this fund that would help enhance operations. i want to make clear that what that would do -- they would pay $8,000 for us for every filing we did within every 28 days. it does not have anything to do with whether the court determines guardianship or not. this would enhance operations. it would not mean specific patients would get different treatment from other patients. obviously that would cause an ethical problem for our office. what this would do is provide a quick and more efficient way for us to do these investigations. we already have four positions in our budget because we came before you last year on this. we did not have this in place for a mechanism to except the money. this would create that piece of

it. supervisor chiu: just to clarify some of the way the funding would come through is it the agency sends over a case to the court for their determination for the month, we would receive eight belsen dollars. -- $8,000. thank you. why don't we go to the budget analyst report. >> madam chair, and members of the committee, on the bottom of page 4 we note the human services agent budget currently includes $327,000 in this gift fund from the hospital council, and includes four positions that were listed on the bottom of page 4 of the report. these positions are budgeted for a total cost of $307,000, although the funding in the

positions are included in the budget. the department advises today the public guardian has not collected any additional revenues from the hospital council, so none of these positions have been filled as of today. we recommend you approve the proposed ordinance. supervisor chiu: think you for the report. why don't we open this up for public comment. i want to recognize ron smith from the hospital council. and >> we are very concerned about patients that are lingering in our hospitals when that is not a good and healthy place for them to be. they are not getting the care they should have because of the delays in the research ship process. -- we server ship process. we estimated and a three-year

time, it cost the city and our hospitals $26 million in unnecessary costs because of delays. we think we can take care of patients better. the public guardian does a great job when they have the staff, and we would like to help fund that staff. thank you. supervisor chiu: thank you. public comment is closed. supervisor avalos: motion to approve with recommendation. supervisor chiu: motion to approve, and we will do that with recommendation. >> item number four, resolution approving the 36 amendment to the treasure island and structure master lease between the structure and united states navy. item number five, resolution authorizing the execution of the second amendment to the sublease

between the treasure island development authority and swords to plowshares inc. for premises located at 1441 and 1443 generchinook court. item number six, resolution authorizing the execution of a third amendment to sublease and consent to a summit between the treasure island developer authority and haight ashbury free clinics. >> good morning. before you today 3 simple amendments to our arrangement with the navy today. as you well know, 14 years ago we entered into lease agreements with the u.s. navy for the interim use of land and structures and facilities of the former navy base, which generates revenue in support of

operation of treasure island. there is no cost to use these facilities from the navy. in return, tida subleases the land. we receive no federal dollars in support of the island operation. it is self-sufficient in provision of services to some 3000 residents that call it home. the revenue generated from the sublease of the market rate housing, commercial and event space for the utilities, public works, and the community services on island. the first amendment simply adds another building to the master lease with the navy. we estimate we generate $75,000 annually with the use of this property. 13 years ago tida entered into an agreement with non-profit.

these non-profits do not pay rent, but to pay common meet its charges. members include catholic charities, rubicon, community housing partnership, and ashbury free clinic. recently, haight ashbury loss funding and returned eight units under the agreement. these units have been distributed to other non-profit housing providers. the second and third amendment we moralizes the debris distribution of these units. -- the second and third amendment memorializes the distribution of these units. the newly-configure non-profits housing provider known as haight

ashbury/walden house. supervisor chiu: thank you for the presentation. why don't we go to the budget analyst report. >> on page 4 of the report we estimate that the commercial lease a building 449 will result in approximately $75,000 annually in revenues, and is shown on page 2 under the proposed second amendment, the common area of maintenance charges in utility charges would increase by a total of 3633 per month, and that is approximately 43,596 annually. again on table to come at the common area made its charges and facility charges paid by if

walden house would increase by 1817 per month. we do recommend that you approve the three proposed resolutions. supervisor chiu: why don't we open up these three, at -- three items up for public comment? in the members of the public that wish to speak on these items? he and nunn, this item is closed. -- seeing none, this item is closed. supervisor kim: i want to thank mary for all your work with treasure island. i know we will go through changes, really appreciate all the partnership you have work to make such a strong community in treasure island. and supervisor chiu: the three items have been moved for

recommendation out with it up -- with recommendation. can we call items number seven, eight, and nine, please? >> item number seven, ordinance appropriating 4,442,000, 514 consisting of 3,000,709630 in fund balance and $732,884 in interest earnings from the sale of the watermark land in condominiums to the port commissions in 2011-2012 to be used for the development of the brannan street wharf and the mixed-use cruise terminal at pier 27 and placing $614,000 on controller's reserve pending receipt of that projected interest earnings. i never a coming hearing to

consider release of reserved funds, port commission, in the amount of $8 million $450,000.8942 from the pier 27 excuse cruise terminal project. -- 8,450,894. supervisor chiu: we may consider a motion to send it out without recommendation. item eight would likely be a motion to continue the item until after we have heard the sequel of appeals. item nine is a hearing to reserve funds that is not tied up with the process and can be acted upon. i wanted to set the stage for those three items. >> thank you. elaine of support staff. we of three items before the committee, one supplemental appropriation into reserved

releases to make funding available for key waterfront projects, namely the cruise terminal at pier 27, and the street wharf project. the supplemental appropriation for 4.4 million is from interest earned from the water mark land in condominium sales that occurred in 2003. the ordinance passed in 2003 directed the proceeds and interest earnings from this transaction to the brannan street wharf project and crews and terminal project. the release of reserved requested, 8.45 for the cruise terminal and 9,000,004 brandon street combined with the supplemental appropriation would make all sale proceeds and interest-earnings available for

those intended projects. both of these are -- planned waterfront improvements in both associated now with the 34th america's cup as a delivery dates are required at that event. march 2013 for the cruise terminal project, and june of 2013 for the brannan street wharf park project. we cannot deliver these improvements without the city's environmental progress and a very strict schedule before this committee. as chair to mention, the project is have a certified e.i.r. -- as chair chiu mentioned, the project does have a certified e.i.r. these appeals are scheduled to

be heard jewelry 24. as a result, we will ask the city to consider the supplemental appropriation and forward without recommendation, and to continue the release of reserved for the cruise terminal project, and nine, to january 25, that way these items will be acted upon by the board, only if the board of supervisors upholds the planning commission of the oe.i.r. we concur with the recommendation. on a technical matter regarding idaho -- item number seven, the budget analyst recommendation splits it and recommends recommendation for the funds associated with the street wharf project, and flirting with that recommendation for the cruise terminal project. it that would require the file to be split, it may be more simple to forward the entire

route air-conditionerecommendat supervisor chiu: if that was the will of the committee, it sounds like we would have to split the final, it sounds like? >> it the committee wanted to move forward with recommendations, he would need to create two separate files. -- you would need to create two separate files. >> madam chair and members of the committee, on autumn -- bottom of page 8 of our report we showed this in table four, did the board of supervisors amount, the port will have 33,130,000, 56 of the phase 1

project of 62,000,359983 for the pier 27 cruise terminal project. toof 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