prices 17%. the other thing is the debt will be paid off in 2017. if we project the 17% increase out to that, there will be a tax flow of $1.9 million per year. so, that is a lot of dough. i am puzzled as to why we have to raise the rates 35% if 17.2% will get us there. the other two documents are current slip rates where south beach stance today, and -- stands today and where it stands with sf marina. thank you. commissioner ho: thank you. [applause] >> after angelo, peter sorenso

n. >> good afternoon. i have been a berth holder for just about 35 years. i am trying to work out an economic problem. i have problems with economics, too. sailing had been one of my more economical ways of enjoying time off. i have watched the cargo from open slips to being in demand, being a wonderful community and robust in areas like that, i think the area should be reviewed in conjunction with the revenues you are seeking, as well as what you are seeking them. -- why you are seeking them.

i think the community is not just the slip holders. i know those residents are he people who live in san francisco, but for the people who travel from san jose, i also pay property tax. i would like to know if that makes me a resident or an owner. i am neither owner of the property nor a resident of san francisco. should i be penalized and pay taxes? so, in the community improvements, i think they should consider some of the obligations san francisco goes back to the port authority to support that area for the parks, for the environment that you can see people enjoying. the other thing is, i think we have not explored all of the avenues necessary to solve the problem. i think you've got revenues that are based upon a need to pay back obligations that maybe

should be reviewed. this is not the only place in the world where obligations are reviewed and negotiated. some of constraints that might be better evaluated. my plea is to take a little more time and continue the conversation for all the stakeholders. i think there is a way to work it for everybody's benefit. thank you. [applause] >> after pete sorenson, lev hannessey. >> good afternoon, commissioners. in a recent member of the south beach address the group. up until tonight, i got all my information about the exchange through the advocacy group. i really appreciate that the port and the group are working really well together. there's not a meeting of the

mines at the moment necessarily, but the issues are well understood and there's a very good dialogue going on. there are a couple of issues, three, that have all just been mentioned. i will reiterate them very briefly. one is a large number of slip holders that have no idea about this process. a separate mailing to them would solve the problem. second is the significant profits that will result after a loan is retired, it would appease a lot of our tenants to see in writing that those profits will stay in the harbor. and last, i am not a member -- excuse me, our resident -- however, i pay property tax by

++ franct of the alboating -- calboating loan, i believe the harbor is owned by it all of the owners, not just the residents of san francisco. >> hi. i am the president of the advocates for south beach harbor. i am also an owner in the harbor now for seven years. i have a power boat. i would say about 25% of those are powerboaters and the other

75% are still boaters. just by way of information, and i will pass this onto you when i am done, we are at 501c4. i have an e-mail address i will pass on to you. i want to first of all thank for communications peter daily jim walters, forgetting is going. -- for getting us going. elaine is here, too. we have a copy of the $1 million loan. we have learned there is the assumption of a bond that was converted to debts. we learned that. it was good that we knew that. and we now know the operational costs of the harbor. we see that there are some low hanging fruit, for lack of a better term. they will probably garner $70,000.

there are no free rides. there is no longer a free ride. bettis $70,000 a year. landing fees -- there are many non-paying charters the just drop, picked up, do not pay a thing. they have to pay their share. we have to name the harbor something. we do not care. oracle, south beach harbor. we are ok with whatever brings in more money. we what solar energy on the roof. and we appreciate the commuter parker -- commuter parking during the season. there will be a front door handicap button on the front of the car or house within a month for 138 b, and we have agreed that there should be mandatory operation of your boat once a year. you have got to get in your boat, started up, take it back.

is a safety issue. we ended up with questions though. the mud tax. property tax of $59,000 we paid every year seems to be going into the general fund. it slipped through everyone's fingers. it probably should be going back to the port. the parking fees. we still don't have an answer for that. we came up with compromises with peter. berthing rates would probably swallow that. parking pass included -- that would probably swallow that. but the two most important like you did with 332. we need to be at the bargaining table with you. and we need to contact the other members of the harbor. thank you very much. commissioner ho: ok.

>> thank you, commissioners, for listening to us. i would also like to thank peter daly. my name is paul and i am on the board of the advocates for south beach harbor. i will not repeat everything that has been covered here. but i would like to take a look at this. i think barry did a very good analysis. i have been tasked with looking at the calboating documents and loans. and there are some issues that need to be taken into consideration their. -- there. we are already short on parking.

another item is that the part has to be available to all on an equal and reasonable basis. and that means reasonable terms as far as parking, as far as electricity, as far as berth rates themselves. so, the calboating loan is alone from the state and is specifically targeted to recreational boaters of california. again, this goes back to an equal basis. so, everyone has to be treated equally. , like, said, i won't repeat anything else. i am going through the calboating documents. i am still looking for some. we did a freedom of information

request. a bit more time would be helpful. commissioner ho: brian. >> she will be right back. commissioner ho: ok. we will go to joe. >> good afternoon. thank you for allowing me to speak. this is important for sailors. operations for our motivations. we have a very good relat

ionship with the board, and we appreciate that. we these relationships make our programs. our main concern is parking. we have people come from all

over. we understand parking is very tight. we encourage all of our members and carpool whenever possible. -- to carpool whenever possible. to take transit.

parking in the area -- if you have special needs, it can be very hard if you do not have access. thank you for your support. [applause] >> are good afternoon, commissioners. i have the votes at south t beach harbor. -- i have a boat and south beach

harbor. i do hear there is some concern that this is a harbor in san francisco. it is owned by all the people of california. we should not even considered that as an issue. as far as residency. early on, when it was apparent that the port was going to inherent this, i talk to jim morale is, who was the counsel for the redevelopment agency in an attempt to get the current mailing list so that the tenants could be notified that things are happening. jim was going to do that and then it became part of the city and therefore have different rules for getting information.

made a public records request, tried to talk to jim walter into speaking me a list. that did not work. it is so important that we have come up 500 + tenants. some people have fleets and so forth. the people do not know what is going on. it is going to fall back on the port. it is not going to fall back on any but -- anyone but the port. this does have to go to the board of supervisors eventually. i really cannot plead with you enough to come up with the way that we can communicate to the entire tennessee. i do not see how you are going to be able to make all the pieces come together between now and september. one of the issues i am pretty

familiar with, you currently get your power from puc. and by california puc, at energy commission, you cannot become a utility. if you are putting meters in, they have to be put into the san francisco puc. they have not talked to ports at all. they were unaware of this going on. i am trying to say, there are so many loose ends that you cannot possibly get it by september. if you put that as a deadline, it will make it difficult for the staff to dig down the enough to come up with the solution. we need to have access, it be able to give you something to send out to each and every -- i

never opened my bill. so that we can reach out to those people. we have enough time to do this dance like whether it is parking more power and so forth. -- loose ends like whether it is parking or power and so forth. >> susie smith. >> i am here because we have a family boats at pier 40. i am also here to plead for more time. a lot of people are unaware of what is going on. we have some people who are residents of the city, some who are not. i know people are up here reaching for solutions and they are saying, we were on the list for 15 years. the thought that suddenly, we're going to hand 100 people -- have

people $100 a year, it is like me having to pay an application fee at every school. hopefully, we can be fair about it. hopefully, the pier 40 residents, if we have more time, we will have something we can do collectively as a group. i also want to reiterate that the parking system is not broken. there is some occasional abuses. that has been parked there with yellow tape around that. that is a space we could use. oat;-if you could give us a lite bit more time beyond september, so we could come up with viable solution for everybody. thank you. >> that is the last of the speaker requests.

we are still open for public comment if anyone would like to come up to the podium. >> i am the vice commodore of the bay area association of disabled sailors. ++30 pt

some need accommodation with parking, some have placards, do not. we have volunteers and participants that come from sacramento, stockton. there really needed to drive to get here. we could not run our programs without them. if we have to pony up $600 a year for six or more parking passes to accommodate the folks that need to help us put down our programs for the disabled, that puts a big hole in our budget. when the state passed its budget and dissolved the redevelopment agency, i can guarantee you having been an aide to the board of supervisors, the intent of the state was not to blow a hole in the county's budget. there must be something missing from this equation. that $800,000 either is stuck at the state court is coming to the city or it is coming here and we are not getting credit for it. that is the second thing. the assessment that was done was faulty and did not take into other south bay marine as. my personal boats is an oyster

point. we are very open to solutions. sorry for speaking so fast. three minutes those in a real hurry. for the boats that do not go out, the port is now in the small craft harbors in business, a tremendous revenue generating plant would be to be able to -- the folks that want to be a part of the south beach harbor, make it available, use some underutilized port facility to pull the boats out. at a western point, there is an additional charge if you want to live aboard your boat.

the last thing, a sliding scale. this is a publicly owned facility. a sliding scale would go a long way in addressing -- we have some retired folks. there is a lot more discussion that needs to happen. talk to people who are it marina businesses. to expand what it is support is providing coverage thank you very much. >> you already spoke, but our rules are that you cannot speak

again. >> commissioners, i have been a partner in a sailboat at south beach harbor for seven years. under the proposed parking plan, my partner will get a free parking pass he will never use because he does not use the boat. i will have to pay $600 for a special parking permit unless my partners pass is transferable. i would like to say this about other partnerships. there are many partnerships and this marina. some consisting of three or four families.

they take a weekend of the month to enjoy these waters. the well-being of these diminished partners is not protected by the port's parking proposal. unless the single permits can be transferred among the minor partners, to use the boat. south beach marina -- there are 670 holders. there is approximately 406 hundred minor partners. we're talking about a community of 10001100 people at that are

not represented -- 1100 people that are not represented by the advocates of south beach harbor, which is an organization that represents 150 people. proper notice has not been given to the community at large. i am asking what everybody else is asking. the 1000 people affected by the decision by the commissioners and the port be noticed of what is going on. i further prayed the commission will entertain an amended parking plan were all partners are treated as equal financial

players and not as cash cows, the 500 people that are not represented in this proceeding that somehow they get proper notice of what is going on and that the transference of the parking permit among the owners of the boats be addresseduñó%!. i read your e-mail and it did not clarify who exactly could use the permit. >> thank you. >> i have one more thing. >> your time is up, i am sorry. [applause] any other comment? >> thank you for allowing me to comment on what is going on. >> please identify yourself.

>> i have a slick at south beach harbor. i have been here for almost 30 years. i have a sailboat. what i see here is when i became a tenant, i signed a lease and included the i would get a slip and parking. i have been paying for that ever since. now we are talking about taking the parking away, reducing my services, increasing my face, and putting electrical services. i think this is unfair, it could be considered illegal. if you are going to reduce my services, why are you increasing the fees? i happen to be a homeowner and the rent part of my house. if i took away the garage from a tenant, he would call that a reduction in service and i would

have to reimburse them somehow for that reduction. in this case, i am not getting that fair shake. all the tenants better currently -- that are currently renting slips have not been given the opportunity to discuss these issues with the port commission. that is unfair and we have to have more dialogue and we have to have more representation so that we can be treated fairly. [applause] >> any further public comment? >> i have to open my mouth to represent the sailors. i am a nurse, my husband is retired. we have a spectacular privilege to sell out.