next year. the parks department is often hit harder than others, which i do not believe like, but it is almost inevitable that we have to do that. we do have to reduce expenditures and meet standards. but you have not thought that out? >> we have thought that out, that is the primary reason we put that out for the proposal, to see if we could do better, we do have the opportunity over time to save over $2 million. flax i think that you have done great work in bringing the contract to was that is better than the current contract, but the detail about the standard of the golf course that has not been thought out yet, i know this is something you have to do the devil is in the details.

supervisor maxwell: maybe with the money that you have saved it would help with the layoffs, you would not have to necessarily go there. it would be whatever the amount is that they would ask you to reduce your staff by. is that what your thinking? >> for example, this last year we were faced with a 20% across- the-board general fund reduction and if we have got 30 -- we have a total of 30 staff, they are not all gardners. but $200,000, $220,000, it helps to offset that reduction. this is a challenging issue. harding is also a revenue generator. frankly it is a treasured asset of the city and we have an obligation to maintain it.

>> under the gulf fund legislation -- supervisor avalos: under the golfing fund legislation that goes generally to the parks, this is now saying that this contract, 80% of the gulf fees will be going to tpc. wondering how that change was made, how was it determined that it would be taken out? what was the function under the current fund? >> this point has been raised and we would disagree with this. that the fees should go to the city, we have had multiple conversations with city attorney offices about the revenue due to the city going to the city, meaning contractually. this is the point that the

attorney, we have conferred with her about it. as well as the city attorney. it is not that all of the revenue generated goes to the city, just that the revenue due to the city goes to the city. >> one of the pressure points that was brought to bear back in 2002 was this notion that the city, for decades, had generated revenue from golfing and never put it back into golfing. that is one of the reasons that the fund was put in place, to make sure that the funding revenues would go back to the golf. supervisor avalos: in this case is going back to the instructors in the contract rather than to the courses? >> absolutely. and that would be the same as what happened with management fees, $192,000 each year.

supervisor avalos: from instruction? >> from the entire pot of money. supervisor avalos: now we are saying that we're taking one strand and moving it directly to tpc. >> i know that this issue has been raised, but this is the model for how a golf course construction happens. the person giving the lesson with a certain skill set, then another percentage goes back to the golf course. if you look not only a hours but public and private golf courses across the country, you will see very similar relationships. there's nothing unique here. supervisor avalos: the question is, this is a resolution. we have a funding ordinance that talks about how the fees might be used, do we need to make an amendment to the funding ordinance?

i am hearing no. ok. next question is around and related to the golf courses on puc land, correct? >> they are part of the watershed, but they are our property and we have an agreement to provide recreational activity and that property. -- on that property. supervisor avalos: it is puc property? >> in 1950 the board of supervisors passed a resolution authorizing the parks department to permit or allow recreational activity on these properties that was an agreement with no end date. the future board of supervisors could of course the cyber

control of the property back over to the puc. as the current agreement exists, the parks department will continue to permit recreational activities on the properties. supervisor avalos: well, let's open this up for public comment. unless there is more from supervisor maxwell? two minutes per speaker? >> good morning, hon. supervisors. i am here to represent local 261 labor. i came here today to show the full support for this puc agreement with the park and we commend them for coming up with innovative ways to bring savings while innovating staff and service. thank you.

>> good afternoon. my name is bruce and i am a gardener at harding park. i am also a shop steward. also the acting chair of the gulf committee for local 261. i will read a statement on their behalf. the local 261 membership and public employee gulf committee supports the approval of the proposed partnership between the pga and the city of san francisco, especially the agreement that allows our staff to continue to maintain harding park as they have been doing since the 1930's. our qualified greenskeepers, teamers, -- teamsters, farmers, mechanics, they'll take great pride in their work and look forward to see the park as center stage in the tournament ahead. we look forward to working with pga as we initiate a new chapter

in san francisco and its historic golf courses. supervisor avalos: thank you, next speaker, please. >> i am the president of the pga golf into our properties and thank you for your consideration today. we are honored to be considered as a partner to the city. we put our money where our mouth is, so to speak, investing a substantial amount of money, annually, committed for a couple of years. not only are we not making money on this, we are investing capital in the golf course because we believed in the future of this golf course, we think that it can make a difference for the kids. i would like to briefly speak to the issue of the arbitration provision and production maintenance expenses. the intent behind getting this provision was to protect the golf course from what could potentially happen down the

road, which is a policy decision to materially change how the gulf force is maintained. if that means a reduction in how it is maintained, we would like the ability to say that that is not consistent with the agreement and we do not think that standards can be upheld, putting in place a provision to force a dialogue around the subject so that we can work through that reduction in maintenance costs. if we believe that the golf course standards can be met at some number below 15%, we are all for it. i can tell you, operating 31 golf courses across the country, achieving annual reductions in maintenance reduction disclosure of payments of 15% in one year is nearly impossible. we have demonstrated through our

actions that we are very eager to see this golf course maintained as efficiently as possible and that as high a quality level as can be achieved. [tone] that is what we hope to accomplish. thank you for your consideration. supervisor maxwell: 15% is an industry standard? >> it was negotiated at 15%. the conversation started with a discussion in which the pga said that look, if we agree in the spirit of this agreement, that this golf course is one of the finest in the country and should be maintained to a very high standard such that we can hold professional tournament golf here that we can be proud of, let's say that five years from now there is a very different group of people in the room and it is a policy decision that the golf course should be maintained

at a different level. do not care about gulf, fees, or a world-class facility, and we will cut your budget by 15%. we said we want the ability to say that we think you are making a mistake and if you go down this road i do not think we can hit the standard. we think it is important, frankly, for the city to have this provision to protect harding park for generations to come. thank you. supervisor elsbernd: another question going back to the first, incentive. can you talk about your plans? should there be incentive payment? >> the spirit of the conversation, initially, was driven from the objective that we all have to see that as the golf course performance improves, the net proceeds are turned back to the community through the asset itself,

capital spending and making sure that all of the things are having a -- happening on the golf course to maintain it. also for the kids in the city of sentences go. particularly those at the park that are unfortunate, where less privileged children cannot have the benefit necessarily, we wanted to create a sustainable funding model. we said we wanted to take our incentive fee, which was negotiated, and contribute that back to san francisco. we put in place over time a sustainable funding model so that after this contract expires it will become part of the spirit of the park and how it is run to make sure the kids learn in life skills through golfing can have the funding to make sure that these programs go forward. >> thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you very much. thank you for coming.

next speaker, please? >> good morning. i urge you not to approve the pga tour contract today. as a concerned citizen about public finances, not a golfer, i have followed the harding park renovation and the promises made to the public since the beginning. i have studied the mishandling of the fund and analyzed the loopholes in the contract that led to the inappropriate use of funding revenue. this contract takes the cake for putting the city in jeopardy for lawsuits and contractor needs. the city is working for the pga instead of the other way around. it is badly written and unfortunately forces the city to make inappropriate commitments to the contractor, ignoring the law that governments have made about revenue usage.

i am told that the city has wave a magic wand and protection disappeared from the agreement. the contract is missing all of the factors that directly affect the scope. rule number one in signing the contract is to leave no blanks. this contract need serious amendments to correct many flaws and be in compliance. speaking of approval, where is the puc in this long-term arrangement? they do own the property, including the golf course, and had they not been asked to be a signatory, there was not a public that was committed to allowing to the park -- allowing the park to be controlled in perpetuity. if the puc wants their land back, will they keep the contract as written? or will they find themselves in court, using taxpayer money to

get out of the appeal that does not meet their long-term needs? i cannot stress this strongly enough. before we have two departments signing on. [tone] thank you. supervisor avalos: next speaker, please. >> walter ♪ fly the pga golf ball management to the moon and let me play under the stars and let it be that harding park has come along so far. in other words, please be true as i am to ♪ >> my name is richard and i am

in opposition to this contract. after putting it money into harding park annually, have we not learn something? two minutes does not give me much time, but first of all the contract was originally r f q four qualifications, unfortunately they did not sign the contract with them. it was signed with ttc, which is a shell corporation. they were given approval based on financial ability. who is this new group? will they be responsible? i am a lawyer and any lawyer knows that you do not let your shell corporations sign your contracts. the next thing is that every year, the department says they

have lost $500,000. actually it is $1.2 million because they are not able to pay back the opening statement. when you do that, this thing is a losing proposition. we are using the same model that got us into trouble and we have not learned anything. we are really making a mistake. if you look at my brief, the averages $1.2 million each year. the reason we are losing this kind of money is because we are paying $3.5 million for someone to push tickets. i worked at a golf course as a kid and i was one of those ticket counters. it did not take $3.5 million. we can still have the tournament if we have a competent staff that can run this and it should be put out for bid. there are managers that will pay less money. [tone] you should look at it, you cannot do it today but you have got to look at the

contract, there are so many holes. supervisor avalos: thank you larry much. next speaker, please? >> my name is richard harris with the public alliance of 4500 member golfers. we have appear before you before. we have discussed public building matters with supervisors. we do support this contract. i have given you a letter dated september 16 stating our position. i am also giving you a letter from leedo, director of a golf club that supports the contract. on the point that the budget analysts have raised in the arbitration provision and course

conditions, we have addressed that point in the fourth and fifth paragraph with letters that we gave you. we were not consulted in the details of negotiation between the parties. from our view there are as many benefits to having the pga and its affiliates operate the golf course, including a series of tournaments' that they are bringing here. we also believe in the city to keep its standards with other courses. this is apparently based on what we support. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you very much. any other members of the public? could you line up please? thank you. >> in the executive director of

the first tee of san francisco. over the two tournament held in the past at harding park, because of the nature of a golf course and the level of the tournament they have attracted, the first tee has been the beneficiary. we have been able to collect $1 million as a result. what some of you might know in this room is that we were able to build the first ever driving range facility in the valley where a golf course was put on top of my high school. it happened with much fanfare at -- fanfare last october. that facility has been able to serve 500 children in and out of them, we had 150 children show up for summer programming. that was 150 young men and women

that were able to take part in something constructive. 20 people that were already golf course ready, some of them living in the housing developments in the area that have taken to the golf course because of what they have been able to learn through the kind of generosity of this capital commitment of the pga tour. moving forward, i find a real impact has happened and it will take about one quarter of a million dollars just to have a sustainable impact through the jobs program for the people of that community. with the two were agreeing to donate their feet of approximately $250,000 to create a lasting funding source for the first tee to be able to not only fun of the children at the park, but most importantly hopefully the 500 that we currently see and be able to

achieve a lasting impact on those young people's lives. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you very much. net speaker, please? -- next speaker, please? >> my name is sandy tatum and i am a golfer. i have lived in the city for 55 years and have been very aware of what kind of bass said the city has in the park. it is absolutely priceless. that awareness was a factor when i started turning in my patches, realizing they would go to see that i could not bear it. i had been in it involved in various ways in trying to keep it alive. from the standpoint of knowing a lot about golfing administration, you could not possibly have a better reason than to have a pga to take on

the project. making sure not just that it is properly maintained, but this is a very, very valuable asset. i have been aware of its potential for years and up we will now realize its potential. now, to take advantage of the fact that the pga was willing to come here to take on this project, i would have to say that i was very stimulated by the fact that i thought that the park provided a great basis for the establishment of a first tee program in san francisco. what that program does, simply, it takes in interest in looking these kids into playing golf. not to get them to play golf, but to get them to do something

was more important, being constructive human beings. we have established those schools in war zones and they are doing their job, saving these children. keeping them on the right track. i would urge you, with all of the passion and bring to bear. supervisor avalos: i want to thank you for all of your work. i want to thank you for your commitment to the first tee program and evolving, i think that the president's cup was will of a ban thank you for everything. -- the presidents cup was a thank you for everything. >> i could not be more grateful

for being involved in the manner in which i have been. supervisor avalos: thank you, next speaker? >> my name is daniel dillon. i have worked around this building and we have debated many of them over the years, having had many fund doing that over the years with practical joke on me. it is rare that you see a contract where you get something this good for so little. you are getting the world's best has gotten the best for free. , we should be patenting mr. ginsberg and the entire team on the back, using this contract

and their work as a model for other departments to find an opportunity to have contracts like this. with due respect to the previous speaker, sharp park and lincoln park are great assets. as a golfer, you cannot compare them to hyde park and what the pga tour has done and will do to harding part. hopefully this will be a model for what we can do in the future. but this is an incredibly good contract and i hope that he will consider it and pass it on to the full board with a yes recommendation. supervisor avalos: thank you very much. any other members of the public? seeing no one come forward, we will close public comment. but just a quick question related to open spaces and

contributions. there is a footnote on page 206 of the budget analysts report to discuss the deficit from the golfing fund relative to contributions to the over state fund. i notice that for the last fiscal year, there were no contributions. but in previous years and has arranged itself from $1.4 million of $583,000. what is proposed for the current year is the deficit with a payments to the open space fund of $1,038,000. what is the formula for how we contribute to the open space

fund and how does that change year after year? >> supervisors, under the building fund ordinance, the department has worked with the city's office of public finance to create a debt service schedule for the payment to the open space fund. gulf funds at the interest rate, which is variable and changes every year. so, every year the department works with policymakers. we budget. we start off every fiscal year with the intention of budgeting the full amounts of the payment from golf to the open space fund. supervisor avalos: the full amount would be for the current year? >> for the current year the full amount of payment in the

schedule would be over $5.2 million. that is under the assumption that we start off with so many bills on the budget. but over prior years as we know, the fund has needed support from general funds. so, at the end of the day it winds up being something of a negotiation between what they can afford and what the general funding subsidy is, as well as the payment from golf to open space and what it winds up being. again, as you know, the fund was an ordinance, the budget was an ordinance. although the gulf fund it specifies how the payment would be made, as the board approved the budget annually, the payment might be something less than what the fund originally intended.