asking for more he said i was involving him in the preparing of dinner. our funding has a hiccup and we're asking to help continue this funding. when your workout has a hiccup it's hard to get back into that. i do this with 11 other people and with the changes of the food services that's been funding and supported there about how to prepare freshly flights and vengeance is extremely important. i've had a blast and i'd like for it to continue.

thank you (clapping) >> thank you, ms. solomon would you like one minute to wrap up? i hope i can do our members justice. last week ken our political director and i sat in an enterprise room we were the only people in the audience while this school district voted for - we wait until 9 o'clock to hear because of lack of fund there would be lay offs it's really hard to believe that the lack of funds is the reason for lay offs right now. we need to not make people feel like disrespected because they

have to continue to work after they get a lay off notice. we have to recognize that out of 1 hundred and 45 district there are about 1 hundred thousand statewide we're 10 percent of lay offs in california that's unacceptable (clapping) >> thank you public comment is now closed. we're going to move on to item k advising committee reports and superintendent i believe we have one this evening >> thank you i'd like to ask the officer to introduce our speakers please.

>> actually conspires mendoza do you want to do you're speaking now? so i have an appointment to my opening on 9 and so i'm going to be appointing francis phillips to the peace pack. >> thank you. all right. mr. golden. sorry wait there's one more appoint. i'm preys to appoint this gentleman. >> thank you now, mr. gold man. good evening. so as you all know under state

proposition 39 for a school district that passes school bond with a 55 percent vote there are a number of things that have to happen. one of the things is you need to have a citizens bond oversight committee and one of the other thing is that committee need to see have an audit of the bond program every single year. so it's that time the audit has been complete i have forwarded you copies of the audit finding under separate cover and i'm pleased to introduce ms. nancy who's a member of bond oversight committee to represent the members of the committee and

talk about here role in the audit. and along with her someone you've seen before with other audits she seems to be a common face a dana audits who's firm performed the audit and if by some reason you have questions. >> good evening commissioners. i'm very happy to be here there this evening as a member of the bond oversight committee. i'm here to tell you that that late 2012 and performed the

2003, 2006 and 11 bond programs. the auditor has made several presentations to the bond oversight committee and the members of the committee are very pleased to tell the board for the 7th consecutive year there were no negative finding f to the report. at the 2013 oversight committee we unanimously passed the ifthsdz of the 2012 bond audit and we have a copy along with the resolution and audit report to you and nevertheless, to say

we're proud of the work that's being done to modernize and pleased to be mere to make this positive, positive report. which i'd like to take this time to also thank mr. golden and tom and ms. susan or tag to make sure we're up on the bond preserves. and at this point, i'd like to answer any questions you have >> any comments or questions from board members? yeah. >> i think i can speak for us all. i don't have myocarditis no public speakers but i think i can say to the whole board thank you we're pleased.

thank you >> we're going to have to keep coming and ask any questions so long as there's no finding we're happy to say yeah. we'll move on to item l. the next two items go together. i'm going to call the public hearing of the impact fees to be collected for industrial development in accordance with the group. may i hear a motion and a second to the board of education to increase statutory fees exposed on commercial and kaeblg projects >> so moved. second >> thank you, no public

speakers mr. golden please read the recommendation. >> okay. i'll give you some brief history commissioners. the california education code allows school districts under certain circumstances to collect developer impact fees and those impact fees whether there are in the central valley or in a highly yourized area or part of los angeles are essentially used to expand to billed to modernize our schools as a consequence of construction and growth. in order to assess those fees the districts has to make certain findings and it commissioned an independent consultant to look at the

demographics and trends and the historical data and the rate he is we charged previously and to come to a determination that the school district can't only charge the maximize charges to the state can they raise their rates or hold constant. now this is a highly restricted fund so this fund cannot be used for teachers are books p this is a facility rated fund that is used to builds those expanding programs apart caused by growth. and i mentioned in my report previously sent to you under separate cover we build the new

tech building and we constructed the entire brand new betsy middle school with the developer fees. we've district wide expanded the hearing impaired program using those funds. it's played an important role how we modernize. in 2008 we commissions a study to see if we account raise our fees and we could. the superintendent at the time garcia and staff determined at the height of the greatest recession raising the rates wasn't the best idea.

several years have now gone but if i have looked at the chronic the sunday edition of the chronic two weeks you would have seen the chronic it's comploerd and we apart with that we determined it was time to reexamine that study and we commissions the group to do that. mr. larson is here from the group to answer any questions. and out of that study came the findings yes. there's growth in san francisco that warrants raising the rates not to the full amount allowed you currently but to a higher amount then we're assessing.

it let's us raise the residential fee $0.62. and it will be able us to raise the rate on arrangement, research and hospitals. each one of those categories has a specified rate that goes up. it will helps us do a lot more of the things we need to do. it's the time to do that. so with that there is is special order of business in our package and tied to the special order of business is a resolution we need this board to officially passed. this was noticed in the

newspapers for several weeks. a copy of the report has been for the public to review. so there's a specified number of steps and the legal office has been a great help. i want to thank mr. davis and his team for helping us as well. i'll answer any questions. my colleague is more experienced than i >> i actually need you to read the action on page 1 for the record. >> i can do that - >> so actually, it needs to be there ever well, he didn't have to read the whole thing. >> okay there be is resolved

point board of education does hereby resolve that the board accepts and adopts the study section 2 that the board finds if the statutory fees so to fund the additional fund facilities to serve the students by that fee - >> hold on. >> on the summary - requested action that the board of education of the san francisco unified school district what queen a public hearing and making adjustments to the impact

fee rates for to be collected for the industrial and the group study dated 2013. >> thank you, mr. golden. any questions or comments from board members? >> i want to thank you both and all the staff involved in and the legal office. i want to for the public make a couple of comments in california we've moved away from the idea when you've developed property we don't - we're not in a position although there's no neighborhood being built it's not the kind of development where a new community was built if we're in that position the

fees would be more inadequate than they have been. contrary to where a developer was required to build a school. this developer scheme is one which resulted - which based on a lot of conflicts has been developed over minded and actually there's a lot of lawsuits and jurisdiction to e related to how we got here. i appreciate we have the ability in someway to mitigate the cost of the schools development and that we are addressing the very low rate we've had up until now. i have one question. we've had no response in the public notice or any other venue from organized property owners

in san francisco? >> no. >> we've all knocking wood up here. >> i'd like to ask on an not to my knowledge basis maybe this is a question for lee how much do we recover on annual fees and what you say the ballpark for those annual increases? >> first part of the question. historically i would say over the last 10 years we were collecting between 6 and $8 million a year in developer fees. mostly from residential construction because the rates for the hospital and some of the industrial is actually consideringly lower and because it's biggest impact is in

industrial units t is with children involved. during 2008 to 2011 it dipped to 2.8 and it was clearly a bar remote if no one was paying the school district impact fees no one was taking out a building permit. this year we see what we hope will be a spike back up to $6 million and we hope next week year will be higher. because there were plenty of promotions in the cue which is classroom reporter projects for mod last year's there are a wide

range of project we can use the money for. the second part of the question is really defend upon how big a hospital was built in general, i think it's going to generate another two or $300,000. it's $0.02 per square feet it seems small but if you're building a huge office tower it adds up. but districts statewide are doing this as the ed code allows the rates to go up. commissioner >> i have a question under it's

$2. $2. $2.95 per square feet but for new residential development using for citizen seniors i'm wondering does the law permit us to have this voter right for all housing not just senior citizen housing. >> senior housing is paying the commercial industrial rate. there's a small handful of school district that have adapted the school rates for policy but that's not specifically called 40 for in the ed code >> so there's nothing if the ed code that prevents us from

having the code in the assessment. >> that's true there's nothing in the permissible code. >> so just where we're ♪ san francisco because of redevelopment money i suggest we add for affordable housing that we would do the lower rate for affordable housing so this lower rate is only for the residential development for housing for senior citizens. so all other - so i'm trying to understand all the other development listed under here is a listings of how much it is it seems like hotels and molts get a lower rate and retail and certifies research and

development and where house and hospitals building humanely hospital here in san francisco is this the highest rate we can charge for hotels and molts and the hospitals like i'm wondering can he raises some of these rates and can we put in an exempt - can we add affordable housing subsection b >> first there's a maximum rate that's currently $0.51 for new construction that covers all the categories except for resident.

with resident it's pretty simple to understand you build a new home you have to have room in the schools for new students. because you're talking about increased employment opportunities that are producing new housing who are mitigating their impacts through the housing accompanying. you have parents who will transfer their students and that goes into that calculation but the fees for the industrial categories are the highest we can justify given the methodology and the nexus system between the construction and

impact it creates. on the affordable housing the word of causation i would give it can mean a lot of things to a lot of people. before you put that term into the policy you want to have a good definition of what qualifies as affordable housing. if i have people not under the age of 18 years of age the code is clear open senior citizen housing but we have to protect the district that something is affordable housing that doesn't meet the definitions you want to meet >> however, i would push back on the impact and about - there

is this new type of development in san francisco assistant district attorney have an adverse impact on the students of san francisco because it displaced their families particularly their families in the southeast sector of san francisco. so to balance that i would say i would be willing to look at willing to look at amendment section 5 subsection b maybe do some research what could be a definition of affordable housing and an agreement that would also give that developer of affordable housing for particular families in san francisco because that's whom we serve the same rate. it would be the same rate as the

hotel or molt grant it would be a lower rate marathon hospital but actually, it's the same rate as a hotel or molt gets. i'm wondering if we could investigate that maybe i can ask for general council. >> it's not too late bus it's a new as an calculation. >> the direct influence it will have on our ability to build neighborhood. if we wanted to explore exempting affordable housing maybe the board would revel this resolution today and direct mr. golden to come back with short

order of an analysis and perhaps a recommendation to modified the resolution. and then we would ask you to develop something in short order and i think it's a reasonable request. also i want to clarify one thing we've heard public speakers saying this assessment would be used to have the fund >> the ed code and government code that deals with developer fees is very specific. there's a specific language it's to be used for the construction and reconstruction for schools but you can only spend it on the

correction and reconstruction of the schools. you're also requested to report our development expenditures and the committee can review that to make sure our spending the fund in accordance of state law >> and you're absolutely sure about that? i'm interested in that we can talk about that and follow-up on the commissioner suggestion. we have this - so the defining affordable housing in san francisco is very difficult and the market rate development pays into an affordable fund it's going to be hard but i'd be interested to see who pays the developer fees.

i'm assuming that's all part of the analysis to follow up on the commissioners request. and it occurred to me when we were talking about the hospitals do the public agencies pay for these? >> any facility that is owned and occupied - so if you see san francisco is building a hospital then keyes - kaiser permanent is building a hospital then it's not exempt. >> i'm putting something on the table and i appreciate number one this conversation but particularly to the c ac