Reimbursing us for costs expended directly on developer projects, and rttpf nonadmin is expended for Building Infrastructure in transbay, moving forward Affordable Housing projects, for issuing bonds to fund those, to fund Affordable Housing loans and to Fund Infrastructure reimbursements, so these are all dollars expended directly and furtherance of our mission. So, to dive into the operating budget in a little bit greater detail, like most entities and particularly in city government, the vast majority of our operating budget funds are labor costs. We anticipate spending 9 million in salaries and benefits in the upcoming fiscal year and that will be for 50 fulltime staff, 47 of whom are o. C. I. I. Staff and three of whom are staff contracted from the department of, the Citys Department of Administrative Services but work fulltime at o. C. I. I. In addition, we have two parttime staff who have a very specific skillset and therefore are only work parttime. And in addition, both are retired, so they fall under slightly different rules than our fulltime staff. In addition, well spend 2. 3 million on City Departments, enact the m. O. U. S to Purchase Services from our City Partners. So if a plan is reviewed by planning or if we have a contract thats reviewed by City Attorney or our participation in the citys accounting system, s. F. P. And administration and internal controllers, billed back to o. C. I. I. 1. 6 million in nonlabor costs, other to obtain Specialized Services like the fiscal audit or nonlabor costs like the rent or our workers comp insurance, costs that are for the General Administration of the agency and are not related to one specific project. So, together those three costs, labor, costs obtained from the city and nonlabor, total 12. 9 million. In addition, two longterm liabilities we have to fund. One is the pension liability, our pension liability is what it would take to fully pay the Retirement Benefits for all current and future o. C. I. I. Employees up to the end of the amortization date. So, this year well be paying 1. 3 million towards that cost, which means that we are on track to be fully funded by the end of the amortization period, which means that we, we are projected to be able to pay all of the retirement costs that we have promised to pay. And our Retirement Health care liability is 2. 7 million. Thats a combination of paying our share of current Retirees Health care costs, as well as all future the future liability of all current and future o. C. I. I. Employees. So, this is called our oped liability, 2. 7 million next fiscal year and whats exciting about this, for the second year in a row well be fully funding our longterm liability, means we are projected to be able to cover all of our Health Care Costs for all current and future o. C. I. I. Employees, and there are not that many entities that work towards 100 coverage of that liability into the future. So, i think that is something that really speaks to the agencys financial health. So, at this point, we have done such a deep dive, a nice opportunity to take a step back and look at the bigger picture, one thing that i find useful to do in the bigger picture, to look at the differences between the prior year and the current year. As you can see, between last year and this year, well be spending 71 million more dollars in bond proceeds and as youll recall, we issued in 1718, we issued three bonds at the beginning of the year, 2017, a, b, and c, Affordable Housing bonds and infrastructure bond in transbay. The issuance of the bonds was intended to Fund Infrastructure in transbay and Affordable Housing in the shipyard and in mission bay, and so you can see the expenditure of this proceed is reflected here. As you can see, theres no change in our reserve funding. We dont have any dollars on reserve, so we have no expenditure from the sources. From other, our expenditure is going down 38 million and thats primarily due to the fact that the 20 million in cash proceeds budgeted in this current year, so thats a major drop towards next year, and then you can see in rttpf, nonadmin, sorry, difference, spending 42 million less, and thats being driven by three things. The first is that in the three bond issuances we had earlier in the year, we were really projecting a much higher level of debt service than actually resulted. That means that the market responded really well to our bonds and we are paying much less interest than we had actually anticipated. So, thats a major savings to the agency, and in addition, we just issued 2017 d and e, refunding bonds that really reduce the cost of our debt service. So, together those two things mean that our use of property tax to fund our nonadministrative costs has really gone down, means we have more capacity to issue more future bonds and we have more to pass on to the taxing entities. In, between 1718 and 1819, you can see some changes in our overall usages. The biggest draw the biggest drop, i think, you can see, is the third one down, again debt service, our debt service is going down by 40 million this year because of the drivers i just mentioned, and our Affordable Housing expenditure up by 109 million, and because we are entering into, we anticipate entering into a number of new Affordable Housing loans in the coming year. And that will be c. P. 11a, Mission Block 6 west and c. P. 10a and upwards of 50 million loans so you can really see that we are moving the needle in terms of putting Affordable Housing dollars out on the street. So, again, just because property taxes, the thing that kind of, you know, everyone is always the most interested in, our primary use of debt service of nonadmin is debt service. You can see the very large blue pie wedge and the second biggest use is pledged tax increment. As a reminder, increment thats generated either in mission bay north, mission bay south, or the state owned parcels in transbay, very small amount in South Beach Harbor and this year its very exciting to report, we just got the First Property tax distribution from the controller in january, and we have over 150,000 generated in pledge property tax income in shipyard 1. So that means there is starting to be some there, and its an indication that redevelopment works. We have worked really hard to put development out in that area and its now generating property tax which is showing up on the rolls and generating revenue for future development, which is what redevelopment is supposed to do, so thats really exciting. And so our next steps are to hear your commentary and feedback, integrate that into the rops, and then go back for Oversight Board approval on january 22nd, and then submit an improved rops before february 1st. And if you have any questions, i would be happy to answer them. Are there any speaker cards, madam secretary . No, madam chair, there are no speaker cards. I will close Public Comments since there are no speaker cards. Any questions from my fellow commissioners . Or comments . I have a question. How much total we owe . Our debts, current debt Service Portfolio is almost 1 billion. Uhhuh. What was that number . Almost 1 billion. 1 billion. How much over . Its almost one. Its between 900 million and a billion. How are we going to pay that . We pay that on an annual basis with our debt service costs. Prior to issuing the bonds, we go through a really detailed process where we underwrite the bonds and we only issue what we know we can fund with our current level of property tax increment, and issue our debt with 1. 2 times coverage, so 120 of the dollars that we need to pay our debt service into the future. Are we ever going to pay off . Well, we we will. But each time we issue new debt, because we issue and usually 30year, we have usually a 30year term, each time we issue the latest dollar amount, the last Debt Service Payment is kind of current year plus 30 years. So we wont know the final date we pay everything off until we have issued our last bond, made our last Affordable Housing loan, made our last developer reimbursement. Its really a longterm process where we issue debt, pay it off, issue debt, pay it off, and its really kind of longterm financial planning. Ok. Thank you, commissioner singh. Any other questions . I had a question on, cant find it here, but the city m. O. U. S. I think it was two something, 2. 3 million. 2. 6, i think. 2. 6. Im not sure that i saw anywhere but i didnt read all the attachments with great detail a list of those city agencies, it would be nice to know who our City Partners, i mean, obviously the City Attorney, the real estate planning, those kinds of jump up. Usually in the budget we provide, the rops is kind of like an outer limit document. So we dont tend to provide that level of detail at this stage. But we are, as a matter of fact, the moment i submit the rops well be starting the budget process, so well be before you in april and then at that point i usually go through a detailed list of what all the City Department m. O. U. S are. Ok. My issue is, not issue, but interest is not just knowing who the City Partners are, but whether we have sufficient funds allocated for service by them. Im always of the view that its better to anticipate a greater need and obviously if you are under budget thats great, but the reverse is an issue, right . You think you only need a certain level of service and something unforeseeable happens and we go to City Partners. I know there is flexibility in the budgets so we can address that. I would be interested in assuming 2. 6 million is in everyones mind sufficient. So, we work very closely with our City Partners. Im in contact with all their budget c. F. O. S and we talk about who the number is for the current level of service, if any Service Needs are increased, and then the three years that ive been here, we have never, we have neither exceeded our budget nor been short of funds. So amounts have been, you know, adequate to meet our needs. I think one nuance is certainly you never want to have insufficient expenditure, that creates constraints on the work program. Neither do you want to overbudget, because that actually creates problems for our City Partners. So, for example, if we wanted to say you know, we want to increase our City Attorney budget by 500,000 just in case, the City Attorney then they recognize that revenue as budgeted revenue, and then they would calibrate expenses up to that amount. So if they ex pend and dont recover, that creates a yearend close problem so really the goal is to thread the needle and ask for, like being goldilocks. You want to ask for just too much but not too much and find the happy medium. And thats what we are always working for. So far for the last three years we have hit it. Ok, great. And the only other thing that popped out, and i know the answer, but its always good to ask, is the reference to the Western Addition. Yes. As you know, its not an approved enforceable obligation so we are not allowed to enter into any new financial obligations in that area. We continue to have a couple properties in that project area which in the d. O. F. Approved Longterm Management property plan are designated to be transferred to the city. And our Development Services manager can speak a little bit more to how that process is going. Thank you. So, in the Western Addition, as well as some other project areas, we have remnant parcels of property we still own and are in the process of disposing of pursuant to the Property Management plan. We also have developer obligations in those project areas as well, some o. P. A. S, participation agreements, development agreements, there may not be funds involved but if the developer asked for a certificate of compliance or other provisions in those agreements, we need to spend staff time to project manage those obligations. So, we are in the process of closing those out, but we are not creating new obligations in those areas. Does that answer yes, and i guess the question is, more precisely, what is the remaining asset assets that we own . In the Western Addition specifically. Its the fillmore heritage center, handed off Property Management to the city but in the process of handing over the asset. And the other is a remnant parcel called the ellis street driveway, directly next to the fillmore heritage center. Serves as the driveway to that shopping center. And in the p. M. P. That is slated for disposition as a fair market sale, so that is also on the work list for 1819. Ok. Any other comments . Commissioner bustos. Just one clarification for mr. Lee. Yes. Slide 22. I know this, but i just want to make sure i get this. So, on the bullet, for Small Business enterprises, 74 for professional services is 10 million. Thats 10 million in fees, right . That is correct, yes. Just making sure the math ok. And i have one clarification. Of brie. 47 staff and three contracted. What are can you expand on that . Sure. So, if you go back in the way back time machine and remember dissolution and at one point the city, we thought we were going to be a City Department, and then we were not a City Department, and so three former o. C. I. I. Employees joined the department of Administrative Services staff and, but they continued to perform their same duties and do the same work that they did prior to dissolution at o. C. I. I. So they are City Employees but perform 100 of their scope of work out of o. C. I. I. So we pay for their a. D. M. Sends us a quarterly bill for the cost of their salaries and benefits, which we then reimburse the city. And so that arrangement is contracting, ok. Thank you. Well, thank you for your very detailed presentation. So, now we are going to call the next item. Next order of business, item six, Public Comment on nonagenda items. Madam chair. Do with he have we have no speaker cards. Close that Public Comment portion and lets call the next item, please. Next order of business is item seven, report of the chair. I have no report. And the next order of business, item eight, report of the executive director, a, 50 jerrold and 555 innes avenue, Hunters Point shipyard blocks 53 and 54, 16 inclusionary below market rate, below 80 area Median Income. Item b, 848 fairfax avenue Hunters Point, phase iia, marketing out comes project report, 107 unit multifamily hope s. F. Development, and 26 are new affordable un its, and 80 Public Housing replacement units, all affordable at 45 area Median Income. Bayview Hunters Point. Two items, ill present those. As you may recall, we have an m. O. U. With the Mayors Office of housing and Community Development that provides us with a number of services, including assisting o. C. I. I. With implementation of the marketing phase for affordable units in the project, and the m. O. U. Provides o. C. D. Will write a marketing outcomes report after each project has completed the full lease up with the highlights of how that marketing went, and so there are two projects for which you have marketing outcomes reports in your packets. The first is for block 53 and 54, which is phase one of the Hunters Shipyard project. Together those two blocks total 159 for sale units developed by lenar. Of those 159 units, 16 are below market rate inclusionary units. And that project after completing its marketing received 85 applications for the 16 b. M. R. Units and 16 successful home buyers, five through the rent burdened and assisted housing preference, and the remaining 11 were from the live in San Francisco preference. There were two certificate of preference holders who did apply, unfortunately, neither was successful in purchasing a home, one of the c. O. P. Holders was over the income maximum for this particular project, and the second i believe was not able to secure a mortgage for a unit. Moving on to the second marketing outcomes report for hunters view, iia, hope s. F. Project. 107 units, 80 of those units were Public Housing replacement units serving the households of hunters view who are there, so those were filled by the San Francisco housing authority. But there were