the chart below is a break out of the blue portion of the chart above. you'll see that i f did say major source we're looking to improve the water front. we've been legislativeing over time. that authorized you to fund the port property and it expanded the range of eligible use of tax increments with respect to the america's cup 80 to ask the state if it would allow infrastructure districts to capture the state that quarter

of property tax dollars that goes up to the state and 801199 the state approved our ability to capture that tax increment under certain circumstances. >> i want to provide a little bit of the background between the ports fund. the bureau ton act which transfers from state to city control requires that we maintain a separate harbor fund it's separate from the city's general fund. we've done analysis over time to look at property taxes and the cost of city services on port property. there's a bit of a gap.

there's some sources that are urban leashed and don't generate tax precedes. and there's a cost of providing city services in that budget. and we try and track that over time. there's a general prim the harbors shouldn't subsidize or excuse me. the general fund shouldn't subsidize those services. the improvements to piers and seismic upgrades there in the

capital fund also like along with historic properties listed on the national register. so as we are thinking about forming districts along the port property and the first proposed districts will likely be considered in 2014 so we're a ways away from requesting the styrofoam a districts. there would be a policy framework everybody sort of accepted there would be community oversight but those structures don't exist so we're

going to propose local districts to answer those issues. there are some just a few minutes properties where it might making make sense to include those ports particularly pier 70 but there's guidelines. we're suggesting that it's a policy decision for the board of supervisors when a district it formed whether to apply the port guidelines or the city's guidelines. next important we have to complete sequa. so we can't bring to you a set of without first analyzing the

improvements. any improvements we have should be consistent with the public tries doctrine the 10 year capital plan and that's making sure we're proposing policy that's been adopt. next, we suggest that those are major master plans redevelopment areas in many respects and there ought to be a burden on the city to show there's a economical he - and we should demonstrate where we collect property taxes we need to be able to assure that the cost is covered by other taxes or you at least know

what the financial trade offices are when your foreman a district. in those areas where we're able to capture the state share of property tax we would suggest the way that the states structured that ability was to say the states share could be made available in proportion to how much the increment we dedicated locally. we want to any other time the local distribution. number 7 on this slide is the key of what we sort of the heart of the policy. we're using tax increments to essentially purchase infrastructure that is built by our partners.

and it's private equity it's an expensive form of financing. developers earner an annual income of 18 to 20 percent we're suggesting here we decade the full amount to pay off that private equity as quickly as possible to be as efficient in financing those improvements as possible. we're generally using the value of port property to pay that developer return fda law has real constraints so we're using the portland value to pay developer return. there will be in the districts literally hundreds of thousands of the dollars available after the infrastructure has been

fined so in the year thirty there be significant amounts of funds available so the seawall will be funded as well >> thank you for your presentation just a question. could you walk us through an example of how this about be carried out on rapid, you know, reimbursements. >> yes. i actually have sort of the cost estimates for infrastructure investment in each of the 3 big projects that are coming a little bit after this slide so when i get to

those slides i'll talk about how the developer will justice the equity and then how we will buy the infrastructure. so we think there's a big policy call to be made about where the excess fund also the city seawall is beyond it's life so the city may want to make improvements to the city seawall. i'll skip over that. the p the p the pay increment will be available. it's important that we have is a

mechanism in place to be able to maintain the improvements. we're in this policy setting forth a process by which the f i ds would actually come to the board. you've established our intention that happened in the america's cup context. we would have to come back after sequa. we suggest and have gone to the cities planning committee to ask that they be the body it reviews specific infrastructure plans and that body includes d dw the public you utilities commission. we would include mechanisms to

make sure we get a fair price from our infrastructure partner. and finally, there's some strategic information we can clearly demonstrate to you that the port doesn't have the ability to build this infrastructure. we should leverage the city sources and have a public process. and the port maintenance advisory groups up and down the waterfront. so we do want public participation particularly when we're talking about funding public projects. finally, the nexus analysis i told you about earlier we need a next us budget about how you the

port is doing with relative to city costs. so i want to get into those examples you were seeking. these are the 3 main projects we're compensating. it's south of the ballpark 3 million square feet is proposed that sheet is coming to the board next month. and pier 70 we're looking approximately 3.70 million square feet. collective this is on the order of $4 billion of public and private investment that's the

way that the city is going to grow and in order to accumulate that growth we've got to have more infrastructure. we've done some analysis on the seawall transaction the giants bail park development proposal. and after the tax increment is revised we're looking at 13 i million dollars and estimated 2 had the $5 million leaving $10.5 million we're still figuring out the transit costs for that development. that that $10.5 million will be more than enough to fund munis operating costs to serve the development.

we'll get more involved with the sequa before we bring that to you. those are basically streets and sewer in major shore like that park. almost 5 acres. total cost of the infrastructure are over $100 million. and the ports partner which is a subsidy of the giants would initially fund that infrastructure with a compliance of portland vail, developer entity and get repaid. they would do it in phases. they're not talking about building the infrastructure all at once only recognizing that the market will allow a

advertisement of the portion of the border site at that time. i want to pause and say have i answered your question about how this is going to work? >> yes. at pier 70 this has got a more detailed sort of break out of the types of equity and costs. this is going to cost over $20 million we estimate about $40 million for the roads and utilities and there's another $30 million the sight is not sound so we need an additional wall. so this is the funding for the i

f d. and finally, the woirz project that has been approved by the board something like that $19 million a year that includes the tax increment in this case and we're going through the process of calculating the city costs but we think that will be a net tax gain to the city over time. so those are the port lands project. this is the area that includes the woirz proposed site seawall lot that 3:30. i'm going to flip down to the left-hand side of this slide you'll see pier 48 which is a

proposed sheet. and pier 70 is on the right-hand side of this chart. this is the site of the washington development of the voter referendum this november that is proposed for fta use. and those 3 piers are the areas where we can capture the state share associated with the america's cup. that includes my presentation. we've circulated those to the staff. >> any question?

why not go to the analysts report >> members of the committee on page 27 we appoint there is no direct fiscal impact to adopt the ports guidelines, however, there are criteria within the ports guidelines that may have impact and that's on 27 and 28 on our report. we have a series of recommendationss and they're on page 29. we recommend that you request the port to amend the port guidelines to say that the threshold criteria must be met and the strategic criteria must be seen by board of supervisors. and secondarily all the time they recalled 5 to specific that

the areas financial plan will project the city's general fund as to determine the i f p and also specify that the tax rate is established annually by the board of supervisors for the city and that's pursuant to the california revenue taxation code. and specify the tax increment may not be allocated to the cities general fund and to protect against sea level rise and finally, we consider the approval of this to be a policy decision. we'll be happy to respond to any

questions and any questions? >> thank you very much for the recommendations. i think the changing the criteria 5 to look at the net fiscal general cities fund i'm wondering on behavior of the controllers office can comment not so much on all but in general what comments do you have about i f ds in the general fund if we move forward in the future? >> mr. chairman monique i'm from the controllers office. this is diverted for the benefits of the area and it really would depends on the

developments of the property. we can do another analysis and this has been used in san francisco. in order to red blithe and improve the economical condition of that area but it does have the effect of moving money for this particular purpose over a long period of time >> and to address blithe and to raise up communities but for you f ds it might not be specific types of areas but it would be good to get another analysis over time. >> we can work on that.

>> any further questions colleagues? and a mr. benson to be clear the amendments i sir, circulated are they - and we didn't circulate those. >> we can simply approve those mr. rowss recommendations is okay. >> we have talked recommendation one c oh, no, excuse me. - recommendation 1

d about this amending to specify the tax increment or accommodates to the cities and to protect against sea wide it doesn't include the improvements felt city seawall but we're comfortable with their response. >> just to point out the city seawall is intend as part of the xantdz portion but we agree with the portion if it's not needed to fund can't later be used to fund any other improvements. >> we're joined by supervisor kim. >> at that one we'll go to

public comment i have two speaker cards. please come forward. anyone else please line up on the side we'll have two minutes >> good afternoon i am a long time port washer member of the central advisory committee and a member of the pier thirty, 32 arena. i support this legislation as i've also been chair of the commission bay c lc for many years. i understand the benefits that could come out i f d funding.

the issue of diverting fund if you didn't have this money nothing would happen and you wouldn't have the access tax. i do support the budget analysts recommendations and i have a couple of other issues that i'll talk to supervisor kim's office. but this is important probation officer to move forward. thank you >> thank you very much. next speaker please and excuse me, sir could i come up to the mike . anyone else that would like to

commit? seeing none public comment is closed. colleagues any comments? so we just have to vote on the resolution itself. supervisor kim >> thank you and i apologize for missing the beginning of the meeting. overall i'm very supportive of the guidelines that are coming before the board of supervisors. i do think that the infrastructures are greatly needed. and noting, of course, any projects that do have to get finally approved i'm very supportive of the budget analyst amendment and there's been some

discussion about. i think it's important to get a sense of the bends but also the net impact to our general fund. we're setting aside a portion of the general fund for those improvements. i'm supportive and i know we'll have an opportunity to view the improvements. >> okay. thank you very much supervisor kim. so again, the resolution is in front of us can we take a motion. okay. mr. clerk can you please call items 7 and 8 together >> item no. 7 here on city

college of san francisco. item 8 urging the board of trustees and administration to utilize to preserve the quality of education that has served education well, and to support the city of san francisco to reevaluate the charges and providing more and kind services to support the resolution. >> this was a resolution to support the issues i'll turn it over to you. >> colleagues we have a number of speakers from the community of supporters of city college and faculty i believe we'll have a trustee or two.

my hope is this hearing on city college and dialog on resolution to support the college this is a difficult time and we can also end with a commitment to have a working group that would be looking at the financial support and putting our heads together in creativity ways to feel what month supporters feel is a jewel of the san francisco system. we've invited all students from all background and the chance to develop a better life for themselves and their families. i know last year the focus was on how the college has that i would people from poverty but also retrained individuals like from manufacturing and retraining