body,date,page,text,path
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-05-12,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Thursday, May 12, 2005
The meeting convened at 7:35 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-B
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Mataresse, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
Public Comment on Agenda Items Only.
One speaker slip from Helen Sause, however she was not present.
3.
CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
4.
PRESENTATION
4-A. Presentation/Update on Alameda Point Navy Negotiations and Land Use Planning.
Stephen Proud briefed the Board on two different fronts: 1) the Navy conveyance process, and 2)
the land planning effort. A proposal has been submitted to the Navy - they wrote a counter
proposal that we responded to which is under consideration right now with them. We're hoping
to have an official response from the Navy by the end of June and that coincides with Alameda
Community Partners election to proceed timeline.
Mr. Proud gave a brief overview of the May 7, 2005 Community Meeting, commenting that staff
is pleased with the community's continued participation in the planning process and there was a
lot of good feedback. The next community workshop is June 8th at Mastick. The next step would
be to come back to the ARRA board with a copy of the preliminary development concept for the
regular July ARRA meeting.
Member Mataresse requested that a section be included that has a summary of compliance with
the General Plan amendment, compliance with the Economic Development Strategic plan and
compliance with other relevant plans, for that preliminary development concept that will be
coming back in July.
1",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-05-12.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-05-12,2,"5.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5-A. Provide Direction to the Acting Executive Director regarding the term of the lease
extension for Building 613 Sublease Agreement between the ARRA and Alameda
Point Collaborative.
Debbie Potter requested direction on a sublease between the ARRA and APC for building 13
which is currently being used as an office to house the Red Cross. She gave a brief history of the
lease and requested extension thru Dec 31, 2006 SO that it coincides with the overall development
plan for Alameda Point. Several representatives from APC spoke in support of a lease extension
until 2012, including Doug Biggs and Jim Franz.
In response to Member Matarrese regarding the time frame for development of that parcel, Bill
Norton replied that plans are for the Navy to turn that property over to the City at the end of
2006. Stephen Proud, Alameda Point Project Manager, also noted that if we reach an agreement
with the Navy and the developer at the end of 2006, infrastructure and geotechnical work would
start in 2007
After discussion from Boardmembers regarding the timing of development, Chair Johnson
advised that it would make more sense to have the shorter term now and consider a longer term
when we know more at the end of Dec 2006, supporting staff recommendation.
Staff recommendation accepted and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes-5; Noes-0
Abstentions-0
5-B.
Study Session of the FY 2005-06 ARRA Budget
Bill Norton, acting Executive Director, introduced this item with an overview of Part 1 of the
Budget Study Session. Leslie Little, Development Services Director, presented Part 2 - a
summary of the FY 2005-06 ARRA Budget - by walking the Board through the staff report. She
discussed overriding issues: the pro forma and the development assumptions at Alameda Point.
Member DeHaan raised the question regarding $1.8M that should be absorbed back into the
general fund. Bill Norton confirmed Member DeHaan's comments and advised the Board of a
new proposed budget for 05-06 for all city funds, including the general fund, noting that
revenues for different departments are down and we have accounted for this in our budget for the
next fiscal year.
There was brief discussion about the storage of surplus equipment the Navy left for the City.
Leslie noted some plans for the surplus equipment, including an auction to raise funds. She then
discussed the organizational structure for the Development Services Department, namely the
Base Reuse and Redevelopment Division - where 4 staff members are paid from the ARRA
Budget. Leslie discussed Building One tenants: Development occupies the entire 2nd floor; the
Alameda Development Corporation which maintains a 2nd floor office; and a storage room for
the Navy's records. Public Works, Fire Prevention and Information Technology occupy the first
floor and balance of the building.
2
L:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA)MINUTES\2005\May 12. Special ARRA.minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-05-12.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-05-12,3,"Leslie discussed the employee positions and vacancies in the department and how they fit
together with the three budget categories: Community Development, ARRA, and the CIC.
Municipal Services funding was noted in length, with Member Daysog requesting a separate
report/background information on the mitigation fund.
Bill Norton advised that there are still negotiations with the developer upcoming and if the
developer exercises their notice to proceed, they will make direct cost recovery payments, until
we have a disposition and development agreement, to DSD and the general fund.
Member Matarrese advised that we have to be prepared for the developer not exercising their
right to proceed, and that if we are able to segregate general fund obligations from ARRA fund
obligations, that would be the foundation for making a decision on anything less than the best
case scenario. Leslie Little concluded her presentation.
6.
ORAL REPORTS
6-A. Oral report from APAC.
There were no representatives from the APAC to give a report.
6-B. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Member Matarrese gave a brief overview of the last RAB meeting he attended.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
(Any person may address the governing body in regard to any matter over which the
governing body has jurisdiction that is not on the agenda.)
8.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
9.
ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER:
9-A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties:
ARRA, U.S. Navy, and Alameda Point Community Partners
Under negotiation:
Price and Terms
9-B. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties:
ARRA and U.S. Navy
Under negotiation:
Price and Terms
Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any.
10. ADJOURNMENT
3
L:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA)MINUTES(2005\May 12. Special ARRA.minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-05-12.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-05-12,4,"Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 9:54 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
4
L:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA)MINUTES\2005\May 12. Special ARRA.minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-05-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-12,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
THURSDAY - -MAY 12, 2005- -5:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 5:10 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
[Note: Councilmember Matarrese arrived at 6:30 p.m. ]
Absent :
None.
Agenda Items
(05-223)
Recommendation to approve an Agreement with Meyers, Nave,
Riback, Silver and Wilson for consultation services on City
Attorney contract negotiations.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what the cost and projected hours
would be for the consultation services.
Mayor Johnson responded the cost and projected hours would depend
upon what the Council requests.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what was the hourly rate, to which
the Assistant City Attorney responded $250.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether $250 per hour was the norm,
to which the Assistant City Attorney responded the rate was not
outside the norm and was within the realm of legal services costs
today.
Mayor Johnson stated that she expected the rate to be higher.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she thought the rate would be in the
$300 to $350 per hour range.
Mayor Johnson stated that the rate is reasonable; that there are no
fixed duties.
The Acting City Manager stated that the Council could provide the
outside attorney with a scope of work and inquire how many hours
would be anticipated.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there was a charge for
today's meeting with the outside attorney, to which the Mayor
responded in the affirmative.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
May 12, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-12,2,"Councilmember Daysog inquired what the outside attorney could do
that the Council could not do.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Council does not provide attorney
services the City Attorney would have a conflict of interest in
advising the Council on her contract.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval the recommendation predicated
on further discussion of the scope of work in closed session.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that a discreet
number of issues are of concern; that he was not clear on the
conflict.
Mayor Johnson stated there would be a conflict if there are legal
issues; requested further explanation from the Assistant City
Attorney.
The Assistant City Attorney stated if Council asks a legal question
regarding interpretation of any provision of the City Attorney' S
contract or requests the contract be approved as to form, there
would be a conflict; the City Attorney would not be able to provide
information [legal advice] another attorney's services would be
necessary.
Mayor Johnson noted that Council has to hire an attorney to sign
[approve the form of ] the City Attorney's contract.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the City of Oakland requested the
City of San Francisco to comment on whether the Oakland City
Attorney position should be an elected position.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Council needs to understand and
clean up the mechanisms of the contract, and ensure the contract
language is legal.
Mayor Johnson stated when the contract has been changed on a
routine basis, outside attorneys have signed [approved the form of ]
the contract without communicating with the Council, which is not a
very good procedure.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the Council is requesting more
detailed information.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the Council is trying to determine
the history of the current situation and review salary scales; an
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
May 12, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-12,3,"outside attorney would need to sign off on [approve as to form] the
contract if Council wanted to give the City Attorney a raise.
Mayor Johnson stated the entire contract should be reviewed; the
Council needs to know whether a new contract or an addendum to the
existing contract would be needed if the Council wanted to give the
City Attorney a raise.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he did not have a problem with
proceeding.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like to protect the
Council's bargaining prerogative; there could be some matters of
interpretation in the course of bargaining; inquired whether the
outside attorney would be a go-between for the Council.
Mayor Johnson responded the Council would define the outside
attorney's role.
The Assistant City Attorney stated that the City Attorney directly
represents the Council; the proposed Agreement [with Meyers, Nave,
Riback, Silver and Wilson for consultation services] would be
executed by the City Attorney's office.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Assistant City Attorney had a
copy of the Agreement.
The Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated
only the City Attorney can hire outside attorneys under the City
Charter.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the meeting tonight is the result
of a review of the City Attorney's budget; that he wants to process
to maintain the Council's prerogative.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Council maintains all prerogatives
and would not give up anything.
Councilmember Daysog noted an outside attorney involved could have
a possible conflict; stated that he does not want an outside
attorney to encroach on budget issues.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she did not realize that an
Agreement was already drafted; that she does not want to agree to
something that she has not reviewed.
Mayor Johnson stated that she would like to review the scope of
work in the Agreement inquired who drafted the Agreement.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
May 12, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-12,4,"The Assistant City Attorney responded Mr. Hartinger drafted the
Agreement.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she thought that the Council was
meeting to agree to hire an outside attorney and that the scope of
work would be determined later; that she does not want her second
to the motion to be considered as an approval of the Agreement.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Council should not sign an Agreement
without reviewing the scope of work; inquired whether the Council
could make a motion to authorize the City Attorney to sign the
Agreement hiring the outside attorney to work with the Council and
finalize the Agreement when the scope of work is determined.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the motion could be made in
open or closed session, to which the Assistant City Attorney
responded the motion must be made in open session.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the scope of work would still need
to come back to the Council.
The Assistant City Attorney stated that the Council's agenda is to
consider hiring an outside attorney to help with labor negotiations
regarding the City Attorney's contract; the outside attorney would
be the labor negotiator in closed session; the City Attorney would
have a direct conflict in advising the Council on interpretations
regarding her contract.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the scope is in paragraph 1 of Mr.
Hartinger's letter [proposed Agreement].
The Assistant City Attorney stated that the scope of service is
very narrow.
Mayor Johnson stated that the scope can always be changed and looks
fine; the Council could have the outside attorney do as little or
as much as requested.
The Assistant City Attorney stated retainers are not normally paid
to outside counsel.
Mayor Johnson suggested the retainer and the late payment
provisions be removed; stated the Agreement should be left as is to
allow the Council flexibility; outside counsel would not perform
any services the Council does not want.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she would like Mr. Hartinger to
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
May 12, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-12,5,"review all documents [City Attorney contract and amendments)
provide a history of the current situation, and advise the Council
regarding moving forward with yearly amendments or bundling all the
previous amendments into one contract.
Mayor Johnson stated that her first intention is to get legal
advice.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like to begin
negotiations with the City Attorney first.
Mayor Johnson stated that negotiations cannot be initiated because
the Council needs legal advice.
Councilmember Daysog stated outside counsel might not be necessary ;
if
issues were not resolved during negotiations, then
interpretation would be needed.
Mayor Johnson stated that she is not comfortable with initiating
negotiations until there is a better understanding of the contract. ;
inquired whether the retainer and late payment provisions could be
removed from the Agreement.
Mr. Hartinger responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Daysog stated negotiating directly with the City
Attorney should be the Council's prerogative; inquired whether Mr.
Hartinger had any comment on the Council requesting his assistance
on interpreting aspects of the negotiations.
Mr. Hartinger stated the matter should be discussed at the right
time; direction should be given in closed session.
Councilmember deHaan moved to approval of the Agreement, with the
modifications to remove the retainer and late payment provisions.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Council is giving up any
prerogative by entering into the Agreement, to which Mr. Hartinger
responded in the negative.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what happens when there is a conflict
of interpretations.
Mr. Hartinger responded Council should trust the [outside]
attorneys it hires or seek another opinion and discharge the
attorney.
Mayor Johnson stated the ultimate way to settle legal disputes is
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
May 12, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-12,6,"to go through the courts; that she hopes that the Council would not
get into said situation.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the vote might take the Council to
unintended destinations.
Vice Mayor Gilmore concurred with Councilmember Daysog but stated
the matter could be discussed in closed session.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Council has complete control.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the language should be
clarified to: ""advising and/or representing the City Council.
""
Mayor Johnson suggested the language in the scope remain as is,
except for the addition of ""as directed by the Council"" at the
end.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what would fall within ""additional
matters"" in the scope of engagement.
Mr. Hartinger responded ""additional matters"" is a catchall phrase
if the Council requested him to do something else.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Agreement would not have to be
reopened to have Mr. Hartinger do something else.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the modified motion [to approve the
Agreement, with modifications to remove the retainer and late
payment provisions], which carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes : Councilmembers deHaan and Gilmore, and Mayor Johnson - 3.
Noes : Councilmember Daysog - 1. [Absent Councilmember Matarrese -
1. ]
The Assistant City Attorney stated that the City Attorney hires all
attorneys under the City Charter the City Attorney is hiring the
outside attorney to advise the Council regarding interpretation of
her contract.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Council is authorizing the City
Attorney to sign the Agreement as discussed and whether the outside
attorney would work for the Council.
The Assistant City Attorney responded that the outside attorney
would not work for the Council; the City Attorney controls all
legal counsel under the City Charter; the City Attorney is on the
hook for the legal advice given.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
May 12, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-12,7,"Mayor Johnson stated that she is not sure the Council needs legal
advice on hiring an attorney; that she does not agree that the City
Attorney has control over what the outside attorney would do.
The Assistant City Attorney stated that the City Attorney would
hire the outside attorney to interpret the City Attorney' S
contract.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Council has directed the City
Attorney to sign the Agreement with changes; inquired whether there
would be a problem.
The Assistant City Attorney stated any additional matters for which
the Council requests [outside counsel's services would have to go
through the City Attorney.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Assistant City Attorney had any
problem with the modified Agreement that the Council directed the
City Attorney to sign.
Councilmember Daysog stated Mr. Hartinger's letter [Agreement ] is
addressed to the City Attorney; the word ""you"" refers to the City
Attorney.
Mayor Johnson stated that the second ""you"" in paragraph 1 refers to
the City Council; the Council needs to determine Mr. Hartinger's
intention; the City Attorney would have a conflict of interest if
the outside attorney working for the Council had to go to the City
Attorney for advice.
The Assistant City Attorney stated that the scope is very narrow;
the Council would need to stay within the scope.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether ""you"" in the sentence ""provide legal
services for additional matters that you request... refers to the
Council or City Attorney.
Mr. Hartinger stated the Agreement is addressed to the City
Attorney; the City Attorney is the conduit through which retention
would occur.
*
Mayor Johnson called a recess at 5:47 p.m. and reconvened the
Special Meeting at 6:30 p.m.
(05-224) - Adjournment to Closed Session to consider : Conference
with Labor Negotiators Agency Negotiators Arthur Hartinger of
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
May 12, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-12,8,"Meyers, Nave, Riback Silver and Wilson; Employee : City Attorney.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that the Council discussed the City
Attorney contract and gave direction to the Negotiator.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
May 12, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-12.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-05-12,1,"MINUTES OF
RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION
ALAMEDA
RECREATION & PARKS
MEETING OF May 12, 2005
1327 Oak St., Alameda, CA 94501
(510)747-7529
DATE:
Thursday, May 12, 2005
TIME:
7:00 p.m.
PLACE:
City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Ave., Third Floor, Room 360
Alameda, CA 94501
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Jay Ingram, Vice Chair Jo Kahuanui, Commissioners Christine
Johnson, Georg Oliver, Bruce Reeves
Staff:
Dale Lillard, Acting Director (AD)
Christa Johnson, Assistant to the City Manager
Absent:
None
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approve Minutes of April 14, 2005 Recreation and Park Commission Meeting.
M/S/C
REEVES/KAHUANUI
(approved)
In Favor (3) -
Ingram, Kahuanui, Reeves
Absent (2) -
Johnson, Oliver (came in late)
3.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, AGENDA
(Any person may address the Commission in regard to any matter over which the
Commission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the agenda.)
4.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Letter from Justine Highsmith offering to donate new stock photography for use in
the City's photo bank.
1
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-05-12.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-05-12,2,"5.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
Presentation of Facility Photos/Inventory - (Information Only Item)
Justine Highsmith, Senior at Clayton Valley High School, as a senior she needed to do a
community project for school and she chose Alameda because she thinks it's a charming
City. She worked with the Recreation and Park Department and took pictures of its various
facilities. Ms. Highsmith took approximately 1,000 photos and narrowed it down to 300
pictures that were put on a CD and presented to the Commission.
Ms. Highsmith provided a Power Point presentation of the photos to the Recreation and
Park Commission.
B.
Proposed Recommendation to Provide Additional Parking (Neptune Park) for
Independence Plaza Residents - (Discussion/Action Item)
Mike Pucci, Housing Authority Executive Director, requested additional parking for
Independence Plaza residents by using part of Neptune Park. The area that will be used
will have little impact on Neptune Park. Neptune is not a well used park. It is a gateway to
the City and any parking built there will have minimal impact on the visibility of the parking
lot. There will be berms around the parking lot with extra landscaping to hide the cars.
The Federal Government placed a deed restriction on Neptune Park when it was
transferred to the City. The deed restriction limits the use of the land to parkland, but the
governemnt will lift the restriction if additional parkland of equal value is put in its place.
The Board of Commissioners (who are City Council) recommend that the deed restriction
transfer to the EBMUD property adjacent to Towata Park. The funds would come from the
Open Space fund.
AD Lillard stated that the EBMUD property, in its current condition, is not actual usable park
space.
Mr. Pucci stated that it is being proposed that the deed restriction be place on the Parrot
Mini-Park. The Housing Authority would continue to maintain the park.
Commissioner Reeves asked if the parking would be strictly for Housing Authority and
Housing Authority employees. Mr. Pucci stated that it would be only for residents in
buildings 707 and 711.
Chair Ingram asked if the original funding for the project was going to be paid for by
refinancing Parrot and Eagle Village but that plan did not go through because of what
Council did. Mr. Pucci stated we were going to pay for EBMUD property through
refinancing of Parrot and Eagle Village, but the parking lot itself will be paid through
reserves from Independence Plaza.
2
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-05-12.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-05-12,3,"Chair Ingram asked if the refinance funds will be used for the parking lot. Mr. Pucci stated
no. Plans for the proceeds will be spent on Parrot and Eagle Village and other complexes.
Housing Authority reserve funds will be used for the parking lot.
Commissioner Reeves stated that what the deed restriction means is that they will never be
able to tear down the play area and put in more housing which is a benefit to the City.
M/S/C
JOHNSON/OLIVER
(approved)
""That the Recreation and Park Commission recommend to City Council the
following:
1.
Request the National Parks Service to release the deed restriction on
approximately 10,500 square feet of Neptune Park in exchange for an
equivalent sized parcel at the Bay-Eagle Community Garden to meet the
needs of Independence Plaza residents; and
2.
Authorize the Recreation and Parks Acting Director to enter into lease
agreements with the Housing Authority for exchange of these two parcels
for an annual rent of $1 to be paid and received.""
Approved (5):
Ingram, Johnson, Kahuanui, Oliver, Reeves,
C.
Increasing the Composition of the Recreation and Park Commission from Five
to Seven Members - (Discussion/Action Item)
AD Lillard stated that recently the Golf Commission was expanded from five to seven
members by the City Council. In the next few years there will be a lot of new development
with Bayport Park, etc. and the thought is that it would be good to have a larger cross
section, additional input, and help with the future development.
The request is to increase the Recreation and Park Commission from five to seven
members. Most neighboring commissions (San Leandro, etc.) and most City Commission's
already have seven members with the recent exception of the Golf and Recreation and
Park Commission's.
Further discussion was held by Commissioner's.
M/S/C
KAHUANUI/REEVES
(approved)
""That the Recreation and Park Commission be increased from five to seven
members.""
Approved (4):
Ingram, Kahuanui, Oliver, Reeves
Opposed (1):
Johnson
3
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-05-12.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-05-12,4,"D.
Proposed Reorganization of the Public Art Advisory Committee -
(Discussion/Action Item)
AD Lillard stated that due to the current budget situation and shortages of staff that may
occur in the next couple of months, staff/City will be reviewing who the PAAC reports to.
PAAC may become a stand alone Commission that reports directly to Council to streamline
the process and help the Department's involved. This will be a very difficult year with
regard to budget. It may be more efficient to have PAAC report directly to Council and it
will also eliminate bureacratic slow downs.
M/S/C
OLIVER/KAHUANUI
(approved)
""That Recreation and Park Commission accept the proposed reorganization of the Public
Art Advisory Committee.""
Approved (4):
Ingram, Johnson, Kahuanui, Oliver
Opposed (1):
Reeves
6.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.
Status Report on the Sports Advisory Committee's Recommendation
regarding Field Use Fees - (Discussion Item)
AD Lillard stated that staff has met with the Sports Advisory Committee and have come to
an agreement for a Field Use Fee. The plan will be formally presented at the June
Recreation and Park Commission Meeting.
The suggested agreement is that there will be a minimum field charge of $500 per season,
with a cost of $3 per child after the minimum. There is still the option, at ARPD's discretion,
for the groups to work off the fee. Groups will have to verify the cost and value to the City
for any work performed. If the groups do not complete their assessment before the end of
the season they will not get permits for the next year until the debt is cleared. ARPD will
place the dollar value on any of the work that is done by the groups.
Commissioner Reeves stated that he will not be at the next Commission Meeting (June),
but wanted to make it clear that he does not want the private/special interest groups
dictating to the Commission that they want to do projects and the Commission has to
accept them and they are worth a specific amount of money set by the groups.
7.
REPORTS FROM RECREATION COMMISSION AND RECREATION AND PARK
DIRECTOR
A.
Park Division
See attached Activity Report.
4
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-05-12.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-05-12,5,"B.
Recreation Division
See attached Activity Report.
C.
Mastick Senior Center
See attached Activity Report.
D.
Other Reports and Announcments
1.
Status Report on Alameda Point Golf Course Design Committee (Vice Chair
Reeves)
No new information to report at this time.
2.
Status Report on Alameda Point Advisory Committee (APAC) (Chair Ingram)
Chair Ingram stated that APAC had their 5th out of 6 meetings scheduled for public input
regarding Alameda Point. The meeting was well attended (approximately 70 people in
attendance). There is one more evening public meeting on Wednesday, June 8, at Mastick
Senior Center.
3.
Status Report on Transportation Master Plan Committee (Commissioner
Johnson)
No new information to report at this time.
8.
STATUS REPORT ON ONGOING PROJECTS
AD Lillard stated that a community meeting was held regarding the Leydecker Park
Playground renovation.
9.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL
Chair Ingram stated that American Tower went before the Planning Board regarding their
request for a tower at Upper Washington Park. American Tower will install a couple of
picnic tables and benches down the third baseline toward home plate since that area is
hard to irrigate.
Chair Ingram asked if the Joint Meeting between the Council and Recreation and Park
Commission is still being planned. AD Lillard stated yes, the City Clerk is still trying to
schedule a meeting this month (May).
Chair Ingram asked if the City was in on the Boys and Girls Club building their new facility
at Woodstock School. AD Lillard stated that he had not heard anything.
5
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-05-12.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-05-12,6,"10.
ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA
AD Lillard stated that the following would be on the next agenda:
-
Bayport Park and Community Building Plans.
-
A request to place a mobile coffee dispensing business at Lower Washington
Park.
11.
SET DAY FOR NEXT MEETING
Thursday, June 9, 2005
12.
ADJOURNMENT 9:40 p.m.
6
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-05-12.pdf