beneficiaries of the property- tax is to look at of the share of it. we are assuming of 43%. the financing lot is more conservative as far as taking funds for other agencies. i've gotten a lot of phone calls

in the past two weeks. the last point is important. the board retains full discretion over all appropriations and individual projects. this is another significant difference. in this case, the legislative body is the board of supervisors. finally, there is no requirement that any of the increment to be used to -- to the board would have to

authorize it through the budget process that the money is spent. 50% of that chunk of the craft flows to the general fund.

these are non inflated dollar amounts. in newarif you accommodate highr density growth, the city will help you build the supporting infrastructure like better streets, transit, bicycle path needed to to support that density. our current scheme and assessments only funds a portion of those costs there are

projects is that to the impact fees only cover up to 50%. another problem we run into is that it is the the deferred becomes unfeasible. the fees must be spent on remedying impasse caused by a new development. i've summarized the policy arguments for why we are pursuing this policy to the board.

this is the city hussein to neighborhoods that except growth and change that there will be something back in that form of infrastructure. we would hope to use this money to leverage additional non city money, specifically funds from the region, the state, and the government. we can become more competitive if we use these strategically. if we can accelerate public amenities, the backbone infrastructure with parks and streets in transit, we should accelerate private development and revenue growth for the general fund which would have a positive impact on the city. if we approve a policy citywide, this whole approach could be used productively so

that when we look at any neighborhood plan, we can actually do a fiscal analysis looking forward. who is like to have an environment to review and a fiscal responsibility. we don't propose budget set out of the capability of funding. the market plan called for an investigation of tax increment tolls to help fund the infrastructure. in addition, the eastern neighborhoods that i think many of you were involved in, in committee was formed to end up with funding solutions for a significant budget that was put forward. a report was generated and that

specific report approved by the committee and approved by the land use committee recommended investigation. they also proposed launching a pilot in the eastern neighborhoods. in 2010, supervisor maxwell approved a resolution forming a new committee to oversee the work on launching these policies and also a pilot on the hill. this committee was made up of members to the capital planning group, budget office, comptroller's office, and the planning department. there was also four public stakeholders finally, i would like to give the size that we are using this proposal somewhat opportunistic lee. there is a unique opportunity to

purchase a public park on the site of a formal caltrans site. she we could have the first on sale in the state of california. these have not been used in the state. this would be a first. in november, 2010, a key -- were used to pursue this. that set a date for a hearing. this was posted on the web site. this was released on december 2nd.

if requires that the draft is available to the public for two months and we have met that statutory requirement. the package includes seven revolution -- resolutions. the resolution introduced on january 11th was actually the draft policies. that is first on the agenda. it makes sense because this is a larger framework for the pilot. there is the adoption of the pilot as well as allowing up to $22 million of bond issuances

not actually of rising individuals but setting a debt ceiling. supervisor kim was kind enough to carry some amendments which for by the planning committee. these are to clarify the legal and technical requirements and i will quickly run through them. there is a cap on the total amount collected be spent over the life of the -- which is a fixed nominal cap. the additional references or added. this is to an amended map and i

will show it to you shortly. the resolution proposing information, there are no amendments proposed. resolution calling for a special election, the reference to the annual appropriation which is on page one. resolution declaring results, at a technical amendment which was made and page 80. the resolution of intention to issue bonds. on page 3, there is a $62

million maximum employment tax that can be spent over the 30- year life. that is a fixed amount and not adjusted for inflation. finally, a resolution with issuance of two $22 million. note technical amendments are proposed. the policy resolution, we are proposing the original guidelines with the final revised draft and this is over a month of input and public stakeholders. that is a legislative package before you. we have made presentations before in a variety of committees in the city.

we have had ongoing contact with a group of stakeholders. they represent the eastern neighborhoods, -- residents associated, and the southeast quadrant. the pilot contain 17 parcels and up to 10 potential projects sites. nine of the 10 sites have received entitlements from the planning department. together, these are 2500 units of housing and 25 million square feet estimated.

the estimated completion dates all of these projects at 2022. these are the actual parcels that are proposed. this is a parcel by parcel entity, this does not constitute a contiguous area. this is just the parcels that we believe will become development sites. this is focused on public infrastructure and these are projects that are called out for the plan which was adopted by the board of supervisors.

we focused solely on the infrastructures and projects that or on the outcome of that project. specifically, those are three new parks. there is a living street redesign, better streets redesigned and -- this was approved by the planning department and reviewed for accuracy in terms of the budget. >> can you clarify the difference between -- >> i don't have technical proficiency in that area. i believe nosh misunderstanding

here is that those streets have more park-like elements and greenery than the more traditional hearts cape alamance. all of those streets are derived from the master plan and they said a series of standards based on the streets. >> are we talking just between folsom and harrison street? >> that is roughly the area. sh>> is this from first and spe? >> this is from maine. >> detailed drawings are

available. this budget that we see here is some the estimated cost to build all of these projects. obviously, this does not include inflation. this was cross checked by the web core builders to confirm its accuracy and this is a relatively reasonable projection of cost. 52% of the budget will be satisfied. these are fees that would be paid at first construction. we are proposing to match that at about 40% of the budget. i really want to emphasize that this could be the emphasis of bonds. we don't need to issue these

bonds necessarily to do these improvements. if we don't, they would accrue over time. all of the estimates in this assume that we bond out everything and we pay interest on everything. it is up to this board if we want to issue bonds or if we want to take a pay as we go approach. we recommend that they be issued for acquisition. after that bond issuance,, the money could be in crude in the account and used on a pay-as- you-go basis. all of these resolutions and the infrastructure plan itself sets a maximum bond issuance cap of

$22 million. this is the largest amount of money that this -- is authorized. that is a solid cap. we are only estimates and that we would use the $50 million in bonds based on the income it projections. we set a higher cap just in case there is a delay or things happen. that is why we have a 22 million-dollar cap. based on a $15 million issuance, we expect over the life of a project and disease are entirely new estimates. these are principal plus

interest. this could be funded on a pay- as-you-go basis. no matter what, we have set a maximum cap of 60.2 million. this is not adjusted for inflation. this is the failsafe general fund measure, if you want to call it to that. money cannot be spent on projects that are specifically not called out for a plan. finally, this board retains full control over the -- and authorizations for individual projects in the plan. all of these projects will have to come back for allocations. what does it represent?

you remember the earlier slide? 16% of the net increment or about $41 million, if we issue the two bonds, they would be diverted or allocated. the remaining $240 million would flow to the general fund and would go towards the broader general fund. this is a modest share when you look at redevelopment agencies around the state. we estimate that the total aggregate bell you -- value is $142 million.

this would become effectively the base year. the project but that the value would be about $2 billion, a substantial increase in value and generating an annual fund of about $23 million with full pulled out in 2323. -- build out by 2023. to jump-start the park in particular and other projects, we are proposing that 1% of the new project be used to help finance the first bond sale. we will have to come back to the board to authorize that.

these are based on reasonable projections have. this is a graphic representation that really helps. these are non inflated dollars, i would like to emphasize. this is a hundred thousand dollars annually that we are receiving now. what you see is the total amount needed for a key issuances. if there was an emergency, we would be able to move that up. 84% of the income it would continue to flow to the general

fund. 342 would flow to the general fund. from a fiscal impact analysis, but you just saw was the increment and property-tax. but we are required to do look at this from the entire increment. all of the revenue sources. we also have to look at the potential costs associated with growth. a copy of the fiscal impact study is included and has been posted over two months and has received input and review from the budget office, the comptroller's office, and other offices. it shows a surplus of about $9.4

million annually. that is a $9.4 billion benefit annually after we take out the commit itself being spent plus what we anticipate to be the new costs associated with the service implementation. that is about $250 million. that is based on fire, parks, costs. this graph here and this is essentially a surplus revenue.

that triangle is used as an assumption that any properties would turned over every 20 years which might be a conservative estimation of new products. what you see is a rental project being sold 20 years out and generating transfer taxes. these are simply projections. i don't want to suggest that this is not a firm projection.

how should we approach the finest districts in san francisco. all of the cookies and our and bashar are gone at the end of the day if we don't have some very good policies restricting when we use these. a larger share is automatically passed through.

before we recommend this to the port, we would make sure that -- satisfies these criteria as. the first is that we're proposing that they be limited to areas of rezoned area plan. this is also adopted as a property development agreement. i mentioned how we like to use these to leverage more money outside? second, we proposing that -- be limited to areas within the

first category where there is a net fiscal benefit to the general fund as determined by the comptroller's office. we would not be proposing the -- where it could jeopardize the general fund to meet the basic needs. in addition to that restriction, we will further restrict the maximum to motive available to 50% over the 30- year turn. any diversion should never