sector support in state private sector support, when we do have everyone's support. with the city voting on this petition, it does not require the process to move forward. there is no legal requirement that you have to move it forward. but the private sector wants to see that we are supportive of this bill, which is why we are bringing it to you earlier than normal. i can answer additional questions, but i wanted to finish this. the city particles, which are a part of the petition, represent 24% of the weighted vote in the district.

there are also parcels under exclusive jurisdiction and if the supervisors would not vote, their boards would vote for those parcels. including the performing arts garage, parking authority parcel, the war memorial parcels. each of those boards have their own. >> in the end they will teleport -- they will. >> if i am not explaining this broccoli, i apologize.

i understand that some apartments have jurisdiction over assessments that could be levied on the parcels, which is why they have brought to our office the right to vote for their own petitions. i do not know if there is further clarification needed. supervisor elsbernd: it seems strange, if they vote for it, when their budget comes to us and we wanted to strike it out, we would not be able to. >> are there any other questions? i understand that this is a new policy request we are making. >> i am willing to go along

with i will love boat if there's no majority support of private property owners. i do not want this to be the city or state imposing on any foreperson that happens to own private property there. it would not matter if it was 100% of the government owned properties, when it comes time to establish that the board, it just feels way too much like big brother imposing on the sucker that owns private property if you do not have majority support. that will be important for this one vote to establish. i get the point that this in front of us kind of starts at, but be clear on the record, i

will not be support of a lesser is that demonstrated majority private property support. supervisor avalos: i am confused by the argument that the private side would like to see the city passed this resolution to show that they would be supportive. it does not make sense that that would be a hoot that we need to go through with this. i also feel somewhat like supervisor elsbernd, the private sector needs to decide on the town. i could see supporting this cbd knowing that there is that support on the other side. i would like to do that, there is even a great need to have that kind of service here.

things that are lacking in the city that need to be here and there is support in the board to do that uneven playing field is hearing what the people outside of the city, that makes the most sense to me. we can open this up for public comment. there is also a letter from supervisor daly that i am hoping that someone from his office could come read.

i have a number of cards. unidentified speakers, [reads names] >> good morning, mr. chairman. thank you very much for this hearing today. it has been terribly useful. thank you for -- that is great. i represent 100 been nests because of the companies that own and develop the 100 aaa headquarters. we have a significant interest in the area. we are very much behind the

project. a lot of hard work has been done, as you have heard. a good result has already occurred, we feel that we have your support with the support of the private sector, which is a part of a gold today, staged interim hearings to get your view. we do not want to ramrod this through. we are handling it with kid gloves. there is a lot about reached to members of our community. results would be that it would benefit the residence of the entire san francisco area, visitors to san francisco, it will make it and improve the situation for everyone. whereas the next level, we will come down and, hopefully, your support will be continued.

supervisor avalos: thank you, next speaker, please. ka>> good morning. i am the supervising director of the public library. we are very excited for the potential of the benefit district. we intend to ask our commission for resolution in supporting it. as we know, the library is very much in favor of partnerships in things that work logistically to deliver to the citizens of the city. we feel fairly strongly that the cbd will be effective in that manner. all of the other stakeholders, private and public. thank you for considering this. supervisor avalos: thank you.

>> good morning, i am the assistant director for strategic partnerships at the recreation and parks department. i am here to say that we are excited about the civics center and we will be bringing it to the commission on october 7, recommending that they vote in favor of the resolution. thank you for your time. supervisor avalos: thank you. is that on? use the one to your right. >> i represent mgm management company, we have been consultants to the neighbors on this process for the last year- and-a-half. my background actually goes back to 1995 when the first paper

that i wrote recommended community benefit districts for the union square neighborhood. i have been involved in that district since its formation and was also involved in the [unintelligible] benefit district. i understand your concern about the relationship between the public sector and private sector in this, but i think that your concerns are not necessary. as you will see, there is no opposition here today from the private sector. this process, all of the way through, has been led by the private sector. actually, the only wild card is the city. because, of course, supervisors have not had the opportunity to come to these community meetings. there is a great group of people out there that wants it. when i look at this, i think not

about the board of supervisors making something happen, not that the board of supervisors could make something happen that the public does not want, but that they could not stop something that the public very much wants, which is why it is important to get your affirmative not. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you, next beaker, please. >> i am a former board member for cbd, there is no oversight or accountability of them. they run for profit organizations and non-profit organizations. when you have neighborhoods with high rental populations i am not

sure if they are even logical. i was part of the north of market tenderloin cbd and i was asked to leave, i believe, unethically, and it is negligent to start another. this one seems to have a lot of public money behind it to be used for people's private whatever they want to do. they may not be the best way to implement things that should already be a part of neighborhoods. supervisor avalos: thank you, next speaker. >> may i have the overhead, please? this is the currentn cbd that they are talking about. i am a native san franciscan.

this is the current plan. no community of reach to my neighborhood, i live downtown and i belong to a number of entities. this is a map of the current one, four of which are already in existence. this is union square. as you can see, they are growing in the downtown area. this is a map of the greater union square bid. this was only the last year, they did not even talk about the civic center 1. they think that they put it on their map by in their own package. to let the community know. lastly, we have this giant thing

going on. this is a amid market pack forming this month. they want their consultants to include more property is in the civic center area north of market. this was as of the last meeting. you are taking more money out of the tax base with both of these entities. this is taxpayer money and i, as a consumer and so forth, paid into these businesses, etc.. i am concerned about the growth of both of these and how it is affecting the downtown area without proper oversight. thank you very much. supervisor avalos: thank you, annette speaker, please. >> my name is michael nolte.

can i have the overhead? i was involved in the market cbd, centerlines cbd, and greater knob hill propose cbd. one of the things they are supposed to be about is outreach. i did not hear about this until today. how can we have committees that went for many months, according to your packet, without the our reach to the stakeholders, who are the residents along with neighborhood associations. at least the other ones currently in formation contacted us out of courtesy to let us know that there's was being

formed periods de one being proposed in front of you today has not done the act of our reach. i have a real problem with the city when it is clear that not even your fellow supervisor is for it. with that in mind, i have a letter -- i haven't seen the letter from supervisor daly but i assume it says no and you should consider that today. i also have concerns with the mayor's office promote it did, we know that it was through them that they took away the benches and all of that, i do not see how they will put in the kinds of amenities that we actually need in our community at the same time that they took them away. thank you.

supervisor avalos: is there any other member of the public that would like to comment? please come forward. seeing no one coming forward, we will close the public comment. i do have a letter from supervisor daly. i will read it into the record. "i am writing to express my concern for city parcels in the benefit district, casting positions in the affirmative. the mayor's office for economic worst forest before we declined. because the city-owned parcels

in this area for the war memorial the comprise over 30 to 96% of the parcels, this will undo the influence of the parcel bomb with certain thresholds are needed to initiate the district. as of today, a resolution that would initiate the formation of the benefit district has not yet been introduced. by approving the resolution before you authorizing the mayor to cast petitions in the affirmative de pre-empts the process. " but so, the current supervisor for district 6 does not supportive of this part of process. he did not state that he was opposed by himself. which i think is an important factor. on the way here today, before

even consulting with the supervisor, i did have a concern about the over-influence that the city has in formation of cbd in authorizing resolutions. i am not quite ready to support this resolution at this point in the process. i would be much more comfortable seeing how the petitions, in over the next few weeks. i am wondering, could you tell me the timeline we are at in terms of petitions? when we expect to close that and we moved to the actual resolution of intended formation in a vote.

what is your time line? you need to get something done by a certain time, can you walk us through that? >> absolutely. this proposed district is anticipated to commence in july of 2011. it was our hope that we could go through the legislative process by the end of the calendar year, as the department usually finalized their budget. we did not want to surprise city departments. we came early.

if we do not get august petition support as necessary by october 8, which was the date that we asked property owners to return, then we extended the petition organizing effort in steering committees have lists of folks that they know that they are calling and meeting with, doing these presentations with. october 8 was the goal. we asked property owners to return the petition by the eighth, so we do know if we will be coming back to the board. we do know if we have the support yet. but we have gotten at least 10% of the petitions back and we are hitting the pavement, trying to get more.

that is the ideal goal, october 8, petitions will be returned. introducing the resolution of intent on october 12 was the goal. that would have to get heard at a fiscal committee. then it would have to be approved or voted on by the board of supervisors. our target date would be october 26. if all of that legislation is approved, ballots could be sent out by october 29, allowing for a final ballot hearing at the end of this calendar year. supervisor avalos: does the city have the ability to find petitions without this resolution? >> i do not know if i understand your question.

supervisor avalos: in order to get to the threshold that allows us to pass a resolution of intention of formation, does the city need this resolution to be able to file petitions? we did not need that at ocean avenue. >> as a city we did not sign petitions. but we did in other districts. the policy has been four other districts, where the city is not a major stakeholder, the policy has been that the city has not voted in the petition phase four other districts. the city has voted in the ballot phase. for those we have authorized the mayor to cast during the ballot phase.

this is the first time that our office, the mayors of this, ask the board of supervisors to weigh in because with such a significant stake holder in the district, we thought it was only respectful to ask whether the supervisors support this or not as a concept. it does not mean a resolution has to get approved. it just means -- do we support this concept at this point? supervisor avalos: ok, would feel more comfortable seeing what comes in after the eighth. i'm not sure how that affects your timeline. i think the time line is really based on the budget and when the

departments submit what they know what their budget is going to be relative to cbd, and i think we still have time to work it out. i think there is still a little ti to work out, but i would feel most comfortable waiting a little bit longer and seeing what comes in. i actually am in support of doing a cbd here. i would imagine most of the colleagues would be ok with that as well, knowing what the benefits are and how would affect our districts, and i do not know why that threshold is so important for us to initiate the petition phase that would make it a certainty, whether it pretty much would be anyway. motion from supervisor elsbernd to continue to october 13, and i

will second that, so we will continue this item to october 13. ok. >> thank you, supervisor. supervisor avalos: thank you. call item five, please. >> item 5, resolution receiving an approving the 2500 block of mrs. st. business improvement district annual report for fiscal years 2007, 2008, and 2009. supervisor avalos: welcome back. >> good morning. office of economic and workforce development. i am speaking on this item, which is a resolution regarding the 2500 block of mission street business improvement district to approve their annual reports to the city. we have received annual reports that we have been reviewing, and we have reviewed and we have a

report summarizing our review for 2007, 2008, and 2009, and i just wanted to show you a little bit of our analysis of the work of this district, and their financial statements that they submitted. our office has worked with the controller's office to review all their financial statements and come up with a financial analysis on our staff report to you. all business improvement districts are governed by state law, and a local ordinance that amends the state law, article 15. they also are governed by a contract that they have with the city, and they are also governed by their management plan, which is brewed by property owners but also by the board of supervisors if these districts are established and when they

are established. our office, office of economic and workforce development -- we are charged with ensuring that the bids are meeting their city contract requirements and reporting on the status of these districts to you. oewd is charged with conducting an annual review of each business improvement district. we also call them cbd's. same kind of concept. we provide for a supervisor reports and additional analysis we do in collaboration with the board of supervisors office. this particular inclusion covers the annual reports for 2007, 2008, 2009, submitted by the 2500 block bid. their fiscal year is the calendar year. this district was established in 2005. it is our smallest district. they have an annual budget of $75,000, and their primary

purpose is to keep their streets clean and safe, and they do some beatifications as well in terms of flower baskets, daily cleaning, graffiti removal, pressure washing the sidewalks, and some surveillance of the properties by the cbd property owners. what we found was that the budget amount for each service category was within 10 percentage points from the budget of the previous fiscal year for zero years reported, so we wanted to make sure that their budget is not increasing drastically or decreasing drastically from what they stated they would do in the management plan and from year to year, that it does not change drastically, so that what they promise they are doing. the