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 budget analyst has a lower number. we estimate that to be $28.3 million. the city would be reimbursed for their costs and we are not anticipating that they would raise more if they did not need is to -- if they did not need to. this is $13.1 million. we're not including a value of long-term development because we have changed that and they would pay market rates and get a rent credit for the improvement similar to what we did. we are estimating a benefit of

$13.1 million. the question was raised earlier about when the money would be raised and if we would know in a year when they have raised $10 million and what the city could make. under this scenario, if they did raise $10 million, you could start making determinations on what the city would lose or benefit depending upon how much they would raise in the future. we do have a question here. we have included $31.2 million of future tax revenues and that is related to the long-term developments. that is payroll tax and sales tax. we have taken that out of the equation but highlighted that

that would be a future benefit. that is a summary of where we think we are with the number waterfront alternatives. >> on bonding capacity, also a question that was raised previously when we had here 50 involved, there was a loss of jobs and a loss of leases. i was wondering what kind of job loss are we seeing and what will happen with the situation of tenants moving out and how that will affect their viability. >> let me take that second question first. victor, it is possible to back up again. so, we are showing under the

northern waterfront alternatives that the port would have to relocate 78 existing port tenants. that is a large number of tenants. most of the tennis but not all or are under short-term leases. we would endeavor to do our best to try to identify other properties or to try to get those tenants in touch with commercial real estate brokers to find other similar property. >> what types of tenants are we talking about? >> most of these peers are warehouses. so, they are looked largely fenced in storage areas. there are some office tenants that have some longer-term

leases with the port. >> to we have an estimate on how many jobs we are talking about? >> no, we don't have that number for you today but we would be happy to get that between now and the board of supervisors consideration. >> that would be great. i don't think it has really been discussed as a job loss that could have happened, this is as a result of the changes in the leases. i think that having the information would be very worthwhile. >> to 28 has been talked about for these many months. the ports staff will be going out of our way to get in touch with the tenants to let them know about this development so that they can make their voices heard in this process.

if i could, i want to go back to an earlier question about bonding capacity to make sure that we get it on the record. we want to explain for the benefit of the public, the ports primary vehicle for improvements to the waterfront is the pitch -- the ability to issue -- this is provided for in the charter. the port operates as a business and maritime-related fees and there are other sources that go to the revenues. those can be pledged for up to 30 years to be able to make large investments in port property. the port has recently gone to the point where it retired all outstanding debts and they were able to issue new debt.

the commissioner oversaw the process of working with the credit rating agencies to get a rating for the porch. -- for the port. the long-term development opportunities that we are offering, if developed, they will be subject to commercially reasonable terms with a rent credit. there is a chance that the rent that the port would realize as a result could drop and that could be driven by the fact that this cost is so high that we function have to give up a large portion of our rent to make development happen. that is something that we have seen. that long-term lice -- loss is

2.3 5 million annually. that translates to reduce revenue bonds capacity of $32 million. that means $32 million of improvements that we would be unable to make elsewhere. we propose to work with the capital planning committees and staff to develop a range of potential alternatives for the ford and the merits consideration on how to replace that revenue bond capacity. >> has that been discussed in the financial analysis that we have seen? we're talking about this as a cost to the city. we are doing the work of improvements. this appears very similar to creating a hole in the budget but not exactly what we have been referring to today with the direct costs. >> if i can speak to the port

analysis. the port commission has raised this issue and we think that there are solutions to its. in order to improve the revenue bond, this will not be the only means by which we do this. we need private investment and other city investment. we want people to spend their money at the port. >> thank you. >> one more question for the port through the chair. does the poor have a physician on whether or not, the simple question i have is if this is the best deal the city can get. >> i want to say that going back to the points i made earlier that this city had a negotiated agreement that involves the central waterfront sites and long-term development.

i think this was the best bid that the city could make. the port commission strongly preferred the waterfront alternative. this focuses investment where we would prefer to see it. we think that this is the best bid that we can put forward right now. we have not heard from the teams they have endorsed the alternative. with this time line, this is the best deal that we can get. the are you saying with a different time line, we can get a better deal?

the team was in town for the time preceding the -- and they largely left town after that. there was representatives in town after that. i doubt that the team would sit down for further negotiations in any extra windows that the board would provide. i think that those discussions are over. the team is waiting to see what bid that the city has put forward. they will of the alleyway that compared to any other that they receive. -- bay will compare that to any other that they receive. -- they will compare that to any that they receive. >> this does not answer the question as to what happens in a

different time line. >> i'm not saying that the board provided more time and tried to use this productively. i doubt that the team would be available for further negotiations. >> can we move to the city? >> mr. chairman and members of the committee, as you know we just received a new amended agreement from the mayor's office today and we just received a report and we have not reviewed those reports. there has been some discussions about the differences between

the reports on the americas reports compared to the office of work force development and the budget and legislative analyst's. to provide you with one example of the differences between the two reports, on page 14, we stated that although not specified in or required under the host city agreement, the office of economic and work force development anticipates raising $32 million in private contributions to help offset the costs related to the america's cup. there is no guarantee whatsoever that any of the anticipated $32 million would be realized by the city. under such circumstances, the controller cannot certify revenues that may or may not be forthcoming. we did not include that in our report. prior to the amendm