Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
03/26/2001 - Special Agenda Packet - Parks Board
***AGE JA* COfLor20COLLEGE parksSTATan STATION S & RECREATION VISORY BO Special Meeting Monday, March 26, 2001 Parks Conference Room 1000 Krenek Tap Road 7:00 p.m. 1. Call to order. 2. Hear visitors. 3. Pardon— Consider requests for absences of members from meeting. 4. Presentation, discussion, and possible action concerning the user fee study and CITY O recommendationsFrecreation user fees. 5. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning park land dedication requirements for the Butler - COCS Tract. 6. Adjourn. The building is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available. Any request for sign interpretive services must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To take arrangements call (979) 764-3517 or (TDD) 1- 800-735-2989. Agendas posted on Internet Website http://www.ciocollege- stationotxous and Cable Access Cha el 19. PARK LAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE PROJECT REVIEW CHECKLIST Date Received: March 5,2001 Park Zone: 6 Name of Development: Butler-Cocs Tract Applicant:Parkcrest Builders (William Austin) Address:5851 San Felipe Suite 200 City/State: Houston,Texas Zip: 77057 Phone Number: 713-266-0414 FAX: Engineer/Planner: Veronica Morgan Address: 511 Universtiy Dr. City/State: College Station,Texas Zip: 77840 Phone Number: 979-260-6963 FAX: 260-3564 E-mail: v@mittchellandmorcian.com REQUIREMENT COMPLIANCE SECTION 10-B-1: Land Dedication Single Family Dwelling Units: Multi-family Dwelling Units: 96 Total Land Requirement: .71 Acres Proposed Dedication: 0 SECTION 10-B-2: Fee in Lieu of Land Has the Planning &Zoning Commission's approval been obtained? No Acquisition Costs: Single Family Fee ($148/dwelling unit): Multi-family Fee ($112/dwelling unit): $112 x 96= $10,752 Total Fee: $10,752 SECTION 10-B-3: Park Development Fee Single Family Fee ($309/dwelling unit): Multi-family Fee ($233/dwelling unit): $233 x 96=$22,368 Total Single Family Fee: ($457/Dwelling Unit): Total Multi-family Fee ($345/Dwelling Unit): $345 x 96=$33,120 SECTION 10-B-4: Park Development in Lieu of Fee Have development plans and specifications been approved by the Parks & Recreation Board? No SECTION 10-B-5: Minimum Park Size Is the proposed park less than five (5) acres? n/a If yes, staff recommends: Cash donation SECTION 10-B-7: Prior Park Acquisition Is there an existing neighborhood park that can serve the proposed development?Yes,Southwest Park (undeveloped) If yes, staff recommends: Cash donation SECTION 10-E: Comprehensive Plan Is the proposed park dedication in compliance with the City Comprehensive Plan and the Park Master Plan? Yes Comments: SECTION 10-F: Additional Requirements 1. Is land in the 100-year floodplain? No Percentage: Comments: b. Does the location require users to cross an arterial road? not if going to Southwest Park c. Topography: N/a d. Trees/Scenery: n/a 2. a. Is the land adjacent to a school? no b. Restricted access: no c. Is there screening if the park joins a non-residential use? no d. Park perimeter percentage that abuts a street: %. e. Do streets abutting the park comply with the Thoroughfare Plan? STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Cash donation recommended SECTION 10-G: Approval Parks & Recreation Board: Planning &Zoning Board: City Council: O:\Parks\Forms\Admin\Park Land Dedication Ordinance Checklist.dot Vision Statement#4 4. As a result of our efforts citizens will be enriched by a range of cultural arts and recreational opportunities provided through citywide initiatives and collaborative efforts. • Libraries • Recreation • Performing arts • Public art • Teen center • Festivals. • Parks • Museums • Athletic activities Preliminary Budget Issues for FY 01. Parks and Recreation Department 1. Conduct a space needs study for Parks and Recreation needs. Advisory Board Input The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board provided the following input on key budget and strategic planning issues for next fiscal year. 1. Urban Forestry Plan—Provide the necessary support to create an Urban Forestry Plan. One suggestion was to create an ad hoc advisory board. 2. Strategic integration of sports marketing and special events promotions. —Have a cohesive effort for sports marketing and special events promotions. This would involve the Parks Department activities in this area, the Convention and Visitors Bureau, and the Sports Foundation. 3. Frisbee Golf on old landfill site —Committee expressed a desire to have this included on a Cl P list. They also wanted to move up the development of the site. 4. 30/60 Corridor issue—Committee was concerned about this study as it relates to the Veterans Park and Athletic Complex. Concerns include the issue of a connection from Copperfield Drive to Highway 30. 5. Tennis court lights at the High School Provide funding to light six existing courts for public use. 6. Greenways Implementation— Encourage the earlier acquisition of greenways in accordance with the approved plan. 7. Soccer fields policy and use issues—Improve the turf conditions of the 12 existing competitive soccer fields. 8. Lincoln Center leadership development and program enhancement Support the goals of the Lincoln Center Advisory Committee. 6 Vision Statement#4 As a result of our efforts citizens will be enriched by a range of cultural arts and recreational opportunities provided through citywide initiatives and collaborative efforts. Strategy#1 More emphasis on Making Parks More Intergenerational Implementation Plans a. Direct Parks Board to place more emphasis on "passive" parks, i.e. benches, walking paths Strategy#2 More Interaction Between Parks Advisory Board and Planning and Zoning and Shared Vision With Council Implementation Plans a. Schedule periodic meetings between Council and Parks Board Strategy#3 Continue to Update Comprehensive Plan Regarding Parks System Implementation Plans a. Establish design standards and criteria for development and placement of parks. Examine zoning ordinance as it relates to park land location and acquisition b. Analyze park distribution to determine areas that may be under served or under utilized. Strategy#4 Connectivity "etween Greenways and Parks Implementation Plans a. Implement demonstration project to establish a future policy regarding greenway= park connectivity b. Greenways review(See Vision#8 Strategy#2) c. Wolf Pen Creek Masterplan implementation Strategy#5 Continued Emphasis on Parks Maintenance to Quality Standards through the Budget Process Implementation Plans a. Review fee structure and policy for possible revision in order to create funding for parks maintenance/upgrade. b. Review certain park maintenance service levels and identify options and associated costs to increase these service levels. Strategy#6 Develop Programs and Facilities for Senior Citizens Implementation Plans a. Staff work with Sr.Advisory Board to address space/facility needs. b. Address creating a Senior Citizen Advisory Board City of College Station Parks & Recreation Department Fiscal Year 2001 Board Goals o Investigate the feasibility of cooperative ventures with CSISD o Support the implementation of a Greenways Oversight Committee to support the Greenways Master Plan o Establish policies and standards for re-appraisal of existing parks, facilities, and services offered by the Department o Encourage arboretum/garden parks and color emphasis in existing parks o Work on plans to make current and future parks intergenerational o Set up quality standards to measure performance for maintenance and field use for neighborhood and co unity parks o Revision of the Surcharge Policy o Review the Parks and Recreation Department Fee Policy o Intergenerational ideas spa ing all age gaps o Develop programs and facilities for senior citizens o Develop an Urban Forestry Plan for the City of College Station o Investigate the feasibility of cooperative ventures with TAMU on facilities and programs o Explore the feasibility of a commercial ice skating rink o More interaction between Parks Advisory Board and Planning and Zoning Commission, and shared vision with City Council o Monitor code review and revision projects currently underway with respect to codes impacting parks. o Identify areas of common concern between Parks Advisory Board and Pla ing and Zoning Commission. o Review the parkland dedication ordinance. Keep current a file of other city parkland dedication ordinances and review every three years. o Develop criteria for parkland dedication. 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 advanced 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 parks. Determine time frames for when they will be 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 community parks. Find out what other Texas cities are doing. a Identify obstacles to quality parkland dedication by developers. Work to remove obstacles that are within the control of the City. • Schedule a joint meeting of the Parks Advisory Board and the Planning and Zoning Commission once a year. a Schedule a joint workshop meeting of the Parks Advisory Board and the City Council once a year. On-Going Activities • Implementation of the approved Capital Improvement Program. • Implementation of the Wolf Pen Creek Master Plan. Page 2 of 2 Executive Summary Cost of Services Study for the City of College Station, Texas Parks and Recreation Department DMG- • 41 5, INC. 2001 Helping Government Serve the People 13601 Preston Road, Suite 400W Dallas, Texas 75240 (972) 490-9990 Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION II. APPROACH it I THODOLOGY III. ACTIVITY FEE STUD ES A. Adult Activities B. Youth Activities C. Aquatics 10 D. Rentals .12 E. Recreation Centers...............................................................13 F. Other Activities_ ...... ................................. ................14 W 11ENEFITS • 11 POLICY CONSIDERATIONS."...........................1.5 Appendix—User Fee Costing Reports(Under Separate Covers) I. INTRODUCTION The City of College Station, Texas, is a full service city government, 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 services and increasing costs fueled by growth. In addition, the city desires to reduce the property tax burden on its citizens. As a result of these pressures, the City must examine all opportunities for enhanced revenues or new revenue sources to avoid reducing valuable City service levels. Accordingly, College Station engaged DMG- • 41 S, INC. (DMG) to conduct a Cost of Services Study to review the City's Parks and Recreation Department current costs and policies related to the recovery of fees for services. This Executive Su ary provides a summary of DMG- 41 S' findings and recommendations resulting from.the 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 can be an appropriate means of achie g revenue enhancement for local gove ent. Many times one or more of the following 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 services. No fees are being charged for se 'ces that could generate revenue. Current fee structure an policy have not been set with full knowledge of the relationship between the value of a service and the amount of a fee. Providing cert: public se *ces at cost can have numerous 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 "rationing" of services and allow for the measurement of demand. It is for these reasons that local governments all over the United States are shifting from a near-total dependence on property, sales, and income taxes for financing local services to a more broad-based revenue stream. Although there may be political reaction to increasing fees for services that were previously free or heavily subsidized, local governments 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 D.11G-MANDIUS,INC..2001 Page] Summary TheUser Fee Study presents the results of a DMG_ 41 analysis of the full cost of servicesprovided by the City of College Station, Texas, Parks andRecreation Department, for which user fees are being charged or might be considered. By calculating the full costs of these services, including an appropriate share of Citywide e and departmental indirect cost, and comparing that cost to the associated revenues received, DMG- , S has been able to determine theamount of cost subsidy being drawn from general tax dollars in these areas. The objective of the Study was to provide cost data tobeused as a basis for establishing or changing user fees. The full cost of delivering services includes direct labor costs, other direct operating and maintenance costs, departmental supervision costs, and ci *de indirect costs. study indicates that the full cost of fee related se ices are $3,216,392 and that The5, 942 is being recovered in revenue. The subsidy currently required to support these services is, therefore, $2,380,450 as illustrated in the following graph Cost vs. Revenue 21% $837,832 O Total Cost •Revenue 79% $3,216392 In comparison to other DMG-MAXIMUS municipal clients, the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department appears to be in line with their current subsidy levels. However, the DMG-MAXIMUS has made recommendations to increase the charges for Cost ofServices Study for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department DIVIG-MAXIMUS,INC..2001 Page 2 services, therefore increasing revenues fortheCity. 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 Departments subsidize certain activities (usually youth activities) while attempting to recover full costs for adult programs. Revenue Summary and Recommendations A summary of the cost/revenue analysis and the resulting fee adjustment recommendations by function are summarized in the tables that follow. DMG- 41 S identified potential for new revenues in existing fee areas of$453,346. Percent of Activity Cost Revenue Difference Cost Recovery Adult Activities $ 569,074 $177,195 $ 391,879 31.14% Youth Activities $ 288,452 $ 31,821 $ 256,631 11.03% Aquatics $1,064,728 $348,881 $ 715,847 32.77% Rentals $ 225,891 $ 50,721 $ 175,170 22.45% Recreation Centers $ 941,363 $148,145 $ 793,218 15.74% Other $ 725,171 $ 79,179 $ 645,992 10.92% Total $3,814,679 $835,942 $2,978,737 21.91% In addition, DMG- A 41 S identified other 'sereces provided by the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department in which no fee is currently charged, but where costing info ation can be used in deciding whether or not to plement new fees. The . ount of full cost involved for these activities totals $598,287, and include Soccer, Cemetery, Girls Fast Pitch, and Little League. Non-Revenue Producing Activities Percent of Activity Cost Revenue Difference Cost Recovery Soccer $ 152,097 $ $ 152,097 0.00% Cemetery $ 168,178 $ $ 168,178 0.00% Girls Fast Pitch $ 114,714 $ $ 114,714 0.00% Little League $ 163,298 $ $ 163,298 0.00% Total S 598,287 S 598,287 0.00% The current policies for the collection of fees, as identified in the fiscal year 2001 operating budget, are as follows: Cost of Services Study for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department DMG-MAXIMUS,INC,2001 Page 3 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. Minimum fee support (0-50%) will be obtained from other parks, recreational, cultural, and youth programs and activities. DMG- 41 S, INC. used these guidelines in establishing recommendations for new fees. Cost of Services Study for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department C DMG-MiaLVILIS,INC,2001 Page 4 Executive Summary Format The Executive Summary is presented in the following sections: • Approach and Methodology — A brief description of the approach and methodology utilized to develop the user fee study. • Activity Fee Studies — A summary presentation of DMG- 41 S' analysis of the cost of fee and service activities within the Parks and Recreation Department. • Benefits and Policy Considerations — A discussion of benefit and policy considerations, which should be considered in utilizing the results of a cost of services study. • Appendix—User Fee Costing Report (Under Separate Cover) Cost of Services Study for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department C DMG-MAXIMUS,INC,2001 Page 5 IL APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY The approach and methodology DMG-MAXIMUS staff utilized in the development of indirect cost allocation plans and the comprehensive user fee study developed the full costs associated with providing City Parks and Recreation services. Costs of services were not limited to direct departmental charges, but rather based on an analysis of the comprehensive costs incurred by the City in providing services. Total costs include allocation of the administrative and central support activities and other costs not traditionally assigned to departmental budgets such as building depreciation or use costs. The emphasis of this project was to comprehensively determine the costs of services and match these services to funding sources. Indirect Cost Plan Approach and Methodology The Cit 'de administrative indirect cost used for this engagement is provided by the Full-Cost Central Services Cost Allocation Plan prepared by DMG- • 41 S, INC., based on budget data for fiscal year ending September 30, 2000. This approach is consistently applied for all City departments and services, regardless of funding source and allocates costs to departments based on an objective statistic that reflects or correlates to the use of the administrative services provided. User Fee Study Approach and Methodology The primary purpose of the User Fee Study is to document the full cost of providing Parks and Recreation se *ces for which user fees are assessed or could be assessed reasonably. This work will allow the City to make a dete *nation of the level of tax subsidy it wants to m tam n as a matter of public policy in an environment where the full and actual cost of doing business is known. Fee levels then become a true measure of the City's intentions and not simply a combination of historical or inconsistently applied amounts. • ong the tools that DMG- • II S uses in all of its studies are the principles of governmental cost accounting. This means 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 Department, DMG- • 4t S went through the following stages of research and analysis: Cost of Services Study for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department r,DAIG-MAXIMUS,INC,2001 Page 6 Conducted an analysis of service costs and revenues, including: o Interviews with key management and operational personnel throughout the department o Determined the full cost of each activity by identifying staff positions that provide the service, the number of units of the activity provided in a year, the amount of staff time required for each activity and related operating expenses o Determined current revenue for each activity o Processed the cost of services plan > Reviewed first drafts with department staff and incorporated revisions > Prepared Final Report incorporating Department Staff comments > Reviewed the final draft with the Parks and Recreation Board Sub-Committee > Preparation of the final report This approach results in a detailed cost of service/revenue analysis that the City will use as a basis for restructuring existing fees and/or plementing new ones. The final results incorporate multiple iterations and fine-tuning of data. We believe the analysis and conclusions to be the best obt; able — the result of the cooperative efforts between DMG I 11 S consultants and City staff. Cost of Services Study for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department C DitIG-MAXIMUS.INC.2001 Page 7 III. ACTIVITY FEE STUDIES The following section presents the results of DMG-i A11 S' analysis of the cost of fee and service areas in the City Parks and Recreation Department. 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 Program strives to provide adults with an organized flag football league. Teams in this league can advance to the T • State Flag Football tournament if they qualify. This league is designed for both male and female adults age 16 and over. Each te plays in an 8 game rouhd robin. Units for this progr. are identified as te. s. There is a double eli • ation tourn. ent at the end of the season. The Adult Volleyball Progr is designed to provide adults with an org. ° ed co-ed volleyball progr. Te. s can advance to the T State Toum. ent. The progr is open to males and females ages 16 and older. Participation for this progr. is identified per individual. Each te. plays in an 8 g.. e round robin. There is a double el* *nation tourn. ent at the end of the season. Adult Softball Leagues provide adults *th an org. * ed softball progr. and give them a chance to advance to the T or ASA State and National Toum. 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 Spring and Sul er, and 8 g. •es in the Fall. There is an optional double el* * ation tourn.: ent throughout the regular season. Te. s are broken into the folio * g divisions: Men's A, Men's B, Men's D+; Women's C, D, D+; Co-ed Super D, D+, C+, B, and Fast Pitch. Fees for this progr. are charged per te , however for the purposes of this study, units are identified as participants. The follo g 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 Cost Revenue Activity Cost Revenue Difference Cost Recovery Units per Unit per Unit Adult Flag Football $ 36,414 $ 4,080 $ 32,334 11.20% 12 5 3,034.50 $ 340.00 Adult Volleyball S 44,174 S 7,020 S 37,154 15.89% 52 $ 849.50 S 135.00 Spring-Summer Slowpitch $ 213,005 S 116,280 S 96,725 54.59% 323 $ 659.46 S 360.00 Fall Slowpitch S 141,899 S 47,565 S 94,334 33.52% 160 $ 886.87 $ 297.28 Spring-Summer Fastpitch S 88,122 S 2,250 $ 85,872 2.55% 6 5 14,687.00 S 375.00 Fall Fastpitch S 45,460 S 1,890 S 43,570 4.16% 5 S 9,092.00 $ 378.00 Total S 569,074 $179,085 S 389,989 31.47% Cost of Services Study for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department r DMG-MAXIMUS,INC,2001 Page 8 In making a recommendation for the City of College Station's Adult Activities programs, DMG- • II 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 • 41 S has created the following recommendations: Adult Activities Recommendations Total Potential Current Cost Recommended Potential Additional Activity Cost Revenue Units per Unit Fee Revenue Revenue Adult Flag Football $ 36,414 $ 4,080 12 $ 3,035 $ 1,517 $ 18,207 $ 14,127 Adult Volleyball $•44,174 $ 7,020 52 S 850 S 1,500 $ 78,000 $ 70,980 Spring-Summer Slowpitch S 213,005 $116,280 . 323 $ 659 $ 330 $ 106,503 $ (9,778) Fall Slowpitch S 141,899 $ 47,565 160 $ 887 $ 440 $ 70,400 $ 22,835 Spring-Summer Fastpitch S 88,122 $ 2,250 6 $ 14,687 $ 7,350 $ 44,100 $ 41,850 Fall Fastpitch $ 45,460 $ 1,575 5 $ 9,092 $ 4,550 $ 22,750 $ 21,175 Total S 569,074 S 178,770 S 339,960 $ 161,190 As costs for many of these progr. s are very high, it would not be appropriate to meet the guidelines set forth by the financial policies in some cases. DMG- • 41 S has set reco endations based on a 50% cost recovery. It would be beneficial however for the City to perfo a market survey to dete *ne 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 te. sports for boys and girls and teaches them the basic skills of football. The progr is open to males and females age 7 to 12 (Grade 1 through 6). The participants play in 8 g. es per season on either Monday or Wednesday, or Tuesday and Thursday, as well as Saturday mo 'ng. Each player receives a T-shirt and a trophy. Participation for this progr is identified as individual participants. Fees for youth flag football are established on a sliding scale, a f. ly with one child, would pay $35, while a second child would be an additional $25, and a third child would be an additional $15. The Youth Basketball Progr. provides a positive experience in team 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/$10. Cost of Services Study for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department C D.11G-MiLYIAIUS,INC,2001 Page 9 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 • erence Cost Recovery Units per Unit per Unit Youth Flag Football $160,411 $ 11,120 $ 149,291 6.93% 401 $ 400.03 $ 27.73 Youth Basketball $128,041 $ 20,701 S 107,340 16.17% 774 $ 165.43 $ 26.75 Total S 288,452 S 31,821 S 256,631 11.03% According to policies set in the budget process, youth activities require only ° ° al fee support (0 to 50%) and therefore, the DMG®DMG A. 41 S reco endations have been set at 25% recovery, and are as follows: Youth Activities Recommendations Total Potential ent Cost Recommended Potential Additional Activiy Cost Revenue Units per Unit Fee Revenue Revenue Youth Flag Football $160,411 $ 11,120 401 $ 400.03 100 $ 40,103 $ 28,983 Youth Basketball $128,041 $ 20,701 774 $ 165.43 40 $ 30,960 # $ 10,259 Total S 2: ,452 $ 31,821 $ 71,063 $ 39,242 C. Aquatics Open S ern Progr s provide safe, fun aquatic fun for both adults and children. Participants can choose to utilize Ad. son Lagoon and Thomas Pool, which are open the last weekend of May through Mid-August; Hallaran Pool, which is open from the beg* *ng of April through the end of September; or the Junior High School Natatorium, which is open year-round. Swim Lessons are given to provide Red Cross swimming 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 meet two times per week for four weeks (8 lessons). Summer lessons meet nine times per two week session(9 lessons). The T A Swim Team provides a recreational program that introduces participants to competitive swimming. Swim meets are held against other teams — Bryan, Brenham, Huntsville, Navasota, Livingston, etc. — with the summer culminating with the State TAAF Swim Meet. Participants practice four times per week in April and May, with practice sessions increasing to five times per week in June and July. Cost of Services Study for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department ©DAIG-MAXIMUS,INC,2001 Page 10 A The following table presents the costs, revenues, and percentage of cost recovery for aquatics programs: Aquatics Activities Cost/Revenue Analysis Percentage Cost Revenue Activity Cost Revenue Difference Cost Recovery Units per Unit per Unit •.- Swim S 578,553 $257,054 $ 321,499 44.43% 114,319 $ 5.06 $ 2.25 Swim Lessons $ 303,473 S 74,762 $ 228,711 24.64% 2,623 S 115.70 $ 28.50 TAAF Swim Team $ 182,702 $ 17,065 $ 165,637 9.34% 201 S 908.97 S 84.90 Total S 1,i. ,728 S 348„::1 S 715,847 32.77% Aquatics utilizes the " ° al fee support" requirement as set forth in the fiscal budget, and therefore requires only a 0 to 50% cost recovery. For Open S DMG- • 11 S has established the reco endation for a 50% recovery rate, a 20% recovery rate for S Lessons, and a 10% recovery rate for T A Swim Te. . The table below outlines the reco endations of DMG® • 41 5, INC. for fees for aquatics progr. s: Aquatics Activities Recommendations Total Potential nt Cost Reeo ended Potential Additional - Activity Cost Revenue Units per Unit Fee Revenue Revenue •.-.Swim $ 578,553 $257,054 114,319 $ 5.06 $ 2.50 $285,798 $ 28,744 Swim Lessons $ 303,473 $ 74,762 2,623 $ 115.70 $ 30.00 $ 78,690 $ 3,928 TAAF Swim Team S 182,702 $ 17,065 201 $ 908.97 $ 135.00 $ 27,135 $ 10,070 Total S 1,1..,728 S 348,::1 $391,623 S 42,742 As some pools currently charge different fees than others, DMG® • 11 S felt it would be appropriate to increase pool charges across the board by 25%. The folio g table indicates the proposed fees for each pool: Recommended Pool Fees (by Pool) Recommended Pool Current Fee %Increase Fee Hallaran/Thomas S 2.00 25% S 2.50 Natatorium S 2.00 25% $ 2.50 Adamson S 3.50 25% $ 4.50 Cost of Services Study for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department C DAIG-NfAXIMUS,INC,2001 Page 11 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, family reunions, etc.). Pavilions range in size, accommodating anywhere from 30 to 300 people. All offer picnic tables and barbecue pits. Some also include rest rooms, full-size kitchens, exclusive use of playground equipment, volleyball courts, and horseshoe pits. Ball field rentals allow citizens to access softball fields for practice and tournaments. The individual or individuals in charge of a tournament must meet with representatives of the Athletic and Park Operations staff before the tournament to arrange any tournament and maintenance details. Pool rentals provide children with a po'sitive, 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. The folio eng table provides costs, revenues, and percentage of cost recovery for rentals: Rentals Cost/Revenue Analysis Percent of Cost Revenue Activity Cost Revenue 1° erence Cost Recovery Units per Unit per Unit Pavilion Rentals S 47,074 $ 17,043 $ 30,031 36.20 355 $ 132.60 $ 48.01 Hallaran Rental $ 12,873 S 3,150 $ 9,723 24.47 24 $ 536.38 $ 131.25 Thomas/Natatorium Rental S 14,859 S 2,555 $ 12,304 17.19 28 $ 530.68 $ 91.25 Adamson Rental $ 36,469 $ 25,738 $ 10,731 70.58 71 $ 513.65 $ 362.51 Ball Field Rental S 114,616 S 2,235 $ 112,381 1.95 35 $3,274.74 $ 63.86 Total S 225,891 S 50,721 $ 175,170 22.45 According to the Financial Policies, rentals are required to yield 0 to 50% cost recovery. The following table indicates the reco endations of DMG- II S, INC. for fees in this area, which are recommended to recover 50% of the costs: Cost of Services Study for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department DMG-MAXIMUS,INC,2001 Page 12 Rentals Recommendations Total Potential Current Cost ' Recommended Potential Additional Activity Cost Revenue Units per Unit Fee Revenue Revenue Pavilion Rentals $ 47,074 S 17,043 355 $ 132.60 $ 65.00 S 23,075 $ 6,032 Thomas Rental $ 11,920 S 3,150 24 $ 496.67 $ 250.00 $ 6,000 $ 2,850 Hallaran/Natatorium Rental $ 14,859 S 2,555 28 $ 530.68 $ 250.00 $ 7,000 $ 4,445 Adamson Rental $ 36,469 S 25,738 71 S 513.65 S 250.00 $ 17,750 $ (7,988) Ball Field Rental $114,616 S 2,235 35 S 3,274.74 $1,650.00 $ 57,750 S 55,515 Total S 224,938 S 50,721 , S 111,575 $ 60,854 E. Recreation Centers The College Station Conference Center is a facility that is available to a broad spectrum of groups with no one group or type being allowed to dominate the Center. Preference is shown for groups who do not operate on a permanent 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 own. It provides educational and recreational opportunities to the youth of College Station. The facility consists of two rooms with internet-capable computers, g. e room, dance floor, sound 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 opportunities. The following table provides costs, revenues, and percentage 4of cost recovery for the recreation centers: Recreation Centers Cost/Revenue Analysis Percent of Activity Cost Revenue Difference Cost Recovery Lincoln Center $ 293,632 $ 13,649 $ 279,983 4.65% Teen Center $ 331,563 $ 10,424 $ 321,139 3.14% Conference Center $ 316,168 $ 124,072 $ 192,096 39.24% Total S 941,363 S 148,145 S 793,218 15.74% Cost of Services Study for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department C D.VIG-MAXI.VUS,INC.,2001 Page 13 F. 'Other Activities The City of College Station operates the Wolf Pen Creek • phitheater, which hosts a variety of entertainment events throughout the season targeted to al ages and interests. The full cost of maintaining 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 costsaccording to the city's financial policies. Currently, the Extra Education program recovers only approximately 68%, thus it is not meeting the requirements set forth. This is illustrated in the table below. The Parks and Recreation Department is responsible for the maintenance of the City of College Station Cemetery. Plots are purchased through the City Secretary's Office. The table below illustrates the full cost of maintaining the cemetery. Although the City may consider the implementation of a perpetual care fund, this would fall beyond the scope of this study. DMG® • 11 S has identified the costs of operating and maintaining the Cemetery in the table below. The Parks and Recreation Department allows other org. *zations to utilize the facilities at no cost to participants. These leagues include Soccer, Girl's Fast Pitch Softball, and Little League. These activities require substantial maintenance costs, which are currently not being recovered by the City. The table below identifies these costs: Percent of Activity Cost Revenue Difference Cost Recovery Wolf Pen Creek • phitheater 16,012 $ 4,179 $ 11,833 26.10% Extra Education $ 110,872 $ 75,000 $ 35,872 67.65% Soccer $ 152,097 $ 152,097 0.00% Cemetery $ 168,178 $ 168,178 0.00% Girls Fast Pitch $ 114,714 $ $ 114,714 0.00% Little League $ 163,298 $ $ 163,298 0.00% Total $ 725,171 $ 79,179 $ 645,992 10.92% —0- Cost of Services Study for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department C AVIG-MAMAIUS,INC.,2001 Page 14 IV. BENEFITS AND POLICY CONSIDE a TIONS Benefits of Indirect Cost Allocation Plans There are several benefits that the City will derive from the cost allocation plans that adequately and consistently document administrative indirect costs. Benefits include documenting the m. *mum allowable administrative transfers to the General Fund, allowing for the recovery of indirect costs from State and Federal grants and contracts, a more comprehensive and consistent cost accounting capability in dete g the full cost of City se aces and the cost plan can form the basis of cost/benefit analysis particularly for ad: strative a strative services. Benefits of User Fee Study The User Fee Study will provide the City with several benefits including a knowledge of current activity costs which will provide a bench mark for the future, increased revenue from existing fee areas, revenue from new fee areas and st. i utilization info ation. The study can be used as a basis for prioritizing resource utilization. Pricing Appr aches The basic theories behind user fees are that any se ce provided for a specific individual or group should not be paid from general taxes, that services provided to non-residents should not be paid from general taxes, and that beneficiaries of a se ce should pay for the se ace. Keeping these theories in d, setting fees is essentially equivalent to establishing prices for se aces. In the private sector, prices are usually set in a m.City that is expected to m. * e profits. Since m. an g a profit is not objective ofthe in providing se eces, it is c© only felt that fees should be establishedata leveletshain that will recover the cost of providing each service. However, there are circumstances which it aght be regarded as a reasonable policy to set fees at a level that doesat not reflect the full cost of providing the service. Cost does not necessarily equalprice. Therefore, it is important to discuss some of the r. a 1 cations of these non-cost factors so that the role of the cost figures may be placed in proper perspective. De'mand-Oriented 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 servicebeing eing demanded. And, the volume of that service produced affects the unit cost of a service. 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 Cost of Services Study for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department ©DMG-MAXIMUS,INC,2001 Page 15 may rise or fall depending on the volume produced, and that volume may depend on the volume demanded, which, in turn, may depend on the fee charged. Fees charged for recreational services provide a good example of this concept. Quite reasonably, children, senior citizens and others with limited means may discontinue using a recreational . facility if fees are raised significantly. They may regard the services as desirable, but not essential, and find other means of recreation. The resulting decrease in volume would then increase the unit cost; a situation that would require additional fee increases. Some services' fees, however, probably will not be responsive to volume demand because the services will be used regardless of the fees charged. Society Oriented • User fees are often established on a principle that requires those who use the se ce to bear the cost of producing it. Although this principle is firmly 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 services below full cost. Consequently, the ra cations of a subsidization policy should be fully understood. Subsidies are provided for two basic purposes. The first is to pe *t an identified group (e.g., senior citizens, students, public assistance recipients) to participate in se sces that they might not othe se be able to afford. This is a legitimate function of gove, ent, assu • g all citizens° access to important services *thout regard to their ability to pay. *le such subsidies could be granted on the basis of a means test (not all senior citizens are economically deprived), ease of administration and concern for dignity often suggest offe * g particular subsidies to broad groups that may include many who are able to afford the full cost of the se *ce. Such subsidies may be achieved either through rate structures (i.e., charging lower fees to cert.* groups for co on se ce) or through reducing fees for se *ces most likely to be utilized by particular groups. The second purpose of subsidies is to provide services that may benefit those not qualifying as i ediate recipients. For ex.. ple, code enforcement inspections ensure compliance with City zoning ordinances. Ordinances are designated to safeguard co unities from deteriorating properties, which ultimately impact the homeowner by lowering property values and causing possible health and safety problems. In this case and similar cases, it may be regarded as appropriate to spread the cost of services over the large base of potential beneficiaries. Economic Incentives It may be desirable to use fees as a means of encouraging certain activities or patterns of use. For example, setting a relatively high fee for scarce resources such as water may Cost of Services Study for the City of College Station . Parks and Recreation Department C DMG-MAXIMUS,INC,2001 Page 16 encourage conservatiori. Inexpensive products or services, on the other hand, often encourage waste. There are several ways to modify patterns of use. It may be desirable to shift the time of day or season in which services are in greater demand. If spreading out a peak load, for • ex. ple, results in reducing the need for more capY. aty, perhaps sa gs could be achieved that would justify a lower rate. Changing fee structures, through offe ° g lower rates during off-peak hours or seasons, may also change usage patterns. Competition Oriented Although the City may monopolize certain se aces within its boundaries, there are many * tances of competitive pressure, which cont.a the ability to raise fees. There may be in the private sector alternatives to using City se aces. For ex.. ple, instead of attending a recreation progr. ,at a park, citizens may go to a movie or watch television. When there are alternatives available, the City may decide the private sector or another gove ental entity can provide cheaper and more effective se ce, thereby eliminating its role in a particular se ace area. In this ma er, competition may inhibit full recovery of costs, but at the s. e ta e, it also gives the City the option of reducing non-essential se aces and reducing City costs. Cost Oriented The most straightfo and alternative includes those se aces where it is appropriate to recover costs or generate revenues in excess of costs. Typically these se aces have traditionally and historically recovered full cost and there is a consensus that these se aces should be entirely user fee supported. Pricing Policy Mat As the City dete • es user fee policy for each department and each individual fee area, it may be helpful to consider the following decision matrix. Cost of Services Study for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department ©DMG-MAXIMUS,INC,2001 Page 17 FISC AL F 804q7Aa2 Picg forms of subsidization between entitlia • re m eaNers ment shall be done at a minimum - c % services, utilities, and customer classes. o once e three years. ,ee dribe 4. REVE a 6 EQUACY. The Cininety-six ty shall A and one half percent (96.5%) )04V— 4 require that there be a balance in the revenue collection rate shall serve each year as a ft% system; i.e., the revenue base will have the minimum goal for tax collections. The City _,,o OW characteristic of fairness and neutrality as it Manager may, for budget and forecasting no Co ev 0 e applies to cost of service, willingness to pay, and ability to pay. purposes, use up to the tax rate in effect for the current year's budget. This policy will require that the City Manager justify a tax rate . 'MINIS ' .TION. The benefits of a that is different from the current tax rate. revenue source will exceed the cost of levying The justification will be based on City Council and collecting that revenue. The cost of directions, needs arising from_ voter collection will be reviewed annually for cost authorized bonds, or other extraordinary effectiveness as a part of the indirect cost and conditions as may arise. cost of service analysis. Where appropriate, . . the City will use the administrative processes 4 I I NT INCO I Earnings from of State or Federal collection agencies in investment (both interest and capital gains) of order to reduce administrative costs. available monies, whether pooled or not, will be distributed to the funds in accordance with 6. D RSIFICATION 6 STAB! 8 A the equity balance of the fund from which diversified revenue system with a stable monies were provided to be invested. source of income shall be maintained. This will help avoid instabilities in particular 5. USER-BASED 6 11 SERVICE revenue sources due to factors such as C 6 GES. For services associated with a fluctuations in the economy and variations in user fee or charge, the direct and indirect the weather. Stability is achieved by a balance costs of that service '11 be offset by a fee between elastic and inelastic revenue sources. where possible. There will be a review of fees and charges no less than once every three B. 0 I R CONSIDERATIONS. The following. years to ensure that fees provide adequate considerations and issues will guide the City in its coverage of costs of services. User charges revenue policies concerning specific sources of may be classified as "full cost recovery," funds: partial cost recovery," and "minimal cost recovery," based upon City Council policy. 1. COST/BE T OF INCE FOR ECONOMIC D OP I NT. The City /a. Full fee support (80-100%) will be will use due caution in the analysis of any tax C obtained from enterprise operations such or fee incentives that are used to encourage _ as utilities, sanitation service, landfill, development. Ideally, a cost/benefit (fiscal cemetery and licenses and permits. impact) analysis will be performed as part of b. Partial fee support (50-80%) will be such evaluation, generated by charges for emergency medical services, miscellaneous licenses 2. NON-REC ' NG ' . One-time and fines, and all adults sports pr•. . s. or non-recurring revenues will not be used to c. Minimum fee support (0-50%) will be finance ongoing operations. Non-recurring obtained from other parks, recreational , revenues should be used only for one-time cultural, and youth programs and expenditures such as long-lived capital needs. activities. They will not be used for budget balancing purposes. 6. E RPRISE II RA . The City will review and adopt utility rates as needed to 3. PROPERTY T' • . All real and generate revenues required to fully cover business personal property located within the operating expenses, meet the legal City shall be valued at 100% of the fair restrictions of all applicable bond covenants, market value for any given year based on the and provide for an adequate level of working current appraisal supplied to the City by the capital. Brazos County Appraisal District. Reappraisal ._. -..,..f., -,..1.., F-3 . ....ygiV MAR— b W01 11® 1 ED U m IIHLLhY bN.a I NEEK5 'rJ b..5b r�.�b 1-$.1e1.5/11e) IRRIGATEDDEVELOPMENT ALTERNATE NO. 1 FOR FOUR I LIGHTED PARKING, SOCCER RESTROOM BUILDING, IRRIGATED I SOFTBALL FIELDS WITH WASHED SAND ROOT ZONE SOIL I ONE BAY MAINTENANCEIRESTROOM BULDING, AND RELATED UTILITIES OPINION L COST BASED ON PRELIMINARYDESIGN CITY'OF COLLEGE T I VETERANS PARK AND ATHLETIC OE JOB NO. 675.01-RB/R. 2/20/2001 ( Reformated 03/05/01) BASE BID . a z. ...,.. ..k3;"5'. ..... 7 rr-. x s ,z.,...«_. a•,:'F ...�« .. .. �4.... '+"'^- -, ...- ,.w-._*,.%�"' ..,_..."-3? r `*w�'4 v, s..s':. z,"v- z tea. _x.�,;,�:....«!>•;..:.:,,T-,.z,.,.r"`:�_.w,�.a.,..., '+""�` ,.,,,v.�-....''�, �u.;.{.«x s,�..3x.-w_�_V>«...<,..,:...,.,..�,r.r,.,�.rr. >�:�_.-,.. ....,..A, i.'"�"�a_c?';_�,.�.„�._r�.t::�.r <_,,. ,r........�._... �....-,-«�...,,, ,.eu�:>.,.�:.%7'.. ...�r miniiiiiiimiiiii... mininiumillimiiii =: rthwork Excavation Osiiiiman Ennkment(Fil)� m 125,000,00 SUBTOTAL EARTHWORK4225,000.00 MIME Topsoil For Disturbed 1 imiiewIMIIIIIIIIIII ras material rr I 15,000 000 b. Placing it t aillli 15,000 SUBTOTAL TOPSOIL FOR DISTURBED AREAS 75,000.00 Two II Fields 1.11 With Special.RootY • Zone Soil, Bleacher's, Lights 11111111 a. 8"Washed sand roottzone soil ' 4,200 . 54,600.00 IIIIIIIIIIIII b- Common Bermuda 3.8 . 150.00' 570.00 IIIIIIIIIIIIISIIIIMMIIIIIIIIIIIIII tMINI 49,200,00 ck top Fence200' p 50.00 10, 00.00 !; t ® 4 i-...inomiliiimiiimiminis _ .ssa u.•a:.u=:,--e....„ras-sees. _.�...__._..__._____...,_,__...__._ .._._._.-..,..,,-.-.�..�amtw �vu.,..:..a.....s.:=_,..xzv*,w..i,vv:z�..ze..v_:.a-ua.sce+v.c-xw,crz.:ma, ,=w_____._4..,-_..�.,.. .z ..,,....,.«.,...«. ..e.,xz...„,vzf.�a.... ._...w...... cay# IIIIIIIIIIIIIug0u 24,000 00 I a Infield it 3001E0111 s Concrete Entrance/sidewalk { r ! wide) v .�.0 a00�., 8 00 , ., 8 IMIIIIIIIIIIIBIMMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I , r , ,;...,,. SUBTOTAL TWO SOFTBALL FIELDS WiSPECIAL ROOT ZONE SOIL 11111111111111111 185,170.00 4 Four Soccer Fields Without U.hts EIIIINEIIIIIIIIIIII 8"Washed sand root zone soil 11,000 IIIII 13.00 z 0 0.0 0 IIIIIIIIIII i 419Grass 1...,000 m 33,200.00 Mw .ATM Irrigation400.00 22,000.00 G 80 susrorAL FOUR SOCCER FIELDS WITHOUT LIGHTS 264,200.00 UMWtreet(Fr . 30 to End) a. Curb&Gutter 00 ubgrardeStabilization: . .�a.... 3,2+ 0 10.00 32,O0C�, IIIIIIIMIIII be 6,100 SY 3.50 21,350,00 aIIIIIIIIEIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Base Material 5,240131.11 8.0041,920.00 IMIIIIIIIIIII d. Asphalt 5.000 UM 6.60 27,500.00 imimmi e. Fine Grading IIIIIIIIIIEIEEMM 5.000.00 5,000.00 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIMIIIIIIIII 1 MAR-06-2001 11:16 U'MALLEY ENU 1 NhEk5 '(J ti,5b rJ.5t 1-1.W4/10 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIart,.,:,.t_.�,.�,« «,�.,.,.,..,5�:: rv't`.�.,a�:�:r.��s1�a �n� �R��'�s' .;�..�,'s'*�t,r:2.�>�k,'.';✓..-„".�. ��«�'t's�*� -..��� ,. ,;. .�r,-.v^s�.. �x -; v-,. ,.r ,.r.. ,�,,,... .-. Li h in per Pole 6 EA Tt-hF 000.00 42,000.00 8 SUBTOTAL STREET 169,770.00 6 Memorial Area Lighted Parking Lot Driveway IIIIIIIIIIIIIEIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Curb qtr a � «. a 1 0:.. a. a� a.., 00 _ b. Subgrade Stabilizaton 1,500 1,220 p a aril �,� ..�•„. ®,220 8.00 9,760.00 , 0.0 1,150 0 ,3� a jIIIIIIIIIIIIDIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Fine GradingMin LS 1,000.00 1,000.00 111111111111131111111111111111111111111 Lighting r l 7, sasses 7,000.00 111111111111111g. ConcreteSidewalkIIIIIIEE3 SY 25.00 3,050.00 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Flag Pole Relocation IIIIIIIIIIEIIMIII SUBTOTAL MEMORIAL AREA LIGHTED PARKING LOT&DRIVEWAY IIIIIII 440.00 Lighted Parking Lot 111111 a L ..Four Soccer FieldsCurbGutter a. 111111111111 4 IIIIIIIIIIIIkb. Subgradet ili 1 n 9,8803,50 34,580.00 W y, 4 Base Material 8.950 SY 8.00 71,600.00 IIIIIIIIIIIII d. Asphalt 8,7601 311111 IIIIIIIIIII EEIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Fine Grading , tin per Pole � � Lighting1 SUBTOTAL LIGHTED PARKING LOT FOR FOUR SOCCER FIELDS 210i 60.00 8xLighted Parking For Two ll11111111111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIII11111111111111111 ilionnuiii aF.leldsGut 1 aa. Curb Y! 6,220 50 21,770.00 Subgr bilization ..�._._..__ imimminumi. eters I 5.440 BEiii8.00 43,520.00 d It5.50 s r 29,095.00IIIIIIIIIIII e. OEM 111111=1 3.000.00 3,000,00 Q htin r of , 1 3 ,,.! ...�.<,�,., ..a...._..EIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII _._ , ......._.. _____......-.._—<,.+ �..aW�9,�a, � SUBTOTAL LIGHTED PARKING LOT FOR 0 SOFTBALL FIELDS 132,786.00 9 DrainageStructures a. g 15,x'50. 30 00 -IIIIIIIIIIII b. 18” RCP 24" RCP 250 k�r' III 11 p a4�.e unniniumi_IIIIIIIIIIIIi ' r L 4 � i 10°curb inlet 9 �------ — _ . �. � ---- -�31 __. d. EA 00 00 5,000.00 - --.._..__..._ '. e.IIIIIIIIIIIIIII curbinlet allIllEj EA IIIMMIIIIEIIIMIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Area i is 1111111111=EA 3,000.00 3,000-001,000.00 k3,000.00 r IIIIIIIIIII , t ® Junction box11111111113 EA 2,000.00 , ............... . 1111111111111113.11111111111111111111111111111111 Sloped n treatment 4 EA 750.00 3,000.00 IIIIIIIIIIIIaIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Concrete ri ra.p 80 25.00 2,000.00 SUBTOTAL DRAINAGE STRUCTURES 76,200.00 aiiiiiii10 I tr IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 8" Line 1000 DM- 12.00 19,200.00 0 .1111111111 °° i 1200 L n �a.aa 12,000.00 miimilammimiiiiiii ire r t } �.AFittings IIIIIIIIIIllM Valves& 8,000.00 8,000.00 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIater Meters IIIIIIIIMI LS..... -r..3..,r.....Us,.t:.,:.m .,., r,..:: �,,`J:•:,,,£,.� ":- ,...,....x..,,..._t,,.fhw� ff 's, -F = 2,ooa-o0 2,000.00 2 MAR-06-2001 16:00 O'MALLEY ENGINEERS '5? 8.$6 7 ..,b F.01/01 Mil Small Dia. Lines at Softball Fields 60011 3.00 2,400.00 SUBTOTAL POTABLE WATER 49,600.00 11 Sanitary Sewer 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111 a. 10" Line/Casing/By Bore 120 125.00 15,000.00 b. 10" Line 1,400 LF 12,00 16,800,00 C. 6" Line 1,500 LF 10.00 15,000.00 d. Manholes 8 EA 1,200.00 9,600.00 Mill e. Service Line 200 EMI 8.00 1,600.00 SUBTOTAL SANITARY SEWER 58000.00 12 irrigation Supply Lines a. 12" Line 1,800 LF 12.00 21,600.00 b. 8" Line 800 LF 10.00 8,000.00 c. 6" Line 800 LF 8„00 6,400.00 d. 4" Line 800 LF 5.00 4,000.00 111111111111111e, Other Small Dia. Lines 5.000 1t1111 3.00 15,000.00 Meter& Backflow Preventers LS 15,000.00 15,000.00 IIIIIIIIIIIII g. Fittings&Valves 1 LS 12,000.00 12,000.00 SUBTOTAL IRRIGATION SUPPLY LINES 82,000.00 13 Primary Elec. Duct 3,000 LF 15.00 45,000.00 SUBTOTAL PRIMARY ELEC. DUCT 45,000.00 14 Miscellaneous Secondary Duct 1,200 LF 5.00 6,000.00 SUBTOTAL MISCELLANEOUS SECONDARY DUCT 6,000.00 15 Landscaping 1 LS 40,000.00 40,000.00 SUBTOTAL LANDSCAPING 40,000.00 16 Buildings a. Soccer Restroom Building 1 LS 114,805.00 114,805.00 b. Maintenance(One Bay)/SoftballRestroom Building 1 LS 127,860.00 127,860.00 SUBTOTAL BUILDINGS 242,665.00 Concrete Driveway at Maintenance/Softball Restroom Buildin. 160 30.00 4,800.00 SUBTOTAL CONCRETE DRIVEWAY AT MAINTENANCE/SOFTBALL RESTROOM 4,800.00 18 Seeding & Fertilizer 1 LS 10,000.00 10,000.00 SUBTOTAL SEEDING&FERTILIZER 10,000.00 19 Erosion/Siltation Control 1 LS 15,000.00 15,000.00 SUBTOTAL EROSION/SILTATION CONTROL 15,000.00 TOTAL OPINION OF PROBABLE BASE BID COST NIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1,936,790.00 3 TOTAL P.01 1Hk' b®dUU 1 11®l b U' '1HLLb Y bNb 1 NL r' c►Jo (D...30 r®tis i u DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATE 2 FOR SIX SOCCER FIELDS(TVVO LIGHTED) WITH WASHED SAND ROOT ZONE SOIL AND IRRIGATION SYSTEM, SOCCER RESTROOM BIDING, SOCCER FIELDS, ONE BAY MAINTENANCE/RESTROOM OPINION T BASED ON PRELIMINARYDESIGN CITY OF COLLEGE TI VETERANS PARK AND ATHLETIC OE JOB NO.675.01-RB/RC 2/20/2001 ( for at 1 1) BASE BID 1111111 1 Earthwork ..-„.,..._-_._.,.«._.tea:.-smrsn+e crca,..+•s , _...___..,. we'*�:.scux.-«acvwnnaasmw� n.rex=r;.�.0 mx_w-�«...._ . $ � ExcavationmllIll.IIIIIII a. ® 50,000.00 MOM b. Embankment((Fill) F25,000 DEMI 2.50 9 500.00 SUBTOTAL EARTHWORK 500.00 <; z >rk , 2 _'-----: it For Disturbed Areas 4 p { ° Material 10,000 En 4.00 40,000.00 b. Placing 8 S Topsoil d � 0; 1.00 10,000.00 50,000.00 SUBTOTAL TOPSOIL FOR DISTURBED AREAS _._...__..._.._.111 Six r Fields® 1 111111Two Lighteda 8”Washed sand root zone �; pp 0 it 16,500 k 13.00 214 0. b. Grass& Sprigging m Soccer Field irrigation 00 _.� 0.00 ' Lighting for Two So -r d. 1 L ild 106,400.00106,400.00 SUBTOTAL SIX SOCCER FIELDS- 0 , i 7 P 4 j N* � { i Street f i . p B P t III to $f Area) IMIIIIIIII a. Curb Gutter 1,750 RLF € 10.00 17,500,00 111111111111 b. rad Stabilization 3,850 C. , Base Material 9 _.00 27,600.00 r, d. Asphalt 3,23° SY 5.50 17,765.00 1111111111111 e. # IMI Fine Grading 1 } 3,000.00 111111 t 4 EA 7,000.00 28,000.00 .._. _.._..__ Lighting._._...,:ww � ..._,i sUBTO5TmAeLmSoTr 107340.00 ' 7 e'txxarrn'ma.w...umnxms.ry -- _.._...... ,_.w.::«eumscwxnrcs¢.m..-ns::. wmszwo-•.___....,_.___..,_...�.-_..-..-...._...._,..___ rvuazc ll d Parking t111 Driveway 760a. 1 0 Curb Gutter _ 7,600.00 Subgrade Stabilizaton 1,280 3.50 4,480.00 c. Base Material 1,070 ariall 8.00 8,560.00 o Asphalt 1,010 Uri. __. 5.50 5,555.00 1,000,00 e. Fine Grading 1,000.00 f. Lighting per ole EA 7,000.00 7,000.00 25.00 3,050.00 Concrete Sidewalk h. Flag Pole Relocation LS3,000.00 ,+ 0.00, susrorAL MEMORIAL AREA LIGHTED PARKING LOT&DRIVEWAY 40,245.00 1 MA b-2WW 1 11®1'r LYMHLLEY LNU I NttK5 i CJ b-lb ( b tt®W'r'✓1 U 16 rt Driveway at Maintenance/Softball Restroom Building 160 SUBTOTAL CONCRETE DRIVEWAY AT MAINTENANCE/SOFTBALL 16 Li -stone Driveway From treet t 00 Maintenance ui in . SUBTOTAL LIMESTONE DRIVEWAY FROM END OF STREET TO MAINTENANCE 1-71SeedingFertilizer 1LS . 9 00 8,000.00 SUBTOTAL SEEDING&FERTILIZER i .00 18 Erosion/Siltation , , Control ItIHN-Utp-euti I ±1.i( LI'MHLLtT tNU1NttNb 'Jr-J b.....)b ( b ub/1u DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATE NO,3 FOR SIX SOCCER FIELDS( 0 LIGHTED) WITH WASHED SAND ROOT ZONE SOIL AND IRRIGATION SYSTEM, SOCCER RESTROOM BUILDING WITH ONE BAY MAINTENANCE AREA, PARKING LOT FOR SIX SOCCER FIELDS, AND RELATED UTILITIES OPINION OF PROBABLE COST BASED ON PRELIMINARY DESIGN CITY OF COLLEGE STATION VETERANS PARK AND ATHLETIC COMPLEX OE JOB NO. 675.01-RB/RC March 5,2001 .., BASE BID 11 Earthwork IIIIIIIIIIIIIII a. Excavation 25.000 CV 2.00 50,000.00 b. Embankment(Fill) 25000 CV 2.50 62,500.00 SUBTOTAL EARTHWORK 11250 .00 2 Topsoil For Disturbed Areas a. Material 10,000 MEI 4.00 40,000.00 b. Placing Topsoil 10,000 CV 1.00 10,000,00 SUBTOTAL Topsol.FOR DISTURBED AREAS 50,000.00 Six S• -r Fields- 111111111111 Two Lighted a., 8"Washed sand root zone soil 16,500 CY 13.00 b. Grass&Sprigging 652,000.0 SF -1)8 214,500.00 C) 52,160.00 Einmimilim So r Field irrigation 6 EA 22,000.00 132,000.00 Lighting for Two Soccer d. Fields 1 106,400.00 106,400.00 SUBTOTAL SIX SOCCER FIELDS- 0 LIGHTED 509,060.00 4 Street(From Hwy. 30 111 to Memorial Area) a. Curb&Gutter 1,750 Mil 10.00 17,500.00 b. Subgrade Stabilization 33:48550sy 0 Egill3.50 13,475.00 c. Base Material 8.00 27,600.00 Asphalt 3,230 Eiri. 5.50 17,765.00 e. Fine Grading 1 LS 3,000.00 3,000-00 f. Lighting per Pole 4 EA 7,000.00 28,000.00 SUBTOTAL STREET 1017,340.00 • 5 Memorial Area Lighted Parking Lot& Driveway a. Curb&Gutter '760 10.00 7,600.00 b. Subgrade Stabilization 1,280 SY 3.50 4,480.00 ca Base Material 1,070 SY 8.00 8,560.00 d. Asphalt 1,010 SY 5.50 5,555.00 e. Fine Grading 1 LS 1.000.00 1,000,00 f. Lighting per Pole 111111=1.EA . 7,000.00 7,000.00 g- S Concrete Sidewalk V 25.00 3,050,00 Flag Pole Relocation LS 3,000.00 3,000.00 SUBTOTAL MEMORIAL AREA LIGHTED PARKING LOT&DRIVEWAY 40,245.00 1 1,-,.kr. d MHH-Ob-2001 11: 16 U'MHLLEY ENLIINEEHb `J("J bb ( b ) /1( 6 Lighted Parking Lot in. For Six Soccer Fields MI a, Curb& Gutter 3,90011- M 10.00 39,000,00 IIIIIIIIIIb. Subgrade Stabilizaton 14,700 Ellill 3.50 51,450.00 IBIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Base Material 1111111111111 13,470 SY 8.00 107,760.00 1111111111111 d. Asphalt 13,280 SY 5.50 73,040.00 1111111111111 ei Fine Grading IIIIIIIMIEMI 4,500.00 4,500.00 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Lighting per Pole 6 EA 7,000.00 42,000.00 SUBTOTAL LIGHTED PARKING LOT FOR SIX SOCCER FIELDS 317750.00 7 Drainage Structures 1 LS 20,000,00 20,000.00 SUBTOTAL DRAINAGE STRUCTURES 20,000.00 8 Potable Water 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111 a 1.600 LF 8" Line 12.00 19,200.00 b. 6" Line 400 LF 10.00 4,000,00 c. Fire Hydrants EA 2,000,00 4,000.00 IIIIIIIIIII d. Valves&Fittings LS 8,000.00 8,000.00 e. Water Meters UM 1 500 00 1 500 00 , . , . SUBTOTAL POTABLE WATER 36,700.00 9 Sanitary Sewer IIIIIIIIIIIIIMII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII a. 10"Line/Casing/By Bore 120 LF 125.00 15,000.00 b. 10" Line 1,400 LF 12.00 163:080000:000 6" Line 0 300 gliall 10.00 IIIIIIIIIIEIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Min d. 4 Manholes EA 1200.00, 4,800,00 e. Service Line 1000E1111 8.00 800.00 SUBTOTAL SANITARY SEWER 40,400.00 10 111111111 1111111111111 .111 Irrigation Supply Lines a. 12" Line 1,600 LF 12.00 19,200,00 4" Line 600 LP 5,00 3,000.00 1111111111111111131 Other Small Dia, Lines 5,000 LF 3.00 15,000,00 d. Meter& Backflow reverter 5,000 LF 3.00 15,000.00 10,000,00 10,000.00 e. Fittings&Valves 111M!LS SUBTOTAL IRRIGATION SUPPLY LINES 62200.00 11 Electrical Ducts a, Primary 2,500 LF 15.00 37,500.00 Miscellaneous b. Secondary Duct 1,200 LF5.00 6,000.00 SUBTOTAL ELECTRICAL DUCTS 4 :50000:0000 111111111ELandscaping 1 OEM 40,000.00 4030 SUBTOTAL LANDSCAPING 40,000.00 13 Building IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII mil a. Soccer Restroom Building 114,805.00 114,805.00 114,805.00 al b. 25'X 25° Maintenance Bay Onto Soccer Restroom Building 37 500.00 37 500.00 , , c. Concrete Apron at Maintenance Say 60111 30.00 1,800.00 SUBTOTAL BUILDING 154,105.00 14 Seeding &Fertilizer 1 1 LS 8,000.00 8,000_00 2 , MAK-0ED-2001 11:18 U'MHLLEY ENLIINEEKb *Jr-J 8,58 (4J...)8 r.luziu SUBTOTAL SEEDING&FERTILIZER 8,000.00 15 Erosion/Siltation Control 1 LS 12.000.00 12,00000 SUBTOTAL EROSION/SILTATION CONTROL 12,000.00 TOTAL OPINION OF PROBABLE BASE BID COST 1,549800.00 • 3 TOTAL P.10 , , { Parks and Recreation Department Fee Survey March 2001 Activity City Fee No. of Games Comments Slow Pitch ® $360 (Spring/Summer) College Station $315 (Fall) 10 $55 for double elimination tourn. Fast Pitch ® $375 (Spring/Summer) $325 (Fall) Baytown $140 12 Bryan $285 10 Conroe $400 14 No tournament Adult10 (Spring) ® 7 Softball Hurst $325 (Spring) $275 (Summer/Fall) (Summer/Fall) Killeen $325 12 includes pre-season tourn. Longview $285 ($25 late fee) 8 3 seasons offered Lubbock $280 ($25 late fee) 10 trying to raise to $285 San Marcos $295 10 + Playoffs Stephenville $300 12 $5 player contract per each Temple $110 team + $20/player 10 Waco $340 10 late registration $360 ;.. . ..... _`: .::� ....,. _-: r.-.r ..�.-... r:��«. r r.r ..,. ...re r•- -« sir ...�. ..-_..r Fi - y .:. t rc ..r.F ..r..r........r.✓.r..r �,,rr.,.... ,.,r r,....r..... .. rr. , < r... ..«... ..,r. v. ./. f•v.. .f.rr ... r.. rr/r/•f f rrf r /,...f/r., rrrrF � ...r.fi r:%fi r. •rY..r. f r. v✓............... ...r r. ......r.a...........r..r......�.....,/...r..<......l..rr..r. .,/r.. •... a r ., rrr.�ir.r•/ir./. :!'/. rte!!• / rxm r/.... .?..... ... f.,/ /i, f. r r„ .. <f �+:,r.,c...,..rr.f:........,r..r,. Jk.,,rf...t.�.....r.«r..n...rr/fir.i......,r1s.....r..>..�.r.......r.r.,....y..�.r..r<rF.F.�Jfr....4.-<..r...rr.,.f r..,rir f.'1,'l 1-.<'.car-ter<..<r.....<.<......r..rrv., <..ter,.,r r: �<< fYlF f,! r�..lr.�tr�/f'<�2 r /•r r .-.rr<...ry..:;•l.r r .r:.<r .f.f?./r.c rrl' ,rl r rf,. J J r r 1r ./- . -.:},.t• / //! Activity City Fee No. of Games Comments College Station $340 8 Plus double elimination tourn. Baytown N/A N/A N/A Bryan $250 8 Conroe $225 6 Plus post season tourn. Hurst N/A N/A N/A Adult Flag Killeen $325 12 Plus pre-season tourn. Football Longview $310 ($25 late fee) 10 1 fall season Lubbock $280 ($25 late fee) 10 Trying to raise to $285 San Marcos $295 10 Plus playoffs Stephenville N/A N/A N/A Temple $110 per team + $20 per player 10 Waco $290 Depends on#of teams&tourn. 1 Parks and Recreation Department Fee survey March 2001 Activity City Fee No. of Games Comments Plus post season tourn./Program droppe• Spring 01 because of lack College Station $265 8 of participation. Baytown N/A N/A N/A Bryan $250 8 Conroe N/A N/A N/A Hurst N/A N/A N/A Adult Killeen $325 12 Plus pre-season tourn. Basketball Longview $310 ($25 late fee) 10 Season (Nov. - Feb.) Lubbock $300 ($25 late fee) 10 200 fee was $280 San Marcos $225 8 Plus playoffs Plus $5 player contract per each Stephenville $275 10 team Temple $110 per team + $20 per player 10 Waco $240 10 ...:.2,/,-, . ....... ..., . .:.". f 1.,,.. ...:.. .,r.....,r.. ,�•...c r/...• .r:rf :—,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,/ ,... ..,..., -. • ,r �.1,F ..rc....•.-l. ._.{.....:l..:. f/ r.. f, f! '/.r'T ....,.... .... ..... : • .........•,.. .....,,-4,,,,,/,. .. ..•. .!!• ! ...�... / !! •,f,.f�it:r.r .l ,r. ,F r. ! r- .,c f.. ..n/.rF ../.,./.. /ff•..S .+�,.. '•.::Y l :.n. .ft r!. e•.r.•r.Jf.JJ•.rS:.o-,fir .,1.. v. .f ..1. r r1r.,n r. .,.1•. ,N.. .� r,r •l'.•. • c .,..f.......n.. SF.... .. rr .. ... .. ...•......,..,... p. .;..•..,. .. ,.. l . ,. ., .�.lr f f�rr•� rrx: •,7l::f?; . r•� ,/,,- ........,.•-:.rn..••... .....J r... :.:....r.c .. / .:. /rr:- ( ; f r•r . ,„,/„„.,,,,,..f ... �. «r r. .fl..ro......_..4».�.umm.�i✓G.l�,�....,_.r..w..,,.�..�r.�L_.1,G2::.fc_d...ff......::���•..f w !.! 4`.,,. .a,. « .:. ... .......r•- •. . __ � _� • .__. F. rr-Y_._ .._. �...:r_,�r_ 1r. A,.<_ s„-_",..«.. ._......_W_Q, ... . El_.....__.fi f..:_._<..__V. r._.. w Activity City Fee Nom of Games Comments College Station $140 8 Plus double elimination tourn. Baytown N/A N/A N/A Bryan $200 10 Conroe $200 6 Plus post season tourn. Hurst N/A N/A N/A Adult Killeen $325 12 Plus pre-season tourn. Volleyball Longview $150 8 to 10 1 Fall season Lubbock 160 ($25 late fee) 10 Trying to raise to $170 • San Marcos $75 8 Plus playoffs Stephenville N/A N/A N/A Temple $110 team/$20 player 10 Waco N/A N/A N/A 2 Parks and Recreation Department Fee Survey March 2001 Activity College Station $40/30/20player 1 ® 1 /1 volunteer coaches Baytown $50 9 3 l Bryan N/A N/AN/A 1 Conroe N/A N/A N/A Hurst N/A _ N/A N/A Girls ill 10 s volunteer coaches Softball Longview N/A N/A ff r through youassociation Offered through uth association, c N/AN/AuseCityfacilities, user fee San Marcos N/AN/A / Stephenville 12 s volunteer c c es Temple N/A i N/A f r through uth associati Waco N/A N/A N/A ..L`:". r.v... :.. �..........r• ...:.. .:r:.x•.*..rr: r.. .;.v... r,:...... r .. r..r Fr: :/ f Lrlxf:F:F..{r+f{rr.ri/.F.•F.r .:. .-:. ..-, , ....v:.. .x... vr•::r::rv:•:.rrr..:rr•. ::::vr;•,..r.v r •r:r rr ://v�-.i:i�:�vr F.. .F.F•-r -F •'rF...FF..:rrF r.:.... ....:.: ., .. '"•. r r:fx. .r r f r. „ r:.. .:.r.F.F r: ftr..r f .r F:. r< ..'r r. r Fr r ..v..-.n . .{ n.r:r .4.. ..r ... ....... .trrr.. x r r :xv.............rF...F..f Fi ..r.-. -F r" , rrir r•fF rrFvv.FFf?•'FIF.:. }. i. IfFI..•.•I... c..r.::.r..sr.....x. , ..vr.:r.x.....r.f. v .rF...... x .....:.. r...r rr .r....r.F.x r.... .:.....r'r.l:rs r'r r r .r...� ,-r:r.-lr.. ..,.rrS ,•.rr...... r.Errr.r./{.f.r r:./.rr.. ..r...r..r.f.F.,rr.r xr... r.......xYr,x...r.. .{..r.....N f„7„,„ !#$v r'�....r.F,r.....n:....{x.....n.,r.•$ ..r..... F...r....•�+f.r:'F. f.:...Rx... .rv:lr sr.,r I Frr IrF.ffX f..•rF IFf..ri. .f. .F !r x ..r .x .,r..r x..Xr 1..uf F. f .x r,r ... ../�...,r...,.-f..nr:......r:..v..,..r..rrr......fr:.... } r'.-r' ,.r.. - - .... :. ... ,n,' .-...._.. .... .. ....._.. .._,. ,- _._. ..._- ...... .._-. _.....- ,'-i Activity of Games Comments College t o tia $30/20/10 I r 8 Usevolunteer c c Baytown N/A N/A / { Bryanr / N/A / ConroeN/AN/AN/A Hurst N/A N/A / Killeen 10volunteer c c e Youth City league individual/Church Basketball Longview individual/$265 team league team Offered ru youth sciti LubbockN/A N/A use i facilities, pay user fee San Marcos6 Use volunteerc Stephenville 10 t r coaches Temple $25 i 8 Includes jersey Waco $200/team 10 s volunteer c c 3 Parks - nd Recreation Department Fee Survey March 2001 Activity City Fee No. of Games Comments College Station $35/25/15 player 8 Use volunteer coaches Baytown N/A N/A N/A Bryan N/A N/A N/A , Conroe $40 6 Use volunteer coaches Hurst N/A N/A N/A Youth Flag Killeen $30 10 Use volunteer coaches Football Longview N/A N/A N/A Lubbock N/A N/A N/A San Marcos N/A N/A N/A Stephenville $25 10 Use volunteer coaches Temple N/A N/A N/A Waco N/A N/A N/A ...: .n.r...r :..r.. }f .....,. F..v:.. ....r/rr xf. r.F.r n• f r ..v. r-...W. . f fA. /Y ,.f /....Jr nFi,rf.F. .i f lJf ./.. F ,• r.....,..r..r.....rf.. .r.... Jrr..i. F1r rr f1 .b rr r .r Classes .Activity City Fee No® of Comments College Station $30 9 Baytown $22 8 Bryan $30 8 Conroe N/A N/A Hurst $25/Resident $27 Non-resident 10 Killeen $30 10 45 mine per class Swim depends on no. of students in class Lessons Longview $28/35 10 - 45 min. classes (14/8) Run by American Red Cross in City Lubbock $25 5 pool San Marcos $15/20 8 Stephenville $25 10 Red Cross Temple $30 10 - 35 mine classes Waco $30 10 M-F 3 sessions 4 Parks and '-�ecreation Department Fee Survey March 2001 No. of Weeks in Activity City Fee Program Comments College Station $85/65/45 15 Paid coaches Baytown N/A N/A N/A Bryan $85/65/45 Non-resident ($90/70/50) Conroe N/A N/A N/A --Hurst N/A N/A N/A Swim Killeen N/A N/A N/A Team Longview N/A N/A Year round team not assoc. w/City Lubbock N/A N/A N/A San Marcos N/A N/A N/A Stephenville $50 12 Temple $60 5 2 hrs. day M-F Waco N/A N/A N/A 5