degree that exceed what warriors would do in normal course of development we have carved out ability to negotiate a specific set of improvements with their own particular cost cap within 120. what my commitment is is that would be spelled out by term sheet wha. we are not asking for is a carte blanche that can be negotiated after approvals to fill that bucket. >> i appreciate that. that is one of my concerns, that we could use that. in the unlikely case the construction costs are below 120 million we use it for actually commitments we expected the warriors to already -- like open space. >> that is not the intention. the intention is we were so early that we wanted to create this within 120 and not predetermine we wouldn't use up to the full -- up to what we think is the full value but that would come to you with specificity at term sheet stage. what it is and what it is costing. that would be something for

you to opine on. >> thank you. >> i think some of misunderstandings and misconceptions have to do with some belief the city is giving cash or loan of money or some sort of guaranteed repayment or return. that is not true. what i have been trying to articulate is regardless of the cost of the repair, the reimbursement to warriors is capped at 120 million from three sources we have just discussed. our current estimate of the value of these three sources is less than 120 million. the port really has a liability in the pier substructure, in piers 30-32 in form of crumbling pier. warriors have agreed to repair it with their money at their risk. what it means is under the current proposal, warriors do not get a return of their investment based on our current estimates of the value of these three sources. nevermind a return on their investment. if i can have the overhead.

thank you. not that one. the light one. this is a pretty simple worksheet that we work with our consultants eps to present that really looks at the qualified cost and sources for reimbursement. taking out this notion is not an interest rate but cost of capital but taking out the cost of capitol, the value if you look at the value of the three sources of reimbursement and look at them in two ways, there's the purchase credit for the seawall lot, projected isd bond, close to 55.5 million. the slight variable if you look at the fee value. if we could sell 3032, the appraiser looked at if we could sell 3032 what would the value be. 30 million.

based upon calculations of what the net present value of the lease would be on 3032, that is 31 million. you see the three sources don't equal 120 million. so i think the conversation on 13% has over shadowed the notion that we don't get to it under the present value of the three. >> jennifer, i want to clarify. at the current state we anticipate we would need potentially 120 million to be able to rehabilitate piers 30, 32, primarily substructure in order to support anything on top of it. what conceptual framework is laying out is saying no matter what the cost is even if it is higher than 120 million on piers 3032, the city is only liable for reimbursing maximum of 120

million period. not only are we limited to 120 million reimbursement cap but further limited to pay back that cap with these three sources. even if those three sources don't necessarily add up to 120 million, we are only limited to using those three buckets to repay it. ris subpoenaing on warriors. if what ends up being the value is not quite 120 million. >> that's correct. >> okay. thanks. >> key provisions is the concept -- separate concept that we may agree on other improvements by warriors and other mechanisms, codified in the term sheet. one exciting example is relocation of station 35 from piers 22 down to piers 30, 32 and moving fire boats and stakes. i have assistant chief ken lombardi to say a few words

about this opportunity. >> assistant chief lombardi with the san francisco fire department. the fire department has been looking at our facility at pier 22.5 for quite sometime as the piers behind have become dilapidated. most will notice as you are walking down embarkadero near the fire boats. we are looking at a project a year now where they will rebuild that and build a new pier out the back. it will be significant cost out of our bond money passed in 2010 by citizens of san francisco for emergency safety and earthquake safety and emergency response that a lot of our fire houses are becoming older and need a lot of work and not seismickly safe. as warriors came about with this project they approached us, as this is a

block away . this would create a great opportunity for fire department and citizens if we move this, have a state-of-the-art fire house that could house three fire boats. we have two, a new one coming at the end of 2013. currently we can't tie it up at the current facility. like i say we were going to do a new project. this is another opportunity. by putting this together would create less bay fill and open the area, the dilapidated piers could be taken down at that point. the old historic fire house would stay. everything behind it would open the view for citizens

and people in the neighborhood. questions? >> thank you. >> thank you. >> other provisions would be par yours pay the fees. port would receive a transfer fee, 1% on the sales of all condos developed there. it marks early on commitment to create funding stream to pay for neighborhood quality of life services. now fiscal feasibility. there are five requirements of fiscal feasible. looks at direct and indirect economic benefits of project, proposed construction costs, proposed funding, operation and maintenance costs and proposal to use public debt. in fiscal feasibility

report and numbers we generated with help of eps and barrett, we did use conservative assumptions. if you have questions about the number of assumptions, i have jim mussbach and richard burton from eps to talk through them. first the economic benefits. there are two sources. some is annual unrestricted general fund and other is dedicated or unrestricted revenue. approximately 12 million in annual unrestricted general fund revenue from sources you see in this chart expected from the development at the two sites. the initial number that was generated in fiscal feasibility report used pay roll tax. we will have gross receipts tax by the time arena is completed. the number has been adjust someday what to account for

gross receipts tax. the annual unrestricted general fund is $12 million. dedicated or restricted is additional $5.2 million. one-time revenues will be over 50 million for various impact fees. gross receipts and transfer tax from sale of seawall lot 330. >> can i ask in terms of annual general fund revenue, the 12 million you show on slide 13 that shows property tax funding that would come in, is this net of the proposed isd or -- >> it is not. thank you for pointing that out. what you have to assume is the first 30 years that five million should be taken off the annual general fund revenues because that would be dedicated to repaying the isd. that would be issued in order to repay the warriors

for the substructure costs. >> thanks. >> thank you for that. >> so the one-time revenues include the jobs housing linkage, housing, child care, impact and ease -- east sea, that is all include thered that number. economic benefits include permanent employment, construction employment and annual economic spend. total direct jobs anticipated to be created and maintained is 107,000 jobs. over 200,000 full time equivalent leapt jobs from the three-year period construction time of this project. total of 282 million in annual economic impact. what is important is we adjusted to make sure these were net impacts. warriors are already located in the bay. we spent a great deal of time trying to net out the

current economic benefits from having them in the area, including, for example, when visiting teams come to play the warriors they tend to stay in san francisco. we were careful to try to only look at new and increased benefits. proposed construction costs are close to a billion. if you include hard costs -- >> supervisor avalos. >> sorry, to go back to the last slide. we are talking about net new jobs. i know there's been a discussion about existing workers that work for warriors coping to work here in san francisco. talking about new workers in addition for permanent employment jobs. >> that's correct. >> 1,712 new jobs on top of -- >> on top of what would be considered the transfer jobs, yes. >> great, thanks. >> proposed construction costs of close to a billion. i want to take a minute to

pause and say it is our work through research and consultants it is unprecedented to have a sports facility be privately financed. the sports facilities you see built and rehabed around the country really to one include direct public subsidies from state and local governments in order to finance the arenas. we are talking a billion respond, contributing only to substructure, only to the portion we own. the proposed funding, the city will reimburse warriors for improvements to infrastructure capped at 120 million. funds are restricted to three sources we have discussed. proposed operations and maintenance, we have reached out to city departments.

the police funded the cost estimates are to be determined. we will be in -- the cost will be associated with calls for service during events and non events. responses to illegal vendors and such. fire anticipates no direct fiscal impact from the project. number of staff and hours worked will not change as a result of this development. as mentioned by chief lombardi the san francisco department may contract with warriors for emergency services. certainly if they are co-located, that makes sense. no impact to the project as golden state warrior also pay to maintain open space they create. for dpw and mta we are currently working with both those departments. there will be parking and service officers. there will need to be traffic and cleaning services and other amenities determined as we move forward. as a parenthetical, we will

get into this, peter albert is here, but we will have a robust transportation as part of design hearing monday. we recognize transportation is probably the single biggest issue that needs to be addressed by this -- through this process in order to have a successful project. i have heard rick say several times it is not in their interest to have a project with bad transportation, not if the city or community's interest. we have heard it since the first meeting. >> supervisor avalos, a question? >> yes, please. just when it comes to police fire, currently with the willie mays park, giants stadium, i call it willie mays park, the giants do pay for part of funding for pmta and police services. isn't that correct? >> giants pay for all services that occur on the

premises. they pay extra when there are non related events, they pay the city extra for cost of the events. the giants pay ample taxes. it is the tax revenue that comes to the city's general fund that's been used to pay for supplemental services for mta, police, outside of their premises on game days. is that the model we were expecting for this development? >> i don't think so. we will endeavor to create a separate funding stream that has neighborhood oversight and input. maybe neighborhood control. this is something we need to -- in a cbd model you wind up having neighborhood or stakeholder control of pot of money that can be used to deploy to address issues that are often neighborhood issues. not sure we will have a cbd but what we are committed

is creating a dedicated funding stream that is visible and discreet from the city's commitment to ongoing maintenance and security. that the neighbors have said one of the things necessary is an ability to dial a response to impacts from having large numbers of people come in and out of the neighborhood. >> we don't have a real concept of what the funding mechanism would look like. >> we don't have a concept of the mechanism or what the funding stream is but that is something that, again, i think we will have -- >> having something is what you will want to have. >> we will have something and fleshed out by the term stage. it is a commitment of ours to sort of figure that piece out. >> great. >> thank you. >> the last issue that fiscal feasibility looks at is proposed use of debt. as discussed the city may bond against to reimburse

for public infrastructure. we talked about isd bonds. this is something we are bringing to the committee next week. we used cfds and ifds on waterfront projects. >> i will invite brad up to talk about how we move from conceptual framework to transaction documents to have you have an understanding of what are some of buckets and categories from what i have described talked about in the term sheets. >> good afternoon, supervisors. brad benson, special projects manager with the port representing monique moyer and port team. monique will be up to address the committee after the presentation. i think jennifer, if we could go with the slides please. jennifer i think gave up a

fairly thorough description of the conceptual framework, which is essentially the status of negotiation right now between parties, between warriors and owd and port staff. it was a staff recommendation to not seek an endorsement of the conceptual framework at this moment in time because the key questions. what is the cost of the substructure. what are the eligible costs for reimbursement under the conceptual framework. we need a level of due diligence. warrior also provide cost estimates to justify those expenditures and the city staff will do a third party review of the cost estimates before bringing a recommendation to you on those topics. we have outlined the three

sources of repayment. we need to do additional pro forma-based analysis of the entire development proposalal. really looking how you structure, financing for multipurpose venue of this type. as jennifer mentioned city has retained eps and barrett consulting. they have specific expertise in sports economic analysis. they will be advising the city team as we enter the term sheet negotiations. so at port commission last night the port commission approved a resolution delaying the exclusive time line for term sheet approval from concurrent with the fiscal feasibility analysis to this time later

in the spring of 2013 to allow that to go forward. i think jennifer in her presentation is also gone over the major areas we will be digging deeper into. members of the committee have a memo from jennifer outlining some of the major topics that will be addressed in term sheet negotiations. for the benefit of the public i will go over a few of those issues that we will be looking into. one, we have a project proposalal submitted by the warriors. we are in a very public process with citizens advisory committee, with hearings at the port commission and board of supervisors. we expect to hear about how the project may change and reflected on the term sheet. a few will go to the deep weather berth at the east

face of 30, 32. we appreciate the fact warriors are looking into how to make that a functioning berth. that is something we have heard from our constituency. you heard from the chief earlier. to make the fire station work on north berth of pier 30, we will have to take a kles -- close look how it is designed and mission and has full functionality for the fire department. we also have site circumstances like red's java house. that is a contributing resource to the district the finger piers are in. we need to make sure that is treated in a way that maintains the integrity of the district. secondly we are talking about use of public finance to repay warrior's private financing of the pier substructure improvement. that may involve debt issuance over a 30-year

period of time. we need to have a very detailed discussion about how that is secured, to ensure there are ongoing revenues to continue paying that debt. that is something we will discuss with director of public finance and others who work on finance in the city. i think jennifer has talked a lot about the project financing that we will address through the pro forma analysis and discuss what the city is obliged to repay and community benefits. how specifically is city through the term sheet with warriors establishing a way to pay for police, neighborhood cleanup and additional transit service. those have to be answered in the term sheet. after the term sheet is

approved, it would be endorsed by the port commission and board of supervisors. it is non-binding, reflects intention of parties headed into environmental review. during the period of environmental review city staff would negotiate a more detailed set of transaction documents governing the sale of seawall lot 30 and long-term lease of piers 3032 and those would be subject to both port commission approval and board of supervisors approval. that is expected in early 2014. so quite a -- >> before you go forward supervisor kim has a question. >> seems like actually maybe your next slide was going into a schedule. i'm looking at the memo and says term sheet will be

before port for consideration. i know there's a lot of concerns coming from our neighborhoods in south beach, rin con hill and mission bay about how quickly this is moving through. understanding how ambitious this is and of course time line warriors are under given their lease expiration at coliseum in oakland but being real concerns about answering the questions and addressing neighborhood concerns within this time frame. between february and april is general. can we get a precise time line? >> february is a target date. april 15th is a benchmark. it is not uncommon in negotiations to have a date but have an outside date which doesn't require any amendments or changes in the -- in the previously agreed upon approvals with

policy makers, so i don't have a more specific date between the two. we are committed to take as much time to do a thorough job negotiating the term sheet and bringing it to policy makers. there is from my understanding based upon other ports, there is an interest in understanding business terms of the deals for this. we welcome that engagement. we were at the port commission and heard a lot of concern about the fact the first four cac have been information transfers from city and port staff in order to bring incredibly dedicated and intelligent lay people up to speed around what is required for water front development. there hasn't been time for

internal processing. we have gone to the public in the form of workshops as much as desired in order to have inter ak t workshops that are less kind of presentation, sort of just receiving information to understand where this is next going. we view fiscal feasibility as a launching pad. it is the beginning of the process. in no ways the end of the process. it is the beginning of the process of being able to discuss this project and being able to start providing some of the answers to the questions around the impacts. happen within the seek what framework. challenges are identified. i'm happy to go through the schedule. >> i want to say given the fact we have the holidays coming up with thanksgiving and really just a week and a half and through the holidays i think a lot of folks are concerned about their ability to keep up and attend so many meetings

and give feedback and ask proper questions necessary. i know proposing to start scoping meetings in december and having the terms in february is fast. i'm wondering what we can do in terms of commiting to a process that i think our constituents can keep up with. i think what you said is accurate. we have a wonderful citizens advisory committee but they have other jobs o ther than what we do. we get to spend time every day, focusing and asking questions. we truly want neighborhood input and want to -- whether it appears we are rushing through this process because of how much a priority -- i agree. how much a priority it is to bring the warriors to san francisco. we want to see that happen but not at the expense of the process. >> we absolutely agree. this only works if it truly works. it is not unprecedented to

go from an exclusive negotiating agreement to this. we had an a three-month meeting before it passed accountability but then took time from fiscal feasibility to have the environmental approvals. we have a schedule i can discuss with you. the proposed meetings between now & january. i will be at the maritime meeting tomorrow to talk about the maritime proposals for the three sides of the pier on 19th as i mentioned at 1 p.m. there is is a land use hearing which will be an informational hearing. we have had presentations in the cac, now the port commission and felt like it was important to do that at the board of supervisors prior to asking decision on fiscal feasibility.

depending on what happens today, budget and finance will propose to be at the full board of supervisors november 20th for consideration of fiscal feasibility. because the lead architect is going to be if town on the 19th for the land use we propose to have a workshop, not a full meeting. but design workshop on the lot 330 on tuesday evening to take advantage of him being in town. i have heard concerns about that time. we would obviously bring him back after the holidays to do that again. nothing will progress based on the feet back. it would be a shame not the make full use of his time while here given that he had updated thoughts on that development. many of the neighbors are as interested in what is going on in lot 330 as arena. december 4th we are having third transportation