>> theñi meetingñr with come to order. budget andñi finance comeitáee. iñi am supervisor fewer and chaú i'mñi joined byt( supervisorçóñi andjf gordon marr, who isñrñi s in.ñi welcome, supervisor ñiñrmarr. our clerk isñr linda ñiwong. i would likeñi to thank]/>ñiçóñ can supervisorñrçóñi"çówalton? take that without objection. take that without objection. thank you.ñiçóçóñiñ madame clerk, anyw3çó announcem?

>> yes, pleaseñi silenceñrñrñiñ phonesçó andñrñiñrñiñiñi partñi should cg submitted to the clerk.t(here. widener with san francisco international airport. the airport is seeking your approval for the fifth modification to existing contract with bombardier to

extend the term through june 30, 2019. and to increase the amount of the contract by $5.1 million. the air train system provides year round service and consists of two lines to all terminals, garages and the bart station as well as the rental car center. 27,000 passengers use the air train on a daily basis and the system has average service level of 99.7%. so fairly high. the original contract in all subsequent modifications to this contract, to this operating agreement with bombardier, has been reviewed and approved by the board of supervisors. this final modification will extend the current contract through the fiscal year. at which point the airport expects to have a new contract finalized and that new operating agreement will come back to the board for approval. the budget analyst office has reviewed and recommends approval

and i'll be happy to answer questions. >> supervisor fewer: any questions? let's then go to the la. >> good morning, chair. yes, respond to what ms. widener said. this contract is a had 4-month extension from march to june of this year. the increase is $5.1 million. we looked at the increase, it's on table 1, it's consistent with the spending of the air train contract. the new contract with bombardier will come before the board for approval. this is a sole source contract being brought back to the board. we'll be reviewing it at that time for your approval. we recommend approval. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. let's open up for public comment. any members of the public that would like to comment on item in

number 1 >> seeing none, let's make a motion to give this positive recommendation. take that without objection? great. madame clerk item 2. >> resolution approving contract modty indication for the airport capital improvement program with extend term by four years and increase the contract by not to exceed amount of $40 million. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. ms. widener. >> thank you, this item seeks approval -- actually, i'm sorry. i pulled out -- i don't want to talk about bombardier again. this item, the second item seeks your approval for a fourth modification to existing contract with hill international to provide project support services for the airport's capital improvement program.

mod 4 would extend the contract through november 15, 2023 and increase the contract base $30 million. as you know, the airport 10-year capital improvement contest cysts of -- consists of projects that will enhance security and maintain infrastructure. it includes program controls, scheduling, budgeting. preparation of progress reports and various program management and oversight of the entire program. this contract was the result of a competitive request for proposal process in 2017 with hill international selected as the highest ranked proposer. this multiyear contract approval follows the direction that we had with the previous committee and the budget analyst office as we modify a bunch of these project management support

services contracts with the capital. -- with the capital program. this allows us to align the approvals that come to the board and the amount that are approved with what the airport commission has approved. this is a more consistent approach in asking you to approve exactly what the airport commission has approved. i would be happy to answer any questions. >> supervisor fewer: colleagues, any questions? seeing none, let's pivot to the bla. >> yes, in a follow-up to what mid widener had to say. this is the fourth modification with the contract with hill international. the first contract, the original contract was $8.5 million increased to slightly less than $10 million. it's the first time it's come to the board or approval. it's now approved for six years. that is consistent with the

original contract and to reinforce what ms. widener said, we talked about bringing forward the capital program contracts in a way that was consistent with the charter requirement and we believe this is complying with that request and we recommend approval. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. let's open up for public comment. any members of the public who wish to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleague, can we take a motion to send this to the full board with a positive recommendation? okay. we can take that without objection. thank you very much. madame clerk? can you please call item number 3? >> ordinance authorizing the department on the stats of women to accept and expend a grant in the amount of the $750,000, office against violence against women and amending ordinance number 182-18.

to provide for the addition of one grant funded part-time junior administrative analyst position. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. i believe we have director from the department of status of women to present. >> thank you very much. committee members, special congratulations to supervisor marr. i have good news. our department has been awarded a $750,000 extension grant by the u.s. department of justice office of violence against women to continue our bayview high risk pilot project. we're here to request your support for resolution. i'm joined by the colleague, elise, who has expertly managed the first grant and extension application. first back ground in domestic violence in san francisco. between 2015 and 2017 there were

average of 18,000 crisis calls to community providers per year. or 50 calls per day. any one of these calls could have led to a domestic violence homicid homicide. through our 2015 counsel report we determined that the bayview police station received the highest number of 911 calls, over one and a half time the average of 800. that is not to say there is more dv in the bayview neighborhood. actually, the fact that residents contact law enforcement to intervene is a really good thing. we know that there are huge problems with underreporting of domestic violence. and for example, the mission and chinatown communities.

18 months ago we introduced a lethality assessment program to the bayview police station. it's based on national research. in half of domestic violence homicides nationwide, victims had called the police prior to murder, but not accessed community based services. it has been shown to reduce homicide or serious injury by 60%. as part of the assessment program for every dv call in the bayview, officers administer a screening tool of 12 questions on predictors of lethality, death threats, strangulation, children from a previous relationship and gun possession. after completing a positive screen, the officer connects a victim survivor directly to an expert counselor by mobile

phone. in previous times before this intervention, it was just a card, but now officers are offering to connect them to a live person, a staff advocate who offers victim survivors a range of support services, including counseling, advocacy, legal assistance and emergency shelter. slide 3. this slide shows data from the first 12 months of the pilot. 601 screens were administered. 55% of these were positive for high risk. 55% of victims chose to speak to an advocate from the scene. 84% of victims who screened in as -- who spoke to advocates from the scene accessed further services from lacassa. and compared to other jurisdictions, this is a high rate. and 30% of the victims who spoke

to the hot line advocate accessed emergency shelter. 54 victim survivors escaped potentially lethal situations because of this intervention. slide 4. the grant extension allows to develop and implement a smart phone app to streamline data connection and enable better tracking and research around lethal cases. we're working with sfpd to finalize the application. we received funding from department of justice to continue the project for another three years. our objectives include implementing the smart phone app, conducting outreach to communities in the bayview, including spanish speaking communities as the demographics of the bayview has changed significantly. we'll be working with support services to provide outreach through existing home visitation program. continuing to engage in the

language access work groups to explore solutions for english limited survivors. working to collocate an advocate in the bayview and partnernerring with the lab to conduct an evaluation. the grant pays for five things. one, direct services. number two, staffing for the da victim services division to better serve communities. number 3, a prosecutor in the district attorney d.v. unit and staffing hours for the police station and the special victims unit. and number, 5, a part-time grant coordinator at our department. today i'm asking for your vote of support for the program to prevent domestic violence homicide. happy to answer any questions you may have.

>> supervisor fewer: supervisor stefani? >> supervisor stefani: one quick question. will you use the money to educate families about gun legislation. i'm hopeful that our city can start implementing the gun violence restraining order. i'm hopeful you can incorporate that into this. >> one of the trends we have seen is an increase in domestic violence involving guns. so it's really very important that we get the word out on the gun violence restraining orders. and that will be part of this effort to really focus on domestic violence prevention in a particular district. >> supervisor fewer: any questions? i just have one comment which is

this power point and also on the screen, it is impossible to read this, the print is too small. so if you really want us to be able to see it, you have to print it -- i don't think someone who is 20 years old could read this. i know my age, but this is impossible. that's pertaining to slide number 2 and 4, wihich actually has interesting information. are you utilizing the family resource centers? >> yes, we have partners providing additional funding to family resource centres and getting domestic violence resources out to the centers. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. i see there is no report on this, dla? correct? let's open up for public comment. any members of the public that would like to speak on the item? seeing none, public comment is

closed. colleagues, is there a motion for this? >> i'd like to move the board to the full board with positive recommendation. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. madame clerk, please call item number 4. >> 4, ordinance delegating authority to the general manager of the san francisco public utilities commission to enter into grant agreements with terms of 20 years and you the san francisco public utility commission's green infrastructure grant program. >> supervisor fewer: i believe that sarah bloom from the sfuc is here to present on the item. >> hello, supervisors, good morning. sfgovtv, could i have my slides, please. hello, i'm a watershed planner in the san francisco public

utilities commission. and today i'm here to talk about the new green infrastructure grant program. so before we go into the details, i wanted to quickly review what green infrastructure is. we designed green infrastructure as a set of engineered and sustainable storm water management tools that are designed to slow down and clean and route our city's storm water out of the combined sewer system. there is a lot of different types of green infrastructure. some are vegetated, like green roof or rain garden and some are not, like paving or rain water harvesting. but for each type of green infrastructure, they work the same way. they're designed to collect a specific amount of storm water that is flowing to it from an area. this is really what makes green infrastructure different than traditional landscaping, they're specifically engineered to manage a certain amount of storm water out of our system. and the sfpuc has a strategy

toward deploying green infrastructure in san francisco with a long-term vision of managing a billion gallons of storm water or 10% of the rein that falls on -- rain that falls on infrastructure each year. and in order to reach the long-term vision, we're using three approaches. the first one is regulation through the storm water management ordinance which this board passed in 2010. the other is capital projects we as an agency are designing, building and maintaining ourselves. and the third is grant program, which i'm here to talk to you about today. we've seen these green infrastructure projects transform san francisco. this is an example of the projects that have enhanced public common spaces within our buildings. our capital projects that improved our streetscape. and some of the earlier grant programs that transformed school

yards, and learning opportunities for our students. so the grant program i'm here to talk about today will encourage san francisco property owners, both public and private, to design and build these types of green infrastructure features on their property. this program is really targeted toward larger highly impervious properties in san francisco. what makes it different, is that maintenance responsibility will be lying with the property owner and the sfpuc well be inspecting -- will be inspecting those projects to make sure they're performing. the proposed program has five minimum eligibility criteria. the first is location. so the projects must be located on a parcel connected to an owned and operated sewer system. we have a minimum size that a project must manage to qualify. performance requirement for the

infrastructure that they have to manage 90 percentile storm. but also they must demonstrate co-benefits. at least two from the approved list. this includes things like ground water recharge, non-potable reuse, education signage, curriculum development. and the last is experience because these are going to be larger projects. we want to ensure that design teams have previous experience designing and building green infrastructure. our commission has approved $8 million in funding for the first two years of the program and this is funded through our revenue bonds, through our sewer system improvement program and it includes funding from both grants we're giving to folks and staffing. currently the maximum grant amount that is available is $765,000 per impervious acre that a province can manage, up to $200 million in funding per

project. just part of the program we're going to have a maintenance agreement, we're calling that our storm water management agreement and that's a legally enforceable agreement. they will be maintaining the assets for 20 years. we believe 20 years is the best length of the agreement because it's consistent with the useful life of the green infrastructure assets. and because we're using public dollars on the projects, we want to ensure that the projects will perform the same way as if we were to build them as a capital project. and this 20 years supports this program's contribution toward the city-wide storm management goals. so today, we're here for a request for delegation of authority, not just to ensure the useful life of the green infrastructure assets, but also to allow for administrative efficiency for us in delivering this program. and that is really because we see of the estimated volume and size of the agreements that we

anticipate coming through the program, as you can see this is a graph of all of the eligible parcel city-wide that may apply for the program. and 50% of them are between half an acre and acre in size in terms of impervious to be managed. if we have about $6.4 million available to award, that is minus the cost for administration, we could have anywhere from 8 to 17 projects over the next two years that range in funding from $382,000 to around $765,000. and we know that the delegation of authority is not something that should be taken lightly and requires a lot of thought, so we're actually proposing two amendments to the ordinance. the first is that we could come back and report to the board, either quarterly or biannually,

who we've granted to, how it's going. and the other is that the delegation of authority could sunset after two years. and that is because our commission has only approved two years of funding for the program, so we'll be going back to them. if they choose to approve the program for another two years, we would come back to you at that time if we think the delegation of authority is needed after learning from the first two years of the program. any questions? >> supervisor fewer: any questions? seeing none, i think we might have report from the bla. >> yes, so this is ordinance delegates authority under the board's charter to the general manager of the puc for grant agreements that would go up to 20 years. and under the charter, the board approves grant agreements over 10 years. we do point out in our report -- we do consider this a policy

matter, we point out one of the concerns is the commission has also delegated their authority to the general manager to review these in a public process. so at this point in time, there is no public -- if the board were to approve this, there is no public process by which the grants would be revealed. my understanding is that the puc is now recommending two amendments, one is the sunset this authority, so only this $8 million allocation would be subject to the del gaegs of authority. but also to provide quarterly reports to the board that detail who received the grants and what they're for and how the grants were awarded, but we consider this to be a policy matter for the board. >> supervisor fewer: any members of the public that would like to speak on the item. come on up. you have two minutes. >> good morning, supervisors.

my name is ta mar, i'm the green schoolyard manager for the san francisco unified school district. i have over 15 years of creating and sustaining green school yards. as a member of the san francisco school district sustainability office, i address two of the five pillars of sustainability in the district. access to nature and water resiliency. i'm here to voice my support for the infrastructure grant program. as a green schoolyard manager i support our school communities as they sustain, create and expand outdoor learning and play spaces on school grounds. i'm also the point person addressing water resiliency in the district, specifically for storm water management projects. for over ten years, we've been funding small scale projects like cisterns and rain gardens,

which have successfully augmented our network of outdoor learning and play spaces. since the storm water management ordinance passed, we've worked with the puc. in this past fall, they celebrated the opening of the first jointly funded [bell ringing] -- in the sunset district, which was a pilot project that paved or depaved the way to the development of this green infrastructure grant program. with its focus on funding, the design and construction of the storm water management elements like rain gardens, pavers. this grant program will be an excellent resource in our continuing efficients -- [bell

ringing] -- efforts, lay whiered spaces -- >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. any members of the public that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is now closed. colleagues, any questions or comments? >> i have one question for the sfpuc. we talked about, on slide number 9, you talk about minimum eligibility criteria and location. i wanted to know, are you looking at geographic equity when we're looking at where these grants are, because it seems it must be connected to a sfpuc owned or operated sewer system, with i don't know where all those are. so i'm -- >> it's the majority of the -- >> it is. >> like 95% if not more. that's a standard so the projects are ratepayers of our public agency. but we -- because the program is

first come-first serve rolling admissions, we won't be looking from an awarding perspective at distribution, but we'll get that from the technical assistance and outreach. we'll be doing outreach campaign to get folks interested and to make sure we're getting projects from all over san francisco. >> supervisor fewer: that's great, because supervisors from district 2, district 4, district 1, would be happy actually to help outreach to the community for the opportunity. i wanted to make sure -- >> that would be fantastic. >> supervisor fewer: -- weren't boxing us into this. we should vote on the two amendments -- oh, i'm sorry. mr. givner. >> deputy city attorney. we haven't prepared the amendments for today's meeting, we can, but i wanted to clarify the specifics. the sunset two years from now, i

believe, would be june 30, 2020. and i believe the first of the quarterly reports would be due july 1, 2019 and quarterly after that. if that's the puc's desire and the committee's, we can write it that way. >> yes, we agree with that. >> supervisor fewer: okay. colleagues, are you comfortable voting on this today not having the written amendments in front of you as they have not been prepared yet? okay. i'll make a motion to accept the two amendments. and to give this a positive recommendation as amended. can we do that without objection? great. thank you very much. madame clerk, item number 5. >> item number 5 resolution approving the controller office of public finance to manage the debt issuance process. >> supervisor fewer: let's see.

i believe that we have anna from the controller's office to present on this item. >> yes, thank you. good morning, supervisors. my name is anna, i'm the director of the controller's office of public finance. the item before you today for your consideration is a resolution to approve an updated debt policy. the controller's office of public finance has maintained a written debt policy. this is formally adopted by the board in may of 2017 in accordance with new estate law. this document establishes the city's policy objective for debt, such as maintaining moderate debt service levels, the highest practical credit rating, establishes processes and internal controls and demonstrates a commitment to best practices in the municipal debt planning issuance and management process. this is a document that we'll be

looking to update periodically, likely every couple of years to keep it in line with the city's current needs as well as current bond market conditions. our memo highlighted a couple of the key proposed changes. the first one is to allow for the flexibility to structure our general obligation bond with a term of up to 40 years. this is longer than the typical bond year of 20-30 years. background, you'll hear more about this with the next two items before you, we were approached by the mayor office of housing to structure these general obligation bonds as 40-year bonds under the prop c authorization from the proceeds from the issuance will to go make affordable housing loans and the 40-year bond term would be to keep that term in line with the term of the underlying

affordable housing loans. additionally, there is a second key change. this came to be in conjunction with this fall's global climate action summit, mayor london breed signed the pledge. green bonds are bonds whereby they're used for climate friendly projects and they're designated as such for marketing purposes. amendment b considers designating bonds as green bonds or social bonds or sustainable bonds. whereby the proceeds are earmarked for specific projects and this would help further the development of these markets. with that, i'm happy to answer any questions on the proposed updates to our debt policy. >> supervisor fewer: any questions? seeing none, let's ask for the budget legislative analyst report.

>> the board of supervisors previously approved the city debt policy in june of 2017. so this is an amendment to the previously approved policy. she laid out some of the key issues and i want to point out, she also said this, that extending the bond authorization from right now, the city can issue bonds for 30 years, this will allow the city to issue bonds for 40 years. this is to make the issuance terms of the bond consistent with loans given out to affordable housing projects. you'll see this in the next item on the agenda when you're being asked to approve bonds for affordable housing. the other piece of this, too, that she tacked about was the issuance, green bonds, or show social bonds which for instance, affordable housing project would be designated social bonds. one of the other changes which i don't believe was mentioned which we talk about in the report, is right now with the

bond issuance, especially revenue bonds, the proceeds are set aside to guarantee interest payments on the bonds. this would allow the city to enter into an insurance policy. this gives sort of flexibility in the arabance with of bonds -- issuance of bonds, but i would say each time it's brought before the board, this is something that would be looked at. this is setting policy, but there would still be subsequent review when the actual bonds are brought to the board for approval. and we recommend approval of the amendments. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. let's open up for public comment. any members of the public like to speak on the item? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, any questions for the controller? i have just one or two questions. if we extend the contract for your saying about, it could be

20 or 10 years, 10-20 years, what additional cost and interest that we might be accruing because of extending this. >> sure. that's a great question. specifically, we did look at extending an additional 10 years, so going from 30 years to 40 years. that would be an increased interest cost of about 0.2%, so because we're borrowing for a longer term, the interest rate itself would be higher by that amount and then the estimated interest costs, the bonds aren't refinanced earlier, would be $30 million. >> supervisor fewer: additional costs? >> additional costs. >> supervisor fewer: additional 10 years. >> to spread out additional 10 years and some of that cost would be reimbursed by the payments from the housing developers. so a portion of the interest cost would be recovered.

>> supervisor fewer: and is there an option to pay it early? so if we wanted to bring it back to 20 years, we could? without penalty? >> exactly. so after a period of 10 years, the loans may be refinanced, so at that point the term could be shortened and reduced to go out 10 years or 20 years, so that is definitely a possibility. you could then refinance. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. what i'm hearing from ms. severin, that -- from severin, these must come back to the board for approval on any of these bond extensions, is that correct? >> that's correct. bond approval, yes. if the -- you'll see in the next item for instance, if the city plans to sell bonds it requires board approval.

so the actual terms of the bonds would be submitted to the board for approval areviewed by our office. >> supervisor fewer: any comments. >> i just had a question about the social bonds. just to -- because i'm trying to understand that better. can you describe what type of projects that refers to? and then also, just clarify whether this is -- creating guidelines for social bonds or creating a process to create the guidelines? i'm just trying to understand this. >> sure. so social bonds are a newer designation for bonds. they're similar to green bonds, they're use of proceeds are different, but with green bonds, there is green bond principles that address the types of

projects that would likely be eligible to have those bonds designated as green. and similarly, for social bonds, there is similar guidelines. so what we would look to do -- and social bonds as set forth in the policy, it's where the proceeds are going to a project that are mitigating a specific issue, so here it is affordable housing. and to achieve a positive social outcome, which may or may not be impacting a targeted group. so for example, los angeles has issued social bonds in the past, so what we would do is designate the bonds as social, recognizing that it's going toward trying to mitigate this social issue and in doing so we hope to attract additional investors that would be interested in buying these bonds because they, in turn,

then he have customers that want to invest in environmentally or socially responsible projects. so there is not an additional cost to do so. but it's something we would consider doing to support the market. the green bond market has been growing over the past several years. it's now up to about $100 billion. potentially the social bond market will grow in the future. >> thank you. just a follow-up question. are there other examples of social bonds in addition to the affordable housing issue? here in san francisco or other

cities. >> certainly. really, none in other cities are coming to mind right away, but many projects that cities were to fund, let's say potentially for a library or a park or funding maybe a project that would address make a building more seismically safe, one would consider that, i would imagine would fall under this category. >> supervisor fewer: i have a follow-up. i think part of the question was what is the criteria actually what you stated is a broad criteria. is that the reality of it, it's a broad criteria, or is there a more specific criteria?

and i think that's the question that the supervisor wanted more clarification on, which i think would be educational for all of us. >> that's fair. again, it's a developing market and i think specifically how under the social bond principles, the definition is it's supposed to directly address the social issue. i know that is extremely broad. i think we would in managing the city's debt only consider it for the issuance of bonds, we're looking to designate these bonds as social bonds and making sure the board agrees with that. what we could propose and include in the policy is to have specific categories just that our city determines. and that could be a modification that is made to that policy to include things that are of

utmost importance for you all. >> supervisor fewer: since the category is so broad and it can be interpreted in many ways, different communities will interpret the social bonds in a different way than our own community here, but what you're asking for today is actually to be able to issue these bonds specifically for affordable housing, is that correct? >> yes, that would be the next item before you. in thattime there is a bond -- item, there is a bond title that would designate them as social bond and be specific to affordable housing bonds. >> supervisor fewer: would it be possible for what you're bringing forward today, just limit it to affordable housing bonds? >> yes. >> supervisor fewer: okay. you could add that category? would that be in agreement? >> yeah. >> supervisor fewer: that's great. i think we have an amendment before us to the policy, it

would be the scope would be narrowed for affordable housing. city attorney? >> deputy city attorney, i don't think you need amendment to the resolution if the controller's office and the office of public finance is indicating that they will amend the policy. >> supervisor fewer: that's great. absolutely fabulous. that's great. so i would like to make a motion to pass this with a positive recommendation to the board. and i see we can pass that without objection. thank you very much. okay. thank you very much. madame clerk, please call item 6, 7 and 8 together. >> 6, ordinance appropriating $75 million of proceeds from the seismic safety retrofit and the bond series to 2019a to the

mayor's office of housing. and placing these funds on controller's reserve pending the bond. item number 7, resolution authorizing not to exceed $75 million. bond series 2018a and item number 8, resolution providing for the arabance with not to exceed $260 million aggregate principal amount of the city bonds. >> supervisor fewer: i believe we have a presentation from the mayor's office of housing an community development and from the controller's office. >> thank you, supervisors. good morning. i'm very pleased to present the

resolutions appropriating -- the resolutions appropriating ordinance to the issuance of $261 million in general obligation bonds, as well as the sale of up to $75 million in bonds for the committee's consideration and recommendation to the full board. the bonds will be used to finance the acquisition, rehabilitation, and preservation of affordable housing under this preservation and seismic safety pass program which is the key component of the city's preservation and anti-displacement strategies. as part of a coordinated response to the housing crisis, and with overwhelming support from the voters in 2016, $260 million in underutilized bond capacity was repurposed to fund the city's anti-displacement and

preservation programs. through a combination of below market rates and market rate loans, the past program will provide low cost and long-term permanent financing to prevent displacement of at risk households to finance acquisition and rehabilitation and remove existing housing stock from the speculative market and preserve it as affordable housing. the initial program funding of up to $75 million through the sale of the 2019 series a bonds is requesting your approval today, the remain bond authority for the remaining $260 million will become available over the next six years. participants in the past program will be required to record a declaration of restrictions that

requires permanent affordability. and to maximize the affordability and minimize the use of public resources, the maximum average rent and income limit will be 80% ami and capped at 120% of ami. and we expect that the program will predominantly be serving low-income households, although it will allow for a mix of affordability levels and create an internal cross subsidy as well as expand the universe of qualifying projects. pass is designated to be a flexible and nimble preservation tool as it has to be to be a useful tool as acquisition program. the eligible uses will include acquisition in rehabilitation, seismic strengthening and the preservation of affordable small and large buildings, including

sro housing. what is not eligible are new construction or acquisition without rehabilitation. this is an example of a project that is a good candidate for the past program. the 4830 mission street project sponsored by meta with 21 units of residential housing and six commercial units was acquired in july of 2018. and we're expecting to originate approximately $11 million in financing for this project. the project serves mostly low-income households with an average affordability of 73% of area median income.

and this really sort of represents how the past program complements our existing preservation programs like the small site programs, which i have to say is one of the really excellent preservation program that we've developed to date. it's preserved 26 projects with over 184 units. the past program will have financing in two different models, direct financing for acquisition and rehabilitation, as well as permanent takeout financing. and the financing is really competitive and it will allow our sponsors to compete in the market place to really execute on strategic preservation opportunities within the city. most of the loans in our pipeline we expect to be structured as permanent takeout financing as in the case of the

4830 project i mentioned on the slide before. and to achieve the lowest cost of capital we expect to blend the interest rates through a combination of the below market rate and market rates financing sources. and loans would also be structured with term of up to 40 years. this table summarizes the initial round of funding, the $75 million. the bond proceeds available for loans are expected to be approximately $71.5 million. and you can see the estimated cost of issuance and other associated costs here. the current anticipated pipeline includes approximately $59 million of loans for 30 projects with about 325 units.

as well as if we were to issue the full $75 million, additional capacity of about $12.5 million for additional lending. the typical project in the pipeline really is the small sites program project. so they're smaller projects, average 11 units, and also smaller loans, average size of $2 million. also serving really our priority at-risk populations, including seniors, persons with disabilities, low-income households and households facing evicti eviction. looking forward to the future issuances we have already identified 11 sites with nearly 90 units and approximately $20 million in lending and we expect to expand the program to include both small sites as well as larger sites over 25 units. and in aggregates we expect that

over the entire course of the program, we two be able to preserve 1400 units of affordable housing. the -- we're on an aggressive time line to get to the market in february and hopefully can take advantage of low interest rates available today. assuming that we close on the bonds in february, we would expect to begin our first rounds of closings in march. and in terms of next steps, we are working hard on accomplishing the first issuance expected in february. we're operationalizing and marketing and rolling out the program itself. we're working already with our sponsors, processing their

applications, and preparing for the first rounds of closings. after that, we'll begin the compliance monitoring, reporting and program evaluation. as well as planning for the second round of funding which could occur in 2021 or 22 or sooner if necessary. that concludes my remarks. i'm happy to take any questions. >> supervisor fewer: do we have any questions, colleagues? seeing none, i think we have another presenter from the controller's office. thank you very much. >> good morning, committee members. thank you for hearing the items. i'm from the controller's office of public finance. i'll speak about the financing parameters for the bond. we're asking for authorization of the proposition c bond program in the amount of $260

million. which is the remaining amount of bonds that were originally authorized in the 1992 proposition a seismic loan program. they were reauthorized by the 2016 proposition c to be used for affordable housing related loans as just described in the presentation from the mayor's office of housing. we're asking for issuance not to exceed $75 million. with eestimate that the -- we estimate that the sale of the bonds will based on a conservative estimate of 5.35%, require debt service payments over the anticipated term of the bopped and total interest cost of $13 million approximately. the debt service estimates assume a 40-year term, by the office of housing in consultation with the city's municipal advisors determine would most closely align with

the loan repayments. while the loan repayment is not intended to be security for the bopped, we're expecting the -- bonds, we're expecting the payments received would offset the cost for the bonds and we've cal claeted the net impact of the city's tax rate. we expect for an owner of a residence and homeowner exception of 700 -- exemption of $700,000, it would range between 19 cents and 10.19 per year over the life of the bond. the city charter imposes a limit on the bonds outstanding. please stand by. please stand

>> additionally act the city intends to designate the bond is as a social bond. the proceeds will be used to finance socially beneficial projects through the acquisition and conversion conversion of at-risk buildings to affordable housing through market rate and below market rate loans. it is a city charter policy intent to make designations of these bonds as applicable. we also intend to amend the sale resolution, which is file 181219

, substituting amendment of the hall. there is no substantive change in the sale resolution, they are just typical amendments from the city attorney's office, removing brackets, filling in blanks with values, and removing exhibit b, bond council had left that with state regulations in section 5852.1 of the california government code, and we have addressed those in the staff memo. that was no longer necessary to retain in the resolution. if you have any further questions about specifics of the changes, the city attorney is here to answer any of those. >> okay. >> assuming approval of the committee from the board as was described in the previous presentation, we anticipate cell door sale and closing of the bonds in february, 2019. i will take any questions if you have any. >> any questions? yes. supervisor mar?

>> thank you for the presentation. i just had a question just because i want to understand this better. is one of the pieces of this resolution authorization of the -- up to $260 million repurchasing what was originally for the 1992 designated for seismic now to affordable housing, site strategy -- >> right. this is the first issuance in this new prophecy program. we need to authorize the full use of the amount of bonds that are authorized. so it is just a one-time resolution. the next time we come with a sale for this program, the 250 million has already been authorized. so we just ask for the sale resolution for the next sale.

>> and the prophecy that was passed in 2016 -- >> it was november 2016. that's right. >> i was just curious why it has taken two years for this to come here, or has there been other stuff that has happened in 2017 and in 2018? >> yes. there has been a long process. there has been a development process about how exactly this program was going to be utilized to conform with the intent of that proposition. earlier, last year, last fall, there was another resolution that went to the board to approve a whole set of program regulations which would guide the development of the program, and i know jonah lee worked on that as well as colleagues. he can speak a little bit more. my understanding is over the last two years it has been a process of develo