seen. why is this not coming before the political mission? why is it not coming before the safety commission? why can we not give representation from those people who have ulterior motives, as well as the canons in a hearing. thank you very much. supervisor avalos: thank you, we will close public comments. i do see the benefit that can come from having a c b v in the neighborhood. coming around a civics center area at night drama -- and i understand that that is the thrust of the -- the thrust

behind us. concerns over public dollars pushing us forward when we are not sure that that is the same support we will get for the private sector, to move this forward without recommendation to the full board. supervisor elsbernd: thursday at the oversight committee, mr. rose, you have your proposed schedule. i do not know if i can make that committee. if you can remember to, if you are there, this might be something more than. supervisor avalos: to the full board without recommendation? item number nine, please.

>> item #9, ordinance authorizing the execution and delivery of certificates of participation in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $48,000,000 to finance the acquisition, construction, improvement and installation of certain street improvements and of various disability access improvement projects; approving the form of a second supplement to trust agreement between the city and county of san francisco and the trustee named therein (including certain indemnities contained therein); approving the form of a second supplement to property lease between the city, as lessor, and the trustee, a. >> thank you for hearing this item. this authorizes us to issue six -- issued to its of certification. similar to other transactions before you with the city winds up with a property that has a trustee.

you shoot -- they chose abuse rather than other financing, such as for the hospital. we are asking for an amount not to exceed $48 million of the projects fund with st. but improvements and there is flexibility in terms of the for rising with 140 million in the cd, so expect to utilize this for ram is still available we

issue these to explore the opportunity and we take a look at the capitalized interest, advisoworking with the departmet closely. they are eager to spend money relative to the sale, we have been told to use a portion of the $3 million in funding that would be required to generate.

prior to selling. with that, i do have the department of public works. the project manager supervisor avalos:. -- supervisor avalos: thank you. captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- if i remember my numbers, this -- thank you. supervisor elsbernd: if i remember right, a number that would be helpful -- i know that pc our being paid it back through the general fund for the

annual amount. this one is 25 years? bob's where we are, just to get a sense, reverting back words, that this is money that is no longer discretionary. i would like to get a sense of how much that is. >> we do keep track of that. ." supervisor avalos: when you are issuing debt, you are also looking at changing interest- rate, so it would be good to see your friend and getting better rates as well. i am sure it is increasing, hopefully not dramatically. mr. risk is here to answer

questions and talk about projects. i read the list. i am familiar with what they are. we can hear from mr. rose. >> mr. chairman, members of the committee. first of all, with respect to the $3.9 million that they just reference on page 6, they pointed out that the total debt service over 20 years would be about $85.8 million, including interest payments and principal payments. so, the annual debt service as stated would be about $3.9 million for the 20 years based on 6.5% interest rate. i paged 7 in our report, although the proposed street projects included an attachment form on page 9, which can be funded through the proposed

issue, are not considered by the department of public works to be ongoing for routine maintenance projects for the specific streets shown in attachment # one. we know that as a budget legislative analyst, a likely required for other streets, which do not include an attachment in the future. letting in two years ago, the board of supervisors included an issuance of $42 million, the exact same categories as projects of this gop issuance, the only difference being specific streets. we consider, and this is in our professional judgment, ongoing and nature, we find that the

projects would be more appropriate on a pay-as-you-go basis without the issuance of long-term debt. as a policy determination, the board of supervisors have issued retain projects that in our professional opinion, in terms of taking a vote, would be more preferable in issuing certificates of certification. the results and reductions to the discretionary budget, with no corresponding increase revenue for the city, directly in contrast with general obligation bonds, finance to increase property taxes covering the debt services. on page 8 of the report, we point out that long-term debt

and certificates of participation are typically issued to finance capital improvement projects, such as the construction and acquisition of significant remodeling of existing assets, such as the san francisco general hospital, as well as long-term debt that is not typically issued for projects that are routine or ongoing in nature to extend the life of assets. we do make note, as i indicated , the board of supervisors previously approved various and similar ongoing routine street maintenance projects, appropriating the proceeds. this was just in the dp w. budget.

consistent with that the action that you took in the budget. we would consider approval of this ordinance in the board of supervisors, as stated, including projects that we consider to be projects of ongoing and routine nature, financed in regular and routine energy sources. participation. supervisor avalos: thank you, mr. rose. this item is up for public comment. anyone like to comment on item number nine? we will close public comment. sorry, we will un-close public comments. >> when we attended the annual meeting, things like this came up. what they often did was they would notice it for 30 days,

then send it directly over here. so, constituents get an opportunity when items like this come up, what baffles me right now is why we are taking a dangerous rate at 6.5 when the banks are offering it for of less. i am just asking you because when i attended the utilities the san francisco put stoolies commissionpublic u. what are these bonds being issued? the san francisco public utilities commission has an a plus rating.

it should be stated to us what our readiness and. these other things we want to ando. we have had some adverse impacts on our roads and utilities all over the city. if you go on the internet, but you don't get an analysis. then. >> thank you. >> public comment is closed.

for me, it is not bad deal in terms of content and added debt to fix our streets. i know that there is risks as well as doing this work that could be even more costly and i know that we have had huge constraints on our budget. this is helping us to do the work of the street surfacing and the street prepared. we are working towards improving our budget for the next fiscal year and all of these are heading towards a collision course. london been supportive of this measure today.

>> -- i have been supportive of this measure today. >> i didn't attend and weapons. as an execution and delivery of taxable or tax-exempt certificates of persons a patient in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed the national and dulles. item number0 lebanon, ore. support planning the 88 common knowledge to fund held sf development project.

item and a triumph, -- >> we wouldn't repeal of the program. -- we will get an overview. we are thrilled to be before you today. this is a real milestone in the program. the items before you are recording financing actions. this is a significant point in the program. thank you.

>> this can develop approximately three years ago in a task force that was convened. the attempt is to take 8 current housing developments and operate this by the housing authority. the initiatives on balance will rebuild all 2500 public-housing units on the distress site. also market rate housing. the program is a public-private partnership. we working very close partnership with the housing authority and the redevelopment

agency as well as services funding from a broader array of partners and city agencies. the team has partnered with five private development teams and the developers for hunters point is represented here today. we are working on a broad based fund raising campaign and to help with some of the non real estate actions. the opportunity presented to is

the underutilization of the existing public housing sites. i'd just came back from chicago and had the opportunity to review how much of the public housing on their -- public housing there we have low rise and poorly designed buildings in the first place on sites that really can accommodate much more vital use.

this is generated are available in the unrealized portions of the side and so financing to replace the public housing unit. this is to create a housing ladder but also an array of opportunities and the additional affordable housing. this of be at a slightly higher level. these are the 8 public housing sites, six of which are currently actively in development or pre development. these are the five sites across the city that are actively in development.

these of the principles that can about from the task force. this is our moral direction is. i will not walk through all of them. there is some question as to both the condition and as to whether this forward as a full stare down -- tear down. there is not the option 82 recapitalize or improve conditions.

this is a combination of people, housing, community. this is about a lot more as we touched on than just the new shrieks, etc.. this is it is a tremendously vital and complex initiative in the human capacity at the sites and buildings. we are putting some money in to support the social

infrastructure. we have completed our third academy graduation at city hall last month which as been a very successful program. there is capacity building around the process of development. the housing model provides a one-to-one replacement. also relocation and displacement and develops a range of housing. they will also build housing times that are indistinguishable from each other.

the pie chart you see there represents the currently closed mix of housing. we aren't focusing city investment which is at the core of what we are doing. the board asked a resolution committing $95 million which i believe is 20 years to the program. as importantly with the state of california and some federal sources.

with $40 million that we have received in the states as well as $10 million for the redevelopment agency, this is the leverage public funding. this is 6 financing from the department of financing and urban development. we have unsuccessfully done that a few times before. last year, we were close.

while the state budget has not been necessarily rectified, the state dollars has. these are some of the existing conditions. you can see not only are the conditions extremely poor but at their best. this site was poorly designed and for the housing residents. this is looking like a train wreck from above. here is an image of the proposed

new plan. there is up to 800 units of mixed income housing. a real leader in terms of green building and the development program. this is a diagram of the existing site and its connection with the surrounding community.

phase one is moving forward with financing and this is moving forward now. lastly, a summary of the financing and which demonstrates the $75 million of development funds. this concludes my portion of the presentation. we can talk more about the technicalities. we also have an except and extend for $30 million as the project proceeds. >> thank you.

>> we are asking for parsley 38 million -- for $38 million to fund phase one and two. we cannot expect to issue this in 2012. as articulated earlier, need to have and commitment for the abilities commitment to this fund. we have been working with the mayor's office of housing. they need approximately $1.9 million by the end of the year. this transaction is similar to the previous transactions in this scenario, we are leasing two aspects