become a the rod and glove -- rod and gun club stays with recreation and park. if we don't approve the mou, that it stays. the third issue is the boat club and i guess recreation on the lake itself. that is really what most of our discussion has been about. moth>> thank you for that clarification. if we reject the mou, it means that rec & park stays in management of the boathouse and the gun club. that has been one of the key points of contention. i have a proposed amendment that might address that that is what i have been talking about which

is giving six months. >> it is a substitute motion. >> a substitute motion that is a six month time line that would be accepting of the mou but with a specific deliverable says commission would be to seek to renew or amanda mou -- renewed or amend the mou. >> for clarification, if we move the mou and we don't have to take anything out to do you are talking about. if we add something and we expect this to come back with a set of the liberals and six months for additional consideration of the boat house and light management, -- >> if you accept it, it does bring the gun club back to

recreation and park management. the term is a five-year term as you could say it is a five-year term that you want to report back in six months. then you would have to make a decision to extend it. >> if we removed the boat club from the mou entirely so the term doesn't apply for that, thought we would take action on the rod and gun club and take no action on the boat house, that action we could indicate a desire for an action item to come back in six months. >> my only concern is that i know recreation and park is suggesting $2 million in a bond that would be voted on in five

months. knowing the result of that in six months is useful. we would have to check, one of the speakers brought this up, was the jurisdiction of the boat house would have to be either a rec & park under or under us to qualify for the bond. >> right now, the fund says recreation and park. it's coming to the planning committee next monday. >> just so we're clear, the status quo is the resolution is commission adopted in 1950 putting rec & park in charge of the boathouse because we were not anticipating changing that at this meeting.

i have not had a chance to investigate whether or not they have an investment in asset that would make it something to negotiate to bring it back. one of the recommended changes i was going to make this if you were to move forward with the new mou that allows you to take the rod and gun club back, he would authorize the general manager not to execute but negotiate and execute. if you are going to make the resolution, it would be important so we could make the mou comport with the direction of the commission. for example, if you were to say the term, you are authorizing the general manager to negotiate and execute a term either up to six months and it has to come back for a decision provided the

boat club staying under management is up for consideration in six months, it would be important it would be negotiated and executed in addition to addressing the bond, which i understand the people drafting the bond are addressing that issue to make it clear lake merced will be entitled to the money regardless of whose jurisdiction it's under. to figure out whether there has to be any compensation for that. >> my sense of what i am hearing and where i'm trying to get is this commission is very frustrated by the lack of action at lake merced and is inclined to do something if there is not a very quick demonstration that things will change. or we are willing to accept

eight promise for a limited time. >> how long are we going to wait for those promises? >> it sounds like six months. >> or as opposed to five years. >> the other thing is accepting the report sounds like a fine thing. the mou, as long as it doesn't change or obligate us to anything with respect to the boathouse and fell like, it's as if we didn't act at all. if we don't do anything or even if we do, is there anything that changes with respect to the boat house? >> the question becomes why did we spend $500,000 for a report we're going to ignore? >> that's a good question. >> the gun club changes, the boat house, the mou as a

planning process spelled out in a but it doesn't change the jurisdiction or management of the boat house. it brings the puc into the planning and says it would be involved in any decision about to be a vendor. but it doesn't change the jurisdiction. >> it seems like we could do one of two things. we could remove the language and deal with later or we could amend it to say as part of the planning process, we expect specific deliverable and a limited amount of time. >> my understanding is the planning commission has already approved park and recreation continue as jurisdiction over the lake. >> it was day operation committee. >> no matter what we do one way or the other, this decision still has to go before the board, correct?

>> not to the board. but if we approve something different, it has to go before the board. >> it's not before the full commission until next week. >> i concur. does seem to be the to options. one is a very limited time for the mou, six months or something, with very specific deliverable the attached to it with budget and planning figures that are very specific or option #2, you said is to reject the mou but pull out the gun club portion. >> or excise any thing that pertains to the boat house. what remains is the rod and clint -- rod and gun club. >> but everything else would remain as well?

>> it would remain as it is today. what would change with the rod and gun club. >> the way it is structured is parts of the 1950 resolution, we are not touching it. if we remain silent, it would leave it as is. >> we will go in formal. we have a bunch of discussions that amounts for something that hasn't been moved yet. to have any public comment on the discussion? >> i have 32 seconds left. but my lawyers had on even though i'm not an active member of the bar any more. the 1950 resolution which i made

all kinds of fun about, the one that gave rec & park its rights at lake merced did not a sign the lease with the gun club. bellies with the gun club -- i have it here. it's five pages long dated 1935. it has never bet amended. it's between the city and county of san francisco, approved by the water department. you are still the lessors at the complete. i don't know whether steve or anybody has asked the city attorney's office for an opinion on that. i think you are still the last -- the lessor at the gun club. we're dealing with a 10 million- dollar cleanup problem. police did not require the gun club to carry general liability insurance.

this city and county is on the hook for $10 million in cleanup expenses. you are the lessors of the gun club today. you on it. you own a $10 million problem. >> has the city attorney opined on this? >> not yet. i did go back and read the files from 1935 through today. it's clear that after the public utilities commission adopted the resolution in 1950, a transfer management of the rot at -- the rod and gun club and rec & park managed it from 1954 and it's true that has not been amended since 1935 although there are informal agreements increasing the rent from $10 a month. it >> you are arguing that it

constitutes an assignment? >> between one city department and another, puc owns the land and can retake the responsibility to manage the least. but it requires a commission action to do so because it was the commission that transferred management responsibility and that is what the mou does. as specific language that says while rec & park will manage the boat club and a related recreational leases, the rod and gun club police will come back under puc management which is one of the things proposed to be accomplished. >> good afternoon. i'm from a san francisco green party and the local grassroots organization, our city. i admire what you commissioners

are trying to accomplish with an untenable situation. but i'm worried this is being rushed and i think we can see from the conversation you just had there are a lot of complexities with this that need to be explored. it makes a lot of sense to approve the watershed steady and then have the waste water enterprise and water enterprise carefully look at that information and instead of rec & park, have the water enterprise and waste water enterprise take the lead on developing an overall master plan for this watershed area that than rec & park would have a limited role of managing just the recreation activities without being in control of the physical ground and area of the watershed itself. when you are trying to do is in the right direction but i would

ask the staff develop the model and master plan and then we asked rec & park to develop the role in it. i feel like we need to take the right time to make sure this properly protect our water assets and wildlife. thank you. >> who has the floor? >> i would like to put a motion on the table based on all this conversation that we -- i believe what our council said is we can separate out the gun club least and lot -- gun club leases and a look at that and do what we need to do with it separate from the mou. >> yes, by inaction.

>> by taking an action today, you could resume management -- >> by taking inaction or an action? >> my motion would be to take that action and then the second part is to reject the mou because it needs additional work. >> that was my first motion. >> but i want to make sure the gun club peace is addressed because that's very important. >> just because to agencies assume an understanding of jurisdiction doesn't mean the legal requirements have an assignment.

>> the lease is between the city and county of san francisco and the pacific rod and gun club. there is only one legal entity. all we are talking about is -- within a lessor's responsibility -- >> we can take action on that separately, so that would be one piece of the amendment. the second -- >> i believe there is already two separate motions. >> the report and the ammo you -- the mou. >> accept the report -- we would

take action to assume the action of the rod and gun club lease. what do we do with the lake? >> we reject the mou. >> rejects the mou. that sounds like something close to a motion. >> second. >> we have a second. is it clear to the city attorney what we are doing? >> the resolution that before you has to clauses. the sec one remain because it accepts the watershed report. -- the second one remains. if we amend that to say it

authorizes the general manager to assume management of the rod and gun club blaze, that we are done and we don't have to resolve to reject the mou. unless you want to provide direction about what we do about the underlying status quo, we could draft a resolution because the status quo is the boat house will remain with rec & park under the 1950 resolution. >> maybe after we finish this, we can address that because i prefer we are not rejecting the mou, because i believe we have this relationship with rec & park and we have these recreational activities and the mou needs work. maybe we can do a separate resolution that can come up at the next meeting at talks about

specific deliverable we need to see in order to enter into an mou. >> we would be inviting to return to this commission and mou of much narrower scope and i think the discussion has informed the parties as to what our intention is and that is to take action. i believe we have a motion and a second. any additional discussion? all those in favor of? opposed? the motion carries, thank you. let me make a comment in terms of guidance for the folks working on this. i would hate to have to get into recreation management at the lake. we have a huge water program, a huge sewer program, we can do

anything people tell us to do. we can move mountains, burrow under them, do anything that needs to be done. but we don't have expertise figuring out whether kayaks for sailboats are the best use of the lake. i would love to have us not get into that business. on the other hand, if our land is lying fallow and is not being managed properly, we have no choice but to step in and do something. my messages use it or lose it -- my message is use it or lose it and she was quickly what you can do. >> i appreciate those comments and some of the thinking i was doing to the comments section from both rec & park and the public comment is i would think it would be helpful to get much more specific long-term recreational management plans and budget that could be presented to this commission. also some specifics of around

how financial resources are going to be secured for recreational activities, how does concession contracts would be developed and secured s rec & park wants to take them on. what are the recreational uses of the lake? we saw the one to have materials for, you might people to get staff for viet money for a but nothing round reel programming. we have not heard anything specific around that and how to implement not be accepted the lake merced -- lake merced watershed plan. so really for rec & park to come back and say as relates to the boat house what your role would be in the management of those facilities to make the case that you guys could do it since we haven't seen a lot of action in these past years.

>> not only does rec & park manager recreational activities, we do the maintenance, custodial and maintenance, landscape maintenance, natural areas, a fair amount of structural maintenance around the lake and it would be helpful to me to understand where this commission is on that issue and whether those are activities you would like us to continue to do or is that something you would like your own staff to take on? >> that some things that could bring back as a recommendation to us on what that will look like and related costs. >> i agree with that. thank you, commissioners, thank you everyone who came to testify at madame secretary, if you would call -- >> there are two whereas clauses that reference the purpose of the mou and i think your motion

should show those as being struck since you are not adopting that. >> i think that was the motion. >> i intend -- consider and adopt a contract rate schedule for the 27 wholesale customers during fiscal year 2012 through 13 and the terms of the 2009 water supply agreement between the city and county of san francisco and wholesale customers. >> and that the chief financial officer and i'm here to describe to you the action item before you which is the consideration of the fiscal 12-13, next year's wholesale water rates. in advance of our rate items, we tend to bring in advance, we

brief to two weeks ago on what the staff recommendation was for next year's wholesale rate. i am happy to provide a briefer summary rather than going through this wise or i can go to the slides as well. >> have you received comments or have there been changes made or proposed in the last couple of weeks? >> we have received no further comments on the staff's proposal. >> commissioners, if you would like a quick update, that would be fine, otherwise we can move to public comment. >> we have already seen this? >> guess. -- yes. >> we support the staff

recommendation. >> commissioners, we also support the staff recommendation. thank you. >> commissioners, annie s -- any comments? moved and seconded. all those in favor? opposed? thank you. it took us less time to do a rate increase for wholesale customers than it did to talk about -- >> item 11 -- approve an increase of 2,000,005 under thousand dollars the previously approved contract cost contingency for constructing -- construction on the alameda side number 44 17 million to under

$93,000. authorize the measure to approve measures to the contract. >> i believe this was covered. >> she did cover that and the report. >> if we have any questions. >> i would like to move this item. >> second. >> moved and seconded. you did an excellent job. we have a motion and a second. your job is done. [laughter] and very well, i might add. do we have any public comment on this item? all those in favor? opposed? the motion carries. thank you. our next item is to go into

closed session. madam secretary, if you'd call the items were closed session. >> item 12, public comment on matters to be discussed in closed session. commissioner moran: any public comment on matters to be discussed in closed session? >> there may be one speaker on item 19. i'm not sure if that is the case. if you want to call back and hear his testimony, he would not have to stay until afterwards. commissioner moran: it is your choice. we do not want to act on to -- on the item until we have had closed session. you will stay? ok. proceed. >> item 13, motion on whether to assert attorney-client privilege regarding the matter

is listed below is conference with legal counsel. commissioner moran: all those in favor? >> aye. commissioner moran: the motion carries. >> item 14, conference with a real property negotiator -- pursuant to california government code section 5495 6.8 and san francisco administrative code section 67.8a2, property -- mountain view, brussels 189, 190, 191, and 19s -- >> can you wait until the store is closed? thanks. -- until this door is

commissioner moran: the public utilities commission is back in open session. the commission took no action on any item in closed session. i have a motion as to whether to disclose? >> so move. move to not disclosed. >> second. commissioner moran: all those in favor? >> aye. commissioner moran: the motion carries. madam secretary, item 19. >> item 19, authorizes the general manager to negotiate and execute a memorandum of understanding with the port of san francisco for the puc to continue providing clean, green municipal power at pier 70 and to provide the port $1.5 million if the new shoreside power system at pier 70 increases electric use by 65,625,000 kilowatt hours by 2017. commissioner moran: this was on the prior calendar. we continued it in order