committee and would like to see if that is the way we would have your acceptance of the reserves. >> if i could just ask a question. were those reserves at around the ceqa completion or it duplicative completions? supervisor avalos: i am not sure. i believe we have received -- released reserves based on ceqa in the past, and we have released reserves based on getting more details about projects and how they would be carried out. supervisor chu: thank you. just to the department, from my understanding, in our last sale of bonds, the same 2008 bonds, we have issued them in a different chunks in the past. in our second chunk when we issued, we also allocated an amount for the play fields program without the programmatic information, knowing we would have to come back for specific projects and environmental review on each of those.

>> exactly. on the second bond sale, the full $8.5 million with -- was but issue, sold, and appropriate for the play fields program without any of the issues that have been raised in the past 24 hours, even coming forward as a decision. it is consistent with the rest of the bond and how it has been managed. we had issued and sold the funds for that $8.5 million, appropriated it to the play fields program. but in order to fund the palega contract, we brought a supplemental to the board of supervisors to reallocate the bond funds. and then we borrowed about $7.5 million from the play fields program to help us find that contract with the understanding that we would be able to come back today and replenish those funds without any further delay or challenges. so this whole process has

actually already been carried out once without incident about a year ago. supervisor chu: and the projects were not acted upon -- you know, we continue to follow what we need to in terms of ceqa and environmental obligations, really. >> yes, supervisor. supervisor chu: colleagues, we have this item before us. i would like to take action on a few of the other ones that i think we do not have disagreement with. on items one and two, relating to the earthquake safety and emergency response bonds, these two items, i believe the budget analyst is recommended for approval. if there no question, do we have a motion on at them? ok, we have a motion to send items one and two forward with recommendations. without objection. on items five, six, and seven, and these are related to the road repaving industry safety general obligation bonds, if there are any comments or motions, i would like to entertain them.

ok, we have got a motion by supervisor avalos to send the items forward, with a second by supervisor kim. without objection. the last items are number three in four. what i am hearing from colleagues at this time is not necessarily an objection to the items, so the question is on the issue of a reserve, potentially, on the balance of roughly $7.7 million, i am assuming? supervisor avalos: that is my recommendation. i want to be clear, already, the funds that rec and park is working with to do environmental review is already in their hands. so if we put this entire amount on its reserve pending report back, that would not affect the environmental review process. otherwise, i would be able to maybe put $7 million on reserve

and $700,000 and go forward. supervisor chu: i do want to appreciate supervisor avalos' comments and concerns. there were a couple things i wanted to address from the public comment, general topic areas. it is important for this committee to address as we deliberate on the spirit a comment about whether we're being true to the voters in terms of issuing and authorizing these bonds to the play fields project, and i absolutely believe that we are. we advocated a certain amount that would go to the play fields program. according to the city attorney, there is no conflict. we're continuing to meet our obligations to completing environmental analysis. at this moment, as many of the at the kids know, we're going through an in depth the environmental analysis on it the beach chalet program as well as minnie lovie in terms of the mitigated negative process. there's no question that we're still continuing to uphold the

requirements that we have, not only to the voters, but according to the law to make sure we look at the of our mental impact. it is built into the process. should we approve this without any result -- any reserve at all? that is not the motion, but even if we did, the recreation and parks department and commission cannot move forward to appropriate and spend money to implement these projects without the completion of those environmental processes. there is in no way an ability for the city to say, never mind, we do not want to do the environmental process and we will move forward in a way. there is a built-in process. it is going to the city planning department and welcome to the full board of supervisors should there be an appeal. i would imagine, given the nature of this conversation, that there will be an appeal and this full body, all 11 members, will be able to deliberate on that process. in my mind, i do not see any real danger in an appropriation.

i think that we meet our obligations legally. and i think that this body has an ability to act on it when the eir comes forward, and there are safeguards built into place for a department not to be able to spend it. in terms of whether or not we would have a different level of comfort if we're able to put an additional reserve on to it, of course additional reserves are always an additional oversight, but i do not see the ines is a very -- do not see the necessity for it. i would prefer to put a controller's office reserve on it. that is an impartial body, and they can actually be one where we can request that they would release the reserve pending completion of an environmental study. supervisor avalos mentioned wanting to know information about specific projects that came forward. we can request that the comptroller's office not release reserves until we have information from the department showing where that money would be spent. of course, today and this stock

is not the only place in which the board of supervisors can put a reserve. in the future, even if we moved today on the money pending those items being committed, we can still say, you know what, this information is not adequate and we want more information, and put a reserve on it at that time. there's nothing that prohibits this body from being able to intervene in making sure that the environmental process is being followed strictly. i want to speak to one last item, the issue about interests. there was a member of the public who talked about the fact that, why would the city, from a financial point of view, want to issue money so early and accrued interest on it? truthfully, we might have the authorization, but we might not be spending the money right away. the intent of the city is to make sure that we're issuing bonds in a timely manner so that we're not accruing to much interest. that has been the past practice

of this body. so i do want to address that issue. so i would like to hear from other members of this committee, where their thoughts are on the reserved. i would prefer it goes to a controller's office reserve. but, again, this is a three- person committee, so we will see. supervisor avalos? supervisor avalos: thank you. i appreciate your comments. in the stand having a controllers reserve in the field it is neutral and it can report back, but i feel that this committee has a role to play in doing oversight, and i like the idea of having a budget committee reserve and have the rec and park department come back to us. they come to is probably once a month, at least, to talk about items that concern the department, and we weigh in on those. i do not see it as cumbersome for them to present to us what their plans are, not just about

the ceqa process but also about how come overall, the play fields money and how it will be programmed and itemized. that is the essential role we can play, to make sure that is being done effectively, with our oversight. supervisor chu: thank you, supervisor avalos. any other comments from the committee? supervisor kim? supervisor kim: thank you. honestly, this is not something i have strong feelings about either way, whether we put it on reserve with the controller's office or with the budget committee. i know this will become to the full board, and i think that there are a lot of process that will protect the interests of many different viewpoints and perspectives on this issue. i think i will fear towards the s -- verr towards the more restrictive and agreed to put the reserve on the budget committee.

supervisor chu: ok, colleagues. we have got comments from the supervisors. any further comments from the department? we are good. why don't we take a roll call on the reserve? supervisor avalos: the motion, to be clear, the amount of the motion to put on reserve, the amount of reserve would be $7.7 million. supervisor chu: supervisor avalos made a motion to put on to the budget and finance committee reserve, $7.7 million that the preparation for the clean said park bond. we can to grow call on that. >> on that motion, supervisor avalos? >> aye. >> aye. kim? >> aye. >> chu? >> no. >> the motion passes. supervisor chu: on items number

three in four is amended, do we have a motion to send this forward as amended? we have a motion to send items three and four ford as amended last week, without objection. thank you. item number seven, please -- item number 8. >> item number 8, resolution authorizing the san francisco unified school district to issue and sale on behalf of its general obligation bond, approved by ed least 55% of the voters that the november 8, 2011 election. are there any other officer of the city and county of san francisco? supervisor chu: thank you very much. supervisor kim: it is my pleasure to sponsor this resolution to authorize sfusd to issue and sell on its behalf. it is a third bond. as many of you know, this ballot measure passed with 71.1% of

voters, which i think is truly extraordinary and speaks to the fate of our residents and our voters in our school district and their incredible responsibility and accountability on our last two bonds or we have always met our budgets. i want to congratulate sfusd for their immense amount of work in keeping the public trust. this money will go to repair and to rehabilitate school facilities to current execs ability, health and safety, and instructional standards. this is the third bond issuance of our districts 10-year capital improvement plan. a quick reminder, the voters approved $745 million of bonds in 2003 and 2006, along with the parcel tax we passed in 2008. i believe we have a representative from the school district here.

i see the deputy superintendent. if you like to say a few words and present this item -- supervisor chu: i also, of course, want to welcome the boys and girls who come to visit us. it is appropriate that we have this item now is they're visiting. >> thank you. i swear we did not plan this in advance as a show of public support for the resolution that is before you today. but it happens to work quite well. i am the deputy superintendent of operations for the san francisco unified school district. we would like to thank you for taking this matter up. i would especially like to thank supervisor kim for your sponsorship of the resolution. as the supervisor mentioned, this is a matter that would allow the school district to issue bonds on its own behalf,

and that is what has taken place with the two previous of voter approval is of general obligation bonds in 2003 and 2006. we are extremely proud of the track record that has been built since 2003 that has allowed so many schools to be modernized at rehabilitated in all parts of san francisco. and this third voter approval, which took place on november 8, 2011 will allow the district to complete all the rest of the schools, the modernization and repairs in the remaining schools in the district. so we have a lot of information that we can provide to you about the nature of the projects that have taken place in the last -- and the lasting measures and the projects that are listed for this upcoming set of work. but we also have worked with the budget analysts office and commend them for their fine work in preparing the report that i believe the committee members

have received. in deference to your time, i know you have had a number of agenda items in this meeting, i will just address questions. i am joined by my colleague, our chief facilities officer and also our chief financial officer. supervisor chu: thank you very much. a quick question for you. i am wondering if you might be able to provide a list of some of the schools that receive funding in the last iteration of the bonds? we often have a number of projects happening in each of our present -- respected districts. there questions about which ones are in the pipeline or in progress. if you could provide that information before the tuesday meeting, about some of the ones that have been fixed or in progress of being filled -- 6. >> absolutely. supervisor chu: thank you. budget analyst report. >> good morning, supervisors.

under california education code, the board of supervisors may authorize the school district to issue the bonds on their own behalf, rather than having the city issued the bonds. the $531 million, the school district would plan to issue this over four different series. the first series in march of 2012, i believe $100 million. in terms of the tax impact for a single-family residence, a value of $500,000. the annual property tax impact would be $105.45 per year. however, this property tax impact would not occur until the entire $531 million had been sold. the first tax impact would not be part of the for sale of the bond. we are recommending approval. supervisor chu: thank you for the report. let's open the item up for

public comment. any members of the public who wish to speak on item number eight? seeing none, public comment is closed. we have got a motion by supervisor avalos to rescind the item forward with recommendations. we can do that without objection. item number nine, please. >> item number nine, transferred assets, obligations, and functions to the city as successor agency for the redevelopment agency upon its dissolution as required by state law. supervisor chu: thank you. this has a number of sponsors to it. the mayor, supervisor cohen, supervisor olague. >> i think i stated this last week, but i want to thank the mayor's office, the redevelopment agency, mayor's office of housing, city

administrator, the budget office. so many people have been involved since the california state court's decision came down prior to new year's, and i think it has been a tremendous amount of work. i have seen the level of stress and anxiety that has been going through many of our staff members and departments to quickly put this together in order for us to comply with ab 26. we have many incredibly important projects going on, and many processes -- promises we have made to our neighborhood, particularly district 6 and district and for affordable housing, small business assistance, economic development, infrastructure, and this was an unfortunate outcome of a larger state budget side that we work an unfortunate victim of, but i want to thank the thoughtfulness of this in terms of how we trends for authority back to this city of

san francisco. i >> we have kate howard from the mayor's budget office. we also have the city administrator to address any questions that come up specifically to their areas. >> think you to the chair and to supervisor kim for your comments and work on this issue. i thought that i would just briefly walk through what the board of supervisors did, the resolutions before you today, and then as supervisors chu mentioned, we have a number of staff from city agencies are available to answer your

questions. >> we have been joined by supervisor cohen. i know that you are a sponsor of this legislation. would you like to offer any comments? >> thank you very much. my comments are pretty humbling just to say think you to all the people that have been involved in this process from start to finish. thank you for hearing this item so quickly. iso want to thank the staff persons that have worked tirelessly on this particular item. i look forward to hearing from each one of you. this outlines the materials before us which demonstrates that there is a number of actions that the city must take in order to protect the housing and public assets and to ensure that the city can implement important development projects

and community obligations. i just want to say thank-you and i'm looking forward to the presentation. >> thank you, supervisor. the resolution before you today addresses the transfer of assets and obligations from the redevelopment agency to the city. on december 29th, the supreme court issued its decision in a legal case, the california redevelopment agency versus the state of california. they decided that this was constitutional and that a be 27 was unconstitutional. what that means is that redevelopment is abolished and there is no ability for locals jurisdictions to buy back into redevelopment. what that means for us is working closely with the

redevelopment agency, there is the city attorney's office, the city had been a straighter, and the comptroller's office. we have to determine what the fiscal and operational impact is of becoming the sister agency. it means that the redevelopment agency is dissolved and all assets will transfer to the city along with those obligations. those obligations to include major development projects as well as other commitments that the agency has made better binding by contract. people have been concerned about the retiree health fund and whether or not those obligations will be viewed as a forcible and they are. all of their work beyond in

forcible obligation either terminates or is transferred to the city. what does the resolution do? this those five important things that allows us to make sure we're ready for the resolution that occurs by law. the first thing it does is that the firms of the city will take on being the successor agency and exercises the city's right to assume the affordable housing aspect and obligation and designates the mayor's office of housing as the entity where the housing will be completed. it also provides for the continuance of our three major projects which are missions bay, candlestick, and transbay, each of which is governed by a binding contract. this does this by designating the director of the administrative services as the

entity to manage those projects going forward and provides the oversight board with the responsibilities that were previously held by the agency's commission with respect to those obligations. it rescinds redevelopment powers because they cannot rely on this for the development plan and finally recognizes the authority of the comptroller and the treasurer to receive added minister funds for the agency. as i think both of the supervisors' book initially alluded to, this has happened very quickly and there are many things that are still to be determined. there is a lot we don't know yet. one of the biggest questions that remains at our office is to really determine what is the amount that will be needed to

pay for the enforceable obligations and how much is left to continue the work that the agency was doing previously. the other thing that i think continues to be uncertain is what tools will be available to local jurisdictions to do we development activities. there is likely to be so activities at the state level but we don't know what those tools will be going forward. we certainly look forward to working with this committee, going forward towards the budget where we have a number of these questions and get sorted out. as i mentioned, there are other agencies have available to answer questions. >> thank you. why don't we go to the budget

analyst report? >> good afternoon. assembly bill 26, the bill that saw the redevelopment agency requires the city to make an affirmative election, whether they want to maintain the housing access and housing obligations that formulate the publication of the redevelopment agency. if the city does not like to do that, this would go to the redevelopment authority. the city does not need an election to become a successor agency. they automatically transferred to the city unless the city determines that they don't want them. that is the context of this legislation. under the proposed legislation, it would transfer housing assets to the mayor's office of housing and the non housing

assets, any responsibility for the three major development projects to the director of administrative services. this would be candlestick point, some parts of mission bay and transbay. the city would be responsible to meet the obligations of these forms of redevelopment obligations and the increment financing that would have to sit on to the redevelopment agency and would be transferred to the city to pay for these obligations. under the legislation, the assumption is that there will be remaining property tax revenues to the city for general purposes once the obligations are met and the property taxes have been distributed to all of the taxing industries. at this point and time,

financing information is insufficient to determine what the full impact is of resolving the redevelopment agency. for the first six months, there is a recognized obligation payment schedule with $220 million in obligations. $90 million of the obligation could be viability for pension and medical benefits for present and retired redevelopment agency employees that the city would assume. there has not been a determination, about 100 would be transferred to the city. this is the collective bargaining rights that they may have in the transfer.

in terms of the assignment of these employees and what their responsibilities to be, that has not been determined yet. because this legislation is necessary to implement, the recommendation is approval. because of the unknown fiscal impact and many of the aspects of the plan that have not been determined, we do recommend that if the board of supervisors wishes to make the budget legislative analyst too conduct further assessment of the impact. >> we want to point out the city attorney is available for any questions. i believe that supervisor: wanted to make additional comments. >>