piers down in this areas in this area and i appreciated the port for providing the facilitation on this. and i have to tell you if you look at the current condition of the port, if you look at all the piers that would be in the adjacent areas that would be i78 -- impacted and compare that with their lack of studys that are in place right now, we have no answers. that doesn't mean that we should compromise ourselves and not do anything to seek profit and for the bertment of all san franciscoians especially those who struggle to stay in the city which hopefully means that can be translated into indirect revenue. i see this having a wave effect beyond what this conversation

is revealing. i believe the watchful comments and concerns by some of our colleagues added to my voice to that are spot on and i believe we both can go forward the correct amount of milestones and warning steins. because we've seen collective bargaining agreements with unions that every time when the city comes back to us and the negotiating team says, we've got a deal. ask yourself, at any time in the board of supervisors have we ever sent the collective bargaining team back for a bert deal without them responding it's too complicated, it's too much trouble. rarely has that happened. we can't take this answer on blind faith that there may be need for renegotiation which there might be need to re-insert ourselves at the proper point so that at one time we make sure that the best

interest of the people of san francisco do not go unnoticed or neglected. thanks. >> supervisor campos. >> thank you, mr. president, i know there are members of audience waiting for other items. i'll be very brief. i appreciate the discussion and along the lines of what the supervise or indicated. i'm excited in bringing the america's cup to san francisco. i don't think there's a question about the desire that we have in making something like this happen. which is why from the very beginning i've been very supportive of that effort. i think though, that you have to make sure you do it right. and i have to say that i am disappointed about the process and that even though there's a very short time line it is very

clear that a lot more should have done in terms of involving the supervisor that involves district six which will be directly impacted by what happens. and i think that what has been represented to me so far is not sufficient in terms of the kind of outreach that you might expect. so i can understand how any one of luss be -- frustrated in light of that. i also think that the comments by the mayor were unfortunate because you can't expect to have a united front as an elected family if you do not include every member of the elected family. that said, i think we have an opportunity to come together

and i don't believe that we can have a successful event unless some of these questions are answered. so i speak as someone who wants to be supportive, who wants to see this go through and be finalized. i think some important questions do have to be arsdzed. >> we are talking about a term sheet. even though the term sheet by its own terms is nonbinding, the term sheet makes it known that it is a document that sets forth and i quote essential terms and conditions agreed upon, end quote by the parties. so the term sheet even though it's not the binding document, it does have at its core the frame that it has as a basis as

a legally binding document. to the extent that it talks about it containing the essential terbles of the agreement, i do think that there are some things that are missing from the term sheet. i don't believe that a term sheet is supposed to outline every specific of the agreement. but a term sheet should provide broad parameters for addressing certain key issues and some issues come to mind. there is the issue of workforce which is something that i know that my colleagues and committee raised and it's snag this board has been working on certainly since i've been on the board and from watching the board prior to that for quite some time. so to me if workforce is a priority, then clearly you have to include something that addresses that issue in the term sheet. i don't think you have to outline the specifics of that. but there has to be general

parameters, covering that issue that are put in there. we talked about the issue of how do we involve youth and make sure that all communities in san francisco benefit from this event while i agree with the superthat it is a city wide even. to become a city wide event it has to be something that directly impacts every resident of san francisco. it can't be to be a city wide event something where only certain folks who live in specific parts of the city are impacted by it. i'm glad to hear that some of my colleagues are hearing from their constituents about america's cup. but i don't hear from my constituents about america's cup because i don't thinkably constituents are aware that they are part of this event. that pesh in portola and bay

view, how are they going to be impacted by this event. i don't see even broad parameters of that in the term sheet. we talk about small businesses and local businesses, again, a priority for this board. i don't see anything in this term sheet that will provide a broad outlook of how we're going to benefit small businesses. i agree that there's a lot of potential when you have this keebt kind of event coming into this city but what exactly is it that we're committed to? not specifics but in terms of general, broad principles, what is it that we're committed to? and then in materials of good public policy, i don't think that we as a board should enter into any kind of agreement unless we have some analysis provided by the budget analyst. again, i am supportive of this

event. i am supportive of making this happen. but there has to be some independent analysis o a financial impact. and i don't believe that we wait until the end of the -- finalizing the agreement to make that happen. i don't think that you -- that that is good public policy. i do have also a couple of questions that i'd like to ask. i don't know if the port director is here. but if the port director is in the audience, if she can please come up. i do see ms. moyers from port. if i may just a couple questions to the port director. >> good afternoon, board of supervisors. >> i guess a very broad, basic question. there's a lot of entitlements that would be given by the city from sop of the parties here.

do you feel that the person that oversees the port of san francisco that the terms are good for your operation? >> i think the terms of the term sheet or letter of intent whatever the name for it are promising. as we said in committee yesterday, this is the first proposal of this magnitude to rehabilitate piers for martime use. i think that the benefits of having the america's cup at our piers is a tremendous opportunity for the port. the discussion that's happening today is not unlike the discussion that we have had related to the benefits in cost of building a crew ship terminal or any of those things. i do think it is early on but with your guidance, we can get

to a deal that i can say to you is good. but i think it's very promising. >> thank you very much for that answer. are there points in the term sheet that are not so promising? or are there thanges are missing in the term sheet that you would like to see that are not in there? >> the points that are in the term sheet are still very much simply points and one of the supervise ors pointed out earlier are not spelled out with specificity. an example of that is that there are a number of pier locations that were mentioned. >> yesterday, we talked about primarily about 3032. but in fact others are contemplated. we will have to understand how the race is going to be run, what the timing is for for those peers to be turned over and how they will impact us.

we have a city report to talk about how and where we can relocate tenants that can be impacted and we have yet to talk about a track that can benefit more specifically. so for example, we don't have the a robust maritime supply at port. we talked about one. maybe we can finally do that. there's a lot that still needs to be spelled out. for myself i called it a letter of intent. >> are there any concerns that you have about any existing terms that are in the term sheet right now. >> i think right now it is my assumption that the city is the project manager, and that the

city will, through the organizing committee and other ways assist the port or whom ever had the on application to ready the facility, i don't understand from the term sheet yet what the timing is. so it is a future year? is it a current year? there's an investment that needs to be made up front, a return on investment that needs to come later, that's how the port does business. i'm not in a position to measure those impacts. >> final question. one of the interesting points of the term sheet that -- that -- that at least jumped out at me is that with respect to some of the legacy sights that -- that we're talking about entering into a long-term lease of anywhere from 66 to 75 years, the lease would be

rent-free. and i know that there is a lot of planning that has gone into a number of properties within the port of san francisco. do you have any feelings about that specific provision that would give this long-term lease rent-free for that period of time? >> it's going to be incumbent on a of us as you referred to earlier to make sure that those uses of the sight are beneficial to the public interest, whether it's exactly the public trust or not remains to be seen. my understanding is ha the port will have a say in those things later. in an idea world we would be able to keep tall revenue first the port. but we have yet to do an investment with all the parties, fishermans war of, the ballpark that pays the port. as i understand it, this deal

is set up that way. what i don't know -- how many races will there be at the port? what is the actual full term. >> just a final follow-up to that. do you have a sense of what the value of what we will be giving up with respect to those sights , a 66 to 65-year lease? >> i don't have a sense of that. i will tell you that in the ports, capital improvement plan and the accompanying plan of finance, we always assumed that it will finance in tow tall in piers to 3032. that the only way to keep 3032 in the portfolio was to do that. pier 50 has not been on our radar screen in the past. so i can't speak to what the appraised value of that facility is. certainly one of the reasons that we've been coming to the

board of supervisors and the state legislator is because the public-private partnership model as i said returns benefits to the city as a hole and financial benefits later in the process. i don't know when laettner the process is yet because we don't know the number of races and how long it will go. so we need to figure that out. i'm sorry, i don't know the exact value. >> thank you. thank you. >> supervisor aval orves s. >> this is a question for director moyer. there are questions related to the current leases you have at different piers, especially 3032. what is the revenue that could be lost in terms of the leasees moving out?

could you talk about the amount? >> ok. so 3032 and c walnut 330. it's weight listed, which means that some of the activitys that we were using and puting on the pier can no longer be on the pier such as the volley tournament that was there a couple of years ago. the important part of 3032 is that it has a remaining useful life that is very sport without its investment. peer 50 has quite a -- pier 50 has quite a few tenants. 38, 4048 are revenue-generating properties. there are approximately let's say around 60 tenants who could be impacted but we don't know that they will be impacted yet. i will say significantlyless

than that will be impacted by 3032. i think the revenue is $9 million? does that sound right? >> would you answer? >> certainly. the revenue were projected to be 12.75 million if the race is two and a half years. we looked at the term sheets and we minimized the use of facilities. that's how we got to the estimate of $12.75 million. that also assumes an increase in our projected percentage rents will results from the

race being hosted. >> is that based on your ability to relocate certain tenants or is that the loss of those leases regardless if they're going to be relocated or not? >> the number is based loss of rental impact. we began to look at how to relocate tenants. but we need the to know how the -- they will use the piers. we do have some available space but not enough to provide for all of the leases that director moyer referenced. >> and then 12.5 over two years? >> that's over two and a half years and as asaid limited use of the facilities. >> what percentage of your revenue is that? >> our entire budget is $66.6 million. so that is a good portion.

>> 10%? >> 10%? >> then as far as i look at the resolution, of course, and this line has been added about assuring of the port getting reimbursed for the revenue that you might lose or the leases that you might lose. have you heard anything concrete about how you would be reimbursed? what are your biggest concerns about being reimbursed for the lost revenue? >> we've been working with the mayor's office that the port would be reimbursed for the lost imcome by capturing a portion of the revenue that results from the race. we've been looking at potentially other debt that the

port could utilize to improve areas of the waterfront that is not backed by revenue. but not using revenue bonds but instead general obligation bonds, perhaps a store of obligation bonds and other ways to left radge funds for waterfront improvements. >> it's not like we could make a decision here at the board of supervisors to do that. >> that's correct. certificates would not be approve bdity voters but general preservation bonds and historic preservation bonds would. >> does the port issue its own bonds? >> yes. they can issue revenue bonds. as you may recall we did just issue revenue bonds earlier in the calendar year. so that tells you that our

balance sheet is not all that deep if you will. but we have been anticipating issuing bonds in another year to two in help to fund the crewship 2027. >> how is your credit rating? >> our credit rating is good. we're a strong a credit. so to your point -- >> you expect any changes in your credit ratings based on decisions that we're making here or your loss of revenue might have at a future time do you expect the loss of revenue would have an impact on your credit rating and your ability to do bond, indeadness ? if -- indebtedness? >> the credit analyst for the credit agencies would take the term sheet and assume that we

lose every pier that is mentioned in there and every c wall lot and that would be in ex-is sess of the revenue that we just mentioned and that would create a technical default on the bond covenants. it's incumbent upon us to approve at a scenario that replaces at least a fair portion of that revenue or we will have a credit impact. >> do you feel significantly assured going forward that you're going to have the ability to influence the decisions the reimbursement showing that you have the kind of revenue that you need to have coming back to the port to be able to do the enormous amount of capital improvements at the port separate from the world -- from the american cup events? >> that's a very interesting questions. all of those approvals would

have to come through this body. i'm hopeful that in light of this conversation that we would have the support of the board of supervise ors. i know thea with have the support of the mayor's office to try get the port to the position it is that it can even contemplate doing this. >> yet, the mayor is not going to be here -- this mayor won't be here a long type. so it will be the board of supervisors that will -- many might not be here either at the time. >> i have noted that. >> so thank you, director moyer. >> colleagues, i do have a lot of concerns about -- about this resolution before us today as well. and you know, we have a whole process how we do our work here

where we often want to follow the rule of the law in terms of approving projects, approving term sheets and approving sequa guidelines for projects. i feel like we're jumping the gun on this to roll out the red carpet. once again in this case, roll out the red carpet for one of the largest billionaires in the world. and i have a lot of misgivings about doing that especially because there are a lot of known unknowns in the project. so i feel most comfortable certainly hearing the fiscal feasibility and budget committee. but to me, i would like to see some analysis on the term sheet. i noit it's a nonbinding thing.

but i have concerns of what we can approve today that it's almost a foregone conclusion for something that's going to be not necessarily as flexible as we'd like to it to be in terms of asserting the financial concerns that we have as a board and as a body. so i'm trying to figure out how we want to move forward whether i want to send this back to committee or send a portion back to committee for consideration but that's where i am right now, colleagues. >> supervisor mark? >> yeah, thank you, mr. president, i wanted to thank mcmcclellan for the work on this and i look forward to the answers of the dwheas supervisor daly has raised. i wanted to thank you supervisor maxwell and daly. but i feel this is important that we need to have full

transparency in the process especially from the supervisors who's districted is impacted. this is a city wide impact but the most impacted will be the low income areas. i want to see the impact on the general fund. i also wanted to thank mr. mark buell for taking on the mammoth job of raising the huge amount of money that the organizing committee has to make. i do note there are a number of environmentists like david festa and paul hawkins, david lewis and a number of others. and i would encourage that local environmental groups would be involved as we go through the environmental analysis as well. i just had one additional economic question. if the acoc cannot meet its

goals, is there a back-up plan if the fees cannot be raced in time from the city department? >> the short answer is no. that the fully born by the america's cup organizing committee. they would have to work very, very closely with that organizing committee in order to essentially sell the benefits that would be part of -- that would be part of that $270 million for sponsorships. if that -- if that money then in the acoc under mark has pledge to do their very best to do that, it's our understanding that if we don't meet certain milestones that the city is deselected. there are no financial exposure to the city.

there is no penalty. there is nothing that obligates the city financially to do further activities. and the $270 million for corporate sponsorship is completely separate from the city and that it would be entering into a binding agreement on its twerms the event authority in order -- in terms that is comfortable for it given the interconnected relationship that they would have. >> supervisor compass. >> thank you, mr. president. just a question for the staff, if the chair and thinking of some of the issues have been raised. as one who would like to see this ept go forward, i'm wondering if for purpose answering these questions given the very short timelines that instead it could go to committee maybe a continuance

would be preferable. >> kari mcclellan. supervisor campos, the world is literally watching these deliberations today. i kid you not we have folks from all over the world who are passionate about seeing san francisco be successful in this effort. and the team has been ungive cal with us. -- unequivocal with us. we have noted that we are competing against nations and that san francisco and our honorary committee that includes members of our state delegation as well as the speakers, senator finestein. we are really doing this on behalf of the nation. and today is the opportunity to find out if whether or not the offer that we have put together is how we would like