the >> welcome to the board of supervisors meeting of tuesday, february 1st, 2011. >> all members are present. >> can you please join me in the

pledge of allegiance? >> are there any communications? >> i have no communications. >> items 133 comprise the consent agenda. they will be acted upon by a single roll call vote. >> would anyone like to sever any of the items? seeing and nonnone, please calle roll.

>> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> talked aye. >> item four. >> this is a resolution authorizing the recreation and parks department to enter into a lease with stpw ; -- stow lake. >> i would like to thank those that have been coming down to speak about the boat house whether it has been to the reparations and parks commission but almost and the budget and finance committee. i am enthusiastic about the contract before us regarding stowe lake and the efforts to

improve and restore the boathouse. as a neighbor and a frequent user of the lake and the boathouse and other treasures at golden gate park, i follow this process very closely. one of the things i heard very consistently from the testimony and those calling and visiting our office is that it is the desire of the committee to preserve boathouse for generations to come and i approve. i support the goal and this is why i am proud to sponsor this issue. i think the city has found a great contractor in ortega enterprises. for the wildlife and the beauty of the area as well as important. while most national park

concessions feature junk food, the concession stand in muir woods has fresh sandwiches and soups made from local items. this has been a long public process to get to this point. i know that some of this very well in the recreation and parks department. i am thankful to those who have expressed their opinion and improved the project. i also like to thank the budget analyst. i am also thankful that the recreation and parks department and look at the budget analysis.

but i am looking forward to having the boat house for the future as well. >> thank you, mr. president. i would like to send my compliments to supervisor mar for his leadership on this issue. this issue has been chronic with regards to the improvements at still lake. -- on stillstow lake. there are some issues that are unresolved and this particular contract. i do not disagree with the idea that there needs to be a significant having of the area. the objective that is before us is to make sure that if we will privatize this particular area

or try to upgrade and that, i want to make sure that the city gets the best deal that possibly can. based on the analysis of the budget analyst, it leads me to want to know a couple of more variables that i think were not well covered. for example, for i am still concerned that in the minimal guarantee, it was an afterthought. it raises questions about what was our cities' ability to be able to procter -- procure it the top dollar contractor. i am unclear as to why it was not the case and that speaks to a question of process. we are not meeting and any of the utilities and we have no idea how much electricity and

water we are using. the city is paying for all of the utilities. i would ask potentially of the recreation and parks department for a consideration that we ask that when the capital work is being done that they actually meter the facility. if in fact we are insisting on municipal government to do its best in greening the city. i would ask that we know how much electricity and water we are using. by all records and the recreation and parks department, we have no idea. there is an approximation of the utilities that use and that translates into a certain amount of money in to that contract

guarantee with or take up. we want to start right. let's start by owning up to the idea of what the mayor used to champion and that is that we lived to the standard of making sure that the city government is setting an example. recreation and parks needs to go back to the vendor, why don't we ask of the gender war the city to go ahead and set up a meter facility that tracks our energy uses. how is it that we can accurately profess what we are saving? >> we have a number of residents from parks and recreation. >> we can absolutely install a

meter that monitors the usage but we cannot isolate the meter. the electrical at the site is separately metered about a quarter of a mile away from the boat house and the cost of approximately $250,000 to run a separate line from the meter to the boathouse. >> what about water? >> we could do the same. >> this is the $1,000 a month

for the utilities at the site. this is something we have negotiated. >> do we have any idea of what goals there are in terms of conservation. >> we would develop deficiencies. one abou>> and the capital imprt

plans would require the improvement of our recreation and parks commission. >> i asked this question must read and i am not sure if the opportunity has been given. but whose cost is seismic? >> for any improvements that are treated by a the --, those will be the -- responsibility as is common in leases of this sort for the city. any improvements that are triggered by enhancements of the ada law, those are the city's responsibility. that is in a committee standard and city leases that apply across any number of

departments. >> the concern about the -- not being in the rfq. >> i don't think that it is that we did that think of this and then we corrected it afterwards. the department has put this out to bid on four separate occasions. we asked respondents to look at the terms. the department and the commission made a policy decision to explicitly prioritize the capital improvements and then to use the database of almost 11 bids over four years as a point to begin negotiating.

we feel that the deal that went before you is the one that is best for the city. >> the main attraction is nature. there is no wild life plan, there is no information then speaks to the human impact. for there to be any kind of assessment, what is the more realization of a wildlife plan? >> the impact, that will be in the environmental review for those capital improvements. on the department always works with each of its concessionaires to make sure that this is protected.

we would do that in a lease of this size. maybe b/c we have been here a year >> we want to make sure that the impact is minimize on the golf courses. with the -- that are there each year, we have plan coming -- we have people coming in to make sure that some of the wild animals and stray cats are properly fed throughout the festival there. on each of our concessions, especially those that are relatively recent contracts, we have a strong element of streamlining these procedures. >> those are seasonal events.

can you send us a copy when you have a chance of what a plan for a permit concession there looks like? >> thank you. the >> my opinion of these kind of contracts is that the the underlying question has to be are we getting the best deal for this city and that is the reason why i consistently pushed for following a competitive bidding process. i would like to begin by thanking the department for doing that. the original contract we are talking about was entered into in 1991 and that was a 15-year lease. it is good that we're going back to these kinds of leases and figure it out whether or not we

can get a better deal for the city. the main question i have is the point about the minimal annual guaranteed. as was indicated, the department has decided not to do that with this rfq. there is the overarching question of whether or not we could have done better in terms of the best deal for the city since that question was not asked to the respondents. i'm wondering if there are any thoughts on that from the department. we understand that capital improvements are a priority as they should be a priority.

how do we know that we could not have achieved the objective of getting the right capital improvements and on top of that action getting a larger return i'm wondering if there are any thoughts or comments on that. >> i think it is a note that this represents a significant increase over the five-year average for the last five years or so at the lake. the contract that you have before you it is an increase of 160,000 in minimal guarantee as well as the projections which projected that we will net $200,000 in the first year based on a percentage.

this is fair for what the market rate section is. this would include $160,000 minimum annual guaranteed. the nearly quarter of a million dollars in capital improvements to the site, the annual maintenance fund which is 2% of gross revenues which will go into a menace fund which is expended at the discretion of the city. this is the best deal for the city. this is not included. this was a policy decision that was made by our commission in light of the fact that we had tried to solicit a vendor using exactly the manner you

described. we are unable to get favorable terms for the city. >> maybe you can clarify. >> this is 200,000. can you clarify what that is referencing. >> this is what is guaranteed.

at the point at which it is exceeding the guarantee, this reflects the reflected sales of the side. >> is this getting 30% less than what you are projecting? >> the budget analyst report reflects the deal and that was initially presented to the budget and finance committee where it was $140,000. that has been increased to 160,000. on a straight projected, it is now 20% difference. the department feels strongly

that a significant capital improvements that the ortega family is committing to this site should be calculated to the benefit of the city. the benefit and willing to the 230,000 in initial capital improvements and the ongoing contributions to the maintenance fund is 2% of gross revenues, that total is 33,000. this is a very favorable comparison. >> my