understand the department's position to show us the most conservative members, which we appreciate. showing us a more realistic number is not something that our analysts have not looked at yet. it is just new information for us. so there are some of those questions. i am comforted by the fact that we will be seeing these items, but in addition to the questions of expense, that is a legitimate one. we did not have a full understanding of what the city- wide process, quite process, communications with other departments were, so i think there are just a lot of questions. they may have great answers to them, we just have not necessarily heard them in an easy way yet. personally, i see we will have to move forward with a regional system. i just do not know that we have all the answers we need to move forward. there is a certain level of discomfort from the committee on that. i'm also sensitive to the fact that we have to spend these

funds quickly, or else we will lose it. the fact that we could be losing a system that we did not have to pay for, to install, is a big deal. i would love to hear from my colleagues about your thoughts. i could see as sending the item out without recommendation, or potentially having the item carried over for a week in the budget committee and asked that we bring back certain abutments, -- departments, dt, coit. in the ensuing weeks, our budget analyst working with those departments to flush out the long-term costs. we may not know how many radio we will purchase, but maybe we could put some figures together, something that we could put together in terms of investment. we need to know what we are doing, what the court mission is. supervisor avalos: i do not feel comfortable passing this out of the committee. i could go for a continuance.

i am not sure if one week is enough time. i am really concerned about the long-term costs. i want to see what we can expect in terms of how other cities that have this decision before them about opting into this interoperable systems, whether they want to do so or not. i think they need some time to decide. i know we have a deadline coming up. it seems like every decision we have here at the board is against a deadline. i think i cannot let that be what compels me in making decisions. i could go for a continuance. supervisor chu: just a clarification question for the department. there is a process of approval. what would that be? >> february 8. the site use agreement that we negotiated with motorola expires

on that day. if you would offer us a continuance for one week, we would still be able to meet that deadline and we would do our best to bring dt back next week to answer the question that you have raised today, and come back before you in one week, if that is the will of the committee. supervisor kim: i think most of my thoughts have been articulated by my colleagues. i am worried about a week. i do not think that is enough time. this is the great beginning of a discussion. i am excited about the potential that this plan has four our city and bay area. i said this man we met earlier this week. it is so half baked, i feel incredibly uncomfortable putting this out of committee. even next week, i will probably still feel that way. i do not know what kind of

discussion can be had on the federal level in terms of giving us more time, but this is incredible of the work in planning that needs to be done for an infrastructure this large. i want to hear from mta. i want an integrated plan of one system of voice and data communication that our camera, and today, public safety can utilize together. i am appreciative of the grant that has come before us and i understand the pressures that your department is under to meet those deadlines. in my experience, every rushed decision has always brought forward issues and problems later. that has been my experience. every time we give more time to planning restate -- recently, the boys and girls club is an example of that. every time it comes back to us, a different apartment looks at the issues and is able to add

and enhance to a better product that goes back to this committee. i will support continuing this for one week. i am not sure i will feel comfortable in one week because i do not think that is enough time to bring all this information together, but we will see what can come forward next week. i do want to say, i am very excited about this, a great start of the discussion. i wish we had more time to hammer this all out. supervisor chu: thank you for the comment. there is a motion to continue the item for one week. i do want to offer one more comment. i do not believe this project is half baked. i do not believe there has not been coordination that has happened. i am not sure that we are all the sudden coming forward and saying by the way we want to join in on the system and we want to do this. there has been a ton of investment from our real-estate department to look a potential sites and provide us with actual

locations on alternatives. michelle talked about work that she had done with other departments to coordinate this effort. knowing that we have invested time and there is coordination across departments, i do not believe this is half baked. i do believe the presentation was lacking in terms of telling us but we can expect over a period of time, but i hope that information, and knowing that the department has worked hard on this project, you will be able to bring information to us next week to share with us what your vision is. though you may have shared this at the joint powers, discussed this ad nauseam, coit pat pat a product level four different pieces of it, i know i have not heard it. i do not agree that we have not been planning on it. i think we just need to share the information better. specifically, what we're looking for next week, we want to hear directly about the coit

process, the long term project for the 700, 800 mayors plan would be. it would be helpful for the department to come back with us, working with the budget office to make sure we know what the long-term expenses could be. we may not be able to identify all of the costs, but something that will help us identify over a period of time would be expected investment to look like. it is important for us to also understand what is the investment we are getting for free in this whole conversation? we are saying in our head, we will be putting in $220,000 etc., every year. what are we getting for free? if we want to build a system on our own, what would it look like, we have gone down this path? i imagine we probably would have gone down the path of increasing its capacity for our communications system. that is the direction technology is going and i imagine that is the direction we would have done anyhow.

i would like the budget analyst to look at the cost provided to us in terms of the cost of the lease, renew those numbers for us in the report. perhaps if we could ask the budget analyst to reflect any new information that has been shared with us. colleagues, is there anything i have missed that you want to add? supervisor kim: identifying the source of funding. supervisor avalos: when it comes to equipment, devices, break that down, too. what kinds of devices will we need? supervisor chu: thank you -- supervisor avalos: maybe as well, adding information about ntia, what their deliberations are, the scope of funding they have as well. supervisor chu: thank you, supervisors for your input, the department for your presentation. we will continue the item for one week. thank you. item two, please. >> item 2.

ordinance authorizing the san francisco public defender's office to retroactively accept and expend a grant in the amount of $231,147 from the correction standards authority for the purpose of establishing a legal educational advocacy program; and amending ordinance no. 146- 11 (annual salary ordinance, fy2011 - 2012) to reflect the addition of one class 8177 trial attorney grant-funded position (0.50 fte) at the san francisco public defender's office. >> good morning, supervisors. patricia lee. managing attorney of the san francisco juvenile unit. we are the recipient of a block two grant to establish our legal educational advocacy project. it is based on our experience of the need to provide educational advocacy for our clients and students. many of you know that we already attended the expulsion hearings of our clients, as well as the special education iep

hearings for our clients, which can take anywhere from two to three hours, which takes staff out of the room, but what we have learned, when you look at the statistics, where 80% of individuals ages 18 through 25 who were on probation in san francisco in 2009 were lacking g e d's, and that of the 98 homicides in san francisco in 2008, 30% were youth and young adults from ages 14 to 25. 95% of these homicide victims were dropouts. so we are really excited to establish this project. we are hoping you will grant the annual salary modification, and we will be adding an education attorney to our office to

provide for educational advocacy, in partnership with the court, district attorney, a juvenile probation department, san francisco unified school district, and the center for juvenile and criminal justice, who will provide case management, as well as city youth now. the attorney will be housed in our office. i am hoping that there will be no problems with this grant to accept. if you have any questions, i will be happy to answer. as president obama said last night, we will not allow for dropouts. not only will we not allow it, we hope to save lives. supervisor chu: thank you for the presentation. a clarification, despite his a division that is grant funded and ago when the grant expires? >> yes, a one-year grant at this point, but we expect it to be

extended for an additional two years. it will not be competitive for a year -- for year two and three. i also wanted to know, we are the only public defender office to have received this grant in california. so we hope to establish a model for california as well. supervisor kim: thank you. very familiar with the amazing work that the public defender does with our youth center students here in the city. this is a new position? >> yes. supervisor kim: i appreciate the goals and outcomes. what do you hope will be different with this grant, in terms of being able to change and have an impact on the lives of our youth in contact with the juvenile justice system, retaining them in our system? >> the goal is to reduce truancy, absenteeism, violence,

expulsions, to keep our clients successful on probation. additionally, our hope is also to reform the system. with our systems partners, we will be meeting on a quarterly basis to address issues, problems, concerns, recommendations. also, the attorney will be providing parent-guardian workshops, bilingual workshops in the community because our parents and guardians are the educational rights holders of the youth. the goal is also to provide for training for the attorneys, as well as the private bar and probation officers regarding the educational rights of our clients, and a corporate resources we should be able to secure for our special ed students, or those that might not necessarily be identified as special leed. supervisor kim: what has been

your experience in finding what is most successful in keeping kids from dropping out of school? >> what i found most successful is the fact that we are attending school expulsion hearings, interacting with the school administrators, sitting on safe school committee task force hearings. that is also part of the responsibility of the attorney. more importantly, having our clients successfully terminate from juvenile probation. i think it is a project that will prove the we can improve the graduation rates of our clients, as well as securing the upper of its special education resources and needs for our clients. our attorneys are not trained as special education experts.

it is a whole body of federal law that we are not trained in. so when we sit in on the special education hearings, it individualized education -- iep's -- often, we are shooting in the dark. with a special-education attorney, not only are we working with our client base, but we hope to improve the outcomes for other uses in the system as well by providing training to probation officers, to pry bar attorneys, to social workers as well. >> thank you. -- supervisor chu: thank you. this item does not have a budget analyst report. if there are no questions from the committee, let's open up to public comment. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor avalos: motion to approve with recommendation. supervisor chu: we have a motion to send item forward with

recommendations. without objection. item 3. >> item.3. hearing to consider release of reserved funds, port commission, (file no. 031229, ordinance no. 202-03) in the amount of $8,450,894 to fund the pier 27 mixed use cruise terminal project. supervisor chu: thank you. we have elaine forbes from the port on this item. >> good morning, members of the committee. the item before you is a release of reserves from a 2003 watermark planned sale proceeds. the total amount of the reserve is $8,450,494. as you know last night, the board of supervisors of how the planning commission certification of the eir. now this committee can move on the release of this research. given that there are several items come before you in the near term related to this project, i wanted to give you an update on the project, sources and uses, what you can expect

before the end of this fiscal year. if i could go to the overhead. i know in the eir and conversation last night, from fiscal feasibility, you are aware of the project, but just to go over, this is the existing site condition. pier 27 serves as a secondary cruise terminal no amenities for the public. pier 29 has several storage space tenants and some office space uses. the proposed project is not only a cruise terminal, but also 1.5-acre plaza. the northeast wharf project fisa, which has been contemplated in our waterfront land use plan for a long time. that is the green space you see on the far right side. there is an 80,000 square foot

two-story cruise terminal building that will meet the standards for efficient and safe passenger movement and will also serve as a safe and events facility. the demolition will also clear the way for a very large tip for access for the day, and also positioning for the cruise terminal. the timing, march 2013. the event authority will have exclusive use of this facility from the beginning and end of the race, from march 2013, and will return the facility to us april 2014. an assistant -- consistent with the mmrp, we will be hooking up offshore power. we will then complete the maritime skindell by october 2014. -- schedule by october 2014. the project has a shortfall in phase two. i am happy to report the shortfall has been reduced $4.7 million since you review the

project. we have shifted costs from phase one to phase two related to design a we need to do now. city costs have decreased by assuming the cost of the pier 27 shed demolition in the amount of $800,000, which used to be at the requirement given authority. we assume these costs because it allowed us to have some control and to deliver the project on time for the march 2013 date. i would have preferred to have brought to you from the beginning a fully financed project and also not to have so many actions necessary to release the funds, but this is a difficult project because the benefits of the project appears -- accrue to the local economy. for the port, it is not a huge cash generator. it is also difficult because of the integration with the america's cup, dealing with the

project scope. i apologize we are coming in pieces for the appropriations. if you will look to this chart, you can see we currently have $35.1 million appropriated. the subject of the release is in yellow, the 8.45. in february, we will be proposing a supplementary appropriation ordinance which is already gone to the capital planning committee, for a total of $5.2 million. this will a corporate fund balance of existing in the ports of accounts, and will be purpose 2010 debt for the project. these protests -- proceeds will be repaid if the bond is successful in 2012. then we are working with the office of public finance, the comptroller's office, mayor's budget office, on our 155 additional contribution to the project. it has been long assumed we would issue debt for $15.5

million. the vehicle has been what we are working on. the mayor's office of public finance and the controller have agreed we will use a crp, which the port harbor fund will be paid. we will be seeing that transaction in april or may. project proceeds in june. then there is the city contribution of $6.5 million. we are in conversation with the mayor's budget office, and it will be a decision for this committee whether that is a cash contribution. he won the the proceeds in the beginning of the new fiscal year. these are the total sources and timing. we are happy to report we have a complete picture here to deliver phase one. the face to product cost of $30.8 million, we are short on identified sources at this time,

at $6.9 million. but we do have a number of potential sources, and i will say, the fema grant, operator contribution and passenger facility charges of well within our grasp. we are just working out the details of the passenger facility charge. several ports have utilized this is a way to pay the capital improvements. for the 2012 geode bonn, we have been working with rec and park. should the voters not approve that, should a question not be posed, we would be seeking a different funding source for the park plaza, so the park would go on improve until we found funding for the plaza. so it would not be in trickled to the operations of the cruise facility. supervisor avalos: thank you for the presentation. on the top slide, on page 3, you have planned city conditions.

$15.5 million financed through clp's. what other revenue sources did you look at? >> it would report revenue debt. we had assumed that. frankly, the city has a better credit rating. it is cheaper for us if we use that to repay the debt. that is primarily why the clp vehicle is preferred. >> on the city contribution, what is the deliberation there, in terms of financing? >> deliberation is whether the city wants an ongoing obligation related to the $6.5 million contribution, or would prefer to use cash as the city's contribution. it is really a matter of this committee whether they want to take on an ongoing obligation. the controller is in devising the mayor's office on expert -- preferred path. we will have a vehicle, because

we are doing a clp, we are putting a vehicle in place for that decision if it was that. >> if it were not cash, could that be recommended again? >> yes, we would combine the 16.5 and 2.5 for a new issuance. part of which the harbor from would repay, part of which the city would repay. supervisor chu: related to the financing, i know some time ago, we had always seen this number, 6.5. it is not a new number. we always have questions about how we would eventually do this, how the number would change. i know the project has come down by $4.7 million. why hasn't our general fund contribution gone down by the same level? >> with the project's cost coming down we just reduced cash -- a shortfall to phase two. before we had a feasibility study of $12.2 million in the shortfall.

supervisor chu: if the 4.7 reduce cost was not fair, we would see the shortfall of the 6.9 be more like 10-something? >> that is right. if you would but, i could go over potential sources to phase two. we have a list of sources that we are successful to getting ab64 passed last year in the legislature. but that gives us the ability to capture the state share of -- associated with the america's cup i ftp with a total body of that, that present valley is about $8.9 million. that is a good potential source to the face to shortfall. we are also looking at several different opportunities. we have enough time and sources identified that i'm confident we will be -- have a complete plan for phase two of the project. supervisor avalos: you do not anticipate a lot of competition

for the source of funding? >> it has three intended uses, the cruise terminal project, shore power, and a 20% allocation for parks and open space. i am basing my number on 80%. the competition would be between the cruise terminal and short power -- for power. -- shore power. supervisor chu: with their options to close the $6.9 million shortfall, these are fairly large numbers and would more than cover the 6.9. do we have any sense of how feasible, which ones are long shots? >> ab 64 is not a long shot, it is a good source. we do need to make a financial test to meet a financial test

with the california infrastructure financing bank which basically shows the tax benefits of the state of the america's cup event is more than the up to $1 million in shares that we would captured through the ifd. the reports that the comptroller's office did, their economic show the america's cup event would far exceed its $8.9 million. i feel that we can meet that test. it is a very good source. for the future revenue opportunities, we have been working on our business plan for the cruise terminal, and how much we can expect to earn from special events. this site is a special event then you. without impacting our cruz operation, i think $5 million annually worth of debt is a very conservative estimate. that would mean basically five other thousand dollars more in annual net revenue from this facility -- $500,000 more in annual net revenue from this

facility. i think that is a good source. new funding sources, we have not made much headway on that, in terms of additional grants. reallocating funds from other capital projects, that is how we close the phase one gap. our capital repair and replace the budget is so oversubscribed, it is something we can do, but it has a cost to the port in terms of opportunity to repair our assets. the benefit of the positive bit environment -- in phase one, we are seeing the bids come in very close to the engineering estimates, which we are pleased about, but i think they have done a good job in understanding the bidding environment. by the time we build phase two, that may not be there in the same way. that is a softer source. then we can always defer the improvements. that is something we would have to face if these other sources do not come into focus for us. supervisor chu: on your face to

component, there is that $9 million from the 2012 go bond anticipated. if that were not to go forward, if not approved by voters, you would assume we would hold off on the recreational open space improvements? >> that is right. we would immediately seek other forces -- sources of funding for the park plaza. it is an important amenity that the cruise terminal has the entrance, being a park plaza, for the public enjoyment. the cruise terminal not only serves the passenger facility to generate economic benefit, welcome visitors, but also is a public amenities, because there will be the open space improvement on the tip, which we think is important. that said, if the question is not opposed to the voters, bond measure not passed, we would have to find funding and park improvements would waiti