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. >> both the budget director and

budget analysts gave you pretty in-depth overview but i think as supervisor cohen said, your question was to what particular obligations are we looking at. with respect to the non housing assets which will be transferred to the city administrator's office, those range from our major projects. we have contracts in place for mission bay, transbay, as well as other contracts. the operating agreement with the mexican museum and the mission site with millennium partners which is an ongoing obligation which will continue under oversight from the city administrator's office. the budget resolution does

resolution does provide for coordinated focus. -- the budget resolution does provide for coordinated focus and working with the mayor's office on other ways to staff these enforceable obligations as we move forward. in terms of the house in assets, there are a number of very important housing assets that are already underway in contrast which we believe are encumbered. in total, there is approximately 200 million in moderate income housing funds and the projects that are either in contract funded under way which we believe are encumbered. those range from public housing rebuilds, alex griffith, mary helen rogers. all of these things are obligations that will continue

under the direction of the mayor's office of housing. with respect to staffing, i would like to clarify and say that as we have understood from the city, as of february first, the redevelopment agencies will dissolve in the court decision. the redevelopment agency's staff and approximately 100 bodies in place today. all's duffel move on february 1 to the city administrator's office and through a process and analysis that we have with many charts and excel spreadsheets that show all of the obligations with the housing assets and once analysis is in complete -- is complete, the purpose staffing, how to manage each of these functions, a determination will be made on how to redress these

obligations. >> thank you. why don't we open this up for public comment? >> good morning, supervisors. eric brooks representing aggrieved party and the local grassroots organizations which has four and a half thousand supporters in san francisco. most of whom vote and most of whom get reports through us for voting. this is the item i came for. none of you have received communications from a or probably many other people from a because this was up so fast. i was able to alert from various organizations that have faced challenges and concerns about

redevelopment projects. i know you have to go fast but this is incredibly premature. we have a situation where the board will be making one of the most important decisions it has ever made in its history, which is who will oversee redevelopment and what agencies and staff will be in charge and especially the oversight board, all conversations i have had with other organizes around this always talks about the elected board of supervisors itself assuming that role. i myself have done on behalf of my member organizations extensive comments on both treasure island and the bayview hunters point phase two and i have spoken to other organizers as well. none of us received any warning that this was coming whatsoever. everyone that has made comments on redevelopment agency

projects for, i guess, whatever, a notice should go out to them. we should have another hearing at least in budget and finance and we should do a real public hearing on this and move this around so that we make a much more informed decision. the public is unaware of this. >> thank you. >> are there any other members of the public that wish to speak on this item? >> i would like to thank you, and the city for absorbing the redevelopment agency on march 30th. but we have seen the neighborhood improved so much through the redevelopment

efforts. i recognize that this is unrealistic for a transfer of that magnitude. i reckon that the transfer would be more realistic if the extension, like the gentleman before me said come on that everyone has been shocked by this news. i think that an extension of like six months, even to a year would be a more realistic transfer of this type of responsibility. i would like to voice my opinion on behalf of the parish of st. patrick. thank you. >> thank-you. next speaker, please. >> good morning, supervisors.

by a understand that the city needs to move fast on this but there is a major policy change that is enacted in this that i think deserves greater consideration. if you read this resolution, we have binding land-use controls. some of them are the planning code, some of them are for redevelopment plans. and a lot of areas, some of these documents are very dated, but we do have a set of legislative land use controls for this purpose. it should be like the rest of the city, which would be the rule under which development takes place. if you want to change them, they have to be changed through legislative process. the one provision that really concerns me about this because this is really unprecedented. we are going into completely uncharted waters with this.

on page 21, it says that the oversight board is authorized to approve changes to enforceable changes including changes to the land use controls and a financing plan. we have seen this oversight board which can make legislative changes to any redevelopment plan, to any design for development control in these three neighborhoods of the city. there is no appeal process for these legislative changes. so you as representatives are giving land-use control to an unelected body. we know that denise to be a transitional body to deal with financial and all of that but this is a huge change in the way the city does land use and we think this provision should be struck and we think we need to have a conversation about how to do land use. for the first time in probably 30, 40 years, we have the upper to to to have one set of land use controls in the cities.

this is trading at an unaccountable body and a whole bunch of other power that you should consider before you give away. >> thank you. >> i have a quick question. i'm curious to know, do you have suggestions? >> if this were mine, i would strike the provisions that allow this body to amend the actual land-use control, retain the provisions that would allow the oversight board to approve projects within the existing land-use control, and then you maintain legislative control over the land use change so that that oversight board or if you went in there, you would amended the design for and development controls, for example, it would go through the normal process, the way any planning code amendment would. that would be my suggestion, to

kind of keep it on par with other land use controls and the code. i think also over time, and again, we will not do this as part of this effort. there is a question of policy here. the older redevelopment areas like mission bay have the design for development codes and they did not use the planning code at all. then they went through the time with three development, where they said, we want to use the planning code, right? we want to the extent that we have have one set of planning controls, one plan for the city, but we will use the redevelopment powers selectively for the approval of projects funded by the agency. then, some of the newer projects went back. the president i'm talking about would be similar to the way you did treasure island this year did treasure island this year and a way that you did the