quality of life issue, the digesters that are there now are affecting the community. are you saying sfpuc, i know that is not the chief financial officer, but i am addressing this to ed harrington and others, are you saying that the community has to sever for another 17 years -- has to suffer for another 17 years? i hope that this time around and the sources of improvement project is put in place, we lost our opportunity with the clean water system improvement project before. thank you very much. supervisor chu: other members of the public that wish to speak on item number two or three?

public comment is closed. if we can come item #two to not have any budget analysts recommendation. item number three, can we except the budget analyst recommendation to reduce the amount by 25 million? we will do that without objection. with regards to the amendment i spoke about earlier, i just want to read them into the record. what i would like to do is make a motion to amend the legislation to reflect parameters around the refunding abilities, specifically water revenue, bond refunding are hereby authorize subject to the following conditions -- that 3% net present value savings or greater are rajiv to help with great savings, that 5 million every funded principle is not to be exceeded by the water enterprise beginning with refunding after july 1, 2012. 3, the authorization is subject to a five-year term covering

authorization through june 30, 2017, at which time the board may consider an extension. but principal payments in terms may be adjusted under permitted in state tax law. 5, that the spcu within 30 days will provide a savings report that reflects a net savings and official copy of the savings. can we take the motion? we do that without objection. it to the underlying items, can we move item two forward with recommendation and item three with a recommendation? we will do that without objection. if you would work with our clerk of the board in with the city attorney's office to estimate the version with those changes

reflected. thank you. next item please. >> item number four, hornets amending san francisco administrative code section 10.135 to increase the cash revolving fund of the department building inspection from $2,000 to $4,500. >> i am pamela levin. this would increase the cash revolving fund from $2,000 to $4,500. over the past year and a half we have been working with the treasure tax collector to implement a new cash management system, and the goals of the new system is to improve customer services by reducing weight time to pay for permits. under the new system to permit clerk would be able to process payments at their station rather than using a shared registered. this will also increase

accountability, and also improve cash management procedures, which is requested by the comptroller's office when they sat down with us and did a review. in order to place the cash drawer at each station, we need to increase our revolving fund. i will be happy to answer any questions. supervisor kim: i read this was done to improve cash flow and customer service, but i am not sure how increasing the revolving fund does that. i am curious as to what the revolving fund is used for and what type of expenses are used with this fund? my understanding is this is more to increase your ability to use cash to make purchases. i am not sure how this increase is your ability to manage cash. >> the revolving fund is like

what a retail store has. in the morning you have to put money into your cash register so that when someone comes to pay you could give them change. it is not used for the expenses. what we do is prepare the next day so that we put it in the safe so they can deal with the cash coming in each day. in the next day since we already have the envelope, we can go and populate for the next day. in essence what this does allow us to process or populate is the best way of saying to populate the registers so we can do

business and allow them to have money in the safe and ordered to do change, because sometimes we have people come in and paid $2,000-$3,000 for a permit in cash. in the event we need to do change for either the ongoing operations or we have a copy machine that has $50 in it, we need to have change for that. it is not for us to do any type of expense. it is for us to be able to operate the various registers. supervisor kim: clearly you have times in the day when you run out of cash when they come in to make the payments. what happens when that happens?

>> we walked to the bank. -- walk to the bank. supervisor kim: so this is not used for petty cash? >> absolutely not. we have no pity cash and the department. supervisor avalos: when was the last time there was a change to the fund? >> we increase it to years ago because it was only $600. -- two years ago because it was only $600. we are seeing a significant increase in the permit activity. now we need to make sure we can use this new system. >> think you. this item did not have a budget analyst report with it. are there members of the public who wish to speak on this item, item number four? seeing none, public comment is closed. a motion to send the item

forward with recommendations. we could do that without objection. item number five, please. >> item #5, or its amending the san francisco part code, article 12 by amending section 12.35 to increase certain parking rates and eliminate the early bird rate at the golden gate park concourse underground parking facility, amending section 12 point to zero to clarify the requirements for annual be adjustments, and three, adding a new section 12.49 to ratify it prior fees and the adjustments. supervisor chu: sayswe have been advised with regards to the tidily that we clarify in the description what the actual legislation does. we thought there was need a clarification so the members of the public would understand what

the amendment was about. because of that, i definitely think we should continue the item to allow members of the public to have additional notification so they can participate and provide public comment and thoughts if they are interested. i do have a few copies. it is fairly simple. all it does is add it to the title to show clarity. the description would read amended section 12.35 to increase certain parking rates and eliminate the early bird brief of the golden gate park for course. amending section 12 point to zero to eliminate their requirement of the comptroller file a certification regarding cost recovery, striking out the language and will be adjustments. and adding 12.49 to ratify these and adjustments and making

environmental findings and findings of consistency with the general plan. the turtl we think that is more reflective than what is currently the title and description. can we take that -- we will open this up for public comment before we do that. rather than go into the budget analyst report, what i would like to do is request we do that at the next meeting when we hear it fully. we will take public comment for folks interested in speaking on it today. >> thank you, supervisors. my name is dennis moscow. you clarify something in the title, but in reading this i am particularly concerned. but mr. with the parking increase rates. i am thinking in terms of working class families that come on weekends or during the week

and cannot find parking in their local neighborhood or in parks. they will end up having to pay up to $5 an hour for parking. that adds to the cost of taking their families to the academy, which is now over $25 per head. that makes it a very costly event. i would look at that in terms of the impact. the second point i want to raise is on page two of the ordinance, 20, 21, and 22. it looks to me like what this does in eliminating the requirement of the controller and do not produce revenue that is significant more than cost is it eliminates oversight on fees. i read the legislative analyst report, which suggests that was

erroneously included and refers only to regulatory fees, but there is nothing in the language that refers to regulatory fees. i suggest you need to look at this in terms of whether this eliminates oversight and would allow a pretty free-blowing increase of fees. finally, on the last piece, the title says all fees will be here by ratified, and suggest environmental findings were made, and i do not see any of that in this. i question those three points. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. >> due to the weird tidily of this item, we did not take this up. the conservation club has been very concerned about budgeting issues with recreation and park. on the first issue, is it

appropriate for these three very different items to come as one item before the budget committee? budgeting -- for instance, the parking garage issue is important, and probably to review how those fees go back to the funding for the parking garage. the parking garage, as we know, has a concourse authority overseeing it, and we're paying off the bond. how many years do we have yet to go, and how these increase fees will help pay off the bond, so the funds will directly come to this. the other issue is, in considering this is for the academy and museum primarily, how much thfees have the academy in museum been paying to park and recreation, and have those fees increased, and have they

gone through -- i would like that to be analyzed when this matter is heard. i do think that should be a separate item. as far as 12.20, a share the previous speakers concern. this is removal of oversight. it was not too long ago that we have the famous president of stanford university thing with his yacht with facility expenses. we want to know how these funds are being spent and we want annual oversight of the increase. as far as part code 12.49, i think this is inappropriate, because this issue about park fees is currently in legislation, so how can you eliminate this prior to the legal issue? supervisor chu: thank you. are there other members of the

public who wish to speak on this item at this point? seeing none, public comment is closed. there was a question about a single topic or civil subject rule. can you speak to whether we believe there is a problem with the legislation because of that? >> we have approved it, and i do not see a problem with a single subject issue. the ordinance in general relates to the calculation. the board is always free to take up the issue separately, but i do not see a legal reason why these cannot all be part of the same ordinance. supervisor chu: thank you. one thing i did what to clarify in terms of the title, in the title, we should also make sure there's reference to the golden gate park concourse underground parking facility, so we will make sure that is entered into the record as we go forward. colleagues, can we take those amendments to the title and description without objection? we will do that.

do we have a motion to continue the item until next week? we have a motion to continue the item for a week, and we will do that without objection. >> this item is continued to make to -- may 2. supervisor chu: thank you. items six and seven please. >> item 6, ordinance appropriating $58,700,580 consisting of $45 million of certificates of participation 2012 proceeds, $4,539,337 of fund balance every appropriating $9,161,243 from the 2010 revenue bonds funded projects to the port commission for the development of the cruise terminal project at pier 27 and infrastructure in mitigation requirements related to the 34th america's cup event and cruise terminal project and

placing $45 million on controllers reserve pending sale of the surge of it the dissipation. supervisor chu: thank you very much. >> good morning, supervisors. thank you again for hearing this item. you have before you hear a request for issuance of certificates of for dissipation for up to $45 million. this allows us to issue a tax- exempts alternative minimum tax. we have other representatives from the port to speak for the project. what we are proposing is your typical certificate of participation project, which consists of a property leased. the idea is to use access of one of the city-owned buildings as

well as the america's cup. the goal is to use the city asset during construction so that it can reduce our borrowing costs and we can stop paying once it is completed. the cruise ship terminal would be substantive to speak to the least. there is also a trust agreement. we are required to select a trusty through a competitive process. because this is a private activity bond, it is subject to amt tax. in order to be exempt under this type of bond, it would have to have a different type of hearing. we just held that hearing this morning, it has authorized the possibility of using tax-exempt also as part of this. we also are funding, as you know, a portion of the project. we would be funding a reserve

fund. in addition, we are proposing to use commercial paper, which was previously approved by the board, and which would also allow the city to use interim financing later round in the process. you have also before you a list of documents. there is also the memorandum of understanding, which allows the city to enter into a sort of payment agreement with the port, whereby the port would be irresponsible for the base rental payment as well as all of the certificates of association. in addition, we also have the preliminary official statement, which has the city's financing conditions, and that has been updated to reflect the latest report -- a joint report issued

by the mayor's office and controller's office. we would crest you delegate authority to the controller -- we request your delegate authority. we believe we will be issuing a competitive sale. the amt is not the typical strip to the city issues. at this point, we believe there will be a competitive sale. in addition, just to clarify, with the certificates of participation, we expect there is no recourse to repossession of the assets. the investor has the right to sue for payment of debt but not to repossess the asset. i know that has been a concern for policymakers. we have assumed very conservative rates, and we

expect the service to be approximately 2.4%. we expect rates to be lower, hopefully, when we access the market. with that, if you have any specific questions, i'll be happy to answer them. supervisor chu: just wondering if you could speak to the mout that will be drafted -- to the mout that will be drafted the trip -- to the mou that will be drafted between the city and the port. >> they are non-voter-approved debt, and one of them was an exclusion for non-general fund pledged. in this case, because the port is the user and the recipient of the project, we have this agreement, which allows for them to repay the debt service fully without any general funding, so

this is just the process. in my book, we call it self- supporting debt. but that is more a general distinction. from a credit point of view, it is the general fund of the city that is the credit. supervisor chu: great. thank you. is there additional comments from the port that you would like to add? >> good morning. i am here to describe the project if he would like me to. i know you are very familiar with the projects, having heard the america's cup discussion, but i can go through that if you would like. supervisor chu: perhaps quickly we could go through the major points for members of the public. >> certainly. as a point of background, as you are aware, the america's cup agreement changed from a private investment of about $111 million

to public works projects that shifted to the port in the amount $25 million. with this change, we also retain some properties that would have otherwise been used to repay the authority. for that initial investment through long term development rights, that amounts to about 31 $9 million and ongoing events -- $3.9 million in ongoing events. we have been planning to issue debt for some time for the cruise terminal project and for shoreside power in the amount of approximately $23.2 million. as you will sleep -- see from the slides, adjustments in cost doubled the amount that we were planning to $25 million -- the amount increases $25 million for a total project amount of $25.2 million. the port is thankful to the city for allowing us to utilize c.o.p.'s.

it helps us with that coverage, and also, there's efficiencies in combining what we were planning with the america's cup agreement in terms of debt issuance costs. in terms of the projects, of course, there is a large share here for the cruise terminal project phase one. the event authority transferred about $5.6 million to our project scope. the construction is already under way. with this approval, we will be only $5.7 million shy of complete financing for the first phase of the project. the budget analyst report rightly notes that our first costs have increased from $62.4 million to $67.4 million. several factors led to this cost increase. one is the inclusion of the america's cup scope. the second is two things that would have been built into phase two of the project moving to phase one because they are more

efficient and cost-effective to do now. also, bids are trending upward. we lost the window of very favorable bidding climate. i would like to know that the port has assumed any entire growth in financing without looking to another source. also in this financing, recalling america's cup infrastructure improvement. the major project here is improvements to peers 30/32. those would have previously been the site of quite a bit of private investment. this significantly scaled back project, which maxxam a month is about $12.2 million, will allow us to use the site for the team base but also will extend the useful life of a portion of the pier from 10 to 30 years allowing for public access and continued parking and potentially pave the way for a long term development site. there are also other improvements -- electrical,

dredging. this financing takes care of america's cup permit requirements. well we do not have the final permit approved, we have a good idea in public discussion of what those improvements would be, what is required. so there is $6.5 million included here. the cost for the category may come down if our pile crew can of of the work. will be seeing an ordinance which will allow the pile grew to approve it. if we're successful, we will be able to replenish the projects we are taking from to finance this deal. then, there is the shore power project, which i know you are extraordinarily familiar with, so i will not go over that in much detail. as you know, there is a supplemental appropriation

included, which allocates the proceeds, but it also reallocate its 2010 for revenue debt -- port revenue debt. our strategy was to utilize revenue we had available before issuing new tax-exempt debt and also to be fun feedback lands project. we are funding all demolition and dredging with capital sources, operating sources rather than debt financing those improvements because they do not have a long life, and financing the remainder with c.o.p.'s. in terms of our ability to repay, we have strong ability to repay this obligation. our bonding capacity at the moment is $74 million.

it would utilize 34.6 million of that. in 2014, we will be coming back to you with another issuance. the $29.5 million -- they will be working with you to identify revenue-enhancing projects that we feel would build our binding capacity because we only have about $8.5 million left in the near term. success in the selection and implementation of those projects would be key in building our bonding capacity so we can leverage of the development opportunities and continue to improve our waterfront. the benefits of the strategy are we are utilizing what we have. the structure is better for us. it has helped us quite a bit in figuring out how to deliver our projects on time with commercial paper. overall, it is a win for the port to be able to deliver these long-term improvements to the waterfront at a reduced price.

i am here with my staff, and we can answer any of your questions. supervisor chu: great. thank you very much for the overview. if we could go to the budget analyst report. >> in addition to the increase of about $5 million or 8% for the pier 27 cruise terminal project, we report on page 5 of our report there's an increase of 3,527,000 or 60.3% for the infrastructure improvements that are required under the lease disposition agreement. on page 7 of our report, as already indicated, even with the approval of the requested supplemental appropriation, about $5.7 million of phase one of the