tv [untitled] June 9, 2013 4:00pm-4:31pm PDT
partner. it's a transportation group and the alan group and this will have support services for the terminal one area, redevelopment plan. which is known as the t-1 program. it's for a total of $32 million. the proposed contract is for one year with a first year payment not to exceed $4.5 million and carries a 9 one year option to extend the contact for a ten year term. the terminal one program is a renovation of a 50 year old terminal and boarding area which has phased over ten years. the project will provide for the dem mrigs and complete replacement of the terminal building envelope as well as the construction of a temporary boarding area while a new boarding area is built. consolidation of passenger
check points and airline counters and concession space. it includes the consolidation of the baggage and screen in terminal one. it's scheduled and implementations for each phase of the terminal one project. the partners will develop the cost estimates and budgets and provide quality assurance and control as well as the management of the consolidation of the pan age handling and the passenger handling. the agreement does contain tax and timelines to be evaluated before if i option is exercised. and the contract is a result of a competitive rfq partner with achieving the highest score. the budget would recommend approval and i'll be happy to answer any
questions. >> supervisor mar thank you. >> the budget is shown in table two. and we do recommend you approve this resolution. >> through mr. rose. >> we'll open up to public comment. anybody who wishes to comment. public comment is closed. >> i'll move approval. >> okay. >> we have a motion to approval and we can do so without opposition. mr. clerk can you call item number 14. resolution authorizing a 14.5 month extension of the lease with sfoc, llc, of 9,800 sq. ft. at 711 van ness avenue, for a total lease term of thirty-five months with a base rent of $17,966.67 per month, for the department of emergency
management and the office of the assessor-recorder. (real estate department) >> all right. welcome back. >> thank you and now it's good afternoon chair farrell. director of real-estate. >> that's sad. >> sorry to remind you of that. in july of 2012 the board approved a lease for this location, 7-eleven for the department of emergency development. total premises is 9,800 square feet. this was to terminate in april of 2014. the rate was fixed at $22 per square foot. that's fully service. that's our total cost and that's 56 cents a square foot or less to occupy our own property. so needless to say, this is a very favorable rate. we're not seeking an extension of this lease until june 30th, 2015 or until sooner terminated by ownership. ownership is in
the process of converting this property to a dental property for the entirety of the office that sits on the first level so when they're ready to go forward, they're going to give us a six month notice to vacate. the rate remains the same. there's no increase in the rate through our occupancy. the areas security initiative grant funds do provide 73 percent of the cost of our occupancy for the security initiative to occupy the space that's 7,000 square feet of the space. dem has funs to cover the other 27 percent and the assessor recorders office is occupying 2800 square feet of this space, that's for 13
employees and they're working on the backlog of assessment appeals. so this fits in well with their work program. happy to answer any questions you have and i'm joined by colleagues of the department if you have program questions. >> supervisor mar. >> okay. we have a budget analyst report. >> supervisor mar, on page 4, we point out that the total rent for the amended lease agreement is 6 hundred $670,833 and that's over the extended term of the lease. that's in table 2 as i state on page 55. we recommend that you do approve this resolution. >> okay. thank you mr. rose. supervisor mar, any questions. okay. we'll open up to public comment. no public comment. public comment is closed. >> approval. >> we have a motion to approve and we can do so without
approval. >> please call item 15. >> item number 15, resolution approving the market tax credit program by the development. breedresolution approving the continuation of the new market tax credit program, established by the former redevelopment agency of the city and county of san francisco, revisions to the bylaws of the san francisco community investment fund, and contributions of city staff under a cooperative agreement, and authorizing the san francisco community investment fund to enter into contracts to implement new market tax credit program at no cost to the city's general fund >> we have mr. strong and mr. say here. whoever wants to take the mic. >> i'll step in. brian strong with the capital planning program in the city of minnesota office. this is the rare opportunities i get to come and talk about something that doesn't involve the capital plan so i appreciate
that. i'll try to be quick. this is a program that was started three years ago really by the redevelopment agency. and sort of a partner ship with the city and it was to fill a gap to provide tax for low incomes through the investment fund. this, you know, we went to the redevelopment agency and get it started and received a significant amount of allocation. now we're moving forward with providing those funds. and we've actually have two committed projects that i'm going to talk about briefly. we have -- two projects that have received funding and four projects that have committed funding so we're pushing these to the tax credits out the admire and door. what we found is that in creating this what we call this, there's a demand for these and we're
really filling an important role here. so the two projects that have been funded, at the received tax credits and these are federal tax credits that the projects can take advantage of to reduce the capital cost. >> can you explain more background of the accomplishment and how these funds flow. >> sure. i'll go to the next slide that gives you more background on it. these are federal dollars, federal tax dollars and what we're -- through -- the developers and banks want to be able to fund and support using. these tax dollars are able to be accessed by these projects which we sort of would approve. we have to become an authorizationing agency to approve these tax credits. these tax credits
reduce interest capital costs and are able to go toward the project. in return they need to sort of commit to certain community, they need to make certain community commitments that we he would followup on. 7 years and it's 7 years but i'll get to a little bit of that. so that's the background on how it works. we funded two projects, college track, it close in 2011 and it was $8.7 million in tax credit allocation that we gave them. that results in $2 million or so dollars once you take the credit off, it's $2 million in project cost. the total project for that one was $8.6 million and again this is a very successful project serving 500 students. another one that closed recently, it was a $52 million project and we provided
$15 million in the new market tax credit toward that project. so the background is developed by the redevelopment agency and now that they have been dissolved we need to move it to the city. and that's important because we have commitments that have been made to some of these projects where we have follow through on them. so the san francisco jazz made a commitment to provide community benefits for 7 years, we have to verify that's going to april. so what we're asking you today is to continue the program. there's amended and bylaws that's in the packet and to verify the cooperative agreement that have been made so we can go forward. to skip to program goals, it's low cost capital to low income
communities. we have creates for ourselves here. community benefits, our jobs, local businesses, these are low income businesses, promote affordable housing. catalyzed development in underserved areas across the city. and we'll show you a map. actually here you get a sense. the map on the right, the areas in the red are the ones that are actually eligible for these types of tax credits. so projects will need to be located within those red areas or they need to target populations that would be -- that are low income that's in these areas so you can -- you have two ways that your project can be eligible. an over view, we received two $80 million through allocations for the two applications and they want to
see projects that's going to move forward. the federal government says if they're going to give us these moneys, we want it to be spent. so we got college track and access jazz that's moving forward. those are the first two projects and we got $56 million in projects that's committed and including the girls and boys club for $15 million and the theater for 15 million. and the rendrar hotel and the produce market and the next step is once we feel we've got a number of these projects committed to, we're going to go back and ask for additional allocation. >> sorry. the city is facing a [inaudible]. we're not taking any financial obligations on these tax credits. this is not a city obligation, it's just the investment fund itself?
>> yep. if you go to the next slide, this mentions the considerations. we're not a party to the transactions. the obligation is to maintain that -- make sure they're maintaining their status and there's auditing and reporting obligations we have to make as well. and then we defy the tax creditor for loss. if they lose their cdc credit, there's the ability to serve to the investment fund and we'll capture it. so we have those opportunities. the idea is this is referred to as a patient loan. it is something that once the developer and the project sponsors committed to building this, they're going to be obligated to continue these things. they can't take the money and turn around and decide we didn't want to do a girls and a boys club. we
wanted to do something else and change it. for project sponsors, the real benefit is it lowers the cost of capitol. this closes some of those important gaps. it's more flexible as far as underwriting than going through your regular financing. once the tax credits played itself out over 7 years, the debt is forgiven because there's no longer a benefit to the bank or to the bank as far as the tax credit goes. so i do want to mention, anthony has a bond and nadia are here to answer questions and we have the city's attorney office who have been working with this and address any detailed questions you may have. >> okay. thank you very much. supervisor mar, any questions. >> what's the process to
collect a project for this benefit and i'm strongly supportive of continuing this post redevelopment, but what's the process, like how do you choose a boys and girls club, renmar and the produce market. >> there's an application process and we have an advisory board and they bring it to the advisory board that have representation from the board and there's criterias that we expect them to meet. once they go to the advisories board, they come to the full board and we look at it and make a recommendation. >> so it doesn't necessarily have to be in the red areas if it's going to serve distress individuals or communities, poverty, medium family income base and then low income target populations. >> yep. you got it.
>> okay. thank you mr. strong. is there anyone else that wants to present? okay. and we do not have a budget finance report. we'll open it up public comment. anybody wish to comment. public comment is closed. thanks for the presentation. what a terrific program. this is great. so thanks for bringing it before us and we look forward to hear about new projects. >> motion for approval. >> we have a motion for approval. do we have anymore items. >> that completes the items. >> thank you. see you at 1:00. we are adjourned.
>> there are kids and families ever were. it is really an extraordinary playground. it has got a little something for everyone. it is aesthetically billion. it is completely accessible. you can see how excited people are for this playground. it is very special. >> on opening day in the brand- new helen diller playground at north park, children can be seen swinging, gliding, swinging, exploring, digging, hanging, jumping, and even making drumming sounds. this major renovation was possible with the generous donation of more than $1.5 million from the mercer fund in honor of san francisco bay area philanthropist helen diller.
together with the clean and safe neighborhood parks fund and the city's general fund. >> 4. 3. 2. 1. [applause] >> the playground is broken into three general areas. one for the preschool set, another for older children, and a sand area designed for kids of all ages. unlike the old playground, the new one is accessible to people with disabilities. this brand-new playground has several unique and exciting features. two slides, including one 45- foot super slide with an elevation change of nearly 30 feet. climbing ropes and walls, including one made of granite. 88 suspension bridge. recycling, traditional swing, plus a therapeutics win for children with disabilities, and even a sand garden with chines and drums. >> it is a visionary $3.5
million world class playground in the heart of san francisco. this is just really a big, community win and a celebration for us all. >> to learn more about the helen diller playground in dolores park, go to sfrecpark.org. >> garv, everyone, and welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors budget and finance committee meeting for wednesday, june 5th, 2013. my name is supervisor mark farrell, i will be chairing this committee. and i am joined by supervisor john avalos, supervisor london breed will be joining momentarily supervisor scott wiener and we are going to be missing supervisor eric mar who we will be excusing. i'd like to thank the members of sfgtv
mark bunch and jeff as well as victor young. do you have any announcements? >> yes, please silence all cell phones and electronic deviceses. copies submitted to the file should be submitted to the clerk. items acted on today will be on the board of supervisors june lease termination agreement - downtown parking corporation - 833 mission street unless otherwise stated. >> okay, colleagues, before we call item number 1, can i have a motion to excuse supervisor mar who is absent for family reasons? motion by supervisor avalos, we can do so without opposition. [gavel] >> mr. clerk, can you please call items number 1 and 2 together, pleat? se? >> item number 1, resolution retroactively approving the feeder agreement between the city and county of san francisco and the bay area rapid transit district for payment for transfer trips, with a term from july 1, 2010, to june 30, 2020. ~ item number 2, resolution retroactively approving the special transit fare (fast pass) agreement between the city and county of san francisco and the bay area rapid transit district, with a term from january 1, 2010, to june 30, 2014.
>> okay, thank you. administrator reiskin from the mta to present on this item. thank you for being back. >> thank you, good afternoon, chair farrell, members of the committee. ed reiskin, mta. i think this is our third time before this committee on these items dating back to 2011. because we've been here a number of times and talked through the specifics, i'll spare you those except to the extent you have questions. what i will say is that there are two different agreements before you. they're before you together at your request, but they're not really related. they have different reasons and histories and impetuses. but what they share is that they are both agreements that are good for transit riders, that they're good for regional transit coordination and collaboration which i think we all agree in a region that has
dozens of transit agencies we need more of. they're good for the transit agencies. i've worked directly and personally with the bart general manager grace [speaker not understood] on these agreements to get them to the state they're in. and we both believe, and i know i've talked with steve hemingway, the executive director of the metropolitan transportation commission, and he also believes that these agreements are good for transit and the bay area, and certainly for muni. my board has approved these. we believe these are very good for muni. the feeder agreement is a payment that bart makes to muni to pay for the feeder service that we provide into the bart system. the budget and legislative analyst who did a great report on both of these, again, has -- we incorporated from previous recommendations. there's one additional
recommendation here that has a 5% floor that both we and bart gladly accept that recommendation. and i believe the budget and legislative analyst also recommends approval with that change, with that amendment. the fast pass agreement, what that is is it basically is muni -- san francisco is buying capacity on the bart system for one with of our most heavily traveled corridors. it's really for the folks who live in districts 9 and 11 who are using transit to get from balboa park, glenn park, 24th street, 16th street, mission, those are the main beneficiaries, allow them to get into downtown and back for $10 on top of the cost of the monthly muni fast pass. so, it's a great service for the riders because for a modest cost, they get that unlimited bart service in
san francisco. they get between those points faster than they would on the surface on muni. and it's great foremuni because anyone who rides along the mission corridor knows ~ many of our buses are at or beyond capacity. we're buying capacity on bart because we don't have it. for us to provide that capacity would certainly strain the resources that we have to manage the system. so, it's a good thing for us. it's a great thing for our riders. bart sees a benefit, too, because it fills some of their seats. although bart itself is beginning to have capacity challenges, particularly at montgomery and embarcadaro. so, we appreciate bart working with us on this to provide that capacity for our riders in san francisco. so, i would -- again, this is something that grace [speaker not understood] and i have personally put our time and attention to. we both strongly believe these are good agreements for both agencies.
more importantly, for the riders of bart and muni. and i would, therefore, respectfully but strongly urge your support and recommending this to the full board of supervisors and i'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have. >> thank you, mr. reiskin. i know it's in here somewhere, but can you on an annual basis, how many bart rides do our muni fast past [speaker not understood] take? is it in these documents? 7 million, it likes, almost 8 million? >> yes, fiscal rider ship was 7.12 million. it's pretty significant. >> thanks. i want to thank you for also spending time with me to get educated on both these items. i know we continued it, it's been around for a while, the budget committee. i want to thank you and bart personnel as well for coming forward. colleagues, do we have any
questions for mr. reiskin on this item? either of these items? sure. we might have some more questions at the end, but thank you very much, mr. reiskin. we have a budget analyst report from mr. rose. >> mr. chairman, members of the committee, on page 7 of the report, we point out that as shown in table 1, and that's on page 6, without the 5% annual cap on payment increases for the proposed feeder agreement, payments would increase approximately 6% annually and result in a total of 33.3 million in payments to bart to sfmta as an increase of $1,197,0 93 of the term of the proposed payment with the 5% cap in place. we believe the 5% cap is reasonable
despite we would be getting the sfmta would be getting less money. but there is currently no floor on how much the annual payments by bart to sfmta could decrease over the 10 year term, so we believe it would be reasonable to include such a floor. and as i understand from what mr. reiskin stated, the department concurs with us on that point. on page 8 of our report, as shown in table 3, based on the estimated payments for both the proposed fast pass and feeder agreements, sfmta would pay an estimated 26.4 million in total net payments to bart from 10-11 through 13-14 which represents the overlapping time period of the proposed fast pass and feeder agreements. so, or recommendations are on page 9 ~ our ~ regarding file 12-188 6. we recommend that the do a medv the proposed resolution to require
that the proposed feeder agreement be revised to include a floor of no more than 5% of decreases in payments from bart to the sfmta and we recommend that you approve the proposed resolution as a he'ded. and we simply point out on file 12 117, we consider that to be a policy matter for the board ~ for the reasons stated on page 9. we are not objecting to that legislation at all, but we consider it to be a policy for the board. >> thank you. colleagues, any questions for mr. rose? supervisor avalos? >> yes. yes, mr. rose, if you could say exactly why it's a policy matter, not you're recommending approval. is that because fares are based -- are actually -- there could be an increase to bart fares that will put us deeper, deeper behind or -- >> no. specifically, mr. chairman, members of the committee, supervisor
avalos, we're stating that because -- in fact, we state this on page 9 of our report. because sfmta's 2011-12-inch correctthval revenues of 3 million 6 840, from the $10 additional fee from purchasing the fast pass with the bart option ~ are 5,5 84,545 less than sfmta's fiscal year 11-12 payment to bart of 9,193,384 under the fast pass agreement. ~ what we're simply pointing out because of that differential, we understand that that may be good policy, but because of that gap, we think it's a policy matter for the board. >> thank you. >> colleagues, any further questions for mr. rose? okay, any follow-up questions for mr. reiskin at this time?
okay, seeing none, we'll open this up to public comment. if anybody wishes to publicly comment on this item, please step forward. i do have one speaker card. zachary malet. and if interester any other members of the public, please line up on the side over there. mr. malheth? good afternoon, committee members. ~ and members of the public. my name is sack ra malet. i'm the direct 7 director of the bay area rapid district. we represent visitacion valley, bayview hunters point, silver terrace, dogpatch, mission bay, and more. i'm basically here to comment to what's the budget and legislative committee or chairperson mentioned, not committee chairperson, sorry, analyst mentioned. and i believe it is bad policy cross subsidies. as ed reiskin pointed out the beneficiaries of this program i think i mentioned districts 9 and 11 in san francisco. only