Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Area Plan Financing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staff outlines financing options for Eastern Neighborhoods and area plans; recommends detailed IFD/land‑secured study
Summary
Planning staff presented an implementation update for four area plans and proposed a mix of tax‑increment (infrastructure finance district) and land‑secured funding (CFD/Mello‑Roos) to close multi‑decade infrastructure gaps estimated at roughly $99M (limited package) to $235M (full package) in 2008 dollars.
Planning Department staff briefed the commission on April 6 about progress implementing four adopted area plans (Market Octavia, Balboa Park, Eastern Neighborhoods, Rincon Hill) and summarized a working‑group report on financing options for Eastern Neighborhoods.
Ken Rich and Kirsten Bissinger described the department’s implementation team, the role of Citizens Advisory Committees and the interagency plan implementation committee that coordinates with Rec & Parks, Public Works, MTA and other agencies. Sarah Dennis Phillips and Adam Vandewater then presented the Eastern Neighborhoods Infrastructure Financing Working Group findings.
Vandewater said the working group modeled two alternative improvement packages: a ‘limited’ package with a funding gap of about $99,000,000 and a ‘full’ package with a gap near $235,000,000, both expressed in 2008 dollars. “The numbers that Sarah mentioned here, the $99,000,000 and the $235,000,000 do not include operating and maintenance and are in $2008,” he said.
Staff recommended further study of two funding approaches to close the gaps: (1) an infrastructure finance district (IFD), a tax‑increment like tool being advanced at the state level, and (2) land‑secured funding through a community facilities district or Mello‑Roos assessment. Vandewater described tradeoffs: an IFD could generate substantial future revenues but typically requires years of growth before major bonding; a CFD/Mello‑Roos can provide up‑front assessments but requires a two‑thirds voter approval and risks passing costs to renters via pass‑through rules.
Commissioners asked about sensitivity to real‑estate cycles, the potential to carve IFD/CFD boundaries, and equity implications for renters and existing residents. Staff said work would continue with the citizens’ advisory committees and that some projects identified in area plans have already moved into departmental work programs.
No formal commission action was required on the informational item; commissioners thanked staff and asked for follow‑up findings about boundary options, fiscal impact reports and coordination with the city’s 10‑year capital plan.
