if the c.f.d. can't fund all the identified projects, the city should not collect 100% of the funding through this mechanism. we made this recommendation in response to the issue that c.f.d.'s may not be able to fund certain things like private child care or the administration of funds. after discussing this further after the publication of our report which the city attorney got late, it seems like our recommendation is one potential solution. another way to resolve this issue is at the same time that each project chooses to enter into the c.f.d., the city would evaluate the specific limitations of the law at that time and address any constraints to ensure that the city is able to fund our needs. the department is satisfied with this approach. in addition, as mepgsed, the c.f.d.'s only make sense for large projects or pools of smaller projects. therefore, our expectation is that there will be more flexible funds from other projects that can be used for implementation and child care and other costs a

and the potential implementation of a c.f.d. this committee that will be formed by the resolution will implement those next steps. it's also a special opportunity because of rincon hill and there is a specific project developer of 333 harrison street that has offered to cover the costs, the consultant cost and the startup costs for the pilot i.f.d. that we're proposing on rincon hill. so this committee that's being formed would oversee the recommendations of the eastern neighborhood group and oversee the rincon hill i.f.d. most importantly, this committee would be charged with setting the policy criteria for when to use i.f.d.'s in the future. the reason that is important, i'm going to take two minutes to explain what an i.f.d. is and if you have any questions, please interrupt or i suppose you can ask me after the presentation. and an i.f.d. is essentially a tax increment finance district but taken outside of redevelopment. unlike the rather involved and legally complicated task of creating a full redevelopment area, this allows

on the c.f.d. also it is a good idea to get this sort of citywide c.f.d. process started. and i was involved there and you can amortize the costs and the substantial cost of developing the district and having a citywide c.f.d. that's smaller project and the much. practical way and the smaller projects to have access with inexpensive money and pays the fees and that are teetering on the brink of being able to move forward. and that extense to raise the impact of equity fees cannot defer but finance through the c.f.d. district. and these are well thought out and good public policy and i urge your support. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i would like to see more detail in the basic math of what the cost to a buyer per $100,000 over 20 years, calculated at 30 years and at 5%. and in the projects i have been involved in and none in san francisco and reflect in the purchase price and what the price goes down and it's not that hard to figure it out. and i think that would be a good thing to show. and the impact on the general fund because it has what's valued as minor

what we like about the i.f.d. and c.f.d. is there is an abundance of process and transporn si and it will have lots and lots of review and meetings and checks and balances into it. and this is not earth shaking or a silver bullet or something that could move forward. vice president olague: any additional public comment? >> i want to clarify something here. this is not legislation. these are resolutions, number one. two, there is a resolution to tomorrow a committee to oversee a consultant study and there is barely the beginning of a much longer process. there is some confusion that we are creating this overnight. this is simply the very, very beginnings of the project. vice president olague: thank you. commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: i would like to speak in support of both of these concepts and also say that i appreciate staff's input on them, too. i would like to make a couple of comments in regards to, first of all, the infrastructure finance district and as we know from the beginning of the discussion a cer

unit council area and estimated sales prices and we went ahead and ran the numbers on the hypothetical c.f.d. for each of those projects to understand what if a developer was to enroll and what it would like like and the numbers assuming an average unit size of 1,000 square feet which is roughly in the ballpark for most of the project and sales prices between $850 to $700 a square foot which is, frankly, where a lot of these bojts are to be feasible. it doesn't mean they'll feasible yet, but what we see the an effective rate and the effective property tax rate is 1.14. 1.18 to on the high end 1.39% and this is an annual assessment per unit and on the low end to the very high end of $200 and that is one rincon tower and that is the outlay because it has a particularly large infrastructure burden. none of the other nine, by the way, even come close. and i'm happy if the commissioners would like to distribute a copy of the spread sheet with all the anymonumbers. and theed are 10 projects that could theoretically get use of this program. and it is about $200,000 to join one of the districts and

the second resolution approving the formation of a c.f.d., community facilities district, and financing by abag. this resolution was introduced by mayor newsom and south korea duffy and with the issuance of a special tax bond for city impact fees and also approve the form of joint community facilities agreement and grant authority to city officials to implement that. so. i go through the department's analysis and recommendations, i would like to introduce michael ya yarney who will describe the intention behind the resolution and more of the specifics and technicalitieses about how the two districts would work. >> thank you.