fix a of a wall fix it like crazy and that is the only way back tonight let the magic in the budget music get to you and just enjoy it if you -- in joint, fixing up wall fixing the wall ♪ chair chu: thank you. are there any members of the public wish to speak on item number one? cnn, the item is closed. colleagues, do we have a recommendation to send it forward? ok, we have got a motion and a second. we will do that without objection. i believe that supervisor david chiu wanted to be here for item number two, so let us get over

that one and go to item number three. clerk young: appropriating $5,448,350, consisting of the fund balance and america's cup event font -- even authorities reimbursement, for the port commission for the development of a mixed use cruise terminal at pier 27. chair chu: thank you. with a report, we have elaine forms. >> good afternoon. elaine forbes, support staff. this is to have money for the budget, but the reason for this item is to address the timing of the cash. there are three sources in the supplemental. the first is in the amount of three-point for under 48 million. -- $3.448 million.

we need the funds appropriated earlier. the second source, the 2010 port revenue bonds. we have $1.10 million from the pier 35 project. this project is delayed. we are taking funds and reallocating this to the pier 35 project. there are bonds of 700,000. this is from a roof project that came in under budget, and we want to capture that source for the project. the final source is shoreside power. as you know, be the authority is

reimbursing for moving them. the supplemental would recommend both the source and the use of that funding. i will note, as you are aware, the dda has a change, and it is coming back to the board of supervisors at the end of this month, and whether this continues to be a source of repayment from the event of 40 or whether they in turn was this cost into our budget is under discussion, so i would leave it to the committee about to handle this item on the 2 million you could reserve, and until the dda has approved. i could come back. you could sever this from the supplemental. it is really the committee's preference how to resolve this, but the other portion of the supplemental, the over $5 million, we do need to move

forward because we need the cash for the project, and there is a delay on ordnances, etc., so we would prefer that. the rest of the funds. we would like to think a budget analyst for their report, and we support the recommendation to come back to you with a full report on the phase two funding and the debt financing and how we will resolve that before we issue what makes up the balance of the sources in this project, and i am here with my budget person to answer any questions. thank you. >> -- chair chu: thank you. just to clarify, the thing that has changed is the appropriation, 7.2. there is no longer a source of the additional $2 million that was supposed to come from the reimbursement of the america's cup, given that so many things are changing at this point? >> i would not want to characterize it as no longer a

source. the source would be the event authority reimbursing us, or it would be deport revenue capacity supporting that $2 million, so there will be a source. he is just because the negotiations are continuing, and we're going to look for a revised plan. we are not certain of the sources. chair chu: in terms of the balance of the 7.2, with a 3.4, that is still available in the fund balance, and you are saying this is necessary at this moment in terms of cash flow issues. >> yes, what we issued in 2010. chair chu: ok, and then in terms of the remaining balance, the over $5 million, do you have any update on this? i know you were in agreement with a budget analyst to come back with a report to provide us with information about how they will get to balance. do you have an update at this

moment? >> at this moment, there is actually somewhat in flux. we have been looking at a potential source, so we are continuing to explore that as source for the phase two project. i am actually going to flip to a slide that shows the different ways that we are looking to finance this, the 6.9 at this point, although it has been further reduced. we're looking to ab 664, the legislation that allows us a share from the america's cup development site. we are looking to see in the revised deal what waterfront improvements would qualify under ab 664 that will still be improvements for our peers and docks -- piers and docks.

the special events and then you, we know the america's cup will be the first special event, but we hope to have that for future special events, and that will be a revenue-generating option, and we're also looking to identify new planning sources, perhaps restoring other and our mental improvements that are associated with the site, and we will continue to look at we appropriating -- restoring other in our mental improvements. i have the benefits of the positive bidding environment. that seems to be as the economy improves not as possible as we thought originally. it is good for the economy but not for the cost of our project. and then we will continue to look at select project components that could be deferred or reduced from the project scope. when we come back in april, not only will we have a funding

source for your consideration, we will also have our project costs really defined better. what i have been bringing to you is conceptual design numbers. we know more now. the costs have gone up some in phase two, and we are looking at how to reduce costs and what the sources look like. chair chu: supervisor kim? supervisor kim: this is an informational question. he pays property taxes on those? chair chu: i understand they have submitted the budget to the office. that your budget include a $6.5 million allocation from the general fund at the moment? >> no. no, we are waiting for the

advice and guidance from the mayor's budget office on whether this is a cash contribution or debt. we are working with the office of public finance for the ports share, and the 6.5 could be included in that, or it could be a cash source, so we are in conversation with the mayor's budget office about their preference and its committees preference. as you directed, we're looking for payment for the reduction of the contribution, so when we come to you in april, we should have, we will have answers from the preference of the mayor's budget office in that regard and potential reductions by enhancing other payments sources. chair chu: thank you. if there are no questions at this time, why do we not go to the budget analyst's report? >> we were advised by mr. rosenfield at today's meeting

about the potential question regarding the $2 million. we were friends that at the top of page 5 of our report from the event of 40. they were to reimburse up to $2 million in actual expenditures related to the shoreside power relocation. i would recommend the fact that given there are other uncertainties, it be placed on the budget and finance committee reserve, that $2 million, and i think the committee would then get the total clarification whether or not that is going to be paid or not. regarding the fiscal impact, we point out on the bottom of page 5 that the funding sources for the entire cruise terminal project, phase one is $62.30 million, and the funding sources are identified in table two, the

attachment of page 9 and the report, and the actual budget for the expenditures of the 27 cruise terminal project is $93 million, and that is shown on page 9 in the attachment. the attachment was provided by the port, and that includes over $60 million for phase one and more for phase two. and regarding the item of uncertainty, on the attachment, it shows the total budget of $30.70 million, and there has not been an identified funding source, and that is why we have made the recommendation for the port to come back to the committee, to give an updated status on that $5.30 million. we do recommend approval for this appropriation ordnance with

the contingency regarding the qualification regarding the $2 million. and we do note, as has been pointed out, that there are two, even within this phase one, there are two still pending actions by the board of supervisors for two funding sources, and that is the $15.50 million for the certificates of participation and a possible general fund appreciation of $6.50 million, but given that this cruise terminal project has come before the board several times, and it has been the policy of the board to proceed, at least heretofore with this 27 cruise terminal project, we do recommend approval. chair chu: thank you, mr. rose. i think in light of this news that we do not have a funding source for 2 million, i think both the supervisor avalos and i

find it that the cleanest way for us to deal with this is to reduce it by the $2 million, but the only reason why we may actually pass a $27 million with perhaps a reserve on the $2 million is it there is an eminent source of funding and we expect to becoming relatively shortly and also in terms of the timeline, if there is a particular timeline that we are trying to meet. can you explain to us why we may want to do this with a supplemental? >> yes. there is an imminent source, and we are working with the office of public finance on it. we do have a timing of cash needs throughout this project to deliver it in march of 2013. the office of public finance is looking potentially at

commercial paper for us to meet our cash flow need in june, and with this $2 million coming out, i believe we would have a deficit in may, so we would be needing commercial paper in may without this appropriation. we would be needing a commercial paper source if the event of 40 is not reimbursing us for the $2 million, so there is an eminent source coming. the source of repayment will be harbor funds for the $2 million if, in fact, through the final dda they are not reimbursing the port for those costs. so that said, if it is the committee's strong desire to just reduce the supplemental appropriation and strike out the $2 million, we would just need to issue commercial paper earlier instead of june. we would need to talk to the office of public finance for a

may auction. as i said, because it is still under consideration, and the final deal is not before you, it is hard for me to say, to give my best recommendation to you today, but if it is your recommendation to reduce it, that would be the impact. chair chu: in terms of what you are working with the office of public finance on, is that something you are bringing before the board? >> oh, yes. chair chu: ok, it seems that you can come back at that time with that $2 million if it should be materialized in the process, so i think that will not necessarily impact and have you go to require commercial paper early. it sounds like it is already a bill to a process that you have to come here anyway. >> it is just later in the process, so the proceeds would not be available until july or august, so right now, our cash

problem begins in june. without the $2 million, it would push back to may. chair chu: from what i am understanding you say is that one of the potential sources -- >> and the proceeds would be available in the summer. chair chu: either way, it will not come later, you'll still have to get the commercial paper is. >> yes. chair chu: thank you. why do we not open this up for public comment? are the members of the public who wish to speak on this item number three? >> ♪ let there be you let there be made let there be oysters under the seat

mate you fly like a dove most of all, let there be budget money america's cup love ♪ chair chu: thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i just want to thank the committee for a cheerful discussion of this item, since it does deal with $7 million, and i also thought that mr. rose had a very simple but accurate analysis, so i think his recommendations should be carefully considered. also, i would like to make one in formal suggestion. maybe we can come up with $2 million in less than one hour. we can always ask the mayor to contact our friends overseas, in other words china, and i am sure

the chinese can easily find $2 million sitting around if for no other reason other than philanthropy. thank you. chair chu: thank you. are there any other speakers who wish to comment on this item number three? seeing none, item number 3 is closed. colleagues, the item is before us. supervisor avalos: i feel that since they have to come back, we can approve this for the shoreside power aspect of this appropriation ordinance then, so i would like to severna park or delete that part of the appropriation for the $2 million

related to shoreside power, and then a motion to approve that for the full board. chair chu: thank you, supervisor avalos, i agree. i would be happy if you had another funding source to bring it before the committee and make sure that its third in a timely way, but it does not seem like there would be a problem to have been severed out, so i would agree with that motion, so the motion is to sever out the uses and the sources worth $2 million, and so i would ask the department work with our city attorney to make sure we have that reflected in the record. we do have a tight timeline in terms of making sure this item gets to the full board, so if you can, make sure that document, red line versions are available by the end of the day,

that we cannot make sure that it is therefore this coming tuesday. so we have a motion to sever out the $2 million and then a motion to send it out to the full board, and i think we can do that without objection. thank you. item number two. clerk young: item number two, appropriating over $962,000 of the fund balance for fiscal year 2011-2012 for the design of the jefferson street streetscape improvements, and placing $52,600 on controllers reserve pending receipt of the interest earnings. chair chu: thank you for that.

we have a number of people here, but before we go to that, i want to welcome our president been chiu. would you like to make a comment? president chiu: fisherman's wharf is a destination. and about 10 million tourists go through. this is in the heart of the wharf. as you know, it is not a good street level experience. it is poorly designed for people looking for parking, extremely difficult for cyclists and for muni. for many years, there have been discussions about how to build the streetscape. in fact, this project dates back to 2006, which is when this has happened. there is no consensus that will be presented today, and this is important not just for the neighborhood and for my district but for the entire city, and the budget analyst's report in addition to my strong support,

mayor lee also wants to make sure that this project gets done for the eight america's cup. i hope that he will support this. chair chu: thank you. >> i want to start by saying that the supplemental appropriation requests before you is the design for a two- block segment of jefferson street. we are here requesting design funds so we can get started right away on design so we can get construction under way by this fall. we are going to be on a very tight timeline in order to complete the project by june 2013. and that is in time for the first america's cup event next summer. before i get into details about what the total project costs are going to be and what our timeline is, we thought it was

important to give context to the project, and a representative from the planning department is here to talk about the plans and what the community is after and also the benefits that are going to come to the city from this, so i'm going to have neal speak first. >> hello. i was the lead planner. just some background, our involvement began in 2008, when, as the supervisor indicated, we have plans going back to 1961 calling for improvements to jefferson street. this is an area that has received a lot of attention. the recent started in 2008 at the request of supervisor

peskin. we soon hired some architects out of copenhagen, denmark, who really gave us context. we counted every human being, and during the summer months, and we found some very surprising numbers. jefferson peaks at about 65,000 pedestrians per day. that is a huge number. we have done similar numbers the rock the city, and on the market street and one pier have more. it is very crowded. there is a high level of pedestrians. there is a safety issue and enjoy ability issue that extends not just for pedestrians but four cyclists. this is the largest gap in the bay trail remaining. in this area alone, there are about one-quarter of 1 million bicycles rented every year, and there is an important connection between downtown and the

connections to the west. and the circulation is really geared to the automobile. most of the street is given over to the automobile even though by far the largest user is the pedestrian. this turns this relationship on its head and does more for the pedestrian while accommodating the automobile where and when necessary, so the goal that we worked with with the key stakeholders is to retreat a beautiful, lively, memorable st. that strengthens fisherman's wharf, some predicate in on that is prioritizing human comfort at a speed and a scale that is scaled towards the human body and the human movement, and that includes pedestrians and bicycles, and so the garden design that we have developed, we take on street parking.

we have 16 but sidewalks from the south, and the pedestrian zone on the north to take advantage of the light, and that includes a 16 foot sidewalk and a mixed cafés 9. there is the experience as you walk down jefferson street. but chair chu: do you have slides. >> no, we do not. chair chu: in the future, if you were able to distribute these in advance, that would be helpful, because we cannot see the screen. >> thank you. this is the first two blocks. jones and high street.

it would allow us to have some traffic diversions strategies, so the key part of the plan is really to reduce this to the greatest extent possible, so that it is a call, say, and enjoyable experience. again, some background, in fiscal year 2010, the area received about 9 million visitors and generated through various rents and taxes about $65 million revenue towards the city, said just doing a very basic sensitivity analysis, what would happen with a 5%, 10% or more increase based other cities across, going to new york and denver and portland in between, and you can see just even a modest increase results in a long-term benefit to the city on an annual basis. and with that, i am going to

hand the microphone over for douglas for the budget. thank you. >> hi. the lack of the handouts is my fault, not his. i apologize. so the concept plan that came out of the planning effort proposed a very beautiful project that for these two blocs would total about $8.70 million. before we went to the capital planning committee, the mayor's office asked that we look at other alternatives that could be considered, it said these range for about $5 million of the way up. we need to make a decision

fairly soon and about which option we are going to be implementing. the main difference and the costs is using much less expensive materials. option one involves a lot of granite in the street. it is a very striking design, and i think it is appropriate for jefferson street, which is such of an iconic street for fisherman's wharf. it is, however, very expensive treatment, so we can do a lot of the same street scape treatments, two-way traffic calming eliminating the parking lane, providing for safe bicycle traffic, also widened in the sidewalks and making more room for pedestrians out of the street, so we are looking at these three options, and we will be coming back to you probably