for coming out of the weekend. people were very appreciative to see the mayor where we went. i would like to think him for his efforts to reach out. >> we had a town hall meeting and we had 162 people come out. this is a wonderful and diverse representation of district 5. this was to discuss the challenges of public safety. there has been concerns.

people are really on it. the new house staff were impressed at how it engaged our committee is because the solutions have been community- driven. there needs to be follow-up and questions about getting people jobs and job training and dealing with the larger problems that continue to help induce problems and sustain those who take it like a crime verses alternatively not need to be stepped up their game in the city working with the kennedys and that will be our next town hall. >> that concludes roll call for introductions. >> thank you. i would like to move to the special order related to the infrastructure financing districts as proposed.

>> i submit. i was not called. >> item 9 is the use of guideline resolutions. item 10, resolution approving the official for financing plan. item 11, hearing of persons interested in are objecting to the proposed legislation. item 12 proposes the infrastructure district. item 13, an intention to issue bonds. 14, a special election for the financing district. 15, declaring the results of special election for the city

and financing district. 16, an ordinance creating an infrastructure financing district and adopting an of the structure planned. 17 is resolution authorizing the issuance of bonds for the city and county of san francisco pertaining to the district. but >> we have a number of items before us related to the creation of a financing district. these items will allow the city to commit a portion of the property tax revenues. the plan has been prepared and made available to the public. these items must be taken one at a time and ordered to authorize the issuance of the bonds. let me refer us to like the elephant, open up the hearing.

i understand that we have ever is additive to provide a staff report. >> afternoon. i am here today to briefly summarize the legislative package. i will refrain from doing an extensive presentation. this package would create citywide policy guidelines -- future use throughout san francisco. it would approve and form the

district specific to rincon hill. this promise has been made to other neighborhoods. if approved, this policy guidelines and this pilot project would serve as a model for other neighborhoods that have been willing to step rezoning. this will allow us to finance was necessary, indeed final to make this livable and vibrant. for those seven not been privy to the presentation, and

touching on the guidelines included in the first resolution. the infrastructure finance districts are tax financing that redevelopment. there simply tools and they are not individual entities that are outside of the board. the funds might only find public facilities and the capital cost. revenues may be pledged to tax- exempt bonds and they might be used as a 8 pay as you go basis.

the proceeds may be spent anywhere in the city. they might include non contiguous properties. they are formed by a vote. any beneficiary of our tax have an automatic opt out position. none of them ready will be diverted to to the fund unless the consent. they hold full discretion over

individuals. there is no requirement that the revenues ever be used. why are we proposing the use of an ifd/ this is our effort to make the proposal real. we as a city proposing ambitious plans, most of which are severely under budget. the pilot -- would provide that missing gap between what the impact fees can pay for and what remains. in this case, about $15 million. in sum, what we would like to see these used for are a smart

growth carrots. all line to bring that important for structure. in addition, we hope to leverage more money from inside of the city. the these could allow the city to come bring more to the table and get more in return. if used strategically, they could jump-start the private investment in neighborhoods and exhilarate the -- and accelerate growth. this was sent a signal to private investors that the city is serious about providing the infrastructure that was promised. the if we are successful, they could see this as a framework for fiscal planning when we do

the next land use planning. we could do an analysis concurrently with our review in our public outreach efforts and give the public a clear sense of what moneys are actually available to fund the infrastructure that said many of our communities want. -- that so many of our communities want printemp. the policies were crafted by committee which was composed by representatives of the budgets, comptrollers, planning department, and our office as well as four public stakeholders. a member of the market activity had -- in line and a member of the -- we tried to be as repetitive as

possible. we drafted these to protect the general fund and i cannot emphasize that enough. if you ask any neighborhood if they would like a greater share of the general fund revenues, i think probably every neighborhood would say yes. we need to be very judicious about how we employees. these policies would limit the use of ifd's in the future. party development areas are areas where there is a transit close to housing or fixed real

opposite. these are model development areas. they are also eligible for more federal, state, and regional funding. we are suggesting that may be limited only to those areas of the city. we are suggesting that they only be used in areas where the resulting -- the resulting benefits to the general fund. on if you look at the before and after, there should be a net fiscal benefit. this is a way of looking out for the general fund. in addition, we are suggesting that -- be greater than 50% of cumulative increment over 30-

year. there is a 50% cap on the new tax rate. also it should not exceed the fiscal surplus to the city. that is for police, fire, administrative costs. we are proposing that this never exceeds what we anticipate being the surplus. we're suggesting that the money is used solely to addressed if a shark should efficiencies. we are suggesting that the money only be allocated to infrastructure projects that when a source of long-term funding has been identified for the projects.

there is a commitment on the part of these policies to making sure we have identified the maintenance and operations prior to committing the capital that would allow us to spend. in addition, there is some broad criteria. at the suggestion of the planning committee, we recommend in that all -- generated goes automatic to the general fund until the board specifies increment. this is similar to how we treat the redevelopment in san francisco. we're suggesting amending us to

non -- parcels. it is difficult for us to do this to multiple residential owners and more convenient to focus on property owners. we are suggestion that these be used to leverage outside north city funds. specifically, the transportation dollars. the plant area should have at the policies in place to advise the city family on how best to prioritize on the project. finally, we are recommending that there is a -- process.

i am open to questions if there are any specific questions about anything. >> thank you for your presentation. how often have we used ifd's. is this a new approach on part of the city? . >> him to my knowledge, this is the first functional one in the state. these tools have never been used because we development has

always been available. the reasoning of not in use is because read a poem and knees to be spent on many more things. money can be used for houses, economic and workers development. hear, the money is targeted at infrastructure. second, the voting requirements. as i mentioned, they require either a vote of the registered voters or of the property honor. i think this is also served as a deterrent in the past. and redevelopment tax increments have been around much longer so there is a strong history of the

spot market for redevelopment. we would be pioneering in the market with the bonds. it would be more difficult to find purchasers for those. those are probably the most obvious reasons it has not been used into. >> one question that cannot as i was reading the -- that came up while i was reading, are we giving up something by going the other route in terms of what happens? it will be losing?

>> there are only two ways to do that there are a couple answers. the first, is the of this and this can be used for a larger variety of things. these are for capital, financing public facilities. i mean publicly owned or publicly used facilities. the streets, parks, sidewalks, sewers, except rep. obviously, redevelopment gives us more flexibility. there is a whole set of legal findings to be made. this is a much more onerous process launching a redevelopment area of the and it is launching an ifd,.

the governor's office and the state in general is concerned and their perception is about the misuse. the advantage is that there is a lot of insurance policies built- in. under the beneficiaries, there is an automatic aren't out provision so their financial interests are automatically protected. the state would like that because it would protect public health and schools. we are bringing down the range of progress can be funded. on the other hand, we are also and powering the board.

who has the final answer? >> the sunnis the question. -- that is not in easy question. together with the capital planning programs and the department and the budget office, but we are looking at how we can better organize the citizen input process and out agencies processed the public infrastructure. to be frank, it is not clear

right now. but then we have an opportunity to experiment and figure out what is the best method for constructive feedback but there is no formal process. there is not a multi-agency committee. this is an effort to bring together all of the capital planning organizations. all of that can probably be improved. >> how is this going to work? who is going to decide what is created here? what would this mean in terms of community participation? how will that happen? >> for the pilot, we started with a very limited universe of projects that have courted and

called for in the plan. that is a really important point. the and for search for financing plan on includes those projects, the outcome was a six-year planning process. there are some parts and a complete redesign in the model. we did not reinvent the wheel and proposed new projects. we are 1st limiting this to the universe of the planned projects. how this is franchise is based on what money that agencies can bring to the table. optimistically, we will look at how we can leverage money. right now, our primary method for reaching out to -- is through the residents' association. our proposal that we continue to

work in these organizations and perhaps over time we could consider adopting a more formal body. i think that we have the bodies in place which are the fiscal advisory committees and what i hope to do there is strength in that relationship and that connection. >> thank you. >> one important difference which will mean where we're a little trouble to use this is the fact that for every dollar in the general fund property tax revenue that we generate, the state forces us to shift 25 cents to meet the state's obligation to schools.

for every dollar that we send, we save 25 cents. for ifd's, we are still dealing with that shift. >> since in light of that, we still feel that this is the way to go here? >> i don't think we have much of a choice, to be honest.

it would be a lengthy process and involve many legal considerations. >> the state law sets up a set of requirements to set up a project area for redevelopment. we don't have those same restrictions, we are much more flexible. >> thank you. >> thank you. i shall have one set of questions. i understand that these guidelines are not meant to apply to either redeployment or poured properties? >> correct. >> given that these are sent from the guidelines, there are some projects that involve port and non-port land. my understanding is that you're trying to exempt non-port.

i am amending page four to item 9 to clarify the point lead is made that unless the non-port landis included, only the port- owned land would be included. >> that makes sense. >> think you. >> -- thank you. course we had a very thorough discussion of this item and we talked about the use of these. -- >> we had a very thorough discussion of this item. the ifd and would be a different way of doing the same kind of work. many of the members to express concern because for every dollar that we divert from the general fund to pay for infrastructure

projects, this represents less resources available for the projects. this is a word of caution that the pilot bram did receive. the standard on how we define deficiencies are corrected thought out and not only that, but that we have the administration and place. >> any additional discussion? >> why don't i asked if there are members of the public that wish to speak to this issue. can you please lineup on the center aisle? >> thank you very much, supervisors.

in a few months, this chamber will be full concerned about the cut in their human services, their essential services. if they understood what is before you, they would be resolutely against it. they are looking for their representatives to understand what is calling on here and to make sure that this does not get through. this is a very clear that this is not a cared for outside contractors. this is a situation where we are taking funds that should be flin