there's 5 $5 91,000 remaining. what we're proposing this could be for streetscape, pedestrian safety, open space or alley way improvements. in general, these are sort of unfinished business that the agency had. these are things we would have done had we not been dissolved, but we can't. and, so, it would be great to then have these excess bond proceeds go to the appropriate city department to at least continue that work. in western addition, $83,000 remaining, potential uses can include some facade improvement or community center or cultural center improvements or repairs. it bayview hunters point there is another 34,000 remaining on rops 13 14 b and those could go for streetscape, facade improvements, pro tension improvements to the southeast health center. that is a broad category. we would further refine that to the broad scope of work and come before you for the rops 13 14 a period. so, in general, what changed

since you last saw the rops? there's been ups and downs depending on the funding [speaker not understood] category. the bond proceeds have increased. and i will say again these numbers are still draft so we'll be refining up to the last moment. but as of right now these are the total and the current draft column. the bond proceeds increased mainly because we continued to refine our estimates on how much the mission bay infrastructure utilization of those bond proceeds will be and also adding in those excess bond proceed i just referred to. on the reserve balance it went down quite a bit because we realized there were thing we were rolling over because he we thought maybe we'll spend it in july instead of june and now we don't need to do that because we can accrue it to 13 14 b, same with other funds. on the rptts, it went up again primarily for mission bay. we're just continuing to he refine what the estimates of the tax increment will be and we always like to add a cushion for supplementals that might

come in or other changes. we always include language in the notes for those items that say, this is an estimate. the actual amount will depend on what's approved by the county auditor controller and what we will get distributed what's actually there. so, we just want to make sure we, you know, size that estimate appropriately. minor adjustments on the administrative costs. and, so, all said and done, the total amount changed by about 2.3 million, little under that. so, our next steps again, we're finalizing that cash balances report and the [speaker not understood] report. one of the things the oversight board will do is consider the admin budget. we're doing a more detailed break out of that. tomorrow we plan on then mailing all of that simultaneously to both the commission and the oversight board, and then we'll have the oversight board meeting on monday, february 24th, assuming that that gets approved our practice is usually we then submit it that same day. and based on that calendar, we

would expect dos initial determination back by april 10th. again, we would have five business days to meet and confer. [speaker not understood]. then june 2nd would be the rptts distributevtion for that period. so, that concludes my presentation and i'm available for any questions or comments. thank you. >> thank you very much. is there any public comment on this item? >> i have no speaker cards, madam clerk. >> thank you very much. this is not an action item. this is for discussion. but are there any questions? >> no, you can go ahead. >> commissioner rosales. [laughter] >> okay. i just had a quick question on slide 6. these are suggestions i heard you say about these project areas, but the funds are more or less certain? >> those are the bond proceeds that remain, yes, by that project area. >> my question is on, for instance, western addition, is

there room to do other kinds of community benefits like supporting businesses or business activity or commercial activity rather than infrastructure improvements? >> that difficulty of tax proceed for. so, it's better, that sort of hard cost, brick and mortar eligible under the tax exempt usage. we went under the funding source constraints on that piece. >> okay. let me think about that. >> i'll add onto your question. so, what department have you passed off the sort of programming of those funds to? >> we've had conversations with the office of economic work force development, invest in neighborhoods, is that the correct title? invest in neighborhoods, which is the umbrella that houses every -- almost every department under the sun.

public works -- >> the capital planning? >> city capital planning which is kind of an umbrella and has its own public process. and then i think as ms. worth indicated, some of the work in particular, facade improvements, streetscape, open space, really in each of these areas really unfinished business of the agency and we stopped short two years ago and had to go through this gauntlet of reviews audits process. and only now in this new budget process and in this new rops process were we able to spend it. unlike previous bayview funds, there was a termination of a contract with mta. that was an easy one to do in our last budget cycle, but there's more flexibility with these. as long as they're tax exempt eligible use. so, the language, we wanted to give ourselves some head room and specificity for our oversight board. what are the kinds of projects that are eligible in each of

these specific geographic areas? but it is including, but not limited to and really subject to more discussion and community stakeholder ictionv put. ~ input. >> so, are he we going with any city department that is doing this type of work, or how are we -- how do we come up with the general scope of work for these projects? >> well, i think through the budget process also, we will need to include this in our budget and other city departments will need to put that in their budget as well. so, we'll need to be working to make a proposal and you'll see it on your side as we propose it in the budget. this is what we want to do, similarly on their side. so, further, this is not to restrict it to any city department. this gives us -- this is sort of a place holder to give us the expenditure authority and we need to do the next steps which would be to sort of identify what department is the most appropriate department. >> just a follow-up, the department of finance has not

put any other kind of special instructions on this other than it has to go to capital improvements? >> that's just a tax exempt bond restriction for any tax exempt bob proceed. the department of finance restrictions, i think it does mention it needs to be consistent with the original bond covenants which we would have to do anyway because we can't violate the bond covenants. those were tied more to you can't do it until you get your finding of completion which we got at the end this last fiscal year. so, we didn't sort of have it ready to go toed up. we got the first tranche out there with the first items on 13 14 b and now this is ~ closing out those remaining nonhousing excess bond proceeds. >> gotcha. >> again, i'm fixated on western addition. would we be able to, for instance, use this amount of money which is not a lot, 83,000, along with perhaps city monies to help improve lower

fillmore on the street side? like, you know, if the city came up with some sort of branding type campaign, i know he the invest in neighborhoods division of the mayor's office continuously receives grant proposals or requests -- issues requests for proposals for grant ideas that include branding or marketing campaigns that may have improvements on the street side, you know, improving -- basically the look of the neighborhood, if you will, to incentivize more foot traffic, those kinds of things? >> well, we have a potential use facade improvement. yes, so, that's something that we can discuss with whichever is the right city department who might have access to other city funds to partner with them. these funds can be used to maybe leverage other fund, but --

>> facade, not necessarily meaning -- >> usually upper ground floor facade, improvements where we have done similar programs in the past. the city has the s.f. shines program, for instance, which is again store front facade type of improvements. >> i see. >> through the chair, let's say invest in neighborhoods, which is the umbrella with oewd, city administrator, they may fund a marketing campaign and consultant, but our funds could leverage that with a look and feel. you can visibly touch the sign on -- the awning improvement on the business or new paint. so, our dollars, these tax exempt dollars couldn't fund a marketing campaign. that's something the public could enjoy, not tenant improvements, not on the inside. >> right. >> within a restaurant, but be outside of a building. so, that's what's meant by facade. that's where we think, yes, i think you're right, 83,000 isn't a lot, but to the extent it can leverage other city programs to really make a dent

in a corridor, a commercial corridor -- >> if it's faceless. >> would be a good use of funds. >> excellent. >> okay. i have a real quick question on the structure of the rops themselves. so, i understand what you're saying about the change dos has requested in terms of how you think about reserves and encumbered funds. but when i look at the spreadsheet that we all have to now look at every six months, there's still only one column for reserves. so, how is that not confusing -- >> i can't say that it's not confusing. i think it means that he we will have a number of, you know, tracking spreadsheets to help us keep track, but the idea is that what shows up in terms of spending activity, when we look at 1415 a, if we're showing it on there

really it's because it's either a new item, it wasn't on rops 13 14 b, or it was on rops 13 14 b, but it's expenditure activity that's going to take place after, say, october 1st if we use that as our cutoff point ~. we typically submit ours a week earlier so mid september would be when we report. we'd have up to then to incur it. that's why when we look at the rops and we look at those reserves, we're saying this is for activity that's going to go october through then february of the next -- it's sort of the rops 1415 a accrual period. that's how they want to see the activity on the rops detail tab, but on the cash balances and on the prior period adjustment, if you -- they want to see that as if it's fully expended because the idea of the rops is when they want to true up, they want to shake loose any tax increment that wasn't contracted for and then, you know, sort of throw that back, you apply it against your

next -- the credit against your next request, right. and, so, they're basically saying you can go -- even though you might still be paying out invoices against that contract, you can count it as fully expended because it's not available to be trued up and redistributed. so, we are going to have a difference between the cash balances and prior period adjustment [speaker not understood] 100% expended but then still continue to show the activity really with their term, they think of it as we're just requesting authority to access our reserves [speaker not understood]. >> no, i think -- and i apologize. because i think my question -- the answer to it doesn't really matter to us, right? i think my question is how are they going to be able to tell that, right? i'm looking at two periods, i don't know how they're going to be able to true up anything with the way that they're defining reserves because it has a couple different definitions now.

but i think -- no disrespect, i think that maybe thinking about it, that question i asked is not -- i don't know that the answer is for us to be concerned about. so, i okay. >> i would further say that each rops period, they'll learn a little more ~ and probably give us somewhat new instructions next time. so, it is definitely iterative and evolving. >> you guy are maintaining the detailed spreadsheets. i can guarantee you it's going to change in 6 or 12 months. but it seems like [speaker not understood]. >> and i made sure to get the dos analyst directions in writing as well that we can remind them as well, this is how you directed us to [speaker not understood] the rops. >> excellent, thank you very much. this is not an action item so we can move on to the next item, madam secretary. >> thank you. next item is item 6, public comment. madam chair.

>> thank you very much. do we have any speaker cards? >> oscar james. oscar james again. i want to bring up two things that -- well, three things that's been bothering me. one, certificate of preference holders in south -- well, i would say down by moscone center, that area, there were people that were relocated out in those houses, too, that had certificates that has not been brought up. and i think they should be added onto the list of certificate holders. the other thing i want to bring up is turnkey housing.

back in '73, '74, i served on a committee, honorable [speaker not understood] and burton and i brought up the suggestion of about homeless housing and also turnkey housing, people who are coming out of foster care, [speaker not understood] housing. out of the 540 acre that's in the shipyard, they're going to be developing all of that. i haven't heard since that time, me and mrs. vincent brought it up in the p-a-c meetings, what have you. we need to have housing for people in our community who have been in foster care and who are turned out of foster care housing for them. we also need to have housing for those people in our community who either became homeless, fill in some of those projects or buildings for them in the hunters point shipyard.

i mean, it was 540 acres. and when i served on that committee, our concern was the people who were affected in our community, and those people are people who have been affected in our community and nobody has spoke up for them. i wish for this commission to look into that and possibly make some kind of adjustment to make those things possible for the people in our community. not only our community, also for the rest of the people in the san francisco bay area. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. is there any further public comment? >> no other. >> thank you very much. please call the next item. >> report -- the next order of business is item 7, report of the chair. >> i do not have a report with me. thank you very much. next item. make it sound very important, serious. >> the next item of business is item 8, report of the executive director. madam director. >> i have two announcements, commissioners.

one, this is all good news based on the actions you've taken and the financing actions you've taken. so, on march 1st, it may have been in your packets, but we can make sure you have it. dr. davis senior center otherwise known as 5800 third street or carol avenue senior, there is a groundbreaking ceremony on march 1st that coincides with the date of black cusine. district supervisor, the mayor, other folk will be in attendance and prominently featured in the invitation as a primary funder. so, march 1st, i encourage you all to attend and let us know if you'll be coming. and then also another good news event, april 17th, the hunters view phase 2 groundbreaking for which you authorized $21 million, that, too, is another groundbreaking that's gotten pushed, the new date is april 17th and that, too, leader pelosi will in fact be

attending that event along with the mayor and other important invited electeds. and, again, your significant contributions to make that happen. so, i encourage you all to attend. that concludes my report. >> thank you very much. i was driving around last week at hunters view because i didn't get the e-mail. definitely driving around in circles at hunters view. okay, next item. >> the next item of business is item 9, commissioners' questions and matters. madam chair. >> thank you very much. are there questions and matters? i'll tell you one thing, i know i want to recalendar the certificate of preference item to talk how the mayor's office of housing is handling that. we had questions before, but definitely talk about the dda today, yes, talk about that. but >> but the m-o-u is coming back at some point, right? >> yes, the m-o-u was calendared for your second meeting in march, march 18th, i believe. so, we would expect to tackle a lot of those issues. there were a number of

follow-up items and questions you and members of the public had. so, we're in the due diligence period, making sure we're responding to your questions and concerns with the mayor's office of housing community development. >> okay. i would say let's see how march 18 is shaping up. i don't want to -- there's lots of other things in the m-o-u and i don't necessarily want to high jack the whole discussion with certificate of preference because i think there are some questions that won't be answered by the m-o-u that we need answered how they're going to manage it, how they're going to develop that, how are they going to extend it. i don't want to get caught in that. maybe we can make it the same day hopefully. >> but you're not going to be here. >> oh, i'm not going to be here. i will talk to you about that. yes, i am actually missing the march 18 meeting. i think we can manage through the regular agenda process with the chair and vice-chair to make sure there is a balance of item and that commissioners are -- we have the full complement

of the commission for matters of important concern. ~ >> yes. thank you, tiffany. [laughter] >> thank you for your testimony. okay. any other questions, matters? next item, plea. >> the next order of business is item 10, closed session. >> thank you very much. i'd like to take a recess for just a couple minutes. anyone here is not directly involved in the closed session item, i would ask that you please leave the hearing room and madam secretary, please change over the tape and we will reconvene in a few minutes. >>please stand by - meeting in closed session