directed us to review the budget to a slightly review all other city budgets and we to submit recommendations to you normally as implemented or reduced the budgets based on our recommendations. my understanding -- if the redevelopment agency was to fight the recommendations or disagree, then the board would not be able to make those cuts. this has been a cooperative basis in years past and hopefully that will continue into the future. >> we don't have line item authority. >> you don't perce but you can make reductions based on our recommendations. >> that also has to be approved by the chief executive.

>> actually, by their commission. >> in the sequence seen that after approving the budget, then they are allowed to file the issue of debt the way they would like, is that correct? >> yes, because our budget total, the net revenue and expenses and the difference is funded by the bond proceeds. these are given to the mayor's office and the budget analyst. so, when adam and the practice of reducing these, the net budget and the net amount that we need to fill between the revenue and the past proceeds is approved in that process and we have a general amount.

i understand your point about the statutory rules out there. once again, just to highlight that in san francisco, we are the only once to do a review. most take the entire tax -- and we do not. >> we should do an assessment. the city redevelopment and the governing structures and the state of california, i don't think that we can have a thorough discussion on this question about being able to perhaps harvest more dollars with us being able to

understand the difference in the governance structure is and whether by interpretation or by fact, it seems that the board of supervisors are able to have more control and effect on what the dollar amount looks like. there are several counties statewide that have a structure similar to ours and it takes the question, what are we doing different than anyone else? >> right now, with the state budget and the proposal, we are being put up their as a model redevelopment agency given the tax increment and our work with the mayor's office. we are making sure that our revenues are used for redevelopment and not be used -- not abused.

>> he said that? >> yes. >> we have some unique features. we don't necessarily harm the state budget because we don't take the entire increment. we don't have a large balances that other agencies have. we don't necessarily pay for money not related. that is an important feature. that was one of the main issues about why the governor is proposing this. >> you have to be constructive. can we get a copy of the references? >> i recognize that redevelopment will be coming back either for their budget discussion or a hearing on governance structure.

i want to move forward on the item at hand. thank you. >> thank you. >> this is potentially the use of an infrastructure redevelopment project. >> that would like to thank the chair for having this summary. it gives context to this proposal. my presentation covers a rough summary of what is -- and

partly in comparison to traditional redevelopment. i will talk about how the policies to guide the formation of -- and the pilot -- that came to be. i will speak briefly about the pilot -- itself. i would like to conclude with it propose to look at the -- policies. i would note that the order of the resolutions as this committee considering first proposed -- policies at. the pilot -- would be following those policies and be consistent with those policies. i have a summary of what is a -- this is tax increment financing

without or development loss associated. -- like traditional financing is not increased tax assessments, they eat merely divert an increment above a base. they might only fund public facilities, not maintenance, not economic can work house development. they cannot find housing except where the facilities funded by -- result in the redevelopment. it might be as a pay-as-you-go basis. she --

they must be formed by a vote of either 2/3 of the property owners or the voters within -- this echoes the conversation the supervisor mirkarimi which is having. the way the law is written, the 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