projects, the team gets together, and they score them based on the criteria listed on the screen. addresses, code, regulatory issues -- to this significantly reduces liability, and attracts people to the waterfront and protects natural and cultural resources. there are 70 points in those items and there is financial criteria. what is the total 10-year financial benefit? those scores look to pry our terry -- and this is substantially matched by outside funding sources. you get negative point it's not match and it doesn't produce any revenue. you will see in the total fiscal

year 12-13 capital budget is $11.85 million, of which $3.55 million is for specific projects. your attachments go through quite a bit of detail and i want to cover the highlights. we are recommending you set aside $1.5 million for the cruise terminal. there's a clause in the document that requires us to deliver the project on time. if that means adding additional ships or whatever is required to do on time, we might be able to add that but we wanted to have this contingency. there are several big alternates. that would be much more cost- effective to produce in phase one than face to. i would like to potential use this source to achieve those items.

the engineering and project team will get back to you should you need this but i wanted to get back to you now. there is also the removal of the dry dock at pier 1. i believe that is a $6.6 million project. >> that is not at pier 1. >> thank you. there is a match for the leasing improvement. for the port wide projects, they noted -- notable ones are the utility program, the transition, the under peer utility program is for a under pure utilities. the transition plan is for the ag building and leasing project are for a range of improvements acquire -- required this next year.

for the fiscal year 13-14 budget, a total of $10.5 million. area specific projects are $2 million. the key ones are pier 35 substructure repair. when we get to the next item, which is a supplemental request for the cruise terminal, you will see embargoing revenue bonds for the cruise terminal and i need to replace it through the capital budget for pier 35 to meet the timing of cash for both projects. we need the cash from the revenue debt for the cruise terminal now. the pier 35 project is not ready for implementation and we have sources to replace those funds. we are adding funds to the infrastructure study, by far the most notable is the under peer

utility program. this is for continuing requirements to do design work, and implementation to see better ways of addressing our utility needs. this particular study includes utilities act wharf j one and pier 9. we went over our concept of reversing the trend and the repair and replace project. it is a needed a source, protecting it is incredibly important to our renewal costs and dredging costs are growing over time, which is one of the first call on this program. we aim to grow the budget so we can meet our basic needs and

this priority setting project allows us to filter what is most important. there are always many more project requests we are not able to accomplish. i'm here to answer any questions. >> thank you. i think it is well laid out. any questions from the commissioners? >> my recollection is we started doing this when the city started doing its 10-year capital plan. are we continuing to feed into the city's plan? >> yes. we feed in and budget through the budgeting system and go through the capital committee for review. we are doing a 10-year look every year.

we have not conformed to that mostly because our priorities have changed and are changing as a result of the america's cup and other improvements required. we felt we needed to keep that continually refreshed as our priorities shift. >> ours was actually first, predating the cities and they have conformed with us. >> of course we were first. >> what did you do before you came over here? >> something to do with money. >> the second question has to do with the first -- am i dreaming or was there talk about the possibility of another bond that would include another project for 2012? >> we have been working with recreation and parks department on a question to the voters and we have been working with the capital planning committee and

we are getting well under way to coming to you with a proposal for the bond in november. we are looking for the plaza to additional prove mens and the waterfront and continue the momentum of the 2008 project and we will be to you to show you the proposal. >> >> are the tillies derived from city sources or outside sources? >> they are our responsibility is how i understand them. >> to view mayn't funded or generated? >> i assume that would be water as well. >> yes. we are responsible for the

infrastructure that the livers from the main system, whether water, power or sewer. we procure them from a san francisco public utilities commission. >> i noticed there were some relatively small amounts tied to some of the improvements in the southern waterfront. how does that overlap with the funding coming in from the blue green way? can any of that be allocated to the funds that come in? >> i think you may be referring to what is specifically fund improvements in the southern waterfront. the blue screen way has a variety of sources, but the most recent sources we have bad are the sale of the p.o. bonds.

-- cdo bonds. >> yes, they do overlap. one is from the blue green way, to is the trans date payment, but the third is the policy on southern waterfront purification and which we set aside the rental fee to be used to beautify the waterfront and mitigate impacts. we like to have lots of sources and they end up going in the same places and helping with the overall program of beautification. >> you mentioned the plan was if we could get to 20 million and provide to the operating budget for the capital plan which would

be great. but in the context of the -- if i added the 693, -- in terms of general obligation bond, is that counted already or is that on top of -- >> it is included in the west meant as an enhancement. >> the goal of hoping to get to a $20 million level is not part of the projection? >> the projection assumes a flat but it about $10 million annually. it does not yet show improvements. >> we heard a presentation earlier today that would help defray if the project moved forward. that is not in the numbers as

well. >> some of the projects are in the numbers. if we know there is an obligation that will be met, it is included as a source. >> any plans in terms of incremental property tax revenue is not included in that potential funding source or how much is? >> there is ifd included the potential funding source. ifd is 231, but it is way in the out years. it's in the last five-year projection. >> the biggest issue i see is

this $2.2 billion strategic issue in terms of how are we going to preserve the peers with fat and we are short -- this is over time but it's what i consider the biggest financial issues and the operating surplus is only going to go so far. that is something we will obviously have to continue to think about where we can find the sources. >> the 2008 bond -- getting these -- this is expanding the envelope and that is the key way match with public-private partnerships to resolve this issue because you are absolutely right. we will not be able to solve

this through our capital budget. i would like to see a time when we could resolve renewal with it but we cannot resolve this level of deferred -- >> this is our own internal search -- own internal sources that we have to solve for. >> we can use our annual capital budget to use these services to me that that match grants and meet other opportunities. that's important and i think the criteria helps us maximize where we are allocated these limited dollars. >> post the adoption of the land-use plan, the only recourse we had was tentative improvements. private investment through development and post-adoption of the capital improvement plan which was adopted without the

planning -- subsequent plans have identified the same sources and private development and tenant improvement but has inc. and allowed us to be more creative and and think of these options for the port. even to meet the funding that we have which is a quarter of what daddy is continue to pursue all of those and it whether we are working on pier 70 or part of the america's cup, all of those are identified in the plan as funding sources even though they are not secure. we have a wide gap, but we are slowly inching our way forward and i if this is a point to not let

that grow. this is before we took into consideration of the new annual add-ons. for all amount>> we are pleasede improved trends and we want to give you credit for helping us to get on the right track and we know it is not enough to help us on the strategic challenge. and >> i would like to thank the divisions, real estate, a maritime to help us see these revenue enhancements.

>> any public comment? >> hearing none, we will move on to the next topic. >> request approval to forward to the board of supervisors the supplemental approval of fund balance and for phase one of the international cruise terminal project. >> the item before you is to appropriate 7.4 2 million to the cruise terminal budget. this is within the $62.4 billion budget you have improved for phase one of the home construction. -- $62.4 million budget you have approved. this is a timing of cash for the project. the sources of funds are the fund balance in the amount of 3.448 that we would have replicated through the capital budget. this is recognizing in the

budget which is where we will be contributing and using that source of revenue. the plant revenue bonds in the amount of 1.1 million. finally, to recognize that there was a savings in the project also funded through the port revenue bonds and the savings are $700,000 and with like to use this 40 cruise ship port. your approval will have less advanced it and get it before the budget and finance committee.

you can see the timing of the cash i am referring to. >> so moved. second. >> is there any comments from the commissioners? is any public comment? if not, shall we move to approve, all in favor. >> the resolution has carried. >> thank you. >> informational memorandum regarding the disposition agreement and related actions to approve the port commission, 2011, to approve the america's cup project involving peer's 19-23, 27, 29, and adjacent water areas, water basins between peers 32 and 48.

these are all located along the embarcadero waterfront. >> good afternoon, commissioners and members of the public. i am with the planning and development division and one of the project managers for the america's cup efforts. we are here primarily to present the revised memorandum that we sent to the commission after the december 16th meeting and approval at that time by the commission of the dba in its current form. that presentation was an oral presentation with many business terms outlined in that regard because of how quickly things were changing about the america's cup. we thought it was important to bring in a memorandum which would describe the entire -- and

the presentation that discusses the difference of what was before you launched on december 13th verses what is now introduced to the board. i like to say that at the time, we were taking care of the business of the port regarding the dda and we did not get a chance to celebrate what the america's cup was going to be like. before i dealt into the technical details come up with like the event authority to make some comments and i would like to invite up the chief commercial officer to discuss what this will mean for the port. >> thank you, commissioners for allowing me to speak today. i want to give some context to a lot of the things we have been reading and hearing about for a long time. san francisco and the san francisco bay area should be proud of the fact that this event is here. you probably already heard it

stated that this is the third largest sporting a tent in the world behind the world cup and the olympics. that is based in terms of economic impact benefit to the host city and coast region and this is based in no small part that this occupies a three month footprint in the year of the competition which is easily 10 times larger than the others that normally operate over two or three months. it is also interesting and useful to know that this is the only international sporting event taking place in the year 2013 which means that all eyes will be on san francisco, on the bay area. in terms of at some benefits that are in transit when you close an event like this, day are really many and of a list a few of them pentode due to the time, i will not be able to state the questions the

jonathan will act as an me and others can follow up for me in my absence. benefits, you are familiar as well with the work we're doing. money cannot buy advertising. this is the only opportunity to cheer for team usa on usa soil. the less they will not be hosting a major sporting event for at least another 10 years. while it is nice for the giants to win the world series, it is only really celebrated here. if team usa happens to win, it will be celebrated and watched with interest in many countries around the world and clearly, if

we lose another country wins, there will be a party happening somewhere else on the planet. that gives us this tale of international attention and drives towards our tourism and all of the benefit of having this large of that footprint in terms of restaurant traffic, hotel traffic, and terms of all of the work we're doing with our colleagues here in the city and with the colleagues and the port staff. there is some knowledge capital that is a lasting legacy in terms of the knowledge gained. our sustainability activities, and duke youth outreach programs particularly around maritime activities. state and federal corporations, setting precedents there. and volunteer force numbering in the thousands that can be

activated and speaking of future events, the calling card of the city will have as a major event host site going forward. this has proven to be very successful for other host cities. i can name a few like sydney, barcelona, that posted very successful games and that lasted to the benefit. in particular for the fans come of this will create new tourism back to the bay area, back to san francisco specifically and also for the region and also for the country. as part of our plan, this provides an obscenity for anyone that would like to see it for free. this is a beautiful location. in closing, because i was asked to keep this bluff, i would like

to thank our colleagues that have worked so hard with us on the port staff. thank you for your time. >> that was a lot more fun if we could have this dream come what i will go over our some of the changes and the technical details and i will invite the land back up here to talk about the financial analysis we have of this deal, which we did not have a very detailed analysis at that point. as tom was talking about, this is a multi a vent. this is not just the city and port, this is the america's cup race management, the organizing committee. these are organizations that come together to make the event work. this is not just an event in san francisco, it has a lot of

global lead up. i have the privilege of being in san diego to see this. this is a year round run-up to the event in 2013 here and again, maybe we are trying to hard to get the words of the slides and look at the pictures. going back to develop an agreement, this is really how we spent the rates and responsibility of those parties. it tells what obligations they have to approve for property and it governs our rights and the scope of work and it has a governing of the conditions around the venues.

it also governs their reimbursements. the work itself and the reimbursement of the major themes. there are major categories of work. these are some of the projects listed by the general agreement and there is additional work that can be dredging, spectator vessels, both of these categories will mainly happen but they can also be deferred and there are some different authority infrastructures. hopefully, some additional work at pier 26 at 28. the authority has the right to do other works and hopefully we will get reimbursed for it but they have the right to do other work on property. that being said, there is the

new dda which is similar to the presentation that we made. this government and limits the way that the work is reimbursed. if they do this work, this would be about $80 million an improvement. these sources are reimbursed with a limited order of repayment and that is a really important point, that has been improved and a host of agreements. the deal is $55 million of improvement for the sale and a

no cost police. after that, and there is pierced 30, 32, at interim -- and if necessary, potentially long-term rights at pier 29 including a 66-yong term lease and improvement. if they do not pay them back at that point, the authority has a right to claim 50% up to the station rents and a form for a subsequent leaks. we presented this orally on december 16th and has not changed since then. this has a limited order of repayment options, whether they repayment options, whether they choose to perform that to be