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 : „....