the president of the redevelopment commission. let me just say this -- that the redevelopment has been a tremendous friend to this project and to the community. all the things that people i have heard say about the redevelopment -- they really do not realize how positive the redevelopment has an impact on the development of a community. they do an outstanding job of working with communities and really, they do not do anything to really hurt communities. it is more to build up the community. so i would like to bring the president to this podium. thank you. >> yes, it is truly a great day. seems like yesterday, which was two years ago, i think i saw in this same spot and watched a show will go in the ground and some dirt spread around. today, we are surrounded by this magnificent structures which will serve our community for a long time to come. before i go any further, i would like to acknowledge my fellow commissioners who are here today, who have served the redevelopment agency commission longer than i have, who i emily missing t

will be set a better off with redevelopment financing. but i would like to better understand those costs, how it looks. thank you. supervisor mirkarimi? supervisor mirkarimi: i am curious. what other jurisdictions in california, do you know, are looking to pay this new membership fee? >> i understand certain jurisdictions, like los angeles and oakland, the council has already adopted the intention. we are just adopting the extension of time, but they have already completed their adoption and final in tension. supervisor mirkarimi: i support this, if not everybody, the house majority does. member should certainly has its privileges. this is a strange way to keep redevelopment alive, by requiring a $26 million fee, in essence, to keep this retained. what do we get in return? >> certainly, as to provided to mention, redevelopment financing compared to other -- as supervisor chiu mentioned, redevelopment financing compared to the others can save us money. our project areas are very robust. those are the benefits that i will try to lay out and

this is thanks to the redevelopment objective. those employes will find everything that they need, along the mid markets and the streets, and then, as they want to entertain themselves in the evening, they can spend all evening here. it is so excited to put the sledge hammer to the wall. to actually be productive and to welcome in the jobs that this will represent, the finest example of how we do these partnerships, with the redevelopment agency. we will invite the investors and suggest that the investors have the confidence in the redevelopment agency and what we are doing to move forward. investors at westfield and target would not do this if they did not think the city was a good partner. i also want to thank anthony rich, because he just told me this personal story about himself and his wife, moving into russian hill. they love this as much as i love this city. investing their personal lives and all of their investors future vision in this city. this is a wonderful story. i hope that you sustain this and whenever you have to d

redevelopment statewide is in need of reform. san francisco is a model for redevelopment and it needs to stay intact. >> let's talk about the role of sports. are you happy with the plans for the america's cup? should the city spend money to keep the 49ers'? >> i am thrilled about the america's cup. it will not just be an economic boom that creates jobs and long- term economic development. it will help us shore up our aging and deterioration appears -- deteriorateing piers. it will help us clear of deferred maintenance. it will be a >>> promotion for the city. people will see the panoramic views of san francisco and want to come here. i would very much like to see forty-niners stay here. what that means, we will have to talk about it. i am not a big fan of massive public subsidies to sports teams. i think we should work hard to keep them here. >> we're almost out of time. are there any other issues or concerns we have not discussed? are there any other specific issues you plan to concentrate on throughout your turn? >> a couple th

redevelopment agencies are different things in different places of the state. they have a lot of different functions from helping fund stadiums, to supporting new business development, paying some city salaries under certain circumstances, but the fact is they've become so sintegral to lot of local governments. just ripping that money away is something that the cities just can't count. >> belva: one of the things is the redevelopment money supposedly is used to create institutions or facilities that will benefit the local government in some way. so it means losing the money and not getting future benefits? >> it means losing that money. basically what the state is trying to do is take that money away by getting rid of these redevelopment agencies. taking it back to sacramento and then giving to the cities as the state's share of local government and education funding. so instead of having money coming from two sources for these local, you know, for local government and education and stuff, now it's only going to just come from one place and not be anymore. so i

that was a redevelopment area. it could happen, and if you strike, it could really make a difference. we are trying to make sure that we are using it right. >> we are not anti-development. we are anti getting pushed out and killing our kids. >> a cheap way to provide opportunities for people is affordable housing. and this is affordable housing that will very from rental housing for families, rental housing for seniors, housing for people with disabilities, housing for the chronically homeless, holders of housing. >> we love redevelop it, but we are going to have to do some development ourselves. that is what we want the city to do. let the people year, starting with the people out here in bayview, to the development here. at the shipyard, whatever it is. you do not need anybody out there. you give me all about lead, i could get the money to develop it. >> first of all, we have a very public and open process. when you look at a public the size, you are looking at a national developer to have the wherewithal, the re

said the city and the redevelopment agency -- so the city and the redevelopment agency are looking at that. the cost is to be around $25 million. whether the agency would be able to do that. that would have to occur before november 1 of this year. is also, as you know, there has been a lot of discussion the past few months. there are but agency is considering legal action. the week of california cities and the california redevelopment association, both of whom have claimed the bill is in conflict with prop. 22, which the voters bus last year. -- passed last year. it prohibits the state from diverting funds from local development. there's an interesting discussion to be had over the coming months about the impact going forward. the governor did sign that legislation jan 29. it is effective immediately. the city has until november 1 to make a decision about the alternative measure. the next thing i wanted to mention -- as you know, there are couple of ballot measures the board has based on the ballot. i sent a memo to staff, just reminding all of us the measure is on the ballot. staff i

. >> i wanted to talk about redevelopment. what is the city going to do with that? when the state cuts, how much impact is that to the city? >> on the zoning issue, we have calculated, in their process, they say if you want to restore your pre development agency, you have to pay a certain amount of money. we believe the amount of that money is about $20 million. we do not have that kind of money. we are trying to figure out ways in which we can finance that, but that they need to come through redevelopment. we do not have the money in the city at all. that is the challenge. the other challenge is, it is the opinion of the redevelopment agency that it is illegal for the state to do this. the redevelopment agency for san francisco will most likely join in a state-wide a lawsuit against the state from doing this. as a city, we are reviewing our options, but because it is a separate agency, the redevelopment agency can make its own decisions. we have not included on our decision. we are working with the city attorney to get some aspects on the legality of this. we are f

with regard to redevelopment, it is intriguing what you have said. that the current proposal, as is laid out, is that potentially we have the ability to continue our redevelopment agency at the local level, but that would require a payout to the state in this year. >> that is correct. essentially, the original proposal, back in january of this year from the governor's office, was to eliminate redevelopment agencies and is essentially no longer have that option for local governments. the newer proposal, and again, there are significant outstanding legal and technical questions about how this thing will look and how it will be implemented, but essentially, the centerpiece of it is that local redevelopment agencies have the option of remaining in existence but would be required to make a payment to the state. the total value of that payment to the state is about $1.7 billion from each of the local redevelopment agencies. we are calculating the impact call on the final legislation and on what that will mean for san francisco. but it is probably in the $2

redevelopment agency. >> good morning, supervisors. we are in complete agreement with the budget analyst, and we want to thank everyone for the wonderful budget process thus far. supervisor chu: ok, so, the redevelopment agency is in agreement. any comments from the budget analyst on the redevelopment agency? >> no further comment other than that our total recommended reductions are $459,572, including $215,999, which are general fund reductions. supervisor chu: just a question for either the city attorney or the controller's office, do we need to do anything else to get actually these recommendations? >> supervisors, know. if they agency concurs with the budget analyst recommendations, no action is required by the board. supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor kim: just wanted to thank redevelopment on the memo on some of my questions. i still have a concern -- this is not just redevelopment, actually. it is general, any reduction in funding for workforce development and job training, but i understand we have and others that led to some

this improvement may be the last big project the city redevelopment agency completes. the $11.4 million started in 2008, and are finishing up just as redevelopment agency fights to survive. the california redevelopment association filed a lawsuit with the state supreme court arguing the budget deal eliminating the 400 redevelopment agencies is un constitutional. >> this is an illegal way to go about doing something, what they're doing is redirecting money. at the end of the day, where money goes is the issue. >> the state argues legislature created redevelopment agencies in 1945 and has power to eliminate them. the deal closing a $27 billion short fall relies on $1.7 billion inappropriate tax revenue that was allocated to redevelopment agencies and now, must be spent on schools. >> the question is can they continue business as usual. >> the agents are responsible for projects ranging from the tech museum to affordable house goinging from a staff of 90 people to just eight today. if nothing changes it will cease to exist altogether on october 1. >> we're just going to p