The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01/11/2000 - Regular Agenda - Parks BoardCITY OF COLLEGE STATION PARKS & RECREATION BOARD Regular Meeting Tuesday, January 11, 2000 Parks & Recreation Department Conference Room 1000 Krenek Tap Road 7:00 PM Call to order. 2. Hear visitors. Pardon — Consider requests for absences of members from meeting. 4. Approval of minutes from Regular Meeting of December 14, 1999. Discussion and possible consideration of Parks and Recreation Board goals and priorities. Discussion and possible consideration of Veterans Park and Athletic Complex Master Plan and the approval process. 7. Discussion and possible consideration on potential agreement with CSISD for joint tennis court projects. 8. Report, discussion, and possible consideration on Madeley Park development. 9. Update, discussion, and possible action concerning the special venue tax for sports facilities. 10. Discussion and possible action on the surfacing of the jogging track at Rock Prairie Elementary School. 11. Report, discussion, and possible action concerning future park site. 12. Consent Items: Capital Improvement Program Projects Report. Discussion of next meeting date and agenda. 13. 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 make arrangements call (409) 764-3517 or (TDD) 1-800-735-2989. Agendas posted on Internet Website http://www.ci.college-station.tx.us and Cable Access Channel 19. CITE' OF COLLEGE STATION Parks & Recreation Bard Tuesday, January 11, 2000 Parks & Recreation Department Conference Room 1000 Krenek Tap Road 7:00 p.m. Staff Present: Steve Beachy, Director of Parks and Recreation; Curtis Bingham, Parks Operations Superintendent; Pete Vanecek, Senior Park Planner; Kris Startzman, Board Secretary. Board Members Present: Chris Barzilla, Chair; Glen Davis; Susan Allen; John Nichols; Bill Davis. Board Members Absent: George Dresser, Co -Chair; Sarah Birkhold; John Crompton, Alternate. le Call to order: The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. 2® hear Visitors: There were no visitors at the meeting. 3® Pardon — Consider requests for absences of members from meeting: John Nichols made a motion to accept the absences of George Dresser, Sarah Birkhold, and John Crompton as excused. Glen Davis seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed 5-0. 4m Approval of minutes from Regular Meeting of December 14, 1999: Glen made a motion to approve the minutes from the Regular Meeting of December 14, 1999. Susan Allen seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed 5-0. 5. Discussion and possible consideration of Parks and Recreation Board goals and priorities: Steve asked for this item to be put on the agenda. He thinks that it is important to take a look at the status of the Board and Departmental goals. Steve gave the Board the status of each of the Board goals. He said that the most time has been spent on the "In Progress" items. Steve mentioned that items #9-#13 (medium — low priority items) have not been addressed due to time constraints. Steve reminded the Board that many of the projects that may seem simple actually turn out to be quite complicated. John suggested renaming "Low Priority" projects to "Other Priority Projects." The Board agreed (no motion was made). Steve also gave a status report on the Departmental goals. He said that these goals were created by the Department to support both Board goals and the City Council Strategic Issues. He discussed additional mandated Departmental projects administered by City Management. Page 1 of 4 Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, January 11, 2000 6m Discussion and possible consideration of Veterans Park and Athletic Complex Master Plan and the approval process: Steve said that there were three parts to this item: a) The archeology survey contract has been approved. Curtis Bingham is working with the Field Archeologist on this project. The survey report for Veterans Park and Athletic Complex will be out by later this spring. b) Steve went over the revised schedule for the Veterans Park and Athletic Complex Master Plan approval process. Steve mentioned that the Department would have a public hearing and Special Meeting of the Parks and Recreation Board on Tuesday, February 1, 2000, to discuss the Master Plan approval. Steve said that at the Regular Parks and Recreation Board meeting on February 8, 2000, the Board could possibly adopt the Master Plan. If so, it will then be brought to the City Council for approval. c) City Council has directed the Development Services Department to conduct a study of Highway 30 / University Drive Corridor (from the East Bypass to Highway 158). Steve mentioned that the Veterans Park and Athletic Complex Master Plan Subcommittee has been invited to participate in the process. No dates have been set at this time, but they are looking for it to be completed within six months. Steve said that the Subcommittee intends to move forward with the Master Plan and hopes that it will not be delayed by the study, 7. Discussion and possible consideration of potential agreement with CSISD for joint tennis court projects: Steve said that the Department has not received word back from the College Station Independent School District (CSISD) on whether they have approved the interlocal agreement that was sent to them from the City of College Station. The agreement states that the City will contribute up to $ 125,000 to help fund the construction of four lighted tennis courts, if CSISD will handle all of the engineering work, design, and construction of the courts. Steve said that the City is asking CSISD for permission to look at their constuction plans for the project. The City wants to be able to go to City Council with an agreement from CSISD. Steve recommended that the Board try to do a presentation to the City Council at one of the Council's Workshop sessions, within the next month, to discuss joint projects with CSISD. The Board ageed (no motion was made). Steve will keep the Board informed. 8. Report, discussion, and possible consideration on Madeley Park development: Steve said that there were two parts to this item. a) Steve spoke with John Blackburn, Operations Manager, Community Services, City of Bryan, to see if Bryan would be interested in doing a joint project with the City of College Station on the Madeley Park site. Mr. Blackburn met with the Bryan City Manager, Mike Conduff, who was not opposed to the concept. One of the recommendations from that meeting was that they get with Bryan City Councilman Kenny Mallard, who lives in the Madeley Park area to see what his feelings were. They have not yet heard back from Mr. Mallard. Page 2 of 4 Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, January 11, 2000 b) Steve said that he'd spoken with Tom Aughinbaugh with Lubbock National Bank. Mr. Aughinbaugh has a client who is interested in purchasing the five -acre Madeley park site from the City, to turn it into a residential, single-family development. Mr. Aughinbaugh wanted to know what steps would be involved to acquire the land. Steve said he told Mr. Aughinbaugh that if the City wanted to sell the land, it would be a decision on the part of the Parks and Recreation Board, with a recommendation to the City Council. If the City Council agreed to sell the land, it would have to go before the citizens of College Station for approval on the ballot. Steve said he did not recommend selling this land, and he feels that it was the intention of the Madeley's, when they donoted the land to the City, that it be used for park purposes. Steve recommended to the Board that they decline the offer from the bank, stating that the City does not intend to sell the land, and intends to keep it as a park site. Bill Davis made a motion not to sell the land at this time. John seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed 5-0. 9. Update, discussion, and possible action concerning the special venue tax for sports facilities: Steve said that Curtis Bingham and his staff are working on developing operational and maintenance costs to determine if it would be viable to use this special venue tax as a source of funding for the construction of Veterans Park and Athletic Complex. Once this information is obtained, and construction costs can be confirmed, it will be possible to determine whether the project is feasible or not. Steve said that he should have an update by the next meeting. 10. Discussion and possible action on the surfacing of the ,dogging track at Rock Prairie Elementary School: Steve said that included in the Board packets was the development agreement that the City has with CSISD regarding Jack and Dorothy Miller Park. He said that the agreement states that all costs associated with maintaining and refurbishing the park would be the responsibility of the City. Steve feels that replacing the track with a rubberized cushion surfacing is more an improvement, rather than maintenance. He said that it would cost approximately $ 12,000 for a 2,000-foot section to be replaced. It would cost a lot more to replace the whole track, which would be a major capital project. Steve suggested that the Board look at this project as a policy issue. Glen suggested making it an objective, instead of a policy; for future construction of school jogging tracks, rubberized surfacing be installed instead of concrete. John N. suggested not taking action on this item. The board agreed. No motion was made. 11. Report, discussion, and possible action concerning future park sites: Steve said that the Board had requested an update on this item concerning an acquisition project for a community park and cemetery. He said that the City Council had approved a request to acquire land adjacent to the existing landfill. He said that the current landfill only has about five to six years left before another landfill site is needed. There had been plans to purchase another landfill site, but those plans fell through. One suggestion was to purchase the adjacent land and expand the existing landfill. Page 3 of 4 Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, January 11, 2000 Steve said that whether the land is made into a park or kept as a landfill site, the City is in favor of moving forward with the acquisition of the adjacent land. Steve said that it would need to be determined if the land is salvageable for park purposes. He reminded the Board that the landfill cap cannot be punctured by planting trees, and there would be no irrigation. There will be a meeting on January 20, 2000 with the Public Works Department, the Cemetery Committee, and the Parks Department to discuss this item further. Steve will give the Board an update on this item during the next meeting. 12. Consent items® Capital Improvement Program projects report: John N. inquired about the progress of Edelweiss Park. Steve said that the City is charging the contractor $100/day in liquidated damages until the park is complete. This money will stay in park funds. Discussion of a dedication date for the park will be on next meeting's agenda. Discussion of next meeting date and agenda: ® Discussion and possible adoption of Veterans Park and Athletic Complex Master Plan. ® Reports, discussion, and possible action concerning a future park site. ® Discussion and consideration of Edelweiss Park dedication date. 13. Adjourn: John N. made a motion to adjourn. Susan Allen seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed 5-0. Page 4 of 4 Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, January 11, 2000 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION PARKS AND RECREATION Absence Request Form For Elected and Appointed Officers NEMe Sur h Go HkkhaE 1 Request Submitted on 7JAN00 I will not be in attendance at the meeting of 11 JAN00 for the reason(s) specified: I will be out of town for business, Signature This requesg shall be smbmiteed go tie office of She commi teelboard ssecreCary prior do She meeting date. o:board/absenteeform.doc 111"M M-01118AX"A Absence Request Form For Elected and Appointed Officers Name T,9 k � Request Submitted on (date) J 2 0/ I will not be in attendance at the meeting of for the reason(s) specified: U,9 / Signature This request shall be submitted to the office of the committee/board secretary prior to the meeting date. o:board/absenteeform.doc CffTY OF COLLEGE STATION PARKS AND RE-CREATION Absence Request Form A Dno inted *r icef Name Request Submitted on (date) I will not be in attendance at the meeting of 1 n V— q for the reason(s) specified: 1- K-- - 7-6 0 42 M V I -,,-1 "9 01- 7111 —41 Y3 Signature This request shall be submitted to the office of the committee/board secretary prior to the meeting date. o:boardlabsenteeform.doc Parks & Recreation Boards Goats 1999-2000 In PrQgress 1. Implementation of the approved Capital Improvement Program' 2. Implementation of the Wolf Pen Creek Master Plan 3. Investigate the feasibility of cooperative ventures with CSISD 4. Incorporate public art into the park system LWh PrIaHt-y 5. Enhance the public perception of the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor 6.;!, Encourage the early development of the former landfill site on State Highway 6 7. Emphasize Lincoln Center leadership development and program enhancement S. Support the implementation of the Greenways Master Plan Medium Pxhmft 9. Establish an on -going re -appraisal of existing parks, facilities, and services offered by the department 10. Encourage arboretum/garden parks and color emphasis in existing parks Low Priority 11. Develop an Urban Forestry Plan for College Station 12. Investigate the feasibility of cooperative ventures with TAMU on facilities and programs 13. Explore the feasibility of a commercial ice skating facility CDMPIete Recreation, Park, and Open Space Master Plan Revised January 6, 2000 CITY Of OSTATION PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMEN FYOO GOALS Li 11UPIVIEMILLUdivic vi udc h Continue to Improve Staff Development Implementation of City +. ❑ Implementation of Spee ' ❑ Explore of Alternative Re Improve Emergency Planning and Prepare Implementation of the CIP Program ❑ Wolf Pen Creek Improvements (Tributary B) ❑ Adamson Pool Renovation & Improvements ® Edelweiss Park Construction ❑ West District Maintenance Shop Design & Construction ® Eastgate/Lions Park Improvements ❑ Willow Branch Tennis Courts Installation ❑ Community Park/Cemetery Site Acquisition ❑ Brazos Beautiful Crape Myrtle Project ❑ Veterans Park & Athletic Complex design and begin construction ✓❑ Central Park Irrigation Improvements ❑ Hallaran Pool hnprovements ❑ Neighborhood Park Improvement Project ❑ Wolf Pen Creek Riparian Restoration Project ❑ Construction of a Roller Hockey Rink ❑ Woodway Park Land Aquisition Continue to Improve Staff Development ❑ Review staff levels and revise projections ❑ Review training resource requirements ❑ Implement departmental training policy Q Participate in TRAPS Regional 5 Workshop ❑ Participate in TRAPS Annual Conference Q Support individual training through Dept. of Emergency Management Implementation of Citv Council Strategic. Issues ❑ #2 Continue implementation of the WPC Master Plan ❑ # 13 Continue to improve tourism development ❑ #21 Continue implementation of Senior Programs PARks . RECREATiON COttEqE STATiON Implementation of Special Proiects ❑ Conduct 2000 Games of Texas ❑ Submit Departmental Accreditation Application ❑ Implement Street Tree Clearance Program ❑ Develop plan for the second Teen Center (Yahooz) ❑ Review and update PARD Strategic Plan Explore Alternative Revenue Sources'- ❑ Venue Project Tax ❑ United States Soccer Federation Grant ❑ Texas Parks & Wildlife Trails Grant ❑ Texas Parks & Wildlife Urban Fishing Grant ❑ Texas Parks & Wildlife Community Outdoor Outreach Grant ❑ Texas Parks & Wildlife Local Park Fund Grant ❑ CSISD — Criminal justice Grant ❑ Implementation of the user fee surcharge El FEMA SLA-50 Improve Epner!zencv Planning and Preparedness ❑ Revise City of CS Emergency Standard Operating Procedures ® Establish office at EOC and Fire Administration Building ❑ Conduct Annual Emergency Management Academy 00-04 7-Jan-00 o:goals/00goal Additional Mandated Departmental Projects � Departmental strategic plan review � Crepe myrtle design and installation on fm 2818 ,21- South side antique lighting project Northgate pedestrian mall design project ,z,, City gateways design ,z&- Emergency management standard operating procedures update � City pay plan review and revision \COLUr- P. 0. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842 i Tel: 409 764 3500 MEMORANDUM TO- Veteran's Park and Athletic Complex (VPAC) Subcommittee FROM. Eric Ploeger, Assistant Director � Parrs & Recreation c SUBJECT-. prraposed VPAC Prreffm#narry h1asftr POan Schadu9e December, 1999 Develop internal review needs with Development Services Department. December 4, 1999 Review Preliminary faster Plan with Pardus and Recreation Board, 7:00 p.m. January 10 2000 Review Preliminary Master Plan with College E' tatio, Recreation - Sports Committee, r 00 p.m. at the City Hall Council Chambers. January, 2000 Review with veterans group - February 1, 2000 Parks s and Recreation Board Public Hearing (special meeting), r 00 p.m. at he City Hall Council I Chambers. February 8, 2000 Park and Recreation Board discussion, :00 p.m. at the Par' Recreation ceon Dept. Conference Room. March 9, 2000 City Council Workshop Presentation of proposed Master Plan, 4:00 p.m. 'larch 23, 2000 City Council Public Hearing - Consideration and possible approval of proposed Master Plan, 7:00 p.m. O:Projects/Veterans ParWasierPlan Timeline.doc Updated January 6, 2000 Home of Texas A&M University 10 i yF 17 � P. O. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842 Tel. 409 764 3500 MEMORANDUM T©o Steve 13eachy FROM: Eric Ploeger DATE- January 4, 2000 SUBJECT. Jack and Dorothy Muter Pare In the summer of 1999, 2,000 square feet of the jogging track at Jack and Dorothy Miller Park was replaced with concrete. This was done to reduce the hazard of the uneven surfaces in areas where erosion frequently occurred. The frequent maintenance in those areas was also a concern. The cost of placing rubber cushioning on this 2,000 square foot portion of the track would cost approximately $12,000.00. Currently, there are no funds available for this, so I assume that if this additional feature is needed, additional funding could be requested during the next budget cycle. Home of Texas A&M University LUBBOCK NATIONAL L BANK Committed to Your Success. - — ---._ January-.7, 2000 Mr. Stephen Beachy City Of College Station, Parks & Recreation 1000 Krenek Tap Road College Station, Texas 77840 Dear Steve: As follow-up to our telephone conversation, I have a bank customer who desires to open discussion with the City for the possible purchase of a 5 acre tract of land, which to the best of my knowledge is described as: Part of Lot 3, Randall's University Park, Richard Carter Survey, Abstract No. 8, College Station, Brazos County, Texas. My customer has recently purchased a 3.370 acre tract that fronts the above described property and it is his intent to develop this land as a small residential subdivision. At your earliest opportunity, please advise me if the City would consider a sale of this property and if so, how we should proceed with opening negotiations. Your assistance in this matter is most appreciated. Sincerely, Thomas H. Aughinbaugh; III Senior Vice President 424 Tarrow, Suite 104 College Station, "rX 77840 (409) 260-5982 Fax (409) 260-70 4 5.16 acres t6 49 /7 50 J� 6 �1 c O 7 - 2 d 45 X /0 yf J v 4 0 �rfrAY r 4 39 m 30 31 f 38 OR�f' t 32 37 29 1 '0q„ 33 36 2 H �Of` 20 26 3i 4 Y 19 5 21 27c 35 0 t8 26 m 22 eL �f-P 27 87 X 17 23 25 6 6 a 25 16 Oy, 24 e Y Gp 2 23 16 7 IS of 21 r, a 0 hi 2 I1 pP 19 17 6 fr B L. A.FORD 9r, 13 ?y I6 7 16 2.7053 Acres 5 tf 5 15 ?s+ 14 CT� 13 11 Shobeer Joffor 3.306 Acres w RANDAL S Appraisal District Values -University Park" - J � - S ROSEMARY DR BCS CITY LIMIT $ ROSEMARY DR BCS CITY LIMIT LN. COONER ST, 4z w o W 3 Nz o ono F U U _ w oa A G Ud x a a v G� G� ..7 PLN ck r REv6gws: T TO SCALE scsi: t? DRAFT 5+Yr Vv. THIS AGREEMENT is dated the day of 1988, by and between THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS (herein- after referred to as the "City"), and THE COLLEGE STATION IN- DEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT (hereinafter referred to as the "School District"). W I T° N E S S E T Hs WHEREAS, the City, the School District, and Peoples Mortgage Company have previously entered into a "Development Agreement" (a true and correct copy of such Development Agreement being at- tached hereto as Exhibit "A`°) providing for the cooperative development of that certain property in College Station, Brazos Ccuncy, Texas, consisting of 164.85 acres and commonly known as the Westchester Park Subdivision, (hereinafter referred to as the "Subdivision"); WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms of the Development Agreement the School District has agreed to purchase from Peoples Mortgage Company ten (10) acres of land *within the Subdivision for the purpose of constructing an elementary school on such site; WHEREAS, pursuant to the term.; of the Development Agreement Peoples Mortgage Company has agreed to dedicate to the City a five (5) acre parcel of property adjacent to that property purchased by the School District; WHEREAS, pursuant to theaterma of the Development Agreement the City has agreed to purchase as additional five (5) acre tract immediately adjacent to the property dedicated by Peoples Mort- gage Company and the property purchased by the School District; WHEREAS, The City and the School District now desire to enter into an agreement providing for the development of a ten (10) acre city park immediately adjacent to the school site referenced above and being that same property dedicated pursuant to the terms of the Development Agreement by Peoples Mortgage Map of Welsh Street Extension EXHIBIT "C" Company an well as that property purchased by the City pursuant to the terms of the Development Agreement: NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises, and ocher good and valuable consideration described herein, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto do hereby agree as follows: L. Ownership of Property: It is understood by the parties hereto that both the five (5) acre tract dedicated by Peoples Mortgage Company pursuant to the terms of the Development Agreement as well as the five (5) acre tract purchased by the City pursuant to the terms of the Development Agreement (both five (5) acre parcels hereinafter referred to collectively as the "Property") shall be owned in fee simple absolute by the City. It is further understood by the parties hereto that all costs associated with acquiring the Property shall be borne by the City. 2. Development of City Park: The City shall act as developer in establishing and equipping a city park (hereinafter referred to as the "Park") on the Proper- ty. The Park shall be equipped with playground equip- ment suitable for elementary school type recreation. All costs associated with establishing and equipping the Park shall be the sole responsibility of the City provided, however, the School District shall contribute monetarily to the development of the Park as hereinaf- ter specified. 3. Contribution by School District: The School District shall pay to the City the sum of SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND AND N01100 DOLLARS ($75,000.00) toward development of the Park and as compensation for its use of the Park as more specifically described in Section 8 herein. Such RE33(r)/*L 2 i sum shall be payable to the City as hereinafter set forth in Section 8 of this Agreement. Design and Development: The City of College Station Parks Board in conjunction with the College Station Indep,:ndenc School District Board will review initial design and construction proposals for the Park. The two Boards will meet in at least two joint meetings, the first to initiate design and begin directing the City staff toward a development proposal, and the final, to review the final development proposal and authorize the City staff -to place the contract out to bid. 5. Construction of Park: After completion of design and construction proposals, the City will place the Park improvements out to bid in accordance with the City°s Charter and state bidding law. Upon acceptance of the lowest responsible bid, the City shall begin con- struction of the Park. The City shall provide a construction supervisor on the project. 6. Completion of Park: The Park shall be completed and ready for use on or before the beginning of the first school year during which the School District operates an elementary school site upon the ten (10) acre tract adjacent to the Pfrk and purchased by the School District pursuant to the terms of the Development Agreement. 7. Maintenance of Park: The City shall be responsible for maintaining the Park grounds and for maintaining and refurbishing Park equipment so as to insure that the Park and the equipment located thereon are at all timers in a clean, sightly, and healthy condition, and in good repair according to the established maintenance stan- dards and procedures of the City of College Station. in so maintaining and/or refurbishing the Park and its equipment, the City shall procure written approval from the School District prior to placing any new equipment on the Park property. All costs associated with so maintaining and refurbishing the Part-, shall be borne by the City. S. Lease: The City and the School District shall enter into a lease providing for full use of the Park by the School District during normal school hours as set out by the School Board. The lease shall also empower the School District to require any person to leave the Park pursuant: to Texas Education Code Section 4.23. Such lease shall be executed imm diately prior to the beginning of the first school year during which the School District operates an elementary school on the property immediately adjacent to the Park. The lease is attached hereto as Exhibit "B". At the time of exe- cution of the lease, the School District shall pay to the City the sum of SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND AND NO110 0 DOLLARS (S75,000.00) as its contribution toward.devel- opment of the Park and in consideration for its use of the Park. The lease shall provide for a term of no Less than seventy-five (75) years. 9. Indemnification by. the City: The City agrees to indemnify the School District against any and all claims, demanda,*danages, costs, expenses, and losses, including reasonable attorney®s fees for the defense of any such claima and demands, arising from and as a result of the condition of the Park grounds and any of the equipment located thereon. In case of any action or proceeding brought against the, School District by reason of any such claim, the City, upon notice from the School District, agrees to defend that action or R_E33(r)/1 4 proceeding by counsel acceptable to the School Dis- trict. 10. Indemnification by the School District: The School District agrees to indemnify the City against any and all claims, demands, damages, costs, expenses, and losses, including reasonable attorney®s fees for the defense of any such claims and demands, arising from or as a result of the negligence of the School District or any of its employees in their use of the Park. In came of any action or proceeding brought against the City by reason of any such claiaf, the School District, upon notice from the City, agrees to defend the action or proceeding by counsel acceptable to the City. 11. Approvals: The City represents and warrants to the School District that it has obtained those approvals from its governing body necessary to allow it to enter into this Agreement. Likewise, the School District represents and warrants to the City that it has ob- tained those approvals from its governing body neces- sary to allow it to enter into this Agreement. 12. The Entire Agreement: This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties hereto with respect to the transactions contemplated herein and ex- pressly supersedes all previous written or oral rep- resentations, undarstandings, agreements, negotiation@, commitments, and writings. 13. Notices: Any and all notices or other communications required or permitted by this Agreement or by law to be served on or given to any of the parties hereto by the ocher party to this Agreement, shall be in writing and shall be deemed duly served on the day actually re- ceived by the applicable" party as follows: (a) On the School District: College Station Independent School District 100 Anderson College Station, Texas 77840 Attention: David R. Brewer (b) On the City: Any party hereto may change its address for the purpose of this Section by giving the other party hereto written notice of the now address in the manner set forth hereinabove. 14. Attorney's Fees: Should any litigation be commenced between the parties to this Agreement concerning the transactions described in this Agreement, or the rights and duties of any party in relation thereto, the party or parties so prevailing in such litigation shall be entitled, in addition to other relief as may granted, to a reasonable sum as and for attorney's fees in such litigation which shall be determined by the court in such litigation or in a separate action brought for that purpose. . 15. No Assignment: Neither this Agreement nor any interest therein shall be assigned by any party hereto without the written consent of the other party. 16. Binding on Heirs and Assigns: This Agreement shall be binding on and shall inure to the benefit of the heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns of the parties hereto, but nothing contained in this Section shall be construed as a consent to any assign- ment of this contract by any party hereto. Q Tr I I ( , l / I A 17. Amendment: This Agreement may only be amended by a written instrument executed by each of the parties hereto. 18. Applicable Law: This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement all as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS By- Name - Title: COLLEGE STATION INDEPENDEAT 9CHOf„ , DISTRICT Ei y Title: Copy of Development Agreement EXHIBIT "A" Copy of propoved Iramee FXHIBIT "B" STATU OEM TEXAS ) COUNTY OF BRAZOS ) LEASE OF REAL PROPERTY This lease agreement is made on this the day of , 1988, by and between the CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, a Texas Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as LESSOR), and COLLEGE STATION INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT (hereinafter referred to as LESSEE). The parties for and in consideration of the agreements here- in set forth to be kept and performed by them respectively, have agreed and do hereby agree together as followso TERM LESSOR has leased, and by these presents does lease, unto LESSEE, a ten acre tract out of the property known as the Peoples Mortgage Company tract, which property is more fully described in the metes and bounds description attached hereto as Exhibit "A", which lease shall run for a period of seventy-five (75) years from the date herein. II. USE OF PREMISES LESSEE shall have full leasehold use of the premises as school grounds during normal school hours as set out by the School Board, Normal school hours shall be determined as that period of time during which the School Board requires students to be in school. The lease premises shall be used by LESSEE as a playground during normal school hours and shall be considered to bepart of the school grounds. It is further understood that the School District shall have the authority to require any person to leave the premises pursuant to Texas Education Code, Section 4.23. In the event that LESSEE desires to use the premises as school grounds outside of normal school hours, LESSEE shall seek the prior written approval of LESSOR. III. CONSIDERATION LESSEE shall pay the total sum of Seventy-five Thousand Dol- lars ($75,000.00) for the use of the premises which sum shall be due and payable upon execution of this lease agreement. LESSOR agrees to dedicate the entire sure for the use and construction of the premises as a park and playground site. IV, IMPROVEMENTS No improvements shall be placed upon the property by f,GSSI:F:: without the written consent of LESSOR. Nor shall LESSOR place any improvementsonthe property without the express written con- sent of LESSEE, V. MAINTENANCE LESSOR shall maintain at its expense the lease premises in a clean, sightly, and healthy condition, and in good repair ac- cording to the established maintenance standards and procedures of the City of College Station. VI. RIGHT OF ENTRY LESSOR reserves the right of entry upon the lease premises by its officers, agents, and employees at any time for the pur- pose of inspecting the premises and for the protection and main- tenance of the premises and improvements. LESSOR further re- serves the right of immediate entry onto the lease premises .and the right to take possession thereof in the case of emergency. VII. INDEMNIFICATION A. Indemnification by the City: City agrees to indemnify the School District against any and all claims, demands, damages, costs, expenses, and losses, including reasonable attorneys Cees for the defense of any such claims and demands arising from and as a result of the condition of the park grounds and any of :nF: equipment located thereon. In case of any action or brought against the School District by reason of any such the City, upon notice from the School District, agrees to defend that action or proceeding by counsel acceptable to the School District. R. Indemnification by the School District: The School Dis- trict agrees to indemnify the City against any and all claims, demands, damages, costs, expenses, and losses, including reason- able attorneys fees for the defense of any such claims and de- mands arising from or as a result of the negligence of the School District or any of its employees in their use of the park. In case of any action or proceeding brought against the City by rea- son of any such -claim, the School District, upon notice from the City, agrees to defend the action or proceeding by counsel ac- ceptable to the City. VIII. TAXES AND ASSESSKENTS, LESSOR shall pay and discharge all tastes, general and spe- cial assessments, and other charges of every description which may be levied on or assessed against the premises, all interests in the premises, and all other improvements and other -property on the premises during the term of this lease. LESSOR shall pay all such taxes, charges, and assessments directly to the public offi- cer charged with their collection not less than ten (10) days be- fore the same shall become delinquent, and LESSOR agrees to in- demnify LESSEE and save LESSEE harmless from all such taxes, charges, and assessments. At any time that the payment of any item of taxes, special assessments, or any other governmental charges which LESSOR is obligated to pay under the provisions of this section remains unpaid and uncontested later than ten (10) days before the same shall become delinquent, LESSEE may give written notice to LESSOR of its default under this section soeci- Eying the default. L.f LESSOR continues to fail to pay r_t,a special assessments, or governmental charges, or to contest same in good faith within five (S) days of such -ritten n,)ri,r�, L23 may pay the items specified in the notice and LESSOR cove- nants to reimburse LESSEE on demand any amount paid or expended .by LESSEE for this purpose with interest at the legal rate from the date of payment by LESSEE until reimbursement by LESSOR. If LESSEE pays any such item which has not been paid by LESSOR with- in the time required in this section, or successfully contested by LESSOR, without giving five (5) days notice, LESSOR shalt nevertheless reimburse LESSEE for such item but, without inter- est. IXe UTILITIES LESSOR shall pay or cause to be paid all charges for water, electricity, sewage, and all other utilities used on the premises throughout the terms of this lease, including any connection fees. X, ASSIGNMENT \ This agreement shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the parties hereto, but nothing contained in this section shall be construed as a consent to any assignment of this agreement by any party hereto. No assignment shall be made by either party hereto without the written consent of the other party. XI. AMENDMENT Amendment to this agreement may only be made in writing, ex- ecuted by each party. Each party shall show proof of authoriza- tion to enter into an amendment to this agreement. . XII. THE ENTIRE AGREEMENT This agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties hereto with respect to the transactions contemplated herein and expressly supercedes all previous written or oral rep- resentations, understandings, agreements, negotiations, commi'_- ments, and writings, except to the extent that the agreement ?n-. tored into by and between the City Of College Station and the College Station independent School District, dated 1968, ahr-11 not be merged with this lease agreement. XIII. NOTICES Any and all notices to the parties herein may be served by mailing a certified copy, return receipt requested, to the following addresses: College Station Independent School District 100 Anderson College Station, Texas 77840 Attention: David Brewer City Manager City of College Station P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Either party may, from tim-e-to-time, upon written notice to the other party, change the address to which notices by mail shall be sent. XIV. ATTORNEYS FEES Should any litigation be commenced between the parties as to this agreement, or the rights and duties of any party to this agreement in relation thereto, prevailing parties shall be en- titled to reasonable attorneys fees as a result of such litiga- tion. Xv. TEXAS LAW This agreement shall be construed in accordance with the law@ of the state of Texas. SIGNED this the day of 1988. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION BY: Mayor Larry Ringer ATTEST: City Secretary Ron -Ragland Acting City Manager Bill Harrison Director of Finance Cathy Locke City Attorney m COLLEGE STATION INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT BY - !TY OF COLLEGE STATOR PARKS AND RECREATON DEPARTMENT CAPffAL WPi` 1t '=MENT' iRO%s::r"°t"u PROJECT STATUS REPORT January 000 1. TROUTARY B WPROVEMENTS 20 3. Project Number- PK9505 Budget: $80,000 Contract Amount- N/A Project Manager. Peter Vanecek Project Designeln®house (Site); McClure Engineering (Bridge); Swoboda (Electrical) Comments/Status. Construction began in October, 1999. Task -Project Design- July -August 1999 Advertisement & Award- August - September, 1999 Completion: February 2000 VETERANS PARK & ATHLETIC COMPLEX HASTER PLAN Project Number. PK9941 Budget- $2,038, 000 Contract Amount: $168,200 (O'Malley Engineers) Project Managaro Eric Ploeger Project Design- O'Halley Engineers Comments/Status:City Council approved O'Malley Engineers for the design of Phase I. Review by the Sports and Recreation Association occurred January 10, 1999. Task a Project Design: Advsdf cement 9 Award: C om&Uono Project Number, Budget - Design Contract Amount. Project Manager, Project Design, PK9936 $ 751, 000 $747,600 Eric Ploeger Waterscape Consultants Comments/Status. Progressive Chemical was the low bidder. The renovation began on November 1, 1999. Task a Project Design, January - June 1999 Advenisement & Award: August - October 1999 Construction Completion: May 2000 CTP Report 4e 6 7 E�E�_�� _,. ��, '. �� Ins -rug. ��L.z�,l � c�•, ST � z� - Project dumber: PK9910 Budget: $ 213,000 Park Land Dedication, and 1998 Bond Funds Contract Amount: $209,140 Project Manager- Peter Vanecek Project Design. In-house Comments/Statill The project was due for completion on November 6, 1999. The contract is late and will change liquidated damages. Task a Project Design: October - March 1999 Advertisement & Award: April 1999 Compietion: November 1999 Project Number- Budget: Design Contract Amount: Project Manager - Project Design: PK9927 $481,000 $30,280 Eric Ploeger Holster and Associates Comments/Status, Asbestos abatement wiDi be compietsd in January 2000. The project wffi be bid toi[lowing the abatement. Task - Project Design: March - February 2000 Advedisement & Award, March -April 2000 Comipietion: December 2000 EASTG�ATE i F 3.fl r,E E TS 4� J® LIC�.�S PAS' PL®'� G��i �L� i= Ei'L�.CEIvI �iT Project Number, PK9308 Budget: $29,000 1990 Bond; $20,000 FY99 Replacement Fund Contract Amount. $56,085 Project manager: Pete Vanecek Project Design: In-house Comments/Status: Construction began in the last week of October, 1999. Task - Project Design: May 1999 Advertisement & Award: August 1999 Completion: February 2000 CEO r"rE'.` iT';1'SITiC� .: Project Number: Budget: Contract Amount: Project Manager: N/A $500,000 - Park $275,000 - Cemetery N/A Eric Ploeger CIP Report a. IJ 0. 11 BIOS BEAUTWUL CRAPEil YRTLE PROJECT Project lumber- Budget - Contract Amount: Project Manager, N/A $282,000 N/A Eric Ploeger/Pete Vanecek Comments/Status. Bids for this project will go to the City Council for possible approval in January 2000. Task -Project Design: September 1999 Advertisement & Award- October - November 1999 CompBetion- February 2000 Project Number' Budget - Contract Amount. Project Manager. Comrrnents/Status: The installation of this new system will be complete in January 2000. Task -project [design- August - September 1999 Advertisement & Award-. October 1999 Connpietion- January 2000 HALLARAH POOL iHpROVEME HTS Project Number, PK0072 Budget- $27,000 Contract Amount. N/A Project Manager: Pete Vanecek, Senior Parks Planner Comments/Sftatus. Project is to provide a small slide for the shallow area of the pool. Bids were opened on December 28, 2000and City Council approval will be requested on January 27, 2000. Completion- March 2000. Project Number. PK0064 Budget- $18,000 - $65,000 Southwood Contract Amount. N/A Project Manager: Pete Vanecek, Senior Parks Planner Project [design- October 1999 Ad and award: December 1999 - January 2000. Completion: April2000. Comments/Status Bids were opened on December 21, 1999.City Council approval will be requested on January 13, 1999. CIP Report TEXAS A&M UNRVERSRTY College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism Sciences 1876 - December 1, 1999 TO: Steve Beachy FROM: John Crompton SUBJECT: Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Steve, I thought the Park Board might find this material on LWCF useful. As you know, this is one of the two sources of funding for the Recreation and Parks Account administered by TPA, from which the City of College Station PARD derives matching grants. In addition to the LWCF federal money, the Account is funded by $16 million from state sales taxes on sporting goods. Unfortunately, LWCF has contributed nothing to the Account for the past four years as Congress has failed to appropriate money for the states' parks programs. A major lobbying effort by parks advocates this year resulted in $40 million being included in the federal budget which translates to $2 million for Texas and the Recreation and Parks Account. More importantly, this lobbying effort has focused on making LWCF a dedicated fund from which automatic funding of the $900 million which is the authorized limit (half of which would go to states) would be dispersed without being subjected to the annual appropriations process. This movement has gathered substantial political momentum. The idea has been expanded to include other environmental programs and packaged in HR 701 The Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA). This is a bipartisan proposal that passed the House Resources Committee, which had been a major stumbling block in the past, with a substantial majority. Our Congressman, Kevin Brady, is on that Committee. In the past, he has voted against LWCF funding. The lobbying effort of the mayor, city council, parks board and interested citizens in this community, persuaded him to change his stance this year and he supported LWCF and CARA in Committee. There is a long way to go yet, but passage in the House is a real possibility next year given the strong bi-partisan vote out of the Committee. The Senate leadership is on record as supporting it and it is strongly supported by the Administration. If CARA passes in its present form (which is described in the enclosed handout) it will mean $25 million every year into the Recreation and Park Account, raising the state's matching grant money to $41 million from $16 million, with obvious potential benefits for our community. The total dollars accruing to Texas for all the programs listed in CARA would be around $300 million per year. This would transform the J& Iff"M Room 106 Francis Hall - College Station, Texas 77843-2261 - (409) 845-5411: FAX (409) 845-0446 http://wwwrpts.tamu,edu parks, wildlife and coastal environments in this state. Certainly, it would be the most profound impetus for the environment in Texas that has occurred in the 25 years I have lived in the state. Consistent support expressed by the parks board and council and transmitted to Congressman Brady is important. As is recognizing his key contribution at every opportunity (hence, the letter to the Eagle that I have attached). doc/a:beachylw.cf Attachment comprised ltate-owned islands and 18 islands owned by Bo ton and an assortment of private organizations. For the first time in its history, the National Park Se�vice committed to spending fed- eral funds on land it did not own. The National Park Service agreed to contribute'25% of the park's operating funds; the remaining 75 % came from state sales tax revenues' -and local donations. The functions and finarrces of the park were managed by an 18-membber advisory council and a 13- member governing board. These groups included federal appointees, local advocacy groups, and a Native American heritage organization.10 Federal rant Support At any point in time, there are a variety of federal programs from which park and recreation depart- ments solicit grant aid. Most of them are enacted with the goal of alleviating specific problems, such as juvenile crime, unemployment, or traffic con- gestion. It was noted in chapter 5 that park and recreation agencies may contribute to alleviating these kinds of problems. Hence, agencies develop- ing programs whose objectives are compatible with those of the grant program are eligible to acquire these federal funds. These grant programs are authorized because there are political pres- sures for elected representatives to address a particular problem. They tend to be authorized for Iimited period of time and are allowed to lapse when the polity al pressure on that issue has dis- sipated or whe there is widespread belief that they have not b n effective. Only one fedeal program that was designed exclusively to provide grant aid for park and recre- ation amenities rev ived>consistent funding sup- port over a prolonged period of time. That pro- gram is the Land and dater Conservation Fund. Its role is now much more limited than it was in the i past. However, its contribution to stimulating park and recreational facilitydevelopment for more than 25 years was so grew that it is reviewed in some depth in this section 'The program demon- strates the importance of on�oing efforts to se- cure a dedicated fund at the feeral level for park and recreation land acquisition and facility devel- opment. The discussion of the Land anWater Conser- vation Fund,is followed by subsectians that define dedicated fonds, examine the concepual basis for a dedicated fund in this field, and suggest alterna- tive ways in which it might be formulatid. Finally, some of the other, more ephemeral types of fed- eral grant opportunities relevant to parks and Intergovernmental Cooperation 303: recreation, w . h odically emerge, are de- scribed. e Land and Water Conservation Fund Spurred by serious recreational resource prob- lems and deficiencies identified in the 1962 Out- door Recreation Resources Review Commission reports, Congress enacted Public Law 88-578, the Land and Water Conservancy Fund, to become effective on January 1,1965. The fund was created for the purpose of assisting all levels of govern- ment in the acquisition and development of out- door recreational resources. More specifically, the fund provided 1. a funding source for the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, and (to a lesser extent) the Bureau of Land Management to acquire lands for their systems and 2. grants-in-aid to states and, through them to local jurisdictions, for the planning, land acquisition, and development of out- door recreational facilities. The Land and Water Conservation Fund was meant to provide a continuing, assured source of money that would allow for expansion of the nation's outdoor recreational estate. The intent was to provide a predictable floor of earmarked funds that would be insulated from the year-to- year competition for Congressional appropriations. Indeed, some members of Congress apparently believed that the fund would be a true trust fund with revenues that could not be used for other purposes (although Congress would have to ap- propriate money from the fund before it could be spent). In fact, the fund was neither defined nor oper- ated as a true trust fund in the same way, for example, as the federal Highway Trust Fund. Rather, the Land and Water Conservation Fund is what federal budgeteers term a special fund. In such funds, federal receipts are earmarked for specific purposes. However, the receipts are not required to be used for that purpose, and funds must be appropriated by Congress each year. Initially, three sources of revenue for the fund were designated: proceeds from the sales of sur- plus federal real property, motor boat fuel taxes, and fees from recreational use of federal lands. Revenue from these sources between 1966 and 1968 reached about $100 million per year, which v c' r short of Congress' early expectations. To 38�4 Financing and Acquiring Park and Recreation Resources . emedy this, Congress authorized adding $200 mil- lion each year to the fund and using outer conti- nental shelf mineral leasing and royalty receipts to cover the difference between the authorized level and receipts from other sources. Subsequently, the fund's authorization was raised to $900 million in 1976. The use of outer continental shelf receipts for park land acquisition and development was a rational way of recycling the value of one natural resource back to public use in the form of another natural resource. The legislation required that at least 40% of the annual Land and Water Conservation Fund appro- priation be expended on federal projects and that up to 60% of it be distributed to state govern- ments. The states, in turn, determined how much of their share would be available to county, special district, and municipal park and recreation agen- cies. During the life of the program, approximately 75% of states' allocations were passed through to local jurisdictions. In the early years of the pro- gram, the state -side appropriations exceeded those for federal land acquisition, but in recent years, the state -side funds have been reduced to nominal amounts. A state or local agency's access to the funds is contingent upon them matching the funds on a 50-50 basis. In effect, the federal government pledges to match the state or local agency's contri- bution to produce resources for up to one-half of the total project's cost. The local matching share of a project's cost can be provided from several sources. Most often, the local contribution comes from a jurisdiction's general or capital develop- ment fund. However, Land and Water Conserva- tion Fund regulations allow in -kind contributions of labor, equipment, materials, or land to be used as the matching share. In these cases, the fair market value of these resources is acceptable as the local agency's contribution. For example, if donated land is appraised at $300,000, then the agency could apply for a matching $300,000 grant from the fund. If approved, the fund money ob- tained could be applied toward the development of this land into a park. The net result could be the acquisition and development of anew recreational resource valued at $600,000 without any expendi- ture of local tax dollars. The acceptance of in -kind resources as the matching share is a powerful incentive in acquir- ing land donations because donors see the value of their gifts doubled bythe leveraging potential of grants from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The matching program is also popular with local elected officials because it enables them to propose a bond 'issue of, for example, $500,000 for a new park and to inform voters that if it is ap- proved, they are likely to receive a facility valued at $1 million. Further, it enables even the poorest communities that are unable to raise tax money forthe match to organize in -kind labor, equipment, and materials in lieu of money and to use them to acquire the federal funds. The Land and Water Conservation Fund is ad- ministered by the National Park Service. Most states have vested authority for the distribution of funds from the Land and Water Conservation Fund in their state park and recreation agency. The designated state agency is responsible for setting priorities for funding projects and for evaluating the relative merit of fund applications received from local jurisdictions. Projects acquired with Land and Water Conservation Fund assistance are required to remain in perpetuity for public recre- ation. On those rare occasions when use of this land for another essential purpose has been dem- onstrated to be unavoidable, it has to be replaced with property of equal market value and equiva- lent recreational usefulness. The stimulus provided by the Land and Water Conservation Fund has been central to park and outdoor recreation development in this country for more than 30 years. Since it was enacted, the state side of the fund has awarded more than 37,000 matching grants totaling more than $3.2 bil- lion. States and localities have matched this amount dollar for dollar to acquire 2.4 million acres of park land and open space and to develop more than 25,000 recreational sites. However, there has never been one year in which annual ap- propriations of Congress reached the authorized spending level of $900 million. The highest ap- propriations were made in 1978 and 1979 and amounted to $805 and $737 million, respectively. Of these totals, $315 and $370 million were allo- cated as grants to the states and $490 and $367 to the federal agencies. In recent years, the state -side funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund has been mini- mal. Its demise has resulted in a search for an alternative, more reliable source of federal funds that would be dedicated for the exclusive purpose of acquiring land and recreational facilities and that would make it less vulnerable to the political vagaries of the appropriations process. The Ded#Cat° ®f Fusels �--� The dedication or earn k4m of fun ds refers to statutory restrictf on9` on how tie proceeds from specified t4xe°s and revenue souyces'nw be spent. orwarded by: "CARSON WATT" <RPTS/CWATT> arded to: #g-facult, #g-grads Date arded: Mon, 22 Nov 199916:00:10 -0600 Date sen . Fri,19 Nov 199910:52:07 -0400/ ' To: Recipient List Suppressed:; , From: jim coffin <coffinj@clark.n Subject: Federal Parks Nov. 19 FEDERAL PARKS & CREATION: VOLUME 17 NUMBER 22, NOVEMBER 19, 1999 In this issue... CONSERVA ON BILL TAKES BIG STEP. House committee approves $313 measure to boo LWCF, UPAR, nongame and more. Congress rejects administration request t 'ncI' de in money bill. Page 1 MONEY BILL AGREES WITH NTON. Comes in at $14.9 billion, or about what administration asked. Mon fo everybody - federal agencies, state and fed LWCF, Millenniu . LB L FS. Page 3 STATE, FED LWCF GET $464 MILLION. $424 milli ii for fed side bout matches Clinton request. $40 million for st a grants. State al cation set by formula. Page 4 NONG E WINS, BUT PRO EM ARISES. House committee conservation bill incl es $350 million per year. environmentalists o ect to removal of planning wor Page 5 DENALI SNOWMOBILE SE IN CONFLICT. NPS says no sn obiles in core of park, but federal jud takes exception to that policy. Page 6 BIL WOULD EASE FS C IN FEES. Would compare value to raw land er than to private ca ' s. Money bill a place holder. Page 7 SENATORS K DELAY IN RO STUDY. GOP senators tell USDA it should extend scop co nt period on roadless EIS by 4 months. Page 8 DID OVERFLI S BI CRASH? Shuster, McCain quit on FAA bill last week, may try ain. Page 9 NOTES. Page 10 CONFERENCE CALENDAR. Page 10 HOUSE CONSERVATION BILL TAKES FIRST STEP IN HOUSE CO The House Resources Committee approved a $3 billion per year conservation bill (HR 3245) November 10 with major guarantees for park and recreation programs. Among other things the bill, approved by a 37-to-12 vote, would: * allocate $450 million per year for federal land acquisition, although individual purchases would have to be approved each year in a money bill, * guarantee $450 million per year for state Land and Water Conservation Fund grants, * guarantee $125 million per year for the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery program, * guarantee $200 million per year to a federal and Indian land restoration program, to supplement existing maintenance appropriations, * guarantee $350 million per year to a nongame Teaming with Wildlife program, * guarantee $100 million per year to the Historic Preservation Fund, and * guarantee $150 million for conservation easements and species recovery. Ominously, a coalition of environmental groups said it could not support the bill unless corrections are made, such as guaranteed funding for the federal side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). The coalition, which includes the Sierra Club and the National Wildlife Federation, said the bill "leaves funding for federal LWCF subject to the functional equivalent of the yearly appropriations process that has left it critically underfunded for the past 20 years." Committee approval of the bill came too late for Congress to pass a measure this year. Congress was expected to adjourn for 1999 this weekend, so supporters have not had time to attach HR 3245 to a fiscal year 2000 appropriations bill (HR 2466). Said one Republican staff member who is hostile to the bill, "If it was going anywhere, why didn't they move it in September when we still had time?" JOHN CROMPTON -- 1 -- Tue, 23 Nov 1999 08:26:22 Separately, the Clinton administration attempted November 7 to add a version of a permanent conservation bill to HR 2466, but was rebuffed by Republican appropriators. "Sen. (Slade) Gorton (R-Wash.) told them they were a day late and a dollar short," said one Congressional staff member who participated in the talks. "He said we can't add to an appropriations bill a proposal of this magnitude." The administration reportedly made the offer to appropriators for the first time Sunday afternoon (November 7) at 6 p.m. Gorton said in a statement November 8 released to private property advocates who oppose a permanent conservation bill, "I was disappointed by this turn of events, as I believed I was close to reaching an agreement with the White House on the Interior bill. You will be happy to know that I told the White House that I am not willing to authorize a new entitlement for land acquisitions in my Interior bill." Gorton added, "Finally, I am deeply concerned with attaching a proposal as contentious and complicated as permanent, off -budget funding for land acquisitions to an appropriations bill." Despite the Gorton stance, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) threatened to filibuster the fiscal 2000 money bill if a permanent conservation bill was not attached to it. However, a final version of HR 2466 agreed to November 18 does not include the conservation bill. Landrieu, the chief sponsor of a lead Senate conservation bill (S 25), gave up November 17 on attaching S 25 to the money bill. So now the proposal will likely wait until next year. That will give the House Resources Committee time to prepare for House floor action. "We now have to deal with the concerns of the appropriations committee," said one House Resources Committee staff member, "and make it as smooth as possible." That will not be easy because House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bill Young (R-Fla.), along with ranking committee Democrats, will almost certainly oppose any attempt to guarantee conservation money without appropriations, as HR 3245 would do. Although the appropriators would still be able to decide on allocations of $450 million per year from the federal side of LWCF, they would lose control of the rest of the money in HR 3245. The Senate Energy Committee also needs time to get its ducks in a row. The Senate committee scheduled a mark-up of a counterpart to the House committee bill (S 25) November 3 but canceled the meeting before it began because of disagreements over federal land acquisition. In the Senate committee a recent draft bill from Sen. Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska) would require the Senate Energy Committee and the House Resources Committee to approve federal acquisitions in each Congress, a provision Democrats wouldn't accept. The House Resources Committee overcame powerful opposition from western Republicans to the federal land acquisition provisions of HR 3245. The measure was developed in negotiations led by committee chairman Don Young (R-Alaska), ranking committee Democrat George Miller (Calif.) and senior House Democrat John Dingell (Mich.) The principal opponent in committee, Rep. Helen Chenoweth-Hage (R-Idaho), acknowledged the bill would pass. But, she added, "(M)ark my words, we will all rue this day, when we decided to set the un-reversible process in place to remove massive tracts of land in this great country from production and the tax rolls, thus inhibiting the growth and prosperity of this great nation." Both the House Resources Committee bill and Murkowski's mark back off from earlier western demands that all new federal land acquisitions come from the east. At the same time both the committee and Murkowski would encourage land management agencies to try out land exchanges before acquiring property, to try out less than fee simple acquisition by such things as buying easements, and to locate willing buyers and willing sellers. In addition the House committee bill would require federal agencies to give notice of proposed acquisitions to members of Congress, governors, local government officials and the public via notices in JOHN CROMPTON -- 2 -- Tue, 23 Nov 1999 08:26:23 newspapers. The House committee bill would set aside $450 million each year for federal land acquisition, although an annual appropriation bill could put up less than $450 million. Most other programs would receive guaranteed allocations without the need for appropriations, including coastal impact assistance, the state side of LWCF, nongame assistance, urban parks assistance, historic preservation, Federal and Indian Land restoration, conservation easements and species protection and payments -in -lieu of taxes, also known as PILT. For the state side of LWCF both HR 3245 and the Senate committee mark would continue to require a 50-50 federal -state match. After that the two measures would distribute money differently. HR 3245 would distribute 30 percent of the grant money by state (the Senate mark 60 percent); HR 3245 would distribute the other 70 percent based on population (the Senate mark 20 percent). And the Senate mark would distribute 20 percent by urban population in a state. Both would require states to pass 50 percent through to local governments. Both would forbid any one state from obtaining more than 10 percent of grant money each year. A brief summary of HR 3245 and Sen. Murkowski's mark: HOUSE COMMITTEE BILL SENATE MARK Fed LWCF $450 million $450 million State LWCF $450 million $450 million Teaming $350 million $350 million UPAR $125 million $75 million Historic Fund $100 million Nothing Land Restoration $200 million Nothing Species Recovery $150 million Nothing PILT $200 million Nothing Coastal Impact $1 billion $1 billion Total $3 billion $2.325 billion FINAL APPROPRIATIONS BILL MATCHES CLINTON DEMANDS An almost final agreement was reached on a fiscal year 2000 appropriations bill (HR 2466) by President Clinton and Congressional Republican leaders November 18. The House quickly passed the bill November 18, but in the Senate a threat of filibusters could delay final passage until after Thanksgiving. The agreement gives Clinton almost everything he requested for park and recreation programs. The only exception is a permanent Land Legacy Initiative that would finance a number of conservation programs in perpetuity without appropriations. However, House and Senate Republican negotiators did agree with the Clinton administration to fund a substantial number of Land Legacy programs for fiscal 2000. "We added $400 million to all the places they wanted more money," said a House Appropriations Committee staff member. In fact the bill provides about $14.9 billion for the Interior Department and related agencies. That's $100 million short of the $15 million the Clinton administration requested, but almost $1 billion more than the $14 billion the House and Senate individually approved this summer. The fiscal 1999 appropriation was $14.1 billion. The final version of HR 2466 was developed in the course of three weeks of negotiations between the Republican chairmen of the Senate and House Appropriations Committees, Sen. Slade Gorton (Wash.) and Rep. Ralph Regula (Ohio) and for the administration Office of Management and Budget Director Jacob Lew and Council on Environmental Quality Chairman George Frampton. In the end the Interior negotiations were linked to talks on four other money bills, including such majors ones as foreign operations and health and human services. All five were then wrapped into one omnibus bill November 18 and given final passage by the House. Temporary spending bills will keep the government in money until November 23. The negotiators killed a House -approved rider that would have JOHN CROMPTON -- 3 -- Tue, 23 Nov 1999 08:26:23 barred construction of a new visitors center in GETTYSBURG NATIONAL PARK. Pennsylvania's Republican Congressional delegation wants the Park Service to build the center but the state's Democrats demanded that Congress authorize a visitors center first. In this dispute the Republicans won. The bill would provide money for the first time in five years for state Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) grants, $40 million, and for the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery program, $2 million. For the federal side of LWCF it provides $446.5 million. (See following article on LWCF appropriations.) In other areas the law includes $7 million for the Forest Service to use to add the LAND BETWEEN THE LAKES (LBL) recreation area in Tennessee and Kentucky to the National Forest System. That follows up on a separate fiscal 2000 energy and water appropriations law that includes $3 million to begin the transfer of the 170,000-acre LBL from the Tennessee Valley Administration. President Clinton signed the energy and water bill September 29 as PL 106-60. In a different area the Interior appropriations law includes a provision to restrict funding for an AMERICAN HERITAGE RIVERS program. The final provision would forbid agencies from transferring money to the Council on Environmental Quality to implement the program. But it would not prevent federal agencies themselves from spending money on the program, "if it is a normal part of their programs." The law also provides $30 million for First Lady Hillary Clinton's MILLENNIUM grants program that is financed through the Historic Preservation Fund. Neither the House nor the Senate had approved any money for the program. MONEY BILL HAS $446.5M FOR FED LWCF, $40M FOR STATES President Clinton and Congressional leaders agreed to a fiscal year 2000 appropriations bill (HR 2466) November 18 that would allocate a total of $486.5 million to the federal and state sides of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). State side grants would receive $40 million. This would mark the first time in five years Congress has appropriated money for state grants. The Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery program would receive $2 million. The federal side of LWCF would receive in the neighborhood of $446.5 million, but about $23 million of that would be diverted to nonconservation projects, such as endangered species recovery. On the federal side of LWCF Congress came close to the administration request for land acquisition, approving $423.5 million compared to a request of $442 million. On the state side of LWCF the White House asked for $100 million, so the money bill is $60 million short of that request. The state grants must be matched 50-50 by the states. Tom Ross, NPS director of the center for recreation and conservation, said the grant money would be parceled out according to an existing LWCF formula, with states receiving money based on population and on a per state basis. He said that after five years of no new grants, "The states are very anxious to show how effectively the money can be used." He said that preparation by the states to use the new money "varies from state to state. Some will have to go to the state legislature for specific approval." Using the existing formula for allocating state grant money the $40 million would provide as much as $3.4 million (to California) and just over $2 million (to New York and Texas). Smaller states in population and land would receive less; Vermont is at the bottom of the barrel and it would receive $348,558. On the federal side HR 2466 would provide: * in one shot the entire $101 million to acquire the Baca Ranch in New Mexico adjacent to Bandelier National Park and the Santa Fe JOHN CROMPTON -- 4 -- Tue, 23 Nov 1999 08:26:23 National Forest. The money may not be spent, however, until Congress completes separate legislation to authorize the acquisition of the Baca Ranch from the Dunigan family that now owns the 95,000-acre property. That legislation was introduced by the New Mexico Congressional delegation November 9 in bills S 1892 and HR 3288. The legislation would establish a Valles Cadera National Preserve as a unit within the Santa Fe National Forest. It also calls for a board of trustees to develop a management plan for the land. Both the Bandelier National Park and the Santa Fe National Forest would have a trustee on the board. * full federal funding for Everglades National Park acquisitions and $45 million for state acquisitions attendant to Everglades (the state Everglades money is a separate allocation from the $40 million in state grant money). * $15 million for acquisition of the Catellus property in the California Desert (with the assumption an additional $15 million will be provided next year.) NONGAME BIG WINNER, BUT PLANNING DISAGREEMENT ARISES Nongame species that conservationists say are in serious decline are in line for some assistance - a $350 million per year program approved by the House Resources Committee November 10. In addition the Senate Energy Committee early next year may address counterpart legislation that would also establish a nongame species program at $350 million per year. There is one glitch. Some environmental groups object to the absence of language in the House committee bill (HR 3245). The language would require states to write specific plans on species protection in order to obtain grant money. The environmental groups, such as the Defenders of Wildlife, say most conservationists agreed to the language before the November 10 House committee meeting. "This is language we'd come up with in discussions with other groups such as the International (Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies) and environmentalists to require states to do strategic planning. It was supposed to be in there," said Mary Beth Beetham, a staff member with Defenders. The omitted language would require states to do such things as identify and protect indicator species. The International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA), the lead group behind the nongame program, agrees with Beetham. "We still stand by it," said Naomi Edelson, a staff member with the IAFWA. "We believe the language would improve the bill. But obviously we're thrilled the bill was marked up. We understand we couldn't get everything but there is a long way to go. However, we're making significant progress." The House Resources Committee included the $350 million for a nongame program in a comprehensive conservation bill (HR 3245) that would allocate roughly $3 billion per year from money generated by off -shore oil and gas royalties. For most of the programs, including nongame, the money would be off -budget, so it would be allocated automatically each year without further appropriations. The program wouldn't actually start receiving money until fiscal year 2002; during fiscal 2001 off -shore oil revenues would be put in the fund to be spent during the next fiscal year. If and when a nongame program kicked in, larger states would receive up to $17.5 million per year - each; included in that category are Alaska, California, New York and Texas. Smaller states would receive $1.75 million per year; included in that category are Delaware, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont. HR 3245 would provide no money for administrative expenses for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), which would manage the program. Presumably, FWS would have to obtain an appropriation from Congress JOHN CROMPTON -- 5 -- Tue, 23 Nov 1999 08:26:23 each year. The nongame program is needed, says a coalition of conservation groups, business representatives, and state and local officials, to counteract a decline in nongame species, particularly songbirds. The IAFWA said earlier this month, "Long-term bird surveys are making it clear that in every part of the continent and in most every habitat there are wild life species suffering significant losses." Although the Senate Energy Committee has not acted on a counterpart bill (S 25), committee chairman Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska) did prepare a new "mark" with a nongame provision for committee consideration November 3. That meeting was canceled before it began. At any rate herewith a summary of HR 3245 and the Murkowski proposal: * both would guarantee $350 million to state grants, with one-third of the money based on land amounts and two-thirds based on population, * the House bill would require a 25 percent match from states, while the Murkowski mark would require only a 10 percent match for the first five years, followed by a 25 percent match thereafter, * both would require the states to develop a comprehensive plan describing projects they would spend money on and submit the plan for approval by the Interior Department. However, the Senate would require a state to develop detailed prescriptions on species protection while the House bill would not, * both would provide money for wildlife conservation and restoration and both emphasize that the money "should be used to address the unmet needs for a diverse array of wildlife and associated habitats, including species that are not hunted or fished, for wildlife conservation, wildlife conservation education, and wildlife -associated recreation projects," * the House bill only would restrict a state's expenditure's for recreation projects to 10 percent of its allocation. NPS, COURT DON'T SEE EYE -TO -EYE ON DENALI SNO OBILE: o ' he Park Service and a federal court may be heading for a col ion snowmobiling in the core Denali National Park. NP roposed November 12 permanent exclusion of sno obiles from the core of nali, defined as the original Mount McKinley ational Park. That perm ent exclusion would follow up on an inte ' policy that has excluded sno obiles since February. But a federal co judge November 8 indicated i a nonbinding preliminary order will probably find the inte ' policy does not stand up to the law. this instance that law i the Alaska National Interest Lands Conse tion Act of 1980 ( ILCA); it set standards for closing Park Service lan in the state. Judge John W. Sedwick in aska said ' his preliminary order that the Park Service didn't define learly w at constituted snowmobile use that would be detrimental to pa res rces, didn't detail how much snowmobile use was anticipated where, and may have violated public hearing rules by making up its d out policy before holding the hearings. "The analysis set out in this der shows at the Decision is arbitrary and capricious bec se the absence any definition of traditional activities neces 'ly means that the ision contains no rational basis for the co usion that the use of sno chines for traditional activities in e Old Park is detrimental to the resource values of the Old Pa ," said Sedwick in his preliminary or in the case Alaska State owmobile Association v, Babbitt, USDC ska, No. A99-0059 CV ( S). However, Sedwick emphasized that the or was preliminary an did not represent a final order. An attorney r the snowmobilers, William Horn, said this week, "We are cautious optimistic we will prevail." Horn and the government presented al arguments November 12 to Judge Sedwick in reaction to the judg s preliminary order. Horn, f the firm Birch, Horton, Bittner, Inc. and a former aasis nt secretary of Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, said JOHN CROMPTON -- 6 -- Tue, 23 Nov 1999 08:26:24 .� .,. Sam -ort 1965, the Congress initiated x` In the Land and Water Conserva , f tion Fund. Money from off f ; shore oil leases was placed this fund and $900 million of it , each year was divided between ` the federal and state govern- ments to be used exclusively for C v N �I jLA acquiring and developing parks. i „In Texas, the state's allocation was passed through to local cons � � f- �� I munities in the form of grants Subsequently, Congress Wr, t!5 failed to r� � ,APO appropriate the full $90o mil- j lion annually. Instead, the money i was redirected to reduce the :annual deficit. In recent years, Y ii 'states t11e received zero dollars froin the fund. This year a concerted effort i as made to restore the original F; promise, When the situation was i ,explained to Rep. Kevin Brady, he quickly agreed to support the ., x ,effort. He is a'member of the House: Resources Committee which is responsible for initiat i. irig congressional action ®n the . fund. In this era of divisive partisan politics, this committee was able fi to act maturely and craft a bipar ,,`. j tisan bill. ®m Nov. 10, the corn � . mittee voted.37-12 to approve �' ' H.R. 701, which is termed the Conservation and Reinvestment -Act Itwill create permanent I appropriation authority for'th� full $9Q0 million annually out of the Land and Water Conserva Lion Fund. Under this act, Con gress will no longer have the option Of misappropriating these funds by allocating them else '° where each year. Every major ;park in both College Stati- d B yanshas 3, received financial graxif suppor from the state. A primary source > i of funding for those grants is the s state's share of the fund. If this pr®posed act becomes law, then' `.Texas' communities will receive 'fan additional $25 million a year .Afor park acquisition and develop ;) 3 merit. Givers the gro vvth of our'r�r i cities, it is `reasonable in the 411=future { for the two of them to l r expect perhaps $1 million per,.,-,, C year in grants from this source. : ,F, JOH.N L. CROMPTOIV ' �...-^College Station -� � .. .� f�,., �W � G.�' '� ,� J � � ,� �! � 1�� 4rA✓/'LAG! � ��.� f �; �� d _ , '� /,"� _� ;.. _.�. �- � � � �� ,Sfop au Geou qe &A L U'S pu pm /p(2PS(L)n- jpq 0 vsee Pee deco'aW wA opno7mens and c t OL25 5(2PV(2d y. Of ep on Wf k Ove,p o (�m�E�ooirt,�p�s mas LkisQ l9 &POA fPoM CoH(2ge SIGf bn Y t� a=:: ASA is the National Governing Body of Softball in the United States and a member of the USOC. The ASA numbers are staggering. There are over 60,000 umpires, 250,000 adult softball teams and 65,000 youth teams involved in ASA softball in the United States annually. Texas ASA is the largest association in the United States with 9,500 adult teams, 4,600 youth teams and 2,600 umpires. District 30 is the largest in Texas ASA. Texas ASA Annual Meetiniz in Killeen, Texas 2000 MeetingslSchoods Awarded. TAS® State Umpires School — January 22 Texas ASA Winter Meeting — January 28-30 Texas ASA State Umpire School — Feb 19-20 2000 Mate Tournaments Awarded. Girl's 10 & Under "B" Fast Ditch — June 16-18 Men's Mass 661S " Slow pitch — July 211-23 Men's Fast pitch — July 29-30 Woumten's Fast pitch — July 29-30 Men's Major & A Slow pitch — August 5 & 6 2000 Invitational Tourrnamernts., October 8-10, 1999 Ugh, High School Varsity Softball Tournament — Feb Il7-119 UfU High School JV Softball Tournament — March 23,25 (Girl's 10,12,14, & Under Fast Pitch — April 28-30 Girl's 10,12,14,16,18 & Under Fast ]Pitch — May 27-29 Girl's 10, 2,14, & Under Fast Pitch — Sept 23-24 1 Girl's 0,12,14, & Under Fast Pitch — Oct 21-22 Awards received. Texas ASA District of the year Top District Adult Team Registration Top District Total Team Registration Second District in Umpire Registration Fifth District in Youth team Registration 2000 National Tournaments in Brvan0Colleue Station: Men's Class 66A9l Fast pitch — September 1-4 ASA National Softball Conference in Dallas, Texas November 5-12, 1999 Expected Attendance 50 students 150 participants 60 students 60-70 teams 90-100 teams 20-25 teams 8-12 teams 18-24 teams 24 teams 20 teams 40 teams 75 teams 40 teams 40 teams ith consecutive year 1160 teams 1412 tenons 211 umpires 252 teams 24-30 teams 2001 National Tournaments awarded to BrvanlColleee Station. Men's fasters 40+ Fast pitch — August 24-27 32-40 teams Awards received. 8th consecutive year Award of Excellence for hosting a 1999 ASA National Tournament that was rated 90%, or higher, by the participating teams, umpires and ASA National staff present. 0 4( km -��Cm CLr"e 17m, --,CrAV-17011111,