reading between the lines that i have had to do because there are not answers that i have been able to find any documentation. i think there are probably things that others from the staff probably don't even know the answers to. let's start with the council's report that was the $1.4 billion boon to the original economy. if we are to believe this report, and almost every time boosters have commissioned an economic study preceding the approval path from the world cup, the olympics, the super bowl, an all-star game, the estimates are almost universally overoptimistic. they even somewhat acknowledge

that. they try to take conservative members because of that choice which is clearly universal and sort of natural if you think about it. if these numbers are accurate, let's go to page 25 and 26. as the main big sponsor in conjunction with whatever acoc is wrong. -- is called. the net revenue for the general fund is $13 million. very roughly, that is $24 million in combination of payroll tax-the $11 million that

is related costs that they identified including traffic. i am not sure what else is included in the $11 million. i am just going to the resolution, going through the term sheets, going through the rest of this economic study. this is assuming that the economic boon is accruate a -- accurate and the [unintelligible] i am interested in the revenue, i know that there is some parking enterprises and other things on pier 60. -- pier fifty.

i am interested in the cost of relocation of tenants. in addition to appear -- piers. i am interested in what the financing costs are for the future infrastructure and financing mechanisms. that will come out of sacramento. i am interested in the actual cost of the work at pier 80, the removal of pier 36. the cost of the removal of the sheds. i assume these are all not included in the $11 million figure that the council came up with. who knows? there is also issues of docking, super yachts.

the issue of lost advertising revenue for like the national airport. i am interested in the city's cost, perhaps it is included in the plan that did go through. i am interested in what the city staff is telling us in terms of preparation to be here today, in terms of preparation of ceqa documents. i believe the city is liable for that cost. the cost of permit expediting, but what i am most concerned about is the long term development deal for san francisco, and specifically for this area of district 6. the think are remembered the

deal that fell through, but believe it was valued at $10 million for the city and others. there was much discussion about the lot at 330. there is contemplation in this plan for the trust swap. the project at treasure island as well. there is the value of the other parcel. i am not sure which parcel we are talking about, or what is the lost value if we swap their. there is also the ability to sell, 330 is a very valuable blocked. i know some of my constituents want to see that come down to 40 feet, but that is not likely to happen now. there is the loss in future

property-tax is. we do have an infrastructure development financing plan that allows for taxes of over a certain number of years to be assumed to back into the infrastructure cost that this deal is asking. those are the costs that i think may not be reflected in this $11 million. i want to see that on a balance sheet and i want to see what this project actually means for the general fund. it is being sold to us that this is going to be big and this will be money into the general fund. but the $13 million figure is not that large, and i don't think that these various things are accounted for in terms of

what is being sold to the board of supervisors. not just procedurally whether or not section 29 of the administrative code is being violated or not. not whether the supervisor was consulted adequately, but what seems like a ramroding of the board of supervisors, lots of questions, maybe state legislation on a tuesday calendar. no ceqa to guide us. no budget analyst report. no time to get an analysis of this. if sean elsberned were on the other -- elsbernd were on the

other side of this, his head would be spinning around. since he is a billionaire, it is a yacht race. it was cool when it happened off the coast of ryland, but is as good or is this not good? >> this is like my one opportunity, ok? i am limited to 10 minutes if it clears committee. that is pursuant to the board rules. it would be great if i don't get an opportunity. it would be great if i got an opportunity to see an independent budget analyst report to take a look at the chamber of commerce and bay area's report to see if these numbers are real.

65-75 years. i know that supervisor maxwell, when the issue of home depot was up, they cast votes against it. you felt very strongly that it was inconsiderate of us because we were voting against the will of the home district supervisor. another the president got up and said that he didn't love the idea and didn't love the project, but he loved district elections and he saw the passion for the home district supervisor. that is sort of what carried the day. supervisor maxwell: there were 200 people in the audience that day, too. >> if you had a development

project with this many questions that was the significant, with that many impacts, i don't care if you only had a week left in office before you were out. i would think that there would be the respect of the home district supervisor, and not even of the elected, but of the constituents that they represent. i never got a majority out of the precincts, but i have been duly elected three times in nasty alexians where there was plenty of opportunity to vote against this supervisor. and many people did. but i was elected three times. i am the representative of district 6 and if you read the charter, this because i only have a few more months like you'd do doesn't mean that the resident district 6 no longer

have representation on this board of supervisors. for a project of this magnitude, you'd think that the home supervisor would get at least a day, something more than a day between the committee hearing in an item being rammed through the process on that agenda. supervisor maxwell: your questions should be entered, absolutely right. i think we also have people here that can answer. why don't we start with that. why don't we start with the presentation and get with those questions. before you start, will you please go over exactly what we are doing today so that everything -- >> i had to go pick up my kids 30 minutes ago, but one other question. we have passed the assembly

member questions [unintelligible] the financing authority, i am not a state guy. i read the legislation, but i honestly didn't understand half of it. at a stand san francisco code, but california code is sort of a foreign language to me. the question is the relationship between this financing mechanism, the obligation for the city and the port under this term sheet, the obligation that has been asked of mr. ellison, and the one person that could

answer if the moneys from this work to go to pay port or both. there is $270 million promised by acoc and private philanthropy. i wonder what the actual cost of the event looks like. how much are we talking in terms of the boat race, his entry into the boat race, the wine that is being poured in the hospitality tent. what are those costs against the $150 million. is that inclusive? isn't that like double dipping? i have nothing but questions,

but i will have my staff in here, and i will be watching this on the videotape later tonight. supervisor maxwell: i really expect them to be answered, and they should be entered in writing as well so that he can get a hard copy as well. >> can get the section 29 question answered which would seem germain? supervisor maxwell: she is looking at that right now, and while she is, we will continue. i'm sorry, a supervisor mirkarimi. supervisor mirkarimi: we can wait. as you wish. >> i am the director of office economic and work-force development. we have answers to a vast majority to his questions, and

those that we don't have answers for we share. it will be questions that will be answered. what we're asking your support for today is a resolution endorsing a term sheet that is a non-binding agreement on the city. it is giving broad outlines of the terms under which we want to negotiate a binding agreement. the reason that the budget analyst determined there is no fiscal impact is because this is not yet an agreement that binds the city to do anything. we're coming to you today to call the question and see if these broad terms are ones in which the city policy makers want to move forward and create a binding agreement that the event authority, that the nonprofit organizing committee and the city would all be party to. we anticipate that in order to create a binding agreement, the discussions would go on over the next month or six weeks. we would be back to you with

that and it would all be subject to budget analysis, and all of that would answer questions in detail about what the city's costs and obligations are. we don't believe we have a project here. we believe that we are coming to you with the outline of what a project could look like. and we're trying to get feedback from you on whether or not we can negotiate. supervisor maxwell: it is important to reiterate that we do not have a project as of yet. >> what we're trying to do is move forward and give the american cup committee a sense that the city family wants to move forward in this direction with some of the underlying terms, but the city would commit to do what we expect the committee to do in terms of infrastructure improvements,

facilities that we believe would be necessary in order to support a project, and to put the responsibility for corporate sponsorship -- it would be marketing dollars from corporations in which they would be buying advertising. that responsibility with lived in the nonprofit organizing committee and would not be a responsibility of the city, nor with the city be a backstop for that obligation. if those concepts that we bring before you today -- the reason we're asking that this outline be decided quickly as we want to be able to start negotiating binding terms based upon the outline in the coming months. we don't feel we can go any further until we have called the question of the board. with all respect to supervisor daly, we reached out to the

office numerous times to hold briefings. they were on much higher levels before we had the term sheet language settled on, and since then, we have made an effort to get to everyone before this hearing to answer any questions. >> i was called to ask why i wasn't on the honorary committee, but we have no record that i was asked. >> we would like to start a 15 minute presentation that will answer a lot of your substantive questions. we have the project manager for this effort that will give the bulk of the presentation. we also have someone who has done conceptual design. we have someone here to speak very briefly on the interagency coordination, and you know as the park commission president serving as the acting president of the organizing committee to talk about the responsibility

and capacity of that. we have a port director here, an extraordinarily good and productive relationship, we were hoping that we could talk about how this proposal will affect them. last week, we have john here to talk about the economic impact report if you have any questions. i believe it will enter a great deal of your questions. supervisor maxwell: supervisor mirkarimi, you had some opening comments? i think that your comments were important. you started us off with this whole thing and you brought it to everybody's attention. supervisor mirkarimi: i am not in a singular position, but i am

glad that drew a swift process, one that supervisor daly is rightfully calling to our attention, we haven't had the conversation yet about the prospect of posting america's cup. i want to be clear with this that i want to see san francisco host it. i also feel strongly and i am excited about the prospect, this portion of san francisco can become a destination site where it is not currently. and that we can agree imagine a vision for this sector of the port and of our city in a way that it has not been before. and i believe that we are finally talking a language that the city has not had a conversation about maybe ever,

but at least in some years about is not the same jobs and businesses we're trying to recruit, but we are breaking out with the potential of talking about a new industry, and the prospect of maybe a maritime industry. with part of that industry comes the whole accompaniment of questions that obligate us to get answers to, many that supervisor daly was speaking of. i don't want to lose sight of a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. as clumsy as this feels because we are a city, where one of the most magnificent cities on the planet. it feels are uneven in the scale and in the objective of us trying to secure the right to

host the cup. and to do so at a time line that in even all of our most well- known processes, we are very process sensitive in san francisco. naturally, this test our patients and it tests our institutional approach to how we processed this information. aside from that, i agree that with the host supervisor with respect to -- if proper courtesy and the professional courtesy was not extended the way that it should have and the way that it was also reported in the examiner, that is something that should not occur again. i appreciate very much the poignant dissection of what supervisor daly is asking.

my optimism is that we can answer these questions, and as i have said before, witnessing what the cup has done in areas that became very used to having the cup for 53 years back in southern ryland where my family is, working around that industry as a younger person, growing up with that, we are poised to hold the cup. i believe the mayor's office has the task of doing everything they can to get these questions answered, and to do so in record time. this is a unique experience that we can't cut corners on and the people in the public need to

understand that. supervisor chiu: i just have a couple of brief comments. to reiterate what was just presented, what we're doing today, if we were to approve this term sheet and this resolution would still be dodging that the city has to conduct an environmental review. the city may disapprove or revise the project following the review. the term sheet will not be considered a formal approval of the project, and there is acknowledgment that space plans will continue to evolve and to be designed in conjunction with the environmental review. what we're looking for is for some general sense of support politically on whether we should move forward. i have already stated publicly that the fact that we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for our city to host an incredible event, an event that

will have tremendous economic benefits to san francisco as far as jobs and recovery during the worst economic recession since the great depression, we have an opportunity to revitalize our ailing facilities. i support as moving forward. we still have a lot of details to work out, and one of the various presenters -- as we understand how some of these questions will be resolved, many of the neighbors are around this. the neighborhood network has passed for the neighborhood association be pulled into the conversation and this is highly appropriate. i like to hear how this impacts others in the area. but it is my contention that we can pull together and we can do it fast enough to make sure that not only see advances the win, but our whole country wins this bid.

supervisor maxwell: thank you. why don't we begin? >> we are at the helm of a transformative opportunity for san francisco. we will set forth today it what the couple could look like. today's presentation will cover the immeasurable benefits and some pretty specific ones. i will walk you through a power point. supervisor maxwell: and we all have hard copies? >> of the presentation, yes. i think one of the schedule slides got messed up in the printing, so i will bring that to your office afterwards.

let me cover the context with which we are bringing forward the resolution. in february, the bmw racing team won the america's cup in spain. as the victor, they have the right, the duty, the obligation to organize the next american cup. he gets to choose where, when, and these are a number of important decisions. just two weeks ago, he decided it would be 2013. it is a very exciting opportunity in for the sailing world. a number of folks here will speak to you about what it means to take that turn. san francisco was designated the only city under consideration back in july. now we are competing against the federal government, the prime minister of italy, and the king

of spain. san francisco has tried to nationalize this effort. we are bringing resolution and term sheets so that we can demonstrate the city family supports the framework for continued conversation as we move into the binding agreement. let me share with you what we think the challenge and opportunity presents. san francisco would change the face of it forever. it is a chance to complete the central and southern waterfront, delivering a significant economic benefit.

we talked about $1.4 billion in economic impact as well as nearly 9000 new jobs. these are for hospitality, tourism, hotel workers along with infrastructure jobs. and we also have someone here to speak directly to you about benefits if you have a direct request. we will build upon the silver lining, take that opportunity to rebuild the waterfront in a way that brings new public activity and turns what are working parking lots and turn them into public gathering spaces once again. san francisco hosting the cup will also transfer the face of sailing for ever. we have an unparalleled amphitheater