body,date,page,text,path
LibraryBoard,2008-02-13,1,"CITY
OF
TERKA
Minutes of the
ALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY BOARD MEETING
February 13, 2008
The regular meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board was called to order at 7:02 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Leslie Krongold, President
Karen Butter, Vice President
Ruth Belikove, Board Member
Mike Hartigan, Board Member
Absent:
Alan Mitchell, Board Member
Staff:
Jane Chisaki, Library Director
Marsha Merrick, Recording Secretary
President Krongold opened the meeting with a moment of silence for Lois R. Hanna, life-long
Library supporter, who had recently passed away. Board and public members present shared
some short stories and memories of Ms. Hanna. The family has requested that memorial
donations in Ms. Hanna's name be directed to the Friends of the Library.
CONSENT CALENDAR
An asterisk indicates items so enacted and adopted on the Consent Calendar.
A.
*Report from Library Director highlighting Library Department activities for the month of
February 2008. Accepted.
B.
*Draft Minutes of the Regular Library Board meeting of January 9, 2008. Approved.
C.
*Library Services Report for the month of December 2007. Accepted.
D.
*Report from Finance Department reflecting FY 2007-08 Library expenditures (by fund)
through January 2008. Accepted.
E.
*Bills for ratification for the month of January 2008. Approved.
Vice President Butter thought Internet log-ins would be much higher than numbers reflect.
Director Chisaki had double checked those numbers herself, and speculated that because these are
December statistics, holidays, etc. had brought the total down. Butter went on to ask about
getting newer books at the branches. Director Chisaki explained there is an automatic best seller
purchasing program and the branch libraries are taking advantage of that.",LibraryBoard/2008-02-13.pdf
LibraryBoard,2008-02-13,2,"Page 2 of 4
Minutes of the Alameda
Free Library Board Meeting
February 13, 2008
President Krongold asked about statistics for the new Russian and Japanese storytimes that are
run by volunteers. Director Chisaki said these had just recently started and no statistics were
available yet. These numbers will be reflected as ""International Storytimes"" on future Library
Services Reports.
Audience member Marc Lambert questioned Reference statistics at the Main Library that took a
huge jump from the previous year. Director Chisaki explained that the new Main had just opened
and that's why they were down in December 2006. Overall, nation-wide reference questions have
been dropping and there is some discussion on discontinuing this count, however, most feel it is
still valuable information to track.
Member Belikove asked about the recently held Environmental Change program; she had not
been aware that there was one going on and wondered if publicity had been done for the event.
Director Chisaki confirmed that the press had been informed and it was seen in the papers, and
went on to describe a little bit about the program content.
President Krongold asked for a motion to accept the Consent Calendar as presented. Vice
President Butter so moved; Member Belikove seconded the motion which carried by a 4-0 vote.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)
Marc Lambert, as a Foundation representative, attended a City sponsored non-profit fund raising
workshop presented by Zimmerman Lehman. Mr. Lambert thought it very beneficial and a good
networking opportunity as well. There will be additional sessions held which he also hopes to
attend. Luzanne Engh had attended the workshop as the Friends representative.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.
Strategic Planning Committee (J. Chisaki)
Director Chisaki described the make-up of the group and talked about recruiting more
members to better cover all areas of Alameda and also get a good ethnic representation.
After a bit of discussion, the Board came up with several good ""leads"" to pursue, so
Chisaki will follow-up. The planning committee's timeline will be included with the next
month's board packet. On future Board agendas, this item will be moved down to New
Business with Member Hartigan designated to report on the committee's progress.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
Library Board Meeting Room & Time (J. Chisaki)
Director Chisaki outlined options for future Board meetings due to the Library's open
hours changing. The meetings can continue to start at 7:00 p.m. if they are held in one of
the downstairs public meeting rooms, allowing after-hours access. The meetings can be
held in the upstairs administrative conference room if they started at 6:00 p.m. and ended
by 8:00 p.m. which is closing time on a Wednesday night.",LibraryBoard/2008-02-13.pdf
LibraryBoard,2008-02-13,3,"Page 3 of 4
Minutes of the Alameda
Free Library Board Meeting
February 13, 2008
The Board decided to give the 6:00 p.m. start time a try for the March 12 meeting to see
how it goes. Vice President Butter and Member Belikove both stated at this time they
would not be in attendance at the March meeting due to other commitments.
B.
PLF Resolution (J. Chisaki)
A resolution had been written by the current president of the BALIS Systems Advisory
Board for libraries to sign and submit to Governor Schwarzenegger, urging him to fully
fund the PLF. Vice President Butter moved to support the resolution; Member Hartigan
seconded and all were in favor with a 4-0 vote. Director Chisaki indicated that she will
move it along and also pass the PLF information on to the Friends and Foundation.
C.
Art Exhibit Committee (R. Belikove)
Member Belikove reported that the Foundation voted to supply up to $9,000 for
purchasing and installing art hanging hardware. The request of funding for rolling panels
was denied, but could be re-visited at a future date. The committee had met the previous
day to discuss the upcoming Alameda Art Association show, slated to start in early March.
Four more shows have been requested by various artists/art groups, including the ""Wood
Museum of History"" scheduled for April. The contractor the Foundation uses has already
been by to walk the building and will install the art hanging hardware for a nominal cost.
Committee member Peggy Williams brought in a local artist who is very experienced with
hanging items, and he will help staff member David Hall with that process.
D.
Alameda Free Library Foundation (A. Mitchell)
Member Mitchell was absent and Marc Lambert reported that most of the Foundation
news had been covered in the Director's letter to the board.
E.
Friends of the Alameda Free Library (M. Lambert)
Marc Lambert reported that the Friends membership is increasing. A year ago, there were
212 members, and now they are up to about 400. Lambert reminded the Board that Café
gift certificates are available for purchase, and the Café's food selection has been
expanded with salads and sandwiches. The next newsletter will be coming out soon.
F.
Patron suggestions/comments (Speak-Outs) and Library Director's response.
A request was made for the option of paying library fees and fines on-line; an e-commerce
module could be added, however, that would be dependent on Library budget constraints.
Sunday sing-a-longs for 0-3 year olds was requested; the Library only hosts the program,
and can't expand the number of times it is offered, however, in March, Sunday family
storytimes will start. Why do DVD's have a sticker that says ""do not put in book drop""
when that is where they are supposed to go; these stickers were from a time when these
items could not be put in the book drop, and staff is searching for an appropriately sized
label that will cover these stickers, but not too much of the DVD cover art.",LibraryBoard/2008-02-13.pdf
LibraryBoard,2008-02-13,4,"Page 4 of 4
Minutes of the Alameda
Free Library Board Meeting
February 13, 2008
LIBRARY BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
There were no communications from the Board.
DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS
The ""Paws to Read"" program has been a great success. Director Chisaki passed around pictures
of the children reading to the dogs. There are discussions currently going on to bring the program
in for an additional 6-week period. Tutor.com statistics show very high usage of the on-line
homework help program. Chisaki read some of the user comments for the Board. Chipman
Middle School had ""Bring a Parent to School Day"" and Teen Librarian, Karin Lundstrom, had a
table at the event. She talked to a lot of parents and pushed Tutor.com, handed out booklists and
met face to face with some of the Library's problem kids and their parents. All in all it was a very
positive experience. Chisaki talked a little about Day in the District that she had attended along
with Marc Lambert, Honora Murphy and Rebecca Kozak on January 25th. The meeting rooms
have been very busy lately, and there have been several incidents of meeting room users taking
the café chairs and tables to use. Chisaki requested an okay from the Board to post meeting room
use rules in the rooms which will include direction to not take the café furniture. The Board was
in favor of this request and urged Chisaki to go ahead with the posting.
ADJOURNMENT
President Krongold asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:38 p.m. Member Belikove so
moved; Vice President Butter seconded the motion which carried by a 4-0 vote.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane Chisaki
Library Director and
Secretary to the Library Board
This meeting's agenda was posted 72 hours in advance in accordance with the Brown Act.",LibraryBoard/2008-02-13.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2008-02-13,1,"Minutes of the Regular Public Art Commission Meeting
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Conference Room 360, City Hall
CONVENE:
7:05 p.m.
1.
ROLL CALL:
Chair Huston, Vice-Chair Lee, Commissioners Rosenberg
and Wolfe
STAFF PRESENT:
Jon Biggs, Planning Services Manager; Tony Ebster, Recording
Secretary
2.
MINUTES: Minutes for the meeting of October 25, 2007
Approved with changes, all in favor
Minutes of November 29, 2007
Approved with changes, all in favor
3.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
Mr. John Sanchez was interested in what the Commission does.
It was suggested that the agenda be rearranged and the ordinance discussion be last because
it would be better understood after discussing the other topics first.
4.
REGULAR AGENDA:
4-A.
(Formerly 4-E) Public Art Commission Administration and Enforcement
Ms. Huston and Ms. Lee reported on their meeting with the Mayor. The three main points were:
1. Using the public art funds for the grants was in competition with the public arts use. 2. The
public art commission is independent, not under control of the planning department and 3. That
they are advisory, not an action commission.
Mr. Wolfe stated that as soon as a project becomes official, the Public Art Commission should
be notified.
Ms. Huston asked for a list of all projects operating under a temporary certificate of occupancy.
Ms. Huston mentioned that people are going directly to City Council and asking to bypass the
process. She wants to know where they are letting this happen.
Ms. Rosenberg said that it's the Mayor and planning's right to bypass the process but does an
injustice to the public art enrichment and enjoyment.
Mr. Wolfe mentioned that developers have dealt with enough commissions and do not want to
deal with another one.
Ms. Lee asked if there should be more of a connection between what their obligation is and
what the check was.",PublicArtCommission/2008-02-13.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2008-02-13,2,"Ms. Huston mentioned enforcement and accountability. They feel that they are not succeeding.
They want to find out why this is happening. Once they get it documented, they can amend the
ordinance. She mentioned having fewer meetings and spending more money on public art. Its
about finding the money and projects.
Ms. Rosenberg said that the reason they are not seeing the projects is because they have not
been approved.
Ms. Huston mentioned Bay Ship and Yacht and that they had a lawsuit with the City and their
application was lost. They had been exempted from the art requirement. She wants to talk
about changing the ordinance. She said that Ms. Woodbury had some changes because when
a developer submits proposals to the commission, they are often operating under temporary
certificates of occupancy. It's too late in the process. Ms. Huston expressed concern with the
design.
Mr. Wolfe mentioned talking with the City attorney
Ms. Rosenberg wants a timeline for how planning works.
Ms. Huston asked what in ordinance allows developers to get a temporary certificate of
occupancy before fulfilling the public art requirement. She asked if staff could ask Ms.
Woodbury about having a discussion about this issue. How do they fix that problem?
She brought up enforcement and said that she could only speak to Bridgeside. She explained
what happened. The Mayor said that it is not enforceable. She suggested making them pay in-
lieu fees.
Mr. Wolfe wants a time frame regarding Bridgeside noncompliance and their discussion with the
attorney and Ms. Woodbury's response to their inquiry.
Mr. Biggs reminded the commission that they are a quasi-judicial body and to exercise caution
with enforcement, especially with individuals. Applicants are entitled to due process. He
suggested that the proper way to enforce non-compliance is to inform staff of deficiencies. It is
staff's obligation to make sure the applicant is in compliance.
Ms. Rosenberg mentioned the efficacy of their program.
Ms. Huston said that Bridgeside is an example and should be used as an example of how to
enforce. They have no means by which they can inform them. She feels that they are doing a
good job on many levels. But they need an open policy so they can respond to all the projects
on an ongoing basis.
Mr. Wolfe mentioned that there are no medallions at Alameda Towne Centre.
Ms. Huston said that the request for information is an on-going one and what she would like to
do is incorporate the stream of information so that they have a record of all projects and wants
to track where the money is going.
Ms. Rosenberg suggested creating a checklist for the applicant so they can see what is checked
off to make sure the progress is documented for enforcement.
2",PublicArtCommission/2008-02-13.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2008-02-13,3,"Mr. Biggs responded by saying that the best way to achieve these things is to make sure certain
conditions of approval are complied with at key steps in the process.
Ms. Lee said that she feels that the commission is nipping at the heels of the developers.
Ms. Rosenberg pointed out that temporary certificates of occupancy come really easily and can
go for a long time.
Mr. Biggs mentioned having checkpoints in the process.
Ms. Huston said that what happens in the application process is that planning gets the
application and decides if it is ok. Bridgeside was ok with planning but has never been ok with
the commission.
Ms. Rosenberg felt that there are generalizations that are detrimental to the process. She
thinks that planning does not understand what the commission's requests are.
Ms. Huston mentioned two aspects, infrastructure and art-based. It's about the review process.
They need to trust staff. Is the space going to work for its intended purposes? She said that
staff might not be qualified to judge artwork; the commission may need to take part. There are
going to two parts of the review process, an art commission part and a planning part.
Mr. Biggs said that what they are working towards is reviewing it together.
Ms. Huston wanted an outline that has a timeline of completion.
Ms. Rosenberg said that she doesn't want a timeline because sometimes projects can be
delayed.
Mr. Biggs said that they would not look at a project after it goes in because it has been
approved. It is staff that makes sure the project is done according to the plans.
Ms. Rosenberg asked if there was a way to make sure that staff sees the details.
Mr. Biggs said that they are working on a system that notifies the inspector and he verifies that
certain things are in place or contacts the planner to verify.
Ms. Huston said that enforcement is not the commission's business.
Mr. Biggs reiterated that they are not an enforcement body. He said that if the commission
notices something that wasn't done correctly, they need to notify staff.
Ms. Rosenberg mentioned that creating an assessment process that helps advise planning
would be helpful.
Ms. Lee clarified by saying that the commission should have systematic review everything that
is being done.
Mr. Biggs clarified that his suggestion wasn't for them to go out and look to verify approvals; it
should be used as guidance for reviewing future projects.
3",PublicArtCommission/2008-02-13.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2008-02-13,4,"Ms. Rosenberg said that whatever makes things work more smoothly will help them be a more
successful commission.
Mr. Biggs said that there are too many projects and levels of review.
Mr. Wolfe said they need to be careful when they review projects and asked if they see the
recommendation before City Council sees it.
Ms. Rosenberg said that they review the recommendation.
Ms. Huston said that they get sent out before the commission sees it. She mentioned that it is a
problem with the ordinance. She said that staff sends their recommendation to the applicant
and Council before the commission sees it.
Mr. Wolfe said that an applicant comes in, the commission reviews their application and
comments, then staff makes a written comment or recommendation then it goes to City Council.
Ms. Lee said that they review all the components.
Mr. Biggs expressed some confusion and tried to explain his understanding of the process.
Ms. Huston suggested talking about it under its topic.
4-B. (Formerly 4-D) Public Art Fund
Ms. Huston asked about it because it is the first part of finding out where the money is going.
She questioned the amount in the public art fund.
Mr. Biggs clarified by saying that the commission should find out which projects have paid an in-
lieu fee, the amount of money and the running balance.
Ms. Rosenberg asked if there were plans for the money. Do they have expenses? She
suggested putting it on the agenda to discuss if there is a use for the money.
Mr. Wolfe asked if they should look at a physical plan of where potential sites would be.
Ms. Lee suggested a systematic plan for artist selection and how they would advertise.
Mr. Wolfe asked if it was appropriate to use some of the money to hire a consultant to help with
the plan, to look at sites and the process, and engage artists in the arts program.
Ms. Lee mentioned that the revamping the City's website should include an art section.
Ms. Rosenberg recalled a discussion that talked about creating a project when they had enough
money. They would ask for artists submittals, public opinion and develop a request.
Ms. Lee wants a procedure in place before spending any money.
Ms. Huston said that there is a brief outline regarding how they could spend the money. She
asked about agendizing a discussion the purchase of public art.
Ms. Huston ""The expenditure of funds towards the placement of public art""
4",PublicArtCommission/2008-02-13.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2008-02-13,5,"Mr. Biggs reminded the commission that the City Council has to approve any expenditure of
funds towards public art and that the commission should develop a recommendation.
Ms. Huston mentioned some of the steps they have so far. Calling for public input, finding a
site, and research and place art. She suggested keeping in mind that they will be expending
money and to consider the ordinance.
4-C. (Formerly 4-B) Validity of Performance Arts as Fulfilling Public Art Requirements.
Ms. Huston feels that it is difficult to enforce performance spaces for fulfillment of the art
requirement and questions eliminating it from the ordinance.
Ms. Lee suggested that the next projects be tangible things to see.
Ms. Rosenberg said that they don't have enough experience dealing with that and feels that the
cap hinders the ability to provide a quality performance space.
Ms. Huston said that they are all feeling the same on the performance aspect and should
approach future projects with caution in the future.
Mr. Wolfe has an issue with respect to diversity. He mentioned that there have been two other
performance spaces that have come to the commission and wonders how many more they
need. He thinks that a quota may be helpful in limiting how many developers ask for a
performance space as the public art requirement.
Mr. Biggs responded by saying that it is ultimately up to the commission. They have the
discretion to approve or deny a project.
Ms. Rosenberg suggested a moratorium or a hold on a project until they determine if it is
feasible.
Mr. Biggs does not want to see the door closed on what may be coming down the line. Even if
they propose eliminating performance art from the ordinance, the City Council may still like to
see it retained as an option.
Ms. Huston stated that the commission has approved two events-based projects out of five and
will be reluctant to approve more in the future.
Mr. Wolfe agreed with Ms. Huston and added that the intent is to create a diverse collection of
art and performances and suggested that for the next year, they would prefer to approve non-
performance based public art.
Mr. Biggs suggested following the agenda topic more specifically.
There was a motion to recognize that performance art can satisfy public art requirements;
however, they would be concerned about approving future performance art proposals given the
number that have already been approved and their desire to see a more diverse mix of public
art.
All were in favor.
5",PublicArtCommission/2008-02-13.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2008-02-13,6,"4-D. (Formerly 4-A) Public Art Ordinance
Ms. Huston read from the report and liked the ideas.
Mr. Wolfe said that he and Ms. Lee looked over the ordinance and looked at other surrounding
communities' ordinances and what they say about public art contributions.
Ms. Lee brought up the discussion she had in the subcommittee and that they wanted to
eliminate the cap. They thought that it might be politically unfeasible to eliminate the cap but
raising it might be an option.
Ms. Huston brought up her meeting with the mayor and people from City Council. Three issues
came up in the meeting; first was eliminating the cap, second was creating explicit language
that would require space developments to contribute 1% for each space and the third was
reviewing which residential projects are eligible for contribution and considering expanding the
scope.
Ms. Rosenberg didn't want to put the burden of public art on developers who were building less
than five units but anything more than that they should be subject to the requirements.
Ms. Huston wanted to look at the list of every project over $250,000 to see what kinds of
developments are happening. She asked if it is something that should go to the City Attorney to
see if they can add or change the language of the ordinance to deal with phased development.
Mr. Biggs clarified that phased projects were larger developments.
Mr. Wolfe pointed out that neither San Francisco nor Oakland has a cap or a private contribution
requirement.
Ms. Huston's thought on eliminating the cap is that they are the advocates in the system and
that they should let the people who have a better understanding for the business side deal with
it but the commission recommends eliminating the cap. They would also welcome Ms.
Woodbury's input on the timing and any thoughts she would have that would facilitate the
improvement of the ordinance.
Mr. Biggs recommended asking staff to draft an ordinance that would incorporate the changes
being discussed.
Ms. Lee read from the ordinance and pointed out that no more than 25% of the art fund was to
be used for administrative costs.
Ms. Huston pointed out that the commission doesn't know what is happening. She is arguing
that accountability is an issue.
Mr. Wolfe said that Oakland's percentage is 36%.
Mr. Biggs clarified that the 25% of the fund covers everything from administrative costs to
having the lights on. It is for overall operating costs.
Ms. Huston read from the ordinance regarding the submission of applications.
6",PublicArtCommission/2008-02-13.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2008-02-13,7,"Mr. Biggs clarified that the applicant is always included in the loop of communication regarding
their application and recommendations.
Ms. Rosenberg brought up that they are not entirely clear on the process of inspecting and the
progression of the project and the criteria that ensures diversity.
Mr. Biggs clarified that the planning department is involved in all aspects of the process and that
there is a set of guidelines.
Ms. Huston asked if there was anything else in the ordinance that was working against them.
The commission agreed that the cap was the main issue.
Ms. Huston mentioned the money in the art fund. She also read from the ordinance about the
requirement of art being on the actual site. She said that they have a new set of problems
regarding the in-lieu fee.
Mr. Biggs asked if they wanted to include a motion to include the recommended changes to the
ordinance.
By consensus, the Commission asked staff to draft an ordinance that included the discussed
changes and agendize for the next meeting.
4-E.
(Formerly 4-C) Discussion of the 2007-2009 Public Art Plan
Ms. Huston wanted to eliminate item three and they are working on item two of the attached
chart. She wanted to propose to Council the expenditure of the in-lieu fund to public art. She
asked if the money taken for administrative costs was taken when the money first comes in.
Ms. Rosenberg suggested putting no numbers on it until the accountability issue is resolved.
Mr. Wolfe clarified the proposal by saying that it is about the expenditure of in-lieu funds.
Ms. Lee asked about spending money on consultants and if that is part of the 25% of the
administrative costs.
Ms. Huston said that the annual plan is ok and doesn't need to be detailed.
Ms. Rosenberg stated that the creation and maintenance of a web resource keeps coming up in
their conversations as a high priority.
Ms. Huston looked at the chart and the order of the items.
The commission discussed the items on the chart for the public art plan, reprioritized and talked
about eliminating some of the items that were not priorities.
4-F. Set Date for Next Meeting
The commission set March 12, 2008 as the next meeting of the Public Art Commission.
5.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
7",PublicArtCommission/2008-02-13.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2008-02-13,8,"Mr. Biggs said that planning staff had visited the Bridgeside shopping center and confirmed that
the amphitheater was not in compliance and was not graded to the approved plans. Staff is
working with the developer to bring them into compliance.
6.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
None
7.
COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS:
Ms. Huston resigned as the Chair of the Public Art Commission.
6.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting adjourned at 9:07 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Jon Biggs, Secretary
Public Art Commission
8",PublicArtCommission/2008-02-13.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2008-02-13,1,"a
MINUTES OF
RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION
MEETING OF FEBRUARY 13, 2008
2226 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
(510) 747-7529
DATE:
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
TIME:
7:00 p.m.
PLACE:
Room 360, City Hall, Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street, Alameda, CA
94501
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Terri Ogden, Vice Chair Joe Restagno, Commissioners Michael
Cooper, Jo Kahuanui, Bill Sonneman
Absent:
None
Staff:
Dale Lillard, Director
Patrick Russi, Recreation Supervisor (RS)
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of January 10, 2008 Recreation and Park Commission Meeting.
M/S/C
KAHUANUI/COOPER
(unanimously approved)
""That the Minutes of January 10, 2008 Recreation and Park Commission Meeting are
approved.'
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.)
Commissioner Sonneman stated that Miracle League was going to try and attend tonights
meeting to provide an update. Miracle League and Catellus are working on a fundraiser
with the A's to help provide funds to build on the Coast Guard Field. Director Lillard stated
that the fundraiser can be promoted in the summer brochure.
4.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None
- 1
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes - Wednesday, February 13, 2008",RecreationandParkCommission/2008-02-13.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2008-02-13,2,"5.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
Annual Review and Adjustment of Fees for Recreation and Parks -
(Discussion/Action Item)
Discussion was held regarding the review and adjustment of Recreation and Park fees.
Commissioner Kahuanui recommended that the Sports Field Use fee for AUSD and sports
leagues/groups of $500 should be included on the fee schedule. Director Lillard stated that
most of the leagues/groups do not pay the fee. Most groups/leagues (e.g., softball, little
leagues, etc.) use the services in lieu of fees option. Soccer Leagues do pay the fees.
Commissioner Sonneman stated that he would prefer that AUSD not pay fees to use a
public field. It often becomes a fundraiser for the coach to be able to use the field.
Commissioner Cooper asked what the fee was for the Church to use the Veteran's
Building. Director Lillard stated that he would have to look for the information.
Commissioner Cooper stated that he would like to go on record as suggesting that the fees
for the Church to use the Veteran's Building be substantially raised.
Chair Ogden asked staff to provide a list of who is using the Veteran's Building and the fees
that are being paid by the various groups. Director Lillard and RS Russi stated that they
would provide the information to the Commission.
M/S/C
SONNEMAN/KAHUANUI
(unanimously approved)
""That the following fee increases be approved:
Adult Softball
-
Men's League
$715 Resident Team Fee (10 games)
$765 Non-Resident Team Fee (10 games)
$765 Resident Team Fee (12 games)
$815 Non-Resident Team Fee (12 games)
Aquatics
-
Swim Lessons
$25 for 1/2 hour Private Lessons
-
Public Swim
-
Youth Resident
$2
-
Youth Non-Resident
$3
-
Adult Resident
$4
-
Adult Non-Resident
$4.5
-
Swim Team Use Fee
$13/hr/Youth
$14/hr/Adult
2-
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg
Minutes - -Wednesday, February 13, 2008",RecreationandParkCommission/2008-02-13.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2008-02-13,3,"Buildings
-
Recreation Centers
$45/hr Alameda Non-Profit Mtgs.
$55/hr Alameda Non-Profit Activities
$90/hr Private Rental (Resident)
$115/hr Private Rental (Non-Resident)
Grounds
-
Picnics
$100 Cleaning Deposit for groups of 100 or more
Youth
-
Day Camp
$155 Trails End (1/wk session)
(Due to transportation costs)
-
Preschool
$4.65/hr Tiny Tot (Preschool)
Director Lillard informed the Recreation & Park Commission that the budget for the next
two year cycle (FY 2008-2010) will be very tight. Budget cuts are not known at this time,
but additional information will be provided as received.
6.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.
Discussion of Topics for Future Joint Meeting with Council - (Discussion Item)
Director Lillard stated that based on the last meeting the Commission suggested discussing
with Council completed projects, in addition to sports complex, pool, and Coast Guard
Field. Director Lillard will check with Clerk's office for available dates and times to meet.
Commissioner Sonneman suggested discussing Alameda and Encinal High Schools sports
fields. Director Lillard asked if they were considering a synthetic field. Commissioner
Sonneman stated that AUSD is considering the idea and that there may be enough funds
for Encinal High School, but not enough for Alameda High School. He feels this should be
a coordinated effort with the school, city, and user groups (e.g., soccer, little league, etc.).
Commissioner Sonneman suggested putting the possible coordination of efforts/funds to
possibly install a synthetic field at Encinal and Alameda High Schools. Director Lillard
stated that he would add it to the list.
7.
REPORTS FROM RECREATION COMMISSION AND RECREATION AND PARK
DIRECTOR
A. Park Division
See February 11, 2008 Activity Report.
Godfrey Park Field Renovation is completed. Recreation Commission provided many
positive comments regarding the renovation.
Rittler Field Renovation will be deferred until after July 1, 2008.
- 3 -
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg
Minutes - -Wednesday, February 13, 2008",RecreationandParkCommission/2008-02-13.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2008-02-13,4,"9.
ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA
10.
SET DAY FOR NEXT MEETING
Thursday, March 13, 2008
11.
ADJOURNMENT 7:53 p.m.
- 4 -
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg
Minutes - -Wednesday, February 13, 2008",RecreationandParkCommission/2008-02-13.pdf