Loading...
SR-906-000 (7) - - I/~ Santa Monica. Ca11fornia. April 28. 1981 APn 2 8 1981 /?J~-~oo TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: C1ty Staff SUBJECT: Sand and Sea Club Lease Introduction This report reviews the current situation with regard to the Sand and Sea Club. lists alternatives for the use of the site and recommends a specific use. B.ackground The conceSS1on has been considered to be a private club. While the price of membership may be restr1ctive. it is the only beach club where the general public 1S eligible to J01n. A non-discriminat1on clause 1n the lease provides for th1S. There 15 a restrict10n on the total number of memberships. This number has been about 500 families. A membersh1p fee of $850 per family is charged annually, and the memberships must be renewed each year. Current members are notified 1n March of the need to renew. Depend1ng upon the response to this notice, new members may join up to the 500 fam11y 1 imit. The State Department of Recreation and Parks has 1ndicated that the1r appra1sa1 of the Sand and Sea Club site will not be completed unt11 after April 24,1981. The appra1sal is intended to set the rental value for the slte based upon recreational use. The State desires to see a club concept cont1nued w1th expanded publ1C access at the proper rental payment. The state department staff would welcome city support for the continuation of the club concept mod1fied to insure greater pub11C access and at a rental rate commensurate with current market value. The state cons1ders the lease an agreement between the C1ty of Santa Monica and a concess1onaire. It would be reviewed by the state and must receive state approval. I/~ f:I,?R'2 8 \98\ 'TO: Mayor and Cit~ncil Santa Monl~alifornia, April 28, 1981 -2- Greater public use can be gained by using the Seascape and other means to advertise the aval1abillty of a 11mited number of memberships, by schedulinq department activlties at the slte, and by issuing permlts under the policy currently employed for department buildings at park sites. Alternatives Alternatives for the use of this site are: 1. Demollsh all structures except the public concession stand and pub11C restroom and construct a landscaped parking lot. 2. Demolish all structures but the public concession stand, public restroom and the north beach house. Construct a landscaped parking lot and lease the north house for a publlC restaurant. 3. Enter lnto a lease with a concessionaire WhlCh is designed to guarantee greater public access and the proper rental rate and lease the north house as a restaurant. 4, Renew the present lease and do not lease the north house as a restaurant. 5. Allow the present lease to expire. Contract with the concessionalre to operate as a public recreation center. Recommendations Staff recommends alternative no. 3, enterlng into a lease for continued club operations on rental terms and rates acceptable to the state as the minimum for blds, and to lnsure greater public access through the issuance of permits and advertising of member- ShlpS, and leasing of the north house as a restaurant. Staff also recommends that City (ouncll appolnt the Mayor or their designated representative to present this position at the State Parks and Recreation Commlssion -TO: Mayor and C;t~nci1 -3- Santa Monlcatlll1ifornia, Aprll 28, 1981 meeting at their May 8,1981, at 2:00 pm in Los Angeles. Prepared by: Donald T. Arnett, Director Recreatlon and Parks DTA:dc - e Exerpt of Clt.y Counei t )1eeting of !~ay 5, 1981 Shore Item 11-[ is a recommendation that CouncIl inform State J)arks & Recreation Dept. of desire to lease Sand anu Sea Club property for continued club use and greater publJ C d.ccess at rental rates acceptable to State and appolIltment of representative to represent position on May 8, 1981 meeting. McClaIn: r woulJ 11ke to request ~r. Arnett present the staff report. Arnett: Hayor, members of the Counei 1, the State Parks and Recreat lon Commission IS meetIng thIS coming Friday on ~he 8th to dISCUSS the potential use of the Sand & Sea Club property which is under lease by the City a~ a conceSSIon. The Department's staff is recommending to their CommISSIon tlldt the property be allowed to be used as a contjnued club operatIon WIth greater publIC access at a fall' rental market vdlue for that property, and the department's ~taff is seekIng from the CIty concurrence with that pOSItIon 01 If the Councll dIffers from that positIon) they woulJ like to know it, and they would also 11ke to have that presented at their commlSSlon meetlng, and that is the purpose lor thIS request. Conn: My sense about this, our current situatIon with Sand & Sea Club 1S that It is in fact allows a great d~al of publIC access, and that any, and I am concerned about what an increase In the lease arrangement to be consistent WIth current market value would mean in terms of that acce~s as well as the access of prIvate club In the klnJ of way it is now operating. I don't... I lIke what's gOIng on there, r'rnnot sure I understand,,,rhat the ilHpllcatlon~ are of to/hat the State is asking us. Arnett: The State is not indIcd.ting other than the fact that they would lIke to be able to JustIfy the existIng rental rate better than they can. The rental rdte WdS entered Into several years ago) 10 years ago. I think it was the lease would be a total of 11 years when it expIres, and 1t IS not adJusted to market value at all. The audItor's offlce from the State has raIsed several questions about that existlng rental rate) and the State has run a survey of costs and have had an appralsdl made, and v>Jhen those fIgules dre avaIlable, they will present them to their State [ummjsslon, and the State Parks and Recrentlon plus the State Commission plus the State LegIslature has to agree to the market rental rate of that facilIty, and the Director of the Depdltment and the Department's staff wish to see a club cOIlcept cont1Ilue. They dre not reco~mending any specific organIzation tur that. but they would lIke to see that cl ub concept contllllw at a market value WhICh IS acceDtable to the Stat.e, .wd hiLh greater public dccess. -- . Exerpt of CIty (ouncIl ;'.feetlng of Hay 5, ] 981 Pdge 2 Conlt: Do we have any Indicdtlons that increasIng It woulJ In any way ~eriously jeopdrdIze the kind of club that we have there. 1 am very concerned that thIS.... Arnett: T don't know what we are talkIng about In cost, yet. T haven't seen the fIgures. Reed Goldway Reed Ed\<ldrds: Arnett: [dViarus: Arnett: I Jon't have dny questIon~ of Mr. A~nett. I hdve severdl comments, but I \-/111 WIthhold them if there al'e other lllember:oo of the public to be heard. There IS noone else who wishes ~o speak on thi~ itenl, unless there lS somebody In the audience here who would like to speak? No? It's d qUIet group tonight. Do you want to make your comments then? I WIll defer until other people have questlons thdt are speCIfIC. Well, jt IS Just my concern much like it is WIth Mr. Conn's and thdt IS while I can understand gettIng a better returu because of inflation and 1t IS 10 years later ana so on, I \'1/ould hate to see j t go to the maximum hI ghes t ma rLet value If in fact it means curtaIlIng a lot of the publIc uses thdt we have now, and that if in fact it is providing a communI ty se TV 1 ce that should be cons i de red in nd t i gatlon to the maximum rental. We won't really know what that is untIl we see tho~e figures and when we aciually should go out and bId th]s to determine who's 1nterested and who can do it. Perhaps what 11m saYIng from my particuLu concern 15 that \vhoever does In fact represent this COUll":'ll' 5 VIelvS at the State Commissiun point out that this Council is also concerned about maInt~llllln~ Its public <H...Less along \"Ith Increasing its City revenue, but that we are not gOIng to JeopardIze publIC access solely to reach ffi3rket value, If that IS In fact the case. Whdtever the instructions. ..whoever that person js~ Zane: I guess the not j all that this ,wnId go 0 lIt to bid.. . J t:~ me get It straIght about the process here.. .the State is going to appraise the property to see \<Ihat kInd of rental jncome, you know. they thlnk it apprOX1IDJtcJy can generate. Arnett: Correct. ldne: lhen, 15 it our optIon essentialJy to determIne whether, ] guess 1t has been determined prevlou::oly that It ~~ould contInut' I n the... as a... Goldway: Thatls pdrt of the determlnatlOll. -- . E~erpt of Clty Council MeetIng of May 5, 1981 Page 3 lane' lhdt's part of the determInatIon, right, 50 we could detennlue thdt the property would continue essentlally In the same SOlt of use that it currently has, and then place It out to hid, now It'S ImplIcIt here, but not made explIcIt th.1t that'~ what's entaIled. There's no presumption that the CUrIeDt le~see would be the operator of thi5 club after.... Arnett. That's correct, but there 15 also no presumption that Ibe current le~see would not be the operator, that person... the current ope 1 a tor waul d be able to s uhnl.l t the i r p TOpOS "d In response to the request as would anybody elJc would be Interested In doing It. Zane: In evaluating bids, does the fdct. ..how long ha~ the current club had a lease there? Arnett: Dh, gee.. .from InItIally, initIally Jt starteJ out with Joseph Drown as the operator and then Paclfic Parks, Inc. which IS doing DBA as Sand & Sea took over after that, dnd there are a couple of optIons, and the current lease wlth Sand & Sea, I belleve, has been 11 years. Zane: The current conceSSIonaIre has been opelatJng the club for 11 years? Arnett Yes. Zdne. Is there any procedure that allows for specJal consideration for long term lessees, etc. I mean I thInk that, you knO\~, rdl~lng as much revenue is an important questlon. I thInk also, that haVIng as much public access ]5 an .lfnportant questIon, but I also think that people who have JTIvested 11 years in the communIty shouldn't be simply unLllrly... Hell, you know, unfairly is still subject to 1Ilterpretatlon, it should not precipitously ejected. Arne l t: There 15 no j ntent all our part tot ake and put them au t to pasture. McClain: Your honor, the staff would not be makIng that deCISIon (w/Arnett: The CounCIl makes that evaluation.) And awards the blU to whom yOll fInd to be the best qualified bIddcl In your.. Zan~: The State then has to approve that... McClaIn: That's correct. But, the CounCIl would l)e the body that \v'ould be JIlaking the recommt:nJdt.lOn to the State for theIr ratIf1.Cdtlon. ZJlle. I think.. .one other questIon here, and it says in lhe staff recommendatIons where It recommends Altern..ltlve 3, "Enter in- to lease \'11 th a concessionaire which IS des1gned to guarantee greater puhlic acce~s, and the proper rental raLe.l1 The - e Exerpt of Clty CouncIl Meeting of !via}' 5,1981 PD ge .t Zane proper rentdl rate IS not presumed to be necessarlly the going market rate, If for exampLe it. jeopardized pllbJlC access by requITIng that fees of membershIps be raIsed too much, what counts as proper rental rate can be bdseJ on a number of crlter]a, 15 that not correct. Arnett. rhdtr~ correct. What we have to look out, and thl~ is beIng appraIsed as recredtional use, not highest and be~t use for that property, which would be condOm]111UmS or something like this, whIch would raise the thIng out of sIght, without any question, but it IS being appraIsed JS a recredtional rate, which would be whatever that fIgure is. I uon't know, I haven't seen it, yet. Pless: You saId that the State IS going to be developIng ~ollle kind of flgures. Arnett Yes. Press: .. .WhlCh would Indicate what the increase cost should be. Could you tell me what the current deal to the CIty IS? Arnett. They pay approximately $ 82,000.00 this year. Press: Elgh ty - two thous and doll a1's in rent d] to the U tv. Do they... what control does the CIty have over thIS, at all, In term~ of the contract. Do they adnunlste1' completely, the COIl\.cCb~londllf that's there now, I mean If a person wanted to JOIn thj~ they would deal ooly...would they deal WIth the CIty, at dll? Arnett: No, they would not deal wjth the City. the concessJonaire. The',' would deal wlth Goldway: In the current contract, doesn't 1t speclfy publiL access, al though. . . AiIlutt: 1\0. Go] d >~ a y . . . . . the 1 e 5 see. 111 fa c ten C 0 U rag e .:. 1. t . It] s not 1 Jl the contract now, so this would be an Improvement In the contract to specify. Press. Does the contract lImit it to 500? Arnett: No. that is an administrative deCISIon of the conCl~Slon~lre. Press. O.K., IS there a long waitIng lIst? Is ther~ a lot of de~~nJ in addItIon... Arnett: There is a \llalting lIst. I am not famIllar vnth tIle length of it, but they do call upon the waItIng lIst If they hdve a percentage. ..jf they have a few members that do not re-new each year. - . Ll\P!'pt ot Cll) COUllCl] ~leetlng of \.l.ay 5,1981 PClge 5 (;oldway: Any other question? CouncIl Jllernber Reed, dld you want to go now, or dld you want to defer to all these que~tions? Reed h j t yonr understan(hng that the State Recreation dnu Pal'ks ComrnlSSlon in making their determinatIon as to value, wIl] then reqUIre that that alJlOullt of money be collected as .J. flnIII ffiUnl. Arnett: r would think that would be the minimum. I:dwards: For the purpose of dIscussion, I would lIke to Illove staft recommendatlon, and that the Mayor be deSIgnated or whoev0r else she may choose.... Gold~dY. The Department Head shOUld be deSIgnated, please. Edwards: That the Department Head be designated to represent the Conncll's dlscussion, tonight's dISCUSSIon, at Friday's State CommiSSIon MeetIng, and I would move staff lecom~endatlon which 1S Alternative #3. Zane: Se conJ. Goldway: O.K., \ole have Conn, Reed and Zane, In that order. Conn' A quest10n about the leas1ng of the North House a~ d restaurant, IS It currently leased as a restaurant? Arnett: ~o, it IS not. Conn: Hmll would that affect the operat1on of the llub'> Alnett. That ,..;ould not really materIally affect the operatIon of the club. It would give another use to the facility, and 1n my eyes, Increase publ1C access, and gcnLrate an additlonal amount of revenue from the SIte. Conn: ThIS 1S something we have reVIew of later, also" Arnett. Yes. Reed: First of al I, 1 would lIke to say as the person who represented the Ci ty 1 as t tlme and the State Recreat Ion and Pa d.s Cowm iss lon, tha t I cannot 5 upport the mot ion on the floor, bu illS e j t 1.5 broader than the positIon we took last time, dnd I feel that we should represent the same positIon that we represented last tIme to the State Commission, and we should not preJudice ourselves In any way as to a lease or an appearance of ~ sweetheard deJl. I receIved a phone call of outrage, I sUppo~e would be d good \va)' to characterize it, from a citizen about this whole matter, and whIle I told th~t citIzen that I d1d not completely J&lee wl.th his perceptIon of what the CounCIl Has about, 1 \..;ould bring his concerns to you, and they were th<1t that III fact the present lessee did have a sweetheard deal, that $850.00 fOl a famIly membershlP did In fact res t r i ct cons 1 de rab 1 y the us e of -- . Lxerpt of C11y CouncIl Meeting of May 5, lY81 Pcige 6 Reed thIS pubIle property whJch was purchased by the ftlnds of StJtc tax payers, not by U'5 here In the City, and 111 fact the CIty would he ablogatlng ItS legal obligatIons, and the State would ~lso he abrogatIng lts legal obllgat1on~ if ]t allowed the mlnlmum rental payment, which has existed for the last ten y~ars or so to continue Into the future, and that we ~houlJ not do anythIng at all that would appear to preJudice an open bidding ~ltuat1on. I would further suggest tu the CouncIl that the preVlous posItIon that we took whlch Mr. Arnett. I am sure in his files has a copy of the remarks because I had wri tten them up and, to give th em to the Commi Ss] on, Ha s that we :;;,upported a open membership beach cl ub at that locatIon, dnd we supported the retention of the !-lorth House because of its landmark status, and that was what we said before. At that time. the Conmission was, and the Director, were of a mind to remove everything and put in a parkJ ng lot, because they felt that would be the maximum publ1C advantage. lhere is a new director, and they have since changed their mInus to some degree. I don't think that lYe shoul d in(hca te In any way 1hdt l....e are gOIng to have a package deal. I think that we mIght want to well consider separating the restaurdnt In the Korth Pdrklng Lot as one lease, completely separdte from the operatIon of a beach club, they donlt necessarIly Jon't have to go together at all. Secondly, I think that there ]S d lot of discussion that the CIty mIght profIt from dS to th e manne r In \'Ii'hlCh the rnembe rsh ip IS admIn! s te re d, and 1 f in fact there lS a wai t Ing 115t, then perhaps the memhersh] p ought to be allocated by lottery rather than by 01 J timers gettIng fIrst dibseys. At least that would spread it around J little bIt, and further I think that we have to be clear on the point that we do intend to go to bId as thIS le~se enJs, and whIle I appreciate Mr. Zane's concern for a person who has a long term relationship with the CIty, I would remind hIm that they entered into that lease with theIr eyes open and It did have a term. .ending term.. .in It, and as a bus1ness transactJOll It is certainly not a 5urpr1se to them that the lease IS endini, and that they are In a pos1tion of now renegotIating or rc-blJJlng7 and I think that the appropriate thing for us to do, once we have a determinatjon from the State as to the milufnum value I:, that then we need to say, what exactly are the cundItions that we WIsh to Impose, and then put that package out to bId, It 1.S entIrely possible that the present lessee would be the only bldderJ but we can't assume that, and it would he lllega1 for us to assume that. EJ\'>iards: I think that the 15sues that Mrs. Reed raises dre dLtu.llly Issues of negotiation for a potential ledse anJ clon't really speak to the motlon today which is to state to the State ComIUlssion that we support the retentioll of that f.lCllity, and that ] t be used for pub 1 ic access. I tlnnk th e l~ sues that ale belng brought up are Issues thdt we dll agree that a contract WXK that was slgned 10 years ago 15 not relavent to potentlal revenue today, but perhaps as you stated when at one time the alternative was to make it into a parkIng . .> Exerpt of Clty CouncIl t.~ect1ng of May 5, 1981 l' Lq; e 7 Fch"ards: lot, tPdt certainly has changed, and I think a ma)Ollty of CouP'_ll members at thi=- time are eXpreSSIng a ~trong deSlrt th at thd t be reta liled for publIC us e, and Mayo r Calow d)' points out that there IS a potential for greater use of that club, because the prior publIc access has only been voluntdJily, and what we're indIcating to ~he potentIal lessee now IS that that will In fact be a part of the contract, but I don't know If we need to get Jnto the specifics of the contract now. We're rnearly authoriZing staff to represent CouncIl's pOSItIon In terms of the let e ut ion as a pub 1 ic facII i ty. Conn: I wanted to ask you further, Ms. Reed,dbout your concern IS that by dIscussing with the State a lease, potentIal lease, of the Korth House as a restaura.nt that that is a SIgnal to the State that we're more interested In income than we dre pub 1 1 C a c C e s s, is t Ii at w hat you' res u g g est 1. n g \H t h tIll S addltlonal language? Re~'d: No, my concern IS that we. .the motion a~ the ~tdff recommend::. lt appears to tie It all into one package, and I don't thInk \...re should llmi t ourselves to one package. I think ~",e shaul d retaIn the fleXIbility of haVIng beach club package separate from the restaurant. Conn: That's not my understand1.ng of the ImplIcation. Reed: AnJ I thlnk If we are gOlng to make repre::.entations to the 'stdte, ,,,e ought to make It clear that we support the concept of the beach club, and further that we are go Lng to do SOIlll'tlllng to Insure that it has a more open membershIp pOlley, or more .lccesslbillty to the membershIp than prevIoLl~ly. Zane: Then, I Nould like to alter the language. I think tl1.1t Mrs. Reed's suggestions are approprIate. I ,'wuld like to alter tht' language of the alternative to say, "Enter into lease negotiatjon w1th a concessionaire WhiCh 15 designed to guarantedd greater publ1C access at a proper ren t al ratel', clnd 1 guess what \oJe ~I[ould say hele, "for the club pIoper". What would the IdIlgudge thelc... I Wtint to separate out the North House. Reed: Could I make a suggestion? That the pO~ltion of the City CounLl1 be that we wll1 IndIcdte to the State our ::.upport {or the concept of a public membership beach club at that 5 i te, and our ~upport of the concept of leaSIng the North House as a icstdurdllt and our support of accepting the State's minImum for hlddlng, and that we WIll proceed in that matter, if we are authorized to Jo so, WIthout mak1ng any further representations abuut actudlly enterIng into leases, etc. e . Lxt'rpt of CIty Councll t-teel.lng of ,\L11 5, 1<)81 Page 8 Goldway: 1 thlnk that 1S a good suggestion. Mr Edwards... cd~...anls: No, 1 \..,rould say tl1.Jt that contr..ldicts what the begInning of OUf dl:.cusslon was, that we are not nccessarJly gOlng to say to the State that our only concern is leaSing at illdximum, that we're also gOIng to glve considerdtlon to other public access use. Z.1TI0. She said that. Edwards. I dlso don't know that we should necessarilv.. .the [det ~s that \\'e w.wt it reta1ued our LCP talks about rctdllllng the North House, and we don't need to separate it yet untIl we understand that those ~ndividuals that made bid on the beach club may in fact be willIng, or may 1n fact be able to make a better deal WIth the C1ty wjth the use of the club as d publ1C use facility if 10 fact we allow them to tIe in the North Beach, and I don't know that elt this pOInt... the North House... and I don't know that at this point we're in a position to separate the two, because it may In [Jet determine the kinds of bId:. we get and from Whuill we get them. Goldway' I don't thInk ~rs. Reed's motion separated the two entirely. It Just separated for her the Impl1cation III the staff's language that they were necessar1ly combIned. \I1h at she sa 1 J, I believe, was that she supports a beach use, and she supports :1 restaurant use, and she supports the State mInImum. ~~Oh, you may be concerned about the th ird point, but I don't tlnnk the other two. f'.1y feel iug lS that the State has spent tl good Jeal of time and expertise In evaluating the figures dud the plesent lessee has been very cooperat1ve In glving the fIgures about h1S income to the State, and we ought to at ledst go wlth the mInImum to begin with. Now,]f we don't get the minImum, then we can go hack to the State) and ~dY, !tlley, ~ve can't get the minimum. There must be something wrong ~Vlth your appraIsers. Let's do SOJTlethIng else". But. I ttnnk It's the responslbll1.ty of the CIty to take that fInancla] advice since we don't have it ourselves, and go wlth it, dnd see what happens there. If \ve don I t need the fIlin i mUIIl, then we'll ah>iays...we'll come back, or if we get d IIllnllnUm that doesn't include In It the specifICS of public use that we want, then \..,re'll go back to the State as well, ano Sa',. lh..Jt you know, we have the bId at the mInimum, but It doesn't meet thIS other aspect that we wanted. Edwards: I just don't share her concern that the wordlng of the stdff recoInJllenddt lon precludes us from Tu,tld ng nego tia t ions 0 f J vdriety of types. Caldway: T think these are all semantIC Items. T helve .L sense ',.,'e hdvc more agreement here than we tllluk. Reed: I would only say thdt \..hat I object to is the speCIfic langudge entering Into a lease, and T object to that because 1 du not believe that we have completed. here In Sant a NODIca alIa f the e . EXeII'! of Clty CouncIl MeetIng of l'<fay S, lY8l Page 9 ReeJ: necessary dIscussions as to what IS to go into thdl ledse, dnd thdt LS why I will vote for a motion that supports the concept. as th ey have be en out] Ined, but I WI] 1 not support a motIon WhICh says entering Into a lease, because I don't think we're ready to do that, yet. Goldl'.'ay: I thlllk that's all that IS necessary. Let me pOInt out to people that we have, sort of like In the bike lane, a real mIlestone here by having the Commi 55 ion recogn ue the City's desire to keep those facilities and not have d huge asphalt parkIng lot, and 1 thInk what IS being 3sked of us at thIS point 15 to encourage the COlllmissIon to go... to agree WIth US, and once they are on record doing that, then \<le will be able to come back, and If this i tern IS not dead, WIll come back to us for the speCIfics We need to proceed for bid, and the speCIfIcs we need to have for expanding public use. Zanc. 1 would lIke to offer language 1 think that h'oulJ meet h~n's concern and Chris's concern. Gold~vdY: G1ve 1t a try. Zane: And re-write 3 to say "We enter Into lease negotiations", which I think meets ChrIS'S concern about saying we are going tll enter Into a lease that sounds as If ''lie are t1eIng ourselves to something objectionable. Does that meet your concprn, to talk about lease negotiations~ GolJway. I stlll don't... .enter into negotIatIons with a conce~sionalle, that doesn't. Reed. Sec.. .It's a legal nicety that I don't feel good about at JII, and I WJII move as a substItute motIon that our representative be dIrected to Indicate to the State Recreation and Park::, Cornmls::don tha t the CIty Counci 1 S uPllO rts the concept 0 f cont uIng a publ ~c membership beach cl ub on the sIte of the Sand b Sea C1 uh, that we ~upport the concept of utilIzing the North House as a publIC restaurant, that we support the concept of as lUuch publIC access as is practical gIven those uses, and that we WIll at the tIme the State determines the rrLinlmum fu 1 bids, then proceed to determine the perarneters for lca~e documents dod enter into negotIations for same. Zdne: Second Reed: Perfect Goldway: That's very good. e . Exerpt of C~ty Counell MeetIng af Nay 5, 1981 Page 10 McClaIn" Your honor, mIght I suggest that rather than use the words, "Enter Into negotiat~ons", perhaps the words. "Call ior proposd.l~" . Reel!. Sure, that's fIne, "Call for proposal~". Go 1 d\.;d.Y: O.K.,"Call fur proposals at th.Jt time". And, c.ll1 \.....e aJd to that motIon that we are dIrecting the Director of P~rks and Recreation to be our representative, unless another. o. r don't choose to go.... I have other meetIngs, another COUllCll Member IS perfectly willIng to.... Reed. I cant It Press. O. K. That was going to be my quest] on. Why I t wa~ decnled in the past that ChrIS would go rather than the Department lIeaJ? Reed. He went with me, but I volunteered. Member to go. They wanted cl CouncIl Gold.>iay: That \Vas at a time when the CommISSIon was opposing OLlr pOInt of VIew, and I think we needed a good deal more emphasis than I thInk we need dt this point. Reed. 1 will include that the Dlrector of Recreation anJ Parks ]s d.uthorizeJ to represent us. Gal d\"ay: O.K. Can we have a roll call, please. "Conn" - Aye tlEdwards II - Aye 11 P re 5 ~ 11 - Yes "Reed" - Ye s 1IZdne" - Yes 11 Go Idw ay't - Yes "'[he motion carrles".