and or it will wave all time lines or the cfd to expedite and they will not sue the city. and for the two weeks to allow the details to be worked out and we will be looking closely at the terms of the agreement to determine that the final agreement is consistent with the terms proposed at the board of supervisor's hearing on september 9th. >> and the proceeds, with about 665 million of that going to the tjpa. and we, the city projects, that the net of the lower escalation, and the tax payments, will result in the same revenues, to the tjpa to the cfd. and if the settlement finalized the staff, though, and will present the settlement to the board at the next board meeting with the resolution that will instruct the executive director whether to vote in favor of the cpd as modified at the settlement and that could occur at the october nine meeting. >> thank you, and unless there are any questions from the board, moving on with my report, i have previously reported to the board that the u.s. department of transportation has referred to our project as a national model. and iden

and so that makes a total of 6 development projects that are subject to the cfd in the near term. >> and the in conjunction with the transit district plan that the per described methology for establishing the special tax rate, the rate will be the annual same as 0.55 percent of the building value, and that will be paid, annually, and 30 years and so that is about a half of one percent, and for 30 years. and the implementation. to determine the tax rates, and to set be forth and by the supervisors and by required by the mela rus, law, and after that the city conducted the study of the current real estate values in the district plan areas and developed the special tax rates for the rm a, equivalent for the annual payment of a 0.55 percent of the value of each building in the district plan area, subject to the tax. >> and the rm a, included an escalation factor, applied to the base tax rate, in the rm a, and based on changes in construction costs prior to the issuance, of the first certificate of occupancy, for each building, and subject to the tax, and with the escalation, pre, certifi

previous policy did not mention cfd issuance so we've included that because cfd issuance is governed by our local goals an policies and that's what governed it in the past but we've tidied this up. in the past we have used a fiscal consultant to prepare the tables if used in our secondary market disclosure just as the fiscal consultant prepares a report for bonds offerings. this is considered best practice and gives us -- it's more -- holds more credibility with investors and rating agencies to have a third-party prepare those crucial tables regarding the revenues that support the bonds. and as i mentioned the swap derivative policy is dropped as we've never used it and we don't anticipate circumstance where we would. few other. >> thank you. >> you're welcome. >> okay. i don't have any questions. do i have a motion? >> yeah, i move that. >> i'll second. >> commissioner singh has moved and commissioner mondejar has seconded. can you please call the roll? >> please announce your vote. >> mondejar. >> yes. >> singh. >> yes. >> rosales. >> yes. >> the vote is three is. >> next item. >>

walk you through the substance of the proposed amendment post issuance debt is expandsed to include cfd bonds, follow fcc guidance and to impend the city's disclosure policy appendixes as best practices model to be applied as appropriate. current ocii practice is to have secondary market tables prepared by a fiscal consultant and we've adopted that formally in this policy. the swap derivative policy, which was amended to the 2004 policy was deleted. this revised policy has been reviewed and commented on by the san francisco controllers office of public finance, by jones hall, our current bod counsel, and pfm, our current financial advisor. this concludes my presentation. thank you. >> thank you. any speaker cards? >> no speaker cards . >> very fascinating subject the public does not want to comment on. i mean that, sincerely. do we have any comments or questions by commissioners?

the me articulate the city's position is false: the developers agreement to establish a cfd drop financeransit the saudis was an essential part of the city's agreement to grant the developers substantially more floor area ratio which gives them a huge increase the value of their projects. if any of the developers oppose establishing the [inaudible] district by going to vote for its formation by taking any administrative or legal action to impeding formation that would violate the projects conditions of approval and or their dbas with the cai or agreements with it she gpa as applicable. in such a case the city would have remedies under the planning code and/or the dbas or agreements between those developers. which could include, for instance, not limited to, depending on the circumstances withholding occupancy permits for the buildings in question or withholding future discussion i permits during the construction process. >> so, if the developer were to either vote against the districts or sue [inaudible] or otherwise impede the ability of the districts to form, the city could withhold [i