Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/14/2001 - Regular Agenda - Parks BoardV, Y, ks h 0 1 7W, '(55 a 3 0 9. M-) 1. Call to order. 2. Hear visitors. 3. Pardon — Consider requests for absences of members from meeting. 4. Presentation, review, discussion, and possible action concerning the existing Park Land Dedication Ordinance. Break for Dinneir (6.30 p.m.) Z,Rpgalar Meeting (7:00 p.m.) 5. Approval of minutes from regular meeting of July 10, 2001 and July 30, 2001. 6. Presentation, discussion, and possible action concerning park land dedication for the Shenendoah Subdivision. 7. Discussion, consideration, and possible approval of the Parks and Recreation Department 2002 User Fees. & Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning City Council Vision Statements: > Vision Statement #3, Strategy #4a (Develop and Urban Forestry Plan) and Vision Statement #4 (Cultural Arts and Recreational Opportunities), > Strategy #I (Performing Arts Center); > Strategy #2 (Parks Maintenance Standards); > Strategy #3 ( Intergenerational Parks); > Strategy #4 (Comprehensive Parks Planning); > Strategy 95 (Comprehensive Leisure Programs); > Strategy #6 (Enhance Cultural Opportunities Through Existing Art Program); > Strategy #7 (Connect Greenways); and > Strategy #8 (Improve Communication between Boards) — Identify areas of potential common interest between Parks and l?"ecreation Advisory BmIrd and Planning and Zoning Commission, 9. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning a retreat to discuss Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Fiscal Year 2002 Goals and Objectives. 10. Update, discussion, and possible action concerning replacement of the Hensel Park playground. 11. Discussion, consideration, and possible appointment of Advisory Board members on existing subcommittees. 12. Clarification, discussion, and possible action concerning direction from the City Council for the Phase I development of Veterans Park and Athletic Complex, 13, Consent item: — Capital Improvement Project Report — Next meeting date and agenda 14. Adjourn The building is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available. Any request for sign interpretive services must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To take arrangements call (979) 764-3517 or (TDD) 1-800-735- 2989. Agendas posted or, Internet Website httpJ/www.ci.college-station.txus and Cable Access Channel 19. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION PARKS AND RECRE ATION ADVISORY BOARD Workshop/Regular Meeting Tuesday, August 14,2001 City Hall Council Chambers 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77840 5-30 p.m. Staff Present: Steve Beachy, Director of Parks and Recreation; Eric Ploeger, Assistant Director; Pete Vaneeek, Senior Park Pjan�ner; Peter Lamont, Recreation Superintendent; David Gerling, Recreation Superintendent; Jane lee, City Planner; Jessica Jimmerson, Staff Planer; Painela Springfield, Senior Secretary; 1,<-Tris Lehde, Staff Assistant. 1,, 1 Tinton, arr Farnsworth, Tenn Bo&ye., Mena hers F resent- Jol-nn Nichols, Chair; Jon Tu on; L y Farnswo h; Gle Schroeder; Don Allison; Glen Davis. B(3,aya," T klennteTmz Ahse�mt� Bill Davis; Laura 'Nood (Alternate). L Co,11pltag orders, The meeting wascalled to order at 5:30 pa'. 2. %Re visitors ma-Aisho;rg. There were no visito present at the meeting. CaThside'r, �requeets -for ah-a-UVReeq of members firom, Glen Davis made amotion to accept the request forabsencesfrom Bill Davis and Laura Wood as excused. Glenn Schroeder seconded the motion. All were in .aver, and the motion passed u-naninaously. review, discumion, and posr'uble zeflog. canice"rri-Ihag fl-fje eadbtft'Rg Park Land Dediezflon Orrdinpmu--e- Steve said that the,,, last time the Park ,and Dedication Ordinance had been revised was January 1999. The direction is that the, ordinance will be reviewed every three years and updated accordingly. He said that the Parlks and Recreation Advisory Board would need to 'look at the follov&g two items pertaining to the ordinance: 1. The, pro -visions of the current ordinance; and 1 The fees pertainingtothe ordinance. Steve said that the purpose of the workshop was educational only, and that staff would not be asking for official action from the, Board. Parks & Recreation Advisory Board Workshop/Regular Meeting Tuesday, August 14, 2001 Page I of 8 Jane Kee showed a PowerPoint presentation pertaining to the Park Land Dedication Ordinance (see Batt achedpresenmvion). She said that the Development Services Department uses the ordinance on a daily basis, and feels that staff should probably meet more regularly to discuss the authority that the Board has with the ordinance. Jane stated that the ordinance calls for a three-year review. It was last revised in 1999, and would again be presented to the City Council in January 2002 for consideration of any potential fee increases, She explained the sections in the ordinance, and said that primary discussion would be focused on the dedication requirement and the specific criteria for acceptance and development, She said that one of the steps that the City will take is to check the current census data to determine if the number of persons per household may impact the fees. JoIrm Nichols asked if the City would be comparing the ordinance to what other municipalities have beer,, doing. Jane responded that the City has been doing this. Glen Davis asked if a fee could be assessed for commercial properties for a community park. Jane replied that she wasn't sure if this could be done through the park, land dedication process, but it could possibly be looked at in correlation with the user fee& She said that this topic would need to be, -researched and discussed with the, City's attorneys. She added that the City could not use impact fees to get pawls land. Jane explained that the Park Land Dedication Ordinance is a chapter in the Subdivision Regulations. These regulations are tools that are used to implennent the, 0-allege 36attion Comprehensive Piwa). The Comprehensive Plan is the docurne,nt that the planning and Zonhng Commission and City Council have adopted as a guiding policy staternent that includes es the Land Use Plan, Thoroughfare PlaA, Parks ataid Open Space Plan, and "Water and Wastewater Plan (see aftached section of Comprehensive Plan as it relates to Parics and Recreation). John N. asked if the Comprehensive- Plan was directly -related to the Recreation, Park, and Open Space -Master Plan. Jane said that the Comprehensive Plan was adopted first, and the Master plan was developed based on the Comprehensive Plan, Jane said that the Development Services Department is responsible for reviewing plats and plans, and administering the regulations for development, and would like to make sure that they are doing this in accordance with the wishes of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. She added that the Board has more broad power with the Park Land Dedication Ordinance than they may think. Glen D. said that one of the challenges in the past has been, that most plats and plans are presented to the. Board late in the development process. This makes the Board the problem if they make too many recommendations that could affect the process. Jane said that this situation occurs in the Development Services Departnilent as well. She went on to say that the City will be trying to fix this sit Uion with uw the Unified Development Code (UDC) by making requirements for certain steps Park & Recreation Advisory Board Workshop/Regular Meeting Tuesday, August 14, 2001 Page 2 of 8 before development can. start. One of the steps would be a requirement for developers to have their development master plans reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board before Development Services will process them. Steve said that overall the Park Land Dedication Ordinance is a good document. The actual process is the main problem area. This problem needs to be reviewed at both the staff and Board levels. Jane added that currently, Development Services holds predevelopment meetings, but the meetings are not required. It is being proposed that the UDC re uire these meetings during the master planning stage of development. Jane said that under the current statute, the Development Services Departf,-nent has thirty days to approve or disapprove a plat. They would like to incorporate in the UDC the stipulation that- the thirity-day, timeline won't start until after the Parks and. Recreation Advisory Board has given their recommendations. Steve said that a suggestion would be to have site tours of the proposed plats with the Advisory Board and staff, as well as to require developers to ME out a checklist that will provide more information about the development. John N. suggested that staff also give the Board written advice before they meet on park land dedication issues. Steve said that Parks and Recreation, and Developmnent Services staff would need to coordinate in the future to try to get the Board more summary information to review before the meetings. Jane pointed out that Section 10-G of the Regaiaadons states that any proposal considered by the Planning and Zoning Cornmission shall have been reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, and its recommendation given to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commssion may vote contrary to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board only by a "supermajority," which is the concurring vote of at least five members. Eric Ploeger showed a PowerPoint Presentation (see attachreent) pertaining to three specific parks. The following parks all have detention features in common., - Edelweiss Pajrk5. Eric said that although there are some features in the park that have not been successful (the parking and the lack of trees and landscaping), overall, the park has been successful by providing adequate practice areas. - Woodlead Hiffis (oniginally P?bbL- I-Plis). Eric stated that, there are several problems associated with the park. One problem is low visibility and another is the fact that the park was accepted before the revision of the Park Land Dedication Ordinance, which now slates that 50% of the perimeter of the park should abut a public street. Also, a detention facility has been built that has taken up almost all of the usable property. Eric said that if considered today, the property would probably not be accepted, adding that this type of dedication should be avoided in the future. Parks & Recreation Advisory Board Workshop/Regular Meeting Tuesday, August 14, 2001 Page 3 of 8 Steeplechase. This park has very good street frontage and visibility. There is a creek that goes through the back of the property and there is ample space to add amenities. The detention area is not huge, but it is big enough for sorneeone to go out and throw a fi-isbee or football. Eric said that this park. is a good example of park land dedication that works. Eric discussed some of the land acceptance issues and said that detentions, floodplains, and gree nways are issues that the Board and staff have stuggled with. He staled that Park staff have identified areas that could be improved upon to help the Board make their recommendations: Increasing required background information by creating a check -fist for de -,,,elopers; - Providing staff review of information for Parks and Recreation Advisory Board prior to the meeting,; and Having potential she tours so that the staff and Board can see what the developer's intentions are. Eric gave suggestions for the detention, floodplain, and green",ays pa land acceptance issues afisted in the anachedpreseWation). He said that in September, City staff would be having a focus group meeting with developers to discuss these issues and potential fee changes before they are presented to the Paeks and Recreation Advisory Board and to the City Council. Eric added that although it is a repiuke-ment, that the fees fin the Park Land Dedication Ordinance be reviewed every three years, there is sorne flexibility with the other portions of the ordinance. There was discussion regarding the possibility of creating a subcorkmiittee of the Board to review the Ordinance and determine whether a separate Board policy to accompany the Ordinance would- be necessary. TI-fis item will be brought back to the Board as an update during the September 11, 2001, meeting. BreakforDinnier.- The meeting broke for dinner at 6:50 p.m. Regular Meefing: The meeting resurned at 7:20 p.rn. o Appnrova'l of minutes from reguh-ar meeting of Jury 10, 20K, and Jut,, 30, 2001- Glen D. made a motion to approve the minutes of Tuly 10, 2001, and July 30, 2001. Glenn Schroeder seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed imaniniously. Parks & Recreation Advisory Board Workshop/Regular Meeting Tuesday, August 14, 2001 Page 4 of 8 6. Presentation, discumioni, nndl powssibie aefloin coucerraing pwrk Roand dediczflon for the Shenandw-uh But bdi Avision - Jan,-, stated tha-- t this item pertained to a prior pax-k land dedication. She said that in 1998 the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board approved a master plant for the Shenandoah Subdivision, Phases 6-10. Part of that master plan included a 12-acre parr land dedication. Since that time, the original master plan had expired. The, Plammirtg and Zoning Commission renewed it on the condition that there be some kind of street connectivity to the east of the dedication. June asked the Board if they had a preference as to where the street should be put. After some discussion, John Turton made a motion to convert Lexington Court to Lexington Drive for comiectivity purposes. Glenn S. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 7. Dilseassion, possible approval of the Parks mad RecTeROoia Depa, rtment 2002 Uoer�- Fees. Steve said that this item was put on the agenda to update the Board. Park staff have been working with a consultant to review the user fees, and the direct and indirect costs associated with the programs that the department offers. A preliminary update will be given to the City Council on August 23, 2001, and staff will be presenting their recommendation's for consideration on September 13, 2001. A Fees Subconunittee meeting was scheduled for Friday, August 17, 2001, at noon. Packets, including the Consultant's revised Executive Sunumary and staff recona rnendations and comments, will be distributed to the Subcommittee prior to the -meeting. Don Allison made a motion to delegate the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board's authority to the Fees Subcommittee, pending the Board's final approval during the September 11, 2001, regular -Trneeting. Larry Farnsworth seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. eouIqdevzNoFT,, and possible RC630 coficeirnhR 9 City CO ncig Vision t r tso Steve said, that this would be a standing item on future agendas. > Vision StateRn-teRA #3, StmOegy *-Ta (Develop an Urban YoTe�try Plan) - There was no discussion on this vision statement. > vision Statement N (CakurO Arts and Recreation -al Gpportunftie* > Sk r leg r01 (FeTTbirming Arts Center). There was no discussion on this strategy. > Strategy #2 (PSHO malatennace Staimdards). There was no discussion on this strategy. > Strategy 93 (WreLrgeneraaflo-nstl There was no discussion on this strategy. Parks & Recreation Advisory Board Workshop/Regular Meeting Tuesday, August 14,2001 Page 5 of 8 Strategy #4,• (Comprehenswu Nnrlko Phnuning)-. There was no discussion on this strategy. > StrategY 05 Leisure Progran2s). There was no discussion on this strategy. > S&StegY N-6 (ErRhAnce Cultarmi Opportunities Through Existing Art Progr,am). There was no discussion on this strategy. > Sti-mtegy #7 (Con rest Grr-0e&tw--yz-)-- There was no discussion on this strategy. strabeE-Z 'N hetmeeen Boords) - I&SgAtjv tallmag air J)"%lemki cz rfe b?'Wese 6O.Ameez"- Rruts and Rec?ewfloyf Advisokv BROOM ayed Rft,-gohrag and Zoning CotInral-asion.- Steve said that" the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board laad a joint meeting with the Planning and Zoning Commission in July 2000. There will be another -meeting scheduled to discuss areas of cornaton interest between the two Boards. (Up -date: This nneeting has been scherluledfor Thursday, Sqptember201, 2001,fivm 5:00,p.m. to 6:30p.m). The Board identified the following areas of common interest Fvidth the Planning &ad Zoning Commission: - P "d-LandDedicaffion; - Pank. Access; and The Unified Developinent Code. Glen D. suggested having a presentation during the joint r-neeth, g Pertaining to ,how the, development process is supposed to ,vorL ,iris Lehde will distribute copies of the July 2000 minwites to Vhe Board, for review prior to the joint meeting. J t This was an informational item only, and no Ynotion was made, Difscu,,-�onba, consideration, and possible action concerning a petureo to f Armuas Y',jirko surid Recreation Advisory Board Fiscal Year 2002 Goago Rae, OWeedves. This item pertains to scheduling, a special meeting of the Board, to discuss Goals and Objectives for Fiscal Year 2002. Steve said that the two main issues that will be drivhTg most of the Departff tent's work are the City Council Strategic Issues and the CIP Program. Jon T. said that the Board should have goals and objectives to follow, but it would appear that the City Council's vision staternents are driving tl- le City's activities at the present time. Glenn S. stated that the Board's goals should be done in correlation with the Council's vision statements. Steve added that, some of the Board's goals have been made into multi -year projects in the Council's Strategic Issues. John N. rej-,chided the Board not to confuse issues with actual goals. Parks & Recreation Advisory Board WorkshoplRegular Meeting Tuesday, August 14, 2001 Page 6 of 8 After some discussion, a special meeting was scheduled for Monday, Aug-ust 27, 2001, at 7:00 p.m., at Central Park. 10. 'Update, discussion, and possible action concerning replacerineut Of the Hlensei Park playground: This item is an update from the Judy 10, 2001, meeting, at which staff was asked to examine options for potential playground and wood decking replacement at Hensel Park. Eric handed out the departmental playground replacement list and cost estimates for replacement of the Hensel Park playground (see ateachmerit). Glen D. asked about the potential of additional Funding in the budget to replace more pla- ygrounds. Eric said that a budget request -,,,,,as submitted to add an additional $60 to the current replacement account', which would increase it to $110,000; however, there is the possibility that the re,,Tnest ed amount would decrease or not be funded. This was an inforniation-al item only, and no motion vms made. o Diseusdon, consider afiami, 5,adj pm-dble appointment of AdVieGTy Bo- ard, MV-R@herI5 on L exisNing gabeommitrteea� The consensus was to delay appointing new members to the Joint, Ventumes with CSISD end TAW, Skate, Park, and Lick Creek Park subcommittees until the Boa�-d determines what their Fiscal Year 2002 Ij goals and objectives will be. Glenn S. made a motion to appoint Don Allison, to the Recreation, Park, and Open Space Master Plan Subcommittee and to appoh-At John Nichols as liaison to tile Wolf Pen Creek Oversight Committee (Glenn Schroeder ivould becorne alternate). Jon Turton seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. Glen D. suggested using the same consultant (Joni Baker) who originally worked on the Recreation, Park, and Open Space Master Plan to help the Department update it. John N. suggested fora a subcommittee to work with Park staff or, strategizing and coordinating the next bond issue. 1-o 00IR-ificadon, discussion, mid" po'goAhRe action COI-fAc'erninag direeflolm firom the Cifn,u Coundfl for the Phase I devetopmehrat of Vetem-as Park and AW.efle CompDex.- This item was put on the agenda as clarification of City Council, mations pertaining to the developinent of Veterans Park and Athletic Complex. Eric passed around copies of the Council mu-nutes from the March 22 and May 10, 2001, meeting- which included the actual motions that were made (see attachment). Eric said that the impression that he got from the meetings was that the Councilwanled design- alternates. This was an informational item only, and no motion %vas made, Parks & Recreation Advisory Board Workshop/Regular Meeting Tuesday, August 14, 2001 Page 7 of 8 13. Conseut ftenfim. — Q,,,pkal Irnprrovement Proftet RepoErt- Glen D. asked if the completed items could be removed from the list,. He requested the Fiscal Year 2002 CIP items Ibr the special meeting on .August 27, 2001, to aid ha the discussion of the Board's Goa.-Ilsa;,�nd Objectives. — Next meeflog, date and agenda: Glen D. requested feedback on any action thBrL was Waken by the City Council pertaining to the items that the Board had subm Wed to them prior to their Strategic Plann.g Retre-at in Mayo 24. Ad,,,,puann.- The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Parks & Recreation Advisory Board Workshop/Regular Meeting Tuesday, August 14, 2001 Page 8 of 8 Otry of C 00 11 �O S-) c� RIo z x as Embracing the Past, Exploring the Future. P.O. Box 9960 • 1101 Texas Avenue • College Station, TX 77842 www.ci.college-station.tx.us August 8, 2001 MEMO RAZ\ DUT\\4 TO; College Station Parrs and Recreation Advisory Board FROM: Eric Ploeger, Assistant Director of Parrs and recreation"' SUBJECT.- P afrk Land DedIlcnfion Gmdd n znce Piresentstaoimo (979)764-3500 During the upcoming August, 14, 2001 Parrs and Recreation Advis-ory Board lWorkshop Meeting, a presentation will be made regarding the review and update of the Parr Land Dedication Ordinance. This review is required every three years. The review is also part of the City Council's Strategic plan (Vision Statement 44, Strategy #4c). A portion of the presentation will cover the existing ordinance and its provisions. The other portion will involve a short discussion of three neighborhood parrs accepted in the past few years. The objective is to receive input from the Board to begin the ordinance review process. The Board may wish to visit the three parrs involved in, the discussion before the meeting. The names and directions to each site are listed below. These sites will be used as examples for a discussion of acceptance perimeters that the Board may wish to consider as part of the review process. Edelweiss Park Victoria Avenue in the Edelweiss Subdivision. S�eeplechage Park North side of Westridge Drive in the Steeplechase Subdivision. Woodppmd Hi ft — Pebble Midge Drive, Forth of Greens Prairie road, East of Highway 6. Access is limited to a short section along Pebble :Midge Drive. Home of Texas A&M University (B. 4(]It POLE 10 Car Parl T VICTORIA AVE. Bridi I whW � Soccer Practice Field 0 0 Ball Practice 0 Field stlk ich r y �............ „ l�J`....�_n.J...J �.I,� J� J ✓ �..�'V'Y'y'Y^V.,✓" >�"'..r^V'V"�•-•.i 'v V-v"ti"�/""Y 1 r - Wooded Area 9.09 Ares Dr. , VoAg A_. _rA,. l ORDUNTANICE NO. 2369 AN ORDINANCE REPLACING "CHAPTER 9 SUBDIVISIONS, SECTION 10, REQUIREMENTS FOR PARK LAND DEDICATION' OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS, WITH THAT SET OUT BELOW IN EXHIBIT "A7; PROVIDING A SEVERABIL- ITY CLAUSE; AND DECLARING A PENALTY. BE IT ORDADIIEED BY THE CITY COUNCIL Or THE C1117 OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS: PART 1: That "Chapter 9 Subdivisions, Section 10, Requirements for Park Land Dedication", of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas, be replaced with that set out in Exhibit "A", aaached hereto and made a part of this ordinance for all purposes. PART 2: That if any provisions of any section of this ordinance shall be held to be void or uncon- stitutional, such holding shall in no way effect the validity of the remaining provisions or sections of this ordinance, which shall remain in full force and effect. PART 3: That any persoia, frff n, or corporation violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall be deemed guilty of arnisdemeanor, and upon conviction to shall be punishable by a fine of not less than Twenty-five Dollars ($25.00) nor more than Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00). Each day such violation shall continue or be permitted to continue, shall be deemed a separate offense. Said Ordinance, being a penal ordffiance, becomes effective six (6) months after its publication in the newspaper, as provided by Section 35 of the, Charter of the City of College Station. PASSED, ADOPTED and APPROVED this 14th day of January, 1999. A TT E S T: /s/ Connie Hooks CON, NIE HOOKS, City Secretary /s/ Harvev Cargill, Jr. IIARVEY CARGILL, City Attorney APPROVED, /s/ Lvnn Mcllhanev LYNN McILHANEY, Mayor That "Chapter 9, Subdivisions, Section 10, Requirements for Park Land Dedication" is hereby arnen-ded in its entirety to read as follows: "SECTION 10: RE QUIRE, MENT S FOR PARK- LANID, DEDICATIOTINT 10-A. Purvose 10-A.1 This section is adopted to provide recreational areas in the form of neighborhood parks as a function of subdivision wrld site development hi the City of College Station. This section is enacted in accordance with the home rule powers of the City of College Station, granted under the Texas Constitution, and the statutes of the State of Texas including, but n t way of limitation, Texas Local Gov't Code Chapter D2 ("-Vernon 19818�; 0 ernon sufe. 1999). It is herebK declared by the City Council that recreational areas e necessary in t e form of neighbor- ood parks are _y and in the public welfare, and that the only adequate procedure to provide for same is by integrating such a requirement into the procedure forplaning and developT�g- property or subdivisions hi the city, whether such development consists of new con- struction on vacant ),and or rebuilding and mr-nodeling of structures on existing residential property. O-A.2 Neighborhood parks are those parks providing for a variety of outdoor recreational opportunities and located i,:-,dthin convenient distances from a majori of the residences to be served therft. The park zones established Ix zown on the official Parks and by the I arks &qd. Recreation De artment and sh Recreation map for the City, oMlellege Station shall be prima facie roof that any park located therein is within such a convenient distance Voin any resid-ince located therein. The * a cost of neighborhood parks should be borne- by the ultimate residentialpropertyowners who, by reason of the o he promhq,��iV f their property to such parks, shall be the primary beneficiaries of such facilities. Therefore, the 16ollolfor ng re umli wr'ents are adopted to e5ect the, pUrposes stated above ashall apply to , 7-hrid to be used for residential purposes: 10-B General RequiremerA Dedications shall cover both land and development costs for neighbofhood park land for all types of residential development. I O-B- I Land Dedication Whenever a final plat is filed of record with the County Clerk of Brazos County for develophneiA of a residential area in accordance with the planning and zoning regulations of the City, such tat shall contain a clear fee simple dedication of an area of land to the City for park purposes. For single fanflly developments this area shall be equal to one (1) acre for each one hundred and one (101) proposed dwelling units. For duplex and other multi-farnily develo rent this area shall be equal to one (1) acre for each one hundred and thirty-Tco-ur (134) proposed dwelling units.' For methodologv refqr to Appendix 1 alt-ached 'herein and ificorporamed and made a part 6f this ordinance for all purposes. Any pro posed plat submitted to the City for approval shall show the area propose to be dedicated under this section. The required land dedication of this subsection may be net by a payment of money in lieu of land when permitted or required 'by the other provisions of this section. In the event a plat is not required this dedication shka-111 be met prior to the issuance of a building permit. 10-13.2 Fee in Lieu of Land A land owner responsible for dedication umder this section may elect to meet the requirements of I O-B. I - in whole or in part b a cash pa went in lieu of land, ih the amount set forth below, Before g this e ection, the land owner nrast obtain approval for the cash payment in lieu of land from the Planning & Zoft Mramssion pursuant to the plat approval procedures set out in aapter 9, ection 6. Such payment in lieu of Mrid shall be made at or prior to the nine of filing the -final plat for record at the Courthouse or prior to the issuance of a building permit Where a plat is not -required. The fee in lieu of land dedication requirement shall be nnet by a payment of a fee set fi-orn time to time by resolution the City Council, sufficient to acquire neighborhood park land. Unless langed by the City Council, such per -acre price shall be com uted on the 'oasis of one hundred and forty-eight dollars ($148.00 pet, dwelf.ing unit for single family development and one hundred and tvv Ive dollars ($f 12.00) per dwelling unit for duplex and multi- family development. Refer to Appendix I. Cash paents may be used only for acquisition or development of a neighborhoodpark located within the same zone as the development. I O-B. 3 Park Develournent Fee In addition to the land dedication, there shall also be a fee set from time to time, by resolution of the City Council sufficient to provide for development of the land to meet the standards for a neighborhood park to serve the zone 'in which such development is located. Unless changed by City Council this fer-acre fee shall be computed on the 'oasis of three hundred and nine dollars 1$309.00) per dwelling unit for single family developments and two hundred and thirty-three dollars ($233) for dlkplex and multi -family developments. Refer to Appendix 1. I O=B, 4 Park Development in Lieu of Fee A develo er has the option to construct the neighborhood park improvements in lieu opthe park development fee. Develo ment plans and specifications shall be reviewed and approved by the Parks Eloard. 'All iraprovernents shall either be financially guaranteed or accepted by the City prior to the filing of a plat in the case of platted developments or pfior to issuance of certificates of occupancy in the event that platting is not required. The process of financial WUM�xawf.ee shall be the same as that found' in section 7 'of the Subdivision egulations and shall be used whether a plat is required or not. Once t inigrovernents are accepted by the City the developer shall deed the property and improvements to the City. 10-B.51n instances where an area of less than five (5) acres isrequired to be dedicated, the City shall have the right to accept the dedication Tor ap roval on the final plat, or to refuse same, after consideration W. the recommendation of the Pl,,*n& and Zoning Commission and the Parrs and Recreation Board. The Cityhave the right to require payment of cash in lieu of land in the amount provided above, if -it det hit sufficient park area is already in the public domain in the area of the roposed development, or if the, recreation potential for that zone woulybe b0tter served by expanding or improving existing parks. 10-B.6 The, dedication required by this section shall be made by filing of the final plat or contemporaneously by separate instrument unless additional dedication is required subse pent to the filing of the final plat. If the aztual number of conypleted dwelling units exceeds the figure upon which the or� inal dedication was based, such additional dedication shall be requiredl, an shall be made by payment of the cash in lieu of land amount provided above, or by the conveyance of an entire numbered lot to the City. 10-B.7 The City may from time to time decide to urchase land for parks in, or near the area of actual or otential developmenf If the City does urchase park land in a park zone, t-9e City shall have the right to require sugsequent park land dedications for that zone to be in cash only. This will be toreimburse the City its purchase cost. Once the City has been reinibussed entirely for all such ark land within a Park zone, this subsection shall cease to apply, and the of er subsections offthis section shall again be applicable. 10-C Prior Dedication. Absence of Prior Dedication I O-C. I Credit shall be given for land and/or inoney dedicated pursuant to Ordinance 690 or 983. 10-C.2 If a dedication requirement arose prior to passage of this section, that dedication requirement shall be controlled by the ordnance in, effect at the time such obt ation arose, except that additional dedication shall b� required if the actual le a' ' t Lixies constructed u I heat o s -ruct Pon groperEy is greater than the former assimneydensity. .additional dedications 11 be requEed oo ,y for the increase in density and shall be based upon the ratio set. forth in 10-R. of this section. 10-C.3 at the discretion of the City, any former gift of land to the City may be credited on a per acre basis toward eventual laind dedication rec ments irnposed on the donor of such lands. The City Council shall cm;t'ilier the recomnm- endation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Parks and Rec reation Board 'in exercising its discretion under this subsection. I D-D Soccia-1 Fwnd, Ptia-htto RlefUmd I O-D. I There is hereby established a special fund fair the deposit of all. sums paid in lieu of land d6edication under this section or any preceding ordinance, which fwad shall be known as the park. land dedication7fChad. 10-D.2 The City shall account for all sums -paid in lieu of land dedication under this section �,Atb. reference to the individual Vats involved. ).As funds paid for such putposes must be ex ended by the City within five i( years from the date 'received by the Fity for acquisition andilor develoo trient of a neighborhood park as defined herein. Such funds shall be considered to be spent on a first in, first out basis. If not so expended, the owners of the progerty on the last day of such period shall be entitled to a prorata refund of sud sum, computed on a square footage of area basis. The owners of such property crust request such reffund', within one (1) year of entitlement, in writing, or such right shall be barred. 10-E ConTrehensive Plan Considerations 10-E.1 The Park and Open ace Plan is intended to ro-vide the College Station Parks arid Recreation c(dvisory Board w -See upon which to base future decisions. Because of the need to consider specific characteristics in the site selection process, the park locations indicet6d on the Plan are general. The actual locations, sizes and number of parks will be detefinimed when development occurs. Tie Piari will also be used to locate desirable park sites before development occurs, and those sites may be purchased by the City or received as donations. 10-E.2 Park Zones are established by the City's Cop.,prehensive Plan and are configured to indicate service areas for neighborhood parks. Zone boundaries are established that follow key topographic features such as major thoroughfares, streams, and city limit lines. 10-F Aclditioiril--,R,-e.aiiT!rer-nents, Definitions I 0-F. 1. 1 An land dedicated to the city under this section must, be suitable for park.park.V21-recreation uses. Consideration will be given to land that is in the floodplain or may be considered "floodable" even though not in a federall legul5ted floodpfain as long as, due to its elevation, it is suitable for par amprovernents. (a) 14eighborhood park sites should be adjacent to residential areas in a manner that serves the greatest number of users. (b) eighb ho d k e should located that users are not u so sites s s 0 access ir or 0 0 park arterial )ad 7a Ps he Tequ ed t cross er in - it s ul s r I s opi� e should n be severely e or have unusual topography nal (c) Sites hjc s Woul not v 3d 31L le f r or r r t la which h d render he 'n organized recreational activities. (d) Sites should have existing trees or other sce-nic elements. 10-F.2 Parks should be easy to access and open to public view so as to benefit area developipeqt, enhance the visual character of the city, protect public safety and minimize conflict with adjacent land uses. Tbx- following guidelines should be used in designing parLs and adjacent development. (a) 'Where physically feasible, park sites should be located adjacent to schools -hi order to encourage both shared facilities and the potential co-develop-ment of new sites. (b) A proposed subdivision adjacent to a 'park may not be designed to restrict reasonable access to the park ftom other area subdivisions. Street connections to existin or future adqjow',hig subdivisions may be required to provide reasonable access to parks. 0 (c) VARhere a non-residential use must directly abut a. park, the use must be separated by a screening -wall or fence and landscaping. Access p ,gints to. triq parkmay be allowed by the Plaraiing and Zoning Commission if benefit is established. (d) It is desirable that a minimum of fifty perceint (50%) of the perimeter of a park should abut a public street. In all cases, the City shall approve, the proposed stree - alignment ftonting on city parks. (e) Streets qtutt a park shall be built in accordance with the thoroughfare ps ''fal-n 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. Developer may request oversize participation in such instance. 10-G. Consideration and A-p-orova-1 Unless provided otherwise herein, an action b , cil, the City shall be by the City Coun after consideration of the recormn.endati 3 the Planningand Zoning Commission and the Parks and Recreation Board. Am roposal consiered the Planning and I Have been reviewe by the Parks and Zoning under this section ILTI iT Commission recreation Board and its recommendation given to the Commission. The Comniission, may make a decision contrary to such recommendations only by a con- curringvote of at least five (5) members. Should the Commission be unable to get thise, the matter shall then be referred to the City Council for its decision. I O-H. Review of Dedication Requirements The t Ci shall review the fees set forth in this section every three (3) years. The City shall t�azle into account irafflation as it affects land and park development costs as well as the CA ' tar eted level of service for park land per one thousand population. Fees shall set y resolution of the City Council. Appendix 3 PARM UILIND DEDICATION FEE Tv' I 1ETHODOLOGY 1. Current Level of Service 11 Hl 7 Acres Neighborhood & Community Park Land per 1,000 Population 3.5 Acres per 1,000 (Neighborhood Panls 3.5 Acres per 1,000 (Community Parks) Land Requirements Neighborb.00d Parks 3.5 Acres/1,000 I Acre per 285 people 2.81 Persons per Household (PPHI for Single Family and 2.13 Persons per Household for ?Multi -Family based on census information. for o-wner and renter occupied units. The overall average from the Census is 2,31 persons per household (dwelling unh). S1111VQ-T E RAM191111 Y 285 people / 2.81 PPH = 101 DUS, I Acre per In 0 1 DUs MULTI F",ILY 285 people / 2.13'PPFI= 134 DUs I Acre per 134 DUs Neighborhood Park Acquisition Costs (Determines Fee in Lieu of Land) (Assumption) 1 acre costs $15, 000 to purchase SINGLE FAMILY $15,000 / 101 DUs = $148 per DU MULTI -FAMILY $15,000 / 134 DUs = $11.2 per DUI W. Neighborhood Pwrk Development Costs (Determines Fee for Development) Average Neighborhood Park in College Station Development Cost for Neighborbood Parr Cost Per Acre for Development SINGLE FAMILY $31,250 / 101 DUs = $309 per DU V. Total Dedication Fee SENGLE, F"ILY $148 + $309 = $457 Appendix 4 VII - 13 - 8 Acres ,-S250,000 -131,250 MULTI "RE, Y $31,250 / 134 DUs = $233 per DU 'SL Y MULTMAMLY $112 + $233 = $345 P2,2-k Staff Present: Eric Ploeger, Assistant Director of Parks and Recreation, Kris Lellide, Sta .ff L A S.Ssistant. Board Members Present. Glen, Davis; Bill Davis; Don Allison; Larry Farnsworth; Laura Wood (Afterriate). Board MembeK,,s Absent: John Nichols, Chairman; Jon Tw1on; Glenn Schroeder. L OveMevy from Elected a Appotinred 01 &nl�g- ir(,,ga ridlhm�g roae of commimdiftee members, city's strategic plhnt, Otaff j7e['0IedG15R9 WR011, caa"nulfteea, '-neeflng procedures and legislative h4eyor Pro tern Larry Mariott took the floor and introduced flue City staff members that would be presenting information. City Manager Torn Brynaer took the floor and e-XIplained why citizen conninAttees were created and their roles within the cornm42--nity. He also discussed the City's strategic plan, and hoer its eight (8) vision staternents, relate to both City stafff and to citizen committees. (See attached Fo,,wrPohnt presentation, titled "'MTs"hy an Orientation? 9. City Secretary Connie Hooks took the floor and discussed the general rules and procedures that should be followed by citizen cow-niuttees. (See attached -PovwrPoint presentation titled "City of College Station Citizen Committees — General Rules and Procedures. ',). n City Attorney Harvey Cargill, Jr. took the floor and, explahi.ed the Open Meetings Act. (See attached packet titled "Open Meetings and Conflict Provisions for .board Members'). 2. Rev AeT,�, by Department Directors z,%d Staff Maisons or, board staff relations, a-nd mporfing pror-eduEres- Res:pecdve hidividual citizen committees broke out for discussion at 7:15 p.rn. Eric Ploeger passed out several handouts: - Draft of the Parks and Recreation Depaftm em" Resource Guide; - Updated Parks and Recreation Advisory Board subcom-mittee list; - Draft of the City of College Station Strategic Plan; - Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Fiscal Year /2001 Goals and Objectives; - Policy for Naming City of College Station Parks and Recreation Facilities; ztl� - Guidelines for Placing �Monunnents, Memorials, and Ex-1hibits on Public Land or in Public Facilities; and - Park Land Dedication Ordinance, Eric discussed the Strategic Plan. The Plan is compiled of a list of the eight Council vision statements, the strategic goals related to them, and the milestones created by staff in. order to follow and achieve the CounciPs goals. He added that the plan is tied into the overall budget process, and at times carries over into the next fiscal year. Eric gave several examples of items that will carry over from fiscal year 2001 to 2002. Intergenerational Issues and Parks Maintenance Sumdards. Ene discussed Council Vision Statement 94 (Cultural Arts and Recreational Opportunities) as it mainly pertains to Pafks and Recreation (see attached strategic issues for Council Vision Shatement #4) . Eric said that included in the Strategic Plan is a milestone to ranee, with a UDC (Unified Development Code) Consultant who will be reviewing and rewriting the City's development codes. Part of this review will include the current Park Land Dedication Ordinance. Eric said that a workshop would probably be set up starting at 5:30 p.m. on August 14, 2001, that would be part of the regular Paflks and Recreation Advisory Board meeting. He added that a separate Board meeting to discuss the ordinance with the MC Consultant would also need to be set up in August. AA 9:30 p.m., staff, aand,,, Board o4journed for item #3 on the agenda. U G a Boa� had 01th Of Offlice 'BeWkY sappohlted offlici Is: All members of the id 4 been s,'%,orn ih, so the meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. 14© Adjourri: See item -,-4,3. c a7 E � s� � sill s 6u 'iellii - Tay Boards, Comrnktees and Cornmissoons? • citizen Invoivement • Citizen Input • Citizen Perspective • Citizen Expertise • Obtain information and advise the City Council on a specific subject • To make decisions.,on specific issues i 1 Why Advisory- Boards are Oroated • Fulfill local or state: statutes • Build community consensus for a project or program • Guide or regulate.programs • Investigate an activity, problem or event (ad hoc) Role of Board Membel ° Work as a teases with other board members, Council, and staff to meet the goals of the City Council Suggest new departmental programs Establish Board Goals & objectives Strategy Plan • A multi -year, working document that consists of a Mission. Statement and Eight Vision Statements • Serves as a list of the City Council's goals and directionto advisory boards and staff 2 Strategic flan Continued Should guide Board's goals objectives ® Board's goals/objectives should compliment, and, coordinate with the Council's Strategic Plan SuccessM Advisory Boards • Understand role and responsibility • EffectivMy meeting framework • Training • Effective partnerships Effective POr#nersi? Through teamwork: • Staff ® Board members • City Council'' • Other advisory boards K Staff -Ad Board R��a#ions • Role of Staff - Provide board support to assist in executing Couti.c.11.1 policy - inform Board through appropriate professionaLreports & recommend.,atii ns -Prepare boardagenda, minutes, and post meetings. Staff=Advisory Board Relations Continued Staff reporting,, procedures - Staff seports directly to the City Manager or his designate - Board must, understand the role of staff when givingthem°direction -Staff issues should be.reported -to the appropriate -Director -or City; Manager Board9CouncH Relations Joist Meetings - Periodic Reports - Review goals and objectives 11 N CITY OF COLLEGE STATION CITIZEN COMMITTEES General Rules and Procedures Introduction *-Meeting Attendance Meeting Procedures Parliamentary haceduve Recognition Meeting Attendance A City ordinance 2406 re. Absence Request re: Attendance by Form Committee Members 1 Effective Meetings Agenda L Supporting Materials P, 4- Effective Meetings icontinuedi Public Participation BeCISIon Making Mimes H-* PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE QUOrUM - one more than bag of the Membership. Chairperson - Provides group direction and sets the tone for meetings. W10ti0RS - The proper way for an individual to propose that the group take a certain action. 2 3 Five Basic Principles of Parliamentary Procedure i, only one sublect may claim the attention at me assembly at one time. Each pro Position presented for consideration IS entitled to full and free debate. Every member has rights eQU81 to every other member. The will of the majority must he carried gut and Ike rights of The minority must be preserved. The personality and desires of each member should be merged into the larger unit of the organizmIon. QUESTIONS A M P. O. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842 Tel: 409 764 3500 GUIDE #1 August, 2001 CONFLICT PROVHSHONS Home of Texas A&M University COLLEGE STATION P. O. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Stalion. i Tel: 409 764 3500 MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Board Members FROM: Harvey Cargill, Jr., City Attorney DATE: August, 2001 RE: Open Meetings Act The Open Meetings Act requires the following - Notice: (1) Notice must be posted 72 hours prior to all meetings; (2) The notice must be sufficient to apprise the public of each "subject" to be discussed; and (3) Time and place for the meeting must be stated on the notice. 2. Executive sessions are allowed for the following items: (1) Attorney -client consultation on pending and contemplated litigation. (2) Real estate purchases, under limited circumstances. (3) Personnel matters, under specific circumstances. (4) Economic development negotiations, under specific circumstances. (5) Deployment of security personnel. (6) Public Utility competition matters (gas and electric). 3. Before an executive session may be held, all of paragraph No. 1 must occur and the following must happen: (1) The chairman must announce the "specific exception" that allows the board to go into executive session; js/o/groupilegailhe guiderrremo2.doc Home of Texas A&M University Honorable Board Members Page 2 August, 2001 (2) After the announcement and the board has adjourned into an executive session, the board can deliberate in private concerning the six (6) exceptions listed in paragraph No. 2; (3) A certified agenda must be kept for non -litigation executive sessions. The chairman must announce the date and time at the beginning and ending of each non -litigation executive session. The chairman must certify the agenda kept is a true and correct record of the proceedings. "The certified agenda shall be made available for public inspection and copying only upon court order." It is also illegal "to knowingly make public ... that portion of a meeting that was closed under authority of this act;' (4) After deliberation, the board should reconvene in a public session; and (5) If any action is to be taken, it must be after a "public vote" in a "public session." If no action is taken, the person in charge should state that no final action will be taken. "Executive sessions" are only allowed in reference to items specifically noted and posted on the board's agenda "notice." 4. The six (6) executive session exceptions are not applicable to all boards and commissions because most boards and commissions do not have any responsibilities in those areas. For example, the Plumbing Board, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the Zoning Board of Adjustment have no responsibility for personnel matters, land purchases, and the deployment of security personnel. Therefore, these boards will not be using these exceptions. 5. The six (6) executive session exceptions are utilized to provide information to the City Council to aid them in the performance of their responsibilities. If you have questions, please contact me. HC/js fs/o/group/legal/he/grsidememo2. doc P. O. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station. TV 77•^4? Tel: 409 764 3500 TO: Honorable Board Members FROM: Harvey Cargill, Jr., City Attorney DATE: August, 2001 GCE: Conflict Provisions: City Charter and Local Government Code Charter of the City of College Station Personal Interest Section 131. No member of the city council or any officer or employee of the City shall have a financial interest direct or indirect or by reason of ownership of stock in any corporation, in any contract with the City, or be financially interested directly or indirectly in the sale to the City of any land, materials, supplies or services except on behalf of the City as an officer or employee; provided, however, that the provisions of this section shall only be applicable when the stock owned by the officer or employee exceeds one (1) percent of the total capital stock of the corporation. Any willful violation of this section shall constitute malfeasance in office and any officer or employee guilty thereof shall thereby forfeit his office or position. Any violation of this section with the knowledge expressed or implied of the person or corporation contracting with the City shall render the contract voidable by the city council or city manager. No Officer or Employee to Accept Gifts Section 132. No officer or employee of the City of College Station shall ever accept, directly or indirectly, any gift, favor, privilege or employment from any public utility corporation enjoying the grant of any franchise, privilege or easement from the city during the term of office of such officer, or during the employment of such employee, except as may be authorized by law or ordinance; provided, however, that policemen and firemen in uniform or wearing their official badges may accept such free services where the same is permitted by ordinance. Any officer or employee of the city who shall violate the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and may be punished by any fine that may be prescribed by ordinance for this offense, and shall forthwith be removed from office. ,ls/olgroup11ega11hc/grade conflict nveino.doc Home of Texas A&M University Honorable Board Members Page 2 August, 2001 Relatives of Officers Shall Not be Appointed or Employed Section 133. No person related within the second degree of affinity, or within the third degree of consanguinity, to members of the city council or the city manager shall be appointed to any office, position or service in the City. As a public official, you must comply with both the City Charter and the state "Regulation of Conflict of Interest" laws (attached). As a public officer, whenever you have an issue arise in which you have any interest, you should look at the City Charter first. It is more restrictive than the state provisions. You secondly look at the state "Regulation of Conflicts of Interest" laws. If you have a substantial interest in an issue, you will have to file an affidavit before the vote is taken stating your interest and abstain from further participation on the item. If you violate the state "Regulation of Conflicts of Interest" laws, you can be fined up to $4,000 and imprisoned up to one year. Each fact situation will have to be determined on its own merits. If you have any questions, you are encouraged to seek assistance. I will be happy to discuss with you any situation that arises. HC/js Attachment: Regulation of Conflicts of Interest plo/group/IegaAc/guide conflict merno.doc PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES § 160.005. Standardized Grievance Procedure (a) The commissioners court of the county shall enact orders to provide for. (1) filing of written grievances;* (2) written responses to the grievance allega- tions; (3) procedures for appeal to an appointed county grievance resolutions committee➢ (4) further appeal to the commissioners court; (5) presentation of grievances by an employees requested representative; (6) reasonable leave with pay for the presentation of grievances; and (7) other necessary procedures t� permit effec- tive implementation of this chapter- (b) The orders and procedures shall apply equally to all employees of the county, including employees of independent elected officials, and shall provide for reasonable timetables for, filing and responding to grievances. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1,. § 39(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 160.006. No Retaliation or Reprisal (a) An employee may not be made subject to retali- ation, reprisal, or discrimination on account of having exercised any right or participated in any procedure established by this chapter. A supervisor or manage- ment official may not be made subject to retaliation, reprisal, or discrimination because of any grievance adjustment offered under this chapter to an employee with a grievance or because of testifying on any employee's behalf. during.arrievance,procedure, under this chapter. (b) A district court of appropriate venue may enjoin a violation of this section. The court may order, in addition to other relief, the mandatory reinstatement and the payment of back pay for individuals dis- charged, suspended, or demoted in violation of this section. (e) An individual suffering retaliation, reprisal, or discrimination in violation of this section is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees as a result of successful court action regarding the retaliation, reprisal, or discrimination. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 39(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 460.007. Prospective Application of Chapter and Amended Order (a) This Act applies only to a g7ievance based on events that occur on or after June 20, 1987. :(b)'If -the commissioners court amends an order adopted under this chapter, the amended order does not apply to a grievance alleged to have occurred before the date of the amended order. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 39(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. [Chapters 161 to 170 reserved for expansion) Section 171.001. Definitions. 171.002.. Substantial Interest in Business Entity. 171.0025. Application of Chapter to Member of Higher Education Authority. 171.003. Prohibited Acts; Penalty. 171.004. Affidavit and Abstention From Voting Required. 1711.005. Voting on Budget. 171.006. Effect of Violation of Chapter. 171.007. Common Law Preempted; Cumulative of, Mu- nicipal Provisions. 171.008. Renumbered. 171.009.: : Service ,on Board of Corporation for No Com- pensation. § .171.001. Definitions In this chapter 313 (1) "Local public official" means a member of the governing body or another officer, whether elected, appointed, paid, or unpaid, of any district (including a school district), county, municipality, precinct, cen- tral appraisal district, transit authority or district, or other local governmental entity who exercises responsibilities beyond those that are advisory in nature. (2) "Business entity" means a sole proprietorship, partnership, firm, corporation, holding company, joint-stock company, receivership, trust, or any oth- er entity recognized by law. Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987. § 171.002 § 171.002. Substantial Interest in Business Entity § 171.003. Prohibited Acts; Penalty (a) For purposes of this chapter, a person has a substantial interest in a business entity if: (1) the person owns 10 percent or more of the voting stock or shares of the .business -entity or owns either 10 percent or more or $15,000 or more of the fair market value of the business entity; or (2) funds received by the person from the busi- ness entity exceed 10 percent of the person's gross income for the previous year. (b) A person has a substantial interest in real prop- erty if the interest is an equitable or legal ownership with a fair market value of $2,500 or more. (c) A local public official is considered to have a substantial interest under this section if a person related to the official in the first degree by consan- guinity or affinity, as determined under Chapter 573, (government Code, has a substantial interest under this section. Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch., 149, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987. Amend- ed by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 40(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989; Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 561, § 37, eff. Aug. 26, 1991; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 76, § 5.95(27), eff. Sept. 1, 1995; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 849, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997. Law governing offenses committed prior to effective date of Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 362, § 1, see note following § 171.003. Section 2 of Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch_ 849 provides: "The change in law made by this Act to Section 171.002, Local Government Code, does not affect a violation of Chapter 171, Local Government Code, that occurred before the effective date of this Act. The prior violation may be prosecuted and a penalty imposed as if the law had not been changed by this Act, and the former law is continued in effect for that purpose." § 171.0025. Application of Chapter to Member of Higher Education Authority This chapter does not apply to a board member of a higher education authority created under Chapter 53, Education Code, unless a vote, act, or other partic- ipation by the board member in the affairs of the higher education authority would provide. a financial benefit to a financial institution, school, college, or university that is: (1) a source of income to the board member; or (2) a business entity in which the board member has an interest distinguishable from a financial ben- efit available to any other similar financial institu- tion or other school, college, or university whose students are eligible for a student loan available under Chapter 53, Education Code. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 41(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. 314 (a) A local public official commits an offense if the official knowingly: (1) violates Section 171.004; (2) acts as surety for a business entity that has work, business, or a contract with the governmental entity; or (3) acts as surety on any official bond required of an officer of the governmental entity. (b) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor. Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987. Amend- ed by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 40(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 171.004. Affidavit and Abstention From Voting Required (a) If a local public official has a substantial interest in a business entity or in real property, the official shall file, before a vote or decision on any matter involving the business entity or the real property, an affidavit stating the nature and extent of the interest and shall abstain from further participation in the matter if: (1) in the case of a substantial interest in a business entity the action on the matter will have a special economic effect on the business entity that is distinguishable from the effect ' on the public; or (2) in the case of a substantial interest in real property, it is reasonably foreseeable that an action on the matter will have a special economic effect on the value of the .property, distinguishable from its effect on the public. (b) The affidavit must be filed with the official record keeper of the governmental entity. (c) If a local public official is required to file and does file an affidavit under Subsection (a), the official is not required to abstain from further participation in the matter requiring the affidavit if a majority of the members of the governmental entity of which the official is a member is composed of persons who are likewise required to file and who do file affidavits of similar interests on the same official action. Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987. Amend- ed by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 40(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 171.005. Voting on Budget (a) The governing body of a governmental entity shall take a separate vote on any budget item specifi- cally dedicated to a contract with a business entity in which a member of the governing body has a substan- tial interest. PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES ` (b) Except as provided by Section 171.004(c), the affected member may not participate in that separate vote. The member may vote on a final budget if. (1) the member has complied with this chapter; and s (2) the matter in which the member is concerned has been resolved. Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987. Renum- bered from § 171.006 and amended by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 40(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 171.006. Effect of Violation of Chapter ®The finding by a court of a violation under this chapter does not render an action of the governing body voidable unless the measure that was the subject of an action involving a conflict of interest would not have passed the governing body without the vote of the person who violated the chapter. Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, § 1, eff.' Sept. 1, 1987. Renum- bered from § 171.008 by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch, 1, § 40(a), eff: Aug. 28, 1989. § 171.007. Common Law Preempted; Cumulative of Municipal Provisions (a) This chapter preempts the common law of con- flict of interests as applied to local public officials. (b) This chapter is cumulative of municipal charter provisions and municipal ordinances defining and pro- hibiting conflicts of interests. Amended by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 40(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 171.008. Renumbered as § 171.006 by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 40(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989 § 171.009. Service on Board of Corporation for No Compensation It shall be lawful for a local public official to serve as a member of the board of directors of private, nonprofit corporations when such officials receive no compensation or other remuneration from the non- profit corporation or other nonprofit entity. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch, 475, § 2, eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Section 3 of the 1989 Act provides: "A local public official who, before the effective date of this Act, served as a member, officer, or director on the board of directors of a corporation, including a nonprofit corporation, and received funds from that corporation may not be held liable for, prosecuted for, or be subject to removal from office as a result of that service." § 172.002 CHAPTER 172. TEXAS POLITICAL. i SUBDIVISIONS UNIFORM GROUP i BENEFITS PROGRAM Section 172.001. Short Title. 172.002. Purpose. 172.003. Definitions. 172.004. Benefits Contract. 172.005. Risk Pool. 172.006. Supervision and Administration of Pool. 172.007. Trustee 'Training. 172.008. Excess Loss Coverage and Reinsurance. 172.009. Investments. 172.010. Audits. 172.011. Insolvency. 172.012. Limitation of Risk Pools. 172.013. Payment of Contributions and Premiums. 172.014. Application of Certain Taws. 172.015. Subrogation 173.001 to 173.006. Expired. § 172.001. Short Title This chapter may be cited as the Texas Political Subdivision Employees Uniform Group Benefits Act. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1067, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1989. 315 § 172.002. Purpose The purpose of this chapter is to: (1) provide uniformity in benefits including acci- dent, health, dental, and long-term disability cover- age to employees of political subdivisions; (2) enable the political subdivisions to attract and retain competent and able employees by providing them with accident and health benefits coverages at least equal to those commonly provided in private industry; (3) foster, promote, and encourage employment by and service to political subdivisions as a career profession for persons of high standards of compe- tence and ability; (4) recognize and protect the political subdivi- sions' investment in each permanent employee by promoting and preserving economic security and good health among those employees; (5) foster and develop high standards of employ- er -employee relationships between each political subdivision and its employees; (6) recognize the service to political subdivisions by elected officials by extending to them the same accident and health benefits coverages as are pro- vided for political subdivision employees; and (7) recognize the long and faithful service and dedication of employees of political subdivisions and Implementation Plans a. Develop an Urban Forestry plan Plan Leader: Ross Albrecht, Forestry Superintendent Summary: Develop an Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of College Station that will provide guidelines for Urban Forest Management including inventory, tree maintenance, and forest renewal. Policy Change: None. Resources: Staff time to prepare grant application and request for proposal. Grant request to Texas Forest Service in the amount of $10,000. SLA request for FY 2002 in the amount of $20,000. Key Milestones: December 2001 Select consultant for project May 2002 Presentation of consultant's report to City Council and receive Council direction. June 2002 Determine the implementation plan based upon Council decision. July 2002 Submit implementation plan to Council for consideration. inlDlementation Plans a. Performing Arts Center in College Station Plan Leader: Charles Cryan, Fiscal Services Director Summary: Plan, design, construct and operate a Performing Arts Center within the City of College Station. Policy change: Create a new service level to provide a performing arts facility within the City of College Station that will expand cultural opportunities within the community. Resources: The estimated cost of the facility is $20,000,000 with an annual budget estimated to be approximately $465,000. Key Milestones: May 2001 Select site (complete, site selected in CS 30/60 Corridor) August 2001 Develop financing strategy to include seeking private donations, private not - profit foundation grants, governmental grants, and local governmental support, including the possible adoption of a venue tax. Operating expense would come from operating revenues, grants for operations and support from a number of entities in the area. December 2001 Report on results of fundraising efforts and determine additional resources necessary to fund the construction of the PAC. December 2001 Ask local governing bodies to authorize an election to provide a venue tax, if necessary. February 2002 Hold election for venue tax March 2002 Engage architect to design PAC August 2002 Authorize construction contracts for PAC August 2003 Authorize operational plan for PAC April 2003 July 2004 Implementation Plans Develop operating budget for PAC Grand Opening of PAC 11 vM� a. Implement parks maintenance standards Plan Leader: Curtis Bingham, Parks Operations Superintendent Summary: Implementation of the approved Park Maintenance Standards over a multi- year period. Policy Change: Change the method of parks maintenance operations from a scheduled service -based approach to a standards -based program as approved by City Council. Resources: Parks Operations and Forestry staff time, external landscape maintenance companies, and funding requests through the annual budget process. Key Milestones: August 2001 Develop performance measurement methodology to track the percentage of standard achieved. October 2001 Begin tracking performance utilizing approved methodology. December 2001 Submit the first quarter performance report to the Office of Budget and Strategic Planning. January 2002 Award the contract maintenance bid, if the SLA is approved. March 2002 Complete the recommendations for a future maintenance district, realignment, and additional support facilities. May 2002 Develop recommendations for future CIP program and budget requests based upon Council direction. Implementation Plans a. Implement intergenerational park design standards Plan Leader: Eric Ploeger, Assistant Director of Parks & Recreation Summary: Implement intergenerational park design standards for new parks, as well as begin to retrofit current parks as the opportunity arises. Current CIP projects will be designed with these standards. Policy Change: Change park design process to include intergenerational park features as approved by the City Council in March, 2001. Resources: Bond funds, parkland dedication funds, staff time. Key Milestones: October 2001 Review potential Replacement Fund items and Park Land Dedication Fund availability for potential intergenerational projects, and implement as resources are available. December 2001 Include upgrades of existing parks an development of future parks in future CIP. FY 2002 Completion of Brison Park, Gabbard Park, and Merry Oaks Park, Madeley Park, Woodway Park, Spring Loop Park improvements expected. Implementation Plans a..,,'.Create rncentives f®r cfevel®pers;t® provide ,9quate etesghb®rtr®®d parlrs ;: u _4 Plan Leader: Steve Beachy, Director of Parks and Recreation Summary: Investigate and recommend incentives for developers that will help provide larger neighborhood parks in locations that will better serve residents. Policy Change: Potential changes in policy to include incentives to aid park development. Resources: Existing staff and budget. Key Milestones: September 2001 Receive input from developers regarding potential incentives to improve park quality and locations. November 2001 Staff review and completion of focus group meeting results to develop recommendations. Includes financial impact of proposed incentives. December 2001 Parks and Recreation Advisory Board review of staff recommendations. February 2002 City Council review and consideration of proposed incentives. b �Corraplete c�evelopirient of,�Veterans Parlc,ancl �fhletrc Comp�ez:��`r�'�°" � �� �� Plan Leader: Eric Ploeger, Asst. Parks and Recreation Director Summary: Develop a plan for a phased implementation of Veterans Park and Athletic Complex, including cost estimate. Actual completion dates will be dependent on financial resources available. Policy Change: Increase the schedule for full development of the Veterans Park Master Plan. Resources: PARD staff, fiscal services staff, and O'Malley Engineers. Key Milestones: July 2001 Submit facility name recommendations to City Council. September 2001 Award bid on Veterans Park and Athletic Complex, Phase 1 project. October 2001 Complete needs assessment for softball and soccer programs over the next ten years. (Peter LaMont) February 2002 Complete Phase recommendations and cost estimates and present to City Council. 1 S` Quarter 2003 Complete Phase I Construction. c f Improve°subdw�s�onyordrnance as It relates to Parklands%cationanof f'arklandlJedreat�on', a rove! rocess pp A N Plan Leader: Eric Ploeger, Asst. Parks and Recreation Director Summary: Examine subdivision ordinance as it relates to parkland location and parkland dedication approval process and recommend improvements. Policy Change: Potential change in parkland dedication acceptance process, including Planning & Zoning Commission to guide this process, and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. Potential development of parkland acceptance policy. Resources: Existing staff and funds Key Milestones: June 2001 Staff review of internal parkland acceptance process. August 2001 Unified development code presentation and policy direction for Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, and staff. September 2001 Focus Group to meet with developers to review draft changes in the Parkland Dedication Ordinance. October 2001 Staff completes draft revisions to Parkland Dedication Ordinance; November 2001 Parks and Recreation Advisory Board takes action on Dedication Ordinance revisions. January 2002 Planning & Zoning Commission takes action on Parkland Dedication Ordinance revisions. February 2002 City Council consideration of revisions to the Parkland Dedication Ordinance. d. Develop Master Plan for new community park site and current landfill site Plan Leader: Eric Ploeger, Asst. Parks and Recreation Director Summary: Develop a master plan for the current landfill and the new community park on Rock Prairie Road, adjacent to the landfill as it relates to a small area plan. Policy Change: None. Resources: Parks Planning, GIS Information Key Milestones: November 2001 Develop facility needs for the new Community Park to serve the southern portion of the City. February 2002 Submit facility needs for possible inclusion in the new 5-year CIP Plan. Summer 2003 Present conceptual Master Plan to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. Fall 2003 Complete conceptual Master Plan and present it to the City Council. Implementation Plans a. Develop plans for future Senior programs and facilities Plan Leader: Marci Rodgers, Senior Services Coordinator Summary: Explore the recommendations from the Eisenhower Leadership Development report, and conduct a survey to determine feasibility and potential for joint projects with governmental, business, and not -for -profit organizations. Develop facility alternatives and recommendations to include capital and operating costs. Policy Change: Develop policies regarding future programs and facilities to meet the needs of senior populations in the community. Resources: Parks and Recreation Department Staff; Community Development Department. Key Milestones: August 2001 Complete investigation of potential grant opportunities. November 2001 Complete survey of senior citizens and presentation report to City Council. November 2002 Conduct discussions with the City of Bryan and Brazos County_ to determine their interest in joint projects related to senior programs and facilities. December 2002 Develop financial impact analysis for recommended programs and facilities. January 2002 Presentation to Council and receive direction concerning recommendations for programs and facilities. January 2002 Seek commitment from agencies regarding programs and/or facilities based upon Council direction. February 2002 CIP list to budget. b _ ,P.,repare'feasibility report ®ri skateboard park Plan Leader: Peter LaMount, Recreation Superintendent Summary: Develop a recommendation to the City Council on the potential financing, construction, and operation of a skate park facility. This is a long-term plan. Policy Change: None. Resources: Staff time, capital funding, and operational funding. Key Milestones: October 2001 Complete surveys of other municipal -operated skate parks for details of design and operation. November 2001 Develop recommendations for operation, construction, maintenance and funding for Council consideration. February 2002 Submit development costs for 5-year CIP based on City Council direction. January 2003 Develop implementation schedule based on November 2002 bond election. Implementation Plans Plan Leader: Linda Piwonka, Director of Technology Information Services Summary: Currently the Council funds $20,400 per year for the Art in Public Places Program. The program is administered through the Arts Council, which has expressed desire to obtain representative sculptural artwork for location within College Station. Policy change: Policy consideration would include possible change in the funding levels provided to enhance art in public places program as well as possible changes in the budget allocations for public facilities art during the construction of these facilities. Resources: The Council has approved $20,400 annually, implementation of this plan may require an additional $50,000 annually to purchase representative works to be located in College Station. Additional funding allocation for art in capital projects for public facilities. This amount would be guided by policy adopted by Council. Key Milestones: September 2001 Council Consideration of ongoing funding increase for Art in Public places Program to purchase representative sculpture artwork in College Station. October 2001 Present proposed selection process to acquire representative work for College Station to Council for approval. November 2001 Begin selection of work for purchase in FY02 December 2001 Presentation, discussion, and possible action by Council regarding a change in policy establishing capital funding for public facilities. Consider change of policy to include funding allocation for public art as a part of construction costs ImMementation Plans Plan Leader: Mark Smith, Public Works Director Summary: Continue the implementation of the Wolf Pen Creek Masterplan. This is a short-term plan. Policy change: May accelerate debt issuance to finance projects within this TIF. Resources: Drainage utility funds, GOB '95 funds, Parkland Dedication Funds, WPC TIF funds Key Milestones: August 2001 Review WPC TIF capital budget. September 2001 Revise zoning ordinance regarding dedication of land for WPC development September 2001 Complete lower trail design December 2001 Begin construction of phase I trails December 2002 Complete channel design Construct future trail oroiects. as funds are available Plan Leader: Eric Ploeger, Assistant Parks & Recreation Director Summary: Provide pedestrian connections between parks, greenways, and residential areas including Lick Creek Park, Pebble Creek Park, Bee Creek park, Lemontree Park, Central Park, and Veterans Park and Athletic Complex. Policy Change: Provide linkage between greenways and parks to provide access for pedestrians and cyclists. Resources: Staff time, Lick Creek Park Development Funds ('98 Bond), Business Park Landscaping Funds. Key Milestones: July 2001 August 2001 October 2002 November 2002 Implementation Plans Plan Leader: Summary: Policy Change - Resources: Key Milestones - July 2001 July 2001 July 2001 August 2001 September 2001 November 2001 Complete Phase 1 of the bike loop project in Central, Bee Creek, and Lemontree Parks. Link Pebble Creek Park to the Business Park during Phase II of the Business Park Landscaping Project. Utilize existing bond funds and Trails Grant funds for Lick Creek Park trails development, to include connection with Pebble Creek Parkway. Complete trail section in Veterans Park and Athletic Complex. Applied for grant. Steve Beachy, Director of Parks and Recreation Jim Callaway, Director of Development Services Identify and coordinate key areas of interest for these two appointed boards and set goals accordingly. No current policy exists, new policy may be developed. Existing staff, funds, and appointed members. Board and Commission members' orientation by City Council. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board presentation and discussion of Council Vision Statements and Implementation Plans. Planning and Zoning Commission presentation and discussion of Council Vision Statements and Implementation Plans. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and Planning and Zoning Commission each identify areas of potential common interest Joint meeting with Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and Planning and Zoning Commission to set goals. Joint meeting with City Council to confirm goals. City 01'a COBege Steation, Parks & Recreation Department Fiscal YeAr 2001 Board Goals a, hnvegfilgate the fim§,MIqq-' verjft�ure'�� wilul-'�, CS-R'SD s , -�Pm d ap�eylraeip-Amflon of �-R Greenv,/a )- '4-h�LjfteO 'M gUlIPPOTI iugp rt Ale An YS 0 YeL �'ht COM. the G-Teel min7nys PAacler phan ki E RI uj Esftbl sh p� cAe&14ad ggaruA%�,rd& ftcnr fr�apprai&SR of ezig&-ag peri-Eks, J"-f.'acifltoe's, 'aand-111 oen4ces afffefired bwou the Delp-&wrftnlenat • Encourage arboreturn/garden parks and color emphasis in existing parks • Work on plans to make ciuTent and ffiture parks intergenerational • Sett up quafflity standards to measure performance for maintenance and field use for neighborhood and community parflks • IRIevision of the Surcharge Policy • ILReview the Parks and recreation Department Fee Policy I F 3 ntergenerafional ideas spannihng alp age gaps u Develop programs and facilities for senior citizeias laevop an Urban Fo-ges'r .�q, y pfmm Tbarthe cs'��Iy of College, av A-61M In ilgate the Ireas1hpiffity of ventures vzvith- 7MRAU on ilkeflftn-Jes End P r"I Yfl5 * Explore the feasibility of a commercial ice skating Thak * MO -re interadion betwfta PXAk,,s Ad-vh'sowa-y Bam-,wd and FISERning anddl Zoning Commission, and shared vision wit CHy Council • Wrn,,Rtor code review and revision projects currently under-,xay with respect to codes impacting parks. • Identify areas of coy- umon concern between. Parlkcs Advisory Board and Planning and Zoning Cow -mission. • Review the parkland dedication ordinance. Keep current a file of otber city parkland dedication ordinances and review eery three: years. • Develop criteria for parkland dedication. Alhat are the desired characteristics of a neighborhood park with respect to size, amenities, pedestrian access, vehicle access, lighting, vehicle parking, trees, open space, connectivity to greenways, connectivity to bikeways, drainage and retention ponds, ease of maintenance, location Y-Aflh respect to arterial streets sAnd the neighborhoods served, etc. • Explore further Vne concept of advanced pianning for neiglfborhood parks well ,ahead of the development in an area. • Identify, as a pait of the City's Comprehensive Plan, the, future general location of corfununity paLks. Determine time frames for when they will be needed. Estirn.Efte land acquisition costs. Develop comm�.jinity park acquisition strategy. Page I of 2 • Explore opportunities and identify locations where parks could serve as the focal point for a neighborhood, subdivision. entrance, city gateway, or arterial corridor. • Further explore opporturdities for developer fees and/or parldand dedication for development of community parks. Find out what otherTew, cities are doing. • Identify obstacles to quality parkland dedication by developers. Work to remove obstacles that are within the control of the City. • Schedule a joint meeting of the Parks Advisory Boaid and the Planning and Zoning Comrnissior, once a year. c2 Schedule a joint workshop meeting of the Parks Advisory Board and the City Council once a year. Ga-Go< g Aefiviflea u implementation ofthe approved Capital Improvement Prograal. u 1144nnyplementation ofthe "V%lolflyen Creek Ma.-Ae-rPlan. Page 2 of 2 To: Glenn Brown, Assistant City Manager Through: Steve Beachy, Parks and Recreation Director From: Curtis Bingham, Parks Operations Superintendent Date: .Tune 4, 2001 Subject: Playground Replacement and repair Schedule Five playgrounds, (one each in Raintree Park, Merry Oaks Park, Lemontree Park, Thomas Park, and Brothers Pond Park), have been replaced within the past 12 months. This was for a total cost of $ 115,535 with the average cost per playground being $23,107. Three of these playgrounds (Merry Oaks Park, Raintree Park, and Brothers Pond Park) included installing swing sets separate from the playgrounds as per NRPA and ASTM playground safety standards. The swing sets were installed with fall surface pits containing pea gravel and rubber crumbs. The Gabbard Park playground is scheduled to be replaced before the end of this fiscal year. The playgrounds at Hensel Park and Georgie K. Fitch Park are scheduled for replacement in FY 2002. The Gabbard Park and Georgie K. Fitch playgrounds are the last of the wooden playground structures and meet the least number of standards for all the existing playgrounds. No existing playgrounds have enough substandard conditions to warrant immediate removal of the entire playground. Any individual piece of playground equipment posing a definite safety hazard is isolated from use until the proper replacement parts can be purchased and installed. There are four other playgrounds, one each at Bee Creek Park and Anderson Park and two at Southwood Park, that are in need of replacement due to the cost and difficulty of obtaining replacement parts. Parts for these playgrounds are no longer available due to changes in safety standards or the companies have been bought out making the replacement parts obsolete. These obsolete parts must be specially manufactured which increases the cost dramatically. This is very costly when it comes to parts that are routinely replaced, such as slide sections, due to vandalism. Replacing the playgrounds at Southwood and Anderson Parks would require separate swing set installations. With funding these four playgrounds could possibly be replaced by the end of FY 2003. Lions, Parkway, and Windwood Parks only need separate swing sets with fall surface pits for about $6,500 each. The swing set installations also could possibly be installed by FY 2003. Woodereek, Lincoln Center, Central, Thomas, and Jack and Dorothy Miller Parks appear to have safety railings which do not meet standards. However, we are presently looking into the possibility that some of these barriers may fall into certain guidelines to meet safety standards. Resolving the barrier problems could be completed by the end of FY 2002 and be funded from the normal budgeted funds provided there are few major repairs to existing playground equipment. Please, contact me if you have any questions. cc: Steve Beachy, Parks and Recreation Director Ric Ploeger, Asst. Parks and Recreation Director Pete Vanecek, Parks and Recreation Planner CH7Y of CO'flege Statflonin Pank�s aind Renrezdfion Hosirddl Current. List of Subcomminees.; Skate Park. ..... ....... .....Lain Wood, IG-orp �' ge Dresserl, Jon Ttweton- Recreation, Parlkq and, Open Space Master Plan, Glen Davis, ....... Nichols, I-Yofui crornptol� Fees ... ....... . — . . � - - . . . . Glen Davis, Bill Davis, Glenn 2 ' 01hroeder Veterans Pank- & Iithletic Complex ..............Glen Davis, Ri-4 U.'I Nichols, ...... ........... --- ...... . Lainry Fannisworth I - JoIrk'Vei-Mbures witli CSISD 1ch-ris BUZ H14, Glen Dawns Joir Ventures with; TMU.....—........... Jofm- Oeorge Dresserl, Lick Creek Park.... ... La-wa Wood, Volfar, Crorrtpto� Qthgr e , c T gojnmjtteesMejg�b,n gar 5 vurFep itn qej gjxnla ar4A-Reefeatiofi An weWt�,rz o...... ....... ....... Community Aqufactionts ....... Wood Art in Public Pbmes ... 3"ohn Nichols W olf Pen Creek Oversigitt .... ....... Glenn Schroeder .... (',George re serf, Afterinete) ProjectParks and Recrt—ion Department CIP FY 2001 ...... ..:.tandlr� :: Bx ectec#»::..,.::::: p............... real...:. rlorlty Protect ............. ................g.................... S�r�rce : ... .:...:Compleiio:n: pate.. Compl:etlore pate L:.:. . :Gast :... . 1 Brothers Park Improvements Completel PK0084 $32,000 98 G.O. 03/31/01 3/28/01 $25,587 1 Lemontree Park Playground I Completel PK0066 $22,000 98 G.O.1 12/31/01 11/31/01 $21,000 1 Lick Creek Park Grant Application i Completel 1 98 G.O. 01/31/01 1/19/011 NA 1 IMerry Oaks Playground Replaceme Complete PK0088 I $25,0001 Replacement Accountl 03/31/011 3/28/011 $23,643 1 IParking Garage Landscape Plan I Complete I I C.O.1 12/31/01 12/l/0l l )Southwood Soccer Field 1 Renovation (FY'01) I Completel I I FY'01I 05/31/01 5/31/011 1 IThomas Park Improvements I Completel PK9931 1 $84,0001 98 G.O.1 12/31/011 11/31/01 $80,000 Thomas Pool Leak Investigation 1 and Repair (FY'01) l Completel PK0107 1 $25,0001 FY'01 l l 2/1 $4,740 1 West District Maintenance Shop I Complete PK9927 1 $501,0001 98 G.O. 2/31/011 2/16/01 $406,807 1 Willow Branch Tennis Courts I Completel PK0074 $125,0001 Park Land Dedication) 03/01/01 2/16/011 $125,000 2 1Community Park Acqusition I Completel PK9948 1 $520,0001 98 Bond 06/01/01 I 6/1/01 $585,000 2 ( Veterans Water Feasibility (FY'01) I Complete PK0110 1 $25,000 FY '01 l 10/01/011 2/1 I $5,500 $5,491 (+ $1,785 for 1- year Maint. Park Land Dedication until March Wolf Pen Creek Tree Planting Complete (Zone 3) 07/31/01 3122/01 '02) 1 IRaintree Park Improvements 1 Complete I PK0068 I $44,000 98 G.O.1 4/31/011 4/6/011 $28,687 2 1Lick Creek Park Trails Protect Grant Approved) 1 $126,2651 98 G.O.1 I 1 IBusiness Center Landscaping Proiel In Construction) GG9705 1 $250,000 G.O.I 07/31/01I ) IMillenniumFY'01)Winds Improvements 1 2 In Construction) HM0104 1 $7,195 FY'01I 08/31/011 1 (Veterans Park, Phase I I In Desiqnl PK9941 I $2,120,0001 98 G.O. 07/01/021 ICastleqate 2 Park Design l In Design 1 1 10/31/012 Gabbard Park Improvements In Desiqnl PK0102 l $78,0001 98 G.O.1 11/30/01 2 11-ligh School Tennis Court Lights (Fy In Desiqnl PK0109 1 $91,5001 FY'011 10/01/011 1 2 (Lincoln Improvements l In Desiqnl CD1292 1 $90,0001 FY'01 C.D.B.G.) 12/11 I 2 )Merry Oaks Improvements In Desiqnl PK0103 1 $37,0001 98 G.O.I 9/31/011 I 2 (Oaks Park Bridge I In Desiqnl PK0067 1 $28,0001 98 G.O.1 12/11 3 Park Improvements 1 In Design I PK0100 I $54,6001 98 G.O. 12/11 I JBrison I Negotiating Land 2 Woodway Park Development Purchase 1 $468,6001 I I 1 3 IShenandoah Park Development I On Holdl 1 $48,0001 Park Land Dedicationl I 1 IHallaran Pool Filters & Coating (FY I Out to Bid 7/91 PK0106 1 $120,0001 FY'01 03/31/021 I IIndoor Grant Application for Joint CSISD Proiect l Suspend Until'031 I I 1 )Cemetery Land Acquisition I I GG9905 1 $275,0001 98 G.O.I I I 3 (Central Park Improvements I I PK0101 I $17,000 98 G.O.I I I CIP Project List FY 2001 Skateboard Park On Hold PK0073 $162,000 FY'00� Carter Creek Wastewater Training I Landscape Design Only FPO#: $10-15,000 Sewer Revenue Bond Center (Complete) S59806 Estimate Funds 09/02/01 5/2/01 Priorities: #1 - In progress currently or will be in progress before January 1, 2001. #2 - In progress before August 1, 2001. #3 - In progress after October 1, 2001. Senior Advisory Committee I'Regular Meeting Monday, July 30, 2001 The EXTT Teen Center h/Jernbers Present: Neal NMYall Jr., Gerald Jorcham, Helen Sip -gel, Carol Parzen Suzatule Rey-nolds, jibarma Yeager, Phyllis Dozier, Annie Lee Finch, Laura -Rohr-,P-s, Mary Jo Lay, Bill Lay a.-sd Haskell �dlonroe Memn-Imrs Absent: Vallie Broussard, Bill Kling and Flomce Kling Staff'Present: Th4arci Rodgers Welcome 1"Iew Committee Members: U'laahmn-an, Bill Lay called the meeting to order at, � 0:02am. The cornnaittee was iraroduced to, thee' -Iqew members, if. Orientation or Nev-,f Committee Memlbers: IV&rci, Rodgers gave a brief introduction on the history of the conurnittee and, it's ptqpose. Notebooks were disturibwed to the new nnembers. The goals and mission svroement ]'[Or the connuittee were revievved� Tine new inernbers were also Mformed on the Eiserilhower Leadership Development Program. Each committee member will receive a copy of the Eisenhower report,. Carol Parzen reported on the Senior Friendly Busbaess Award program and gain the new members a description of the award xxid the pwpose. She also pointed oiji, the July issue of The Golden Eagle which featured the first award, recipient, §C-roger Signature Store, 1111, Approval of Mhautes from June Meeting: The corimi-ittee wipproved the nah-m-tes as distributed. IV. Girls 10 and Under State Tournament: August 7 -- 12: Volunteers were requested to host an mfbrination table at the state tournamerat the city is sponsoring. Sixty temns are expected to participate. Mary Jo and Bill Lay eagerly volunteered to distribute flyers aami provide information to our guests on Tuesday, August 7'11 at, Bee Creek Pank where the opening cere-monies will be field. V, Comideration of a nornirwion for Serror Friendly Business Award: Committee inenabers received a nomination for the. award and Joanna NY -eager explained why the wminee should be considered. Discussion took place and Carol Parzen moved that the item be tabled. Phyllis Dozier seconded the motion. The motion passed. VL Senior Senfices Coordinator Report: Report on file. VIL Next MeetinR: The next meeting vA!l be on Monday, August 271, 2001 VIIL -Adjourn: The m eeting adjouiiaed at 11.30un Fees Subcommittee Meeting Friday, August 17, 2001 Parks Conference Room Noon Enclosed: 12�' City of College Station Fiscal and Budgetary Policy Statement IT' Parks and Recreation Department Proposed Fee Policy Statement 0' Parks and Recreation Department User Fees (1992-2001) Executive Summary — Cost of Services Study Parks and Recreation Department Staff Recommendations for Fiscal Year 2002 User Fees 0- Fee Schedule for the City of Bryan, FISCAL AND BUDGETARY POLICY STATEMENTS III. REVENUE MANAGEMENT B. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 5.USER-BASED FEES AND SERVICE CHARGES. For services associated with a user fee or charge, the direct and indirect costs of that service will be offset by a fee where possible. There will be a review of fees and charges no less than once every three years to ensure that fees provide adequate coverage of costs of services. User charges may be classified as "full cost recovery," partial cost recovery," and "minimal cost recovery," based upon City Council policy. a. Full fee support (80-100s) will be obtained from enterprise operations such as utilities, sanitation service, landfill, cemetery and licenses and permits. b.Partial fee support (50-800) will be generated by charges for emergency medical services, miscellaneous licenses and fines, and all adults sports programs. c. Minimum fee support (0-50%) will be obtained from other parks, recreational, cultural, and youth programs and activities. This is taken from the Fiscal and Budgetary Policy Statements included in the FY 01 approved budget. The full policy is located in appendix F of the FY 01 approved budget document. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION FEES POLICY STATEMENT The citizens of College Station have made a commitment to excellence in parks facilities and recreation programs. These facilities and services require substantial expe*nditures by the City to ensure appropriate maintenance and effective programming. This policy is intended to insure that a proportion of these costs is recovered through user fees in an equitable manner in accordance with the City's current fiscal and budgetary policies approved by the City Council. 1. Fees for athletic programs shall be set in accordance with the following guidelines: A. The cost of maintaining and operating athletic facilities should be borne by those who use them. In addition, in those situations where the City has responsibility for organizing and/or programming activities, participants should bear proportionate staff salaries and overhead of direct supervisors associated with the program. B. The City recognizes that it is appropriate to subsidize youth athletic and aquatics activities. Such activities contribute to educational development and to encourage leisure literacy, which are increasingly important aspects of life. Youth is defined as all individuals up to, and including, eighteen years of age. The City will absorb.all maintenance and operating costs associated with facilities and the staff costs associated with organizing and/or programming activities. A fee will be assessed to cover all variable costs associated with programs such as uniforms, equipment, awards, umpires, etc. in accordance with the City's fiscal and budgetary policy statement. C. It is intended that facilities and programs should be available to an citizens and that none should be excluded because of inability to pay. The Department Director, at his/her discretion, may reduce any fee in individual cases upon evidence of financial hardship. The "Parks Bucks" program is intended to meet the majority of these cases. D. In addition to this user fee policy, the City levies a fee surcharge, which goes into an Athletic Renovation and Improvement Fund. The policy governing that fund is attached to this policy. 11. Fees for the use of rental facilities shall be set to cover the cost of utilities and maintenance expenses related to that facility. Deposits may be required, as needed, to ensure proper care and clean-up is provided by user groups. Deposits Approved by Parks and Recreation Advisory Board on April 23, 2001, Page 1 of 3 may be waived when users establish a satisfactory record with the City, and will be determined on a case by case basis The fee and deposit will be waived for the College Station Independent School District per a joint use agreement. 111. Aquatics, special events and instruction fees shall be set to cover all expenses directly associated with conduct of the class or event. Pool admission fees shall be set on an annual basis to recover a portion of the pools' operating expenses up to 50%. All fees shall be reviewed on an annual basis at public meetings by the Parks and Recreation Board. After receiving public input, the Board will then submit fee recommendations for the next calendar year to the City Council for final approval. Approved by Parks and Recreation Advisory Board on April 23, 2001. Page 2 of AWetic Renovation and Improvement Funds The CIP Committee recommended multiple lighting, irrigation, shade structures, pathway and backstop projects on athletic fields as part of the 1998 bond program that was approved by the City Council and the citizens. They were assured that this would restore all athletic fields to the City's desirable standard. However, the CIP Committee noted that it was unreasonable to fund these short- term projects which had an expected life of considerably less than 25 years with 25 year bonds, since future taxpayers would be paying for assets that no longer existed. The Council concurred with the Committee's strong recommendation that a surcharge should be required of all teams using athletic fields to pay for the replacement of items that have deteriorated as a result of their use, and for any improvements in the existing standard of facilities they would like to have. The surcharge will be sufficient to pay each user groups' prorated share of the fields' annual renovations and improvements. This money will be retained in a separate capital fund for each athletic field complex, and will be used exclusively for renovating or improving that complex. The Parks and Recreation Department will consult with representatives from the athletic groups contributing to a fund before money can be appropriated from it. It is likely to take some months for the staff to carefully develop and cost the 10 year plans. However, it is desirable to implement the program as soon as possible, since delays will increase the surcharge amounts that will be needed in future years. This policy will be implemented on October 1,1999 at the commencement of FY2000. In lieu of the availability of the 10-year plan, the Parks and Recreation Board recommended a surcharge be leveled on each item that equates to approximately $5 per person, per season (Fall, Spring, and Summer), per team in FY2000. This will be reviewed with athletic team representatives before the FY2001 budget cycle when the rolling 10-year plan is available, and revisions, if necessary, will be made to this $5 amount to reflect the financial needs of the fields. This procedure will be replicated annually in future years. Approved by Parks and Recreation Advisory Board on April 23, 2001. Page 3 of 3 j ACTIVITY/FACILITY 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1996 1999 2000 2001 Hallaran/Thomas $25 $25 $25 $25 $30 $30 $38 $50 $40 $50 j Natatorium $40 $40 $40 $40 $40 $40 *Adamson-25 swims(may be used at all city p $25 $40 $50 $50 $60 $60 $70 $75 $75 $75 13. Family Season Pass Natatorium $125 $125 $125 $125 $125 Hallaran/Thomas $120 $125 $125 $125 $125 $125 $125 $125 $125 $125 *Adamson (may be used at all city pools) $120 $225 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 14. Individual Season Pass Hallaran/Thomas $60 $60 1 $60 $60 1 $60 $60 $60 $60 $60 $60 *Adamson (may be used at all city pools) $60 $80 1 $80 $80 1 $80 $80 $80 $80 $80 $80 5. Babysitter Season Pass Hallaran/Thomas $30 1 $30 $30 1 $30 $30 $30 $30 $30 $30 "Adamson (may be used at all city pools) $40 ( $40 $40 j $40 $40 $40 $40 $40 $40 (*excludes CSISD Natatorium 16. Pool Rental (2 hours) Ha►laran: 25 people or fewer 1 $75 $75 1 $75 $75 1 $75 $75 $75 , $75 50 people or fewer $60 $60 1 $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 51-76 people $75 $75 $150 $150 $150 $150 $150 $150 $150 ' $150 77-102 people ' $90 $90 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 ' $200 $200 Each hour after intial 2 hours $25 $25 $25 $25 $25 $25 $50 $50 $50 ' $50 Thomas/Natatorium: 25 people or fewer $50 $50 $50 $50 $65 $65 ' $65 $65 50 people or fewer $50 $50 $75 $75 $75 $75 $75 $75 $75 $75 51-76 people $65 $65 $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 77-102 people $80 $80 $125 $125 $125 I $125 $125 $125 I $125 $125 Each hour after intial 2 hours $25 $25 $25 $25 $25 + $25 $50 $50 i $50 $50 Adamson: 99 people or fewer $200 $250 $250 $250 $250 $250 $250 $250 $250 199 or fewer $200 $300 $300 $300 $300 $300 $300 $300 $300 299 or fewer $200 $400 $400 $400 $400 $400 $400 $400 $400 300+ $200 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 Each hour after intial 2 hours $25 $25 $25 $25 $25 $25 $100 $100 I $100 $100 Sat. & Sun./limited hours available 7. Educational Class Rental hour/non exclusive S1 �( I $25 ' $25 $25 ( $25 $25 II. VENDOR PERMITS $20 $20 $50 $50 $50 $50 I $50 $50 I $50 i $50 BY PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD: APPROVED: 9-May-00 f { (BYCITYCOUNCIL (WITHFYOO BUDGET) APPROVED: 23-Oct-99 I I Revised., April 0, 2000 ****The Parks & Recreation Board Approved the FY99-00 User Fees on April 13, 1999. O:\parks\budge0us erfees.xls | 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 | Youth $8 $10 | Low Income Eligible $4 $5 | Adult $UO $15 | | Non -Member Guest Pass (youth madult) $1/doY | 12. *Gym (8hr. bbuk/da0deposit $1501doy $150/doy *150dav $150/doy $1508hs $150@hs $1508hm n1508hm $1500hm $1500hro | Hourly/Half Court (4hrmax) $7/$12/*17 $7s12/$17 $7/$12/$17 $7/$12/*17 $20 *20 $20 $20 o10 $15 | Hourly/Full Court (4hrmax) $20 $25 | All Day Usage (more than 4hm) $100 $125 Concession Usage 13. $U $10 *Teen Room/Game Room $10 *10 $10 $10 |$102hrmin $102hrmin $102hrmin $102hrmin $102hrmin $1O/2hrmin | Deposit \ | $50 $50 | Rental $15 $20 14. 'Community Room Rental (max. 3hno) $25 $25 $25 $25 \ $25 $25 *25 $25 $25 $25 � Additional per hr ' $15 � Deposit / | *50 $SO | � Kitchen Fee \ \ $O | $10 All rooms are subject boonaMer-hr charge of$2Oper hour. The after-hr. charge isbased nnany request Vo use facilities beyond the centeeonormal nperabnqhouno. \ | | IF. TEEN CENTER (THE E07) �1.Non Member per day $1 Memborwhi poryear ^''`'—^`^^'^^^'^^^^^^'^^^'^^^^^'^''^^`^`'^'^^'"^'^'^^'^^^"^'^^^'^^'^`°''`^`'`'''`'''`^''''''''''"^^^'''''''''''`^`^^''''''`''~'''^'''''^''^^'''^^'`''''~^`^^'^''^'''^1^''^^^^''^^`''^''^^`^''^^^^^ | ( ( | � � $10 � G. A778E77CFIE3DS | \1.Softball & Baseball: ^° I i Single field remtaKdov $50 $50 $50 $50 *80 $80 $OD $OO | $OO | $60 | � four (4)field complex/day $150 $150 $150 s150 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 | $200 | | four(4) field cornplex/Sat & Sun. $300 $300 $300 $300 $350 $350 $350 $350 | $350 | $350 | two (2)field nompkex1doy $100 %100 $100 $100 s1O0 | s1OO | � two (2) field momplextSat&Sun. $175 $175 $175 *175 $175 | $175 | 12. Soccer: = > ) | One (1)field $50/day $50/do $50/da $501day $60 $60 $60 $60 $60 $60 � All fields $150/day $150/day $150/day $150/day $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 � | Weekend $300 $300 $300 $300 $350 $350 $350 $350 | $350 | $350 | 13. FieldRantals8Pe Hour (112/3hro)° $7/$12/$17 $71$12m17 $7/$12/$17 $7m12/$17 $10$15/$20 $1015/20 | $1015/20 $1015/20 | s1015Q0 | $1015/20 =}n������h�.a�������������y���� l������������t���e����m�e� ' |nm�U�n��oen�and d�o���.a������may beoom�s���o�n�d�e��gnn�ek�g� and �m�b�mame*�cmm expenses \incurredbythe City for personnel and supplies needed hofacilitate the tournament. These fees will beprovided 0othe renter inadvance o[the tournament. H. SAIMMING POOLS 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 �1. General Admission (3yna&up) HoUaran[Thomoa $125 $1.25 $1.25 $1.25 *1.50 $1.50 $1.75 o2.00 $2.00 o2.00 � Natatorium $2 $2 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 | $2.00 > Adamson $1.25 $2 *2.50 $150 $3 $3 *3.25 $3.50 $3.50 $3.50 � I ACTIVITY/FACILITY 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1996:.:.:.:.:.l 1999 2000 2001 IA. ADULT SPORTS PER TEAM 11. Basketball $200 $200 $250 $250 $255 $255 $265 $265 $265 $265 12. Flag Football $250 $250 $250 $255 $260 $265 $265 $340 $265 $340 13. Volleyball $85 $85 $100 $110 $110 $110 $265 $130 $130 I $130 14. Softball Play -Off League(Sprg,Sum) $235 $240 $250 $255 $260 $265 $285 $285 $356 ' $360 Play -Off League (Fall) $190 $195 $210 $215 $220 $225 $240 $240 $300 I $315 + Fast Pitch (Sprg., Sum) $220 $220 $290 $290 $300 $300 $300 I $300 I $375 $375 I Fast Pitch (Fall) $235 $245 $250 $250 $250 I $250 I $312 $325 B. YOUTH SPORTS PER PERSON ................ ............ .......... ................................. ..............................I.......- "' , ........ ........................................... i 11. Basketball $20/$10/$5 $25/$10/$ $25/$15/$5 $25/$15/$5 $30/$20/$101 $30/20/10 ) $30/20/10 $30/20/10 I $30/20/10 I $30/20/10 12. Flag Football $20/$10/$5 $25/$10/$ $25/$15/$5 $25/$15/$5 $30/$20/$10I $30/20/10 1 $30/20/10 I $35/25/15 I $30/20/10 I $35/25/15 13. Girl's Softball $30/$20/$5 $25/$15/$5 $30/$20/$10I $30/20/10 $30120/10 $35125/15 I $30/20110 $35/25/15 I TRUC C INSTION I i �. � 1 11. Swim Lessons $15 $16 $16 $16 I $20 1 $23 I $30 $30 $30 $30 12. Adv. Swim Lessons $20/$10/$5 $20/$10/$5 $20/$10/$5 $20/$10/$5 I $20/$10/$5 $25/15/10 i $25/15/10 $25/15/10 I $25/15/10 I $25/15/10 13. TAAF Swim Team $40/$25/$15 �40/$25/$1! $40/$25/$15 $40/$25/$15 $40/$25/$15 $80/60/40 $80/60/40 $80/60/40 I $80160/40 $80/60/40 14. National Jr. Tennis League $30/child $30/child $40/$35/$30 $40/$35/$30 $40/$35/$30 $50 $50 $50 I $50 $50 15. Tennis Lessons (+ 1 can of balls) $30/person $30/person $35/person $35/person $35/person $35/person $35/person $35/person I $35/person I $35/person 16. Golf $45 $45 $45 $45 I D. !'lCNIC SHELTERS PER DAY I 11. Bee Creek Pavilion I $30 $30 $30 $30 $50 1 $50 I $50 I $50 I $50 I $75 12. Central Pavilion I I I I I Monday -Thursday I $75 $50 $50 $50 $50 I $50 $50 I $50 I $50 $75 Friday $75 $75 $75 $75 $75 + $75 $75 I $75 I $75 $100 I Saturday & Sunday & Holidays $125 $125 $125 $125 $125 I $125 $125 $125 I $125 $175 13. Oaks Pavilion $30 $30 $30 $30 1 $50 I $50 I $50 $50 I $50 I $75 �4. Southwood Pavilion I I I I I I I I Monday -Thursday ' $75 I $50 ( $50 I $50 I $50 I $50 $50 I $50 I $50 $75 Friday $75 I $75 I $75 I $75 I $75 $75 , $75 $75 I $75 $100 Saturday & Sunday & Holidays $125 $125 1 $125 $125 1 $125 $125 $125 $125 $125 I $175 15. Thomas Pavilion $15 $15 $15 $15 I $15 $15 I $15 -$15 $15 I $15 6. Wolf Pen Creek Amphitheater Private- Weekday I I $75 I $200 I $200 I $200 I $200 f $200 } $200 $200 $200 I Private- Weekend 1 $125 I $250 I $250 I $250 I $250 I $250 I $250 ' $250 I $250 Non Commercial - Weekday I $50 I $425 I $425 I $425 I $425 I $425 I $425 $425 $425 Non Commercial - Weekend I $100 $525 $525 $525 ' $525 $525 ( $525 ' $525 $525 Professional/Commercial - Weekday ! $150 $800 $800 $800 $800 $800 I $800 I $800 I $800 I I Professional/Commercial - Weekend I ' $250 I $900 $900 I $900 I $900 $900 I $900 I $900 I $900 'Service Personnel charges will be added accordin_ l IE.L.INCOLN CENTER 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 I 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 �1. Membership (19-54 yrs), per year I $6 I $6 I $6 I $6 I $6 I N/A I N/A NIA , $15 I $15 ' for the 0 ,. Mr ' .0-0O. r. ,0 ;.0 .0 I. INTRODUCTION......................................................................1 M. ACTIVITY FEE STUDIES........................................................... i A. Adult Activities............................................................... — ....5 E. `youth Activities ............................................. I ......................8 C. Aquatics... ................ ..................................10 D. Rentals.............................................................................11 E. Recreation Centers/Conference Center... . .... . ..............................1 2 F. Other Activities ................................................ — — ...............13 Appendix — User Fee Costing Report (Under Separate Cover) The City of College Station, Texas, is a full service city government, which provides many services to its citizens and, in some cases, non-residents. As with cities throughout the United States, College Station is dealing with difficult issues in increased demands for services and increasing costs fueled by growth. In addition, the city desires to reduce the property tax on its citizens. As a result of these pressures, the city must examine all opportunities for enhanced revenues or new revenue sources to avoid reducing valuable City service levels. Accordingly, College Station engaged DMG-MAMWS, INC. (DMG) to conduct a Cost of Services Study to review the City's Parks and Recreation Department current costs and policies related to the recovery of fees for services. This Executive Summary provides a summary of DMG-MA)UMUS' findings and potential revenue increases resulting from this study. > Current user fees are set far below the actual cost of providing the services. > No fees are being charged for services that could generate revenue. > Current fee structure and policy have not been set with full knowledge of the relationship between the value of a service and the amount of a fee. Providing certain public services at cost can have numerous benefits to the City and its citizens: > All service users, including those exempt from property taxes, pay user fees, > Non-residents, reducing the burden on City residents, pay user fees. > User fees create a "rationing" of services and allow for the measurement of demand. It is for these reasons that local governments all over the United States are shifting from a near -total dependence on property, sales, and income taxes for financing local services to a more broad -based revenue stream. Although there may be political reaction to increasing fees for services that were previously free or heavily subsidized, local governments are becoming, aware that user charges can be a more acceptable method of raising revenue than an increase in taxes. Cost of Services Study for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department C DMG-MILVIM US, INC. 2001 Page I 9= The User Fee Study presents the results of a DMG-MAXIMUS analysis of the full cost of services provided by the City of College Station, Texas, Parks and Recreation Department, for which user fees are being charged or might be considered. By calculating the full costs of these services, including an appropriate share of Citywide and departmental indirect cost and comparing that cost to the associated revenues received, DMG-MAXIMUS has been able to determine the amount of cost subsidy being drawn from general tax dollars in these areas. The objective of the Study was to provide cost data to be used as a basis for establishing or changing user fees. The full cost of delivering services includes direct labor costs, other direct operating and maintenance costs, departmental supervision costs, and citywide indirect costs. $ 8! ffK1 In comparison to other DMG-MAXIMUS municipal clients, the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department's subsidy levels are comparable. However, DMG- MAXIMUS has identified potential areas for cost recovery to increase the charges for services, therefore increasing revenues for the City. The larger subsidy areas, in some cases, are for fee areas where the City has made a policy decision not to pursue full cost recovery. Typically, Parks and Recreation Departments subsidize certain activities (usually youth activities) while attempting to recover full costs for adult programs, Cost of Services Study for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department C DMG-MAXIMUS, INC. 2001 Page 2 I I I, .,I Ii, -,II I L I ,, I I It Ill i "1' 1, l I. il Nl�,il Aill I,.: I I. I, 1", .11 Ill hill I, A I, IWA.l I; III I ill III I Ill"inil I I It All I All i I' All III al AtAillil dAll I I i I ijlwdlhV 'It 611411W I hill1w I I hilill i Revenue Summary and Potential Increases A summary of the cost/revenue analysis and the resulting potential for increased revenues are summarized in the tables that follow. DMG-MAXUvfUS identified potential for new revenues in existing fee areas of S 172,165. Percent of . Activity Cost Revenue Difference Cost Recovery Adult Activities $ 399,501 $ 181,655 $ 217,846 45.47% Youth Activities $ 250,520 $ 60,638 $ 189,882 24.20% Aquatics $ 1,038,817 $ 348,881 $ 689,936 33.58% Rentals $ 248,660 $ 50,321 $ 198,339 20.24% Rec/Conference Centers $ 870,804 $ 148,145 $ 722,659 17.01 % Other $ 84,448 $ 65,979 $ 18,469 78.13% Total $ 2,892,750 $ 855,619 - $ 2,037,131 29.58% • • • .'M• • .•' • • •:cc • • of • Station Parks and Recreation Department in which no fee is currently charged, but where costing information can be used in deciding whether or not to implement new fees. Tbd amount of full cost involved for these activities totals $484,656, and includes Soccer, • Little League. Although the cemetery collectsh. provided. Percent of Activity Cost Revenue Difference Cost Recovery Cemetery S 163,773 $ _ $ 163,773 0.00% Soccer S 137,025 $ - $ 137,025 0.00% Little League S 183,858 $ - $ 183,858 0.000/0 Total S 484,656 $ - $ 484,656 0.00% The current policies for the collection of fees, as identified in the City of College Station fiscal year 2001 operating budget, are as follows: ➢ Full fee support (80-100%) wiIl be obtained from enterprise operations such as utilities, sanitation service, landfill, cemetery, and license permits. ➢ Partial fee support (50-80%) will be generated by charges for emergency medical services, miscellaneous licenses and fines, and all adult sports programs. Cost of Services Study for the City of College Station ParAs and Recreation Department C DMG-MAMMUS, INC. 2001 Page 3 IIII,I4u111.1WWI 111111Will ,ilk III I, Ill ddIW�LL�liwliaillir�d{itlan6l��ancliYLee:�IYLI�d�i+I�r:�iiuurou�acaYWulas�sYULixuW�niiY�aYCIW�tl�LLJIGJWiYiui�;L'NhY�Y4hnWIVfY�.Hi�JLihaa;YhiuWJunAkilY1u.:. aYYYWiWILLWimiiWY{WtrWihaiYil'uYYY�Y.W�Wi4iW.iiV.WiYtWWlWie > Minimum fee support (0-50%) will be obtained from other parks, recreational, cultural, and youth programs and activities. DMG-MA)UMUS, Inc. used these guidelines in determining potential areas for increased revenues. Executive Summary Format The Executive Summary is presented in the following sections: > Approach and Methodology — A brief description of the approach and methodology utilized to develop the user fee study. > Activity Fee Studies — A summary presentation of DMG-MAMWS" analysis of the cost of fee and service activities within the Parks and Recreation Department. > Benefits and Policy Considerations — A discussion of benefit and policy considerations, which should be considered in utilizing the results of a cost of services study. > Appendix — User Fee Costing Report (Under separate cover) Cost of Services Study for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department C AVIG-MAXIMUS, INC. 2001 Page 4 L, N I, A I it, Ji A; Ill i tal I littil i.kd 11 "l Ill, ill III 4 All I lWil ll I I III Ii It Ill l I Will It III I I I I I Il III 1111111411:11 Ill I Ill Will I Il IIWIIiIWUII1JYWlltIIIJI 14,11 W 14111AI it I It ill Bull III Wil The approach and methodology DMG-MAXIMUS staff utilized in the development of indirect cost allocation plans and the comprehensive user fee study developed the jell costs associated with providing City Parks and Recreation services. Costs of services were not limited to direct departmental charges, but rather based on an analysis of the comprehensive costs incurred by the City in providing services. Total costs include allocation of the administrative and central support activities and other costs not traditionally assigned to departmental budgets such as building depreciation or use costs. The emphasis of this project was to comprehensively determine the costs of services and match these services to funding sources. The Citywide administrative indirect cost used for this engagement is provided by the Full -Cost Central Services Cost Allocation Plan prepared by DMG-NLkMMUS, XNC., based on budget data for fiscal year ending September 30, 2000. This approach is consistently applied for all City departments and services, regardless of funding source and allocates costs to departments based on an objective statistic that reflects or correlates to the use of the administrative services provided. 031, �11 g III I =1MINY The primary purpose of the User Fee Study is to document the full cost of providing Parks and Recreation services for which user fees are assessed or could be assessed reasonably. This work will allow the City to make a determination of the level of tax subsidy it wants to maintain as a matter of public policy in an environment where the full and actual cost of doing business is known. Fee levels then become a true measure of the City's intentions and not simply a combination of historical or inconsistently applied amounts. Among the tools that DMG-MA)GMUS uses in all of its studies are the principles of governmental cost accounting. This means that a detailed and comprehensive analysis of all of the costs associated with the provision of each unit of service is completed. The study utilizes budgeted FY 2001 expenses and revenues. In order to accomplish a tailor- made cost of service/revenue analysis for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department, DMG-MAXIMUS went through the following stages of research and analysis: Cost of Services Study for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department 0 DMG-MAXIMUS, INC. 2001 Page 5 iW&JAWA.Alk, i Ill hilill 1111. Aill I'llihilihil I I 11, J'All,11hild ill IIIIuLI 11,161hihidil IIJl I'll 111, .1611 hill Will > Conducted an analysis of service costs and revenues, including: o Interviews with key management and operational personnel throughout the department o Determined the full cost of each activity by identifying staff positions that , provide the service, the number of units of the activity provided in a year, the amount of staff time required for each activity and related operating expenses o Determined current revenue for each activity o Processed the cost of services plan 0� Reviewed first drafts with department staff and incorporated revisions > Reviewed the reports with a subcommittee of the College Station Parks Board > Prepared Finai Report incorporating Department Staff and Parks and Recreation Board Sub -Committee comments This approach results in a detailed cost of service/revenue analysis that the City will use as a basis for restructuring existing fees and/or implementing new ones. The final results incorporate multiple iterations and fine-tuning of data. We believe the analysis and conclusions to be the best obtainable — the result of the cooperative efforts between DMG-MAXIMUS consultants and City staff. Cost of Services Study for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department C DMG-MAXIMUS. INC. 2001 Page 6 The following section presents the results of DMG-MAXIMUS' analysis of the cost of fee and service areas in the City Parks and Recreation Department. A description of the activities, possible full cost fee structures, and graphic presentations of alternatives are contained in this section. The detailed work papers are available in companion volumes. A® Adult Activities The Adult Flag Football Program strives to provide adults with an organized flag football league. Teams in this league can advance to the TAAF State Flag Football tournament if they qualify. This league is designed for both male and female adults age 16 and over. Each team plays in an 8 game round robin. Units for this program are identified as teams. There is a double elimination tournament at the end of the season. The Adult Volleyball Program is designed to provide adults with an organized co-ed volleyball program. Teams can advance to the TAAF State Tournament. The program is open to males and females ages 16 and older. Participation for this program is identified per individual. Each team plays in an 8 game round robin. There is a double elimination tournament at the end of the season. Adult Softball Leagues provide adults with an organized softball program and give them a chance to advance to the TAAF or ASA State and National Tournaments. The league is open to all males and females ages 16 and older. Each team plays 10 games per season round robin in the Spring and Summer, and 8 games in the Fall. There is an optional double elimination tournament throughout the regular season. Teams are broken into the following divisions: Men's A, Men's B, Men's D+; Women's C, D, D+; Co-ed Super D, D+, C+, B, and Fast Pitch. Fees for this program are charged per team, however for the purposes of this study, units are identified as participants. The following table represents the costs, revenues, and the percentage of cost recovery for the fee areas in Adult Sports. Adult Activities Cost/Revenue Analysis Percent of Cost Revenue Activitv Cost Revenue _ _ _ _ Difference Cost Recovery Units per Unit per Unit Adult Flag Football S 28,127 S : 4.080 S 24,047 14.51% 12 S 2,343.92 S 340.00 Adult Volleyball S 25,632 S 7,020 S 18,612 27.39% 52 S 492.92 S 135.00 Spring -Sumner Slowpitch S 202,646 $ 116.280 S 86,366 57.381/6 323 S 627.39 S 360.00 Fall Slowpitch S 126,744 S 50.400 S 76,344 39.77% 160 S 792.15 S 315.00 Spring -Summer Fastpitch S 8.387 S 2.250 S 6,137 26.83% 6 S 1,397.83 S 375.00 Fall Fastpitch $ 7,965 S 1.625 S 6,340 20.40% 5 S 1,593.00 S 325.00 Total S 399.501 $ 181.655 S 217.846 45.47% Cost of Seri -ices Study for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department C DUG-U bUMUS INC. 2001 Page 7 yiWl lyYi'+JL'i�Yyli115Yilyyjl,ylY' � 1"=WyWLWi1.1Y1dWuW�WINIo41JLLdliiiJWIY�""'.++r.4 J�JWWYi✓Je�4'6YYAVIIiilVflaWUY4W Ylli:lAAAJaid1.Wl I hAlliIY6iia .11.uil nui'ulLlifflYiY Jdlllal iI'IllAl Y 6; aWl Yi ui IJ WLIIwWidlililhWIJlll tl'l'.I'l III iYaW1cill LrJ 6lII&i4 u'.141 yl WILY I, I ndi Yai&II, IW LIN,I.Iil, 1111 ilV 11-i I, 161 In identifying potential areas for increased cost recovery, DMG-MAXIMUS reviewed the City's fiscal policies and identified the percentage of cost recovery that is required according to these policies. For adult activities, the user fee must be set to collect between 50% and 80% of the cost of the program. Using these policies, DMG- MAXIMUS has created the following areas for potential increased revenues: Potential Revenue Increases Total Potential Current Cost Potential Potential Additional Activity Cost Revenue Units per Unit Fee Revenue Revenue Adult Flag Football S 28,127 S 4,080 12 S 2,343.92 S 1,175.00 $ 14,100 S 10,020 Adult Volleyball S 25,632 S 7,020 52 $ 492.92 S 250.00 S 13,000 $ 5,980 Spring -Summer Slowpitch S 202,646 S 116,280 323 S 627.39 S 360.00 S 116,280 $ - Fall Slowpitch $ 126,744 S 50,400 160 S 792.15 $ 400.00 $ 64,000 -S 13,600 Spring -Summer Fastpitch S 8,387 S 2,250 6 S 1,397.83 $ 700.00 S 4,200 $ 11950 Fall Fastpitch $ 7,965 S 1,625 5 $ 1,593.00 S 800.00 S 4,000 S 2,375 Total S 399.501 $181,655 S 215,580 S 33,925 As costs for many of these programs are very high, it would be inappropriate to meet the guidelines set forth by the financial policies in some cases. I)MG-MAXIMUS has identified the potential for increased revenues based on a 50% cost recovery, the minimum recovery rate for adult sports based on the City's fiscal policies. It would be beneficial however for the City to perform a market survey to deterTnine what costs are being charged in competing leagues, and what price the market will bear for these activities. B. Youth Activities The Youth Flag Football Program provides a positive experience in team sports for boys and girls and teaches them the basic skills of football. The program is open to males and females age 7 to 12 (Grade 1 through 6). The participants play in 8 games per season on either Monday or Wednesday, or Tuesday and Thursday, as well as Saturday morning. Each player receives a T-shirt and a trophy. Participation for this program is identified as individual participants. Fees for youth flag football are established on a sliding scale, a family with one child would pay S35, while a second child would be an additional $25, and a third child would be an additional $15. The Youth Basketball Program provides a positive experience in team sports for boys and girls and teaches them the basic skills of basketball. The program is open to males and females between the ages of 5 and 14 (grades kindergarten through 8''). Participants play in 8 games per season on wither lvlondays and Wednesdays, Tuesdays and Thursdays, as well as Saturday mornings. Units for this program are identified as individual participants. Each player receives a T-shirt and a trophy. The sliding scale for youth basketball is $30/$20/$10. Cost of Sen•ices Study for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department C MIG-W 17.61US. INC. 2001 Page 8 The National Junior Tennis League (USA Tennis 1-2-3) is also offered during the summer to teach beginning players a lifetime sport, develop good sportsmanship, and offer the chance to participate in a team tennis activity. Girls softball leagues are also offered throughout the year for girls aged six to sixteen. The . fee schedule is also set on a sliding scale for families with more than one child participating in the leagues. Tennis lessons are also included in the Youth Activities category, but are offered to all persons 6 years and older on a year-round basis. Classes include beginner, intermediate, and advanced instruction. The following table presents the costs, revenues, and percentage of cost recovery for youth activities: Youth Activities Percent of Cost Revenue Activity Cost Revenue Difference Cost Recovery Units per Unit per Unit Youth Flag Football $ 43,592 $ 11,120 $ 32,472 25.51% 401 $ 108.71 $ 27.73 Youth Basketball $102,364 $ 20,701 $ 81,663 20.22®% 774 $ 132.25 $ 26.75 Nat'l Jr. Tennis League $ 10,644 $ 4,350 $ 6,294 40.87% 87 $ 122.34 $ 50.00 Girls Fast Pitch $ 69,372 $ 12,410 $ 56,962 17.89% 355 $ 195.41 $ 34.96 Tennis Lessons $ 24,548 $ 12,057 $ 12,491 49.12% 186 $ 131.98 $ 64.82 Total $250,520 $ 60,638 $ 189,882, 24.20% According to policies set in the budget process, youth activities require only minimal fee support (0% to 50%) and therefore, DMG-MAXRdUS has identified cost recovery at 30% in order to satisfy the fiscal requirements. Youth Activities Potential Revenue Increases Current Activity Cost Revenue Units Youth Flag Football $ 43,592 $ 11,120 401 Youth Basketball $102,364 $ 20,701 774 Nat'l Jr. Tennis League $ 10,644 $ 4,350 87 Girls Fast Pitch $ 69,372 $ 12,410 355 Tennis Lessons $ 24,548 $ 12,057 186 Total $250,520 S 60,638 Total Potential Cost Potential Potential Additional per Unit Fee Revenue Revenue $ 108.71 $ 30.00 $ 12,030 $ 910 $ 132.25 $ 40.00 $ 30,960 $ 10,259 $ 122.34 $ 50.00 $ 4,350 $ - $ 195.41 $ 60.00 $ 21,300 $ 8,890 $ 131.98 $ 64.82 $ 12,037 $ - Cost of Services Study for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department C DMG-MAA7MUS, INC. 2001 Page 9 $ 80,697 $ 20,059 C. Aquatics Open Swim Programs provide safe, fun aquatic fun for both adults and children. Participants can choose to utilize Adamson Lagoon and Thomas Pool, which are open the last weekend of May through Mid -August; Hallaran Pool, which is open from the beginning of April through the end of September; or the Junior High School Natatorium, which is open year-round. Swim Lessons are given to provide Red Cross swimming instruction to all ages (6- months to adult) to keep them safe in, on, and around water and to know what to do in case of an emergency. Spring and Fall lessons meet two times per week for four weeks (8 lessons). Summer lessons meet nine times per two -week session (9 lessons). The TAAF Swim Team provides a recreational program that introduces participants to competitive swimming. Swim meets are held against other teams — Bryan, Brenham, Huntsville, Navasota, Livingston, etc. — with the * summer culminating with the State TAAF Swim Meet. Participants practice four times per week in April and May, with practice sessions increasing to five times per week in June and July, The following table presents the costs, revenues, and percentage of cost recovery for aquatics programs: Aquatics Activities Cost/Revenue Analysis PeTeentage Cost Revenue Activity Cost Revenue Difference Cost Recovery Units per Unit per Unit Open Swim $566,609 S 257,054 $ 309,555 45.37% 114,319 S 4.96 $ 2.25 Swim Lessons $366,233 $ 74,762 S 291,471 20.41% 2,623 S 139.62 $ 28.50 TAAF Swim Team $105,975 S 17,065 $ 88,910 16.10% 201 S 527.24 $ 84.90 Total $1,038,817 S 348,881 S 689,936 33.58% Aquatics utilizes the "minimal fee support" requirement as set forth in the fiscal budget, and therefore requires only a 0% to 50% cost recovery. For Open Swim, DMG- MA)UMUS has established a 50% recovery rate, as well as approximately a 20% recovery rate for Swim Lessons, and approximately a 20% recovery rate for TAAF Swim Team. The table on the following page outlines the potential additional revenue for Aquatics Programs: Cost of Services Study for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department 0 D.WG-MAXIM US, INC. 2001 Page 10 Aquatics Potential Revenue Increases Total Potential Current Cost Potential Potential Additional Activity Cost Revenue Units per Unit Fee Revenue Revenue Open Swim S 566,609 S 257,054 i 14,319 S 4.96 $ 2.50 $ 285,798 $ 28,744 Swim Lessons S 366,233 S 74,762 2,623 $ 139.62 $ 30.00 $ 78,690 $ 3,928 TAAF Swim Team $ 105,975 S 17,065 201 $ 527.24 $ 100.00 $ 20,100 $ 3,035 Total $ 1,038,817 S 348,881 S 381,588 S 35,707 As some pools currently charge different fees than others, DMG-MAXIMUS felt it would be appropriate to increase pool charges across the board approximately 25%. The following table indicates the proposed fees for each pool: ,I� Increased Pool Current Fee % Increase Fee HallaranrMomas $ 2.00 25% $ 2.50 Natatorium $ 2.00 25% $ 2.50 Adamson $ 3.50 25% $ 4.50 Pavilion Rentals provide attractive, well -maintained outdoor covered facilities for the use of - local residents and businesses for private gatherings (company parties, birthday parties, wedding receptions, family reunions, etc.). Pavilions range in size, accommodating anywhere from 30 to 300 people. All offer picnic tables and barbecue pits. Some also include rest rooms, full-size kitchens, and exclusive use of playground equipment, volleyball courts, and horseshoe pits. Ball field rentals allow citizens to access softball fields for practice and tournaments. The individual or individuals in charge of a tournament must meet with representatives of the Athletic and Park Operations staff before the tournament to arrange any tournament and maintenance details. Pool rentals provide children with a positive, aquatic birthday experience and parents with an alternative site for birthday parties. Parties are two hours in length and the staff blocks the area, decorates, sets up the party, serves food, and cleans up. Cost of Services Study for the City of College Station Parrs and Recreation Department C DMG-X1,LV1J[US, INC. 2001 Page I I 6 1IYiIYliI1lilliWllilliel II IIi6{JnY Wii!LIYI6Wioi i1iuYLlIiLJ'i144Ail .W !JiIYWYIi W �J i Ydud Ileule6i1VY�.I1lGIYiW�dIJtV114Y,I11tltl61 �J�1111 AliAll Ill iflLIJAIIYYli1L111!I IWIMAJIl Wi!IIY A IIIWIW1114IAW iI.All IYIYIill. Ill Iiwai.VY dhiiVYIWJlYOhIWf The following table provides costs, revenues, and percentage of cost recovery for rentals: Rentals Cost/Revenue Analysis Percent of Cost Revenue Activity Cost Revenue Difference Cost Recovery Units per Unit per Unit Pavilion Rentals $ 39,887 $ Y7,043 i 12,844 42.736/® 355 $ ' 112.36 $ 48.01 Hallaranrl'homas Rental $ 11,978 S 3,150 $ 8,828 26.30% 24 $ 499.08 S 131.25 Natatorium Rental $ 13,859 $ 2,155 $ 11,704 15.55% 28 $ 494.96 $ 76.96 Adamson Rental $ 34,168 $ 25,738 $ 8,430 75.33% 71 $ 481.24 $ 362.51 Ball Field Rental $ 148,768 $ 2,235 $ 146,533 1.50% 35 $ 4,250.51 $ 63.86 Total $ 248,660 S 50,321 S 198,339 20.24% According to the Financial Policies, rentals are required to yield 0 to 50% cost recovery. The following table indicates the potential cost recovery for rentals, as identified by DMG-MAXIMUS, at a 50% cost recovery: Rentals P®ten&R Revenue Hnereases TOW Potential Current Cost Potential Potential Additional Activity Cost Revenue Units per Unit Fee Revenue Revenue Pavilion Rentals S 39,887 $ 17,043 355 $ 112.36 $ 55.00 $ 19,525 S 2,482 HallaraniThomas Rental $ 11,978 $ 3,150 24 $ 499.08 $ 290.00 $ 6,960 $ 3,810 Natatorium Rental $ 13,859 S 2,155 28 $ 494.96 $ 215.00 S 6,020 $ 3,865 Adamson Rental S 34,168 $ 25,738 71 $ 481.24 $ 365.00 S 25,915 $ 177 Ball Field Rental $ 148,768 $ 2,235 35 $ 4,250.51 $ 2,125.00 $ 74,375 $ 72,140 Total $ 248,660 S 50,321 S n32,795 S 82,474 ':< �lt,,'Y";.��I€I)[1 ��t:i�i��$'ti'(i+1)itia "T"i"•��il � `. � i�`;" The College Station Conference Center is a facility that is available to a broad spectrum of groups with no one group or type being allowed to dominate the Center. Preference is shown for groups who do not operate on a permanent basis, and would not, therefore, tend to have a facility of their own in which to operate. The Conference Center has public meeting rooms, a kitchen, deck, patios, audio/visual equipment and other amenities. The Teen Center provides the youth of College Station a place of their own. It provides educational and recreational opportunities to the youth of College Station. The facility Cost of Services Study for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department ® DMG-MAMMUS, INC. 2001 Page 12 11, 111,111111. 11, 111 „1111d1111111 1�I11111. 1, 111 ,I u,11111 V1 1, '111,1, 11111111, .111101,11111.11 A,,Ii1,111IlIlu,i J,l1, II, 1, WII 11111111 IIII,I YIh1, 1,IVu11 11 II III gull Ills I I'll I I'll 1, 111„I IIIIII 11,111„ 11111�1I11, 11"1 1111 si 11111, ,IIIIIIII 11111111111111, 11II.I ,1 111Y IIdl ll, 111 1, 1IJ consists of two rooms with intemet-capable computers, game room, dance floor, sound and light system and a snack bar. The Lincoln Center provides many services to the citizens of College Station, including acting as a hub for the Boys and Girls Club, as well as hosting various activities for seniors. The Lincoln Center houses a computer center, and a full size basketball court and provides many educational and recreational opportunities. The following table provides costs, revenues, and percentage of cost recovery for the recreation centers: Recreation Centers Cost/Revenue Analysis Percent of Activity Cost Revenue Difference Cost Recovery Lincoln Center S 295,288 $ .13,649 $ 281,639 4.62% Teen Center S 258,198 $ 10,424 $ 247,774 4.04% Conference Center $ 317,318 S 124,072 $ 193,246 39.10% Total S 870,804 S 148,145 $ 722,659 17.01% Although potential revenue increases are not identified for the Recreation Centers, it would be beneficial for the Parks and Recreation Department to identify whether or not an increase in costs for the Conference Center should be addressed. The Conference Center is utilized, for the most part, by adults, and therefore would be subject to the policies associated with Adult Activities. If a 50%• • - were utilized, would stand to gain approximately $35,000 annually in revenue. It is the opinion of ) and Lincoln Centers would possible decrease attendance, and would not be a significant benefit to the City. F. ®tiler Activities The City of College Station operates the Wolf Pen Creek Amphitheater, which hosts a variety of entertainment events -throughout the season targeted to all ages and interests. The full cost of maintaining this facility can be found in the table below. The City of College Station operates and enterprise fund for the Parks and Recreation Extra Education Program. All enterprise funds are required to collect between 80 and 100% of all costs according to the city's financial policies. Currently, the Extra Education program recovers only approximately 91.24%, and is therefore meeting the policy as written in the budget document. This is illustrated in the table below. Cost of Services Study for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department C DUG-MAXIMUS, INC. 2001 Page 13 .lia ,,I„YI,Y1!I_.6iL.IWuI All YliLu'YYdmiYlWiwiiY:dlll Ill lAIM Yl,d.I JlluluYu.liadm,,'dw4I .III unWdllW 1611dA ,nhL Ii YYYJh..IV IIAL&W iiiII"Il 11"lwiVAli Y,PYJia'.I1A,WII1111NWIWYJ J YI a I ki Al all Yil I I willijIII I!IYIWJnIll i, 11111d, Iiilil1,Vtl11 ill, 1fiabiIWNlikii W Al WWIdu14!I!hi IIi,,i WIIuWiilli ii WWY ill ili I IIII111111WiWWYIII hIh klilli YYYi The Parks and Recreation Department is responsible for the maintenance of the City of College Station Cemetery. Plots are purchased through the City Secretary's Office. The table below illustrates the full cost of maintaining the cemetery. Although the City may consider the implementation of a perpetual care fund, this would fall beyond the scope of this study. DMG- MUS has identified the costs of operating and maintaining the Cemetery in the table below. The Parks and Recreation Department allows other organizations to utilize the facilities at no cost to participants. These leagues include Soccer, Little League, and Tournaments. These activities require substantial maintenance costs, which are currently not being recovered by the City. The table below identifies these costs: Other Activities Cost/Revenue Analysis Activity Cost Revenue - Difference Wolf Pen Creek Amphitheater $ 16,716 $ 4,179 S 12,537 Extra Education $ 67,732 $ 61,800 s 5,932 Cemetery S 163,773 $ - $ 163,773 Soccer S 137,025 $ - $ 137,025 Little League $ 183,858 S e $ 183,858 Tournaments $ 110,678 $ - $ 110,678 Total S 679,782 $ 65,979 S 613,803 Cost of Services Study for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department C DMG-MAXDJUS, INC. 2001 Page 14 percent of Cost Recovery 25.00% 91.24% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 9.7R% W WITIMIF MIR Iff, Benefits of Indirect Cost Allocation Plans There are several benefits that the City will derive from the cost allocation plans that adequately and consistently document administrative indirect costs. Benefits include documenting the maximum allowable administrative transfers to the General Fund, allowing for the recovery of indirect costs from State and Federal grants and contracts, a more comprehensive and consistent cost accounting capability in determining the full cost of City services and the cost plan can form the basis of cost/benefit analysis particularly for administrative services. The User Fee Study will provide the City with several benefits including a knowledge of current activity costs which will provide a bench mark for the future, increased revenue from existing fee areas, revenue from new fee areas and staff utilization information. The study can be used as a basis for prioritizing resource utilization. IM-MIN 161�=' The basic theories behind user fees are that any service provided for a specific individual or group should not be paid from general taxes, that services provided to non-residents should not be paid from general taxes, and that beneficiaries of a service should pay for the service. Keeping these theories in mind, setting fees is essentially equivalent to establishing prices for services. In the private sector, prices are usually set in a manner that is expected to maximize profits. Since making a profit is not an objective of the City in providing services, it is commonly felt that fees should be established at a level that will recover the cost of providing each service. However, there are circumstances in which it might be regarded as a reasonable policy to set fees at a level that does not reflect the full cost of providing the service. Cost does not necessarily equal price. Therefore, it is important to discuss some of the ramifications of these non -cost factors so that the role of the cost figures may be placed in proper perspective. The price charged for a service affects the quantity demanded by potential users. In many instances, raising the price of a service results in fewer units of service being demanded. And, the volume of that service produced affects the unit cost of a service. Cost of Services Study for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department C DMG-MAXIVUS, INC. 2001 Page 15 , 11.6likUW This poses a special problem for the City when attempting to set fees on a basis that will recover the full cost of providing the services. As noted above, the unit cost of a service may rise or fall depending on the volume produced, and that volume may depend on the volume demanded, which, in turn, may depend on the fee charged. Fees charged for recreational services provide a good example of this concept. Quite reasonably, children, senior citizens and others with limited means may discontinue using a recreational facility if fees are raised significantly. They may regard the services as desirable, but not essential, and find other means of recreation. The resulting decrease in volume would then increase the unit cost; a situation that would require additional fee increases. Some services' fees, however, probably will not be responsive to volume demand because the services will be used regardless of the fees charged. oftenUser fees are .•lished on a principle that requires those who use the service enterprisebear the cost of producing it. Although this principle is firmly established in the privatv be City activities fori ed as inappropr Accordingly, it may be preferable to set fees for some services below full cost. Consequently,• • • • policy should be . ••d Subsidies are provided for two basic purposes. The first is to permit an identified group (e.g., senior citizens, students, public assistance recipients) to participate in services that they might not otherwise be able to afford. This is a legitimate function of government, assuring all citizens' access to important services without regard to their ability to pay. VVhile such subsidies could be granted on the basis of a means test (not all senior citizens are economically deprived), ease of administration and concern for dignity often suggest offering particular subsidies to broad groups that may include many who are able to afford the full cost of the service. Such subsidies may be achieved either through rate structures (i.e., charging lower fees to certain groups for common service) or through reducing fees for services most likely to be utilized by particular groups. The second purpose of subsidies is to provide services that may benefit those not qualifying as immediate recipients. For example, code enforcement inspections ensure compliance with City zoning ordinances. Ordinances are designated to safeguard communities from deteriorating properties, which ultimately impact the homeowner by lowering property values and causing possible health and safety problems. In this case and similar cases, it may be regarded as appropriate to spread the cost of services over the large base of potential beneficiaries. Economic Incentives Cost of Services Study for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department C DMG-MAXIMUS, INC. 2001 Page 16 ��„�i ,, run m,duei Hilo.�.dww�melwWW,WWdWuu.JYuluW cWIJLWd�WIiI11W Al �sil ru a � s a �cui �y�Y,y�WiM1y It may be desirable to use fees as a means of encouraging certain activities or patterns of use. For example, setting a relatively high fee for scarce resources such as water may encourage conservation. Inexpensive products or services, on the other hand, often encourage waste. There are several ways to modify patterns of use. It may be desirable to shift the time of day or season in which services are in greater demand. If spreading out a peak load, for example, results in reducing the need for more capacity, perhaps savings could be achieved that would justify a lower rate. Changing fee structures, through offering lower rates during off-peak hours or seasons, may also change usage patterns. Competigion Orienged Although the City may monopolize certain services within its boundaries, there are many instances of competitive pressure, which contain th ' e ability to raise fees. There may be in the private sector alternatives to using City services. For example, instead of attending a recreation program at a park, citizens may go to a movie or watch television. When there are alternatives available, the City may decide the private sector or another governmental entity can provide cheaper and more effective service, thereby eliminating its role in a particular service area. In this manner, competition may inhibit full recovery of costs, but at the same time, it also gives the City the option of reducing non -essential services and reducing City costs. The most straightforward alternative includes those services where it is appropriate to recover costs or generate revenues in excess of costs. Typically these services have traditionally and historically recovered full cost and there is a consensus that these services should be entirely user fee supported. As the City determines user fee,policy for each department and each individual fee area, it may be helpful to consider the following decision matrix. Cost of Services Study for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department 0 DUG-MAXIMUS. INC. 2001 Page 17 COUCRUSiGmt This Executive Summary presents a high level overview of our costing approach. Detailed indirect cost allocation plans and user fee studies have been provided to the City as separate documents. DMG-MAMMUS, INC. appreciates this opportunity to be service to the City of College Station, Texas in the identification of the Parks and Recreation Department's costs of services in order to update user fee charges. We welcome the opportunity to provide any clarification or additional information on our findings that the City may require. - Cost of Services Study for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department 0 DMG-MAXIMUS, INC. 2001 Page 18 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 2568 SETTING FEES TO BE CHARGED AND COLLECTED FOR CERTAIN PARK AND RECREATION ACTIVITIES; ESTABLISHING A NEW FEE SCHEDULE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Bryan provides facilities for and coordinates certain park and recreation activities; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to set certain fees for the reasonable use of facilities and coordination of activities; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to set certain conditions affecting fees for the use of facilities and coordination of activities; THEREFORE,NOW RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF That the fees charged and collected for specific park and recreation activities shall be as follows: ACTIVITY 1. Pavilion reservation fee per use per clay A. Astin, Austin's Colony, Bonham, Neal, Tanglewood, Tiffany, Williamson A or B, or Villa West B. Copperfield, Henderson, Sadie Thomas I, or Scurry C. BRAC II A or B (each wing) D. Haswell or Sadie Thomas II $ 75.00 ® �A - (With kitchen) $ 150.00 E. Heritage Park Gazebo F. Lake Bryan Pavilion $ 100.00 100 people or less $ 50.00 (plus gate entry fee)* 100-200 people $ 100.00 (plus gate entry fee)* * Cars may be tallied at gate for invoicing to responsible party upon request. G. Bryan Tennis Center -per court Membership (Year) $100 Plus $10per hour Non Members $10.00per hour Key Fob or Replacement Key Fob $ 5.00 H. Tennis Lessons (per session) Instruction Permit (per site) $ 25.00 I. Sport Pavilion Special Use Permit (per day) $100.00 J. Inline Hockey Rink (per day) $100.00 * This facility may be used for sponsored, co -sponsored or non -sponsored tournaments or classes. TAMU, BISD, and CISD fees will be set on a contract basis based upon individual court fees. 2. Park Vendor Permit per location per day within city limits* A. Food/Craft one -day permit (limited as per city ordinance) $ 65.00 3. Alcohol Use Permit Fees A. Specific Use Permit for activities held in park pavilions $35.00 or athletic complexes as designated, in city parks - located within the city limits (per day).* B. Seasonal Use Permit for organized adult sport $100.00 leagues (softball, soccer, etc.) utilizing city parks located within the city limits as approved by the Division Manager or his/her designee. C. Seasonal Use Permit bond for organized adult $500.00 sport leagues (softball, soccer, etc.) referenced in Section 3.13 as approved by the Division Manager or his/her designee.* *Permits issued with facility rental only. Violations will bar user from park facilities for a period of not less than one year (to be determined by the Division Manager or his/her designee). 9 Rmsw�� Entrance fee per vehicle per day (Monday - Thursday) $3.00 Entrance fee per vehicle per day (Friday - Sunday and holidays) '5.00 Entrance fee per passenger van or bus (per passenger)* 1.00 Annual Pass per registered holder and one vehicle 50.00 Senior Citizen (55 and older) Annual Pass 35.00 Mountain Bike Association Members (as identified with 35.00 membership identification card) Annual Pass Other User Group Association Members (as identified 35.00 with membership identification card) Annual Pass, and prior application and approval by the Division Manager or his/her designee. Texas A&M Student fee per semester course (for class time only) 10.00 Replacement Pass 5.00 *$5.00 rhinimum entry &e (passenger van described as capable of carrying more than seven passengers) Tent Camping fee with Annual Pass 5.00 Additional Vehicle 5:00 Tent Camping fee per night (includes entrance fee) 10.00 Additional Vehicle 5.00 Tent/RV Camping fee w/water & electricity (includes entrance fee) 15.00 Tent/RV Camping fee for special events w/electricity* 12.00 Two Vehicles allowed per tent or RV campsite. *Does not include Special Event entrance fee. S. Lake Bryan Events/Park Special Events Fees A. PARD Exclusively Sponsored Event Entry Fee ($1-30/person range) is to be determined by staff at time of program development with this fee income being applied to a special account to help defray event costs and be used for promotion of future events at Lake Bryan. B. PARD Non- or Co -Sponsored Events Fee 300-1,000 300.00 1,001-3,000 500.00 3,001+ 750.00 Gate Entry Fee (per carload) 5.00 Cleaning Deposit 500.00 A non- or co -sponsored event is described as any private and/or public use of Lake Bryan grounds and/or facilities for the exclusive purpose of gaining revenue income and/or reward for private enterprise or the City of Bryan. This non- or co -sponsored event may not close the entire Lake Bryan grounds to the exclusive use of the rental party. Specific areas may remain available to the general public, i.e. jet ski area, boat ramp, camping (when advisable), sail boating, or other water areas as determined by the Parks and ReCreation Division Manager or his/her designee. A separate packet of guidelines must be completed and all relative documentation must be submitted for approval prior to payment of the above fees as determined by the Parks and Recreation Division Manager or his/her designee. C. Lake Bryan Stage Rental Fee Per Day $500.00 Gate Entry Fee (per carload) 5.00 Gate Entry Fee (per passenger van or bus per passenger)* 1.00 Electrical Hookups for Sound Equipment per day 100.00 Electrical Hookup Bus/RV per plug/per day 10.00 Cleaning Deposit 500.00 *$5.00 minimum entry fee (passenger van described as capable of carrying more than seven passengers) The Lake Bryan stage rental is described as any private. and/or public use of the Lake Bryan stage and/or facilities for the exclusive purpose of gaining income and/or reward -for private enterprise, or revenue -for the City of Bryan. -This event may close the entire Lake Bryan grounds to the exclusive use of the rental party, or other applicable arrangements as determined by the. Division Manager -or. his/her designee. A special event permit must be completed and all relative documentation must be submitted for approval prior to payment of the above fees as determined by the Parks and Recreation Division Manager or his/her designee. D. Lake Bryan Vendor Permit One Day (Non -Special Event)* $ 65.00 One Day or more (Special Event Food or Beverage)* 65.00- $150.00 ---One Day -or- Event Arts and Cfdffi)*� -7, Extra Electrical plug hook-up 15.00 * Includes one electrical plug All or part of these fees may be waived at the discretion of the PARD Division Manager or his/her designee, or other specific arrangements as documented in special event use, permit or contract form. 6. Aquatic Fees Pool entrance fee per person per session Bryan Aquatic Center $ 2.50 Haswell or Sadie Thomas 1.00 Pool passes Twenty-five swims $ 40.00 Summer individual 60.00 Annual individual 100.00 6. Aquatic Fees (continued) Summer family (4/family) 150.00 (each add. member) 10.00 Annual family (4/family) 200.00 (each add. member) 10.00 Replacement pass 5.00 Children 3 yews and younger Free Haswell/Sadie Thomas Pool rental fee (2 hours, 100 swimmers max.) $100.00 Each additional hour 40.00 BBQ Grill rental during public swim 10.00 Bryan Aquatic Center rental fee _ 2 hours for.100 swimmers or less __._ _ $150,00 2 hours for 201-300 swimmers - 250.00 hours for 301-400 swimmers _ _ 300.00 2 hours for 401-500 swimmers 350.00 Each additional hour 75.00 B1 Water Aerobics fee (25 visits) 40.00 Instructional Swim fee (per person per session) 30.00 - -Junior Lifeguard Instruction Fee - - 75.00 _. TAAF Bryan Swim Team Per Person (resident) First Child $85.00 Second Child ', - u65.00 Third Child 45.00 Per Person (non-resident) First Child 90.00 Second Child 70.00 Third Child 50.00 Aquatics Camp (10-15 years of age) (per week, Full day) $75.00 7. Athletic / Recreation Fees Team registration fee for Adult leagues per season Flag football $250.00 Basketball 250.00 Volleyball 200.00 Softball 285.00 Soccer 250.00 In -Line Hockey 200.00 Horseshoes league (per person) 20.00 Youth League Registration (per child) $25.00 Field rental fee per game per field Travis, Thomas (no lights) $30.00 Travis, Thomas (with lights) 60.00 Field tournament rental fee per field per day Bryan Regional Athletic Complex $ 100.01', Weekend tournament rental fee (four fields for two days) $ 600.011, Maintenance fee per person per season for all athletic $ 5.01f leagues whose entry fees are not paid to the City of Bryan (No playing lights are included in this fee.) 8® Recreation Program Fees Summer Fun Camp Program registration fee per child - 1-. (6-10 years old) per session (all day for 2 weeks) Aquatic/Neal Recreation Center Joint Camp (10- 17 years old) (all day for 2 weeks) % Junior Counselor in Training Program registration fee per child (11-15 years old) per session (all day for 2 weeks) ' Special Youth Classes/Programs registration fee per child (6-16 years old) per session (times will vary.) Additional fees for field trips to be assessed as needed. 9. Neal Recreation Center Fees Membership - individual (per year) Membership - individual non-resident (per year) Membership - family (4) Resident (Each additional member) Membership - family (4) Non -Resident (Each additional member) Admission I.D. Card (one time) for Bryan residents Replacement Card (as needed) Free $75.00 $10.00 20.00 30.00 5.00 60.00 10.00 V One - Free $ 5.00 Daily Use Fee - resident $ 1.00 Daily Use Fee -non-resident $ 3.00 Daily Use Fee — Fitness Room Plus (Resident) $ 3.00 Daily Use Fee — Fitness Room Plus (Non -Resident) $ 5.00 Fitness Card - Yearly (Bryan resident 18 and over) $50.00 Fitness Card - Yearly (Non-resident) $75.00 Fitness Card (City of Bryan Employees) $25.00 Enrichment Classes (per session) (open enrollment) $3.00 - $75.00 Monthly Special Events $1.00 - $30.00 Room / Building Rentals* Gym rental (hourly) $50.00 Gym rental (1/2 gym) (hourly) 25.00 Multi -purpose Room Rental (hourly) 15.00 Multi -purpose Room Rental (hourly with food service area) 20.00 Multi -media Room Rental (hourly) 20.00 Arts & Crafts Room Rental (hourly) 20.00 Building Rental (hourly) (not including fitness room) 150.00 Building / room after hours operational fee (per hour) 15.00 Cleaning Deposit" 50.00 Includes TV/VCR.. Tables and chairs will be available. User must also comply with rental agreement, which may require additional security or guidelines as determined by the Director. or his/her designee. All Room/Building Rentals (Refundable if left in clean condition.) That the conditions regulating the herein above stated fees shall be as follows: L Reservations will be taken on a first come first served basis. 2 Reservations may be taken over the phone or on-line by computer only when paying by credit card. 3. Park Pavilion reservations will be limited to one per day. Swimming Pools, lineal Recreation Center, and the Bryan Tennis Center can be reserved ,for multiple daily rentals, depending upon availability. 4 Reservations can be set up to one year in advance, from the current calendar data S. There will be a 10%fee or $10 00 charge, whichever is higher, for any cancellations or rescheduling. Exceptions to this can be made at the discretion of ° the Division Manager for special circumstances. 6. It shall be the policy of the City of Bryan that refunds will be given only for the following situations: A. Enrollment does not reach the required minimum capacity. B. Customer expresses dissatisfaction due to conditions of a facility or program. - NOTE: Weather conditions or changes in schedule cancellations will not warrant a refund. Rescheduling to an available date will be offered by PARD staff. 7. The Bryan Independent School District and the state recognized private schools located in Bryan shall be exempt- froin the pavilion reservation fee. BISD is to provide all staffing for its pool use functions and shall be exempt from the pool rental fees. 8. Aquatic annual family passes may be purchased for specified activities. For this purpose a family is defined as at least one :parent;: -and -no more than 'hislhei three dependent children who live together. A $ 10.00 fee will be -charged for any member over the 4/family limit. 9. All individuals who enter Lake Bryan are required to pay the vehicle entry fee. The camping fee includes the entry fee. The pavilion rental fee does not include the entry fee. 10. A $10.00 per student, per semester Lake Bryan entrance fee will be charged to all Texas A & M Departments for students whose classes are held at Lake Bryan. The students will be issued a pass which will be honored for a specific semester and only during the time of day the class is being held. Students must pay the vehicle entry fee at all other times. 11. All Lake Bryan rentals where 100 or more people are expected will require one licensed peace officer per 100 people (must be either a Bryan Police Department Officer, Brazos County Sheriffs Department Deputy or other State of Texas licensed peace officer), and one portable toilet per 100 people in attendance. If park restrooms are available, this will count towards the first 100 persons. These items are to be provided by the individual or group reserving the pavilion. Written evidence or confirmation must be shown to the Parks and Recreation Division at least five days in advance of the 'reservation date that the necessary licensed peace officer and toilets have been obtained. 12. All pavilion reservations where 100 or more people are expected will require one licensed peace officer per 100 people (must be either Bryan Police Department Officers, Brazos County Sheriffs Department Deputies or other State of Texas licensed peace officer), and one portable toilet per 100 people in attendance. If park restrooms are available, this will count towards the first 100 persons. These items are to be provided by the individual or group reserving the pavilion. Written evidence or confirmation must be shown to the Parks and Recreation Division at least five days in advance of the reservation date that the necessary licensed peace officers and toilets have been obtained. 13. All Neal Recreation Center Room reservations where W100) or more people are expected will require one licensed peace officer per 100 people (must be either Bryan Police Department Officers, Brazos County Sheriffs Department Deputies or other State of Texas licensed peace officer). These items are to be provided by the individual or group reserving the Neal Recreation Center. Written evidence or confirmation must be shown to the Neal Recreation Center Supervisor or his/her designee at least five days in advance of the reservation date that the necessary licensed peace officer(s) have been obtained. Withholding of this evidence will be cause ' for cancellation of the reservation and the renter will have verbal and written notification within 72 hours of the cancellation. 14. The field tournament rental fee is per field per day or any fraction of a day. The fee will not be prorated for a portion of the day. 15. Athletic leagues that utilize City of Bryan facilities, but do not pay their team entry fees to the City of Bryan, may be charged a maintenance fee of $ 5.00 per person per season. Ballfield playing lights are not included as a part of this fee. 16. The pass for 25 swims entitles the pass holder to 25 swims. The pass will be numbered I - 25 and will be punched once each visit up to, but not exceeding 25 times. There is no time limitation. 17. Non -swimming adults who are wearing street clothes and want to observe their children at any time at the aquatic facilities will not have to pay a pool entrance fee. hyWfio f phe . :r diapers wig not be eharged a pool eweaneefte— 18. The effective age for all senior citizen fees is 55 years of age. SECTION 111. That Resolution No. 2568 adopted September 8, 1998 is hereby repealed. SECTION IV. That this resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption. APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Bryan on this day of 92000. ATTEST. Mary Lynne Stratta, City Secretary Lonnie Stabler, Mayor �-10 IN 00 01 W-11 Ilk Presently, there are five play units within the park system that are recommended for replacement. The play units in the following parks are listed according to priority. The year next to the park's name is when the play unit was installed. Presently, only the schedules for replacing the play units at Gabbard Park and Georie K. Fitch Park are definite. The replacement schedule for the play units in the remaining prioritized parks will be determined as funds are available. 1. Gabbard Park, 1983 This is one of two remaining wood structured play units. This play unit, and the one at Georgie K. Fitch Park, fails to meet the majority of playground safety standards recommended by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission or the American Society for Testing and Materials. It also meets the least number of playground safety standards for all the existing play units. This play unit is scheduled for replacement by the end of FBI 2001. 2. Georgie K. Fitch Park, 1983 This play unit has the same problems as the one at Gabbard Park. It is scheduled for replacement in FY 2002. 3. Hensel Park, 1986 4. Anderson Park, 1983 5. Southwood Athletic Park (2), 1984 6. Bee Creek Park, 1986 The play units at Hensel Park, Anderson Park, Southwood Park, and Bee Creek Park are in need of replacement due to the cost and difficulty of obtaining replacement parts. Parts for these playgrounds are no longer available due to changes in safety standards or the companies have been bought out making the replacement parts obsolete. These obsolete parts must be specially manufactured which increases the cost dramatically. Replacing the playgrounds at Hensel Park, Anderson Park, and Southwood Park will require separate swing set installations. Prepared August 10, 2001 A �tA1C�At �C�M/AMt �7c7t174T1�i�.'� Enrichlra fhll mm Through Pfau Tcreation Products Inc. TOTAL RECREATION 800-392-9909 SCALE 1/866 =1'0" PfQD USE ZONE 75 Squore Ft LENGTH X WTH 4S° X 49 SUPFACING By Others BO wafftwoe DPAWI NG #H52 i Hensel 1)ap� - C(D��eqe Sfafien, TX 12502 urfu 2,0. F007 SLIDE 12M —T 'nGAOE 18267 1 V'M 4V nww P, 5 PISM124N7PANEL STEP LINK (BELOW) 18272 38O° 'SAM SLIDE W/ C*40py 51 1 C), � .. Im. 'I IEW® 0d (>Od � 127BO FUNNEL LENCUDSURE PANEL 12620 RUNO LNZEA 12575 RUMBLE 1w ROLL SUDE Enrichina ChWhood Throu4 Kau Recreation ecreafion Products Inc SCALE: 1/8" PEQD USE ZONE 2275 Square h LENGTH X \MDTH 48'X W SUPFACING By Ohm 130P,DEP, PLA VCUPBS-... HimMrI in f Ric Ploeger - COST ESTIMATES FOR HENSEL PLAYGROLIND.doc Page 'i COST ESTIMATES FOR HENSEL PLAYGROUND OPTION 1 1.Playground=$17,500 2.Installation=$7,000 3.Remove old playground= $1200 4.Excavate & haul off gravel & soil= $1,200 5.12" of new gravel& installation(120 tons) = $2,600 6.Separate swing set& pit-- $5,500 TOTAL= $35,000 OPTIONAL:use 90 tons of gravel + 30 tons of rubber granules=$10,000 extra TOTAL= $45,000 OPTION 2 1.Playground= $23,800 2.Installation= $9,500 3.Remove old playground=$1,200 4.Excavate and haul off gravel and soil=$1,200 5.12" of new gravel & installation= $2,600 6.Separate swing set=$5,500 TOTAL= $43,800 OPTIONAL: use 90 tons of gravel+30 tons of rubber granules=$10,000 extra TOTAL = $53,800 ALTERNATE: Add concrete with rubber tiles for wheelchair access= $2,000 College Station Comprehensive Plan City of College Station, Texas 2.08 - Parks and Goal #1 - College Station should continue to enhance its Recreation Goals system of parks, recreation facilities, and open space. and Objectives • Objective 1.1 - College Station should continue to maintain the high quality and wide variety of park and recreation resources now available to residents and visitors, and to provide for expansion as needed. ® Objective 1.2 - College Station should encourage additional connections between selected parks/recreation areas and residential areas by a system of linear parks/parkways/greenbelts which utilize creek beds, drainage ways, portions of the 100-year floodplain, and other natural features. qualityGoal #2 - College Station should continue to provide the highest - • Objective 2.1 - College Station should continue to maintain and improve all existing City parks, equipment, and grounds. • Objective 2.2 - College Station should continue to develop and maintain a variety of parks and park improvements, including neighborhood playgrounds, "vest-pocket'- parks, linear natural corridors, and special streetscape areas in locations such as Northgate and along Texas Avenue. • Objective 2 3- College Station should continue to jointly develop and maintain parks and recreation areas with other public agencies, including the University, College Station Independent School District, and Brazos County. Develop . • Objective 3A - College Station should develop a donation/purchase policy to acquire selected portions of the 100-year floodplain that have been platted or developed to provide natural corridors to be used for open space and passive recreation uses that will link parks to one another and to residential areas. • Objective 3,2 - College Station should designate selected portions of the 100-year floodplain on undeveloped properties as "natural corridors" that are to be used for open space and passive recreation uses that will link parks to one another and to residential areas. N College Station Comprehensive Plan City of College Station, Texas While the 1995 guidelines have shifted away from absolute numerical standards and encourage community self direction in which park acreage is based upon citizen's desires and specific regional needs, it was determined that because of the high level of service that has been provided in College Station in the past, the national parkland dedication standards developed in the past are still appropriate for the City. Those standards were reviewed in light of the unique factors impacting College Station's park and open space needs, as well as the existing policies and desires of the City of College Station Park and Recreation Department and citizens, in order to determine a level of parkland dedication appropriate for the City. The NRPA has researched the park and open space needs of communities and makes the following recommendations for "core" parkland: Mini -Park - A mini -park serves a small area and may include picnic areas, playgrounds, and seating. Many school and church playgrounds often function as de facto mini -parks. The NRPA recommends that Mini -parks be approximately 1 to 2 acres each and be provided at the ratio of 0.25 to 0.5 acres per 1,000 population. The City currently has six mini -parks with a total of 9.70 acres. Neighborhood Park - A neighborhood park serves a larger population than a mini -park and may also include more intense recreational activities such as field games, court games and swimming pools. The NRPA recommends that Neighborhood parks be approximately 15 to 20 acres each and be provided at the ratio of 1 to 2 acres per 1,000 population. The City currently has twenty neighborhood parks with a total of 201.62 acres. The city's policy is to provide for activities that focus on youth and families such as practice areas for soccer, softball, baseball and basketball, and, playground, tennis and picnic facilities. In College Station, neighborhood parks will generally be 10 to 15 acres. Community Park - Community parks tends to serve many neighborhoods and provide many of the same types of facilities as neighborhood parks with the addition of athletic complexes, large swimming pools, community centers, and nature preserves. The NRPA recommends that Community parks be approximately 25 to 30 acres each and be provided at the ratio of 5 to 8 acres per 1,000 population. The City currently has six community parks with a total of 207.48 acres. In College Station, community parks will generally be 40 - 50 acres and serve one park zone. Regional Park - Regional parks serve entire cities or regions. Activities available in regional parks may include picnicking, boating, fishing, swimming, camping, trail use, a golf course, etc. Regional parks tend to be large (over 200 acres) and should be provided at the ratio of 5 to 10 acres per 1,000 population. Because of their regional nature, regional parks are usually not figured into the "core" parkland provided by a city. April 1997 Page 69 College Station Comprehensive Plan City of College Station, Texas A city or a region may only be able to support one or two regional parks. The City currently has one Regional Park with a total of 515 acres. Athletic Complex - Athletic complexes typically consolidate heavily programmed athletic facilities for activities such as softball, baseball and soccer into a few strategically located sites throughout the community. The location of these facilities is important due to traffic, lighting and noise that are often associated with them. Southwood Park in College Station currently serves as a Community Park as well as the City's only athletic complex. Voter approval was received in 1995 to acquire land for a 150 acre regional athletic park. Recreation/ Community Centers - Recreation and community centers typically provide a facility for a community's indoor recreation needs. Gymnasiums, group activity rooms and swimming pools are often located within these facilities. In College Station, the existing Lincoln Center is utilized for youth activities and programmed indoor sport recreational programs. The City intends to continue the existing policy of utilizing the multi -purpose buildings at schools for recreation centers and intends to provide future recreation centers in College Station as needed. April 1997 Page 70 College Station Comprehensive Plan City of College Station, Texas 4.03 - Projected The NRPA recommends an average of 6.25 to 10.5 acres of mini, Future Needs neighborhood and community parks per 1,000 population. The City of College Station currently provides an average of 7.22 acres of parkland and open space per 1,000 population. It is recommended that the City provide a ratio of parkland closer to the 10.5 acres per 1,000 population due to the City's young population, a high percentage of rental properties, the citizen's expectation of a high level of park service, and opportunities to encourage visitors and tourism. By projecting population for each park zone, the ratio of parkland by type and overall parkland per 1,000 persons can also be projected. In some park zones, the average may exceed the 10.5 average recommended by the NRPA, while in others, it may be less than the 10.5 average. This can be attributed to a park zone already exceeding the 10.5 average and expecting little or no future growth; or a park zone that is proposed to be developed at a very low density having a need for a neighborhood or community park, but not having a population to support the minimum park size recommended. In these cases, two park zones were combined in order to share a park facility and provide the level of service needed by both zones. In other zones, the average may be less than the 10.5 average. Overall, the 10.S figure is used as a guide for areawide park/open space development. Table No. 9 shows the projected population for each park zone and the projected future additional parkland required. The projected Land Use Plan population capacity of 118,049 is within the range of projected future population for College Station. Park Future Z61"e Pop. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Total 4,759 11,886 7,260 2,286 16,667 15,914 3,452 1,332 1,993 14,925 7,423 8,205 8,408 2,047 6,803 2,565 2,124 118,049 Proposed Exlsti$ > ... Future New Ratio Part&nd Parkland Parkland (acres per (acres) ° (acres) heeded 10.44 29.70 49.70 10.11 50.20 120.20 11.59 69.17 84.17 12.69 14.00 29.00 9.61 97.20 160.20 9.73 115.78 154.78 13.46 6.45 46.45 19.59 26.10 26.10 25.09 0.0 50.00 8.38 0.0 125.00 12.15 10.20 90.20 9.75 0.0 80.00 7.73 0.0 65.00 24.43 0.0 50.00 9.55 0.0 65.00 19.49 0.0 50.00 7.06 0.0 15.00 10.68 418.80 1,260.80 20.00 70.00 15.00 15.00 63.00 39.00 40.00 0.00 50.00 125.00 80.00 80.00 65.00 50.00 65.00 50.00 15.00 842.00 April 1997 Page 72 College Station Comprehensive Plan City of College Station, Texas The total amount of parkland is 1,260.80 acres - an average provision of approximately 10.68 acres per 1,000 population. This is acceptable for College Station, although it is slightly higher than the recommended NRPA standard. There are several specific areas that were reviewed during this process: Lick Creek Park - At 515 acres, Lick Creek Park is the City's principal regional park. Because of endangered plant species and indications of prehistoric human habitation sites, Lick Creek Park has been designated by the City staff and Parks Board to remain a natural area. The City's vision for this park is to fully develop the trail system with bridges across low-lying areas and directional and interpretive markers, and to provide a visitor center for exhibits and meetings. Wolf Pen Creek - At this time, a revised master plan is being developed for the Wolf Pen Creek corridor, This process will be completed in 1997 and recommendations will be made at that time for additional improvements. The Land Use Plan and Urban Design Plan show this area as being integral to providing continuous off- street pedestrian and bicycle connections within the urbanized portion of College Station. There has been an on -going City concern with silting and maintenance at the Wolf Pen Creek amphitheater. It is recommended that City staff continue to pursue engineering options to address these drainage and maintenance concerns. The 1995 Park, Recreation, ®pen Space and Greenway Guidelines published by the NRPA recommend that projected park facility needs be based upon citizen's desires and specific regional needs. Based upon a review of current facility use and deficiencies by the Park and Recreation Advisory Board and Park's staff, the following are the projected facility needs for College Station: (indoorBasketball Courts or Outdoor) park and 2 per basketball exist ® Racquetball Courts - None. It is expected that the private sector and the University will continue to provide these facilities as needed. ® Tennis Courts - 60 total, including a tennis center. Currently, 12 tennis courts exist. ® Baseball Fields (Little League) - 27 total. Currently, 9 exist serving 1300 players. Each field accommodates 150 players. Additional fields will be required in the near future as the number of players increases. April 1997 Page 73 College Station Comprehensive flan City of College Station, Texas • Softball Fields - 12 adult and 8 youth for a total of 20 fields. Currently, 4 adult and 4 youth fields exist. Current demand would support 6 adult and 4 youth fields. • Football Fields - 4 total. Currently, no football fields exist. • Soccer Fields - 36 total. Currently 18 soccer fields exist. • Swimming Fools (Outdoor) - 6 total. Currently, 3 outdoor swimming pools exist. • Recreation Center - 3 total. Currently, 1 recreation center exists. The above facilities will support College Stations projected 20-year population. 4.04 - Park and The Park and ®pen Space Plan is intended to provide the College ®pen Space Plan Station Parks and Recreation advisory Board with a guide upon which to base future decisions. Following the concept of the Land Use Plan, the number of acres of parkland required per person in each park zone determines the location of that acreage on the Plan while observing the following criteria: • Sites should be located substantially outside of the floodplain. • Neighborhood park sites should be adjacent to residential areas in a manner that serves the greatest number of users. • Neighborhood park sites should be located so that users are not required to cross major thoroughfares to access them. • Sites should be located adjacent to schools, where possible, in order to encourage both shared facilities and the potential co - development of new sites. • Sites should be located adjacent to the open space system so that connections to the trail network may be easily achieved. • Sites should not be severely sloping and should have existing trees or other scenic elements. • Parks should be developed in a way that allows for maximum visibility into the site from surrounding residential roads in order to maximize security and discourage illegal activities. • Parks should have multiple access points to facilitate access from surrounding neighborhoods. April 1997 Page 74 College Station Comprehensive Plan CitY Of College Station, Texas Community parks located within residential neighborhoods should be developed in o manner that protects the residences from objectionable light, noise and traffic. Because of the need to consider specific characteristics in the site selection process, the park locations indicated on the Plan are general. The actual locations, sizes, and number of parks will likely be determined /none ofthe following manners: ° The Plan will beused to determine the number of acres of parkland dedication required of developers and to regulate the best locations for those parks. The Plan will he used to locate desirable park sites before development occurs, and those sites Vi}| be purchased by the City or will be received as donations. ° Parks will be co -located with future school sites. In addition to the 1,260.80 acres of future "core" parkland, the Plan proposes that selected portions of the 1 floo6o6dn within College Station be identified and used to provide for linkages between parks, schools, homes and businesses, as described in Section 3 (Lum6 Use Plan). These lands may be preserved in either public or private hands; however, it is recommended that the City require that developers provide an easement to the City, adjacent to the flomdp|a<n, for the construction of trails and for access of maintenance personnel and vehicles. Additional opportunities for the preservation of open apace exist with the assistance of private groups such as the Nature Conservancy of Texas, the Sierra Club, or other non-profit organizations. In order to benefit from these groups, asurvey will berequired that identifies sites that may warrant preservation. These sites may include post oak savanna, native prairies, wetlands, orother significant nmturalsites. ''"""p""'" �� p'"p"�="to be linked co���n�r �m open space °cannections° in order to complete the open space system. Because these systems are connections and do not follow any natural feoture, the locations shown on the Park and Open Space Plan are general. While it is desirable that the connections be located in a manner that will incorporate some ofthe Cit/s scenic elements such as ponds and forests into the system, in some cases it may be necessary that they be located along property boundaries and public rights -of -way because of the difficulty associated with acquiring easements. Table No. 10shows the individual recommended park improvements 6v park zone and Figure No. 17 shows the Park and Open Space Plan. In all, a total of 1,280.80 acres of"core" ourNund is proposo6, comprised ofnnini-parks.neighborhood parks, and community parks. April 1997 Page 75 College Station Comprehensive Plan City of College Station, Texas N I r2 0 Table No. 10 - Future Core Parkland Hensel Park Future Park "I -A" Total - Zone 1 Eastgate Park Lions Park Merry Oaks Park Oaks Park Existing park site Parkway Park Richard Carter Park Thomas Park Future Park "2-A" Future Park "2-B" Total - Zone 2 Central Park Cy Miller Park Wolf Pen Creek Park Future Park "3-A" Total - Zone 3 Raintree Park Windwood Park Future Park "4-A" Total - Zone 4 Brothers Pond Park Edelweiss Park Georgie K. Fitch Park Longmire Park Southwood Park Jack & Dorothy Miller Park Southwood Park expansion (5-A) Future Park "5-B" Future Park "S-C" Future Park "5-D" Future Park "5-E" Total - Zone 5 1.00 1.50 1.90 4.40 2.50 2.50 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 6.00 Total Acres Ity 29.70 29.70 20.00 -- 20.00 20.00 29.70 49.70 -- -- 1.00 -- -- 1.50 4.60 -- 4.60 7.50 -- 7.50 10.20 -- 10.20 __ -_ 1.90 7.40 -- 7.40 -- 16.10 16.10 -- 35.00 35.00 -- 35.00 35.00 29.70 86.10 120.20 __ 47.20 47.20 -- __ 2.50 19.47 -- 19.47 15.00 -- 15.00 34.47 47.20 04.17 13.00 -- 13.00 __ __ 1.00 15.00 -- 15.00 20.00 -- 29.00 16.10 -- 16.10 10.90 -- 10.90 11.30 -- 11.30 4.20 -- 4.20 -- 44.70 44.70 10.00 -- 10.00 -- 17.00 17.00 -- 40.00 40.00 -- -- 2.00 -- -- 2.00 -- -- 2.00 52.50 101.70 160.20 April 1997 Page 76 College Station Comprehensive Plan City of College Station, Texas Table No. 10 (continued) otal ZO cres & Anderson Park - 8.90 - 8.90 Bee Creek Park - - 43.50 43.50 BrisonPurk - 920 - 920 Fairview Park 1.80 - - 1.80 Gabbard Park - 10.70 - 10J0 LemontreePurk - 15.40 - 15.40 Wayne Smith Park - - 26.28 26.28 Future Park ^&'A^ - - 35.00 35.80 Future Park ^6-8^ 2.00 - - 100 Future Park ^^6'C^ 2.00 - - 2.00 Total - Zone 6 5.80 44.20 104.78 IS4.78 7 \8/oodvvuyPork - 6.46 - 6.45 Future Park °7'A" - - 40.00 40{0 lFotal-ZoneJ - 6.4S 40.00 46'45 8 Emerald Forest Park - 4.50 - 4.50 Sandstone Park - 15.00 - 15.00 \&oo6cmsekPark - 6.60 - 6.60 Total ' Zone 8 - 28,10 - 26,10 9 Future Park"9-A' - - 40.00 40.00 Future Park "9'8" - 10.00 - 10.00 Total ~ Zone 9 - 10,00 40.08 50'00 10 Future Park^1O-A' - - 50.00 50.00 Future Park '^1O'8^ - 15.00 - 15.00 Future Park ^^1O-C^ - 15.00 - 1510 Future Park^10-D^ - 13.00 - 15.00 Future Park ^^lO'E^ - 15.00 - 15.00 Future Park^iO'F^ - 15.00 - 15.00 Total - Zone 10 - 75.08 50'00 125-80 11 Pebble Creek Park - 10.20 - 10.20 Future Park ^11-A^ - 15.00 - 16.00 Future Park ^11'B^ - 15.00 - 15.00 Future Park ^11'C^ - 10.00 - 10.80 Future Park ^11'D^ - - 40.00 40.00 lFotm!-ZomeI 1 - 50.20 40.00 90.20 April 1997 Page 77 College Station Comprehensive Plan City of College Station, Texas Table No. 10 (continued) E'ark' Park Total Parks (acres) i T0t I Zone, ::Narne:Acres Neighborhd. ornmunt 12 Existing park site Ism 15.00 Future Park "12-A' 50.00 50.00 Future Park "l 2-B" 15.00 15.00 Total - Zone 12 30.00 50.00 80.00 13 Future Park "13-A" 50.00 50.00 Future Park "13 -B" 15.00 15.00 Total - Zone 13 15.00 50.00 65.00 14 Future Park "14-A" -- 40.00 40.00 Future Park "14-B" 10.00 10.00 Total - Zone 14 MOO 40.00 50.00 is Future Park "I 5-A" 50.00 50.00 Future Park "15-B" 15.00 15.00 Total - Zone IS 15.00 50.00 65M 16 Future Park "l 6-A" 40.00 40.00 Future Park "l 6-B" 10.00 10.00 Total - --one " 4 10.00 40.00 50.00 17 Future Park "I 7-A" 15.00 15.00 Total - zone 17 15.00 MOO TOTAL 19.70 471.62 769.48 1,260.80 [Note: A future Athletic Complex may be developed either as a part of a future community park or as a separate regional park.] April 1997 Page 78 College Station Comprehensive Plan City of College Station, Texas Mini -Park Improvements A total of 19.7 acres (1.6%) are dedicated to mini -parks. The existing 6 mini -parks - Eastgate, Lions, Parkway, Cy Miller, Windwood, and Fairview - comprise 9.7 acres. Five new 2-acre mini -parks are added for a total of 11 mini -parks (an additional 10 acres). The City°s current policy is to minimize the designation of mini -parks due 1to the high costs associated with equipping and maintaining numerous small parks. It is recommended that in College Station, new mini -parks be limited to developed areas that have no available land for larger facilities, but that do not currently have adequate park acreage. In undeveloped areas, the acreage that would have been set aside for mini -parks should be added to the acreage of the new neighborhood parks. A total of 471.62 acres (37.4%) are dedicated to neighborhood parks. The 20 existing neighborhood parks - Merry Oaks, Oaks, Undeveloped Park Site, Richard Carter, Wolf Pen Creek, Raintree, Brothers Pond, Edelweiss, Georgie K. Fitch, Longmire, Jack & Dorothy Miller, Anderson, Brison, Gabbard, Lemontree, Woodway, Emerald Forest, Sandstone, Woodcreek, and Pebble Creek - comprise 216.62 acres. Eighteen new neighborhood parks are added for a total of 38 neighborhood parks (an additional 255 acres). New neighborhood parks are proposed in park zones 1, 3,4, and 9-17. It is recommended that future neighborhood parks be 10 to 15 acres in size in order to provide fewer park sites to equip and maintain which is in accordance With existing policy. Community Park Improvements A total of 769.48 acres (61.0%) are dedicated to community parks. The 6 existing community parks - Hensel, Thomas, Central, Southwood, Bee Creek, and Wayne Smith - comprise 207.48 acres. One existing community park is proposed to expand by 17.0 acres. Thirteen new community parks are added for a total of 19 community parks (an additional 545 acres). New community parks are proposed in park zones 2, 5,6, 7, and 10-16. April 1997 Page 80 College Station Comprehensive Plan City of College Station, Texas Regional Park Improvements It is recommended that the City preserve all of the 100 year floodplain as open space connectors in order to develop regional trail network to link new developments as well as existing and future parks. In the development ofregional parks, it is also recommended that the City continue to find opportunities to preserve wetlands, native prairie sites, post oak savanna's and other natural and ecologically significant areas for regional parks. It is also recommended that the City continue toimplement many of the recommendations of the Brazos 2020 study such as rnoWng open space and trail linkages along Carter Creek into Bryan. Athletic Complexes InCollege Station, little league baseball has been growingoturate equal to the population growth, and soccer has been growingata rote higher than the population. This growth has placed a great strain on the existing park facilities and created uneed for anew athletic complex. It is recommended that any new athletic complex be adjacent to non- residential land uses; or if located adjacent to residential uses` !urge vegetative buffers o6ou|6 be provided between the complex and the surrounding residential use. /\suitable location for this 150 usable acre facility is being studied by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and the City will acquire the most suitable site for this facility Within the next two years. A1the present, there isnomunicipal golf course within College Station. Golfing facilities are located on the main campus of the University, at Pebble Creek, a commercial driving range on SH 6^ and a par 3 golf course onSH8. The Pebble Creek course |sproposed tobeexpanded in the near future. There are no indications at this time that a municipal golf course isneeded. However, should the demand surface, it is recommended that the City consider purchasing some of the Ooodp\ain and 0oodprone areas along either Carter Creek or Lick Creek for o future golf course. A minimum of 150 to 200 acres vvoo\d 6eneeded, depending onthe course's layout. April 1997 Page 81