staff person. now that no longer exists. who's responsibility is this to communicate these changes? what is in store and what is not in store? that is a little bit more of whre i'm coming from. what is the specific and detailed plan? if there are no details, that is ok. from my constituents, that is a big question. >> it is fair to say that we are still in a period of transition. we are still in a period of transition at the state level as far as what obligations remain. we are working on it. we welcome your thoughts and input. we can do a better job of communicating whether it is the successor or any other department that could implement this work. >> is there a website that is live that has certain frequently asked questions. who are the members that sit on this committee and how are they selected? >> we do have an established oversight board website that talks about 2 cents on the board and what is their purpose. we have cleaned up the former redevelopment agency's website. we are in a process of transition to make sure there is clear communication. we are working on our reach -- outreach, not just to the ceo's that we have funded. there is a broader corporate strategy. -- outreach strategy. >> the just of the items of the transition, i'd like to share with the supervisor that we are reaching out to some of our borrowers. the direct recipients of the hoursing loans, whether they are home buyers, a nonprofit developers. we are in the process of blending our databases. we will be notifying every single borrower, whether they are a homeowner or a developer about who they should contact if they have a question. that is one of the issues in terms of this transition. the redevelopment agency will suspended. they cannot do some of the things that the homeowners needed by getting support. we are working very, very hard with former agency staff to be sure they can address those sort of issues. giving people a sense of how quickly we can reach them. also, working with the developers to be clear about their expectations about how quickly we can move them through the process. the housing division did a very good job of notifying people of the transition. the program met with all of the contractors to talk about that transition. to alert them about who is staying and who is leaving and where it is going to be in the mayor's office. it has been low key at this point. we are trying to blend the information and make it clear who is the contact person. we hope to have that done by the end of the month. it is especially important, especially for the home buyers, to know who they should talk to. we are trying to figure out who we should address in terms of who we should try to address. we need to keep in contact with everybody so that they know where they are in the cue in terms of getting issues addressed. we can have a little more time in addressing those issues. >> supervisor kim had a question. >> i am glad we are in a conversation about how to communicate with communities. there is a separation of loans to homeowners. our office has spent in contact with you. we have a lot but of bmr homeowners that are trying to finance. my question is about finding a solution. >> for the home owners who are interested in subordinating their loans are getting more information, the key contact person is brian chu in the redevelopment division. he will refer the person to the right person on our single- family staff. we are trying to blend the agency single-family program with ours. brian is the gate keeper in getting home buyers to the right person. if it is a question related to the program, they might go to another person. >> supervisor avalos. >> thank you. question. that is around workforce development. the agency has funded a lot of work force development. wondering what will happen with the work force development functions that we have had in the past under our obligations. are we able to continue with those efforts? >> we are still able to continue with the job placement. whether it is with the cbo's or young community developers. if it is on the schedule, placement for construction in city ballet, or construction in hunter's view, we can continue those activities. the city office of economic and work force deployment has a similar program. job readiness services. the redevelopment agency's contracts for a number of cbo's, those contracts would be expended through june unless it is tied to some other enforcable obligation. the city of economic and work force development does a robust job placement. we expect that to continue. >> the redevelopment agency had its own goals around local hiring that are higher than the current levels in the ordinance. i am wondering, with the dissolution of the agency, does that mean that there is an opening for local hiring to be determined within the projects that are the obligations of the redevelopment agency. >> for new, applicable public works projects, if there are things that are housing works, there are 50% goals for professional services, supplies, and construction. particularly in the bay view and other areas, we exceeded and that those goals. for any new projects, there is an opportunity to apply. >> if we are able to excede those goals, i would not get in the wake of that. >> i do have a question about the ifb's. we are taking a look at what other possible alternatives or tools there might be. we have this problem about what our other economic goals might be. we still have not seen the parameters are around what we might set future ifb's.if we start moving down this path of looking at sites that might be ifb possible, we have to look at the parameters. i would like to put that out there. an ifb would not be appropriate for things like visitabltion valley. i think on the other note, we do not have those parameters yet. thank you. >> i just wanted to follow-up on supervisor of los' questions. i was wondering when we but get a sense of which work force development commitment people because they are enforcable, we are assuming compliance our road equal opportunity hiring programs, do we have a sense of this as we communicate potentially huge cuts to their budgets? >> it is a work in progress. it will take a dialogue with the economic work force development and the mayor's office. it is a work in progress. >> that is my understanding of that portion of the work in progress. we have to understand what is our obligation and what is not. this is what we know we cannot. we may be able to find other means either through the general fund or other programs in project with the office of work- force development. we can continue at the same levels. what is it that we know we can keep and what is it that we are not sure we can keep? >> this is all subject to the department of finance review. we believe in unanimous approval from the oversight board. those dollars were for job placement. those could be in hunter's point or individual projects. we believe the balance of those contracts dollars can continue. on a move forward basis. the redevelopment agency to fund readiness. we know that cannot continue after june 30. quarks are was wondering if we could get edit list of what we're asking the state that we will be able to continue. i know the state has the ability to determine whether it is enforceable publication. in terms of the board level, i want to anticipate the workforce programs that we may need to find other sources of funding for. june 30 is really quickly approaching. not having those answers is frustrating. we have to deal with the state. the best answer that we can get is that we can anticipate what might happen in june and that would be incredibly helpful. >> we can provide those lists of contracts and pull that up from the schedule. >> it does not have to be a board responsibility to see if that happens. >> this would be an important part to be able to fund. we could probably extend that if we do not see that there's anything there. >> i just want to clarify, in terms of the items that we believe our obligations, have we received confirmations that those are enforceable from the state? >> we are at the beginning of that process. we submitted this after the oversight board unanimously acted. there is a 10-day review process from the state. >> we are still at the point where we are trying to get the state to interpret that this is the obligation. it is 10 days to review that and provide either a yes-no. in terms of enforceable obligations, do they have a stream of commitments that we need to pay out to carry that forward? >> yes. the next fiscal year, what are we expecting? is it contracts? >> we have said that forward already. as part of the conversation, have we sent that forward the same time we did these other three product areas for their review? >> the full scope of everything that would be considered an obligation, whether it is the money for mohad or other payments. even if we are using other sources of revenue. >> in 10 days, what the state has confirmed is enforceable or not. >> it is through this 10-day process where we would come to some resolution. if there is more information gathering, we would continue to work with the state on that. >> at this time, we are concerned about what is enforceable in many areas. >> those are absolutely clear. those do not appear on the schedule. the dollar values to fund those activities. >> in terms of the staffing issue, i know we talked about having a general agreement with the labor unions that are going to be impacted by the layoffs and the severance and everything else that is part of the conversation. is that something that has to be ratified by the labor union or it does not? is it something that we are going to be implementing? >> i will have the mayor's budget director respond. >> my understanding is that there is an agreement that has been agreed to by both the city and the affected unions. the board will see that ammendment through the committees and the existing board. >> we see the actions that need to be taken. >> and to implement the changes to the agreement. >> in terms of changes, which are not expecting changes from where we are right now. it sounds like there is an agreement. >> the answer to that is yes. the city is in negotiations with all of our labor unions. the agency's unions is a part of that. the former employees are renegotiating. >> we have retained a certain amount of staff to be able to carry out and wind down the redevelopment agency projects. we have made an assumption about our past guess as to where our obligations are. given the fact that the state does have some discretion, how would those decisions potentially impact the us? have we been good about where we have been needed in terms of staffing levels and we do not need to change very much even if there is a change at the state level? did we go aggressive in terms of what we have assumed and we would potentially have to ratchet back? >> i will respond first. we were conservative and appropriate. it was a discussion dialogue with the other city departments whether the work could be absorbed or whether it makes sense with the city office of housing. i talked with the mayor's budget office md controller. we would not be in a situation where we were doing additional layoffs. we are in a wait and see process once the state comes back. we do not expect substantial changes. i think we will be in a different situation with the state. they take a completely different view. we have had a good relationship with san francisco and the department of public finance. working with them on preliminary audits. we are in a good position moving forward. >> the final question is for botht h the mayor's office and success of agencies. it looks exactly like the current year budget. i am looking for more information than this. i am looking to see how we expect these payments to change over time. the conversation that many members of the board are talking about is how is it that you are going to be funding whether it is work force development work that we were previously doing with redevelopment, whether it as affordable housing. there was a kind of conversation as to what we were doing with redevelopment that we were not doing because of an forceable obligations. if there was money going back to the general fund, how would we understand the money coming back to cost? i think we're still not answering that question very clearly. in the foreseeable future there is going to be a large part of our budget that is point to be eaten up by debt service. there is a huge part of our obligation that is to be paid. when do we start to see opportunities? we do not know when the obligation scheduled payments look like that we have committed to the states. we generally know where we are going to go with our staffing levels. there is no additional money coming into the general funding. is it 5 or is it 2? that is something i would be interested in getting more and for mission on. >> are there any more questions? why do we not open this up to public comment? are there members of the public that wish to speak on this? there are a number of speaker cards who wish to speak on this. ramon, brett andrews, anne cochrane, please come forward. >> supervisor carmen, avalos, kim, and scott. i come here today to see if i have a chance to see our mayor and see my supervisor kim. i come here today because i have a problem in my home. i have a letter to the mayor today contiguous to the letter i gave you yesterday. i think it is a shame. shame for anybody that closes their eyes. coming here with some money to open company. trying to kill us by making something outside of historic. he did something else wrong. you talk here about the bark. the use two cars -- parking lot. where did the money come from? why do you must cry that we have a problem for the budget? he paid some money to someone under the table to give him permission to do that. i don't give him any chance to kill anyone of us. one of my neighbors has a heart problem. he cannot go to the hospital because he has no place outside of the home to get the ambulance to help him. wake up. he takes money from someone. put him in jail. i wish i catch who gave him permission to do that to us. wake up. >> thank you. >> i want to state to those who give the presentation that the san francisco redevelopment agency was created by statute. governor jerry brown from the state of california by statute broght about the solution. to the children, the sisters and brothers who hellped us in the bay veiw, hunter's point area, this new entity that has been created, the oversight board, it is just another ploy to take this city down the drain into a cesspool. there is oversight that has not been given to the public. i will state it here. it is www.sfgov.org/o versightboard. if you go to this website, you can get all of the intermission. we are in a very corrupt system of black ink transparency and accountability. we have entities that want to continue what they have done before. i don't find any transparency. we have a representative from the agency who asks too many questions and disrupts the meeting. i am going to forward everything to the california department of finance. itththank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker. >> eric brooks representing the san francisco green party. i was very happy to hear supervisor cohen press the importance of community involvement. we see that it is not just fiscal decisions that are being made by these agencies, but a lot of structural decisions about how to build out these cities. there are huge ongoing issues with the current programs, especially with the bay view, hunters point. for the last few years, there has not been adequate community decision making in this project. we know and tire classes, sometimes entire ethnic groups, groups that have major environmental concerns have been left out of this process. two key points on that. one is just public medicine. there have been thousands that have made comments on environmental impact reports and other aspects of this project. every one should be notified of the oversight board meeting so that they know to show up. i have been one of those commenters.

Related Keywords

California , United States , Bay View , San Francisco , Jerry Brown , Brian Chu , Carmen Avalos Kim ,