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 result in a negative impact. the increment of version would been reduced to a level where that did not occur. we suggest that these be limited to projects that address infrastructure deficiencies as defined by a a universal amount

of criteria that the planning department needs to develop. we have a fair allocation. this is to avoid the gold-plated park bench problem >> what is one of the key safeguards to protect in the general fund. what is the board oversight role and in terms of developing that criteria? >> we are proposing that they get drunk before the board. -- that they get done before the board. all of the proposals came from

the -- adopted plan. the discipline is that we will stay within the confines of that plan. this board could review those independently. we would hope that we can't get these policies in place sometime soon. >> in terms of the standards, there has not been too much conversation will be in terms of the infrastructure deficiencies that are needed in the community. generally, the equity in these types of structures throughout the city, we would like to see a

pedestrian-friendly types of streets. areas. not all have them. that is something that will be considered. how that is spread out across the city. >> yes, ideally, we will have, and i do not want to over describe it, because we have to go through the process, but i think we all the knowledge that there is a universal process. an objective analysis of where the deficiency is. an ad hoc analysis. we have the makings of these policies in our general plan or pieces of them. we need to formalize them so there is a fairness in how we progress in the future. finally, the fifth point here, i

also want to emphasize in terms of responsibility. we are also proposing that we limit the use of ifd money to those with a long-term commitment. as you remember, ifp's cannot fund ongoing operations, which is a quirk in the law, but the city will have to look at new mechanisms or old mechanisms to finance the ongoing maintenance and operation. this policy essentially says the city will not authorize an expenditure until we have identified that. for example, there could be a specific and general fund commitment. that is one possibility. there could be another district and add an assessment in that neighborhood to help pay for upkeep. it could be a community benefit districts that is already in existence, for example, and then, finally, there are a series of public-private

agreements that the city has pursued with other property owners for a specific parks and open spaces that could be applied here. in the case of the half -- the rincon hill, they have negotiated something to make sure they have that. chair chu: thank you. that last point, i appreciate it. i know we often do not have the resources to maintain the facilities and do the job that they want to in maintaining the parks, to create more parks in another area adds to their burden, so seeing where we are with the general fund, i understand that is a potential source that we have identified here, but i would rather prefer the we have public-private partnerships or other sources of income. >> i think we are very keenly

interested in pursuing those agreements. chair chu: thank you. >> the final page of my presentation, these are criteria the city should consider, the board should consider, when approving future ifd's. this was based on input received from the capital planning committee, and this is good. proceeds passed directly to the general fund, and only be diverted or allocated to the ifd funded by a specific action of the board. so what does that practically mean? if the electors approve and this board adopts the ifd, a portion has to be incrementally added to the fund.

this comes on the budget office, and this is a way to ensure that the city is making smart budgetary decisions and prioritizing. of course, if bonds were issued, the board would be required to allocate what is necessary to service those bonds. second, we are proposing that the general ifd funding be limited. the primary reason is that unlike redevelopment, ifd's can only be formed by a vote, and it is only by two thirds of the voters within an ifd or by another manner if there are fewer than 12 voters.