ace -- support g which was a ballot to support the city development whiches paed in june 2008. under the provision of the core agree; lenar agreed to commitments related to housing and jobs -- $28.6 million communitiy housing funds which helps qualified residences to purchase homes in d ten. it also called for lenar to support for alice grifth and project in the housing area below housing rates -- they contribute $8.9 million to be used for workforce development programs for residences of district ten. the agreement also required card

check neutralities living wage and source hiring the agreement is the seven member ic in addition to d ten it's representative of the hunters point shipyard the bayview area committee and the -- representative -- >> we have a question. i'm having trouble reading the words because they're blurry i went around in the 2008. when it was drafted this agreement did not involve the city but it was acorn and sfop is that correct? >> correct those organizations in addition to the representatives, of the c d.c.

as well as the 7th at large representative and of course lenar urban >> okay. it's my understanding from the presentation of the supervisor none of the signatories are here today? >> there is a representative from helenar is here. >> i call a call that council wanted to attend that's what i had been informed. >> thank you. please continue >> i did want to take a moment to distinguish this core community agreement which the city and oc i. are members of. the ddda ensures that the visions goals and priorities of the shipyard and candle stick point are in the concept chul framework approved by the board

of supervisors in 2007 as well as the voters in 2008 as implements the dda is in the core community agreements and continues continues parts such as finance infrastructure sustainability and community development -- provisions that near the language in the agreements and core community benefit agreement there are prosituations in the core community benefits agreement that ocii may independently enforce this encollude the provision of 1/3 of housing be provided at below rates and the housing project follow alice grifth.

the dis-- with rcac and legacy foundation other community benefits include 350 acres 280 million in transportation improvement and requirement that 50% of jobs in construction and positions are local hired with a reference for bayview and hunter's point rets and rebuilding and rehabilitation of 300 artist community on the shipyards with that i would like to invite la shawn walker the

director of community -- i am happy to answer any questions the committee may have. >> seeing there is no questions at this time. i would like to welcome la shawn walker into the chamber and thank you for your hard work in the ic since you joined about a year ago. >> can you briefly give us the background on the agreement and talk to us on the structure and the work committee has been able to accomplish as well as the role lenar plays >> thank you chair cohen supervisor kim and weiner in his absence i'm la shawn the director of community affairs for lenar urban.

i am the current chair of the implementation committee the implementation chairmanship rotates currently as you said i have been with lenar urban for over a year and been in that temporary role. to the role of the chair is to really try to move us forward and get more money into the community so i will give you some information here to your questions. supervisor kim hopefully these slides are a little more simplified version of the slides mrs. drew presented hopefully they will give you the kind of information you are asking or hopefully they're easy to read. as she spoke to her in presentation. the implementation committee was created as the over site body that grew out of the community

ben pits or core community benefits agreement that was ratified by the san francisco labor county ace and sfop and urban in may 2008. when i became the chair of the implementation committee one things i asked the body to to do is take a fresh look at the implementation for the city and what were charged to do we had a 2-part retreat last fall and early spring to look at our mission i wanted to give you as we evaluate a simple version of the mission statement there. this slide here talks about the

financial obligation supervisor cohen the payments made to date by the master developer the community first housing commitment is $28,665,800 and to date lenar urban has made a payment commitment of over $5 million, as you see there. workforcement develop the total commentment is $2.9 million you will see there. you will hear in just a moment our represents from the san francisco foundation as you introduced them san francisco foundation is the fe dish yariduciary

-- that pays for that the committee receives from the san francisco foundation there are as tamp son drew spoke to there are additional obligation including the check card policy she alluded to living wage etc. the rebuild of alice griffith and two blocks of vertical construction are happening today. this slide talks about again the role that the san francisco foundation plays it says here in december of 2010 they were selected for the ccba signatories to manage the funds and provide that fiduciary relationships now i will ask the representatives from the san

francisco foundation williams and mic kra to speak to date if there are no question what i said already. >> no questions. actually there is one brief question i think you skipped over this. the ic technical assistance in annual fund it says here it's 75000 allocation per year is that correct? >> yes >> and total to date has been $352,500 >> yes >> that means in 201112 and 14 there are payments made what happened to 2013? >> lan don. the payment in 2014 -- >> 13. i'm sorry >> 14 covered 2013's obligation >> thank you mr. williams thank

you for being here you are with the san francisco foundation i would like for you to give us an overview of the grant process and they're made made. >> good afternoon supervisors landon williams i'm the community development for san francisco foundation my program administers the funds of the ccbd i would like to talk about what we do let me go into to technical assistance and annual fund that is a payment for two different things one is for the technical assistance the san francisco foundation provides to the ic and the second is for the operations the technical assistance consists of providing two consultants for the workforce or sub committee of the ic and another that works

for the housing committee those two consultants help to vet perspective projects events such as a tour of southern around north california similar to the implementation to large community development projects we also provide consultants in terms of organizational development last as you know you met zachary mic kra he used the ta fund to pay a portion of vak ree's funding as well. and zachary maintains the website external and internal communication and other responsibilities as required so let's see.

so this first slide is maybe a little difficult for tokes to read but it shows the flowchart of how grants and projects are vetted before the ivc it starts at the top implementation committee the ideas are brought there as an information item they're vetted by the ic who determines to move forward with a sub committee or whether to just table or not to move that idea forward. the two the next two on the chart coming down from the top represents the workforce sub committee the other represents the one to the right represents the housing sub committee they do initial vetting they call in

presenters who represent the idea. they do the deep or deeper research they may go out and look to see if other community development projects and other communities doing similar important projects they solidify the ideas they make a decision to either move the idea forward again by taking it back to the full icu is a yes or under the o system they can say no and the idea dies there. recognizing this is not the most effective way to manage their affairs the ic then moved to another system that looks almost the same this is the poster in annual retreat they have this retreat happens in december of last year february this of this year it's a way to improve the

processes for improving and recommending grants the difference between the two charts in the second chart this one here when an idea goes before the sub committee the sub committee has to made a registers of yes or no and either reimburses yes or no are brought back to the full ic for final recommendation. during the retreat they also decided they would set a time limit for the sub committee to take action and bring the recommendations back to the committee as a whole however the time limits has not been set in the last six months or so. >> the last five years we have been deal withing this fund and this organization it has been operating on the first slide organizational flowchart >> that is correct >> and when was the retreat?

when did the change of the flowchart happen? >> in december of 2014. there's a retreat that happens every year but in 2013 when they had the retreat they focused on housing and housing issues this time when they add a retreat they look inward focus on the internal process for the improvement of moving grants for the ic and they decide they needed to change the system part of the rationale for changing the system is under the old system that's the first chart and i testimony can go into a committee and be killed in the committee without it coming to the full ic four division so we decided to change the structure now ideas have to come back to the full committee for a recommendation of yes or no but it cannot kill it in committee it has to be brought back

>> this structure is it based off of an existing structure or is this something that the architects of organization creatively thought up? >> there was internal discussion about what was dysfunctional about the old system then we also brought in an organizational consultant based on work she had done with organizations this moves forwards things forward in a positive way >> thank you. >> the next slide moves to the actual accounting for the funds although we do the technical assistance for the ic part of our major responsibility is to manage the funds and grants in a way that is very transparent and that allows for fairness in the grant process.

so this table. i apologize you will see there are numbered tables we thought it was important to go fiscal year by fiscal year so you can see what came in when it came in what went out in terms of grants what revenues are earned what expenses have been charged against those fund and the ending balance for year to year this say summary of extensive accounting we do for the ic and in april of this year. on this initial slide shows the fiscal year of 2011 which is from july 1st, 2010 to june 1st, 2011, you will see there is a beginning balance in that year lenar made $500,000 payment on it's commitment and

the implementation committee made $225,000 in grants from the workforce fund for the use of youth summer employment jobs this is following the same format for funds received in revenues includes interest earned on the deposit its. and the interest is earned on the short term accounts the ccba calls for those to be invested in a short term account >> could you tell me what the interest rate is on the short term account? within 1 or 2% it's typical for a money market or shorm term account

>> the purpose of this is to with draw the money in a quick efficient way. >> i can't tell you wa the thinking was behiebd it but in the ccba it states it's deposit itted in short term accounts and kept in those accounts >> so then the chart goes onto? -- >> the second chart shows the second fiscal year. that is the 2012 fiscal year and all the fiscal years are july through june. during this fiscal year lenar made two substantial investments contributed $1.8 million for the workforce and $1.566 million for the housing fund the grants that year awoordarded totalled about

$250,000 again those went out for youth jobs and job training at the end of that year accounting again for revenues, earned expenses taken out. the fund balances were $1.63 million in the workforce fund and $5.6 million in the housing fund >> i want to make sure i'm riding the management fees are the fees column there strictly management fees that the foundation issues just for service of management of the account is that right? >> there are actually two fees, that come out one is the fiscal management fee they charge which is .83% and there say fund mblgment fee because the

$7 million are spread out over fund and they are charged a management fee what you see is the total of the management fees are your managers in-house or you contract with a consultant? >> we contract with the fund manager as part of the manager overall portfolio the free structure is negotiated in the initial tech agreement signed in 2010 >> is there an opportunity to go back and renegotiate towards fees a lot of money is going towards fees i'm just curious >> i don't know that is not something at my pay level that is it seems to meing ge yoeshuated between cfo ceo the 181 group and lenar.

that is the 2012 fiscal year. i may state when these fees were initially negotiated it was thought that the funds were would spended in terms of grants within 12-18 months. the next slide -- >> i will come back to that i want to know what the hang ups have been why we haven't spent that money i will make a note there. continue. >> to the 2013 fiscal year that is july 2012 through june 2013. you will see that the beginning balance is the ending balance from the other years you will see there is one set of grants it's $140,000 that the ic and

consultants awarded small grants to commune based portions with the intent to hold listening sessions the purpose of the listening sessions is to introduce the ccpba the ic and the foundations along with the goals of ccba and vet ideas for the programs and processes for the ic to fall to proceed as a part of that there were surveys taken of community members there were over 600 community members who attended these 17 sessions and the number one item was they thought that the ic should become engaged in financial literacy empowerment programs and activities to support the housing and jobses forthcoming

from lenar the second is housing supports for displacement for the homeowners to prepare residences for homeowner ship and rentals and third priority was for job prep and placements. so that year there was $140,000 in grants the end of the year balance on june 30th. was 1.46 million in the workforce fund and 5.62 million in the housing fund. >> so the money in the funds are increasing and i see the fees are increasing as well. just an observation >> thank you ma'am da.

[laughter] . yes for the next slide. excuse me. the next slide is the 2014 which is the fiscal year year currently in lenar had not made additional payment there were revenues earned and there was a large grant made that year to the san francisco housing development corporation for 610,000 dloors to provide financial empowerment services and expand literacy kaeblts to families that is the implementations committee to implement some of the priorities raised by the community. i will go to the last slide. the last slide is what has happened through today.

grants out of there was norcalf d.c. there is a grant to nor cal that is to provide loans to small d ten base contractors who were licensed and had won bids for construction on the shipyard project. to provide them with short term capital that has lead to about 43.of their workforce of d ten rets as well there say rental assistance grant listed as pending that is to slow the displacement of family specifically black and pacific islanders in particular in d ten that grant is still pending if i

can take a couple of -- just a minute or two to describe that process that grant grew out of that housing retreat that occurred in 2013 the ic used that old process that led to discussions and the housing sub committee almost quarterly where the rfp framework was agreed upon the outcomes and activities were agreed upon a maximum dollar amount were agreed upon. in around august of last year we sent out the rfp we got responses back in september october the ic met as a whole and agreed to accept the bid that was received then

instructed the foundation to go about putting together the grant agreement. since then there have been several meetings between the ic sub committee and the vendor that grant is on hold because the ic has not reached an agreement on the special conditions they might want initially they put out an rfp for $800,000 they are recommended it be reduced to 200000 that you could achieve the goals of the grant >> i got to say it's appalling in this housing crisis when people are looking for resources this is one community has ample resources when it comes to rental assistance grants to see

pending in this column is really heart breaking i hope we through this hearing will be able to break through whatever the abinstruction currently exists because this blockage is blocking people from remaining in the community and thriving [applause] thank you. >> so the current balance in those accounts now in the workforce account there is $892,000 approximately and in the housing fund there is $5,267,000 approximately and i will end there before i end i got one more comment to make you asked the