Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Financing Districts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors advance Port infrastructure financing district guidelines after staff presentation
Summary
Port staff presented proposed guidelines for forming Port infrastructure financing districts (IFDs) to fund major waterfront capital needs including Pier 70 and Sewall Lot 337; the budget analyst recommended amendments to protect the General Fund and require project-level fiscal analysis. Committee approved the resolution as amended and will send it to the full Board.
Brad Benson, representing Port Director Monique Moyer and Port staff, told the Budget and Finance Subcommittee that the Port has developed policy guidelines for infrastructure financing districts (IFDs) aimed at funding large waterfront capital needs such as pile repairs, seismic upgrades and shoreline parks.
The proposal, introduced at the subcommittee meeting by Benson, explained that under state law an IFD can capture growth in property taxes from new development for periods of up to 45 years to finance public improvements. Benson said Port IFDs differ from past redevelopment practice and noted statutory limits including CEQA obligations and public-trust considerations. "Infrastructure Financing Districts are a little bit like redevelopment," Benson said, "and this tax increment or growth in property taxes can be used to fund infrastructure by issuing bonds, typically for a 30 year period or on a pay as you go basis." (Brad Benson)
Why it matters: Port staff framed IFDs as a tool to address an estimated multi‑billion dollar backlog of capital needs along Port property. Benson outlined three major project areas being considered for significant IFD-supported investment: Sewall Lot 337 (adjacent to the Giants ballpark), Pier 70, and the proposed Warriors site at Piers 30–32/Seawall Lot 330. He estimated total public and private investment in those project areas could be on the order of $4,000,000,000 and detailed preliminary infrastructure cost estimates for each site.
Budget analyst Mr. Rose told the committee that adopting the Port guidelines themselves has no immediate direct fiscal impact, but the threshold criteria and project-area financing plans could have material fiscal effects on the City's General Fund. He recommended amending the resolution to require that project-specific financing plans project the net fiscal impact to the City's General Fund and that threshold criteria be met before establishing a Port IFD. The Controller's Office representative, Monique Zamuda, echoed that the General Fund impact depends on the value of development and offered to support further fiscal analysis.
Support and safeguards: Corinne Woods, a member of waterfront advisory committees, told the committee she supports the legislation and the budget analyst recommendations. Benson said the Port had circulated amendments to map to the analyst's recommendations and that Port staff would accept further amendments if needed.
Outcome and next steps: The committee approved the resolution as amended and recommended it to the full Board. The Port and City staff will return with project-specific infrastructure financing plans after completing CEQA and the Capital Planning Committee review; the budget and fiscal impacts to the General Fund will be evaluated at that project stage.
The record from the subcommittee meeting shows the committee endorsed the use of IFDs as a policy tool while asking for stronger fiscal safeguards and project-level analysis before any district captures property-tax increments.
