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 flowing into argument and allowing the commercial developer to institute the infrastructure amenities that he thought he was going to make for himself.

assumed that something is -- as nonsensical and costly to the city would not get through. now it falls to you to stand in its way and protect the citizen services and the tax base that ought to go in the regular budget process to our human services. thank you. president chiu: thank you. next speaker? >> my name is deborah davidson. i'm hear to speak about the police department using excessive force and they accuse the mentally ill of crimes that -- president chiu: excuse me. ma'am, we're actually tanguaying public comment on the issue of the i.f.d.'s right now. we will have time for public comment later but unless you want to comment on -- >> i think we should use the

redevelopment. that's what jerry brown is trying to do to save funds and make things right the budget for the state of california. president chiu: thank you. next speaker? >> good afternoon, supervisors. mark solomon from the north mission. got some real concerns about this measure. back in the old days developers would pay their freight when they wanted to do profitable developments. they would pay for infrastructure in the community and that would be that. we have the rincon hill development as a 55-story height limit. they were able to essentially print money in bulk. when they wrote the check for the south of markest development fund my understand is -- understanding is that president man was smiling. there is a lot of money out there. but now we're going to take a tax increment on falling prices

over the next years? the reason we're doing this is because smo -- no one wants to challenge developers and this board does not have fiscal development to actually followthrough on the commitments to makes to developers to subsidize infrastructure to very profitable developments. we're going to lock in a chunk that should go to pay for sewage, d.p.w., all the infrastructure that development requires. that means as our property tax income is falling we're going to see services that are already looking at hundreds of millions in deficit further deteriorate. what we need say balanced approach here that those who are making money on -- off the city entitlements to pay the freight. it's like i'm coming to a republican congress here, when this board needs to stand up and represent taxpayers and

residents of this city to be sure that our residents are represented first and foremost and we condition our entitlements to those who are doing quite well on them paying their share of freight here. we're not a charity for well-heeled operations. please vote this down. and have the fiscal discipline to move the infrastructure forward. prouch president chiu: thank you. >> as typical at a lot of board and commission meetings, this item is something you got handouts for and the public didn't so you got it see the details and we don't. unfortunately most of the presentation is done for you. you've read all the documentation and seen the numbers and maybe in this -- your mind this is something beneficial. i was recently at several library commission meetings and we had a couple of self-serving

people who serve on the committee to develop the community benefit district here in the civic center and they came in and made a bunch of innocuous, disingenuous statements and i repeatedly told the library commission what did you get for the $21,000 that you put in for this year and the $200,000-some dollars you committed the library to over the next 10 years? and i think this particular issue is the same thing. you see the details and i don't know, maybe it's good, maybe it's not but as far as the public goes, we're snowed. we just see money being going here, it goes there, and we don't know who it's benefited. we just know that it's going out of the general fund and into things that what i'm hearing used to be paid for by the developers and now they're getting to use city money and taxpayer money to put in things that they were required to negotiate as part of their contract. so what i'm saying is that when these things come up, it needs

to be out so the public can understand what the hell's going on rather than what it seems to be is a bunch of back room deals between god knows who for god knows what, and we end up getting paid the bills and by the time it happens you all will be turned out and we'll still be paying the tab the president chiu: thank you. next speaker, please? >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is jamie whitaker and i'm a resident of the rincon hill neighborhood. i think what i need to say at this particular juncture is that for 20 years people have been moving to the rincon hill neighborhood. a lot of young professionals who want to walk to work rather than driver, or bicycle or use transit and also a lot of retirees who want to live active lives, to enjoy the arts and entertainment offered by san francisco. there's about 300 kids living in the area today. and i hope several more.

but without parks for those children to be able to develop their muscles, their coordination, and without safe sidewalks, you know, remember, there's a $ -- 260,000 cars going across the bay bridge every day. we know that going into it. it's not going anywhere. we want to work -- walk to work bad enough i guess to put up with the air quality and the traffic that's present. and you also know that rincon hill sits between the bay bridge and the financial district, so we're sort of ground zero for traffic congestion. last week when the sand was spilled on the lower deck of the bay bridge, our entire neighborhood was gridlocked in traffic. i was happy that i walk primarily to get around because i was easily getting around. so rincon hill has been around for 20 years. people live there. the plan if it's -- if the

current sbilements are filled out it -- entime. ments are filled out it will be the most densely populated neighborhood west of chicago. i think that's important to remember. certainly faced with the recession there's been a lull in new development but suburban sprawl is killing our environment. we need people to move back to the downtown court. thank you. president chiu: before the next speaker, i've just been reminded if anyone wishes to file written protests you are welcome to do that with the clerk of the board at this time. and if we could now go back to any comments and questions with regard to the infrastructure financing plan for rincon hill. this is not general comment. -- this is specific comment around the infrastructure financing of the rincon hill

area. are there any other members of the public that wish to speak in either public comment with any comments, questions, or protests regarding the infrastructure financing plan at the ron -- rincon hill area? seeing none at this time, this hearing has been held and closed. madame clerk if we could go first to item nine. >> mr. president, that item has been read president chiu: colleagues, as i mentioned at the beginning of the hearing, the intent of the i.f.d. guidelines which is this item, item 9 on page 4, is to exempt out both port and nonport projects but for the nonport land to continue to have the i.f.d. guidelines

apply to them. so i've circulated language to clarify that intent that states unless nonport property is included in a proposed i.f.d., in that case only the port-owned or managed land would be exempt. i'd like to make a motion to amend item 9 to that effect. >> motion. is there a second? >> second. >> can we take that without objection? that will be the order. president chiu: if we could take a roll call on item anyone nine. >> supervisor mirkarimi:, supervisor avalos: -- supervisor avalos, supervisor campos, supervisor cohen, supervisor farrell, supervisor kim, supervisor mar. there are 11 ayes.

>> resolution adopted as amended. item 10. can we take this same house, same call? without objection, this voogs adopted. item 12? so item 12 can we do the same, same house, same call? this resolution is adopted. item 1? same house same call. this resolution sanction adopted. same house, same call. item 14? this is adopted. item 15 is the declaration of the rufpblgts the special election for the land owners because they waived waiting periods. our court is -- our clerk is in receipt of the ballots. at this time i'd like to ask madam