that is based on fire, parks, costs. this graph here and this is essentially a surplus revenue. that triangle is used as an assumption that any properties would turned over every 20 years which might be a

conservative estimation of new products. what you see is a rental project being sold 20 years out and generating transfer taxes. these are simply projections. i don't want to suggest that this is not a firm projection. how should we approach the finest districts in san francisco.

all of the cookies and our and bashar are gone at the end of the day if we don't have some very good policies restricting when we use these. a larger share is automatically passed through. before we recommend this to the port, we would make sure that -- satisfies these criteria as.

the first is that we're proposing that they be limited to areas of rezoned area plan. this is also adopted as a property development agreement. i mentioned how we like to use these to leverage more money outside? second, we proposing that -- be limited to areas within the first category where there is a net fiscal benefit to the general fund as determined by the comptroller's office. we would not be proposing the -- where it could jeopardize the general fund to meet the basic needs. in addition to that restriction, we will further restrict the maximum to motive

available to 50% over the 30- year turn. any diversion should never result in a negative impact. the increment of version would been reduced to a level where that did not occur. we suggest that these be limited to projects that address infrastructure deficiencies as defined by a a universal amount

of criteria that the planning department needs to develop. we have a fair allocation. this is to avoid the gold-plated park bench problem >> what is one of the key safeguards to protect in the general fund. what is the board oversight role and in terms of developing that criteria? >> we are proposing that they get drunk before the board. -- that they get done before the board. all of the proposals came from

the -- adopted plan. the discipline is that we will stay within the confines of that plan. this board could review those independently. we would hope that we can't get these policies in place sometime soon. >> in terms of the standards, there has not been too much conversation will be in terms of the infrastructure deficiencies that are needed in the community. generally, the equity in these types of structures throughout the city, we would like to see a

pedestrian-friendly types of streets. areas. not all have them. that is something that will be considered. how that is spread out across the city. >> yes, ideally, we will have, and i do not want to over describe it, because we have to go through the process, but i think we all the knowledge that there is a universal process. an objective analysis of where the deficiency is. an ad hoc analysis. we have the makings of these policies in our general plan or pieces of them. we need to formalize them so there is a fairness in how we progress in the future. finally, the fifth point here, i

also want to emphasize in terms of responsibility. we are also proposing that we limit the use of ifd money to those with a long-term commitment. as you remember, ifp's cannot fund ongoing operations, which is a quirk in the law, but the city will have to look at new mechanisms or old mechanisms to finance the ongoing maintenance and operation. this policy essentially says the city will not authorize an expenditure until we have identified that. for example, there could be a specific and general fund commitment. that is one possibility. there could be another district and add an assessment in that neighborhood to help pay for upkeep. it could be a community benefit districts that is already in existence, for example, and then, finally, there are a series of public-private

agreements that the city has pursued with other property owners for a specific parks and open spaces that could be applied here. in the case of the half -- the rincon hill, they have negotiated something to make sure they have that. chair chu: thank you. that last point, i appreciate it. i know we often do not have the resources to maintain the facilities and do the job that they want to in maintaining the parks, to create more parks in another area adds to their burden, so seeing where we are with the general fund, i understand that is a potential source that we have identified here, but i would rather prefer the we have public-private partnerships or other sources of income. >> i think we are very keenly

interested in pursuing those agreements. chair chu: thank you. >> the final page of my presentation, these are criteria the city should consider, the board should consider, when approving future ifd's. this was based on input received from the capital planning committee, and this is good. proceeds passed directly to the general fund, and only be diverted or allocated to the ifd funded by a specific action of the board. so what does that practically mean? if the electors approve and this board adopts the ifd, a portion has to be incrementally

added to the fund. this comes on the budget office, and this is a way to ensure that the city is making smart budgetary decisions and prioritizing. of course, if bonds were issued, the board would be required to allocate what is necessary to service those bonds. second, we are proposing that the general ifd funding be limited. the primary reason is that unlike redevelopment, ifd's can only be formed by a vote, and it is only by two thirds of the voters within an ifd or by another manner if there are fewer than 12 voters.

this represents a smaller pool of folks. obviously, either approach could be taken. for practical reasons, we think it would be advantageous to concentrate on commercial or vacant properties. cuff -- we would like to use non city resources. i think, most notably, those at the state and federal level. four, this is a specific input from our public citizens, stakeholders. we also like to require procedures to help the city agencies prioritize implementation of the infrastructure. as you can see from rincon hill, i think we are all interested to hear from residents what they view is important in helping the city decide which projects. and then finally, this was a direct recommendation from supervisor cohen, malia cohen,

essentially reporting back on how is the ifd doing and how are the monies being spent, and that seems practical. that includes the summary of both ifd's, in general, the rincon hill ifd, and what we think will make the framework for future ifd's. i am happy to answer questions. i have someone with me that helped to prepare the information in your pockets -- packets, and there is another here. chair chu: thank you. i believe that supervisor kim

has a question, and then we will go to the analyst's report. supervisor kim: your priorities? >> to my knowledge, there is no priority list, but it is the rincon hill. it is under option, and we're trying to move fast to be able to preserve it. supervisor kim: the projected date when the infrastructure improvements would happen is potentially year four, when residents would start to see that. >> specifically for the first increment, that would allow us to purchase the park and hopefully commence construction shortly thereafter. supervisor kim: and in terms of

us making long-term commitments to these, have we begun to look at these four rincon hill -- for rincon hill. we started looking at that for the other commitments, with rec and park, dpw, and others. >> there can be additional tools, public-private agreements. where we have one single property owner who receives such a benefit from a particular improvement. so that could be done opportunistic lead. it is possible, for example, there is a significant project very close to a parka, -- park, and we can see if they will support a similar one at the rincon hill site.

supervisor kim: what kind of time before it comes back for approval? >> there is an estimated budget, and we would also come to you with the proposed maintenance plan. supervisor kim: this may have been in the report, but is there an actual definition about efficiency? >> at this point, it is more of an art than a science. there are some in the general plan for parks, some general plans for a neighborhood versus regional-serving parks, but, frankly, there has not been a universal standard for all of the things that people say they want, better streetscapes, community centers, parks, so we need to do that work. supervisor kim: and that will be the future situation, as more people are involved, so trying

to set the standards earlier would be helpful. the last question i have, and this is just something i am curious about, is how it recalculates services needed in neighborhoods? is there a formula to be used to determine other neighborhood services? i know that you included that in the cumulative general fund cost, including the ifd part. >> there is a standard methodology. but there is a consultant. their initial reports on the study that was done for a shipyard, traditionally, most of those studies are done based on very costs. what the consultant does is they look at the fund budget or a particular category, police and fire, for example, and they look at what that means on a per- capita basis, and then they take that number and multiplied it by the expected service population, and the term "service

population" lose the stands for residents and about 50% of the employment base -- a loosely stands for that. -- it is loosely stands for that. -- it loosely stands. supervisor kim: demographics? >> to look at demographics first. we look at demographics specifically in the realm of public health and civil services, and is this a population that we expect is going to have a significant drop on those services, and, supervisor, to be frank, ultimately, there is a judgment call in that case, and we know for a fact that every one of these projects we would say our higher-end projects for a population that we do not expect to be using public health

services or even public transit as much as a population in the middle of the tenderloin, and so, we looked at each cost carrier -- costs and area. we tried to rob a reasonable outcome -- we looked at each cost area. we tried to reach a reasonable outcome. supervisor kim: thank you. chair chu: why do we not go to the analyst's report? >> we have a very detailed report and a very brief summary. i would just review with you the recommendation on pages 15 and 16 the reason we consider this to be a policy matter for the board of supervisors. first, we say that approval would create the first infrastructure fund in san

francisco district. creation of a district would result in of bam a maximum $16 million -- would result in generating property taxes to be retained by the district, rather than accruing to the city's own funds, and, supervisors, that is the main, the bottom-line issue that the approval of this legislation would commit this to the district as opposed to with accruing to the general fund. also, while the assumption behind the growth projections are there, we have reviewed them, and they do appear reasonable. but they nevertheless are projections reflecting in the real-estate market. second, there is the construction of facilities in the rincon hill area involving

costs, but any expenditures, as stated, would still be subject student -- subject to the board of approval -- borders supervisors -- board of supervisors' approval. approval includes the issuance of up to -- bonds, though this would require specific board of supervisors' approval. this would be to pay for public facilities, about $15.70 million. the total estimated accumulated debt service of over $37 million. the entire $22 million in bonds issued would obligate the district of total debt service payments of an estimated $54 million-plus from the revenues.

and finally, we state that the actions would include the board of supervisors' approval regarding the use of further infrastructure facility areas. we consider your approval to be a positive matter for the board. chair chu: thank you. i have a few questions for mr. yarne. so, i understand that the rincon hill area would be a pilot plan. this would not necessarily be articulated. i understand that issue. if you were to walk us through some the best practices, with regard to recreation and parks being able to identify a funding plan to maintain this potential new site, the creation of the

park is done. >> there is something in place that is actually receiving funding. what i envision is about the best case scenario.

we have pretty firm estimates about what this will cost, and we have an actual bid for the ongoing maintenance. so what we would present to this board will be the authorization of the bond issuance, the ifd share of the budgets. this would be to provide ongoing maintenance with attachments showing that there is a binding bid in that case for maintenance services. this committee, i assume, perhaps, they will be able to judge the accuracy of those estimates and the strength of those commitments. another example, a supervisor, which i think is quite possible in large areas is when the

economy finally improves, it would be possible to explore what we call a relatively light assessment over a large area. this is if you, in turn, permit added assessments. chair chu: can you speak a little bit as to why this part helps to solve the deficiency? how we found a level of amenities that are not available in that area? >> i stand here, kind of representing the rincon hill

process. there was, i think, a development. this is for the recreation and parks to arrive at this. i am under the impression that that analysis is with the adoption of the plan. >> -- chair chu: that would be good information to be provided to our office. whether or not if you had an rf d, should there not be a real

investment, other things would be possible. -- should there not be korea investments, other things would be possible. we are really, in a way, giving additional benefits to an area that would not necessarily need it for the project to be completed, right? so in terms of helping us think about this, what is the developers' portion? there are the impact fees. would we not be able to purchase the land? it has been entitled. that project development is happening. it is going to occur. we are not arguing that we need to make this development for it to happen. it is going on. an extra amount of allocation, in terms of dollars to provide public amenities, is it that we cannot possibly provide the public amenities with these?

>> i can answer this question precisely and been more generally. precisely, in the case of rincon hill park, we have a relatively small window of opportunity. the parcel that i have mentioned on harrison, they have to justify their financing this month, in february, and there are two approaches. they have to demonstrate to the lender that the city is committed to forming an infrastructure financing district and ultimately issue bonds. in that case, they can justify it to their lender that the ultimate purpose -- purchase of the property and then the dedication of that park. i have to emphasize that the park is not a condition of the approval of that. because of the crash, there were additional impact fees in the wind, and he'll plan to pay for it -- indeed -- in the rincon

hill plan. it is a classic problem with impact fees. the only arise when the development happens. it is very hard for us to do pro-active acquisitions when we cannot bond, and so, the impact fees again, to rehash, the impact fees collected at rincon hill today are insufficient -- insufficient for that park. and then finally, in response to a broader question about will the development happen, my educated guess is that this development, all of the development at rincon hill will develop, but i think the question is at what rate, and at question is at what rate, and at what quality?