questions. so the $2 million bond discussion, is that something that is going to happen and do swre that calendar? >> we actually, the general manager of the recreation department is here and i am sure that he will be able to speak to that item. >> great. >> and maybe i will just finish asking you a couple of questions and i noted that there are probably some people here, i don't know from the lake merced task force who are going to speak to this as well but i remember asking i believe it was last year, a year ago, probably for what the rec and park plan is as it relates to sort of the concession of the rfps and the financials and whatnot. and i assume that is what is part of the plan that is presented. >> yes, the concession management and that will be part of the package and so i think that he will be able to

respond to that question. >> great, i am curious when we will hear a greater level of detail on what the actual work plan will be moving forward. >> great. eif you address those two questions, that would be great, thank you. >> thank you, scott james, general manager, and the parks department and first of all we are grateful for this commission and department staff for your partnership and a number of properties that we work together and to provide the activities which is our joint and shared mission, we worked closely with the department and the department staff over a number of months

and we have viewer feedback and the veriable amount of fee back to reach and formalize a refresh which we are comfortable with and pleased to be here today. with respect to the two questions, that you raised commissioner, one bond planning, we have begun in earnest our 2012, park bond planning it is 185 million bond with two million assigned to the lake merced and there have been staff meetings as we have done with the different sites to prepare for it and we have an assessment happening some time early in the fall and we will begin the community stake how older process shortly there after. >> great. and so what was the process be or role for this condition? would it be one community engagement process is further along, would you come back and say is this the priorities that the community came up with? >> we will definitely keep this commission in the loop.

and i am happy to come back here and report the progress and i am sure that the pc department staff will participate in the community out reach process as we allocate it is not a lot of money, and we have it from the task force already and the facilities of an assessment of what is happening i am pleased to note that it will be augmented by a grant that the recreation department obtained from the department of building ways to enhance some of the recreational access to north lake and that will be part of the over all package and we are happy to keep the commission informed. >> maybe it is for the general manager.

>> the financial resources secured for the recreational planning and the concession contracts and all of those lingering questions that we keep hearing about as a commission. >> i understand that there have been some vocal advocacy and communication about it and i think that it is important that we all focus on what is happening in the future, whether those perceptions are, or whether those observations are perceptions or fact and it does not need to be resolved, the fact of the matter is that we have a very good partnership of the puc and the part department and we have a recreational program at the lake right now. and it is happening right now. we came when we were there and we were presented in may, we gave you a pretty detailed overview of the recreational programming that we are doing there. and with regard to the concessions, most of the concession activity is actually

at harding which is very, very low established and i think that an update on that could go in whatever annual report but one particular concession that people are interested in is the boat house and an update on the boat house is that the property management team has started to identify potential opportunities. and based on community feedback to support the water recreation and hopefully some fishing and so the staff has started to work on that process and to identify the potential prospects and this is something that they require that the pec will play a role and participate in that future process. >> great. >> yeah. i mean, i am not as interested right now in the details of them, or each an update of what it will report back on and the annual budgeting pieces and rec and park. >> did most of those, but right now, quit well, in the mlu and i think that we will get to a little bit of a deeper dive i think in may we came here and

presented what the maintenance is on the lake. we have the partnership between the commission and our staff and among the community. and there is a broad community that uses and enjoys the lake and they don't come to commission meetings. and we are actually doing a robust programming out there and that pga considers harding to be one of the best golf courses in the united states of america and we are excited to have opportunities out there and the department of water ways and the state agency has entrusted it with a half a million dollars of grant funding to approve the water

front access out there and the feedback and from the park users has been quite exceptional on the programming that we are doing there and so we have work to do and we appreciate this commission's responsibility fiduciary responsibility to see what is happening at the lake but i actually think that if we focus forward we are on the right track in a professional manner >> thank you. >> any other questions? >> i have a question. >> commissioner caen? >> on the topic of the boat house, and facilities there, have you ever thought about private funding? i think of the graduate of the schools, to me i just happened to think of it, that that might be a way to go and we will have the extra money for other things, and not just the bond issues has that ever been considered? >> i think that the clubs have actually been great stewards of the lake and they have expressed some degree of interest of it and we did work with the clubs a number of

years ago to replace one of the docs out there and that was a combination of public and private funding and some of the events and activities that could happen at the boat house and weddings and special events could help to generate some revenue but i do believe that there are some topic opportunities there. and you know, we do a considerable amount of work with the community, commissioner, and you know we do have to, we do try to prioritize our programs with a very small partnership for development staff. but, that would be something that we would certainly welcome the opportunity and the partnership of the community and i think that the community has very justifiably been interested in seeing the boat house interested again and seeing and expanding their opportunities for fitness and exercise, and support you know, that incredible sport which we are doing and maybe we can move on to other projects.

>> good. >> a couple of things, to commissioner caen's comment, you know, it is probably not the subject of today's meeting the long term, i think that the people who are using the boat house, have some desires to have a replacement facility. and they also have a desire to have more control over what goes on in that facility. and i think that in one way, that there are tremendous alumni organizations for the rowing clubs and i think that if they will strengthen their position i think that it is a contribution to recreation in the city and also city government if, you know, a group were to form to come up with some money to develop the new boat house and provide for those opportunities. >> so any way, i would like to

second that, i think that that line of thought is very positive as we go forward. and second comment is just a procedural one, i think, the two amendments that mr. ritchie talked about are intended to. provide a degree of accountability and transparency that i know a lot of the community folks have been asking for we would like to when we get to the public comment, period, i would like the comments to address the item presented and also the amendments and if there is a procedural step we need to do and move the item and move the amendment then i will do that. if we can just do it by it, but i would like the comment to address the mlu and the potential amendments to improve the accountability. >> that is a very good point, in addition of the two other s

and they prefer that vice president present his and so that we have all of the amendments in front of us before we go to a vote. >> okay. >> thank you very much, president torres. we have been talking about the lake for a long time and i actually grew up on the west side and so i am very familiar with that space and the boat house. and i think that one of the problems that we have is that there is we don't take credit when we should be taking credit. like stop and the intimate relationship with the staff and we represent a number of the employees that represent to the general manager and the general manager is failing to acknowledge that over sees a unique program and i met with tommy and agm and cruise the other day and we talked about the communities that we have here at the public utilities commission to engage community youth and under served

communities in interns. >> they have actually sat with the union and sat with that state certified board and over seen those things and he has done that because, not because he had to. he has done that because he cares about it being successful. and so before we let an opportunity slip away, to address this, i would like for the colleagues to consider the amendment and goes under the joint responsibilities and it will read like this. joint responsibility number 6, to evaluate and possibly implement the opportunities for apprentice ship and community workforce training and education programs. and what that would do is that would open the door for us in faout thank youersinger,

the public utility commissions the same programs that they did before us. and because i think that when you talk about the department heads, who clearly understand the needs of the community and the needs of the career pathway, for these deserving youth, there is nobody that understands it better than harman and kelley. >> i proposed amendment. >> all right. >> council have a copy of that? >> i was from the city attorney's office and i was handed that language and i move that the language that he read at the beginning of the meeting is also available and in a printed copies over on table over there. and that would be an amendment to number one in section e of

the mlu to replace the language that is there by adding the general managers will jointly provide an annual report to the commissions no later than november 15, for each year, the mlu is in place, and covering the work program completing, and sources and use of funds. concession management and facility condition and replacement needs and activities and so those are the two proposed and two of the joint responsibilities of sfpec and the ripd. >> all right. >> there is a further proposed amendment that rithcie read and it is before the commission and

it is to section b. of the mlu. and that is, to provide that in the sentence that is being amended that this mlu may be amended and renewed for additional terms up to 5 years each with the approval from the san francisco public utilities commission and the rec and park commission after receiving input from the public, and that is instead of having future extensions of the term being approved by the general managers it will come back to the commission in five years for reconsideration. >> is that clear to everyone? >> all right. >> yes? >> a couple, and i want to... i will step down and i just want to respond to commissioner courtney's amendment and let you know that the recreation rec and part is comfortable with the remarks. and maybe i can conclude and he

reminded me to focus on what is right if we took a step back and look at what is happening at the lake. and we have an opportunity to work for us there and in the house and doing workforce development program for the first of the ever state certified god ner program. we have 1,000 hours of volunteer time a year, we have a robust water front programming happening and because of it together, we are about to reopen and reprogram the boat house. we have maybe, this country's best public golf course and we have two million dollars of capitol investment. and there is as we look forward and i know that there has been a period of time where it has been felt by the community that whether the recreation park department or the commission and the rest have not met our responsibilities out there, i am here to say that we are very, very focused on this

treasured asset. and in facility. yes, commissioner caen? >> i have a suggestion for the amendment to the mlu. >> all right. >> that is under, c2. which is the level of the lake. when the lake fell to the unacceptable levels and that should never happen again and i was reviewing this resolution in 1950. and it was 10,485. and in that resolution, they said, that the lake had not dropped below 27 feet. and i don't know where the lake is now, but i think that in this section of c2, and we talk about the level of the lake, there could be a level to which

it should not fall under. under which it should not fall. >> whatever. >> minimum. >> right. >> i hear you. >> we had this discussion before and we had in the hearing and we had it here and now we have it again and there were some variable. and >> first i would like to speak to that and also, to what i discussed in the prior meeting about how we are looking at the lake level in the future. the lake level, there are things called datums which are a thing of a player reference for the elevations and so there was an old staff gauge that i don't think anybody can find and that is where the 27 number came from and we have converted all of them in the city to a city datum and 27 in 1950, is the same as 9 and a half right now. and that is the conversion between the two. currently, the lake actually is being managed, not being

managed it is naturally, level in the five to six foot range and we are in the daily city through the project to evaluate the levels between 9 and a half feet and where is the optimum level and what is the most maintain able and the one that will have the least and the least positive effect and so we will do that now and because it has changed substantially since 1950. at this point, it changed from the 27 old data that when we will be looking at and bringing to the commission as part of the package of activities a proposal for a new datum, excuse me, a new, elevations because it does not stay static on the single elevation and it moves up and down from time-to-time seasonally, and even they have it from

time-to-time. and this is just as quick, we met with the stake holders relative to the lake level last week and we had a constructive meeting with them and one of the things that i committed to allen who will get up and speak and that we will have a new staff gauge that shows the city datum so the people will be able to see physically what the lake level is and no question about it. >> once that is established do we insert that in the mlu. >> yes, very well. >> all right. >> are you, public comment, then? >> mr. allen.

>> >> i enjoy a rec and park and i have been since i was a rug rat and we had a great rec department there and we all played on the play land and so i am comfortable with that. and we seem to be caught in the redundancy cycle here. and i keep thinking how could we get out of it? and i don't know how to get out of it and i was hoping that at the last minute, after listening to the comments, that i could just take my prepared comments and if i don't stutter, it is going to be a little under three minutes. and i was hoping not to have to give this. but, i am afraid that i have to go forward. so, please bear with me.

it should be rejected because it does not meet your conditions for approval. and these conditions, are at the commission meeting may 11th, 2012. and we specifically ask rec and park for the following information. a long term recreational plan, how financial resources would be secured, how to implement the water shed report, the rec and parks should come back and explain the role as the management of the boat house. i looked at it today and... rec and park is bigger than the two rooms for the (inaudible) that are going to be using the exercise room. i find that mind bogling. >> and unfortunately the proposed mlu language, that you are being asked to approve,

will continue to extend the management confusion at the lake and create false expectations, and compromise, salute, performance and accountability. and increased risk of additional cost to tax and rate payers and under mind the public trust because the proposed mlu language reflects the failed language carried over from the 1950, mlu. the request by the board of supervisors over six years ago for the revised lake merced between rec and park had been ignored by rec and park until just recently. listed are several active examples why the proposed third mlu that continues to support joint department management of the lake should be rejected. first, it was in a short period of time that the very simple,

jointly managed boat house renovation project by rec and park and the puc, this $400,000 over the budget, and 6 months behind schedule. the taxpayers expense. second, fishing is a very popular form of recreational activity and lake merced is stocked with fish annually and to promote the fishing, in california, fish and game schedules two free fishing days annually. and however, for the past several years rec and park department has not announced or promoted the free fishing day schedule at the lake, why is this? >> and third and i am almost finished. >> the $566,000 water shed report paid for by the san francisco utility rate payers was released to the public, january 2011, this report strongly recommended that both storage for the community be

expanded at the lake. and the rec and park department has made no effort to act on that recommendation, why? >> this is in spite of the written claims to for the lake. the joint power has not worked for a number of decades, and please reject the lake merced mlu for the third time thank you. >> gary allen, are you related to dik? >> no. my name is mary allen and i am a member of the sf, crowing club, in fact i run it. >> i would like to tell you about our facility and we have our boats are stored underneath the restaurant behind a huge

iron corrugated door, that is opened by pulling on a chain that is attached and engaged by a gear that is about 20 pounds, and it is about 12 inches in diameter, all right? and this door, and the gear mechanism has not been maintained in 25 years, that i have had experience out there. as far as i know. well, august, 8th, 2011, one of our members was opening the door by pulling on the chain, and the gear is mounted up above at about ten feet high and another member, was standing to the right of her, and just watching. and the shaft of the gear

broke, and the gear is 20 pounds, and it fell and hit the other members, and hit the other member on her head. and factoring her... (inaudible) she could have been killed but she was not. and the reports were filed about this accident, and one was filed by the member who was hit, the victim, and the other or another what is filed by the witness who was opening the door at the time. and another report was filed by the head guard, and chuck, she who is now retired. and the one july ninth, 2013, property manager from park and

rec and his assistants came out to delay the site inspection, which was simply just counting of all of the boats so that we could be build properly for our storage fees. i told him about the accident... >> >> no, no. the gear was fixed. >> the woman that you are referring to and was a few days late she did not want to sue the city, they wanted reimbursement for the medical expenses. >> the city denied her claim. >> when was it fixed? >> it was fixed immediately. >> all right. >> however, i told tom heart about the accident, and about how it was fixed, that the

people that fixed it said that it was inspected and maintained about every month. >> like an elevator. >> right. >> and it has never been inspected since. >> and that was two years ago that this accident occurred. any way. >> i told tom heart about the accident and he said that he did not know anything about it. how could you not know anything about it? this is a big deal. >> it was a big deal to me because i have personally known this person and a friend of hers for the last ten year and we served together on a ballet board and when i heard her story i could not believe it. >> any way, what i am telling you is that how can a manager not hear about this accident and not come out or have the people come out to inspect this

gear and the door mechanism on a regular basis so that this does not happen again, i am telling you also that there are two doors like this, one door, and enters into our area, where we store our boats. and the other door is in another area where there are children coming in on a daily basis to get their life jackets so that they can go kayak on the other lake. this needs to be taken care of. >> absolutely. >> i told tom that we need to have this inspected and maintained. >> you should tell him that. >> and on july ninth. >> of this year. >> of this year. >> and his response was? >> and he said that he would file a work order. >> and? >> i never heard anything. >> did he say anything about the work order that he filed? >> i't