Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/21/1995 - Regular Agenda Packet - Parks Board PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 1995 - 7:00 P.M. CENTRAL PARK CONFERENCE ROOM 1000 KRENEK TAP ROAD MEMBERS PRESENT: Ron Gay, Vice Chair; Carol Reynolds; Greg Taggart; Barry Harding and Nancy Crouch, Council Liaison MEMBERS ABSENT: George Dresser, Chair; Bob DeOtte STAFF PRESENT: Eric Ploeger, Asst. Director; Jane Kee, City Planner; Bridgette George, Staff Assistant VISITORS: Burt Herman, Jan McMurrey, Julian McMurrey I. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:22 p.m. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes were approved as submitted. III. HEAR VISITORS: Mr. and Mrs. McMurrey have been involved with youth sports in College Station for over twenty years. They have coached City of College Station leagues, as well as leagues not sponsored by the City. Mr. McMurrey stated that they are both thrilled about the bond issues. Mrs. McMurrey stated that they have seven children so they've been very active in youth sports for a long time. Mr. McMurrey stated he was reluctant to mention the problem he was presenting to the Board, because he's very supportive of the Parks Department. He stated that he's been very conscious of the fact that his daughters are treated very differently in sports than his sons. He thinks that girl's sports need to be nurtured, much like the boy's sports. He is very proud of the Bee Creek Softball Complex. He stated that it's a very nice facility which has helped to develop the girl's fastpitch softball program. Mr. McMurrey mentioned that this time last year Tony Scazzero, Athletic Supervisor, and David Hudspeth, Asst. Athletic Supervisor, invited all of the fastpitch coaches in for a meeting to discuss ways of keeping the program going and identifying any problems. During the meeting Mr. McMurrey mentioned that he had heard that the softball fields at Bee Creek were needed for adult softball. He stated the fences were to be moved back in order to accommodate adult softball. He asked David where the girl's softball program would be moved to if adult softball took over those fields. He stated that David looked down at the ground and apparently did not want to talk about it. He then asked Tony about it. Tony stated that the fences would be moved back and the fields would be used for adult softball. Mr. McMurrey then asked Tony what would happen to the girl's fastpitch program. Tony stated that when it was time for the girls to play, temporary fences would be erected. Mr. McMurrey stated that not only is the department taking the fields away from the girls all the other times, but they are sending a message to the girls that they aren't their fields anymore. The fences send a message that they can't hit well so the fences are put up. Mr. McMurrey stated that the fences are tacky looking, especially when other girls come from other cities for tournament play. Mr. McMurrey does not want the fields taken away from the girls. He also wanted to make sure that the Board knew of these intentions if they were a reality. Ric stated that several discussions took place over a year ago regarding the fact that adult softball teams were being turned away every season due to maximum capacity at Central Park. One Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting March 21, 1995 Page (2) suggestion was to lengthen the fields at Bee Creek by moving those fences back and using those fields for adult softball. However, no final decision was ever made to do that. There are no current plans to extend those fences at Bee Creek. There is an issue within the current bond election to replace the existing fences with taller fences at their current location. Greg made a motion that the girl's softball fields remain specifically for girl's softball. Also, if at a future date someone decides to change the use of those fields, they be required to address the Board at a specific hearing, resulting in a vote by the Board members. Carol seconded the motion. The motion passed. IV. OATH OF OFFICE FOR NEW BOARD MEMBER: Michael Manson was sworn in by Bridgette George. V. DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED PARKLAND DEDICATION BY MR. BERT HERMAN: Mr. Herman passed out a sheet with two written proposals plus a map detailing those proposals. The first proposal included swapping 2.19 acres of land adjacent to Windwood Park in exchange for the City's Switch Station Road land. Mr. Herman stated that he has been negotiating with a buyer from Chicago regarding 33 acres (the golf driving range). The buyer would have the ultimate decision on the land swap with the City, not Mr. Herman. The buyer is planning to construct a shopping center on that land. They will have to request a rezoning because the land is currently zoned for residential. The second proposal included Mr. Herman selling six acres of land, east of the proposed extension of Appomattox Drive, to the City, if the City agreed to use it for a neighborhood park. This proposal was originally two acres adjacent to the switch station. He originally wanted so swap the six acres in lieu of a paving assessment for Appomattox. Jane stated that Council would have to decide whether or not to do that through a development agreement. She was under the impression that this land was his parkland dedication requirement, which could not be swapped out for an assessment of Appomattox. But if it is additional land, above and beyond his parkland dedication requirement, he could deal with Council on a swap. Mr. Herman stated that this meets and exceeds his requirement. Mr. Herman stated that he sold a portion of the land in the immediate area to Davis and McGill in 1983, and has no plans to develop the rest of the land, except for maybe some 10-15 acre "ranchettes." Carol asked if the Appomattox Drive extension would happen. Jane stated that it was on the thoroughfare plan and as land develops, it will be constructed. Mr. Herman mentioned that there is an oil well currently blocking that path, so Appomattox cannot be constructed until it closes. Ron asked if the Board would like to have a park just behind a commercial area. Jane stated that Windwood Park would be enlarged with the land swap on the first proposal. She stated that she needed to know what areas of land was acceptable as parkland. Ron stated that the land adjacent to the switch station has already been considered and is not acceptable to the Board as parkland, even though it has been increased from two to six acres. Ric encouraged to the Board to go take a look at the land to get a better idea of the layout. He stated that Windwood Park is very small and the 2.19 acres offered in the swap would be a nice addition to the park. Greg stated that the City swapping .83 acres for 2.19 would be a bargain. Jane informed the Board that the decision to swap this land would be up to City Council. VI. APPOINTMENT OF CONFERENCE CENTER ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBER. Bridgette stated that there was an opening on the committee. Michael motioned to appoint Mr. Ben Molina to the committee. Barry seconded the motion. The motion passed. Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting March 21, 1995 Page (3) VII. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM REPORT: Ric stated that the handicap playground at Oaks is completed. The surface under the playground is a cushioned surface as opposed to the gravel which most playgrounds have. He mentioned that almost all of the concrete work at Wolf Pen Creek is completed. The engineer for the Southwood Pool renovation is consulting with his professional liability company, so that negotiation is ongoing. The Sandstone Park development construction plans are approximately 65-70% completed. VIII. OTHER BUSINESS/BOARD CONCERNS: Ric displayed a map of the Woodcreek subdivision. Jane explained the conceptual layout and stated that the buyer is requesting a rezoning for commercial property to build a car dealership. She showed a 7.6 acre area proposed for parkland dedication. She is not sure how much of the land is in the flood plain. There is a small creek that goes through that land. Currently there is no access to that proposed parkland, so the developer would have to make that park accessible. The land is near Woodcreek Park. Jane asked the Board if the land was acceptable as parkland and whether or not they wanted to maintain six more acres of land. The Board decided to take a look at the land. Greg wanted to know how the developer would provide access to the park and whether or not it was flood plain. Carol asked why the developer was dedicating that particular land. Jane stated that he would have to build a bridge to cross the creek if he used it for residential. Greg stated that a box culvert is very expensive, thus the dedication instead. Jane would like the Board to make a decision by the April 27, council meeting. The Board decided to tour both the proposed land adjacent to Windwood Park and the proposed dedication in Woodcreek subdivision. The tour was set for the following Thursday, March 16, at 5:30 p.m. and they would meet at Brookwater Circle. Ric mentioned that Willie Nelson will be performing at the amphitheater on April 23, at 7:00 p.m. Ron asked about the dredging at Wolf Pen Creek. Ric stated that the City opened bids recently on renting equipment with City staff doing the dredging. Nancy mentioned the equipment will cost $85,000 in-house, including the operator. Greg asked if anyone contacted the 1165th Engineer Dredge Detachment in Galveston, Texas. They are an Army Reserve unit that deals extensively with dredging. Ric stated that he would try to contact them. Michael mentioned that the reason he wanted to be on the Parks Board was his concerns with both greenspace and Lick Creek Park. He thinks there are a lot of possibilities with the park. He mentioned that Carson Watt's class at Texas A&M has done a plan for Lick Creek with enormous possibilities. It said it is becoming more heavily used all the time. Michael also mentioned that David Scott at A&M submitted an application for the Parks Board, and is interested in being involved in an open-space plan. Nancy suggested he work with Brazos 20/20 Vision, which has an idea for a linear park connecting Bryan and College Station. Greg mentioned that several people have raised concerns about no noon time swim hours at Thomas Pool for adult swimmers. Ric stated that it is available but not at Thomas Pool. The Board concurred that they would like to see the swim hours restored at noon time at that pool. Ric stated that he would find out what the reasoning was for not having it available. Michael asked why teams were bumped from playing in the league. Ric mentioned that there is not enough space to accommodate all of the interested teams. The league can only schedule 180 teams efficiently. The teams that are turned away are encouraged to play in Bryan. IX. ADJOURN: The Board adjourned at 9:14 p.m. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM PROJECT STATUS REPORT APRIL 1995 1 . OAKS AND THOMAS PARK IMPROVEMENTS Project Number: PK9203 and PK0033 Budget: Oaks - $92,000 and Thomas - $29,000 Contract Amount: $118,000 Project Manager: Peter Vanecek Design: in-house Comments/Status: Oaks improvements to include improved lighting, bridge replacement, handicap accessible playground, sand volleyball court, and walkway improvements. Thomas improvements to include a swing set replacement and jogging trail/walkway improvements. Funding is 91 Bond. The low bid from Marek Brothers Construction was approved by City Council on October 13, 1994. This project is complete except for the installation of the new pedestrian bridge at Oaks Park. Task: Project Design: June-July 1994 Advertise & Award: September-October 1994 Complete: April 1995 2. WOLF PEN CREEK AMPHITHEATER REST ROOM BUILDING Project Number: PK9404 Budget: $185,000 Contract Amount: Design Fee $14,500, JHW $172,260 Project Manager: Eric Ploeger Design: Patterson Architects Comments/Status: Council approved Patterson Architects for the project design February 24. The project was be bid on October 10, 1994, and bids opened on October 28, 1994. The low bid by JHW Contractors was accepted by Council on November 10, 1994. Additional site lighting and concrete walks approved in the FY94-95 budget were included in the J1-1W contract. This project is approximately 70% complete. Yet to finish is the roofing installation, plumbing, fixtures, lighting, and site clean- up. Task: Project Design: April-August 1994 Advertise & Award: November 1994 Complete: May 1995 C.I.F. Report April 6, 1995 Page (2) 3. SOUTHWOOD POOL RENOVATION Project Number: PK9502 Budget: $219,000 Contract Amount: N/A Project Manager: Eric Ploeger Design: Contracted engineering firm Comments/Status: The renovation efforts will be designed by an outside engineering firm. An RFQ was issued and six responses were received. The firms were ranked by a staff committee and the highest ranked firm was recommended and approved by Council on January 12, 1995. The firm selected was Jose Gil Engineers of Austin, Texas. Unfortunately negotiations with Gil Engineering have broken down due to disagreements concerning contract language. The second ranked firm of HSI has been contacted and negotiations are now underway. Task: Project Design: February - June 1995 Advertise & Award: July - September 1995 Complete: January 1996 4. SANDSTONE PARK DEVELOPMENT Project Number: PK N/A Budget: $250,000 Contract Amount: N/A Project Manager: Eric Ploeger Design: in-house Comments/Status: The preliminary design for the park was approved by Council January 25, 1995. Construction plans are being prepared by the Parks Planning Staff. Staff anticipates placing the project up for bid in early May. Task: Project Design: February - March 1995 Advertise & Award: March - May 1995 Complete: November 1995 C.I.P. Report April 6, 1995 Page (3) 5. WOLF PEN CREEK AMPHITHEATER CONCRETE ADDITIONS Project Number: PK9502 Budget: $33,000 Contract Amount: $11,089.12 Project Manager: Peter Vanecek Project Design: In-house Comments/Status: This project includes widening the amphitheater driveway, additional walkways and spotlight pads. This contract was awarded to R.M. Dudley, Inc. Another portion of this project is to screen the dumpsters at the site. This will be done through the Public Services Department as they have an existing program that pays a portion of the cost of these screenings. This project is approximately 85% complete and is on schedule for completion on the expected date. Task: Project Design: January - February 1995 Advertise & Award: March 1995 Complete: April 1995 6. BROTHERS POND AREA LIGHT Project Number: PK N/A Budget: $4,500 - Park Zone 5 Dedication Funds Contract Amount: $4,460 Project Manager: Peter Vanecek Project Design: In-house Comments/Status: This is the installation of an area light at the playground in response to staff and neighborhood concerns over vandalism. Task: Project Design: March 1995 Advertise & Award: April 1995 Complete: April 1995 Helimuth, Obata&Kassabaum, Inc. 6688 North Central Expressway,Suite 700 Architecture,Engineering,Planning, Interiors, Dallas,Texas 75206-3912 Graphics, Facilities Consulting Telephone:214 739 6688 Fax:214 373 9523 Weekly Project Progress Report to: ONOWASIVAPORWANO9_01.: Donal Simpson, MCP (HOK) Tim Terry (HOK) Gary Jost, PE (B-A) Mike McKay, PE (CDM) Project File (94-317-122) ., - from: Joseph A. Pobiner, AICP date: 10 March 1995 period: 6-10 March 1995 • project: College Station Comprehensive Plan HOK Project#94-317-122 1) Project Activity: Phase 1 - Ongoing • Phase 2 - Study Area divided into census tracts and block groups for data collection, evaluation, and presentation. HOK staff to be in College Station week of 13 March to begin the housing count/condition survey. Phase 3 - • Water- CDM began the analysis of hourly tank flow data and correlation with pump • data and existing population. Also reviewing service area definitions and beginning the digitization of land use area information as supplied by HOK (to serve both water and wastewater models). • Wastewater CDM is currently awaiting information on lift stations. Phase 4- (no activity yet) Additional Services: • Space Utilization Analysis- Ongoing; • Drainage Utility Master Plan- Proposed project scope and budget sent to Jane Kee on 8 March 1995 for review and comment. 2) Project Meetings: None during this week. Offices in: New York•Washington.D.C. •Tampa•St.Louis•Dallas•Mexico City• Kansas City•San Francisco• Los Angeles•Tokyo* Hong Kong• Berlin•London Weekly Project Progress Report 10 March 1995 College Station Comprehensive Plan Page 2 3) Areas of Concern: None at this time. 4) Upcoming Project Requirements: The following tasks are expected to be completed over the next few weeks: Phase 2 - Complete topographic, vegetation, and landscape values evaluation, and housing count/condition survey. Phase 3 - Continue modelling of existing infrastructure systems. 5) Project Progress: Task % Complete Task 1 Project Management 32% PHASE 1 TOTAL 32% Task 2 Public Participation 75% Task 3 Base Map 100% Task 4 Review Existing/Previous Studies 87% Task 5 Opportunities & Constraints Analysis 55% Task 6 Alternate Growth & Development Scenarios 9% PHASE 2 TOTAL 84% Task 7 Land Use Plan 30% Task 8 Parks & Open Space Plan 20% Task 9 Urban Design Plan 20% Task 10 Thoroughfare Plan 18% Task 11 Water Model 18% Task 12 Wastewater Model 18% Task 13 Regulatory Analysis 8% Task 14 Capital Improvements Program 2% PHASE 3 TOTAL 23% Task 15 Comprehensive Plan Adoption 0% Task 16 Comprehensive Plan Reports & Drawings 0% Task 17 GIS Implementation 0% Task 18 Space Utilization Study 25% PHASE 4 TOTAL 15% TOTAL PROJECT 46% ubmitted by 40,- .4,4" 401 e Joseph A. Pobiner, AICP Director of Community Planning The HOK Planning Group irm REcEivED 21 NZ Hellmuth., Obata& Kassabaum, Inc. 6688 North Central Expressway,Suite 700 Architecture,Engineering,Planning,Interiors, Dallas,Texas 75206-3912 Graphics,Facilities Consulting Telephone:214 739 6688 Fax:214 373 9523 Weekly Project Progress Report to: OthittiKOOMPPA. 941110tMitegM093**1. Donal Simpson, A'ICP (HOK) Tim Terry (HOK) Gary Jost, PE (B-A) Mike McKay, PE (CDM) Project File (94-317-122) from: Joseph A. Pobiner, A!CP date: 17 March 1995 period: 13-17 March 1995 project: College Station Comprehensive Plan HOK Project#94-317-122 1) Project Activity: Phase I - Ongoing Phase 2- JP and Mark Bowers in town 13-16 March to conduct housing count/condition survey. Phase 3 - • Water - CDM has: completed the definition of the water service areas; begun re- defining land use areas into consolidated blocks;developed summaries of tank flows, well pumpage, and maximum users; and prepared preliminary review of groundwater supply and developed a memo concerning recommendations. • Wastewater CDM is continuing with the land use digitization. Phase 4 - (no activity yet) Additional Services: • Space Utilization Analysis- Ongoing. • Drainage Utility Master Plan - Received response from City saying that proposed budget exceeds City's budget. CDM to re-evaluate scope to accommodate budget constraints. • 2) Project Meetings: None during this week. 3) Areas of Concern: None at this time. Offices in: New York Washington,D.C.•Greenville,SC•Atlanta•Tampa/Orlando.St.Louis•Dallas•Houston•Mexico City•Kansas City•San Francisco.Los Angeles•Tokyo.Hong Kong.Berlin•London Weekly Project Progress Report 17 March 1995 College Station Comprehensive Plan Page 2 4) Upcoming Project Requirements: The following tasks are expected to be completed over the next few weeks: Phase 2 - Complete topographic, vegetation, and landscape values evaluation, and housing count/condition survey. Phase 3 - Continue modelling of existing infrastructure systems. 5) Project Progress: Task % Complete Task 1 Project Management 33% PHASE I TOTAL 33% Task 2 Public Participation 75% Task 3 Base Map 100% Task 4 Review Existing/Previous Studies 87% Task 5 Opportunities &Constraints Analysis 55% Task 6 Alternate Growth & Development Scenarios 9% PHASE 2 TOTAL 84% Task 7 Land Use Plan 30% Task 8 Parks & Open Space Plan 20% Task 9 Urban Design Plan 20% Task 10 Thoroughfare Plan 18% Task 11 Water Model 18% Task 12 Wastewater Model 18% Task 13 Regulatory Analysis 8% Task 14 Capital Improvements Program 2% PHASE 3 TOTAL 23% Task 15 Comprehensive Plan Adoption 0% Task 16 Comprehensive Plan Reports & Drawings 0% Task 17 GIS Implementation 0% Task 18 Space Utilization Study 25% PHASE 4 TOTAL 15% TOTAL PROJECT 47% Subm1 es • 1 P Joseph A. Pobiner, ACCP Director of Community Planning The HOK Planning Group /rm RECEIVED lIAR ? 1995 Hellnruth, Obata& Kassabaurn, Inc. 6688 North Central Expressway,Suite 700 Architecture,Engineering,Planning, Interiors, Dallas,Texas 75206-3912 Graphics,Facilities Consulting Telephone:214 739 6688 Fax: 214 373 9523 Weekly Project Progress Report to: iJae:Kee,.AieRfleity4oteollegp.,Won) Donal Simpson, AICP (HOK) Tim Terry (HOK) Gary Jost, PE (B-A) Mike McKay, PE (CDM) Project File (94-317-122) from: Joseph A. Pobiner, AICP date: 24 March 1995 period: 20-24 March 1995 project: College Station Comprehensive Plan HOK Project#94-317-122 1) Project Activity: Phase I - Ongoing Phase 2 - HOK staff in town 22-24 March to continue housing count/condition survey. Phase 3 - • Water - CDM has: completed the definition of the water service areas; begun re- defining land use areas into consolidated blocks; developed summaries of tank flows, well pumpage, and maximum users; and prepared preliminary review of groundwater supply and developed a memo concerning recommendations. • Wastewater CDM is continuing with the land use digitization. Phase 4- (no activity yet) Additional Services: • Space Utilization Analysis- Ongoing. • Drainage Utility Master Plan-JP submitted CDM's revised scope and budget proposal for City consideration. 2) Project Meetings: None during this week. 3) Areas of Concern: None at this time.. Offices in: New York.Washington,D.C.•Greenville,SC•Atlanta•Tampa/Orlando•St.Louis'Dallas•Houston•Mexico City.Kansas City•San Francisco•Los Angeles.Tokyo.Hong Kong'Berlin•London Weekly Project Progress Report 24 March 1995 College Station Comprehensive Plan Page 2 1 4) Upcoming Project Requirements: The following tasks are expected to be completed over the next few weeks: Phase 2 - Complete topographic, vegetation, and landscape values evaluation, and housing count/condition survey. • Phase 3 - Continue modelling of existing infrastructure systems. 5) Project Progress: Task % Complete Task 1 Project Management 34% PHASE 1 TOTAL 34% Task 2 Public Participation 75% Task 3 Base Map 100% Task 4 Review Existing/Previous Studies 87% Task 5 Opportunities & Constraints Analysis 60% Task 6 Alternate Growth & Development Scenarios 9% PHASE 2 TOTAL 85% Task 7 Land Use Plan 30% Task 8 Parks &Open Space Plan 20% Task 9 Urban Design Plan 20% Task 10 Thoroughfare Plan 18% • Task 11 Water Model 18% Task 12 Wastewater Model 18% Task 13 Regulatory Analysis 8% Task 14 Capital Improvements Program 2% PHASE 3 TOTAL 23% Task 15 Comprehensive Plan Adoption 0% Task 16 Comprehensive Plan Reports & Drawings 0% Task 17 GIS Implementation 0% Task 18 Space Utilization Study 25% PHASE 4 TOTAL 15% TOTAL PROJECT 48% Submitted ' Aa /AV •r Jos-p A. Pobiner, ACCP Director of Community Planning The HOK Planning Group irm ayla And' 5nior Cñfàen3 6400 Bissonnet Houston, TX 77074 713/541-9951 , March 28, 1995 Mr. Steve Beachy Director Of Parks & Recreation College.Station, Texas • 77842-9960 • Dear Mr. Beachy, We wish to thank :your staff for the thoughtfulness shown us after our bus broke down on Wednesday, March 22 , 1995 . We were brought back to the Conference Center to wait for a replacement ) bus from Houston. Gracie Calbert did everything possible to make each of us comfortable, and was very considerate, and effecient in the way she made arrangements for our group to board the bus. All thirty-nine of us wish to express our appreciation for everything that was done for us. Sincerely, -44( Delena Boyd Bayland Senior Volunteer Ms . Delena Boyd 5702 Fontenelle ) Ilnuston, Texas 77035 , 41k_41 McCLURE ENGINEERING, INC. _ April 5, 1995 , Mr. Steve Beachy Director of Parks and Recreation CITY OF COLLEGE STATION P.O. Box 9960 College Station, TX 77842 RE: SHENANDOAH, PHASE TWO PROPOSED PARK LAND DEDICATION Dear Mr. Beachy: Attached please find a blueline print of the Master Preliminary Plat of SHENANDOAH, PHASES TWO THROUGH FIVE with the proposed park land dedication highlighted in yellow. On behalf of the owner, Mr. Edward Froehling and as previously discussed with your, please place this item on the agenda of the Parks Board Meeting scheduled on Tuesday, April 11, 1995 for discussion. Should you have any questions or need additional information, please advise. Very truly yo 5, .1/4. -/ 140-11454.4,---- chael R. McClure, P.E. , R.P.L.S. MRM/mim attachment 1722 Broadmoor, Suite 210 - Bryan, Texas 77802 . (409) 776-6700 • FAX (409) 776-6699 i BONDPLAN.XLS City of college Station 1995 Bond Authorization z _ E Proposed Bond Expenditure Schedule Prop. # p1996/ft 0A.19971'74, 11,1998/IT j -199 /,�, ) .2000 A 1 TOTAL ' Misc. Streets I $1,310,000 $1,850,000 $1,903,000 $2,667,000 $2,335,000 $10,065,000 Sidewalks and Bike Trails 2 $220,000 $320,000 $320,000 $240,000 $1,100,000 Traffic Signals 3 $380,000 $280,000 $380,000 $480,000 $380,000 $1,900,000 Drainage Projects* 4 $395,000 $370,000 $462,000 $733,000 $725,000 $2,685,000 , Northgate 2 $300,000 7 $200,000 -7 $500,000 A •Fire Station 6 $935,000 $935,000 Pebble creek& Disc, Park Imp. 7 $200,000 $200,000 $400,000 'Wayne Smith Park 7 $50,000 ter, $1,180,000 - $1,230,000 Library 5 $700,000 $1,200,000 $735,000 $2,635,000 Land Purchases- Public Fac. 6 $430,000 $430,000 Park Land Purchase 8 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 , TOTALS $4,700,000 $5,300,000 $4,000,000 $4,200,000 $5,180,000 $23,380,000 * Includes$880,000 of unsold bonds from the 1984 Bond Authorization E I -r r Note: Schedules for Wayne Smith Park and the Library allow for design in the first year with construction following in subsequent years. 1 . _ BONDPLAN.XLS w Street Projects 1996 1997 _ 1998 1999 2000 Oversize Participation $230,000 $150,000 $219,000 ., NUS corridor(2) $125,000 $1,128,000 Major Thoroughfare Rehab. (1) $248,000 $279,000 . . N. Forrest Pkwy. (2) - $933,000 SW Parkway Rehab. (1) $992,000 Tarrow St. South (1) - $309,000 Rock Prairie West _ Anderson St. Rehab. (1) _ _ . __$130,0Q0 $1,148,000 ,Kyle St. ROW(2) $550,000 A _ University Oaks Rehab. (1) $70,000 $666,000 Graha `Rd, Upgrade(2) _ _ - $1,300,000 $1,093,000 W m r TOTAL _ $1,310,000 $1•,850,000 $1,903,000 $2,667,000 $2,335,000 . _ (1) Rehabilitation/Reconstruction (2) Extension/Upgrade , .. ......... U3/21/95 17:27 T2409 764 3496DEVELOPMENT SVCS 1 001 r�Y ----. 1 If # is. .. 1.04 1 • f, } . . .(- ""."1 V.; * • • il , • /111. - , . . • . . i ••• - - \-..„:„....... • .. : . . . ..... .. .. , . . : .. . . . . . • . . , .• .. ... - ...• --"-- . • "-" • .. .. . .. . • . . : •.... . , . : -.. , ......_,..,, ,.,..7.----„-.,...- . . . . . . . : .. ,--...:-...-L.--;-------------,---....., 2. . •-. ,.. - .,,,........• .. -• . . , • . . .. - . ... ,-......:,...........,, . . . • , - ,... -.....(-- --.............• - wily • . . . ' ..- ••...- -.....-- if":.::*-__:„.... .. . %:•-:::::::.:::;::::::T. slrir( ' 'Zil'el n C. . -• •• •, ' •,• •• . NC41b1 e 3A1 4 Iti2 7 44 V . • . ...:.• .: ",,.,:.:.. . .:. ..... /111, •• .- - • — . i , $ . • fest tom/ '-'624. 11/111'• • • . AUla • .5 • Jocd2oie. _' . ' '. C, . mu II • )(- X03 -... . . .. • r`A'LMtbirlt. It W : r- .. ' tCurrrnfly Zoned A-p) .... : .. .....a * • •-• '- . . :..:-::-*.:• ':.*: :.::.......•,:t.nil .- • . ::„... ••.-- ....:.:-.....":-:.--.4,-;:-....-...:.........i.„ . . . _ ...,.........,....,.....,............. ...................... .•••••••• . : .: . 1. .. .... . ...4 ti:•:',:;,',••.:;.' •• ; • ::' . ..., • ' • "'•• : .•• - ...•--•-'.*r..y.:• :: :.:.- Y.'',.'..ji,, ':,.•.•'...../.....:•;' ,...•••••••,:i.'V.,:,....,:i:;•..:•••:. .,..••••,......: • •, - ::.:,:...:..••••:•::....••••••,....:••• ,.,•...• ••Rtq,.........,:,,:„.•,,,,:,,,,,:,-,:-.,,,;:::, ,•:.,,:„.,:,,,,Ir,!+;;•,:riilt!1-•,.,•.... : .*i7F,-.•:.: i*.;v•;;; •, • - -:L •:_,:i:'..:•i .. ,. • •• • •• * ...(,,,--,-) • , ,z :1 • .E' .. •::Zf:a ty..E:1••'��:l:r:•'•'+�i•::}i�:' ■..�;,�;r�;..U;;I;,{'i`•:•:L: •'t �.:•,E i•:'+S•''ti•:..�i. ;;;T '.l . 4•:•,•....,r.7 ter:.L. �l;:I1r! �. :1•:• .•.i]•i�,.t•':. :1., t'• ..�2'Y.i .N.::i:...• .. .• .. :�l• -tier • .:7,;:. q ''•� ,E'�•'�i'' �' i l • • .r • 1 "---\\*\\•\ •'••.. • .•:'• ,'...“.:2•••••`: . ••` ...•r � :ri.�7i .72:.2=i rR1...i!'•.t. .......... CC r' • • •.....:•'••".•.::(:) .•••••:!•••zsio. giiiP•-•.11111.11111Immin i'.i.,M.'11-'°." ';':•1:••••••••::.•Y...:1**•%•.;•:L:•••••:::'';" •:;.-!.**•!..':1...- :•-. •:-: •.-.: :'..f..:: • .*-.41:5.1'.V.ftif/V.' ••., • ...**•:• •..*•.... ..,...,i..r.'17m.1,13"I, MIL .MM..•;.: •:. .Ell• •••'•_,40.1...4 ''''' .",..•••• •. • ..•.•*.•... .,,.•.::.....,...... . .•,:: ..... dr • MIL • • ,., ,, g rr,, bra' h: •n ..'` '. •..... . • :...' . :• .. ,. . Aiiip ....,..............:!::-....:-.10 :M '- .. - * - '' '.. . ..... .':..' . . „, "••• . . • . ... ...• . . .. • . •.1 ..-...„....:. .... •• .. :... . 1. • 4. -.." •: •••a •.• .... . ...• .• .. '.. : :: iirtt of r "., ., , .-- .. • ' ..rag Ad. T• raci . • • � • .`• lig• • . . . • ••1+-1-• . . . ••••••• r. -, :••.:.. ••••• : • .••'• ••...: :* ti:••• :•.••••••• ••••••'.• :.. • • sem. .. • . . ,,.. •,•• •': I t • '•.•' 11(9•"4••,......• Paint of • • '' J •. .$IC1 Aeris '��„' • AlgIIz►fIRI1 •. • ''•• :- ••' •, •4...-7'..i41111 currangr%oa+f A-C) • y• • - ... . • •• .." ' 3iILEa2a.etervm . zoAfr • • • f ,•.•. •'(cilr UyzymeR-r). , , .,: ' r • ,' ... ,d� :, • • ... •. ;.-....• . •) * . .,....i.. ... ..,. .. ,, .... ........ ..•. . •• , A •,,,,,,,47.4. ,,,r0t xf,75, : .• . . �rNa ..- •• • •• '•�,. ~• ._• " , 04/1.1/95 15:22 `x'`40975438'00. CITY c.s. H.R. 444 PARKS Q002/003 COLLEGE' STATION, TEXAS MARCH 25, 1995 P- 'CINCT: SUMMARY OF REPORTING PRECINCTS TOTAL PERCENT TOTAL PERCENT NO. OF PRECINCTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a • ■ • • r . . . ♦ . . • • • r . . . r . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . 13 PRECINCTS COUNTED. . . . . . . . • • . . . . ■ . . . . • . . . . . • . . . . . . .1 13 100.00 REGISTERED VOTERS. . . . . • . . . . . 0 . . . . . . 041 . . • ■ . . a 26,470 100.00 TOTAL1.L7.i,,,1 BAL O 1 S CAST w ■ • • w • . • • w . w ■ • • • s s w w w • . s s w 2,796 10.56 Propositions Proposition No. 1 FV�i.�.• . . . • s • . . ♦ ♦ . . • r • r ♦ w w r ■ a ■ w • r • • w a ♦ r ► w . w s a 2,0 12 74.44 .AGAINST". . . . . � . . . . . . . . . . ■ . • • • . . • ♦ . • . w . • w • w • 691 25.56 Over1I otes w s r ♦ ■ ♦ • w • 0 w • w ♦ . a . w • w 0 r a s .► r • w r► r r 4 Undervotes . . . . . . . w ♦ • . . r w w s r • w 4 4 . 0 . 0 • 89 Proposition No. 2 F[ R.. . w . . w . . . . . . d . . . . ■ w . . . s . . . . . . . a . . . . . . . . 1,811 66.63 A�7A.4 J,�i i. ♦ i► �w ■ • n► . s •a . r a s • s► s • w • . a • r ■ . • w M w • w r • a 907 33a37 OVe3,.Vo tas w ♦ . w 0 ■ w 0 e i . e w • • • • r w . w w ■ w wr ♦ r ■ w • • 1 Undervotes ♦ • • • w 0 • w ■ v e w • • . a • • • r a w w w a w + + r ■ 77 • Proposition No. 3 FOR.■ . w • 0 0 0 0 ■ • . • r • . • ♦ ♦ ■ . w . • ♦ • • . r w • . • w • a • • . 2,0©8 12.81 ,GAT NST 7 5 0 27.19 oV er oi.or ♦ • ♦ ► ♦ w .r . . a r . w . ► . • • M r w w r a • ■ . w • r ■ 1 Vne.1.. �I V 4►� s ♦ r �s ♦ w • r • . • w ■ ■ ♦ ■ • w w w r . w s • r • s r w 37 Proposition No. 4 i OR r w r "r • . . . ♦ . w A 0 S * . w * • f • 0 ■ r • r • • . N • r . ■ 0 0 w w r 1,987 71.91 AG.AINSi. ♦ r w ♦ ■ • • r r r w r w . w • r r . • r . r w 000 . 444 7 7 6 28.09 O1I e'r Y ofes r1 ♦ r ■ ► ► s N 0 • • ► 0 . 41a • ■ ! 1 0 e w A • ► M ■ r 4 . 1 Undervotesa • ■r r r • w • r • • * ■ w . w f 4 r s 0 0 0 • • w s w w • 32 Proposition No. 5 .COR♦ r ■ . ♦ w e • r r w • . • ■ • . ► • s . • . . • . • ♦ • . ■ w ♦ w . w • r w 1,907 70.01 AGAINST. . . . • • w s f r w w r • w r w w r • • r • w a w • M • r • • • r r S 17 29.99 OT ervotes • r • . r 0 0 i M 1 « 0 • . 0 r w • • • i • 4 40000044 4 Undervotes • • • • . • r • . . • . ■ ,. . • • r r • . • • . w . w 004 68 Proposition No. 6 FOR► • • • . es • • « r • • . • • ■ • • • • * m4 , 000444 • • • • • ■ 1,728 62.4■ .A,GAINSTr • ww ► • . r • r ► +e . . • ■ . s • • • . w • . • . • w » s • rw • 11038 37.53 Overvote s • . M • • • • i • . OOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOO • 1 Undervotes i • • • • . • • • . i • . f • • . • 29 Proposition No. 7 FOR. . . . OOOOOOOOO ■ r • OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO . 4 • OOOOO 1,7 3 8 63.78 AGAINST 987 36.22 . Overvotes 1 Undervotesw . s • • ,. • ■ * , • r • • r • • w OOOOO 70 04/11/95 15:22 V4097643800 CITY C.S. H.R. 444 PARKS • 003/003 ?imposition No. 8 FOR 41 • • • • • • • • • 011100 . 40011 • 00 0 • • • • • • • • • • • 1, 608 59.14 AGAINST. • • • • * 000 • 1100 00 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1,111 40.86 Overvotes • • • • • • — • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 Undervotes • • • • • • • . • • • — • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 76 Ow