for public comment seeing none, public comment is closed. all right. colleagues, we have those items before us sponsored by supervisor avalos can i have a motion >> i'd like to be added as a co-sponsor of both and move we support into both items. >> okay. we have commissioner dooley's as co-sponsor item 5. >> item 5 is the resolution retroactively authorizing the police department to spend approximately 2 hundred and thirty thousand 40 from the governor's for the fantastic force program. >> okay. thank you very much welcome back. >> i'm with the san francisco police department i was going to say this but walter took my

statement away from me. >> go ahead you you can. >> with me is our budget grant guru and tony who is with me we're asking for the approval for the first one hundred and 39 plus with the 71 thousand for a grant total of 2 hundred and thirty thousand 5 hundred and 29 human trafficking i mean grant trafficking grant program. 25 percent of that goes to the asian pacific islanders so we are asking for the approval of this grant >> thank you, captain and this was heard last week, we held it

over one week. my any questions. open this up for public comment anyone who wishes to comment on this item. please step forward >> at the anti human could by that time in a we're going to have a budget in this city at the human city music and budget passion and the budget is going to last in the cop pa. you'll make a good please make the budget good and make that great. >> walter that looks like a silver metal you get a gold metal for what you do here. >> it's a penny.

>> anyone else public comment seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues can i have a motion to send this is to the full board >> we move that to the full board. >> this is a budget analysis report for the america's cup and for the america's cup see event in the workforce development and local small business plans for the local hiring program for the use of the importance of the hiring. >> thank you. this hearing was sponsored by supervisor avalos i believe the report was for that i'll i'm going to turn it over to him >> thank you supervisor farrell. this was a report i asked to get drafted of october of last year,

we wanted to see how the america's cup authority met it's commitments and we sought the approval to put on the event. it was my concern the cost to the city and whether we were going to say the inclusion of small businesses that would benefit from the event. we'd actually be meeting our local goals for hiring. before that october of last year, i held several hearings on the subject on costs and at least one or two on the inclusion of small businesses and the hiring practices. this report is on the earnings. we are getting the commitments but not getting the tracking and

improvement that insures those commitments were followed on but i believe we have ms. campbell from the office of the budget analysts or mr. rose >> i'm from the analysis office. i want to set i am the power point. we were asked by supervisor avalos to prepare a report for

the 34th ownerships. we looked at the economic impact report that was responded we look at cities revenues and expenditure the america's cup organizing committee to raise the fund to offset the costs and the initiative authority for the local small business solution plan. the 34th america's cup was the 2012 raise for the indicating man from 8 countries and those were from october and then the 2013 were the main america's fire department in july to september. there were only 4 hundred pomegranates in those races. so the event authority managed the cup and it was the

fundraising and the community outreach arm of america's cup. the city entered into two agreements the first a was the host and venue all the time in john january of 2011 they were to provide the waterfront use for the water authority and provide other sources. the board approved the agreement that set the terms for the licenses at the event authority and to make improvements of the properties that concludes m - >> so they have no costs what would have been the costs the lazy? >> the rental costs right. >> and on the lease deposition agreement what are the costs to

the city and we'll go over those. so in terms of the economic impact the office of economic workforce contacted the bay area institute and the economics to suggest what the impacts would be to the city to have the america's cup here this was in 2010 before the city was the host city and the impact analysis was based upon 15 syndicates but there were only 4 race sin cats so by the end of the 2013 when the bay area economic couldn't u council reviewed the impact their estimate is much lower so the impact to the city and its resident is 3 hundred and 64 million which is only 24 percent of the billion and in terms of

the jobs 1 hundred plus jobs were created this was 24 percent of the jobs >> in terms of - >> if i'm clear the 2010 report says the economic activity overall economic activity would be $104 billion and we added up 3 hundred and 64 $.4 million so that's over a billion dollars off. >> that's one way to look at it, yes. >> so this would in 2010 there was so much high blood pressure i questioned it at the time. i am not saying i'm right but it seems like there's the way the

city goes b.a. about promoting those events that's disconnected from reality a billion dollars off 0 not right >> the actual number of speculators was lower so the city was much less than anticipated. >> it's not just we're off but we also did a lot for the event based on the original numbers. but it set in motion a great deal of resources the city put forward >> we had costs for environmental reviews that were somewhat fixed. in terms of actual city expenditures we be went back to the city departments so if you

look at the city expenditures the report suggestions there's 6 million of the general fund loss 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