ports-. they have been through this process and of with the ferry building, the ball park, and there is a desire to see some of the pier removed. we expect to negotiate those public improvements as part of the negotiation process. we have also required that a long-term lease it year would be subject to an administrative approval so that this is consistent with the public trust.

we will insist and the normal process. there is a very specific plan on how we would see this. there has been a permit issued. we have a great new open space. this is a lot that is -- and his removed the trust use restrictions. we estimate the land value at 33

million. >> did the port commission feel like they were getting a fair value? >> under the proposed a host city agreement -- >> under the waterfront agreement. >> we view of the sea wall lot as one of the primary ways that the poor will get paid.

-- the port will get paid. >> what will the dog you be? >> we estimate the lands of you at $33 million. we would come back to you with a long-term proposal which would have commercially you reasonable terms. we think the process is there to make sure the city gets a good deal.

hamapier 28 was envisioned as a venue site. we had entered with the board's blessing in an agreement with

the international women's museum which tried for a number of years to try to come up with a development proposal for pier 26. they ended up walking away from that set of negotiations. this is about $50 million for pier 26. we would use the same kind of structure and bring this all back to you through a feasibility and review by the budget analyst.

they would have to make all of the improvements as part of the deal because once you start work of that magnitude, you will trigger seismic load requirements. these for unfunded in the capital plan. prior to the america's cup discussions, we have no development for these sites either. there is available tax credits to help some of the costs here. we think it would be fabulous to

save these historic resources. >> procedurally, these are a late comer to the whole equation. did -- that is a formal recommendation to the staff? >> there was already some interest in the waterfront alternative. we rewrote the city agreements to consider those the new sites but we did not have an opposite team to negotiate that version. in doing that, we took out a 20-acre development site.

in removing 20 acres, we thought it appropriate for the city to be willing to offer another smaller affordable development opportunities and 26 and 28 are the recommendation of court staff. i would reiterate that support staff are here to answer any questions. we're all committed to seeing this project through.

thank you. >> is this the right thing for the port and the future of the port? >> i believe that it is and i would like to elaborate. some very good questions asked

so far. when we brought you the term sheet, this was characterized largely according to put way the team is accustomed to doing business. the deal before you looks a lot like the deals and that the city is accustomed to doing. i feel like we are sitting on an opportunity not just to take several of our assets for which we currently have no plan and get them accelerated into an entity which is well capitalized, has the resources, to not only use those assets but

also do this in the next couple of years. it is amazing to hear about fund raising for the ports. i think that 30 million is too low but we will call that his practice run. we are having a conversation about pork real estate. the waterfront property is unequivocal in this world.

the people in the families who work in this buildings and those generations that have lost their lives delivering maritime businesses are now third generations restaurateurs or have a horse and carriage, you name it, those people, their families, they live in your district and they are really important to us. for the first time, we are talking about a development deal where we are not begging for a maritime use. i am very happy about the state of affairs that we are in. this is an amazing dream come

true for us. there are lots of great opportunities. i hope that that answers your question. yes. >> the long-term legacy celts -- sites, what are the

prospects? >> i think this is very tenuous, i really do. we just came out the best real- estate cycle that we will see in my lifetime. the values are still troubling. this is a great location. this is a $100 a square foot just to touch it. 30% must be public access. it has to be a narrow list of uses. you don't get to to owned it, you'd get it to grant it. it is a very robust economy to bring this back into something. we had identified peers with which we had no viable

development plan. this lot is definitely a prized possession. we knew that we would need that area to get things that we all want and will like. i am really comfortable. i desperately want a new cruise ship terminal here. this goes back to the days before the gold rush. >> one of the things that i find puzzling is that we had in negotiating team that had an

original agreement and then you had in northern waterfront proposal which was actually developed by the port staff. how could that happen? >> it has been a very organic process, as you well know. we're almost to the one-year mark. we were a bit naive about what this meant as a city. . the conversations were pretty casual.

the port was not totally in fault. did not really feel the need to be. then they asked for something in writing and it is was determined that this should come from the border supervisors. we have been living in it, sleeping in it, e-mail income etc.. >> there was the addition of peer's 26 and 28 into the agreement. in your judgment, do you think that you and your staff can benefit from taking more time to finish negotiating this deal?

>> needing to be here was the maximum leverage that we half. i'd done think it will improve the deal for us to continue to delay and have a comeback. i am very happy with the caliber of the deal. >> what are you basing that on? we heard that we have another offer and we don't have written confirmation. >> i have never expected another written offer.

the team has their own vision when they elected not to have american cities competing against each other. i personally believe that if we fail, rhode island is happy, ready, willing, waiting. they tell me -- they don't need a year's worth of from time. we need the current infrastructure. italy does not have the same public processes the board's commitment be. >> the consideration for

maturity is unjust and a $55 million. have you done and appraisal of what the volume would be for that amount of time? what is the fair market value of what we would be giving up? >> we are doing an evaluation of what we thought that they would be if they were developed to their highest and best use. this went out for 66 years for pier 32, which is the maximum.

these are the valuations, which i hope everyone can see. 28 and half million for the terminal itself. remember, it will have to have a maritime use. then, 330, which is about -- this capacity is probably pushing the envelope. >> the value is the 55 million than we are getting in return, why not include the difference between what we're actually receiving or is that included 2 well, we're doing our best to estimate what the team will have to invest the without sitting down and investigating whether what the operation will look like.

we have required that those be corrected by a later date. aho of ais there any precedents >> is there any precedent of giving up rights? >> i am not done this but we have done this since 1970's. >> -- the >> no one has asked to have this

done for some of the events that we have done. >> thank you. >> rhode island, who hosted the race for 53 years, would it do anything they could to get this back and they're looking for some defect in our process which they would see an ounce on in order to reach secure rates that decimated pocketbooks. that is very clear and if anyone discount the reality, i know very well from people back where i grew up that they would do

everything they could politically to take the up city and san francisco trips. what if we lose the cup? in 1983, the cup was lost and i guarantee you, the state of our lead and never saw that coming. -- the state of rhode island never saw that coming. our dream would hopefully come true. i'm wondering if you can speak

to any of that. >> you are talking about if you don't get the 34 or 36? >> correct. >> it is really hard to quantify the values but we host this, we will announce the cruise ship terminal. hopefully, we will have the usa 17 vessel. we're constantly looking for the new and different angles. we will have read bill -- which can be used for some in the maritime uses.

there is demand for phar-mor birthing then what is happening now and this is because of our infrastructure. what happens inside of those old sheds, i am not sure. we will fulfill our commitment to those attributes listed on the national register.

>> just to summarize, you have number waterfront alternatives and southern alternatives both from us and the comptroller's. we want to summarize the information and reflect some of the changes. two major changes have been made and both were alluded to by the ports staff. this is the alternative which eliminates major costs

associated with pierre 50. there is the tax revenue related to the event. phone number on this was $25 million. the budget analyst is $19 million. we use this to be conservative as the tax revenue. there is a lost revenue to the

port which is a cost of 8 points $7 million. that number has gone up $2 million due to the addition of peers 26 and 28. >> with a loss of the revenue, what are we seeing in terms of the capacity of the port. ? >> there are one time costs related to hosting the event which total $28.3 billion. i believe that the