>> alright, good morning or afternoon. welcome to our special budget and finance committee meeting of monday december 5, 2016. i'm katy and chair thg team and to my left is normal yee. our clerk is linda wong and sfgovtv like to thank leo [inaudible] derek. >> please silence cell phones

and electronic devices. complete speaker cards and document to be included as part of the file should be submit today the clerk. >> thank you. today we have item 1, so if you can please call item 1. >> orbd nons approving and authorizing the exectv director of port of san francisco to execute project agreement with army corp of engineering to allow dredging of central basin by pier 70, not to exceed $2.2 million for project cost and port providing a 10 percent matching share nod to exceed $900,000 of the central basin payable over the 30 years for matching fair from the port not to exceed $3.1 million. >> thank you we have the port staff here to explain why we are here on a monday for the item.

>> yes. good afternoon supervisors. [inaudible] project sponsor [inaudible] and the new deputy commander of the san francisco district of army corp of engineer major kevinmic cormic. before i go further like to express on behalf of director forbes heartfelt gratitude for being here today rchlt being able to call the special committee hearing for us and also to the legislative analyst for turning out the report so quickly. thank you so much. why are we here? the pier 70 to get ortorianted the ports southern water front. the longest continually operating shipyard on the west coast and under lease as one

entity or another for by same operator for all most 30 years b e-a systems and has 2050 scaled craftsman. 1885 the first ship their turned out. produce adlot of vessels for world war i and 2. the central basin is the driveway to the ship yard. when it gets to shallow the facilities can't handle ships of increasing sizes. optimal depth is 32 feet. now we are considerable shallower than that. the shipyard is having to turn away business making it less competitive and dredging it for the shipyard itself or the port is not a economical undertaking. in 2009 recognizing the number of federal vessels

coming in and serviced i wrote the letter back in 20069 to army corp of engineers asking for assistance under the small navigation program, the continuing authority program 107. they took a look at that and numbers looked good to go into full blown study so did that in 2011. there were years where congress iced these program but got back on track last year. the army corp is extremely thorough and has a very rigorous process. we came out on the other end with a project that they liked and daerchled it in the best interest of national infrastructure. $8.9 million which deepens the central basin back down to the optimal depth of 32 feet and importantly after-that take on the maintenance

dredging fold over what is a problematic situation for the port and shipyard tenet for year jz years as long as they have been there, fold it into had normal federal operation and maintenance dredging program so it comes off or books. the cost benefit ratio looks good. every dollar the federal government spends they spend to recope all most 3. that is mostly from ships not diverting to the next closest shipyard which is not that close. the steaming costs are expensive. this is what we are looking at, this is the dredge footprint itself. what you are look ing at in the lower right are the two dry docks are big vessels that submerge like a bathtub, it sinks itself and ship floats up and picks pback out of the water. the dry dock is one of the la largest on the west coast so takes the largest

cruise ships. why we are here today is we have been through this process since 2009, we come up with the alternative that the army corp want tooz build. we are on board with that and need to execute the agreement that locks that in place. we have matching requirements kripeed in the ordinance both for the initial dredge and the maintenance. we also have responsibilities to make sure that the facilities themselves that service the shiperize properly maintained, that is a part of the lease we have the shipyard operator and handling of hazmat staff. i mention it because it's a liability technically but that side is dredged before. it is thury tested and there is nothing there. as i said, it will be deep ened to the optimal depth that is the new authorized depth and the

army corp will maintain it going forward until something changes so looking at 30 years as one window for some of the financing rules, about $20 million. we have the initial dredge and comes out to annually a little over $400 thousand a year of benefit to the port so that is essentially taking off the books in recognition of the benefit to the the federal government. what would the ordinance do? the reason we are here today with a ordinance and not going through a more standard process is that the administration strange january 20 will lead to a new head oaf the arnly corp of engineer and that individual is require today execute the agreement so we are here with a ordinance waving certain contract provisions mostly because it is the army corp, it is federal boiler plate they use all over the country and we are pret a

comfortable with our continues reviewed it and feel pretty comfortable with what we come out with. that includes do not exceed amount and again january 20 is the key date there. it does wave parts the environment code, but just to be clear it does-going through all the same processes we go through for other dredging. the dmoo regulatory framework is in place. the army corp is doing the neppa review and exempt under ceqa so this is for port is and dredging and pretty familiar with this territory. that's it. just want to say thank you again for being here today and special hearing and happy and other port staff are happy to answer questions. >> thank you for your prezen sentation. spl visor yee? >> curious, on a aneral basis

how much do you have to dredge? how many feet? >> that's a good question. it varies from location to location depending on the shouling and shilting. in this particular spot it is between a half foot to a foot every year and it is not-that's about average. >> and then i guess when was the last time it was dredged? >> the shipyard tenet did a emergency dredge 2014. they took a couple feet affthe top in the high spots to preserve the ability of the shipyard to take larger vessels but it hasn't had a full dredge to 32 feet for at least 10 years and that was also not done with city funds. the shipyard operator was able

to get feema funding for another-they had discretion where to use it and that is where they chose to use it. it is a key part why the army corp is able to take it on is absent the federal funding it may not happen and doesn't work for either party so that facility wasn't be available for flal vesselsism . >> i thought i read the dredging is to occur every 4 year snz >> that's right. >> so it's not yearly? >> it's not yearly. that is a estimate. it is depending on the rate of shouling it is more economical doing it every year. about every 2 feet they start get toog a point where it could restrict the business they can take, so they review that among other federal channels that require dredging maintenance and assume tg is dredging at the predicted

rate about every 4 years: >> you medicationed mentioned there hasn't been a full dredging in the last 10 years, how does this partnership you are embarking upon, how will it impact what you are able to do that at area? will you be able to service more ships? what is the impact been due to lack of dredging and what will it be moving forward? >> well, our shipyard operator hah to turn away several large ships. i could-i'm sure [inaudible] could name them off. they have to turn away seberal large ships because they don't have the depth. there are others where they are boarderline and it is a up to the discretion of the captains of the vessels whether they take them or not. they only try to do them when there is a very very high tide and have to be

lighter and make accommodations. this project moving forward with this arrange mentd when it is back to the optimal depth the san francisco shipyard will not have to turn away any vessels due to navigational restrictions. >> do you have a senss of the numbers at all? >> the numbers of ships turning away per year? >> that you have been because of the current conditions? >> for example in year 2016- >> would you like to come to the mic. >> [inaudible] maritime marketing and port of san francisco. year 2016 there were at least four i'm aware of that turned away and it isn't only the big ships because if you remember the plot layout, we got two dry docks and we got a smaller dry-dock which is west and that is very orange and red in the photo's so we had to turn away the submarine pump anieto which is home port in

san francisco which would have been a lucrative and long term job but couldn't get it into that dock because we didn't have 14 feet of clearance in that lane that comes in at the second dock. so, this whole dredging scheme is to not only deepen it but also to widen the approach. the short answer to your question is at least 4 ships i'm aware of in 2016 turned away. >> what is the next closest place the ship can go and get service if they are turned away from here? >> it depends on the size of the vessel but the other big one is portland, right? portland is the next big dry-dock. one of the facts the army corp takez into consideration is how much father they have to steam and fuel cost. a consideration they added if there was a emergency on the bay a ship leaking oil that was right at

the margins of the depth for get nothing to the dry dock for repairs. that was another piece of the puzzle. >> it sounds like all your environmental clearances are solid and there is nothing to worry about in the future here? alright. >> i agree with that. >> alright. those are all the questions i think we have so at this time we'll go to the budget analyst report. >> deborah newman from budget and legislative analyst office. the required 25 percent match for the initial dredging of 2 $2,242,750 is appropriated and going forward over the nucs 30 years the not to exceed

$897,100 of port matching funds of the 10 percent required match will be also included in future port budget subject to appropriation approval by this board of supervisors. the source of funds are port harbor funds which they use for dredging and recommend approval oaf this orbd nns. >> thank you very much. okay, seeing no other questions at the time we open up item 1 to pub lb lic comment. any members of the public wish to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed and if we can get a motion on the e item >> i believe there is a amendment that the port would like to submit to the committee for approval. >> is that right? this right here. >> yes. >> i'll differ to the city attorney on the nature of that amendment. because the amended ord nnss,

the language requested by john gibbener on--it requires us within 30 dayoffs the finalization of the agreement to put it on file with the clerks office. recommended by the boards attorney. >> city attorneys office? >> i'm informed section 7 should be a added to this proposed ordinance which we added by double underline. if you like me to read if t to the record i can. >> sure >> it states section 7 entitled filing of executed agreement within 30 dayoffs agreement being fully executed by all parties, the port shall provide a copy the contract to the clerk of the board for inclusion into the file. and i'm sorry for the record, i'm tim or timothy you shidy deputy city attorney assign today the port. >> thank you very much mr.io

sheeda. supervisor yee would you like to make a motion to amend? >> i yes. >> we'll do that without objection. >> for this legislation to full board with positive recommendation as amended. >> and a committee report. >> as a committee report. >> we do that without objection. >> any other items before us today. >> would you like to excuse supervisor farrell. >> yes, motion to excuse supervisor farrell. >> i'll make the motion. >> without objection supervisor farrell is excused. madam clerk any other business before us today? >> there is no other business. >> alright, thank you, we are adjourned. [meeting adjourned]it's

1:12 p.m. and this is the regular meeting of the commission on community investment and infrastructure and successor agency commission to the san francisco redevelopment agency for tuesday, december 6th, 2016, welcome to members of the public. madame secretary, can you please call the first item. >> thank you, mall chair, the first item of business is roll call, commission members he please respond when i call your name. >> commissioner pimentel. >> present. >> commissioner bustos. >> mere. >> commissioner singh. >> vice-chair mondejar. >> here.

>> chair rooses. >> here. >> all members are present. the next regularly scheduled meeting will be held on december 20th, 2016 at 1:00 p.m. at city hall room 116 and announcement of sound-producing electronic devices during the meeting. please be advised that the ringing of and use of cell phones, pagers and similar sound-producing electronic devices are prohibitedat this meeting. please be advised that the chair may order the removal from the meeting room or any persons responsible for the ringing of one or use of a cell phone, pagerer or other similar sound-producing electronic devices. it's strongly recommended that members of the public who wish to address the commission fill out a speaker card and submit the completed cards to the commission secretary. the next order of business is item 3 report on actions taken at a previous closed session meeting, if any.

there are no reportable actions. the next the order of business is item 4 matter of unfinished business. there are no matters of unfinished business. the next order of business is item 5, matters of new business consisting of consent and regular agenda. first the consent agenda, 5a approval of minutes, october 4, 2016. madam chair. >> thank you. do we have speaker cards for this item? >> no, we don't. >> commissioners, we have the minutes of october 4th, 2016. does anyone have any edits, comments? motions? >> i approve. >> a motion by commissioner mondejar. >> second. >> second by commissioner pimentel. please call the roll commissioner mechanics please announce your vote when i call your name, commissioner pimental >> yes. >> commissioner bustos. >> yes. >> commissioner singh. >> yes. >> vice-chair mondejar. >> yes . chair rosales.

>> aye. >> the five ayes. >> the consent agenda is adopted. please call the next item . 5b, authorizing an exclusive negotiating agreement with tenderion neighborhood development corporation a california nonprofit public of pb yuan young community developers, a california nonprofit pba and prein an amount not in to exceed $3500,000 for the development of 140 affordable rental units including one manager's unit, for a low-income families and formally homeless households at candlestick point north, block 10a, bounded by ingerson avenue, m street, earl street, and a mid-block break, and providing notice that this action is within the scope of the candlestick and hunters point shipyard phase 2 disposition

and development agreement and that the program environmental impact report for the dda adequately describes this action for the purpose of the california environment quality act k bayview-hunters point redevelopment project area, distancing action, resolution no. 52-2016. madam director. >> thank you, madam secretary and good afternoon to the commissioners and good afternoon to the public and thank you so much for joining us. commissioners we're very pleased to bring this item before you. as you recall, you selected a suite of development teams and we're bringing forward an exclusive negotiating agreement and pre-develop loan with tndc and ydc before you now and you should expect to see block 11a shortly in next couple of months. we have the development specialist in our housing division and she will walk you through background, the terms of the ena loan, as well as the

pre-develop loan. >> does she work for us? >> yes, she is in our housing division. >> good afternoon directors. as director bohee mentioned i'm gretchen beckman for the authorization to enter into an exclusive negotiating agreement in the amount of $3.5 million for candlestick point block 10a one of the first ocii affordable parcels to be developed in the candlestick neighborhood of the bayview-hunters point redevelopment area. i'll start by orienting everyone to the future candlestick point neighborhood. as you all know candlestick point is located in the non-vested southeast jennifer tip of the city of the shipyard.

[tpha*-upt/] shipyard phase 2 and candlestick point project complete with residential, community and park space served by new transit lines and infrastructure. the first slide shows the plan for the candlestick point neighborhood in detail. when complete the candle stick point neighborhood will be anchored with my the candlestick center, outlet retail space, featuring ground floor space leased to community-serving and mid-sized chain retailers, as well as cafes and restaurants. in addition to the retail amenities the neighborhood will also feature a grocery store, four family child units serving approximately 60 children and internationals

african marketplace and to be planned community space. existing amenities of the neighborhood include brett heart elementary school, gilman playground and true hope church approximately half a mile away to the northwest of the site. 3rd and street and numerous shops located there is located approximatingly one mile to the west of the site. finally candlestick point recreation area is approximately a quarter mile to the southeast of the site. the 10a site falls under the phase 2 disposition and development agreement. the phase 2 below market-rate housing plan requires that 32% of the total housing units built in phase 2 be below market-rate. these units will either be built as part of 100% affordable ocii-sponsored projects or they will be workforce and inclusionry units to be included by the developer.

they are of the first of ocii's 100% affordable lots and units will finish construction this winter. this slide is meant to review the rfp and developer's selection project. as you know, staff released a single rfp for two ocii lots earlier this year. respondents were encouraged to partner with organizations operating out of the southeast. two teams complied with this requirement very well, and scored high in the rfp process and thus were recommended for selection including the

$825,000 max -- when we started this conversation, wasn't it about $250. >> that was -- sometimes that was your portion of the subsidy or if we had other sources. it used to be 2 and now it creeped up to maximum $250,000 but that is your side and multiply that -- you leverage your dollars -- costs

commissioner bustos? commissioner sink. singh.

>> vice-chairmone jarr. please call the next item, but before you read it, i need to make a statement. after -- yes, that is right. so please call the item and i'll make a statement. >> the next order of business is item 5c, authorizing the issuance of new money tax allocation bonds as permitted in section 3417.7a i a and b of the california health and safety code to finance one affordable housing obligation in , et cetera.

okay. i'm taking over. madam secretary, call the next item, you have called it already.

>> through the chair, chair mondejar, i will give a brief introduction and turn the presentation over to the deputy director of finance and administration for ocii. commissioners, again, i am so pleased to bring this bond item before you for this first issuance for affordable housing bonds one of which was the project you approved that is in the bucket along with other important housing in the shipyard and candlestick point, as well as critically important neighborhood-serving infrastructure for the housing that we're building in transbay. so we have incredible open space and public improvement

and so our thinking has evoltched evolved. just as a reminder, a credit is the revenue stream against which the issuer, which is ocii says we're going to work to pay back the bonds, to pay the principal, which is the amount that we borrowed and the

interest, which is the debt service cost. so which the market is looking at the bonds and determining whether or not to boy them, they are looking at the strength of the credit. we have five credits, the first is a credit we used prior to dissolution and we pooled all of the dollars from our many project areas to create one really diverse, really strong credit against which we issued our bonds. but then along came dissolution, and dissolution changed our credit structure because the requirement that we spend and so a new credit was created and that is called the redevelopment property tax trust fund credit. we refer to as the rpptf credit.

then as i mentioned before, that credit didn't -- because of the limits of dissolution, didn't allow us to do the kind of financing that we're proposing to you today. so ocii, reached out to the state legislature and to the governor, and we asked for this special authority to issue bonds in support of affordable housing of our enforceable obligations, we call them our enforceable affordable housing obligations. and in support of issuance of trans -- of infrastructure in transbay. we refer to this as the sb 107 credit and lastly we have two special credits you have seen before. last year when we issued the 2016 bonds in mission bay and utilized these credits and these credits are special, because the property tax increment in mission bay is pledged. which means we have promised the city, and the developer that we will use all of the property tax

increment, developed or generated in that project area in furtherance of the development of that project area. and we separate that credit into the infrastructure credit, and the housing credit. so we have in summary we have five credits. we have the cross collateralized credit, which we used prior to dissolution. that was replaced by the rpttf credit post solution and you are new credit we're using today and mission bay north and mission bay south credit and housing credit and the reason it's important is because across the top line of the slide you can see that those were the credits that we had intended to issue against when we presented our budget to you last spring. we said that we were going to use $185 million in bond proceeds to fund affordable housing and asked for

the authority to reissue bonds in the case to achieve debt savings. and to do that we planned to use sb 107 credit which was newly awarded to us. once we hired the financing team and we started talking about this new credit and understanding the technicalities behind it, we realized that the obligation to protect the mission bay pledge, because remember, we have that requirement? because of the pledged intentionment. increment to spends the dollars in mission bay to, spend them in mission bay that we wanted to peel out that portion of the tax [-frpbgs/]. increment >> in issuing this separate set of bonds helps us really protect those dollars, and ensure that we're implementing the pledge.

so whereas we originally conceived of issuing two bonds a transbay under sb 107 and affordable housing bond, what we're now doing is we're issuing a single set of sb 107 bonds in two series. one series is 2017a, and that is because it's for affordable housing, which means it's a taxable bond. and one series for 2017b, which is to fund the infrastructure. and that means it has to be a tax exempt bond. so you can see in this little chart that the sb 107 credit which we had originally conceived of as fundings -- as covering all of our affordable housing bonds is now being split up slightly into the mission bay bonds, which we'll talk about later today, the box directly under the housing bond. so the mission bay portion is going into c and thes other housing bonds we're going to issue is going into 2017a and then the transbay issuance that

we had originally planned in the budget goes down into 2017b. so we're basically taking the same pie presented to you in the budget and cutting the slices of pie slightly differently, but with the same ultimate outcome, which is providing dollars to fund affordable housing and to fund infrastructure and transbay. so what we are presenting to you specifically today with that background in mind is bond issuance of $112 million to funds affordable housing and bond issuance of $150 million to fund infrastructure in the transbay. the affordable housing bond as i said before is a taxable bond and we're estimating about an 8% total interest cost for those bonds. currently we're looking at about 5.8% interest rates, but there has been a lot of market volatility

since early november. so we have given ourselves a wide margin to ensure that we can still meet our project fund needs depending on which way the markets go over the next few weeks? we won't be able to issue until spring, and that is four or five months away. a lot can happen in those 4-5 months particularly with the new administration coming in in january. so wasn't to -- we want to make sure that we have the room to meet our significant project fund needs. the second bond we're presenting is 2017b. that is $50 million of tax-exempt bond to fund infrastructure in the transbay and there we're looking at a slightly lower interest rate of 7%. a total consider cost of the 7% in the market right now we're seeing about 5% interest rate. as a reminder, tax-exempt bonds have a lower interest rate than

taxable bonds because the holders of the bonds get the tax benefits of the tax-exempt bond. going into a little more detail about 2017a, there is a list on the right of the projects we intend to fund with the proceeds. it's about 536 units, all of which are in hunters point and candlestick point and of course as our housing program evolves, these numbers might change, but in this moment, about we're looking at where our funding needs are and the number of affordable units we can fund, this is what we're seeing. if you -- to talk in a little bit more detail about 2017b, those proceeds will be used to fund improvements of the folsom streetscape, the transbay park, essex park and underramp park and it's the

first of many issuances that will be coming before you to fully fund the project. but we anticipate that these dollars will get us through the remainder of '16-17 and '17-18. our financing team you have met many of the members before in prior commission actions you approved. psm as the financial advisor and kit hara as the co-advisor and [speaker not understood] and in a third prior commission action you have approved urban analytics as the fiscal consultant and we'll hear more about that later today about we talk about resolution 55-2016. and today for the first time you will be meeting our proposed underwriters, who have steeple, as the

senior managing underwriter and back strom and stenson, an lbe as our co-managers. all these of these underwriters were selected through a competitive process that was run by our financial advisor in participation with the city's office of public finance and of course our finance team. and all three underwriters have provided excellent service to us in the past. so next steps pending your approval today, we'll be presenting the two bond issuances to the oversight board next week december [#12*-7b8/]. 12th and depending the oversight board's approval we'll send to the department of finance for their approval. pending their approval, we'll return to you with a second set of documents, our official statement, which is the document that we use to describe the issuance to the

financial public to our potential buyers of the bonds. and pending that approval, we hope to issue in february and close in march. so if you have any questions, i'd be happy to answer them. >> thank you. before we take commissioner questions, are there any speaker cards? >> yes, i have one speaker card, oscar james. >> excuse me, oscar james again. i asked for this commission to approve this particular package, but i do have some concerns with some of these firms. not troubling things, but can you kind of get them to do some

scholarships or some training programs for places, like college track? who teaches or prepare our young people to go to college and what have you? some may want to be in the financing business and what have you, to do some of the summer jobs, training for summer jobs and things like that? where we can train different people in our community, young people in our community to advance their expectations, their minds, or what have you? a lot of these firms we have dealt with before, and they were successful and they completed and did what the commission wanted them to do. but i think it's time for us to start looking at our young people and bringing young people in, especially in the third-world neighborhoods like bayview-hunters point, or mission, soma. to get them some of that

training and a lot of young people want to get into financing and don't know how to get into financing and other things. another thing we like, as i was saying before, we had started programs with the model cities. we had 21 programs in bayview-hunters point and 21 programs in the mission and larry decarlo and some the programss we started in model cities. i was on potrero and 24th and i looked over and saw the building on the corner of potrero and the housing -- mission housing development corporation built that. we were one of the model cities that started development corporation and what are they doing now? do they have the obligation to do some of the construction and some of the things -- we need all of the programs that we started in the '70s to participate in some of these programs now. they have hire a lot of people and trained a lot of people and

we need that to continue, okay? on some of the things that we did. you guys have to pick up the hammer and make sure these programs we have done in the '70s, which were very successful and brought them to can college and other things, to bring them -- and we used to have south park or whatever you want to call it back then -- we called it south park, running from 7th street to where south park is now. you go to south park and don't see any of the people there. it was filipinos and african-americans in south park and go down there and see how many people of those races were trained and had the opportunity to buy or do anything successful? they all had though move out and the next couple of years no mexican-americans or african-americans or chinese in the mission who have been there and we need to do something to make sure

that those people stay there and the kids get educated. i am fighting to make sure that we do what we need to do for the young people, and i look at the commission, and the director, and everyone here in this audience behind me to do their part to make sure that these young people have the opportunities that we didn't have. thank you very much. >> thank you. are there other speaker cards? >> yes, i have ace washington. >> good afternoon commissioners, how is everybody doing? i originally came to speak on the issue and i wasn't here for the earlier one, but since we're talk ing about mission bay runs the same message and what i am going to say to these people i haven't said in last 20 years? well, most weren't here, except maybe one or two. first i want to say glad to be here, because i had to go through

a medical situation the last three months, but i'm back. mission bay and all of these other developments that this agency and the rest of the city is working with has to adhere to something that i have been involved with since its inception and that was with the newsom migration and is it something that was been swept or the rug or neglected. i am back and my doctor said you can cannot do the micromanage, because i used to do 20 things, but i look at migration that covers everything. it covers every department in this city and county and it's

going to go up the stream to california where newsom is because i he will be the next govern or and he has celebrated what he did for the black african-american. i am the czar -- self-appointed if you want to call it that. anyway, get back to what we're here to talk about mission bay. two years ago, three years ago, i had mentioned we need to put something together. maybe because i haven't brought it forth, but jim jones, because mission bay was put together by a black man as a consultant. i don't know if you all knew about that? jim jefferson, so i think that

we need that history for the younger generation to be exhibited at mission bay and not only with developers, but all the rest of them. that is something that i'm going to be working on and i will put that on the rug with migration. anyway, my name is ace. i'm back, and yes, i'm on the case. thank you very much. >> thank you. are there any other more speaker cards madam secretary? >> no more speaker cards. i will close public comment and go to commissioners for comments and questions. >> i have a couple of questions. >> commissioner singh. >> first of all, i want to know what the length of these bonds are? >> 2017 we anticipate to be 28 years and 2017b we anticipate to be 30 years. >> the other question i

have is 2017a, $112 million. is it taxable? yes. >> and the other $50 million, is it tax-exempt? >> that is right. affordable housing bonds are also taxable and infrastructure bonds are always tax-exempt. >> do you happen to know how many obligation we have so far? how many billions of dollars we owe? total amount. >> multiple hundreds of millions. >> huh? >> multiple hundreds of millions. for example, you know, just last year we issued $135 million in new debt. this would be $165 million. so we're already up to $250.

so our total outstanding -- are you asking what we issues total? >> yes, total. >> since the beginning of the redevelopment agency? >> at this time, after this is approved. >> i don't know the answer to that, but i would be happy to get back to you. >> i would say commissioner singh through the chair, approximately $100 million of debt service as part of our budget, i mean our debt service is about $100 million each year. >> that is correct and i was reminded our total outstanding portfolio is $950 million. >> and the other question i have, you said market-rate is 5%, and why we're paying 7%? >> we won't know how much we're going to pay until we actually issue in february. and there is a difference between the market-rate and the true interest

cost. the true interest cost is a measurement that tells you what you are truly paying to borrow the money, because it includes financing costs. so you have to pay both the debt service, that you paid to borrow the money and you also have to pay for the financing costs of all of the services and staff time required to issue the bonds. so the true interest costs will always be higher than the market-rate. also, currently over the last -- for the last few years we have been in a very, very low interest rate environment. arguably the lowest that any of us have seen in our lifetimes, and we're about to go through a massive political shift at the federal-level, which has already caused a lot of movement in the market. and there is is a lot of uncertainty about what is going to happen after january 20th.

so to use a lower interest rate we could end up way project fund too small and can't meet our funding needs. so we have given this in the resolutions before you you are approving and a not-to-exceed amount and if the market moves and we won't cross this back because if be cross the bar, we won't be able to issue. to have this buffer will give us a wide barrier in which we can work, because the market is so unstable right now. >> okay. thank you. >> wow. any other questions?

from my fellow commissioners? comments? okay. so i do have just one clarifying question. so if you are not able to issue you are going to come back and let us know? >> we would have to then revise our resolutions with a higher not to exceed true market interest rate and we would return to the commission for a revised approval. we would go back to the oversight board for revised approval about and back to the department of finance for revised approval. i want to emphasize this interest rate was selected in very close consultation with our financial advisor, who is an expert -- psm i believe is the largest financial advisor in the country and issuing with issuers nationwide. so they are constantly

watching interest rates, and constantly thinking about what is going to be happening over the next few months? in addition, our underwriter steeple stenson and back strom are experts in their field and we have worked very closely with them. it's their job to watch the market daily and we're depending on their well-founded expertise to set that number. and we have set it at a level that we believe is appropriate. so that we will not have to come back to you in february. >> okay. very promising. so i need a motion to approve this resolution. >> i move that. >> moved by commissioner bustos and seconded by commissioner singh, madam secretary please take the roll. >> commissioner pimentel? >> yes. >> commissioner bustos. >> yes. >> commissioner singh. >> yes.

>> vice-chair mondejar. >> yes. >> vice-chair, the vote is 4 ayes and one recusal. [ gavel ] >> >> good job. >> thank you. >> so our madam chair is going to return. >> the next order of business is agenda items 5d and e related to bonds will be heard together, but acted on separately. 5d, authorizing the issuance of new money and refunding tax allocation bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to skeet $55 million. approving and directing the execution of an indenture of trust, a

bond purchase contract, and redemption agreements and approving other related documents and actions. mission bay north and mission bay south affordable housing obligations. discussion and action. resolution no. 54-2016. and 5e, authorizing a first amendment to the personal services contract with urban analytics a california limited liability company for fiscal consultant services to increase the contract amount by $27,500 for an aggregate amount not to exceed $197,500 to facilitate bond issuances, discussion and action, resolution no. 55-2016. madam director. >> thank you, madam secretary and thank you again to the members of the public for your continued participation. commissioners, this next set of actions are again critically important to implementing your work program that was approved not just by you, but the board of supervisors and mayor as part of your budget so we can move forward with our

affordable housing program in mission bay. very exciting. the first new bond issuance in mission bay for affordable housing. since dissolution. and a series of consultant contracts, the amend with urban analytics to do the necessary due diligence to move forward with this issuance. again, i would like to invite deputy director of finance and administration to walk you through this miss bay bond issuance for housing, as well as refunding. >> thank you, executive director bohee and commissioners, i'm the deputy director of finance and administration. today we are here to dive into a little greater detail on the bonds that you authorized in the '15-16 budget, as well as amend one of the contractss for a member of the financing team that is critically important to issuing the bonds that you approved in fiscal year 15-16 budget.

before you particularly you have two resolutions. of the first resolution is 54-2016, which authorizes the issuance of 2017c, which is mission bay housing bond. and resolution 55-2016, which authorizing a first amendment to our existing contract to urban analyticks who are our fiscal consultant . so resolution 54-2016 is the resolution that authorizes ocii to issue 2017c, the mission bay housing bonds which will be utilized to fund housing just in mission bay. so we're taking pledged property tax increment that is generated in mission bay and using it solely to fund affordable housing projects that are going to be built in

mission bay. that is a requirement of our tax allocation agreement, which is a part of our overall agreement with the mission bay developer. in particular, you'll be taking four specific actions, if you approve this resolution. firstly, you'll be authorizing ocii to issue $55 million in mission bay housing bonds, and those bonds will two things. firstly, they will fund affordable housing in mission bay and secondly, they will refund a number of outstanding mission bay housing bonds at lower debt service costs. reducing our debt service and therefore, enabling us to issue more debt in -- we're reducing our debt service costs and then also allowing us to issue more debt in future to continue to fund affordable housing in mission bay. you'll also be approve something of the legal documents that are necessary in order to issue

the bondses. first indenture of trust -- and our underwriters were selected in a competitive process, where our financial advisor issued an rfp. we received a number of responses, evaluated those responses with the team composed of our financial advisor, the office of public finance, which is a part of the city's controller's office. and of course, our financing team. again, i'll go into a little bit more detail later in the presentation. so some of you have already heard this, but i do want to provide a little bit of context. if you will recall in the '15-16 budget we had originally planned to issue $185 million in debt. and that debt was composed of affordable housing debt, and transbay infrastructure debt. and at that time, we thought that all of that debt would be issued

under a single credit. the sb 107 credit, which was awarded to us in the fall of 2015 through legislation passed through the senate and signed by the governor september 2015, but because this credit is a new credit that we're using for the first time, after we hired the financing team and started to think about the technical in implications of the credit, we thought to structure the bonds in a slightly different way and i want to briefly explain that change because it becomes relevant to the financing team and to the fiscal consultant con tract. just as a reminder, a credit is the revenue stream that we promise ocii, the issuer the promises to pay back the bonds and those are the dollars that we'll use to pay the principal and debt service payments on the bonds. so we have to explain what is the source of that revenue? and the source of that revenue is of course property tax. but that property tax can be cut in a

lot of different ways, and the way we cut that property tax is called "the credit." so prior to dissolution we had something calleds the cross collateralized credit that pooled all of the property tax from all of the different redevelopment project areas into a single pool that was very big, very diverse and very strong. post-dissolution, we do not use that credit anymore, because the requirement that we spend property tax generated in a property area -- in that project area has been lifted and all of these funds are pooled into a single pooled, called the redevelopment property tax trust fund and that is where we're spending from every time we talk about spending rpttf and spending property tax. so now post-dissolution we issue bonds against the rpttf credit, but that credit was limited because we were not able to use that credit to issue new money. and san francisco is in a

very unique place of having lots of enforceable obligations that we're still required by law to implement of the of course, it's our many affordable housing could begations and our infrastructure in the transbay and in order to fund these important programs we worked in concert with the city. and requested a special authority to issue bonds to fund certain infrastructure. the infrastructure in transbay and to fund our affordable housing obligations. we were granted that authority in sb 107 last fall and now when we issue again through that authority, we call that the sb 107 credit. we also have two very separate and apart credits that are issued against our pledged property tax. as i'm sure you recall, in mission bay, we have signed a pledge agreement which are says that all of the property tax increment that is generated in mission bay will be utilized to either fund infrastructure or affordable housing in mission bay.

and so to protect and sort of cordon off that credit and ensure that dollars generated in mission bay are spent in mission bay, we have the separate credit, the mission bay infrastructure credit for north and mission bay infrastructure credit for south and the mission bay housing credit, which is a pooled credit for both mission bay north and south. it was the emergence of this idea of protecting the mission bay property tax credit that led us to think a little bit differently how we would issue the bonds than we were originally thinking at the time of the budget. so i have a slide, which hopefully helps make that more clear. on the top of the slide, you see three boxes. that first row is what we conceived of our 2017 bond issuances at the time of the budget. we thought we'd be issuing a single affordable housing bond, a single bond for transbay infrastructure and then single bond to do some refunding.

as i said, as we explored that idea, we realized that we really wanted to cordon off the mission bay pledged tax increment and issue a separate bond. so we could ensure that those pledged dollars would only be spent in mission bay. so if you look at the chart above, you can see that we have sort of peeled off a tiny piece of the pie out of what we originally thought would be the housing bonds and are now issuing this separate mission bay housing bond, which is 2017c. so it's kind of -- we originally conceived of a single pie for affordable housing. we have cut this little slice that is just for mission bay, pulled it out of the main pie, the rest of the pie is 2017a and this piece of the pie that is just for mission bay is 2017c. to go into a little greater detail

about 2017c, it's an affordable housing bon. so it's taxable. but as but as i mentioned before, it's a '$55 million bond some proceeds funding affordable housing and allowing to us pay lower debt service costs. we're anticipating like the other taxable bond we're anticipating a total cost of 8% and we have listed projects where we anticipate using the funds. in the use of proceeds chart on the lower right, and we anticipate that the dollars will be used to fund 316 affordable units in mission bay north and south. in turning to the financing team, the financing team is composed of a

number of members, which of whom play a specific and unique role requiring special knowledge. you have approved the selection of psm will be our financial advisor, assisted by kita hara as a co-financial advisor, john hall is the bond counsel and the other is the disclosure counsel and approved that in a prior action as well. to highlight in that approve the disclosure counsel, alexis chou will be working on 2017d, which is a separate refunding financing that will be coming back for commission approval in the spring. however, alexis will be participating in the issuance of 2017a, b, and c as we discussed this new sb 107

credit -- he'll be participating in those discussions and compensated on an hourly basis so he can become immersed in the knowledge and to assist us for future issuances for those bonds against the sb 107 credit. we have a financial consultant whose contract we'll be discussing in just a moment. the role of financial consultant is to look at property tax increment, and produce what is called an fiscal consultant's report fcr. that report looks at the revenue and tells us what -- how many dollars we can anticipate being generated in each real development project and has in-depth knowledge of property tax rolls and what challenges to the property tax rolls are being made? and that fiscal consultant's report becomes part of the official statement. the official statement is our communication out to the

financial markets about the bond that we're issuesing and the financial structure and the underlying credit underneath it. the fiscal consultant also issues -- does the work for our annual disclosure reports required by the sec. and the fiscal consultant for this issuance 2017c is urban analysticss analytics. we had a very productive and successful relationship and we have worked with piper in the past. and we look forward to working with them again. so our next steps are pending your approval of 2017c, and the accompanying resolution.

we will present this same information to the oversight board next week on december 12th. pending their approval, we will send all of this information to the department of finance, and request their approval to issue the bonds. pending their approval we'll come back to you with the official statement for your review, and approval. and pending that approval, we'll issue the bonds in february and hope to close in march. so again, because you have a number of resolutions before you today, the action that we're asking to you take now is for resolution 54-2016, which would approve the 2017c bonds, which are to fund affordable housing in mission bay, and to refund existing mission bay housing debt to achieve debt service savings. so we have another resolution that we'd like to ask to you consider at the same time. this is resolution 55-2016. and this resolution is the

first amendment to our existing fiscal consultant contract. as i mentioned before, the fiscal consultant's provides a number of reports required for the issuance of bondss and he works on annual disclosure reports for the sec once those bonds are issued. and what we'd like to do today is amend the existing contract to add a scope of service to provide fiscal consultant report and this annual disclosure for 2017a, which are the bonds to fund affordable housing, 2017b, which are the bonds to fund infrastructure in transbay, 2017c, which are the bonds to fund affordable housing in mission bay and 2017d, which is a refunding bond that we'll be bringing before you in the spring. this additional scope of service would require an increase of the contract not-to-exceed amount by $27,500, bringing the total value of

the contract to $197,500. as i said before, the additional scope of service is the fiscal consultant's reports for the bonds that we have discussed here today, as well as the refunding bond that you'll see later this spring and sec-mandated disclosure reports for those same bonds. the original term of the contract went through 2018, which is the same -- which would remain unchanged. all of these bonds will be issued in the next 6-9 months and we originally conceived of the fiscal consultant doing the annual disclosure reports for three years, which would bring us to a term of december 2018, which remains unchanged. so we would like to recommend approval of this resolution. so that the fiscal consultant can perform this important work in support of issuance of bonds to fund affordable housing,

infrastructure in transbay and reduce debt service. that is it. if you have any questions, i'd be happy to answer. >> thank you. speaker cards? >> yes, i have oscar james. >> mr. james takes a pass. >> okay, no other cards. >> no other cards. oh, >> i was just thinking what i want to say in three minutes as regards to all of these plans, new plans that has been set forth that you commissioners as a rule just okayb [ inaudible ] i was just going back to memory lane sitting there. i'm 62 years old now and i thought about all of the great leaders that were before me and when i came on, most of them are gone. there are only very few of us left. so i have to get straight to the chase. i have to implement some things that i've been seeing over the

years. i see mr. gamble back there -- see? what the city and county does, people that have been with city government, they go and work with the developers. so therefore, let me just tell you the plan that i have with migration is community reform. it is much-needed now because of this administration that is coming in january. i hear your presenters talking about the administration but what in the hell about us? i'm also like trump says, what do we have to lose? i'm also saying with them, do something for us. here you have -- decade after decade of redevelopment, done changed the name with lawyers and consultants and all of these niceties used against the community. so we need -- remember to implement community reform.

flip-flop and drop it and everything that you did in past has to be reorganized. you guys have been talking about millions of dollars going for this and goes for that, but what about the community? not to say what you have already done to the black community in the fillmore and now the rest of city has seen what we have seen in this city for over 50 years through redevelopment, renewal, we call it negro removal. and i hoping that i'm bringing my point across -- i think i mellowed out a little bit about going to the doctor and having surgery. i'm able to deliver my message in a way that it could be received. but the deal is outmigration from this administration from room 200 and filtered down to the city department heads. therefore, these developers are oh, there is a new situation in the city? we have to adhere to

whatever things that are going on with the migration and it ain't going to cost that much. you would rather have that than have me put together some briefs and sue and stop everything -- because it can be done. it might be fun. but the real issue is here we as blacks are in a state of emergency here in the city of san francisco. >> thank you. no other cards? >> no cards. >> does any member of the commission have questions? comments? commissioner singh. >> i just want to know, our financing team, i know a couple of people actually. i know mr. bob gamble --

[inaudible] >> sure, of course. if we could have our financial advisors from pfm stand up. this is bob gamble. gary kita hara and also from from joe's team and erica was not able to come today, but i believe she sent -- did somebody from crowells bartling here? i'm sorry. so you met erica many, many times before. we have from stehle john and from blalock -- thank you.

from hyper, we have cara, i'm, katy costner and then we have loni oatum and backstrom, we have do so many conference calls, it's like disembodied voices from the phone. if i see them in the hall i probably would not recognize them. does that provide some context? >> thank you so much. >> you are welcome. >> any questions? no? i don't have any questions. i think it's a pretty well-stated proposal. there are two different items. yes? >> i move it. >> we have two separate items and i think we can take them each separately because they are

distinct actions. so commissioner singh has made a motion for agenda item 5d. the issuance of new money, and refunding tax allocation bonds. is there a second? >> second. >> commissioner pimentel has seconded. please call the roll on 5d. >> commissioner members please announce your scrot when i call your name p commissioner pimentel. >> yes. >> commissioner bustos? >> yes. >> -- roll call . madame chair the vote is five ayes. >> it is adopted. with the commission's permission, we can have the same motion and second for 5e, commisioner singh moved it and commissioner pimentel seconding. (roll call) madam chair, the vote is five ayes. >> 5e.

the amendment to the personal services contract is approved as well. thank you. please call the next item. >> next order of business is item 6, public comment on non-agenda items. madam chair. >> do we have speaker cards? >> yes, oscar jams. james. >> mr. james. >> good afternoon again, commissioners. first of all, happy belated thanksgiving. >> thank you, same to you. >> we were able to not surpass in bustos' group, but we were able to serve 480 people that were homeless with no place to go thanksgiving day and hopefully we can do better next

year with commissioner bustos's group -- we're on your tail. the other thing that i would like to say, you know, and i brought it up earlier, we have a lot of programs that came out of model cities. and you know, i look in this audience, and i committed myself to trying to work with my community, and the city to try to make things better. i don't know if i have or i haven't, but i'm trying. but when we were model cities each program that we had, we made sure a representative from each one of those programs came to our commission meetings. i don't know if you guys can do that, but it would be nice to have people who you funded, who is going to be requesting funds to at least send one person to find out what is

happening within this commission and the city as a whole? because we need input. i don't know how we're going really get people to start coming to these commission meetings burke they are important. you know, ace and myself, which it was a lot of people before that use d to come to the commission meets and when i came, nobody of this color was on this commission -- desks were turned over to get people who were being represented to participate as commissioners and things like that. now we have this, we have the people who care and we had people to me that are more caring about our community than ever before. you know, for us, for you to

sit up in this commission and i know a lot of this is volunteer time and we have all volunteered time. a lot of people think you are making money coming up here, but you know, you leave your jobss and things to come and to make this city better and the communities better. we need to make sure that young people start participating in this. i was young when i started coming to these meetings. i was i was about 25-year-olds when i started coming and you know, i think a lot of things have changed just by putting your input into things. you know, so i don't know what this commission can do -- i know we have an agenda out there now that all of the meetings that we had in the community, ocii meetings, the cac meetings and different things like that, we don't get brochures anymore that tell people that they are having these meetings. i had to ask jaman today and they have a

very important meeting at the board of education and i will bring these same things up. they are having a meeting tonight and if he wasn't here, i would have never found out about this meeting. we need to make sure that meetings that are important to our community are being announced where we have people in our community being able to go to these meetings. you know, this to me is my job to, make sure i can come and a half voice my opinion. but it's a lot of people that need to come or should have come then we're going to have the audience like we have and you won't have

anybody sitting out here, just commissioners that put their hearts into it. we need to find out how to have other people coming to the commissions. thank you very much. if i'm rambling, i talk from the shoulders and i try to talk from the heart and please try to understand and read in between what i'm saying to say. thank you very much. >> thank you for your comments. >> let me start by saying that i do appreciate this commission. as oscar said, i think this commission has more respect for the community, has more input -- not taking away from the prior commissioners or anything. but i have been around for over 20 years. but i have seen this one is really balanced and it shows of caringness and i'm not saying that the

last commissioners were rubber-stamps, but this commission asks questions and the staff brings back the answers and that is a good thing. there is a lot of game-changes that took place. a lot of game-changes. myself, yourself, ace, have changed and hoping and praying that we can get the commissioners to come to the western edition. that has been my primary objective and it's not going to stop. it's due time, it's overtime. i remember coming to this commission and almost had you there until behind called and she told you she'll handle it. she has been handling it and maybe i'm definitely going to go downstairs from here to have partnership with this agency and others to do a state-of-the-art -- how can you do it? state of the filmore and yours truly ace washington is fully

prepared to bring videos, tapes, and interesting subjects. now the other thing i would like to talk about is -- maybe i won't. i'll just keep it basic to the outmigration is going to be my campaign for the next few months, particularly since they are getting ready to change over seats in all of the city administrations is the outmigration, because that connects everything that is going on. i just wanted to stop to let you know that i do appreciate this commission. you guys are doing a wonderful job and i know you guys were just that close to the western edition and i think your cord was yanked. so i understand what is happening. you were yanked and now london has had enough time to say let's sit down with everybody and let's partnership and go over what happened in

the western edition and how can we change it for the better? so our younger generations can see that wow, you commissioners are not like what they read about all the time, what redevelopment has done to urban renewal. it's a new day, new era, but we have no times for errors and the three things i call errors are misguided leadership and failed efforts and i am telling you is undermining the community. thank you very much. my name is ace, i'm on the case. >> thank you, mr. washington. we appreciate your participation. all of you. consistent participation, i should say. please call the next item. >> the next order of business is item 7, report of the chair, madam chair. >> i don't have a report. >> next item. >> the next order of business, item 8, report of the executive director, madam director. >> commissioners, just an