where those funds would flow would be determined later in the process but to calculate, all told, there's about $205 million of property taxes, $54 million in net fell you today, equivalent to about 1.55 million per year, escalating as property values increase in that area. payments support is estimated at $14.3 million. i have more details on this later so i won't go into it now. it's important to note that we're also getting $12 million of land. there's about $8.6 million of land, about 23,000 square feet that will be swapped into the trust and held by the port as a trustee for the state of california. there's an additional 9000 square feet the port will receive that won't necessarily be impressed with the trust. we are getting the land in excess of what was considered as part of the trust's exchange. finally, the port lands come almost all of which will become public open space, the cost to improve those properties is $12.7 million. as i will discuss later, the developer will pay for up front of those costs. the developer and its successors will take on all park maintenance in perpetuity for these open spaces. we value this at about $175,000 a year in maintenance. finally, outside of the direct public benefits to the port and the city, there are two other components that have been discussed quite considerably as part of this project. first is public parking. public parking that was developed will come at a cost of about $150,000 for parking spaces. that brings us to $38 million construction cost. the developer hasd will bring in about $140,000 per space per day which has a net present value of approximately $22 million. there's a subsidy they are building into their development for public parking. president chiu: if i could dwell on that for a second. he said cost about $150,000 per spot. a number of the members of the board of supervisors believe that since this is to be a transit rich neighborhood, we should consider not a 400 car parking garages that requires three levels but a diminishing levels -- let's assume for example we take out 100 spots. to make sure my math is correct, if we did not have those 100 spots, we are saving $59 for the developer? >> it's not just a matter of space, it's about the physical design of the parking grudge. -- garage. meeting our contractual obligations and of fulfilling it this requires to plus another 60% of the level. very difficult even if you consider cutting out additional space is to meet those needs and get away with building only two levels. >>president chiu: there are 2.7 like to make. i think -- there are two points i would like to make. if this is bill to the size which is, the parties your contract into parking for have not at all agreed that sufficient to meet the contractual obligations. the second thing is we can have conversations around architectural design, but if you remove a level of parking, you create other spaces in those levels because you don't have to worry about ramps or other points of the egress and exits' and entrance into the garage. there are different ways of constructing a parking garages. >> with regards to the parking component, it looks like 255 parking spots currently being proposed for public parking. from my understanding, 150 is related to ferry building obligations. another 25 this to other obligations. we're looking at 175 obligated spaces the port is hoping to achieve through this development transaction, correct? >> we have about 175 spaces we're looking to fill the waterside obligations. about 70 or 80 spaces are required for retail and recreational uses and that's how the to under 55 number was arrived. >> 70 to 80 is what the planning department has indicated is necessary to deal with the commercial retail activities in that area? president chiu: one thing based on that conversation -- the 175 is based on contractual discussions that may or may not be felt here. that ate we are talking about is what is needed for retail and other spaces and the -- the 80 we're talking about is for retail and other spaces. the other number is created by quadrupling the parking in that space. you can look at the numbers and a lot different ways. >> that's correct. just to clarify -- i think it was planning that the code analysis for retail and recreation uses. the 127 parking places was approved by the planning commission. that's an overall summary of the public benefits. moving on to the payments to the port and payments for the land, the current appraised value is about $9.3 billion. supervisor kim: before you move on, i just want to understand that number. it the value of constructing these spots? >> it is the total differential between the cost to construct 255 spots and the expected revenue from a two mentored 55 spots. fewer spaces are built or allowed to be used. if three levels are still necessary, the construction costs would not change much at all. there might be less equipment to facilitate parking but the revenue would go down and the overall gap of the public parking would go up. supervisor kim: in terms of the tax climate -- this is over 30 years? >> it is over 45 years of the lifetime -- supervisor kim: how conservative which you say the assessed value was? >> i think it's relatively conservative. the numbers the developer is suggesting are below their original members suggest in their request for proposals a medal in 2008. i tried to be conservative in including the residential turnover or appreciation rates. growing these between 2% and 3% during the life of the project. president chiu: could you put up that last sheet? it's about $144 million. are you aware of the budget analyst believes this number is actually inflated by 40%? >> i believe there is a concurrence of items on a number of sheets and they were not analyzing as a public benefit and i want to put these before the supervisors. this is the department's view of what the public benefits are. i don't think there is much disagreement over any of the numbers but i will defer to my colleagues at the budget analyst. we did not discuss with a budget analyst with your doing the report or additional items, for example, the recreation club which i have not had a chance to mention -- it's a private recreation club. this is not a publicly owned facility. however it has been clear in our dialogue that this is a very important asset to this neighborhood. i think it's important to recognize we're taking a recreation facility and doing major improvements on it, doubling the aquatics space and the actual athletic workout space in the club and updating that facility. >> i think we have a different chart that lays out what your numbers are verses what the more real perspective is that we can talk about that is. while i think one might want to associate a value of creating that, we are destroying an existing asset at the same time and an analysis let's not add. why did you continue? -- why don't you continue? >> the sea wall lot of 351 has three components. the amount of land being swapped out of the trust to create the development pad between washington and jackson has been valued at about $7.6 million. it increased the value the court currently on spirit based on a number of factors, there are a number of payments sources that comes into that port. we're looking to get capital amounts of money and we balance that with ongoing needs the port has to increase our ongoing revenues. it just ticking through these items, it includes a $3 million land payment transfer fees on the commercial and residential condominiums. this brings the value to about $9 million. ongoing when payments of $120,000 a year escalating with inflation, these are about $2.3 million. that brings the overall total to 14.3. supervisor kim: i want to get a comparison to the only other project the port has undertaken. i'm curious to the comparison as to the summaries of the payments to the port in terms of how they compared. if you can talk about the participation and how that worked with the water market. >> i'm happy to answer that question. in the water mark transaction, the footprint of that development was approximately half an acre. approximately 22,000 square feet. the forms of compensation, one was an upcoming payment of about $2 million. we have a $9 million appraisal here. second, there's a payment the developer was holding in escrow. at was also a developer of the project at 3032 and the transaction agreement was they would hold those moneys in escrow, holding all excess profits with a return on money to hold that to the cruise terminal of that project. as it happens, they walked away from building that. those moneys were holed to be for use for a future terminal and those of the seed monies we're using to build the cruise terminal at pier 27. $70 million was supposed to cross subsidize eight maritime project and we would much rather have had the cruise terminal built than getting those moneys but that was the result of that project. supervisor kim: how worthy condo transfer fees negotiated for the water mark -- how were the, the transfer fees negotiated for the water marquest for >> we have no ongoing participation. -- we participated only from the sale of the land and residential uses and our participation terminated. we no longer get individual value from asset. in summary, this is about a present value of $14.3 million. i want to focus on public open space in this project and a transition into a discussion of tax increments. focusing on some of the numbers i put before you in the summary, the public benefits of this project includes providing $12 million of land conveyed to the port, approximately 30,000 square feet. there are open space improvements, this has a new cost associated with that. the developer received a bid in may, very recently, with an estimate of about $12.7 million. we have agreed to ongoing maintenance of this facility. overall, this means the developer has agreed to the transactions to up front of the cost and the lands for the park assets and they have sought through the mechanism of reimbursement through tax increments of 15% of the project cost. the developer has agreed to 100% of the ongoing maintenance for this new public park. here is a rendering of the park. that brings an overall discussion -- i just want to say here that this is a preliminary proposal. the only element before you today is the resolution of intention to form an overall amending their resolution for the overall port of san francisco ifp #two and adding a project area that could encompass the project. i want to first talk about some of the concept support has been using and some of the needs we think this will serve. there is about $204 million of tax increments we believe will flow through the ifp. half of that money on an annual basis, half the overall tax and commission always flowed to the general fund. we're seeking reimbursement for this public park. we've given the public benefit to the city and port that this partial reimbursement is comparable to other times the tax implement has been used to create these public assets. in other cases, far more public moneys have flowed into public open spaces. finally, there is the balance that represents one time bonding of the tax increment with a net present value of about $17 million that we would like to begin a discussion with the board to help fulfil some of the potential leads the port has through these revenue bonds that can be supported by this ongoing revenue. the three projects we have presented in this regard of the cruise terminal, phase it to. phase one is underway and will be used as a building for the america's cup and will need to be retrofitted with maritime equipment such as getting ways to make sure it is a fully functional and state of the art cruise terminal. the other needs we are proposing are under peer utilities. we are currently in discussions with the water board. they have asked us to come up with a program to solve a number of issues over time that amounts to about $45 million of expected it cost. there is water and sewer infrastructure so pollution does not flow into the bay. it also allows us to bring of the port facilities up to code. finally, the port appear substructures. that is the core of our capital plan, representing at least a quarter of our overall capital needs. finally, there is non-financed benefits to the project -- supervisor chu: can you tell us how you are splitting of the funds? it looks like you are from loading this to the port. >> the way we have structured this is our core principle is that one half of annual tax flows would go through the i s p to the general fund. we have structured a single 30- year bond. when the tax and credit flows are stable, it is estimated half of those flows would be about 1.55 million. the sources would be split equally but three -- equally between these capital needs. the public park reimbursements, we believe will be able to be funded through the stabilization of the tax increment flow before it becomes a capital asset and we believe those early flows will discharge the supposition. >> with regards to how you got to the 50-50 split? it's not a share of the land -- how do you get to that level? >> we looked at a number of factors. not sure we have a hard and fast proposal or single methodology. it was driven by the capital needs and what we see coming forward. we looked at the amount of units and assessed values being created on port lands, which is approximately 35% of the value and a slightly smaller number of the units. we looked at the city's overall guidelines and to look at the factors involved with up zoning as being one of the key policy rationales. in that regard, approximately 88 million assessed value or a 19% of the tax increment derives from the at the zoning of the city's site being proposed in this project. the original proposal was built in two equally sized buildings so half of the units were being built on property that was 90% port property which would be of greater value. we believe at that point, the original proposal agreed to comply with the embarcadero studies recommendations and over 50% of the assessed value is over pork plants. this is a way of looking at the project and the overall discussion should be based on import needs and we understand we need to make that case to the board when we seek approval for this project. >> if it is -- supervisor chu: in that situation, it's not necessarily the metric you would use. >> we try to advance projects we think are critical in the near term. we know we're going to need to do some substructure repair. we know that there is a critical need right now in discussions with regulatory agencies that like to stay in compliance and the cruise terminal is an important project and we would like to have enough funds for phase 2. >> can you speak to the project areas -- you talked about the reimbursement component, but the strength -- the sub structure -- it is roughly broken equally among these three areas. if we were to fund them -- comment when the two -- for the cruise terminal, if we were to allow for the five million- dollar allocation, do you actually get to 100% funded at the end of the day? >> it's about half of what we are identifying as an unknown funding source at the moment. it does not get us all the way there. the board believes it is more important to fund 100%, the port would agree but there's a mismatch in terms of timing. it makes a pretty major dent in the amount of obligations we have currently. we believe in that next few years there is approximately $11 million of -- $9 million of unfunded ports under peer utilities work. this goes quite a significant way to help us meet those obligations and the structure is significantly bigger. since the origin of our capital plan, we have always had to come to a place where we are not necessarily fixing the ongoing need to take these on a project by project basis and we need is some sort of funding source in mind when the appeared needs to be kept in service and revenue flowing into the city. pier 29 was identified -- certain portions of the area would have to be cordoned off as it do not enter areas which would not only allow us not to collect rent but take away from the overall value of that asset. >> i understand the issue before us today is whether or not we go forward with the creation but in terms of -- this is a conversation that will follow -- how do you expect that to come to us? when will we see a proposal about what this split will be and what the spending will be? >> we have introduced a partial infrastructure financing plan our intent is to update that to include a number of project areas currently under consideration. that should take the port three to six weeks and we need to bring that to our court commissions for it -- port commission for approval. it seems unlikely we would be before you before the august recess for consideration by the board. supervisor kim: of want to follow-up on the questions about how we came to the reimbursement amount of $5 million for the public park. for me, consistency is really important that i tried to get a sense of what levels are we committed to funding public improvements like treasure island or the two others we have created in the city. i wonder if you have a sense of how that was allocated and if this is similar to that? >> in those two cases, the developer will create a plan and do the initial work in preparing public and open spaces. there is work being done on the park for a number of residential towers and it will be the source of construction for public improvement. supervisor kim: do you know it the proportion is? >> it is my understanding the ifd will be part of the cost. my understanding is they have pledged to on site uses for treasure island with a set aside for public housing but the both is to pay for both -- infrastructure like sewer -- >> will it fully -- i don't believe it is scheduled to do a full reimbursement. i believe there is approximately $1.5 billion of development cost and the public flows of money