governor knows this issue. i've spoken to him a lot about it, and so let's begin to think about what we can do if we haven't thought about reducing some of those barriers so that people who deserve to come back home -- and the fact that there was one person who had a certificate for 40 years, that's telling me that that was a 40-year promise that was not
12:20 am
met, right? and that's not right, either. but i know that, under your leadership, director shaw, and deputy director benjamin, i believe you share this sense of urgency with us that we have to do this. so i appreciate commissioner brackett's ideas of c.o.p. workshops and, you know, reporting out on this on a regular basis, but also seeing how we can reduce the barriers, and also maybe even open up opportunities for some of the c.o.p. holders to look at other properties that are here in the city that aren't ocii or former redevelopment. because it was a citywide policy of redevelopment and the so-called urban renewal that did this work. so i just want us to right the
12:21 am
wrongs and do what's right. so thank you for your report, miss sims and miss benjamin, and thank you for your presence and leadership, director shaw. i think we can do this. i think we can do the right thing and make it even more right. it is possible because we're human beings that care. we're not machines, and as someone who works at g.l.i.d.e., and who has a policy department, not all laws are just, and so we need to change them, and i think we can do that. with that, commissioners, this was just a workshop, so we appreciate everyone that participated. no action is required, so thank you very much, participants, for your support and your presentation. madam secretary, please call the next item. >> clerk: next is agenda item 5-d, workshop on the recognized
12:22 am
obligation payment schedule for july 1, 2022 to june 30, 2023, rops 22-23. discussion. madam interim director? >> thank you very much. madam secretary and commissioners, it is hard to believe that we are once again at the point of budgeting once again, but as we know, with our multiple budget tools, we are never not budgeting, so we begin our year with the recognized budgeting tool, which begins our year with the recognized fiscal year budget , and we wanted to brief you on where we are headed, but as always, we will come before you this spring with the actual budget that will go through the
12:23 am
process with the commission and the mayor and the board of supervisors, but this is an exciting step as we look ahead to fiscal year 22-23, and with that, i will turn it over to mina yu, who will make the presentation, and who will be joined by some additional staff, as well, and will provide some additional information. mina. >> thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. again, we are here for the 22-23 rops workshop. next slide, please. so [inaudible] we have our bond proceeds, which are from the bonds issued, we have our reserve balance, which is property tax increments from prior years. we have other things like developer fees, grants. we have our redevelopment property tax trust fund, which
12:24 am
is set by formula. next slide, please. so our 22-23 rops is 22.7 million. next slide. so this table just shows a year over year comparison to the current year rops, and you can see on the bottom line, we have an increase of 157.3 million, or 28.6. i think it's worth looking at each line item in more detail, so the major changes are because our bond proceeds are increasing, and this is because we are issuing two bonds. we are also using bond proceeds to fund two new carts in transbay. the other is because of an increase in the number of affordable housing units coming on-line [inaudible] and this is increases in our staffing
12:25 am
[inaudible] on those two new bonds that i mentioned. next slide, please. so this table shows our 22-23 rops by our uses, and affordable housing is our largest use, followed by our debt program. next slide, please. so here, we have a year-over-year comparison to our current year rops, and our biggest change is in affordable housing, again, because we have our new projects coming on-line, and then, we have a technical requirement of funding for 2016-d. we have our new debt service and our new bonds, and this is going to increase our debt bond schedule, so again, the change is an increase of 157.3. next slide. so this just shows the rpttf forces that are kind of pulled out of the last table. our rpttf forces are
12:26 am
148.6 million. the majority of those funds are for our debt program followed by the transbay debt project area. next slide, please. this slide shows a year-over-year comparison of the rpttf uses. we have the gross [inaudible] for the tjpa, and we also have the increase in our debt program, and with that, i will turn it over to elizabeth for our affordable housing. >> thanks, mina. good afternoon, president bustos, and commissioners. my name is [inaudible], and i am the affordable housing
12:27 am
manager. we are requesting $272.8 million to fund construction activities for our affordable housing projects. as you can see, the primary funds requested are bond proceeds and other funds. bond proceeds are payment from developers that have been made to various project or program requirements over the years which have been designated for program or project use. other funds are making up the majority of the request by a little bit at 130.8 million. sorry about that. the funds requested will primarily go to fund construction gap loans for five of our affordable housing projects, along with two new redevelopment loans. next slide, please. housing rops 22-23 request includes funding requests for our three main projects, with the highest expenditure in
12:28 am
transbay at 157.8 million, followed by hunters point shipyard and candlestick point, and mission bay. next slide, please. in total, ociis housing fund request will go to fund 171 affordable housing units in development across our three housing project areas. the 157.8 million in transbay will fund 124 units, and $7 million in mission bay will go to fund 330 units. next slide, please. so here, you can see all the specific projects that will be funded under this rops. for on going projects in the mission and transbay, we've allowed some increases due to state funding delays, and we've also included, as i mentioned, two new predevelopment loans
12:29 am
for the two remaining mission bay parcels. we're also showing the remaining predevelopment funds for our two candlestick point projects that are currently on hold. and with that, that's it for my presentation. i'm going to turn it over to mark to talk about mission bay. thanks. >> thank you, elizabeth. good afternoon, commission bustos, vice chair rosales. i'm the director manager for mission bay. in this slide, you can see mission bay and how built out it is. in the bottom right is the bayfront park, which we'll start construction hopefully april. bottom left is 1450 owens, which will be a science building or built by alexander real estate, and they should be
12:30 am
starting construction later this spring, and the top left is park p2ph, and we are looking to start that next summer. next slide, please. so these are the sources and uses in mission bay. infrastructure is a predominant use. the parks, pump station. bonds are a significant source of money, but also reserve billions, and also rpttf. second use is professional services. that is for reimbursing p.u.c., city attorney, and other city agencies as well as we're looking to have some of that money as we seek to entitle additional housing, and then, we have art program. most developers throw public art on-site, but we'll be using
12:31 am
those funds to create public art. rp2, mission creek, i hope to be before you next month to announce who's been selected to provide that art. and then, there's a small $70,000 balance on the c.f.d. bond that we're looking to [inaudible]. so on the 22-23 program, look to complete the bay front park as well as the mission iii park. we'll be managing the construction of 1450 owens, we'll be managing the existing parks in the open space, and we'll be looking to increase the allowance for housing. as i mentioned in the previous slide, infrastructure is going to be the main source or use at 72.8 million, and professional services at 3.8 million, art
12:32 am
program at 3.4 million, and then direction at 70,000. next slide. that concludes the mission bay portion, and next step will be brandon for transbay. >> thanks, mark. i'm ben brandon, transbay fiscal manager, and i'm going to walk you through phase three. [inaudible] as evidenced by the graphics in front of me right now, you can see that a large part of our transbay work in the coming fiscal year will be on the underground and park projects as well as future development and two mixed use residential projects around a one-acre park. next slide, please. here, you have the sources by uses for transbay in the
12:33 am
upcoming fiscal year [inaudible] to continue its work in the transbay project area. infrastructure is the primary use of our funds in the upcoming fiscal year, this is a little bit misleading because we do not anticipate expending $105 million on infrastructure. the large sum here is driven by our expectation to issue bonds in the coming fiscal year to fund the construction of our two-part projects beginning in fiscal year 23-24. therefore, the largest two expenditure will be the transbay joint powers authority pledge at $27 million. that is codified by the failed proceeds and pledged proceeds tax agreement. consistent with this agreement, in rops 22 and 23, [inaudible]
12:34 am
to fund the transit center project. we do expect to focus heavily on advancing our block three and other airport projects next year by advancing the design documentation for both projects. our primary sources covering our fiscal year 22-23 transbay work or bond proceeds and rpttf dollars, and those sources are covering our parks projects and the transbay project respectively. the 7.3 million in other funds is comprised of nearly $7 million in park fees and nearly $500,000 in developer reimbursement. next slide, please. and here, we have the transbay work program for the upcoming fiscal year. the key areas, these will be focusing on the advancement of our park projects, as i already said, and focusing on the
12:35 am
transbay block two, which is a 100% affordable housing development for seniors and families and transbay block four, a mixed use affordable housing project. to fund these activities, we're requesting nearly $105 million for infrastructure covering work on our two park projects and bonds to cover their eventual construction as well as health and design for our eventual streetscapes. we've requested 1 million for our consultants to design the projects and our 7 million for the tjpa pledge. that concludes my presentation, and i'll turn it over to [inaudible].
12:36 am
>> good afternoon, commissioners. [inaudible] for hunters point shipyard [inaudible] shipyard phase one, which is the smaller of two parcels that you see, [inaudible] and candlestick point to the south which has [inaudible] and some infrastructure work, as well. next slide, please? so the total budget is $13.4 million, and unlike the other two projects, the majority of our funds includes development reimbursement and a federal grant for building improvements. [inaudible] to the master developer [inaudible] payments and also a small portion of
12:37 am
rpttf will be used for [inaudible] the largest category is the infrastructure [inaudible] we are mostly in an infrastructure phase, and the infrastructure category covers the payment, too. [inaudible] the second category is professional services, legal consultants, and other services to work on the project documents or to look at upcoming land transactions. the third use consists of the developer contributions for work, many of which have come before this commission. with the existence of legacy commission, they consist of categories like [inaudible] scholarship funds and
12:38 am
[inaudible] and education improvement fund. and then finally, our small categories are [inaudible] and these payments are rent payments that we pay to the u.s. navy for the [inaudible] parcels [inaudible] that are located on navy property parcel b as well as sfpd has an office, building 606. next slide, please. so the work program consists of work mainly in phase one right now. we plan to commence construction for parcel on block phase one, [inaudible] the parts that have been completed, we will come to this commission for a parks manager
12:39 am
contract in upcoming months. we have designed on two of those developments that i just mentioned, and we'll continue to work with the legacy foundation to expand and implement the community benefits funds that we have to get that out to the community. and staff continues to work on [inaudible] navy and other federal regulators [inaudible] testing and engaging as needed with the other regulators and also setting up [inaudible]. again, the details here are the categories that i just spoke to, spreading it out between infrastructure for the building 101 improvements that i just mentioned. projects that we are doing for the artists, looking to get a federal grant. we have [inaudible] for both phase one and phase two
12:40 am
infrastructure. [inaudible] this concludes my presentation, and now, i'll hand it over to [inaudible] for the assets management discussion of ocii. >> thanks, lyla. good afternoon, commissioners. the coming year, our work in asset management in order to supporting a number of projects, we also will continue
12:41 am
to manage a few assets that ocii continues to hold in the agency property tax trust for the benefit of the city, continue to manage those properties , either for transfer to the city or transfer to other properties as specified in our long-term management plan, and that is the bulk of our work outside of the project areas. so short and sweet, and i'll -- oh, i'm sorry. if you skip forward two slides please, i'll now turn it over to raymond, our contract compliance manager. >> thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. raymond li, contract compliance manager. next slide, please.
12:42 am
one thing of particular to note is a funding specific request with oewd with our funding implementations. we're requesting 291,000 for workforce compliance. please bear in mind that these particular figures are embedded elsewhere in the overall rops. next slide, please. because our work plan is pretty straightforward, i thought i'd take this opportunity to provide a six-month update for our current fiscal year. [inaudible] our workforce hiring is currently sitting at 28%. this is an improvement from the 20% that's been reported in prior years, and this constitutes approximately 172,000 -- i'm sorry -- san
12:43 am
francisco residents and about 29,000 hours of work performed. with that said, i'll hand this over to my colleague, monica, to talk about equity. thank you. >> good evening, chair bustos, interim director, commissioners, thank you for your time today. i will be discussing our fiscal year 22-23 plan for racial equity. next slide, please. the work for the racial equity plans are still inward facing as the office of racial equity has had a change in leadership, so they are continuing to work on the phase two plan as it relates to programs that serve the outer public, so we're going to continue to work on our demographic analysis to make sure that our employees
12:44 am
comply with the c.p. area workforce, as well as continuing to talk about career development and opportunities within the current ocii staff to ensure that we continue to retain this great and wonderful staff that we have. and also working with the racial equity office and others to build a more robust racial equity training program for the upcoming fiscal year. happy to answer any questions the commission or public may have on this item. thank you. i will now pass it onto nina. >> thanks, monica. next slide, please. so our debt program is 181.2 million in 22-23. the largest portion of this will be used on debt service for our existing tax allocation
12:45 am
bonds. in the top row, you see that's $80 million. and then, we are estimating about 13.3 million for the two bond issuances. we are funding our 2016 c.u. bond, so that involves the remaining bond amount to be refunded. we have 2.6 million, which is the interest that we expect. that must be included in the refunding. 22 million is what the developers are requesting to payoff a portion of those bond. our other debt, we have 4.5 million for our hotel occupancy tax refunding, and our 1.1 million is for the low-income moderate housing fund reimbursement, and the bottom line is the compensation for those new bonds. next slide, please. just a little bit more detail on those two on new bonds.
12:46 am
it's 165.4 million total principle. 89 million of this will be for our transbay project areas to fund transbay and south infrastructure work. next slide, please. so our operating costs -- next slide -- so we will be funding the majority of our operating costs with our rpttf nonoperating admin and other funds, so the total is 18.7 million, and you can see the use, and we'll go into detail on the next slide. next slide, please. 18.7 million for our operations. this includes an estimated
12:47 am
cola. 4.3 is for our retiree obligations. next slide, please. so this table shows a year over year comparison to our current year rops, and you can see it's a total decrease of .7 million. and if you go line by line in bond proceeds, we're reducing our use of bond proceeds to fund our administrative costs, and that will be replaced by our increase in our use of other funds. we're also decreasing our reserve balance. [please stand by] total is 18.7 million, and you can see the use, and we'll go into detail on the next slide. next slide, please. 18.7 million for our operations. this includes an estimated cola. 4.3 is for our retiree
12:48 am
obligations. next slide, please. so this table shows a year over year comparison to our current year rops, and you can see it's a total decrease of .7 million. and if you go line by line in bond proceeds, we're reducing our use of bond proceeds to fund our administrative costs, and that will be replaced by our increase in our use of other funds. we're also decreasing our reserve balance. [please stand by]
12:49 am
12:50 am
12:51 am
12:52 am
12:53 am
12:54 am
12:55 am
12:56 am
12:57 am
12:58 am
12:59 am
1:00 am
>> president moran: madam secretary please call the roll. [ roll call ] >> clerk: you have a quorum. due to the ongoing covid-19 health emergency issued by the san francisco department of public health and the emergency orders of the governor and the mayor concerning social distancing and restrictions, this meeting is being held teleconference and televised by sfgov tv. for those watching live stream, there's a brief time lapse between the live meeting and on sfgov tv. i like to extend our thanks to sfgov tv staff for their assistance during this meeting. if you wish to make public comment, dial (415)655-0001.

26 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on