function for us around our coastal waters we have jurisdiction of and that the coast guard did not, that is correct? >> that's correct. >> okay. open up for public comment. any members of the public to comment? seeing none, public comment is . >> no comments or questions. i move with a positive recommendation. we can take that without objection. thank you, madam clerk. thank you, sergeant. can you please call item 4. 4 and 5 together. >> authorizing the issuance and deliverrance of multi-family bond not to exceed $37.1 million financing for acquisition and rehabilitation of 108 unit family rental project three structures located at south park street. 5. resolution authorizing authorization of loan with mhdc south park property in an amount

not to exceed $30.5 million for 55 years for a portion of the loan amount and minimum term of 40 years or another portion of the loan based on requirements of the funding sources to finance acquisition of 108 unit affordable multi-family rental housing project for low income households consisting of three structures located at south park street. >> we have caroline mccormick here. >> did you want b la to report? >> normally we get a brief presentation from you and hear from the bla. >> it is recommending amendment, is that correct? >> yes, they are. good morning. i am caroline mccormick, project manager at the mayor's office of housing and community development on the acquisition and preservation team.

it is three single room occupancy hotels 22, 102, 106 south park street in "selma" within the same block. the total is comprised of 108 units. all except one will be affordable to household ifs 25 to 60% a.m.i. the buildings currently serve primarily formerly homeless adults. per most typical restrictive declarations residents pay no more than 30% of income toward rent. the project will receive make or rehabilitation of all three buildings including seismic upgrades, upgrading building systems and other key life safety improvements. in particular, one of the buildings the filipino hotel about half of the buildings

don't have proper access to light and air. that will involve the completed reconfiguration of the interior to provide access to light and air for all residents. no residents will be displaced. temporary off-site relocation will be required to facilitate rehabilitate. two requests. first approve issuance and delivery of revenue bonds and other action necessary to make the bond issuance possible. the proposed bond issuance will beacon do wit and will not require city funds to retainment of bonds. second is to approve and authorize execution of a loan agreement with the sponsors lp entity not to exceed $30,000,000.500000. within that total request we

have three different pieces. the first is request to approve the recasting and reconsolidation of existing debt on the project. we have been providing loans to the project since 1984. mission housing owned two buildings since then. what we would be doing is bringing all of those loans into conformance with current standards. low interest rate on that portion of the loan. we will be providing $3.3 million in gap financing. the proposerred source is -- proposed source is housing trust. we are going to provide $13.2 million in preservation and seismic safety loan products as opposed to a conventional first mortgage this will be utilizing cd program. it is hard paying senior financing they will make monthly

payments on that loan. these three will be into one loan agreement and in terms of the schedule the financing is anticipating to close next month. the construction will started right after. regarding the bla recommendation, our position is we would like to keep the higher amount and the reason for that is due to the fact this project has existing debt on it, that existing debt is accruing interest every day. in the project timeline gets pushed out for some reason the bond closing gets delayed interest will continue to accrue. we our preference is to have the flexibility to not have to come back to you in the event the existing debt interest keeps accrues and goes above and beyond the $20.8 million amount. i can answer questions about

that. >> let's hear from the bla first. could we please hear the bla report on item 5? >> the board of supervisors is being asked to approve an amended restated loan agreement between the mayor's office of housing and community development and mission corporation for the three hotels in south park. the loan itself is two-parts. $11.8 million in consolidating prior loans approved, $16.5 million in new loans for rehabilitation. the loan amounts and the loan documents is $28.3 million. there is a difference between the loan documents and the budget we were provided. we showed the budget on table four page 12 of our report. the actual budget is

$24.7 million. the major difference between the budget and loan documents is the budget provides for $9.2 million in preservation seismic safety bonds to be used for this project. the loan documents provide for a liar amount of 13 -- higher amount of 13.5. our recommendation is to amends the legislation to reduce the amount in the legislation of $13.5 million to the actual amount of the loan documents which are $28.3 million. basically we recommend to the legislation reflect the actual loan documents we were provided. in terms of the risk, there is -- the department is asking for $5.1 million buffer in case there is project uncertainty. we are recommending a buffer of $3.6 million between the budget and loan amount. we recommend approval of the

resolution as amended. >> open up for public comment. any members of the public like to comment on item 4 or 5? seeing none, public comment is . i would like to make a motion to approve amendments as brought forth by the bla without objection. thank you very much. i would move with positive recommendation as amended. please call item 6. >> resolution approving in accordance with section 147f of the internal revenue code of 1986 as amended execution of tax-exempt loan by california municipal finance authority pursuant to financing in an amount not to exceed $23 million. >> we have rachel here from the controller's office. >> good morning. i am from the contro controllers

office. i have anthony stubs here and clair to speak in more detail if you have questions. as reminder, tax equity allows exemption of interest on certain debt. in this case the proposed financing is through california municipal finance authority. city and county of san francisco is a member. bonds or obligations refunds previous debt. the resolution before you today is because federal tax law requires the jurisdiction in which the project is located approve the financing after providing the opportunity for duly noticed public hearing before the obligations can be issued on tax-exempt basis. this is the city and county of

san francisco not obligated for participation. hearing notice was publish understand the "san francisco chronicle" on february 24, 2020. hearing was held on march 3, 2020. no comments were heard or received through the public hearing process. to give you background on the borrower. it is the school founded in 1967 based on the internationalism accredited by the french system of education to provide confidence by emphasizing intellectual curiosity to empower future generations to make meaningful contributions to the world. they have a total enrollment of 950 students from three campuses. 800 on the ash bury campus in san francisco. that is what the project relates

to. the proceeds of the loan will be loaned to the borrower for the following purposes. one, refinance all or portion of certain outstanding debt of the borrower. financed and refinanced acquisition and furnishing of educational facilities at 755 ash bury street within the city. 1201 ortega street within the city. each owned and managed by the borrower with other services in the city and to finance maintenance of the facilities not limited to seismic and infrastructure upgrades at both campuses and expansion of the campus to add classrooms and office space and extra space including reimbursement of incurred expenseses with the tax

code. also to pay some or all of the borrower cost in connection with one ormer of the prior obgydations and to -- obligation and to pay issuance. collectively they are referred to as the san francisco project. assuming all of the approves are obtained they expect to issue tax ex attempt obligations of $23 million. city is not obgy gated -- obligated. the legislation will have no fiscal impact to the city and county of san francisco. the projects are in district 4 and 5. it is sponsored by supervisor mar. if you have any questions for me or the staff they are here. >> is this tax-exempt because they are nonprofit organization? >> yes school is nonprofit under

section 501 c-3 of the tax code. >> no bla report. i have a question. if i may ask a question or two. thank you. >> i am the director of finance. >> so you have 950 students? >> yes. >> this is a nonprofit private school, is that correct. >> yes. >> what is the annual tuition? >> average is $25,000. >> is that for kinde kin radio ? >> preschool is below $25,000. high school is below $30,000. >> $30,000.

annually for high school? >> yes. >> ethnic breakdown of the school? >> ethnic breakdown is hard to tell. more than 50% non-american citizens. combination of european citizens and french and a lot of families with dual citizens american and french, spanish and english. >> 50% of your student body are from non-american families? >> yes. >> what is the ethnic racial browning down of your student -- break down of your student body? >> i don't have those statistics here, unfortunately. >> what is your average income from a family? do you have accommodate any

students that are below the federal poverty line? >> we have a program of financial aid. we spend $1 million each year to finance scholarship for the students for families that cannot afford the school, and we have also some french families that can also the french government and additional subsidy to make the school. today we are helping 25% of the students through the financial aid at the school. >> 25% of your students are on financial aid of some sort? >> yes. >> that pot is about $1 million? >> correct, yes. >> you can't give me a rational ethnic breakdown of the student body, is that correct? >> i don't be have the statistics. i can look in my file.

it is very hard to gather this type of information because when we have the registration, most of the families don't want to answer to those questions. >> supervisor walton. >> how many students? >> 950. >> it is 950 among three campu campuses is that correct? >> that's correct, yes. >> this is the ash bury and ortega campuses this is for. >> yes. >> this is not your preschool site, this is high school site? >> this is from sixth to 12th grade. ash bury is from pre-k to fifth grade. >> is there a time constraint on this approval?

>> i will defer to mr. stubs with the finance authority. they are managing the actual transaction. they can speak to the impacts of delay. >> yes, you know, due to market conditions, time is of the essence, basically, we are trying to get it closed in early april. >> even if you are delayed by one week you feel as though that would actually hinder the issuance of this loan? >> potentially, yeah. every week that it is delayed has potential market conditions that can impact the project. >> okay. i think that what i would like

to see is some data about the students that you are serving in san francisco. you have told us 50% of them are non-american families, is that correct? you said many of them are french nationals. you cannot give me a racial or ethnic breakdown of the students that you serve? >> i can provide. i will find out if i can find accurate information. >> how many students of your student body serves a special education population in san francisco? i mean how many students are getting special education services in your schools? >> what do you mean by special education? >> children that actually qualify for special education services? >> okay. i don't have the statistics.

we have a few of them. we don't provide the statistics. >> please speak into the microphone. >> i don't have the statistics of that. we have a lot of kids that benefit from extra time and additional help. we have education specialists, three of them working on the campuses to help the kids that need more attention. >> i think i am speaking of children that actually qualify by the state of california for special education services. not children that might just need a little bit more time. this is actually. >> no, no, it is something we track and also because, you know, our system is both american and french. within the french system we also

track the children that need extra time or special education. those are followed and the children receive the support they need. >> are your teachers credentialed in the state of california? >> the teacher is by the french education system. >> not the state of california? >> i'm not sure, to be honest. i need to check probably, yes. the school is accredited. >> the question was about the instructors. >> i need to follow. i knew they have a specific accreditation for the younger age. for the rest, i am not sure. i need to give you the information later.

>> if you wouldn't mind, i think the things i would like you to send to three of us on this committee is the racial breakdown of students, actual amount of students that are on financial aid, racial ethnic breakdown, how many do you search of special education population? because these are the factors, quite frankly, we would ask of any public school, not just private. i think that $23 million is a lot of money. i understand that it is not out of our pocket, but, quite frankly, if it is through any sort of assistance that comes from any taxpayers' money, it is our responsibility here. i think that you it is in front of a committee with a strong commitment to public education. there is no bla report.

we have also taken public comment on this. are there members of the comment to comment on item 6? seeing none, public comment is . i am a little on the fence. i feel there is information i would like before i actually send this to the full committee, but colleagues what do you thi think? supervisor walton. >> move to continue to the next meeting. >> supervisor. >> i am okay. i don't know that we know exactly what the financial implications are for them. i am not sure how often, if this board has ever said no to a

resolution. it would be unusual. >> i have something to add. we have a local rate agreement with the bank. we have chosen the bank. it expires on the march 31st. for us it would be much better if we can finalize the transaction before march 31st. otherwise we have to go again to the bank. >> madam clerk, if this was to be continued to the next meeting, would they still meet the timeline? i think the board doesn't meet the last week in march, is that correct? >> this is heard at the next meeting the budget and finance committee meeting march 17th forwarded to the march 24th

board of supervisors meeting. >> i think there would be time before the end of the month. i would make pay motion to continue this to the next budget committee meeting next week to get the proper information from you and all feel positive about a recommendation to the full board. i would like t like to option ma motion without objection. thank you we look forward to hearing from you. please read items 7, 8, 89. >> 7. resolution approving harvey milk terminal one boarding area c food and beverage for a term of 10 years at $240,000 for the first year of the lease to commence following board approval. 8 the lease of 136,000.

and 9. elevate gourmet brand group for 10 years minimum guarantee of $250,000 for the first year following board approval. >> we have ms. wagner from the san francisco international airport. >> good morning. san francisco international airport. the airport is seeking your approval for two new food and beverage kiosk leases and grab and go market lease in if harvey milk terminal one and three with park cafe doing business as deloris park cafe as pronto market. these three leases are all the result of a request for proposal process. both kiosk leases are small business set asides with

proposalsers required bros revenue $7.5 million per year for previous three years. all three lease opportunities had multiple proposal goes with park cafe, sidewalk juice and elevate gourmet with the highest ranked. 10 year terms with no options to extend. would pay the greater of the proposed minimum guarantee rent or percentage of gross revenue. minimum rent associated are delores park 250,000 per year. sidewalk juice 136,000 per year, pronto market $250,000 per year. over the 10 year terms of the lease the airport would receive a minimum rent payment based on the minimum annual guarantees of $6.2 million. the budget analyst makes

recommendation to approve. i would be happy to answer questions you might have. >> thank you very much. could we hear the report on items 7, 8 and 9. >> three concession leases one in the harvey milk terminal and two in terminal three. these were selected through competitive process. we summarized the scores in table one on page 16 of the report. we summarize the lease terms in table two. these are 10 year leases. they pay the greater of the minimum represent or percentage rent. if they pay the minimum guarantee rent the revenue $6.3 million to the airport. it is expected they will papers age rent at -- pay percentage

rent and we recommend approval. >> i have this open up for public comment. any members of the public to comment? seeing none, public comment is . i want to ask you are there any requirements for local hire for the agencies? >> yes, i confirmed with staff it applies to all airport leases with tenant improvement of 750,000 or above. that would not apply to the two small business set asides. those two proposesers are both local businesses. i would assume they would pull from existing employee pool and did i mention that the first source hires is included in all leases. there would be coverage there as well. >> maybe we should look at that ordinance. then i discussed with you about the four person panel.

you said three in the report it says four. >> i clarified that as well. there is one standing member who is part of our concession lease pan alepanels who is a planner d forecaster not included. that person is on all r.f.p. for food and beverage and concession leases. in this we had a retired airport employee who was the deputy director for administration. there was a representative from a consortium of airlines that do business at sfo and panel listing who does similar work for the oakland airport. those are the four panel lists. >> in light of the contracting at the airport. >> i will make a note as we come back for these things we include that as part of the presentation. >> than thank you very much.

i would move these items 7, 8, 9 to the board with positive recommendation. without objection. thank you very much. madam clerk any further business today? >> there is no further business. >> we are done. >> good morning, everyone.

the meeting will come to order. the this is the march 18, 2020 budget and finance committee. i'i would like to thank kirwan cooley and matthew ignown from sf gov tv. any announcements, madam clerk? >> please make sure to silence all cell phones and documents to be included in the file shall be submitted to the clerk. >> thank you. can you please call item number one? >> resolution with section 147f of code 1986 as amended, the execution of loans by the california municipal finance authority in one or more series pursuant to a plan of financing

and in aggregate amount not to exceed 20 million. >> i continued this item for more information from the school and thank you very much to san francisco for providing this committee with more information about their institution. and i would like to open this up for public comment and seeing none, public comment is close. i would like to move this to the board with a positive recommendation. if you can take that without objection, thank you, colleagues. madam clerk, please call 2-6. >> item 2, a ground please for 1.6 acres of shoreline property for open space for a term of 66 years at an annual base rent of $1. number 3, to put public utilit utilities commission for

planning design and possibly increasing support with agreement not to exceed 11 million for the anticipated period of april 2020 through april 2031. number 4, resolution for the authorized to accept 355,000 for board of state to assist local agency for recruitment is training and probation personnel, established by the board of state and community corrections. item number 5, resolution to resurrect they authorize the office of the district attorney to accept and expand a grant in the amount of 451,000 from the california governor's office of emergency services, county victim's services program for january 21, 2020 and january 31, 2020 and 6, authorizing amendments to the indenture and trust to the city's variable rate, multi-revenue bond in an aggregate principal amount of

211.9 million issued in 2016 for providing financing and construction of a multifamily housing project located at 450 fulsome street. >> thank you very much. let's open to public comment on items 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6? seeing none, public comment is closed. i would like to move 2-6 to the meeting of march 25th. >> budget and finance committee meeting? >> yes. >> thank you very much and we can take that without objection, thank you. >> any other business? >> this meeting a adjourned.

my name is doctor ellen

moffett, i am an assistant medical examiner for the city and county of san francisco. i perform autopsy, review medical records and write reports. also integrate other sorts of testing data to determine cause and manner of death. i have been here at this facility since i moved here in november, and previous to that at the old facility. i was worried when we moved here that because this building is so much larger that i wouldn't see people every day. i would miss my personal interactions with the other employees, but that hasn't been the case. this building is very nice. we have lovely autopsy tables and i do get to go upstairs and down stairs several times a day to see everyone else i work with. we have a bond like any other group of employees that work for a specific agency in san

francisco. we work closely on each case to determine the best cause of death, and we also interact with family members of the diseased. that brings us closer together also. >> i am an investigator two at the office of the chief until examiner in san francisco. as an investigator here i investigate all manners of death that come through our jurisdiction. i go to the field interview police officers, detectives, family members, physicians, anyone who might be involved with the death. additionally i take any property with the deceased individual and take care and custody of that. i maintain the chain and custody for court purposes if that becomes an issue later and notify next of kin and make any additional follow up phone callsness with that particular death. i am dealing with people at the worst possible time in their lives delivering the worst news

they could get. i work with the family to help them through the grieving process. >> i am ricky moore, a clerk at the san francisco medical examiner's office. i assist the pathology and toxicology and investigative team around work close with the families, loved ones and funeral establishment. >> i started at the old facility. the building was old, vintage. we had issues with plumbing and things like that. i had a tiny desk. i feet very happy to be here in the new digs where i actually have room to do my work. >> i am sue pairing, the toxicologist supervisor. we test for alcohol, drugs and poisons and biological

substances. i oversee all of the lab operations. the forensic operation here we perform the toxicology testing for the human performance and the case in the city of san francisco. we collect evidence at the scene. a woman was killed after a robbery homicide, and the dna collected from the zip ties she was bound with ended up being a cold hit to the suspect. that was the only investigative link collecting the scene to the suspect. it is nice to get the feedback. we do a lot of work and you don't hear the result. once in a while you heard it had an impact on somebody. you can bring justice to what happened. we are able to take what we due to the next level. many of our counterparts in other states, cities or countries don't have the resources and don't have the

beautiful building and the equipmentness to really advance what we are doing. >> sometimes we go to court. whoever is on call may be called out of the office to go to various portions of the city to investigate suspicious deaths. we do whatever we can to get our job done. >> when we think that a case has a natural cause of death and it turns out to be another natural cause of death. unexpected findings are fun. >> i have a prior background in law enforcement. i was a police officer for 8 years. i handled homicides and suicides. i had been around death investigation type scenes. as a police officer we only handled minimal components then it was turned over to the coroner or the detective

division. i am intrigued with those types of calls. i wondered why someone died. i have an extremely supportive family. older children say, mom, how was your day. i can give minor details and i have an amazing spouse always willing to listen to any and all details of my day. without that it would be really hard to deal with the negative components of this job. >> being i am a native of san francisco and grew up in the community. i come across that a lot where i may know a loved one coming from the back way or a loved one seeking answers for their deceased. there are a lot of cases where i may feel affected by it. if from is a child involved or things like that. i try to not bring it home and not let it affect me. when i tell people i work at the

medical examiners office. whawhat do you do? the autopsy? i deal with the a with the enou- with the administrative and the families. >> most of the time work here is very enjoyable. >> after i started working with dead people, i had just gotten married and one night i woke up in a cold sweat. i thought there was somebody dead? my bed. i rolled over and poked the body. sure enough, it was my husband who grumbled and went back to sleep. this job does have lingering effects. in terms of why did you want to go into this? i loved science growing up but i didn't want to be a doctor and didn't want to be a pharmacist. the more i learned about forensics how interested i was

of the perfect combination between applied science and criminal justice. if you are interested in finding out the facts and truth seeking to find out what happened, anybody interested in that has a place in this field. >> being a woman we just need to go for it and don't let anyone fail you, you can't be. >> with regard to this position in comparison to crime dramas out there, i would say there might be some minor correlations. let's face it, we aren't hollywood, we are real world. yes we collect evidence. we want to preserve that. we are not scanning fingerprints in the field like a hollywood television show. >> families say thank you for what you do, for me that is extremely fulfilling. somebody has to do my job.

if i can make a situation that is really negative for someone more positive, then i feel like i am doing the right thing for the city of san francisco.

>> hi.y of san francisco.

my name is carmen chiu, san francisco's elected assessor. buying your first home is a big deal. for many of us, it's the single largest asset that we'll own. that's why it's really important to plan ahead for property taxes so that there are no surprises. a typical question new homeowners ask is what is a supplemental tax. so understand supplemental tax, we need to start with proposition 13. under california's prop 13 law, the value we use to calculate your property tax is limited to a 2% growth peryear, but when ownership changes, prop 13 requires that we set a properties assessed value to market value. the difference in value between the previous owner's value and the new value is the supplemental assessment. how does the supplemental assessment translate to the tax you need to pay? supplemental tax is calculated by applying the tax rate to the value and then prorating it for the amount of time that you owned it in that tax year. in generale, the tax rate is

roughly 1%. let's walk-through an example together. here dan is the original owner of a home with a prop 13 protected value of $400,000. with a tax rate of 1%, he pays $4,000. dan sells his home to jennie at a market rate of $700,000. in this case, jennie's home will be reassessed to $700,000, and jennie is responsible for paying property taxes at that level from the time she first owns it. many times, people might have already paid their property taxes in full by the time they sell their home. in that case, dan has paid $4,000 in taxes already for the full year. jennie would likely payback dan through escrow for her share of the $4,000, depending on the proportion of the tax year she owns the home. however, she's also responsible for paying taxes at the higher market value from when she begins to own the home. how does that work?

let's say jennie owns the property for nine months of the first tax year, which is approximately 75% of the year. during the escrow process, she'd pay dan back 75% of the $4,000 he already paid, which is $3,000. on top of that, she would owe taxes at the higher rate for the proportion of the year she owned the house. in this case, she owes the amount not already billed through dan or $700,000 minus $400,000, multiplied by a tax rate of 1%, and multiplied again by 75% to reflect the time she owned the home in that tax year. here, jennie's supplemental tax is roughly $2,250. going forward, jennie will be billed at her new reset prop 13 value. are you still with us? if this isn't complicated

enough, some new owners might receive two supplemental tax bills, and this has to do with the date that you transfer property. but before we get to that, you first need to understand two concepts. first, what is a fiscal year? in california, local government runs on a fiscal year. unlike the calendar year, where the year begins on january 1, a fiscal year begins in the middle of the year, on july 1. property tax follows the fiscal year cycle. second, state law requires property be valued as of january 1 every year, in other words, new year's day. the value as of january 1 is used to calculate property taxes for the upcoming fiscal year. this means property value as of january 1, 2018 will be usedtor fiscal year 18 -- used for fiscal year 18-19 covering july 2018 through june 2019. similarly, the value of january 1, 2019 will be used for the

fiscal year covering july 2019 through june 2020. now back to whether you should expect to receive one or two supplemental tax bills. the rule of thumb is that if the property transfers happens in the first half of the fiscal year, in other words between july and december, then you should expect only one supplemental tax fill. if the transfer happens in the second half of the fiscal year or between january and june, you should expect two supplemental tax bills. here's the reason why. using dan and jennie's example again, dan's $400,000 value as of january 1 is used to set the tax bill for the following fiscal year beginning july through june of the next year. jennie buys the property from dan in october. the taxable value is reset to $700,000 as of october, but the bill issued still reflects dan's lower value. in this case, jennie would expect to receive one supplemental or catch-up bill

to capture the difference between her assessed value and began's fr began's -- dan's from october through june. because of january 1 we already know of the sale, we would have used the following year to set jennie's property taxes and no other supplemental bill should be received. however, if dan sells the property to jennie in march, instead, jennie should expect two supplemental bills. like before, jennie would receive one supplemental bill to cover the time in which she owned the home in the current tax year from march to june. but because as of the next january used to set the tax base for the following tax year, dan still owned the home, the following year's entire bill still reflects the values not updated for jennie. in this instance, jennie receives a second supplemental for the following year covering july through june. after the supplemental tax bills, new owners should receive only one regular tax bill peryear going forward.

remember our office values the properties, but billing and collections are handled by another organization called the treasurer and tax collector's office. if you'd like to learn more, please visit our website at sfassessor.org. thank you for watching. evenin. we are now called to order. roll col, please. [roll call] >> thank you. >> section a general information. there's number one is accessibility information for the public. two propose changes to the agenda tonight. on