Money if this is something that not only increases the value of the property but its work that would have been done anyway. And then its work thats already been done, and these are the kinds of things that i think that should be coming to the board prior to the completion of the work and so i guess im just not interested in going backwards here. So i just want the department to help us to understand why were at this point after the fact. Good question, i love this committee. Good afternoon, or good morning, Committee Members and supervisors. Tim frey, department staff. This is something that i think that the city has some flexibility in determining what is considered or defined as recently completed work. The recently completed work definition in the Mills Act Program does state that it can be work thats happened within the last two years. And thats something that the city attorneys office, along with the full commission and board decided was a reasonable time frame but based on what i
1,000 staff and that was respect, resilience, and we never know what is coming at us and the environment changes need change and relationships, responsiveness and results. So that is a very important part of our Strategic Plan. And now diving a little deeper, in part because, well, in large part because of the passage of proposition b in 201 2015 whiche really, you know, appreciate the support of most of our elected officials and it created a general fund baseline for us that really stabalized our funding. Thank you, supervisor peskin, for acknowledging the joke. It created a baseline. And that is really important to us because we are in the business of not just responding to the crisis of the day or the political need of the day, but we do need to engage in medium and longterm planning and having my first five, six seven years my first i would say five years on the job was really responding to the financial crisis of the day. And we are very Emergency Response driven. And because of p
I dont remember that one. Supervisor kim mr. Frey. My ris recollection is only e waller Street Project is the only one with a 10year limitation. Supervisor kim okay. And that was actually a significant reduction, at 59 in terms of their property assessed value. Okay. These two projects are slightly lower in their reduction rate. For me on a level of consistency i would move both of those items forward with the 10year limit and that would be my recommendation to have the Property Owners come back again to explain additional costs or rehabilitation at that time. So that will be the amendment that i will be making on these two on these two items. So before we take a motion to do that, were going to open up these two items for Public Comment . Any members of the public that would like to speak on items 4 and 5 . PackagPublic Comment is now clo. Colleagues on item 4 and 5, can we take a motion to move those forward with recommendation, amending it with a 10year term for the mills act exempt
Supervisor kim thank you, mr. Frey. If maybe the Committee Members can remind me of the three that we forwarded with recommendation to the full board, 101 , and 940 grove and 637 waller, did we limit all three of those to a tenure mill is act . Supervisor breed i dont think that we did all three, the 940 grove i pushed for no limit, and i cant recall exactly i think that waller was a limit and what was the other one . I dont remember that one. Supervisor kim mr. Frey. My ris recollection is only e waller Street Project is the only one with a 10year limitation. Supervisor kim okay. And that was actually a significant reduction, at 59 in terms of their property assessed value. Okay. These two projects are slightly lower in their reduction rate. For me on a level of consistency i would move both of those items forward with the 10year limit and that would be my recommendation to have the Property Owners come back again to explain additional costs or rehabilitation at that time. So that wil
And that was actually a significant reduction, at 59 in terms of their property assessed value. Okay. These two projects are slightly lower in their reduction rate. For me on a level of consistency i would move both of those items forward with the 10year limit and that would be my recommendation to have the Property Owners come back again to explain additional costs or rehabilitation at that time. So that will be the amendment that i will be making on these two on these two items. So before we take a motion to do that, were going to open up these two items for Public Comment . Any members of the public that would like to speak on items 4 and 5 . PackagPublic Comment is now clo. Colleagues on item 4 and 5, can we take a motion to move those forward with recommendation, amending it with a 10year term for the mills act exemptions . Supervisor breed so moved. Supervisors, so the way that these will work as with the waller item is that the board may approve the mills act agreement which has