and other fund losses. the city expenses includes the environmental review for 25 million it's less than the original estimates of 50 million because the city departments operating costs were less because of fewer speculators - >> i'm sorry, i don't want to cut you off but when you say port expenditures of 4.56 million the port did the economic by the people from the america's cup event. >> that's right i'll go through those. that's the city department costs 89 million were for virile review so in some instances like

muni they incurred revolts but those are net we accounted for the revenues. the city entered into an mo u the city agreed to reinforce the port for expenses not renting out property so the america's cup would have the venues. those were the total costs of $4 million the city rshsz the port so when you talk about the ports revenue this subtracts out the businesses what we might have had to pay the port for the increased businesses that's counted in i i don't have the report with me but 1.6 million

for the port to make improvements optional peer 29 for the event >> so there are also other costs related to the event i'm not sure their nooshgd in. i know in 2011 or maybe 2012 there was discussion about jefferson street and improvements made to jefferson street. there were different levels of support that gently street would get and the higher level was justified because of the preparation for america's cup. i'm not sure where the city landed on that but other capital projects around america's cup that may have been impacted i wonder where were you able to factor those >> the 4 million is just the number that the port was reinforced they had an additional 5.5 million in costs

i'll talk about. so in terms of revenues the oichs organizing committee the language in the hudson agreement said in an endeavor to raise the 34 million at the it raised 8.6 million so more than a quarter of the goal. the other part is the tax review the estimate this comes from the economics impact analysis. it's 5.8 million of tax revenue for hotels and payroll but the hotel tax revenue in our report hotels already had a high occupancy rate from the america's cup event prior to that you'll see a 1 percent

increase but they accounted for the depth people como her to see the america's cup that wouldn't have been here otherwise they've estimated 34 percent in tax revenue but not huge for the city so the loss was 6 million. to talk about the port. this is port capital expenditures. so in total supports in expenditures this is port fund is 23.3 million we worked the port on this. we didn't count they didn't count a lot of the expenditures that was a long-term benefit to the port. there's been discussion in the economic report where united states count the impact of the terminals we choose not to do

that because they would have built this anyway not just for the america's cup benefit so in the same way we have 20 million of the port costs the port identified a long-term benefit to the port and 3 memorial were not. so when he landmark did total we came up with 5 point 5 million 3 million in capital and an additional 2 million that's other net cost to the city >> a question on that mrs. campbell so pier 27 some ports had no benefits and some long term benefits can you distinguish. >> the $23 million in projects there were some of support that

would have occurred anyway by the they either expedited them up but with the projects being completed there's had a long term benefit in terms of the improvements to the port so we looked at specifically the ones we felt there were no long term improvements we move forward the short towers that doesn't have to be moved so we were conservative yet we didn't count the benefits the tax revenue benefits or other kinds of the benefits from this project. so the other piece of this one of the cities major goals and the america's cup was to have the hiring of local resident and for the small businesses.

we entered into the small business plan that includes the local hire and small business inclusion. what's important to remember those are private contractors between the authority and the provider they're not city contracts for the precisely wage local hires disadvantaged businesses and not the same reporting mechanisms so those are entirely private contractors. for local hiring there were two major hooifrz vehicles one was management contract of one hundred and 50 thousand or more like concessions janitoral services. >> if i could pause for a

second. so the local hiring doesn't apply to these local contracts but there was an agreement that was made regarding those private contracts >> that's correct. >> so that agreement, you know, should be an equal way to our loss. >> i'm not an attorney but i'd say it was a conceptual agreement between the city and contractors. >> we're all honorable people here. >> so those are the goals in terms of actually what happened. so for the 2012 event those are the october world series rates it was the authority that works with the economic and workforce development to identify the contracts that are available to set up a mechanism for local hire to report often those goals

that didn't happen. i think that was discussed in the march 2013 hearing. and so we have no data on what happened in 2012. in terms of the precisely wage i know there's some folks from the workforce development here >> the requirements didn't apply to the workforce development for the business plan it did have practices and you see here the contracted were assess 4 hundred and 6 thousand for not paying the local wage but the folks can tell you more. for 2013 when we talked about the workforce development they worked with the authority and if you look at the management events those reached the retails

and concessions there was a goal of 50 percent new hire they gave his the 50 percent of new hirer for the local hires. for the navigation contracts they didn't achieve their goal. one of the golds was 20 percent of permanent positions for local san franciscans. we have the local number is thirty percent that defeats that goal and we have no idea whether those are permanent positions or not for the residents. 35 percent didn't meet the goal. when we talked to o e w d we have no information on new hiefrdz. one of the things we were told that a lot of the contractor were not local contractor and

we're bringing in staff from there other works. the other thing those are union contractors and perhaps they're hiring through human rules that didn't necessarily allow for local hires but the other goal was for economically disadvantaged folks and that's 10 percent of contract jobs now o e d did some tracking for the economically disadvantaged they tracked them by their zip code but not other data. we took the zip code data and found 50 percent of the folks were not in the local medium and

55 were above it's an indicator but doesn't give you specific data if we reached the goal or not. in terms of the small business the workforce development had the inclusion plan that called for small business participation of more than one hundred and 50 thousand. i know in another hearing there was some reporting on this and the folks set up a business portal with the chamber of commerce to provide information to get feedback open small businesses. there was some community meetings set up but this plan in have a mechanism to track the small businesses whether or not they were getting the contracts this is outside of the process

there's no requirement because those are private contracts by small businesses. we were not able to come up with any information. the contract monitoring division identified 6 contractors they know are certified lbd. and the participation we don't have the data. so in terms of our conclusion in this report because the city, you know, has commissioner dooley's said the deductions were optimistic about test revenues and fund razor by community and what the city would gain from the benefit. in fact, if you look at the expenditures wee what we were reinforced the city had 11 mississippi .5 million. the key authority doesn't have

to pay for any of the venues and we recommend if there's a future venue like this we recommended the payment for the services other than the services routinely provided by the city. it's basically 2012 contract and hiring local contract we ask that the contractors understand and apply with the requirement workforce plan and to set up better monitoring for the local hire and what those goals are. thank you that's the end >> thank you for your work and the budget analysis we'll be working on this over the years and we wanted to hear the america's cup report and they've given us insight to how the city works to put on the benefits

here and impacting our neighborhood. relative to the last recommendation you have around 340r7bd for local hiring. we had a jurisdiction issue when it came to, you know, this tracking. generally there's a contract are monitoring division and office of labor force and l.b. small business conclusions and the hiring practices respectfully but that those entities were not as involved in putting on the america's cup event like projects under their direction jurisdiction. so the, you know, o e w d is the best entity to do the monitoring

>> in this instance that was the participation goals for the small business. l.b. was meeting the qualification requirements i don't know if it's narrowly but it's you will specific which there are many in the city to have no contract those are private contractors. so in terms of when you think about concession contracts for instance, that might not be an lbd they'll come under this plan and lbd r will monitor this but there's no mechanism for tracking >> so essentially it's go possible to have the monitoring but in this case there's no monitoring data. >> we're going to get a list from the event authority and they're trying to go back and identify the krashlth and there was the issue of subcontractors

so we didn't have that data. >> and do you think there's a mechanism in the future for to requirement to be able to track the information from lbd it's the entity that's gathering, you know, making agreements and contracts with small businesses it seems like they could provide that information. >> as you saw we have the contracts for the local folks we can maybe get that information. >> okay. thank you i know the office of workforce development is here martin and the port is here. i'd like to hear reactions that you might have about the report and the success of the america's cup event. i know that there are possible

negotiations going on about doing this again. i've heard the gentlemen looking at other places like highland or newport, rhode island or other places. first of all, where things are of possible events happening here in san francisco or on planet earth somewhere? >> good afternoon, supervisors mike martin office of economic and workforce development. i have a few slides are in response to the presentation you've heard but i'll take your questions first. as of the next event we've been in negotiations that outlines the 31st america's cup in san

francisco the oracle's racing having put on the event are currently in a review phase of the hosting cities. we've given our sense of the what it will be in san francisco and in terms of the general negotiations principal we would like to lay down we acknowledged they're doing due diligence with other locates and it extends for the next two months we will continue the dialog with oracle but newporty and somewhere in hawaii. i think it's the focus to keep it on america's soil.

i think the team usa is tdr in doing that but this outlines other places where the next event could take place at >> at the end if you could talk about lessonss learned. >> i would say not at the end but during. to begin the presentation we'll talk about our lessons learned but the specifics as we get towards the end of the presentation workforce small business and inclusion and the financial performance will answer more specific lessons learned. broadly from a project management prospective with the challenge in 2010 to pull

together multiple agencies and multiple disciplinary events known knew what was going to happen we saw hyped projects they were realistic but we were engaged or the america's cup was engaged to using close to shore racing the cat man's and it was imaging something different from what the event were previously. so we sort of took a conservative approach and had to be adoptive as the changes took place. a couple of the areas that were important obviously the economic impact we've heard about the

economic impact for the projects before and during. i want to highlight one of the comparisons that was made earlier. were a number of capital improvements that were also considered to the part of the event like in 2010. so if you want to do a apples to apples comparison you have to include the crews terminal that was part of the economic impacts. this is sort of of the delta there and there's a increase inform impacts of $550 million 38 million jobs and tax revenues that compares to what the budget analyst said. i know you appreciate the work

that the budget analysts has done and this is just a respectful disagreement. moving to transportation i haven't begun to any meetings wee but we heard the waterfront can't handle the people and it was clear so i think we had a multi agency to take care of this and the ridership numbers and the bicycle facilities we saw over 734 hundred bikes parked which was 37 percent more than projected and on that demand people were parking next to the evaluate it was a viable

way to get around the waterfront. so that's a key part of our tourism and then pedestrian wave finding having signs people could explore on foot and frankly, i think this helps bring a lot of the benefits to pier 39 and fisherman's wharf and frankly that was a place to funnel people to see san francisco. and lastly the sfmta i want to is that i know peter albert made this work that our strategies were effective and hoping to sort of transfer this to future special event etc. on the transit i wanted to come

back to the most survey in autobiography 74 percent of speculators didn't use their automobile at all that's an existing number for us to try to get people out of their cars. the ridership were done in september of 2013 pier showing basically, the 4 key augments lines together doing 55 hundred passengers daily so we stepped up >> the embarcadero line. >> that's the e line from the caltrain's terminal up to fisherman's wharf. the mp line was like the f line but just doing the ferry building to fisherman's wharf >> one thing i want to take the time given a lot of the

transportation questions are around district 2 albert did such an amazing job. i know we started to do anything thing no advance the responsiveness we got to see the city's agencies and individuals saw the implementation changes being done and it was one of the best parts about this experience i want to make sure that peter knows. i mentioned to him they deserve a lot of credit >> thank you supervisor i think peter was an asset to our ways but his responsiveness made people building that the city and mta could do what they did. >> another thing we've heard how is this going to effect the environment one of the things

was going through a comprehensive eir. this was basically to get an approval within a year was a heavy thing we came up with a document the most studied >> mitigated waterfront in the history. the eir itself one an award from the national association of vierldz. it spun off a lot of things transportation was a key thing and they signed up for a sustainabili sustainability effort. and there were a lot of legacy partnerships that live on from the event. we started off with the installation of partner at the

short-sighted power it will provide air benefits for years to come you add in the grass friendly in mission bay. the port prohibits water bottles at its events on the city properties. those showed the wisdom putting the pro tem and bringing in partners that wouldn't have been focused to make this greener >> on the eir if we were to do another event we'd have to have another eir. >> i don't think so we'll be able to do lower level of review. as you'll see the first item on

this slide consolidating this it is well within the mitigation that have been set forth. to move on those are over all lessons we agree on the contractors outreach we've got to semiflying if i our relationships. people didn't always know who they were talking to we've got to stench out a number of things we need to do better mindful of the consideration like the propriety information but we can get there >> in terms of, you know, jurisdiction issues in terms of tracking and monitoring it seems like having an amendment between

office of economic workforce development and crack monitoring and who's rule is to do what would be important to have wri8gd clearly. >> i don't disagree with that particularly on the audits and working ahead of time in 2013 we'll talk about that. and then the last part of the budget scoping the budget that remains constant was the ability of our partners and us to right size what we're doing. you know, i think ms. campbell alluded to the budgets being to $50 million before the event and we were able to switch that down into the $24 million range that