1. ROLL Called

   Meeting was called to order at 6:00pm

   Members Present: Alex Lukshin, Jeff Wilson, Jim King, Joane-Herbage O’Keefe, Lynn Bartlett, and Jim Preston

   Jim Preston was introduced as the new committee member. He resides in the Auke Bay area, has been a resident of Alaska since grade school and has been in Juneau for the last 16 years. He is a retired school teach, very active with the Glacier Swim Club and is President of the Charter Boat Association.

   Staff Present: Kim Kiefer, P&R Director, Cristi Herren, Rec. Supt, Bob Grochow, Parks and Landcape Supt, Mary Pat Wyatt, Curator and Judy Nobles, Secretary

2. PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS

   None

3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

   Unanimously approved

4. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES

Joan requested a small modification be made on Page 4 and Alex’s asked that his name be corrected . Joan made motion with these modifications made, the minutes be approved. No objections, minutes unanimously approved. (Changes were also made to correct Joan Herbage-O’keefe in the roll call and Mary Pat Wyatt, Museum Curator)

Kim Kiefer:

• At the last meeting we talked about reconsidering a board for the museum. In October 1999 our staff presented a plan for the Historical Resources Advisory Committee to serve as an Advisory Committee for the Juneau Douglas City Museum. We have a number of boards that give direction and provide recommendations to staff on how to operate besides PRAC. Two of the last three surveys said we should have a special committee to the museum. Kim gave a brief summary of boards serving Parks and Recreation.

Cathryn Colin, Chair of Historical Resources Advisory Committee:

• I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. We would be pleased to accept responsibility.

Ken Garue, Curator of Alaska State Museum:

• I am very willing to work with you. There might be an occasional conflict but we could work around that.

• Discussion ensued why the board wasn’t approved in October. At that time it was unsure of how utilized it would be for the amount of expertise they had. The advantages of having this board, serve as the museum’s board, would be their expertise. They are official but don’t have the official duty of the museum. There is already a committee in place and they wouldn’t have to be put into place. They don’t have a lot of other duties and would meet once month for one or two hours. The PRAC asked to see the minutes from these meetings. All agreed it made sense to use this board.

Jim Lukshin:

• I don’t understand why this wasn’t passed in October.

Jeff Wilson:

• In the previous meetings there were members that felt the current PRAC board was enough to deal with the City Museum. The feeling was there we weren’t quite ready to let-go. I voted for it but there wasn’t a quorum.

Alex Lukshin:

• Kim, this wouldn’t diminish our role would it?

Kim Kiefer:

• No, but I didn’t make it clear at that time that PRAC is not the only advisory committee. I see this committee serving a very focused role.

Wilna Moen – 513 East St

• We are here for a couple of reasons. We heard rumor that changes were going to be made to the park and although we agree to some, there are others we don’t agree with. We have yet to see the big picture. Ms Moen drew a demonstration on the board and most of her concern was with the drainage ditch being put in with bark as a fill. The problem with the present plans as she sees it is that would make the park a real nice playground for 3 to 5 yr olds but the ages that actually use the park are the 9 to 15 year olds. This park is where children play by themselves and for the most part exclusively used by children. We aren’t so thrilled that someone wants to fix our park up where we can’t use it like we have for used it for years. We could use things like a new basketball hoop, ours had no net. All of the balls go over the fence because the fence is bent. We would like to see the fence raised 6 feet so the balls would quit going over the fence and hitting the Greeleys house. We are all in favor of drainage e system that would actually increase the use of park allowing the kids to use later in the summer You could even put sand in there, have the do the whole park be sand.

Abe Levi

• I play kickball and soccer in the Chicken Yard Park. I would like to see the fence fixed and raised

Kellen

• I use the park for soccer, kickball and if you put bark in there when someone falls down they will get all these slivers in their legs and it hurts.

Sam Greeley: – 529 East Street, 9 years old

• I usually play kickball and soccer in the park. I would like to have the fence raised. My dad would like a new basketball hoop. We need a new one, the one there is rusty.

Britney Mollen:

• The grass is gross. There is dog poop in there all the time. You could reseed in there. Have you seen those basketball hoop returns they have at Fred Meyers? You just pull this clip back and it returns the ball to you. That would be good there.

Jeff Wilson:

• What are we doing there Bob?

Bob Grochow:

• This whole issue came up because of safety issued. We came to the conclusion it wasn’t safe. We looked at several options. It was our intention if we kept the swing set there we would surface it with clear board. This discussion is leading to other options. This structure went in there about ten years ago. The desire was to have play opportunities for younger kids. Basketball, kickball etc: It has worked well over the years.

Bob Grochow:

• One, but it was our plan now to have another meeting. We need to have one more.

Lynn Bartlett:

• Do we have any demographics?

Bob Grochow:

• We don’t have.

Wilna Moen

Bob Grochow:

• Sand was put in there but when you put sand down on hard surface, it automatically deep packs it. Mostly they just fill in under the swings.

Abe Greeley:

• if you put bark in place of the sand and we didn’t like it, we might make an effort to make sure it didn’t stay there.

Jeff Wilson:

• Do we have the money to do something?

Bob Grochow:

There is money to address the safety issues only. The safety zone around the swing is a big one. There are code issues that require safety.

There was additional discussion about having another meeting with the neighborhood. There isn’t money to have it all done but to see what can be done.

Alex Lukshin asked if the swings are safe?

Bob Grochow:

• The swings have to be replaced. Jamie Sarzinski was the one working with this.

Jamie Sarzinski:

• The swings do not meet standards. They have to be replaced or we have to remove them completely. The play structure meets standards but we have to do something. Sand was thought to have been in place but it never was put to the recommended depth. If we do anything else, we have to put in border and maybe pea gravel or go with a completely different type of surfacing. We cannot leave it the way it is.

Jeff Wilson:

• Do we have funds to deal with the drainage and swings?

Bob Grochow:

• I think we can replace the backboard goal out of the general operating funds.

Jamie Sarzinski:

• We cannot get the backboard with the hoops that matches. It is no longer available. This is why it hasn’t been replaced.

Sam: Yeah, a lot of people from the charter school use it and they like to use the swings. If you take out the swings they aren’t going to have any choices.

Alex Lukshin:

• WE have to replace the swings or change the looks.

Mrs. Greeley:

• Could the fence be a part of the safety factor? The balls go all over and the kids tear through there. It isn’t a big deal but we do have a big tree there. I would prefer not to have a bunch of kids tearing through there. The fence is old. There might be a way to replace it. I think there should be another meeting. I never heard about the one they had.

Britney:

• The fence could be considered a safety factor. I know of two balls that have gone over the fence and broken the same window.

Abe Greeley:

• Could we just replace the swings and have something to sit on?

Alex:

• It is time to close public comments. Thank you.

Jeff Wilson:

• We need to advertise the next meeting and get numbers, is that possible Kim?

Kim: Yes.

Kim Kiefer asked Jamie to about a tentative time. Jamie responded the last meeting was in the Crondahl house.

There was a brief discussion on where to have it.

Alex Lukshin: Lets go to the next item.

Discussion started regarding the letter generated at the request of the chair to the Public Policy Committee concerning the tax money to be spread out to the Parks and Recreation Dept. for our needs.

Kim Kiefer:

• I handed out another letter, the one in your packet was the changed version. Please look at them together.

Extensive discussion ensued regarding the letter to be sent to the Public Policy Committee. Alex Lukshin discussed the fact the City Attorney had already gone ahead with the ordinance. Lynn Bartlett agreed with Jim King? that P&R should fall under CIP but felt being listed separately would lend us credibility. Lynn is totally against. Jeff Wilson suggested we could use the money for fixing up Marine Park and even repairing the shelters.

Lynn Bartlett:

• I think we can get money but I think we are going to have to fight for every bit. Do we know if the Assembly has appointed the committee already?

Alex Lukshin:

• The letter should reflect strongly and diplomatically, we need a chair because we are impacted in all areas.

Jim King:

• Did this come to our attention? I think we should re-open this and consider the public hasn’t been able to comment on this thing.

Jeff Wilson:

• I think by looking at the ordinance it is going to be difficult to go back and get them to reconsider. "Connect waterfront to prmondate" to me that is a classic one. There are items we can make fit into different categories. It wouldn’t be too difficult to make it fall under one of these six categories they have given us.

Lynn Bartlett:

• Take the list and fit things under that. We can request but we aren’t going to get it. It is best to encourage a good working relationship. It would serve us better to foster a good strong support of the Recreation Chair. The professorship is definitely needed.

Jeff Wilson:

• Kim, is it appropriate for or the Board to make a motion to pick this group. Would it be appropriate for the board to make a recommendation? The PRAC would make a case they represent the public. Make a motion that the Board supports Kim to deliver a message to the Assembly.

Kim Kiefer:

• I would recommend the PRAC send the letter. It is important it be a PRAC letter, not a staff letter. We need to formalize this letter, not wait a month but do it soon.

Lynn Bartlett:

• Do we need to decide which version? We want a PRAC member on this board.

Jeff Wilson:

• It seems to me we can go to the Assembly and tell them what we think. The letter needs to be a one paragraph letter saying we recommend a PRAC member be on that committee. Then we can spend more time on the other letter.

Jim Preston:

• I agree with Jeff. I recall very clearly about this when it was in the paper. Surprised it didn’t come through the committee. Maybe it was an oversite.

There was discussion whether the PRAC should go after one of the general public seats and the competition involved with doing that.

Jeff Wilson:

• Maybe the best way is to go to the Harbors Board. They can make two nominations.

Lynn Bartlett:

• All of us are fairly well connected. We all know folks who don’t serve on this committee. WE can get someone sympathetic to our issues. Let’s go put the PRAC forward and just in case, let’s get someone sympathetic to us.

Jeff Wilson:

• Harbor can nominate two of their own members. That leaves only two more members. You are right, we would have to go to the general public. Does anyone want to be nominated?

Alex?

Lynn?

There was discussion who would be a good selection from the PRAC for the Public Policy Committee.

Kim Keifer:

• I have concerns with Alex being able to do it. He is serving on the YAB and cannot walk away from that for the next two months. It is criticle that we get someone who can be there for every meeting. Opportunities go out the window with absence.

Alex Lukshin:

• We need two letters separating the issues. One to put forth a name to represent and the second letter to outline all the opportunities

Jim Dean:

• I worry about us backing off before we have gotten into the arena. We ought to ask for the money. Perhaps we come out with a strong letter. This is what we want. We haven’t lost anything. We haven’t lost any credibility if we advocate recreation. We are recreation people and that is where the impact is. It would make sense to use that money to expand recreations opportunity.

Jim Preston

• Maybe a two letter approach. The most important thing is get the person in there. You are just one of the people on the outside asking. I like the one I read earlier today with the list. Start with a simple letter to get someone on there. And for long term….put PRAC on there Get the ordinance amended.

Lynn Bartlett:

• I speak in support with what Jim said. The reality is we won’t get everything and it can be damaging to ask for it all, making us appear nieve. The impression of the first letter is that we want it all. The number one letter was the shorter verions asking for all the money. Number 2 is the toned down letter.

Jim Preston:

• Jim asked we put another paragraph. Work toward amending.

Someone suggested the PRAC Liaison (Cathy Munoz) could give insight as to what to do.

Kim Keifer:

• I don’t know the make up of this. How it is going to go.

Jeff Wilson:

• I may just call her and ask her. I think we could write a nice polite letter asking a member of the PRAC be on the committee. We ought ot wait and see if we can have a chance. If we don’t get on the committee we can ask for the money.

Jim Preston:

• discussed the time limitation of the letter

Lynn Bartlett:

• I will do it.

Jim King

• I was really hoping we could stir the pot. We have friends. I would like to write a really strong letter. I did go over this draft and figured it was a nice letter and but could be strengthened a little bit.

Alex Lukshin:

• I suggest we use No. 2 draft. Add a paragraph asking for amending the ordinance. Or at least that PRAC can nominate a member for the board. Jim I can go over that letter and over the ordinance. ---- we don’t feel recreation is getting enough recognition. Ken and I didn’t think we were gonna get all of it but we are supposed to advocate for recreation.

Jeff Wilson:

• Jim King could come back with the third draft asking the Assembly to include nomination from PRAC. By the next meeting we can approve and send that letter. Meanwhile, we get the letter off tomorrow, respectfully requesting that PRAC be given a chair.

Alex Lukshin:

• I can come in and sign it.

Jeff Wilson:

• Generate the letter tomorrow, nominating Lynn as a member for the public. Authorize Alex to sign it.

Jim King will work with Ken Dean on the other letter and everyone will sign it.

Kim Kiefer:

• Last fall the Lands Committee directed a plan for the Treadwell Master Plan. I told them we had no money or time for that. I have collected information however. This is a draft for your comment. Do you have any questions?

Jim Preston:

• Was this discussed in past?

Kim Kiefer:

• Yes in Sept before the PRAC for recommendations. There was no public comment at that time. A list was developed from public comment and concerns from past history. We haven’t done a lot in years. What we want to show, is what we would like to be capable of doing in improvements if we can keep staff at this level. It is a much more complex plan than can be done in-house with staff.

Jim King:

• These items we can do with existing staff?

Lynn Bartlett:

• We aren’t addressing concerns of the residents?

Kim:

• I am addressing park for park.

Lynn Bartlett:

• We know they will be coming back on us.

Jeff Wilson:

• This looks awesome, this is as much as we can ask for. I think it would be really good if you can take care of this with existing budget. I would go on record as approving.

• Any objections of Jeff’s motion, No objections, Lynn seconded, so moved.

Jim King:

• Would you add Historical Treadwell Park walking tour and maintenance of trails in the letter to the Public Policy Committee. That would be legitimate for head tax.

Auke Lake Subdivision Plan

Kim Kiefer:

• You have a black and white map. Steve Gilbertson gave to me. It is pretty major plan. (Kim outlined the area and gave demonstration to Committee) Steve is working with University. We own part of this land and the University owns part. In 1996, when finishing the comprehensive plan this area got a lot of public comments. Because of trails/wildlife/the impact to them. Having buildings close to trail. Montana creek is extremely close to have bridges going through. I have some feedback from other communities and put them with mine. Make sure Steve is aware we want to be very aware of any involvement. We feel is a very important recreation area and the impacts we want to see in that area.

Lynn Bartlett:

• Could you identify what is the City and what is the University’s?

Kim Kiefer:

• Most of the Greenbelt area belongs to the City.

Jeff Wilson:

• How many lots.

Kim:

• 346 lots. Some on university land some on city land.

Jeff Wilson:

• Are they gonna keep the trails. Could we recommend they be lighted trails so we can use ski trails?

Kim Kiefer:

• What is the possibility of supporting the subdivison?

This is a piece of property that the Univiersity could sell the lots and put money back in the UAS. Park of the Lands Management Plan. (Long term plan)

Alex Lukshin:

• Are you asking if we have any objections to it?

Lynn Bartlett:

• I object totally to it. We are using land too quickly. This bothers me.

Jeff Wilson:

• I am disappointed at such a blantency. I could be on the forefront if they were on the leading front of including recreation. I want to see what there is intended for existing trails and making recreation a big part of subdivision.

Jim King:

• We need more information. I don’t see really where the university is gonna go if it grows…they don’t have a growth plan. Would they need some of that land. How about the Raptor center. The Raptor Institute was looking at some of that land. There are a lot of questions that need to be looked at.

Joan Herbage-O’Keefe:

• I would agree with most of what said. That is huge proposed subdivision. There is not enough information to back such a giant development in the Greenbelt. I would hope it would be on a smaller scale perhaps with recreational enhancements. Could not, would not, support at present.

Jim Preston

• I agree with Jeff said, about the trails., If it is going to be subdivided we have to reserve the trails. Enhance so the development doesn’t decrease the value. I don’t see this in my lifetime. Or off anyone needing that much space to developed.

Lynn Bartlett:

• I think it is appalling.

Jeff Wilson":

• What do we need to do?

Kim Kiefer:

• What I hear is you really don’t approve of this development. If you aren’t comfortable with this, I have enough information to go back and send a letter to them saying we don’t want development in this area, we don’t support it without looking at trails, snow quarters, cross country skiing, lighted trails, providing park within the subdivision.,

Jim King:

• They should have a forester look at clearing trees up the hill and how it could flatten the trees in our park. The effects of wind, erosion and things like that.

Kim Kiefer:

• The next packet will have letter sent back to Steve Gilbertson.

1. INFORMATION ITEMS

1. Museum Mission Statement

Twin Lakes Letter:

Kim Kiefer:

Jeff Wilson:

• Have you responded to this letter?

Kim Kiefer: Yes, and even the mayor signed it.

Bob Grochow:

• Many of the buildings and improvements could possibly flood out.

• Was DOT at the meeting?

Quarterly Report

Cristi Herren:

• I don’t have a lot to say. If you have any questions I will be glad to answer them. We try to come forward and let you know we are out there and keep you up to speed on our participation numbers. Whether they are increasing or declining.

Alex Lukshin:

• You know how I am about the pool, is this number correct in FY98.

Cristi Herren:

• No that is a typo, that should read 111,000.

Discussion was held about Capital School being open now for rental and the cost. (25.00 hour) This pays for staff and janitorial.

Jim Preston:

• I have some questions about the closure for the lighting.

Kim Kiefer:

• The closure was already planned for air handling and we are actually saving money because the scaffolding will already be up. Last night $193,000 was approved by the Assembly. We found out we were actually below DEC standard. DEC approved additional staffing until the lighting is in place. We had no idea it was an issue. I don’t know if there are new regulations but they had a specialist come in. The Pool won’t be drained but it will be closed. It is scheduled to be closed at that time anyway.

Alex Lukshin:

Could we request Engineering to take a look at this.

Kim Keifer:

• The last time was not fault of engineers or contractors. It was not their fault. We held money held back because the contractors did not do the job they were contracted to do.

It was asked if we will need all new tiles. Kim said no, some areas are loose and will be replaced but not all. The kids tiles for the most part will be saved.

Jeff Wilson:

• Are we going to be raising cost?

Kim Kiefer:

• We talked about this at the last meeting. There will be a change. Last night the Assembly passed the ordinance for us to charge sales tax on fees and classes and that means admission too. The pool, everything with the exception of swimming. When raising the fees this will include the sales tax eliminating a lot of change making. The extra money taken in will go back into the general fund and willhelp offset some of the expenses of the museum. We raised admissions there last year and Mary Pat feels it is too soon to raise them again. We only started to charge sales tax on rentals the first of the year. We were supposed to all along but we weren’t aware of that. We can start charging sales tax on everything 30 days from last night’s Assembly meeting. So April 6 that will come into effect.

Alex Lukshin: Who initiated that?

Kim Kiefer: Actually I was part of it and went to the Assembly.

Lynn Bartlett: Are you giving public notice?

Kim: Yes, we will be. We will be doing something from the Parks and Recreation standpoint.

Alex Lukshin: Do we have any space for youth volley ball?

Kim: 2 years ago there wasn’t enough interest to form teams.

Jim Preston:

Sandi Wagner tried to generate coed volleyball but could not sustain it for the whole winter.

Cristi Herren:

• And gym space is always an issue.

Alex Lukshin: Thank you Cristi for preparing all this information.

We have forwarded proposal to the Assembly for a laborer for ten months. They will stain and paint the outside of Centennial Hall and when it is raining do projects on the inside. This will push off the $500.000 that it is going to cost in a couple of years.

Last night there was a Resolution to approve a transfer of tideland from DNR to the City. Two areas of park land. We want to assume full responsibility.

Jeff Wilson:

• What is happening with Dimond Park.

Kim Keifer:

• There is a committee that will be getting together on the 14/15 of March. It includes about 50 or 60 people. We are just finishing up on our planning and when we are finished we will get it to PRAC. It includes a pool, gymnasim, running track, community meeting rooms, arts and craft rooms and recreational rooms.

Alex Lukshin:

• Asked about the ball parks by the bypass. Kim told him DOT still has to work on them to get them up to our standards. We haven’t signed off on them and it may be sometime next year.

A short discussion was held about the Haufman land exchange. Kim said we are going ahead with an appraiser.

Lynn Bartlett asked about Adair Kennedy. Kim updated her and advised the timeline has the final work being completed by the beginning of August in time for football. The lighting on the Adair and Melvin Park is in place and is now waiting on just the light components to arrive.

Fields are not ready to use.

Lynn Bartlett: Thank you for getting the berm out from in front of the equipment shed.

Kim Kiefer

• We have postponed the Fish Creek Master Plan due to what juist recently happened there.

Lynn Bartlett advised she may not be at the next meeting. She will be in Washington DC from April 27 – 4^th.

1. CORRESPONDENCE

   Meeting was adjourned at 8:25pm

    

2. ADJOURNMENT