The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01/14/2003 - Regular Agenda - Parks Board1. Call to order. 2. Pardon — possible action concerning requests for absences of members from meeting. 3. Hear visitors. 4. Public Hearing and possible action concerning the Recreation, Park, and Open Space Master Plan. 5. Discussion, consideration, and possible approval of minutes from the regular meeting of December 10, 2002, and the Board Tour of the Crowley Tract on January 7, 2003. 6. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning a request from residents of the Alexandria Subdivision for a neighborhood playground. 7. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning a park land dedication request for the Northgate Condominiums (Zone 1). 8. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning a park land dedication request for the "Trails at Neelley Ranch." (Zone 10). 9. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning park facilities for the Crowley Tract. 10. Presentation, discussion, and possible action concerning leisure program evaluations for Educational Programs. 11. Presentation, discussion, and possible action concerning the Fiscal Year 2003 Parks Maintenance Standards Report. 12. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning a College Station Independent School District report on growth trends and facility needs. 13. Report, discussion, and possible action concerning a school, park program in Houston, and the possible development of a similar program in College Station. 14. Report, discussion, and possible action concerning the future Capital Improvement Program. 15. Report, discussion, and possible action concerning the current Capital Improvement Program. 16. Review, discussion, and possible action concerning Board and Departmental Goals and Objectives, and City Council Strategies. 17. Discussion of next meeting dates and possible agenda items: - Regular Meeting on February 11, 2003. - Joint Meeting with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and the Planning and Zoning Commission on March 6, 2003. 18. 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 (979) 764-3517 or (TDD) 1-800-735-2989. Staff Present: Steve Beachy, Director of Parks and Recreation; Eric Ploeger, Assistant Director; Peter Vanecek, Senior Park Planner; David Gerling, Recreation Superintendent; Dana Albrecht, Recreation Supervisor; Jenny Hartsfield, Assistant Recreation Supervisor; Peter Lamont, Recreation Superintendent; Marci Rodgers, Senior Services Coordinator; Curtis Bingham, Parks Operations Superintendent. Board Members Present: John Nichols, Chair; Larry Farnsworth; Glen Davis; Jodi Warner; Don Allison; Bill Davis. Board Member Absent: Glenn Schroeder. Guest: George Mchean, College Station ISD Visitors: Jason Fikes, 1309 Danville Court, College Station, Texas Christina Livingston, 1203 Baywood Court, College Station, Texas Theresa Duncan, 1101 Luther Street West, #914, College Station, Texas Robert Crowley, 2319 Kendal Green, College Station, Texas la Call to order: The meeting was called to order by Chairman John Nichols at 7:00 p.m. 2, Pardon — possible action concerning requests for absences of members from meeting: Bill Davis made a motion to accept the absence of Glenn Schroeder as excused. Larry Farnsworth seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 3. Hear visitors: No visitors spoke during this item. 4. Public hearing and possible action concerning the Recreation, Park, and Open Space Master Plan: Eric Ploeger stated that a subcommittee of the Board was appointed that worked with staff to review revisions made to the Master Plan and offer suggestions. The original Master Plan was adopted by the City Council in July 1999, and the Department has been working on revisions from that plan. Eric discussed a list, included in the Board packets, which highlighted items that have been updated during the process (refer to Revised Recreation, Park, and Open Space Master Plan list). John Nichols asked if there were any comments from visitors. No comments were made. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Public Hearing and Regular Meeting Tuesday, January 14, 2003 Page 1 of 8 Glen Davis made a motion to accept the Recreation, Park, and Open Space Master Plan. Don Allison seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. Steve Beachy said that the plan would be taken to the Planning and Zoning Commission during a joint meeting with the Commission and the Board on March 6, 2003, and would then be presented to the City Council for approval. 5. Discussion, consideration, and possible approval of the minutes from the regular meeting of December 10, 2002, and the Board Tour of the Crowley Tract on January 7, 2003: Bill D. made a motion to approve the minutes from the regular meeting of December 10, 2002, and those from the Board Tour of the Crowley Tract on January 7, 2003. Jodi Warner seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 6. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning a request from residents of the Alexandria Subdivision for a neighborhood playground: This item pertains to a petition signed by residents of the Alexandria neighborhood for the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board to consider a request to install city playground equipment at the edge of the greenway space on the north end of Alexandria Drive (refer to the minutes of September 10, 2002, Item #3, and December 10, 2002, Item #3). Eric P. pointed to a location map showing the greenway in question that is located in Park Zone 10. He said that there are some funds available in that zone that were previously intended for development of Shenendoah Park. He added, however, that there is a significant impediment for the children who live in the Alexandria subdivision: they have to cross Barron Road to get to that park. Eric said that there have been informal discussions with the College Station Independent School District concerning the development of a joint school/park project in that area, but nothing has been determined at this time. Eric stated that he had spoken to the City's Greenways Coordinator, Judy Downs, who indicated that the developer had originally intended to dedicate the greenway to the City, but never did. Ms. Downs had also indicated that the developer has offered to sell the greenway to the City, but she does not think that the City would be interested in purchasing it. He added that at this time, the City could not develop anything on the greenway because it does not own the property. Glen D. asked if, hypothetically, the City did own the property, would there be an interest in, and the space to build, a playground. Eric responded that if the City did own the property, there would be enough space to build a small playground, however, it has been policy to have at least five (5) acres for a neighborhood park to 1) reduce maintenance costs, and 2) avoid having small, closely spaced parks. Jason Fikes with the Alexandria Neighborhood Association stated that the Association had received a letter that day (January 14 th) from the developer (Ed Froehling Builder, Inc.) stating the intention to donate the portion (approximately 11 acres) of the greenway in question to the City. Eric P. stated that if the Board wanted to pursue a playground in that area, there would need to be several public Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Public Hearing and Regular Meeting Tuesday, January 14, 2003 Page 2 oj'8 hearings involving the residents of the Alexandria Subdivision to determine what their playground needs were. Jodi W. said that the south end of the City is developing very rapidly, and asked about the possibility of placing temporary playground equipment at the property in question, and then moving it to another problem area south of town, if necessary, at a later time, thus recovering the cost. Steve said that it would be difficult to recover the cost. Although playground equipment could probably be relocated, half of the cost incurred would be placing surfacing down on the site. After some discussion, Mr. Fikes suggested scheduling a site tour of the greenway property with the Board. The Board requested staff to do the following: - Obtain a copy of the letter of intention from the developer; - Follow up with the developer; - Schedule a site tour of the property; - Provide a cost estimate of basic playground upgrades that have been done in that area; - Provide information showing how the developer dedicated the Alexandria Subdivision. The Department will come back to the Board with a report. This item was a report only, and no motion was made. 7. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning a park land dedication request for the Northgate Condominiums (Zone 1): Pete Vanecek pointed to a location map of the proposed development. He said that the proposed multi -family, eight dwelling -unit development is located at the corner of Cherry Street and College Main in the Northgate area. The total land dedication requirement would be .06 acres. The total cash dedication requirement would be $4,896. Staff is recommending acceptance of the fee in lieu of land. Bill D. made a motion to accept the fee in lieu of land for the Northgate Condominiums. Larry F. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. Glen D. asked if there had been any progress on acquiring three lots in the Northgate area for a potential park. Steve responded that the consultant the City hired to revise the Northgate Master Plan determined that those lots were not a suitable area for park land. So, the acquisition process is on hold. Steve does not know at this time if there is an alternative portion of land recommended in that zone. After some discussion, the Board was in consensus on requesting staff to obtain a report from the committee that is working on the Northgate Master Plan, and to carry forward to that Committee the motion that was made by the Board concerning Zone 1 during the September 10, 2002, meeting, which was: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Public Hearing and Regular Meeting Tuesday, January 14, 2003 Page 3 of 8 Glenn S. made a motion recommending that the Department actively pursue the acquisition of park land in the Northgate area, as well as protect park land dedication funds from being spent on "marginal" amenities, such as are in the Northgate Promenade area, Bill Davis seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously, 8. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning a park land dedication request for the "Trails at Neelley Ranch" (Zone 10): Eric P. stated that the park land dedication request came from developer Tony Jones. There is not a complete layout of the site available at this point, but Mr. Jones is proposing to dedicate the fee in lieu of land due to the close proximity to a park that is proposed in conjunction with the College Station Independent School District and Westfield Park. Staff is also recommending the acceptance of the fee. The proposed single- family, 400 to 410-unit development is located on the south side of Graham Road, east of Cypress Grove Middle School. The total land dedication requirement would be approximately 3.96 acres. The total cash dedication requirement would be approximately $222,400. Mr. Jones is proposing to develop the land in phases. Bill D. asked, if the land were to be developed in phases, and if the Board were to accept the fee in lieu of land, would they be committing themselves to the current fees. Steve stated that the fee is paid at the time the plat is filed, and would fall under the Park Land Dedication Ordinance and fee methodology current at that time. Bill D. made a motion to accept the fee in lieu of land. Larry F. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 9. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning park facilities for the Crowley Tract: Steve stated that staff recommends acceptance of the proposed 5.48-acre dedication (located at the extension of Decautur and Oxburge Drive, west of Highway 6, north of Greens Prairie Road) as presented during the Board tour on January 7, 2003. There was some discussion concerning the access to the park. Eric P. stated that the proposed Spring Creek Townhome development would generate $41,464 from park development fees. The City has not received a formal request from the Developer (Wallace Phillips), but he has indicated that he would like to build the park himself, in which case he may be required to produce a letter of credit for the $41,464 to be applied to the development fee for the park. If this request is made, it will be brought back to the Board at a later time. After some discussion, Bill D. made a motion to accept the land for the Crowley Tract. Glen D. seconded the motion with the provision that 1) there be adequate access to the park, and 2) the land bank be located exactly from the access back. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Public Hearing and Regular Meeting Tuesday, January 14, 2003 Page 4 of'8 10. Presentation, discussion, and possible action concerning leisure program evaluations for Educational Programs: Steve introduced Dana Albrecht, Recreation Supervisor; Jenny Hartsfield, Assistant Recreation Supervisor; and Marci Rodgers, Senior Services Coordinator. Dana A. discussed the program evaluation for Xtra Education (refer to program evaluation form). She stated that Xtra Education is an joint venture with the College Station Independent School District, and is designed to be a leisure educational activities program that utilizes facilities from both entities, as well as facilities from other agencies. Dana gave a background of the program, and distributed a progressive summary report (refer to Xtra Education Progressive Summary — 1996-2002). She added that Xtra Education is an Enterprise Activity, which is charged with producing its own budgetary needs. She stated that approximately 50% of the program's participants are College Station residents, approximately 30% are Bryan residents, and approximately 20% are residents from surrounding areas. Bill D. asked how cost accessible the classes were to all residents. Dana responded that the classes are very inexpensive, compared to the market. She added that the idea behind the program is to offer classes as inexpensively as possible. Staff recommends increasing involvement of area business and organizations, and upgrading the quality of the printed brochure. This item was a report only, and no motion was made. 11. Presentation, discussion, and possible action concerning the Fiscal Year 2003 Parks Maintenance Standards Report: Parks Operations Superintendent Curtis Bingham referred to the Fiscal Year 2003 first quarter Parks Maintenance Standards Report, included in the Board Packets, and highlighted some of the significant changes that have occurred since Fiscal Year 2002: - Athletics Facilities — There was a decrease in standards met, from 86% in the fourth quarter of Fiscal Year 2002, to 82% in the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2003 because the facilities are not highly used during the first quarter of the year. - Playgrounds — There was an increase in standards met, from 75% in the fourth quarter of Fiscal Year 2002, to 84% in the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2003 because of 1) the playground replacement in Anderson Park, and 2) maintenance done to the playground surfaces and decks. - Basketball Courts — There was an increase in standards met, from 83% in the fourth quarter of Fiscal Year 2002, to 90% in the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2003 because of maintenance that was done to the courts. - Sand Volleyball Courts — There was a decrease in standards met, from 93% in the fourth quarter of Fiscal Year 2002, to 87% in the first quarter of 2003 because 1) at the time the survey was conducted, some hard rains had just occurred, and 2) some of the courts had been vandalized. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Public Hearing and Regular Meeting Tuesday, January 14, 2003 Page 5 of 8 - Ponds — There was an increase in standards met, from 60% in the fourth quarter of 2002, to 68% in the first quarter of 2003 because 1) some of the ponds had been cleaned, and 2) there had been some maintenance repairs to decks and fishing piers. Curtis noted the following: - He had compared the first quarter numbers in fiscal year 2003 to the fourth quarter numbers in 2002 because there had been changes to the standards in 2002, and the fourth quarter numbers give a more accurate comparison. - Some of the categories have very few standards, so if one standard changes, then it greatly affects that category's standards met. - The Department intends to bring all fall surfaces up to standards on the playgrounds, as well as resurface some of the tennis and basketball courts. This item was a report only, and no motion was made. 12. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning a College Station Independent School District report on growth trends and facility needs: Steve stated that he was not prepared to make a formal presentation on behalf of the School District. However, he has included copies of the material that was presented to the City Council by the District in the Board Packets. He added that the City would be presenting information to the School District as well. A key part of this information exchange is that the School District is in a position to review the information and determine needs for future facilities, which will have an impact on the Department and potential joint ventures. Steve said that there is the potential of doing a joint project for an indoor recreation center with the School District and the City. Steve introduced George Mchean, who is the Director of Operations for the School District. Mr. Mchean stated that the District would be kicking off their fiscal budget process in March, so in the meantime, they would not be able to commit to any projects at this time. John N. asked what the timeline would be for submitting an indoor grant application. Steve stated that the indoor grant process occurs annually in the summer. He added that a decision would need to be made very quickly in order to submit a grant application in 2003--although realistically, it may be 2004 before this could happen. This item was a report only, and no motion was made. 13. Report, discussion, and possible action concerning a school, park program in Houston, and the possible development of a similar program in College Station: Eric stated that he had done some research on the possibility of school park projects similar to projects which have been done in the City of Houston, through a School Park Program called SPARK. This is a cooperative effort between the neighborhoods, the schools, the school district, and the private sector, to help Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Public Hearing and Regular Meeting Tuesday, January 14, 2003 Page 6 of 8 schools in areas most in need of park development. The parks are located on school property and maintained by the school district. Eric distributed information he had obtained from a website (refer to SPARK, School Park Program handout). He added that he had spoken to a representative of the City of Houston to find out how the program is funded. He found out that typically a school that wants such a development has to show a commitment and be willing to help plan and fund the project. Each school, with the help from community groups, raises $5,000 or more. The school district also provides a grant of $5,000. Schools located in low-income neighborhoods are entitled to federal Community Development Block Grants. Eric said that from what he could tell, this program is an effective way to obtain Community Development Block Grant money for these types of projects. Eric stated that the Community Development Block Grant funds in College Station are approved by the City Council, so there would not be a need to go through many organizations to obtain those funds. John N. stated that he had requested discussion of this item as a way for the Board to think about dealing more routinely with future Parent/Teacher Organizations and neighborhood inquiries for playground development. Steve stated that the intent of the discussion was to put together basic criteria that may give structure for future funding requests (similar to recent joint projects with the College Station Independent School District, the Rock Prairie PTO, and the South Knoll PTO to rubberize surfacing on the jogging tracks at Jack and Dorothy Miller Park and South Knoll Elementary School). After some discussion, the Board was in consensus on having staff develop a policy statement that would establish guidelines and criteria for future funding requests. Jodi W. and John N. volunteered to serve on a subcommittee of the Board if requested. This item will be placed on a future agenda for discussion. This item was a report only, and no motion was made. 14. Report, discussion, and possible action concerning the future Capital Improvement Program: Steve said that a list of selected members to serve on the citizens committee was included in the Board packets. He added that this committee would be meeting on Tuesday evenings, but that no schedule has been distributed at this time. Steve said that the City Manager asked the Public Works Director to include some money in the initial CIP projections for an indoor recreation center in the event that the School District could take part in the project. This item was a report only, and no motion was made. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Public Hearing and Regular Meeting Tuesday, January 14, 2003 Page 7 of 8 15. Report, discussion, and possible action concerning the current Capital Improvement Program: Eric P. stated that a list of the capital bond and park land dedication projects was included in the Board packets. He added that most of the capital bond projects are under construction or in design. The Department has also begun to work on the park land dedication projects, and some of those are under construction and in design. Glen D. asked if 1) the Department was on track with completion of those bond projects, where an expected completion date had been posted, and 2) if there were any of those projects on the list that the Department would not complete by the first quarter (March 2003). Eric stated that the Bee Creek Light Pole Replacement Project's completion date would need to be moved back. Glen D. had some concerns with the scheduling of the project. Steve explained that the scheduling would be determined by several factors, such as coordination with user groups. Glen D. asked when the Department would start working on the park land dedication projects that were listed on hold. Eric responded that the Department would start working on those projects in January and February, and that they were being implemented in accordance to direction from the Board (refer to minutes from September 10, 2002, Item #9). After some discussion, Glen D. asked if the Department could come up with a projected timeline for the implementation of the park land dedication projects. Eric stated that he could incorporate dates into the list, but that they would be very conservative estimates. This item was a report only, and no motion was made. 16. Review, discussion, and possible action concerning Board and Departmental Goals and Objectives, and City Council Strategies: This is a standing report item, and there was no discussion. 17. Discussion of next meeting dates and possible agendas: - Regular Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Meeting — Tuesday, February 11, 2003, at 7:00 p.m., at the EXIT Teen Center. - Joint Meeting with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and the Planning and Zoning Commission concerning revisions to the Recreation, Park, and Open Space Master Plan — Thursday, March 6, 2003, at 5:30 p.m., at City Hall. IS. Adjourn: Jodi W. made a motion to adjourn. Bill D. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the meeting adjourned at 9:49 p.m. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Public Hearing and Regular Meeting Tuesday, January 14, 2003 Page 8 of 8 Formula •. I • cost and d • program,:. Program - Adult Volleyball Days used Annual percentage of use Electricity (lights) I Annual cost I Percentage of use Daily preparation cost Days used Total cost Cost to program Total hours used {Total cost at $5.00 p/h Administration of program expenses (Administration total (Subtotal admin/facility I40% overhead IGrand total $ 15,061.00 $ 6,024.00 $ 21,085.00 (Cost of recovery Revenue I Percentage Total 66% Entries 100% $ 14,007.00 The Oty of 1 (C(Ahsge '921H,01M Tanzo' Embracing the Past, Exploring Me IFuturrea P.O. Box 9960 • 1101 Texas Avenue ® College Station, TX 77842 • (979) 764-3500 www.ci.college-station.tx.us MZI�YIl GRAI�TTiAIWT TO: Steve Beachy, Director of larks and Recreation FROM: Eric IPloeger, Assistant Director of Parks and Recreation,. DATE: December 18, 2002 SUBJECT. Mezzndirnm SulbdN,6shon Gireenv,,my. In September of 2002, a request was made of the Parks and Recreation Department to install play equipment in greenway property located on the north side of the Alexandria Subdivision. This greenway is one of the upper sections of Lick Creek. Currently, the ftbnds for this park zone are intended for development within Shennendoah 'ark. Barron Road, located on the southern boundary of the Alexandria Subdivision, will be a significant impediment to residents wanting to use Shennendoah bark. I checked with Judy Downs, the Oreenways Coordinator for the City of College Station, concerning the status of the greetpvay in question. At this time, the greenway is in possession of the developer, and has not been dedicated to the City. Ms. Downs indicated that the developer has offered to sell it to the City, but she does not think that the City would be willing to purchase it. Future park service for the Alexandria Subdivision is expected to be to the west at either the as yet undeveloped Westfield bark or a new park that would possibly be built in conjunction with a new elementary school, just south of the existing Cypress drove Middle School on CSISD property. These parks would be located approximately one half of a mile firom the Alexandria Subdivision. Development of these parks has not been scheduled. O/Ricl Park Land DedicationlAlexandna Subdivision Memo.doc Home of Texas A&M University Colic -go St geon murk Board G"'e f fa®n - Alexam elder SubaliviWon 114oventyber 2002 1 (We), as a resident (as residents) of AlexandriaSubdivision, request further investigation into the �acem nt of park equipment on, the North End of Alexandria in the gree way space. I (We) make this request for the purpose of community -wide and inftidu � farnfly bonding and in the interest of safe and 'convenient access to recreational space for our approximately 250 homes. Date! Address ReMdents (List each household member.) Phone N Emafl Address Signature(s) c?7 /1613...Gi+l-sf��9i � I �1 rc r; �cvr►ewr�. (,)i1� Il�9b--,,yZI ,tf��.ir�i /,��a?' �;� College Stagi®n Park Board Pe ff®on - Aleexandda Subdivision - November 00 Address Residents (List such h®usehoW member.) Phone # EmaH Address Signature(s) Ln// / ® d " 3,5 "yd B 9 G P r �'I�isi'asw►t' C Uc 313 rY1�+�1�`� sL� L,` � J��°�t�� .. I �9�-D�.��' �isa:� f�r��a��h� .�J/�✓ Is 4/ -1/ � ,s ,. �� . �r� r'on OJ el- 9:3 17e* ra G II Collegya Station Park Board Petition - Alexandria Subdivision - November 2002 � (We), as a resident (as residents) of Alexandria Subdivision, request further invesfigation into the placement of park equipiment on the North End of Alexandria in the greenway space. I (We) make this request for the purpose of oomun ty— ice and individual family bonding and iin the interest of safe and convenient access to recreational space for our approximately 250 homes.. Date Address Residents (List each household member.) Phone# Ernaii Address iqnature(() 3Y 1131f" (DAY I 110(o Nllu kGiam_t J. I l f,GSS O S 0 a 1 C940 y I-- ��2 11311 MAIV14 4 MAkr/A)e'Z College Stafson Pawk, Board Peffition - Alexandria, Subdivision - November 2002 1 (We), w. a resident (a residents) f Alexandria ubdMss,� 9 request fher investigation into the placement of park equipment on the North End of Alexandria in the greenway space® I (We) make this request for the purpose of community -wide an �ndivi ual frarnfly bonding and un the interest of safe and convenient access to recreational space for our approximately 250 homes. Cdi/ogee Station Park Board Petition - Alexandria ubdiv+ ion - November 2002 I (We), as a resident (as residents) Hof Abexandria SUbdMsion, request further investigation into the piacernent of park equipment on the North End of A9exandria in the reenwa, y space. I (We) make this request for the purpose of c® munit -wi e and individual family bonding and in the interest of safe and convenient access to recreational space for our approximately 250 homes. ®ate Address Residents (List each household member.) �.� �.�//l.� •-I � ' �C�� (Jam�s. ��`Sr�P � a�3'Zl,�vr�:e. /�1q�e�it �' l2 7 131b / I r I�s� loe✓lam _. 10._2 I �� 5- I I -t// I_ r - F� Im(0a Phone 0 Email Address Signature � - L 71 College Station Pare Board Petition © Mexandida Subdivision - November 2002 I (We), as a resident (as residents) of Alexandria Subdivision, request further investigation into the placement of peek equipment on the North End of Alexandria in the greenway specs. I (We) make this request for the purpose of community -wide and individual -f ile bonding and in the interest of safe and convenient access t® recreational space for our approximately 250 homes. Date Address Residents (Last each household member,) Phone 9 Email Address Signature(s) IV I LV I AV'�n ta+t-� ® I I I- ,,// ci j rL_t1us 12-Ot I t M 7e.rv- Y ire ,e of �I 1 - 06►h - Yd -I tt 12 1 130b HN (�4" a NA I� �ie5e i I l► I `� I � - I �� I I L� Coflege Station 'Jar k Board Petition - i--&andria Subdivision - Movember2002 I (We), as a residlent (as residents) of Alexandria SUbdivislon, request further investigation into the placement of park equipment on thel North End of Alexandria in the greenway space. I (VVe) make this request fort he purpose of commu-nity-wide and individual family bonding and in ffie interest of safe and convenient access to recreational space for our approAgnat ely 250 homes., D a t L. Address ResWents (List each household member.) Phone# Ernafl Address SignatUre(s) - L C4 C74 zt 3"'Rw C>' v -------- \X"zL ��1�6 p`Z-� �,� 0S`��'+1 Ul �� Q/7�C�fi'�11 f'7_� �U1�Z/ .�' -__ _--___��.��-�2.7 - - errs- f �z� Ron 6 /A /4Z( College Stagion Park Board 6 efflion - Alexandria Subdivision - November 2002 I (We), as a resident (as residents) of Alexandria Subdivision, reqUest further, investigation into the placement of pare equipment on the North End of Alexandria in the greenway space. I (We) make this request for the purpose of community -wide and �ndh dual -family bonding and in the interest of safe and oonven�ent accuse to recreational space Ibr OUr approximately 250 homes. IDate Address Residents (Ust each household member.) Phone ' EmMI Address ignature(s) _L` ta-o� a- -Do t�ItArlj _M 70-7w Rzalvbo( &1#1 1 i-ca" q _mg -I I College Station Park Boardi PefNeon - Avexanchla Subdivision - November 2002 I (We), as a resident (as residents) of Nexandria Subdivision, request further investigation into the placement of park equipment on the North End of Alexandria in the greenway space. I (We) make this request for the purpose of community wide and individuai famHy bonding and in the interest of safe and convenient access to recreafiona� pace for our approx rinately 250 homes. Date Address Residents (List each househdd member.) Phone EmaH Address Signature(s) VID I � 1 uu ; t . _I _. _ b�ac . W AS I � � ^ �, 3423 Mta , C}- I Jc4 Lane - ..A College Station Park Board" Petition - mexandrda Subdivision - Nlovember 2002 1 (We), as a resident (as residents) of Alexandria Subdivision, request further investigation into the placement of park equipment on the North End of Alexandria in the greer�iway space. I (We) make this request for the purpose of community -wide and individual family bonding and in the interest of safe and convenient access to recreationai SPEICe for Our approximaWy 250 homes. Date Address Residents (List each household member.) phone # Emailp, Address Signature(s) (7 -It- i _� ( Clu 5>c�— w -V 734-V College Staffon park- Boaf"d pefff®on Alexandrhe Subdivision - Nove—,awber 2002 9 (We), as a resident (as residents) of Alexandria SubdMsion, request further, �nvesfigation into the placement of parkequipment on the North End of Al xn r a in the greenway epees. I (We) make this request for the purpose of community -wide and �ndhfidu l family bonding and in the interest of safe and convenient access to recreational space for our approximately 250 hornes. Late Address Residents (List each household member.) Phone # Email Address Signature(s) fit-to-aal I C-5- --x.-sl,� �—�itR n n�►� . �, .;, cr—ta-� t - i 1- Nr 1'� ®� � q C)A ci q a _ �OJMYI G�pia--� I(odl��►� �i, l 7` 11-2-5-0213147 el 6 /'FM r d ge 35'fl) WO /✓�- e G'L,�i� UWIaLA - CA Codde e St an Park Board Petition - Alexandria Subdivision - -November 2002 I (We), as a resident (as resodent) of Alexandria Subdivision, regUe t further' investigation into the placement of park equipment on the North End of Alexandria in the greenway space. I (We) make this request for the purpose of community -wide and individual family bonding and in the interest of safe and convenient access to recreational space for OUr approximately 250 homes. Date Addy'ass Residents (List each household inember.) Phone N EmaH Address SIgn ture(s) r O2131713AYWOOD � Na ��rzts�r�r�� - d eq , 4,"Y , /Iwftz k 4,14 n 1(`b--3o 3 I kT , VC (jo�a0R� I I I I I► . o2-I(3f'7 6IIJ 0 Da0 [.A I. 1, a� d e.✓ z I a�✓ t l ac. U-�C. � a16ZIN30 - i 1F,( jam ` 11,.E1 A.��A I loo.-q�-SZ) I i I Zele- � I r t o w� I I I GW CXV_wSwN0 Cz/,��VV r3a3 z��®I� e�4AF— 4,4J J'�®,�bcA 4,:1,ioiz� 61 a,Baba : 2- j -I�k�� cY �t:t 1 �� e-j) I S� ��eenZt College Station Pare Board Pefflion - Alexandria Subdivision - November 2002 i (We), as a resident (as residents) of Alexandria Su divisbn, request further investigation into the placement of perm equipment on the North End of Alexandria in the greenway space. i (We) make this request for the purpose ul co muni1y-wide and individual family bionding and in the it rest of safe, and convenient access to recreational specs for our approximately 250 homes. 1ni ate Address Residents (List each household ember.) Phone Email Address 1 zc" y� v'i 1 le }mi ilk �caceav, _ 1 Ai i "1 (JaXc� M.� i 15 �F-I�� ® I )212 �pran��AAQ i�N,alsT ,!"+�Ac� �.,?ae'r+DoaS �1g-6�'It�'31iv �CSun+s21 Mse. .,._:..-- J.7� fatt i u�lle Ln. [�-KjCto- a�Tsaac i3e� �i� (a�o l lFo-cog.-R`Co6Irdp�tbi a yal,ro.co�� .�acc q �a` � � Y J l t ( G5� ti� `tec. dj c, c. YOB• -7q --354�.d oo tSw 7a- nnwY . Cunp,ij a I �t?fkl2Co I ,�,p�s'v C C�s�u lr% Mize,• e-t�/ ---'' 1- Co fte Station Park Board Petition a Aie an rja Subdivision o November 2002 i (We), as a resident (as residents) of Alexandria Sub&vision9 request further investigation into the placement of park equipment on the North End of Alexandria in the greenway space. i (We) make this request for the purpose of community -wide and indivldu l family bonding and in the interest of safe and convenient access to recreational space for our approxic aWy 250 homes. Date Address Residents Quest each household member.) Phone # Ernafl Address i ta,4r (� 11 CM t t �q 11304 ffiut�'%SlmA i6�_ �a P Vn P v1/1 I .i '67 C149 Fuwl *6us_ y Collies Station Park Board Petition - Mexa ndfia Subdivftlon - November r 002 l (We), as a resident (as residents) of AlexandriaSubdivision, ion, r gUeSt Earthen investigation into the placement of park equipment on the North End of Aiexandria in the greenw y specs. I (We) make this request for the purpose of community -wide and i divide I female bog a ndl in the interest of safe and convenient access t® recreational space for our approximately 250 homes. Date Addrww ResBdents (Lest each household member.) 111hone # El afl Address Siqnatur (s �... ., ..._, y I` �� N►anc��n-�'Cr�na faa�<one arrh�90 _�-- ---L "! tea►✓ ,.., eqo T + tt�t`7 li2id Mr�.�'hhA� � Ca�la� �., �v'+1,�,� Ccer-io�, Q•a�`os� � � o• `� � _ - -,_ 4 n4�- jo , AIIA a'' P ------------ College Station Park Board Petition a Alexandria Subdivision - November 2002 1 (We), as a resident (as residents) of Alexandria Subdivision, request further investigation into the placement of park equipment on the North End of Alexandria in the greenway specs. I (We) make this request for the purpose of community -wide and individual family bonding and in the interest of safe and convenient access to recreational space for our approximately 250 homes.: Date Address Residents (Last each household member.) 'hone Email Address Signaturs(s) -ao I I '*"A if'la- Y ! n�� (I CcWoge Station Park Board Peddoff'. Alexandria Subdivision - November 2002 l (We), as a resident (as residents) of Alexandria Subdivision, request further irnvestigafion into the placement of park equipment on the North End of Alexandria in the greenway space. l (WE:,,,) make this request for the purpose of community -wide and individual family bonding and in the interest of safe, and convenient access to recreationalspace for our approximatOy 250 homes Colle-ge Staggon Park Board Pefflion - Alwxanaifda Subdivision ®- November 2002 I (We), as a resident (as residents) of Alexandria Subdivision, request tFurther investigation into the placement of park equipment on the North End of Mxandria in the green ay space. I (We) make this request for the purpose of community --wide and individua� farnHy bonding and in the interest of safe and convenient access to recreational specs .for our approximately 250 homes. Date Address Res! - dents (Ust each househdd member.), Phone # EmaH Address Signature(s) 61I jj()� I V Z. --5.* 2 3 1 G_ 90 7Z rp 4t/-/OJO 1141 L /P Z,10 :.' 7 LI �/�� I On& t /7�0/"O '7 TAA 5 L-d V-5 I Mfj f2i i n< t (Uj TO I lard�" 5 �SAm"0311�31' College Station Park Board iPeUtion - A,xandrha Subdivision - November 2002 I (We), as a resident (as residents) of Alexandria Subdivision, request further investigation into the placement of park equipment on the No End of Aexandria in the greenway space. I (We) make this request for the purpose of community-wiclIe and individual frarnily bonding and in the interest of safe; and convenient access to recreafionl�i space for our approximately 250 homes. Date Addresidants (List each household member.) Phone # Ernafl Address Signature(s) Ter r O-m%.te,�5,0 n I_ I Tra �� 1-- I_ I - I _ �. Ue sonI - I "0- I L a,4 e -:zI !ir - S - _� 12" CM Ot. We,#A 4*16RU0801 el Ua College Skagion P-1,ark, Bard Pefflion - lexan-Yria ugbu w,!z§,on - November 2002 I (We), as a resident (as residents) of Alexandria Subdivmion, request further investigation into the � oe gent of park equipment on the North Enos of Alexandria on the greenway space. I (We) make this request for the purpose of oo mun ty-wide and ondMduau family bolding and in the interest of safe and convenient access to recreational space for our approximately 250 homes. I ate Address ResWents (List each household member.) Phone # EmaH Address Signatures) ,/ ell. � l� II tv/oz 1iZi3 /Iulllvis 6.I't- I: Amy / f I ZIG A4z, rO CD e -r j dr ( 4` Cc� c& 421&�S I t�RD— t�% (I wu &VG5Qf .4 i -7loz Lbv,,2 mi[&,,s �• ( Varu i r �-7 ��p � ��aq.�o •co , 11 /� 11aZ _ I,�3 I1�`��L10�i`a (� cada�kSO.2c�i Z 9a�wes.`aal��,.t� •'�owui c ,I IcOq®_- iooEsI M4fih s c4- I �u.L c 4c—At Fu t c,a L% I c�� --�? � ICAe4Q-5 & w4, -- � 0�4 I-V *0 A4 I I 4f L +�I*YA �2�•�� •L�"7 it7/(✓I �,kj - - �L�` `.1olt-C �e�l`T~' � "t�SC • �L�`.ult , 10�-.I lard rwvlv,5 &-t D-,Ol icwn-�" 0b5 College Station Park Board Peeftion -mexandria, Subdivishim - 4ROuvemher 2002 I (We), as a resident (as residents) of A�exandria Subdivision, request further investigation into the placement of park equipment on the North End of Aexaindria in the greenway space. i (We) make this request for the purpose of community -wide and MdMduaG farnHy bonding and in the interest of safe and convenient access to recreation ai space "for our approximately 250 homes. Date Addr Residents (List each household member.) Phone # Ehmff Addmss SianaturWsl 0 College Station Park Board Petition - Afaxandria Subdivision - November 2002 I (We), as a resident (as residents) of Alexandria Subdivision, request furthceir investigation into the placement of park equipment on the North End of Aexandria in the greenway space. I (We) make this request for the purpose of community -wide and individua� r roily bonding and in the interest of safe and convenient access to recreational space for our approximately 250 homes. Date Address Residents �Ust each household mernber.) Ph"ane E-Mail Addi'ass Signature(s) r t046'.s 0'�Cxefncie- r3 Ct C.,io Q vt I - I o a fi��.l a r ?,: a� Cjnrv� C\- 0 U C.VIIS YOqb,? �r4 4n� NAP 1- 1z L V"6 1 i �� - � I I � _ 7oy%� L—t Comega Station Park Board Petition - A. zandria Subdivision - November 2002 I (We), as a resident (as residE%Ints) of Alexandria Subdivision, request further investigation into the placement of park equipment on the North End of Alexandria in the gremnway spaaice, I NI'Ve) k make this request for the purpose Of COMMUnity-wide and individual farn illy bonding and in the interest of scafe. and convenient access to recreational space for our approximately 250 homes. D*e Addiess Residents (List each household member.) Phone # Email] Address Signature(s) Zf C��" -221,11-11 A on 4 '`, -�I ,.�� / �L o-&t6 v v Vi L- - - --- - - - - �U ---_-_ i_ -- __ . C, VA r, Aci A College Sta ion Pare Board Fleffidon - Alexandria ubar vris®on - November 2002 (We), as a resident (as residents) of Alexandria Subdivision, request further investigation into the placement of park equipment on the North End of Alexandria in the greenway space. I (We) make this request for the purpose of community -wide and individual family bonding and in the interest of safe and convenirant access to recreafion � space for our approximately 250 homes. Date Address Residents (List each household membm ere) Phone rrnao@ Address Signature(s) �� I 11 I ry f -- VI 1lq�o? (ICa9 G�Ii�ll�u� �,5 8-JI ( k90-37v I ;2�hltz 1 [3!1 �t _ \NI 1 W c, c _ _ I t jo 36 IAO Date Received: 12/31/02 Park Zone: 1 Current Zone Balance: $168,288 Project Location: 317 Cherry Street Name of Development: Northgate Condominiums Applicant: John Linq Yatto Address: 718 Summerqlenn City/State: College Station, Texas Phone Number: 979-846-4076 FAX: 979-846-4076 E-mail: aifuedow.com Engineer/Planner: Christian Galindo Address: 3833 South Texas Avenue, Suite 213 City/State: Bryan, Texas Phone Number: 979-846-8868 FAX: 979-846-8868 E-mail: chrisgal a(�mvriad.net SECTION 10-E-1: Land Dedication Single Family Dwelling Units: Multi -family Dwelling Units: 8 Total Land Requirement:.06 acre Proposed Dedication: 0 Acres Acres O:\Board\Park Land Dedication\Checklists\Originals\Long Version Park Land Dedication Project Review Checklist.dot Revised 817102 Has the Planning & Zoning Commission's approval been obtained? Land Fee: Single Family Fee ($198/dwelling unit): Multi -family Fee ($160/dwelling unit): $160 x 8 = $1,280 Total Acquisition Fee: Single Family Fee ($358/dwelling unit): Multi -family Fee ($292/dwelling unit): $452 x 8 = $3,616 Total Single Family Fee: ($556/Dwelling Unit): Total Multi -family Fee ($452/Dwelling Unit): $4,896 Required development cost: Staff review date and comment: Parks Board review and decision: Is the proposed park less than five (5) acres? N/A If yes, staff recommends: SECTION 10-113-7: Prior Park Acquisition Is there an existing neighborhood park that can serve the proposed development? No If yes, staff recommends: SECTION 10-E: Comprehensive Plan Is the proposed park dedication in compliance with the City Comprehensive Plan and the Park Master Plan? Comments: SECTION 10-F: Additional Information 1. Is land in the 100-year floodplain? Yes a. Detention/Retention Size: Acreage in floodplain:.1,405 Acreage in detention: Acreage in greenways: Comments: b. Does the location require users to cross an arterial road? c. Topography: d. Trees/Scenery: 2. a. Is the land adjacent to a school? No b. Restricted access: c. Is there screening if the park joins a non-residential use? Percentage: 30% Meets Board Policy: Percentage: 30% Percentage: Percentage: d. Park perimeter percentage that abuts a street: STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. Staff recommends acceptance of the cash dedication in lieu of land. Parks & Recreation Board: City Council: C7 SITE AND DRAINAGE PLAN 0.4657 ACRE OWNER/DEVELOPER: DATE: DECEMBER I8. 2002 w N IJOHN FU m LING YU HE ( 317 CHERRY STREET DESIGNED B:TCAG KD 7T8 SUMMER GREEN DESIGNED BY:7KDALINDO ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS, INC. e = COLLEGE STATION, 7X 77840 NORTHGATE CONDOMINIUMS REVISIONS: �" PHONE: (979)-846-4078 mu 3833 SOUTH TEXAS AVE.. SUITE 213 BRYAN. TEXAS 77802 970-848-8868 Date Received: 1/8/03 Park Zone: 10 Current Zone Balance: $112,575 Project Location: South side of Graham Road, east of Cvoress Grove Middle School Name of Development: "Trails at Neellev Ranch" Applicant: Tonv Jones, Aqaieland Builders, L.L.C. Address: 3205 Earl Rudder South City/State: Colleqe Station, Texas Zip: 77845 Phone Number: 979-693-6699 FAX: 979-695-2741 E-mail: aqqroup(@txcvber.com Engineer/Planner: Ash/Brown Address: City/State: Phone Number: E-mail: FAX: SECTION 10®13®1 o Land Dedication, Single Family Dwelling Units: 400 to 410 Multi -family Dwelling Units: Total Land Requirement: 3.96 Acres Acres Proposed Dedication: Cash Acres O:\Board\Park Land Dedication\Checklists\Originals\Long Version Park Land Dedication Project Review Checklist.dot Revised 817102 Has the Planning & Zoning Commission's approval been obtained? No Land Fee: Single Family Fee ($198/dwelling unit): 400 x $198 = $79,200 Multi -family Fee ($160/dwelling unit): Total Acquisition Fee: $79,200 Single Family Fee ($358/dwelling unit): 400 x $358 = $143,200 Multi -family Fee ($292/dwelling unit): Total Single Family Fee: ($556/Dwelling Unit): $556 x 400 = $222,400 Total Multi -family Fee ($452/Dwelling Unit): Required development cost: N/A Staff review date and comment: Parks Board review and decision: Is the proposed park less than five (5) acres? N/A If yes, staff recommends: SECTION 10-13-7: Prior Park Acquisition Is there an existing neighborhood park that can serve the proposed development? Yes (Westfield, Shennendoah, Edelweiss Gartens, and Castleqate) If yes, staff recommends: Staff recommends acceotina the cash dedication in lieu of land. SECTION 10-E: Comprehensive Plan Is the proposed park dedication in compliance with the City Comprehensive Plan and the Park Master Plan? Yes Comments: 1. Is land in the 100-year floodplain? a. Detention/Retention Acreage in floodplain: Acreage in detention: Acreage in greenways: Comments: Percentage: Size: Meets Board Policy: b. Does the location require users to cross an arterial road? c. Topography: d. Trees/Scenery: 2. a. Is the land adjacent to a school? b, Restricted access: Percentage: Percentage: Percentage: c. Is there screening if the park joins a non-residential use? d. Park perimeter percentage that abuts a street: STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends acceptance of the cash dedication in lieu of land because of the development's close proximity to a park that is proposed in coniunction with the Colleae Station Independent School District and Westfield Park. Parks & Recreation Board: Approved January 14, 2003 (approval of the fee in lieu of land). Planning & Zoning Board: City Council: 0 9 . . ........ Jo Program Name: Xtra Education Brief Description: Community wide leisure arts education Drogiain designed to enhance the oualitv of life in our community. Xtra Education is a ioint venture mogram between CS Parks and CSISD that fosters a continual education orocess for residents of all ages. Location(s): Area wide class locations. Parks facilities. CSISD canivuses, Messina Hof Wineries, Heirloom Gardens. Producer's Cooverative, Confections Bakery, Scrapbook Country, Brewmasters, Brazos Fly Fishers and other specialty locations. Date(s): Xtra Education classes are offered each Fall and Spring semester. Classes are scheduled in coniunction with the local academic calendars both to best utilize CSISD facilities and to accommodate Patrons needs. Target Market Age: all ages Gender: classes for all Xtra Education offers a wide range of classes for all ages and interest areas. Some class series are specially designed for specific age groups to better serve age specific needs. Number of participants: 3000 participants annually Maximum Possible Participation: unlimited Percent Satisfied on program evaluation: 98% Fees: Xtra Education is an entemrise activity, which is charged with producing all its own budgetary needs. TIc classes are set up on a break-even basis for a. reauired minimum number of students. After the minimum number of students have enrolled the class is then officially "made." Any additional enrollment in that class will then begin to build the funds needed for brochure printing, marketing, and advertising. Each class setup is structured independently to ensure that the instructor's fee, supplies, and handouts are all covered in the registration fee. Budget: Xtra Education werated on a yearly budget of $79.000 that covered the entire program generated expenses. All of the appropriated monies were not disbursed to cover the exvenscs for FY 01-02. The total amount of budget money left has yet to be determined at this voint. Traditionally Xtra will return about $20k to the budgetary funding account for the next year, Expenditures: All of the costs generated by the Xtra Education program are covered from the fees generated in the class registration fees. Xtra suvoorts all of the instructor's fees, materials, supplies, brochure Drinting, distribution and mailing, marketing, and advertising. Xtra utilizes City of College Station. CSISD and local business facilities at no charge to the vrogram. Revenues: Xtra Education generates enough revenue each semester to -Day for all of the moararn offerings and adds revenue each semester to the overall enternrise fund. The total revenue fund for FY 0 1 - 02 has not yet been determined. Historically Xtra Education has generated and additional $45K in addition to budget savings. Survey Results (If available): Program is widely enioved by all sectors of our community with verN, favorable results. The oroaram has continued to grow since its first offering in Fall 1996. Our instructors are very well verse in their specific areas of expertise and most are teaching out of eniovinent of teaching an eager group of students. Staff comments: Xtra Education is only limited by the administrative manpower available and by the facilities it can utilize. I am continuously atteniotin2 to develop and foster new relationships within the TAMU system. CSISD school district local business and area wide organizations. What are the benefits of the Program? The program offers low cost educational opportunities to versons of all ages, needs and backgrounds. We offer classes for personal enrichment, development of coinouter skills for work and home, introduce all areas of fine arts with beginning level instruction in drawing. painting, oils, watercolor and calligraDIrv, music studies and guitar classes, dance classes for all ages, outdoor education, cooking and fine dining experiences, multiple levels of gardening and environmental enhancement. Canine training —and develoruncrit classes, multi -media arts, manv foreign language oDDortunities. sewing and needleworks, arts and crafts Droiects for each season, health and exercise, voaa and water aerobics, learn to swim program, tennis instruction, and competitive team events. Continue Program:. Yes / No Why or why not? Definitely YES. If continued, what changes should be made? Increase involvement of area businesses and organizations and ITIRIMMUM5 3 Quarterly Periods- First Ouarter. FY 2003 Overall % of Standards Met: 84% Second Ouarter. FY 2003 Overall % of Standards Met: .% Third Ouarter. FY 2003 Overall % of Standards Met: .% Fourth Ouarter. FY 2003 Overall % of Standards Met- .% Categories ff. Athletic Facilities: Competitive Fields East South West Average % of standards met 1st Quarter 86% 75% 84% 82% 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter It. Playgrounds East South West Average % of standards met lst Quarter 82% 87% 83% 84% 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter III. Picnic Facilities East South West Average % of Standards met 1st Quarter 87% 88% 90% 88% 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter IV. Tennis Courts East South West Averae_e % of Standards met 1st Quarter 91% 91% 73% 85% 2nd Quarter Yd Quarter 4th Quarter V. Basketball Courts East South West Avera_ee % of Standards met 1st Quarter 88% 95% 87% 90% 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter VIo Sand Volleyball Courts East South West Averaee % of Standards met 1st Quarter 78% 93% 89% 87% 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 41h Quarter VII. Ponds East South West Avera_ee % of Standards met 1" Quarter 53% 75% 75% 68% 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter VIII. Parks- General Parrs East South West Averae_ e % of Standards met 1st Quarter 83% 82% 94% 86% 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 41h Quarter Overall District Averages East South West Overall % of Standards Met 1st Quarter 81% 86% 84% 84% 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 41h Quarter QuarrteirRy Periods- First Ouarter. FY 2002 Overall % of Standards Met: 77% Second Ouarter. FY 2002 Overall % of Standards Met: 83% Third Ouarter. FY 2002 Overall % of Standards Met: 85% Fourth Ouarter. FY 2002 Overall % of Standards Met: 81% Categories g. Athletic Facilities: Competitive Fields East South 1st Quarter 74% 76% 2nd Quarter 88% 85% 3rd Quarter 92% 81% 4th Quarter 91% 75% II. Playgrounds East South I" Quarter 83% 88% 2"d Quarter 89% 89% 3rd Quarter 85% 84% 4th Quarter 72% 83% Ill. Picnic Facilities East South Vt Quarter 88% 87% 2"d Quarter 90% 90% 3rd Quarter 94% 83% 4th Quarter 89% 86% IV. Tennis Courts East South I" Quarter 83% 62% 2nd Quarter 91% 75% 3rd Quarter 95% 78% 4th Quarter 90% 87% V. Basketball Courts East South I" Quarter 86% 96% 2"d Quarter 89% 100% 3rd Quarter 94% 96% 4th Quarter 81% 98% West Average % of standards met 74% 75% 82% 85% 88% 87% 91% 86% West Average % of standards met 55% 75% 75% 84% 79% 83% 71% 75% West Averaee % of Standards met 81% 85% 83% 88% 90% 89% 82% 87% West Averae_e % of Standards met 65% 70% 61% 76% 68% 80% 68% 82% West Averae_e % of Standards met 75% 86% 82% 90% 85% 92% 71% 83% VI, Sand Volleyball Courts East South West Average % of Standards met 1st Quarter 63% 77% 90% 77% 2nd Quarter 97% 86% 100% 94% 3rd Quarter 78% 89% 100% 89% 4th Quarter 82% 96% 100% 93% MINNEW, �,W East South West Averae_ e % of Standards met 1st Quarter 43% 85% 57% 62% 2nd Quarter 57% 75% 53% 62% 3rd Quarter 69% 71% 79% 73% 4th Quarter 45% 72% 62% 60% VIII, Parks: General Parks East South West Average % of Standards met 1st Quarter 85% 79% 84% 83% 2nd Quarter 86% 82% 82% 83% 3`d Quarter 94% 80% 94% 89% 4th Quarter 81% 84% 89% 85% Overall District Averages East South West Overall % of Standards Met 1" Quarter 76% 81% 73% 77% 2nd Quarter 86% 85% 77% 83% 3rd Quarter 88% 83% 85% 85% 4th Quarter 79% 85% 79% 81% NOTE: The Maintenance Standards for Parks Facilities and the Maintenance Standards Survey was revised during the fourth quarter. PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT & PARK LAND DEDICATION PROJECTS FY 2002-03 January 7, 2003 & Dorothy Miller Joppinq Track Veterans Park, Phase I Madeley Park Anderson Playground Replacement Thomas Pool Renovation Thomas Pool Shade Cover (Lick Creek Park Development, Phase I Southwood Athletic Park Improvements Southwood Athletic Park Soccer Fence Bee Creek Batting Cages & Backstops Thomas & Adamson Pool Lighting C.S.S.C. Agreement (clubhouse) Southwood Senior League Dugout Covers ,e Creek Light Pole Replacement ;Central Park Lighting Improvements (Central Park Softball Field Improvements (Hensel Park Playground Replacement Cemetery Land Acquisition Complete Complete Complete Complete Under Construction Under Construction Under Construction Under Construction Under Construction Under Construction Under Construction Pending Contract In Design In Design Out to Bid 1/9/03 Out to Bid 1/7/03 Postponed On Hold David ST0200 Ric PK9941 Pete David Ric Ric Pete David Pete David Pete Pete Pete Pete David Pete Ross PK9706 PK0215 PK0205 PK0104 PK0069 PK0076 N/A PK0301 PK0302 PK0300 PK0303 PK0101 PK0300 PK0210 GG9905 $29,250 FY'02 General Fund $2,936,800 '98 G.O. $48,000 '98 G.O. $39,950 FY'02 Replacement $277,255 FY'02 $19,000 '98 G.O. $478,000 98 G.O. /TPWD Grant $119,000 '98 G.O. $12,000 FY'03 General Fund $25,000 FY'03 General Fund $16,000 FY'03 General Fund $0 C.S.S.C. $7,200 Improvement Fund $68,000 '98 G.O. $17,000 '98 Bond $24,200 Improvement Fund $40,000 $275,000 '98 G.O. CIP Summary Complete 4 Under Construction 7 Bids Received 0 Pending Contracts 1 Out to Bid 2 In Design 2 Postponed 1 On Hold 2 9/31/02 11/02 8/02 10/02 3/03 3/03 10/03 2/03 2/03 3103 3/03 Unknown 3/1/03 5/03 2003 3/03 Unknown 9/13/02 $ 61,643.20 11 /6/02 12/02 10/15/02 Park Land Dedication Northqate Park Acquisition On Hold Zone 1 Funds (Wolf Pen Creek Trails In Design Zone 3 Funds �Raintree Improvements On Hold Pete NA $0 Zone 4 Funds IWindwood IJnprovemerlts On Hold Pete NA $0 Zone 4 Funds Edelweiss Park Pedestrian Bridge & Vegetation I Under Construction David PK0216 $15,000 Zone 5 Funds 03103 (Southwood Athletic Park Playground Covers I In Design Pete NA $20,000 Zone 5 Funds 03/31/03 Brothers, Fitch, Miller Benches I On Hold David NA $25,000 Zone 5 Funds Jack & Dorothy Miller Park Playground Cushion On Hold David NA $0 Zone 5 Funds Southwood Sidewalks I On Hold Pete NA $0 Zone 5 Funds Longmire Park Plavqround & Picnic Unit On Hold Pete NA $0 Zone 5 Funds (South Knoll Rubber Cushion Agreement Complete Ric NA $8,000 Zone 6 Funds Anderson Walk and Benches I On Hold David NA $30,000 Zone 6 Funds Bee Creek Benches I On Hold David NA $10,000 Zone 6 Funds Anderson Park Swing Set On Hold David NA $10,000 Zone 6 Funds labbard Park Sidewalk I On Hold David NA $35,000 Zone 6 Funds Woodway Park Development I Shenandoah Park Development I Pebble Creek Park ImprovementstTot Playground I Note: $® budget - To be detemined Pending Land Acq. Ric PK9803 $600,000 Zone 7 Funds Unknown On Hold Pete NA On Hold Pete NA I - Intergenerational Project $0 Zone 10 Funds $0 Zone 11 Funds Park Land Dedication Complete 0 Under Construction 1 Bids Received 0 Pending Contracts 0 Out to Bid 0 In Design 2 Pending Land Acquisition 1 Postponed 0 On Hold 13 Page 2 - ma* Embracing the Past, Exploring the Future! City of College Station Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Fiscal Year 2003 Goals (Not Prioritized) Establish policies and standards for re -appraisal of existing parks, facilities, and services offered by the Department • Review quarterly park maintenance standards reports and develop recommendations regarding levels of service (VS2SLa) (First report on January 14, 20031). • Develop a long-term replacement schedule for playgrounds, court surfacing, and other key facilities (VS2SLa) El Evaluate all leisure service programs offered by the Department and develop recommendations for improvements (VS2S2.b) (In progress — Aquatics, presentation on November 12 1h meeting; Athletics presentation scheduled for Dec. 10"'). 0 Develop recommendations for implementation of an Urban Forest Management Plan (VS2SI. b) (Plan presented to Council on September 26, 2002). Provide more interaction between Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and Planning and Zoning Commission, and shared vision with the City Council 11 Monitor status of Unified Development Ordinance (VS3SL a) * Conduct a joint meeting with the City Council to discuss Board goals and objectives (October 24, 2002). * Conduct a joint meeting with the City Council to report on the progress of Board goals and objectives 1:1 Conduct a joint meeting with the Planning and Zoning Commission to discuss Board goals and objectives and other issues (Scheduled.fbr March 6, 2003). Provide oversight for the implementation of the Capital Improvement Program • Woodway Park site plan approval • Shenandoah Park site plan approval • Develop a plan for the use of existing Park Land Dedication Funds (September 10, 2002) • Lincoln Center/Tarrow Park site plan approval (Presentation of survey to Board on November 1211). • Complete all remaining 1998 Bond Fund projects Provide planning and coordination for the 2003 Bond Election (VS2S2.e) • Review and update submitted CIP list • Develop additional recommendations for the CIP • Staff/Board presentation to the Citizens Bond Committee Review and update the Recreation, Park, and Open Space Master Plan (VS3S2.d) 21 Staff review and update of the current Master Plan, Section I — Introduction (September 2002) Parks and Recreation Advisory Board FY2003 Goals and Objectives Board Approval: September 10, 2002 Council Approval: October 24, 2002 Updated: January 2, 2003 Page 1 of 3 Cl Staff review and update of Section V — Inventory and Facilities (September 2002) 0 Staff review and update of Section VI — Needs Assessment and Identification (September 2002) 0 Board subcommittee review and comments regarding proposed updates for Section 1, IV, and VI (October 2002) 0 Board subcommittee review and comments regarding Section VII — Prioritization of Needs and Plan Implementation (November 6, 2002) 0 Board subcommittee review and comments regarding Section III — Plan Development Process (October 2002) El Completion of the Parks and Recreation Department 5-Year Strategic Plan 11 Public input period for the revised Master Plan (January 2003) D Board consideration of the revised Master Plan (January 2003) 1:1 Planning and Zoning Commission consideration of the revised Master Plan (Scheduled. for March 6, 2003) 0 City Council presentation and consideration of ordinance adopting revised Master Plan (scheduled for April 2003) Provide oversight for the implementation of Veterans Park and Athletic Complex 0 Memorial Dedication Ceremony on November 11, 2002 R1 Complete Phase I development (VS2S2.d) (September 2002) El Investigate potential agreement with the College Station Soccer Club for clubhouse building (In progreSS) El Conduct Grand Opening of the Phase I project (Scheduled for May 17, 2003) 13 Review operations and maintenance and make recommendations for Fiscal Year 2004 • Review Needs Assessment and update as required • Develop revisions for Phase 11 recommendations Provide oversight for the design and installation of the batting cages and backstops at Bee Creek Park * Secure funding * Approve site plan * Complete construction (Under Construction) Provide oversight for the installation of the new jogging track at Jack and Dorothy Miller Park El Complete construction (September 2002) 0 Investigate alternative types of surfacing for playgrounds Support implementation of the Greenways Master Plan (VS2S3.a) 13 Receive update report from Greenways Coordinator 1:1 Review Recreation, Park, and Open Space Master Plan as it relates to greenways Parks and Recreation Advisory Board FY2003 Goals and Objectives Board Approval: September 10, 2002 Council Approval: October 24, 2002 Updated: January 2, 2003 Page 1 of 3 Support the City Councils Interagency Plan on any Park and Recreation related issues 11 Continue dialog with the College Station Independent School District regarding future school/park developments and programs 0 Continue dialog with the College Station Independent School District and the South Knoll PTO concerning the potential of rubberizing the South Knoll jogging track (Interlocal.11greement approved by the City Council on December 19, 2002). 0 Continue dialog with Texas A&M University regarding Hensel Park and Veterans Park and Athletic Complex 11 Continue to investigate joint programming opportunities with the City of Bryan Parks and Recreation Department (VS2S2. c) (In progress — currently investigating registration sojiware opportunities) Identify potential new sources of revenue E3 Identify potential grant opportunities (TPWD — October 8, 2002) 0 Investigate the potential for a donations program (In progress) E3 Review user fees and develop recommendations Parks and Recreation Advisory Board FY2003 Goals and Objectives Board Approval: September 10, 2002 Council Approval: October 24, 2002 Updated: January 2, 2003 Page 3 of CITY OF COLLEGE STATION PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT FY03GOALS & OBJECTIVES � Implementation ofthe C|PProgram Implementation nfSpecial Projects � Continue toImprove Staff Development Implementation ofNew Programs � Implementation nfCity Council Strategic Issues Implementation of the CUP Proqram O Complete the Lick Creek Park Phase |project [] Complete master plan and design ofVVondvvayPark O Complete master plan and design ofShenandoahPark [] Complete intergenerationa|park projects [] Complete G.O.1S98Bond projects O Complete Thomas Pool renovation and shade structure (In progress) O Complete acquisition ofnew cemetery site (In progress) Continue to Improve Staff Development [] Complete Management Academy (Iperson) GO Complete Supervisory Academy (5 people: Jimmy Charanza, Keith Fails, Charles Harris, David Hudspeth, Marc/Rodgers) [] Complete National Recreation & Park Association Pork Maintenance School (/ person) 0 Complete the Texas Nature Trails Construction Workshop (David Wood) G] Complete OPSDebris Management Course (Steve Baochv 6O Complete Customized Media Presentations Workshop (Director, Assistant Director, and Superintendents) Implementation ofC|twCouncil StradmqicYssues, [] Complete the Recreation, Pork and Open Space Master Plan update (In progress) O Comp|otethePorke&Reureotion0epodrnent20U3-2O07StnategicP|on/firstdhaftoomp/eteA [] Complete the Lincoln Cent*nTarrovv Parks Master Plan update (in progress) [] Achieve a 75% or higher rating on all major categories for Park Maintenance Standards O Dave|opimp|emenbationoohedu|eofUrbanForeatyWanagenoentP|on/Planpn*aenb*dboCounmYon September 20'20028. [] Complete current capital improvement projects O Comprehensive review of all leisure services programs (Aquatic Programs presentation on November 12, 2002, Athletic Programs presentation on December 10, 2002, and Educational Program Presentation on January Y4'2003) O Continuatnnxp|one000perativeeffodsvvithothera0enciaa0npnognemo:TAMUHenae/PartT4MLIVPAC, CSISDISouth Knoll Jogging Track, City of BryanlMadeley Park and Recreational Software) Implementation of Special Pm»iects B] ConduntdedicoUonoaremonyforVeteronoK4omoria|pnojeot/Noveonber1Y'20028 O Conduct grand opening ofVeterans Parks & Athletic Complex (May Y7,2003) [] Investigate feasibility ofjoint project vvithCoUegn8bationSoouerC|ub(Inpxognsos) [] Conduct ebenchmark survey ofsimilar cities O Investigate potential sources nfadditional revenue (in progress) [] Complete recommendations for future C|Pprogram (In progress) O Develop recommendations for existing Conference Center O Conduct seasonal pay study and develop recommendations GO Conduct dedication for the Jane Pulley Softball Fields (November 2'2002) Implementation of New Pmmosomms [] C|onnp|eteimp|emenbstionofCho||engeroportaprognam(Chu0engerBovwYnghobe/ng/nb\euurn/nerof 2003) [] Begin operation of Veterans Park and Athletic Complex O Implementation ofcemetery software program I�muroo�i o�~- City o7CollzgoWuboo Updated: January 2, 2003 o Board Review of 411 Board Review of 1,R VS 2 Quarter Quarter S 1.a Park Maintenance Curtis 10/22/02 Standards VS 2 Ross S 1.b Urban Forestry Plan VS 2 S 2 Intergenerational Parks Ric VS 2 Review Leisure Service Peter S 2.b Programs VS 2 Cooperative efforts and S 2.c joint programming with Peter City of Bryan VS 2 S 2.d Complete Development Ric of Veterans Park Phase VS 2 Develop new five-year S 2.e Parks Capital Ric Improvement Projects VS 3 Update Parks Plan Steve S 2d Ric Phase I Construction Completed as of September and Phase I Maintenance activities begun Veterans Memorial Dedication 11/11/02 Complete Parks Board and Staff input Installation of intergenerational park features ongoing ... Investigate College Station Soccer Club building agreement NOTE: Shaded items have been completed. Revised January 7, 2003 0AStrategic Planning/Plan Calendars 2003/Timeline 2003.doc Board Review of 21d Board Review of 3rd VS 2 Park Curtis Quarter Quarter S la Maintenance Standards VS 2 S I.b Urban Forestry Ross Plan VS 2 S 2.a Intergenerational Ric Parks VS 2 Review Leisure Peter S 2.b Service Programs VS 2 Cooperative S 2.c efforts and joint Peter programming with City of Bryan S 2.d Complete Ric Development of Veterans Park Phase I VS 2 Develop new S 2.e five-year Parks Ric Capital Improvement Projects Council to consider the VS 3 Update Parks Steve revised plan S 2d Plan Ric Special Meeting Senior Advisory Committee Monday, December 9, 2002 2:00prn College Station City Hall 1101 Texas Ave WINFUR Members Present: Bill Kling, Chairman, Annie Lee Finch, Suzanne Reynolds, Yvonne Stevens, Frank Camplone, Betty Wilbom, Laura Holmes, Dipanker Sen, Robert Meyer, Fred Dollar and Catherine Lamb I. Call meeting to order. Bill Kling, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 2:00pin. 11. Presentation by Texas A&M entry level graduate students in architecture design for a Senior Activity Center. Susan Rodiek, with the Department of Architecture gave a brief overview of the student project. Teams of entry-level graduate students designed a university -sponsored activity center where seniors could have a weekday lunch and activities, including educational programs by TAMU faculty. The building could also serve university functions and other community groups, from its location on the edge of campus (comer of George Bush and Wellborn). The student teams presented their project and explained their designs with a power point presentation. Student Designers: Mandi Rabalais, Ja Heber, Amber Slaton, Matt Lewis, Otelia Vines, Jeff Chapman, Courtnay Randleman, Aaron Vorwerk, Tom Laczo, Steve Nguyen, Bryan O'Sullivan, Aleisha Rhodes, Jon Toffer, Jason George, Josh Guerra and Steven Perez. 111. Adjourn. The meeting adjourned 3:40pm. Senior Advisory Committee Regular Meeting Monday, December 16, 2002 College Station Teen Center 1520 Rock Prairie Road 10:OOam MINUTES Members Present: Catherine Lamb, Frank Camplone, Laura Holmes, Fred Dollar, Robert Meyer, Suzanne Reynolds, Betty Wilborn, Annie Lee Finch, Yvonne Stevens, Haskell Monroe, Dipankar Sen and Bill Kling Members Absent: Billy Lay, Neal Nutall, and Joanna Yeager. Staff Present: Marci Rodgers, Senior Services Coordinator Call to order. Bill Kling called the meeting to order at 11:05am II. Bear visitors. No visitors. III. Approval of minutes from regular meeting on November 25, 2002 Haskell Monroe made the motion that the minutes from the November 25, 2002 and December 9, 2002 meetings be approved. Catherine Lamb seconded the motion. The motion passed. IV. Guest Speaker: Date Elrod, Staff Planner for Development Services Historic Preservation Committee Spring Project Kate Elrod explained her responsibilities and duties as staff planner with the city. She has recently been assigned to work with the Historic Preservation Committee. The committee is in the process of increasing community awareness to the fact the City will soon be collecting and cataloging historic documents, photos and memorabilia. Once collected the items will be scanned and indexed onto a computer program that will allow individuals to access on the internet. The committee has been researching computer programs that will allow the two cities and county to work together on this project. The senior advisory committee offered suggestions on possible resources to consider in the project such as the school districts and A&M University. Soon the committee will be accepting documents, letters, photos and other memorabilia at a local site for collection or scanning. Haskell Monroe made the motion that the Senior Advisory Committee encourage and endorse this project. Fred Dollar seconded the motion. The motion passed. V. Senior Services Coordinator Report (on file) VI. Next meeting date and agenda. The next meeting will be held on Monday, January 27, 2003 at the College Station Teen Center. VII. Adjourn. Betty Wilborn moved to adjourn. Robert Meyer seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 11:30am CITY OF COLLEGE STATION CONFERENCE CENTER ADVISORY COMMITTEE MONTHLY MEETING Tuesday, November 12,2002 AT 5:15p.m. College Station Conference Center 1300 George Bush Drive College Station, Texas 77840 MINUTES Staff Present: Grace Calbert, Conference Center Facility Supervisor Nita Hilburn, Recording Secretary Members Present: Ed Holdredge, Glenda Elledge, Fran Lamb (Vice Chair) Members Absent: Mollie Guin Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 5:28pm Pardon -Consider requests for absences of members from meeting: None Hear visitors- None Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes: Ed Holdredge moved to approve the minutes for October 8, 2002 with the following correction. The Minutes read under Presentation, Discussion and Possible Action concerning changing the procedure for Revenue Reports for September 2002. Ed Holdredge approved the minutes as read, it didn't have a second by anyone. Glenda had seconded the motion. Glenda Elledge seconded the motion to accept the minutes with the above stated correction. Approval of Special Meeting Minutes: Ed Holdredge moved to accept the minutes as written. Glenda Elledge seconded the motion. Revenue Reports: Revenue reports were reviewed for October 2002. Revenues for October 2002 were $ 11,627.93 versus October 2001 of $11,655.04. Number of clients served October 2002 were 6,321 vs. October 2001 of 8,290. Ed Holdredge moved to accept the Revenue Reports. Glenda Elledge seconded the motion Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding letter from one church Group requesting to reserve space from January -June 2003. Ed Holdredge moved to allow the Cornerstone Church group to meet at our facility for an another 6 months. Glenda Elledge seconded the motion. Adjourn: Ed Holdredge moved to adjourn the meeting at 5:51pm.. Glenda Elledge seconded the motion. The next meeting will be held at the College Station Conference Center on December 10, 2002 at 5:15pm. Respectfully submitted, Nita Hilburn, Recording Secretary ' City of College Station r Lincoln Recreation Center Advisory Committee Regular Meeting Minutes e Monday, November 11, 2002 Lincoln Recreation Center, 1000 Eleanor Street College Station, 'Texas 1. Call to order. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Eleanor Williams at 6:55 p.m. 2. Pardons. No pardons were received. 3. Hear Visitors. Ms. Bobbie Smith, who submitted an application to serve on the LRCA Committee, was present. 4. Discussion, consideration, and possible approval of minutes from the regular meeting of September 16, 2002 and the Workshop of October 7, 2002. The minutes for both meetings were approved with a few minor corrections to the September 16, 2002 regular meeting minutes. 5. Discussion, consideration and possible action on the LRCAC By -Laws. Lance Jackson reported that the By -Laws have been updated and each member will be sent a revised copy and a copy of the current Mission Statement will be given to Bobbie. 6. Discussion, consideration, and possible action on the Adolescent Girls Outreach and Education Subcommittees. Debra Thomas gave an update on the proposal of last year regarding Conflict Resolution for adolescent girls. Lance plans to invite about 18 adolescent girls and their parent(s) to the LRC to discuss possible activities that would interest them. It was moved and seconded that Lance would do an email (invitation) and Debra would develop a survey form/questionnaire inquiring about possible things of interest to adolescent girls. 7. Reports: • Public Relations Subcommittee: Chairperson Eleanor Williams put the position of Chair to this subcommittee on the floor. Member Carl Dethloff accepted the Chair position: • LRC Supervisor's Report: 1. Lance informed the Committee that he would be obtaining a Food Manager Certification. 2. Natilie Wilson, the new CISD teacher liaison, and the LRC staff met on two or 3 occasions. They are working on developing a program based on LRC's needs. Teachers will come to the LRC two to three hours per week to work with students addressing email problems (students needing the most help). LRCAC Meeting (11/11/02) 0� 3. Accelerated Math Training will be November 21-22, 2002. Lance and Neal will be trained. 4. American Reads students start in January. 5. Lights On After School Program was successful. 6. LRC Volunteer Orientation has started. 7. Rental Handbook completed. Lance will bring it to the next meeting. 8. The new phone system is in. It has up to 12 lines —can page. 9. The Senior Office is 70% complete. 10. Pre-Kwanzaa Celebration will be November 20, 2002 at 4:30 p.m. It will be an educational program for 50 to 60 kids and held in the foyer. LRC opted from making it open to the public. 11. A&M Church of Christ will hold their Christmas Carnival at the LRC on December 6, 2002 from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. This will be their 5th year here. 12. LRC Breakfast with Santa sponsored by the TAMU Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. will be held December 7, 2002. 13. Rental is picking up. Monday and Wednesday are open gym. 14. The Boys and Girls programs are growing daily. Staff will need some training. Will have five to six graduating and/or back to school. LRC will be in the hiring mode. o All Means All Committee: Members met with Superintendent Steve Johnson, the Concerned Black Men, and Texas A&M Corp of Cadets to discuss a mentoring program. Co -Chair Laverne Young and Lucille Young are working with parents, principals and students on the mentoring project. 8. Future agenda items. The next regular meeting, December 9, 2002, will consist of participation in the Public Hearing on the update on the Tarrow Plan. 9. Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. 1. Call to order. The meeting was called to order by LRC Advisory Committee Chairperson Eleanor Williams at 6:32 p.m. 2. Pardons. Debra L. Thomas sent her request for pardon. 3. Hear Visitors. The following were present to participate in the Public Hearing as part of this meeting: ® David Gerling of the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department (CSPARD) * Dennis Mahoney from the College Station City Council 0 CSPARD Representative Ric Ploeger c- Representatives from the Brazos Valley Concerned Black Men, Lincoln Former Students Association and other concerned citizens from the Community 4. Minutes of the November 11, 2002, Lincoln Recreation Center Advisory Committee Meeting were verbally reported by Eleanor Williams. (Approval of the official minutes will take place at our next meeting when Secretary Debra Thomas presents them.) Public Hearing: Eleanor introduced David Gerling who opened up the Public Hearing, and was followed by Lance Jackson. The discussion was then opened to those present regarding the 2002 Lincoln/W.A. Tarrow Park Master Plan Update Survey results. The participation by those present was great. The following were the top twelve items listed by those present. (This list was combined into 5 top priorities by combining 2, 3, 6, 7, 9 and 10 under number 5, the Multi -Use Auditorium became #1, followed by Increased Parking, Improving the Children's Play area, Upgrading and Covering the Outdoor Basketball Court, and Swimming/Slash Water Park.). The increased lighting and parking were considered a given for each of these expansions by those present. 1. Splash Park/Long Term - Swimming Pool 2 Day Care/Senior Programs 3. Exercise Room/Showers 4. Covered Basketball Court 5. Multi -Use Auditorium 6. Community Education Classes 7. Jogging/Walking Track 8. Increase Parking 9. Expand Game Room LRCAC Meeting (12-09-02) 2 10. Cultural Programs 11. Outdoor Lighting 12. Improve Children's Play area Chairperson Eleanor Williams requested that Lance Jackson (Public Hearing Recorder) submit a copy of the group's final decisions on the Prioritized List to her as soon as possible. 7. Future Agenda Items. None. 8. Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. sparks.html Page 1 of 5 City of Houston SPARK is a non-profit organization operating out of the Mayor's office. SPARK helps elementary schools develop their playgrounds into community parks. SPARK is a member of Earth Share of Texas. ELECTION OF PARKS Schools in areas most in need of park development are selected to participate in the SPARK program. In addition, the neighborhood must demonstrate that it wants a park and will be willing to help plan and fund it. The principal writes the SPARK office to be placed on a waiting list. We work closely with school board members, district council members, county commissioners, and principals, ensuring they support the program before the school is selected. The principal of the school, members of the PTO/PTA, civic clubs, and neighbors meet to determine the type of park to be built. They tour existing SPARK schools to get some idea of what playground equipment is available, and work closely with the landscape architect in designing a unique park reflective of the community's interest and creativity. LANNING AND FUNDING THE PARKS http://www.cl.houston.tx.us/citygovt/mayor/spark-old/index.html 12/2/02 sparks.html Page 2 of 5 Planning and funding for the parks is a cooperative effort between the neighborhood, the school, school district, and the private sector. Each school, with help from community groups, raises $5,000 or more. The school district provides a grant of $5,000 to each school. SPARK seeks contributions from foundations and corporations. In addition, some schools receive county monies. Schools located in low- income neighborhoods are entitled to federal Community Development Block Grants. In -kind contributions are welcome. SPARK has been designated as a nonprofit, tax -exempt organization as described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal revenue Code. SPARK was founded by former Council Member Eleanor Tinsley in 1983 in response to the Green Ribbon committee's recommendation to use public school land for neighborhood parks. SPARK brings together federal, city, county, and private resources to develop parks quickly and at low cost on public school grounds. County Commissioners Jerry Eversole, Jim Fonteno, and El Franco Lee have been partners in this highly successful and cost-effective program. http://www.el.houston.tx.us/eitygovt/mayor/spark-old/index.htm] 12/2/02 sparks.html Page 3 of 5 As I reflect over the last fourteen years, I am very proud of SPARK's accomplishments. Over $7 million raised for 108 new parks is really remark able. Each park is the result of hard work by many individuals. Eleanor Tinsley, Spark President It is rewarding to see the smiles on the children's faces as they work together to create their very own SPARK Park. Kathleen Ownby, Spark Executive Director http://www.ci.houston.tx.us/citygovt/mayor/spark-old/index.html 12/2/02 sparks.html Page 4 of 5 • Allstate Foundation • American General Corporation • Apache Corporation • Arco Foundation • Bank of America • Bank One • Bank United • Bechtel • Blue Bell Creameries • Brandt Foundation • The Brown Foundation, Inc. • Brown & Root • Browning Ferris • CACHH • Cain Foundation • Cameron Foundation • Champion International Corporation • Charter Bank • Chevron, U.S.A. Inc. • Chevron Recycling Committee • Compaq Computers • Compass Bank • Continental Airlines • Daniel Industries • Dow Chemical • Duke Energy • El Paso Energy • Enron Foundation • Entex, A Division of Arkla, Inc. • Exxon Company, U.S.A. • Fiesta Foods • Ray C. Fish Foundation • Gerald Hines Interests • H-E-13 Pantry Foods • Hershey Foundation • Houston Audubon Society • Houston Cellular • Houston Endowment • Houston Lighting & Power • IBM • The M. W. Kellogg Company • Kent Electronics • Keystone International • Kirby Marine Transportation Co. • Knox Foundation • Lents Foundation • Lidell Sapp • Louisiana Land & Exploration • The Lyons Foundation http://www.el.houston.tx.us/eitygovt/mayor/spark-old/index.html 12/2/02 sparks.html Page 5 of 5 . McGovern Foundation . McNair Foundation ® Mitchell Energy . Mobil Exploration & Producing U.S., Inc. . Mosher Foundation . Mrs. Baird's Bakeries ® NationsBank ® The Powell Foundation . Randall's ® Rockwell Fund, Inc. ® Rust Lichliter Jameson ® Savings of America ® Shell Oil Company Foundation ® Southwestern Bell Foundation ® Telephone Pioneers of America ® Texaco Foundation ® Texas Commerce Bank ® Texas Forest Service ® Transwestem Property Company ® Vastar ® Susan Vaughan Foundation ® Warner Cable ® Warren Electric ® Weingarten Realty, Inc. ® Wells Fargo Bank ® Willis Bricker Architects ® The Wortham Foundation, Inc. ® Wray Charitable Annuity Trust contributions are tax deductible. Make checks payable to: SPARK P.O. Box 1562 Houston, Texas 77251 For further information contact: Kathleen Ownby Mayor's office 247-2909. http://www.ci.houston.tx.us/citygovt/mayor/spark-old/index.html 12/2/02 I Kris Lenae - He: List tor utizens uommittee Pagel I From: Priscilla Henchel To: Kris Lehde Date: 1/13/03 12:02PM Subject: Re: List for Citizens Committee Here are the names: Angie Alaniz Edwin K. Coulson Bill Eisele Sherry Ellison Hays Glover Paul E. Kullman Thomas Longbrake Charles McCandless Harry Raisor Ken Reynolds Larry Ringer Edward Uvacek, Jr. Richard C. Van Duyne John P. Walter Flora Huang Brookfield Anita M. Davidson David F. Gardner Mary Ellen Hogan Laura Holmes Gregory S. Huchingson Edsel Jones Charles E. Lamb Mike Lane Billy G. Lay Carol Reynolds Charles Rognon David Scoff Shirley Volk Joe Wallace Ward Wells Whew!! >>> Kris Lehde 01/13/03 11:46AM >>> Yes, the CIP Committee that was just recently chosen by Council for the upcoming bond election Kris Lehde Staff Assistant College Station Parks & Recreation (979) 764-3414 >>> Priscilla Henchel 01113/03 11:26AM >>> Kris, Are you talking about the new ad hoc CIP Committee? >>> Kris Lehde 01/13/03 10:49AM >>> Good morning Priscilla. Steve would like to give our Parks Board a list of the ones that were chosen to serve on the Citizen's Committee. Do you have a finalized list that we could give them at our meeting tomorrow? Thanks! Kris Lehde Staff Assistant Enrollment Analysis and Projections 1993 to 2007 At the request of Dr. Johnson, I have analyzed the past ten years of enrollment data in several areas: enrollment by grade, ethnicity, economically disadvantaged status, special education, limited English proficiency, and career and technology education. In order to make accurate projections, it is important to look at past trends. Unfortunately, these trends will not necessarily hold in the future. For example, this analysis cannot take into account major economic changes to our community including major growth or decline in Texas A&M University enrollment, addition of major industrial development in the community, significant positive or negative changes in the economy affecting the housing market. Also, it is important to note that I am not trained as a demographer. Demographers use not only CSISD enrollment data, but they have access to and proficiency in analyzing building permit data, census data, fertility and mortality rates, etc. As such, this analysis was made solely based on eight years of enrollment data in CSISD, with the following assumptions: 1. Enrollment will increase in a linear fashion at a moderate rate based on both the last eight years of growth and the upturn in enrollment in the last two school years. 2. There will be no major increase or decrease in industry in the College Station ISD area including Texas A&M University, by far the county's largest employer. 3. Interest rates, housing availability and affordability will remain relatively consistent with the levels over the past three years. Total Enrollment Analvsis and Proiections October enrollment counts have grown from 6150 students in 1993 to 7695 students in 2002. As the chart below illustrates, student enrollment increased steadily from 1993 to 1997, an average of 3.86 percent a year. From 1998 to 2000 the enrollment leveled off increasing an average of only 3/a of a percent each year. Beginning in 2001, enrollment seems to be on the increase again. Total district enrollment increased 1.46 percent in 2001 and 3.65 percent in 2002. Looking at the large increase in affordable housing, especially in the Baron Road area, one could predict this larger annual increase to continue in the short term. 8000 �- 7500 - - 7000 - - --- - 6500 — 6000 - 5500 - - - - 5000 1993 Total Enrollment October 1993 to 2002 10 17 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 The major question in forecasting growth in CSISD is at what rate will the total enrollment increase. Lacking any formal training in demography, I simply looked at the trends over the last 10 years. If one were to average the growth for these 10 years, the average yearly increase is 2.53 percent per year. Similarly, if one were to average the last two years of enrollment, it would average 2.55 percent per year. Using these averages, I simply took this October's enrollment and added in 2.55 percent growth for 2003 and added 2.55 percent each year through October 2007. At the bottom of the table on the following page the total enrollment for 1993 to 2002 is listed. Directly under the total enrollment is the percentage increase from the previous year. To project the total enrollment count in 2003 through 2007, 2.55 percent was added to the total. IOCTOBER 1993 1994 African American 690 761 10.29% Hispanic 493 507 1 2.84% 1W h ite sian 1 lEcon Dis Special Education 1 ILEP 1 1 1CATE 1 Total 1995 1 1996 1997 776 826 865 1.97% 6.44% 4.72% 542 599 670 6.90% 110.52% 1 1 11.85% 1 4537 4713 4772 1 5020 15116 3.88% 1.25% 5.20% 1 1.91 % 1998 1999 2000 12001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 12007 i 920 942 906 902 919 963 979 996 1055 1134 1 6.36% 2.39% -3.82% 1-0.44% 1.88% 4.79% 1.66% 1.74% 5.92% 1 7.49% 1 697 690 737 1 829 970 1065 1173 1278 1379 1 1483 4.03% 1-1.00% 6.81% 112.48% 17.01% 9.79% I 10.14% 8.95%,7.90% 7.54%1 5056 1 5075 1 5052 1 5040 5138 1 5176 5227 1 5294 5327 15323 1 1 1 -1.17% 1 0.38% -0.45% 1-0.24% 1.94% 10.74% 0.99% 1 1.28% 0.62% -0.08% 1 1 430 1 427 1 454 491 1 1 501 1 1 516 552 1 613 1649 1 660 687 1 712 1-0.70% 1 1 6.32% 8.15% 1 1 2.04% 1 1 2.99% 1 1 6.98% 111.05%1 1 1 5.87% 11.69% 14.09% 3.64% 1 1383 1470 1 1512 1 1642 1729 1 1848 1 1850 1785 1844 1 1991 2051 2104 1 6.29% 1 1 2.86% 1 8.60% 1 5.30% 1 6.88% 1 1 1 0.11 % -3.51 % 1I3.31 % 1 7.97% 3.01 % 1 2.58% 730 1 749 1 785 2.53% 2.60% 14.81 % 2199 22551 2356 4.52% 2.55% 14.48% 472 1 456 1 489 1 532 573 558 1 598 613 626 680 679 704 1 730 757 1785 1-3.39% 1 1 1 7.24% 8.79% 7.71 % -2.62% 7.17% 1 2.51 % 1 1 2.12% 1 8.63% 1 -0.15% 3.68% 3.69% 3.70% 13.70% 211 1 203 1 284 337 1 264 1 301 333 378 1 381 1 1 377 1 410 437 1 464 1 1 493 1 524 1-3.79% 139.90% 1 18.66%1-21.66%114.02%110.63% 1 1 1 13.51%1 0.79% 1 -1.05% 18.75% 6.59% 16.18% 16.25% 16.29% 936 947 1 1123 1 1220 15.33% 1285 1523 1 1523 1 1 1811 1818 I 1 1787 1807 1910 1 1 1991 1 2085 1 2182 1 1 1.18% 1 I 1 1 18.59% 1 8.64% 18.52% 0.00% 118.91 %I 0.39% 1 -1.71 % 1.12% 1 5.70% 4.24% 14.72% 4.65% 1 6150 1 6410 1 1 6545 , I 6939 1 7153 1 1 7194 1 7264 1 1 7317 1 1 7424 1 1 7695 1 1 7891 1 8092 1 8298 1 8510 1 8727 4.23% 1 2.11 % 1 6.02% 1 3.08% 1 0.57% 1 0.97% 1 0.73% 1 1.46% 1 3.65% � 2.55% 1 2.55% 12.55% 12.55% 12.55% IX, 2 Projections about enrollment by ethnicity, economically disadvantaged, special education, LEP and CATE students were made in a different fashion. The chart below shows the percentage of district enrollment by ethnicity and program for 1993 to 2002. Looking at the percentage for each year one begins to see some trends. For example, the percentage of White students falls approximately one percent each school year. African American percentages have remained stable over the past 10 years. Hispanic enrollment increased steadily over the last three years. Projections for 2003-2007 for percentage of students on the chart below were made based on what has occurred over the past few years. These percentages were applied to the total projected enrollment on page two. To obtain the projected number of students in each ethnicity and program, we multiplied the projected total enrollment (bottom of table on page 2) by the projected percentage in each group (table on page 3). These projected numbers were included in the table on page 2. 1OCTOEER 11993 11994 11995 11996 11997 1998 2001 2002 [African American 11.2 11.9 11.9 11.9 12.1 12.8 11999 13 12000 12.4 12.1 11.9 (Hispanic 8 I 7.9 1 8.3 8.6 I 9.4 9.7 9.5 1 10.1 11.2 12.6 White 73.8 .8 7 5 IAsian I 6.7 1 6.9 17?2 1 7 I 702 1696 I 8.5 I 8.7 I 866 I IEcon Dis 1 22.5 123.1 25.7 125.5 124.9 ISpecial Education 7.7 122.9 7.1 I 7.5 123.7 7.7 124.2 8 I 7.8 I 124.4 8.2 8.4 I 8.4 125.9 8.8 ILEP 3.4 3.2 4.3 4.9 3.7 4.1 4.6 i 5.2 5.1 I 4.9 ICATE 15.2 1 14.8 1 17.2 1 17.6 I 18 1 21.2 1 21 1 24.8 1 24.5 1 23.2 1®CT®BER 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 f (African American 12.2 12.1 12 12.4 13 Hispanic 13.5 14.5 15.4 16.2 17 White 65.6 64.6 63.8 62.6 61 IAsian 8.7 8.8 8.8 8.8 1 9 IEcon Dis I 26 I 26 126.5 126.5 1 27 1 ISpecial Education 1 8.6 8.7 1 8.8 I 8.9 9 ILEP 5.2 I 5.4 5.6 1 5.8 I 6 ICATE 122.9 1 23.6 1 24 1 24.5 25 I For a better visual representation of the data and projections, we have included some charts on the next few pages. The two charts on page four represent the number of students by ethnicity and program from 1998 to 2002 and projections for 2003 to 2007. On page five two charts show the percentage of students by ethnicity and program from 1998 to 2002 and projections for 2003 to 2007. 3 10000 a- - 9000 6000 - 7000 - . ------ 6000 ----- - -- 5000 ------_.—__.-.-- 4000 3000-------- 2000 1000 ---- 0 African American I❑ 1998 920 I❑1999 942 102000 906 1132001 902 102002 919 I❑ 2003 963 I®2004 979 1132005 996 IM 2006 1055 p 2007 1134 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 1998 111 1999 I❑2000 I❑2001 ® 2002 2003 I® 2004 I❑ 2005 I®2006 Enrollment Counts by Ethnicity October 1998 to 2007 Hispanic White Asian Total 697 5056 516 7194 690 5075 552 7264 737 5052 613 7317 829 5040 649 7424 970 5138 660 7695 1065 5176 687 7891 1173 5227 712 8092 1278 5294 730 8298 1379 5327 749 8510 1483 5323 785 8727 Enrollment Counts by Program October 1998 to 2007 1848 000 ..I --`- 1850 598 333 1523 1785 613 378 1811 1844 626 381 1818 1991 680 377 1787 2051 679 410 1807 2104 704 437 1910 2199 730 464 1991 2255 757 493 2085 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Enrollment Percentage by Ethnicity October 1998 to 2007 70.3 699 ..._9 .- 6T.9T66� -- -_-- - - 65.6 64.6 63.8 62.6 ----.�___ -61 ------ --- - - -- - ------ - ------ i _ 12.8 13 _..._�,.,_12.4 12.1 12. 7.2 7.6 8.5 8.7 8.6 13.5 14.5 _.,4 1,6.2 _ 17 _.. _. 13 8.7 8.8 8.8 8.8 9 1 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Enrollment Percentage by Program October 1998 to 2007 25.7 25,5 248 �q� 25 ___- �a - _ 26�� 26.5 _ _ ----- _26.." 27 25 "--2-4.4 q 5 23.. 23.6 2 24.5 22.9 21.2 21 ------ - ._. - --- 7 8� . 8 22.4.� _8.4 �..� _8.4-.�-.� -. - 8 6= nB Z ; - -v.8 9 9 q g 5.2 5.1 4. 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Total Enrollment by Grade Level -African American '-- Hispanic White Asian -@- Econ Dis Special Education LEP - CATE Dr. Johnson also asked for enrollment analysis and projections by grade level. We looked at both the number and percentage of students in each grade level for the past five years, 1998 to 2002. We took the average percentage of students per grade level to make the analysis. The table at the top of the next page shows the percentage of total students per grade level. E l®ctober 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Average JECE 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.26 JPK 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.72 IK 7.7 7.4 7.3 7.3 7.5 7.44 11 St 8.2 8 7.5 7.6 7.4 7.74 �nd 6.9 8.2 7.8 7.4 7.6 7.58 13rd 7.8 6.8 1 7.8 7.6 7.4 7.48 �th 7.8 7.6 ( 6.9 7.7 7.8 7.56 15th 7.4 7.8 I 7.4 7.2 7.3 7.42 16th 7 7.3 ( 7.7 7.5 7.2 7.34 17th 7.8 7.2 7.4 7.8 7.8 7.6 8th 7.5 7.7 7.3 7.5 7.8 7.56 9th 8.7 8.1 8.6 8 8.4 8.36 10th 7.7 7.4 7.1 7.8 7.2 7.44 11th 6.5 7.2 7 6.7 6.9 6.86 12th 6.1 6.5 7 6.7 6.6 6.58 100.1 100 99.8 99.8 100 99.94 We averaged those percentages over the past five years to obtain an average percentage. Those average percentages were then applied to the total projected enrollment for the next five years, 2003 to 2007. These averages are included on the chart on the next page. To aid in reading the chart, cohort groups (e.g. groups progressing together through the grade levels) are represented by the same color of text. October 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 ECE 12 9 13 24 39 = 21 21 22 22 23 PK 201 196 207 202 202 = 215 220 226 231 237 K 551 535 537 544 577 587 602 617 633 649 1st 587 578 548 564 572 611 626 642 659 675 2nd 495 597 570 551 584 598 613 629 645 662 3rd 562 492 573 567 573 = 590 605 621 637 653 4th 559 55? 505 573 599 - 597 612 627 643 660 5th 531 569 545 535 563 - 586 600 616 631 648 6th 503 532 565 557 553 579 594 609 625 641 7th 561 521 544 580 604 600 615 631 647 663 8th 540 556 531 556 598 597 612 627 643 660 9th 628 590 629 596 647 664 681 699 716 735 10th 553 540 522 579 551 587 602 617 633 649 11th 470 524 514 500 530 _ 541 555 569 584 599 12th 441 473 514 496 507 � 519 532 546 560 574 7891 8092 8298 8509 8727 TOTAL 7194 7264 7317 7424 7695 7891 8092 8298 8510 8727 " Projections Assume Total 2.55 Percent Growth " Total Enrollment is multiplied by average percentage in each grade level 7 October 1998 1999 ECE 12 9 PK 196 K 551 1St 537 578 2nd 495 597 3rd 492 4th 559 Sub -Total 2967 2959 5th 531 569 6th 503 532 Sub -Total 1034 1101 7th 521 8th 540 Sub -Total 1101 1077 9th 628 590 10th 553 540 11 th 470 524 12th 441 473 Sub -Total 2092 2127 TOTAL 7194 7264 Pre -Kindergarten — 4th Grade Sub -totals 2000 2001 2002 2003 13 24 39 21 207 202 202 215 537 544 577 587 564 572 = 511 570 551 584 598 573 567 573 590 505 573 599 - 597 2953 3025 3146 - 3218 545 535 563 586 565 557 553 579 1110 1092 1116 1165 544 580 604 600 531 556 598 597 1075 1136 1202 1196 596 647 - 664 522 579 551 587 514 500 530 541 514 496 507 = 519 2179 2171 2235 2312 7317 7424 7699 7891 2004 2005 2006 2007 21 22 22 23 220 226 231 237 602 617 633 649 626 642 659 675 613 629 645 662 605 621 637 653 612 627 643 660 3300 3384 3470 3559 600 616 631 648 594 609 625 641 1194 1225 1266 1288 615 631 647 663 612 627 643 660 1227 1258 1290 1323 681 699 716 735 602 617 633 649 555 569 584 599 532 546 560 574 2371 2432 2493 2557 8092 8298 8509 8727 October ECE PK K 1 St 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Sub -Total 6th 7th 8th Sub -Total 9th 10th 11 th 12th Sub -Total r Pre -Kindergarten — 5�h Grade Sub -totals 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 12 9 13 24 39 21 21 22 22 23 196 207 202 202 = 215 220 226 231 237 55'i 537 544 577 587 602 617 633 649 587 578 548 564 572 _= 611 626 642 659 675 495 597 570 551 584 598 613 629 645 662 492 573 567 573 590 605 621 637 653 559 505 573 599 = 597 612 627 643 660 531 569 545 535 563 = 586 600 616 631 648 3498 3528 3498 3560 3709 3803 3900 4000 4102 4206 503 532 565 557 553 579 594 609 625 641 521 544 580 604 600 615 631 647 663 540 531 556 598 - 597 612 627 643 66C 1604 1609 1640 1693 1755 1775 1821 1867 1915 1964 628 590 596 647 664 681 699 716 735 553 540 522 579 551 _ 587 602 617 633 649 470 524 514 500 530 - 541 555 569 584?, 599 441 473 514 496 507 - 519 532 546 560 2092 2127 2179 2171 2235 = 2312 2371 2432 2493 2557 7194 7264 7317 7424 7699 i 7891 8092 8298 8509 8727 w I i�O - .1. Z., 04 'Al Increasing numbers of park and recreation professionals are curious about economic impact studies; are undertaking them within their agencies; or are commissioning them from outside experts. Interest has been stimulated both by recognition of their use- fulness in repositioning agencies through demonstrating the contributions of park and recreation services to economic development, and by coincident improvements in software development that have made such studies relatively easy and inexpensive to undertake. The intent of this publication is to provide information that will enable professionals to better understand how to do good economic impact studies, and to correctly interpret re- sults to their stakeholders. The publication: (1) discusses the role of measuring economic impacts in repositioning the field to enable agencies to acquire more resources; (2) de- scribes the principles of economic impact studies, common abuses of those principles, and the consequences of abuses; (3) dis- cusses how to collect the data needed to cal- culate economic impact; and (4) reports re- sults from 30 studies undertaken by the author. Knowledge of economic impacts may be useful for both evaluation and forecasting purposes. The evaluation role is to report the return that a Jurisdiction's residents receive PREFACE on the resources they invest in a given event. The forecasting capability stems from the use of evaluation data gathered in a similar con- text by previous studies to estimate the likely returns from future events that a jurisdiction may be contemplating bidding for or initiat- ing. The National Recreation and Park Asso- ciation is committed to developing a training program that will enable professionals to demonstrate to their stakeholders the contri- bution made by park and recreation services to a community's economic development. The program consists of documenting the scientific knowledge base; developing train- ing manuals; and training a cadre of instruc- tors who will disseminate the information to their peers. This publication documenting the scientific knowledge base of economic im- pact studies is the first component of the larger program. The author is very appreciative of the as- sistance provided by Seokho Lee who pa- tiently tutored him in the nuances of IMPLAN; undertook the analyses for all the studies reported here; and prepared the illus- trations and formatted the narrative for this publication. The studies could not have been undertaken without the financial support and data collection efforts provided by the fol- lowing: vi Preface Mollie Holt, Boise Parks and Recreation Department, Idaho. Steve Beachy, College Station Parks and Recreation Department, Texas. Doug Romig, Des Moines Parks and Rec- reation Department, Iowa. Curt Marsh, Everett Parks and Recreation Department, Washington. Linda Lane, Grand Rapids Parks and Rec- reation Department, Michigan. Murdock Jemerson, Lansing Parks and Recreation Department, Michigan. Judy Weiss, Scottsdale Department of Community Services, Arizona. The support, encouragement and contribu- tions of these park and recreation profession- als, their colleagues, and their agencies is very much appreciated. CgMl la %fl RESULTS OF 30 ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDIES The National Recreation and Park Asso- ciation solicited cities to participate in a study of the economic impact of sports tour- naments and special events that were organ- ized by park and recreation agencies. The study's goal was to collect reasonably accu- rate data from a substantial number of events, and to estimate the economic impacts of these events which would be free from the types of common errors and abuses described in chapter 2. It was anticipated that reviewing the results from a relatively large number of case studies may reveal some consistent pat- terns of expenditures. Researchers will be quick to point out that results from the tournaments and events in the seven cities reported here are likely to differ from those obtained by studies done on similar events in other communities, because the contexts are likely to be different: Unique factors include the geographic proximity of the participating teams to the host site, novelty of the destination for spectators and participants, the size of the sport venue, the location of the sport venue to the business district, the level of supporting infrastructure in the host community, changes in the format of the event (e.g. amount of rest be- tween matches) and time between qualifying tournaments and the cham- pionship tournament. The shorter the time, the less opportunity for sport tourists to plan their trips. The amount of positive or negative media attention, promotional budget, weather and ac- cessibility also play a factor in the eco- nomic impact outCOmes.l7 Notwithstanding these reservations, in con- texts and communities where managers have no empirical data but are required by stakeholders to provide estimates of visitors' expenditures and economic impact, or need such estimates to help reposition their agency, the results from these case studies suggest useful parameters for providing "in- telligent guesses" The seven city park and recreation agen- cies that volunteered to participate in the study were: Boise, Idaho; College Station, Texas; Des Moines, Iowa; Everett, Wash- ington; Grand Rapids, Michigan; Lansing, Michigan; and Scottsdale, Arizona. They were reasonably diverse in size and geo- graphical location. Brief profiles of the seven cities are given in Table 10. The study was 50 Measuring the Economic Ompaot Table 10, Profile of the Study Cities Name Location Population Size Median Income ($) Boise State capital and one of two metro- 168,000 36, 000 politan areas in Idaho College Station Brazos County, Texas, equidistant 66,000 299 000 between Houston and Austin The political, economic and cultural Des Moines capital of Iowa, located in the heart 200,000 42,000 of the state Everett The largest city in Snohomish 80,000 46, 000 County, Washington Grand Rapids Wiest Michigan 192,000 44,000 Lansing South-central lower Michigan, 90 125,000 27, 000 miles west of Detroit Scottsdale In the Sonoran Desert at the base of 200,0� 50,000 the McDougall Mountains, Arizona coordinated by the author and involved iden- tifying the economic impact of 30 events held during a one year period in these seven cities. The author was responsible for de- signing the questionnaire; suggesting the sampling procedure; coding, entering and analyzing the data; and producing a written report for each of these events. The cities equally contributed to the cost of the study and provided personnel to collect the data. Review of the Economic Impacts of 14 Sports Tournaments A summary of results from the 14 team sports events that were studied is given in Table 11. To avoid the possibility of embar- rassment to any of the cooperating cities, their identities have been protected and have been replaced by letter symbols which are shown in the left hand column. Columns 2 and 3 list the names of the events and their duration in days, respectively. Sampling participants in team sorts can be done either by surveying every n` team or by surveying every n`h individual. In most cases, it is more convenient to sample teams since team members are often grouped to- gether while waiting to play, practicing or at social gatherings. Column 4 shows that this was done in I l of the 14 studies. In the re- maining three studies, individuals were inter- viewed without reference to the teams they represented. Column 5 reports the average size of the team squads. This information was obtained either from the questionnaire, or from event i Table 11 The I 2 ( 3 4 5 6 7 1 8 9 j 10 11 12 1 13 j 14 1 15 16 i 17 j 18 _... ( Teams from Teams from Average Direct Expenditures Economic Impact j Duration # of Teams Average # of Indi- inside --- he city outside the city Size of Total Expert- Per Per Per Team I City Event Name ! (# of t (# of Partici- Team vidual Par- diture Per Team Team Member Personal lobs' Days) pants) Squad ticipants # % # % Team Per Member Group Per Sales Income ` I Day Group Day ASA Men's 40-Over A ! Fastpitch National ' S 37 14 518 0 0.0 37 100.0 287,425 7,768 1,554 555 111 524,645 I 164,352 I 12.8 Championship I i A USS Swim Meet 3 24 45 1,079 2 8.3 22 91.7 124,999 5,682 1,894 126 42 236,852 64,201 5.3 A 1 Boys Soccer Tourna- 3 68 15 1,020 5 7.4 63 92.6 128,519 2,040 680 136 45 247,085 ( ++ 69,493 i 5.7 ment A Girls Soccer Tourna- ( 3 70 15 1,050 0 0.0 70 100.0 160,956 2,299 766 153 51 305,070 85,889 6.8 ment _..............._.._......._........... ._...�.---- _.......__._..__._ ___ _ ___._ _ _ _ _ -..-._.._ A Girls Fastpitch Invita- 3 ! 69 12 828 15 21.7 54 78.3 184,517 3,417 1,139 285 95 351,588 99,811 I 8.0 tional Tournament 1 It Hoopin' Downtown I 1 (584) N/A 584 N/A 77.8 N/A 22.2 9,589 N/A N/A 16 16 21,239 7,111 0.4 BaskethallTournamctu UtCnt Plains Soccer 2 (1,800) N/A 1,800 N/A 21.0 N/A 79.0 211,502 N/A N/A 117 59 493,607 I 161,692 lo.l Shoot Out 'I'ourn:tttC[it yli C 1 Magic Classic Softball g Tournament .... ............ j 1 .... .i................ _._ (900) N/A 900 N/A IT6 NIA 82.4 49,046 N/A N/A 54 54 92,740 30,254 2.1 A ......._ _.. Whataburger Basketball Out ( 4 i 104 it 1,144 2 1.9 102 98.1 608,458 5,965 1,491 542 136 1,157,000 i 349,710 26.9 Shoot D Girls U-14 Regional 3 16 13 208 0 0.0 16 100,0 118,636 7,414 21472 I 570 190 290,060 85,955 6.1 Softball Tournament E I Invitational Youth Soc- 4 146 15 2,190 20 13.7 126 86.3 441,424 3,503 876 234 58 825,534 287,878 16.7 cer Tournament A ASA Men's Fastpitch 3 28 14 392 1 3.6 27 96.4 93,219 3,453 1,151 247 82 176,903 50,904 1 4.0 ...... _.._......... Softball Championship A � j ASA Men's B Fastpitch 5 60 14 840 2 3.3 58 96.7 386,999 6,672 1,334 477 95 730,973 211,870 16.7 j National Championship � 3 70 4 5.7 66 94.3 E ':, Softball Tournaments I 2 55 12 1,788 5 9,1 50 90.9 406,390 3,033 1,153 I 253 96 579,053 209,751 12.3 j 3 24 6 25.0 18 75.0 j 1 a. This figure refers to both full-time and part-time jobs. It assumes the local economy is operating at full capacity and that there is no slack to absorb additional demand created by these events 52 Measuring the Economic Impact organizers in those cases where teams were required to provide them with tournament rosters. Column 6 was derived by multiply- ing the data in columns 4 and 5. It was noted in chapter 2 that economic impact referred only to the expenditures of visitors who resided outside the community. Columns 7 and 8 list the number and per- centage of teams from within the city (or in- dividuals in the three cases where teams were not surveyed). They were excluded from the analysis, which was confined only to those teams or individuals from outside the city. Their number and percentage is reported in columns 9 and 10. The total expenditure shown in column 11 is derived by extrapolating the expenditures reported by the sample of external visitors to the total number of external visitors to the tournament. This calculation is illustrated and described in more detail in the sample report shown in Appendix 2. one of the dan- gers inherent in this procedure, especially if the sample is relatively small, is that a few extraordinary "outlier" responses in the sam- ple can result in a large magnitude of error in the extrapolated results. Outliers are the very small number of respondents who report ex- traordinarily high (or low) expenditures, which would skew the study results because they are atypical. To rectify this potential er- ror source, the author routinely disregarded the data collected from the 5% of respon- dents reporting the highest expenditures and the 5% reporting the lowest expenditures. Columns 12 through 15, break down the total expenditure to a per team average (di- vide column 11 by column 9), per team per day (divide column 12 by column 3), per team member (divide column 11 by column 6), and per team member per day (divide col- umn 14 by column 3). The purpose of these break downs is to establish common denomi- nators across tournaments of different dura- tion, with different numbers of teams and dif- ferent sized squads. Standardizing the data in these ways facilitates the search for patterns and parameters in the data which is discussed in the next section of this chapter. In chapter 2, it was noted that there were multiple measures of economic impact. The three which are most commonly cited are re- ported in columns 16 through 18. The meas- ures were derived by entering the total ex- penditure data reported in column 11 into the IMPLAN model by category (there were 7 categories on the questionnaire shown in Figure 5). Patterns and Parameters in the Sports Tournament Data The data in Table 11 suggest the following: 1. The obvious and expected relationship that the larger the number of participants from outside the community, the greater the economic impact is likely to be. 2. If an overnight stay is not required, then the economic impact on the commu- nity is likely to be small. This exempli- fies the retailing principle that the longer people remain in an area, the more they are likely to spend. Increasing visitors' average length of stay is the most effi- cient way to increase the economic im- pact of an event on the community. Hence, host agencies should vigorously promote attractions that may persuade participants to stay additional days in the local area. The highest total expenditures in column 11 correlate strongly with longer tournaments, which presumably required more overnight stays in the community. The two tournaments with the smallest economic impact were both one -day events. Such sports events ap- pear unlikely to be sufficiently extensive or prestigious to attract visitors from far a«ay and, hence, rely primarily on a Results of 30 Economic Impact Studies CHAPTER 4 53 relatively local clientele. For example, two thirds of city B's Hoopin' Downtown Basketball Tournament participants, re- sided within the city, so the event's eco- nomic impact was minimal. 3. Per team member group per day ex- penditures across the four boys and girls soccer tournaments were relatively con- sistent at $45, $51, $58 and $59, sug- gesting that an expectation of approxi- mately $55 per day is likely to be a rea- sonable basis for estimating expenditures at youth soccer tournaments. 4. Per team member group per day ex- penditures at the seven softball tourna- ments were $54, $82, $95, $95, $96, $111 and $190. The first and last num- bers were extraordinary and unlikely to be typical. The first number relates to a tournament that lasted for only one day, so many participants were not required to stay overnight. The last number was caused by some of the teams travelling over 1,000 miles and, although the tour- nament was the trip's main purpose, the city's appealing location caused many to view the trip as a family vacation em- bracing other attractions in the area. This was reflected in the expenditures. The evidence of the other five studies sug- gests that an expenditure of approxi- mately $100 per day is likely to be a rea- sonable basis for estimating expenditures at softball tournaments. It is unclear why there is such a substan- tial difference in the expenditure of soccer and softball participants. Four possible ex- planations are commodification, climate, sub -culture and age cohorts. Conversations with sporting goods retailers suggests that softball players purchase personal equipment when they visit a community to play a tour- nament, but this is much less prevalent among soccer players. Such purchases may be stimulated by close interaction with other players for a multiple day period. The players y are likely to have time blocks between tour- nament games when nothing is scheduled, and "hanging out" at stores that sell softball equipment is sometimes an appealing option. Soccer requires specialist clothing, but no personal equipment. Hence, the opportunities for commodification in the context of soccer are much fewer. A second contributing factor to the differ- ential economic impact of soccer and softball may be climate. If the climate during softball season is superior to that in the soccer sea- son, then it may encourage participants to bring friends and families to a tournament and to engage in other activities. Third, there may be more of a gregarious "party", sociali- zation sub -culture among softball than among soccer players which induces greater expenditures. Fourth, the four soccer tour- naments that were surveyed were all youth events, while five of the seven softball tour- naments were adult events. It seems intui- tively reasonable that expenditures by adult participant groups would be substantially higher than those associated with youth groups. It was noted in chapter 2 that the most useful measure of economic impact is in- crease in personal income, but that most tourist organizations report economic impact in terms of sales because it generates a much higher dollar number. This point is illustrated in Table 11 where the dollar impacts of sales shown in column 16 are typically between three and four times higher than the personal income measures listed in column 17. Review of the Economic Impacts of 16 Festival and spectator Events The format of the analyses summary shown 0 54 Measuring the Economic Impact in Table 12 is similar to that described in Ta- ble 11 with two exceptions. First, the col- umns relating to teams in Table 11 are not relevant to the analyses in Table 12 where the unit of analysis is individuals. Second, columns 8 and 9 relating to time-switchers and casuals did not appear in Table 11 be- cause they were likely to be irrelevant in the context of sports tournaments. In chapter 2, time-switchers were defined as visitors to an event who have been planning a visit to the community for some time, but changed the timing of their visit to coincide with an event. The spending of these time-switchers should not be attributed to an event since it would have occurred without the event, albeit at a different time of the year. Casuals are visitors who are already in the community, attracted by other features, and who elected to go to the event instead of doing something else. Their spending in the community should not be attributed to the event, because if it had not been held, then their money would probably have been spent in the com- 2 munity on something else. The total expenditures shown in column 12 are derived from two sources. First, visi- tors who were attracted to the community by the event. Second, the incremental amount spent by casuals and time-switchers which could be attributed to an extension of their stay in the community because of the event. More detail on how these were derived is given in the sample report included in Ap- pendix 3. Patterns and Parameters in the Festivals and Spectator Events Data. 3 The data in Table 12 suggest the following: 1. Large numbers of participants and spectators do not necessarily equate to a large economic impact. For example, the Street Rod Run in city A and Golf Tour- nament in city D, shown as the last two events in Table 12 attracted only 1409 and 1259 visitors, respectively. In con- trast, the 4th of July Celebration in city F and Minor League Baseball games in city C attracted 55,000 and 16,895 visitors, respectively. however, the economic im- pacts of the Street Rod Run and Golf Tournament events were substantially greater than those accruing from the 4th of July Celebration or Minor League Baseball games (Columns 12 and 15). This is explained by the larger events lasting for only one day, and only 7% and 28% of the 4th of July Celebration and baseball games, respectively, visiting the communities specifically to participate in those events. Further, it seems likely that many out-of-town visitors commuted to these events from proximate communi- ties, so their spending on accommodation and food in the host communities was likely to be small. The importance of ascertaining the proportion of visitors who are time- switchers and casuals is clearly demon- strated in columns 8 and 9. In five of the sixteen studies, time-switchers and casu- als represented approximately one-third of all visitors. If the questionnaire had asked only for their home address or zip code and, therefore, failed to differentiate them from out-of-town visitors who were attracted specifically by the event, then there would have been a substantial over- estimation of the economic impact attrib- uted to these events. Reasonably accurate measures of eco- nomic impact are dependent upon rea- sonably accurate counts of visitors to the events, because the impact estimates are derived by extrapolating from a sample to a total visitation count. In sports tourna- ments where teams or individuals have to register with the organizers, an accurate Im ` Table 12 The�cd�� i S�cct2��r �� r� e �_ .P�'. � a I 2 3 4 5 I 6 j 7 i 8 9 10 11 I 12 1 13 ; 14 15 16 I Participants/ a Mean Length j Casuah/ Duration # of Spectators from ParticipantsN Spectators from ` Average per Economic Impact City Event Name of Sta of Switchers (# of y Visitor inside the city Out-of-town rs outside the city Total Expenditure Visitor per DayEx n- Da s) Days y Visitors y # % 1 # % # % I diture Sales Iersona) lobs" Income G Open Golf Tournament 3 2.4 464,000 140,167 30.2 72,500 15.6 251,333 54.2 I 29,523,070 117 I 65,856,795 22,389.187 _ 1,232.0 G Arts Festival 1 1.8 51000 1,765 35.3 1 1,588 31.8 1,647 32.9 156,664 I 95 336,976 113,172 6.1 G Culinary Festival 2 1.8 35,000 9,638 ( 27.5 ( 11,486 32.8 13,876 39.7 540,658 39 1,175,350 397,707 21.6 F Annual Arts Festival 3 1.3 500,000 414,000 82.8 40,952 8.2 45,048 9.0 462,428 10 1,037,867 357,237 22.5 E Rusty Relics Car Show 1 1.2 745' 46 6.2 0 0.0 699 93.8 6,562 I 9 ( 12,500 3,994 0.3 C ,_... ........... _.-..-. Two Minor League Base- 1 day 1.0 16,895 6,735 39.9 5,438 32.2 4,722 27.9 25,225 5 54,184 17,818 1.3 ball Games !_._...._............. each _ _ _._..__...._.-.__ C _........ ............. ...... ........ Walk at the Zoo __..- .-._.. _ .._...--_._.._._... _ _ _ _ _. 1 1.1 525 153 29.2 195 __ 37.1 _ 177 I 33.7 548 3 1,055 345 0.0 C Yes Festival 2 3.9 6,092 I 3,442 + 56.5 560 9.2 2,090 34.3 56,650 27 111,616 36,643 2.6 D ............. ......_.... ..... __� '1 River Festival 4 3.1 1,000,000 135,135 13.5 369,574 37.0 495,291 49.5 5,781,136 i 12 14,698,137 4,442,505 326.0 F ? 4ih of July Gala Celebration 1 1.7 55,000 48,605 88.4 2,398 4.3 3,997 7.3 _ ___ 34,420 9 74,793 �_,. _.._�. ._.. 25,474 11.5 ...�.__.___._._......__. F 'I'nathlun Dash ............. ..___.._.... ..._.._... _........ _._.__... _____-- 1 1.1 482' 94 19.5 38 ._ 7.9 _ _.. 350 72.6 14,841 42 25,693 11,416 0.5 F Grand Prix Motor Race 3 1.6 85,000 72,425 85.2 4,899 5.8 7,676 9.0 172,764 23 382,446 __._y 129,902 7.8 __..._.r..__.___.....___..�__ _......._.._:.._ E ....... _._._._...____...___.--._-..._..__._. Nubian Jam Heritage Cele- 1 1.7 5,000 2,041 40.8 877 17.5 2,082 41.7 32,356 16 ; 64,715 19,679 1.4 bration V .............._,..__._ D .... .......... ............... _...... ............. ............_....._...___. I Women's Fitness Challenge ... _..... •-__._.._.-.____....__...-.._........_.._....._._.._..._....-.__._. - 1 1.3 105,415' 83,795 79.5 0 ._.....__,..___.___....... 0.0 21,620 20.5 ! 559,246 .._...... 26 ....._ i 892,808 429,238 23.9 A Bluebonnet Street Rod Run 3 2.2 1,409' ( 96 6.8 0 0.0 1,313 93.2 55,233 42 104,333 31,980 2.4 - D American Junior Golf As- 4 5.4 1,259' 0 0.0 0 0.0 1,259 100.0 74,868 59 188,414 56,690 4.0 sociation Tournament a. The attendance data provided by the agencies for these events were in number of participants, and for purposes of consistency these were transformed in this table to number of visitor days, which includes members of participants' immediate groups. b. This figure consists of the number of out-of-town visitors whose primary purpose of visit was to attend the event (Out-of-Towners), and the number of out-of-town visitors whose primary reason for their visit was not to attend the event but extended their stay because of it (Extended Stayers). c. This figure consists of the expenditures by out-of-town visitors and extended stayers. d. This figure refers to both full-time and part-time jobs. It assumes the local economy is operating at full capacity and that there is no slack to absorb additional demand created by these events. Impact56 Measuring the Economic count is usually available. Similarly, at gated spectator or festival events which charge an admission, accurate counts are available from ticket sales and/or turnstile counts. However, many festivals are not gated and do not charge admission. In these cases, attendance counts are fre- quently guesstimates made by the organ- izers. If these are inaccurate, then the economic impacts will be inaccurate. For example, if the River Festival attendance in Table 12 was actually 200,000 rather than 1 million', then the total expenditure would be $1.15 million rather than $5.78 million! Accuracy in sampling, data col- lection and analysis is of little use if the total attendance counts are inaccurate. 4. Expenditures by out-of-town visitors exceeded $100,000 at 7 of the 16 special events (Table 12), whereas this figure was exceeded by 11 of the 14 sports tournaments (Table 11). These data sug- gest that a larger proportion of sports tournaments are likely to generate sub- stantial positive economic impacts than special events, because of the higher pro- portion of participants who are from out- side the community and the inherent re- quirement of many sports tournaments that participants stay in the community for multiple days. For small and medium sized communities that lack the resources to stage a large scale festival which will be sufficiently attractive that visitors will stay overnight, these data suggest that sports tournaments are likely to be a su- perior generator of positive economic impact. 5. The extraordinary economic impact generated in a local community by a mega -event (as opposed to a typical community festival) is demonstrated by There is no reason to question (he accuracy of this I million atten- dance estimate It �+as arbitrarily selected to illustrate the point. the first event listed in Table 12. This aolf tournament was a stop on the men's professional tour. The very high total ex- penditure (column 12) not only reflects people staying multiple nights in the community and a large proportion of visitors from out-of-town, but also that the visitors are relatively affluent. The almost $30 million estimate in Table 12, is limited to the expenditures of specta- tors and does not include those by the players, officials and their entourages; the extensive number of media representa- tives; the hospitality expenditures of major companies, or sponsorships. Nev- ertheless, the $30 million expenditure dwarfs the aggregated $8 million and $3.3 million generated by the other 15 festivals and events shown in Table 12 and the 14 sports tournaments listed in Table 11, respectively. 6. If an overnight stay is not required, then the economic impact on the commu- nity is likely to be relatively small. This reiterates the pattern noted in the sports tournament data. The per capita expen- diture at single day events by out-of-town visitors were $95, $9, $5, $3, $9, $42, $16, and $26 (column 13). The three largest numbers had features that made them atypical one day events. At the Arts Festival, emphasis was on selling art rather than only viewing it. The $95 amount reflects this retailing dimension. Both the Triathlon Dash ($42) and the Women's Fitness Challenge ($26) had an overnight component, even though they were one day events. Many participants arrived in the community the previous evening so they would be rested before Participating in the next day's athletic event. Results of 30 Economic Impact Studies CHAPTER 4 57 Now to Present Economic Impact Results to Make the Economic Case On several occasions in this publication it has been noted that although sales, personal income, and jobs are commonly reported measures of economic impact, the only meaningful measure for taxpayers and elected officials in local communities is the personal income that accrues to residents as a result of out-of-town visitor spending at the event. However, this creates an ethical co- nundrum for park and recreation managers since advocates from tourism, economic de- velopment, chambers of commerce, and other agencies, organizations and industrial sectors who seek to demonstrate their economic clout in a community are likely to use the relatively meaningless sales measure, be- cause it is substantially bigger than the per- sonal income measure, and the misleading employment measure. If the economic impact of sports tourna- ments and special events is reported only by personal income, then it is likely to appear insignificant when compared to other eco- nomic sectors whose advocates report their impact in sales. The apparent relatively small impact of an event caused through reporting only the personal income measure may translate into commensurately less political and resource support for it from decision - makers and perhaps, ultimately, even with- drawal of appropriations for it. Acting ethi- cally when others do not, could critically damage the event's standing. To resolve the conundrum, it is recommended that all three measures be reported so like measures can be compared to like, but that the limitations of the sales and jobs measures be emphasized. The following paragraphs offer a general template for this: There is frequently confusion and misunderstanding in interpreting meas- ures derived from the IMPLAN input- output model which are reported in columns 14, 15 and 16 of Table 12. It has become commonplace for tourism, economic development, and other agencies to report economic impact in terms of sales generated. In our view, this is of no value to elected officials or residents. It is used because it gener- ates the highest economic impact num- ber; but residents have no interest in sales generated, they are primarily in- terested in how it impacts them in terms of personal income. The jobs' economic impact data of- ten are similarly mischievously inter- preted. For example, the arts festival in city G suggests that 6.1 jobs were cre- ated as a result of the festival. How- ever, it seems reasonable to posit that local businesses are unlikely to hire additional full-time employees in re- sponse to additional demands created by the arts festival, because the extra business demand will last only for a few days. In these situations, the num- ber of employees is not likely to in- crease. Rather, it is the number of hours that existing employees work that is likely to increase. Existing em- ployees are likely to be requested to work overtime or to be released from other duties to accommodate this tem- porary peak demand. At best, only a few very short-term additional employ- ees may be hired. Hence, it is improb- able that anything like 6.1 jobs will be created. This figure of 6.1 is further mis- leading because in calculating it, the model assumes (1) there was no spare capacity to absorb the extra services and products purchased with this in- flow of new funds, and 0i) that no out- M rE of -town residents took any new jobs that did emerge. In fact, the existing staff at hotels, restaurants, retail estab- lishments, etc. are likely to have spare capacity to handle these visitors. If they do not, then it is likely that man- agers will reorganize shift schedules or pay overtime. Only if these adjust- ments are unable to accommodate the additional demand generated by the arts festival, will new jobs be created. Such jobs are likely to be temporary, part-time positions lasting for the du- ration of the festival. The most useful economic impact indicator is that which measures the event's contribution to the personal in- comes of residents. This is rarely used by tourism agencies because it is gen- erally three to four times smaller than the sales impact. However, it is the in- dicator that is likely to be most mean- ingful to residents. Agencies should prepare an annual eco- nomic impact report each year for their stakeholders. Extrapolations can be made from data included in this report to similar events in the community that were not sur- veyed. An example taken from sports tour- naments in city A, is shown in Table 13. Data from the six sports events listed above the bold line in Table 13 were collected by surveys. No surveys were undertaken at the four events below the line. These events were matched with above -the -line events that were most similar and the per team member per day dollar value was used from the matching events to calculate the total expenditure and economic impacts. The economic impact report in Table. 13 shows that almost $1 million accrued in new income to city residents, and that out-of-town visitor expenditures resulted in over $3 mil- lion of additional sales. This balance sheet was presented to city A's council as part of the budget process and helped solidify the department's position as a contributor to economic development. Similarly, an annual balance sheet show- ing the economic impact of special events sponsored by city F is shown in Table 14. It was derived by extrapolating results from 3 special events in this city that were surveyed to an additional 10 events which were spon- sored by the city during the year but at which no data were collected. The ratios of visitors from inside the city, casuals/time switchers, and visitors from outside the city were simi- lar at all of the 3 surveyed events. This sug- gested that it was reasonable to extrapolate to the other events, the average ratios of the 3 surveyed events of 85.5, 6.1 and 8.4 for the local residents, casuals/time switchers, and out-of-town visitors, respectively. Attendance estimates for the 10 non - surveyed events were available. The per cap- ita spending by out-of-town visitors at the three surveyed events was $10.26 (462,428 :- 45,048), $8.61, and $22.50, yielding an aver- age of $13.79. This number was used to cal- culate the total expenditure at the non - surveyed events. For example, the $18,623 total expenditure at Winter Fest was derived by $13.79 x 1350. Arraying the economic return from special events in this way also offers managers and stakeholders guidelines as to which should receive priority in promotional effort. The spending of visitors to the Grand Prix was $22.50 per visitor, compared to $10.25 and $8.61 for the Arts Festival and Gala Celebra- tion, respectively. This suggests that the most efficient strategy for city F to increase its re- turn on investment may be to focus on out- of-town visitors to the Grand Prix, rather than on the other two events. There are many legitimate reasons for sponsoring festivals and special events be- yond their contribution to economic devel- Table 14 '; TY Duration Participants/ Casuals/Time Spectators from Participants/ e Spectators from Total " I Economic Impact Event Name # of Date (# of Visitor Da y _ s Days) Switchers inside the city �_ _, r% _.. ..outside the city _..... -- Expenditure -.... --._-.-.--.. . Sales . Personal ..t._..._....__-. Jobs.__.__.c_.__ # # % # % Income I Annual Arts Festival I 6-5 3 500,000 414,000 82.8 40,952 8.2 45,048 9.0 462,428 j 1,037,867 357,237 I i 22.5 4" of July Gala Celebration 7-4 1 55,000 48,605 i 88.4 2,398 4.3 3,997 7.3 34,420 1 74,793 25,474 i 1.5 Grand Prix Motor Race 7-24 3 85,000 72,425 j 85.2 4,899 5.8 7,676 9.0 172,764 382,446 129,902 7.8 WinterFest 1-23 2 16,000 13,674 85.5 976 6.1 1,350 8.4 I 18,623 i ! 28,724 11,025 0.6 Three Fires Pow Wow I 6-13 2 25,000 21,365 85.5 1,525 6.1 2,110 8.4 ( 29,107 44,894 17,231 0.9 African -American Festival 7-10 3 15,000 12,819 85.5 915 6.1 1,266 8.4 17,464 26,936 10,339 0.5 Jazz tr Blues Festival 7-31 2 10,000 8,546 85.5 610 6.1 844 8.4 11,643 i 17,958 6,893 0.4 .... _....... ._ Italian Festival i 8-7 3 30,000 i 25,638 85.5 1,830 6.1 2,532 8.4 34,929 53,874 20,678 1.1 Polish Harvest Festival 8-28 3 15,000 I 12,819 85.5 915 ....... .................. _.... __... 6.1 ................... _.......... 1,266 ................. _.._._-..._...._.__._.._....._... 8.4 17,464 -............. __... _...... 26,936 _... {........ ._............ _............... _... ... 10,339 ............. ...... ............. ....... ............. 0.5 ......... (4-1111an Festival ............._- ............... ........ _.._..................... _..... ......... _.... _.._................................. .... 9-4 3 10,000 1...._ -_....... _...... .... _.......... _.... .......... _...._ 8,546 85.5 610 .............. 6.1 ... _.._............. 844 -..__-__... - ........... -._.._ 8.4 .... _.._ . 11,643 _.._._._.._--._.....__._.__...4_._ I 17,958 ..... --._._._.......__._............_..._-...--_._ 6,893 ----- ................._..............._............ 0.4 Celebration on the Grand ........._............. ........ _..... _...... ........ _.......... _... _...................... __....... ........................ 9-11 2 350,000 _............ .......... .............. _----- _ 299,110 85.5 2I,350 6.1 29,540 8.4 407,504 i 628,529 241,239 12.7 Hispanic Festival I 9-11 3 70,000 59,822 85.5 4,270 6.1 5,908 8.4 81,501 125,706 48,248 2.5 --- _.................. _ _..._......_..._..- Mexican Festival I 9-18 3 100000 85460 85.5 6,100 6.1 8,440 8.4 116,430 179,580 68,926 3.6 Total y ��2o- 08 ice' ��7;350 ? 70,821 _ L$I5,920 2,646,201 , 954,424 55.0 a. This figure consists of the _.< number of out-of-town visitors whose primary purpose of visit was to attend the event (Out-of-Towners), and the number of out-of-town visitors whose primary reason for their visit was not to attend the event but extended their stay because of it (Extended Stayers). b. This figure consists of the expenditures by out-of-town visitors and extended stayers. C. This figure refers to both full-time and part-time jobs. It assumes the local economy is operating at full capacity and that there is no slack to absorb additional demand created by these events. Table 13 The Econo, i Average Teams from Teams from Average Direct Expenditures Economic Impact j Duration # of Size of # of Indi- inside he city outside the cif Total Expen- - Per Per Per Team Event Name i Date (# of Days) Teams Team vidual Par- ticipants # % # °�° diture Per Team Team Member Sales Personal Income lobs' Squad Team Per Day Member Per Day { USS Swim Meet 1-23 3 24 45 1,079 2 8.3 22 91.7 124,999 5,682 1,894 126 42 236,852 64,201 5.3 . ........... _._........._.._;_.._.._...__._.......__.....__.._. Boys Soccer Tourna- 2-20 3 68 15 1,020 5 7.4 63 92.6 128,519 2,040 680 136 45 247,085 69,493 5.7 mcnt Girls Soccer Tournament 'i 2-28 3 70 15 1,050 0 0.0 I 70 100.0 160,956 2,299 766 153 51 305,070 85,889 i_ 6.8 Girls Fastpitch Invita- 5-29 3 69 12 828 15 21.7 I 54 78.3 184,517 3,417 1,139 285 95 351,588 99,811 8.0 tional Tournament .... _.......... _....... ._.....__ - ..... ...... ....... ....._.......... _........... ..._..... _..._......._....__....._ ASA Men's Fastpitch ( 8-1 3 28 14 392 1 3.7 27 96.4 93,219 3,453 1,151 247 82 176,903 50,904 j 4.0 Softball Championship ASA Men's Class B Na- 1 9-7 5 60 14 840 2 3.3 58 96.7 386,999 6,672 1,334 477 95 730,973 211,870 I 16.7 tional Championship , , ......, _ ..._.. __, Budweiser Tournament ... 2 5_2 2, .. 162 14 2.268,,.... 30 18.5 .I. 132 81.5 303,864 2,302 1 151 164 82 44 440,655 151,729 L... 98 . State Girls Fastpitch 7-10 3 34 12 408 1 2.9 I 33 97.1 112,761 3,417 1,139 285 95 163,523 56,305 3.6 U-18 Men's Slowpitch State 7-24 3 101 14 1,414 14 13.9 87 86.1 300,411 3,453 1,151 247 82 435,648 150,005 i 9.6 Class C State women's Fastpitch 1 8-1 2 5 12 60 0 0.0 5 100.0 11,390 2,278 1,139 190 95 16,517 5,687 I 0.4 Total ( 62I 9,359 70 I11.3 551 88.7 1 807,635 3,104,814 ,� 945,894' I 69.9 full-time It the local economy is operating at full capacity and that there is no slack to absorb additional demand created by these events. a. This figure refers to both and part-time jobs. assumes Results of 30 Economic Impact Studies CHAPTER 4 61 opment. However, if economic development is the prime consideration, then these analy- ses offer a basis for prioritizing which events are most viable. When the agency's cost of organizing an event is considered along with the community infrastructure, displacement and opportunity costs discussed in chapter 2, the relatively small impact on personal in- come suggests that the viability of some of the sponsored events shown in Table 14 may be challengeable. Finally, in reports to stakeholders it is worth noting that in addition to the economic impact attributable to the specific events_ which is reported, events may stimulate sub- sequent tourism. Initial exposure to the community may cause some visitors to return in the future as tourists, or to encourage their friends to visit the community. J 62 Measuring the Economic Umpact APPENDIX i THE THREE COLLECTIVE "PUBLIC' BENEFITS THAT MAY ACCRUE FROM PARK AND RECREATION SERVICES' The provision of park and recreation oppor- tunities for their own sake still lacks political clout. They have to be shown to solve corn- munity problems before politicians see them as being worthy of funding. Many taxpayers are not frequent users of park and recreation services and, thus, have difficulty under- standing why they should support them. The prevailing sentiment is often: If only some segments of our community use park and recreation services, then why should the rest of us have to pay for them? To gain the sup- port of non -users, an agency has to provide a convincing answer to the question "What is in it for them?" Broader community support is likely to be dependent on building aware- ness not only of the on -site benefits that ac- crue to users, but also of the off -site benefits that accrue to non -users in communities. There is increased recognition that while benefit driven programs may lead to higher levels of satisfaction among participants and attract increased numbers, such individual "private" benefits have relatively little impact on resource allocation decisions made by elected officials. These benefits are described as individual or "private" because they ac- crue only to program participants and do not extend to the majority of the population who are only occasional users or non -users. Pro- viding resources to a parks and recreation department so a minority of residents can have enjoyable experiences is likely to be a low priority when measured against the criti- cal economic, health, safety and welfare is- sues with which most legislative bodies are confronted. To justify the allocation of additional re- sources, elected officials have to be con- vinced that park and recreation agencies de- liver collective "public" benefits. These are defined as benefits that accrue to most people in a community, even though they do not participate in an agency's programs or use its facilities. There are just three of these public benefits: economic development; alleviat- An expanded discussion of these benefits can be found in Chapter 5 of a book: John L. Crompton (1999) Financing and Acquiring Park and Recreation Resources, Champaign. Illinois Human Kinetics. 64 Measuring the Economic impact ing social problems; and environmental stewardship. However, even these three categories of public benefits receive funding support only when they are regarded as being high priority in a community. Hence, the task of a park and recreation agency is to identify which of these public benefits is most promi- nent on a jurisdiction's political agenda, and to demonstrate the agency's potential contri- bution to fulfilling that agenda. Economic Development Economic development is viewed as a means of enlarging the tax base. The enlargement provides more tax revenues that governments can use either to improve the community's infrastructure, facilities, and services or to reduce the level of taxes that existing resi- dents pay. It is seen also as a source of jobs and income that enables residents to improve their quality of life. In some communities, park and recreation agencies play a major role in economic development. That role may take the form of- (i) Attracting Tourists: The major factor considered by tourists when they make a de- cision which communities to visit on a pleas- ure trip, is the attractions that are available. In most cities, those attractions are domi- nated by facilities and services operated by park and recreation agencies and their non- profit partners (parks, beaches, events, festi- vals, athletic tournaments, museums, histori- cal sites, cultural performances, etc.). With- out such attractions, there is no tourism. (11) Attracting Businesses: The viability of businesses in the highly recruited high- technology, research and development, com- pany headquarters, and services sectors, in many cases is dependent on their ability to attract and retain highly educated profes- sional employees. The deciding factor of where these individual choose to live is often y: the quality of life in the geographic vicinity of the business. No matter how quality of life ,. is defined, park and recreation opportunities are likely to be a major component of it. (iii) Attracting Retirees. A new clean growth industry in America today is the growing number of relatively affluent, active retirees. Their decisions as to where to locate with their substantial retirement incomes is primarily governed by two factors: climate and recreational opportunities. (iv) Enhancing steal Estate Values. People are prepared to pay more to live close to natural park areas. The enhanced value of these properties results in their owners pay- ing higher property taxes to governments. If the incremental amount of taxes paid by each property that is attributable to the park is ag- gregated, it is often sufficient to pay the an- nual debt charges required to retire the bonds used to acquire and develop the park. (1) Preventing Youth Crime. The use of park and recreation programs to alleviate youth crime was a primary political stimulant for much of the early recreation provision in major cities at the beginning of the 20th century. There is strong evidence demon- strating the success of these programs when they are structured to provide: social support from adult leaders; leadership opportunities for youth; intensive and individualized atten- tion to participants; a sense of group be- longing; youth input into program decisions; and opportunities for community service. The return on investment of such programs is substantial when it is related to the costs of incarceration. The Three Collective Benefits APPENDIX 1 65 (ii) Healthy Lifestyles. There is growing recognition that the key to curtailing health care costs lies in prevention of illness so it does not have to be treated by the expensive medical system. Park and recreation services contribute to this end not only by facilitating improvements in physical fitness through ex- ercise, but also by facilitating positive emo- tional, intellectual and social experiences. People with high levels of wellness have a proclivity to act during their free time, rather than merely be acted on. (iii) Environmental Stress. Environmental stress may involve both psychological emo- tions, such as frustrations, anger, fear and coping responses, and associated physiologi- cal responses that use energy and contribute to fatigue. It is experienced daily by many who live or commute in urban or blighted ar- eas. Parks in urban settings have a restorative effect that releases the tensions of modern life. Evidence demonstrating the therapeutic value of natural settings has emerged in both physiological and psychological studies. The cost of environmental stress in terms of work days lost and medical care is likely to be sub- stantially greater than the cost of providing and maintaining parks, urban forestry pro- grams, and oases of flowers and shrubs. (iv) Unemployment and Underemploy- ment. Basic psychological needs that many people derive from their work are difficult to acquire when unemployed or working in low-level service jobs such as cashiers, jani- tors and cleaners which are the major growth positions in the economy. Such needs may include self-esteem, prestige accruing from peer group recognition, ego satisfaction of achievement, a desire to be successful, ex- citement and self-worth. For the growing number of people in low level jobs, these needs will be obtained in their familial or lei- sure milieus, or they will not be obtained at all. Environmental Stewardship (i) Historical Preservation. Without a cul- tural history, people are rootless. Preserving historical remnants offers lingering evidence to remind people of what they once were, who they are, what they are and where they are. It feeds their sense of history. (ii) The Natural Environment. People turn to the natural environment, preserved by hu- mans as a park, wilderness, or wildlife ref- uge, for something they cannot get in a built environment. The quality of human life de- pends on an ecological sustainable and aes- thetically pleasing physical environment. The surge of interest in conserving open spaces from people motivated by ecological and aesthetic concerns, is matched by a similar surge from those concerned that the inexora- ble rise in demands for outdoor recreation is not being matched by a commensurate ex- pansion of the supply base. Page 1 of 1 Kris Lehde - RE: Meeting Reminder From: Glenn Schroeder <gschroeder@aggiecatholic.org> To: "'Kris Lehde"' <klehde@ci.coilege-station.tx.us> ®ate: 1/14/2003 3:26 PM Subject: RE: Meeting Reminder Hi, Kris, Please pass on this request for excused absence from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board for this evening. I will be in Waco for Bailey's basketball game. When you have time, please e-mail me any addition info from the meeting. Thanks Glenn Glenn Schroeder Director of Administration St. Marys Catholic Center 603 Church Avenue College Station, TX 77840 979.846.5717 -----Original Message ----- From: Kris Lehde [SMTP:klehde@ci.college-station.tx.usJ Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 8:40 AM To: gschroeder@aggiecatholic.org; GDAVIS6264@AOL.com; j_warner@cox-internet.com; ALUSON@fabtexas.com; DAVISG@fabtexas.com; Bill@PianoPlace.net; jpn@tamu.edu; Ifarns@tca.net Subject: Meeting Reminder Just a reminder of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meeting/Public Hearing that will be held tonight (Tuesday, Jar.. 141-h), at 7:00 p.m., at the EXIT Teen Center (Rock Prairie Road). Kris Lehde Staff Assistant College Station Parks & Recreation (979) 764-3414 College Station. Embracing the past, Exploring the future. file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\klehde.000\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW }00007.... 1/14/2003 I Kris Lenae - t<e: List tor citizens committee triage i I From: Priscilla Henchel To: Kris Lehde Date: 1/13/03 12:02PM Subject: Re: List for Citizens Committee Here are the names: Angie Alaniz Edwin K. Coulson Bill Eisele Sherry Ellison Hays Glover Paul E. Kullman Thomas Longbrake Charles McCandless Harry Raisor Ken Reynolds Larry Ringer Edward Uvacek, Jr. Richard C. Van Duyne John P. Walter Flora Huang Brookfield Anita M. Davidson David F. Gardner Mary Ellen Hogan Laura Holmes Gregory S. Huchingson Edsel Jones Charles E. Lamb Mike Lane Billy G. Lay Carol Reynolds Charles Rognon David Scoff Shirley Volk Joe Wallace Ward Wells Whew!! >>> Kris Lehde 01 /13/03 11:46AM >>> Yes, the CIP Committee that was just recently chosen by Council for the upcoming bond election Kris Lehde Staff Assistant College Station Parks & Recreation (979) 764-3414 >>> Priscilla Henchel 01/13/03 11:26AM >>> Kris, Are you talking about the new ad hoc CIP Committee? >>> Kris Lehde 01 /13/03 10:49AM >>> Good morning Priscilla. Steve would like to give our Parks Board a list of the ones that were chosen to serve on the Citizen's Committee. Do you have a finalized list that we could give them at our meeting tomorrow? Thanks! Kris Lehde Staff Assistant "RB w F _ r9 k u t,, `-n W1 a s st L, ,- Income Annual Income Profit total $ Fall 1996 475 $13,680.00 $13,680.00 $7,275.00 $7,275.00 Spring 1997 872 $27,115.00 $52,411.00 $13,205.00 $25,235.00 Fall1997 875 1747 $25,296.00 $12,030.00 Spring 1998 822 $26,380.00 $63,144.00 $13,240.00 $32,772.00 Fall1998 1130 1952 $36,764.00 $19,532.00 Spring 1999 1017 $36,761.00 $64,909.00 $19,545.00 $33,845.00 Fall1999 764 1781 $28,148.00 $14,300.00 Spring 2000 1104 $41,724.00 $66,213.00 $20,679.00 $34,415.00 Fall2000 868 1972 $24,489.00 $13,736.00 Spring 2001 994 $36,578.00 $77,806.00 $19,062.00 $42,763.00 Fall 2001 1192 2186 $41,228.00 $23,701.00 Spring 2002 1759 $65,178.00 $111,338.00 $39,449.00 $64,819.00 Fall2002 1337 3096 $46,160.00 $25,370.00 Enrollment Analysis and Projections 1993 to 2007 At the request of Dr. Johnson, I have analyzed the past ten years of enrollment data in several areas: enrollment by grade, ethnicity, economically disadvantaged status, special education, limited English proficiency, and career and technology education. In order to make accurate projections, it is important to look at past trends. Unfortunately, these trends will not necessarily hold in the future. For example, this analysis cannot take into account major economic changes to our community including major growth or decline in Texas A&M University enrollment, addition of major industrial development in the community, significant positive or negative changes in the economy affecting the housing market. Also, it is important to note that I am not trained as a demographer. Demographers use not only CSISD enrollment data, but they have access to and proficiency in analyzing building permit data, census data, fertility and mortality rates, etc. As such, this analysis was made solely based on eight years of enrollment data in CSISD, with the following assumptions: 1. Enrollment will increase in a linear fashion at a moderate rate based on both the last eight years of growth and the upturn in enrollment in the last two school years. 2. There will be no major increase or decrease in industry in the College Station ISD area including Texas A&M University, by far the county's largest employer. 3. Interest rates, housing availability and affordability will remain relatively consistent with the levels over the past three years. Total Enrollment Analvsis and Projections October enrollment counts have grown from 6150 students in 1993 to 7695 students in 2002. As the chart below illustrates, student enrollment increased steadily from 1993 to 1997, an average of 3.86 percent a year. From 1998 to 2000 the enrollment leveled off increasing an average of only 3/4 of a percent each year. Beginning in 2001, enrollment seems to be on the increase again. Total district enrollment increased 1.46 percent in 2001 and 3.65 percent in 2002. Looking at the large increase in affordable housing, especially in the Baron Road area, one could predict this larger annual increase to continue in the short term. 8000 7500 7000 6500 6000 5500 5000 Total Enrollment October 1993 to 2002 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 The major question in forecasting growth in CSISD is at what rate will the total enrollment increase. Lacking any formal training in demography, I simply looked at the trends over the last 10 years. If one were to average the growth for these 10 years, the average yearly increase is 2.53 percent per year. Similarly, if one were to average the last two years of enrollment, it would average 2.55 percent per year. Using these averages, I simply took this October's enrollment and added in 2.55 percent growth for 2003 and added 2.55 percent each year through October 2007. At the bottom of the table on the following page the total enrollment for 1993 to 2002 is listed. Directly under the total enrollment is the percentage increase from the previous year. To project the total enrollment count in 2003 through 2007, 2.55 percent was added to the total. OCTOBER 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 African American 690 761 776 826 865 10.29% 1.97% 6.44% 4.72% Hispanic 1 493 507 1 542 599 670 I }�Nhite I I lAsian I lEcon Dis Ispecial Education I I ILEP I CATE Total 2.84% 1 6.90% 10.52% 11.85% 1998 1999 12000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 920 942 906 902 919 963 979 996 1055 1134 6.36% 2.39% 1-3.82% -0.44% 1 1.88% 4.79% 1.66% 1.74% 5.92% 7.49% 697 690 1 737 829 970 1065 1 1173 1278 1 1379 1 1483 1 4.03% -1.00% 1 6.81 % 12.48% I 17.01 % 9.79% 10.14% 8.95% 7.90% 7.54% 1 4537 4713 1 4772 5020 1 5116 5056 5075 1 5052 5040 1 5138 5176 5227 5294 1 5327 5323 3.88% 1.25% 5.20% 1 1 1.91 % 1-1.17% I 0.38% 1-0.45% -0.24% 1 1.94% 0.74% 1 0.99% 1.28% 10.62% 1-0.08% 430 427 454 1 491 1 501 1 516 1 I 552 I 613 1 I 649 ! 660 I 1 687 � 712 1 1 I 1 730 749 ! 785 1 1-0.70% 1 1 I 6.32% 1 1 8.15% 1 2.04% 2.99% 1 6.98% 11.05%1 5.87% 11.69% 14.09% 1 3.64% 2.53% 1 2.60% 14.81 % 1 1383 1470 1512 1 1642 1729 1848 1850 1 1785 I 1844 1 1991 i 1 2051 1 2104 2199 1 2255 1 2356 1 6.29% 2.86% 1 8.60% 1 5.30% 1 6.88% 0.11 % 1-3.51 1 % 1 1 3.31 % 7.97% 13.01 % 1 2.58% 4.52% 1 2.55% 1 4.48% 472 456 489 532 I 573 I 558 598 613 1 626 680 1 1 1 679 1 704 1 1 730 757 785 -3.39% 7.24% 8.79% 1 7.71 % 1-2.62% 7.17% 2.51 % 2.12% 8.63% 1-0.15% 3.68% 3.69% 3.70% 3.70% 1 211 203 284 1 337 264 I I 301 1 333 1 378 381 377 410 1 437 1 1 464 1 493 524 1 -3.79% 1 39.90% 118.66% 1 -21.66% 1 14.02%110.63%113.51 1 % 0.79% -1.05% 8.75% 1 6.59% 16.18% 16.25% 6.29% 1 936 1 947 1 1123 1 1220 1 1285 1 1523 1 I 1523 1 1811 1 1 1818 1 1787 ► 1 1807 1 1910 1991 1 2085 1 2182 1 1 1 1 1.18% 1 1 1 18.59% 1 8.64% 1 5.33% 118.52%1 0.00% 118.91 %1 0.39% 1 -1.71 % 1 1.12% 5.70% 14.24% 14.72% 14.65% 6150 1 6410 16545 1 6939 I 7153 1 1 1 7194 1 7264 1 7317 1 7424 7695 1 1 7891 8092 1 1 1 1 8298 1 8510 1 8727 4.23% 1 2.11 % 1 6.02% 1 3.08% 1 0.57% 1 0.97% 0.73% 1 1.46% 3.65% � 2.55% 2.55% 12.55% 1 2.55% 12.55% 3. 5 TX.0. 5% 1 2.55% 2 Projections about enrollment by ethnicity, economically disadvantaged, special education, LEP and CATE students were made in a different fashion. The chart below shows the percentage of district enrollment by ethnicity and program for 1993 to 2002. Looking at the percentage for each year one begins to see some trends. For example, the percentage of White students falls approximately one percent each school year. African American percentages have remained stable over the past 10 years. Hispanic enrollment increased steadily over the last three years. Projections for 2003-2007 for percentage of students on the chart below were made based on what has occurred over the past few years. These percentages were applied to the total projected enrollment on page two. To obtain the projected number of students in each ethnicity and program, we multiplied the projected total enrollment (bottom of table on page 2) by the projected percentage in each group (table on page 3). These projected numbers were included in the table on page 2. ,OCTOBER 11993 1994 11995 11996 1997 11998 1999 2000 2001 African American J 11.2 11.9 11.9 11.9 12.1 J 12.8 ( 13 12.4 12.1 12002 11.9 f Hispanic ( 8 7.9 8.3 ( 8.6 9.4 9.7 9.5 ( 10.1 ( 11.2 12.6 White 73.8 ( 73.5 I 72.9 ( 72.3 71.5 70.3 I 69.9 ( 69 ( 67.9 66.8 I4sian I 7 1 6.7 6.9 7.2 7 7.2 7.6 ( 8.5 8.7 8.6 JEcon Dis 22.5 22.9 23.7 24.2 ( 24.4 ( 24.9 Special Education 7.7 123.1 7.1 7.5 7.7 125.7 8 7.8 125.5 8.2 8.4 ( 125.9 8.4 8.8 JLEP I 3.4 3.2 4.3 4.9 3.7 l 4.1 i 4.6 I 5.2 5.1 4.9 CATE 115.2 14.8�17.2(17.6( 18 I21.2I 21 (24.8(24.5�23.2 (OCTOBER 2003 12004 12005 2006 2007 African American 12.2 12.1 12 12.4 13 Hispanic 13.5 ( 14.5 ( 15.4 16.2 17 hite 65.6 64.6 1 63.8 62.6 1 I 61 sian 1 8.7 8.8 1 8.8 8.8 1 9 IEcon Dis ( 26 26 26.5 27 (Special Education ( 8.6 8.7 126.5 8.8 8.9 I 9 ILEP 5.2 5.4 5.6 I 5.8 ( 6 CATE 22.9 ( 23.6 ( 24 j 24.5 ( 25 For a better visual representation of the data and projections, we have included some charts on the next few pages. The two charts on page four represent the number of students by ethnicity and program from 1998 to 2002 and projections for 2003 to 2007. On page five two charts show the nercentaae of students by ethnicity and program from 1998 to 2002 and projections for 2003 to 2007. 3 Enrollment Counts by Ethnicity October 1998 to 2007 10000. 9000 --- --�---- 8000 -------.-__.__---... 7000 ...-----------------------� ----_----.. --- --- --- 6000 —------- -- -- 5000 4000 3000 2000 ___ r 0 African American Hispanic El 1998 920 697 I❑ 1999 942 690 102000 906 737 1020011 902 829 I132002 919 970 102003 963 1065 M 2004 979 1173 ❑ 2005 996 1278 I®2006 1055 1379 ID 2007 1134 1483 White Asian j otai 5056 516 7194 5075 552 7264 5052 613 7317 5040 649 7424 5138 660 7695 5176 687 7891 5227 712 8092 5294 730 8298 5327 749 8510 5323 785 8727 Enrollment Counts by Program October 1998 to 2007 2500 2000 t� 1500 r -- - -; r �r s - --- - -- -- g 1000 __ 500 e � .. 0 Econ Dis Special Education _ LEP CATE 1 Ifs 1998 1848 558 301 1523 { Io 1999 1850 598 333 1523 11 I❑ 2000 1785 613 378 1811 1132001 1844 626 381 1818 1 ®2002 1991 680 377 1787 1132003 2051 679 410 1807 IM 2004 2104 704 437 1910 ❑ 2005 2199 730 464 1991 ®2006 2255 757 493 2085 rd Enrollment Percentage by Ethnicity October 1998 to 2007 80 - ys 70 70.3 69 —69-- --67-.9-7766--4I�---- 65.6 64.677-7- 63.8- 62.6 60 - 50 - 40 30 20 17 13 5 14:� 12.8 1 'A 2.4 2 12.1 13 7.7.6 8.5 2 8.7 8.61 8.7 8.8 8.8 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Enrollment Percentage by Program October 1998 to 2007 30 25. ) -^6 5 27 41% 24.8 .2 25 Z4:5- - 23.4. 23.6 24.5 - 22.9 21.2 21 20 10 - 7 8.2 9' 9 5.2 51 4Q -A 4.6 5.2 -5.4 5.6- 5.8- 6 5 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Total Enrollment by Grade Level African American Hispanic White Asian Econ ®is Special Education LEP —CATE Dr. Johnson also asked for enrollment analysis and projections by grade level. We looked at both the number and percentage of students in each grade level for the past five years, 1998 to 2002. We took the average percentage of students per grade level to make the analysis. The table at the top of the next page shows the percentage of total students per grade level. R (October 1998 I 1999 2000 2001 1 2002 Average I IECE 0.2 0.1 I 0.2 0.3 1 0.5 I 0.26 1 IPK 2.8 1 2.7 2.8 2.7 1 2.6 1 2.72 1 IK 1 7.7 1 7.4 7.3 1 7.3 ) 7.5 7.44 i 11 st 8.2 8 7.5 7.6 7.4 7.74 �nd I 6.9 8.2 7.8 , 7.4 7.6 7.58 13rd 7.8 6.8 7.8 I 7.6 7.4 I 7.48 1 th 1 7.8 7.6 6.9 I 7.7 7.8 7.56 5th 7.4 7.8 7.4 7.2 I 7.3 ! 7.42 1 16th 7 1 7.3 I 7.7 7.5 I 7.2 I 7.34 1 17th 1 7.8 I 7.2 7.4 1 7.8 + 7.8 1 7.6 i 18th 1 7.5 1 7.7 7.3 1 7.5 I 7.8 1 7.56 1 19th 8.7 1 8.1 8.6 8 1 8.4 1 8.36 1 110th I 7.7 1 7.4 1 7.1 7.8 7.2 1 7.44 1 111 th 6.5 7.2 7 6.7 6.9 6.86 112th 6.1 I 6.5 I 7 I 6.7 I 6.6 1 6.58 1 1 100.1 100 99.8 1 99.8 100 99.94 1 We averaged those percentages over the past five years to obtain an average percentage. Those average percentages were then applied to the total projected enrollment for the next five years, 2003 to 2007. These averages are included on the chart on the next page. To aid in reading the chart, cohort groups (e.g. groups progressing together through the grade levels) are represented by the same color of text. 0 October 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 ECE 12 9 13 24 39 21 21 22 22 23 PK 201 196 207 202 202 215 220 226 231 237 K 551 535 537 544 577 = 587 602 617 633 649 1st 587 578 548 564 572 611 626 642 659 675 2nd 495 597 570 551 584 = 598 613 529 645 662 3rd 562 492 573 557 573 590 605 621 637 653 4th 559 552 505 573 599 597 612 627 643 660 5th 531 569 544 535 563 = 586 600 616 631 648 6th 503 532 565 557 553 = 579 594 609 625 641 7th 561 521 544 580 604 � 600 615 631 647 663 8th 540 556 531 556 598 - 597 612 627 643 660 9th 628 590 629 596 647 _ 664 681 699 716 735 10th 553 540 522 579 551 = 587 602 617 633 649 11th 470 524 514 500 530 _ 541 555 569 584 599 12th 441 473 514 496 507 - 519 532 546 560 574 7891 8092 8298 8509 8727 TOTAL 7194 7264 7317 7424 7695 _ 7891 8092 8298 8510 8727 " Projections Assume Total 2.55 Percent Growth Total Enrollment is multiplied by av erage percentage in each grade level October ECE PK K 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Sub -Total 5th 6th Sub -Total 7th 8th Sub -Total 9th I Oth 1 Ith 12th Sub -Total Pre -Kindergarten — 4h Grade Sub -totals 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 12 9 13 39 201 196 207 202 202 551 535 537 544 577 587 578 548 564 572 495 597 570 551 584 562 492 573 567 573 559 505 573 599 2967 2959 2953 3025 3146 531 5113 9 535 563 503 532 -535 r-; :� -, 553 1034 1101 1110 1092 1116 561 521 544 530 604 540 556 531 556 598 1101 1077 1075 1136 1202 628 590 596 647 553 540 522 551 470 524 514 500 441 473 514 496 507 2092 2127 2179 2171 2235 7194 7264 7317 7424 7699 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 21 21 22 22 23 215 220 226 231 237 587 602 617 633 649 611 626 642 659 675 598 613 629 645 662 590 605 621 637 653 597 612 627 643 660 3218 3300 3384 3470 3559 586 600 616 631 648 579 594 609 625 641 1165 1194 1225 1256 1288 600 615 831 647 663 597 612 627 643 660 1196 1227 1258 1290 1323 664 681 699 716 735 587 602 617 633 649 541 555 569 584 599 519 532 546 560 574 2312 2371 2432 2493 2557 7891 8092 8298 8509 8727 m October ECE PK K 1 St 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Sub -Total 6th 7th 8th Sub -Total 9th 10th 11 th 12th Sub -Total Pre -Kindergarten — 5t' Grade Sub -totals 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 12 9 13 24 39 201 196 207 202 202 551 535 537 544 577 587 578 548 564 572 495 597 570 551 584 562 492 573 567 573 559 552 505 573 599 531 569 545 535 563 3498 3528 3498 3560 3709 503 532 555 553 561 521 544 530 604 540 555 531 556 598 1604 1609 1640 1693 1755 628 590 596 647 553 540 522 57: 551 470 524 514 500 530 441 473 514 496 507 2092 2127 2179 2171 2235 7194 7264 7317 7424 7699 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 21 21 22 22 23 215 220 226 26'1, 237 53 602 617 633 649 611 626 642 659 675 598 613 629 645 662 590 605 621 637 653 597 612 627 643 660 586 600 616 631 548 3803 3900 4000 4102 4206 579 594 609 625 641 600 615 631 647 663 597 612 627 643 6�, 1775 1821 1867 1915 1964 66 699 716 735 587 602 617 633 649 541 555 569 584 599 519 532 546 560 574 2312 2371 2432 2493 2557 7891 8092 8298 8509 8727 Enrollment Analysis and Projections 1993 to 2007 At the request of Dr. Johnson, I have analyzed the past ten years of enrollment data in several areas: enrollment by grade, ethnicity, economically disadvantaged status, special education, limited English proficiency, and career and technology education. In order to make accurate projections, it is important to look at past trends. Unfortunately, these trends will not necessarily hold in the future. For example, this analysis cannot take into account major economic changes to our community including major growth or decline in Texas A&M University enrollment, addition of major industrial development in the community, significant positive or negative changes in the economy affecting the housing market. Also, it is important to note that I am not trained as a demographer. Demographers use not only CSISD enrollment data, but they have access to and proficiency in analyzing building permit data, census data, fertility and mortality rates, etc. As such, this analysis was made solely based on eight years of enrollment data in CSISD, with the following assumptions: 1. Enrollment will increase in a linear fashion at a moderate rate based on both the last eight years of growth and the upturn in enrollment in the last two school years. 2. There will be no major increase or decrease in industry in the College Station ISD area including Texas A&M University, by far the county's largest employer. 3. Interest rates, housing availability and affordability will remain relatively consistent with the levels over the past three years. Total Enrollment Analvsis and Projections October enrollment counts have grown from 6150 students in 1993 to 7695 students in 2002. As the chart below illustrates, student enrollment increased steadily from 1993 to 1997, an average of 3.86 percent a year. From 1998 to 2000 the enrollment leveled off increasing an average of only 3/4 of a percent each year. Beginning in 2001, enrollment seems to be on the increase again. Total district enrollment increased 1.46 percent in 2001 and 3.65 percent in 2002. Looking at the large increase in affordable housing, especially in the Baron Road area, one could predict this larger annual increase to continue in the short term. 8000 7500 7000 6500 6000 5500 5000 Total Enrollment October 1993 to 2002 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 The major question in forecasting growth in CSISD is at what rate will the total enrollment increase. Lacking any formal training in demography, I simply looked at the trends over the last 10 years. If one were to average the growth for these 10 years, the average yearly increase is 2.53 percent per year. Similarly, if one were to average the last two years of enrollment, it would average 2.55 percent per year. Using these averages, I simply took this October's enrollment and added in 2.55 percent growth for 2003 and added 2.55 percent each year through October 2007. At the bottom of the table on the following page the total enrollment for 1993 to 2002 is listed. Directly under the total enrollment is the percentage increase from the previous year. To project the total enrollment count in 2003 through 2007, 2.55 percent was added to the total. OCTOBER 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 20071 African American 690 761 776 826 865 920 942 906 902 919 963 979 996 1055 1134 1 10.29% 1.97% 6.44% 4.72% 6.36% 2.39% 1-3.82% -0.44% 1.88% 4.79% 1.66% 1.74% 5.92% 7.49% Hispanic 493 507 542 599 670 697 690 737 829 970 1065 1173 1278 1379 1483 1 2.84% 6.90% 10.52% 11.85% 4.03% -1.00% 6.81 % 12.48% 17.01 % 9.79% 10.14% 8.95% 7.90% 7.54% 1 White 4537 4713 4772 5020 5116 5056 5075 5052 5040 5138 5176 5227 5294 5327 5323 3.88% 1.25% 5.20% 1.91% -1.17% 0.38% -0.45% -0.24% 1.94% 0.74% 0.99% 1.28% 0.62% -0.08%I Asian 430 427 454 491 501 516 552 613 649 660 687 712 730 749 785 1 -0.70% 6.32% 8.15% 2.04% 2.99% 6.98% 11.05% 5.87% 1.69% 4.09% 3.64% 2.53% 1 2.60% 4.81 % JEcon Dis 1383 1470 1512 1642 1729 1848 1850 1785 1844 1991 2051 2104 2199 2255 2356 6.29% 2.86% 8.60% 5.30% 6.88% 0.11 % -3.51 % 3.31 % 7.97% 3.01 % 2.58% 4.52% 2.55% 4.48% 1 ISpecialEducation 472 456 489 532 573 558 598 613 626 680 679 704 730 757 1 785 1 -3.39% 7.24% 8.79% 7.71 % -2.62% 7.17% 2.51 % 2.12% 8.63% -0.15% 3.68% 3.69% 3.70% 3.70% 1 iLEP 211 203 284 337 264 301 333 378 381 377 410 437 464 493 1 524 1 -3.79% 39.90% 18.66% -21.66% 14.02% 10.63% 13.51 % 0.79% -1.05% 8.75% 6.59% 6.18% 6.25% 6.29% I ICATE 936 947 1123 1220 1285 1523 1523 1811 1818 1787 1807 1910 1991 2085 1 2182 1 1.18% 18.59% 8.64% 5.33% 18.52% 0.00% 18.91 % 0.39% -1.71 % 1.12% 5.70% 4.24% 14.72% 4.65% 1 dotal 6150 6410 6545 6939 7153 7194 7264 7317 7424 7695 7891 8092 8298 8510 1 8727 1 4.23% 2.11 % 6.02% 3.08% 0.57% 0.97% 0.73% 1.46% 3.65% 12.55% 2.55% 2.55% 2.55% 2.55% IX,0. 3. 5 5% 2.55% N Projections about enrollment by ethnicity, economically disadvantaged, special education, LEP and CATE students were made in a different fashion. The chart below shows the percentage of district enrollment by ethnicity and program for 1993 to 2002. Looking at the percentage for each year one begins to see some trends. For example, the percentage of White students falls approximately one percent each school year. African American percentages have remained stable over the past 10 years. Hispanic enrollment increased steadily over the last three years. Projections for 2003-2007 for percentage of students on the chart below were made based on what has occurred over the past few years. These percentages were applied to the total projected enrollment on page two. To obtain the projected number of students in each ethnicity and program, we multiplied the projected total enrollment (bottom of table on page 2) by the projected percentage in each group (table on page 3). These projected numbers were included in the table on page 2. IOCTOBER 11993 1994 1995 1996 + 1997 11998 1999 12000 12001 12002 (African American 11.2 11.9 11.9 11.9 112.1 12.8 13 ! 12.4 ! 12.1 11.9 Hispanic I 8 7.9 I 8.3 8.6 I 9.4 9.7 9.5 I 10.1 11.2 112.6 bite 173.8 73.5 72.3 171.5 170.3 169.9 I 69 167.9 166.8 (Asian 7 6.7 172.9 6.9 7.2 7 I 7.2 7.6 8.5 I 8.7 8.6 IEcon Dis 22.5 1 22.9 23.1 123.7 24.2 25.7 25.5 124.4 24.9 25.9 ISpecial Education I 7.7 I 7.1 I 7.5 I 7.7 8 1 7.8 1 8.2 I 8.4 I 8.4 I 8.8 ILEP 1 3.4 I 3.2 I 4.3 I 4.9 I 3.7 1 4.1 I 4.6 1 5.2 5.1 4.9 ICATE 115.2 1 14.8 117.2 117.6 I 18 1 21.2 I 21 124.8 124.5 I 23.2 IOCTOBER 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 I (African American 12.2 12.1 12 12.4 13 IHispanic 13.5 14.5 15.4 16.2 17 (White 165.6 64.6 63.8 62.6 61 sian 8.7 , , 8.8 I 8.8 8.8 I 9 Econ Dis 26 26 26.5 126.5 27 I ISpecial Education I 8.6 I 8.7 8.8 I 8.9 { 9 1 ILEP I 5.2 I 5.4 5.6 I 5.8 16 1 ICATE 22.9 1 23.6 I 24 1 24.5 1 25 1 For a better visual representation of the data and projections, we have included some charts on the next few pages. The two charts on page four represent the number of students by ethnicity and program from 1998 to 2002 and projections for 2003 to 2007. On page five two charts show the percentage of students by ethnicity and program from 1998 to 2002 and projections for 2003 to 2007. 3 Enrollment Counts by Ethnicity October 1998 to 2007 9000 — 8000 - 7000. 5000 4000 -�� -- -- 3000 ___.--_--------.-___. 2000. ---.._-._.. 1000 - - ---------- ,t 0 African American Hispanic IO 1998 920 697 El1999 942 690 ®2000 906 737 I❑ 2001 902 829 I® 2002 919 970 1132003 963 1065 02004 979 1173 172005 996 1278 IIM 2006 1055 1379 Ip 2007 1134 1483 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 1131998 1131999 IC32000 I❑2001 I®2002 102003 IIM 2004 IC32005 IM 2006 • 4 White Asian Totals 5056 516 7194 5075 552 7264 5052 613 7317 5040 649 7424 5138 660 7695 5176 687 7891 5227 712 8092 5294 730 8298 5327 749 8510 5323 785 8727 Enrollment Counts by Program October 1998 to 2007 Econ Dis Special Education LEP CATS 1848 558 301 1523 1850 598 333 1523 1785 613 378 1811 1844 626 381 1818 1991 680 377 1787 2051 679 410 1807 2104 704 437 1910 2199 730 464 1991 2255 757 493 2085 Enrollment Percentage by Ethnicity October 1998 to 2007 80 70 70.3 --69-.9-- _69-7167,97 64.6 _65.6 - - 63.8 _62.6 60 50 40 30 20 - 144 17 12.8 13 12.1 13 124 10 7.6 8.5 8.7 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.8 8.8 9 -7.2 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Enrollment Percentage by Program October 1998 to 2007 30 25.19 21 2645 27, 25 - 257 24.8 2 ---2-3" .4 23.6 72� 24.5 22.9 21.2 21 20 - 15 - 10 - 8.2 -4-8' 8. 6 4.6 5.2 5.2 5.4- 5.1 6.6 �5,8 -6 5 - o - 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Total Enrollment by Grade Level, --*-African American Hispanic White Asian 0- Econ Dis ---C- Special Education LEP -CATE Dr. Johnson also asked for enrollment analysis and projections by grade level. We looked at both the number and percentage of students in each grade level for the past five years, 1998 to 2002. We took the average percentage of students per grade level to make the analysis. The table at the top of the next page shows the percentage of total students per grade level. R l®ctober 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Average JECE 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.26 JP K 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.72 IK 1 7.7 7.4 7.3 7.3 7.5 7.44 list 1 8.2 8 7.5 7.6 7.4 7.74 l2nd 1 6.9 1 8.2 7.8 1 7.4 7.6 + 7.58 lard 7.8 6.8 I 7.8 7.6 7.4 7.48 loth + 7.8 i 7.6 1 6.9 ' 7.7 7.8 7.56 15th 1 7.4 7.8 1 7.4 7.2 1 7.3 7.42 1 16th 1 7 7.3 1 7.7 7.5 7.2 7.34 1 17th 7.8 7.2 7.4 7.8 7.8 I 7.6 l8th 7.5 I 7.7 I 7.3 7.5 7.8 7.56 19th 8.7 1 8.1 1 8.6 I 8 ( 8.4 I 8.36 1 110th 7.7 1 7.4 1 7.1 1 7.8 1 7.2 1 7.44 1 111 th 6.5 7.2 7 6.7 6.9 6.86 112th 1 6.1 I 6.5 + 7 6.7 6.6 6.58 1 1 100.1 100 I 99.8 99.8 f 100 99.94 We averaged those percentages over the past five years to obtain an average percentage. Those average percentages were then applied to the total projected enrollment for the next five years, 2003 to 2007. These averages are included on the chart on the next page. To aid in reading the chart, cohort groups (e.g. groups progressing together through the grade levels) are represented by the same color of text. 0 October 1998 1999 2000 2001 ECE 12 9 13 PK 196 207 202 K 551 537 544 1st 587 578 548 564 2nd 495 599' 570 551 3rd 562 492 573 567 4th 559 55:: 505 573 5th 531 559 545 535 6th 503 532 565 557 7th 561 521 544 580 8th 540 556 531 556 9th 628 590 629 596 10th 553 540 522 579 11th 470 524 514 500 12th 441 473 514 496 2002 _ 2003 39 21 202 _ 215 577 = 587 572 611 584 598 573 590 599 - 597 563 586 553 579 604 = 600 598 597 647 664 551 = 587 530 ' 541 507 519 7891 TOTAL 7194 7264 7317 7424 7695 7891 * Projections Assume Total 2.55 Percent Growth • Total Enrollment is multiplied by av erage percentage in each grade level 2004 2005 2006 2007 21 22 23 220 226 23: 237 602 617 533 649 626 642 659 675 613 629 645 662 605 621 637 653 612 627 643 660 600 616 631 648 594 609 625 641 615 631 647 663 612 627 643 660 681 699 716 735 602 617 633 649 555 569 584 599 532 546 560 574 8092 8298 8509 8727 8092 8298 8510 8727 91 Pre -Kindergarten — 4th Grade Sub -totals October 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 ECE 12 9 13 39 21 21 22 22 23 PK 201 196 207 202 202 215 220 226 231 237 K 551 535 537 544 577 = 587 602 617 633 649 1st 587 578 U. 564 572 611 626 642 659 675 2nd 495 597 570 584 598 613 629 645 662 3rd 562 492 573 567 573 590 605 621 - 63" 653 4th 559 552 505 573 599 597 612 627 643 Sub -Total 2967 2959 2953 3025 3146 3218 3300 3384 3470 3559 5th 531 569 545 535 563 535 600 616 631 648 6th 503 532 565 557 553 579 594 609 625 641 Sub -Total 1034 1101 11110 1092 1116 1165 1194 1225 1256 1288 7th 521 544 580 604 = 600 615 631 647 663 8th 540 556 531 556 598 597 612 627 643 660 Sub -Total 1101 1077 1075 1136 1202 1196 1227 1258 1290 1323 9th 628 590 629 596 647 664 681 699 716 735 I Oth 553 540 522 579 551 587 602 617 633 649 1 Ith 470 524 514 Soo 530 541 555 569 584 599 12th 441 473 514 496 507 = 519 532 546 560 574 Sub -Total 2092 2127 2179 2171 2235 2312 2371 2432 2493 2557 TOTAL 7194 7264 7317 7424 7699 7891 8092 8298 8509 8727 8 October ECE PK K 1 St 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Sub -Total 6th 7th 8th Sub -Total 9th 1 Oth 1 1th 12th Sub -Total i1. Pre -Kindergarten — 5 Ih Grade Sub -totals 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 12 9 13 24 39 21 21 22 22 23 196 207 202 202 215 220 226 231 237 551 537 544 577 = 587 602 617 633 649 587 578 564 572 = 611 626 642 659 675 495 597 570 551 584 j 598 613 629 645 662 562 492 573 567 573 j 590 605 621 637 653 559 505 573 599 = 597 612 627 643 660 531 569 535 563 586 600 616 631 648 3498 3528 3498 3560 3709 = 3803 3900 4000 41102 4206 503 532 565 557 553 579 594 609 625 641 561 521 544 580 604 600 615 631 647 663 540 556 531 556 598 = 597 612 627 643 660 1604 1609 1640 1693 1755 3 1775 1821 1867 1915 1964 628 590 629 596 647 664 681 699 716 735 553 540 522 579 551 587 602 617 633 649 470 524 514 500 530 = 541 555 569 584 599 441 473 514 496 507 519 532 546 560 574 2092 2127 2179 2171 2235 2312 2371 2432 2493 2557 7194 7264 7317 7424 7699 7891 8092 8298 8509 8727 9 Page I of I Kris Lehde - RE: Meeting Reminder From- Glenn Schroeder <gschroeder@aggiecatholic.org> To. ... Kris Lehde... <klehde@ci.college-station.tx.us> Date: 1/14/2003 3:26 PM Subject., RE: Meeting Reminder Hi, Kris, Please pass on this request for excused absence from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board for this evening. I will be in Waco for Bailey's basketball game. When you have time, please e-mail me any addition info from the meeting. Thanks Glenn Glenn Schroeder Director of Administration St. Mary's Catholic Center 603 Church Avenue College Station, TX 77840 979.846.5717 -----Original Message ----- From: Kris Lehde [SMTP:klehde@ci.college-station.b(.us] Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 8,40 AM To: gschroeder@aggiecatholic.org; GDAVIS6264@AOL,com; j_Warner@cox-internet.com; ALLISON@fabtexas.com; DAVISG@fabtexas.com; Bill@PianoPlace.net; jpn@tamu.edu; lfarns@tca.net Subject: Meeting Reminder Just a reminder of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meeting/Public Hearing that will be held tonight (Tuesday, Jan. 14th), at 7:00 p.m., at the EXIT Teen Center (Rock Prairie Road). Kris Lehde Staff Assistant College Station Parks & Recreation (979) 764-3414 College Station. Embracing the past, Exploring the future. .Lile:HC:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\klehde.000\Local%2OSettings\Temp\GWIOOOO7.... 1/15/2003