the guidelines that were being presented today. what i see here is not necessarily the property value boost for the residents. the condominiums were built in 1991, and following the earthquake, we kind of hit the reset as far as tearing down the embarcadero freeway, etc. how many folks have to die crossing harrison street to their homes along harrison street, where there are thousands of people who live there, despite the bay bridge bringing in 2 flandres 60,000 cars every day, the air pollution that comes from those cars -- the 260,000 cars every day. for 20 years, they crest towers have been there. so have all of the buildings --

for 20 years, they crest towers of been there -- bay crest towers. it is lower than the check that i write for my 400 sq. ft. studio. the 57% of what is left in the general fund, i guess will grab up. the infinity towers, it just one building. how much residential property contribute $8 million every year to the city? on rincon hill, another $5 million. there is not even a continuous sidewalk. there are 1000 kids in the area. 300 kids live there. there are more of the various child care centers. please pass this. thank you. come through on your promise. chair chu: thank you. next speaker, please.

>> my name is -- and i am with the development term that is building harrison. some issues. first of all, about the park. that park was basically designed by the neighbors. there were eight major meetings conducted by is a bow wave -- by isabel wade to serve the neighborhood. secondly, from a cost point of view, it is not just the city that is concerned about the maintenance. the fha, where i have just come from, they are extremely concerned. there is a sinking fund that

cannot be touched. they will restrict any fees coming from the project. everybody has influence over this park, making sure in this properly run. we need to have something that will work from a public park point of view. chair chu: just a question. >> we have to work up the details. we have already had a bunch of these. chair chu: thank you.

are there any other members of the public who wish to comment on these items? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] i believe we have a number of amendments to make. supervisor kim? supervisor kim: yes, i would like to make the amendments that were brought up by mr. yarne earlier. chair chu: yes, we will be amending some of these but not all. so why do we not take that? my primary concern with an ifd in any diversion -- and any diversion is just to protect the general fund, because we have major shortfalls coming up.

these are actually very real impacts to many of our residents, whether we're talking about service cuts or other cuts to our service operation. these are things that we have to consider with every approval of tax increment dollars, whether through redevelopment colleague to another place or an ifd. so this is a serious consideration for me. one of the reasons i will be supporting this package going forward, however, is because i do believe there are good parts to it. part of this process is going to have the discipline of understanding with the ongoing maintenance need of this project will be. this is very important to me, and i am very pleased to hear the private developer come and speak about the commitment to make sure that the rincon hill is paid for by that finding, as

this is crucial. however, i do still have some concerns that i hope the department or the office of economic work force development and others will be able to address for us. one is a deficiency question from city planning. i would like to get some more information. second of all, in terms of the incineration, if you want to reiterate that, i am not interested in creating a said the redevelopment agency. that is not something i think would be in the best interest of the city, and i would like to see how we plan to administer these kinds of programs going forward. supervisor kim: first of all, i just want to thank the supervisor's office and mr. yarne and others for the amount of time and effort that was put into being creative about how we use these tools to build infrastructure for the city. one of my major concerns when i

was running and campaigning was how we fund structure, as we bring in an influx of residence, particularly into district 6. i am very interested in how we can use this in the future. i share some of the concern's upper chair chu -- concerns that chair chu brought up. many will want to hear about this tool. mr. whitaker talked about this. it has not been defined yet by the city, but when you go there, i mean, the sidewalks are very narrow. it is hard to walk around, where you are putting residence in an area where there are no parts, no street skating, and i think this is an important step in addressing that deficiency -- where you are putting residents in an area where there are no parks, no street skating --

streetscaping. i very much want to be a part of the process. thank you. chair chu: fake you, supervisor kim -- thank you. if we can have a motion to take these forward to the board and to send forward some as is with recommendations? without objection. and then, for item number 16, which is the hearing, we can continue that item to the call of the chair? without objection. are there any other items before us? thank you. we are adjourned. [gavel]

>> thanks for coming today. we are announcing are temporary homeowner's property tax reduction program. this is what most assessor's up

and down the state are doing. homeowners are reliable -- of all property owners are eligible for a temporary, 1-year property-tax assessment reduction if they believe or if we believe dave -- the assess the value has fallen above their market value, which means that the value would be lower than the market value. in general, homeowners who are eligible, chances are, they purchased homes after 2003. we do get applicants who have owned homes since 1995 or earlier. in general, anybody who is owned their home prior to 2003, they are doing well, which is good news. chances are the market value is higher than the assessed value, meaning the property appreciate it. people we are able to offer little relief for, the sad news is, their homes have depreciated.

there will be a little bit of relief for them. in general, last year, we saw 6400 applicants in comparison to four years ago when we had 248 requests. the form a simple. it is one page. name, telephone number, e-mail, and the address you are applying for. if you can give us sales in formation of similar types of homes, we do hope you can give us that. if you cannot come maternity leave blank and sign it. e-mail or fax it to us -- if you cannot give us that, leave it blank and sign it. e-mail or fax it was. tenderloin downtown, south of market, mission bay, and south beach. those were many of the new high- rise condominiums that went in to market the last four or five years.

we have seen a significant amount of depreciation in those areas. gaviria that has seen the largest value drop is -- the other area that has seen the largest volume drop is the outer mission, amazon, those areas have seen the largest percentage drop. it is where we have been hit hardest with foreclosures. we make sure that we take an extra look. we proactively have been reviewing every home that was purchased after 2000. even though we think eligibility is for people up to 2003, we review any homeowner who purchased after 2000. that was roughly about 15,000 homeowners. of that, reduced -- no one had to apply or call us. we did this on our own. we reduced 10,000 of those homeowners. roughly, you have 10,000 reductions that we did on our own.

1700 reductions were done through this application process. 5000 time shares is how you get to the 17,000 number. just to give you a comparison, it is quite a bit in san francisco. these are huge numbers, larger than the dot com bust. alameda and santa clara did about 1000 come a tenfold. -- 1000, tenfold. we are doing better than our counterparts in other parts of the bay area. i feel fortunate. the tax reduction was about 21 million in taxes that were not collected. 21 million in taxes were not collected. that is a significant number. it is out of a $6.5 billion budget. overall, the difference to the city is still rather small compared to what it meant to

many of the other counties in other areas. let me stop there and take questions. >> [inaudible] >> 6462. of those, we actually reviewed only 4177. many of those were already reviewed. we have actively reviewed them. some of them were not eligible. >> [inaudible] >> anybody who has gotten a reduction, they don't need to apply. we will look at it again. if you have gotten a reduction through an appeal or through our office, they don't need to apply again. they will be reviewed. they may want to apply because maybe they want to give us information we don't know. they are free to do that.

that will be reviewed as part of that process. in general, they don't need to submit paperwork if they already got a reduction last year. >> [inaudible] >> well, i think because it is just flat, the market has not rebounded and gone up. we will probably see the same number of people deserve reductions last year. i think it will be comparable. traditionally, an economic recovery is like a v. this is more like a u. we're at the bottom of it right now. my feeling is we are going to see, you know, a very unusual real-estate market in san francisco. it will be flat and not

appreciate a whole lot right now. the number people who are eligible is probably similar to last year. i bet we will give about the same number of reductions this year as we did last year. it will not be that much different. >> [inaudible] >> anybody that was reviewed -- everybody in san francisco got a letter from us in july. they were told what their assessed value was. there were told that they got a reduction. if they got a reduction based on the letter, they don't need to reapply. what people do is we will review applicants. the deadline is march 31. all 17,000 who got reductions will be reviewed automatically. everyone will get notified again in july. we will not talk to anybody prior to that. everyone else will be getting the standard notification in july. >> [inaudible]

you review these every year. >> every year. the reductions we review every year. as the market appreciates, we may take their assessments up based on what the market value is. they may go all the way back up to the factor value. it may go up partially higher. obviously, that is what he would see. you would see a step over the years to include the appreciation based on what the market is feeling. right now, we are not seeing a whole lot of appreciation. chances are, the assessment will be a little bit different than last year. the original purchase applies plus whatever the inflation factor was on an annual basis. in general, up to 2%. we had a negative inflation factor for the first time last year. everybody got a reduction last year. >> [inaudible] >> this year, cpi based on the

final number we saw, is. 5% positive. it is still well below 2%. -- is .5% positive. it is still well below 2%. the economy is still rather flat. >> [inaudible] >> everybody who does not get a reduction will get a .5% increase in their assessment. that is just a proximate. it will probably be pretty close to that. we can show you the website. we follow the same website. it is the state cpi. it is a tracking mechanism for the state. >> [inaudible] >> i think there will vote to finalize in the next month or

two. i think the number is done. >> overall, when all is said and done, what is the amount that you're going to receive [inaudible] >> for reductions, it will really just depend on how much your property might have depreciated or appreciate id. some areas where maybe there was a 5% or 3%, the good news in san francisco, we have not seen a few drops we saw in other parts of the bay area, like solano, or properties dropped 50%. you don't want that. you want your property to appreciate. that is the goal. it might be $50, $100, maybe a few hundred dollars. it and will not be anything huge -- it will not be anything huge. >> [inaudible]

>> over last year, it was a $21 million difference. because of the temporary reductions in homeowners values, there was $21 million that was not collected by the county. let's put that in context of the $6.5 billion budget. >> [inaudible] >> the total property tax collected is about $2 billion. overall, we are doing quite well. >> [inaudible] >> overall, property-tax as have done extremely well the last five, 10 years. we have seen huge increases overall. >> [inaudible] >> no idea. if i did, i should be in las vegas placing a bet, or should be in new york making more money than i am here.

the controller's office is probably tracking it more than us. we don't know. we have seen -- we have seen several governments pumped $1 trillion into the economy. it is a huge amount of money. we have seen some improvements, but not the ones they were hoping for. great. ok. thanks, everybody.

>> i work with the department of environment and we are recycling oil. thank you. we can go into a refinery and we can use it again. they do oil changes and sell it anyway, so now they know when a ticket to a. hal>> to you have something you nt