Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutMinutes - 1985/03/26 - RegularCITY OF TEMPLE CITY PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION ADJOURNED MEETING, MARCH 26, 1985 INITIATION 1. The adjourned meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission was called to order by Chairman Crump at 7:35 p.m. on Tuesday, March 26, 1985 in the South Meeting Room of the City Hall, 5938 N. Kauffman Avenue, Temple City, CA. 2. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners Adams, Burlingame, Cas- well, Shaw and Crump. ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Victor B. Kobett, Director of Parks and Recreation OLD BUSINESS 3. CALIFORNIA PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES ACT OF 1984 Chairman Crump opned the meeting stating that this item had been continued from their meeting of March 20, 1985 to allow the Com- mission additional time to propose Park development projects for consideration by the City Council for funding under the 1984 Bond Act Chairman Crump then called on Director Kobett to review the speci- fications of the Bond Act for the Commission's guidance during their discussion. The City is eligible to apply for grant funds under the California and Recreation Facilities Act of 1984. Funds available under the Act are on a competitive basis. The amount of funds available to the Department is therefore unknown; however, the State has indi- cated that, as a general rule, agencies will not receive more than 50% than they received for the 1980 Bond Act. As the De- partment received $91,246 from the 1980 Bond Act, a grant not to exceed $200,000 is possible. To be eligible for consideration for said funds for FY 1986 -87, a complete application must be on file with the State on or before October 1, 1985. Briefly, the procedure is as follows - the State will make its final selections by February 1, 1986. . Agencies will be notified immediately thereafter and the State will submit the approved pro- jects to the State Department of Finance for placement in the State Budget for appropriation of funds. Contracts will be prepared by the State after July 1, of each year. Only cost incurred after the date of appropriation will be eligible for grant funding. Ten percent of the grant funds may be advanced for preparation of construction plans. The grantee must submit a complete bid package of construction plans and specifications of the project. Up to 90% of the grant amount may be requested at the time the bid package is submitted to the State for approval. The project must commence within three years after approval or funds are nolonger available to the City. Once completed, the Department must file for final payment, on- site inspection and a State audit of the project. Parks and Recreation Commission -2- March 26, 1985 There is a $10,000 minimum grant amount . There are no matching fund requirements. Project proposals for multiple sites are not eligible. Projects for planning purposes only are not eligible. Funding for a selected project cannot be changed to a different project. Joint projects are possible subject to satisfaction of the State. New or renovation of old facilities must provide access for the disabled. All new and /or renovated public displays must be built to allow for viewing by persons in wheelchairs, and accommodations be made for hearing impaired and blind persons. Again, Director Kobett stressed that the funds available are on a competitive basis and only those selected by the State will be funded. Projects will be scored by the State based on need, use, access, efficiency, jurisdictional capability and steward- ship, unmet recreational needs, deficiencies, demand, public support and use potential. The City may compete under the Neighborhood Category which is defined as serving a neighbor- hood or elementary school population or under the Community Category which :is defined as serving several neighborhoods. As stated in the Grant Application, a project must result in a useable recreation facility. Also, he advised that residents are, through taxes, paying off the Bond Act and that it is to the advantage o:E the City to obtain funds for a community recrea- tion project. Commissioner Adams suggested that the Commission strongly con- sider establishing a recreation facility in the North section of the City. This, he continued, has been a desire of the Com- mission for many years. He suggested, as a beginning effort, to install lights on certain grassed areas of the Temple City High School campus for the purpose of developing night time programs in that area of town. He envisioned that in the future, in addition to outdoor activities, the night time program could be enlarged to include use of the gymnasium, swimming pool, tennis courts and possibly certain indoor areas to be determined. Programs could be developed to reach all age groups rather than just youth. Commissioner Shaw felt the idea had merit and questioned if joint projects were permitted for funding. Director Kobett replied that joint projects are permissible as long as they meet the satisfaction of the State. Director Kobett advised the Commission that a project of this nature may incur additional cost for the City such as personnel to program and supervise the area and possibly maintenance and operational expense. Commissioner Shaw was of the opinion that expenses of that na- ture are to be expected and that it would be far less expensive than the purchase of land and development cost to provide the same services. He reasoned that any new land area acquired will require maintenance and operation. Commissioner Burlingame felt that the suggestion had merit and that operating costs can be expected. Commissioner Adams stated that a prime need was land use but that the amount of funds available were insufficient to pur- chase the area needed. He felt that if the School District and the City Council were receptive, an excellent recreation facility could be developed in the North area of the City without the need to purchase land. • • • Parks and Recreation Commission -3- March 26, 1985 • Chairman Crump inquired as to other suggested projects. Com- missioner Caswell suggested the redevelopment of the North- west corner of Live Oak Park. He said the area now has a meeting room, storage room, maintenance shed and a large paved area. He envisioned an additional room, restrooms, relocation of the maintenance shed and development of the paved area. The area, if improved, would be attractive, provide much needed meeting room space, serve all age groups and be avail- able every day of the week regardless of the weather. Chairman Crump said he was very receptive to the project as the existing area, although useful in its present condition, could greatly benefit the public and enhance the looks of the park which is important to attract more and continued public use. The other Commissioners were receptive of the project. Commissioner Burlingame felt that consideration should again be given to lighting the four tennis courts at Live Oak Park. She said she personally knew of tennis players wanting to play at the Park but felt it was no use due to the popularity of the existing three lighted courts and the long wait to use them. The improvement would be at no cost to the City and meters would be installed for the use of the lights to recover the cost. Also, it provides more opportunity for working adults to have the opportunity to play tennis at night. Other members of the Commission supported the proposal. The Commission then briefly discussed the acquisition of land and construction of handball /racquetball courts but were not supportive of pursuing as projects. Chairman Crump questioned if the Commission wanted to establish priority on the three proposals discussed which will be presented to the City Council during their Budget Study Session on April 8, 1985. Commissioner Adams felt that if the Commission wanted one project that it should be the only one submitted and every effort made to obtain it. Commissioner Shaw and others felt that, as the Commission was advisory in nature, all three projects should be presented in a priority order so the City Council, if they con- curred with any of the proposed projects, would know the Commis- sion's feelings on the projects and then make their decision on what they felt would best meet community needs. With the concurrence of the Commission, Chairman Crump ranked the projects in the order discussed, that being - first, lighting of certain grassed areas at Temple City High School; second, the rehabilitation of the Northwest corner of Live Oak Park and third, the installation of lights on four tennis courts at Live Oak Park. NEW BUSINESS 4. PLAY APPARATUS AREA IN TEMPLE CITY PARK Director Kobett displayed a rendering of a proposed new location of the existing play apparatus area in Temple City Park. The re- location, he explained, was necessitated by the remodeling of the former County Engineers Building, to serve as the new City Hall. The East side of the City Hall building and parking lot are being remodeled to blend in with and complement the Park. The work will include removal of the existing chain link boundary fence, removal of the existing park restrooms and the tying in of the Park to the City Hall building with connecting sidewalks. Parks and Recreation Commission -4- March 26, 1985 The suggested location, which recently met with approval of the County Library Department, is the east end of the Library Building adjacent to Golden West Avenue. This area, it was explained, is presently unused and will not necessitate encroaching into the limited grassed area of the Park. In describing the improvement, Director Kobett stated that the area would be designed to serve children primarily of pre- school age, that it would be fenced using the same brick as used on the Library Building and contain panels of tubular steel for visibility into the area, that benches would be installed inside the fenced area, that protective screening would be installed on the existing building window, that the surface would be sand and that a new swing and slide would be installed along with other existing equipment. In the discussion that followed, Commissioner Adams strongly ob- jected to the area in question. He was of the opinion that the location was too isolated from the picnic area and that parents could not safely supervise their children unless in the play area with them. He also questioned the size of the area and proximity to the street. In response to questions, Director Kobett stated that it was intended for parents to be immediately supervising their chil- dren and that was why benches are called for inside the fenced area. Also, the Department was concerned with the safety and thus the area was fenced. • • Commissioner Burlingame concurred that the play area should be closer to the picnic area and also the restrooms now located in the new City Hall. Commissioner Shaw felt the area was too confined and out of sight for parents who might be in other areas of the Park. Commissioner Caswell agreed with these members stating that it was hidden away in a corner of the Park when it should be visible 40 and close to the restrooms and picnic area. Chairman Crump commented that he too felt that the suggested lo- cation was isolated and needed to be closer to the picnic area. Following the discussion, Commissioner Adams moved to recommend that the play apparatus area in Temple City Park be located in close proximity to the picnic area or remain in its present location. Commissioner Shaw seconded the motion which carried unanimously. It was the consensus of the Commission that their recommendation be discussed with the City Council at their budget study session on April 8, 1985. 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, it was moved by Commissioner Adams, seconded by Commissioner Shaw and unanimously carried that the meeting adjourn to the next regular meeting to be held at 7:30 p.m. Wednesday, April 17, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 5938 N. Kauffman, Temple City. ATTEST : „....