locations, not just the dry dock, but other wards where vessels could be burst. -- berthed. this is an actual picture of the dry dock. so if the board of supervisors approves the ordinance, we would then come back, as i mentioned earlier, in late april to seek your approval of funding for the project through debt issuance. we are in the process right now of negotiating six amendments to the bae port these based on the letter of intent and already have port commission authorization to enter that lease -- the bae port lease. with that, and available to answer any questions. i also want to ask hugh to come

up, if the board is a mineral, to answer any questions. >> i apologize for my entire. i was working in the shipyard this morning, and brad asked me to discuss the shore power upgrade at pier 70. i have to say, there is the environmental impact of the shore power upgrades, and as you have seen, we will be taking a lot of carbon and everything else out of the atmosphere where we do not have to run generators in order to power this new class of ships. what i do not know that fred touched on is the fact that we will be employing a lot more people because we will be able to bring in ships that we were not able to provide electricity to power up. just two weeks ago, we won a contract -- two and a half weeks ago, we won a contract on the united states naval ship alan

shepard. that contract will run about $14 million in work. our people will run about 200 or 250 employees on that alone. the ship shows up on wednesday. we will be bringing in diesel generators in order to power the ship up, but in the future, and we just had meetings in norfolk, virginia, and the military sea to command asked what we're doing to get this class of ship. the san francisco drydock is unique in that it is the biggest on this side of the pacific ocean. there are only two united states drydocks on this side of the pacific ocean that could lift this class of ship. it is a great opportunity not only to do good things on the environmental side, but it also generates jobs, and i think that is unique. i think it is great when the jobs and environmental sides come together to make something work like this. we have had a great relationship

with the port of san francisco. i was looking at the numbers this morning for projections of manpower this year, and it will continue of work. looking for a very solid year this year. rents are tied directly to the volume of work we do, and i expect to do more volume this year over last year. since 2008, we have been able to increase our volume year over year to the tune of almost 20%. i think those are unique numbers in this economy. we are employing blue-collar workers and paying them a living wage. we are paying union workers $25 an hour. they are paying their mortgages and feeding their families. it is important work, and we appreciate everybody's support in making this happen. supervisor kim: really quickly, i know this is different from the item coming to us later regarding increasing the contract to turn a construction

because i'm construction thehrc would still be setting an lbe requirement based on the original bid, so this is a slightly different issue. i noticed an amendment to a lease that is a slightly different set up. >> yes, i think we are seeking to waive that requirement with respect to this project. but we would take your policy direction on this matter. so if it is the direction of the committee that we need to go back and work with bae and its contractor to see if there is an lbe potential for this project, we would be happy to do that. supervisor kim: thank you. supervisor chu: thank you, supervisor kim. why do we go to the budget analyst report? >> madame chair, members of the committee, on the bottom of page five of our report, we point out that table 1, which is shown on

page 6, shows the total estimated cost at $5.7 million for this project. that excludes the certificates of participation in financing and interest costs. the table there shows the total cost of $5.7 million. then, on page 7, we state that, as shown in table 3 on page 8 of our report, the estimated cost, net of the revenues that the port would receive from the shoreside power project -- that is the equipment usage fees as well as the rebate from the puc -- and this table 3 includes the certificate of participation of finance costs. mr. bentsen stated that the port does not intend -- does intend to continue the usage fee, which

we have suggested, on page 8 of our report. we consider approval of this ordinance to be a policy matter for the board because the ordinance waives the city pose a competitive bidding and the lbe contracting procedures as presently required under the city present administrative code. -- the city's administrative code. supervisor chu: thank you for your presentation. are there members of the public who wish to speak on item #6? >> good morning, supervisors. i would like to speak from personal experience dealing with bae systems. i feel this is a good company. most people do not know about the project on the world, but i have to give them credit for past work in iraq. i also went to one of their

facilities near mohave, california. they do act as a good neighbor there and elsewhere, so obviously, approving this project could only help the citizens of san francisco. so i think having them here is better than encouraging the company to send more workers back to michigan. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. next speaker? given no other speakers, we will close public comment. do we have a motion to send this item forward? we have a motion by supervisor kim to send the item forward with recommendations. we can do that without objection. thank you. item seven please. >> should i read seven and eight together? supervisor chu: yes, please. >> items 7, ordinance adopted environmental findings with respect to the north beach branch library and approving the expenditure of bond proceeds of lease revenue bonds previously

authorized and issued to finance projects. item eight, ordinance amending $6,259,742 consisting of $5,770,742 in library preservation fund and appropriate balance and $481,000 in interest earnings from the branch library improvement program general obligation bond proceeds to the public library in fiscal year 2011-2012 for the completion of remaining projects in the branch library improvement program. supervisor chu: thank you very much. before the presentation, i would like to offer a representative from supervisor chiu's offers the opportunity to speak. >> thank you very much. good morning. president chiu's office. i will be brief and let our wonderful city librarian and the budget analyst go over the details of this, but i wanted to emphasize how strongly president chiu supports these items and

the appropriation in particular of the north beach library. it really makes completion of the project as close to reality as it has ever been. we can see the reality, and it has been a long time coming. this will be the last library completed of the branch library improvement program, and it is incredibly important to the community and the families that live there. i wanted to take a brief moment to emphasize that perspective from president chiu and thank all the work that has been done so far on this project from city staff. supervisor chu: thank you. >> thank you, chair person and committee members. i appreciate the comments about nearing the finish line with the branch library improvement program. this is, in fact, the 24th project. as you recall, there are 16 renovated projects and eight new library buildings. we are very pleased for this

particular project, and i think it bears mentioning that in terms of background, a 2 was originally scheduled as a modest renovation that had in its budget about $3.4 million, but by listening to the community in 2007, there was a request for a full master planning process, and we in gauged as partners with the recreation and park department and dpw to realize a full comprehensive plan, and that plan called for a new library at 701 lombard street in addition to the additional space for the joe dimaggio playground. the funding for that was going to be through a second series of lease revenue bonds, but i am here to provide some was it -- positive feedback in the fact that we will not be incurring additional debt for the project because we have some sources of funding. first and foremost, some realize savings from closeout projects. we also have, as is detailed in the report, some opportunity to

transfer some bonds from the library preservation fund to make the north beach project whole, and in some additional dollars, about $401,000. that is included in your report. i should say that this project required a full environmental impact report, which was certified by the planning department in april of last year. it was, in fact, appeal before the full board and was also -- the recertification was up held in june of last year. we do have a challenge pending on this, but we are optimistic that we will move the project forward with your support. if you have questions, we would be happy to respond. again, it is two ordinances that we are requesting your approval to make this project move forward. supervisor chu: a quick question -- with regards to the appropriate fund balance that we put in a project, did that consist simply from the fact we

had other projects that just came in below budget? >> that is correct. it is a combination. some of the projects that were completed -- we always look at managing the project so that there is some additional savings on this. we return them to the reserve for the program. we have been transferring those dollars to complete the remaining project, but in addition to that, we have some funds coming from the library preservation fund. supervisor chu: great. in terms of the b.l.i.p. project or program, are there other ones in the next phase you are looking at? >> it is a wonderful question. we are looking at what we call it post-occupancy evaluation. there are needs to reassess the projects that were completed early on. for example, in supervisor avalos' district, it was the

first completed in 2006, i believe, or 2005. we are looking at it delivered approach to looking at what the needs are to maintain the investment we made on this project, and through the use of any reserve balances that we have, we will put the money back on that. so that as part of the project. there's also three other projects outside the scope of blip that we will be looking at making investments in terms of capital infrastructure in the future. supervisor chu: great. so the idea would be to look at the previous investments and previous work we have done and see what changes might need to happen? >> absolutely. also, keep in mind the operational needs that are part of the library's preservation fund. we are pleased to know that we are maintaining and expanding that level of service. supervisor chu: i am just trying to tie it all together. are these projects funded separately, or is it funded through your library baseline?

them at the initial projects, the vast majority of that was through the branch library improvement bond of 2000. subsequent to that, there has been some additional dollars infused through the library's preservation fund, as allowed by the ordinance of 2007. supervisor chu: got it. ok, thank you. why don't we get to the budget analyst report? >> madam chair, members of the committee, on page 6 of our report, we point out that as shown in table 1, and that is on page 5, as of february 29, 2012, ms. singleton reports that of the $189,999,608 budget, at $167.4 million is expended or incumbered. this subject request, the proposed of supplemental -- the

proposed supplemental would be appropriated to complete the new north branch library, and it would increase the total budget from $189.9 million to $196.3 million, and that is shown on table two on page 6 of our report. on page 7, the table 3 shows that the requested funding sources and the reallocated program-wide reserve funds would provide an additional $11,048,574 for this project so that it would increase the current $3.5 million budget. as you recall, that $3.5 million was strictly for a renovation project, and when it was decided to make this into a completely new library, that cost went up to $14,548,574.

the additional $11 million is reflected in table 3. we do recommend that you approve both of these ordinances. we believe they are consistent with prior board of supervisors policy. supervisor chu: thank you. last question -- in terms of the 2000 bonn, all those bonds are called for? there are in process? >> are they accounted for in terms of expenditures? i believe they are. >> between the bonds and the bond interest, we have $109 million that has been spent to date, so they are not fully spend, but they are close to being spent out. supervisor chu: close to being spent out. ok. is there a large balance left? >> no. the total available is

$112,900,000. supervisor chu: i guess the question is what was the authorization for in 2011? >> $105,865,000. the variance is the additional bond interest that has accrued overtime that has been appropriated over time to the project. supervisor chu: ok. probably i will just have to clarify with you offline. public comment on this item or these two items? items seven and eight. >> good morning, supervisors. i would like to speak in opposition to these two items. i am sure everyone is familiar with the elderly gentleman that comes before the board on tuesdays with his computer presentation about the different aspects of the library system.

i am kind of wondering -- maybe we should pay a little more scrutiny to what actually goes on in the library system in regards to finances, etc., etc., etc. also, i would like to point out, in today's "examiner," there was an interesting article about a member of the library commission. i get the impression that everybody thinks that's ross is arrogant, but i have a feeling that i see a lot of arrogance every time i am here at city hall. i would like to remind everybody for the record the all of the employees of the city and county of san francisco are employees of the citizens of the city and county of san francisco and that everyone should show some respect to people like myself when we speak because, technically speaking, we are your boss, and it is not the other way around. thank you.

supervisor chu: thank you. other speakers on items 7 and 8? seeing none, public comment is closed. do we have a motion to send these two items forward? ok, we have a motion to send both items forward with recommendations. i also will reiterate how important i think this project is. i think many of our districts have seen transformative spaces with our library renovation projects, i just want to speak highly of it, and i am glad to see this come forward. thank you. item nine. >> item 9, a resolution designating those agencies qualified to participate in the 2012 annual joint fund-raising drive for officers and employees of the city and county of san francisco. >> good morning, office of the city administrator. we submitted a letter and a report from the city administrator, as required by the administrative code. we reviewed the six applications

from federated agencies to participate, and they all meet the criteria required by the code. chief white was the chair this year, and the campaign raised over $1.2 million, and she will be chairing next year's campaign as well. supervisor chu: thank you very much. i believe we do not have a budget analyst report for the item. why don't we open up for public comment? are there members of the public wish to speak on item 9? seeing none, public comment is closed. we have a motion to send this item forward. we've got a motion to send this item forward with recommendation, and we can do that without objection. item 10. >> item 10, ordinance waving competitive bidding and solicitation requirements of the administrative code and authorizing the director of the port to execute an amendment to the contract with turner construction company to perform certain improvements or alternatively to enter into an agreement with the second highest-ranked composer of the

pier 27 cruise ship terminal and ne were plaza project for the improvements or into into an agreement with the america's cup event of 44 assignment of its contract with power engineering construction company to the port for improvements to pierce 30-32 related to the 34th america's cup event. supervisor chu: thank you very much. yesterday, we had action at the board in order to approve the disposition agreement and related documents to the 34th america's cup, so today, we have this item before us. we do not have a budget analyst report, so our hope the court will look to going into detail about the specifics, but it is my understanding that the budget analyst is working on a report that will be available to the members of the board either at the end of day today or tomorrow. >> brad benson, special projects manager for the port of san francisco, representing the port director. committee members, i really want

to thank the committee for considering this item today. i want to thank the board generally for being willing to hold a committee meeting as a whole. particularly want to thank the budget office was been working hard to prepare a report for the committee as a whole. the reason for this item is that yesterday, the board of supervisors approved a least his position agreement for the 34th america's cup. under that revised proposal, the city would provide the new leases to the america's cup event authority for periods ranging from about a month from now to six months after the match, which is scheduled for

september of 2013 on a rent-free basis. and the port would conduct a series of improvements to port property using port harbor funds to prepare the various sites for the events and fulfil certain regulatory requirements, which i will go over in a moment. the delivery dates -- either under the lease disposition agreement or the permits for the america's cup, mainly issued by bcdc but also the regional quality control board, are very aggressive timelines, and the ports that -- staff believes we cannot use the standard contract in process that the city has an be able to build those improvements in time, particularly with respect to peers 30-32 -- piers 30-32.

hence the ordinance today. the reason we are asking for quick consideration is that the port commission is next going to consider the least disposition agreement after the board's approval. the port commission also has to approve that. they will be considering that on april 10. it is the recommendation of staff that we are going to request that the port commission take on these obligations and under the timeframes that are contemplated, that we also give the commission some comfort that it has the contracting tools necessary to be able to complete our collective job. with that, i would like to ask the clerk please to put up the slides, and i will walk through the proposed ordinance. we have an amendment that essentially narrows the scope of the waivers that we are asking for today, and then i would like

to get into some of the history of the bids that the court has undertaken for the cruise terminal project and how we would hope to use the ordinance to deliver very specific improvements at the various sites. supervisor chu: before you start, do you happen to have any hard copies of the presentation? >> no, i did not. i apologize. i will get that for the clerk. i do have hard copies for the public of the amendment as a whole. supervisor chu: for whatever reason, when the presentation is plugged in, our screen roles, so we did not get to see what is on there. if you could perhaps ask your staff to send it to committee members. >> or if you e-mail it, we could open it up. >> i think i have the only copy

of the presentation. i think i could take a moment to e-mail it to you. supervisor chu: i think that would be great just because we are not able to see it otherwise.

>> ok, there. i hope it went through. it was a rather large file. supervisor chu: ok, we will look for it, and perhaps you can begin. >> ok, should i go ahead and start? supervisor chu: yes. >> could we have the computer display please? >> so i have mentioned that the

lease disposition agreement requires the port to undertake work, and i want to elaborate on that a little bit. there is a range of work required by the bay conservation and development commission. mainly some public access improvements and removal projects that the lease disposition agreement requires the court to conduct. -- the port to conduct. there's a group of projects that 27-29, most notably some construction projects and building to the shed after we complete demolition, that the event authority was going to undertake under the old disposition and development agreements. and those projects are the port 's obligations under the lease disposition agreements. there is a large project