Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/11/1999 - Regular Minutes - Parks Board •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• City of College Station Parks& Recreation Regular Board Meeting Parks Conference Room Tuesday, May11, 1999 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••,•••••••••••••••••••,,,•••••••••,,,,,,,•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••,,,•,•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••,,,,,•••••••• MINIIIIIIIIIIII1111111111111117 40104. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••,•••••••••••••••••,,,,,,•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,•••••••••••••••,,,,••• ••••••••••••••••,•••••••••••••••••,,,,,,•••••••••••••••,,,,•••••••••••••••,,,,,,,,,•••••••••••••••••••••,,,,,,•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•.•••,,,,............,•••••••••••• Staff Present: Steve Beachy, Director of Parks and Recreation; Eric Ploeger, Assistant Director; Linda Waltman, Recreation Superintendent; Curtis Bingham, Operations Superintendent; Jana Wood, Kids Klub Supervisor; Kris Startzman, Board Secretary. Board Members Present: Chris Barzilla, Chairman; Glen Davis; John Crompton; Susan Allen; John Nichols; George Dresser; Sarah Birkhold. Guest: Dr. Scott Schaeffer, Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism Sciences, Texas A&M University. The meeting was called to order at 6:50 p.m. 1. Approval of Minutes from April 13, 1999 - Glen Davis made a motion to table the minutes and move the item to the next Board meeting. The motion was seconded by John Nichols. The motion passed 7-0. 2. Hear Visitors - There were no visitors. 3. Discussion and Resolution of support for Texas Parks and Wildlife trails grant application - Steve Beachy said that this is an opportunity that is available through the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department. There is a grant application that is currently available with a deadline of June 1st. This grant is related to two trails, and the construction and development of trails that is separate from the grants that are filed for the development of parks. He went on to say that this is a 4-1 match, up to $100,000. The Department feels that Lick Creek Park would be most appropriate for this type of grant. When the bond issue was passed for Lick Creek Park, there was $400,000 in there. There was about $800,000 projected to develop the park, with the understanding that the Department would try to get matching grants. He said that Dr. Scott Schaeffer from the Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism Sciences agreed to work on this as a class project. Scott divided his class up into teams and let them look at the Lick Creek Park Master Plan to develop different scenarios for parks grants. Steve urged the Board to chose the best approach, and pending the Regular Meeting May 11, 1999 Page 1 approval of the Parks Board, submit it to Parks and Wildlife. Dr. Schaeffer laid out two maps and discussed different approaches to recreational trails. The first approach would include three different zones: The first zone - no use; the second - multi-purpose use (including equestrian); and the third - conservation and education with foot-only traffic. The student estimates ran about $111,000 total, $90,000+ of which would come from federal funds. One concern was voiced about whether bikes would be allowed. The second approach was to have two loops with connectors between the two. One loop would be for multiple use, including horses, bicycles and pedestrians. The second loop would be for education and conservation, with foot traffic only. Potentially, it would include four bridges. The estimate for the total of the second approach ran about $85,000 to $122,000, around $97,000 of which would be from federal funds. This proposal was the more expensive, because it included four bridges, whereas the first had only one. Steve said that he prefers the second plan because it is easier to adapt to present circumstances. John Crompton made a motion to submit a grant application to construct bridges as the first priority, and then include as many other priorities as can be fitted into $100,000. George Dresser seconded the motion. The Board was in favor and the motion passed 7-0. 4. Discussion of proposed FY2000 surcharge fees - Steve said that this item was brought back from the last meeting. He said that last year, the Board passed a motion that would apply a 25 percent surcharge to adult softball fees, to become effective in fiscal year 2000. Glen Davis asked if the Board could make the $5 surcharge fee uniform, across the board. John C. explained that this is what was discussed during the last user fees meeting (see Athletic Renovation and Improvement Funds policy statement draft). (In this draft, it was suggested charging $5 per person, per team). Glen asked the $5 fee would apply to both youths and adults. Linda Waltman said it would include Little League, Youth Soccer, Swim Team, and anyone that uses a City facility. John C. made a motion to collect $75 per team for softball, soccer and flag football, excluding special tournaments. He moved for approval of the draft, and forwarding it to City Council with recommendations. John N. seconded the motion. The Board was in favor and the motion passed 7-0. Steve said that the Department will include this as part of its budget submittal. 6. Status report and discussion of Kids Klub program - Steve said that this was a question that came up during the last Board meeting and it was asked that the Department give a status report. Two items that were discussed were the levels of support for those children that are receiving subsidies from our Community Development Program and the Enrichment Program (Kids Klub), and what is done in those areas. Jana Wood, the program administrator for Kids Klub, described the enrichment program as a joint project between the College Station School District and the Parks Department. The Parks Department is responsible for the administration of the program, the hiring, the training of the Regular Meeting May 11, 1999 Page 2 staff, and the development of the curriculum. The School District is responsible for the maintenance of the financial end. Jana talked about the Kids Klub Enrichment Program. She mentioned that there are approximately 720 children enrolled in the program, with approximately 120 of them on reduced tuition. Kids Klub is self supporting and it operates mainly off of parent tuition fees. She went on to say that no one participates in the program for free. This year, regular tuition is $75/month. Reduced tuition participants pay $20-$40/month. Jana discussed a typical day at Kids Klub. John C. asked about the evaluation report that came out a few years ago. He said that one of the concerns was that the program was not reaching all of those underprivileged families of the community that we should be. He said that in the last few years, there has been substantial growth to the program. He asked Jana if that growth in the program reflects success in reaching more of the underprivileged children, or is there still a problem? She said that right now the program is doing okay, but some of the problems that they are facing in the future are inflation, rising costs of salaries for staff and equipment, and the possible necessity of reducing the ratio between staff and children. Community Development funds were discussed as a source of funding, but it was pointed out that they are not a permanent source of cash, but only "seed money". John C. made a motion that the Parks Board recommend to the City Council that they provide supplemental funding to support each of those children in the Kids Klub (Enrichment Program) who are on reduced tuition. Chris Barzilla added that since the School District also benefits from the program, the School Board should also be petitioned. George ) Dresser seconded the motion. The Board was in favor and the motion passed 7-0. 6. Discussion of Greenways Report—from Public Hearing on April 29, 1999 - Steve said that this did pass and it will go to the City Council for their approval. John N. made a motion to adopt the minutes as they were distributed. George D. seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0. 7. Discussion of Parks Master Plan - Steve said that good progress is being made on the proposed plan. He went on to say that a draft of the plan will be put together and sent out to all of the Board members in ample time for them to review it before the Special Board meeting on May 25th. He went on to say that he spoke with a representative from Texas Parks and Wildlife to let the Department know that a copy of the plan will be submitted to them for preliminary review. He said that after the Board reviews the plan, at least one public hearing will be held and then it will be submitted to the City Council for consideration. The public hearing will be held on June 8th with the Board's regular meeting. This will be held in the Council Chambers at City Hall. • Regular Meeting May 11, 1999 Page 3 8. Discussion of Parks and Playground Safety - Steve said that this item comes from a student report done at Texas A&M that identified some deficient playgrounds. Steve said that the Department had some key staff members go through a Certified Playground Inspectors course that is administered by the National Recreation and Parks Association. He went on to say that three people on staff have passed the course. Curtis Bingham talked about the playgrounds that he inspected, which are mainly the wood structure playgrounds. He pointed out that some deficiencies noted were manufacturing deficiencies that the Department had no control over. Some deficiencies Parks can take care of, such as separating children swings from infant swings, and making sure that tire swings have enough space between them. He mentioned that some of the main playground units that he looked at were Merry Oaks and Lions Park, Georgie K. Fitch, Brothers, Raintree, Lemontree and Gabbard Park. A lot of these units are going to be addressed by CIP (Capital Improvement Program) and are scheduled to be changed out by the end of 2001. John C. mentioned that he wanted to make sure that by 2001 Parks is in total compliance with the Consumer Product Safety Standards. Curtis said that they do give a reasonable amount of time to bring all play units up to standard. John C. asked about the $50,000 replacement fund. Curtis said that this was a one-time $50,000, approved by the City Council to repair or replace things like playground equipment. The Department is hoping that this will become a permanent fund. Eric Ploeger thinks that the Department is in pretty good shape, as long as this fund continues. There was some discussion regarding how much full ) compliance with standards would protect the City against future lawsuits. It was pointed out that even total compliance doesn't completely protect the City, but that the courts do refer to the standards when considering lawsuits. These safety standards are not the law, but recommendations and guidelines to make play structures safer. 9. Discussion of additional lights at A&M Consolidated High School tennis courts - Steve B. said that he did not have much information on this item. Currently, there are nine tennis courts at the high school, three of them are lit. He mentioned that some of the courts looked as if they were designed for adding lights later, but he did not have cost estimates on adding additional lights at this time. Chris B. pointed out that he feels that the City needs additional tennis courts, which could be remedied by working with the School District. George D. asked if the courts could be used by the public, when they are not being used by the school —this would give the City additional courts to use—and asked if this was something that could be discussed with the School District. Chris B. would like to get a feel of what it would cost to add lights to these courts, and take the cost to the City Council for approval. Steve B. will follow up with this and put on a later agenda. 10. Discussion of Richard Carter Park Landscape Volunteer Program - Steve B. said he did not have much information on this item. He is meeting with students Regular Meeting May 11, 1999 Page 4 who started work on this project a couple of months ago. They are using Richard Carter Park as one of their project sites. Steve will have more information on this for the next meeting. 11. Wolf Pen Creek Update - Steve B. said that Parks has begun working with the Public Works Department, trying to figure out what to do with the old lake area. They have cut a drainage ditch around the current overflow area so that the City can start working on the creek bottom area. He said that the ditch did draw the water down, and at this point, they have accomplished what they were trying to ido, but there is still some water around the amphitheater that they haven't been able to drain. He said that signs have been put up, stating what is being done, why it is being done, and when it is being done. The Public Works Department will follow up with news releases. There is a phone number available in case the public has questions. The work is being done inhouse. 12. Consent Items: Capital Improvement Report - John C. asked Steve B. if he had a status report on the meeting with Gary Seaback. Steve said he has met with Mr. Seaback. Mr. Seaback had voiced some concerns, but that he was generally favorable to what the Department wanted to do. John C. asked what would happen next. Steve said that Parks will have staff meetings with Public Works, Public Utilities and Development Services and then go to the City Council this month to request permission to begin negotiations with Mr. Seaback. He mentioned that at this time, price has not been discussed -the Department will also request permission to secure appraisals. Madeley Park- Chris B. wanted to know the Board's position on the purchase of this land, so that the Board can go to City Council and ask their permission to acquire the property. Steve said that the reason the Board visited the site (before the Board meeting) was to determine if the Board wanted to pursue the acquisition of this property, or if they had any reservations. Steve asked: if the owner doesn't want to sell the property, does the Board want to go as far as condemnation? Eric Ploeger said that he thinks that Shabeer Jaffar (the owner) is interested in selling, but agreeing on a price might be difficult. He went on to say that condemnation is always the last resort. Steve B. said that any decision would have to go to the City Council for approval. George D. made a motion to proceed with steps for acquisition, short of condemnation. The motion was seconded by John N. The Board was in favor and the motion passed 7-0. Discussion of next meeting date and agenda - o John C. would like to see the archeological study of Lick Creek Park put on the next agenda. Regular Meeting May 11, 1999 Page 5 13. Adjourn - John N. moved to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Chris B. The Board was in favor and the motion passed 7-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:27 p.m. Approved: Chris Barzilla, Chair Date Attest: Kris Startzman Date Regular Meeting May 11, 1999 Page 6