new year's, and i remember very vividly -- i am a regular rider, and i went into the station and saw the first poster i had seen, it was incredibly exciting. it is satisfying to know that through the campaign, we are reaching a broader audience. >> for more information about

supervisor chu: hello and welcome to a special meeting of the budget and finance subcommittee. supervisor mirkarimi will not be with us today. we also have joining with us today supervisor mark farrell. are there any announcements today? >> please turn off all cell phones and pagers. if you wish to speak during public comment, please fill out a speaker card and in them in to myself. if you should mitt documents, please provide a copy for inclusion into the file -- if you submit documents. supervisor chu: thank you. before you read the first item, would it be okay to excuse supervisor mirkarimi? ok, we will do that without objection. >> item 1, a resolution approving an amendment to the redevelopment agency of the city and county of san francisco for fiscal year 2010-2011,

authorizing additional expenditure in amount not to exceed $75,440,000 and approved the issuance by the redevelopment agency of bonds in an additional principal amount not to exceed $70 million to finance a portion of redevelopment activities described in the approved budget as amended for fiscal year 2010- 2011. supervisor chu: thank you very much. we have the big development agency. >> good afternoon, supervisors. deputy director for the san francisco redevelopment agency. i want to thank you for scheduling this hearing. we come before you to seek approval to amend my budget to incorporate an additional $5.4 million of tax increment received and also to increase my bond debt amount of $70 billion. we were fortunate last year to work closely with the assessor's office, and i want to thank them as well, to accelerate the assessment in the north and south area.

at the time of the budget deliberations, we were not aware. the assessed value had not yet come in, so we were not aware of the increase test income available to us here right now, we have the numbers of additional tax increment to be provided to the developer. the situation is unique in our project area. mission bay has a master of tax increment -- master development agreement signed by the city and county of san francisco, the redevelopment agency, and the developer. it was signed in 1998, which mandates that all the increment would flow directly to the developer and that the city would issue bonds. i understand that the general fund does not include or anticipate any increment into their general fund numbers as well. so this is a unique agreement, and i think that is why we have been able to accelerate the growth of mission bay north and south and see such an amazing development in the area.

in addition, as a result of the increased tax increment, we are looking at about $70 million bond. this is for reimbursement to the developers, pass infrastructure improvements they have made. we have worked with them in prior years to set forth some infrastructure improvements, all the underground for the water facilities, just everything under ground that was required to build vertical, and that has been done, so this is a reimbursement to the developer. the developer has also agreed to provide the development agency some funds so that we can make a payment due in may of $6 million. we will be utilizing a big portion to make that payment as a result of the developer's contribution. i know people are hearing what is going on with the state and understanding were thinking this is something we are trying to do as a result of the state budget. we come before you regardless of

what is happening with the state to seek this increase the budget and bond authority. we are trying to expedite this because i am selling bonds as we speak today. depending on what happens in the state and when the governor signs the budget, we may not be able to do so. i would have sold the bonds anyway, and probably around this time, but given what is going on in the state, i am trying to make sure we do our work before anything is signed by the governor. i do not know if you want me to speak quickly about what is happening in the state generally -- supervisor chu: i think that would be interesting to folks, but there specifically, in terms of the $70 million in tax incremental bonds, can you describe what it would be used for? the musher theory 20% would be used for housing. there will be a specific housing project on fourth street. that is for 150 units of rental. 25 units will be for formerly

homeless families, and it will include 11,000 square feet of commercial space, and will be 50% ami. the remaining 80% would be to a developer for this infrastructure improvements that i spoke of earlier. i have the specific numbers. i can hold up right now for you. supervisor chu: we can come back to that. >> i have it right here. 150% of ami. the remaining 25 units will be formerly homeless units restricted to 16,760, which is 15% for the four-person

household. supervisor chu: thank you. quickly, about the impact on the state. as i say, this may change. as of this morning at 12:15, we understand that the california redevelop association has been working with the five republicans who are still not supporting the governor's bill. with the amendment that the cra is putting forward, we anticipate up to a 10% increments payment to the schools by the redevelopment agency, and in exchange, we would get two years additional. there is different scenarios under the. the cra is still pushing republicans to move forward and try to get agreement. we understand a trailer bill will be out any day, and the

vote will happen shortly after, so we will not have much time to read the bill before the vote happens. it was speculated that the republican convention is happening this week and, so republicans would not do anything until monday, but now we are hearing it could happen any day now. it is still a precarious situation that we are in. supervisor chu: thank you. why don't we go to the budget analyst report and then open up for questions? >> on page four of our report, we point out that as shown in table ~ well, the estimated annual debt service payments beginning in 2011-2012, so they are not to exceed 70 million tax increment bonds, is $6,400,000, and total debt service is estimated at $177 million. supervisors, i want to clarify our previous report to the

committee with respect to the city's general fund in pact pertaining to this proposed legislation. while a tax increment would normally be an impact on the city's general fund, given the three-party unique agreement that we have just described among the city, the development agency, and the developer, all tax increment funds in the mission bay redevelopment project are pledged to the project and cannot be credited to the city's general fund. therefore, the additional $5.4 million in tax appropriation for 2010-2011, that includes the $3 million-plus, will have no impact on the city's general fund in 2010-2011. in addition, the pledging of $3,648,000 annually of debt service for the next 20 years, decreasing for the next 10 years, would be funded with future tax increment bonds from the mission bay project.

therefore, such allocation will not have an impact on the ship -- the city's general fund objective shortfall. we recommend you approve the additional $5,440,000. we consider the approval to be a policy decision for the board of supervisors. supervisor chu: 90. do we have questions from the committee? -- thank you. just to clarify, this is an item that because of the three-party agreement, does not have an impact on the city put the current year general fund, nor on the future, simply because of the pledging that is currently part of the agreement. when does that agreement and? >> i think it would have been 30 years from the life of the project adoption. i had to look back in my notes. >> at the end of 30 years, that tax increment would flow back to the city general fund? >> yes. >> the amendment for the

purposes of low-income housing. when our project expires, we also get an amendment to issue additional debt for the purpose of housing only. if we do that, that is subject to the board approval. >> that would be under redevelopment and existing development structure, but given all the changes of the state, that might not be an option. supervisor farrell? supervisor farrell: just a quick question. if we do not have what is happening in california in our state legislature going on, would you -- but for that happening, when would you be before us with this amendment? >> i actually would probably be before you now because a part of my series on issuing four series of bonds. it is curve -- part of my 2009- 2010 revenue budget, so i would

come before you regardless of this. i think i would say within a day two how the market is looking at rates, but it would be the normal course of business. supervisor farrell: following up on some earlier discussions we have had, given that there are a number of agencies floating these bonds this week, given the anticipation of what is happening in sacramento, i will throw it to you and to our city staff as well. any other creative ideas in terms of getting better interest rates for what we will be floating this week -- i know we had talked about a few alternatives before committee today. has anyone looked at that at all? i appreciate the urgency of what we're doing, but in the last moments here, there are creative ways to think about, given ultimately the city's obligation. >> we have not gone into that situation here right now, i am issuing with the city, county,

hotel tax for a shorter time. certainly, we could look into cop's, but given the very complex funding and payments we have to make, i think any assumed or desired reduction in interest rate that we might receive would be offset by this payments we would have to make it another entity besides the said francisco redevelopment agency issues these bonds or any kind of public financing tool. supervisor chu: is nadia here as well? i saw her earlier. i just wondered if there might be some information about what the market looks like at the moment. i think she might be on a call. and i know the market will be changing daily. talking to nadia yesterday, we have seen the development deals around the state that are 50

basis points or higher this week as a result of some of the rush to market. it is unclear exactly what the ultimate impact of the sale would be here in the city and county, we are seeing rates that are higher statewide. supervisor chu: just a question for redevelopment -- you mentioned you are looking to sell bonds any moment now? >> sure. we already issued our official statements, and i think we will have a follow-up board meeting today. we would like to try to issue a package. because of the market, one would go to market, we have a lot of customers waiting for us, both on the private side as well as investment side. we are hoping to, as soon as we find out, i have my bankers looking to issue by official statement and print them today, this afternoon. we hope to close the deal by

friday or monday at the latest. supervisor chu: ok. why do we open this item up for public comment? are there any members of the public who wish to speak on item 1? >> good afternoon, supervisors. i have lived in san francisco for 59 years. i would like to speak out opposing this resolution. unfortunately, using hindsight seems like the benefit of the redevelopment agency has been exaggerated. it seems to me like certain neighborhoods like the fillmore, etc., have not benefited as much as what they were told they would have benefited from the development agency. i feel that giving them additional money is not a good idea at the present time.

also, i feel bad supervisor mirkarimi's feng shui comment needs to be reexamined a little closer since it deals with japan town. it seems like we might end up with the development with no 49ers, so i have a feeling that one is not going the way it should be going. i feel like the money, instead of being given to the redevelopment agency, should be given directly to the needy people in a more direct approach. it seems like lately, the more the government becomes involved in activities, the worse it gets. then, if we are going to have such a short agenda today, with only one item, i'd like to suggest that since we have all the financial wizards in this room right now, we should deal with the bond at san francisco general hospital, and hopefully,

that will not cost over $1 billion. i feel that the redevelopment agency has not performed as well as advertised and the money should be used elsewhere. thank you. >> thank you very much. are there any other members of the public who wish to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. just a question for redevelopment. you had mentioned that we are going to go -- we got the official statements out, printed for the sale of your amd's. do you know what the total value of that aggregate issuance is? >> the numbers all run together in my head. i think it is going to be under $70,000 total. i forget the numbers, but it is under $70 million total. supervisor chu: you mentioned

that you anticipate going out again for a c adn d series? >> $100 million total, i believe. supervisor chu: the $70 million we are talking about right now is part of c and d? >> yes. supervisor chu: do you anticipate going to the market for altogether? >> we were in a market already because the official payments have been published. the official statements first, and we will be in the market wednesday and thursday. supervisor chu: is there any likelihood that we would -- so today, we are really authorizing or providing extra appropriation authority, and also allowing the $70 million bond appropriation. it is likely end could be possible that that $70 million would be issued at a different time, potentially? >> yes. my commission has only given me authority for taxable rate of

11% and eight tax-exempt rate of 9%. if the market is doing something crazy tomorrow, and also, the impact of japan is affecting the market. i would not have the authority to issue those bonds, so i will not be issuing them if the rates and upcoming higher than that tomorrow. supervisor chu: ok. ok, so, if i could, what i would suggest -- i think the supervisor farrell's point about going to market at an inopportune time is a good one. if i could have the office of public finance to circle back with the supervisor's office to talk about what the conditions of the markets look like and whether we anticipate going out to the market in a short while or whether it is something we expect to go out at a later time, the point about are getting the best bang for our buck and the best interest rate possible is a valid one. i'm comfortable with allowing

the allocation and the appropriation to go forward at this moment so that you are able to take advantage of the market at any point in time, but i think that it is worthwhile to have that conversation with supervisor farrell's office in particular. would that be ok? >> sure. supervisor chu: do we have a motion to send this item forward with recommendation? ok, we will send this item out as a committee report so it gets to the board today. supervisor farrell: said it would -- as a committee report to the board today. supervisor chu: any other items? >> that concludes our agenda. supervisor chu: thank you. we are adjourned.

the biggest issue in america today? segregation still exists... racism... the repression and oppression of women the educational system stem cell research homeless people cloning government health care taxation announcer: so, is there anything you're doing to help make a change? i'm not really doin' anything. ummmm