imagine those tax revenues being associated with? i think rather than saying would be the best thing for the city, it would be other considerations. obviously. >> you don't remember the numbers being conservative? gosh especially on 26 and 28. >> i left out one important point that and want to refer you to. i've already told you an hour prior report on the long term development rights, we are reporting there would be a net gain as opposed to a net loss for the city. with respect to the direct cost of the city's treasury, if you take a look on page 3-2, we are

stating it will cost the treasury of $11.9 million whereas previously we reported it would cost the city $57.8 million. that is a significant improvement over the original deal. the reason for that reduction in cost, the primary reason is that it would be used under the proposed northern waterfront alternative agreement that requires further improvements and a reduction in city costs. and the cost of any dredging and needed to prepare for the event was previously proposed as a cost of the the prior agreement and is now an event authority cost under the northern waterfront alternative agreement. in both instances as well as the

development rights, in both instances, this deal has significantly improved from the prior deal that went before you. supervisor mirkarimi: anything else? supervisor avalos: one more question. you mentioned 1765 permanent jobs, what types of jobs are you expecting? >> the facility has a cruise terminal, but also over 300,000. 375,000 square feet of office. supervisor mirkarimi: anything else further? would this be an of daytime for

you to follow back up with us and the budget analyst? >> we have reviewed the budget analyst's recommendations. i will speak to most of them and then ask the court to speak to a couple of them. with regard to the first recommendation to require that they fund raise $32 million, we expect ceqa will be completed by december 31, 2011. we can't have it to be a feasible term in the host city agreement. we believe that the organizing committee raising what we expect to be double the amount of city

exposure in the first year with termination provisions, it is all the protection we can get. we respectfully request that that formulation or languidly included in the agreement. with regard to the proposal that the agreement requires the golden gate yacht club to defend the 35th one here, we believe it will look significantly different. the current agreement requires the organizing committee to assist in raising over $270 million. it is unclear what that number would be in a subsequent race. it is unclear what their role would be. we would want to be able to revisit that as well as their be

very different facilities being used as 27 would be under way as the cruise-ship terminal. we would welcome the opportunity to negotiate that. supervisor avalos: a question on the first recommendation, you can probably answer this as well. on page 3-3 of the budget analyst report, they noted that the net loss to the city would be $11.9 million and it would be before the organizing committee would raise $32 million, is that correct? and >> members of the committee

, when the money is raised obverses when the costs are incurred? >> have an estimate of what the net cost to the city would be, and it is $11.9 million. does that count the $32 million? if we are getting $32 million and it is being raised by the organizing committee, that would offset this 11.9 million? >> this is over the entire time frame of hosting the event. it is between now and 2013. >> i want to emphasize that the reason that we made this recommendation for a requirement, there were letters,

testimony that the organizing committee would provide $32 million. we are saying let's codify it. let's put that in the agreement. it could be less than $32 million. that is why we say to codify the recommendation. the main point is that there is all this publicity about the organizing committee. coming up with a best efforts is a far different cry then making some sort of requirement. >> i am creating a temporary assessment district. as you know, the assessment

district needs to be assessed by the property owners that are affected. i think that we would hope that we would be able to tell our businesses and property owners that the added benefit of having america a 'scup would be able to recruit and we continue to believe that we have provided -- assessment districts had not flow back to the city. they flow back to the district for improvements. we don't think it is necessary a vehicle for realizing more tax revenue. lastly -- supervisor avalos: did you weigh in on the discussion of fair market rent verses commercially feasible? >> we have been an extensive

conversations with her regional transportation and security agencies about what we commonly call mutual aid for this event. we believe that entities around the region will be directly supporting security and transportation for this event. and that we are going to be counting on them to provide that added transportation and security hot water and on land. it is that kind of form of mutual aid that we think is already under way. supervisor mirkarimi: it would be safe to say that the benefits would also be regionalized as well. >> part of what we are saying is why we should not bear the cost

of the increased buses that are needed. they are realizing it upside having more tourist activity in being generated as a result of america's cup being here. >> i am in the waterfront development group and i want to address recommendations 2 and 4. number 2, regarding the oversight for term sheets, we would be pleased to work with the city attorney to come up with recommendations that essentially enacts a recommendation that stems from the budget analysts thought it. and the procedure we have worked with for bringing things to approval.

we think that recommendation is something we can work into the host city agreement. we think it reflects good public policy to have oversight. the question regarding fair market value, i think we use commercially reasonable terms. fair market value has a very specific meaning that generally refers to fair market rent. when describing the bundle of terms that would be needed to negotiate these subsequent legacy long-term leases, there was a number of terms that have the benefits -- have to enter into that. we used a more general term of commercially reasonable terms to

go beyond dust of the rent numbers. we think we are amenable and it is appropriate to create market value. there is this a specific term of commercially reasonable rent. >> i think we would clarify what commercially reasonable terms would mean. i would also like to comment with my colleagues and i have the pleasure of working with. i have been one of the chief analysts for the port teams to try to come up with devaluations of the long-term leases. if i could go to the overhead. this is the second table page 19 of the report.

i like to say to the comment about whether these analyses are conservative or what these represent, to project the fiscal revenues of the legacy leases is always tricky. having worked with all of these professionals, we concur with both of these analyses. we think they reflect different ways of looking at the future of the legacy leases let alone the overall cost of the city into the port. the one thing i wanted to add to the budget analyst reports was on page 3-4, they tried analyze 26 and 28. i think you see one of the reasons for that is that there is a number of assumptions in a short time to come up with a good picture of what the fiscal

benefits are. what is important to point out, the rent was associated with 26 at 28 given their approximate life span is just over $10 million. even if you subtract the $10.1 million from the $12.3 million, you would essentially considered no fiscal benefits, no rent, though bond capacity gained unless those numbers go down but still positive in the next fiscal benefits from the current conditions. i think it is a really good summary of how to view the short-term and long-term benefits. it is a wide range, but they provide -- and i am open to any

questions. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you very much. just to complete the discussion that chair avalos and we were having, to the first point again, there has been a number of supervisors who have expressed concerned with how the anchoring of the $32 million might be able to really memorialize, to the best of our satisfaction, that will not fall back on the city government's of general funds at the contrast of urging or making the most effective effort, however you have it raised here. >> this has been a recurring theme throughout the

negotiations, that at different points, different parties wanted certainty about securing the air rights or the water rights that we as a city don't control. this is an enormous undertaking. in lieu of be able to provide certainty, which have tried to disclose as clearly as possible that this is always a philanthropic effort. what we have tried to do is dial down the city close the exposure over time and understand, what is the e÷ what is the exposure. what are the up-front costs? a cash flow problem is a real problem. we have also endeavored to have mark lead this and put together a committee of the really remarkable folks who are deeply

committed to the city and seeing this succeed. good we have their names on the line as being committed to providing these resources to the city to make this happen. we have had to grapple with the notion of not being able to make this work on a number of fronts, and while best effort language can be frustrating, i think we have tried to show you where the costs are and to include a new section in this agreement that clearly lays out for the first time, because it was missing in the agreement, it really lays out that they are committed to using best efforts to raise $32 million to cover the city costs and to say we have a determination right if that has not happened. i think that is the best we can

ask of the philanthropic efforts for that event that would be coming for the first time here and really having created a structure that is new for this event. i am happy to read that language. it says in addition to the bond, the committee will endeavor to raise $32 million from private sources to reinforce the city for a portion of costs, including costs associated with seats for review and city expenditures required to meet obligations under sections 8 and 10 under the public works department, the port, and the targets are $12 million for year 1 and $10 million for year to and here 3. the committee will endeavor to meet its targets.

thereafter the committee shall provide written notice in meeting the fund-raising targets for year two and three. then on page 8 of the agreement, there is a new section which says the city may terminate the agreement if the city fails to meet its target by the time table provided in section 9.4. >> it would not surprise me that there still may be some exploration between now and tomorrow when this comes before the supervisors. >> we would be happy to discuss this. >> than with regard to the rest of the recommendations, do we have synchronous a team? we have a better understanding.

>> i believe we have synchronous a team -- >> fair market value. >> and becoming a subset of the existing language. i believe we do not agree on adding language, and i disagree on the assessment or the joint powers agreement as well. >> i like the recommendation. i understand the last one. i think there is something that can be worthwhile. i think it is worth looking at, but in terms of adding that here, it does not make sense. >> it should not preclude those. that recommendation may not

comport with the process now, but i think it has great values very good >> i think it is something we can continue to discuss, what it might look like. i think it is something we can discuss. >> with regard to the conversation on modification to the alternative, we have a hefty document that incorporates those modifications before us. city attorneys have that. is there anything you want to call to attention? >> the most significant other change that isn't -- was the addition of the work force development plan, the lead plan , and the youth plan as

requirements that have to be developed in the next year and having that as something with more meat on it. >> the big ones we submitted last wednesday or before, and that has already been captured. something else might come off tomorrow, but i think we have direct -- have the most pronounced ones already pure your -- already. we need to make a motion to accept fees. i will make a motion to except the modifications as presented. >> i believe i understood the department stating that they agree with our no. 2 recommendation about having -- i

did not know if the committee had accepted that recommendation. >> i do not know if we quite got there yet very good >> that was regarding the last amendment. >> that was by the board of supervisors and staff. if you want to offer direction to include that modification, we will do that. >> why don't we do this? with regard to the budget analyst recommendations, if i hear correctly, number two, #4, #5 -- is that right? go ahead and three enumerate for

us. >> i believe it is no. 2 and no. 4, and what you would request as to do is develop appropriate language to put in the agreement per your instructions, and you would be agreeing to the effect the assessment outside of the agreement, but it is something you do. >> the motion on items two and four as described by this. >> thank you. can we take the objection to request that? the motion is passed. >> we still may come back to the other recommendations. i do not believe there is anyone else at the moment, and i do not

think that because we continued this the public comment -- >> we have public comment on this item. >> i think with the latest bit of betting, i think the city has done to the utmost in putting forward the next plan. if possible, i think we could cross this, and before us is the plan i would recommend goes to the full board of supervisors for tomorrow's consideration, and i think because of the elements of this plan and the fine work for the board of supervisors, the mayor's office common our analysts, etc., and by the public's contributions, i think san francisco stands to be the best contender for hosting

the america's cup. >> great, and i want to thank the city as well for all the work that went into this agreement. also the comptroller's office. this has been quite a way of putting together an agreement and negotiating with lots of participation from the media as well. i do not think that was the level of participation were bids are being made, no it was quite a lot of uncertainty for all parties involved about where we are going to get in the end.

i am supportive, and i want to urge my colleagues to support this, and that is based on a proposal but has impacted the city and one i believe will be a net gain for the city as well. [applause] >> i motion that we advanced this to the full board with recommendation. >> we will take five without objection. >> item #tune is a hearing. do you wish to file that item? >> 51, we can file. if you would please call item no. 1. good >> i just want to ask for an excusal of supervisor of front -- supervisor of burned --

elsburn. >> if you could call the first item? >> item #one affirmative on behalf of the city and county as owners of property over which the board of supervisors has jurisdiction, for those will be subject to assessment to rename the civic center. >> good afternoon. is this going to show? is there a way to show the whole page?

that is better. bogne