of the additional amounts needed are on page 4 of the report. on the top of page 10 we report the port currently has $19,788,027 in available funds for the development of the brannan street wharf project. that project will have an additional $6,413,001 that will result in total funding of 25,000,954 $29, the amount necessary to complete the project. our recommendations are on the bottom of page 10, and without reference to the split by zero, we recommend you continue fios through release.

incidently the number on page 10 is a transposition ever. it should say845 8450. it should be reserved until the pending appeals of the america's cup resolved. we also recommend you resolve to approve an appropriation of 3,000,47951479, 051 and forwarde requested appropriation to fund the pier 27 cruise terminal project to the board of supervisor without recommendation. finally, we recommend you approve final 111363 to release $9 million the department has provided the necessary details

in the judgment currently on reserves to fund the brannan work street project. = -- wharf street project. supervisor kim: i have a question about your recommendation. i was curious why we would recommend item number eight, but forward no. 7 to the cruise terminal prior to the sequel -- secret appeal decision? -- sequa appeal decision? >> we made this with the last judgment decision we made with the appeals of the e.i.r. i believe the committee would prefer to continue.

supervisor kim: in terms of the reserve that is currently in place for item number eight, is that a budget and finance reserve rate? >> the reserve is a committee reserve, so final action happens in this committee. where as the supplemental appropriation is the ordinance so it goes out of the committee, but final action occurs at the board of supervisors. should the board of supervisors uphold the certification, because we have such a compressed time line, we wanted to get the supplemental appropriation ordinance ready for approval, should that be your will. the release of reservees, if we need to wait until the action. supervisor chiu: why don't we open this up for public comment.

are there any members of the public that it to comment on 7, 8, or nine? seeing that, public comment is closed. -- supervisor chu: why don't we open this up for public comment? guess hockereserve pending recef revenues, but i would actually suggest rather than complementing the administration of this item and splitting the file that we send the whole item out without recommendation rather than splitting the finals. i would recommend. do we have a motion? we do have a motion to amend the item for the budget analyst recommendation and said i'd bump -- send item forwar7 forward wih

recommendations. item eight, can we continue that to january 25? we will do that without objection. item #9, this is an item that is final action at the budget and finance committee. a motion on this item? we have a motion to release the reserves, and we can do that without objection. a comment to the port, one of the items i know that will be the comincoming before the boara whole, a big-ticket item i do not want to forget about is the 6.5 million contribution from the general obligation fund, and i believe we need to take a look of that item as it comes before us. something that we never the less need to keep an eye on. thank you. would you call item no. 10, 11,

12, 13, 14, 15 and 17? these are all related to bonds. >> item number 10, ordinance appropriating $192 million of the 2012 series earthquake safety and emergency response general obligation bond proceeds to the department public works. item number 11, resolution authorizing and directing the sale of not to exceed $192 million aggregate principal amount of city and county of san francisco general obligation bonds. item number 12, ordinance appropriating $76 million of 2008 clean and safe park bond sale proceeds to fund the improvement and construction of various recreation and park facilities, including this ng $,

132. item number 13, resolution authorizing in directing the sale of not to exceed 76 million aggregate principal amount of city and county of san francisco general obligation bonds. and item 14, a hearing to consider release of reserved funds, port commission. item number 15, hornets are gritting 74 million of the 2012 series road repaving of street safety general obligation bond proceeds to the department of public works. item 16, resolution providing for the issuance of not to exceed 248 million aggregate principal amount of city and county of san francisco general obligation bonds. item 17, resolution authorizing

and directing the sale of not to exceed $74 million aggregate principal amount of city and county of san fran's as good general obligation bonds. supervisor chu: these items are all related to different bonds that the city is intending to go out to issue. however, their technical amendments and other substantive amendments that would potentially require a continuance on these items. the hope is that we would consider a motion at some point today to be able to continue most of these items. the only item that i suggest we could act upon is item number 14, are release of reserves. i know there are multiple departments that are here today to talk about the bonds specifically, but there are technical amendments that were submitted by the mayor's office. i believe supervisor winneienerl also be allowing -- offering

some amendments. >> rick wilson, mayor's budget office. i will turn it over rather quickly. we did submit substitute legislation yesterday for two of the items. one is the clean and safe park bond that was a technical change a thing between a few of the project appropriations, and then for earthquake safety and emergency response on. there was a minor change in the amount of $5,000 in the administrative cost of the bond issuance.

relatively minor changes. then i think supervisor wieners office has an amendment that there are going to be introducing. supervisor chu: we did have the mayor's office submit technical amendments to items 13 and 14. those are not part of the agenda today, but the items we did submit produced we are, so we can continue with the presentation. but just so the public knows, at the next meeting that we continue to, january 18, it will reflect technical amendments and reflect public comment opportunity as well. why do we go forward with the presentation for the earthquake safety and emergency response bond. >> good morning. nadia sesay, director of public

finance. we have before you a number of legislation is protecting -- requesting approval of good will issuance bonds of emergency response system for the amount not to exceed 192 million. we expect to issue 183 million of that amount. the difference represents changes in market conditions. we will only issue what is required. we also have a number of other transactions. the clean slate neighborhood park bond. there is a schedule of 25 years, rather than the usual 20 years that. we are assuming a 6% interest rate. we have done calculations to confirm we are with in the city's debt limit of 3%. we have also looked at the

constraints, and we are within the capital time constraints. we have also provided an appendix a that is part of the city's official preliminary statement that includes updates through last august, but we are requesting you delegate authority to the comptroller to make changes that would include thought it did financial statements, budget instructions that were released, the state budget, as well as r.d.a. implications. we expect to go to market with the other uprising resolutions in front of you sometime in february. the due diligence session just last year we had disclosure of training at the board, so this is just implementing that process. cuwith that, i can go to the net

authorization. the next item is the co-lead it's a favorite park bond. this would be the sethird series. -- the next item is the safe neighborhood park bond. hthis is due to market conditions. we do not expect to issue anything above that. we are expecting 20 years at a 6% interest rate. we have done calculations to satisfy we will be within that 3 percent signed the debt capacity, as well within the threshold and the capital plan, which is the 2006 level.

the idea is to issue the bonds under one sale so we can reduce cost of issuance. with respect to the repair road and safety bonds we are asking for 76.5 million. that is where the amendments come in. initially we submitted a resolution for authorization of 74 million. it has been adjusted to include components for the mta, and we can speak to that if you have specific questions to that. we have a dpw representative to speak to any specific questions you may have on that. it is a 20-year term, 6% interest rate. we maintain the debt capacity and aggregate was still within

the capacity. we need the capacity on the capital plan. we might adjust the issue bond if we feel there is and must -- and of capacity in the schedule. we request your consideration for this item. if you have any specific questions, i will be happy to answer them. supervisor chu: the issuance is such that of the property tax rate will remain the same? >> yes. supervisor chu: why don't we go to the budget analysts presentation, unless there are any departments that would like to add to the presentation. >> regarding items 10 and 11 on page 7 of our report we point out that the interest rate on these general obligation bonds for emergency safety in general obligation bonds would be 6

percent signed. that is the projection over 25 years with annual debt service payments extending from 2012- 200036 and assuming a 25-year term. the bonds will result in payments of 353,433,547. that includes interest of 169933557. the estimated annual debt service would be 14,137,342. as single-family residence of a value of 500,000 is 7000. they would pay additional property tax of $29.90. as the city's existing debt is redeemed, at that will help to offset these additional property tax payments for each of these

new bond issues. our recommendation is to approve that resolution. and regarding items 12, 13, and 14, we report on page 7 in our report that the not to exceed 76 million of state neighborhood park sparks are projected to have an annual interest rate of 6% over approximately 20 years. the debt service payments would be 125,000,75823. -- 125, 758, 023. single-family residence, value f $500,000, assuming a homeowner's exemption where they pay average additional property taxes to the city of $40.50 per year.

and our recommendations on items 12, 13, and 14, are on page 9 of our report. we recommend you amend the file 11334 to reduce the proposed park contingency fund to buy $95,000 from $4 million to $3 million. the total appropriation in the parks department will be reduced in the corresponding to $62 million. the total, not to exceed an amount for the city park appropriation will be reduced from $76 million to $75 million. in all cases, it is a reduction of that $95 million. we recommend that you amend the file 345 not to exceed the sale

of aggregate principal amount in these bonds, consistent with these recommendations that i just stated, which accounts for that $995,000 reduction. recommendation #three is to approve file 11334, not to exceed $11,939, as recommended, and we recommend that you approve file 111364, to release $164,000 in park bonds, also previously placed on budget community reserve for the bay trail lake. supervisor chu: thank you. if i could ask wreck park -- rec park to come up and speak about the reserves? sorry, the port. >> good morning.

item 13 -- 14111364 is $130,000 request for a release of reserves for the bailey waterfront project. this project will restore public access of over 550 linear feet of long neglected waterfront in the heart of fisherman's wharf, to create a new public, not with very good use of the day, alcatraz landing, and the historic bayview arch. currently, most of it recently used for parking. it will protect the shoreline by replacing a failing timbers the wall between pier 43 and the san princess in westport -- restaurant. -- san francisco restaurant. this reserve was placed in the first issuance of the clean and

safe bonds in october of 2008. at that time, the project totalled $6.8 million. the scope of the budget was increased to $9.6 million to address the bay conservation development commission requirements for adjacent public access. the court added $2.8 million in port funds and -- the port added $2.8 million in funds. in fiscal year 2010, the port appropriated bonds to provide $7.5 million for this project. we have a total appropriation of 7.65. the release of the reserve funds today of $130,000. and the small allocation sale that you will continue to complete funding for this project. i would be remiss, the executive director would not like it if i did not acknowledge that the 2008 gl bond was the first time that we received a voter support

in tax dollars for park improvement. we're very excited to deliver the first set of these improvements to link the city with the waterfront in a continuous, positive, walkable environment. supervisor chu: thank you. >> madam chair, i fail to report on 15, 16, 17. for the record, according to the 2012 letter, not to exceed $76 million of general obligation bonds to have an annual interest rate of 6% over approximately 20 years. the bonds would result in debt service payments of $137 million, including 3767035 in the $5,000 of principal, with an estimated average debt service payment of $6 million. single-family residence would be assessed with an assessed value of [unintelligible]

including the homeowner's exemption paying annual property taxes to the city of $14.30. we recommend you -- approved the proposed ordinance for resolutions files 11, 13, 43, in 46. >> -- supervisor chu: in terms of a life that this will be amortized over, 20 years, is that tied to the life of the asset? generally it is 20? >> generally it is 30, but the city won the 30 years. the time that we took it to the voters, we recommended 25 years because that is what we could amortize over to meet the threshold of the capital plan. the first issuance was 20 years, so that we could accommodate the 20 year plan. the idea was to review it again and reduce it to 20, to conform.

supervisor chu: thank you. i am not sure if you can speak to the department recommendations for the rec park item. >> supervisor, we're happy to sit -- accept the recommendation. supervisor chu: why don't i invite supervisor wiener's office forward for the recommendations to the amendment. >> good morning, chairman, supervisors. in the legislative aide for supervisors got wiener, who is offering up -- authorized -- supervisor scott wiener, who is authorizing the amendment, specifically among the needs of the as 78 position. when considering the timing of

the first bond issuance, the priority was to secure funds for the project and the date of rhett -- readiness repaid in the projects. before the amendments went before the capital plan committee, though, it made sense in proposition be to maximize coordination between departments and to take advantage of efficiencies and complete street improvement paving and other complementary street infrastructure improvements, such as signals. instead of waiting to make these improvements, the asset m.t.a. decided to take advantage of -- s f mta decided to take advantage of the first issuance. it sometimes requires planning and legislation, but there were a number of critical projects that could proceed now. the pri -- proposed issuance could be completed through paving projects, bringing benefits to the public sooner rather than later. so, that is what resulted in the

change from $74 million to $76,500,000 in the appropriation ordinance no. 15, and also won 17. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. colleagues, we have the amendment in hole in front of us. i believe that we have received a copy for the clerk as well. why don't we go to public comment, first, before we take action? are there members of the public that wish to speak on these items? 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, or 17? we will have an opportunity for public comments in future meetings. seeing no one, public comment is closed. the couple of items. in terms of the recommendation, can we entertain a motion to accept budget analyst recommendation on those items? the supervisor made the motion, we will do that without objection. in terms of the amendment offered by supervisor wiener in terms of items 15 and 17, which

have been submitted for the record, can we take those amendments without objection? bill do that. colleagues, on items 10, lebron, 12, 15, 16, and 17, can we entertain a motion to continue those items into next week? supervisor kim has made the motion. we will do that without objection. finally, item number 14, the release of reserves for the page rail link, pier 43, we have a motion by supervisor avalos to route -- release those reserves and we will do that without objection. thank you very much. mr. young, do we have many other items before us? >> that includes the agenda. supervisor chu: thank you. we are adjourned.

supervisor mar: good afternoon, everyone. this is the land use and economic -- economic committee. the meetinll