private alone property and people going in and out of the park and people using the garages. another has to do with places like district 3, chinatown, around there, they have a lot of garages there and i thought it being that there are some there, there should be a consideration when it comes to budgeting. what i understand is when the budget comes out, we're going to have a lot of facilities, but not many people to manned the area. if we can look into something like that, if you have the financial area road tax and a prize, of more directly what

they could do to the department and not the general funding, that is what i want to bring in for future consideration and it might make a big difference in a lot of kids being able to play around chinatown and being able to participate in the available scholarship programs. >> is there anyone else who would like to make public comment on this item? public comment is closed. >> regarding the rate, we're getting up to $4.50 an hour. i gather one of the main problems is that at times there is plentiful street parking. people will at some price points, this side they will try

to find a free parking as opposed to parking in the brush. by raising it, you may end up pushing cars and out onto the streets. i am wondering -- i see that the rent is flat 15. have you thought about increasing that and perhaps increasing the weekday rates of little lower? >> my response to that is that it is for special events. when there are large events, we extend the hours and so it is not dollars captured every night by any stretch of the imagination. i cannot pull out and it varies by the month and the year. we have tried lots of different possibilities. in terms -- do you offer

overnight parking? >> you could leave your car there and it would be locked in and you could get it tomorrow morning. >> it is not serviced 24 hours? >> i don't know if i mentioned it or not, before we did the rate increase request, we went back to our expenses and i said there are very few and very limited. we have decreased the hours of operation and we did that in connection with the institutions. when they have a lecture, they are required and we work carefully to make sure of the garage and opens an hour past the end time of those events. we are trying to service the public and also trying to keep our costs as minimal as possible. >> it is hard to judge because

given the information we have, we do not know where your revenues come from in terms of events and weekdays and weekends. what we have in front of us is a proposed rate increase with out any kind of financial balance sheet to show what kind of revenues a 50 cent increase might bring. >> here is a couple of more details. it varies incredibly, not so much from day of the week. we have unbelievably detailed reports -- a it's a wonderful colored graphs -- there are a few facts i can give. the average ticket price is $12

and that means people are staying not quite three hours. part of the data that was generated by the new report allowed us to go to the institutions and say we have five cars that are staying later. can we work with your staff to figure out another way because there is an hourly cost in their garages that is difficult to rationalize, particularly when we are squeezing right now and we are in our readers to the people who operate the garage. >> i don't know if my fellow commissioners would see in the future, more financial information regarding -- >> you do get quarterly reports that are detailed. maybe they are not disseminated to everybody, but i would

appreciate a response to what additional detail and you would like. they are quite detailed. >> i would be interested in seeing be analysis on the price points and what the weekend brings in, the price increase and so forth -- that would have been helpful. >> thank you. >> how do the institutions that use the parking garage feel about the increase? >> nobody is happy about it. this is a job i would rather not have. there is a debt service and it's in all of our interest to make sure we make that and then we have to pay taxes for the operation of the garage.

we would all love to have that at $2 an hour. but the cfo who sits on my board for exactly this reason so that the communication is as open as it can be. >> i would like to thank you for being here because we did have a detailed presentation at the operations meeting and at that committee stage as well as along the way, we have tried to get our heads wrapped around how to get away from this. i just want to say there was a very detailed presentation made, but perhaps going forward, i would be interested to see how on a monthly basis -- is it wednesday or rainy days? >> if you guys can't find

patterns, we would be thrilled. >> i think the analysis has been thorough but the conclusion is still the same. >> one thing i can do is forward a report so that you see the level of detail we actually get. the challenges, everybody said we are going to start this and in two years, we will have a model that we can project going forward. we have our hands around the expenses and even when you put the exhibits, we're trying to guess how many people are going to come, we're just not good enough added. what happened before does not project except in broad strokes what's going to happen going forward. >> has there been any talk -- at

some price point, you are going to figure out the question whether your partner is going to look for free parking as opposed to parking in the garage. have you talked to the cultural institutions? keep in mind this was built with private philanthropy, and in that spirit, have you looked at going back to cultural institutions and asking for some support for the private philanthropies, since they are the beneficiaries of the grosz? >> absolutely. they are squeezed just like every cultural institution in the city is squeezed right now.

one of the things about parking rights is that the users help support the process that helps to support these institutions. a million dollars comes in that the city would not have had prior to the grosz. there is $100,000 of rent that comes each year from the presence of the garage in the park. i'm not trying to dodge, i'm just trying to give you the facts. >> if you are operating at a 17% deficit and increase their rates, there will be some fallout, and you can analyze what it is, but i think that conversation is probably the next step. >> one of the last conversations i had was about the rise and the spirit of it was that it was to

benefit the cultural institutions and he had hoped it would follow in his example, if there was a time where the gap would come in to pick up the gap. >> he was a singular individual and i cannot imagine and other individual who could have raised $36 million for a parking garage. he understood the larger role that it was going to play in terms of the health of both institutions and golden gate park, but he is missed. >> thank you. we have had public comment. can we entertain a motion? >> so moved. >> all those in favor? it is unanimous. >> we're now on item 8, the golden gate park golf course.

>> good morning, commissioners. on the acting director and property concessions. the item before you is the selection of san francisco to operate the golden gate park golf course. the golden gate park golf course was built in 1949 and primarily serves used, seniors, and after work golfers as well as a beginner golfers.

it is currently operated by global golf management to has a lease for the facility which expired in 2011. the commission approved the issuance of an r s p soliciting a new operator for the course. that required respondents have three years of golf course management and two years a food service experience. it additionally required day enhanced programming for the targeted at user groups at the site. particularly beginning golfers. it required respondents to submit a proposed base and respondents were encouraged to propose capital improvements to the course. the department received two responses, one from the current

concessionaire and the second from the first tee of san francisco. the proposals were reviewed and based on experience and the proposed financial terms, after their the liberation, the panel sought first tee as san francisco to operate the course. they are a national organization whose mission is to provide young people of all backgrounds and opportunity to develop through golf and character education, life enhancing values like honesty, integrity, and sportsmanship. the san francisco chapter has provided opportunities for low- income and at risk youth. in the first proposal, they proposed employing a class a pga professional with six years of

experience, recently at the half sunday golf course. they proposed a quarter million dollars in capital improvements to the shipping area and then submitted an extensive programming plan to bring the programmatic elements to the golden gate golf course, which was one of the key components of the lease and proposed a minimum rent payment of $225,000 as well as they presented rent payment. the next step, should the commission approved, we should diligently negotiate a lease to operate the golf course and we would bring that back to the

commission for their approval. i do want to address a question raced by a concerned citizen at the committee hearing on this. the question was is there a potential conflict because they operate programming at harding. we had numerous conversations with the city attorney's. the city attorney has advised us there is no conflict. their reasons for saying so is that the rfp did not provide anyone for having a presence at the golf course. to the extent the proposals were reviewed on the basis of their programmatic offering, it was what they were proposing to do

rather than what they do that existing city-run golf courses. the first tee is setting up a separate legal entity to operate the golf course. that is common across all of our leases. we would have a parent company that sets up a legal entity that we enter into a legal agreement and the city attorney is confident there is no reason not to move forward. additionally, we want to be including in the least we are presenting back to you, a clause that any subcontracts with the pga or first tee of san francisco would not require the city's approval. just to make sure there is none

of the conflict, we will review any contract for services provided or any other golf course operators and the city attorney has advised us that we can proceed. >> was it the city attorney's recommendation that you take the extra step of transparency? >> yes. they did not feel it was required, but thought it was advisable. >> we to have public comment. -- we do have public comment go ahead and start.

>> my whole speech is on there. >> just start and they will. >> i am back again to bring to your attention the issues on the overhead having to do with conflicts and i would like to read what the issues are. the city attorney has not resolved the problems i brought up. we have a possible commingling of purchases that are going to go through the pga tour to tournament players. let me start with the beginning issue. they are romancing -- have contracted for a managing agreement. but to use the space for office and that classes -- second, they are reimbursed for all of their operating expenses.

that is where one of the problems comes in. the bills come in and they could be for any thing, including golden gate park. they will provide backup personnel services and accounting. on this side, it's a requirements -- it is a requirement to provide those services. the whole point is they teach children. they do not run businesses as having their own staff. the fourth item i want to bring to the staff is that first services are reimbursed directly. it is a direct relationship. that is where the problem comes in. on the tax forms of 2009, which are the most recent available, they received $254,000 for this reimbursement. this is not penny ante stuff. we're talking about a major

relationship. to go back to the last point i want to make, they use these offices to provide services to the first tee. will this space be used to operate golden gate park? the relationship is they do not have the staff to do the work and we are now getting into them providing services going to another entity and the question is, do they intend to use the services for the golden gate park police operations? >> if they are going to continue to be -- golden gate operations. the corollary to that is if they continue to work through this agreement, are they in

violation with the city? the issues that have been addressed have not addressed these very serious problems. we have multiple overlying agreements. this has to be looked at seriously. i recommend you postponed until we get all of this straightened out. i'll be happy to leave you the forms weren't talks about things. this is dead serious. thank you. >> is there anyone else who would like to make public comment on this item? public comments is closed. >> let me ask, generally speaking, if i understood correctly, you were satisfied that there would be a separate entity operating at golden gate park, the separate corporate entity being set up.

and you are taking further steps that are not legally required but suggested by the city attorney to ensure transparency? >> absolutely. >> thank you. the third redundancy would be the city attorney approves all leases before they can be executed. that would be our third failsafe. >> thank you. >> just to reiterate, this rsvp did go out to bid. through your selection panel, were there multiple bids? >> there were. >> you went through the process and decided to award it to the first tee. you have run all of this through the city attorney's office? >> absolutely.

>> thank you. >> we have concluded public comment and it is in the hands of the commission? >> i will entertain a motion. all those in favor? hearing none, it is unanimous. thank you very much. >> we are on item number nine, the ocean beach parking lot celebration of the life of a warren hellman. >> i'm be acting director of property management. we brought last month to you and i am approving or road closures and amplifying sound permit for the public celebration of the life of warren hellman. it has been a public item that has moved quickly and we are back today to ask for an amendment to the amplified sound permit. quite frankly, there were too many great musicians who wanted

to perform and i think we are in a position where we could not say no to people who have been coming out for over a decade to perform at the festival. the item before you would extend the amplified sound per met on sunday until 6:15. it is currently 5:00. the department feels strongly this is acceptable. we would have had concerns had the events occurred in helmand hollow. since it is in the ocean beach parking lot and it is a well lit area, we are confident it is acceptable given that sunset is about 5:51 on sunday. additionally, we are requesting the sound permit be extended to allow for a limited and periodic sound check between 10:00 and 5:00, just to allow performers

to test equipment. this is standard for a concert of this size. things have been moving so quickly that it would have been included last month. additionally, before i submit myself to any questions you might have come i know there were questions about the operating plans and specifically about crowd control measures. when we were considering it, the original idea was that it would be in a tent and it would have a capacity of about 8000 people. now the space is more open. there are not going to be -- viewing the music will not be limited to the people inside the tent and it will be open access and we are concerned about keeping the number at 8000. it will be shut for overflow and

we have worked extensively with the san francisco police department to develop security so that in the event more than 8000 people turned out, the venue can accommodate that for a safe event. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> entertain a motion. moved and seconded? all those in favor? hearing none, it is unanimous. >> we are now on item number 10. the recreation and park department for 2012 and 2013 and 14. >> good morning, commissioners. i am here to ask for your approval of the department of fiscal year 2012, 2013, and 2013

and 2014 budget submissions to the mayor's office. i am pleased to tell you this morning we have been able to balance the budget in both years, primarily through the use of additional revenue and the budget includes no layoffs or service reductions. as we know, this is the first time the city is in beijing in a process for general developments. we will submit a budget for both fiscal years and the numbers on the slide have changed over the past six or seven weeks. the city has amended its general fund deficit projection for next year and of the year after. the budget challenge the budget is solving for is $3.7 million.

i do want to note while we are submitting a two-year budget, i fully expect we will be back before the commission next year, discussing the budget and making changes to that budget, based on better information about revenue and expenses. even though we will be in a two- year budget cycle, we will be revising the second year. it is not set in stone. as we have gone through the budget balancing process, we have tested these principles and kept them in mind. we have actually come up in the course of conversation as we have been making trade-off decisions about the budget. they have definitely guidur