{"body": "LibraryBoard", "date": "2008-02-13", "page": 1, "text": "CITY\nOF\nTERKA\nMinutes of the\nALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY BOARD MEETING\nFebruary 13, 2008\nThe regular meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board was called to order at 7:02 p.m.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nLeslie Krongold, President\nKaren Butter, Vice President\nRuth Belikove, Board Member\nMike Hartigan, Board Member\nAbsent:\nAlan Mitchell, Board Member\nStaff:\nJane Chisaki, Library Director\nMarsha Merrick, Recording Secretary\nPresident Krongold opened the meeting with a moment of silence for Lois R. Hanna, life-long\nLibrary supporter, who had recently passed away. Board and public members present shared\nsome short stories and memories of Ms. Hanna. The family has requested that memorial\ndonations in Ms. Hanna's name be directed to the Friends of the Library.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nAn asterisk indicates items so enacted and adopted on the Consent Calendar.\nA.\n*Report from Library Director highlighting Library Department activities for the month of\nFebruary 2008. Accepted.\nB.\n*Draft Minutes of the Regular Library Board meeting of January 9, 2008. Approved.\nC.\n*Library Services Report for the month of December 2007. Accepted.\nD.\n*Report from Finance Department reflecting FY 2007-08 Library expenditures (by fund)\nthrough January 2008. Accepted.\nE.\n*Bills for ratification for the month of January 2008. Approved.\nVice President Butter thought Internet log-ins would be much higher than numbers reflect.\nDirector Chisaki had double checked those numbers herself, and speculated that because these are\nDecember statistics, holidays, etc. had brought the total down. Butter went on to ask about\ngetting newer books at the branches. Director Chisaki explained there is an automatic best seller\npurchasing program and the branch libraries are taking advantage of that.", "path": "LibraryBoard/2008-02-13.pdf"}
{"body": "LibraryBoard", "date": "2008-02-13", "page": 2, "text": "Page 2 of 4\nMinutes of the Alameda\nFree Library Board Meeting\nFebruary 13, 2008\nPresident Krongold asked about statistics for the new Russian and Japanese storytimes that are\nrun by volunteers. Director Chisaki said these had just recently started and no statistics were\navailable yet. These numbers will be reflected as \"International Storytimes\" on future Library\nServices Reports.\nAudience member Marc Lambert questioned Reference statistics at the Main Library that took a\nhuge jump from the previous year. Director Chisaki explained that the new Main had just opened\nand that's why they were down in December 2006. Overall, nation-wide reference questions have\nbeen dropping and there is some discussion on discontinuing this count, however, most feel it is\nstill valuable information to track.\nMember Belikove asked about the recently held Environmental Change program; she had not\nbeen aware that there was one going on and wondered if publicity had been done for the event.\nDirector Chisaki confirmed that the press had been informed and it was seen in the papers, and\nwent on to describe a little bit about the program content.\nPresident Krongold asked for a motion to accept the Consent Calendar as presented. Vice\nPresident Butter so moved; Member Belikove seconded the motion which carried by a 4-0 vote.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)\nMarc Lambert, as a Foundation representative, attended a City sponsored non-profit fund raising\nworkshop presented by Zimmerman Lehman. Mr. Lambert thought it very beneficial and a good\nnetworking opportunity as well. There will be additional sessions held which he also hopes to\nattend. Luzanne Engh had attended the workshop as the Friends representative.\nUNFINISHED BUSINESS\nA.\nStrategic Planning Committee (J. Chisaki)\nDirector Chisaki described the make-up of the group and talked about recruiting more\nmembers to better cover all areas of Alameda and also get a good ethnic representation.\nAfter a bit of discussion, the Board came up with several good \"leads\" to pursue, so\nChisaki will follow-up. The planning committee's timeline will be included with the next\nmonth's board packet. On future Board agendas, this item will be moved down to New\nBusiness with Member Hartigan designated to report on the committee's progress.\nNEW BUSINESS\nA.\nLibrary Board Meeting Room & Time (J. Chisaki)\nDirector Chisaki outlined options for future Board meetings due to the Library's open\nhours changing. The meetings can continue to start at 7:00 p.m. if they are held in one of\nthe downstairs public meeting rooms, allowing after-hours access. The meetings can be\nheld in the upstairs administrative conference room if they started at 6:00 p.m. and ended\nby 8:00 p.m. which is closing time on a Wednesday night.", "path": "LibraryBoard/2008-02-13.pdf"}
{"body": "LibraryBoard", "date": "2008-02-13", "page": 3, "text": "Page 3 of 4\nMinutes of the Alameda\nFree Library Board Meeting\nFebruary 13, 2008\nThe Board decided to give the 6:00 p.m. start time a try for the March 12 meeting to see\nhow it goes. Vice President Butter and Member Belikove both stated at this time they\nwould not be in attendance at the March meeting due to other commitments.\nB.\nPLF Resolution (J. Chisaki)\nA resolution had been written by the current president of the BALIS Systems Advisory\nBoard for libraries to sign and submit to Governor Schwarzenegger, urging him to fully\nfund the PLF. Vice President Butter moved to support the resolution; Member Hartigan\nseconded and all were in favor with a 4-0 vote. Director Chisaki indicated that she will\nmove it along and also pass the PLF information on to the Friends and Foundation.\nC.\nArt Exhibit Committee (R. Belikove)\nMember Belikove reported that the Foundation voted to supply up to $9,000 for\npurchasing and installing art hanging hardware. The request of funding for rolling panels\nwas denied, but could be re-visited at a future date. The committee had met the previous\nday to discuss the upcoming Alameda Art Association show, slated to start in early March.\nFour more shows have been requested by various artists/art groups, including the \"Wood\nMuseum of History\" scheduled for April. The contractor the Foundation uses has already\nbeen by to walk the building and will install the art hanging hardware for a nominal cost.\nCommittee member Peggy Williams brought in a local artist who is very experienced with\nhanging items, and he will help staff member David Hall with that process.\nD.\nAlameda Free Library Foundation (A. Mitchell)\nMember Mitchell was absent and Marc Lambert reported that most of the Foundation\nnews had been covered in the Director's letter to the board.\nE.\nFriends of the Alameda Free Library (M. Lambert)\nMarc Lambert reported that the Friends membership is increasing. A year ago, there were\n212 members, and now they are up to about 400. Lambert reminded the Board that Caf\u00e9\ngift certificates are available for purchase, and the Caf\u00e9's food selection has been\nexpanded with salads and sandwiches. The next newsletter will be coming out soon.\nF.\nPatron suggestions/comments (Speak-Outs) and Library Director's response.\nA request was made for the option of paying library fees and fines on-line; an e-commerce\nmodule could be added, however, that would be dependent on Library budget constraints.\nSunday sing-a-longs for 0-3 year olds was requested; the Library only hosts the program,\nand can't expand the number of times it is offered, however, in March, Sunday family\nstorytimes will start. Why do DVD's have a sticker that says \"do not put in book drop\"\nwhen that is where they are supposed to go; these stickers were from a time when these\nitems could not be put in the book drop, and staff is searching for an appropriately sized\nlabel that will cover these stickers, but not too much of the DVD cover art.", "path": "LibraryBoard/2008-02-13.pdf"}
{"body": "LibraryBoard", "date": "2008-02-13", "page": 4, "text": "Page 4 of 4\nMinutes of the Alameda\nFree Library Board Meeting\nFebruary 13, 2008\nLIBRARY BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nThere were no communications from the Board.\nDIRECTOR'S COMMENTS\nThe \"Paws to Read\" program has been a great success. Director Chisaki passed around pictures\nof the children reading to the dogs. There are discussions currently going on to bring the program\nin for an additional 6-week period. Tutor.com statistics show very high usage of the on-line\nhomework help program. Chisaki read some of the user comments for the Board. Chipman\nMiddle School had \"Bring a Parent to School Day\" and Teen Librarian, Karin Lundstrom, had a\ntable at the event. She talked to a lot of parents and pushed Tutor.com, handed out booklists and\nmet face to face with some of the Library's problem kids and their parents. All in all it was a very\npositive experience. Chisaki talked a little about Day in the District that she had attended along\nwith Marc Lambert, Honora Murphy and Rebecca Kozak on January 25th. The meeting rooms\nhave been very busy lately, and there have been several incidents of meeting room users taking\nthe caf\u00e9 chairs and tables to use. Chisaki requested an okay from the Board to post meeting room\nuse rules in the rooms which will include direction to not take the caf\u00e9 furniture. The Board was\nin favor of this request and urged Chisaki to go ahead with the posting.\nADJOURNMENT\nPresident Krongold asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:38 p.m. Member Belikove so\nmoved; Vice President Butter seconded the motion which carried by a 4-0 vote.\nRespectfully submitted,\nJane Chisaki\nLibrary Director and\nSecretary to the Library Board\nThis meeting's agenda was posted 72 hours in advance in accordance with the Brown Act.", "path": "LibraryBoard/2008-02-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2008-02-13", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Public Art Commission Meeting\nWednesday, February 13, 2008\nConference Room 360, City Hall\nCONVENE:\n7:05 p.m.\n1.\nROLL CALL:\nChair Huston, Vice-Chair Lee, Commissioners Rosenberg\nand Wolfe\nSTAFF PRESENT:\nJon Biggs, Planning Services Manager; Tony Ebster, Recording\nSecretary\n2.\nMINUTES: Minutes for the meeting of October 25, 2007\nApproved with changes, all in favor\nMinutes of November 29, 2007\nApproved with changes, all in favor\n3.\nORAL COMMUNICATION:\nMr. John Sanchez was interested in what the Commission does.\nIt was suggested that the agenda be rearranged and the ordinance discussion be last because\nit would be better understood after discussing the other topics first.\n4.\nREGULAR AGENDA:\n4-A.\n(Formerly 4-E) Public Art Commission Administration and Enforcement\nMs. Huston and Ms. Lee reported on their meeting with the Mayor. The three main points were:\n1. Using the public art funds for the grants was in competition with the public arts use. 2. The\npublic art commission is independent, not under control of the planning department and 3. That\nthey are advisory, not an action commission.\nMr. Wolfe stated that as soon as a project becomes official, the Public Art Commission should\nbe notified.\nMs. Huston asked for a list of all projects operating under a temporary certificate of occupancy.\nMs. Huston mentioned that people are going directly to City Council and asking to bypass the\nprocess. She wants to know where they are letting this happen.\nMs. Rosenberg said that it's the Mayor and planning's right to bypass the process but does an\ninjustice to the public art enrichment and enjoyment.\nMr. Wolfe mentioned that developers have dealt with enough commissions and do not want to\ndeal with another one.\nMs. Lee asked if there should be more of a connection between what their obligation is and\nwhat the check was.", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2008-02-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2008-02-13", "page": 2, "text": "Ms. Huston mentioned enforcement and accountability. They feel that they are not succeeding.\nThey want to find out why this is happening. Once they get it documented, they can amend the\nordinance. She mentioned having fewer meetings and spending more money on public art. Its\nabout finding the money and projects.\nMs. Rosenberg said that the reason they are not seeing the projects is because they have not\nbeen approved.\nMs. Huston mentioned Bay Ship and Yacht and that they had a lawsuit with the City and their\napplication was lost. They had been exempted from the art requirement. She wants to talk\nabout changing the ordinance. She said that Ms. Woodbury had some changes because when\na developer submits proposals to the commission, they are often operating under temporary\ncertificates of occupancy. It's too late in the process. Ms. Huston expressed concern with the\ndesign.\nMr. Wolfe mentioned talking with the City attorney\nMs. Rosenberg wants a timeline for how planning works.\nMs. Huston asked what in ordinance allows developers to get a temporary certificate of\noccupancy before fulfilling the public art requirement. She asked if staff could ask Ms.\nWoodbury about having a discussion about this issue. How do they fix that problem?\nShe brought up enforcement and said that she could only speak to Bridgeside. She explained\nwhat happened. The Mayor said that it is not enforceable. She suggested making them pay in-\nlieu fees.\nMr. Wolfe wants a time frame regarding Bridgeside noncompliance and their discussion with the\nattorney and Ms. Woodbury's response to their inquiry.\nMr. Biggs reminded the commission that they are a quasi-judicial body and to exercise caution\nwith enforcement, especially with individuals. Applicants are entitled to due process. He\nsuggested that the proper way to enforce non-compliance is to inform staff of deficiencies. It is\nstaff's obligation to make sure the applicant is in compliance.\nMs. Rosenberg mentioned the efficacy of their program.\nMs. Huston said that Bridgeside is an example and should be used as an example of how to\nenforce. They have no means by which they can inform them. She feels that they are doing a\ngood job on many levels. But they need an open policy so they can respond to all the projects\non an ongoing basis.\nMr. Wolfe mentioned that there are no medallions at Alameda Towne Centre.\nMs. Huston said that the request for information is an on-going one and what she would like to\ndo is incorporate the stream of information so that they have a record of all projects and wants\nto track where the money is going.\nMs. Rosenberg suggested creating a checklist for the applicant so they can see what is checked\noff to make sure the progress is documented for enforcement.\n2", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2008-02-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2008-02-13", "page": 3, "text": "Mr. Biggs responded by saying that the best way to achieve these things is to make sure certain\nconditions of approval are complied with at key steps in the process.\nMs. Lee said that she feels that the commission is nipping at the heels of the developers.\nMs. Rosenberg pointed out that temporary certificates of occupancy come really easily and can\ngo for a long time.\nMr. Biggs mentioned having checkpoints in the process.\nMs. Huston said that what happens in the application process is that planning gets the\napplication and decides if it is ok. Bridgeside was ok with planning but has never been ok with\nthe commission.\nMs. Rosenberg felt that there are generalizations that are detrimental to the process. She\nthinks that planning does not understand what the commission's requests are.\nMs. Huston mentioned two aspects, infrastructure and art-based. It's about the review process.\nThey need to trust staff. Is the space going to work for its intended purposes? She said that\nstaff might not be qualified to judge artwork; the commission may need to take part. There are\ngoing to two parts of the review process, an art commission part and a planning part.\nMr. Biggs said that what they are working towards is reviewing it together.\nMs. Huston wanted an outline that has a timeline of completion.\nMs. Rosenberg said that she doesn't want a timeline because sometimes projects can be\ndelayed.\nMr. Biggs said that they would not look at a project after it goes in because it has been\napproved. It is staff that makes sure the project is done according to the plans.\nMs. Rosenberg asked if there was a way to make sure that staff sees the details.\nMr. Biggs said that they are working on a system that notifies the inspector and he verifies that\ncertain things are in place or contacts the planner to verify.\nMs. Huston said that enforcement is not the commission's business.\nMr. Biggs reiterated that they are not an enforcement body. He said that if the commission\nnotices something that wasn't done correctly, they need to notify staff.\nMs. Rosenberg mentioned that creating an assessment process that helps advise planning\nwould be helpful.\nMs. Lee clarified by saying that the commission should have systematic review everything that\nis being done.\nMr. Biggs clarified that his suggestion wasn't for them to go out and look to verify approvals; it\nshould be used as guidance for reviewing future projects.\n3", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2008-02-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2008-02-13", "page": 4, "text": "Ms. Rosenberg said that whatever makes things work more smoothly will help them be a more\nsuccessful commission.\nMr. Biggs said that there are too many projects and levels of review.\nMr. Wolfe said they need to be careful when they review projects and asked if they see the\nrecommendation before City Council sees it.\nMs. Rosenberg said that they review the recommendation.\nMs. Huston said that they get sent out before the commission sees it. She mentioned that it is a\nproblem with the ordinance. She said that staff sends their recommendation to the applicant\nand Council before the commission sees it.\nMr. Wolfe said that an applicant comes in, the commission reviews their application and\ncomments, then staff makes a written comment or recommendation then it goes to City Council.\nMs. Lee said that they review all the components.\nMr. Biggs expressed some confusion and tried to explain his understanding of the process.\nMs. Huston suggested talking about it under its topic.\n4-B. (Formerly 4-D) Public Art Fund\nMs. Huston asked about it because it is the first part of finding out where the money is going.\nShe questioned the amount in the public art fund.\nMr. Biggs clarified by saying that the commission should find out which projects have paid an in-\nlieu fee, the amount of money and the running balance.\nMs. Rosenberg asked if there were plans for the money. Do they have expenses? She\nsuggested putting it on the agenda to discuss if there is a use for the money.\nMr. Wolfe asked if they should look at a physical plan of where potential sites would be.\nMs. Lee suggested a systematic plan for artist selection and how they would advertise.\nMr. Wolfe asked if it was appropriate to use some of the money to hire a consultant to help with\nthe plan, to look at sites and the process, and engage artists in the arts program.\nMs. Lee mentioned that the revamping the City's website should include an art section.\nMs. Rosenberg recalled a discussion that talked about creating a project when they had enough\nmoney. They would ask for artists submittals, public opinion and develop a request.\nMs. Lee wants a procedure in place before spending any money.\nMs. Huston said that there is a brief outline regarding how they could spend the money. She\nasked about agendizing a discussion the purchase of public art.\nMs. Huston \"The expenditure of funds towards the placement of public art\"\n4", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2008-02-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2008-02-13", "page": 5, "text": "Mr. Biggs reminded the commission that the City Council has to approve any expenditure of\nfunds towards public art and that the commission should develop a recommendation.\nMs. Huston mentioned some of the steps they have so far. Calling for public input, finding a\nsite, and research and place art. She suggested keeping in mind that they will be expending\nmoney and to consider the ordinance.\n4-C. (Formerly 4-B) Validity of Performance Arts as Fulfilling Public Art Requirements.\nMs. Huston feels that it is difficult to enforce performance spaces for fulfillment of the art\nrequirement and questions eliminating it from the ordinance.\nMs. Lee suggested that the next projects be tangible things to see.\nMs. Rosenberg said that they don't have enough experience dealing with that and feels that the\ncap hinders the ability to provide a quality performance space.\nMs. Huston said that they are all feeling the same on the performance aspect and should\napproach future projects with caution in the future.\nMr. Wolfe has an issue with respect to diversity. He mentioned that there have been two other\nperformance spaces that have come to the commission and wonders how many more they\nneed. He thinks that a quota may be helpful in limiting how many developers ask for a\nperformance space as the public art requirement.\nMr. Biggs responded by saying that it is ultimately up to the commission. They have the\ndiscretion to approve or deny a project.\nMs. Rosenberg suggested a moratorium or a hold on a project until they determine if it is\nfeasible.\nMr. Biggs does not want to see the door closed on what may be coming down the line. Even if\nthey propose eliminating performance art from the ordinance, the City Council may still like to\nsee it retained as an option.\nMs. Huston stated that the commission has approved two events-based projects out of five and\nwill be reluctant to approve more in the future.\nMr. Wolfe agreed with Ms. Huston and added that the intent is to create a diverse collection of\nart and performances and suggested that for the next year, they would prefer to approve non-\nperformance based public art.\nMr. Biggs suggested following the agenda topic more specifically.\nThere was a motion to recognize that performance art can satisfy public art requirements;\nhowever, they would be concerned about approving future performance art proposals given the\nnumber that have already been approved and their desire to see a more diverse mix of public\nart.\nAll were in favor.\n5", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2008-02-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2008-02-13", "page": 6, "text": "4-D. (Formerly 4-A) Public Art Ordinance\nMs. Huston read from the report and liked the ideas.\nMr. Wolfe said that he and Ms. Lee looked over the ordinance and looked at other surrounding\ncommunities' ordinances and what they say about public art contributions.\nMs. Lee brought up the discussion she had in the subcommittee and that they wanted to\neliminate the cap. They thought that it might be politically unfeasible to eliminate the cap but\nraising it might be an option.\nMs. Huston brought up her meeting with the mayor and people from City Council. Three issues\ncame up in the meeting; first was eliminating the cap, second was creating explicit language\nthat would require space developments to contribute 1% for each space and the third was\nreviewing which residential projects are eligible for contribution and considering expanding the\nscope.\nMs. Rosenberg didn't want to put the burden of public art on developers who were building less\nthan five units but anything more than that they should be subject to the requirements.\nMs. Huston wanted to look at the list of every project over $250,000 to see what kinds of\ndevelopments are happening. She asked if it is something that should go to the City Attorney to\nsee if they can add or change the language of the ordinance to deal with phased development.\nMr. Biggs clarified that phased projects were larger developments.\nMr. Wolfe pointed out that neither San Francisco nor Oakland has a cap or a private contribution\nrequirement.\nMs. Huston's thought on eliminating the cap is that they are the advocates in the system and\nthat they should let the people who have a better understanding for the business side deal with\nit but the commission recommends eliminating the cap. They would also welcome Ms.\nWoodbury's input on the timing and any thoughts she would have that would facilitate the\nimprovement of the ordinance.\nMr. Biggs recommended asking staff to draft an ordinance that would incorporate the changes\nbeing discussed.\nMs. Lee read from the ordinance and pointed out that no more than 25% of the art fund was to\nbe used for administrative costs.\nMs. Huston pointed out that the commission doesn't know what is happening. She is arguing\nthat accountability is an issue.\nMr. Wolfe said that Oakland's percentage is 36%.\nMr. Biggs clarified that the 25% of the fund covers everything from administrative costs to\nhaving the lights on. It is for overall operating costs.\nMs. Huston read from the ordinance regarding the submission of applications.\n6", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2008-02-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2008-02-13", "page": 7, "text": "Mr. Biggs clarified that the applicant is always included in the loop of communication regarding\ntheir application and recommendations.\nMs. Rosenberg brought up that they are not entirely clear on the process of inspecting and the\nprogression of the project and the criteria that ensures diversity.\nMr. Biggs clarified that the planning department is involved in all aspects of the process and that\nthere is a set of guidelines.\nMs. Huston asked if there was anything else in the ordinance that was working against them.\nThe commission agreed that the cap was the main issue.\nMs. Huston mentioned the money in the art fund. She also read from the ordinance about the\nrequirement of art being on the actual site. She said that they have a new set of problems\nregarding the in-lieu fee.\nMr. Biggs asked if they wanted to include a motion to include the recommended changes to the\nordinance.\nBy consensus, the Commission asked staff to draft an ordinance that included the discussed\nchanges and agendize for the next meeting.\n4-E.\n(Formerly 4-C) Discussion of the 2007-2009 Public Art Plan\nMs. Huston wanted to eliminate item three and they are working on item two of the attached\nchart. She wanted to propose to Council the expenditure of the in-lieu fund to public art. She\nasked if the money taken for administrative costs was taken when the money first comes in.\nMs. Rosenberg suggested putting no numbers on it until the accountability issue is resolved.\nMr. Wolfe clarified the proposal by saying that it is about the expenditure of in-lieu funds.\nMs. Lee asked about spending money on consultants and if that is part of the 25% of the\nadministrative costs.\nMs. Huston said that the annual plan is ok and doesn't need to be detailed.\nMs. Rosenberg stated that the creation and maintenance of a web resource keeps coming up in\ntheir conversations as a high priority.\nMs. Huston looked at the chart and the order of the items.\nThe commission discussed the items on the chart for the public art plan, reprioritized and talked\nabout eliminating some of the items that were not priorities.\n4-F. Set Date for Next Meeting\nThe commission set March 12, 2008 as the next meeting of the Public Art Commission.\n5.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n7", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2008-02-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2008-02-13", "page": 8, "text": "Mr. Biggs said that planning staff had visited the Bridgeside shopping center and confirmed that\nthe amphitheater was not in compliance and was not graded to the approved plans. Staff is\nworking with the developer to bring them into compliance.\n6.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone\n7.\nCOMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS:\nMs. Huston resigned as the Chair of the Public Art Commission.\n6.\nADJOURNMENT:\nThe meeting adjourned at 9:07 pm.\nRespectfully submitted,\nJon Biggs, Secretary\nPublic Art Commission\n8", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2008-02-13.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2008-02-13", "page": 1, "text": "a\nMINUTES OF\nRECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION\nMEETING OF FEBRUARY 13, 2008\n2226 Santa Clara Avenue\nAlameda, CA 94501\n(510) 747-7529\nDATE:\nWednesday, February 13, 2008\nTIME:\n7:00 p.m.\nPLACE:\nRoom 360, City Hall, Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street, Alameda, CA\n94501\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nChair Terri Ogden, Vice Chair Joe Restagno, Commissioners Michael\nCooper, Jo Kahuanui, Bill Sonneman\nAbsent:\nNone\nStaff:\nDale Lillard, Director\nPatrick Russi, Recreation Supervisor (RS)\n2.\nAPPROVAL OF MINUTES\nMinutes of January 10, 2008 Recreation and Park Commission Meeting.\nM/S/C\nKAHUANUI/COOPER\n(unanimously approved)\n\"That the Minutes of January 10, 2008 Recreation and Park Commission Meeting are\napproved.'\n3.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, AGENDA\n(Any person may address the Commission in regard to any matter over which the\nCommission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the agenda.)\nCommissioner Sonneman stated that Miracle League was going to try and attend tonights\nmeeting to provide an update. Miracle League and Catellus are working on a fundraiser\nwith the A's to help provide funds to build on the Coast Guard Field. Director Lillard stated\nthat the fundraiser can be promoted in the summer brochure.\n4.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nNone\n- 1\nRecreation & Park Commission Mtg.\nMinutes - Wednesday, February 13, 2008", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2008-02-13.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2008-02-13", "page": 2, "text": "5.\nNEW BUSINESS\nA.\nAnnual Review and Adjustment of Fees for Recreation and Parks -\n(Discussion/Action Item)\nDiscussion was held regarding the review and adjustment of Recreation and Park fees.\nCommissioner Kahuanui recommended that the Sports Field Use fee for AUSD and sports\nleagues/groups of $500 should be included on the fee schedule. Director Lillard stated that\nmost of the leagues/groups do not pay the fee. Most groups/leagues (e.g., softball, little\nleagues, etc.) use the services in lieu of fees option. Soccer Leagues do pay the fees.\nCommissioner Sonneman stated that he would prefer that AUSD not pay fees to use a\npublic field. It often becomes a fundraiser for the coach to be able to use the field.\nCommissioner Cooper asked what the fee was for the Church to use the Veteran's\nBuilding. Director Lillard stated that he would have to look for the information.\nCommissioner Cooper stated that he would like to go on record as suggesting that the fees\nfor the Church to use the Veteran's Building be substantially raised.\nChair Ogden asked staff to provide a list of who is using the Veteran's Building and the fees\nthat are being paid by the various groups. Director Lillard and RS Russi stated that they\nwould provide the information to the Commission.\nM/S/C\nSONNEMAN/KAHUANUI\n(unanimously approved)\n\"That the following fee increases be approved:\nAdult Softball\n-\nMen's League\n$715 Resident Team Fee (10 games)\n$765 Non-Resident Team Fee (10 games)\n$765 Resident Team Fee (12 games)\n$815 Non-Resident Team Fee (12 games)\nAquatics\n-\nSwim Lessons\n$25 for 1/2 hour Private Lessons\n-\nPublic Swim\n-\nYouth Resident\n$2\n-\nYouth Non-Resident\n$3\n-\nAdult Resident\n$4\n-\nAdult Non-Resident\n$4.5\n-\nSwim Team Use Fee\n$13/hr/Youth\n$14/hr/Adult\n2-\nRecreation & Park Commission Mtg\nMinutes - -Wednesday, February 13, 2008", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2008-02-13.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2008-02-13", "page": 3, "text": "Buildings\n-\nRecreation Centers\n$45/hr Alameda Non-Profit Mtgs.\n$55/hr Alameda Non-Profit Activities\n$90/hr Private Rental (Resident)\n$115/hr Private Rental (Non-Resident)\nGrounds\n-\nPicnics\n$100 Cleaning Deposit for groups of 100 or more\nYouth\n-\nDay Camp\n$155 Trails End (1/wk session)\n(Due to transportation costs)\n-\nPreschool\n$4.65/hr Tiny Tot (Preschool)\nDirector Lillard informed the Recreation & Park Commission that the budget for the next\ntwo year cycle (FY 2008-2010) will be very tight. Budget cuts are not known at this time,\nbut additional information will be provided as received.\n6.\nUNFINISHED BUSINESS\nA.\nDiscussion of Topics for Future Joint Meeting with Council - (Discussion Item)\nDirector Lillard stated that based on the last meeting the Commission suggested discussing\nwith Council completed projects, in addition to sports complex, pool, and Coast Guard\nField. Director Lillard will check with Clerk's office for available dates and times to meet.\nCommissioner Sonneman suggested discussing Alameda and Encinal High Schools sports\nfields. Director Lillard asked if they were considering a synthetic field. Commissioner\nSonneman stated that AUSD is considering the idea and that there may be enough funds\nfor Encinal High School, but not enough for Alameda High School. He feels this should be\na coordinated effort with the school, city, and user groups (e.g., soccer, little league, etc.).\nCommissioner Sonneman suggested putting the possible coordination of efforts/funds to\npossibly install a synthetic field at Encinal and Alameda High Schools. Director Lillard\nstated that he would add it to the list.\n7.\nREPORTS FROM RECREATION COMMISSION AND RECREATION AND PARK\nDIRECTOR\nA. Park Division\nSee February 11, 2008 Activity Report.\nGodfrey Park Field Renovation is completed. Recreation Commission provided many\npositive comments regarding the renovation.\nRittler Field Renovation will be deferred until after July 1, 2008.\n- 3 -\nRecreation & Park Commission Mtg\nMinutes - -Wednesday, February 13, 2008", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2008-02-13.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2008-02-13", "page": 4, "text": "9.\nITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA\n10.\nSET DAY FOR NEXT MEETING\nThursday, March 13, 2008\n11.\nADJOURNMENT 7:53 p.m.\n- 4 -\nRecreation & Park Commission Mtg\nMinutes - -Wednesday, February 13, 2008", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2008-02-13.pdf"}