would be able to make some headway on that. i still hope that will be the case. i think for many of us, that is an important issue. i want to see language around the mou in asserting what sort of protection is the city will have just in case fund-raising is not worthy to be. many of us support supervisor avalos' issues around local hiring. i want to make sure the pier 29 issues, that is a minor detail, but i want to make sure that is settled cleanly by tuesday. i know there will be discussion about whether this moves out of committee today. one possibility, if we need half a day to figure out where we are because we have received an awful lot of paper, that means possibly we recess until tomorrow morning. i have been told that the clerk has informed as we have until 2:00 tomorrow afternoon to finalize the written amendments that might go to a committee

next tuesday. that is a possibility. it is up to the committee to decide whether that might be enough time to resolve other issues, or whether we need another week. commissioner avalos: i was thinking more than tomorrow morning. i also have the district meeting tomorrow morning as well. that is the difficulty for me. just to piggyback on what supervisor campos had said, how we have these deadlines that come before us and we are forced to make decisions with the spending deadlines, it makes it difficult to contract a time to make the decisions. i recall in january, there was a discussion saying, you cannot continue the eir because they will break down -- break ground on demolition for pure 27 --

pier 27. that did not happen. it is always some kind of event that is going to come up, it is imminent about our votes here in the budget committee. i don't think it is quite fair that we have it put before us. i think we could spend a little more time to figure things out. i was hoping to actually recess this meeting and come back before tuesday's meeting. spend time on looking at amendments we could make to the resolution and see if there is any more movement and certainty on some of the recommendations we want to make in their written resolution, specifically around the condo sales. i am actually more open to a functional cap. something i want to explore further. i believe there is a lot of

things that were explained in committee that i need time to go over. the local hire ordinance -- i think it is close, but not necessarily resolved yet. we should harmonize what we have been hearing from people in the community about how they want some legislation, or they want an agreement that is actually going to mirror closely legislation. i don't think we are quite there yet. i would like to spend more time doing that. my motion would be to, to recess this meeting until, say, 10:00 on tuesday morning. and, i'm willing to postpone that after making some amendments to this resolution as well. if i could go over those resolutions first before really going into my motion, i would appreciate that.

commissioner chu: did you formally make a motion? commissioner avalos: i did, but i will withdraw it. i will make some motions on amending the resolution that is before us. the first is on -- i actually have copies here that i could share with everyone. the first was actually looking at -- , was going to look at a hard cap on reimbursements, but i am somewhat swayed by what was discussed today. i think what i would like to do is make an amendment or additional resolve clause.

additional resolve clause in the resolution that would say that there will be a cap on reimbursement in so far that no additional general fund monies will be utilized in such reimbursements, and then, i actually feel that we could add the language that is here in this document that was provided by the event authority specifically that -- that says the port -- it is underlined in the second page of the third column. the second page. the portables obligation to reimburse the authority shall be limited exclusively to revenues derived from the following sources. we could list those sources in

the resolution as well. to me, that is taking the language that was told to us would be in the agreement, that this is bringing forth in a resolution. the key to me as we're not losing general fund monies. that would be one motion i would like to make on this. if we could perhaps -- commissioner chu: just to be clear, your first amendment that i see on this sheet, it talks about the aggregated hard cap on reimbursements. that is not what you are doing any longer. commissioner avalos: it is a cap and so far there are no general fund monies that will be utilized in such reimbursements. then, we use the port's language that they propose to us that the sources of the reimbursements, or the investments, will be finite. we are just clear that there is

a finite source those reimbursements will come from. we're not making a hard cap of $85 million, which would be my druthers. we are making some other firms statement about wanting to have those outlined sources as the port has indicated and agreed with. commissioner chu: i would like the port to be able to respond to that amendment. from my point of you about the additional resolution language that pulls up the same language in the dda, that does not seem to be problematic. i want to hear from you. in terms of the issue about the general fund levels, i think i would be interested to hear what you have to say about it. supervisor chiu mention there might be opportunities where we

actually want to have a different financing mechanism. can you speak to them? >> i think a couple things. based on the resolution and restating the reimbursements, the finite but it makes sense and i support that. -- bucket makes sense and i support that. i would suggest using the language that we can read into the record that talks about, no one can force the general fund or harbor fund to do any of these things. that discretion is left with those bodies. we have those options under the reimbursements frame we are talking about. commissioner chu: supervisor avalos, its sounds like the port is in agreement with indicating the language that was part of the recommended lang -- recommended action.

then, with regards to the issue of the general fund, there appears to be language already that speaks and limits the general fund liability. does that sound amenable? commissioner avalos: i would like to continue to see if we can make a specific statement as a committee of the general fund usage -- uses, for not using general fund monies to pay for these reimbursements. commissioner chu: ok. if i could ask if there are any comments for this amendment at this time? ok. if we can take the two motions separately, i would like to be able to vote on them separately. commissioner avalos: i will have more. i will have about four. commissioner chu: what i am saying is, two pieces to this motion. there is a component that speaks

to adding the language that specifically laying out the obligation to reimburse authority under the clause, shall be limited exclusively to revenues derived by the following sources. that is the first portion. colleagues, specifically, to the voting members of the committee, there is a motion to add a resolve clause 2 item number four, that would take the recommended action on item number two and incorporate that language into the resolution. that is the motion. i would be supportive of that. do we need to do roll-call? that motion carries. there is the second portion to that, which is to indicate -- can you repeat the language? commissioner avalos: the language would be that no additional general fund revenues -- no additional general fund monies will be

utilized in reimbursements on the event authority's investment. commissioner chu: that is the language supervisor avalos is suggesting in terms of item number four, correct? that is the motion before us. that when i will not be supportive of. i do think there's opportunity to perhaps have a smarter financing mechanism, a cheaper- cost financing mechanism that we do not want to preclude. i will be voting against that. if we could take a roll call? >> can i ask a question on the amendment? to the point about whether -- what the impact of this amendment would be? >> you recall that in the cruise terminal projects, we have two

sources of financing. one is through the revenue bonds, which carries the lower rating. or, we have looked at the city vehicle called certificates of participation. we can use the city vehicle if it produced a lower interest rate. i think you would mean we could not use part if -- certificates of participation. commissioner kim: which have a higher borrowing costs, usually. thank you. commissioner campos: if i may

ask a clarifying question to the port director, my understanding is that if this motion passed, you could come back to the board and the board could make that -- >> i do not think i am the right person to answer that question. you're saying a future board could reverse that decision? commissioner campos: right. the board itself could actually change that if there is a decision that there is a better financial instrument that would make sense for the city. i guess that is a question for the city's attorneys office. commissioner kim: i think they

did have specific language that did not put it at risk. >> i believe that was the question to our office. it is our understanding that certificates of participation, for example, or any other sources of bond financing, would have to be approved by the board come in any case. he could override this provision if you chose to do so. commissioner campos: that is my point, having that does not preclude the use of those instruments. ultimately, they have to come to the board come anyway. commissioner kim: thank you. i would not want to close the door at this moment. you're right. it does come to the board come anyway. we do have the motion before us. commissioner chu: can we do a roll call on that? commissioner avalos: aye. commissioner kim: no. commissioner chu: no.

>> the motion fails. commissioner avalos: thank you. i would like to make another motion. that will be restating 7.3hi. it states -- it states that private transfer fees will be recorded on each residential condominium imposing a transfer fee payable to the port in the amount of 1% of the sale price of any condominium constructed on the lot. initial sale of beach condominium shall be exempt from the transfer fee requirements, but the transfer fee shall be payable in perpetuity at the close of each subsequent sale of condominium. i would like to add that back as a resolution clause in this resolution. commissioner chu: thank you. you're making a motion to add an additional resolve clause 2 item number four as you read into the

record, which primarily and functionally puts a 1% transfer fee at the second sale. that is how i read this. is that correct? commissioner avalos: that is correct. commissioner chu: that is the motion. with regards to resolution, clearly, we can amend any resolution and put any piece into it. however, with the fact that you have an underlying da that is usually mutually agreed upon, how does this functionally work for us? >> madame chair, if the board makes an amendment to the legislation that is approving the dda, the board is setting the level of authority that it is giving the department to enter into the agreement. that agreement still needs to be reached and signed. you are giving advance authority come in a sense. it would then be up to the

parties to be able to reach that agreement. commissioner chu: ok. if we make this amendment in negotiations with -- about the dda, if both parties do not come to an agreement on a transfer fee at the second sale, then there is no authority to enter into that agreement. >> that is right. commissioner chu: just a question to mike martin or whoever is adequate to speak to it, will you give us an indication of conversations about this? >> as we discussed during the hearing, we have had many conversations about this. there has not been an expression of agreement to the second sale from our partners at this point. from staff's perspective, i think we would appreciate the opportunity to try to negotiate this approach. obviously, this is in the hands

of the committee. commissioner chu: thank you. commissioner avalos: with regard to this motion, i think it is important that the board states its preference in what the negotiations could be, and i feel very strongly. this is something we talked about last week and was in the original agreement as well. it makes a lot of sense to put this in, reverting back to what we have indicated we would like to see out of this agreement, and i think it is important to bring forward again. commissioner chu: thank you. i see two folks on the roster to speak to this motion. supervisor chiu: the issue of participation is one that i and many others brought up during the discussions in 2020 -- 2010. it was something we were

surprised to see taken out of the december 14 deal. i don't think it is -- i don't think it is the most difficult thing for us to be requesting as part of this. i certainly think in light of the conversation around whether or not we should have a cap or not, i think it is important for us to participate in any upside come if there is an upside. we're only talking about 1% on the second sale. commissioner chu: north dakota. commissioner campos: -- commissioner chu: thank you. commissioner campos: i think it is totally appropriate for this board to set conditions on the approval and it is something this board has done before. even though we are not legally allowed to make specific changes to the dda, it is totally appropriate for us to set limitations on what we are willing to do. i also think it is important to

provide some context to the issue of participation, that even if you approve this one% on the second sale, even if you add future sales, the level of participation the board is getting is actually lower than it could get. you could require participation on a number of transactions that are not included here. it is already a pretty modest level of participation. i don't see why we should not provide that guidance to staff to make it clear where we are as open negotiations are finalized. commissioner kim: i agree with my colleagues that i would like to see this included in the dda in order to have my support. i don't support it as an amendment to the resolution. it is not the way i want to move that forward. we either vote them up or down.

commissioner chu: thank you. did you want to respond? ok. we have a motion before us. commissioner avalos: aye. commissioner kim: aye. commissioner chu: no. >> the motion fails. commissioner avalos: i would like to make another motion. add another resolve clause that would say -- how do i want to say this? 7.3hii. it's on the assignment of sublease and legacy leases.

the authority will have the right to assign or sublease legacy leases an option leases to any of the authority affiliate's upon prior written notice, but without requiring the consent of the port, and without sport participation and consideration given to the authority by the affiliate. any other assignment of more than 55% individually or cumulatively of the interest in areas subject to a legacy lease or legacy optionee shall require the port's prior written consent. the first such transfer by the authority or affiliate for the fair market financial consideration may be made without any port participation or any consideration given by the transferee. the port shall have of right to the debate -- the right to participate. the legacy leases and legacy

option leases shell obligate the port to grant non-disturbance protection to subtenants on commercially reasonable terms and conditions. so, what to make sure that as we move forward in subleases that the port is able to get some cost recovery as well later in the event. commissioner chu: thank you. similar to the previous motion, i will be voting against this one for the same reason. why don't we do a roll call? >> on that motion -- commissioner avalos: aye. commissioner kim: no. commissioner chu: no. >> the motion fails. commissioner avalos: i would like to add another resolve clause. it would remove the open space water basin from the dda. having that struck, i don't believe that it is proposed in terms of marina uses, as

conforming use currently planned for the open space for the opiate -- for the area. commissioner chu: thank you. if i could ask the port or the oewd to respond to that item? this is removing the open water basin from the dda. >> brad benson of support staff. as you know, the mayor negotiated the relocation of one marino right, the rain, water basin -- therincon -- the rincon water basin. we thought that was great improvement to the underlying deal. we had discussed the arrangement of marinas with staff. they understood that that was the improvement the committee would make. under the dda, the port would

enter an exclusive negotiating agreement. the authority would be obligated to get all of the permission to build a marina in this location, including permission from bcdc. staff explicitly addressed this point and said that the proposal going forward or to build a marina in that location, there would be a requirement to identify a new open water basin to replace this open water basin. so, i think the policy makers have their eye on this issue and will continue to work with the event authority on it. commissioner campos: one question that i have, going back procedurally to something that supervisor avalos was noting, i do think that the --

there is a danger in simply sending this forward to the board without making some of the amendments that clearly, members of this committee want to see made. i think that the idea of taking our time and may be coming back for this committee to come back prior to the board meeting is one that i think makes a lot of sense. you still have the opportunity to -- if need be, to take action on tuesday. it gives you some time to maybe come up with language that incorporates some of the issues that have been addressed. i think that being able to come back and reconnect on those issues through this committee is something that will be helpful prior to the board meeting on tuesday. i just want to say that, from my

perspective, the idea that supervisor avalos had come a given that we have not been able to make a substantive changes that i wish had been made, is something that makes a lot of sense. there are a number of other issues that remain not addressed. that is the issue of work force and local hire. we also heard from the arts community and there may be others. i think that having this committee be able to come back and reconnect on these issues, and the supervisors i think would be helpful. >> thank you, supervisor. we did hear from the port of this issue. given the fact they'd have to run but bcdc anyway, and there are skrns considerations there, i'd be comfortable not being to

include that here, not removing it at this time. so why don't we do a roll call on it? [roll call] >> the motion fails. >> thank you. and then supervisor avalos. supervisor avalos: thank you. i really appreciate your consideration of hi moogs. the intent is to set a bar for what the expectations are for the board of supervisors and knowing that there's been a great deal of work that's been put in and it's been on all sides. i don't want to minimize that but i do think it's important for me to be able to state what they preference is and all i have are my votes to do that my vote on the america's cup events -- my votes have been

very precious to me. because i don't feel that my votes have necessarily expressed what my will has been, especially going back to december 14, 2010 for when i per received was getting -- per received was getting voted on turned out to be something different. i do want to express what my preference is what ink the resolution supporting the d.d.a. should look like. that's why i'm moving forward with these motions. the last one i'd like to do is a motion, clause that would add language that the d.d.a. and work force plan shall specifically require that all construction contracts should be subject to the hiring and construction.