there will be somewhere between $30 million and $60 million of net benefit. i think we agree the hotel sales payroll tax is somewhere between $19 million and $22 million. we think those numbers are conservative. we think hotel rates will go up. >> but in your term sheet there is the agreement that we will work with the business bureau to make sure that the lowest discounted hotel rates, the best convention rate specifically, are available. >> we recommend $19 million to $23 million for general fund increases. what i do not think is included in your spreadsheet is we are

projecting the event of authority to have a negative value. supervisor daly: i know you do not hang out in budget and finance as much as you do in some other committees, but this is an analysis for the general fund. the port is an enterprise department. i understand it is all one city. i understand it is everyone's property and money. this is specifically focused on the impact on the general fund, which we do give a good bit of attention in budget and finance, because it is where the more discretionary dollars are. it is a bit of a taking of the temperature. i understand there is a port

fund and there are liabilities. there are some potential upsides to dealing with a huge potential liability in terms of the port. this spreadsheet is aimed at figuring the impact on the general fund, which is separate from the port budget. >> it looks like you included the $40 million of revenues and the costs of the port infrastructure work. supervisor daly: the reason why i included that is because of language. maybe that 40 is too high because the revenue into the city is not that much. maybe that 40 should come down to the 24 figure because of language through that charter provision where there can be an intra-departmental thing.

i heard you were interested in keeping the port hole and perhaps using that provision for interdepartmental transfer to make sure the port was able to capture from the city the delta at in terms of increased revenues to the city. let me go ahead and make a correction. if everybody can cross out that party, i was not thinking. that should be 24, because that is all the income i have reflected into the general fund from this event in terms of hotel, payroll, and sales tax. i do not think the port or city revenue authority should do the transfer of more money than what is generated through this activity, to that charter section. let us make that 40 to 42. that 108 has turned into 92, and

the 52 goes down to 36. that is better. this is helpful. this is what i like. >> we could take our analysis and just use the general fund. it is kind of a mess. hotel sales in payroll taxes -- we are going to give 24. >> your number is there. supervisor daly: i just took that right out of the report. >> we think the city service costs are somewhere between $8 million and $12 million.

we do not know exactly what this event looks like. if you look at the pga tournament, which conservatively estimate that to be somewhere in the neighborhood of $8 million to $12 million. we are asking to be reimbursed for $32 million of costs. that gets us in the neighborhood of $52 million in costs -- excuse me. $50 million in revenue. $12 million in costs. we thought it was accurate to include port revenue and costs since they will be impacted. we think it is hard for the board to absorb. >> one of my questions is what is included in the $32 million. what is in front of us today in terms of the term sheet -- what

is specifically mentioned as the city's responsibility, i think in conjunction, are specifically the taxes, and the fixtures of fees, the utilities. those were the items where it was delineated that san francisco was going to be on the hook. that seemed to be what mr. mcclellan was talking about yesterday in terms of reimbursement. i am wondering if there is more included in that 32 and what the budget for that 32 is. >> that will reimburse the city for any and all staff costs. it is to reimburse the city for

our normal costs for hosting this event. we are including in that number as revenue beyond that the $20 million in general fund tax revenue to give us $5 million in revenue. supervisor daly: but not the capital work on the piers? >> we could include the port numbers in here and get this thing resolved. supervisor daly: then i am double counting. i just did not know what was included in that 32. i will take out the 11th from the police. we can mark that out. 92 then becomes a 8181. 52 becomes 25. you are doing well. >> i recommend you also take up

the port infrastructure costs. our number, in essence, is the tax revenue. that is what our spreadsheet looks like. supervisor daly: but my concern is when we make commitments to do this work. does the port have the money in their budget to do it? if not, who is going to pay for it? where does that money come from? alternately, the general fund is on the hook unless something happens and our port bonding kicks in. >> it is a cash flow problem that these revenues come in at one time and is not created until the event. $20 million in tax revenue would come in during the event. some of these costs are going to

be incurred prior to that. we do have a cash flow problem we have to look at. we do want to come back to you and look at ways to solve that, whether it is cops or other ways. supervisor daly: i am fine with solving a cash flow problem. president chiu: how many more questions to you have? supervisor daly: a lot. president chiu: 5 colleagues have asked me to invoke a rule. i have not invoked the 10-minute rule before. if you would like to speak for an additional 10 minutes, we have several other colleagues on the roster. we have many people waiting for the at 3:00 special order, the 2:30 special order. if this would make sense, if you

have questions for city staff, we could put this item off until later in the meeting so you can confer with staff to get your answers and summarize that. supervisor daly: let us just cut to the chase. i mentioned the 10-minute rule yesterday in the committee. the chair was trying to assure me along as well. president chiu: please start the time clock. supervisor daly: i appreciate you may have a cash flow issue, but where is the cost of the financing reflected on this? i just want to see what the overall cost and benefit to the general fund would be. at this point, there are a bunch of question marks on this spreadsheet, which has been altered a little bit and now reflects basically a $26 million deduction to the general fund, which i think may actually be

real, based on the numbers you're telling me at the moment. i understand you would like that $40 million figure in terms of the parking revenue we have at the port of this letter, but at a certain point, to the charter amendment mechanism, there will be an interdepartmental transfer contemplated. the revenues coming into the city can be taken back into the port to defray the cost of the event to get the revenues in the first place. that is why i moved that $40 million figure to 24. in terms of the $32 million, which i have on both sides of this letter at the moment, i struck at $11 million from the bay area council report. you said that is going to be included in the $32 million. i just do not see that infrastructure work coming from anywhere else, except for some

financing. but you still have to pay for that financing somehow. if you are born to have a legacy out at -- going to have a legacy at pier 50, we already have the financing to deal with ouepier 70. the money has to come from somewhere. if you pull that off his ledger, you get closer to no net impact for the general fund, but i think that number is real and i think there are other costs on here which are also real. i think for us to say that this is going to be a big benefit to the general fund just is not true until you can provide the

numbers. i have two staff people, but we tend to be overwhelmed. maybe you guys should prepare the spreadsheet so i can do what you're doing to my spreadsheet with your spreadsheet. at some point, that has to happen. this is an incredibly rushed process for an item that is going to have the kind of impact and perhaps even greater impact than the hosting of an olympic games. this is an event that is going to have enormous impact on san francisco. some of them are going to be very good. some of them are going to be very bad. ultimately come up with a term sheet and a finding of fiscal feasibility and responsibility that we have to do pursuant to chapter 29 of the administrative code before the

process can begin at the planning department, we have the responsibility to decide whether this is good for the city and county of san francisco. what i am noting is a net negative impact on the general fund just with the facts and figures i have been getting up until 10 minutes ago. there are huge questions as to stability of the america's cup, given how the last daughter went down. it went down in the courtrooms. any cannot just sell the tv rights to billionaires' lifti tigating one another. it is not must-see tv. you cannot fix a pier with litigation between to sailing clubs. i represent the district at

least for a few more months. i am in legitimate representative of the district that is going to have the most impact from this event. while i have never gotten the courtesy from the mayor's office, at least not since 2006, of the heads up or the meeting. just like yarney would go to sunshine committee and say they complied but never got as our requests, the mayor's spokesperson will say, "that is just daly and his ego going off." that is how they operate, and they lie. there is no record of a meeting request with me. if there was, it would have been produced, because i sunshined it.

i expect that. i should not. it is terrible. i expect that. but what i do not expect from colleagues is a ramroding of the process. i mentioned yesterday in committee -- if sean elsbernd were on the other side of this with have his questions unanswered, we are the tax and spend liberals. he would be having a field day with this. if the impact was an 90% in one of your districts and not one of your colleagues checked in with you before putting their name on it, not a single one -- i know all of you. you probably would not talk about it much here in the chambers, but you would be mad. and rightfully so.

because if this little experiment of district elections is going to work and keep working, there has to be some level of deference. it is not like you were going to vote against what you believe in because it is in someone else's district. that is not what i am talking about. but it is the kind of difference for this an appeal on the development project in a district, you would ask to see the supervisor. there has been none of that. for the next three months, i am on this board of supervisors, and when you move this item without these questions answered, without having checked in with the district representative, and you pass this along and do pass the burden of this along to my constituents, you know longer have the loyal opposition from the supervisor.

because i know a little bit. i am relatively resource will. i can be dogged. if i have a bee in my bonnet and it is a billionaires' boat race, and i stick with the poore -- this tacking around supervisor daly will not get you in calmer waters. i told myself i was not going to make a yachting reference. but i will bring a white squall onto this race and on to this cup and i will do everything in my power starting on january 8

to make sure these boats never see that water. i do not need a memo, because i am relatively familiar with the law from 10 years of sitting in this chair. i do not need an advice memo from the city attorney to know when something does not fly and how quickly is something can come tumbling down. i do not need a budget analyst report to know when the finances on a proposal stink. i have an excel spreadsheet. and i do not need the phone number of a swiss billionaire to figure out how to get something done when the needs and resources. so gavin newsom, maybe you have

never heard of me. i think he sat next to me a few years on that side of the room. but you get to know my name. supervisor alioto-pier: colleagues, i am going to change the tone of the dialogue. supervisor daly has had clear reservations with this term sheet. i do not. he said we would be hard pressed to say no if ellison says yes. i pray to god that ellison says yes. i could not be stronger on my feelings of getting those boats out on to san francisco bay. let me begin by thanking mr. ellison before considering the city and county of san francisco. here we said at a very historical moment, much like

san francisco's sat after world war two, when the united nations first considered coming to san francisco and we said no. we sit at that type of moment in our history where we have an opportunity before us that expands everything and encompasses all. i represent district 2, and i am very proud to represent it. i am proud to represent the presidio. i am proud to represent christie field. i am proud to represent fort mason and that part of our waterfront. i am very, very proud to represent the golden gate yacht club, where mr. ellison holds the america's cup today. i will say it is clear from the comments in conversations i have had with people within my district that there is no

question that they are excited and they fully embrace the idea of having the america's cup come to the san francisco bay. i will support that embrace. i will also say that this is not a supervisor oriel district issue -- not a supervisorial district issue, but a city issue. once we break it down into two has jurisdiction over what part of the san francisco bay, we are not looking at what you have in front of you. this is an issue for the city and county of san francisco. the impact will be great and it will be positive. i would like to thank marcus young, who is doing a tremendous job to create an excitement around the america's cup. i would like to thank bob

mulhern. i would like to thank mark buell. i would like to thank every member of the acoc. i would like to thank greg hartman, martha cohen, the port of san francisco, rec and park, and the planning department. i would also like to think the mayor for his efforts to get the america's cup to san francisco. this is a citywide effort because it is exciting and vibrant and new and intrinsically san francisco. we had a conversation a couple of years ago about bringing the olympics to san francisco. there was a lot of disappointment when that did not happen. now we are looking at a city whose history is based on the

bay. we brought people from all over the country that came through the san francisco bay to go and dig the gold mines of the forty- niners. here we sit with the third largest sporting event in the world. it is on the bay, which is intrinsically us. it could not be more perfect. it could not be more beautiful. thank god we did not get the olympics, because the america's cup fits the character, the history, and the framework of san francisco and of our port. i think that is something we should all be embracing. i would like to thank my the people at the port as well. before i had the honor and dignity of working here at the board of supervisors, i was a port commissioner for nine years. it is not until you sit and listen to the financial issues the port of san francisco has that you really understand how

dire they are. we are losing our piers. this gives us hope that we can start rebuilding the infrastructure in a way it needs to be built. the $150 million investment in port property is nothing we should sneeze at. we would be building cruise ship terminals and a number of other housing developments and piers and births for this particular project. -- and berths for this particular projet. -- project. i would love to know if we could describe the facilities, including the it city facilities.

-- including the city facilities. if you would not mind touching on the vision that will include iconic public places, and really the feeling of what this would look like for san franciscans. >> thank you. i am from the office of economic and work-force development. thank you, supervisor. to answer your question specifically about facilities, which covered this in detail in the land use committee. the idea is to take per se 30 and 32 and make them the central site of public engagement. every day, the teams would come down and the public would be in an amphitheater setting, able to interact with the sailors in see the boats come and go. in pier 28 would be the media

center. the sea wall to the west would be an area for public gatherings, a kids site, a family site. moving to the south along the waterfront, the granite street wharf would be an area called the america's cup basin. there could be a marine not supporting the super -- for supporting the super yacht berths. there are anticipated to be eight to 12 challengers. the challenger of record is the club nautico de roma, obviously out of rome. there will be organizing the challengers. that is to the west of pier 50.

it is currently used for parking. a small portion could be used for the broadcast center. hundreds if not upwards of 1000 media would be coming from all over the world to cover this event. it would be housed in pier 28. lastly, pier 48 would be the headquarters of regatta management and some of the event authority facilities. i would also like to mention that this public process, this opportunity to discuss specifically what san francisco is putting on the table, not only to the event authority -- it is to those challenges we spoke about. they are getting the opportunity to kick the tires on our deal, if you will. this inoculates against possible future litigation. the challenges are knowing what san francisco is offering to the

team's -- not only the opportunity to sail on the san francisco bay, which is known internationally, but they get to take a look at what are the infrastructure improvements the event authority would need to invest in and what the city is putting on the line and what the organizing committee is committed to. that is $270 million in corporate sponsorship. to the question about the litigation, it really is an opportunity to showcase what is in our deal at this point. we can go forward and move into a city agreement. supervisor alioto-pier: thank you. when the port of san francisco has cruise ships at port, and back in the '70s when we were more of a cruise ship terminal, it was a tremendous