i would say that we are quite familiar in our parks department with working in park locations. whenever we have a partner in doing work in one of the locations, until -- we're working closely with our staff in all of the relevant areas to make sure that there is no impact on the park. >> i know said a large emphasis has been on the facility itself and the improvements as they are more inviting to both residents of the city and tourists.

i am concerned about any unforeseen ramifications. this area is also perceived to be done in environmentally sensitive area for birds. i am trying to understand if the question that you answered on that there is already night lights, intensification could augment some of those impacts. do you foresee that this will be captured in the response of the design plan? >> i don't foresee that in this would impact any of the night life. >> as it relates to the facility, i guess would like

modern food, no happy meals. i agree with that. >> i guess this is something we could talk to the community about. >> i noticed that we negotiated and that the city pays for all water, gas and electricity. >> this is an operational constraint. that is what we currently do. it is difficult for us to get separate me during -- a separate -- in our parks. we have a meter that is not at the boathouse. we are unable to put it the

meter at this site. include the is in the overall compensation to the city. >> this might seem like chump change. >> i know that this is a random preference of the city departments whether to cover utilities or to make sure that the licensee covers utilities. we cover utilities and this is the sort into the payment.

were you able to unearth that? >> this is one of the items in the least. this was a negotiated deal. i am seen it both ways. the city will pay for both items. this is all i think considered in connection with the percentage rant and the minimal annual guarantee although along with this case, that was not a consideration in the selection of the winning respondent.

>> do we have any idea what the value is? >> we did not look at that specifically. if we are looking at the expansion and hoping to entice more people and more attention, i would like to understand how this is absorbent into the actual benefits back to the city. >> we don't have the ability to isolate the meters.

the department will pay all utilities. >> this is a water-intensive area. gas and electricity, i think that is relative to the design plans of how the facility is expanded, enhanced, how to make it more consumer friendly. this is built into the negotiations now that we pay for everything. wouldn't it be more prudent to hold off on that particular trade off until we know what the design plans are? >> it is difficult to include a partial brent package, a partial release.

then to subsequently come back and negotiate later. you would have a compensation package and you negotiate. the ortega is lowering the water use. these are the most efficient appliances. i don't know that this is a water intensive use. they are not responsible for filling up the pool at the end of each day. since we did not have independent meeting, this is the only option that the department has.

we found it to be operationally not feasible. >> the idea of us being able to benefit from the best negotiation is what i am getting to the bottom of. when the this have been a violation of the process based on the current operator.

the information we receive is that it was substantially more. >> this is not a violation of any city contracting law. they are authorized to negotiate with whoever these selective respondent is at that point. we are not allowed to negotiate with other entities but with the

selective respondent. >> if i can clarify this, on page 5 of our report, table one, it shows that the corporation submitted a minimum annual guarantee in their bid of $250,000. however, that was not required. the department did not consider this. the minimum guarantee was totally negotiated.

in this is 140,000 that was negotiated and then raised today. this was not part of the criteria. from our offices standpoint, we said this was a policy. we said that capital improvements. >> when did you say that this was 160,000? >> it actually, mr. ginsberg

called me last friday and advise me that based on some of the comments we had made in our report, he went back to the ortega family. that is when we first learned of the increase in the minimum guarantee. bacouif there was a higher amout

potentially proposed by the current operator, was there a lower amount compared to the capital improvement. your concern was not the minimum annual at first. i believe that or take a's aspect was the $200,000 which they were able to do for capital improvements.

>> to get into some of the selection process, the current operator proposed $23,000 in capital improvements at the site. as of last night, he warned me that he did not agree with that characterization that it was 23,000. i expressed some of those sentiments today. we reviewed his proposal, 23,000. furthermore, the documentation that was given to our commission on august 19th in advance of the commission hearings. this is the far right proposal of the corporation and it talks about the value of the proposed improvements being 23,000.

this is public information. he has attended this. he was offering more as he described it today. >> i am not defending their interest. what is before is through the budget analyst is a steel and i hear that we have an operator.

i am trying to understand where the benefits are still a after we dissect to this in a way that we are making the most of fact if decision. >> for the benefit of the proposal which i think the budget analyst propose to make

the capital improvements which are about $15,000. then there is a payment of $17,000 into the maintenance fund which is a fund that is controlled by the department. when you include those to capital --

if we were not using an annual benefit, the lease would be a total of the 160 plus the 33 cost of the capital improvements. the food and beverage component of the current concession, we actually have hotdog stands which have higher annual grosses than about the landmark on mark concessions. the department shows very strongly that a shift from the snack only options to this tax plus a light meal option will increase revenue at the site.

to speak to the percentage on the food and beverage, and they know that you cannot operate a full-service cafe paying 27% rent. it is not possible. they have higher prices because of the quality of the concession whereas previously you had untrained staff. you have trained staff performing this site at the work. the industry standard for this type of operation is 4%-6%.

we can allow the concession there -- the concession honored to invest in the property and we receive the benefit as well. >> at on concessions and movie theaters, movie theaters are really dying and they rely on their concessions, they are experimenting and different ways. this part of that include alcohol? >> the lease does not allow this, no. >> audubon international, they

can -- this is not the audubon society, as i have said. they provide ways to be environmentally sensitive habitats for golf courses. i don't want that to be used as a pitch in this. will there be a commitment by the city on a plan and making sure this is it done?

>> there is a responsibility to make sure that they are implementing best practices. we don't want people disturbing the wild life. the operation but as it is now, they largely remained unchanged. that would be considered, that

was part of the review. the planning department would say that you can proceed with this if you implement these part protections. they share an interest in protecting wildlife. there is always opportunity. >> does that include a license? -- bisons. >> thank you for answering my questions. i think i might have some more. i do consideration by the board. there does need to be improvements, no question about it. i want to make sure that the best deal has been negotiated.

user terms and user variables. i think that hopefully, both ends will meet. i am concerned that this is the best deal that we were able to harvest and secure. i just want to say that it seems a little bit counterintuitive. we talked about the cost of electricity and gas. that has to be the practice that has to be reformed by other departments. i understand the practical matter of metering.

by the time it gets to our desk, it is hard for us to know the intensive use or not if it is a good deal or not. i think it is a menace to try to -- miss to try to be more focused on wildlife protection. they are going to satisfy our standards. it triggers this kind of certification. but it leaves me uneasy about answering the questions.

as it relates to the general theme of this area, commercialization is an ongoing concern of mine. but not to the benefit of the current operator at the benefit -- at the expense of privatization. i want to make sure that we are going in the direction that we are not inadvertently or deliberately going into a direction that privatizes and commercializes and makes the park unparkl-like. i commend others for trying to make this the best deal possible. i have ongoing concerns and i

will have to flash the south. -- flesh this out. supervisor chu>> a number of ise up with other advocates were talked about and discussed in this meeting. for the record, one of the issues was about the requirement of recreation and parks to have the vendor have white watercraft insurance. -- light watercraft insurance. whole question is not why the current vendor has to have it as opposed to the . -- new one. >> these are drafted in coordination with the city.

the risk management liability sections are sort of the only exception where we bring in the risk management office and they work with the department and the city attorney to dictate what the minimum levels of liability insurance are for the site. we put this question directly to the office of risk-management. the response that we received on multiple occasions was that small watercraft liability policies are for those that are over 26 feet. they are covered by the general insurance requirements of the least that is before you. supervisor chu: the item is in the hands of the committee.