depending on the type of construction it is and the breakdown by trade. the one thing we do do and the benefit we have is a lot of data. so, yeah, i can provide that breakdown. >> hopefully we'll get on going but i would like to schedule maybe another workshop to go over the difference in local state and policy and the data we have. it would be great when you do that. >> sure. >> any other questions or comments? this is an action item. i would like to entertain a motion on this resolution? >> i think this is great. so i will move that we accept the mou. >> thank you. commissioners, is there a second? >> second. >> madam secretary please call the roll. >> commissioner ellington,

mondejar, sing, rosales, johnson. the vote is 5 ayes. >> thank you very much. next item. 5e thourzing a second amendment to the personal services contract with twin three building maintenance company a sole proceed -- that extends the term by 15 months to june 30, 2015, and increase the amount. >> thank you madam secretary. as you heard in the item introduction this is simply a term extension with some

additional dollars. the existing contract actually does expire in march and as you know the state department of finance is continuing to review our long range property management plan, the latest information that we have that they will approve all the property management plans by the end of december of 2014. certainly we know they are quite busy right now and their review of our obligations payment schedule and the other reviews and this pmp is really at the back of the line. so as you saw in perhaps previous items come before you as a koth contingency matter on the parks with which particular of the arm of the city whether

it be dpw or parks and recreation and wei been out with the contractors and this is located on hunters point hill, until we can transfer the property. we have property maintenance obligations under the solutions law you are entitled to receive -- new infusion property tax. through our roth process we asked for additional funds on a 6-month basis in order for us to maintain the property. the contracts expiring in march not knowing when the state will frankly be able to have the time to give us our final review and approval. we have extended for 15 months to provide for those property management services. and i will say we have been actively working with the community.

it's been a long desire for the folks up on the hill to have a playground and park there that is fully functioning. there are some core which we put forth on our roth some core functions that we need to do in order to keep it in the state of good repair. this keeps the baseline. we'll come back to it and you will hear more about it in the budget. we'll do funds able to retain through our due diligence process through cbdg funds to put it back in the state of good repair and negotiating with city partners there may be that they want to make improvements or provide restrictive funds in order to accept it. in any event, this is a simple straight forward contract extension. we previously had multiple properties, 5 or 6 that twin

iii managed for us and those were housing properties and these are the only remaining non-properties. what we are asking is small comparatively because it's one property rather than 5. the manager of our real estate division couldn't be here at this very moment. that's why i'm available for questions as is our deputy director and interim general counselor and tracy reynolds is here for questions. that concludes staff presentation. >> ms. reynolds you are getting called out. we are getting through pretty quick. is there any public comment on this item? >> i have one speaker card from oscar james. >> oscar james again,

rerequired to redevelopment agency employee. that was one of the projects that i worked under shore view park. when we worked on the shore view park, there were a lot of conditions that were dangerous to the community. they had ring worms in the sand pit. we blocked them off. they are gate now. i know one time the redevelopment agency was talking about redoing the whole project. if you turn the water on now, it would leak under the ground under the concrete bench. i talked with ms. bowie before about that particular issue. but the whole park needs to be redone. there is no agency, city, state or anybody else or even that project area is going to take that park over the way it is. really commissioners you should go and see that park and see what a danger it is to the residents especially the

kids. that's always been our concern. that fence has been up for over 20 years and nothing has happened. the wing worms are still there and young people are going there in the evening and doing things that young people shouldn't be doing because it's unlit area and near the park where seniors now have, dr. davis has a senior facility there and you have homes around there and the kids go there and play and do all other kind of things. an you do see a lot of syringes in that area. it's a place that needs to be redone and make the city can take it over. if i was a city i would not take over a park like it

is. the agency is doing a good job in doing this thing. i'm not trying to put them down and the people doing the maintenance up there. i went up to talk to the lady twice before and she's doing a real good job also. so it's not their fault. it's just the condition of the sure view park. so thank you. >> thank you. >> ms. reynolds? >> i want to start with following on with what mr. -- in the memo they are in limbo land where they can accept it on deny and we do not know if we are going to transfer this part to the city and becomes parks and recreation decision and upgrade or rebuild or

what have you. can ms. reynolds elaborate on that. is there any further on this strategy for this park? >> again, i policy for being late. you guys went quickly through the agenda. i thought the second one was going to be longer. on that question, all the details haven't been totally worked out yet. right now we've requested the funds, the $1.15 million and the cd on the rotdz which the both approved and the second step being done now is getting this approval, the use of these funds approved through the cities c dbg action plan. so i m it with them and i'm getting them taxed. they are going to

included it in their action plan and it has to go to the board of supervisors and get approved. as soon as this gets approved and the board of supervisors approves, the easiest thing to do is to transfer shore view to the city and give the city the money and then the mayor's office of housing which is the cdbg administrator, we would grant to them so it's a stipulation for shore view park and they will endorse it into that action plan and to dpw to do that work because they were going to do it back in 2010. the exact mechanism

hasn't been worked out to do it and instead of going to us and then transfer to the city. it's one of those two options. >> i'm sorry, i don't want to get too far away from the actual item itself. button -- but -- on what you just said, it sounds like you have to have an agreement attached to those roth funds to have an spnd you are -- expenditure attached to them. you are saying if we get on the roth that would be in reserve until the park is transferred to the city and then it would be granted to the city? >> it's a little tricky because the cdbg funds are rent payments coming to us. usually how this works is mou

gets the money and we grant to people. we are actually getting the money ourselves and we are asking mou to use it and i'm assuming they are going to approve that. and then we would transfer it to them and grant it back to us and we would do a public procurement process to get an entity to do the improvements before we transfer it to the city and they with an agreement or with that restriction on the fund and they would grant it to dpw to do it once the city owns the property. so it's just, it's a little tricky because we are the ones collecting on these payments. we have the money so somehow we have to enter into some sort of cdbg grant money with the city. some entity has to enter into an agreement

with mou to use the funds for shore view park. >> got it. >> because then they monitor, they have to monitor the use of those funds and grant the use of cdb g funds and it has to enter with us and say yes, these funds are what they are approved for. >> last question and i promise. 15 months is a long time. is that because it's just easier to have a continuation of the same management set up that we have right now until we know what the property management plan? >> yes. there is a couple reasons. one is now that this contract is a property, we used to have five and that would justify an rp, now we

have one and it's difficult to do an rp for just one property. it's for the moment to make it jive on a roth for a 6-month fiscal year and it was in march and was extending it and more on a fiscal year basis. thirdly, it's just, i mean, we just don't know when this transfer is going to happen. it could happen a lot sooner than that. that's hopefully the outside dates. >> this you very much. >> yeah. question. the whole last interaction with the question about cdbg funds. and coming from are we going to fix the part before we transfer it or are we not ? >> that's still being figured out. that hasn't been determined yet how whether we are going to do it or

transfer the funds to the city? >> it's still being discussed? >> yes. the intent is to fix the park. which pathways bayview arts -- because of the hurdles. there are many levels of review. but the bottom line is the intent is to fix the park and transfer it to the city whether the city does it or we do it as a part of that transfer we'll work that out. hopefully there will be greater clarity and that's the intent to fix the park. >> do we have a time line on that? or are we still waiting for the property management plan. >> before we get it approved, we have to approve the fund on the roth. then on the board of supervisors you have to

approve the mayor's housing action plans. we have those two things that we have to wait for and then we'll have to have a discussion about whether or not say, for example we would want to retire waiting for or we think we can do it faster or i don't know. maybe we decide we just are going to do it somehow or we enter into a letter agreement with dpw to do the improvements. everything has a city standard so everything can be maintained by the city afterwards. if it's non-standard then they have issues with maintaining it. this would be a dpw project. if we hear from dof from the property plan then we can transfer the much this year hopefully. we would like to do it sooner rather than later.

>> is there a rep from this organization here? >> well, i told her to come at 3:00 :00 p.m. so i'm sure she's not here yet. i didn't want to have her, she's working and i apologize for that. she was planning to be here. i'm sure she's on her way. >> we are going to be done. i can talk slowly but not that slowly. we'll probably be adjourned by 3. i don't know if you want to call her. >> you said these guys are not here today. >> they are on their way. >> they know that we have on the agenda? >> yes. but i was the one that told her to come at 3:00 p.m. because i thought your previous two items were going to take longer. >> she's on her way now.

>> we should wait for them to come, right? >> no. it's up to you guys. >> i really prefer for her before maybe it's approved. maybe they don't want a job? >> they do. >> how do you know? >> because i know because i have talked to her and it's my fault that i told her to be here at 3:00 p.m.. >> how about is this place in >> the park? i think it's almost an acre. >> the acre needed to $42,000 for a year. >> it's $1300 a month. >> here is 19,000 for 6 months? >> for 15 months. >> oh. >> that comes out to about $1300 a month. >> i still would like they should be here. i don't want

to -- you know. >> i would hate to penalize her because i was the one that told her to be here at 3. she was going to be here at one and i told her you will to have sit for a couple hours and i was the one that told her to come at 3:00 p.m.. >> we are becoming more efficient. >> i personally, you know i'm sure staff has spoken to the proprietor many times about the contract and contract extension. i would like to hear from them, we are probably going to be finished with our meeting by then. i think i'm going to call for a vote pending the questions and people can vote how they choose on this item. >> you can put it over. we can finish the calendar and continue. >> not for the next meeting. i would like to continue. can we continue this item until the end? council brian? >> okay. let's finish the discussion first. are there

any other questions on this item or comments? okay. seeing none, let's continue the vote, continue this item until later in this meeting. let's call the next item until after the report of the executive director and hopefully we'll have proprietor here in case you want to make comments. >> the next item is 6. public comment on non-agenda item. madam chair. >> do we have any public comment. >> i have one speaker card from oscar james. >> hello, oscar james again. i just want to make a comment about the ground breaking for the dr. davis senior housing. it was to me a tremendous success, both the ground

breaking and the event that happened afterwards. i was in vip, the section, my wife and myself and four of the dr. davis staff and we prepared a lot of food. any way, two of the people that came in donated $5,000 a piece for the fundraiser. there's more that was raised, but i can only remember the big money. one lady paid $250 for a slice of my wife's key lime cake. i don't know how many people tasted it. i know commissioner ellington was there. it was a success. commissioner king was there who i was glad to see. i did give him some cake. we

only made three cakes. one for the contest. we won something, i don't know if it was two prizes, i know we won one but we only made three cakes. several people did get an opportunity to taste the cake? >> is it key lime cake or key lime pie? >> it's a cake. >> thank you. anymore public comment cards. >> no cards. >> next item please. >> the next item of business is the report of the chair. madam chair. >> thank you very much. i will miss my first commission

ever. i will not be here for the next committee meeting. commissioner rosales will chair. >> the next report of the executive director. >> commissioners i wanted to report on legislation approved by the governor on february 18th and relates to how success or agencies a number of provision to how success or agencies operate and intended to provide some relief which is why the governor signed it about a week before these roths were due. fortunately for us there is a summary that council robert brian has prepared for taund actual tax assembly bill in g of your

binders and i will go over what those are. really the key changes for us was to allow an expenditure beyond a roth period. if a lender requires that that cash be on hand. as typical all the affordable housing project not only are they able for a contract ual ordinance and what the tax requires is all the money in hand and not extend to a 6-month period an pursuant to a contract. it's spent out over time over the life of the construction project. so this was a common sense change that we had been working with our department of finance representative for the last five roth cycles and we were please today see that this common sense changed was

enacted in law to provide a stream line operations because we have different analyst, different folk coming in and out because if we have a law rather than common sense it gives us comfort, the community development department comfort. the other thing at the beginning of the roth period we may not have an invoice at the very beginning, but based on the historical data, we use reasonable estimates again a good common sense changed that we have worked to finance to accept. we are glad to see that it's now codified in law. the third item on your summary related to and you have experienced to this before on mission bay bonds and we have put mission bay bond on our

roths proposed expenditures during that roth period we expected to go 32 you the process not only with you and the review board to the finances to get approval of the bond because there is another step and approval of the payee and approval of bond action and this is something that the very last roth we got financed to accept common sense. not to just deny it out right. they denied it from the roth because they said you didn't have bond approval yet. we plan to have it during the review period. it's codified in law. it doesn't help us in new, but codifies to what we are doing. it is helpful. the fourth item relates to infrastructure financing decisions so existing law provides that financing district or ifd's could not be in place in former or even

existing r e development project areas and this provided immediate relief to cities, counties, success or agencies across the state that hadn't adopted the provisions like san francisco did whether it was housing trust fund or economic development back fill. in this case, for example that will help visitation valley which didn't have an executed contract in place at the time the dissolution 2 years ago. the city has been actively negotiating that project with the private partner. it's contaminated and it would allow and we did go through with the board of supervisors in the city the process and the formation of ifd directs and would allow with n our existing areas and even our active project areas, for example transbay or mission

bay or hunters point. of course it's to first pay an existing debt and the trust fund and there is a mandate to keep the schools whole. so it means city college, k-8. all the schools and if there is money left that far water fall then there is money available for the current financing districts. it really doesn't help if it were city and county. so the county could contribute in share and again only after the in existing redevelopment project areas that those other task have been satisfied. it's not our dollars until we have satisfied the obligations in effect. it would help us meet our existing obligations in

any of our major approved project areas. certainly afterwards after 10 -15 years wind down the city could expand if there are any additional improvements needed and use sz with consistent law. the next item relates to an administrative cost an allowance for housing entities public housing entities differentiated from the city's housing success or, the mayor's office of housing and community developments. the way the law is written as you know there is 3 percent administrative fee. so whatever the total value of property tax is, 3 percent on top of that can be used for administrative cost up to three 3 percent and this now allows

the housing entities for administrative cost. 1 percent to housing authorities. it doesn't go to the locals. in fact the previous versions of the bills specifically exclude the cities and counties from this. it was only meant to go e to the federal agencies. here because our, the city elected to be the housing success or and the housing authority, the san francisco housing authority is not the housing success or. there are no, there is no distribution. but in marine county i know, marine county said we need relief. and this provides relief. it doesn't apply to san