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

doesn't just happen what's the right level of rourz not only within the city but our partners at the national park service and pitched in and it was a rewarding experience. so looking at workforce the workforce plan sets out a good set of good faith efforts to solicit job opportunity for local workers and they did a robust job. we had job fairs organized with the economic workforce development as well as folks from the sf champing chamber and looking at maintenance and the copy sessions, work at the concert services and the website

and the workforce development programs were used for the temporary situation for work. as noted by the metrics we have reached two of the 3 goals in the workforce plan. the event new hires we've passed that goal and the temporary installation workers passed that. i quickly a little bit with ms. campbell's assessment of whether or not those are temporary workers. i'm not sure there's temporary but as those installations happened i don't know if the further monitoring would yield more information. the last bullet there was to

make an effort to paid internships to youth that's part of the mayors program they pledged 20 internships and most went to under 25 years of age. it will happen in august than that september. if indeed we talk about the events we want to set up a piping to get the youth involved and explore those benefits. moving to prevailing wage in 2013 for the event. so after the events that were described we saw value in sitting down and doing the work with the installation plans to review them and understand what

the approximately and concerns of the workforce plan. we came up with a color coded map so everyone can understand where the prevailing what this ways so the contractors could understand the payroll. this is where you take a public payroll process through the system and trying to get those contractors to put the data together so they understand it took more work than we thought but it's something we want to get the timelines together on. 2013 there was one complaint that resulted in a payroll refuse wofrn of the workers had been two of them was paid at a carpenter rate and they were

supposed to be paid at a a pile rate >> i thought of that was a pavement of $410,000 to backpay. >> that was not here this was in 2012. >> could you summarize what happened or who would be the best person. >> in terms of 2012 we had a hearing where we described the run up to the event in 2012. there were further negotiations needed after the board met we are were not able to get the insurance so we had to negotiate a term that we brought back to you for ratification. it agreement was signed pending

further agreements because we wanted to host the agreements and host but that doesn't get paid until the august event >> we knew there were going to be a prevailing wage requirement that was discussed in negotiations we anticipated that that. >> i believe so frankly our time at that time was trying to seek a way forward that allowed the event to move forward. i also think there was questions about the prevailing wage would allow based on the wording of the workforce plan so to be crystal clear frankly simplified there's a good excuse that they weren't subject to the

prevailing wage but in our view broadly speaking >> let's fast forward from october 2012 to say march of 20132013 we had a hearing in this room about the issue of prevailing wage and there's a lot of fingerprinting was it the authority or the subcontractors i assumed that would get worked out assuming the prevailing wage would apply. then late november or early december of 2013 that has not jet been resolved. now the payment to the back was this had not been made at that point. what happened from that time that required they're to be such

a lag time of workers getting paid. what was the issue that prptd prevented that >> i think there was a dispute between the contractors who was under the agreement they went into admission to decide who was responsible. and i believe that the result of that effort which took sometime was to establish their responsibility for that and they've made the payment to osc for the workers. i mean we were certainly encouraging them to move quickly but not being party to that agreement we had limited means to do so >> do you believe in terms of what we have in place and structuring agreements we could

avoid that type of issue who's responsible for the prevailing wages in the future. >> i think 2013 we can we had a lot of work done and frankly, i'd like to get to zero next time i think we can with the preliminary work in realtime. >> i have legislation that applies to private construction jobs on private land it makes more certain it's approved i suspect it will be and how we're paying prevailing wages and maybe the city entering the jurisdiction. >> certainly that would provide clarity we didn't have and that's a i'll have plan for negotiations. the last point on workforce again, it has to do with the

permanent construction that the port performed we talked about it in ms. campbell's presentation. i mentioned the crews ship terminal was part of the america's cup. in addition in march of 2012 when the lease deposition agreement it moved away from the long term deal to the port basically working through it's capital plan to do consortiums on a smaller scale. this chart shows those improvements and how they worked. the benefit of the port doing the work was they hired the folks with the prevailing wage and frankly the small business inclusion provision so on workforce we had the crews ship

terminal prospective juror project that had 29 percent participation and it's at the 2029 and thirty 32. this is shown separately but assessed together. the 50 percent number is low but the particular improvements were for the local hiring of the proportion of the work and lastly all told about 45 or 46 work hours for san francisco workers. >> the goal was 20 percent. >> i believe so. implementation strategies for small business i think those are outlined when i ms. campbell what we saw in our community meetings was an incredible crush of interests from contractors we

look at the a way to channel that that can be used by port authority. it was successful based on the interest over 24 thousand businesses and hopefully, we, build open that for public-private events. further we've posted from a number of topics and vendor opportunity from their websites to the city's website and certain of their contractors one example being the sf giant contractors had the hospitality so they have a tender for local folks they were not subject to our agreement so we don't have the third party information. some of the challenges have been outlined i'd like to identify a couple of them first, the proprietor nature and to your

point earlier supervisor should not we have the same force of law it does but we didn't have the robust monitoring we wanted to have but next time that's incredible. so for the contracting structure the contracting firm doesn't have the terms to achieve it so the analysis in finding 6 l.b. u in that list is not as constructive because we don't have the next level of data >> so 6 lbes or 6 small businesses. >> 6 lbes we were not able to gather information.

>> that is something you know, i have ideas about how that would work but that will villaraigosa to be discussed. >> it's important to get a entrap of what the small business inclusion can be for similar events in the future otherwise we are going to be on a word but not enough to move forward so building that mechanism to invest into future agreements will be really necessary otherwise we're acting on faith that's not good enough that will be $4.2 million in 2010 that doesn't happen we need to track that information and make sure it's readily available. i totally agree supervisor to

the extent this was done is american people impact benefit to the city but we need to show with the benefit is to prove out the assumption so we'll work smarter. again, i wanted to turn to the 4 projects that were performed in nutrition with the projects. they all exceeded their lbe goals for the total of million dollars we see that as a benefit as well but obviously just part of the iceberg i guess >> here we have the port projects that have other requirements that we were able to meet the lbe requirement and right. >> those are the agreements

that were made under the authority the small business inclusion and all of that. >> exactly right they went through the typical public cathy processed. i'll turn to the third project. as in terms of the impacts to the city they've done a good job in that. this is we really view the port costs and general costs differently when we look at the costs to the taxpayer the general fund is the measure but that cost could have been used for many things it's for port opportunity cost by using go the piers and staff f that's another maritime example but you know when the newspapers are reported

that our shortfall had doubted conceptually no, it didn't those costs we don't disagreeable they exist but the city needs to be commended it's not an easy thing to do you can spend but to be successful we'll 0 assume were in the to $50 million range but we were not a position to fend off more costs but we did a nice job of keeping people within our means again, the last point doesn't bear repeating but we've got to go off the strategies we've learned but also i want to do

the pie chart to mention a future america's cup cost fire department this is $5 million of general fund costs in different categories particle the blue and red the blue is regulatory compliance that will cover a great deal of event so my hope is that piece of pie becomes smaller. america's cup there will be more work to do but how to mitigate and permit this event on a regulatory basis. similarly the red piece of pie is the general fund that paid for the peer 29 improvements and the pedestrian in green p those

are locations for future event undoubtedly therefore we won't see these costs reoccurring again so what remains is the game day operations related to public services we put together a pretty good framework based on speculator volume and you'll see insurance the green a lot of that effort had to do with insuring the delivery of the crews project i would think that piece of pie is cut in half to focus on a special event coverage policy. all this analysis leads us to building where a future bid would have to go to account for

the reduction in costs by saying those costs won't be repeated. but to my earlier simplification point we think that earlier funding would be necessary i think our discussions to the event authority how we can craft a plan that sort of meets now we know what we know test. we've had this event once. so that concludes my presentation if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them >> you know what would be good to know i know we've look at money in our budget to cover the costs if you have the ability to provide the information how we breakdown the chart by year perhaps you can have a line that

would have, you know, a measure of like each part of this pie chart per year having up to a total for all the years. that makes sense the environmental costs the regulatory environmental cost were done in 2011 then in 2013 so if you're able to provide that i'd like to see that to get a sense of how we spend >> i make a good point which is part of why the virile regulatory you requirement is to large is because wisp studying the 14 teams the millions of ec