just talk briefly. i want to take an approach that mr. up doug did which the school district is named in the findings and the number of recommendations in the but we are not named in all of them. so we responded to those that pertain to us. it's been mentioned a couple of times that we are an independent state agency. we have very strong ties affiliations allegiance and working relationships with the city. it's a wonderful sort of symbiotic relationship that i think has only gotten better in the last few years partly because of supervisor mar and kim and campos that served in the school district and now moved on to city hall. i think who can be critical of us and yet understand our needs in a way that i think is fair for

all parties. so to that end, i don't want to minimize in anyway the sort of the seriousness of the concern that while we are in the education business which recognize we are sitting on 150 pieces of probably some of the most valuable land in the city and county of san francisco and never would have suggest that we sell the high school and capitalize on some of these assets because they are for the children and to educate our children. the way we judge value and asset is different from the economic real estate world judges a value of a piece of property on mission or on market or downtown san francisco. rate of return, capital investment, amortization those are key

things when we are children learning in school. in that context, we have not had a single empty seat. for the first time in a long time, we have more kids than we ever counted on before and we have a middle school bubble and we have things moving across the district and we need to be fluid and make fast changes. when the report says that there should be an adequately available inventory of our property, our response and part of that response is in response to previous grand jury and previous criticism, we actually know exactly what we own. it's part of our capital plan and it's on our web page, on our capital plan, it's readily available, it's a public

document and we know exactly. we have fewer assets than the city obviously and we don't have small shrivers of land. but in general we know what we own, what it's used for, we know what the condition of the building is and whether we are leasing it or lease it, we have a pretty good understanding of where we are. that document is available to anyone anytime they want it. we get calls from people who would like to buy it or lease it. in that sense we disagree with the response, but we actually did what the response asked us to do some years ago. finding no. 2 is not relevant to us. finding no. 3 is about keeping surplus properties on a list for a finite period of time. i want to give you some examples of the fluidity of a school

district. in 2007, we said there were 10 surplus properties. since 2007, what happened to seven of those properties? 20 cook street is now fully occupied by our exploding early childhood education admin office facility. just sort of an explosion of prek and now tk classrooms. no longer considered to be surplus. a child center, we worked hard in partnership with our supervisors to put a user in that building, we executed a 20 year ground lease with a private prek school and they are about to tear down that building. that property is no you off the surplus property

list. 700 font blvd which laid fallowed for a decade, we were successful in selling that to san francisco state for $11.1 million. we saved a thousands a year in lease payments and that can go to teachers and buying books for the classroom. 2040 jackson, the element school, that district concern and what will happen to that building, was reopened and it's now the san francisco public montessori school and doing very well. 1512 golden gate, not too far up the street. an abandoned building, we just spent $8 800-0000 remodeling

it. it's now the charter school. 950 mission, 1101 connecticut and several other properties, hopefully will be part of an a very comprehensive part collaboration of the mayor's housing and which will satisfy the needs for the city and school district and some of those properties have been eye sores for a long time. the finding that the passive management of publically owned real estate lease to valuable properties lies fallow for years has historically in some extent been true. recent activity says that we disagree. the superintendent has recognized that the worst thing the school district can do is

higher -- hire a real estate manager and lock him up and say make money. we have mice and chief financial officer and several others, we meet regularly and collectively, we are positioning ourselves as sort of a working group that can deal with the district assets and do it in a comprehensive and planning way. at the same time, still be plugged into fluid needs of the district. i think it's a positive thing and on going and most recently the process of negotiating a ground lease at 1235 mission which is a building we just took ownership with. we are actually locked away with john uptike in

fooirs negotiations. finding 5, talked about the long dream of the moving the school of the arts to 135 van ness and the significant challenges that entailed. for the first time in a long time we have a superintendent who views this as a serious priority. we have a school board that is committed to pursuing this as a priority and collectively we've all agreed. in order to make this happen, we'll need the will of the superintendent and will of the school board and campaign and all of these things need to align and the

first time in a number of years, we need to see the movement on that front. when it's the school district decision to fund this property, we disagree. we have a fiduciary responsibility for 55,000, hopefully 60,000 students. we are not leveraging that for students. our goal if we are going to make that property happen, is obviously $25 million a site. we are not going to sell balboa and build one school. there has to be a combination of public private partnership and cooperation of the school district and significant capital campaign and hopefully the government will put a new government facility on the school bond on

the ballot which is critical for all schools across the state to fund the maintenance and repair and rebuilding of our schools. so on the recommendations, 1.2 on the data base, the district for the most part is not going to implement it because i think we already do. on recommendation 2, the city and county should activate their respective surplus property advisory committees. the recommendation will not be implemented because it's not warned nor reasonable at this time. there currently are no additional properties for educational purposes in the district that should be reclassified or surplused under the education code to be designated to possible sale.

however should the district recognizes that should conditions change and the reactivation of this committee become necessary, the district is certainly prepared to do so. >> i know this is really exciting, but we are going to have to speed up your part of the presentation because we have other speakers that we need to hear from. >> that's fine. >> why don't you give us the highlights. >> the highlights is 4, we are not going to recommend it bass -- because it's not warranted. it's too fluid. property 1, the recommendation will not be implemented. we are not going to feel that position is required and we are solving that problem in a way that we think is a better service. six,

i think former principal chang, summed up 135 van ness, $235 million challenge which we think which is compared to what's happened in los angeles and detroit and other cities in the countries have a higher price tag is doable and formable obstacle. we are implementing it and we have a deep breath and a long way to go. >> i apologize for that. >> mr. golden, it's great to have you here and i think you are being modest in terms of everything that's been accomplished in the last few years. what is the cost of the school of the arts, is it's $235 million or is it higher? >> we just actually retained a different architect because we think there is a connection in

that community and our community to refresh the program, refresh the design and put a new cost estimate. that camen last month. it looks like $235 million. we have to recognize it's a school and because ideal with the division of the state architect, my cost are 25 percent, more than it would be to build any other building in san francisco. it's a higher standard because it's like building a police station or hospital. los angeles unified was over $300. it's not out of like for what you see on a project. >> thank you very much. >> is that it? any other person presenting on this item? i don't think so. all right. thank you very much. supervisor

campos. >> thank you madam chair. i want to first of autumn, -- all i want to make a couple points. first let me tell you that i have served on a number of committees on this board. one of my favorite committees is government and audit and oversight and one is the civil grand jury reports. i think it's a really great thing when citizens who have different background and expertise dedicate their time and provide their objective and analysis for those of us who are making policy to see. i am so grateful to every member of the civil grand jury. when you have people like mr. walker and paul chang talking about real estate properties and agencies and agencies like the school district where he was president

and marshall, can you imagine having the benefit of that kind of expertise and knowledge where you can actually hear from this person on this important issue. it's incredible. i'm very grateful. this is a complicated issue and i think that a lot of progress has been made. i do appreciate the fact that civil grand jury has consently gone back to this issue because it's one of those things that you need to consistently keep an eye on and i think we can do a better job at the city and the school district. that said, i can tell you with the school district, i started as a lawyer at the school district about 14 years ago, the district did not know how many properties it owned. it took some time to get to the point where you actually have a basic inventory of that. and mr. golden who has been there

10 years and lasted more than any facilities directors has done an incredible job of moving the district forward in terms of maximizing the use of it's assets. i will be honest, i think it's important on how you figure out how you leverage those assets, on a general rule i do have apprehension anytime the school district talks about selling property especially to a private party. i think it's different when you are selling it to another government agencies, whether it's another institutional agencies, but because the district owns so much real estate, there has been pressure on the school to sell sefrp properties. for example the shopping center, where nordstroms is in the middle of near union square, there was litigation because someone wanted to buy that land which is owned by the school

district. i'm glad the school district did not sell it. because the assets of the school districts are assets that belong to the kids and the families and the needs to the district change. if you sell something like that, in 10-30 years you are going to regret it. i think that we are in the right direction. we are where we need to be. i do think that we can be more proactive on things and one area that i hope where more progress is made is the issue of housing. i'm grateful for the school district and mayor's office for the level of coordination that's happened. i think we need to see more of that. there is the property on 1950 mission and others, one area we've tried to make movement on and haven't done is housing for teachers which is required in the contract for the teachers unions. we have had a lot of

false starts. we need to find a way of making san francisco affordable for teachers and i hope that we do more of that. i certainly will continue to keep an eye on this issue because as much as we have come very far, i do think that we have some ways to go. i think we are headed in the right direction. i tell you if you told me 10 years ago that we would be where we are i would say you are out of your mind because we are so far behind. i think the school districts looks into them and i hope the city agencies also look into them. another example on the city end where i think it's taken so long to where we have something concrete. we have been talking and mr. uptike notes and he's been doing a great job too but

it's challenging. we have properties like serving the needs of day laborers, we have those conversations around that project when mare -- mayor lee was city administrator and here we have. we have to keep pushing as much as we have made progress. let's take public comment. no public comment. public comment is close. >> colleagues, we need to decide on two items. we have

two findings and two recommendations to decide on before us. first i would like to entertain any thoughts? supervisor campos? >> i do with respect to, i assume finding 3 is the first finding that we are looking at which is the purpose of which the surplus property ordinance was adopted are too narrow and i actually trying to find the mayor's response to -- i actually agree with what the mayor said because i think it's true that it is narrow, but there is reason for that. so i certainly agree with that statement that the mayor's

office made. >> it sounds like we are in unanimous agreement with finding for no. 3. supervisor tang? >> just moving object to finding no. 4? this one talks about current practice an allowing the city department and to keeping the property in the surplus list in definite for any consequence. i would like to make a motion to disagree in part. i recognize the school district has demonstrated need, yes while there are surplus properties out this and challenges to school entities. i wanted to disagree in part in that one. >> i agree with that assessment. it's a partial disagreement because there are specific requirements the school has to follow under the

ed code and this answer reflects that. >> all right. i think there is a unanimous agreement in that. in recommendation no. 4 we have a disagree in part. are there any comments? >> are those just findings or are we going to recommendation? recommendation, okay. >> now we are going on to recommendations. supervisor campos did you want to contribute? >> with respect to recommendation no. 3, which i think it's the board of supervisors should amend chapter 23 a to include incentives for the departments to identify and surplus property, i think the board of supervisors should consider ways of at least amending. i'm nosu at believe we have

to amend right now, i think it's a consideration. >> maybe i would recommend that we say agree but requires further analysis to return within 6 months. >> okay. so further analyze. -- analysis. the scope to be to have an idea of how you would like to define the scope of the analysis? >> to within a six period of time to work with the city department and the department of real estate to make sure that we can -- or to examine what are some of the ideas that we have to amend the administrative code of chapter 23 a. okay. supervisor campos, how does that language sound? >> that sounds good. thank you supervisor tang. >> okay. are there any languages changes to the resolution that either one of

you want to? okay. seeing none. okay. >> recommendation no. 4. >> that's right. recommendation no. 4. is there any discussion on it? >> i don't know that -- i think i understand the point that the civil grand jury is making demand that sense i agree in part, but i also think there are limitations certainly in terms of what the school district can do because of the code and i don't want this to be interpreted to mean that properties should be on the surplus list for a period of time and after that period of time you sell it because i think that would be a mistake.

maybe. -- >> to perhaps agree because as we are saying that we don't necessarily agree we should dispose of property but very much would like to have discussions with school district officials to ensure that we can sit down and think out what are some of the strategic plans and vision for property in 10-30 years. we have an under utilized school that we get asked about a lot and i would be happy to meet with school officials on that. i would say we agree in part. >> supervisors, the options are to has been implemented has not been implemented, further analysis and will not be implemented. further analysis? okay. >> i think it's further analysis. >> and to discuss with the city department, is that the same or

prior one? >> yes. in the same time period. >> the one thing i would add because there is some confusion with school districts, when the school district is short of cash, why don't you stem sell the property and bringen money. i think it was limited with what schools can do with that money. when you do sell property, you cannot use that money for operational purnsz. -- purposes. you have to invest it back. this isn't an asset that belongs to you and me. it belongs to all of us and no the the current kids but the future generation of kids that could benefit from it. i think the approach that is being taken is a good balance between being

aggressive and caution. >> thank you very much. we have weighed in on the two findings and two recommendations. i would love to entertainment a motion. >> so moved. >> thank you very much. >> motion to continue the hearing to the call of the chairs since we have a further analysis required and motion the resolution to be forward today full board of supervisors. >> you have to accept the amendments to the resolution including your responses to the recommendation. >> thank you very much. may i have a motion to accept. >> so moved. >> let me get it out, supervisor campos. >> i get excited about real estate. >> okay the motion has been made and accepted to the recommendations in the findings. okay. now. >> now i would like to have a

motion to the call of the chair and to item no. 5 and to the board of supervisors. >> thank you very much. all right. so be it. madam clerk, is there any other business before this committee? >> no, that concludes our business for the day. >> thank you, everyone. thank you very much. meeting is adjourned. >>

>> good morning, everyone. welcome back to the san francisco board of supervisors budget and finance committee. and today's meeting e meeting is for wednesday, september 11th.