HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/03/2004 - Regular Minutes - Parks Board (4) Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
Public Hearing
Tuesday, March 3, 2004, 7:00 p.m.
Lincoln Recreation Center
1000 Eleanor Street
College Station, Texas
Staff Present: Steve Beachy, Director of Parks and Recreation;
Eric Ploeger, Assistant Director; Peter Vanecek, Senior Park Planner; David Wood,
Park Planner; Scott Hooks, West District Supervisor; Lance Jackson, Lincoln
Center Supervisor; Pamela Springfield, Staff Assistant.
Board Members Present: John Nichols, Chairman; Larry Farnsworth; Ken
Livingston; Don Allison; Glenn Schroeder; Jodi Warner (arrived late); Gary Erwin,
Alternate.
Board Members Absent: Glen Davis.
Visitors:
Michael Levy, P.O. Box 6642, CS Arthur Soloman, 2250 Dartmouth #1228, CS
Shawn Thomas, 939 Spring Loop, CS Lori Buck, 2521 Ashford, CS
Andrew Vacek, 1411 Antone Court, CS Justin Minton, 3626 Hollyhock, CS
Mike Bennett, 1216 Oney Hervey, CS Tomye Folts Zettner, 311 Stasney #1401, CS
Jennifer Jobe, 2334 Pheasant, CS Kevin Myers, 3319 Lodgepole Circle, CS
Bubba Molinare, 3201 Lane St., CS Grace Rabuck, 117 Holleman Dr. W. #13303, CS
Kim Taylor, 2300 Axis Ct., CS April Conkey, 1809-B Woodsman, CS
Jeremiah Minarcik, 117 Ridge Cove Matt Wilson, 1216 Oney Hervey, CS
Lance Haynie, 7576 River Ridge Dr., CS Katie Kasmiersky, 617 San Mario, CS
Joe Dalton, 1520 Wolf Run, CS Pamela Kiekman, 117 Holleman Dr. W. #13102 CS
Jennifer Johnson, Hickory Dr., CS Jennifer Sellers, 1415 Holik, CS
Maria Gijon, 100 Winter Park #309, CS Chris Ceballos, 2250 Dartmouth #1228, CS
Lindsay McDonald, 4149 Wellborn Road Krystal Kennedy, 1603-D Anderson, CS
#211, Bryan
1. Call to Order. John Nichols, Chairman, called the public hearing to order at
7:05 p.m.
2. Possible action regarding requests for absences. Jodi Warner had
submitted a request that she may be unable to make the meeting. A motion
was made by Glenn Schroeder to accept her request for absence and
seconded by Larry Farnsworth. Hearing no objection, the motion carried
unanimously. (Jodi W. ultimately arrived shortly before the meeting
adjourned.)
3. Public hearing, discussion, and possible action concerning the
development of Woodway Park. John N. introduced Steve Beachy and Eric
Ploeger, who would be leading the meeting. Eric thanked everyone for
Woodway Park Public Hearing Page 1
March 3, 2004
attending and explained that the purpose of the meeting was to get feedback
from the public on Woodway Park, and to take those ideas and formulate a
conceptual plan for the construction of the park. Eric introduced Pete Vanecek,
Senior Park Planner, who would be explaining a couple of concepts that had
been developed. Eric stated that these were not the final designs for the park,
only concepts of what was typical of neighborhood parks. He said
neighborhood parks are intended to serve the immediate neighborhood and
normally do not have amenities for organized sports, such as lighted ball
fields, playing fields, or parking lots. However, since there were enough funds
available and this park was located on a very busy street, a parking lot may
be included.
Eric briefly explained park zones and the Park Land Dedication Ordinance.
Woodway Park is located in Park Zone 7, and is bordered Holleman on one
side and the proposed Jones Butler Road extension. Once the extension is
complete, the park will be bordered by two major thoroughfares. The park is
basically a triangle divided into two sections, with the city owning the top 9.7-
acre portion and negotiating to purchase the remaining 5.25 acres. There is
an agreement for that portion, however the owner is waiting until work begins
on the Jones Butler Road extension before he will sell it to the city.
Staff intended to create a site plan for the entire piece of property. If the
5.25 acres was not acquired by the time construction was ready to begin, the
9.7-acre portion would be developed anyway, which is probably where most of
the amenities would be situated. The second piece of property has some
significant elevation changes, as well as a large pond. The pond would need
to be evaluated to see if it will need to be cleaned up in order to make it
attractive and safe. There was a significant amount of drainage that ran
through the park, and if trails were put in, there would need to be some
bridges.
Ric stated that for the purpose of the meeting, the entire site should be
considered. Ric mentioned some of the amenities that could be considered for
the park, such as covered playgrounds, shelters, picnic units, bicycle racks,
amenities for dogs, swing sets, and exercise stations. He turned the
presentation over to Pete Vanecek.
Pete V. talked about the two concepts which included parking for about 50
cars, a mile jogging trail, a basketball court, a sand volleyball court, a
pier on the pond for fishing, identifying signs, landscaping, and trees. There
was an existing sidewalk along Holleman. The pond would probably be
drained, dug deeper, and an aerator installed to keep the water circulating.
The second concept was basically the same, except it had tennis courts and a
practice backstop. Pete asked for ideas. (Staff responses are noted in
parenthesis.)
Maria Gijon asked how extreme the elevation changes on the proposed piece
of property were, and if it would be handicap accessible. (The goal would be
Woodway Park Public Hearing Page 2
March 3, 2004
to make as much of the property as possible, handicap accessible. Any trails
put in would be handicap accessible.)
Michael Bennett asked if staff had given any thought to a nine-hole disc golf
course. (Those are a challenge for small facilities, but could certainly be
looked at.)
Joe Dalton didn't know if a dog park would be good in that neighborhood
since everything around it was apartments and dogs weren't allowed. He
liked the jogging trail.
Jeremiah Minarcik asked what type of material the jogging path would be
made of (Probably concrete.)
Lance Haynie felt that since the neighborhood consisted of mostly students,
a playground might not be necessary and asked if any demographic studies
had been done. (Staff had some demographic information and the area is
mostly students, but experience has shown that this changes over time.)
Maria G. suggested putting the basketball court closer to Jones Butler Road
so that it would be more easily accessible to the people in that area.
Justin Minton said he knew that a sand volleyball court and basketball court
would be used a lot. Lights were also important for play at night.
Ken Livingston said that he didn't like the practice field so close to the busy
streets in the second concept. (An attractive fence may have to be
considered for along the street.)
Joe Dalton asked if there would be any grassy, open spaces. (Probably the
only open area would be around the pond or parking lot. Grass could be
considered.)
Jeremiah M. asked if the existing woods in concept one would be turned into
open space. (It probably wouldn't be cleared completely - just the
underbrush.)
April Conkey would like the site to be left more wooded rather than
completely cleared for open areas. She asked what the pond would be used
for, and if Jones Butler Road would go through to 2818. (The Thoroughfare
Plan proposes that the road continues out to 2818. Most ponds were for
aesthetic purposes and stocked for fishing, but staff was open for comments.)
Joe D. wondered if it was possible to develop the top portion and open the
bottom portion for access but leave it as a natural habitat. (This will probably
be what takes place due to the natural layout of the land. A trail system and
a pier may be all that are done on that portion. There is also an issue with
the pond. The pond level has been raised about two feet by beaver damming
up a portion of it.)
Lori Buck asked if there would be any drainage for the sand volleyball court.
(Any new courts have a French drain - underground pipes that drain the
water off elsewhere.)
Jennifer Sellers would like to see the site remain more wooded and natural.
Joe D. felt it wasn't completely necessary to develop that park - it could be
left more natural and residents could use the facilities at the other apartment
complexes.
Lance H. would like to see the site kept more wooded.
Woodway Park Public Hearing Page 3
March 3, 2004
John N. asked if the students would like to see benches in the park.
Lori B. said a few benches would be nice, but not an overabundance.
Krystal Kennedy said that if the dog park idea was considered, then signs
should be posted requiring leashes or else it might keep people from going.
(There was a leash law in College Station.)
Kevin Myers would like to see an area where he could take his dog off-leash.
If the jogging trails went in, then the brush would have to be cleared out for
security purposes.
Maria G. said that she thought the trails were a good idea and would prefer
the underbrush cleared as well for safety reasons. She asked what type of
material the trails would be. (They would probably be concrete or, depending
on the budget, they could also be rubber cushioned surfacing.)
Andrew Vacek liked the idea of lighted jogging trails and asked about the
curfew time. He also wanted to know what would be done with the beaver if
developed as a dog park. (Bank beaver are very hard on ponds. They tunnel
into dams/dikes and destroy the integrity of them. They may have to be
relocated. There is a Park Curfew Ordinance. For neighborhood parks the
curfew is 11:00 p.m. - 5:00 a.m., unless changed by an ordinance
amendment.)
Lance H. would like to see a more natural type material, such as mulch, for
the jogging trail.
Jeremiah M. was in favor of concrete for the trails, because there would be a
containment issue with mulch or gravel. He would like to see the metal
benches with rubber on them (because they are more comfortable) placed
along the trails. He also liked the idea of the basketball and sand volleyball
courts. Unless you were a resident of one of the apartment complexes, you
did not have access to their courts. (The benches that are used have backs.)
Maria G. would like to see a dog park area within the park and asked about
maintenance issues associated with it. (Maintenance is typically the biggest
problem mostly because the grass disappears. Most dog parks are going to a
gravel surface and the pet owner is required to pick up after their dog, with
plastic bags and waste containers provided. It might be tough to do a dog
park in this location. There were other parks, where it might work better.)
David Wood stated that he had seen a dog park with a concrete boat ramp-
type of entry into water. It kept the park a lot cleaner by cutting down on the
mud.
John N. stated that there was a fairly recent National Recreation and Park
Society magazine that had an article on dog parks. One of the things stressed
in the article was to have a local citizens' group get involved in helping to
maintain the park.
Jennifer S. asked what would happen to the beavers. (This had not been
discussed, but it was possible they may no longer be there by the time the
park is developed.)
Tomye Folts asked if they were actually nutria and not beaver. Nutria is
considered an invasive species and could be eliminated. (These have actually
built a dam structure and there have been beaver in the parks before.)
Woodway Park Public Hearing Page 4
March 3, 2004
Joe D. asked about the possibility of using mulch for the trails with wood
decking in areas where drainage was a problem. (Mulch would be a
maintenance issue anywhere that there is more than a 1% slope.)
Gary Erwin asked if mulch on the trail would inhibit the ADA requirements.
(The department has a lot of experience with different trail surfaces. The
cinder/crushed brick tracks are being taken out of the parks because
maintenance is a problem. Concrete with a rubber surface is preferred and
has been installed in a number of places. It runs about $8-$9 per square foot
for the concrete and the surface. Fortunately, the budget for this park is good.
The trail loop design will be looked at to see where it can be done.)
Maria G. would like to see emergency phone boxes put on the trails. (The
emergency phones were a possibility that would have to be checked into.)
Kevin M. felt that the 5.25 acres would need to be cleared out so that law
enforcement and emergency vehicles could have access. (Once Jones Butler
Road went in, they would have good access.)
Mike B. asked when construction on the existing park land would begin.
(Based on the input from the meeting, staff would go back and prepare design
concepts with cost estimates, which would be introduced to the Board at
another public hearing. The exact schedule was not known, but it would be a
month or two before that happened.)
John N. asked that the next public hearing be held while the University was
in session so that there would be good student representation.
Jeremiah M. wanted to know if a dog park was put into place, where it would
go and how large an area would be needed. (Staff had not gotten to that
level of detail. The smallest park seen on the internet was about an acre, and
some were as large as fifteen acres, with the entire area dedicated to dogs.)
Jeremiah said if an area for dogs went in, he would like to see it be smaller.
Jennifer Jobe would like to see a dog park. She wanted to know if the upper,
existing park land could be developed with other amenities, while developing
three acres or so of the lower portion as a fenced off dog park with a cement
ramp going into the pond. The trails could continue around that portion of the
park outside of the dog park area. (It was possible that this could be done.)
Joe D. wanted to reiterate that it would be really nice to have a Frisbee golf
course.
Glenn Schroeder asked if Frisbee golf could be integrated in with other
amenities such as sand volleyball and basketball courts. (Staff did not have a
lot of experience with Frisbee golf courses and would have to look into it.)
Mike B. thought it would be feasible to integrate all amenities together, and
used Austin's Colony and Hensel Park as examples. Both were nine-hole
courses with picnic tables, running trails, etc. with disk golf baskets set up
along the jogging trails and integrated in with the other amenities.
Lance H. wanted to encourage the idea of a disc golf park as well.
Jeremiah M. said the course was integrated through the park but not near
the open space, pavilion or playground. He felt that it would have to go into
the proposed portion of the park land.
Andrew V. added that it would not need to be spread out.
Woodway Park Public Hearing Page 5
March 3, 2004
Joe D. asked where staff would go for information on designing a course.
(The manufacturer could provide information, as well as the City of Bryan.)
Justin Minton preferred the first concept over the second and didn't see the
need for a playground.
April C. would like to see a small playground put in. She said she lived in the
neighborhood and there were people with small children. Others agreed.
Michael Levy asked what style trash can would be used. (The standard trash
can used is called the XTR. It has a plastic liner, with wood on the outside.)
John N. asked if there were any other amenities that had not been mentioned
that they would like to see considered.
Mike B. reiterated that he would like to see the park kept as natural as
possible. He felt the park needed a playground and other amenities, but
would like to see it left more natural.
Someone asked about restrooms in the park. (Restrooms do not normally go
into neighborhood parks because most users are within walking distance from
home. Depending on the amenities that go into the park, rest rooms may
have to be considered.)
Krystal K. felt that restrooms were needed. At Research Park you have to
pack up and leave if you have to use the restroom. She also felt that the
pavilion in Bee Creek Park was very nice.
Jeremiah M. would like to see picnic units with a barbecue pit. (Picnic units
have a table, barbecue pit, and a trash can.)
Larry Farnsworth asked what size pavilion would go in. (Staff had no
specific size in mind.)
Krystal K. said she would like to see a larger pavilion that could be utilized by
various organizations. (Larger pavilions require more parking and restrooms,
and there would be an impact on the neighborhood.)
April C. thought that a small pavilion and parking area would be best since
there was a lot of traffic in the area already.
Lance H. asked if there would be an aerator installed in the pond and if there
was an alternative to the fountain type aerator. (Normally, aerators were
installed in the ponds because it improved water quality and was better for
the fish. There was an aerator that had been invented by someone locally
that sat on the bottom, without the spray.)
Jeremiah M. asked if there would be any irrigation or a sprinkler system.
(Normally irrigation did not go into neighborhood parks except around trees,
shrubs, or flowers.)
A last comment was added that picnic tables were important. Ric said he felt
that these were all very good ideas and appreciated everyone coming out.
Everyone would be kept informed of the next public hearing, which hopefully
would be held before finals.
4. Adjourn. A motion was made to adjourn and seconded. Hearing no
objection the motion passed unanimously.
Woodway Park Public Hearing Page 6
March 3, 2004
Park Land Dedication Ordinance
Project Review CheckUist
Date Received: 2C24/2084
Park zone: 12
Current Zone Balance: $0
Project Location: Harpers Ferry Rd.
Name of Development: South Hampton(Nantucket)
Applicant: Nantucket LTD
Address: 1101 University Drive East#108
City/State/Zip: College Station, TX 77840
Phone Number/Fax: ? Fax Number:
E-mail: ?
Engineer/Planner: Texcon
Address: 1707 Graham Rd.
City/StateZip: College Station, TX 77845
Phone Number/Fax: 690'7711 Fax Number: 690-9797
E'K8aU:
REQUIRED COMPLIANCE
Section 10-B-1: Land Dedication
Single Family Dwelling Units: 62
Multi-Family Dwelling Units:
Total Land Requirement: 0.614 Acres
Proposed Dedication: 0
Section 10-B-2: Fee in Lieu of Land
Has the Planning and Zoning Commission's approval been obtained? NO
Land Fee:
Single Family Fee($198/dwelling unit): 62 x$198.00=$12,276.00
Multi-Family Fee ($160/dwelling unit):
Total Acquisition Fee:
Section 10-B-3: Park Development Fee
Single Family Fee ($358/dwelling unit): 62 x$358.00 $22,196.00
Multi-family Fee($292/dwelling unit):
Total Fee Amounts:
Total Single Family Fee ($556/dwelling Unit): $558x62 = $34.472
Multi-Family Fee ($452/dwelling Unit):
Park LanDedication o^ec^m/
0/Board/Park Land Dedication/checklisI/Origtnals/Long Version Revised.x/s
Page 1
Section 10-B-4: Park Development in Lieu of Fee
Required development cost:
Staff review date and comment:
Parks Board review and decision:
Section 10-B-5: Minimum Park Size
Is the proposed park less than five (5)acres?
If yes, staff recommends:
Section 10-B-i: Prior Park Acquisition
Is there an existing park that can serve the proposed
development? NO
If yes, staff recommends: Acceptance of fee
Section 10-E: Comprehensive Plan
Is the proposed park dedication in compliance with the
City's Comprehensive Plan and the Racnaatkon. Park, and
Open Space Master Plan?
Comments:
Section 10-F: Additional Information
1. |uland inthe 1UD'ymerfloodplain? NO Percentage:
a. Detention/Retention? NO Size:
Meets Board Policy?
Acreage in floodplain: Percentage:
Acreage in detention: Percentage:
Acreage in greenways: Percentage:
Comments:
Park Land Dedication Checkkst
o«am"vn°xLand newic°m"/c^°"mismz*gin"^s/L"" wrsxmx"w,°um"
Page 2
Section 10-F(of the Park Land Dedication Ordinance)
10-F. 1 Any land dedication to the City under this section must be suitable for park and recreation uses.
Consideration will be given to land that is in the floodplain or may be considered "floodable" even though
not in a federally regulated floodplain as long as, due to its elevation, it is suitable for park improvements.
(a) Neighborhood park sites should be adjacent to residential areas in a manner that serves the greatest number
of users.
Comments:
(b) Neighborhood park sites should be located so that users are not required to cross arterial roadways to access
them.
Comments:
(c)Sites should not be severely sloped or have unusual topography which would render the land unusable for
organized recreational activities.
Comments:
(d) Sites should have existing trees or other scenic elements.
Comments:
(e) Detention/retention areas will not be accepted as part of the required dedication, but may be accepted in
addition to the required dedication. If accepted as part of the park, the detention/retention area design must be
approved by the City staff and must meet specific parks specifications.
Comments:
10-F. 2 Parks should be easy to access and open to public view so as to benefit area development,
enhance the visual character of the city, protect public safety, and minimize conflict with adjacent land
uses. The following guidelines should be used in designing parks and adjacent development:
(a) Where physically feasible, park sites should be located adjacent to greenways and/or schools in order to
encourage both shared facilities and the potential co-development of new sites.
Comments:
Park Land Dedication Checklist
0/Board/Park Land Dedication/checklist/Originals/Long Version Revised.xls
Page 3
Comments:
(c) Where a non-residential use must directly abut a park, the use must be separated by a screening wall or
fence and landscaping. Access points to the park may be allowed by the Planning and Zoning Commission if
a public benefit is established.
Comments:
(d) It is desirable that a minimum of fifty percent(50%)of the perimeter of a park should abut a public street.
In all cases, the City shall approve the proposed street alignment fronting on city parks.
Comments:
(e) Streets abutting a park shall be built in accordance with the thoroughfare plan and the standards of this
ordinance; however, the City may require any residential street built adjacent to a park to be constructed to
collector width to ensure access and prevent traffic congestion. The developer may request oversize
participation in such an instance.
Comments:
Staff Recommendations: Acceptance of fee.
Section 10-G: Approval:
Parks and Recreation Advisory The Board approved acceptance of the fee in lieu of land at the
Board: March 9, 2004 regular meeting.
Planning and Zoning Commission:
City Council:
Park Land Dedication Checklist
0/Board/Park Land Dedication/checklist/Originals/Long Version Revised.xls
Page 4
_____ 111111111.111111.1 46` _....+pS. t4 -*srcr4rcy"" .mom
K c0
A 9E M4-' '•
--
.<'''
N I[piiSYJ
R H.i
N.
j li t:7(',,.,
_._ i •- \
+ .,
f4121
- „:' .,;; tiii, : \
, 11.12712111011
1 vriP---''' ' . ' . ., riga _tly7ir
li r'v .
•
: ii . .I ,it ..z.T
r•
i
�t
` ,
eoyr, r ` '" , -,....,..\ .
AV, ".. y • •••
VICINITY IMP
j
,`�� -/
•
0(;''''
.' '‘'..%'..'-„ alla""WAIriliMffirairafillitilleimilimmw•-_-_,-: N
' ` ....
�� � ,
H ! %`. o �. arra �,
41
.r " OSI•
LEGEND
=LINIIIb' Ierr20'e lilk -',, , e ...--, ...----,-.-..
•-lr'EfEEM :, , ' • ..- .. - 0 r a 1.•••••
••••1
10 ra r-�-•r-- ar*-ar--Tarn-.a �.��r
t. i a ..7
1\
— sorter
a .*-ate .a r r••• •la
,. 'IL �� r--ra•ra.:.:r:�...�.. �;_ a.- MASTE• R'
2.....4..0 `� � �_—� - -�a�- ,- •�-• PRELIMINARY PLAT
I i . ' \ \
• • a ar ar a =a. r'�- i SOUTH HAMPTON SUBDIVISION\.+, .M • r.. c lin•
U ate,• ••, ���a
z.•.•s .r1cs � iP•. A w••r sa sM••••as • � aR-• .*,-a s'T'ar^^r�
I� • sr �r a s'u=TAW-74,>. PHASES 2,3 8 4
yI�� �"""'������rF ,S77 }- NANTUCKET SUBDIVISION
-ve LIG•••••••
.-,-a a �rT�.-r. .� PHASES 6B&7
, s a #.� _�� 'l� la=Or
laaK�ra•'•1a��,sa• i MI M11,-ar- 2�as-*'ate.'
-' it., ' a� i^'�i "' FAIRHAVEN COVE SUBDIVISION
^ iaa• 'r"• i:a.rna.�,-'i . ate"*-ic ira
.•.r.�.r .>.r as arr . as•arr 65.290 ACRES
�•'+ a •r,.r•,.arr nom.a.�r r,-a arm rraa:-„ar=r-
wrw.aww wl•nr �r-,i-�r+-a .�-', ar-,-ar--- a SRIEI[TT 0.7MIM tEA011L A-110
, rw. t '�'w"` r.ww.s.ra•w a.w r i`=,�'ar�'�-i`t�R=,-as^*-ir=r-'r COumc AATOM.Mg20S Wu�lt►.7Cus
� r ( •ems t r.-,-a a ..rcra.,s-ar--.� IGLE•1.100' rEMUARI 200
•••.•••••••'F P ebB
SURVEYOIC
i' a i r rr wa•�as • rr,-ar"*-a ..-.a:rar>-ar--;'c-.-r p�p/OEv[IOrL! DI00lEElk
I.le Meow•1•••••••NE RIMS*Mina mit Yens
TEXaCal
�:I I �` ax"a .mus�ua..w•e wart
Myer L Urau 7.2.
7.2 77720 0•71. TM 112•177•7 Owl
„ al1111111011111 r.2.2=77.41.0.272 MN Oalhp 21.11.27 T•Ne 771211
W.:04167... 770•1 71,011111-7211
-X01-ia•• m••. •+w*ANN t tww
2004 Intergenerational Upgrades
(Suggested Schedule)
Anderson Park Two drinking fountains - $8,000 $15,000
Playground Cover - $7,000
Bee Creek Park Drinking fountain - $4,000 $37,000
Covered Tot playground - $30,000
Two benches - $3,000
Brothers Pond Park One bench - $1,500 $11,500
Playground Cover - $7,000
Ten trees - $3,000
Central Park One bench - $1,500 $1,500
Emerald Forest Park Two benches - $3,000 $7,000
Drinking Fountain - $4,000
Jack & Dorothy Miller Park One bench - $1,000 $15,000
Two drinking fountains - $8,000
Twenty trees - $6,000
Parkway Park Two benches - $3,000 $30,000
Drinking Fountain - $4,000
Sidewalk - $23,000
Pebble Creek Park Four benches - $6,000 $10,000
Drinking Fountain - $4,000
Raintree Park Drinking Fountain - $4,000 $4,000
Sandstone Park Two benches - $3,000 $3,000
Woodcreek Park Four benches - $6,000 $6,000
Thomas Park Two fountains - $8,000 $8,000
Total $148,000
2005 Intergenerational Upgrades
(Suggested Schedule*)
Cy Miller Park Two benches - $3,000 $3,000
Georgie K. Fitch Park One drinking fountain - $4,000 $4,000
Lemontree Park Four benches - $6,000 $34,000
Seven lights - $28,000 ?
Lincoln Center Four benches - $6,000 $6,000
Longmire Park Two benches - $3,000 $56,000
Sidewalks - $53,000
Total $103,000
* Some projects have been deleted from the original list because they have
previously been completed or determined to be impractical at this time.
Park Facility Upra øie
$ 31 i ODU
}
'ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS: $ 0
'City Council Vision Statement 4 Strategy 3a
'Anderson (drink fountains and playground cover) $14,000
•Bee Creek (drink fountains, playground, and benches) 30,000
'Brothers (drinking fountain, five benches, six lights, trees,
playground cover) 60,000
•Central (four benches) 6,000
•Cy Miller(two benches) 3,000
'Emerald Forest (two benches) 3,000
'Georgie K. Fitch (drink fountain) 3,500
.J.D. Miller(two benches, trees, and jogging trail) 13,000
•Lemontree (four benches and seven lights) 41,000
'Lincoln Center(four benches) 6,000
'Parkway (Sidewalks and two benches) 40,000
'Pebble Creek (four benches) 6,000
•Raintree (drink fountain) 3,500
'Sandstone (two benches) 3,000
•Woodcreek (four benches) 6,000
•Longmire (concrete sidewalks and two benches) 56,000
'Staff cost Ca? 5% 16,000
•Total $310,000
-d, {fa` s w - - j{,:. +MittUlt.i;014,
�4
- a <
4 e
4
E4 . � ti,;
Parks and Recreation
Future Project List
11,Afi , ,w5�.0-,440,(1,1„ 4 � eNk••t k,,,- i` ?lNeil r �
t4Pr t P � � & ,i ► u� 1. " Tn !e : � �f vos t ' e ,P' r � , y ',001 0 4.11th ?23tikirlt<i» g4� ,',4'.i;1:4, .. �c , t .� Eost , ,1 + l .•.. n tChli
Neighborhood Park Development
••••
• 1 1 1 Shenendoah Park = ..,'. :.5315,000 ' ' $19,000
2 2 2- Steeplechase Park _ $315,000 ,,, • ' x18,000
531
3 5 3 SpringLoopPark
Delay until new elementary -
4 4 4 Cypress Grove Park/Westfield $415,000 school is developed.
5 3 5 Woodland Hills $150000
6 6 6 Pebble Creek Park,Phase II $150,000 No site has been dedicated -
Support Facilities
587
' 003
,i "+3 *d � 2 ': 4,2' .� rf 1Y r. � ;1 S�"- 5570 � �.� .,ra ;i1ii �
i',.i.4'."3 :.�s, 3„ ,.I 3 Rerfdyate"CeMra1 Park Sh011'E�_ .. ,,..
�., , _�3 r,, ��5200,000 i
4 4 5 Veterans Park and Athletic Complex Shop $500,000 Delay until Phase II Development
5 5 4 South District Satellite Operations Shop $360,000
Nei hborhood Plan Im lementation
'11-0,40,', '.-- :,6 z ' 1' Sandstone Paik1 '�1<„ v r x r ,A "4 7,000 ' iiiiiir/;4/41a A.• Ira . ..41,004
,2 �s', .'•":"..'",""'S", 2 Richard Carter Park lmpt ements� •'9? ;:��,44 .
5217,000 ,7... G, ,..,,c,Viti ,-a ,°1; 42000 -
May be requested through
3 3 4 Thomas and Merry Oaks Parks Shade Structures $20,000 FY2003 budget request
4 4 3 Raintree Park Basketball Court $30,000
5 2 7 Thomas Jogging Track $100,000 -
6 7 6 Eastgate Park $150,000
Could be added to -
7 1 5 Park Benches $21,000 intergenerational upgrades.
Community Facilities
r1 r 1 1 ' c Veterans Park&Athleec Compiex,Phage ll ' ' 3 ik"I t6$0,6234,50: , ,, rf� a y'
p '486 000
,
tick PartPhaseII t ter ) $S500a nd $66,0002 2, #- 4;_- Cemete� Phase[ T ` f;,, ,.$ 4 � ;4/ 0�.rha. ^ , .s a x� ^te
$68,400
Possibility of using Community
4 3 3 Lincoln Center Expansion $570,000 Development funds
5 5 5 Cypress Grove Recreation Center $750,000 Delay until next bond issue
6 6 6 Luther Jones Landfill $239,000
7 7 8 Neighborhood Pool for the new"South"Community Park $1,000,000 Delay until landfill closes
8 9 7 New"South"Community Park,Phase I $2,000,000 Delay until landfill closes
Delay until the new hight school
9 8 9 Potential Tennis Court Project with the new high school is developed.
Park Improvements
`; .10,114/14 1 ,, a. i ,,,,,N Infergeneraticnali1p
radestaceziatitgParks 143 r, �. -x_"5 ,0 `;.„fv-;'�,.�� , ,�u�. ; 4, ,.,
�44,:53,000 .
2 4 2 Provide Playground Equipment Shade $144,000
May be requested through the
3 2 5 Emerald Forest Lights $30,000 FY2003 BudgetProcess
s
May be requested through the
4 6 3 Batting cages and backstops at Bee Creek Park $25,000 FY2003 Budget Process.
5 3 6 Woodcreek Park Lights $35,000
6 5 4 Cover basketball courts at Southwood Valley Athletic Complex $330,000
Pool Improvements
1 4 1 Adamson Lagoon Shotgun Slide $50,000
2 3 3 Additional shelter at Adamson Lagoon $40,000
3 4 2 Thomas Pool bathhouse renovation $150,000
Funds could be requested
through Facilities Maintenance
4 2 4 Adamson bathhouse pitched roof $85,000 budget
Park Acquitision
Possibility of using park land
dedication or Community
Northgate Park $1,000,000 $1,000,000 Development funds
Total Priority Cost ' ' $8,574,250" ' "' '$197,000
Updated:10/8/2002
•
Neighborhood Park
Development Standards
• Standard Site Ftimishings
• Alternate items to be revietived by staff
• One yearwarranty required
• Selected for durability,cost,appearance.
and replacement availability
Water Fountains-
' rr 4`R
ilk
te.
TL7)icai sign
Ietp
d
a a�•6�
1
Picnic Tables
3w'a5
Barbeyue Pits
Benc•l:es
•
. .
• • . .
2
Coi'ered PIfJEKrocurd
•
•
Playgroued Snr/rciIu
Bicycle Racks
3
,
VFti
p
S -+' �' x...#.
r ,� ••J .#7*'.-...-: „g a ii),
Draft
City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department
Neighborhood Park Improvements Standards
Park Development in Lieu of Fee
I. Site Plan Development
A. Neighborhood park site plans will be provided by the developer with input
from the Parks and Recreation Department staff.
B. Site plan development may require public hearings before the Parks and
Recreation Advisory Board. This will be at the discretion of the Parks and
Recreation Advisory Board.
C. All site plans will require Parks and Recreation Advisory Board approval.
City Council approval may be required as needed.
D. The park development budget is required to be equal to or greater than
the required development fee of the development. Budget estimates will
be approved by the Parks and Recreation Department staff. Excess
amounts over the required development fee are not transferable to other
projects.
II. Park Furnishings
A. In order to maintain consistency with other parks, park site furnishings
will require approval from the Parks and Recreation Department staff. A
list of approved items will be provided. Alternate substitutions must be
approved by the Parks and Recreation Department staff in advance of
construction (see attached). Specifications of all park furnishings will be
provided for approval by Parks and Recreation Department staff.
B. All items will require a one (1) year warranty from the day of acceptance
by the Parks and Recreation Department.
C. All park construction will be reviewed by the Parks and Recreation
Department staff and other City inspectors for quality control.
III. Construction Documents
A. All construction documents must be sealed by a design professional.
0/Board/Park Land Dedication/PL Dedication Policy.doc Page 1 of 4
B. All construction documents must be approved by the Parks and
Recreation Department staff before construction.
C. All projects over the amount of $50,000 will require approval from the
Texas Department of Licensing and Regulations. Approval is the
responsibility of the developer.
IV. Project Acceptance Procedures
A. Upon notice of completion, a Parks and Recreation Department
representative will make arrangements for the inspection of work and
preparation of a punch list within ten (10) calendar days of contractor
(developer) notification.
B. Upon contractor (developer) notification that final completion of the
punch list items has occurred, the Parks and Recreation Department
representative will inspect the project and, if completion is confirmed,
issue a certificate of completion.
C. As built plans of all site items, utilities and landscaping will be provided
following construction.
D. Certificate of completion will not be delivered until as-built plans are
received and warranty security has been provided as required by the
Park Land Dedication Ordinance.
0/Board/Park Land Dedication/PL Dedication Policy.doc Page 2 of 4
Acceptable Neighborhood Park
Site Furnishings
BENCHES
- Powder coated steel, as manufactured by Victor Stanley # CR-196, 6' long with
vertical steel slats or equal.
DRINKING FOUNTAINS
- Concrete fountains, with dual height bubblers, exposed aggregate finish as
manufactured by Haws # 3150 or Stern Williams ADF-3700-C.
BASKETBALL GOALS/BACKBOARDS
- Aluminum backboards, painted white, fan shaped Gametime #854 or equal
- Goal, Gametime breakaway type, #874 or equal
- Galvanized post, cantilevered, Gametime #459, 32" extension, 3-1/2" diameter
post (or equal).
PLAYGROUNDS
- Playgrounds to be manufactured of steel and plastic with powder coating paint
system for steel parts.
- Playgrounds to be a commercial type versus residential use type.
- Acceptable manufacturers include:
- Gametime
- Little Tykes
- Landscape Structures
- Playworld Systems
- Burke
- Columbia Cascade
- Recreation Creations
PLAYGROUND SURFACING
- Poured in place rubber cushioning for playground units
- Installed at 1-1/2"-2" thick for a 6' high fall (for play units).
- 3/8" pea gravel with 3/8" rubber granule mix, 12" total thickness of gravel and
rubber granules (for swing sets)
- Acceptable manufacturers include:
- Rubber cushioning installers
- Surface America
- Playtop
- Robertson Industries
- Gametime
- Rubber granules available from4-D Corporation, Duncan, Oklahoma
AREA LIGHTS
- Light poles to be direct burial concrete poles 12-16' height above grade.
0/Board/Park Land Dedication/PL Dedication Policy.doc Page 3 of 4
- Manufactured by Ameron or Traditional Concrete, Inc.
- Light fixtures to be an acorn-shape or antique style, 175-watt minimum metal
halide lamp.
BASKETBALL OR TENNIS COURTS
- To have Plexipave or equal, acrylic paint surfacing system or equal, on top of
concrete.
SHELTERS
- Shelters to be constructed with galvanized steel columns and framing, painted.
- Roof to have composition shingles (25-year) with wood decking under shingles.
SIGNAGE
- Park signs to be constructed of Cylex (concrete/plastic composite material) with
etched letters.
BRIDGES
- Park bridges to be constructed of Corten self-weathering steel with treated pine
decking.
- Manufacturers:
- Continental
- Steadfast Bridges
- Canyon Creek Iron Works
PICNIC TABLES
- Picnic tables to be aluminum, 6 or 8' long, heavy-duty frame (can be aluminum
color or painted) Gametime #796 or 798, or equal.
BIKE RACKS
- Bike racks to be Loop design, painted steel, in-ground mount Gametime #7702
or equal.
BBQ GRILLS
- Grills to be galvanized steel, in-ground installation, 24" square, 360-degree
rotation, Gametime #51 or equal. Black color.
SHADE COVERS FOR PLAYGROUNDS
- Shade covers to be constructed with galvanized, painted posts and framing with
polypropolene mesh.
0/Board/Park Land Dedication/PL Dedication Policy.doc Page 4 of 4
Arboretum Update
Adam Lassiter is still working on the Arboretum bridges for his Eagle
Scout project. He and his crew of volunteers started work on the five
bridges on the morning of Saturday, March 6th. They have almost
completed the rebuilding of one bridge. Three of the bridges have
been sanded down and treated with water sealant. Two of the
bridges still need some minor repairs consisting of board replacement.
Adam has also trimmed back part of the trails. He will continue the
work as time allows. The completion date for the project is as yet
unknown.
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT& PARK LAND DEDICATION PROJECTS FY 2004
March 2, 2004
Ca•ital Im•rovement Pro'ects
Completion
Capital Improvement Project Project Funding Date Final
Projects Status Manager # Budget Source Expected/Actual Cost
4af441A, '4ux
EIS Creek Park Develo e t Phase I IK00;9 Puu • a t'. "'
• 4 k
: . 11( t
�e}r e�asltgdveL�rtdsca'.etrr>atlp��e .n � irY«eta �, ��� 6� 1 � � 144;`4„� 3, :; ;1
000,'.
Bee Creek Li.ht Pole Re.lacement Under Construction Pete PK0303 $118,000 '98 G.O. 2/04 $87,565
Hensel Park Pla .round Re.lacement Under Construction David PK0210 $45,390 Re.lacement Account 5/04 -_
Wolf Pen Creek Si.ns Under Construction Pete WP0460 $70,500 General Fund 3/04
Cemete Rear Entrance Desi•n and Construction Bids Received Pete N/A $55,000 General Fund 5/04
Cemete Land Ac.uisition Pendin.Contract Ross GG9905 $275,000 '98 G.O. Unknown
Southeast Communit Park Two-Acre Purchase Pendin.Contracts M.McAuliffe _ $40,000 12/04
Lincoln Center Ex.ansion/Im.rovements In Desi.n Ric PK0319 $984,000 CDBG Funds 3/05
Richard Carter Park Irrigation,Walks,Drinking In Design Pete $18,000 Replacement Account 12/04
Fountain
Thomas Park Sins In Desi•n David $3,600 Re.lacement Account 4/04
East.ate Im.rovements In Desi.n David $40,000 Brazos Beautiful Unknown
Woodland Hills Park Desi.n On Hold Pete/David
Landscaping Six City Sites Out to Bid(2/24) Pete N/A General Fund ■
Hotel-Motel ■
Greens Prairie Rd Landsca.in•&Irri•ation Desi.n In Desi.n David ST0214 Street Pro'ect Fund
Hereford StreetTraffic Island
Landscaping&Irrigation Design -.-
In Desi.n David ST 0305 $20,000 Streets CIP Fund
CIP Summary
Under Construction 3
Bids Received 1
Pendin. Contracts 2
Out to Bid 1
In Desi.n 6
Pendin. Land Ac'uisition 0
Other 0
On Hold 1
Total 16
Park Land Dedication Pro"ects
Park Land Dedication Project Project FundingCompletion
Projects Prioritized Status Manager # Budget SourcDate Finali C-
ZONE 1 -$179,4438 Ed
North.ate Park Ac.uisition On Hold === Zone___
ZONE 2-$142,257
ZONE 3-$44,558 —_----_
ZONE 4-$21,740
Raintree Im.rovements On Hold Pete NA $0 Zone 4 Funds
Windwood Im.rovements On Hold Pete NA $0 Zone 4 Funds
ZONE 5 $91,261 -_-----
Brothers Fttctl,X11 k1n`c *r 3 8t � it0 " 2$rQ®a 4g11 0 } 2 ..
Jack& ar`otli Mit r Par la x®rat''' W/ T on � ,:,'Co .�-te,' . i %+ltd;o' kt.:_ ,$vs"?"i e ti '", ttt�'... filo 2/98 E: ,. •886,
- Zone 5&
$20,000 R --
Jack&Doroth Miller Park Exercise E.ui.ment In Desi.n Pete e.lacement 5/04
ZONE 6-$89,831 __---_-
Southwest Park Develo.ment On Hold Pete/David $90,000 Zone 6 Funds
Anderson Walk and Benches/ On Hold David PK0315 $45,000 Zone 6 Funds
Bee Creek Benches/ On Hold David PK0316 $12,000 Zone 6 Funds
Anderson Park Swirl.Set On Hold David PK0314 $12,000 Zone 6 Funds
Gabbard Park Sidewalk r On Hold David NA $0 Zone 6 Funds
ZONE 7-$788,789 —_---__
Woodway Park Development I In Desi.n Pete/David PK9803 $710,000 Zone 7 Funds Unknown
ZONE 8-$5,577 —_---_-
_. — — -- 333__._...._. —_----_
ZONE 9-$33,324
ONE...10_..88,65............_.. ._... ........... —_----_
ZONE 10-$88,655
Zone 10 Park Development f Under Construction Pete PK0060 $185,000 Zone 10 Funds 4/15/04
Desi.n Edelweiss Gartens On Hold Pete
ZONE 11 -$36,360 .--_-----
Pebble Creek Park Improvements/Tot Playground 1 In Desi•n Pete NA $30,000 Zone 11 Funds
ZONE 12-$0 —_-----
ZONE 13-$565 ---_---_—
I—Intergenerational Project
Park Land Dedication Summary
Under Construction 1
Bids Received 0
Pendin. Contracts 0
Out to Bid 0
In Desi.n 3
Pendin. Land Ac•uisition 0
On Hold 9
Total 15
0:/Projects/CIP/CIP&Park Land Ded Project List.doc Page 2
STRATEGIC PLANS IMPLEMENTATION CALENDAR FEBRUARY — MAY 2004
STATEMENT SUBJECT TEAM FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY
PfGY1de E YQ Steve,"Ftbss Bid Cemetery Rear Entrance proms, Start Construction on Cemetery Rear Develop operational cost estimates
Ore Sew fees Meeting:wfCount ori 2f12t3n near Entrance project and revenue projections for
CP.rtletery.et, es:;-,,, Rlcj operation b 5/1/04
S;i4 a cemeterjrsit�` Y
-Second Quarter report to Parks
Parks$� ,Contrnue teAdvisory Board
♦eisu-r plemetrt 1t10* Request funding for contract landscape
Services ' Parks to 4,,,., ltI Retss maintenanceservices-WPC Phase II
$tarfdards Develop maintenance standard
surveys for Zone 10 park.
Update tree retated - ' aty's
Park $ •
' ts46metttatfoot{of $ ��wet #hts d7ttastt dee,Grafiko (On Hold)consultant to develop policy
Leisure Forest �, the next update• of The Tree Grd� (On
,i Se,T'v4 5'; dt etrieitt ialt u ,move mtfes orte dui+,)
z Vr' • y 44 erlef t t
a> -Design and construct Hensel Park
.4::,,, �P� t ''_,,,,,•04,•-?.to.'
�� « ' playground
y r r -Update Joint Use Agreement with -Assist with Brazos Valley International
l}�tt[S5' Lr �t*�� CSISD(move milestone forward+) Festival
Liu!6h3i6lsli'r6F „`e .7,Rla''e .n
y , !trt115 , # Conduct community needs Present recommendations for
$� t fVICO 4 5� � assessment for Conference Center ConferenceCenter utilization to Parks
� � I �"v � ,....-..,,,,,,,,,..,,,,z:,,;„,-,,,.„.„:„..-...„:„ (moved milestone fonvard�) Advisory Board
;,i ✓F t � r��
N ,,�$� Complete evaluation of current Joint Parks Board Meeting&tour of
re _. � programs(moved from November) TMPA site 4/15.
ZeC14CES ,
SZ R , r
���' �. ;# 'may a e e
,-
. �� rc ff - Develop long-range athletic facility
pf a� ' + M jstaantti o replacement&improvement plan Develop implementation plan for CIP ,
��'''''''''*t:';'.� y ,,•Ftw"arC fete ,,i„,„,„{ 3, ,, M (moved from February) approved in the November 2003 Bond
Design neighborhood area)
ark for Park
F �q I � Q4. , g �g y P) Election by 411/04
v4. Zone 7 oodwa area
VI
iit t fila '� x s a,Ait,-,- �/ a M1r,, w 4.„.
..
+,,10, ,.%::,.;.:,,,T4,:',,,,,4Y." ...3 K y _ ..-•.3,12,e,..-•--------.
u" y se_.u..-", ., 3, --,11:2 � T+ "',"J�
' ,,,,. _ a ti by�4 2EX{EUrE�df
P1f ; t/y
L re •
3" a .011 g �r i�,4 - *,•',,
s �'y g® �404;44;1444
t F J1'
$ /gyp � l a s i��� ,`
N \ a �N�r r 6 1� � } ,,,,,,,,,,,:,,,,t4
wham
a - '• v '° ,% ...,,. . fi. � '"� .' ,fir.
! Develop recommendations to
":� icii*Iry utStoTaarksB*:,.4. Q improve platting process&provide
�nJ yy,y U 2'4!
f Land C:. �vy /mow' > $a�w'46^s1'
�� D 1 icaO11 Rlc 1, for develo r constructed parks.
4 E rdtnan ' -Develop guidelines for developer-
,,.... ° r tib, ,,. ,. .. �� ,;',5-:!•,.,. constructed park facilities.
NOTE: Shaded items have been completed. Revised March 4, 2004
City of College Station
Parks & Recreation Advisory Board
Goals & Objectives
FY2004
(Not prioritized)
1. Oversee the development of a new Five-Year Capital
Improvement Program (VS2S2e)
® Assist with the November 4, 2003 Bond Election
® Develop recommendations for new 5 year CIP implementation
Provide oversight for planning and completion of CIP projects
2. Provide oversight and emphasis on further development of
Veterans Park & Athletic Complex, Phase II (VS2S2d)
® Develop recommendation regarding schedule for development
Status: December 9, 2003, Board meeting.
I I Assist with the selection of design professionals
Review & provide input concerning Phase II conceptual plans
3. Review and update the Park Land Dedication Ordinance
(VS3S1 d)
Review the existing ordinance and methodology
Status: Draft approved; first review by Board at January13, 2004 meeting.
® Develop recommendations that will allow developers to construct
parks
Status: Draft approved by Board on February 10th
4. Oversee the design process and recommend improvements for
neighborhood parks (VS2S2e)
Park Zone 1 (Park site in the Northgate area)
Park Zone 2 (Eastgate Park)
n Park Zone 2 (Richard Carter Park)
® Park Zone 6 (Southwest Park)
Status: Park Land Dedication project prioritization on November 4, 2003. On
December 9, 2003, the Board approved the conceptual design and park land dedication
funds were dedicated, not to exceed the amount of$90,000.
n Park Zone 7 (Woodway Park)
® Park Zone 9 (Woodland Hills Park)
Status: Request from Woodland Hills Homeowner's Association on December 9, 2003.
Park Zone 10 (Park in the Shenandoah area)
Status: Construction in progress.
Develop recommendations for park and facility names
Status: Subcommittee has been formed (Ken Livingston, Jodi Warner, Gary Erwin).
Approved: October 14, 2003 Page 1
Updated: March 1, 2004
5. Provide oversight and support for the continued implementation
of the Park Maintenance Standards (VS2S1a)
❑ Review policies and standards for re-appraisal of existing parks,
facilities, and services offered by the Department
❑ Review and identify critical needs and develop recommendations to
address them
6. Restore the Arboretum at Bee Creek Park to its former value
(VS2S2e)
n Develop recommendations for redevelopment of the trails
Status: Report to Board on January 13, 2004.
Develop recommendations for signage and interpretive sites
❑ Develop recommendations for the pond areas
f l Develop recommendations for graminetium
n Develop an operations and maintenance plan
7. Develop recommendations for botanical gardens in existing or
proposed parks
n Determine the scope of the proposal
n Develop a proposed list of potential sites
Develop recommendations for implementation
8. Oversee the design and development of the W. A. Tarrow Park
Corridor Master Plan (VS2S2e)
• Review conceptual plans for Lincoln Center expansion
Status: December 9, 2003, Board meeting.
▪ Review conceptual plans for Tarrow Park additions
Status: December 9, 2003, Board meeting.
n Develop recommendations for FY2005 CDBG Budget
9. Provide guidance and support for the implementation of a
regional park site in Grimes County (VS2S4a)
n Develop local support for a state-wide $500M bond issue
Status: Report at the November 4, 2003, Board meeting. On December 9, 2003, the
Board approved a resolution that will be presented to the City Council in support of the
project.
❑ Conduct a site tour of the TMPA property
Status: Scheduled for April 15, 2004.
n Develop a recommendation for the budget process
10. Assist with the implementation of an Urban Forest
Management Plan (VS2S1b)
n Review and assist in the development of a policy for street trees
and hazard trees
Develop recommendations for implementation
Approved: October 14, 2003 Page 2
Updated: March 1, 2004
11. Continued interaction between the Board and other City Boards
F Attend a joint briefing related to growth issues
Status: Growth Report held on October 6th, 2003. In attendance was PARD
supervisory staff, the Board, the Senior Advisory Committee, and the Cemetery
Committee.
___
Conduct joint meeting with the City Council
EX Conduct joint meeting with the Planning & Zoning Comm.
Status: Joint meeting was held on October 30, 2003.
X Conduct a joint meeting with the Senior Advisory Committee
Status: Board met with Vice Chairperson Robert Meyer on October 14, 2003, and
approved the Senior Advisory Committee goals for Fiscal Year 2004.
Conduct a joint meeting with the Bryan Parks & Rec. Board
12. Support increased efforts to implement the Greenways Master
Plan (VS3S2d)
X Review the status of the current greenways acquisition
Status: Greenways Report on October 30th Joint Meeting with the Planning and
_ Zoning Commission
Support increased efforts for acquisition of greenways
13. Provide support & assistance for Departmental goals
Develop recommendations for a donations program
Status: Senior Advisory Committee Goal for FY04.
Continue joint programming with outside agencies (VS2S4a)
Li Identify potential sources of additional revenue
Develop policies for on-line registration procedures
I I Continue communication with outside user groups (VS2S4a)
Support agency accreditation process
Status: In progress.
(111Le
Approved: October 14, 2003 Page 3
Updated: March 1, 2004