at that time. as time has progressed, the world has changed. we need to make sure as we go forward with this project we either maintain, or try to maintain that optimal level. you end up with a range. you do not have a set level. would it be exactly that? i think we are looking to more the technical analysis through the eir, and have come to the conclusion of is it back? is it a range around that? is it lower or higher? commissioner vietor: what is it currently? what is the range? >> i do not know off the top of my head. it is around the 27 mark. those are agreements, but what is it actually at is the question. commissioner vietor: so it is actually 25 to 28? >> i do not know right now. i apologize.

commissioner vietor: maybe you could let us know, come back in the process. the boat house has been vacant for how long? >> eight years. commissioner vietor: at the time, was that a revenue generator? >> it generated some revenue. how much, i do not know. the tenant leaving gave the indication it was not enough or he had other issues. commissioner vietor: i know there has been a lot of discussion over that, to pay for some of the expenses. >> one of the things we concluded was that the revenues should go back into the lake from rec and park activities around the lake. it should not go elsewhere. >> i think in the past it did make some money for rec and

park, and it is doubtful much came back to the like. -- to the lake. i think the idea is if you make money there, it should stay there. commissioner vietor: and it would go back to the items in the mou? >> it would go back to rec and park, but it would be used on site. commissioner vietor: this seems to be for some basic repairs, right, to the boat house? is it all for the boat house? >> it is for the upper story of the bauhaus, renovation of the bathrooms -- boat house, renovation of the bathrooms, basic cleanup of the inside and additional repairs. it does not make a finished space a tenant could walk into at this point. we can either, through an rfp, get a tenant to make apartments,

or through additional funding from the puc or rec and park, bring it to a level where we would find it functional for ourselves. commissioner vietor: the sense is that needs to be spent to even lease it. >> that is the sense. we think it is important to have a new boat house. we think it is a long process to get to that. we need to do something to make this space functional on an interim basis to get to that point. commissioner vietor: having sat in on a couple of lake merced meetings, i know there was quite a bit of discussion around rec and park. to date, they have not stepped up to the plate in the way that

the puc or community would like, as far as maintaining and taking care of lake merced and bring it back to its, at minimum, their level, but at best, its former glory. does this mou address those concerns squarely? i know we will be hearing some public comment about it. i guess i understand that one of the core competencies of the puc is not around recreational activities, but we are sort of developing and building a better realistic program, after much discussion. possibly, it make sense, at least from a leaseholder perspective, to be the ones who are entering into the lease arrangements on the variety of leases held out of lake merced. i guess i would like to hear a little bit more from you on the conversations.

it does seem like there is still a division of lee's holding in this mou -- leaseholding in this mou rather than the puc taking over the lions share. >> it calls for a continuation, to some extent. the leases and agreements break into three. the harding road golf course, which i think everyone has agreed the improvements were paid for out of recreation and park funds in a big way. that is a recreation and park deal. that belongs to the recreation and parks department. the harding road boathouse is primarily a recreational activity. there are issues around that. since we do not really deal in recreational activities, that is something rec and park primarily does. we believe that primarily rests with them.

however, we think we should be a party to that, to make sure those are like-oriented recreational activities. -- lake-oriented recreational activities and do not violate our watershed programs. third is the john your road site. -- muir road site. that property relates to the lake and management of the watershed. we are taking on responsibility for that lease. it is broken into the region into those three terms. >> can you separate that from the rowing club? >> the tenants are well established.

things seem to work. one of the great concerns the rowing clubs had into time is the new docks. those have been in use for a couple of years. >> would it make sense for the puc to be in charge of the bauhaus, but not working with the rowing clubs? >> who would have on other boating activities -- kayaks? sailboats? we could expand the use of the clubs to the upper floor, because they have needs beyond just what their boats are. the third is a more general

public having a space there that could be used as partly interpretation of the lake and the watershed, used for meetings of the various kinds for the department, with all its possibilities. we think it is primarily rec and park, but we would want to be involved. >> this topic has been around -- commissioner caen: this topic has been around for a long time. i wanted to feel comfortable that in the mou the duties were defined properly. i get the feeling, when i perused it, that we were sort of falling over rec and park and they were falling over us, and

we sort of became the policeman of the area, of the lake. i do not know, and i just throw this out, if this works as two entities running the area. that is a question i do not have an answer to. >> one of the things that i would say is that i think puc has work ordered money to rec and park for many years for support services. i am not sure that either party has done a good job of accounting for that. we are making sure we get value for our money and they are making sure they provide value for services they need, but maybe have not made explicit. we want to make sure we get that a lot clearer, so we can say clearly that we have the money for this and are getting our value back in the recreational

uses supported by their support services. i think we have not looked at it closely enough. one of the things i would certainly intend to do in the water enterprise, and approve potentially this year in the budget process, is to identify a single individual within the water enterprise, because there is not currently one, who is our management representative for like%. if i had to point to one individual right now, it would be me, and i do not have the time to do that. we need to change that model real quick. i know that. we have not had an assigned person to deal with like merced. we have dealt with like merced issues -- like merced issues, but have not -- lake merced issues, but do not have a management for us. commissioner courtney: i am concerned about making sure --

commissioner caen: i am concerned about making sure everything is clear cut with management responsibilities, and i am not sure if the current mou approaches that. commissioner vietor: i echo those concerns. that is where i was going a little bit with it. it does not seem all that clear on who is responsible for what. i think that may be part of the problem we have seen in the last number of years, with the dilapidation of the lake. i do not know what the clear delineation really is. it seems like what is being somewhat proposed is around the puc being a landowner, land manager, landlord, with rec and park being somewhat of a tenant, if you will, a subcontractor who deals with the recreational aspects of this. but it does not really seen that clearly reflected in the current

mou, so i just wanted to echo those concerns. >> i had a couple of questions that are in the same vein. i think you may have answered it, but i did not get it. the $940,000 -- whose money is that? >> that is puc money. it was added back in the board of supervisors project, where there were budget cuts during the process and then individual board members asked us to do additional work. >> this is ratepayer money? >> yes. >> one thing i was not -- there were a couple of areas that raised questions for me. one was in the plan itself, not in the mou, but in the plan. it talks about the need for making facility improvements, and in some cases new facilities. i guess my concern is that

somebody's expectation is that we are. the other flag is that i could not tell if there was a transfer of responsibilities. i could not tell what the dollar impact was. there was no performance statement of what would be responsible for, and nothing offsetting that as far as what rec and park would be responsible for. i am concerned about the blank check aspect. i would be concerned about the obligation we would be getting into. >> first, on the change of responsibilities, with the responsibility of a specific lease, we would assume revenues from that. but again, we have to deal with the property. >> that is not a change. there is not an expectation that

rec and park would ever do with that. >> we have no revenue. we have liability associated with that. there is revenue. as i mentioned, the work order for $300,000 -- we both share responsibility with rec and park. we know there are limitations on that money. we can only go so far. if the puc expects more, they would need to provide additional resources. thirdly, relative to the expectations in the watershed report, there might be new things that would come from a variety of sources. there are always hopes and

desires for bond funds of some kind or another, state bond funds, of which there have been a variety over the years. there have been bond formed -- bond funds that had gone into lake merced on the natural areas program side. park and record revenues -- rec and park revenues and pc revenues would be up to the ultimate discretion of the puc as far as the extra revenues that go into lake merced. one thing we have tried to make clear for folks involved in lake merced is there is nothing involved in protection of the lake levels where -- where the puc would be going it alone -- going it alone. >> it sounded as though we would

be responsible for paying rec and park to do grounds maintenance and infrastructure maintenance on the track. is that correct? >> in one of the -- a lot of the infrastructure is roads, paths, or water facilities. we think it is prudent to put some money into the boat house, and not just keep pouring money into that. that is to make it functional while we collectively decide if and how we constitute the buildings. >> for the irrigation facilities, with the golf courses, is that something we maintain? >> i do not think there are any irrigation facilities. at and around the boathouse, there is a small amount of

irrigation. the rest of the area is not irrigated. president moran: and the roads? >> we would be working with dpw on that. we probably have some responsibility for the roadways in the park. it is a short stretch. >> the money for rec and park is generally for gardeners working in the natural area. >> gardeners, and then the overall area. they tend to stay away from the natural area. >> but the area around the lake. president moran: who is paying for that currently? commissioner vietor: 4 the road maintenance? >> we give that to rec and park. it is for trash pickup. commissioner vietor: and the road maintenance is currently were ordered to dpw? >> again, the primary road is harding road itself.

i am not familiar with how anything has been done there. it may have been done as part of the golf course improvements. president moran: it would certainly be more comfortable if it was clearer who is responsible for funding what kind of activities. it bothers me somewhat that we are funding the boathouse improvements, but have no responsibility for it in general. if things were to get better, we would have no access to the money is produced. it would seem at a minimum the mou would be stronger if it made it clear for any new facilities that are recreationally oriented, or the maintenance of facilities, that it is the responsibility of rec and park. other watershed activities are us. to make it clear, i do not want a false expectation by transferring some responsibilities to us that we suddenly become the funding

source for recreational activities. repairs should not be responsible for them. -- rate payers should not be responsible for them. >> any other questions or comments? president moran: i know we have public comment. let's proceed to public comment. thank you, mr. ritchie. >> we have a number of speakers. i would ask him to line up, beginning with mr. allen, mr. morton, mr. murphy, and mr. addigan. >> my name is lerees. i do volunteer work for california child care in san francisco. in 2002, they hired me to be the program manager for lakers said. the reason they did is in 2001 the had brought an

administrative complaint through the water board against the city of san francisco and around the lake, with regard to beneficial uses around the lake, linked to lower in water levels. this is an ongoing complaint. i am involved with it as a volunteer. as the program manager for lake merced, i joined an organization that started around 1999 the consisted of more than 30 stakeholder organizations, including this agency and other representatives of rec and park, for example. the city council supervisor member -- it was quite a large

group of stockholders. we monthly had meetings and work on issues related to lake merced. we raise the money to improve lake merced. in the year 2006, we discussed with these agencies the potential of a puc taking over the management responsibility. we have also been engaged in a master plan for lake merced, which ultimately became the watershed report you are going to talk about today. we decided that if this could happen, if the management responsibility were taken over by the puc, that perhaps there

would not be a need for the task force to continue. in 2009, with that assurance, through a resolution we made, we decided to sunset. in i believe january, possibly later -- actually, in july of 2009. we had a meeting where the resolution was approved unanimously by all the representatives. we had members of rec and park and i believe sean elsbernd himself. sean had requested through the city supervisors that this mou you are talking about today be approved. there could be written something to the effect that you would take over. we were looking forward to that

taking place, and it's called for a long time. it should have been done in 2007. i know i am running out of time, so i want to close by saying please do not approve the mou as it is written. you seem to be savvy, but it is not detailed enough. >> i also recommend that you cannot accept the mou as written. good afternoon, commissioners. i have served on the task force as co-chair of the water committee and chair of the recreation committee. my wife and i and our children go to lake merced. i would like to show you a chart.

let me make sure i do not get it upside down. it reflects over a decade of team work by our group of volunteers, working with the san francisco puc. the chart shows about a 70% increase in the water level, and symbolizes over a thousand volunteer hours by each of us in order to help save like mars said. we continue our commitment to lake merced because we believe in improving quality of life activities in san francisco, especially recreational activities. i want to thank the staff for working with us for over a decade on many complex issues facing lake merced. however, our work is not over yet. you will learn that during this hearing. the board of supervisors recognized that there was support to consolidate

management at lake merced in one place in order to achieve accountability. the puc made a commitment to manage the watershed, and also made a commitment to allocate the necessary resources to do so. the resolution urged the puc and rec and park to work together to modify the old 1950 resolution that delegated vague recreational responsibilities to rec and park. it was the vague language in the 1950 resolution that set the stage for creating lake merced as a city origin. the puc started acting as though it was fully in charge by embarking on an ambitious watershed planning process that ultimately resulted in the lake merced watershed report.

the watershed report dealt extensively with recreational activities. the lake merced taskforce justifiably assumed that the two agencies would eventually follow the suggestion of the board of supervisors, and put san francisco puc fully in charge. it was partially based on that assumption that the lake merced task force and voted to disband on july 2009, believing our work was done. when the water should report -- when the wathershed -- watershed report was done, the board of supervisors resolution was to transfer per responsibility for management back to the puc.

>> good afternoon. i am the founding member of the lake merced taskforce, and a former chair. i am 13 years of the advocacy board. i got interested as a geologist. i want to command staff for the great work in getting us here. they are a credit to your agency. the mou is a long-held goal of ours that we are finally seeing. it is late, but we are glad we see it here. if it has one flaw, i think we would prefer seeing unambiguous management authority residing in puc. before anything else, like merced is a water asset. it is an emergency water supply. it is a drinking water supply. before it is a recreational

facility, it is an important water resource. and frustration for us has been a confused decision making process over the years as policy issues come up. "they are responsible -- no, they are responsible." you already pay for the gardening work by rec and park. you are funding everything there, with a couple of narrow exceptions. it is not clear to me what productive role rec and park has out there now. they have no visible presence out there in a long time. they are stretched too thin. this is more in sorrow than in anger. they are stretched too thin to do anything out there except collect rent at some facilities. i strongly want to support what steve ritchie said about creating a position -- call it a manager or an ombudsman or a liaison -- that could be a point where the information is

received and decisions can be made. that is a great idea. so many of these water issues fall under your jurisdictions. there is storm runoff, recycle water, ground water, wastewater. these are all factors that properly should be under your control. finally, on the question of expenditures for the boat house, i know it is controversial sometimes, but i want to strongly support the expenditures for fixing it up. as a west sideer, that has been an embarrassment and eyesore for way too long. you should go ahead with it. but that should not be the last word in a long-term vision for the like. this is an interim step, and there are better solutions. there is land that at some point we would like to see made available that is across the