SUPPLEMENTAL - Laserfiche WebLink

are counted per program, like the city does for their programming reports, maintaining Co- sponsorship status should not be an issue for current Sports Council member groups. Library and Recreation staff say that this is their goal, so there is no reason to change this methodology of counting, which they had recently been using for our purposes as well. While we agree that the proposed information required to apply for Co-sponsorship status is critical, we believe the process is lacking in due diligence, if not requiring details regarding future facility needs in the application process. Understanding these needs should be a critical step in the application process to properly understand allocation capabilities when adding more Co- sponsorship groups and given associated facility capacity restraints. This requirement is in the current policy, but not in the new proposal. Cricket was able to meet all of the new applicant requirements in the existing policy just last year, so these items are not as unattainable as suggested. Regarding the general plan, thank you for letting us know there is a change in the business interpretation of the section of not charging park access fees. Historically, we have been informed this policy was applicable to the Co-sponsor groups as we all serve as the primary service provider to the community for each of our respective sports. This is corroborated with all the existing policies wherein Co-sponsor groups have language defining our fee groups as one of`no charge or lowest possible fees'. We had previously requested that the Co-sponsorship Policy proposed changes not be presented as a consent item on the City Council agenda. We would like to reaffirm this request and further, see additional inaccuracies in the City Council Agenda Report that we were sent this afternoon. These include dated residency rate numbers and a note that the city used to run the Pleasanton Adult Soccer League. In fact, the city has never run this program. They used to be a Co-sponsor group themselves and when they collapsed approximately 9 years ago, they requested that the city run this program and they determined that they did not have the bandwidth to do so. The city then engaged with Ballistic United Soccer Club (BUSC), who agreed to take over operations. BUSC did not request a subsidy because of the partnership and collaborative atmosphere with the City Sports staff at the time. In addition, BUSC felt they had an obligation to provide this service for the good of the sport and the Pleasanton community. After conducting additional research, we have learned that the city formerly offered in- house bocce leagues to the community. However, in recent times, the city outsourced this service to a third party operator, Lifetime Activities. In addition to outsourcing bocce, we learned the city has subsidized this service by over$94,000 in the last year. All the Sports Council sports groups serve as the city's third party operator, just as Lifetime Activities does for tennis and now bocce. We are not requesting a monetary subsidy such as Lifetime Activities for bocce, but rather the continued support we have received from City Council the last several decades. The support we request is to continue to have access to fields at no cost and to continue dialogue on how we can partner with the city on additional facility sponsorship and expansion,just as we have successfully done in raising approximately $2 million for Bernal Community Park. We believe these types of partnership will far outlast and be of greater benefit to the community, than hourly fee assessments. Again, we would be happy to meet to further share our concerns on this issue in advance of the October 17th City Council meeting. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Pleasanton RAGE Girls Soccer Club and Ballistic United Soccer Club 3