for cantonese and spanish, but not other languages. how might we be able to support working solutions on that? and when is the next evaluation going to be in this evolving work program? >> thank you. i will answer those questions about language capacity. the businesses have specific needs. we would also be able to work with maybe a local nonprofit that would like to profit with us to serve those small business needs. there are other non profits that have additional language capacities to meet the need. >> through the community development block grant

programs, we fund a number of organizations and community centers. there are a number of organizations that can exist on the fund already. i think that there are two ways to look at these loans. one is as the tool in a tool kit for a commercial corridor strategy. i think that it is probably different in each neighborhood as to what the strategy would be. the other way to look at this is broader than a commercial corridor. in some cases, we will be looking to provide loans in a commercial corridor. i think that there is a real

need for those kinds of businesses, as well as retail corridor businesses. supervisor kim: i was not suggesting that as how the funds should be utilized, but it will be important to have a sense of what the focus will be put the small business revolving loan funds. it is manufacturing or the commercial corridor, it would be helpful to know how. >> if there are specific recommendations that you have for average that we can do, or strategies that we can develop, we are happy to work on that. we have a lot of data, as you can see. we can commit to doing one by the end of the calendar year. supervisor kim: so, in june, 2012? >> i was going to suggest the

calendar year. supervisor kim: that would be great. for me, personally, i'd like to see the strategy for the small business revolving loan fund. i am not suggesting a particular strategy. i would just like to hear how it is in terms of our own investing of money. i would like to know what the city strategy is. i am curious to see whether or not community engagement can help with solutions for other capacities for language that they have. >> that is a great idea. that would be great. supervisor chu: thank you. i have a few questions. i therefore holley or amy. and you speak about being at -- speak about the reason of being at this level of $1.5 billion? i know that there are a number of solutions coming into it.

part of that is the wells fargo amount. then there is the actual million dollars. from your perspective, why is it that we need to be at that level? you went through it quickly on your slides. from july through january of 2012, -- july of 2010 through january of 2012, we only let out so many loans and i would like to understand that rationale for the number 1.5. >> like i said, in 2009 it was like a pilot project. we did not have the capacity to be able to loan the $1 million that we are proposing now. over the last few years we have totally increased capacity to loans to a much higher capacity, from two employees to about four

or five, full time, where they are able to more readily process of loans requested. definitely get the money out the door >> . supervisor chu: limitations that we have are not demand issues. -- out the door >> . supervisor chu: -- out the door quick. supervisor chu: limitations that we have are not demand issues. what is the conversion rate? >> anywhere from one to four loans. many of them turn into businesses that we are looking -- working with to help them become loan ready. even if they do not get a loan that particular month, once they

complete the application, the business plan and projection will be able to be moved forward. supervisor chu: it sounds like you are approving roughly between one and four loans per month? >> yes. supervisor chu: if that is the case and the average is $25,000, why do we need $1.5 million? >> part of it is that we fully lend out the original funds and had a time when we were sitting there and waiting for the money to revolve. it takes five years for each term of the loan to revolve. there have been no additional announcements about this funding. we also provide loans throughout the bay area. we have been continually funding loans throughout the bay area. we have been funding with loans

other than city loan funds. other than the county's we're working in, we have been able to proceed if there were additional city funds at better rates, 4% to 6%, having more businesses come forward. when we initially launched the fund, 280 businesses can afford that were interested. i suspected that we would have a similar number come out. supervisor chu: this is a question for the city department. i know that we have been working with working solutions for some time. why would we continue to capitalize with one organization to capitalizere-fee it out? can you speak to that? as well as the 15% administrative costs? the way that i see it, we are charging anywhere from 4% to 6% and a very low interest rate.

over time, i've would imagine that you, amy, that we have capitalized the loans at one time and can put that money back out into multiple uses. sounds like we will be eating away at that, as they will be exceeding interest for these loans. can you speak to why be would sustain the venture and not try to get the other improvements that we are asking for? second of all, speaking to the administrative fees that are currently proposed. supervisor chu: so, back in 2009, the respondents -- >> so, back in 2009, respondents that we got that were the most successful were san francisco- based micro-lenders. the others are not san francisco-based, nor do they

have the capacity or expertise to a minister as well. as you heard from emily, they provide technical assistance and do the entire loan lending process from beginning to end with processes that are multi- lingual to provide the service. the other recipients that we got did not have that component. supervisor chu: has the universe changed, since 2009, when we went out for rflp? >> when we administered the community development block grants, we did do an rflp for lending. the universe has not changed in having a san francisco-based organization. we have others that provide loan packaging and technical assistance to businesses and

organizations like working solutions and the opportunity fund across the bay area. a follow-up -- supervisor chu: a follow-up to that question, when was that rfp done? >> we do one annually with access to capital and commercial corridor programs. we do this annually. the last one was due on january 19. supervisor chu: thank you. the remaining question was, regarding the 15% advocacy, how do we keep these sustainable over time? have we ever thought about whether there was a capacity to administer these ourselves? supervisor chu: prior to the launch, the city had a small business loan program, through the mayor's office of housing. there was currently no one in

terms of staff that could administer these loans or underwrite, which is why we had the outdoor submission program. in terms of administrative fees, the onetime administrative fee, we were able to provide administrative costs, or financing, out of corp. fund- raising of their own. supervisor chu: am i to understand that if we were allowed this to go forward, recapitalization is also -- is available? in terms of the money being repaid by future lenders going back into the planned or being spent again, there would no longer be a san francisco cost? 15% is in perpetuity? >> yes. supervisor chu: the rest is for

additional capital? >> additional capital. supervisor chu: thank you. if there are no other questions for the committee at this time, up for public comment? are there members of the public wish to speak on this item? i have one speaker card. >> good afternoon, supervisors. jim lazarus, san francisco board. we urge you to send this out for a recommendation. it targets startup companies, small businesses, hard-to- finance businesses. it has had success in its first few years. we believe this will do a lot of good, where there are starting businesses, creating jobs across the board in san francisco.

we urge your support. chair chu: thank you. next speaker, please. >> willie radcliffe, from the bayview area. high and i was used to the other and that was going, and, of course, it did not work either -- i was used to the other. especially with the proposition coming up with the banks, and it does not seem that anything is going to happen there.

we really need to get behind money out there to help businesses, and construction businesses. you can do things for bayview hunters point, but they will not have money to spend. the problem right now, we do not have enough people employed in the neighborhood to support the businesses. we have a huge problem with foreclosures going on, and they caved in to the banks to start with. the bank of america, another, union bank. it should include lending for businesses. why should we give them all of that money? we still suffer.

no one in the city can borrow money unless you are already rich. that is something the city can do if we come up with enough courage. i just feel that, you know, it should be let out. there is too much politics in it. chair chu: thank you. my name is ishmael. i was able to get a loan through the working solution. i am here to show how much this

type alone can help some businesses, like ourselves. we probably need more improvement to get more people just like me to get access to those kinds of loans. this loan would be able to help me put money into packaging some are maltese's -- some herbal tea, and with this money, i was able to put it to something. five or six people. this morning, little by little, we can bring things in in the next three to four years, and i believe bringing more money with the idea.

the city has to do its best to help us. >> -- chair chu: 80. >> my name is antoinette mobley, and i worked years ago on the third street corridor program. i have a lot of concerns, but i really feel that when you ask the question about where is the model to really sure that the small-business loan fund is really going to help assist small-business owners, i really feel that money meant to be allocated to help protect technical assistance, many of the existing businesses where the people who want to start businesses do not really have the capacity in terms of

business knowledge to really set up businesses that are going to have any type of longevity. over the last couple of years, there has been maybe six new businesses that emerged on the third street corridor. 2012, they are gone, ok? and ok, with the san francisco program that assists property owners with improving their façade so that they can make their places leasable and esthetically pleasing, there is so much bureaucracy to achieve or getting that grant. and they have to have that infrastructure said. this is very discouraging. in closing, a lot of

infrastructure, especially with the program, it really needs to windproof before you start bringing more money for loans that people cannot qualify for. thank you. chair chu: thank you. my name is david fasio, and i did not think i should speak on this, but as far as supervisor avalos talking about expanding this program to underserved communities and things of that nature, and the last speaker was talking about technical suggestions, and they do not work by themselves. there is a collaborative tbilisi year in the san francisco metropolitan area that educate people about these programs and services and provide them with technical services to qualify for these loans, and if they do not get

these services, they cannot do that. the small business center is grossly underfunded and spread and normally -- thin. if they were given more resources and allowed to expand their services to these market areas, that these organizations will qualify for these loans, and they would get them and be able to do what it takes to keep their businesses sustainable, so i think that is a good thing to look at. i think this is very important to the community. san francisco has the largest rate of cell phone point entrepreneurs of any metropolitan area in the united states, and i think this is one of the reasons why. chair chu: thank you. are there any other speakers who wish to speak on this item

number seven? seeing none, this item is closed. supervisor avalos? supervisor avalos: i think it is really good that this item was brought forward. we see their real value in it and want to be able, sometimes desperately support our small businesses in our commercial corridors, and some are failing more than others. i do not think we have the right formula yet that has been discussed for me to be able to support this program going forward with a billion dollars supplemental. it is not that i would not want to approve something like this. we could continue this for a month and get more plans in place for the office of economic and work force development to share with us how

we're going to work with other city departments, what kind of models would work in the neighborhoods that are harder to serve with this find. that is another idea that i have had, as well. i cannot quite remember what it was, but those are some of my ideas. why i want to be able to support at another time. they have talked about putting loans to credit unions and community development financial institutions in terms of a community investment strategy, and to me, there are things happening in san francisco that we have that we could use to broaden the scope and reach an have new ideas about how it can be structured, and i think that is worthy of discussion, with the office of work force development, how we can perhaps

look at how there are financial institutions like credit unions that want to access this, how that can work in concert. those are my ideas. i feel most comfortable getting more information. i do want to support the continuance of the revolving loan fund, but i want to make sure it is for the harder served neighborhoods. chair chu: thank you, supervisor avalos, and i think you have made a motion to continue this to the call of the chair, and i would be supportive of that. i think we need to look at the small-business loan revolving fund is a good thing. i think it is a strategy among many to figure out how to help our commercial corridors, and i felt that there are those that are not in the commercial corridors, but i do not think we

have the full picture yet. i think we could benefit from hearing about what the particular plants could be that we put into place to make sure we have more geographic equity and more around some harder reached neighborhoods and businesses. i do want to better understand some of the issues as it relates to -- we went forward with the rfp or not an rfp. i think that is important for us to understand, and finally, with regard to the value of what we actually need in the revolving loan fund, that is something i am hearing a lot of information on today, so i would hope for more clarity on the loans that would be needed. i also think, as supervisor avalos alluded to, we have driven strategies that are in place. in just taking a look at it, we have a small business commission. we have a small business office. we have sf sines, opportunity

grants and the challenge grants, more, ball that can work with this. rather than say we are going to create a new program, we might want to take a look at what we are doing already and seeing whether some of these things should be continued, should not be continued, or should work in concert with the neighborhood plan, i think there is an opportunity to have a good and robust a conversation around it, so a continuance is something i would be in support of. supervisor jim? supervisor kim: -- supervisor jim? hot and -- supervisor kim? supervisor kim: i am in support of this, it and i believe this is not urgent. i appreciate the thoughtful and as of the questions, and a little bit more time to about with all of our programs that benefit our small-business programs and how this will

dovetail into our existing resources for small businesses would be helpful, and also having an understanding of what the treasurer's office is doing, which supervisor avalos brought. i think it would be good to have been hearing on how we support small businesses as we approve this loan front -- fund in the future. this is a supplemental appropriation. we have several competing needs that may be coming before us, all very worthy of our general fund dollars, and i think to evaluate that would be important, as well. chair chu: thank you, supervisor kim. i think that supervisor avalos has made a motion to continue this, and i think we can do that. item number 9. clerk young: item number nine, and resolution of intention to

form waterfront infrastructure financing, under the host and the america's cup event authority, which also has proposed agreement, approving a memorandum regarding the city and the of the authority for certain mitigation measures and other project-related activities. item no. 9, the intention to establish the infrastructure financing district. thank you. -- chair chu: thank you. i want to recognize that we also have president chiu with us as

well as others. we have representatives from another group, and from the event authority, we also have stephen, who will be sharing a few words, but before we start the presentation, i would like to offer my colleagues an opportunity for any opening comments. supervisor avalos? supervisor avalos: thank you, chair chu. i just want to say that i am very skeptical about the numbers here for a long time, and for me, it is actually very precious, this discussion, in this part of san francisco that we are talking about, the waterfront. my father was an longshore worker. one that i could have taken would of been on the docks, probably in l.a. not in san francisco, but this means a lot

to me, been beijing can -- this means a lot to me, and there are our facilities for our dry docks, and our port facilities are something that is amazing in san francisco, and they need a great deal of work, and i know when you look at the america's cup event as something that can be and should be a win-win situation for the city and for the event authority which is putting on the event, and i do not think we aren't there yet. i am really concerned. if it was just a vote about whether or not we were going to have a race, i would be all for a raise, and i would be right there to watch from the golden gate bridge or somewhere where you have a majestic view of our big, because it is unlovely base that we have, but it is more than that. it is a development deal. there are decisions we're making there are decisions we're making that a potentially unlimited