HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/08/2002 - Regular Minutes - Parks BoardnllnuTCs
College Station Parks and Recreation Advisory llc!lyd
Tuesday, January 8, 2002, at 6:00 p.m.
Parks and Recreation Conference Room
A
1000 1irenek Tap Road
College Station, Texas
Staff Present: Steve Beachy, Director of Parks and Recreation; Peter Lamont, Recreation
Superintendent; Curtis Bingham, Parks Operations Superintendent; Peter Vanecek, Senior Park
Planner; Marci Rodgers, Senior Services Coordinator; Kris Lehde, Staff Assistant.
Board Members Present: John Nichols, Chairman; Glenn Schroeder; Glen Davis; Dori Allison; Bill
Davis; Jon Turton; Laura Wood (Alternate).
Board Members Absent: Larry Farnsworth.
Guests: Bill Lay, Chairman of the Senior Advisory Committee.
Visitors: Lou Hodges, Department of Recreation, Park, and Tourism Sciences (TAMU).
Workshop Meeting
1. Call to order: John Nichols called the workshop meeting to order at 6:10 p.m.
2. Pardon — consider requests for absences of members from meeting: Glenn Schroeder made a
motion to accept the absence of Larry Farnsworth as excused. Glen Davis seconded the motion. All
were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously.
3. Review, discussion, and possible action concerning Board and Departmental Goals and
Objectives and City Council Strategic Issues: Steve Beachy said that an uh�!ate of the Board,
Departmental, and City Council Strategic Issues was included in the Board pac':ets t',•it went out. He
added that the Departmental goals support the Board goals and that the Board G 's support the
Council's Strategic Issues. He went on to say that each Park Supervisor has personal goals that relate
to the Departmental and Board goals, as well as to the Council's Strategic Issues.
Board Goal: "Planning and coordination for the next bond issue. " Glen Davis referred to this goal,
and asked what the Board should do to accomplish it. Steve said that the Department has developed a
preliminary capital improvement project list for future park facilities. The next step the Board should
take is to look at the list and determine if projects need to be added. Ile ad. c,: that in February, the
Board should look at the preliminary cost estimates and determine project priori es.
Jon T. felt that this goal should be the Board's top priority. Glen D. asked what the P and needed to
do to accomplish the goals within the budget year. Steve said that the Board goa L : u,; linked to the
Council Strategic Planning Calendar. He added that additional steps will be adc' d to the Board's
goals if warranted. Jon T. said that Departmental, Board, and Council Stratep' I ,sue �'Iould be in
sync with each other to ensure that the Board is working on the "same page" as the Cou, •ci 1.
Board Goal: "Implementation of the approved Capital Improvement Progranw (Ifad- 1 (- , Park site
review)." Steve said that there would be a joint meeting and public hearin',; v. h the ,y of Bryan
and College Station Parks and Recreation Advisory Boards on Tuesday, 1 r cu 19, 2002, at
7:30 p.m., concerning the development of the Madeley Park site. Kris Lchde Nvi semi out additional
meeting information and an agenda once it is available.
Board Goal: "Review and update the Recreation, Park, and Open Space t1 ' r N, •r Plan." Steve
reviewed a proposed schedule, that was included in the Board packets, to a- : isii th ;s goal. The
Board was in consensus that the Master Plan Subcommittee should be utilized t�, : eview the plan, and
bring recommendations back to the full Board for approval. The members on the Subcommittee are
John Nichols, Don Allison, and Glen Davis.
John N. suggested adding a public review period to the schedule. Steve :-greed that would be
essential to the process.
4. Review, discussion, and possible action concerning the current Capital Improvement Project
Report: Steve reported on the following Capital Improvement Items:
• The Hallaran Pool Filter Project is complete.
• Oaks Park Bridge is under construction.
• The Veterans Park and Athletic Complex construction project is going vcr% well. The Veterans
Memorial Committee has received 204 pledges totaling $323,475. The d _: 'line to submit names
to be included on the memorial for the dedication on November 11, 2002, .April 30
• The Department is waiting for the Legal Department to dr.iW up the inter: 'A agreement for the
jogging tract at Jack and Dorothy Miller Park. The Board asked for an iupda:c on the status of the
agreement. Steve will check the status and update the Board.
Jon T. said that he is concerned about the safety of the children t!lat play at An(!crson Park, and feels
that that there should be an iron fence (similar to the one that xv is recently instilled at Pebble Creek
Park) installed on the south end of the park, along Holleman. Steve said th:�! Pete Vanceek could
come up with a cost estimate.
5. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning potential future C:mital Improvement
Projects: The following are the Board's concerns and sug� cs;ions for .. :ntial future capital
improvement projects:
• Bill Davis is concerned about providing shade structures for park playground equipment. Steve
said that this concern would be added to the list under Item V, "Park Imp o i !mcr?ts. "
• Jon T. identified the need for a Pony League ball field, possi )ly at a con u . tv park. Steve said
that a new "South" Community Park is planned under Item 1'J, "Commun '. i . ,cii : tfes. " Glen D.
said that when the master plan is done for the park, it should is elude a Poi bail field.
• Jon T. asked if there were plans to build a community swimming po, south of Southwood
Valley.
• It was suggested that the Lick Creek Park, Phase II and the I.uf ier Jones 1. idf'l pro;ccts should
be moved from Item I, "Neighborhood Park Development, " to Item IV, "< imunity Facilities. "
• Glenn S. asked if any joint projects were planned for the new hi Rh school. He suggested adding
potential tennis court lighting and/or a covered tennis court project to T IV, "Community
Facilities. "
Steve said that once cost estimates are determined, the Board would then ncc 1 to prioritize the
potential projects on the list. He added that a special meeting is Planned i'� - i'u-�sday, February 5,
2002, at 6:00 p.m., to discuss the project list. Kris will j, ,al the cost ,tiinates and project
descriptions to the Board prior to the meeting.
6. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning the skate p•rr k report to the City
Council on December 20, 2001: John Nichols requested that Workshop 1 #6 be moved to the
Regular Agenda, following Item #12. The Board was in consens; > on that it,,.. ,g moved.
7. Hear visitors: No visitors spoke at this time.
4410
Parks & Recreation Advisory Board
Meeting of January 8, 2002
Page 2 of 5
Regular Meeting
John Nichols opened the regular meeting at 7:20 p.m.
ko 8. Discussion, and possible approval of minutes from regular meeting of December 11, 2001:
Glenn S. made a motion to approve the minutes of December 11, 2001, pending an amendment to
Item #7 stating that "Park Zone 7" (instead of the "proposed site for a potential development's is
bordered by George Bush Drive, FM 2818, and Wellborn Road...." Don A. seconded the motion.
All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously.
9. Presentation, discussion, and possible action concerning recommendations for Senior programs
and facilities (City Council Vision Statement #4, Strategy 5.b): Steve stated that this item is a City
Council Strategic Issue. He said that a draft report (refer to the draft Senior Programs and Facilities
Report) would be presented to the City Council on January 24, 2002, pending the Board's approval of
it. (Note: This meeting has since been postponed to Februar 28, 2002) He i:.t: odliiced Marci
Rodgers and Bill Lay who presented the draft report to the Board.
Marci said that two (2) groups of the Texas A &M University's Eisenhower Leadership Development
Program have been studying the Senior facilities and programs and have come up witli short-term and
long -term goal recommendations for these programs. She added that the Committee would need the
Board's approval of the report before it could be taken to the City Council for their consl
She added that as a result of the report, the Senior Advisory Committee does not feel that a Senior
Center needs to be built at this time, and that the existing facilities lhnt the City has shor !)e used to
their full capacity. Once the programs outgrow the existing J': i 1 ities, the potcr. ; 'or renting
meeting space had been discussed as an option. She said that the ultimate goal of the Committee
would be to have a Community Center that the whole community could utilize and bcnc!it !rom.
Marci added that the Committee has requested that more awarenes and ca mpaign i n - • :: 'ib its be made
to promote the Senior programs, as well as the possibility of par,n ring NN It otl , :itions and
groups. She added that the issue of transportation to programs ) be -d. John N.
asked what marketing techniques and resources would be used to promote the progi ns. Marci
stated that a lot of the marketing would be through word of mouth. Stcve a(' (led that and —i or
transportation issues that would require additional funding resources would be brow the City
Council during the budget process.
Jon T. asked what age groups were surveyed in the report. l,Tr. Lay respond(- '.ie group
surveyed were ages 65 and older, although, he added, needs may be different wi! i r groups.
Steve said that the existing programs the Department offers will t reviewed to i ::c if Senior
programs can be incorporated into them. Mr. Lay went onto say t' it th Co:nmi, ,,. nending
that the study continue and be done as a gradual process, so as not to jump into auyuii,l,
Glen D. made a motion to endorse and support the draft report. Clenn S. s t' on. All
were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously.
(Note: The Senior Advisory Committee meets on the last Monday (�/'wery month, at I O. m., at the
"Exit" Teen Center.)
10. Presentation, discussion, and possible action concerning the first Quarter ;. - if Vear 2002
Park Maintenance Standards Performance Report (City Council s hviem .` Strategy
Za): Steve said that a lot of time went into the development of the Par!c N':.wit( Standards.
Curtis Bingham said that when the standards were created, the Dcp :i ment 1-l'! , .s� : t 83% of
the standards were being met. He went on to say that the goal is to . ,cet 9„ , u u.' s within
five(5)years. To track this process, the Department created the 1\9:: i ntenance Sta: d: r rvey from
the maintenance standards. Curtis reviewed the process that the Parks Operations Sup . ors use to
Parks & Recreation Advisory Board
Meeting of January 8, 2002
Page 3 of 5
conduct the surveys. He added that, at certain times of the year, some standards 111ay not be
applicable, and that some standards would weigh more than others. Standards for tLc survey could
also be added and/or amended if warranted to "fine tune" it. Curtis said that overall, the !;cpartment
is currently meeting 77% of the maintenance standards for the first quarter of Fi -a. Fear 2002.
Glen D. added that any changes to the standards would require approval by both th Bna!-d and the
City Council. John N. suggested that any changes be referenced in the survey for trw' n :- ,n;rposes.
John asked how the Operations Supervisors are trained on the survey grading process to ensure that
they are grading consistently with each other. Curtis replied that the Operations St:ncrvisors have
attended Turf Management Training. He added that all of the three (3) Operatio�rs Su: -i are
responsible for grading their own area of responsibility, so the sce: _s are l)::sed ( i !u .: cnt. John
suggested cross training the Supervisors, and having them grade t;,c other areas ,1 : ,! �ibility as
well, or have them grade in teams with each other.
Glen D. said that he thought the report was a good starting point, anal added fliat it wo ! h a work in
progress. Steve said that the results of the survey would be inc:: I, d in t. -c L,:, nr: i quarterly
performance measure reports that are submitted as part of the buds, _•? ;process.
This was an informational item only, and no motion was made.
11. Presentation, discussion, and possible action concerning a proposed park Find dedication for
T.C.C. Subdivision (Park Zone #7): Peter Vanecck stated that t!.. , ,oposed d- -I, nen? is located
on FM 2818, approximately half a mile from Woodway Park. ! e said that .!ie otal -:irk land
requirement would only be .69 acres, and added that some of the hi i l has grcerry iN t, l most of
the land is in the floodplain or is densely wooded (I-efer to Projc ( ' view ( I( cveloper
is requesting, and staff is recommending, the dedication of the fcc i eu of anu.
Glen D. made a motion to accept the dedication of the fee in lieu o !and for the T.C.C. Subdivision.
Glenn S. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion p: s .d unanimously.
Glenn S. suggested adding the location of the proposed developm •r.±. along wi a site rn in, to the
Project Review Checklist in the future.
12. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning possible Board —m , ort P)r an ice
skating rink at the new Brazos County Expo Center: John N. ed ft t. oN. ughts on
this item. Jon T. said that he is a member of the Brazos Valley Icc .)Aition. '1 here al gears to be the
possibility that an ice skating rink will be built in conjunction wit' .: nd adjacent to, the now Brazos
County Expo Center. He suggested that it may be appropriate fo! Board to slatc :!ie: support of
any recreational activity that comes to the community. John N. sa i: i, t' -� Boar ! s!: ould be specific
with their support, and would like to know how supporting : ''i i ')cilit� Nv - ild benefit the
community, and also how the operation of such a facility would ii :.e Cit 's - �crea.:. n Staff.
Bill D. said that if an ice skating rink could be built in conjunction N\ :.h the Expo 'c: •r, and it would
benefit the community, he would be in favor of the Board supporting efforts to icl !e a rink at the
Expo Center. Steve said that if the Board is in support of endor he id t, could be
prepared on behalf of the Board. After some discussion, it was L. : that n� c,:oi, vc be taken
on this item at this time.
Workshop Item #6 : Discussion, consideration, and possible action c� ncerninrt the skate hark report
to the City Council on December 20, 2001: John N. said that in or(' i)mo nc ..yore . ensitive to the
Council's vision, he and Steve would try to obtain better feedback 1 I' a hr( , _is re pr rated to
the City Council.
John N. asked Steve if Staff had been given direction from Council : + tl e Decen,' — 2 2r)(", meeting
when the Skate Park Report was presented to them. Steve responc e d t _; ration
Parks & Recreation Advisory Board
Meeting of January 8, 2002
Page 4 of 5
might be given should there be a private venture that wants to constru
such a facility, bnt tI-t Council
did not want the City to incur the liability.
Glen D. felt that this topic was a "dead issue." He recommended tlha,
he Ro;u„ ''-cn- ni Jf their
time to their other goals and objectives. The Board was in consensus.
This item was intended for discussion only, and no motion was made.
13. Discussion of next meeting dates and agendas: There will 1-
a special meeting on Tuesday,
February 5, 2002, to discuss possible future capital improvemc,
proicc±<. :i regular r—cting on
Tuesday, February 12, 2002, and a joint meeting with the C.. _
' , - I: s :.' reation
Advisory Board on Tuesday, February 19, 2002, to discuss the I'
re of t ' v Par! :ris will
send out additional information once it is available.
- Jon Turton asked for an update of the status of user cor.'
.--t agrecii, rc! -, with the
Parks and Recreation Department.
- It was requested that discussion of the interlocal agreenicr!
for the jog ng tract at Jack and
Dorothy Miller Park be brought to the Board for discuss ic,,
i Can upd i iias not 1 n sent to
the Board prior to the meeting.
14. Hear Visitors: No visitors spoke at this time.
15. Adjourn: The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
Parks & Recreation Advisory Board
Meeting of January 8, 1002
Page 5 of 5