Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/30/2001 - Regular Agenda Packet - Citizen Advisory Board mospostommotmostnigetTrOr COLLEGEISTMIONOINE11811111111618•1200 , , „,, , mtttttt"c-tttttttttt'tt""ttttt-r'tttttttt"rt-'tttttttt't",','"tttt-:,ttrrtttt"tt':'''tter,Tm-tlZE-Ntr2ADmttWvttSVRYtSOARVDmElmmEtttNmtTmArt-TltON!ntrrt'rttnttnrttrtttttttt'tttrt'ttttt'ttt tmt, itm,,,,,tsrootmmootmssoosooa,tssos,tMsondffittJorip3ktatttOtetssomsssssstssosossoostoosasono i.rfr!,g.rfrlpfglrfpfllpirOtll*igjjl-*flIlltgjlUro1*j1.11E/IBIEIIIBEIEEEie „,;p.psisionlaBSEEIBBVEnilnGiiteteSUtioilTO/OnWltainlieilgilsiigsnniinano Park Staff Present: Eric loeger, Assistant Dif ector of Parks and Recreation. Kris Lehde, Staff Assistant. toard Members Present: Glen tavis; Bill Davis,. Don Allison; Lmitt-t-ty Farnsworth; Laura Wood(Alternate). Board Members Absent: John Nichols, Chaiman; Jon Turtorr, Glenn Schroeder. 1. iverview from Elected and Appointed Officials regarding role of committee members, city's strategic plan, staff relations with committees, tmeetint! idrocedures and legislative matters: Mayor Pro tem Larry Mariott took the floor and introduced the City' staff members that would ittt. presenting infbitritlition. City Manager Tom Brymer took the floor and explained why citizen committees were created and their roles within the community. He also discussed the City's strategic plan, arid how its eight (8) visiort statements relate to both City staff and to citiun cormitittees. (See attached _Power Point presentation titled 9'44 an Orientation?". City Secret:try Connie Hooks took the floor an- d discussed the general rules and procedures that should be followed by citizen committees. (See attached PowerPoint presentation titled "City of College Station Citizen Committees — General Rules and Procedures."). City Attorney Harvey Cargill, Jr. took the floor and explained the Open Meetings Act. (See attached packet titled "Open Meetings and Conflict Provisions for Board Members". 2. Review by Itepartment loirectors and Staff, Liaisdns on board resiconsitailities, staff relations, and reporting procedures: Respective individual citizen co rtmaittees broke out for discussion at 7:15 rtern. Eric Ploeger passed out several handouts: - Draft of the Parks and Recreation Nepartment Resource Guide; Updated Parks and Recreation Advisory Board subcommittee list - Draft of the City of College Station Strategic Plan; a and Recreation Advisory Board Fiscal Year 2001 Goals and Objectives; Policy for Naming City of College Station Parks and Recreation Facilities; Guidelines for Placing Monuments, Memorials, and Exhibits on Public Land or in Public Facilities;and Park Land Dedication Ordinance. Eric discussed the Strategic Plan, The Plan is compiled of a list of the eight Council vision statements, the strategic goals related to them, and the nilestones created by staff in order to follow and achieve the Council's goals. He addei that the plan is tied into the overall budget process, and at times carries over into the next fiscal year. Eric gave several examples of iteri that will carry over from fiscal year 2001 to 2002: Intergenerational Issues and Parks Maintenance Standards. Eric discussed Council Vision Statement #4 (Cultur 11 Arts and Recreational Opportunities) as it m . niy pertains to Parks and Recreation (see attached strategic issues for Council Vision Statement#4). Eric said that included in the Strategic Plan is a tiiiestone to meet with a IC (U led Development Code) Co ult#tt who will be reviewing and rewriting the City's development codes. Part of this review will include the current Park Land Dedication Ordinance. Eric said that a workshop would probably be set up starting at 5:30 p. . on August 14, 2001, t„ #t would part of the regular Parks n.E Recreation Advisory'',.oard meeting. He added that a separate Board meeting to discuss the ordinance with the C Consultant would also need to be set up in August. At 8:30 p.m, staff and Board adjourned for item#3 on the agenda. Oat, of Office to newly appointed officials: All members of the Board ha been sworn in, so the meeting adjourned at 8:45 4. Adjourn: See item#3. } A-0 o Why an Orientation? • Improvement Information • Questions Why Boards ., Qommittees • Citizenand Commissions? Involvement . • iti Input ® Citizen ,.,..r > • Citizen Expertise Role of an Advisory Board for .tadvise the City icii on a specific subject To make decisions on specific issues 1 Why Advisory Boards are Created • Fulfill local or state statutes • Build community . .:� s for a project or program • Guide r regulate programs Investigate an actirol or event Role of Board Members Ps • Work other board members,Council,and staff to meet the is of the City Council ® Suggest new departmentalr o Establish Board Goals&objectives Strategic Plan o multi-year,working document that consists of a Mission Statement and Eight Vision Sto • Serves as a list f the City Council's goals and ire i advisory boards and staff Strategic Plan Continued • Should guide Board's goals objectives • Board's l s/ jectives should compliment and coordinate with the Council's Strategic P Successful Advisory Boards ® . . er d.role and responsibility • Effectively i framework ® Training .. • Effective :..v. partnerships Effective Partnership? et Through teamwork: Staff oBoard members City Council Other advisory boards 3 Staff-Advisory Board Relations ® Role of Staff::: —Provide board support to assist in executing Council policy --Inform Board through appropriate professional reports recommendations Prepare board • er a,minutes,and post meetings Staff-Advisory Board Relations Continued Staff reporting procedures m:Staff reports directly to the City Manager or his designate —Board must understand the role of staff when givingthem rection issues should be reportedto the appropriate;Director-or City Manager Board/Council Relations ® Joint'Meetings —Periodic Reports --Review goals and objectives 4 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION CITIZEN COMMITIEES - General Rules and Procedures 11 Introduction Meeting Attendance Meeting Procedures (4)Parliamentary Procedure 4,Recognition Wi Meeting Attendance City Ordinance 2406 44)Absence Request re:Attendance by Form Committee Members 4- 1 EffecUve Meefings _4:Agenda SUPPOillig Materials �R z -„,- Effective r i cgs._! r�S- s.��F'� bile i. Decision Making Minutes 1111.1.111* triti*Cf7 j PARLIAmmENTARY r= ''';;;;;;;;;:;:e—:;:e.than half of the roenrbership. r. (4)Chairperson ® rouses roup irectlon and sets e tone for meetings. -4$ a The roper ay for n individual to propose Mat a group take a inaction. 4- 2 Five Basic Principles al Parliamentary Procedure yx Only one subject may claim the attention of the assembly at one time. Each proposition presented for consideration is entitled to full and free debate. Every member has rights equal to every other member. The will of the majority must be carried out.and the rights of the .4-.„ minority must he preserved. 4= The personality and desires of each member should be merged into the larger unit of the organization. 1, 4 1.1DM E RE - - -ft ©H' 4-- ION , " , QUESTIONS 4- � rnm9,'E":fr'z�Akes „n,.e. ^'C�.zi3[�,.a.a.',..�,'..K=are.'taitp-tew:2:'.'si`e�"`,*it« Tx++.zs Y3a'er�±t." a 6a,'c•. ..fi5, 3a*.'"" �s� .E9. tf ti 4:- 3 4CI4ii.,..„ ,11,k00 „, 'iliiiki,01‘i COLLEGE STATION P. 0. Box 9960 • 1101 Texas Avenue • College Station. 1-,\)::, 77842 Tel:409 764 3500 GUIDE #1 August, 2001 OPEN MEETINGS i D CONFLICT PROVISIONS FOR BOA' I MEMBERS Home of Texas A&M University COLLEGE STATION Col P. 0. Box 9960 - 1101 Texas Avenue College St Tel: 409 764 3500 • , , , , 111 T Nat MEMO _ M TO: Honorable Board Members FROM: Harvey Cargill,jr., City Attorney DATE: August,August, 2001 RE: Open Meetings Act The Open Meetings Act requires the following: 1. Notice: (1) Notice must be posted 72 hours prior to all meetings; (2) The notice and must be sufficient to apprise the public of each "subject" to be cliscussed Time and place for the meeting must be stated on the notice. 2. Executive sessions are allowed for the following items: (1) Attorney-client consultation on pending and contemplated litigation. (2) Real estate purchases, under limitedcircumstances. (3) Personnel matters, under specific circumstances. (4) Economic development negotiations, under specific circumstances. Deployment of security personnel. ((65)) Public Utility competition matters (gas and electric). 3. tBeforell-owingi-,n executive sessiona may be held, all of paragraph No. 1 must occur and the - must happen.. chairman must announce the "specific exception" that allows the board to go (1) The toexecutive session; isio/group/legalihaiguiden1ono2.doc Home of Texas A&M University Honorable Board Members Page 2 August, 2001 (2) After the announcement and the board has adjourned into an executive session, the board can deliberate in private concerning the six (6) exceptions listed in paragraph No. 2; (3) A certified agenda must be kept for non-litigation executive sessions. The chairman must announce the date and time at the beginning and ending of each non-litigation executive session. The chairman must certify the agenda kept is a true and correct record of the proceedings. "The certified agenda shall be made available for public inspection and copying only upon court order." It is also illegal "to knowingly make public . . that portion of a meeting that was closed under authority of this act;" (4) After deliberation, the board should reconvene in a public session; and (5) If any action is to be taken, it must be after a "public vote" in a "public session." If no action is taken, the person in charge should state that no final action will be taken. "Executive sessions" are only allowed in reference to items specifically noted and posted on the board's agenda"notice." 4. The six (6) executive session exceptions are not applicable to all boards and commissions because most boards and commissions do not have any responsibilities in those areas. For example, the Plumbing Board, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the Zoning Board of Adjustment have no responsibility for personnel matters, land purchases, and the deployment of security personnel. Therefore, these boards will not be using these exceptions. 5. The six (6) executive session exceptions are utilized to provide information to the City Council to aid them in the performance of their responsibilities. If you have questions, please contact me. HC/js js/o/group/legal/hc/guideilleitio2.doc Apia '114 Pr ilk 01. IIIIIIIh ' CI COLLEGE STATION P. O. Box 9960 - 1101 Texas Avenue . College Station. Tel:409 764 3500 MEMO - A NDUM TO: Honorable Board Members FROM: Harvey Cargill,jr., City Attorney 2 DATE: August, 2001 RE: Conflict Provisions: City Charter and Local Government Code Charter of the City of College Station Personal Interest Section 131. No member of the city council or any officer or employee of the City shall have a financial interest direct or indirector by reason of ownership of stock in any corporation, in any contract with the City, or be financiallyinterested directly or indirectly in the sale to the City of any land, materials, s, suppliesor services except on behalf of the City as an officer or employee; provided, however, thatthe the provisions of this section shall only be applicable when the stockowned by officer or employee exceeds one (1) percent of the total capital stock of the corporation. Any willful violation of this section shall constitute malfeasance in office and any officer or employee guilty thereof shall thereby forfeit hisoffice or position. Any violation of this section with the knowledge expressedorimplied of the person or corporation contracting with the City shall render the contract voidable by the city council or city manager. No Officer or Employee to Accept Gifts Section 132. No officer or employee of the City of College Station shall ever accept, directly or indirectly, any gift, favor, privilege or employment from any public utility corporation enjoying the grant of any franchise, privilege or easement from the city during the term of office of such officer, or during the employmentof such employee, except as may be authorized by law or ordinance;. ff. .plrovided, however, that policemen and firemen in uniform or wearing their oofficial badges may accept such free services where the same is permitted by_ i .ordinance. officer or employee of the city who shall violate the provisions of thissectionshall he guilty of a misdemeanor and may be punished by any fine that maybe prescribed by ordinance for this offense, and shall forthwith be removed from office. isio./group/legallheglde conflict ineino.doc Home of Texas A&M University Honorable Board Members Page 2 August, 2001 Relatives of Officers Shall Not be Appointed or Employed Section 133. No person related within the second degree of affinity, or within the third degree of consanguinity, to members of the city council or the city manager shall be appointed to any office, position or service in the City. As a public official, you must comply with both the City Charter and the state "Regulation of Conflict of Interest" laws (attached). As a public officer, whenever you have an issue arise in which you have any interest, you should look at the City Charter first. It is more restrictive than the state provisions. You secondly look at the state "Regulation of Conflicts of Interest" laws. If you have a substantial interest in an issue, you will have to file an affidavit before the vote is taken stating your interest and abstain from further participation on the item. If you violate the state "Regulation of Conflicts of Interest" laws, you can be fined up to $4,000 and imprisoned up to one year. Each fact situation will have to be determined on its own merits. If you have any questions,you are encouraged to seek assistance. I will be happy to discuss with you any situation that arises. HC/js Attachment: Regulation of Conflicts of Interest is/o/group/legal/hc/guide conflict inemo.doc r- a ,, 3 e d PUBLIC OFFICERS b I a . t 160.005. :a. kdardized Griev: k 160.007. $ Application Chapter and (a) nded Order The commissioners of the countyshall e I provideenact orders to for: appliesp v. based on events occur c C on or after June 19 (1) filing of grievances;g evan " If the commissioners court amends an order written responses to the grievance allega- adopted under this chapter, the amended order does tions; not apply to p evance alleged to have occurred procedures for appeal to an appointed county before the date of the amended order. grievance resolutions it Added by Acts 1 .s., 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 39(a), eff. Aug.28, (4) : .4°er ap•.#rto the commissioners co ; 1°. .. (5) presentation of grievances by an employF 's [Chapters 161 "1 for expansion] -e..nested representative; - - i. s reasonable leave with payfor the presentation SUBTITLE C. :hTTERS AFFECTING rt " of grievances;and LOYEES { I. other q,A rq #, •f e G•$k teff m ' C i e tive implementation of * chapter.— GOVERNMENT e ord arid1redures s ..j apply eq - ?y C . ' R 171. REG d to all employees of the county,including ply-- of OF I . p dent elected cp shall `de for l . . C 333 ipg and responding to ER LOCAL GOVER E » grievances. .4'"m a, Section Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1,.§ 39(a), off. Aug.. 28, 171.0 01. Definitions. 19.+r. 171..2. Subs Interest in iness Entity. ;. 171.11. . Appli vtE `oHigher f Chapter to Member of ;k' q Retpliation or Reprisal Education Authority. %.� 171.1 . ' •hibi. d Acts; Penalty. { (a) employee not de subject retail- '{is davit and Abstention From o u` •• d;a �. 1°1p �• q Voting on B ation, p *_ , r . :*:ation on account of having171.005.. i d etq 8 p Chapter. _ ex.�a�� so,£.� any right or :,E;�* in ��xI?�e 7 of Violationof ,tfil 1 .##,r p .tf on Law '; , e of - ; q p ` -brished b chapter. supervisor or m#t."E age- mce Provisions. a I , merit y not be made . ` tion, 171.11.. n s-T.p-r p q q q 1719 . . : n 0..g t• of •i tion for No . rep^ .i a °i;i off" :ro .#,.d',r"' of ...iy c adjustment offered under , chaptkr to an employee a with a grievance or s.4f."#zuse of testifying on anyI Defin ems h p g.agrievance. •w ;.k0 and itis chapter. �n this a p#• . ... (b) A district cc of app m#te venue may enjoin (1) " public official"means a member of a violation of this -di p nc „ . mayorder, `. governing or another officer,whether el r."., x ad otherrelief,thereinstatement appointed,paid,or unpaid,of any i (including and the payment of back pay for individuals ndividuals dis- a schooldistrict),county,municipality,precinct, cen- `! charged, suspended, or demoted in violation of this tral appraisal district, transit authority or district, .,}t or other localgovernmental omental entity who exercises section. . responsibilities beyond those that advisory inf c individual suffering retaliation,ation, reprisal, or ,, { r.c, O is nature. discrimination violation of this section entitled al reasonable attorney's fees as a result of successful "Business entity" means a sole proprietorship, d" court action re. ding the re p tion, reprisal,al, or p# ership, , corporation, holding company, ` t*�.» �"; ination. . joint-stockcompanyreceivership, t,or an th- I t er entity recognized by law. Added by Acts 1' ' Let, 71st ., h. 1, 39(a, . Aug. R. 1."►u. Acts 1'►s..,70th .,ch.149,§ 1,off.Sept.1,1987. .' 313 {,`l r 0 IMO 4a .4. i - ,1 § 171.002 LOCAL GOVER E CODE 'I I * 171.002. Subs . tial Interest in Busineis Entity * 171.1 I . Prohibited Acts; Penalty "r 4 (a) For p .sses of this chapter, a person has a (a) A 1. . public official commits an offense if the subs . tial interest in a business entity if: official kno. *ngly: (1) violates Section 171.004; (1) the person owns 10 percent or more of*the voting stock or shares of the.business-entity or (2) acts as surety for a business entity that has owns either 10 percent or more or$15,111 or more work,businesi,or a contract with the governmental 1 ,t. 1 of the fair market value of the business entity; or entity;or , 1 (2) funds received by the person from the busi- (3) acts as surety on any official bond required of s = 1 :1= ness entity exceed 10 percent of the person's gross an officer of the governmental entity. income for the previous year. (b) An offense der this section is a Class A imis° dem- o (b) A person has a subs . tial interest in real prop- ------ ' -r* .. if the interest is . equitable or legal ownership Acts 1987,70th Leg.,ch.149,§ 1,eff.Sept.1,1987. . end- with a fair market value of$2,5(X)or more. . ed by Acts 1989,71st Leg.,ch. 1,§ 40(a),eft Aug.28, 1989. 1 i (c) A 1. . public official is consid• •s to have a * 1.71.004,„ . 'davit and Abstention From Voting if s ii substantial inte .......t o der this s- 'on if a person Required !... , ,. . . related to the official in the first d- -- by consan- (a) If a I. . public official has a substantial interest . . . gmmty or . ty, as de ' * ed under Chapter 573, in a business entity*or in real pro ,, the official Government I•e, has a substantial* interest under shall file, before a vote or decision on any matter 1,0 , 1,11' this - ion. ' involving the business entity or the -. property, an Acts 1987,70th Leg.,ch.149,§ 1,eff.Sept.1,1987. . end- affidavit stating the nature and extent of the interest ed by Acts 1989,71st Lg...,ch.1, § 40(a),eff.Aug.28,1989; and shall abstain from er participation in the Acts 1991,72nd Leg.,ch.561, § 37,eff.Aug.26, 1991; Acts 11: 1!:r 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 76, § 5.95(27), eff. Sept. 1, 1995; Acts matter if: ,s 1997,75th Leg.,ch.849,§ 1,eff.Sept.1,1997. (1) ' the case of a substantial interest in a Law governing offenses committed prior to effective date of Acts business entity the action on the matter .° have a 1987,70th Leg.,ch.362,§ 1,see note following§ 171.003. s ial economic effect on the business entity that is ' I Section 2 of Acts 1997,75th Leg.,ch.849 provides: distin: ° hable from the ffect'on the public; or The change in law made by this Act to Section 171.002, L,),,cal (2) in the case of a substantial interest in real Government s e,does not affect a violation of Chapter 171, s Government s se,that occurred before the effective date of this Act. property,it is reasonably foreseeable that an action The prior violation may be prosecuted and a penalty imposed as if the on the o.tter.. * have a s I.o.i.al economic effect on law ,s not been changed by this Act, and the former law is i •,, the value of the property, o• ° ,... ° hable from its '.. i continued in effect for that purpose." 1 . effect on the public. = .: * 171.0025. Appli .tion of Chaliter tip Member of (b) The affidavit must be filed with the official si I 11! Higher Education Authority a ord keeper of the governmental entity. This chapter does not apply to a board ember Ma (c) If a 1$ . public official is required to file and higher education authority created under Chapter 53, d#- file . affidavit under Subsection (a), the official ' lir 1 il I, . 4 Education Code, unless a vote, act, or other p. *c- is not reqd" 'e to abstain from her p. *cipation in ipation by the board member in the affairs of the the ma requiring the affidavit if a majority of the higher education authority would provide,a financial members of the governmental entity of which the I. = . . benefit to a .ncral institution, school, college, or official is a member is composed of persons who are ifIF ' 11,1 • university that is: likewise requ* to file and who do file affidavits of 3 similar interests on the same official action. (1) a source of income to the board member;or Acts 1987,70th Leg.,ch.149,§ 1,eff.Sept.1,1987. Amend- . (2) a business entity in which the board member ed by Acts 1989,71st Leg.,ch. 1,§ 40(a),eff.Aug.28, 1989. has an interest distinguishable from a financial ben- efit available to any other similar financial institu- * 171.005. Voting on Budget tion or other school, college, or university whose (a) The governing $ y of a governmental entity I ... 1. students are eligible for a student loan available shall take a separate vote on any budget item specifi- . under Chapter 53,Education Code. cally dedicated to a contract with a business entity in Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 41(a), eff. Aug. 28, which a member of the governing body has a substan- ' 1989. tial interest. .1 314 . -- - - - - on t . :1 . PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES § 172.002 I , i. i 1:(b) Except as provided by Section 171.004(c), the C .. ER 172. TE . POLITICAL .i affected member may not participate in that separate SUBDIVISIONS UNIFORM GROUP I.' vote. The member may vote on a final budget if: BENEFITS PROGR (1) the member has complied with this chapter; Section and 172.001. Short Title. , 172.002. use. (2) the matter in which the member is concerned 172.003. Definitions. •:° has been resolved. 172.004. Benefits Contract. • 1 , .„ 172.005. Risk Pool. ' Acts 1987,70th Leg.,ch.149,§ 1,eff.Sept.1,1987. Renum- 172.11.. Supervision and Administration of Pool. bered from § 171.11. and amended by Acts 1989,71st Leg., 172.007. Trustee Training. ch.1,§ 40(a),elf.Aug.28,19.4. 172. a:. Excess Loss Coverage and Reinsurance. , 172.009. Investzilents. * 171011.. Effect of Violation of Chapter 172.010. Audits. 172.011. Insolvency. ' violation under this The finding by a court of a 172.012. Limitation of Risk Pools. 013 P t of Contributionsand Premiums. chapter does not render an action of the governing 117272:014: ApplicationaYilie of C,ertain laws. ..ay voidable unless the measure that was the subject 172.015. subrogation. :41 of an action invo 1' g a conflict of interest would not 173.001 to 173.11.. Expired. have p. .1. the governing 'say without the vote of I the person who violated the chapter. * 172.001. Short Title i ; :t , . 1987,70th Leg.,ch.149,§ 1,eft:Sept.1,1987. Renum- This chapter may be cited as the Texas Political from§ 171.11: by Acts 1989,71it Leg.,ch. 1,§ 40(a), Subdivision Employees Uniform Group Benefits Act. i.i'• eff.Aug.28,19'4. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1067, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, i 1 1989. : 1 , * 171.007. Common Law Preempted; Cumulative of Municipal Provisions § 172.002. Purpose ; ,4 , 1 i (a) This chapter preempts the common law of con- The p s use of this chapter is to: 1111 fi.ict of interests as applied to l I . public officials. (1) provide uniformity in benefits including acci- h '1•1 dent, health, dental, and long-term disability cover- (b) This chapter is cumulative of municipal charter . to age employees of political subdivisions;' provisions and municipal ordinances defining and pro- - „. . . . . . . hibiting con.f.licts of interests. (2) enable the political subdivisions to attract and re .* competent and able employees by providing . .ended by Acts 1'.. ,71st Leg.,ch.1,§ 40(a),eff.Aug.28,1them with accident and health benefits coverages at •least equal to those commonly provided in private t1 ill * 171.008. Renumbered as * 171.006 by Acts 1989, industry; 71st Leg., ch. 1, * 40(a), eft, Aug. 28, (3) foster, promote, and encourage employment 1989 by . d service to political subdivisions as a career profession for persons of high stand. • of compe- . I*1 * 171.009. Se 'ce on Board of Corporation for No tence and ability; il 1 ; Compensation (4) recognize and protect the political subdivi- ;ft It shall be la I for a local public official to serve sions' investment in each permanent employee by 4! as a member of the board of directors of private, promoting and preserving economic security and .,..... nonprofit co o arations when such officials receive no good health among those employees; ..,1 compensation or other remuneration from the non- (5) foster and develop high standards of employ- 11 profit corporation or other nonprofit entity. er-employee relationships between each political 11 subdivision and its employees; Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 475, § 2, eff. Aug. 28, 1989. (6) recognize the service to political subdivisions '.1! Section 3 of the 1989 Act provides: by elected officials by extending to them the same "A local public official who, before the effective date of this Act, accident and health benefits coverages as are pro- I. served as a member,officer,or director on the board of directors of a vided for political subdivision employees; and corporation, including a nonprofit corporation, and received funds I (7) recognize the long and faithful service and , from that corporation may not be held liable for,prosecuted for,or bei - subject to removal from office as a result of that service." dedication of employees of political subdivisions and 315 . I Implementation Plans a. Develop an Urban Forestry plan Plan Leader: Ross Albrecht, Forestry Superintendent Summary: Develop an Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of College Station that will provide guidelines for Urban Forest Management including inventory, tree maintenance, and forest renewal. Policy Change: None. Resources: Staff time to prepare grant application and request for proposal. Grant request to Texas Forest Service in the amount of$10,000. SLA request for FY 2002 in the amount of$20,000. Key Milestones: December 2001 Select consultant for project May 2002 Presentation of consultant's report to City Council and receive Council direction. June 2002 Determine the implementation plan based upon Council decision. July 2002 Submit implementation plan to Council for consideration. StrOtegy;#1- WrOjErkhariCelttiltittai,PririortilliitieS--We-Will Work,toDevelop,a : Performin Arts nter in colle e Station , Implementation Plans a. Performing Arts Center in College Station Plan Leader: Charles Cryan, Fiscal Services Director Summary: Plan, design, construct and operate a Performing Arts Center within the City of College Station. Policy change: Create a new service level to provide a performing arts facility within the City of College Station that will expand cultural opportunities within the community. Resources: The estimated cost of the facility is $20,000,000 with an annual budget estimated to be approximately$465,000. Key Milestones: May 2001 Select site (complete, site selected in CS 30/60 Corridor) August 2001 Develop financing strategy to include seeking private donations, private not profitfoundation grants, governmental grants, and local governmental support, including the possible adoption of a venue tax. Operating expense would come from operating revenues, grants for operations and support from a number of entities in the area. December 2001 Report on results of fundraising efforts and determine additional resources necessary to fund the construction of the PAC. December 2001 Ask local governing bodies to authorize an election to provide a venue tax, if necessary. February 2002 Hold election for venue tax March 2002 Engage architect to design PAC August 2002 Authorize construction contracts for PAC August 2003 Authorize operational plan for PAC April 2003 Develop operating budget for PAC July 2004 Grand Opening of PAC Sfratebli#2:44*;To',IMPtaVelho',Oialitk:of our.:Parkt System, We Will lm lement Parks Maintehance Standards Implementation Plans a. Implement parks maintenance standards Plan Leader: Curtis Bingham, Parks Operations Superintendent Summary: Implementation of the approved Park Maintenance Standards over a multi- year period. Policy Change: Change the method of parks maintenance operations from a scheduled service-based approach to a standards-based program as approved by City Council. Resources: Parks Operations and Forestry staff time, external landscape maintenance companies, and funding requests through the annual budget process. Key Milestones: August 2001 Develop performance measurement methodology to track the percentage of standard achieved. October 2001 Begin tracking performance utilizing approved methodology. December 2001 Submit the first quarter performance report to the Office of Budget and Strategic Planning. January 2002 Award the contract maintenance bid, if the SLA is approved. March 2002 Complete the recommendations for a future maintenance district, realignment, and additional support facilities. May 2002 Develop recommendations for future CIP program and budget requests based upon Council direction. Stratogy43516'ProvidelleoteationarDligoitinitie -to'All Residents, We lifi*OtWVIC:WiNdiforovide_Jnter.enerational,Park Facilities Implementation Plans a. Implement intergenerational park design standards Plan Leader: Eric Ploeger, Assistant Director of Parks & Recreation Summary: Implement intergenerational park design standards for new parks, as well as begin to retrofit current parks as the opportunity arises. Current CIP projects will be designed with these standards. Policy Change: Change park design process to include intergenerational park features as approved by the City Council in March, 2001. Resources: Bond funds, parkland dedication funds, staff time. Key Milestones: October 2001 Review potential Replacement Fund items and Park Land Dedication Fund availability for potential intergenerational projects, and implement as resources are available. December 2001 Include upgrades of existing parks an development of future parks in future CI P. FY 2002 Completion of Brison Park, Gabbard Park, and Merry Oaks Park, Madeley Park, Woodway Park, Spring Loop Park improvements expected. Strategy#4 To Plan f9171cornniPn4Y Growth, We will maintain Comprehensive Parks Planning Processes andDocumentation :1 - , - Implementation Plans a. create incentives devtIPPeisloWei:vlde:ad0*afe,idghb:atid,a-d'Pbiks :',--itz16-f:4 Plan Leader: Steve Beachy, Director of Parks and Recreation Summary: Investigate and recommend incentives for developers that will help provide larger neighborhood parks in locations that will better serve residents. Policy Change: Potential changes in policy to include incentives to aid park development. Resources: Existing staff and budget. Key Milestones: September 2001 Receive input from developers regarding potential incentives to improve park quality and locations. November 2001 Staff review and completion of focus group meeting results to develop recommendations. Includes financial impact of proposed incentives. December 2001 Parks and Recreation Advisory Board review of staff recommendations. February 2002 City Council review and consideration of proposed incentives. ViagiCa-iiiiiie10eViraYingraYeTitaiWarekterdAltiteliElOVIelit7P4 Plan Leader: Eric Ploeger,Asst. Parks and Recreation Director Summary: Develop a plan for a phased implementation of Veterans Park and Athletic Complex, including cost estimate. Actual completion dates will be dependent on financial resources available. Policy Change: Increase the schedule for full development of the Veterans Park Master Plan. Resources: PARD staff,fiscal services staff, and O'Malley Engineers. Key Milestones: July 2001 Submit facility name recommendations to City Council. September 2001 Award bid on Veterans Park and Athletic Complex, Phase I project. October 2001 Complete needs assessment for softball and soccer programs over the next ten years. (Peter LaMont) February 2002 Complete Phase recommendations and cost estimates and present to City Council. 1st Quarter 2003 Complete Phase I Construction. c Improve subdivision ordinance as it relates to Parkland location and FrPrirqTP:0011:PTB, ifi-pMi41hi-'6'e'iaW-:::ZitiVMMt-;-ZZ:2NlttftZATtn'Vaitd,I;azzat--E-i,etitStwtt Plan Leader: Eric Ploeger,Asst. Parks and Recreation Director Summary: Examine subdivision ordinance as it relates to parkland location and parkland dedication approval process and recommend improvements. Policy Change: Potential change in parkland dedication acceptance process, including Planning & Zoning Commission to guide this process, and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. Potential development of parkland acceptance policy. Resources: Existing staff and funds. Key Milestones: June 2001 Staff review of internal parkland acceptance process. August 2001 Unified development code presentation and policy direction for Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, and staff. September 2001 Focus Group to meet with developers to review draft changes in the Parkland Dedication Ordinance. October 2001 Staff completes draft revisions to Parkland Dedication Ordinance; November 2001 Parks and Recreation Advisory Board takes action on Dedication Ordinance revisions. January 2002 Planning & Zoning Commission takes action on Parkland Dedication Ordinance revisions. February 2002 City Council consideration of revisions to the Parkland Dedication Ordinance. d. Develop Master Plan for new community park site and current landfill site Plan Leader: Eric Ploeger, Asst. Parks and Recreation Director Summary: Develop a master plan for the current landfill and the new community park on Rock Prairie Road, adjacent to the landfill as it relates to a small area plan. Policy Change: None. Resources: Parks Planning, GIS Information Key Milestones: November 2001 Develop facility needs for the new Community Park to serve the southern portion of the City. February 2002 Submit facility needs for possible inclusion in the new 5-year CIP Plan. Summer 2003 Present conceptual Master Plan to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. Fall 2003 Complete conceptual Master Plan and present it to the City Council. Strate-005,MOTPIAPPtthAl#0000:: :,P,OPPg0:119,P,C,ItiF.e.FIPIYV-P-Will,WWA4i aad:Nih•PZ-a-VbeVelaOta'fji*eheifthfeteitti17ePrOgfartli;;Y: W :i.;',4 Implementation Plans a. Develop plans for future Senior programs-and facilities Plan Leader: Marci Rodgers, Senior Services Coordinator Summary: Explore the recommendations from the Eisenhower Leadership Development report, and conduct a survey to determine feasibility and potential for joint projects with governmental, business, and not-for-profit organizations. Develop facility alternatives and recommendations to include capital and operating costs. Policy Change: Develop policies regarding future programs and facilities to meet the needs of senior populations in the community. Resources: Parks and Recreation Department Staff; Community Development Department. Key Milestones: August 2001 Complete investigation of potential grant opportunities. November 2001 Complete survey of senior citizens and presentation report to City Council. November 2002 Conduct discussions with the City of Bryan and Brazos County to determine their interest in joint projects related to senior programs and facilities. December 2002 Develop financial impact analysis for recommended programs and facilities. January 2002 Presentation to Council and receive direction concerning recommendations for programs and facilities. January 2002 Seek commitment from agencies regarding programs and/or facilities based upon Council direction. February 2002 CIP list to budget. 130:',Prepare-feasibility report„on r skateboard park Plan Leader: Peter LaMount, Recreation Superintendent Summary: Develop a recommendation to the City Council on the potential financing, construction, and operation of a skate park facility. This is a long-term plan. Policy Change: None, Resources: Staff time, capital funding,and operational funding. Key Milestones: October 2001 Complete surveys of other municipal-operated skate parks for details of design and operation. November 2001 Develop recommendations for operation, construction, maintenance and funding for Council consideration. February 2002 Submit development costs for 5-year CIP based on City Council direction. January 2003 Develop implementation schedule based on November 2002 bond election. SP'ategyl#6 ,,,,To'Enhance`Cultural Opportunities,We Will.Expand Our Existing Public Art Program ‘•-• Implementation Plans :*3VVAiir6rartfe)irtPgi:eFrrrkThViiiiriarediiiiai , -; ::.:;;—, - -• filaPptermia10:Ihtrespyrcpsztiegdpfttppplittyp,mcgontaWitylacilitte -,.---- h, Plan Leader: Linda Piwonka, Director of Technology Information Services Summary: Currently the Council funds $20,400 per year for the Art in Public Places Program. The program is administered through the Arts Council, which has expressed desire to obtain representative sculptural artwork for location within College Station. Policy change: Policy consideration would include possible change in the funding levels provided to enhance art in public places program as well as possible changes in the budget allocations for public facilities art during the construction of these facilities. Resources: The Council has approved $20,400 annually, implementation of this plan may require an additional $50,000 annually to purchase representative works to be located in College Station. Additional funding allocation for art in capital projects for public facilities. This amount would be guided by policy adopted by Council. Key Milestones: September 2001 Council Consideration of ongoing funding increase for Art in Public places Program to purchase representative sculpture artwork in College Station. October 2001 Present proposed selection process to acquire representative work for College Station to Council for approval. November 2001 Begin selection of work for purchase in FY02 December 2001 Presentation,discussion, and possible action by Council regarding a change in policy establishing capital funding for public facilities. Consider change of policy to include funding allocation for public art as a part of construction costs Strategy Irv- To provide multi-use pedestrian recreation, We Will connect - =.7Parks Facilities Tnrou.n,ureenwa s ana,Other Opportunities Implementation Plans - e:fArWcilltNhld:rrafhlkdWIPWIEITbTeMOTta*°UtSAW ' i-t4Vlrf:' _ _ _ _ • Plan Leader: Mark Smith, Public Works Director Summary: Continue the implementation of the Wolf Pen Creek Masterplan. This is a short-term plan. Policy change: May accelerate debt issuance to finance projects within this TIF, Resources: Drainage utility funds, GOB '95 funds, Parkland Dedication Funds, WPC TIF funds Key Milestones: August 2001 Review WPC TIF capital budget. September 2001 Revise zoning ordinance regarding dedication of land for WPC development September 2001 Complete lower trail design December 2001 Begin construction of phase I trails December 2002 Complete channel design Construct future trail projects.as funds are available rb Implement demonstrationproject ?o establish a uture p0 ic--rie-a*din47-.4edenikfiy.44i- Plan Leader: Eric Ploeger,Assistant Parks&Recreation Director Summary: Provide pedestrian connections between parks, greenways, and residential areas including Lick Creek Park, Pebble Creek Park, Bee Creek park, Lemontree Park, Central Park, and Veterans Park and Athletic Complex. Policy Change: Provide linkage between greenways and parks to provide access for pedestrians and cyclists. Resources: Staff time, Lick Creek Park Development Funds ('98 Bond), Business Park Landscaping Funds. Key Milestones: July 2001 Complete Phase 1 of the bike loop project in Central, Bee Creek, and Lemontree Parks. August 2001 Link Pebble Creek Park to the Business Park during Phase ll of the Business Park Landscaping Project. October 2002 Utilize existing bond funds and Trails Grant funds for Lick Creek Park trails development, to include connection with Pebble Creek Parkway. November 2002 Complete trail section in Veterans Park and Athletic Complex. Applied for grant. Strategy#8- 'To Improve Parks Planning, We Will Increase Communication , Between the City Council Parks Advisory Board, and the,:i. ; --pIannt Zoning,,commission „ _iiand Implementation Plans *1;;Virtieffithig-Utier-AWfriialeTtiairGeaeTiet4I-C-TVC-irureiaP,767:Rtareet, VaTie'iVATIVriW f 1-,c0ASBparctgri,dthq:PIgniung-42-g gcurfig_ci`proffussi Plan Leader: Steve Beachy, Director of Parks and Recreation Jim Callaway, Director of Development Services Summary: Identify and coordinate key areas of interest for these two appointed boards and set goals accordingly. Policy Change: No current policy exists, new policy may be developed. Resources: Existing staff,funds, and appointed members. Key Milestones: July 2001 Board and Commission members'orientation by City Council. July 2001 Parks and Recreation Advisory Board presentation and discussion of Council Vision Statements and Implementation Plans. July 2001 Planning and Zoning Commission presentation and discussion of Council Vision Statements and Implementation Plans. August 2001 Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and Planning and Zoning Commission each identify areas of potential common interest September 2001 Joint meeting with Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and Planning and Zoning Commission to set goals. November 2001 Joint meeting with City Council to confirm goals. City of College S:ation Parks & Recreation Depa ment Fiscal Year 2001 Board G, al u Investigate tke l'esibility of cooper-.tive vet tures with CRS t Support the implementaion if a Greenways lversight Co,4 mittee to support the reenways Master Plan • Estailish policies and standards for respa rain' of existing parks, facilities, and services offered 'try the tepartment Encourage 0 beret /garden parks and color enrthasis in existing parks a Work on plans to make en trent and future parks intergenerational a Set ut quality standar,*s to measure perf.rn rice for maintenance and field use for neighttrhood and co, unity parks • Revision of the Surciunge Policy Review the Parks and Recreation„Department Fee !Folicy • Intergenerational ideas spa ing all age gaps Develop progrims and facilities for senior citizens • levelop am Urban Forestry Plat for the ( it y of College station Li Investigate the feasibility of cooperative ventures with TAi'-„U on facilities and programs o Explore the feasi4 illy of a cot,, .!ercial ice skatrin'... rink t-.3 More interaction betweet Parks Advisory loard and Planning and Z.ning Commission, and stared vision with City Council o Monitor code review ani revision projects currently underway with respect to codes impacting parks. o Identify areas of ct kon concern between Parks Advisory Bear. and Plan nng and Zoning Con nnission. o Review the parkland dedication ordinance. Keep current a file of other city parkland dedication ordinances and review every three years. ta Develop criteri for parl land tedication. What are the desired characteristics of a neighborhood park with respect to size, amenities, pedestrian access, vehicle access, lighting, vehicle parking, trees, open space, connectivity to greenways, connectivity to bikeways, drainage and retention ponds, ease of maintenance, location with respect to arterial streets and the neighborhoods served, etc. o Explore further the concept of advn need planning for neighborhood parks well ahead of the development in an area. o Identify, as a part of the City's Comprehensive Plan, the future general location of community parkstete e time frames fir when they will needed. Estimate land acquisition costs. Develop community park acquisition strategy. Page 1 of 2 • Explore opportunities and identify locations where parks could serve as the focal point for a neighborhood, subdivision entrance, city gateway, or arterial corridor. a Further explore opportunities for developer fees and/or parkland dedication for development of con:' cty parks. Find out what other Texas cities are dohig. o Identify obstacles to quality parkland dedication by developers. Work to remove obstacles that are within the control of the City. a Schedule a jo;l1 meeting of the Parks Advisory kit oar* and the Planning and Zo Co mission once a year. o Schedule a joint workshop meeting of the Parks Advisory Board and the City Council once a year. *it-Glint Activities o Implementation of the approved.Capital improvement Progr,ci. o Imple .entation of the Wolf Pen Creek --aster Plan. Page 2 of 2 Memorandum To: Glenn Brown, Assistant City Manager Through: Steve Beachy, Parks and Recreation Director From: Curtis Bingham, Parks Operations Superintendent Date: June 4, 2001 Subject: Playground Replacement and Repair Schedule Five playgrounds, (one each in Raintree Park, Merry Oaks Park, Lemontree Park, Thomas Park, and Brothers Pond Park), have been replaced within the past 12 months. This was for a total cost of$115,535 with the average cost per playground being $23,107. Three of these playgrounds (Merry Oaks Park, Raintree Park, and Brothers Pond Park) included installing swing sets separate from the playgrounds as per NRPA and ASTM playground safety standards. The swing sets were installed with fall surface pits containing pea gravel and rubber crumbs. The Gabbard Park playground is scheduled to be replaced before the end of this fiscal year. The playgrounds at Hensel Park and Georgie K. Fitch Park are scheduled for replacement in FY 2002. The Gabbard Park and Georgie K. Fitch playgrounds are the last of the wooden playground structures and meet the least number of standards for all the existing playgrounds. No existing playgrounds have enough substandard conditions to warrant immediate removal of the entire playground. Any individual piece of playground equipment posing a definite safety hazard is isolated from use until the proper replacement parts can be purchased and installed. There are four other playgrounds, one each at Bee Creek Park and Anderson Park and two at Southwood Park, that are in need of replacement due to the cost and difficulty of obtaining replacement parts. Parts for these playgrounds are no longer available due to changes in safety standards or the companies have been bought out making the replacement parts obsolete. These obsolete parts must be specially manufactured which increases the cost dramatically. This is very costly when it comes to parts that are routinely replaced, such as slide sections, due to vandalism. Replacing the playgrounds at Southwood and Anderson Parks would require separate swing set installations. With funding these four playgrounds could possibly be replaced by the end of FY 2003. Lions, Parkway, and Windwood Parks only need separate swing sets with fall surface pits for about $6,500 each. The swing set installations also could possibly be installed by FY 2003. Woodcreek, Lincoln Center, Central, Thomas, and Jack and Dorothy Miller Parks appear to have safety railings which do not meet standards. However, we are presently looking into the possibility that some of these barriers may fall into certain guidelines to meet safety standards. Resolving the barrier problems could be completed by the end of FY 2002 and be funded from the normal budgeted funds provided there are few major repairs to existing playground equipment. Please, contact me if you have any questions. cc: Steve Beachy, Parks and Recreation Director Ric Ploeger, Asst. Parks and Recreation Director Pete Vanecek, Parks and Recreation Planner City a C Ile• Sta, P rks an" eereatitn oar f: Currnt'f ist of Subcommittees: Skate Park_.___.____._.Laura Wood, George Dressei, Jon Turton JRecreation, _ . s, ichols,A6A¢3AA53�'d A�Av"db W 6A'At§*f6 Ada A5EAU"uAAAu9bh'+A@r�i Ac9A4 AAAArq Cromitoi,AK3A4ff3&vA . Fees Glen ill Davis, A A A AA'„9 A A A A t`d"$A$9 A A A A A f5 A€P 49 A A A A&4. .- $ .• Schroeder Veterans ,... 7M tii ,' .s- i A A A¢9:A A A@ c A C A A va i, 'vise. t Nichols, c2 fi3AA€AAA_AAAAA_@A__A AACB A@ 2t t53A_aTaA.@A_A+"sAA.A@Ab+B A_4At$$xAAA@3€9AAE$_.Ad9 E@&P.__A Lany Farnsworth Jsint Ventures with CSIS• Chris tarzilh, Glen Davis J.int 'entures with TI U.__—.,____.John Nichols, LQ9rge Dresseri Lick Creek Park_.___..______.__..Laura Woo., Crompto gym. tther ittees enriers ar- c rrend, servi 7,4 ..,. r t... .. 7r.'..a d ' " :i� � .,,.� A<a A 43A AAA3A sAAO. bt8A t'•, A�a +� � a s 8 4 Community ractions Co . iftee.____________.__Laur. Wood Art in Public John Nichols OversightWoif l'en Creek Parks and Recnb,....ion Department CIP Project List FY 2001 H-H::::H.:::::H:H: :H:H: : :H:H::i:•::H: : : : H :.::: H :::::::::::.:: ::: H : fkinding.i: : :::: expeolocf.:::::::: Actual::.:.::::::::: Final. :::::, Priority: Project Status ::Pkijeai:ii: Budget Source ::CatiiPletio:ii:Dte::::CCiiri.Oletioii:Date:::::::::::::Cat:::::::::: 1 Brothers Park Improvements Complete PK0084 $32,000 98 G.O. 03/31/01 3/28/01 $25,587 1 Lemontree Park Playground Complete PK0066 $22,000 98 G.O. 12/31/01 11/31/01 $21,000 1 Lick Creek Park Grant Application Complete 98 G.O. 01/31/01 1/19/01 NA 1 Mer Oaks Pla ipround Reelaceme Comelete PK0088 $25,000 Reslacement Account 03/31/01 3/28/01 $23,643 1 Parking Garage Landscape Plan Complete C.O. 12/31/01 12/1/01 Southwood Soccer Field 1 Renovation (FY'01) Complete FY'01 05/31/01 5/31/01 1 Thomas Park Improvements Complete PK9931 $84,000 98 G.O. 12/31/01 11/31/01 $80,000 Thomas Pool Leak Investigation 1 and Repair(FY'01) Complete PK0107 $25,000 FY'01 2/1 $4740 1 West District Maintenance Shop Complete PK9927 $501,000 98 G.O. 2/31/01 2/16/01 $406,807 1 Willow Branch Tennis Courts Complete PK0074 $125,000 Park Land Dedication 03/01/01 2/16/01 $125000 2 Community Park Acqusition Complete PK9948 $520,000 98 Bond 06/01/01 6/1/01 $585000 2 Veterans Water Feasibility(FY'01) Complete PK0110 $25,000 FY°01 10/01/01 2/1 $5500 $1,785 for year Maint. Park Land Dedication until March Wolf Pen Creek Tree Plantin. Corn elete Zone 3 07/31/01 YJKIJ1 I 1 Raintree Park Imirovements Comilete PK0068 $44,000 98 G.O. 4/31/01 4/6/01 $28,687 2 Lick Creek Park Trails Project Grant Approved $126,265 98 G.O. 1 Business Center Landscaping Proje In Construction GG9705 $250,000 G.O. 07/31/01 Millennium Winds Improvements 2 (FY'01) In Construction HM0104 $7,195 FY'01 08/31/01 111 1 Veterans Park, Phase I In Design PK9941 $2,120,000 98 G.O. 07/01/02 2 Castlegate Park Design In Design 10/31/01 2 Gabbard Park Improvements In Design PK0102 $78,000 98 G.O. 11/30/01 2 High School Tennis Court Lights(F In Design PK0109 $91,500 FY'01 10/01/01 2 Lincoln Improvements In Design CD1292 $90,000 FY'01 C.D.B.G. 12/1 2 Merry Oaks Improvements In Design PK0103 $37,000 98 G.O. 9/31/01 2 Oaks Park Bridie In Desiin PK0067 $28,000 98 G.O. 12/1 3 Brison Park Improvements In Design PK0100 $54,600 98 G.O. 12/1 Negotiating Land 2 Woodway Park Development Purchase $468,600 3 Shenandoah Park Development On Hold $48,000 Park Land Dedication 111 1 Hallaran Pool Filters&Coatin. FY Out to Bid 7/9 PK0106 $120,000 FY'01 03/31/02 Indoor Grant Application for Joint CSISD Project Suspend Until '03 1 Cemetery Land Acquisition GG9905 $275,000 98 G.O. 3 Central Park Improvements PK0101 $17,000 98 G.O. Parks and Recrb-aon Department CIP Project List FY 2001 Funding.. Expected Actual . . Final :.-.:.:•••••••-•..---••••••:•:•:•:•••:•:•:•::::-:•:•:-:•:•:•:•:•:::-:-:•:•:•:•:-:•••••-•:-:.:•:•:•:-:•:•-•-•-••••••••-•:-:•:-:•:-:•:•:•:•:•••••••••••••••••••••••••-•:•:•••••••••••••••••••••:-:•:-:•:•:•:•:•:..•.-.•.•.-........:.:.:•:•:•:•:•:•:- .......................-....---.•.••••••-.-:•••:-:•-•:•:.•:•:•:•:-.......-.-:•:•:•:•:•: 041Oiliii::Ori00StOt0 :: : ::: Project : E3400t $00.r0::: : Caerifiletidn::Date.::::COiriOletitin:Date.::-:::::H:POSI::::::::::: Others City Center Concepts Complete 1 1 _ 1 3/1. 1 City Hall Atrium Complete GG0102 $8,500 05/01/01 2/23/01 $8,547 2 Northgate Park(FY'01) Wolf Pen Creek Design Charett Complete WPC TIF, Skateboard Park On Hold PK0073 $162,000 FY'00• Carter Creek Wastewater Training Landscape Design Only FPO#: $10-15,000 Sewer Revenue Bond Center (Complete) S59806 Estimate Funds 09/02/01 5/2/01 Priorities: #1 -In progress currently or will be in progress before January 1,2001. #2- In progress before August 1, 2001. #3- In progress after October 1, 2001. Fees Subcommittee Meeting Friday, August 17, 2001 Parks Conference Room Noon Enclosed: 0- City of College Station Fiscal and Budgetary Policy Statement 0- Parks and Recreation Department Proposed Fee Policy Statement 0- Parks and Recreation Department User Fees(1992-2001) 0- Executive Summary— Cost of Services Study 0- Parks and Recreation Department Staff Recommendations for Fiscal Year 2002 User Fees 0- Fee Schedule for the City of Bryan. FISCAL . i BUDGETARY POLICY STATEMENTS III. REVE E AGEMENT B. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 5. USER-BASED FEES . SERVICE C .RGES. For services associated with a user fee or charge, the direct and indirect costs of that service will be offset by a fee where possible. There will be a review of fees and charges no less than once every three years to ensure that fees provide adequate coverage of costs of services. User charges may be classified as "full cost recovery, " partial cost recovery, " and "minimal cost recovery, " based upon City Council policy. a. Full fee support (80-100%) will be obtained from enterprise operations such as utilities, sanitation service, landfill, cemetery and licenses and permits. b. Partial fee support (50-80%) will be generated by charges for emergency medical services, miscellaneous licenses and fines, and all adults sports programs. c. Minimum fee support (0-50%) will be obtained from other parks, recreational, cultural, and youth programs and activities. This is taken from the Fiscal and Budgetary Policy Statements included in the FY 01 approved budget. The full policy is located in appendix F of the FY 01 approved budget document. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION PA ' S & RECREATION DEPARTMENT FEES POLICY STATEMENT The citizens of College Station have made a co *tment to excellence in parks facilities and.recreation progra . These facilities and services require substantial expenditures by the City to ensure appropriate maintenance and effective programming. This policy is intended to ° ure that a proportion of these costs is recovered through user fees in an equitable manner in accordance with the City's current fiscal and budgetary policies approved by the City Co cil. I. Fees for athletic progr. shall be set in accordance with the following guidelines: A. The cost of intaining and operating athletic facilities should be borne by those who use them. In addition, in those situations where the City has responsibility for orga * ing and/or progr ing activities, participants should bear proportionate staff salaries and overhead of direct supervisors associated with the prop- . The City recognizes that it is appropriate to subsidize youth athletic and aquatics activities. Such activities contribute to educational development and to encourage leisure literacy, which are increasingly ° portant aspects of life. Youth is defined as all individuals up to, and including, eighteen years of age. The City will absorboall maintenance and operating costs associated with facilities and the staff costs associated with org. ° ing and/or progra g activities. A fee will be assessed to cover all variable costs associated with progr. such as unifor equipment, awards, umpires, etc. in accordance with the City's fiscal and budgetary policy statement. C. It is intended that facilities and progr. should be available to all citizens and that none should be excluded because of inability to pay. The Department Director, at his/her discretion, y reduce any fee in individual cases upon evidence of fmancial hardship. The "Parks Bucks" program is intended to meet the majority of these cases. D. In addition to this user fee policy, the City levies a fee surcharge, which goes into an Athletic Renovation and Improvement Fund. The policy governing that fund is attached to this policy. II. Fees for the use of rental facilities shall be set to cover the cost of utilities and maintenance expenses related to that facility. Deposits may be required, as needed, to ensure proper care and clean-up is provided by user groups. Deposits Approved by Parks and Recreation Advisory Board on April 23,2001. Page 1 of 3 may be waived when users establish a satisfactory record with the City, and will be determined on a case by case basis The fee and deposit will be waived for the College Station Independent School District per a joint use agreement. III. Aquatics, special events and instruction fees shall be set to cover all expenses directly associated with conduct of the class or event. Pool admission fees shall be set on an a ual basis to recover a portion of the pools' operating expenses up to 50%. All fees shall be reviewed on an a ual basis at public meetings by the Parks and Recreation Board. After receiving public input, the Board will then submit fee reco endations for the next calendar year to the City Co cil for final approval. Approved by Parks and Recreation Advisory Board on April 23,2001. Page 2 of 3 Athletic Renovation and Improvement Funds The CIP Committee recommended multiple lighting, irrigation, shade structures, pathway and backstop projects on athletic fields as part of the 1998 bond program that was approved by the City Council and the citizens. They were assured that this would restore all athletic fields to the City's desirable standard. However, the CIP Committee noted that it was unreasonable to fund these short- term projects which had an expected life of considerably less than 25 years with 25 year bonds, since future taxpayers would be paying for assets that no longer existed. The Council concurred with the Committee's strong recommendation that a surcharge should be required of all teams using athletic fields to pay for the replacement of items that have deteriorated as a result of their use, and for any improvements in the existing standard of facilities they would like to have. In response to this mandate, the Parks and Recreation Department is preparing a rolling 10 year schedule which projects the renovations and improvements required at each athletic field complex. Input from representatives of the athletic field users will be solicited in preparing this schedule. The costs of implementing the 10 year program will be calculated, with allowances made for likely future cost increases, and divided into equal annual amounts. The surcharge will be sufficient to pay each user groups' prorated share of the fields' annual renovations and improvements. This money will be retained in a separate capital fund for each athletic field complex, and will be used exclusively for renovating or improving that complex. The Parks and Recreation Department will consult with representatives from the athletic groups contributing to a fund before money can be appropriated from it. It is likely to take some months for the staff to carefully develop and cost the 10 year plans. However, it is desirable to implement the program as soon as possible, since delays will increase the surcharge amounts that will be needed in future years. This policy will be implemented on October 1,1999 at the commencement of FY2000. In lieu of the availability of the 10-year plan, the Parks and Recreation Board recommended a surcharge be leveled on each item that equates to approximately $5 per person, per season (Fall, Spring, and Summer), per team in FY2000. This will be reviewed with athletic team representatives before the FY2001 budget cycle when the rolling 10-year plan is available, and revisions, if necessary, will be made to this $5 amount to reflect the financial needs of the fields. This procedure will be replicated annually in future years. Approved by Parks and Recreation Advisory Board on April 23,2001. Page 3 of 3 1992-2001 PARKS AND RECREAT1UN DEPARTMENT USER FEES ACTIVITY/FACILITY 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Hallaran/Thomas $25 $25 $25 $25 $30 $30 $38 $50 $40 $50 Natatorium $40 $40 $40 $40 $40 $40 *Adamson-25 swims ma be used at all cit •t $25 $40 $50 $50 60 $60 $70 $75 $75 $75 3. Family Season Pass 11111.1111 IIIIIIIIIIII Natatorium $125 $125 $125 $125 $125 Hallaran/Thomas $120 $125 $125 $125 $125 $125 $125 $125 $125 $125 *Adamson(may be used at all city pools) $120 $225 $200 $200 $200__- $200 ! $200 $200 $200 $200 4. Individual Season Pass Hallaran/Thomas $60 $60 $60 $60 $60 $60 $60 $60 $60 $60 *Adamson(may be used at all city pools) $60 $30 $80 $80 $80 $80 $80 $80 $80 $80 5. Babysitter Season Pass Hallaran/Thomas $30 $30 $30 $30 $30 $30 $30 $30 $30 *Adamson ma be used at all cit •ools $40 $40 $40 $40 $40 $40 $40 $40 $40 *excludes CSISD Natatorium , . 6. Pool Rental(2 hours) • H allaran: 25 +eo•le or fewer $75 $75 $75 C $75 $75 $75 $75 $75 50 people or fewer $60 $60 $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 51-76 people $75 $75 $150 $150 150 $150 $150 $150 $150 $150 77-102 people $90 $90 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 Each hour after intial 2 hours $25 $25 $25 $25 $25 $25 $50 $50 $50 $50 Thomas/Natatorium: 25•eo•le or fewer $50 $50 $50 $50 $65 $65 $65 $65 50 •eo•le or fewer $50 $50 $75 $75 $75 $75 $75 $75 $75 $75 51-76 people $65 $65 $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 77-102 •eo•le $80 $80 $125 $125 __- $125 $125 $125 $125 $125 $125 Each hour after intial 2 hours $25 $25 $25 $25 $25 $25 $50 $50 $50 $50 Adamson: 99 people or fewer $200 25 $250 $250 $250 $250 $250 $250 $250 199 or fewer $200 $300 $300 $300 300 $300 $300 $300 $300 299 or fewer $200 $400 $400 $400 $400 _ $400 $400 $400 $400 300+ 1111111111 $200 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 Each hour after intial 2 hours $25 $25 $25 $25 $25 $25 $100 $100 $100 $100 Sat.&Sun./limited hours available '. 7. Educational Class Rental 1 hour/non exclusive IIIIIIIII $25 $25 $25 $25 $25 Is VENDOR PERMITS $20 $20 $50 $50 $50 $50 $50 ' 5 $50 $50 111.1111 11111111111111 BY PARKS AND RECREATION APPROVED: 9- a -00 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111 BY CI COUNCILBUDGET)_.... _.. ... -.. .._ M APPROVED: 23-Oct-99 O:\parkslbudgetlusarfees.xts Revised;April 6,2000 ****The Parks&Recreation Board Approved the FY99-00 User Fees on April 13, 1999. 1992-2001 PARKS AND RECREATIUN DEPARTMENT USER FEES ACTIVITY/FACILITY 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 � . $10 Youth ►i #, Income • # - $5 Adult $10 $15 Non-Member Guest Pass(youth or adult) • Mill 2. *G rm(8 hr. block/day)deposit III. �,Hourly/Half Court(4 hr max) ' ' ' $15 Hourly/Full Court(4 hr max) 0 All Da Usa•a more than 4 hrs $100 Concession Usage '► '► 0 3. *Teen Room/Game Room '► 0 I I $10 ' $10/2 hr min $10/2 hr min '►10/2 hr min De•osit '► . $50 Rental $20 4. *Community Room Rental(max. 3 hrs) '► $ '► $25 $25 111$2511111$25111111 Additional per hr $15De•osit $50 Kitchen Fee .1 $10 *All rooms are subject to an after-hr. charge of$20 per hour. The after-hr. charge is based on any request to use facilities beyond the center's normal operatin• hours. F. TEEN CENTER(THE 7) 1. Non Member per day ` 2. Membershi• ser ear ...................................... . G. ATHLET7C FIELDS MEM 111111111111 Sin • - field rental/da $50 $50 $50 $50 $60 $60 $60 $60 $60 $60 fieldfour 4 ! •l .. $150 $150 $150 $150 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 four(4)field complex/Sat&Sun. $300 $300 $300 $300 $350 $350 $350 $350 $350 $350 two 2 field com•lex/da $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 • 2 field • - - $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 2. Soccer: ** 11111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII One $50/da $50/da $50/da 4 $50/da $60 $60 $60 $60 $60 $60 fieldsAll $150/dayiifIs1L1J $150/day $150/day $200 $200 $200 i i, Weekend $300 00 $300 $300 $350 $350 $350 $350 i '� 3. Field Rentals/Per Hour 1/2/3 hrs * $7/$121$17 $7/$12/$1 $7/$12/$17 $10/$15/$20 $10/15/20 $10/15/20 $10/15/20 $10/15/20 $10/15/20 *1*Inddad.rditiotn ttoh the rtenital fdeeds, a diefposit wdildl b.t.e chiafrged in adbvance of anyttotuhrnametnt.dThe cide.posit wthill viary depending on the type and size of the tournament. . gth and type of tournament to cover expenses incurred by the City for personnel and supplies needed to facilitate the tournament. These fees will be provided to the renter in advance of the tournament. H. SWIMMING POOLS 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 11111MIMINE1011 1. General Admission 3 rs&u• IIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIII��- Hallaran/Thomas $1.25 $1.25 $1.25 $1.25 $1.50 $1.50 $1.75 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 Natatorium IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIHIIIIIIIIIIMII $2 $2 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 Adamson $1.25 $2 $2.50 $2.50 $3 $3 $3.25 $3.50 $3.50 $3.50 F—CiTc-Ourvims) 1 1992 I 1993 I 1994 I 19 5 I 1996 1 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 1992-2001 PARKS AND RECREATIuN DEPARTMENT USER FEES ACTIVITY/FACILITY 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 .•:.:•:.:.,•:•:.:•:::•:.:•:•:::•:•:.:::•:•:.:::,.:..._:,:::::•:•:,:•:.:,.::::.:::,:::::::,:,::_:::::::::::::,,,:,:,:::::,:::•_::::::::,:::::::::::•_::::,:,:::,:::::::.::::::::,:„:::_::::,:::::::,:,:::::::::::::::::••:,::::::::::::::::::::::„:::::::::::::::,:::,:::::,::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::,,,:„_:,::::::::::::::::::::•::::_:::::.::::::.:„.:.,.. ..,.•:,. , .. , A. ADULT SPORTS PER TEAM 1. Basketball $200 $200 $250 $250 $255 $255 $265 $265 $265 $265 2. Flag Football $250 $250 $250 $255 $260 $265 $265 $340 $265 $340 3. Volleyball $85 $85 $100 $110 $110 $110 $265 $130 $130 $130 4. Softball ._ . , .. Play-Off League S rIm $235 $240 $250 $255 $260 $265 $285 $285 $356 $360 Play-Off League(Fall) $190 $195 $210 $215 $220 $225 $240 $240 $300 $315 Fast 1:1191...LEISum)i S r ., $220 $220 $290 $290 $300 $300 $300 $300 $375 $375 Fast Pitch Fall $235 $245 $250 $250 $250 $250 $312 $325 ................,.................,.............,................................,..........._.,...................................................................„....................................................................................................................................................................... ............... .......... . B. YOUTH SPORTS PER PERSON 1. Basketball $20/$10/$5 $25/$10/$5 $25/$15/$5 $25/$15/$5 $30/$20/$10 $30/20/10 $30/20/10 $30/20/10 $30/20/10 $30/20/10 2. Flag Football $20/$10/$5 $25/$10/$5 $25/$15/$5 $25/$15/$5 $30/$20/$10 $30/20/10 $30/20/10 $35/25/15 $30/20/10 $35/25/15 3. Girl's Softball $30/$20/$5 $25/$15/$5 $30/$20/$10 $30/20/10 $30/20/10 $35/25/15 $30/20/10 $35/25/15 •:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:,,•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•;•:,•:•:•:•:.:•:•:•:•:•:•:,:•:•:,:•:•:•,:•:•::•:•:•:,:•:.:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:.:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:::•:,•,:.:•:•:•:•::•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•,•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:••:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•,:•:.:•:.:•:•::•:•:•:•:•:•:,•:•:•:•:•::•:•:•:•:.:•.•:•:•:•:•:•.:::•:•.•.:•.•:•:•.• : C. INSTRUCTION 1. Swim Lessons $15 $16 $16 $16 $20 $23 $30 $30 $30 $30 2. Adv. Swim Lessons $20/$10/$5 $20/$10/$5 $20/$10/$5 $20/$10/$5 $20/$10/$5_ $25/15/10 $25/15/10 $25/15/10 $25/15/10 $25/15/10 3. TAAF Swim Team $40/$25/$15 .40/$25/$1! $40/$25/$15 $40/$25/$15 $40/$25/$15 $80/60/40 $80/60/40 $80/60/40 $80/60/40 $80/60/40 4. National Jr.Tennis League $30/child _ $30/child $40/$35/$30 $40/$35/$30 $40/$35/$30_ $50 $50 $50 $50 $50 5. Tennis Lessons(+ 1 can of balls) $30/person $30/person $35/person $35/person $35/person $35/person $35/person $35/person $35/person $35/person 6. Golf $45 $45 $45 $45 :•.•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:.:•:•:.:•:••:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:••:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:••:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•::•:•:•:•:.:•:.:•:•:• ,:•:,_:_::;.:,,,:•:.:•:•:,:•:•:•:,•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:••:•••:•:•:•:•••: .• •.•• . •. : D. PICNIC SHELTERS PER DAY 1. Bee Creek Pavilion $30 $30 $30 $30 $50 $50 $50 $50 $50 $75 2. Central Pavilion Monday-Thursday $75 $50 $50 $50 $50 $50 $50 $50 $50 $75 Frida $75 $75 $75 $75 , $75 $75 $75 $75 $75 $100 Saturday&Sunday&Holidays $125 $125 $125 $125 $125 $125 $125 $125 $125 $175 3. Oaks Pavilion $30 $30 $30 $30 $50 $50 $50 $50 , $50 $75 4. Southwood Pavilion i Monday-Thursday $75 $50 $50 $50 $50 $50 $50 $50 $50 $75 Friday $75 $75 $75 $75 $75 $75 $75 $75 $75 $100 Saturday&Sunday&Holidays $125 $125 $125 $125$125 $125 $125 $125 $125 $175 5. Thomas Pavilion $15 $15 $15 $15 $15 $15 $15 .$15 $15 $15 6. Wolf Pen Creek Amphitheater Private-Weekda $75 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 Private-Weekend $125 $250 $250 $250 $250 $250 $250 $250 $250 Non Commercial-Weekda $50 $425 $425 $425 $425 $425 $425 $425 $425 Non Commercial-Weekend $100 $525 $525 $525 $525 $525 $525 $525 $525 Professional/Commercial-Weekday $150 $800 $800 $800 $800 $800 $800 $800 $800 Professional/Commercial-Weekend $250 $900 $900 $900 $900 $900 $900 $900 $900 *Service Personnel char.es will be added accordin•I •:•:•:•:•:.:•:•:...:.•••••.•.:.:...:.:.:•:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:•:.:.:•:.:.:.:•:•:•:•:.:.:.:.:•:•:•:.:.:.WIENNIRBS:•:•:•:•••••••:•••••:•:•:•'•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•••••••'•••••:•:•:•:•:•:•::•:•:•:•••:•:•••••••:•:•:•••:•:•:•••:•••:•••••:•:•:••:•:•:•:•:•:•••••••••••••:•:•:•:•:•::•:•:•:•••••••••••.•:•:•::•:•:•••••••••••••:•:•.:•.. • ••• •• .••• E. LINCOLN CENTER 1992 1993 1994 1995. .. 1996 1e97 4.9.e8• 1999 2000 2001 1. Membershi. 19-54 rs , ser ear $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 N/A N/A N/A $15 $15 Rem.;el 8//o/o/ Executive Summaly Cost of Services Study for the City of College Station, Texas Parks and Recreation Department 1 Helping Government e the People 13601 r sto Road, Suite 400W Dallas,TX 75240 (972)490-9990 � �Contents Table ~�= � 0NTRODUCTION.~~~~~'.-.~_.`~.~~_~,,,_._,.,~~�,._~~.,~�~_~�_~,~~~,,~~,,~~,~,,~,~,/ APPROACH /4' • Y,~,,,~~~,,~,~~~~,~~~,~_~~,~~~~~~~0'0~~~~~~~~,,5 IIIo ACTIVITY FEE S %ES.~~~~~^~'~~~~~.~~~~_~~~_~~~~~~,,~^~~~~~,~~,~~~~~~~~~,~~~ A. Adult Activities.~~~~~~.~~~~~~.^~~~~~GOO~~~~~~~'~~~~.~~~~~~'~.~.~~~..~~~~~~~~~~~~~0007 Be Youth ~~~^^~~~~~~~~~~00600042~00~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~8 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~10 E. Recreation F. Other ~.~,~~~~~~~~~^~^~~~~~~~~-~~~^^.~~~~~^~^~~~.~.~.~~~.~~~~~~~~~~~~.~l 3 BENEFITS 11 POLICY CONSIDERATIONS..~,~~,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~15 Appendix —User Fee Costing Report(Under Sep. .te Cover) ( INTRODUCTION The City of College Station, Texas, is a full service city gove ent, which provides many services to its citizens and, in some cases, non-residents. As with cities throughout the United States, College Station is dealing with difficult issues in increased demands for se *sees and increasing costs fueled by gro . In addition, the city desires to reduce the property tax on its citizens. As a result of these pressures, the city must ex *ne all oppo *ties for enhanced revenues or new revenue sources to avoid reducing valuable City service levels. Accordingly, College Station engaged DMG- 4 S, INC. (DMG) to conduct a Cost of Services Study to review the City's Parks and Recreation Dep ;;;;;ent c ent costs and policies related to the recovery of fees for services. This Executive S;;;; ;;;ary provides a s ary of DMG- S' findings and potential revenue increases resulting from this study. • User Fee Study • The costs of many Parks services currently provided by the City either are or could be recovered from user fees. Revenues from user fees be an appropriate me. of achieving revenue enhancement for local gove ent. Many times one or more of the folio g conditions exist before a full cost user fee study is undertaken in a city: • Current user fees are set far below the actual cost of providing the ser Tees. > No fees are being charged for services that could generate revenue. • Cuent fee cture and policy have not been set with full knowledge of the relationship between the value of a serrTce and the ount of a fee. Providing certain public servTces at cost can have n erous benefits to the City and its citizens: > All service users, including those exempt from property taxes,pay user fees. > Non-residents,reducing the burden on City residents,pay user fees. > User fees create a "ratio g" of services and allow for the measurement of demand. It is for these reasons that local gove ents all over the United States are shifting from a near-total dependence on property, sales, and income taxes for fmancing local se eces to a more broad-based revenue se Although there may be political reaction to increasing fees for se Tees that were previously free or heavily subsidized, local gove ents are becoming aware that user charges can be a more acceptable method of raising revenue than an increase in taxes. Cost of Services Study for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department C DA‘G-MAXIMUS,INC.2001 Page 1 Summary The User Fee Study presents the results of a DMG I S analysis of the full cost of services provided by the City of College Station, Texas, Parks and Recreation Dep ent, for which user fees are being charged or *ght be considered. By calculating the full costs of these services, including an appropriate share of Ci *de and dep a ental indirect cost, and comp. * g that cost to the associated revenues received, DMG 4 S has been able to dete inc the ount of cost subsidy being dra from general tax dollars in these areas. The objective of the Study was to provide cost data to be used as a basis for establishing or changing user fees. The full cost of delivering services includes direct labor costs, other direct operating and m tenance costs, dep. I ental supe *sion costs,and cit *de indirect costs. The study indicates that the full cost of fee related services are $2,892,750 and that $855,619 is being recovered in revenue. The subsidy currently required to support these ser vices is,therefore,$2,037,131 as illustrated in the follorrug ph: Cost vs. Revenue $855619 Total Cost Revenue $2892750 In comparison to other DMG- S m *cipal clients, the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Depc ent's subsidy levels are comp bk. However, DMG S has identified potential areas for cost recovery to increase the charges for services, therefore increasing revenues for the City. The larger subsidy areas, in some cases, are for fee areas where the City has made a policy decision not to pursue full cost recovery. Typically, Parks and Recreation Dep ents subsidize certain activities (usually youth activities)while attempting to recover full costs for adult prog • s. Cost of Services Study for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department C DMG-MAXIMUS,INC 2001 Page 2 Revenue Summary and Potential Increases A su ary of the cost/revenue analysis and the resulting potential for increased revenues are s arized in the tables that follow. DMG T S identified potential for new revenues in existing fee areas of$172,165. Percent of Activity Cost Revenue Difference Cost Recovery Adult Activities 399,501 181,655 217,846 45.47% Youth Activities 250,520 60,638 189,882 24.20% Aquatics $ 1,038,817 348,881 689,936 33.58% Rentals 248,660 50,321 198,339 20.24% Rec/Conference Centers 870,804 148,145 722,659 17.01% Other 84,448 S. 65,979 18,469 78.13% Total $2,892,750 f 855 619 - 2,037,131 29.58% In addition, DMG- 41 S identified other sev ices provided by the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Dep. • ent in which no fee is c ently charged,but where costing info ation can be used in deciding whether or not to implement new fees. The amount of full cost involved for these activities totals $484,656, and includes Soccer, Cemetery, and Little League. Although the cemetery collects revenues that are in a septe fund, the Parks and Recreation Dep [ cut receives no revenues for the se ces provided. Non-Revenue Producing Activities Percent of Activity Cost Revenue Difference Cost Recovery • Cemetery S 163,773 163,773 0.00% Soccer S 137,025 $ 137,025 0.00% Little League S 183,858 $ 183,858 0.00% Total S 484,656 _$ 484,656 0.00% The c ent policies for the collection of fees, as identified in the City of College Station fiscal year 2001 operating budget,are as follows: > Full fee support (80-100%) will be obtained from enterprise operations such as utilities, sanitation service, landfill,cemetery, and license permits. > Partial fee support (50-80%) will be generated by charges for emergency medical services,miscellaneous licenses and fines, and all adult sports programs. Cost of Services Study for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department ©DMG-MAXIMUS,INC.2001 Page 3 > Minim fee support (0-50%) will be obtained from other parks, recreational, cultural, and youth pros and activities. DMG- 4 S, Inc. used these guidelines in determining potential areas for increased revenues. Executive Summary Format The Executive S ary is presented in the following sections: > Approach and Methodology — A brief description of the approach and methodology utilized to develop the user fee study. • AciiTvr Fee Studies — A s ary presentation of DMG- S' analysis of the cost of fee and service activities within the Parks and Recreation Dep Irisent, > Benefits and Policy Considerations — A discussion of benefit and policy considerations, which should be considered in utili g the results of a cost of services study. > Appendix—User Fee Costing Report(Under separate cover) Cost ofServices Study for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department C DUG-MAXIMUS,INC.2001 Page 4 IL APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY The approach and methodology DMG- S . utilized in the development of indirect cost allocation plans and the comprehensive user fee study developed the full costs associated r*th providing City Parks and Recreation services. Costs of services were not I* *ted to direct depi ental charges, but rather based on an • •lysis of the comprehensive costs inc ed by the City in providing se *ces. Total costs include allocation of the administrative and central support activities and other costs not traditionally assigned to depental budgets such as building depreciation or use costs. The emphasis of this project was to comprehensively dete *lie the costs of se *ces and match these services to funding sources. Indirect Cost Plan Approach and Methodology The Ci *de administrative indirect cost used for this engagement is provided by the Full-Cost Central Se aces Cost Allocation Plan prepared by DMG- 4 S, INC , based on budget data for fiscal year ending September 30, 2000. This approach is consistently applied for all City dep. rents and se *ces, regardless of funding source and allocates costs to dep ents based on an objective statistic that reflects or correlates to the use of the adm* *strative se *ces provided. User Fee Study Approach and Methodology The primary purpose of the User Fee Study is to doe ent the full cost of providing Parks and Recreation se *ces for which user fees are assessed or could be assessed reasonably. This work 11 allow the City to make a dete ination of the level of tax subsidy it wants to mainIi as a matter of public policy in an enviro I ent where the full and ac •I cost of doing business is kno . Fee levels then become a true measure of the City's intentions and not simply a combination of historical or inconsistently applied • o ts. ong the tools that DMG- 4 S uses in all of its studies are the principles of gove ental cost accounting. This me. s: that a detailed and comprehensive analysis of all of the costs associated with the provision of each unit of service is completed. The study utilizes budgeted FY 2001 expenses and revenues. In order to accomplish a tailor- made cost of service/revenue analysis for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Dep. ent, DMG-M 4 S went through the following stages of research and analysis: Cost of Services Study for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department C DUG-MAXIMUS.INC.2001 Page 5 > Conducted an analysis of service costs and revenues, including: o 'kite *ews with key management and operational personnel throughout the dep. :ent o Dete ened the full cost of each activity by identifying staff positions that provide the service, the n •ber of •Is of the activity provided in a year, the t of staff e required for each activity and related operating expenses o Dete ined crent revenue for each activity o Processed the cost of se eces plan > Reviewed hurt • *th dep • ent • and incorporated revisions > Reviewed the rcrts with a subco• Itee of the College Station Pi Board > Prepared Final Report incorporating Dep. .1 •ent Staff and Parks and Recreation Board SubCo • •ittee co• :uents This approach results in a detailed cost of se eceirevenue analysis that the City will use as a basis for resucttIrg existing fees and/or implementing new ones. The fmal results incorporate multiple iterations and fine- eng of data. We believe the analysis and conclusions to be the best ob ; able — the result of the cooperative efforts between DMG- •r 4 S consultants and City staff • Cost of Services Study for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department C DMG-MAXIMUS,INC,2001 Page 6 III. ACTIVITY FEE STUDIES The following section presents the results of DMG- • S' analysis of the cost of fee and service areas in the City Parks and Recreation Dep. ent. A description of the activities, possible full cost fee structures, and graphic presentations of alternatives are contained in this section. The detailed work papers are available in companion volumes. A.. Adult Activities The Adult Flag Football Pro . strives to provide adults with an organized flag football league. T .: in this league can advance to the T• • State Flag Football toument if they qualify. This league is designed for both .le and female adults age 16 and over. Each teplays in an 8 g. e ro d robin. Units for this progr. u are identified as te. s. There is a double eli *nation toumuent at the end of the season. The Adult Volleyball Pro! . i is designed to provide a:dults with an organized co-ed volleyball pro.i Te ' can advance to the T• State Toum. ent. The pro . is open to .les and feiu1es ages 16 and older. Participation for this prou is identified per individual. Each te:.un plays in an 8 guue round robin. There is a double eliuration toumuuent at the end of the season. Adult Softball Leagues provide adults with an organized softball pro;:u.un and give them a chance to advance to the T• • or ASA State and National To . ents. The league is open to all males and females ages 16 and older. Each te. plays 10 g. es per season round robin in the Sp c g and Su er,and 8 g. es in the Fall. There is an optional double elimination toument throughout the regular season. Teuu are broken into the following divisions: Men's A, Men's B, Men's D+; Women's C, D, D+; Co-ed Super D, C+, B, and Fast Pitch. Fees for this pro. .m are charged per t .:u, however for the purposes of this study, units are identified as participants. The following table represents the costs,revenues,and the percentage of cost recovery for the fee areas in Adult Sports. Adult Activities Cost/Revenue Analysis Percent of 4 Cost Revenue Activity Cost Revenue Difference Cost Recovery Uniter Unit er Unit Adult Flag Football S 28,127 S 4.080 S 24,047 14.51% 12 S 2,343.92 5 340.00 Adult Volleyball S 25,632 S 7,020 S 18,612 27.39% 52 S 492.92 S 135.00 Spring-Summer Slowpitch S 202,646 S 116.280 S 86,366 57.38% 323 S 627.39 S 360.00 Fall Slowpitch S 126,744 S 50.400 S 76,344 39.77% 160$ 792.15 5 315.00 Spring-Summer Fastpitch 5 8.387 S 2.250 S 6,137 26.83% • 6 S 1,397.83 $ 375.00 Fall Fastpitch $ 7,965 S 1.625 S 6,340 20.40% 5 S 1,593.00 5 325.00 Total $ 399,501 $181.655 S 217,846 45.47% Cost of Services Study for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department C DMG-MAA7MUS.INC.2001 Page 7 In identifying potential areas for increased cost recovery, DMG- 1 S*reviewed the City's fiscal policies and identified the percentage of cost recovery that is required according to these policies. For adult activities, the user fee must be set to collect between 50% and 80% of the cost of the program. Using these policies, DMG S has created the following areas for potential increased revenues Potential Revenue Increases Total Potential Current Cost Potential Potential Additional Activity Cost Revenue Units per Unit Fee Revenue Revenue Adult Flag Football S 28,127 S 4,080 12 $2,343.92 S 1,175.00 $ 14,100 $ 10,020 Adult Volleyball S 25,632 5 7,020 52 $ 492.92 $ 250.00 $ 13,000 S 5,980 Spring-Summer Slowpitch S 202,646 S 116,280 323 5 627.39 $ 360.00 $ 116,280 $ - Fall Slowpitch $126,744 S 50,400 160 $ 792.15 $ .00 $ 64,000 .5 13,600 Spring-Summer Fastpitch $ 8,387 $ 2,250 6 $1,397.83 $ 700.00 $ 4,200 $ 1,950 Fall Fastpitch $ 7,965 $ 1,625 5 $1,593.00 $ 800.00 $ 4,000 $ 2,375 Total S 399.501 S 181.655 5 215,580 $ 33,925 As costs for many of these pro s are very high, it would be inappropriate to meet the guidelines set forth by the financial policies in some cases. DMG- 41 S has identified the potential for increased revenues based on a 50% cost recovery, the minimum recovery rate for adult sports based on the City's fiscal policies. It would be beneficial however for the City to perfo a market s ey to dete e what costs are being charged in competing leagues, and what price the market will bear for these activities. B. Youth Activities The Youth Flag Football Program provides a positive experience in team sports for boys and girls and teaches them the basic skills of football. The program is open to males and females age 7 to 12 (Grade 1 through 6). The participants play in 8 g.nies per season on either Monday or Wednesday, or Tuesday and Thursday, as well as Saturday morning. Each player receives a T-shirt and a trophy. Participation for this program is identified as individual participants. Fees for youth flag football are established on a sliding scale, a fa ly with one child would pay S35, while a second child would be an additional $25, and a third child would be an additional $15. The Youth Basketball Program provides a positive experience in te sports for boys and girls and teaches them the basic skills of basketball. The program is open to males and females between the ages of 5 and 14(grades kindergarten through 8th). Participants play in 8 games per season on wither Mondays and Wednesdays, Tuesdays and Thursdays, as well as Saturday mornings. Units for this program are identified as individual participants. Each player receives a T-shirt and a trophy. The sliding scale for youth basketball is $30/$20/$1.0. Cost of Services Study for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department C DMG-ItietADIUS,INC.2001 Page 8 The National J ior Te is League (USA Tennis 1-2-3) is also offered during the summer to teach beg : ing players a lifet° e sport, develop good sportsmanship, and offer the chance to participate in a team tennis activity. Girls softball leagues are also offered throughout the year for girls aged six to sixteen. The fee schedule is also set on a sliding scale for f ills with more than one child participating in the leagues. Tennis lessons are also included in the Youth Activities category, but are offered to all persons 6 ye and older on a year-round basis. Classes include begi er, inter: ediate, and advanced instruction. The following table presents the costs, revenues, and percentage of cost recovery for youth activities: Youth Activities Cost/Revenue Analysis Percent of Cost Revenue Activity Cost Revenue Difference Cost Recovery Units per Unit per Unit Youth Flag Football $ 43,592 $ 11,120 32,472 25.51% 401 108.71 27.73 Youth •a.sketball $ 102,364 $ 20,701 81,663 20.22% 774 132.25 26.75 Nat'l Jr.Te ,is League $ 10,644 $ 4,350 $ 6,294 40.87% 87 122.34 50.00 Girls Fast Pitch $ 69,372 12,410 $ 56,962 17.89% 355 $ 195.41 $ 34.96 Te 's Lessons $ 24,548 $ 12,057 $ 12,491 49.12% 186 $ 131.98 $ 64.82 Total 250,520 $ 60,638 189,882 24.20% According to policies set in the budget process, youth activities require only minimal fee support (0% to 50%) and therefore, DMG-\1 A 1IM S has identified cost recovery at 30%in order to satisfy the fiscal requirements. Youth Activities Potential Revenue Increases Total Potential Current Cost Potential Potential Additional Cost Revenue Units -r Unit Fee Revenue Revenue Youth Flag Football $ 43,592 $ 11,120 401 $ 108.71 $ 30.00 $ 12,030 $ 910 Youth Basketball $102,364 20,701 774 $ 132.25 $ 40.00 $ 30,960 $ 10,259 Nat'l Jr.Tennis League $ 10,644 S 4,350 87 $ 122.34 $ 50.00 $ 4,350 $ Girls Fast Pitch $ 69,372 $ 12,410 355 $ 195.41 $ 60.00 $ 21,300 $ 8,890 Tennis Lessons $ 24,548 $ 12,057 186 $ 131.98 $ 64.82 $ 12,037 $ Total $250420 $ 60,638 S 80,697 S 20,059 Cost of Services Study for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department C DMG-MAXIMUS,INC.2001 Page 9 C. Aquatics Open Swim Pro., . s provide safe, fun aquatic fun for both adults and children. Participants can choose to utilize Ad. on Lagoon and Thomas Pool,which are open the last weekend of May through Mid-August; Hall. I Pool, which is open from the beg° g of April through the end of September; or the Junior High School Natatori I which is open year-rotmd. S ° Lessons are given to provide Red Cross s ang instruction to all ages (6 monthsto adult) to keep them safe in, on, and around water and to know what to do in case of an emergency. Spring and Fall lessons meet two t° es per week for four weeks (8 lessons). S n er lessons meet s e tc es per two-week session(9 lessons). The TA • S Te provides a recreational progr • that introduces p. ecipants to competitive iia.ing. S is meets are held ag .1 other t- — Bryan, Brenh. Hlle, Navasota, Li gston, etc. — with the.s er cuhiating with the State TA • S ern Meet. P. lecipants practice four ° es per week in April and May, with practice sessions increasing to five times per week in June and July. The folio g table presents the costs, revenues, and percentage of cost recovery for aquatics pro ti s: Aquatics Activities Cost/Revenue Analysis Percentage Cost Revenue Activity Cost Revenue Difference Cost Recovery Units per Unit per Unit Open Swim 566,609 5 257,054 309,555 4537% 114,319 4.96 /25 Swim Lessons 366,233 74,762 291,471 20.41% 2,623 139.62 28.50 TAAF Swim Team 105,975 17,065 88,910 16.10% 201 527.24 84.90 Total $1,038,817 $ 348,881 $ 689,936 33.58% Aquatics utilizes the "mii al fee support" requirement as set forth in the fiscal budget, and therefore requires only a 0% to 50% cost recovery. For Open Swim, DMG 4 S has established a 50% recovery rate, as well as approx° ately a 20% recovery rate for Swim Lessons, and approx.' ately a 20%recovery rate for T• • Swim Te . The table on the following page outlines the potential additional revenue for Aquatics Pro s: Cost of Services Study for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department C D:VIG-MAXIMUS,INC.2001 Page 10 Aquatics Potential Revenue Increases Total Potential Current Cost Potential Potential Additional Activity Cost Revenue Units per Unit Fee Revenue Revenue Open Swim $ 566,609 $257,054 114,319 $ 4.96 $ 2.50 $285,798 $ 28,744 Swim Lessons $ 366,233 $ 74,762 2,623 S 139.62 $ 30.00 $ 78,690 $ 3,928 TAAF Swim Team $ 105,975 $ 17,065 201 $ 527.24 $ 100.00 $ 20,100 $ 3,035 Total $ 1,038,817 S 348,881 $384,588 S 35,707 As some pools c ently charge different fees than others, DMG- • 4 S felt it would be appropriate to increase pool charges across the board approx° ately 25%. The folio eng table indicates the proposed fees for each pool: Pool Rate Increase Increased Pool Current Fee %Increase Fee Halla homas 2.00 25% 2.50 Natatorium 2.00 25% 2.50 Adamson 3.50 25% 4.50 D. Rentals Pavilion Rentals provide attractive, well-maintained outdoor covered facilities for the use of'local residents and businesses for private gatherings (company parties, birthday parties, wedding receptions, f uily reunions, etc.). Pavilions range in size, acco ()dating anywhere from 30 to 300 people. All offer picnic tables and barbecue pits. Some also include rest rooms, full-size Idtchens, and exclusive use of playground equipment,volleyball courts, and horseshoe pits. Bail field rentals allow citizens to access softball fields for practice and to . ents. The individual or individuals in charge of a toum. ent must meet with representatives of the Athletic and Park Operations staff before the tournament to ange any to . ent and maintenance details. Pool rentals provide children with a positive, aquatic birthday experience and parents with an alternative site for birthday parties. Parties are two hours in length and the staff blocks the area, decorates, sets up the party, serves food, and cleans up. Cost of Services Study for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department C DAIG-14/1X1.11US, INC.2001 Page .1 The following table provides costs, revenues, and percentage of cost recovery for rentals: Rentals Cost/Revenue Analysis Percent of Cost Revenue Activity Cost Revenue Difference Cost Recovery Units per Unit per Unit Pavilion Rentals $ 39,887 $ 17,043 $ 22,844 42.73% 355 $ 112.36 48.01 Hallsomas Rental 11,978 $ 3,150 $ 8,828 26.30% 24 $ 499.08 131.25 Natatori Rental $ 13,859 $ 2,155 11,704 15.55% 28 494.96 $ 76.96 Adamson Rental $ 34,168 $ 25,738 8,430 75.33% 71 481.24 362.51 Ball Field Rental $148,768 $ 2,235 146,533 1.50% 35 4,250.51 $ 63.86 Total $248,660 $ 50,321 $ 198,339 20.24% According to the Financial Policies, rentals are required to yield 0 to 50% cost recovery. The following table indicates the potential cost recovery for rentals, as identified by DMGN AC4 US, at a 50%cost recovery: Rentals Potential Revenue Increases Total Potential Current Cost Potential Potential Additional Activity Cost Revenue Units per Unit Fee Revenue Revenue Pavilion Rentals 39,887 $ 17,043 355 $ 11236 55.00 19,525 $ 2,482 Hall- Lomas Rental 11,978 3,150 24 499.08 290.00 $ 6,960 $ 3,810 Natatoli Rental $ 13,859 2,155 28 494.96 $ 215.00 6,020 3,865 Ad- son Rental $ 34,168 25,738 71 481.24 365.00 $ 25,915 177 Ball Field Rental $ 148,768 2,235 35 4,250.51 $2,125.00 $ 74,375 72,140 Total $248,660 $ 50,321 $132,795 $ 82,474 E. Recreation Centers/Conference Center The College Station Conference Center is a facility that is available to a broad spec of groups with no one group or type being allowed to dominate the Center. Preference is shoT for groups who do not operate on a pe anent basis, and would not, therefore, tend to have a facility of their o in which to operate. The Conference Center has public meeting rooms, a kitchen, deck, patios, audio/visual equipment and other enities. The Teen Center provides the youth of College Station a place of their o . It provides educational and recreational oppo ities to the youth of College Station. The facility Cost of Services Study for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department 0 DMG41,1XIMUS,INC.2001 Page 12 consists of two roo with intemet-capable computers, g.se room, dance floor, so and light system and a snack bar. The Lincoln Center provides many services to the citizens of College Station, including acting as a hub for the Boys and Girls Club, as well as hosting various activities for seniors. The Lincoln Center houses a computer center, and a full size basketball court and provides many educational and recreational oppo 'ties. The folio *ng table provides costs,revenues,and percentage of cost recovery for the recreation centers: Recreation Centers Cost/Revenue Analysis Percent of Activity Cost Revenue Difference Cost Recovery Lincoln Center S 295,288 13,649 $ 281,639 4.62% Teen Center 258,198 10,424 247,774 4.04% Conference Center 317,318 124,072 $ 193,246 39.10% Total S 870,804 S 148,145 S 722,659 17.01% Although potential revenue increases are not identified for the Recreation Centers, it would be beneficial for the Parks and Recreation Depcuent to identify whether or not an inc e in costs for the Conference Center should be addressed. The Conference Center is uti * for the most part, by adults, and therefore would be subject to the policies associated with Adult Activities. If a 50%collection rate were utilized,the City would s d to gain approximately $35,000 ually in revenue. It is the op* on of DMGN IA 14 I US, INC., that an increase in fees at the Teen and Lincoln Centers would possible decrease attendance,and would not be a significant benefit to the City. F. Other Activities The City of College Station operates the Wolf Pen Creek • phitheater, which hosts a v. *ety of ente ent events'throughout the season targeted to all ages and interests. The full cost of maintai s g this facility can be found in the table below. The City of College Station operates and enterprise fund for the Parks and Recreation Extra Education Progr . All enterprise funds are required to collect between 80 and 100% of all costs according to the city's financial policies. C ently, the Extra Education program recovers only approximately 91.24%, and is therefore meeting the policy as written in the budget document. This is illustrated in the table below. Cost ofServices Study for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department C DMG-MAXIMUS,INC.2001 Page 13 The Parks and Recreation Dep. ent is responsible for the in.° tenance of the City of College Station Cemetery. Plots are purchased through the City Secretary's Office. The table below illustrates the full cost of maint *ng the cemetery. Although the City may consider the implementation of a perpetual care fund, this would fall beyond the scope of this study. DMG 4 S has identified the costs of operating and main 4*s• g the Cemetery in the table below. The Parks and Recreation Dep. a ent allows other org. ezations to utilize the facilities at no cost to participants. These leagues include Soccer, Little League, and To _ ents. These activities require subs .:tial m.* tenance costs, which are c ntly not being recovered by the City. The table below identifies these costs: Other Activities Cost/Revenue Analysis Percent of Activity Cost Revenue Difference Cost Recovery Wolf Pen Creek phitheater 16,716 $ 4,179 $ 12,537 25.00% Extra Education 67,732 $ 61,800 5,932 91.24% Cemetery $ 163,773 163,773 0.00% Soccer $ 137,025 $ 137,025 0.00% Little League $ 183,858 $ 183,858 0.00% Toum. ents $ 110,678 $ $ 110,678 0.00% • Total S 679,782 S 65,979 S 613,803 9.71% Cost of Services Study for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department C DMG-MAXIMUS,INC.2001 Page 14 IV. BENEFITS AND POLICY CONSIDE TIONS Benefits of Indirect Cost Allocation Plans There are several benefits that the City will derive from the cost allocation ph that adequately and consistently doc ent administrative indirect costs. Benefits include doc enting the m. • allowable administrative • fers to the General Fund, allowing for the recovery of indirect costs from State and Federal I ts and contracts, a more comprehensive and consistent cost accounting capability in dete ining the full cost of City services and the cost plan can fo • the basis of cosi. . nefit analysis particularly for al *nistrative se *ces. Benefits of User Fee Study The User Fee Study will provide the City with sever-4I benefits including a knowledge of c ent activity costs which will provide a bench mark for the future, increased revenue from exi g fee areas,revenue from new fee areas and stair utilization inforniation, The study can be used as a basis for prioritizing resource utilization. Pricing Approaches The basic theories behind user fees are that any senice provided for a specific individual or group should not be paid from general taxes, that se ices provided to non-residents should not be paid from general tzes, and that benefici. *es of a sen vice should pay for the service. Keeping these theories in • d, se •g fees is essentially equivalent to establishing prices for services. In the private sector, prices are usually set in a m er that is expected to maxilnize profits. Since making a profit is not an objective of the City in providing services, it is co • • only felt that fees should be established at a level that will recover the cost of providing each service. However, there are circ ces in which it might be regarded as a reasonable policy to set fees at a level that does not reflect the full cost of providing the se *ce. Cost does not necessarily equal price. Therefore, it is impo t to discuss some of the r. *fictions of these non-cost factors so that the role of the cost figures may be placed in proper perspective. DemandOriented The price charged for a service affects the quantity demanded by potential users. In many instances, raising the price of a service results in fewer units of service being demanded. And,the volume of that service produced affects the 't cost of a service. • Cost of Services Study for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department C DMG-MI.XIMUS,INC.2001 Pagel.' This poses a special problem for the City when attempting to set fees on a basis that will recover the full cost of providing the services. As noted above, the unit cost of a service may rise or fall depending on the volume produced, and that volume may depend on the vol e demanded, which, in , may depend on the fee charged. Fees charged for recreational services provide a good ex pie of this concept. Quite reasonably, children, senior citizens and others with limited me. may discontinue using a recreational facility if fees are raised significantly. They may regard the services as des° .ble,but not essential, and find other me. of recreation. The resulting deer- e in vol e would then increase the unit cost; a situation that would require additional fee increases. Some servicesfees, however, probably will not be responsive to vol e demand because the se *ces 1.l be used regardless of the fees charged. Society Oriented User fees are often established on a prricipIe that req es those who use the se cce to bear the cost of producing it. Although this prT iciple is I m ly established in the private enterprise system, there may be City activities for which it is regarded as inappropriate. Accordingly, it may be preferable to set fees for some se *ices below full cost. Consequently,the r ifications of a subsidization policy should be fully understood, Subsidies are provided for two basic purposes. The first is to pemit an identified group (e.g, senior citizens, students, public assis ce recipients) to pcipate in se *ces that they *ght not othe *se be able to afford. This is a legitimate function of gove- ent, ass ° g all -ns' access to Tupount services without regard to their ability to pay. le such subsidies could be .4rnted on the basis of a mnm test(not all senior citizens are econoiucally deprived), ease of ailHnisfration and concern for di ti ty often suggest offe g particular subsidies to broad groups that may include many who are able to afford the full cost of the service. Such subsidies may be achieved either through rate struc -s (i.e., charging lower fees to certain groups for conn on se *ce) or through reducing fees for services most likely to be utilized by p. ccular groups. The second purpose of subsidies is to provide services that may benefit those not qualifying as i nediate recipients. For expie, code enforcement oections ensure compliance with City zoning ordinances. Ordinances are designated to safeg d co ns *ties from deteriorating properties, which ul ately • pact the homeo er by lowering property values and causing possible health and safety problems. In this case and si lar cases, it may be regarded as appropriate to spread the cost of se *ces over the large base of potential beneficiaries. Economic Incentives Cost of Services Study for the City of College Station • Parks and Recreation Department C DMG-MAXIMUS,INC.2001 Page 16 It may be des. .ble to use fees as a me. of enco •ging ce an activities or patterns of use. For example, setting a relatively high fee for . ce resources such as water may encourage conservation. Inexpensive products or services, on the other hand, often enco .ge waste. There are several ways to modify patte of use. It may be des' .ble to shift the time of day or 5-. on in which services are in greater demand. If spreading out a peak load, for ex! pie, results in reducing the need for more capacity, perhaps savi .•• .•.••• • • •Entire .• Prim•'••••• .• .6 ly440; • • • • .:.• • . • • : th0. e Benefits .. y . Co :*,. t :•••• • Individual - • the • •_• •.• . . . . and also the and aiso •.::••.•. ••Only Co. • • ..• .• .••• •••• I ir Pricmg No Cost Variable Partial Average •••••• Prcmg Overhead Cost Method • • •• ••.:•. • ••:::. • • !Le:• •• • 1 • $. : ••••••:. i;.1!#S1-11g ..",P111CgigifOr •••••:.:"•'. 1 •": •'-.Maiket.--j:' ..::• •• •-,•:•::••••:•.-.4:,..••• •••••• ••,••• . :• • •:.• . •.,,, • 010 zi1.4 1:111-s Concluion. This Executive S- iary presents a high level overview of our costing approach. Detailed indirect cost allocation pl. - and user fee studies have been provided to the City as separate doc, ents. DMG-- S, INC. appreciates this oppo •cty to be service to the City of College Station, Texas in the identification of the Parks and Recreation Dep ent's costs of services in order to update user fee charges. We welcome the oppa. • l:ty to provide any clarification or additional 'info •• ation on our findings that the City may require. • Cost of Services Study for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department 0 DMG-MAXIMUS,INC.2001 Page 18 RESOLUTION NO. 3 7 41 A RESOLUTION REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 2568 SETTING FEES TO BE c • GED AND COLLECTED FOR CERTAIN P A D RECREATION ACTIVITIES; ESTABLISHING A NEW FEE SCHEDULE; • D PROVIDING EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Bryan provides facilities for and coordinates certain park and recreation activities; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to set certain fees for the reasonable use of facilities and coordination of activities; and EREAS, it is necessary to set certain conditions affecting fees for the use of facilities and coordination of activities; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRY SECTION 1. That the fees charged and collected for specific park and recreation activities shall be as follows:, ACTIVITY FEE 1. Pavilion reservation fee per use per day A. Astin, Austin's Colony, Bonham,Neal, $ 50.00 Tanglewood, Tiffany, Williamson A or B, -,5,revocvoi or Villa West 9-0 B. Copperfield, Henderson, $ 35.00 --- Sadie Thomas I, or Scurry C. BRAC II A or B (each wing) 50.00 D. Haswell or Sadie Thomas II1,A f\fre' S 75.00 (With kitchen) E. Heritage Park Gazebo $ 100.00 F. Lake Bryan Pavilion 100 people or less $ 50.00 (plus gate entry fee)* 100-200 people $ 100.00 (plus gate entry fee)* * Cars may be tallied at gate for invoicing to responsible party upon request. G Bryan Tennis center per court * Membership (Year) $100 Plus $10 per hour Non Members $10.00 per hour Key Fob or Replacement Key Fob $ 5.00 H. Tennis Lessons (per session) Instruction Pe it(per site) 25.00 I. Sport Pavilion Special Use Pe it(per day) $100.00 J. Inline Hockey Rink(per day) $100.00 * This facility may be used for sponsored, co-sponsored or non-sponsored tournaments or classes, T BISD, and CISD fees will be set on a contract basis based upon individual court fees. ti i ' iiii ctc 2. Park Vendor Permit per location per day/within city limits* A. Food/Craft one-day peru it (lir *ted as per city ordin ce) 65.00 3. Alcohol Use Permit Fees A. Specific Use Per it for activities held in park pavilions 35.00 or athletic complexes as designated, in city parks located within the city limits (per day).* B. Seasonal Use Pe it for organized adult sport $100.00 leagues (softball, soccer, etc.) utilizing city parks located within the city limits as approved by the Division Manager or his/her designee. * C. Seasonal Use Permit bond for organized adult $500.00 sport leagues (softball, soccer, etc.) referenced in Section 3.B as approved by the Division Manager or his/her designee.* *permits issued with facility rental only. Violations will bar user from park facilities for a period of not less than one year (to be determined by the Division Manager or his/her designee). 4. Lake Bryan Fees Entrance fee per vehicle per day (Monday- Thursday) $ 3.00 Entrance fee per vehicle per day(Friday S day and holidays) 5.00 Entrance fee per passenger van or bus (per passenger)* 1.00 ,ual Pass per registered holder and one vehicle 50.00 Senior Citizen(55 and older) A .1 Pass 35.00 Mountain Bike Association Members (as identified with 35.00 membership identification card) ual Pass Other User Group Association Members (as identified 35.00 with membership identification card) A ual Pass, and prior application and approval by the Division Manager or his/her designee. Texas A&M Student fee per semester course (for class time only) 10.00 Replacement Pass 5.00 *$5.00 minimum entry fee (pa.sSenger van described as capable of c ing more than seven passengers) Tent Camping fee with ual Pass 5.00 Additional-Vehicle- - - -- 5.00 - - Tent Camping fee per night(includes entrance fee) 10.00 .Additional Vehicle _ _ 5.00 Tent/RV Camping fee w/water& electricity(includes entrance fee) 15.00 Tent/RV Camping fee for special events w/electricity* 12.00 Two Vehicles alloWed-pet tent or RV campsite. *Does not include Special Event entrance fee. 5. Lake Bryan Events/Park Special Events Fees A. P Exclusively Sponsored Event Entry Fee ($1-30/person range) is to be dete fined by staff at time of program development with this fee income being applied to a special account to help defray event costs and be used for promotion of future events at Lake Bryan. B. P• Non- or Co-Sponsored Events Fee 300-1,000 $ 300.00 1,001-3,000 500.00 3,001+ 750.00 Gate Entry Fee (per carload) 5.00 Cleaning Deposit 500.00 A non- or co-sponsored event is described as any private and/or public use of Lake Bryan grounds and/or facilities for the exclusive purpose of gaining revenue income and/or reward for private enterprise or the City of Bryan. This non- or co-sponsored event may not close the entire Lake Bryan grounds to the exclusive use of the rental party. Specific areas may remain available to the general public, i.e. jet ski area, boat ramp, camping (when advisable), sail boating, or other water areas as dete hied by the Parks and Reereation Division Manager or his/her designee. A separate packet of guidelines must be completed and all relative documentation must be submitted for approval prior to payment of the above fees as dete ined by the Parks and Recreation Division Manager or his/her designee. C. Lake Bryan Stage Rental Fee Per Day $ 500.00 Gate Entry Fee (per carload) 5.00 Gate Entry Fee (per passenger van or bus per passenger)* 1.00 Electrical Hookups for Sound Equipment per day 100.00 Electrical Hookup Bus/RV per plug/per day 10.00 Cleaning Deposit 500.00 *$5.00 minimum entry fee(passenger van described as capable of caring more than seven passengers) — The Lake Bryan stage rental is described as any private and/or public use of the Lake Bryan stage and/or facilities for the exclusive purpose of gaining income and/or reward for private enterprise, or revenue for the City of Bryan.-This event may close the entire Lake Bryan grounds to the exclusive use of the rental party, or other applicable angernents as dete ined by the Division Manager or his/her designee. A special event pe it must be completed and all relative documentation must be submitted for approval prior to payment of the above fees - as dete ined by the Parks and Recreation Division Manager or his/her designee. D. Lake Bryan Vendor Pe it One Day(Non-Special Event)* $ 65.00 One Day or more(Special Event Food or Beverage)* 65.00- $150.00 . A One Day orore(Special tvent Ans and urans) LD.UU Extra Electrical plug hook-up 15.00 * Includes one electrical plug All or part of these fees may be waived at the discretion of the P 1 Division Manager or his/her designee, or other specific arrangements as documented in special event use, permit or contract form. 6. Aquatic Fees Pool entrance fee per person per session Bryan Aquatic Center $ 2.50 Haswell or Sadie Thomas 1.00 Pool passes Twenty-five swims $ 40.00 Summer individual 60.00 ual individual 100.00 6. Aquatic Fees (continued) Su er family(4/family) 150.00 (each add. member) 10.00 ; *.• ual family(4/family) 200.00 (each add. member) 10.00 : °- • : : •- -- • -- • Replacement pass 5.00 Children 3 years and younger Free Haswell/Sadie Thomas Pool rental fee (2 hours, 100 swi ers max.) $100.00 Each additional hour 40.00 BBQ Grill rental during public swim 10.00 Bryan Aquatic Center rental fee 2 hours for 100 swi ers or less $150.00 2 hours for 201-300 swimmers 250.00 2 hours for 301-400 swi ers 300.00 2 hours for 401-500 swi ers 350.00 Each additional hour 75.00 - Water Aerobics fee (25 visits) 40.00 Instructional Swim fee (per person per session) • ; - 30.00 ----- Junior Lifeguard Instruction Fee - 75.00 T Bryan Swim Team Per Person(resident) First Child $85.00 Second Child - -65.00 -- Third Child 45.00 Per Person(non-resident) First Child 90.00 Second Child 70.00 Third Child 50.00 Aquatics Camp (1045 years of age) (per week, Full day) $75.00 7. Athletic/Recreation Fees Team registration fee for Adult leagues per season Flag football $250.00 Basketball 250.00 Volleyball 200.00 Softball 285.00 Soccer 250.00 In-Line Hockey 200.00 Horseshoes league (per person) 20.00 Youth League Registration (per child) $25.00 Field rental fee per g e per field Travis, Thomas (no lights) $30.00 Travis, Thomas (with lights) 60.00 Field to ament rental fee per field per day Bryan Regional Athletic Complex $ 100.00 Weekend to . ent rental fee(four fields for two days) $ 600.00 Maintenance fee per person per season for all athletic $ 5.00 leagues whose entry fees are not paid to the City of Bryan (No playing lights are included in this fee.) S® Recreation Program Fees . S er Fun Camp Pro registration fee per child $150.00 (640 years old)per session(all day for 2 weeks) Su er Park Program(CDBG Grant Based) Free Aquatic/Neal Recreation Center Joint Camp.(1047 years old) $150.00 (all day for 2 weeks) JI ior Counselor in Training Program registration fee per child $75.00 (1145 years old)per session(all day for 2 weeks) Special Youth Classes/Programs registration fee per child $1.00-75.00 (646 years old)per session(times will vary.) Additional fees for field trips to be assessed as needed. $1.00-30.00 9. Neal Recreation Center Fees Membership- individual (per year) $ 10.00 Membership - individual non-resident(per year) 20.00 Membership - family(4)Resident 30.00 (Each additional member) 5.00 Membership - family(4)Non-Resident 60.00 (Each additional member) 10.00 Admission I.D. Card(one time) for Bryan residents 1st One - Free Replacement Card(as needed) $ 5.00 Daily Use Fee - resident $ 1.00 Daily Use Fee -non-resident $ 3.00 Daily Use Fee—Fitness Room Plus (Resident) $ 3.00 Daily Use Fee—Fitness Room Plus (Non-Resident) $ 5.00 Fitness Card- Yearly(Bryan resident 18 and over) 50.00 Fitness Card - Yearly(Non-resident) $ 75.00 Fitness Card(City of Bryan Employees) 25.00 *chment Classes (per session) (open enrollment) $3.00 - $75.00 Monthly Special Events $1.00 - $30.00 Room/Building Rentals* Gym rental (hourly) 50.00 Gym rental (1/2 ) (hourly) 25.00 Multi-purpose Room Rental (hourly) 15.00 Multi-purpose Room Rental (hourly with food service area) 20.00 Multi-media Room Rental (hourly) 20.00 Arts & Crafts Room Rental (hourly) 20.00 Building Rental (hourly) (not including fitness room) 150.00 Building/room after hours operational fee(per hour) 15.00 Cleaning Deposit** 50.00 * Includes TV/VCRO. Tables and chairs will be available. User must also comply with rental agreement, which may require additional security or guidelines as dete ined by the Director or his/her designee. ** All Roo "uildrng Rentals (Refundable if left in clean condition) SECTION II That the conditions regulating the herein above stated fees shall be as follows: 10 Reservations will be taken on a first come first served basis. 2. Reservations may be taken over the phone or on-line by computer only when paying by credit card. Park Pavilion reservations will be limited to one per day. Swimming Pools, Neal Recreation Center, and the Bryan Tennis Center can be reserved for multiple daily rentals, depending upon availability. 4. Reservations can be set up to one year in advance,from the current calendar date. 5. There will be a 10%fee or$10.00 charge, whichever is higher,for any cancellations or rescheduling. Exceptions to this can be made at the discretion of the Division Manager for special circumstances. 6. It shall be the policy of the City of Bryan that refunds will be given only for the following situations: - _ _ - - A. Enrollment does not reach the required minimum capacity. B. Customer expresses dissatisfaction due to conditions of a facility or program. NOTE: Weather conditions or changes in schedule cancellations will not warrant a refund. Rescheduling to an available date will be offered by P 1 staff. 7. The Bryan Independent School District and the state recognized private schools located in Bryan shall be exempt from the pavilion reservation fee. BISD is to provide a staffing for its pool use functions and shall be exempt from the pool rental fees. 8. Aquatic ual family passes may be purchased for specified activities. For this purpose a family is defined as at least one parent, and no-inoi-e-thaff:hi§/her-thiee dependent children who live together. A $ 10.00 fee will be charged for any family member over the 4/family limit. • • • ; • • •: ; ; : ; , °- '• ; : • ; . • ° , ; ; . • : •: 9. All individuals who enter Lake Bryan are required to pay the vehicle entry fee. The camping fee includes the entry fee. The pavilion rental fee does not include the entry fee. 10. A $10.00 per student, per semester Lake Bryan entrance fee will be charged to all Texas A & M Departments for students whose classes are held at Lake Bryan. The students will be issued a pass which will be honored for a specific semester and only during the time of day the class is being held. Students must pay the vehicle entry fee at all other times. 11. All Lake Bryan rentals where 100 or more people are expected will require one licensed peace officer per 100 people (must be either a Bryan Police Department Officer, Brazos County Sheriffs Department Deputy or other State of Texas licensed peace officer), and one portable toilet per 100 people in attendance. If park restrooms are available, this will count towards the first 100 persons. These items are to be provided by the individual or group reserving the pavilion. Written evidence or confi ation must be shown to the Parks and Recreation Division at least five days in advance of the reservation date that the necessary licensed peace officer and toilets have"been obtained. 12. All pavilion reservations where 100 or more people are expected will require one licensed peace officer per 100 people (must be either Bryan Police Depa ent Officers, Brazos County Sheriffs Depa ent Deputies or other State of Texas licensed peace officer), and one portable toilet per 100 people in attendance. If park restrooms are available, this will count towards the first 100 persons. These items are to be provided by the individual or group reserving the pavilion. Written evidence or confi ation must be sho to the Parks and Recreation Division at least five days in advance of the reservation date that the necessary licensed peace officers and toilets have been obtained. 13. All Neal Recreation Center Room reservations where 50(100) or more people are expected will require one licensed peace officer per 100 people (must be either Bryan Police Department Officers, Brazos Co ty Sheriffs Depa ent Deputies or other State of Texas licensed peace officer). These items are to be provided by the individual or group reserving the Neal Recreation Center. Written evidence or confi ation must be sho to the Neal Recreation Center Supervisor or his/her designee at least five days in advance of the reservation date that the necessary licensed peace officer(s) have been obtained. Withholding of this evidence will be cause for cancellation of the reservation and the renter will have verbal and 'tten notification within 72 hours of the cancellation. 14. The field tournament rental fee is per field per day or any fraction of a day. The fee will not be prorated for a portion of the day. 15. Athletic leagues that utilize City of Bryan facilities, but do not pay their team entry fees to the City of Bryan, may be charged a maintenance fee of$ 5.00 per person per season. Ballfield playing lights are not included as a part of this fee. 16. The pass for 25 swims entitles the pass holder to 25 swims. The pass will be numbered 1 - 25 and will be punched once each visit up to, but not exceeding 25 times. There is no time limitation. 17. Non-swimming adults who are wearing street clothes and want to observe their children at any time at the aquatic facilities will not have to pay a pool entrance fee. : • • ; • . • ' ; • • ; ; • •: ; ; ; • • - • 4 % 18. The effective age for all senior citizen fees is 55 years of age. SECTION HI. That Resolution No. 2568 adopted September 8, 1998 is hereby repealed® SECTION IV. That this resolution shall be effective i ediately upon adoption. APPROVED A a ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Bryan on this day of , 2000. ATTEST: CITY OF BRY Mary L n e Strafta, City Secretary Lo ie Stabler, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FO - - Michael J. Cosentino, City Attorney - _ PLAYGROUND REPLACEMENT AND REPAIR SCHEDULE Presently, there are five play units within the park system that are recommended for replacement. The play units in the following parks are listed according to priority. The year next to the park's name is when the play unit was installed. Presently, only the schedules for replacing the play units at Gabbard Park and Georie K. Fitch Park are definite. The replacement schedule for the play units in the remaining prioritized parks will be dete fined as funds are available. Gabbard Park, 1983 This is one of two remaining wood structured play units. This play unit, and the one at Georgie K. Fitch Park, fails to meet the majority of playground safety standards recommended by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Co ission or the American Society for Testing and Materials. It also meets the least number of playground safety standards for all the existing play units. This play unit is scheduled for replacement by the end of FY 2001. 2. Georgie K. Fitch Park, 1983 This play unit has the same problems as the one at Gabbard Park. It is scheduled for replacement in FY 2002. 3. Hensel Park, 1986 4. Anderson Park, 1983 5. Southwood Athletic Park(2), 1984 6. Bee Creek Park, 1986 The play units at Hensel Park, Anderson Park, Southwood Park, and Bee Creek Park are in need of replacement due to the cost and difficulty of obtaining replacement parts. Parts for these playgrounds are no longer available due to changes in safety standards or the companies have been bought out making the replacement parts obsolete. These obsolete parts must be specially manufactured which increases the cost dramatically. Replacing the playgrounds at Hensel Park, Anderson Park, and Southwood Park will require separate swing set installations. Prepared August 10, 2001 s ; iimmuommommoiiimumplimminiminuminum......................„. 10/C /90 ...................._____ ____............,,.ii..,a,..i.,,...,,,p,..,...1,..,,.,,,,_______............._..........r . IVCI ------------------ ,.. 0 , - ......... ---. --.... 00CYCc1-1# ...-11—w ES IIIIII * * 1° 8 I ' 4 irniiiiiiiiiIIIIIIIllow 0, IP412 4 eh, 411.‘ ftlit ,0 c giellw . . c vor w , . a *#oil. • . 41 . 0 Sqd rIOAVICI1/ 6 tO0 t ' 4. It 0, H ', . *I 411 p ill iiiiK,,, 4,s tip 9 dp . k , (V130) t 1 0 I i . )690,9ipm t, ZI3CIZIOg iy3s el'g I i '' 1 -r: no 1 .....,........,.__„... • sdati1C) ca . . 91...113VIdrIS , , c ,.. .. a. zglim""sil'oet . .., 4‘t lil'illoirs . ._ , ,----• , r, ti.(3VX,x gloal • . _......,_ , 4:,,,,,,,,... 4,t,,,,..,,,...7%, .....,„ ;44......,,,,.......0., dlik, N311L.z.°)ta3 II. 41'* 4144k, 11111h, . ........ , . , l' ......-... ..,..... . iim"-'...........,;.____„,-----,.... . . ,„ „. /C6 • .. .1, • if:11,4111111 N -1406(,. ' W011 .........„,...,... lil 'Al' W1.01 8.1.111."1111Niminoismillialliimilliih'emungimiogionimm.........01010100, II , ,'' eg,.. .11:1L 0 - "meld tittnoitti.Pootlirilt0 D1;1(1311113 6 uotto fl ci D asua , ' •T 1 ii , 1 dl , ff AovAtos) iso2tvia it . c i c _.,., ___ - C _ �7 A VLAYt0AE COMPAwv ensel Paric eg - Stati•on9 T. XA. UT Gameitim ,, pr nriching Childhood Through 0TAk L _ _ \\\,,,,, ..„„„.„..„,„/ 12240 • 12734 \\\\ , ST* . ‘11ling TOTAL mmemoommutionumiimos 63- a i— "p lit I 11 • 1252 � . 1:ECIZEATION 2.0.C, uuc. ifs ir„�.�.� 1 1270 '' 1274 moommsouooN �� 1 X247MIN =r.. lmillommilS e 1/8” - 110" 1247PAN2 UL 12729 , virrillimilivuemnSNOLE r NOM 12 ..e itTURNO4 x�. �' ma..' Hp . dill(' . "IMMO ma PE(X)USE ZONE ..., 18272 ,_� ,. . . _ .. SPI SLIDE F. , 2275 Square h f ENc RE -a t t � �:- �.�� x :poi...T73 LENGTH 1 C 1.1.0(\,.._%.:....„.6_,It. :fi -.-,.._..._.t ,. ��+� r -a� • t _..._._t r� D !i,,�I .�` of •+ii,;; • •"`' ® M ATT488 X 50' ERO, . 12780 r, I M,.4. , EL n "" RE D 12 PANEL J 1,.,'TUBE t.�.y'w�, fa sj5�1 (M'ums wv,_�J�a�i��.:�._..M{<e...",.`.`_'.�""t'_" M_ .ja.,_. --_ l'. FACIN }r �s�' �£� �-�•�..:��.1 � r ���i 12575 4 a ,gyp a': ® ° t 4® RUNG d °0' ... - 8 , • 1?)i) (Dibers -4.,, eo 1 s`• 7 K. , - q1 t +1;, 12620 RUNG W * • *. ' . 'i °(4 .1 .r,4 1301: DEI: ,.. 0 , v , 4, , ot,, :, ',. ___,...--"I I:) ..., i 12 {. #1 ®6i� ri' fps,�7,`z11,-t !, ,)l: 1� G wi�-_D - .E w EL k ' 12113 i, C112113 A.,a . s 0 DNA ANN p film ,..fiffit 441111111 41111111111111111 i' 1 :p 'V .........., r r� .,,,,,, 1/1111114., s it �:�� �itmoh,v0;0400, J.., 4~~ ���loor,..„ r. ,. ¢ II Annuminnimi 4114'*ti*It ,' t b Op ....... iimmik, ' "III " () - DPAWING v it 1,1 a...„,,,li, im,„,,,, ANIIIIIIIIMMINION111111111111 .! 4111111111111111111111.1111111111111111111111111 AIIIIIIMINININIIIIMINMINIIIIMINIM Cb4 Ammmm....mmmisuimnmmmIIIIIMIIIIMIMIIIIIINMIMIIIIItMOMIB #1-1520C)02. Aimmommoniummommionnios - J ` h,„?e$�Y"'w:i.C._ �'`..r { 'f r'«.fin f y✓ i a+i. 1 4'--9' Am,. loomommimmusemis DATE , 08/13/01 --a SCALE D NNW t 5® 10' Ric Ploeger-COST ESTIMATES FOR HENSEL PLAYGROUND.doc Page 1 COST ESTIMATES FOR HENSEL PLAYGROUND OPTION 1 1.Playground=$17,500 2.Installation=$7,000 3.Remove old playground= $1200 4.Excavate&haul off gravel& soil=$1,200 5.12"of new gravel& installation(120 tons)=$2,600 6.Separate swing set&pit=$5,500 TOTAL= $35,000 OPTIONAL:use 90 tons of gravel+30 tons of rubber granules=$10,000 extra TOTAL=$45,000 OPTION 2 1.Playground=$23,800 2.Installation=$9,500 3.Remove old playground=$1,200 4.Excavate and haul off gravel and soil=$1,200 5.12"of new gravel &installation=$2,600 6.Separate swing set----$5,500 TOTAL=$43,800 OPTIONAL: use 90 tons of gravel+30 tons of rubber granules=$10,000 extra TOTAL=$53,800 ALTERNATE: Add concrete with rubber tiles for wheelchair access=$2,000 College Station Comprehensive Plan City of College Station,Texas 2.08 - Parks and Goal #1 - College Station should continue to enhance its Recreation Goals system of parks, recreation facilities, and open space. d Objectives . Objective 1.1 - College Station should continue to maintain the high quality and wide variety of park and recreation resources now available to residents and visitors, and to provide for expansion as needed. . Objective 1.2 - College Station should encourage additional connections be een selected parks/recreation areas and residential areas by a system of linear parks/parkways/greenbelts which utilize creek beds, drainage ways, portions of the 100-year floodplain, and other natural features. Goal #2 - College Station should continue to provide the highest quality parks d recreational facilities. . Objective 2.1 - College Station should continue to maintain and improve all existing City parks, equipment, and grounds. . Objective 2.2 - College Station should continue to develop and maintain a variety of parks and park improvements, including neighborhood playgrounds, "vest-pocket"- parks, linear natural corridors, and special streetscape areas in locations such as Northgate and along Texas Avenue. . Objective 2.3- College Station should continue to jointly develop and maintain parks and recreation areas with other public agencies, including the University, College Station Independent School District, and Brazos County. Goal #3 - Develop greenbelts to connect park . d residential areas. - Objective 3.1 - College Station should develop a donation/purchase policy to acquire selected portions of the 100-year floodplain that have been platted or developed to provide natural corridors to be used for open space and passive recreation uses that will link parks to one another and to residential areas. • Objective 3.2 - College Station should designate selected portions of the 100-year floodplain on undeveloped properties as "natural corridors" that are to be used for open space and passive recreation uses that will link parks to one another and to residential areas. SECTION 4 PARK ANS OPEN SPACE PLAN College Station Comprehensive Plan City of College Station,Texas While the 1995 guidelines have shifted away from absolute numerical standards and encourage community self direction in which park acreage is based upon citizen's desires and specific regional needs, it was determined that because of the high level of service that has been provided in College Station in the past, the national parkland dedication standards developed in the past are still appropriate for the City. Those standards were reviewed in light of the unique factors impacting College Station's park and open space needs, as well as the existing policies and desires of the City of College Station Park and Recreation Department and citizens, in order to determine a level of parkland dedication appropriate for the City. The NRPA has researched the park and open space needs of communities and makes the following recommendations for "core" parkland: o Mini-Park - A mini-park serves a small area and may include picnic areas, playgrounds, and seating. Many school and church playgrounds often function as de facto mini-parks. The NRPA recommends that Mini-parks be approximately I to 2 acres each and be provided at the ratio of 0.25 to 0.5 acres per 1,000 population. The City currently has six mini-parks with a total of 9.70 acres. Neighborhood Park - A neighborhood park serves a larger population than a mini-park and may also include more intense recreational activities such as field games, court games and swimming pools. The NRPA recommends that Neighborhood parks be approximately 15 to 20 acres each and be provided at the ratio of 1 to 2 acres per 1,000 population. The City currently has twenty neighborhood parks with a total of 201.62 acres. The city's policy is to provide for activities that focus on youth and families such as practice areas for soccer, softball, baseball and basketball, and, playground, tennis and picnic facilities. In College Station, neighborhood parks will generally be 10 to 15 acres. 0 Community Park - Community parks tends to serve many neighborhoods and provide many of the same types of facilities as neighborhood parks with the addition of athletic complexes, large swimming pools, community centers, and nature preserves. The NRPA recommends that Community parks be approximately 25 to 30 acres each and be provided at the ratio of 5 to 8 acres per 1,000 population. The City currently has six community parks with a total of 207.48 acres. In College Station, community parks will generally be 40 - 50 acres and serve one park zone. - Regional Park - Regional parks serve entire cities or regions. Activities available in regional parks may include picnicking, boating, fishing, swimming, camping, trail use, a golf course, etc. Regional parks tend to be large (over 200 acres) and should be provided at the ratio of 5 to 10 acres per 1,000 population. Because of their regional nature, regional parks are usually not figured into the "core" parkland provided by a city. April 1997 Page 69 College Station Comprehensive Plan City of College Station,Texas A city or a region may only be able to support one or two regional parks. The City currently has one Regional Park with a total of 515 acres. Athletic Complex - Athletic complexes typically consolidate heavily programmed athletic facilities for activities such as softball, baseball and soccer into a few strategically located sites throughout the community. The location of these facilities is important due to traffic, lighting and noise that are often associated with them. Southwood Park in College Station currently serves as a Community Park as well as the City's only athletic complex. Voter approval was received in 1995 to acquire land for a 150 acre regional athletic park. Recreation/ Community Centers - Recreation and community centers typically provide a facility for a community's indoor recreation needs. Gymnasiums, group activity rooms and swimming pools are often located within these facilities. In College Station, the existing Lincoln Center is utilized for youth activities and programmed indoor sport recreational programs. The City intends to continue the existing policy of utilizing the multi-purpose buildings at schools for recreation centers and intends to provide future recreation centers in College Station as needed. April 1997 Page 70 College Station Comprehensive Plan City of College Station,Texas 4.03 - Projected The NRPA recommends an average of 6.25 to 10.5 acres of mini, Future Needs neighborhood and community parks per 1,000 population. The City of College Station currently provides an average of 7.22 acres of parkland and open space per 1,000 population. It is recommended that the City provide a ratio of parkland closer to the 10.5 acres per 1,000 population due to the City's young population, a high percentage of rental properties, the citizen's expectation of a high level of park service, and opportunities to encourage visitors and tourism. By projecting population for each park zone, the ratio of parkland by type and overall parkland per 1,000 persons can also be projected. In some park zones, the average may exceed the 10.5 average recommended by the NRPA, while in others, it may be less than the 10.5 average. This can be attributed to a park zone already exceeding the 10.5 average and expecting little or no future growth; or a park zone that is proposed to be developed at a very low density having a need for a neighborhood or community park, but not having a population to support the minimum park size recommended. In these cases, two park zones were combined in order to share a park facility and provide the level of service needed by both zones. In other zones, the average may be less than the 10.5 average. Overall, the 10.5 figure is used as a guide for areawide park/open space development. Table No. 9 shows the projected population for each park zone and the projected future additional parkland required. The projected Land Use Plan population capacity of 118,049 is within the range of projected future population for College Station. Table No. 9 - Projected Park Needs by Zone Park Future Proposed Existing Future New Zone Pop. Ratio Parldand Parkland Parkland (acres per (acres) (acres) Needed 1,000) (acres) 1 4,759 10.44 29.70 49.70 20.00 2 11,886 10.11 50.20 120.20 70.00 3 7,260 11.59 69.17 84.17 15.00 4 2,286 12.69 14.00 29.00 15.00 5 16,667 9.61 97.20 160.20 63.00 6 15,914 9.73 115.78 154.78 39.00 7 3,452 13.46 6.45 46.45 40.00 8 1,332 19.59 26.10 26.10 0.00 9 1,993 25.09 0.0 50.00 50.00 10 14,925 8.38 0.0 125.00 125.00 11 7,423 12.15 10.20 90.20 80.00 12 8,205 9.75 0.0 80.00 80.00 13 8,408 7.73 0.0 65.00 65.00 14 2,047 24.43 0.0 50.00 50.00 15 6,803 9.55 0.0 65.00 65.00 16 2,565 19.49 0.0 50.00 50.00 17 2,124 7.06 0.0 15.00 15.00 Total 118,049 10.68 418.80 1,260.80 842.00 April 1997 Page 72 College Station Comprehensive Plan City of College Station,Texas The total amount of parkland is 1,260.80 acres - an average provision of approximately 10.68 acres per 1,000 population. This is acceptable for College Station, although it is slightly higher than the recommended NRPA standard. There are several specific areas that were reviewed during this process: • Lick Creek Park - At 515 acres, Lick Creek Park is the City's principal regional park. Because of endangered plant species and indications of prehistoric human habitation sites, Lick Creek Park has been designated by the City staff and Parks Board to remain a natural area. The City's vision for this park is to fully develop the trail system with bridges across low-lying areas and directional and interpretive markers, and to provide a visitor center for exhibits and meetings. • Wolf Pen Creek - At this time, a revised master plan is being developed for the Wolf Pen Creek corridor. This process will be completed in 1997 and recommendations will be made at that time for additional improvements. The Land Use Plan and Urban Design Plan show this area as being integral to providing continuous off- street pedestrian and bicycle connections within the urbanized portion of College Station. There has been an on-going City concern with silting and maintenance at the Wolf Pen Creek amphitheater. It is recommended that City staff continue to pursue engineering options to address these drainage and maintenance concerns. The 1995 Park, Recreation, Open Space and Greenway Guidelines published by the NRPA recommend that projected park facility needs be based upon citizen's desires and specific regional needs. Based upon a review of current facility use and deficiencies by the Park and Recreation Advisory Board and Park's staff, the following are the projected facility needs for College Station: • Basketball Courts (Indoor or Outdoor) - 1 per neighborhood park and 2 per community park Currently, 20 basketball courts exist. • Racquetball Courts - None. It is expected that the private sector and the University will continue to provide these facilities as needed. • Tennis Courts - 60 total, including a tennis center. Currently, 12 tennis courts exist. • Baseball Fields (Little League) - 27 total. Currently, 9 exist serving 1300 players. Each field accommodates 150 players. Additional fields will be required in the near future as the number of players increases. April 1997 Page 73 College Station Comprehensive Plan City of College Station,Tex • Softball Fields - 12 adult and 8 youth for a total of 20 fields. Currently, 4 adult and 4 youth fields exist. Current demand would support 6 adult and 4 youth fields. - Football Fields - 4 total. Currently, no football fields exist. • Soccer Fields - 36 total. Currently 18 soccer fields exist. • Swimming Pools (Outdoor) - 6 total. Currently, 3 outdoor swimming pools exist. • Recreation Center - 3 total. Currently, 1 recreation center exists. The above facilities will support College Stations projected 20-year population. 4.04 - Park and The Park and Open Space Plan is intended to provide the College Open Space Plan Station Parks and Recreation Advisory Board with a guide upon which to base future decisions. Following the concept of the Land Use Plan, the number of acres of parkland required per person in each park zone determines the location of that acreage on the Plan while observing the following criteria: • Sites should be located substantially outside of the floodplain. • Neighborhood park sites should be adjacent to residential areas in a manner that serves the greatest number of users. • Neighborhood park sites should be located so that users are not required to cross major thoroughfares to access them. • Sites should be located adjacent to schools, where possible, in order to encourage both shared facilities and the potential co- development of new sites. • Sites should be located adjacent to the open space system so that connections to the trail network may be easily achieved. • Sites should not be severely sloping and should have existing trees or other scenic elements. • Parks should be developed in a way that allows for maximum visibility into the site from surrounding residential roads in order to maximize security and discourage illegal activities. • Parks should have multiple access points to facilitate access from surrounding neighborhoods. April 1997 Page 74 College Station Comp -hensive P1. City of College Station,Texas a Community parks located within residential neighborhoods should be developed in a manner that protects the residences from objectionable light, noise and traffic. Because of the need to consider specific characteristics in the site selection process, the park locations indicated on the Plan are general. The actual locations, sizes, and number of parks will likely be determined in one of the following manners: The Plan will be used to determine the number of acres of parkland dedication required of developers and to regulate the best locations for those parks. The Plan will be used to locate desirable park sites before development occurs, and those sites will be purchased by the City or will be received as donations. Parks will be co-located with future school sites. In addition to the 1,260.80 acres of future "core" parkland, the Plan roposes that selected portions of the 100-year floodplain within College Station be identified and used to provide for linkages between parks, schools, homes and businesses, as described in Section 3 (Land Use Plan). These lands may be preserved in either public or private hands; however, it is recommended that the City require that developers provide an easement to the City, adjacent to the floodplain, for the construction of .ils and for access of maintenance personnel and vehicles. Additional opportunities for the preservation of open space exist with the assistance of private groups such as the Nature Conservancy of Texas, the Sierra Club, or other non-profit organizations. In order to benefit from these groups, a survey will be required that identifies sites that may warrant preservation. These sites may include post oak savanna, native prairies,wetlands, or other significant natural sites. Floodplains are proposed to be linked together by open space "connections" in order to complete the open space system. Because these systems are connections and do not follow any natural feature, the locations shown on the Park and Open Space Plan are general. While it is desirable that the connections be located in a manner that will incorporate some of the City's scenic elements such as ponds and forests into the system, in some . es it may be necessary that they be located along property boundaries and public rights-of-way because of the difficulty associated with acquiring easements. Table No. 10 shows the individual recommended park improvements by park zone and Figure No. 17 shows the Park and Open Space Plan. In all, a total of 1,260.80 acres of"core" parkland is proposed, comprised of mini-parks, neighborhood parks, and community parks. April 1997 Page 75 College Station Comprehensive Plan City of College Station,Texas Table No. 10 - Future Core Parkland piek::,,:i::;,,Iii:pat..ki;:;:imMiniiia,2iM;iil-;0.!-:!:,E.i:. ::::,:r;1;::::,i*:,-,;';E::..:..i.-.:-.:-:.:',:.i:.:..:',-.-'.,:-,;.:.:':'-!i:.:::',:::f.::'::-.:':::::7::::-.!:.::q2:*:'.i-i'.::-.:.!1,-;',....!::::,:i7r0t411e4:Irk-*:::1*Tt*411::::::.,-Iii;;:1:;;;:6:1!"-:::':',-::''';:i.;!1.1,11110:1:;.f::::::-.!...::::.... ' -•11::17,P41::''':: Zone Name :':-.-.: :':-:.'.:1:.';i'lrIk..:::,.3f0*:.'''. tlifilPatkFil!k!Nigli14tPrhd4::kpgrgpirovottyi:'O,,!.,::,-.-..,,::.i.'- Hensel Park ..... . .... 29.70 29.70 Future Park"1-A" ..., 20.00 ..... 20.00 Total-Zone 1 .... 20.00 29.70 49.70 2 Eastgate Park 1.00 ..... .... 1.00 Lions Park 1.50 ,.... ...... 1.50 Merry Oaks Park .... 4.60 ..... 4.60 Oaks Park .... 7.50 ..., 7.50 Existing park site .... 10.20 ..... 10.20 Parkway Park 1.90 ... .... 1.90 Richard Carter Park .... 7.40 ... 7.40 Thomas Park .... .... 16.10 16.10 Future Park 642..A'6 .... ..... 35.00 35.00 Future Park"2® " .... .... 35.00 35.00 Total-Zone 2 4.40 29.70 86.10 120.20 3 Cen' ,.;I Park ..... .... 47.20 47.20 Cy Miller Park 2.50 ..... .... 2.50 Wolf Pen Creek Park ...., 19.47 .... 19.47 Future Park"3-A" ....... 15.00 .... 15.00 Total-Zone 3 2.50 34.47 47.20 84.17 4 Raintree Park ..., 13.00 .... 13.00 Windwood Park 1.00 .... ..... 1.00 Future Park"4-A" .... 15.00 .... 15.00 Total-Zone 4 1.00 28.00 .... 29.00 5 Brothers Pond Park .... 16.10 .... 16.10 Edelweiss Park ,.... 10.90 .... 10.90 Georgie K. Fitch Park ..... 11.30 .... 11.30 Longmire Park ..., 4.20 .... 4.20 Southwood Park ... ..., 44.70 44.70 Jack&Dorothy Miller Park .... 10.00 ..... 10.00 Southwood Park expansion (5-A) .... .... 17.00 17.00 Future Park"5-B" .... .... 40.00 40.00 Future Park"5-C" 2.00 - -- 2.00 Future Park"5-D" 2.00 - -- 2.00 Future Park"5-E" 2.00 -- -- 2.00 Total-Zone 5 6.00 52.50 101.70 160.20 April 1997 Page 76 College Station Comprehensive Plan City of College Station,Tex,;, Table No. 10 (continued) Park Park ..TotaVParks,.;(acre$):;,:::-::::.Ri!.;:::....::,-::-.-:::.H:' --- .--: :.:::-::-...gaIpal Z:40,11.4i:::::::.:ellisisi:AiiiigiiikieRmaii,i:.,6,i;gs,i!:!;ii,Eg,,wiiiE:iiiiiiii::,-,i,:,;iNigi,!:.....::-.,.::i.!:.;!„,::::: :i:',,,,,:s:i::i;,iiisaili:i1111:-iiliti,i!R,i ::a!j,mi. , , --.::.-,: _... -.:.::,:14-Fr-,..,:.cs IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEEMj•e#4".11tlgtgtj:#§ttoAIII:cfi#i:#*0Lq..::. , :.::::::;..1io,A:.!wooi ..;:: 6 Anderson Park .... 8.90 .... 8.90 Bee Creek Park .... .... 43.50 43.50 Brison Park .... 9.20 - 9.20 Fairview Park 1.80 .... .... 1.80 Gabbard Park - 10.70 -- 10.70 Lemontree Park .... 15.40 .... 15.40 Wayne Smith Park .... .... 26.28 26.28 Future Park"6-A" .... ..... 35.00 35.00 Future Park"6-B" 2.00 ... .... 2.00 Future Park"6-C" 2.00 .... ..... 2.00 Total-Zone 6 5.80 44.20 104.78 154.78 7 Woodway Park - 6.45 ..... 6.45 Future Park"7-A" .... .... 40.00 40.00 Total-Zone 7 .... 6.45 40.00 46.45 8 Emerald Forest Park - 4.50 .... 4.50 Sandstone Park „.„„ 15.00 .... 15.00 Woodcreek Park .... 6.60 .... 6.60 Total-Zone 8 .... 26.10 .... 26.10 9 Future Park"9-A" - .... 40.00 40.00 Future Park"9-B" ..... 10.00 .... 10.00 Total-Zone 9 ..., 10.00 40.00 50.00 10 Future Park"10-A" ..... .... 50.00 50.00 Future Park"10-B" ..... 15.00 .... 15.00 Future Park"10-C" .... 15.00 ..... 15.00 Future Park"10-D" .... 15.00 ..... 15.00 Future Park"10-E" ...... 15.00 .... 15.00 Future Park"10-F" .... 15.00 .... 15.00 Total-Zone 10 -- 75.00 50.00 125.00 11 Pebble Creek Park -- 10.20 .... 10.20 Future Park"11-A" ..... 15.00 .... 15.00 Future Park"11-B" -- 15.00 -- 15.00 Future Park"11-C" -- 10.00 .... 10.00 Future Park"11-D" -- .... 40.00 40.00 Total-Zone 11 ..... 50.20 40.00 90.20 April 1997 Page 77 College Station Comprehensive Plan City of College Station,Texas Table No. 10 (continued) ratkkT:i!ii;m:P4ekii.;!ii2 :E:!ii.i!g::;:,.!:''::;.-., :;.::..i-:•:.:.:E.•,'..,,-H.K. ,...',,:iii,:::i;::v::!im:,i1:;-:.imiii.!1,:lii.P,;:Kii!.!:2':,.i:.:,i::,i; E:.'',:-ii:,.-::-,,:::i7Ttitat':P-.a-ek§.itattety.q:::-.:'.5ii.:.::- E:::',H:•: ' :.,:l:'::.:::-,-i:',''l --'Hs:-:':-:-:Tiital' Zone Name ,- -:: i- . -.:me.: ..iii.g!l:ag,:gggmgig:igtggzt:ii:;:ggFE:::qg-,gggegl:Egigtlo.i...:irow.:j.::-)11tilojg4yq4:oiso-po#A:t*:op:i,..tk:j:,, ::: H:..:.:.•.__.z,,.;,-:: 12 Existing park site .... 15.00 .... 15.00 Future Park"12-A" - - 50.00 50.00 Future Park"12-B" .... 15.00 .... 15.00 Total Zone 12 - 30.00 50.00 80.00 13 Future Park"13-A" .... ..... 50.00 50.00 Future Park"13-B" ®- 15.00 -- 15.00 Total Zone 13 .... 15.00 50.00 65.00 14 Future Park"14-A" .... .... 40.00 40.00 Future Park"14-B" -- 10.00 -- 10.00 Total-Zone 14 .... 10.00 40.00 50.00 15 Future Park"15-A" - .... 50.00 50.00 Future Park"15-B" -- 15.00 -- 15.00 Total Zone IS ..... 15.00 50.00 65.00 16 Future Park"16-A" .... .... 40.00 40.00 Future Park"16-B" - 10.00 .... 10.00 Total-Zone 16 .... 10.00 40.00 50.00 17 Future Park"17-A" -® 15.00 .... 15.00 Total-Zone 17 .... 15.00 -- 15.00 TOTAL 19.70 471.62 769.48 1,260.80 [Note: A future Athletic Complex may be developed either as a part of a future community park or as a separate regional park.] April 1997 Page 78 College Station Comp -hensive Plan City of College Station,Tex. Mini-Park Improvements A total of 19.7 acres (1.6%) are dedicated to mini-parks. The existing 6 mini-parks Eastgate, Lions, Parkway, Cy Miller, Windwood, and Fairview - comprise 9.7 acres. Five new 2-acre mini-parks are added for a total of 11 mini-parks (an additional 10 acres). The City's current policy is to minimize the designation of mini-parks due to the high costs associated with equipping and maintaining numerous small parks. It is recommended that in College Station, new mini-parks be limited to developed areas that have no available land for larger facilities, but that do not currently have adequate park acreage. In undeveloped areas, the acreage that would have been set aside for mini-parks should be added to the acreage of the new neighborhood parks. Neighborhood Park Improvements A total of 471.62 acres (37.4%) are dedicated to neighborhood parks. The 20 existing neighborhood parks - Merry Oaks, Oaks, Undeveloped Park Site, Richard Carter, Wolf Pen Creek, Raintree, Brothers Pond, Edelweiss, Georgie K. Fitch, Longmire, Jack & Dorothy Miller, Anderson, Brison, Gabbard, Lemontree, Woodway, Emerald Forest, Sandstone, Woodcreek, and Pebble Creek- comprise 216.62 acres. Eighteen new neighborhood parks are added for a total of 38 neighborhood parks (an additional 255 acres). New neighborhood parks are proposed in park zones 1, 3,4, and 9-17. It is recommended that future neighborhood parks be 10 to 15 acres in size in order to provide fewer park sites to equip and maintain which is in accordance with existing policy. Community Park Improvements A total of 769.48 acres (61.0%) are dedicated to community parks. The 6 existing community parks - Hensel, Thomas, Central, Southwood, Bee Creek, and Wayne Smith - comprise 207.48 acres. One existing community park is proposed to expand by 17.0 acres. Thirteen new community parks are added for a total of 19 community parks (an additional 545 acres). New community parks are proposed in park zones 2, 5,6, 7, and 10-16. April 1997 Page 80 College Station Comprehensive Plan City of College Station,Texas Regional Park Improvements It is recommended that the City preserve all of the 100 year floodplain as open space connectors in order to develop a regional trail network to link new developments as well as existing and future parks. In the development of regional parks, it is also recommended that the City continue to find opportunities to preserve wetlands, native prairie sites, post oak savanna's and other natural and ecologically significant areas for regional parks. It is also recommended that the City continue to implement many of the recommendations of the Brazos 2020 study such as making open space and trail linkages along Carter Creek into Bryan. Athletic Complexes In College Station, little league baseball has been growing at a rate equal to the population gro , and soccer has been growing at a rate higher than the population. This gro has placed a great strain on the existing park facilities and created a need for a new athletic complex. It is recommended that any new athletic complex be adjacent to non- residential land uses; or if located adjacent to residential uses, large vegetative buffers should be provided between the complex and the surrounding residential use. A suitable location for this 150 usable acre facility is being studied by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and the City will acquire the most suitable site for this facility within the next two years. Golf Courses At the present, there is no municipal golf course within College Station. Golfing facilities are located on the main campus of the University, at Pebble Creek, a commercial driving range on SH 6, and a par 3 golf course on SH 6. The Pebble Creek course is proposed to be expanded in the near future. There are no indications at this time that a municipal golf course is needed. However, should the demand surface, it is recommended that the City consider purchasing some of the floodplain and floodprone areas along either Carter Creek or Lick Creek for a future golf course. A minimum of 150 to 200 acres would be needed, depending on the course's layout. April 1997 Page 81