{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2009-10-05", "page": 1, "text": "NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING\nALAMEDA RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION\nMINUTES FOR SPECIAL MEETING\nSPECIAL MEETING MINUTES\nDATE:\nThursday, October 5, 2009\nTIME:\n7:00 p.m.\nPLACE:\nRoom 360, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak\nStreet, Alameda, CA 94501\n1.\nCALL MEETING TO ORDER\nTerri Ogden, Recreation Commission Chair, called meeting to order.\n2.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nChair Terri Ogden, Vice Chair Joe Restagno , Commissioners Mike\nCooper, Jo Kahuanui and Bill Sonneman\nStaff:\nAnn Marie Gallant, Interim City Manager (ICM)\nDale Lillard, ARPD Director\nAbsent:\nCommissioners Lola Brown and Gina Mariani\n3.\nNEW BUSINESS\nA.\nDiscussion and Review of Proposed Revised Projects for East Bay\nRegional Park District (EBRPD) Measure WW Funds - (Discussion/Action\nItem)\nDirector Lillard introduced Ann Marie Gallant (ICM) to discuss the proposed revised\nprojects for EBRPD Measure WW Funds. This item was a referral from a Council\nMember which is honored if there are three votes from the Council for staff to analyze\nthe issue. That referral was referred to staff with a series of questions. The two biggest\ntests were eligibility and proof of financial capacity. For the last 30 days there has been\nextensive research and staff time put into this issue.\nBoth the ICM and City Attorney have requested a written opinion from the Bond\nCounsel as to the eligibility of this project. The City has heard informally the EBRPD\ncomments from their staff. It is our understanding that the EBRPD Counsel gave a\npreliminary determination that this project was eligible, but the District Counsel is not\ntheir Bond Counsel. The City felt that the safest view would be to have the Bond\nCounsel give an opinion. As of today the Bond Counsel has not given us their opinion.\nWe received an e-mail late Friday (10/2/09), after the City Council Agenda had gone", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2009-10-05.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2009-10-05", "page": 2, "text": "out, that the Bond Counsel will need a few more weeks to be able to provide an opinion\nbecause this project is more complicated then a normal project. Therefore, the action\ntomorrow night (absent a change in motion) will be to follow through on what the City\nCouncil's motion was which is absent the two pieces, only one of which they have.\nWithout the other piece showing up, the Council's prior motion would be to continue this\nissue until they receive that information. Absent the Bond Counsel letter the prior\nmotion would be to continue this item until such time as we have received the letter from\nthe Bond Counsel. They have said that it will be several weeks so we are figuring a 30\nday continuance. There is a possibility that the Council could pass a motion to amend\ntheir prior motion. Ms. Gallant feels that is unlikely but there is a possibility. Other than\nthat it is on the agenda schedule. Since we do not have the letter it will be continued for\n30 days until the information is received.\nChair Ogden clarified that we have to wait until the Council Meeting on Tuesday,\nOctober 06, 2009, to see if the Bond Counsel Letter is received. ICM Gallant stated that\nwe received the e-mail that it will take several weeks so she does not feel that it will\nshow up. She anticipates that the Bond Counsel will have to do a lot of due diligence.\nCommissioner Cooper asked about the loan of $1 million. ICM Gallant stated that in\nterms of eligibility of Measure WW when she raised the issue with EBRPD staff they\nstated that they were not so sure about it. In actuality, they cannot really opine or give\nus an opinion as to whether we can loan our money. The bottom line is if this project is\neligible, it is eligible. Whether we choose to loan it to someone else or give it to\nsomeone and make them pay it back is a separate agreement between us and the\nrecipient of the money. As long as we are loaning it for a legitimate project under\nMeasure WW, it is the eligibility that is going to drive this issue. Whether we choose to\ndo it on a loan basis or partial funding is really up to the City and is really a joint use\nagreement between us and the Boys and Girls Club.\nThe Joint Use Agreement for the loan would be a separate agreement between the City\nand the Boys and Girls Club. It does not drive the eligibility of the Measure WW. If we\nchoose to do it as a loan it is our (City) option to do it as a loan. The Bond Counsel\ncannot opine on that, the Bond Counsel can only opine as to whether the use of the\ndollars are legitimate under the Bond resolution.\nCommissioner Restagno asked if we know the term of the loan. ICM Gallant stated that\nthe action of this Council is only to amend the list subject to a Joint Use Agreement,\nLoan Agreement, terms and conditions of the arrangement between the City and Boys\nand Girls Club.\nCommissioner Restagno asked if it could be a 50 year loan and those funds could\npotentially never funnel back into the Recreation and Park Department. ICM Gallant\nstated that it could be, but that is not what we have talked about. We have not come\nto\nan agreement about it, but what we have talked about is 5 years. Since we do not have\nan executed agreement, it would have to be memorialized in an agreement which both\nthe Boys and Girls Club and City Council approved.\nJean Sweeney, Alameda resident, asked how the loan would be secured; by a piece of\nthe building or what. ICM Gallant stated that in negotiating an agreement for long\nrepayment there are several things that could be done. Basically, in negotiating an\nagreement for loan repayment there are several things that can be done. We could look\nRecreation & Park Commission Special Mtg.\n2\nMinutes - Monday, October 5, 2009", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2009-10-05.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2009-10-05", "page": 3, "text": "for security/collateral as part of their endowment fund, use security as part of the\nbuilding, etc. There are all sorts of things that could be negotiated in the term.\nBarbara Kerr, former Council Member and Alameda resident, stated that if it is not a\nbuilding it does not count, right? ICM Gallant stated that if the Bank of Alameda is\nwilling to take the endowment as collateral then the City should be able to do an\nagreement.\nCommissioner Cooper asked why the Boys and Girls Club needs to borrow $1 million\nwhen they have $3 million in cash. ICM Gallant stated she cannot answer for them, but\ntheir endowment monies are used to generate interest which pays for their operating\ncosts. Nobody will use an endowment dollar for capital if they are using it for operating\ncosts.\nCommissioner Restagno stated that nest eggs/endowments are to be used in dire\nsituations and current conditions are dire.\nCommissioner Cooper asked why we (City) would donate to a private concern when we\nourselves are cutting our programs to the bone. This does not make sense and does\nnot sound like good business. ICM Gallant stated that she felt it was a very good deal\nin terms of a compromise solution. What we are proposing is to substitute $1 million of\nthe projects on the proposed list on the west side for $1 million of the Boys and Girls\nClub. Basically, loan them $1 million for five years for getting the monies back. As an\nexample, if you look at the original proposed list you get the same amount of money\nback within 5 years that you would spend on other projects.\nIn looking at the original Measure AA funds that were spent before, you get the same\namount of money back within 5 years that you would spend on other projects. The\noriginal Measure AA funds were not spent in 48 months. It took approximately 6-7\nyears. We could not do $4.5 million worth of capital projects in 36 months; we do not\nhave the staff to do it.\nAlso, in terms of cutting staff government operates on colors of dollars. These are\ncapital project monies not operational dollars. So we could not use the funds to pay for\nrecreation and park programs.\nChair Ogden stated that we could use the monies for facilities. ICM Gallant stated they\ncould be used for hardscape.\nChair Ogden stated that we have a lot of projects for hardscape that need to be done.\nICM Gallant stated that she did not disagree with that statement.\nICM Gallant stated that she knows there is a lot of need. There is no opportunity here in\na significant amount, absent this kind of Measure WW, to generate a lot of capital\ndollars for park acquisition and development. Vice Chair Restagno stated that is what\nCouncil needs to think about. In his speaking with some individuals, what he is hearing\nis that if these monies go to a private non-profit organization the next time a bond\nmeasure comes up there is not a snow balls chance that it will pass. Mr. Restagno\nstated that he does not feel that anybody reading through the Measure WW materials\ncould have envisioned that the funds would go for such a use. To have the voters\ntreated in such a way will have long-term ramifications for future park and recreation\nRecreation & Park Commission Special Mtg.\n3\nMinutes - Monday, October 5, 2009", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2009-10-05.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2009-10-05", "page": 4, "text": "bond measures. He himself would never vote for a bond measure again unless\nsomething was in it specifically stating that it would not go to non-profit, private\norganizations. The Boys and Girls Club is a great organization. They have the ability to\nget funding in many ways. Mr. Restagno wishes them all the best and that it will help in\nserving youth. We are talking about the masses, tens of thousands of citizens for whom\nthe $1 million could be used.\nVice Chair Restagno stated that he knows that the ICM is not the decision maker. Chair\nOgden stated that in essence the ICM is making a decision by making the\nrecommendation to the Council. ICM Gallant stated that with all due respect she does\nnot make the vote. Staff was directed to give them (Council) an objective based on the\nreferral which had a majority vote to give them an analysis on two aspects: funding and\nfinances to what was a wise choice. She herself and the City Attorney both stated that\nthey would not comment or opine on the eligibility list. It is not their (ICM of City\nAttorney) call.\nICM Gallant stated that her job is to do the best that she can independently regardless\nof everybody's personal, political, and professional views. She feels that it is the best\nway to accomplish the best of both worlds. The Commission can agree or disagree, but\nit was an objective analysis and it is up to Council to decide whether or not they want to\nuse their money in that way. But, first they cannot make that decision until we get the\neligibility. That is the key right now.\nMs. Sweeney asked if the loan is going to be encumbered by the construction loan.\nThere is a lot of construction out there, would the City's encumbrance be first. ICM\nGallant stated that the City could do a soft second that is very common in government,\nbut it would be subject to the terms and conditions that are negotiated in the agreement.\nICM Gallant stated that as an example lets say that the Bond Counsel wrote the letter\nand the Counsel said the project was eligible and this letter is in the Council packet for\ntomorrow night. All the Council can do on Tuesday night is amend the Measure WW\nProject List. The Council would still have to approve the joint use agreement for the\nspace and the loan agreement terms and conditions. Should the Boys and Girls Club\ngo ahead with the project and take that calculated risk and should the Council in the\nfuture not like the deal negotiated, the risk is that we have no responsibility at the City\nlevel to write that check for $2 million. It is the first step in the process and know that\nthe use agreement and terms and conditions of the loan still have to be worked out and\nthat is a lot of paperwork. It takes a long time to get those documents drafted.\nBarbara Kerr stated that this is called people creeping in the back door. They get one\nthing approved and then they use that as an excuse to get the next thing approved.\nShe has seen this happen time after time. Ms. Kerr referred to the County Council\nsummary of Measure WW which was on the ballot. Voters depended on this analysis\nwhen they went to vote. The summary talks about local cities and counties acquisition\nand development of parklands. Parklands is used several times throughout the ballot\nmeasure itself, recreation facilities is used once but it is certainly within the context of\npark lands. Under no circumstances is the Boys and Girls Club cleared to provide more\npark space. In looking at the core program of the Boys and Girls Club it is a social\nservice club. Ms. Kerr is hoping that the Recreation and Park Commission will rewrite\nthe letter that they sent to Council from the last Special Recreation and Park\nCommission Meeting on September 10, 2009 with a revised date. One of the items\nRecreation & Park Commission Special Mtg.\n4\nMinutes - Monday, October 5, 2009", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2009-10-05.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2009-10-05", "page": 5, "text": "removed from the project list that bothers Ms. Kerr is that the improvement of the\nAlameda Point Gym has been eliminated in order to build a new gym. As the Mayor\npointed out at the last Council Meeting, why should we spend $2 million for a new gym\nwhen we could spend a fraction of that on a much bigger gym that we are most likely to\nget title to ourselves? Do you really want to spend $2 million for a new gym when we\ncould use our precious City dollars to renovate something that we are very likely to get\nlater?\nJoe Woodard, Alameda resident, stated that they spent time walking the neighborhoods\ntrying to get peoples opinion and hopefully a signature on a letter included in the\nCouncil packet for tomorrow night asking the Council to remember the promises made\nabout Estuary Park and parks in general in the City. Everyone was interested and more\nthan half knew what was going on. Everyone is aware of how important park systems\nare to everyone. It is not going to be acceptable to anyone that we talked to in our\nneighborhood that this use of monies is legitimate. Nobody voted for this project. The\ngroup was happy that the Recreation and Park Commission's letter was included in the\nCouncil packet and appreciate it greatly. The group hopes that the Commission will\nstick to their guns.\nChair Ogden stated that she wanted to go over some capital improvement projects and\nwould like a follow up on the following:\nLincoln Park irrigation improvements - Director Lillard stated it was tabled for\nlack of funding.\nVeteran's Building Elevator - Director Lillard stated that is still on the list.\nVeteran's Building Kitchen - Director Lillard stated that this is unfunded.\nADA Upgrades to Parks - Director Lillard stated the parks are done as they are\nrenovated. Play areas are all done. Buildings still need work.\nLights - Director Lillard stated that they are still on the list.\nKrusi Park Building - Director Lillard stated that it is one of the top three on the\nlist.\nTennis Courts - Director Lillard stated that they are on the list.\nWashington Park Basketball Courts - Director Lillard stated that they are on the\nlist.\nChair Ogden stated that the Boys and Girls Club gets their building but we do not get\nour upgrades. Director Lillard stated that the list that is in the packet will come back to\nthe Commission for approval. Chair Ogden stated why should we even bother.\nRed Wetherill, Mastick Board Director and Alameda resident, asked how many years\nparks renovations have been differed. Director Lillard stated that it has been a while.\nThe last time the tennis courts at Washington Park were done was approximately 8-10\nyears ago.\nMs. Sweeney asked how many parks are in danger of being closed for lack of safety\ndue to lack of maintenance; for instance possible lawsuits due to accidents that could\nbe prevented if courts were resurfaced, etc. Director Lillard stated that at this point\nthere are no parks scheduled to be closed. Of course the further you defer the list it will\nbe come more urgent. Ms. Kerr stated it will also become more expensive. Director\nLillard stated that is true.\nRecreation & Park Commission Special Mtg.\n5\nMinutes - Monday, October 5, 2009", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2009-10-05.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2009-10-05", "page": 6, "text": "Vice Chair Restagno stated that the bigger issue is that we know there are deficiencies\nand issues. It is known by the City that if something happens there is liability. That may\ncost more then $1 or $2 million that is going somewhere else. We need to think about\nwhat the cost potential will be when the Council, Commission, City, etc., knew that they\nwere deficient and needs to be addressed.\nMs. Kerr stated that she is very concerned about the Mastick Senior Center. It was first\nin line to be cut last time and asked where it stands now. Director Lillard stated that\nMastick is fully funded in the next two year cycle. The original issue was that Mastick\nwas used as an example in that if we needed to cut $500,000 - closing Mastick would\nequal that amount. It was used as an example to show that we were way past the\ncutting of line items in the budget.\nMr. Wetherill asked if the Measure WW money was allocated for 20 years. Director\nLillard stated that we have 10 years to spend the money which would put it out to 2019.\nMs. Helena Lengel, teacher at College of Alameda, stated that she agreed with the\nissue that Commissioner Restagno brought up with regard to liability issues. She works\nfor College of Alameda and they had several issues come up where people were getting\nhurt because the District was unable to make repairs because of lack of funding. The\nCity will end up putting a lot of money into law suits and medical settlements if repairs\nare not kept up.\nGeorge Phillips, Boys and Girls Club Director, discussed the need for facilities in the\nwest end of town and requested that the City become a partner in meeting those needs.\nChair Ogden pointed out that in recent years the City has opened 2 new facilities in the\nwest end which were the newly renovated Washington Park Recreation Center and the\nnewly constructed Bayport Park site.\nCommissioner Sonneman expressed support for all the youth serving groups in\nAlameda but has difficulty in seeing a connection that would allow the use of Measure\nWW funding to complete construction of a building owned solely by a non-profit\norganization.\nVice Chair Restagno asked if the project could be phased-in allowing the project to be\nstarted with the funds currently available. Mr. Phillips responded that such a concept\nwas possible but pointed out that the savings may not be as sustainable as estimated\ndue to increased costs for mobilization and the dynamics of large scale construction. It\nwould also limit their ability to provide programming.\nCommissioner Sonneman inquired about the progress of a joint use agreement. ICM\nGallant stated that initial talks have begun but no final document is in place.\nMr. Wetherill discussed the need for the Alameda Boys and Girls Club project to\ndownsize and stay within its financial means.\nCommissioner Kahuanui asked about the time line for application. Director Lillard\noutlined the guidelines as required by EBRPD.\nRecreation & Park Commission Special Mtg.\n6\nMinutes - Monday, October 5, 2009", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2009-10-05.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2009-10-05", "page": 7, "text": "M/S/C\nCOOPER/KAHUANUI\n(approved)\n\"That the original letter from the Commission be resubmitted with the current\ndate to say that the Commission had reviewed the Council staff report and still\nopposes providing Measure WW funding for the Boys and Girls Club project.\"\nApproved (4):\nOgden, Restagno, Cooper, Kahuanui, Sonneman\nAbsent (2):\nBrown and Mariani\n4.\nADJOURNMENT\nAdjournment was at 8:00 p.m.\nRecreation & Park Commission Special Mtg.\n7\nMinutes - Monday, October 5, 2009", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2009-10-05.pdf"}