attrition. that way we on-site relocation. now, there may still be a need for temporary off-site relocation, and those plans are not at all settled. we want to do what is best for the residence in cooperation with the residents, and that's why this buildout plan is as long as it is. as you know, other localities and even san francisco and some of the very early hope six deals did move everybody off-site and it wasn't a great return of tenants and we don't want that for sunnydale and retro >> i just want to agree with supervisor avalos on the need to look beyond the cities core for even towards the western neighborhoods for different projects. i like the idea of mixed income developments. acquisition and rehab approaches. i wanted to just as

quickly about that new middle income rental program. i want to thank jeff buckley for keeping my office well informed about the bond as it moves forward good i have some concerns when where increasing the ami percentage for middle income, and i potentially hit lower income renters or lower income people against -- but i clearly agreed there's a need for middle income bands or our approach to prevent displacement or help house people. could you give us more of a sense does i think he said the vast majority would be up to 120% ami and when you look at larger families, you would probably go to 150. i'm wondering, what are the percentages are looking at how can we ensure that there's equity built in to our process to look at our building this new middle income rental program? >> resident vast majority of

the funds would be used for households at 121 below, that's because all of our low income housing that's financed with tax credits is capped at 60% of area median income. anything over that doesn't qualify for tax credits. so, you can leverage those funds. that's really the bulk of our low income housing. surly, public housing. we have 80 million in public housing. the 100 million in low income housing.. the low income piece will go up to 120 in some circumstances because we have -- the plan to expand our small sites program, which allows residency up to 120% of area median income. as you know, if we were to help the developer purchase an existing rent control building, there's no means testing to live in

rent-controlled housing. may have someone who makes $10,000 a year's on social security, and someone who makes $100,000 a year living right next to each other. we want to use those proceeds from the higher income, 120% ami household cross subsidize the extremely low income household and i will create a feasible acquisition and rehab development. now, for middle income, we expect that most of the funds that we've allocated there will go to household about up to 120% ami. the middle income rental program in particular, we are estimating that would allocate about $20 million for that, assuming we have a test with that program. but, we know there's an affordability gap for households that need larger units. two bedrooms, freedoms, even for bedrooms. at 150% ami. again, for family of four is micro gross income of $150,000 or so. so in hybrid markets

for those with larger family units, we don't want to penalize a family that can't compete in the marketplace for that three-bedroom units. just the way 120% household can't compete in the market place for that units. so, we do want to offer some flexibility for middle income families who we want to help stay in the city. so, there's a very narrow band that would go up to 150% of ami. everything else will be 120 envelope >> very narrow band. up to 150. >> again were proposing that for the middle income rental program you could go to 154 two and three bedroom and larger units. if you're if you can demonstrate the rental market within which the housing is

built is -- has a much higher market rate than 150. >> i think you just mentioned the goal would be about $29 to this rental program. just to compare, what is new york city's program was much do they allocate for their program? >> well, a lot more. >> how much is a lot more? >> i'm sorry. i don't have that. i don't have at my fingertips but i can get that to you. the newark city program does have the benefit of being able to apply tax exemptions to the property as a whole, so they have more flexibility in their overall building program than we do. because, once you exceed 80% of area median income you pay property taxes and that adds a lot in

operating expenses. so it requires a lot more resources to go into our buildings am about i will find out how much money you are cast in that >> would you guess a lot more is 200 million? just trying to understand about art >> the population is 10 times hours >> that's why i multiplied it by 10 >> that sounds about right but all confer with you >> i guess, my last question is when the budget analysis report on housing needs for seniors the anticipate a huge senior boom and the need for low income seniors to have decent housing. i know the theater i will bridge development near my district and across from the street from supervisor farrell district was an important part. it's about families. what's the plan for the mayor's office on housing the bond for assuring that we have enough housing as we anticipate a huge boom in seniors, where san francisco, i

think by 2040 will see one third of the population of people being over 60? >> we are very cognizant of the need for affordable senior housing. we have senior housing coming online on laguna street right now, we just opened. >> what's the plan in the bond that addresses the huge boom in the senior population especially for low income seeking seniors need affordable housing? >> right. will be using bond proceeds in our upcoming bio pipeline for senior housing at shotwell. also, a development that's in the works at 24th and harrison. we are working with the cii to allocate senior housing as part of their funding program in mission bay and it's a good point. when we talk about family housing, or low income housing, i think we often times just sort of take a

shortcut and call all low income housing family housing, but in fact, we do want to, and will, including senior housing in her overall i find. >> with the key places in the bond proposal early would see better opportunities for seniors? >> low income housing. the low hundred million dollars would include low income housing. we know that when seniors -- would have units as part of our development that are at higher incomes like 60% of area median income, seniors have a harder -- those on fixed income have a hard time meeting those rents. so, the best price point for senior housing is 50% of area median income and below. >> for example, for the new conception up to 60% and eight ami, the place where we can look specifically at housing

that would help this boom in population of seniors that need affordable housing? >> absolute good enough to scooby but it is. that's where we'll be devoting some of those proceeds >> seniors can be isolated but mostly individually. is there any thought about specific types of units. i know for the -- bridge there's the pace units other units dropped but i'm wondering what the plan is? >> well, we always have senior specific services on our site. we bring in a wide range of service consultants service connectors. i think a good example are parcels a and c on central part weight. they both have seniors senior service centers on the ground floor. they very active senior services programming. they cooperate with each other about bringing in hundreds percussion or to bring work with tenants

within exercise classes, or dance nights. that sort of like all those kind of activities so that seniors don't get isolated. that is exactly the kind of senior services programming that we would include on future projects. >> the? >> supervisor avalos >> new questions >> okay. thank you ms. howard. ms. regan. you want to go over your economic report here? >> good morning. ted egan with the controller's office bit of economic announced. opposite issued an economic impact report on this item and without going through every slide in detail, without high points and answer any questions you have about the specific good rpg writing this report was to examine for housing policies already in place that are similar to the funding priorities that the expressed with the bond package. those four policies are constructing new affordable housing units, rehabilitating public housing units acquiring existing

rent-controlled properties to make them permanently rent-controlled and providing down payment assistance for first time homeowners. each of these policies can arrange a potential economic benefits. they all provide a direct housing subsidy to low income households in the city. low-income households in san francisco spent an average of 46% of their income on housing. the height of foreboding target is 30%, with several of these programs if you qualify for subsidized units that the amount you will pay. so that direct subsidy can be a very powerful amount it is equal to about $6000 a year for an average sentence is the low income housing. there's more benefits. the multiplier effects of construction in particular involving constructing and rehabilitating housing units. there could also be in direct economic benefit when the policies expand the supply of housing and services go where they reduce the demand

for market and private housing market. the unsubsidized housing market by placing more people in permanently affordable housing. so, we considered these different types of housing benefits as they relate to the four policies that i outlined. we found really, each of the four of them have economic benefits that clearly exceed the cost. we calculated just the direct and indirect subsidy of building new affordable housing to equal about $400,000. the cities cost of the construction affordable housing is now running about $200,000 a year. so, that's a good situation with the benefit exceeds the cost. quantifying these benefits were rehabilitated public housing is a little bit harder because the units are in a variety of different conditions. if you simply look at the construction spending alone on rehabilitating housing, the multiplier effect of that exceeds the cost the

debt finance. so that's an economic win simply in terms of the construction. in terms of the acquiring went rent-controlled properties make them probably rent-controlled. in a policy like that, the real vast majority of the benefits are the direct benefits. the future benefits them up or reduced rent for future tenants. we also found under likely range of interest rates and reasonable discount rates that the benefits of that policy exceed the cost that incurs as were. so that's a beneficial policy. finally, the down payment loan assistance program is essentially a loan to help how souls reach a down payment without resort to private mortgage insurance. this is repayable upon resale in which they receive a piece of the equity. given how much housing prices have accelerated, sluggy this a problem the last we generate money for the city because the value of the share will increase over time on average

and so this is something that will both benefit middle-income homeowners as well as likely pay for itself and then some from well into the spirit on that basis, the four major policy priorities the bond outlines all have clear economic benefits and so on that basis we conclude that you overall package would be beneficial as well. >> thank you. supervisor avalos >> i just want to highlight these are public dollars and helped trigger local hiring. i think it's important to actually include that in your import. since it is a major program of the city that would actually have a local hire program. the maters been very supportive of it and engaged the city administrator in the city build program. so, i want to assure the future of economic report and pastor board to include that as well if there are local dollars that stay in local neighborhoods there are people in san francisco in the construction field who receive jobs because of it and we can probably see

an extension of hiring for local residents with that. if you drive it to see that if you could include that in reports >> it's a fair point, supervised the widow call out that specific policy would you try to quantify the benefits of the construction the multiplier effect in most woes to come from the fact that the workforce in the city. covering that in that sense >> okay. any further questions or comments? thank you mr. reagan for your report. at this point will open to public comment on item number one. anyone who wishes to publicly comment and it else is going up on the far side there will be two-minute. >> san francisco housing problems. big trouble. [inaudible] summerlong treasure island. marine avenue. he asked

very. new myself i spent some time that housing structure. [inaudible] public housing. very big. very wise though. >> next speaker, please. >> that's a hard act to focus my name is marie goetsch i listen to your reports on this bond. it doesn't build anything. all does is acquire more land. who's going to build? i can see those ideas to myself voting for it. it's a tenderloin housing clinic going to control everything with this

bond? are they going to just decide? i think housing goetsch we are in a housing crisis, but acquiring land is just acquiring the land. we need to have some -- that are going to build thank you. >> piglets any other members wish to comment on one scene on public ominous close >>[gavel] >> supervisor tang >> thank you. i realize that this housing bond measure and in response to the last public, tour, i don't see this as the only thing better city is investing in low income housing , for affordable housing, public has good there certainly is even if you look at the charts that has been there for us, the city is investing in about 2.5 billion that has been

there for us the city is investing in about $2.5 billion in the next 20s and also this before and it said again that you see this bond measure as a way for us to either accelerate some projects were really help certain segments that we do not have have other programs to provide for. i can't tell you how often i hear from families who need to were three bedroom units asking what are you doing for us? we doing for the middle class? so, i see this as a way for us to address that issue. as well as this fitting into a larger piece of a larger puzzle and high for how it is that we invest in our housing and rc. so, very supportive of this package that we have here today. i know that there is a huge interest in trying to put as much as we can into that particular bond but again, i hope we'll see other future housing bond measures come to the cycle of our capital planning. today i will be supportive of this pressure >> thank you. colleagues on wednesday thank you all for your deliberations on the different bond measures we have. and supervisor avalos for his work and for the mayor for

putting this forward and his entire time team for what you get i look for to seeing this ford and also supporting it in about in november. with that, a motion to approve item number one is headed for >> some of >> we can take that without objection. >>[gavel] >> madam clerk, if you would call item number two please >> item number two resolution authorizing the execution and delivery of a multifamily housing revenue note in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $50 million for the purpose of providing financial for the acquisition construction and development of a 50 unit multifamily residence rental housing project located rental housing project located at 800 presidio ave. >> thank you. everywhere mayor's office of housing to speak on this item. >> good morning supervised him and romero project manager for the mayor's office of housing. before you today is a resolution authorizing the city to issue a multifamily housing revenue bond in amount of 15

million. in support of the consent of the john burton -- the booker t. washington housing at 800 presidio. the proposed budget will be 50 new units of affordable housing in western addition with 25 units for homeless transition or hup at the booker t washington service center is developing this affordable housing development and the new community center. at their site. other outdated facility on the corner of presidio and setter. the housing is being built and we managed in partnership with the john stewart company. the housing in new community center will be built as an integrated building located in separate condominiums and the finance separately. so, the affordable housing will be structured as a bond i'm a 4% tax credit project with city support of 12.2 million and the state financing. the bond application was approved on may 20, 2015,

and this financing is conduit financing. it does not require repayment of the bond. construction loan is anticipated to occur in august and construction, which start in september of this year. so, happy dancing questions about the project. representatives from the project sponsor here today. thank you. >> thank you. colleagues, any questions on item number two >> okay. at this point will open to public comment. any public comment on item number two? seeing none, public ominous close >>[gavel] >>, cosponsored to this item. colleagues, can have up motion to send this item for >> some of >> we can take that without objection >>[gavel] >> madam clerk, item number three, please >> item number three resolution that would authorize the mayor's office of housing and community development to accept and expand a grant in the amount of $1 million from the san francisco community

investment fund for capital improvements to community facilities the pure period of april 17, 2015 through to community facilities the pure period of april 17, 2015 through december 30, 2018 >> thank you. we hear from the mayor's housing also >> fellowship >> four euros and expand to accept funds generated from these from sponsor projects from the san francisco community investment fund as you may recall, the san francisco invest in fund was created in 2010. the san francisco read abomination to buy the new market tax credits. when the redevelopment agency was all dissolved you oversight of the san francisco investment fund was transferred over to the city. in 2014, the board of committee investment fund, or abbreviated as the -- approached

the mayor's office of housing committee and development to explore whether or not there were opportunities to better leverage these one-time fees which at that time for the purposes of adding on to potential capital development, they had about $1.6 million of fees that were fairly flexible in addition to the new architect credit possibilities. their goals were focused on looking at those large-scale projects located in commercial core doors which would certain voidable low income population that wanted to leverage other available dollars. we describe the purpose of our trade development block grant capital program as well as -- cultural entry facilities from. they decided it would be a good fit for them to be able to add on their funds to our funds, if there were bochco projects though be of mutual interest to these multiple departments. to that end, we offer the

opportunity to use our annual capital request for proposals process to solicit interest from those large scale projects located in commercial core doors to see their projects that would satisfy both our department and the -- we verify to such project. one was -- women and the arts and the other was the lgbt community center both of those institutions were anchor institutions located in commercial core doors. those other potential through rehab work and renovation to potentially house other nonprofits that were in danger of being displaced which was also a goal. when we met with the -- the board decided to allocate up to $1 million to those two organizations. they have recommended that -- receive 243,000 $530 million from the

safe fund and the lgbt community center received 756,004 $61. those amounts are prorated based on the overall amounts of the ask. just for your information b would receive a total of just under $700,000 because the monies would be leveraged by an additional $219,000 from a leader beauty and a number whether $236,000 from our department with lgbt centered the seven or $56,000 from the -- would be leveraged by $680,000 from a leader leads community and cultural facilities fund. the board entered into a mo you with us which is found in your packet for that $4 million. we are awaiting the addition of these funds pending approval by the board of supervisors. we think

these projects would be valuable projects stimulating the overall economy and also serving to leverage very various funding source. in these cases, we receive requests that far exceeded the amount available from a community development block run fans. those funds are usually only able to fund 80 8000 50,000-12,000 of these are far more extensive report these one-time funds it seemed like about the resource to be able to satisfy the need of those two organizations. so, that's the history of the request for the acceptance and not be able to answer any questions you might have >> thank you. colleagues from any questions? open up to public comment. anyone wish to comment on item number three? seeing none, public ominous close >>[gavel] >> motion to send this item >> some of >> we can take that without objection >>[gavel] >> can you call items four and

five and five together item number four resolution n terms of the fellow commissioners, i think a lot of the debate this year was around making sure as we look forward here were awarding the -- to fruition that could get a lot of people so we've been spending a lot of focus on that and again am i think director.for her continued hard work. >> thank you chairman pharma. good morning members and committee tang and marlys.

today at the resolution is pushing the monthly contribution amount which the charter requires that the employer contribute towards opinions for employees and retirees. the contribution amount usually refers as the county average is based on annual survey of the 10 most populated counties in california. san francisco uses the average amount as a basis for the employer contribution. this year's tenure there was 10 county average increased by 2% by $11.42. if you have questions about how that was spent all be happy to call -- our actuary to the podium and i urge your support. in approval of this resolution. also, before using this should of code ordinance to prove the health services plan and raise

conditions for calendar year 2016. you may recall that last year you approved kaiser permanente rate decrease with no additional increase this year. the blue shield rate has an overall increase of 11.5% this year. during the last three years of service board has brought down the blue shield rate using a profit pledge that blue shield gave us when we are for lee insured. we did this to create competition with kaiser to attract more families back into blue shield to balance the risk pools. between the plans. the blue shield rate was very low in 2013 and was flat in 2014 and 2015. in the past three years, we funded blue shield as a flex funded plan, which makes the employer take the risk up front up to a specific dollar amount. we pay the hospital bills among the physician capitation and the pharmacy costs, which blue shield negotiates. this year the pharmaceutical costs for

hepatitis c, anti-retro bottles in antineoplastic were chemotherapeutic drugs increased dramatically