sense of how the work order system worked through this fiscal year? >> i do not think the timing will allow for that. commissioner peterson: do we only have one chance to ask for a surcharge increase? >> that is right. all the budget legislation has to be submitted at a specific time period for our department, it is may 1. commissioner peterson: what is the wage increase, percentage wise? >> i am not sure if it was 7%. >> i think the deal is a 6% increase and they will contribute 7.5% pretax into the pension. i think that is the deal coming in july. commissioner peterson: thank you. vice presdient garcia: to follow up on commissioner peterson's question, do we know how we get -- at least i don't know.

if i were to calmness -- call miss gesner and ask her about something on the agenda, do we get charged for that? >> yes. we get a charge for any time anybody on the board in lists their services. vice presdient garcia: there are lots of times when i call when i might call you instead. that would save the board money. >> you can do that. commissioner peterson: who initiates the work order? >> the work order is between the different departments. it covers the utilization of services from the city attorney. whoever initiates the utilization of services is relevant to the charge. i would be happy to give you some information about your individual charges, if you ever care to know about it. i get a print out with every billable hour, and it identifies

who in the city attorney is working on the issue and who they were working on it for. for instance, if you were to call the deputy city attorney, it would indicate that on the billing. vice presdient garcia: it seems like there are times when -- i am going slowly here, because i do not want to sound negative or critical. but there are times when we get directives from the city attorney's office on information that we might be directed to go find, rather than paying for those hours. it seems that if we were to get something on taxi having to do with a legal point that is relative to a case we have, this seems as though rather than have all that be sent to us, we might just get a citation. if we were curious, we could go find it. the scenes there are probably ways to reduce that number. that is a high number.

the other question i have has to do with -- in order for us to raise the surcharge at a rate of 1.52, the current cpi, it seems like a straight-line function. in other words, if the cpi is 1.52, the fees would be raised by 1 pi 52. is that accurate? what is 1.50 to reflect? is that for a year? how is that derived? >> i can find that out for you. it is a number the controller's office prepares. vice presdient garcia: i am just curious. do not ask the city attorney. [laughter] president goh: i will make some comments around that same item. i wonder if every time we send e-mails and cc the deputy city

attorney that is a billable hour for her. perhaps we could minimize that. with regard to the various statutes or case law citations, we could get those from staff. i know staff is overburdened already and doing so much with so little. many of these, we see over and over again and have right in front of us when we are reading the case packet. commissioner peterson: i think the time involved in that work is not necessarily the time involved in sending an e-mail to the board and assessing what it is the attorney feels the board needs to know in order to properly evaluate the cases coming before it. >> another thing to keep in mind is that e-mails that you receive from the attorney are privileged. e-mails you receive from me are not. commissioner fung: who initiates

the request for the as the mills? -- for those e-mails? i have rarely asked for them. i need to know what my options are. however, we get quite a few e- mails. are those initiated by ourselves? >> in large part, those are initiated by the city attorney, who is a buy rating the case and -- who is evaluating the case. commissioner fung: it is fine for them to protect the city on their own direct. not on hours. vice presdient garcia: would it be reasonable to have a totally different approach, for us to call or e-mail staff and have staff make determinations whether or not the city attorney

should be involved? >> when you have a question that comes up, you are welcome to call me. i would be happy to do that evaluation. if it is information i can provide to you, i will. if i need assistance from the city attorney's office, i will bring them into our conversation. vice presdient garcia: maybe e- mail will be better so as not to interrupt you. then you can deal with it when it is most practical. >> that is fine, keeping in mind that any e-mails to me our sunshine -- are sunshinable, if i can turn that into a verb. commissioner peterson: i think we are all just trying to build back to the surcharge. well the economy is picking up, it is not quite there yet. i think it is vital to have a balanced budget and it is fiscally responsible. i will support whatever it takes to have a balanced budget going forward.

>> i do not have the figure at the top of my head, but i believe our work order with the city attorney buildup last year at slightly over $160,000. we are not largely over that period -- over that. vice presdient garcia: would you be willing to prepare a memo for us immediately to guess how to reduce what we pay to the city attorney's office? >> certainly. but i think that what has been talked about this evening really hits on the high points. just be mindful of the use of her time, or their time. on the other hand, be mindful of what information gets pushed from that office to the board. i can work with that office on that question. commissioner fung: can i bring up something a little bit aside?

>> i did. commissioner fung: i never saw anything. >> did i not? i shared it with the past president. i did not share it with the employee, assuming personnel matters were confidential. i give her the highest marks. vice presdient garcia: president goh is faced with having to come up with two superlatives. >> i could really screw up. president goh: do we need a motion? any other comments? i will move to adopt the budget. >> there is number of the public for public comment. call the roll, please. >> on that motion from president goh to adopt the department will

budget for fiscal year 2011- 2012. commissioner fung: aye. vice presdient garcia: aye. commissioner peterson: aye. >> the vote is 4-0. the budget is adopted. president goh: we should probably change our letterhead to reflect the new mayor. >> yes. i did that and i must have used an old template. my apologies. absolutely. there is no further business. president goh: we are adjourned.

>> 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? bit more for? >> we had about -- we had $8