depreciated or appreciate id. some areas where maybe there was a 5% or 3%, the good news in san francisco, we have not seen a few drops we saw in other parts of the bay area, like solano, or properties dropped 50%. you don't want that. you want your property to appreciate. that is the goal. it might be $50, $100, maybe a few hundred dollars. it and will not be anything huge -- it will not be anything huge. >> [inaudible] >> over last year, it was a $21 million difference. because of the temporary reductions in homeowners values, there was $21 million that was not collected by the county. let's put that in context of the $6.5 billion budget. >> [inaudible] >> the total property tax

collected is about $2 billion. overall, we are doing quite well. >> [inaudible] >> overall, property-tax as have done extremely well the last five, 10 years. we have seen huge increases overall. >> [inaudible] >> no idea. if i did, i should be in las vegas placing a bet, or should be in new york making more money than i am here. the controller's office is probably tracking it more than us. we don't know. we have seen -- we have seen several governments pumped $1 trillion into the economy. it is a huge amount of money. we have seen some improvements, but not the ones they were hoping for. great. ok.

thanks, everybody. >> kimberly brandon. commissioner ann lazarus. commissioner francis crowley. item two, approval of the minutes for the february 8 meeting. >> so low. >> second. >> motion -- all in favor. item three, public comment on executive session. public comment on executive session?

item four, executive session. >> so move. >> all in favor? executive sessio. >> commission voted to approve 4a1a and moved not to disclose any other matters discussed in executive session. >> item 6, please be advised that the ringing of and use of cell phones, pagers, and similar some producing devices are prohibited at this meeting. please be advised that the chair may order the removal from the meeting room of any persons responsible for the ringing or use of a cell phone, pager, or other similar sound producing electronic device. please be advised that members of the public have up to three minutes to make pertinent public comments on each agenda item unless the port commission adopts the shorter time and any agenda item. >> moved in light of the popular

loss of a quorum to public testimony to two minutes. >> second. >> any public comment? all in favor? >> items from the consent calendar, 7a, second quarter contracting activity report fiscal year 2010-2011 for the october 1, 2010 through december 31, 2010 reporting ton. b, requests approval of the biennial operating budget for fiscal years 2011/2012 and 2012/2013. c, request approval of the $21.7 million capital budget project for fiscal years 2011/2012 and 20 12/2013. d, requests approval the executed contract modification with dfpf corp. doing business as fine line foconstruction to

extend the original contract duration of 120 days. -- buy an additional 34 days. e, request authorization to execute a contract modification to extend the original contract duration of 200 days by an additional 113 days. >> so move. commissioner crowley: second. commissioner brandon: public comment? all in favor? we have accepted the order consulting contract activity report resolution 11-08, 11-09, 11-10, and 11-11 have been approved. >> 8a, informational presentation regarding the annual update to the 10-year capital plan for fiscal years 2012-2021. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm with the special project group and executive division here to present the senior capital plan, beginning 2012

through 2021. first, the legal and procedural. city admen code sections 2.3 and 2.31 require that all city departments create a 10-year capital plan and that it be approved by the mayor by may 1. this is not the normal timeline we are under this year. normally, with the city's capital planning committee, the department are to submit their capital plans by november. the port had a lot outstanding, and it warranted a delay. you will see on this timeline that on march 7, t capital planning commission will consider for adoption this plan one day before it will come back to the port commission. be reassured that adoption is conditional on approval by the port commission that will then move forward. the plan will still be introduced to the board on the

first, and supervisor chu will then introduced eight -- introduce an amendment. there were a number of changes this year over prior years. the big change to our process, some schematic changes, and the bottom line changes to our estimation of need, which changes year to year as well as with new sources of revenue. i will follow that up with working for the waterfront talking about where we are spending our various colors of money across the waterfront, and then, highlighting the sea wall. so this is a terrible slide. i know of the thought -- i know that this is completely a little, but i wanted to put it up anyway despite advice not to because it shows you this is the end result of the new process we undertook this year with the

two-year planning process for the capital budget, which i think you just approved on consent. the medium term plan, and then our 10-year plan. first columns on the left are the budget, and left half of that is the medium turn -- medium-term plan. that spread sheet, which is really about this big, is how we found a home for all the projects submitted through the process, whether they be through for funding or other funding. i had to put it up there because it was not going to see the light of day otherwise. so the next slide is not a lot better, but for your one, the top of this to the right here is how we dished out all the capital funds for the budget for the first year. an interesting story here -- below the line, at the very bottom of that, where we enumerated the other funding sources, it shows you how we are leveraging federal dollars. in this case, the patch for the central basin dredging project

and the disposal project are both included in our budget of top. the other budget sources below. that was the end result of this long process. what that process was really all about was changing the two-year budget process and planning process from one were different divisions were essentially, you know, vying for funding advocating on their own, to one that was really about consensus. representatives from each division got together, agreed on the criteria we would use, how much those criteria were worth, and as we went through is courting the project, what those scores were, so there was a great deal of consensus all the way through, and the end result was everyone was pretty happy with it. so one other change and process i will note is where's previous jurors had been in the financing administration, now is in the federal projects group. some larger thematic changes to

the plan really also came from the idea that we wanted this to be a more rigid planning document and be a better tool for the for moving forward as opposed to an assessment of what we really need but do not have -- a better tool for the port moving forward. to that effect, used to be splashed all over with red, and that has been taken out, really, again, a focus on what we can accomplish and how we are going to do it rather than a focus on what is missing. also, a note at the bottom of the slide, we made a subtle change of policy on size of need. -- seismic need. we had been explicitly astray of the city's convention for seismic, which is the needs are only assessed up to what is warranted by code, we had a higher standard than that. while this plan moving forward, we are only program and funding, being realistic, really, up to what is required of us by code

because there are so many outstanding needs. the bottom-line -- our costs went up by less than they have in the past, but really, this morning, i was looking at how the total need has changed over time for the last six years. so much of it is driven by the cost escalation that the city, the first few years, they were between 6% and 8%, so looking at a $2 billion capital plan, if we increase the need by 8% a year, the notion that we could come up with nearly $200 million in additional revenue every year just does not really work out that way. for that reason, i should note that four capital planning commission, all these are in current dollars and not escalated out to the end of the plan. two major changes here were here

70, we had a place holder, $40 million to do hazardous materials abatement. that was in the last five years. over the last year, some new information about what is there has allowed us to reduce that down by quite a bit. that was unfortunately more than offset by the result of our new aggressive utility infrastructure program, so you see the adjustments no. there. the third one down is usually a negative number because we got this done, but the one-time the cost estimates were just eclipsed that. on the funding side of things, most of the story is about the 34th america's cup and the infrastructure investment that would be made at some of the port facilities as well as another reason why the plan was delayed, was because we through

this under inspection program -- we were finally able to meet with the puc only about a week and a half ago to determine how we might work with them to use some of their assets to help us take care of this problem. i will expand on each of those briefly. the america's cup is $55 million. infrastructure where it is mostly 30, 32, and 37, although i'm not sure it is completely nailed down at this point. we reported experiencing some loss of revenue bonds capacity. we are in an ongoing conversation with the city's capital planning committee about how we can replace that. this makes a strong argument for us to be included in general obligation bonds. unlike the 2008 bonds, which were the first time we were ever included in city-wide gm bonds. the puc has agreed to assist us

with $34 million in financing. a lot of that, we are hoping -- we hope that it is most of that, actually -- will be tied into the eyes hillary water supply system, which was passed by the voters just recently. that is tied into the fire broke, and its access to water at the end of our peers. the puc will consider it as part of that program. we are eligible for our general obligation bonds, which they have a lot of for this project, and are largely and spend. where that will not work, we are in talks with them about rate adjustments to offset the costs of addressing this, and they are going to help us out with great sensitivity studies. on the federal funding side of things, we have been engaged with a couple of different

entities long enough that we are starting to sense a pattern. a few years ago, we were able to get $3 million for some work at pier 70. we got another $3 million for the department of defense for demolition of the dry dock, and we asked for about $8 million, but they gave us $3 million again in committee last year. the same is true on the army corps side. to be brief about that, the story is that we have really gotten into a pattern with them, something we can rely on over the long term. it is a good change. the waterfront maps will move from right to left. the colored squares you are looking at here, the insert from the maps. memorize that slide. starting from the north, the fisherman's wharf area, the little spot of green you see there is there is really two

sets of revenue bonds reflected there. there is a 2010 series revenue bonds, and we have another set, $40 million worth, which we are looking to issue soon. this one would be in 2014, about the about thej9 would be taken -- about the time the j9 would be taken care of through this mechanism here. ne waterfront, you will recognize the crows terminal there. that big trade bloc is mixed uses because it has a number of different sources going through with a lot of money. i should note that unfunded or lack thereof is one of the mixed sources going into that project. of course, the vix bought a blue there is the exploratory and project, which i'm very happy about -- the big spot of blew their is the exploratorium

project. another change in these matters is that and in prior years, we had noticed where we might program infrastructure financing, district funding, the volatility in the market has had a not specifically program those funds over the last two iterations of this plan, so that follows here. south beach, that stack of camouflage there is the army corps of engineers, which we have engaged to remove pier 36 to make way for brandon street wharf. this is now on a very short fuse with america's cup and meeting our obligations there. then, the big piece of red is no longer unfunded. that is now the america's cup. these two revenues, the sears 10

revenue bonds, and the move is something we're looking at the new capital plan process for the next round of revenue bonds. those are actually two separate funding sources. then, the southern waterfront, which has a big triangle, camouflage, and the lower right is the central basin, which the court has been looking for help to dredge for a long time. we have been gauged the army corps of engineers on that project, and it is moving forward and looking positive -- we have engaged the army corps of engineers. the last project wanted to talk about is the sea wall, which seemed like the ultimate long- term capital plan. potentially a humongous amount of money, and the legislative process moving forward to address that problem -- the project is very long.

the path forward first requires a study of 40 and then a steady appropriation, a construction authority, and construction appropriation. problem is that the authorizing vehicles for these kinds of projects only, once every seven years or so on average, so we miss one of these deadlines, and the whole project is set back coming up on a decade. most importantly is that no. 5 on the list here, which is that if repair of the sea wall comes back at $120 million, and it could -- it could come back much less than that -- the city and port have to come up with 1/3 of that theory to come up with $40 million to contribute to a project like that also has its own very long planning window -- the city and port have to come

up with 1/3 of that. i will conclude with that. it is going to continue to be a useful tool. i am available for questions. commissioner brandon: thank you. any questions or comments? is there any public comment on this item? >> i have one question. you referred a moment ago to a congressional leader of the funding. a euphemism, but that is okay. do we expect to be affected by the lack thereof in any other way? have there been other congressional directed monies that we have received that we now may have did battle a little bit more for? >> we had about -- we had $8

million in committee markups that were coming into this year prior to the ban on earmarks. we are looking very good for the port. it was consistent with what we have received in the past. we had the backing of speaker pelosi. then everything changed. the ray of hope is that because, in particular, the army corps budget and defense budget and to a lesser extent, the transportation budget, are so driven by project funding and what is now considered an earmark, there is a great deal of speculation about how they will do what has been done many times in the past when this has come up, which is to refine the definition of year mark -- of earmark. if that happens, the funding vehicles we use far sensitive to that. projects that have been

specifically authorized by congress already, which is the case for our army corps of engineers project, when we go to fund them, they are still considered earmarks, so we are hopeful that that is going to change. i hope that answers your question. >> can you talk a little bit more about the process? the new process? all the departments are working together. can you talk about how things are prioritized and what gets done compared to what does not? >> sure, and this is spelled out in great detail in the capital plan itself. the first step was to get all the divisions together and decide what we were going to use to evaluate. that was one set of considerations. the other set was what category did we want to have set aside for specific projects that require extra consideration or perhaps should get less consideration? in this case, emergency

projects had its own category for consideration. mandated by code or order. or by a regulatory agency that had its own consideration. some projects that were de prioritized -- de-prioritize it potentially could get funding from other places. once we scored all of these -- once we had the categories, we came up with respective weights for all of them, and everyone agreed. interestingly, in prior years, there were financial payback considerations. i guess i should just say a stronger influence on the financial benefits of the given project. once we had all that down, we sat in a room and decided what applied to what, project by project, very methodically, and at the end of the day, we were able to rank them all top to

bottom. that said, there were a couple of different budgets to choose from. emergency project went first. first available funding for capital funds if there was nothing else. same with projects that were mandated. we proceeded in that fashion, that the giant of we spread sheet, we used it to literally cut and paste projects, move them around until we have a balanced budget. >> right. well, thank you very much. >> i guess we should also thanked commissioner crowley for not only moving over here but bringing apparently $34 million with him. commissioner crowley: we love enterprise. [laughter] >> item 9a, request approval of a minute to sidewalk, aerospace, and curb space

encroachment policy and subsequent amendment to delete the aerospace encroachment permit requirement portion of the policy for those buildings on the south side of jefferson street between powell and height -- hyde streets. >> good afternoon. for the record, i'm susan reynolds, director of real estate for the port of san francisco, and am here today to request an amendment to the sidewalk, airspace, and curb space encroachment policy passed by this body in june 2006 and amended in march 2007. the march 2007 amendment address how fees were calculated and called out property owners as the responsible parties for obtaining permits. the policy applies to those properties on the south side of jefferson street between powell and hyde streets.

we are not talking about very many properties. it is approximately four blocks. the buildings are not on port property, but the sidewalk is. if you recall the infamous blue line, i'm talking about things that hang over onto port property. currently, building owners are required to seek a permit from the city's planning department and the department of building inspection. the policy also requires that building owners come to the port for an encroachment permit, and this has caused confusion and frustration with the building owners. and there is also issues with enforcement. so we have spoken with the planning department, and there is a mechanism in place that the board can still achieve what it needs to achieve -- that the port can still achieve what it needs to without having the building owners go through this business steps that are

cumbersome. in an effort to make the process a little bit more business- friendly, it was determined that the airspace encroachment portion of the policy -- it is in the best interest of the public to believe that portion of the policy. there are only currently six permits in place, and the financial impact is less than $2,000 a month. so i have that if you have any questions. >> thank you. so move. >> second. commissioner brandon: is there any public comment on this item? all in favor? resolution 11-12 has been approved. >> thank you. >> item 10a, informational presentation on response to appear 70 waterfront site requests for qualifications -- response to pier 70 waterfront

site request for qualifications. >> good afternoon commissioners. let me get myself -- oh, dear. oh, no. they are on the desktop, not in my folder. let me start again. good afternoon, commissioners. i'm with the port's planning and development group, and we are here today to do an informational presentation on the response we got to the pier 70 waterfront site requests for qualifications. i have in the room -- you may notice some new faces. many of the folks who are interested in being our next developer and working with us on what we are calling our next waterfront transformation. we're going to hear from each of

them. i'm going to do a quick set up. i can come back and answer more questions about the evaluation process. today is a structured formal meet and greet, for a chance for you to hear from them, and then, we move on to more detailed evaluation process. as you remember, in april, we finished, and you endorsed the master plan for 69 acres. we went toward implementing and broke into several pieces. the first was this waterfront site, which is the economic engine to generate tax and revenue. the park, moving ahead on planning, and hopefully, to use some of the prob p b funds, and the third being the request to hear from historic buildings. that is now on our website. we have released the request for interest, and we are looking for responses by june. those three pieces bring forward more than half the land