SUPPLEMENTAL - Laserfiche WebLink

We eagerly await your direction and appreciate your time and consideration on this critical issue to all of the long-standing community non-profit sports groups, including soccer. Thank you, Pleasanton RAGE Girls Soccer Club and Ballistic United Soccer Club On Thu,Oct 12,2023, Erin Sharpe wrote: Thank you for your response, Pamela. While we understand that the only policy being presented on October 17th is the Co-sponsorship policy, this policy includes fee language for those with Co-sponsorship status. There are significant changes specific to fees between the existing policy and the proposed policy and we believe there is a nexus between the Co-sponsorship policy and the Fee policy you mentioned will come at a later date. Thank you for your reassurance that Library and Recreation staff will include all Sports Council members in this discussion prior to any formal action by the Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council. We appreciate that staff is changing their recommendation from eliminating the existing 'no cost' language, to keeping it as is, based upon the Parks and Recreation Commission recommendation. That said, there is other critical and related language in the existing policy, wherein the Commission and City Council must approve fees, not allowing Library and Recreation staff to unilaterally make these determinations. The mere fact that the Commission disagreed with the staffs original recommendation to eliminate the 'no fee' verbiage, proves the importance of having a vetting process relative to charging fees. Moreover, the city prides themselves on public involvement and with the elimination of fees being vetted through the Parks and Recreation Commission and then approved by City Council, this circumvents the public process and lacks transparency. This is even more so the case given how subjective and undefined the fee language is for Co-sponsorship groups paying a fee range of'0-25%' and 'no cost to low cost'. To date, no fee schedule has been shared with us. Further, as we've shared, multiple Commissioners asked if there is language requiring Commission and City Council approval to charge fees and Library and Recreation staff told them that this language is not in the existing policy. Again, this language is absolutely in the existing policy. We presented this concern at the Parks and Recreation Committee meeting on September 14th, 2023, yet in the report just presented to City Council, it excludes this fact and only notes 2 other issues that we also presented to the Commission. At a minimum, we believe the Parks and Recreation Commission should have an opportunity to reassess their recommendation on this policy point, based upon receiving inaccurate information. And again, due to the various inconsistencies and transparency issues that we've referenced, we respectfully request that this language remain in the policy moving forward. We feel we have been misled and given inaccurate and inconsistent information on multiple occasions, resulting in a breakdown of trust. This is compared to what used to be a high trust and collaborative environment with past City Sports staff members. Library and Recreation staff had previously recommended a 65% residency threshold, suggesting that this number was required for all to maintain their status. We appreciate that more accurate information has now been brought to light and that a higher number is now being supported, although we still believe that the existing super majority of 75% is more appropriate. The City's direct neighbors, Dublin and San Ramon, have this 75% threshold. Again, if residency numbers 2