for the of point of december 29, the california supreme court ruled in the redevelopment association on key pieces of legislation regarding the agency. i will start with that one, it is a provision that would allow for localities and jurisdictions to buy back into the redevelopment program. it was called the dissolution resolution. unless the upton back in under the supreme court of effectively overturned, other duties,

particularly those related to an forceable obligations will be transferred to the successor entity which, in this case is the city and county of san francisco. overseeing some of those duties will be something called the oversight board that has been created. the oversight board will consist of seven members, four of which are appointed by the mayor of san francisco and confirmed by the board of supervisors. the other three will be appointed, one by the superintendent, one by the chancellor of the california

community college system, and one by the largest special taxing entity which is part. -- barty. . the members have a fiduciary duty to the particular interests, this includes holders of bonds and also parties to a contract with the redevelopment agency. the second interest artie entities themselves. the most critical of which i believe are the approval of the recognized obligation payment schedule which is the list of contracts and obligations that the agency is required to continue forward with. they will be the body that approves those. he will ensure that the enforceable obligations are met and will oversee the disposal of

assets that are not for governmental purposes to terminate or amend contracts related to existing obligations if it is in the best interest of the tax amenities. there is also a long list of other duties that i won't go over. it was included in an faq. the resolution that i referred to earlier, there will be transferred the designation to the oversight board from the board of supervisors. there are three in particular. authority to the oversight board for the remaining large project areas that are under enforceable obligations. this designation of land use authority is simply a transfer

of the existing land-use authority that the agency and the commission currently has. if you vote on a tuesday, the board will also designate to amend or enter into agreements. yet to issue bonds is necessary to meet in forceable obligations. that is a quick overview of the functions of the oversight board. the mayor has nominated four candidates and i will not going to their backgrounds. i will name them and introduce them. nadia sesay, olsen lee, john rahaim, and bob muscat. supervisor campos: thank you, madam chair, thank you for the

presentation. i have more of a procedural question. let me say that i can definitely understand why the mayor made these appointments. i think each one of these individuals brings a great deal to the table and they make a lot of sense. i see this as a procedural matter. in terms of process, since the agency or the body that they would be serving as technically not been created, how does it make sense to make the appointment or recommend appointments before the creation of that body? i am not sure if that is a question for you or for the city attorney's office, but it is something that i was thinking since we are still in the process of trying to figure out whether or not this body will actually exist.

>> i can address that briefly. the amendment that i introduced significantly addresses that procedural question. the amendment would not make these appointments effective until the approval of the resolution, which is essentially what would provide the oversight board with functions, duties, things like that. the oversight board will not be created or established, we made a bad amendment specifically to address these type of procedural concerns. >> and jessie smith, the city attorney's office. the operative logs, as you probably know, this is unprecedented to move this quickly to dissolve local bodies of this size throughout the state, basically within a month.

there are lots of unanswered questions, but some things are clear. it will require a city to create an oversight board. but there is nothing to prevent the city from doing it earlier. the city will be acquiring at least of the non-housing aspect. even if he were to do nothing with the resolution before you, the time to opt out has passed for the non-housing assets. as you probably know, you have to approve the resolution. the resolution provides for additional responsibilities to the oversight board. there are certain duties that the city would have to create the oversight board for a non- housing assets.

the resolution gives the oversight board has some additional responsibilities as mr. young pointed out for the three major approved development projects that are bound by the constellation of enforceable publications. i think that in no way, i understand that, it goes to the sort of underlying concern that one of the issues we will have to decide when this matter comes to the board i guess at the next board meeting is the extent of the powers that are given to this oversight body, because you have state law that interestingly enough, actually outlines what the makeup of his body would be for a san francisco. we have no choice in terms of who make the appointments. from what i understand, there is some flexibility that we have in terms of the level of power that

is provided beyond what the state law requires. that is sort of the question that jumped out at me. we are trying to figure out the extent, the authority, the powers of his body. we are moving forward with an appointment, excellent people being recommended, but what is the best approach? please continue. supervisor kim: would you like to respond to the comments? >supervisor farrell: if i can follow up with a couple of points, it is important to let the public to know why this is moving so quickly. there have been a number of individuals that have said, is there a way that we can delay this action, whether it is these appointments were the actual underlying resolution?

my understanding is that the supreme court gave the date of february 1 that has to be met. if we don't act by that date, you have the possibility that we would lose some of the affordable housing assets that the redevelopment agency currently has. can you talk about the deadline and timeline? why this is moving so quickly? i don't know that people realize how monumental a change this is, and how in many respects, our hands are tied. >> they pointed out a number of time lines, the california redevelopment association sued the supreme court granted -- the california supreme court accepted the original

jurisdiction to try to solve these fundamental additions. at that time, it stayed much of 26 and 27. when the court ruled that the dissolution statute was constitutional, but the continuation statute was not, it considered the various arguments from the parties about what should have been from the deadlines. part of the opinion is that we are extending the deadline for four months. that had the effect of moving the dissolution date to february 1 which was only about a month after the ruling, not much time at all. because of the way that it works, unless the city makes an act of election to acquire affordable housing assets, the city will not get those assets

from the redevelopment agency. and that is a critical opt-in. the opt-out came on everybody very fast, which would have been opting out of receiving all of the other assets. >> just to reinforce the point, there was talk at the state level of possibly extending the deadline through legislation. the legislation would have required a 2/3 vote which was an incredibly high bar to begin with, and we have also seen from the news today that the governor has indicated publicly that he has not signed on to any legislation, he february 1 deadline is more real than it has ever been. the city's hands are tied in terms of moving forward on this

resolution and on these appointments. i think we really want to put the successor agency in a position where it can hit the ground running the day after it is dissolved. the redevelopment agency has a vast amount of duties that it must fulfill and obligations that must fulfill. in the agency itself meets twice a month to make statements. and we really don't want a delay in enabling the agency to be able to move forward. that is why we are keen on moving these appointments so quickly in trying to do so before the february 1 deadline. supervisor campos: it is important for people to know that all of us were hoping it would be an extension of the february 1 deadline. the one thing that i would say

about not moving before february 1 is that i think it would be a mistake to lose the affordable housing assets. you have a situation where we would have less oversight. sorry for prolonging that, but i think it is important to lay a foundation of why this is happening right now. supervisor kim: i only ask because this came up at the budget committee meeting yesterday. if you could address a little bit more in terms of the reed designation of land use controls to the oversight body, my understanding is that it mimics what we do, and if you can speak a little bit more about this. >> under the redevelopment plans, the designation of land

use authority approvals are already provided to the redevelopment agency commission in some sections to the agency itself. the resolution is intended to essentially make that structure by designating those land use authorities to the oversight board where appropriate. >> that is pursuant to agreements that the board of supervisors previously approved. supervisor kim: at this point, i will call for the four nominees. first we have nadia sesay. >> good afternoon, supervisors.

supervisor kim: briefly give your background. we know you, but for the sake of the public, talk a little bit about your background. >> i currently manage the city's debt issuances. we currently have $2.4 billion outstanding. that consists of general on bonds and certificates of participation. as part of the management of the debt program, also worked on procurement of a professional contract, her interpretation of the implementation, negotiations of conflict. as well as working on special projects.

the office also provides technical assistance to the various enterprise departments. it includes the airport, the puc and the redevelopment agency. there is also a portfolio secured by general fund revenues. as a result, we have partnered with them to do the funding, so we have a situation where we do work with them on some of the projects. as a result, with that, i believe this will allow me to be useful. supervisor kim: are there any questions? mr. olsen lee.

>> good afternoon, supervisors. as my position in the director's office of housing, in charge of the housing division. clearly i support the resolution that would be going for the board on tuesday, transferring the agency's housing assets and loans and grants to the mayor's office of housing to continue to fulfill the goals of those initial investment. prior to my term as deputy director at the redevelopment agency, i was at the mayor's office of housing and by title was chief housing finance officer.

a practical title was a multi- family housing for the mayor's office. i have collectively 22 years for the city. clearly, my expertise for 15 years at the agency puts me in a position to manage and oversee the transition from the agency to the successor agency, and how those enforceable contracts and obligations are implemented over time, consistent with the city policy. and being in the city now, i also have the ability to understand how the city works, and ask that we are sort of melding these things together.

clearly, i will bring that expertise to this role. i would like to say that having worked for the redevelopment agency for 15 years and seeing some of the projects that have been adopted and started, i would like to see them progress. the role of these projects are to provide public benefits not only for those particular communities, the creation of jobs, the creation of affordable housing, the creation of residential housing, and many public benefits. this is a little off-course, but the city would have preferred to have the agencies they. we are diminished, in some respects, without the city. clearly, we need to continue these very significant projects.

my role is to ensure that we move forward in a professional and expeditious way. supervisor kim: i really want to appreciate, i know you worked to make sure that we preserve the affordable housing projects so that we can continue to create those units, i appreciate your work on that. next we have mr. john rahaim. >> thank you for taking the time today. i am interested and excited in this position. the oversight board, there is certainly related to the planning department, to carry out the land use and planning functions that have been developed over many years. i have been within the planning department for four years, and

we have been working very closely with the planning of the very large project site that you have approved, and i think it is important that the oversight board include someone with land use or planning expertise. i think it is an important function that the oversight board will continue to have. nine years i spent in the city of seattle that did not have a redevelopment agency. washington is one of three states or four states that does not have redevelopment. that placed a larger burden on the planning department their as it will hear in carrying out these functions. we will now be looking to merge the functions that have previously existed separately between planning and redevelopment, looking at more

of a merger of those functions. i started my planning career in the city of pittsburgh that the first redevelopment agency and effectively invented redevelopment law after world war two to address the conditions of mills and expert. i spent a number of years of working with the redevelopment agency bear on planning and developing the site for a couple of years. i am very much looking forward to this and i know it will be a lot of work. i want to also echo what olson said about being committed to carrying these projects forward in a very public, transparent, and effective way that matches the goals of the city and the agency. supervisor kim: next is mr. bob

muscat. >> good afternoon, supervisors. bob muscat, the executive director of local 21, i am sure you're aware that the legislation calls for one representative with the largest membership in the redevelopment agency. that is local 21. i have over 40 years of expertise and experience with personal labor relations and organizational behavior, most of that in the public sector setting. i look forward to doing whatever i can, whenever i can do -- and my perspective will be about the

people involved in this process in the impact on them. in addition to that, i have done some catching up in the area of redevelopment. it really is something i think even beyond personal labor relations and issues that interest me, i hope to make a contribution in that arena as well. supervisor kim: i was wondering if local 21 has any priorities regarding the solution? >> people are concerned about the layoff notices that were sent out to the entire work force, and have raised some question as to the legality of that. and if that is the step that we want to take, whether or not we really have to do that. we're quickly figuring out if that is the best step to take.

it will certainly be a priority for us. the questions about equity and appropriate integration to the city structure, it will be a priority for the union. again, for our members to be happy, we hope to make a contribution. high up in the priority list will be the success of the project. supervisor campos: it is not a question directed at any one individual, i wanted to -- if you don't mind coming up, let me reiterate the point that you have the four individuals that bring a great deal of experience and knowledge and their excellent choices.

one question that i do have as a think about this, i appreciate the fact that the mayor's office had act very quickly on this. i know that in the past, there has been some thoughts that as a general rule, people in the administration and do not serve on commissions, serving on oversight bodies. nothing specific about the individuals that work for the administration that are being proposed, but there has been a reason for that, in policy reason. any entity that plays that has independence, even in appearance. i am wondering if you guys give any thought to that issue.

and about whom to put forward. nothing specific about these individuals, but as a general rule, it has been of thought that we have always had. >> first of all, let me say in regard to the appointees, the remarks i about to make are really in reference to the at large pieces. i will clarify that. with regards, we really felt that the functions and the duties of the oversight board are going to be highly technical in nature. they will be highly technical with some of the questions that are going to be presented before the oversight board in regard to the complexity of some of the bond issues.

and with regards to some of the land-use approvals that they will have to make, particularly in terms of reading those in terms of if they comply with existing redevelopment area plans. we continue to believe that the oversight board is highly technical in nature. on top of that, it is very specific about the fiduciary duties of each of the appointees. those duties are for enforceable obligations, and secondly, there is the duty to include the city and county of san francisco. with that said, we wanted to match the qualifications of each of the at l