if we go backwards to create an ifd, is it better financially than ifd? could we switch back to the redevelopment area? >> absolutely. we would have to switch back to a redevelopment plan, which we were actually doing. but it is prohibitive to go the other way. if we could form a redevelopment plan, we could not go to an i fd. supervisor chu: the budget finance committee had before us not long ago an ifd that was put forward as a pilot. one of the reasons i was comfortable with that proposal is that we said we would put together parameters under which we would approve future ifd's. under what circumstances would be ok for us, the city to, to forgo. given that the budget and current situations are always something we have to look out for. we said we would create protections with parameters, but we are not at that point. we have no parameters that have been approved in any draft. how should i think about this or feel about this even before we have considered it. >> a great question. this does not necessarily fit into what we were discussing before. we may h

we got ifd the got -- we got the signal that ifd is the future of redevelopment. supervisor mirkarimi: right. but to assist the senators, ultimately speaking it is governor brown the stands at that intersection, whether this will become a reality or not. >> true. supervisor mirkarimi: wanted to make sure that we were clear on that. supervisor mirkarimi: fight -- supervisor chu: i know that we have two suggestions before us. one is to change it from two years to a five-year period of time. if i would like to confirm with that the department, that is something the department submitted as a change? and the second is a suggestion by the supervisor regarding ap current transaction fee in downtown san francisco. it's out of like there was an agreement to make that change. >> revised copies of the financing plan, they did make some changes and those are on file. supervisor chu: let's take action to except those submissions and changes without submission. with regards to the items before us, my understanding is that we should send the item out without recommendation, pend

point that was made about the change from redevelopment, tax increment financing towards infrastructure ifding. how does that change the staging of the project moving forward? i have been told that ifd funding would prolong financing, how we could have concurrent things or residents on the island. >> from the office of economic development. the change we made, through the it infrastructure financing district, it was primarily a financing one. it was a tool to assist. but they work exactly the same. it is property-tax increments from future development that is used to secure and issue bonds. the appellants touched on this a lot during the presentation, but, in essence, the bondholder looks to what the security is, what they are purchasing bonds for. a bond issuance is exactly the same as property tax from future development, so we do not thing that will have an impact at all. it is a very similar financing tool. the underlying zoning as well as the physical project that is before you, it did not change all as a result of the changed from re-development to infrastructure financing. the only d