Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMAR 2001 Parks & Recreation Advisory Board Meeting MinutesParks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, March 6, 2001 Page 1 of 6 ***Minutes*** CITY OF COLLEGE STATION PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD Regular Meeting Tuesday, March 6, 2001 Central Park Conference Room 1000 Krenek Tap Road 7:00 p.m. Staff Present: Steve Beachy, Director of Parks and Recreation; Eric Ploeger, Assistant Director; Kris Startzman, Board Secretary. Board Members Present: Glenn Schroeder; Bill Davis; Glen Davis; John Crompton, Alternate; Laura Wood, Alternate. Board Members Absent: Chris Barzilla, Chair; George Dresser, Co-Chair; John Nichols; Jon Turton. Guest: Jeff Kersten, Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Visitors: Larry Farnsworth, 4012 Hunter Creek, College Station. 1. Call to order: The meeting was called to order at 7:04 p.m. 2. Hear visitors: No visitors spoke at this time. 3. Pardon ~ Consider requests for absences of members from meeting: John Crompton made a motion to accept the absences of Chris Barzilla, George Dresser, John Nichols, and Jon Turton as excused. Glen Davis seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 4. Approval of minutes from Regular Meeting of February 13, 2001: John C. made a motion to approve the minutes from regular meeting of February 13, 2001. Glenn Schroeder seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 5. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning the Parks and Recreation Board Fiscal Year 2002 budget issues and priorities: Steve stated that the following year, the Board had been asked to give their input into the budget process and that it was time to seek input again for the upcoming budget process. He introduced Jeff Kersten, who is responsible for the formation of the City's budget. Jeff handed out a list of the budget issues and concerns that the Parks and Recreation Board had voiced the previous year (see attachment). He stated that from those concerns, several items had been approved and incorporated into the Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, March 6, 2001 Page 2 of 6 current Fiscal Year 2001 budget (i.e. A&M Consolidated High School Tennis Court Lighting and Soccer Field Renovations). Glen D. asked what the time frame was to come up with a list of key issues. Jeff responded that the Budget Department would like to have the Board's feedback within 30 to 60 days. He stated that the information would be given to the City Council to review during their annual strategic planning retreat in May. They would consider advisory board input along with their strategic planning priorities during the retreat. Steve stated that City Management had been through several presentations by the Budget Department concerning the five-year financial forecast for the City. There are concerns over the next couple of years that some of the known impacts on the budget may make requests difficult to fund, particularly requests on items that would have on-going operational costs. Jeff added that a slowing in the national and state economy would affect revenue forecasts for the future. Steve stated that usually each year, there are some funds available for one-time cost items. He suggested several areas such as the Urban Forest Management Plan, a joint project with the College Station Independent School District to repair the surface of the jogging tract at Jack and Dorothy Miller Park, and a possible joint project with Texas A&M University for improvements to Hensel Park. Glen D. suggested distributing last year's budget issues, along with the current Board goals, and the City Council Strategic Issues to the members of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board for their review. He also suggested putting this item on an upcoming agenda. Steve agreed and stated that the Board is scheduled to have a joint meeting with the City Council on April 26, 2001. This item was for discussion only, and no motion was made. 6. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning the user fee study: Steve stated that this item was to update the Board concerning the user fee study of the Parks and Recreation Department that was conducted by a consulting firm (DMG Maximus). Steve stated that the Department did not have a recommendation at this time, but had received an initial report back from the consultants. He went on to say that the Department sent the report back to the consultants for some revisions and should have a final report soon. Steve stated that there would be a meeting with the Fees Subcommittee, the consultants, and Parks and Recreation Department staff on Tuesday, March 20, 2001, at 2:30 p.m., to review the report. After that, there would be a special Board meeting on Monday, March 26, 2001, at 7:00 p.m., to consider any fee recommendations. He went on to say that from then, the recommendation of the Board would go to the City Council for consideration on April 12, 2001. Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, March 6, 2001 Page 3 of 6 Steve stated that once the City gets the information back from the consultants, it would need to be applied to the Fiscal and Budgetary Policy Statement, Appendix "F". He went on to say that there are three levels of fee support:  Full fee support (80-100%) will be obtained from enterprise operations such as utilities, sanitation service, landfill, cemetery, and licenses and permits.  Partial fee support (50-80%) will be generated by charges for emergency medical services, miscellaneous licenses and fines, and all adult sports programs.  Minimum fee support (0-50%) will be obtained from other parks, recreational, cultural, and youth programs and activities. Glen D. asked if the Fees Subcommittee would receive a copy of the report before they met. Jeff stated that it might be possible to receive the executive summary prior to the meeting. This was an informational item only, and no motion was made. 7. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning Veterans Park and Athletic Complex: Steve stated that the Veterans Park and Athletic Complex Subcommittee met the previous week and reviewed estimates from O'Malley Engineers. He stated that cost estimates were high for street and utility extensions due to the fact that they have to be oversized to accommodate the future growth of the park. The engineers have also given a recommendation to go from a 4" to an 8" base soil mixture on the soccer fields. Steve stated that as a result of the estimates, several alternate plans were recommended for the Phase I development of the park. Steve showed the Board a promotional video created to help raise funds for the future veterans memorial that would be the centerpiece of the park. He stated that three artists had been selected to begin work on designs for a memorial, and one winner would be chosen to build the actual memorial. Steve added that once the memorial was built, Veterans Park and Athletic Complex would not only be utilized for athletic purposes, but would also become a special place in the community. Eric Ploeger took the floor. He stated that the Department had received three price scenarios from the engineers, and had narrowed them down to two (alternates one and two). Alternate one would include four full-size soccer fields, two adult softball fields (no lights for either soccer or softball), restroom facilities, parking, street and utility extensions, landscaping, and an entrance area. The cost for alternate two was estimated at $1,936,790. Eric stated that there is approximately $1,850,000 available for the Phase I development of the park. He stated that even without lighting, the cost for development of alternative one would be approximately $100,000 over budget. Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, March 6, 2001 Page 4 of 6 Alternate two would include six full-size soccer fields (two lighted), restroom facilities, parking, street and utility extensions, landscaping, and an entrance area. The cost for alternate two was estimated at $1,549,800. Eric stated that the cost estimate for alternate two would bring the project within budget by a considerable amount of money, which would mean that:  The Department would be confident that there is a project available when it goes out to bid;  Alternate two adds two soccer fields; and  It gives the Department the ability to do more landscaping. After some discussion, Glen D. made a motion to recommend  alternative two as the Phase I development for the park;  that the first item in the next bond election be a five-field softball complex; and  that the subcommittee work with the staff to enhance the project's landscaping with the remaining funds available from the project. John C. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. Steve added that consideration would also be needed for an entryway to the park. The Board agreed to wait to see what the design of the memorial would look like, so that it could possibly be enhanced with the entryway. No motion was made. John C. suggested the possibility of working with Dr. Scott Shafer to apply for a trails grant for the park. Steve added that he had recently received word from the Development Services Department that the Planning and Zoning Commission had discussed the Highway 30/60 Corridor Study, and had recommended putting additional north/south connectors through Highway 30 to Highway 60. Several options that the Commission had discussed could possibly affect the memorial site area. Steve stated that the recommendations would go to the City Council for review on March 22, 2001, and he would send the Board any information as he receives it. Glen D. asked Steve if the Board could be sent a copy of the approved master plan for the park. Steve said that a copy would be mailed to the Board. This was an informational discussion only, and no motion was made. 8. Discussion, consideration, and possible appointment of a subcommittee to study the feasibility of building a skateboard park: Steve stated that Parks and Recreation Department staff would be meeting with the Risk Management and Legal Departments on Tuesday, March 20, 2001 to discuss implementation of the project. Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, March 6, 2001 Page 5 of 6 Glen D. made a motion to appoint Laura Wood, George Dresser, and Jon Turton to the subcommittee to study the feasibility of building a skateboard park (pending that George and Jon agree to serve on subcommittee). John Crompton seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 9. Discussion, consideration, and possible action regarding the College Station Recreational Sports Association: At the February 2001 Board meeting, there was discussion regarding the dissolution of the Recreational Sports Association due to the fact that it had strayed from its original mission over the past several years and had become somewhat counterproductive. A recommendation had been made by the Board to seek input from the various user groups on the subject before taking any action. Glen D. said that a meeting date had been set, notification had been sent out to the various user groups, and only one person showed up for the meeting. He made a motion to dissolve the Recreational Sports Association, on the condition that Parks and Recreation Department staff continue to meet with the different user groups on an individual, periodic basis. John C. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. Steve stated that the only real difference now would be that coordination would become more individualized. He went on to say that he would send out a letter to the user groups informing them of the Board's decision. 10. Presentation, discussion, and possible action concerning a proposal for park land dedication: John C. stated that since the February 2001 meeting, several suggested revisions had been made to a proposal for park land dedication. He asked Steve what step to proceed with next. Steve stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission should be invited to comment on the memo. John C. asked about the time line to get the proposal on the agenda for their next meeting. Steve stated that it may be too late to put this item on the agenda, and that it would probably have to go to the City Council during the joint meeting on April 26th for their review first. John C. made a motion to forward the memo to the City Council for discussion during the joint meeting on April 26, 2001, and to then forward it to the Planning and Zoning Commission, requesting their comments on the proposal. Glen D. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. John C. stated that because of the concern that much of the land being dedicated by developers was in the floodplain and detention ponds, he had asked Dr. Scott Shafer to look into how other entities have dealt with land dedication issues during the development process that involved balancing floodplain neighborhood park needs (see memo). He stated that Dr. Shafer had received a number of responses. John C. stated that one response that he found interesting (included in the Board packets) came from Prince William County in Virginia that had Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, March 6, 2001 Page 6 of 6 specific rules for dedication. He feels that something similar to those rules should be incorporated into the City’s Park Land Dedication Ordinance. Steve stated that there would need to be discussions with the City Planners, as well as the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding any changes to the ordinance, and suggested adding this item to the agenda for discussion when the Board meets with the City Council on April 26th. John C. suggested asking Jane Kee (City Planner) to draft some language for the ordinance to take to the City Council meeting. Steve stated that Judith Downs (Greenways Coordinator) should also be involved in talks of an ordinance revision. John C. suggested putting this item on the next agenda for discussion with feedback from Jane Kee and Judith Downs. Eric Ploeger stated that he had a meeting scheduled to discuss this topic and would obtain a copy of the park land dedication ordinance from Prince William County. This was a discussional item only, and no motion was made. 11. Consent Items: ~ Capital Improvement Projects Report:  John C. asked for the status of the community park acquisition. Steve stated that it was not complete. City Council has authorized the purchase to take place, with the provision that the surface rights are cleared. ~ Discussion of next meeting date and agenda: The next Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Regular meeting will be held on Tuesay, April 10, 2001. Several items requested to be placed on the agenda are:  Discussion of park locations;  Discussion of a skate board park;  Update concerning Wolf Pen Creek;  Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Fiscal Year 2001 budget issues; and  Discussion of Park Land Dedication Ordianance revision. 12. Adjourn: The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Notes: Get CIP report from Ric – also check on indoor grant application (why suspended?… should we take off). Also, check the status for the ones left blank like Lincoln Center improvements).