Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/06/2001 - Regular Agenda - Parks Board1. Call to order. 2. Hear visitors. 3. Pardon — Consider requests for absences of members from meeting. 4. Approval of minutes from Regular Meeting of February 13, 2001. 5. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning the Parks and Recreation Board Fiscal Year 2002 budget issues and priorities. 6. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning the user fee study. 7. Discussion, consideration, and possible appointment of a subcommittee to study the feasibility of building a skateboard park. 8. Discussion, consideration, and possible action regarding the College Station Recreational Sports Association. 9. Presentation, discussion, and possible action concerning a proposal for park land, dedication. 10. Consent Items: — Capital Improvement Projects Report. — Discussion of next meeting date and agenda. 11. Adjourn The building is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available. Any request for sign interpretive services must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To take arrangements call (979) 764-3517 or (TDD) 1-800-735-2989. Agendas posted on Internet Website http://www.ci.college-station.tx.us and Cable Access Channel 19. ***Minutes*** CITY OF COLLEGE STATI® PARKS & RECREATION ADVISOR) Regular Meeting Tuesday, March 6, 2001 Central Park Conference Root 1000 Krenek Tap Road 7:00 p.m. Staff Present: Steve Beachy, Director of Parks and Recreation; Eric Ploeger, Assistant Director; Kris Startzman, Board Secretary. Board Members Present: Glenn Schroeder; Bill Davis; Glen Davis; John Crompton, Alternate; Laura Mood, Alternate. Board Members Absent: Chris Barzilla, Chair; George Dresser, Co -Chair; John Nichols; Jon Turton. Guest: Jeff Kersten, Director of the Office of Management and Budget. VisIltors: Larry Farnsworth, 4012 Hunter Creek, College Station. 1. Call to order: The meeting was called to order at 7:04 p.m. 2. Hear visitors: No visitors spoke at this time. 3. Pardon — Consider requests for absences of members from meeting: John Crompton made a motion to accept the absences of Chris Barzilla, George Dresser, John Nichols, and Jon Turton as excused. Glen Davis seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 4. Approval of minutes from Regular Meeting of February 13, 2001: John C. made a motion to approve the minutes from regular meeting of February 13, 2001. Glenn Schroeder seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 5. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning the Parks and Recreation Board Fiscal Year 2002 budget issues and priorities: Steve stated that for the Fiscal Year 2001, the Board had been asked to give its input into the budget process and that it was time to seek input again for the upcoming budget process. He introduced Jeff Kersten, who is responsible for the formation of the City's budget. Jeff handed out a list of the budget issues and concerns that the Parks and Recreation Board had voiced for Fiscal Year 2001 (see attachment). He stated that from those concerns, several items had been approved and incorporated into Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, March 6, 2001 Page I of 6 the current Fiscal Year 2001 budget (i.e. A&M Consolidated High School Tennis Court Lighting and Soccer Field Renovations). Glen D. asked what the time frame was to come up with a list of key issues. Jeff responded that the Budget Department would like to have the Board's feedback within 30 to 60 days. He stated that the information would be given to the City Council to review during their annual strategic planning retreat in May. They would consider advisory board input along with their strategic planning priorities during the retreat. Steve stated that City Management had attended several presentations by the Budget Department concerning the five-year financial forecast for the City. There are concerns that over the next couple of years some of the known impacts on the budget may make requests difficult to fund, particularly requests on items that would have on -going operational costs. Jeff added that a slowing in the national and state economy would affect revenue forecasts for the future. Steve stated that usually each year, there are some funds available for one-time cost items. He suggested several areas such as the Urban Forest Management Plan, a joint project with the College Station Independent School District to repair the surface of the jogging tract at Jack and Dorothy Miller Park, and a possible joint project with Texas A&M University for improvements to Hensel Park. Glen D. suggested distributing last year's budget issues along with the cur -rent Board goals and the City Council Strategic Issues to the members of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board for their review. He also suggested putting this item on an upcoming agenda. Steve agreed and stated that the Board is scheduled to have a joint meeting with the City Council on April 26, 2001. This item was for discussion only, and no motion was made. 6. Dlscussion, conrddeirafion, and possNe actnon conceirnhng the Useir Fee Study, Steve stated that this item was to update the Board concerning the User Fee Study of the Parks and Recreation Department that was conducted by a consulting firm (DMG Maximus). Steve stated that the Department did not have a recommendation at this time, but had received an initial report back from the consultants. He went on to say that the Department sent the report back to the consultants for some revisions and should have a final report soon. Steve stated that there would be a meeting with the Fees Subcommittee, the consultants, and Parks and Recreation Department staff on Tuesday, March 20, 2001, at 2:30 p.m., to review the report. There would also be a special Board meeting on Monday, March 26, 2001, at 7:00 p.m., to consider any fee recommendations. He went on to say that the recommendation of the Board would then go to the City Council for consideration on April 12, 2001. Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, March 6, 2001 Page 2 of 6 Steve stated that once the City gets the information back from the consultants, it would need to be applied to the Fiscal and Budgetary Policy Statement, Appendix "F." He went on to say that there are three levels of fee support: ® Full fee support (80-100%) will be obtained from enterprise operations such as utilities, sanitation service, landfill, cemetery, and licenses and permits. ® Partial fee support (50-80%) will be generated by charges for emergency medical services, miscellaneous licenses and fines, and all adult sports programs. ® Minimum fee support (0-50%) will be obtained from other parks, recreational, cultural, and youth programs and activities. Glen D. asked if the Fees Subcommittee would receive a copy of the report before they met. Jeff stated that it might be possible to receive the Executive Summary prior to the meeting. This was an informational item only, and no motion was made. 7. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning Veterans Park and Athletic Complex: Steve stated that the Veterans Park and Athletic Complex Subcommittee met the previous week and reviewed estimates from ®'Malley Engineers. He stated that cost estimates were high for street and utility extensions due to the fact that they have to be oversized to accommodate the future growth of the park. The engineers have also given a recommendation to go from a 4" to an 8" base soil mixture on the soccer fields. Steve stated that as a result of the estimates, several alternate plans were recommended for the Phase I development of the park. Steve showed the Board a promotional video created to help raise funds for the future veterans memorial that would be the centerpiece of the park. He stated that three artists had been selected to begin work on designs for a memorial, and one winner would be chosen to build the actual memorial. Steve added that once the memorial was built, Veterans Park and Athletic Complex would not only be utilized for athletic purposes, but would also become a special place in the community. Eric Ploeger took the floor. He stated that the Department had received three price scenarios from the engineers, and had narrowed them down to two (alternates one and two). Alternate one would include four full-size soccer fields, two adult softball fields (no lights for either soccer or softball), restroom facilities, parking, street and utility extensions, landscaping, and an entrance area. The cost for alternate one was estimated at $1,936,790. Eric stated that there is approximately $1,850,000 available for the Phase I development of the park. He stated that even without lighting, the cost for development of alternative one would be approximately $100,000 over budget. Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, March 6, 2001 Page 3 of 6 Alternate two would include six full-size soccer fields (two lighted), restroom facilities, parking, street and utility extensions, landscaping, and an entrance area. The cost for alternate two was estimated at $1,549,800. Eric stated that the cost estimate for alternate two would bring the project within budget by a considerable amount of money, which would mean that: o The Department would be confident that there is a project available when it goes out to bid; ® Alternate two adds two soccer fields; and ® It gives the Department the ability to do more landscaping. After some discussion, Glen D. made a motion to recommend that ® alternative two be the Phase I development for the park; ® the first item in the next bond election be a five -field softball complex; and ® the subcommittee work with the staff to enhance the project's landscaping with the remaining funds available from the project. John C. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. Steve added that consideration would also be needed for an entryway to the park. The Board agreed to wait to see what the design of the memorial would look like, so that it could possibly be enhanced with the entryway. No motion was made. John C. suggested the possibility of working with Dr. Scott Shafer to apply for a trails grant for the park. Steve added that he had recently received word from the Development Services Department that the Planning and Zoning Commission had discussed the Highway 30/60 Corridor Study, and had recommended putting additional north/south connectors through Highway 30 to Highway 60. Several options that the Commission had discussed could possibly affect the memorial site area. Steve stated that the recommendations would go to the City Council for review on March 22, 2001, and that he would send the Board any information as he receives it. Glen D. asked Steve if the Board could be sent a copy of the approved master plan for the park. Steve said that a copy would be mailed to the Board. This was an informational discussion only, and no motion was made. 8. Discussion, consideration, and possible appointment of a subcommittee to study the feasibility of building a skateboard park: Steve stated that Parks and Recreation Department staff would be meeting with the Risk Management and Legal Departments on Tuesday, March 20, 2001 to discuss implementation of the project. Glen D. made a motion to appoint Laura Wood, George Dresser, and Jon Turton to the subcommittee to study the feasibility of building a skateboard park Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, March 6, 2001 Page 4 of 6 (pending George and Jon's agreement to serve on subcommittee). John Crompton seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 9. Discussion, consideration, and possible action regarding the College Station Recreational Sports Association: At the February 2001 Board meeting, there had been discussion regarding the dissolution of the Recreational Sports Association due to the fact that it had strayed from its original mission over the past several years and had become somewhat counterproductive. A recommendation had been made by the Board to seek input from the various user groups on the subject before taking any action. Glen D. said that a meeting date had been set, notification had been sent out to the various user groups, but only one person showed up for the meeting. He made a motion to dissolve the Recreational Sports Association, on the condition that Parks and Recreation Department staff continue to meet with the different user groups on an individual, periodic basis. John C. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. Steve stated that the only real difference now would be that coordination would become more individualized. He went on to say that he would send out a letter to the user groups informing them of the Board's decision. 10. Presentation, discussion, and possible action concerning a proposal for park land dedication: John C. stated that since the February 2001 meeting, several suggested revisions had been made to a proposal for park land dedication. He asked Steve what step to proceed with next. Steve stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission should be invited to comment on the memo. John C. asked about the time line to get the proposal on the agenda for their next meeting. Steve stated that it may be too late to put this item on the agenda, and that it would probably have to go to the City Council during the joint meeting on April 26th for their review first. John C. made a motion to forward the memo to the City Council for discussion during the joint meeting on April 26, 2001, and to then forward it to the Planning and Zoning Commission, requesting their comments on the proposal. Glen D. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. John C. stated that because of the concern that much of the land being dedicated by developers was in the floodplain and detention ponds, he had asked Dr. Scott Shafer to look into how other entities have dealt with land dedication issues during the development process that involved balancing floodplain neighborhood park needs (see memo). He stated that Dr. Shafer had received a number of responses. One response that he found interesting (included in the Board packets) came from Prince William County in Virginia, which had specific rules for park land dedication, where the standard is that any land dedication has to be 75% developable. He feels that something similar to those rules should be incorporated Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, March 6, 2001 Page 5 of 6 into the City's Park Land Dedication Ordinance. Steve stated that there would need to be discussions with the City Planners, as well as the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding any changes to the ordinance, and suggested adding this item to the agenda for discussion when the Board meets with the City Council on April 261h. John C. suggested asking Jane Kee (City Planner) to draft some language for the ordinance to take to the City Council meeting. Steve stated that Judith Downs (Greenways Coordinator) should also be involved in talks of an ordinance revision. John C. suggested putting this item on the next agenda for discussion, with feedback from Jane Kee and Judith Downs. Eric Ploeger stated that he had a meeting scheduled to discuss this topic and would obtain a copy of the park land dedication ordinance from Prince William County. This was a discussional item only, and no motion was made. 11. Consent Items: Capital Improvement Projects report: ® John C. asked for the status of the community park acquisition. Steve stated that it was not complete. City Council has authorized the purchase to take place, with the provision that the surface rights are cleared. Discussion of next meeting date and agenda: The next Parks and recreation Advisory Board regular meeting will be held on Tuesay, April 10, 2001. Several items requested to be placed on the agenda are: ® Discussion of park locations; ® Discussion of a skate board park; ® Update concerning Wolf Pen Creek; ® Parks and recreation Advisory Board Fiscal Year 2002 budget issues; and ® Discussion of Park Land Dedication Ordinance revision. 12. Adjourn: The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, March 6, 2001 Page 6 of 6 From- "Dresser, George" <g-dresser@tamu.edu> To- 'Kris Startzman' <KSTARTZMAN@ci.college-station.tx. us> Date: 3/1/01 2:42PM Subject: RE: Parks and Recreation Board Meeting Kris I am in Colorado Springs from March 5 to March 9 to teach a class for the National Highway Institute and request pardon for this absence. —Original Message From: Kris Startzman [mailto:KSTARTZMAN@ci.college-station.tx.us] Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 1:42 PIVI To: gschroeder@aggiecatholic.org; GDavis6264@aol.com; csb@cox-intemet.com; DAVISG@fabtexas.com; jturton@maii.st-joseph.org; lwood@medicine.tamu.edu; bill@pianoplace.net; jcrompto@rpts.tamu.edu; Jpn@tamu.edu; G-dresser@ftimail.tamu.edu Cc: Glenn Brown-, Ric Ploeger; Steve Beachy; Tom Brymer; lfamsworth@tamu.edu Subject: Parks and Recreation Board Meeting The next Parks and Recreation Board meeting will be held next Tuesday (March 6th) at 7:00 p.m. at the Central Park office, Please see attached agenda, along With the minutes from the February 13th meeting. Please let me know if you have any questions or changes to the minutes so that they can be con,ected and distributed before the meeting. Please also let me know as soon as possible if you will not be able to attend to ensure quorum requirements (I already have pardon requests from Jon Turton and John Nichols). I will be sending packets out this afternoon. Thanks, and hope to see you Tuesday:-) Kris College Station. Embracing the Past, Exploring the Future. From. PJohn Nichols" <AG-ECOJpn@taexgwAamu.edu> T©o <KSTARTZMANN ci.coll e-station. .us> note. 2/27/01 5:27PM subject. Request for Pardon Date: February 27, 2001 To: brie Startzm an From: John P. Nichols Subect: Pandora for Absence from CS Pare Board Meeting of March 6, 2001 Please submit this as my request to be pardoned for Being absent from the CS Parrs Board March meeting scheduled on Tuesday, [March 6, 2001. l will be out off tmAm on business and will not be abbe to attend. Thank you for considering and taking positive action on my request Sincerly, John P. NcWs Professor and Associate Head Department of Agricultural Economics Texas A&ill University College Station, Texas 77843-2124 Tel: 979-845-8401 Fax: 070-862-3019 Email- <jpn ffamu.edu> Prom. Jon Turt®n <jturt®n mall.st jcseph.®rg> T©- 'Kris Sta man°<KSTARTZMAN@ci.c®Ilegesstatl®n.tx.us> Date- 212710111:55AM SuNac t- Excused Absence Kris - I will be out ®f town on business during our neid Bard meeting on March 6th. I mould like t® ask for an excused absence. Have a good meeting, Jon TO: College Station City Council THROUGH: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: The Parks and Recreation Board SUBJECT: Acquisition of land for neighborhood parks prior to development. Introduction In an earlier meeting with the City Council in October 2000, the Parks Board presented a proposal requesting that the City Council consider acquiring land for neighborhood and community parks prior to development. The Council was concerned about the amount of money involved and had some questions about the general principle. This revised proposal is confined only to neighborhood parks which substantially reduces the costs, and provides the rationale for the general principle that the Council requested. In their strategies relating to Visions #4 and Recreation Board's input on the proposed prior to development. The interpretati 91 and Mr. Beachy was that it consisted�K (1) Development of a procedure for ply No parks in advance of development; (2) Establishment of criteria for defining desirable parkland; and (3) Establishment of procedures for making parks the focal points for the city's future growth. In our view the accomplishment of elements #2 and #3 is dependent upon a commitment to accomplish #1. Only if the city acquires parkland ahead of development will it be in a position to select optimum park sites in terms of design criteria, and ensure that parks are focal points. Problems with Present Practice Through its revisions of the parks dedication ordinance in 1999, Council established the principle that neighborhood parks should be financed by development in the neighborhood, since development creates the demand for parks. The existing ordinance requires that developers dedicate an acre of land per 100 single homes (or 134 multi -family units). Acquisition of land for neighborhood parks prior to development Page 1 of 3 Given this standard, the only individual developments required to dedicate 12 acres of land (the Parks Board's preferred minimum size) for a neighborhood park are those which plan to build 1200 single family homes. Developments of this size are unusual in College Station. Most are much smaller and, hence, the amount of land they are required to dedicate for neighborhood parks is too small to be used for that purpose. Consequently, the city frequently accepts the alternative dedication of cash in lieu of the land from developers. When sufficient cash accrues from these payments, then the city can purchase land for a neighborhood park. However, experience has shown that by that time, all the land most suited for a neighborhood park has been acquired for development. Invariably, the only land available for a neighborhood park is floodplain or retention pond land that developers cannot use, but which is also often inferior for use as a neighborhood park. The problem with present practice is illustrated by reviewing the composition of the six most recent neighborhood parks that the Board has approved in the past three years: Total acres 3.44 F'loodplain 1.71 Detention 0 F'loodplain & detention 1.71 Remaining 1.73 area 1 7.7428 9 0 5 8.26 13.91 11.01 0 6.41 0 5.68 .95 6.70 5.68 7.42 6.70 2.58 6.49 4.31 The city's current size requirements for neighborhood parks is 5 to 15 acres. Given the Council's desire to make parks neighborhood focal points and to expand their use to include a broader range of intergenerational activities with more passive park areas, we recommend that future neighborhood parks should be at the upper end of the present range i.e., 12-15 acres (this is approximately the same size as Thomas Park). We recommend the city issue Certificates of Obligation to purchase neighborhood park sites of 12-15 acres in advance of development. At $10,000 an acre, this would involve a commitment of $120,000 - $150,000 per park. These purchases would be made 5-7 years in advance of projected development using a similar timeframe to that used by the school district. The CO's would be repaid over time by the cash in lieu payments that the dedication ordinance requires developers to contribute for neighborhood parks. Acquisition of land for neighborhood parks prior to development Page 2 of 3 Concluding Comments 1. In our view, this recommended approach is the only realistic way to accomplish the goals laid out in strategies #4 and #8. 2. Such a foresighted investment will have a substantial positive impact on the quality of life in College Station in 2030. 3. There is precedent in the city at the community park level- -Central Park, Southwood Athletic Park and Lick Creek Park are good examples of proactive planning in the past. This approach has also been adopted in the development of the city's existing and proposed new business parks, and is used by the school district. 4. At this time we ask the Council to consider this proposal in principle. If it is consistent with the Council's aspirations, then we would welcome the opportunity to work with the Planning and Zoning Commission to bring forth detailed suggestions on how it would be implemented. Acquisition of land for neighborhood parks prior to development Page 3 of 3 FEB-26 01 13:43 FROM: -TO:. 979 764. 3737 PAGE:01 ILJI I II111101I011u31111 I'll I I 1 111111 IN III IJA Texas A&M University Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism Sciences X College Station, T 77843-2261 fax: (979) 845-0446 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET I Hill dilll llll Ili I Ill li,[ 1,11111111, 11111 1 du iIll Ill'i'll Iii.iii I' L I i I I, I 111 ''11 Ill 11, 11 . Ill hilillid, I I, ikil 1,111111 ill Date: gel f I ?"allv *' Time.- YOU SHOULD RECEIVE 3 PAGE(S), INCLUDING. THIS COVER SHEET IF YO U DO NOT RECEI VE ALL THE PAGES CALL AT (9 79) 9,!T- .111 11'..64 ��W ... ...... ... ...... ___­­ __ ­! 11 ill I FEE-26 01 13:44 FROM: TO:979 764 3737 PAGE:03 Jarompto Thu, 15 Feb s John sorry to have them dribUB in but here's another response to the dedication question, oa00000 Forwarded message Wows------- From: "Pakkala, Patti" <ppakkaW@PwcgoV-org> To: ...Scott Shafer... <sshaforrptsAamu-a u> Subject- RE: [tra -and-groenways) davMaper dedications Date sent, Thep 15 Feb 2001 14025042 -0500 S�,ott, �i�r� ire �rinc� V'Vllliam Counfiy, Vir��nia, use s�p��r�t� `��. tvv•--sort of. r i`1C� 1�S� �C"�5 u C �`,it,!t( i;f�?�•:a} <ai�' U! i'�!,U c-,a� Nrv�::t,tsu ! � r,-..S `YbJ- C•,�(1-i'�J'� do ilot �'tciVr �';i*��U�``y' �CattlC',� irk'' ?�SE'il�li6S ICl ti1E�St jt=;Us�,�t�ll�il ��! 1�1t" lL,�ii p�C;�}LJ,i)11 f �:iitC'�I Dili~IiJl7' lV 'ill: Vlii ci�z7 1�/'� ^] 11 i} p `A C� � Y^��" pP �PJfa� �I ti-�^1 t'�i _•�PQ�I'"11?.!��r� ��U C31.'�'f\1� ��-'•aIC�=�tic3ri~5 out o� s�9r!y tC•?a�l 1�3(�c.� ��'�Il,��lo;�. �v�s'�; 'JV i�ot '�`o tr'I�, r•e .ciUs��' t�°,�. � a�.,r����ln �. �; bul ��a�1�; `�r�� �•� �i�� deL �o�'�, y�.r�y .gin• 6• eta �-.iy�,.,Y,rl �'-t':C;�!!`:'�~,=' `b°Jt? �'c.3�d� c Sb�fl��iir� ��ic�,t ci`�V' ��Cl��i �✓✓�'��l«� i�'J US 1?�'� to '�J c? �t'e �;. L��a��',,L Fi �:���%', <u�J� a"v`L l,l�,����°'✓ �,`..5-� {I o'o l� �J�:�'"1 �I .a 3-�i t;��? °J,F,,, �_ilii`•..a. tfa).;.1.1,' \"S1':f¢l t��c"..�.io`J� 'r�d.u',x(�� � C,iI� r�.,��i �r.�rl.;a'r`c�l 1;a�!i �`'� �tt,,� a� � ;�a L '�'�#}'Y!r '•�-���1',��. �.'�'t '®�' �r�. ;�': !•,Y � i��� .7 �`/ �� c rye , � � ,� �. ' ry" _� � � ,pr �.:.:z r^ � ',,,..I ``� � ri � r � � � � I-- �t I L ! ✓ . �:.'� .�, r.'�' y JOHN CROMPTON Sat, 17 Feb 2001 0 017; 5 FEE-26 01 13-43 FPOM2 TOa979 764 3737 PAGE-02 •r!.'ic��s `Yk� V CC i.../* .el;tyC1 14420 BristowRoad 11 Manassas, VA 20112 r 7 9 2- 4 2 "" • From., Scott Shafer[S TPosshafer rpts.tamu.edu] • Seft Thursday, February 15, 2001 12:01 PM a To: traiisandgreenways yahoogroups,cam a Subject, [traHs-and-greenwaysj deve9oper dedications +��v'F�IOom�nt p!'CC�'SS that !nVi'v��lJ '��'ariCEr'!� Ti00d�,i;�lrt �J�3sti;t� > g���n °�1�3,'s and oat of floodpiain nci•�h�orhoud pars n��ds'% 1>11� h�v� a > Ic�cai gre4nways plan that encoura �s acceptin• floodpiINI so that > trail c�nn�ctions end vvildlif� vaiu�s can �� int�•�rat�d across > d-v�loprrt�nt Hov^a�:ve✓r ��ci1 sub��vsion is ;�Isc•��n n��;ci of the > d�v�!opm�n o son�.e t ad!ai0nal pal` ��cilii��z o!�t Ot to > Tioodp'a n. !t is proving to b� hard to ba"anc� the t�fdo typ�'s c�F > "opa�n space" in tr!� d>~dicat.on process. t'�ny �Cn�'q't,%i�d�E-.' C}� h+C'N Olil�!"� h,��✓`t� �i!��i'"V'11t11 Sl..i�,i'`1 Sltl��iiUP"�S� �,3�i z l' CiJilE" p:7!^I 1S }�° JfC rlrnt OOr CJli.'"lan'il"'� that n ^V�`'�3i. 4rltil > tii iS? a a Scott Shaffer * Wiege Station, TX --------------------- • `-!oC Groups Sponsor PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT UP PROJECT UST FY 2001 3 Brison Park Improvements 1 Brothers Park Improvements I Business Center Landscaping Project 2 Castlegate Park Design 1 Cemetery Land Acquisition 3 Central Park Improvements 2 Community Park Acquisition 2 Gabbard Park Improvements 1 Hallaran Pool Filters & Coating (FY'01) 2 High School Tennis Court Lights (FY'01) Indoor Grant Application for Joint CSISD Project 1 Lemontree Park Playground 1 Lick Creek Grant Application 2 Lick Creek Trails Grant Project 2 Lincoln Improvements PK0100 In Construction PK0084 $32,000 $250,000 3/31/01 7/31/01 In Design GG9705 In Design 4/31/01 1 $54,600 GG9905 $275,000 '98 G.O. PK0101 $17,000 '98 G.O. Underway PK9948 $520,000 '98 Bond 6/1/01 In Design PK0102 $78,000 '98 G.O. 9/31/01 On Hold PK0106 $120,000 FY'01 12/31/01 Agreement PK0109 $91,500 FY'01 9/1/01 Complete Suspend until 01 Complete PK0066 $22,000 '98 G.O. 12/31/01 1 /31 /01 Complete '98 G.O. Grant $126,265 C.D.B.G. Approved Funds CD1292 $90,000 FY'01 10/1/01 11 /31 /01 1/19/01 Revised: February 28, 2001 2 Merry Oaks Improvements 1 Merry Oaks Playground Replacement In Construction PK0088 $25,000 2 Millenium Winds Improvements (FY `01) Out to bid $7,195 2 Oaks Park Bridge PK0067 $28,000 1 Parking Garage Landscape Plan Complete 1 Raintree Park Improvements' In Construction PK0068 $44,000 3 Shenandoah Park Development $48,000 Southwood Soccer Field 1 Renovation (FY `01) Bids Underway 1 Thomas Park Improvements Complete PK9931 $84,000 2 Thomas Pool Improvements On hold PK0104 $19,000 Thomas Pool Leak Investigation & 1 Repair (FY `01) Complete PK0107 $25,000 1 Veterans Park Phase I In Design PK9941 $2,120,000 2 Veterans Park Water Feasibility (FY `01) Complete PK0110 $25,000 1 West District Maintenance Shop Complete PK9927 $501,000 1 Willow Branch Tennis Courts Complete PK0074 $125,000 2 Woodway Park Development $468,600 Wolf Pen Creek Tree Planting In Design '98 G.O. Replacem ent Funds FY `01 '98 G.O. C.O. '98 G.O. Ded FY `01 '98 G.O. '98 G.O. FY '01 '98 G.O. FY `01 '98 G.O. DIED Zone 3 Dedication 9/31 /01 3/31 /01 6/31/01 12/31 /01 12/1 /01 4/31/01 5/31 /01 12/31/01 11/31/01 2/01 5/1 /02 10/1 /01 2/01 2/31 /01 2/16/01 3/1 /01 2/16/01 7/31 /01 O:/parks/Projects/CI P/cip2001.doc OTHERS 1 City Center Concepts Complete 1 City Hall Atrium Complete George Bush at Wellborn Road to Texas 3 Avenue Medians 2 Northgate Park (FY `01) 2 Raintree Land Acquisition On hold 1 Wolf Pen Creek trails In Design 1 Wolf Pen Creek Design Charette Complete Public Hearing Skateboard/Roller Hockey Park Jan 30, 2001 GG0102 $8,500 WPC TIF PK0073 $162,000 FY00 SLA 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 5/1 /01 2/23/01 0:/parks/Projects/CI P/cip2001.doc Fso nna Steve Beachy To- Julie Middleton Date- 2115/012:29P sunb�sctl- Re: Fas: Pony League Field Thank Tau very much for your comments and suggestions regarding the baseball program. l am farnillar with the Pony League baseball program and have Yearked with It In smother com u nbi. As you know our facilities are designed to senve the Little League format, which has been the predominant youth baseball program in our community for many years. We have no plans to add any additional baseball fl ids at the present nne. However, we are In the process of developing a long-range strategic plan for the Parke & Recreation Department and we uw ll take your comments into consider ion. Actual development of any nevv baseball fields will require authorization ®f funds and, acquisition ®f additlo G i land for this purpose_ As you knav^F this is a long -terms process that requires several square. l wish that w could infer a more positive response to your request. Unfortunately, we do not have the resourcesto meet gall the demands for saivices, at the current time. `hanks you once again for your l ime and interest. l will fonward your conce °� us to our Parks & Recreation Advisory Board for their infun radon. The City ou allege Station did aasslst the City of ftan in improving the llghts an the H aswei Fields that you mentioned. Steve Beachy Director of Parks & Recreation Cdieg,e Station, Texas (972-1) 7&4-13 >>> Julie Middleton <middleton5@juno.com> 02107/0 V 01:36PM >>> At your suggestion, we are sending this e-mail icy request that the Parks Department consider adding? a Pony League size baseball field to the College Station facilities. Pony League is designed for play by youth ages 13 and 14. Pony League baseball is played on a rleld with 80' base paths and outfield fences are typically 276 from home prate. In comparison, the exisfing Junior/Savior League fields are played on a field v4hi 90' Base paths and outfield fences of 300° from home plate-. In many cases, the kids playing baseball of this level have a hard time physically adjusting from 60' base paths and 200° feua s. As a result, many kids leave our baseball programs because the cannot physically compete. That is why is important to give them the intermediate step provided by bony League size fields. Ali Pony League g"yes care currently being played on two fields at the Sine Caswell Park In Bryan, Participants include players from Bryan, College Station, Caldwell, Bremond, Hearne, Iola and Navasota. In 1999, there were 8 testae consisting of 13 players and, in the 2000 season, the number of teams increased to 1®ji?hh 4 players. Because of the increased number of teems and only Wo fields on which to play, the number of games had to be limited. The recent Games of T exas held In Bryan/College Station uflize-d the Haswell fields to lost e baseball tournament. if there had been more fields available, we may have been able to attract even more teems into this tournament. Also, there is scheduled a spring tournament to be held every wealtand made of teams from Quell Vailey, Brenham, Conroe and Waller. `these visiting teams bring 12-14 players each (not to mention parents and sl lhgsa) By the way, they all like to come to College Station. There are Pony League fields located In Richmond, Suga land, Catty and 'Westbury, All of these fields lost tournaments year round. There is more than sufficient local interest to play tournaments locally if additional fields were available. We believe that adding a Rony League field In College Station %All allow more players to participate and attract players, families, and money to College Station. Thank you for your time towards this effort= Sincerely, Mich ael & Julie MiddlWon Mike & Shearon bolt Clay & Stacy Rlebe GET IN T E NET ACCESS FROM JJ UNU Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for JoIn Juno todeyl For your FREE sof-Ware, visit Cc-'C o Glenn Brown, Kris Startzman', Rio G loeger CITY OF COLLEGE STI A ON Conference Center 1300 George Bush Drive College Station, TX 77840 Telephone: (409) 764-3720 FAX: (409) 764-3513 Internet: www.ci.college-station.tx.us To: College Station Parks and Recreation Board From: Conference Center Advisory Committee Reference: Request to visit Parks and Recreation Board meetings Date: February 13, 2001 One of the Conference Center Advisory Committee's goals for Year 2001 is to Improve Communications and Relationships with the Parks and Recreation Board Members. We believe it would help the committee better service the Parks and Recreation Board, if the Conference Center Advisory Committee members were to attend a Parks and Recreation Board meeting from time to time. The Conference Center Advisory Committee, Conference Center Supervisor and Secretary meets the second Tuesday of the month from 5:15 p.m. to 6:15 p.m. We review revenues, client usage, policy revisions, and special requests from clients. The Conference Center Advisory Committee continues to be tremendously pleased with the increased usage of the Conference Center by a wide variety of citizenry in and around the Brazos Valley. In addition, we applaud the hard work of the Conference Center staff and want you to know how much we enjoy our association with them. We wish the Parks and Recreation Board continuing success in the Year 2001 and request that the board consider endorsing the Conference Center Advisory Committee as visitors to your meetings from time to time. Sincerely, Conference Center Advisory Committee Mollie Gui , Chair Fr n Lamb, Vice Chair -°� Eileen Sather Ed Holdredge Ann Conner Implement a "Business Center" for clients featuring use of a fax machine, copy machine, telephone and computer. 2. Propose improved service for parking at Conference Center. 3. Develop an appreciation program for part-time staff. 4. Add user's age, ethnicity and purpose of the meeting to the current record keeping of number of participants using the center. 5. Improve communications and relationships with the Parks and Recreation Board Members and the Conference Center Advisory Committee. r- J9V- The City of College Station, Texas �4*4 goo Embracing the Past, Exploring the Future. P.O. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue 0 College Station, TX 77842 m (979) 764-3500 www.ci.college-station.tx.us February 20, 2001 Mr. Bob Presley 10995 Woodlands Drive College Station, TX 77845 Thank you for your recent letter regarding the discontinuation of the "Straight Shot" running event. Last fall, we completed an internal analysis of all of the programs offered by the Parks and Recreation Department and made the decision to drop this event along with several other programs offered in the past. This decision was based upon the participation levels as well as the amount of resources required for each event. The increased demand for services in other areas require us to reallocate our staff and funding to those programs that provide the greatest benefit to the community. We will continue to evaluate our programs on an annual basis and make adjustments as necessary. From this, we will try to be more responsive to identified community needs. Thank you once again for your time and interest. 91=1 Stephen Beachy Director College Station Parks & Recreation copies: Glenn Brown, Assistant City Manager Parks & Recreation Board Home of Texas A&M University 10995 Woodlands Drive College Station, TX 77845 City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department 1000 Krenek Tap Road College Station, TX 77840 Sirs: Someone told me recently that there would be no "Straight Shot" race this year. If true, that's a shame. The number of races Parks and Rec sponsors has steadily decreased in recent years and is now apparently going to zero. I know it costs money to sponsor these races but it costs money to maintain the parks and to sponsor other events too. Give us runners a break. We need a little motivation to keep us training. Maybe you could work with some local company or organization to sponsor at least a few races each year. Sincerely, Bob Presley Regular Meeting Tuesday, January 9, 2000, 5:15p.m. College Station Conference Center MEMBERS PRESENT Mollie Guin (Chair), Fran Lamb (Vice Chair), Ed Holdredge, Eileen Sather, Ann Conner None STAFF PRESENT Grace Calbert, Conference Center Facility Supervisor Nita Hilburn, Conference Center Secretary/Event Coordinator CALL TO ORDER Mollie Guin called the Conference Center Advisory Meeting to order at 5:30p.m. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Molly requested the minutes of November 2000 Regular meeting of the Conference Center Advisory Committee be reviewed and approved. Fran made a motion to approve the minutes as written. Eileen Sather seconded the motion. There was no discussion. Motion passed. No regular meeting held in December. OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS The committee welcomed Ann Connor, the newest Conference Center Advisory Committee Member. The Conference Center Advisory Committee reviewed the goals for 2001. REVENUE REPORTS Revenues for November 2000 were $12,224.52 versus November 1999 of $11,172.72 Number of clients served in November 2000 were 9059 vs. 8031 November 1999. Revenues for December 2000 were $ 9440.26 verses December 1999 of $9895.29 Number of clients served in December 2000 were 6760 versus 7073 December 1999 ADJOURN Mr. Holdredge made a motion to Adjourn the meeting. Fran seconded the motion. Meeting was adjourned at 6:30pm. The next meeting will be held at the College Station Conference Center on Tuesday February 13,2000, at 5:15pm. Respectfully submitted, Nita Hilburn, Recording Secretary Senior Advisory Committee Regular Meeting Monday, February 26, 2001 10:00ani 'Fhe Est Members Present: Phyllis Dozier, Betty Lorne, Wendell Horne, Janes Boone, Carol Parzen, Dill Lay, Marry Jo Lay, Joanna Yeager, Annie Lee Finch, Vallie Broussard, Dill Kling and Florrace Kling. Members Absent: Dill Lancaster, Mary Lancaster and Helen Siegel Visitors. Courtney Jester and Rebecca McAlphin Staff Present- Marci Rodgers �. 'Welcome- Bill Lay, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 10o05am M Approval of January 29, 2001 minutes- The minutes were approved. lll. Report on TRAPS con fl erence o Members attending the 'texas Recreation and Parks Society annual conference held at Del Lago on Labe Conroe included Wendell Horne, Dill and Marry Jo Lay, Annie Lee Finch and Kelly Brittain, a student from the Eisenhower program. Those who attended spore briefly about the sessions they attended and shared information. Trends in facilities for seniors in Texas have been stand-alone centers, but most states are seeing the benefits of family or community centers. One topic of interest was the woad 66seniorrs99 and the need for a more positive word to dune mature adults. Leon Younger who was the speaker for the session titled, "Senior Trends in Parrs and Recreation99 said that when you look at ages 50 and over we are dealing with four generations and categorizing all into one group will not work. Luring the conference we learned of many facilities for seniors that would be beneficial for the committee to visit. ITT. Eisenhower Program report: Rebecca McAlphin distributed copies of the survey the students have created for mailing. Rebecca explained that the survey is currently in the review process by the University and should be ready for mailing the following week. Approximately, 200-300 surreys will be randomly mailed from the names and addresses received from the appraisal district list of residents 65 and over who have filed for exemption. Rebecca explained that they also have a list of residents who are not homeowners and live in apartments or assisted living centers, A focus group will be surveyed if time allows for more detail questions. Five students will be attending the American Society on Aging and the National Council on the Aging joint conference in New Orleans on March 8-11. Manny of the sessions deal with senior centers. V. Senior Services Coordinator report: report ®n file The committee discussed visiting centers and suggested that we travel t® Houston and Austin area for a day trip and that Saturdays might be considered so that the students could attend. VI. Next meeting. Next month the meeting is scheduled for Monday, March 26th. Mares explained that the next meeting may be scheduled at the Annex due to a conflict in classes at the EXIT. VIR. Adjourn: The meeting was adjourned at 110o50am The building is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available. Any request for sign interpretive services must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To make arrangements call (409) 764-3517 or (TDD) 1-800-735-2989. Agendas posted on Intemet Website httn://www.ci.college-station.tx.us. and Cable Access Channel 19. ,&5" *109MN l(,%,JLLEGE STATION P O. Box 9960 Memld�ifdumAvenue - College Station, TX 77842 Tel: 409 764 3500 TO: Parks and Recreation Board Members FROM: Kris Startzman, Board Secretary DATE: March 16, 2001 SUBJECT: Monday, March 26" Special Meeting. I have included the following informational items in this packet for your review. 1. The agenda for the Special Meeting that will be held on Monday, March 26"' at 7:00 p.m. at the Central Park Office (please note the meeting will be held on a Monday, instead of Tuesday). 2. The executive summary for the Fee Study that was conducted by DMG Maximus (the consultants that were hired by the City of College Station to review the current Parks and Recreation Department fee structure). 3. 1 have also included a Park land dedication ordinance project review checklist concerning park land dedication requirements for the Butler-COCS tract. 4. One item on the April agenda will be a follow up discussion concerning the Parks and Recreation Board Fiscal Year 2002 budget issues. I have included a copy of the Board's Fiscal Year 2001 budget issues, current goals, and City Council Strategic Issues for your review prior to the meeting. 5. During the March 6 1h meeting, there was discussion concerning several possible recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission to put additional connectors through Highways 30 and 60 as a result of the Highway 30/60 Corridor Study. This could possibly affect Veterans Park and Athletic Complex. I have included the approved Master Plan for your review. Recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission will go to the City Council during their March 22 nd meeting. Please don't hesitate to call me if you should have any questions. cc: Steve Beachy, Director of Parks and Recreation Home of Texas A&M University ***AGENDA*** CITY OF COLLEGE STATION PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BO Special Meeting Monday, March 26,2001 Parks Conference Room j 1000 Krenek Tap Road 7:00 p.m. 1. Call to order. 2. Hear visitors. 3. Pardon — Consider requests for absences of members from meeting. 4. Presentation, discussion, and possible action concerning the user fec study and recommendations for FY2002 parks and recreation user fees. 5. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning park lani- dedication requirements for the Butler - COCS Tract. 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 (TIT) I- 800-735-2989. Agendas posted on Internet Website http://www.ci.college- station.tx.us and Cable Access Channel 19. Date Received: March 5,2001 Park Zone: 6 Name of Development: Butler-Cocs Tract Applicant:Parkcrest Builders (William Austin) Address:5851 San Felipe Suite 200 City/State: Houston,Texas Zip: 77057 Phone Number: 713-266-0414 . FAX: Engineer/Planner: Veronica Moraan Address: 511 Universtiv Dr. City/State: Colleae Station,Texas , Zip: 77840 Phone Number: 979-260-6963 FAX: 260-3564 E-mail: v0.mittchelland moraan.com Single Family Dwelling Units: Multi -family Dwelling Units: 96 Total Land Requirement:.71 Proposed Dedication: 0 Has the Planning & Zoning Commission's approval been obtained? No Acquisition Costs: Single Family Fee ($148/dwelling unit): Multi -family Fee ($112/dwelling unit): $112 x 96= $10.752 Total Fee: $10,752 Acres Single Family Fee ($309/dwelling unit): Multi -family Fee ($233/dwelling unit): $233 x 96=$22,368 Total Single Family Fee: ($457/Dwelling Unit): Total Multi -family Fee ($345/Dwelling Unit): $345 x 96=$33,120 Have development plans.and specifications been approved by the Parks & Recreation Board? No - Is the proposed park less than five (5) acres? n/a If yes, staff recommends: Cash donation Is there an existing neighborhood park that can serve the proposed development? Yes,Southwest Park (undeveloped) If yes, staff recommends: Cash donation Is the proposed park dedication in compliance with the City Comprehensive Plan and the Park Master Plan? Yes Comments: 1. Island in the 100-year floodplain? No Percentage: Comments: b. Does the location require users to cross an arterial road? not if goinq to Southwest Park c. Topography: N/a d. Trees/Scenery: n/a 2. a. Is the land adjacent to a school? no b. Restricted access: no c. Is there screening if the park joins a non-residential use? no d. Park perimeter percentage that abuts a street: e. Do streets abutting the park comply with the Thoroughfare Plan? • Parks & Recreation Board: Planning & Zoning Board: City Council: OAParks\Forms\Admin\Park Land Dedication Ordinance Checklist.dot Vision Statement #4 4'Asaresult of our efforts citizens will be enriched byerange of cultural arts and recreational opportunities provided through citywide initiatives and collaborative ° Libraries ° Performing arts a Teen center 0 Parks 0 Athletic activities 0 Recreation ° Public art 0 Festivals 0 nxuaeuona Parks and Recreation Department 1. Conduct aspace needs study for Parks and Recreation needs. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board provided the following input onkey budget and strategic planning issues for next fiscal year. 1. Urban Forestry Plan — provide the necessary support to create onUrban Forestry Plan. One suggestion was to create anadhoc advisory board. 2. Strategic integration ofsports marketing and special events promotions. —Haveaonheoive effort for sports marketing and special events promotions. This would involve the Parks Department activities in this area, the Convention and Visitors Bureau, and the Sports Foundation. 3. Frisbee Golf unold landfill site —Cononnitteeexpreoaedodemipetohavethisinc|udedona C|Plist. They also wanted tomove upthe development ofthe site. 4. 30/6^0 Corridor issue — Committee was concerned about this study as it relates to the Veterans Park and Athletic Complex. Concerns include the issue ofaconnection from Coppedie|dDrive toHighway 3O. 5. Tennis court lights at the High School — Provide funding to light six existing courts for public use. O. Greenways Implementation — Encourage the earlier acquisition of greenways in accordance with the approved plan. 7. Soccer fields policy and use issues — Improve the turf conditions of the 12 existing competitive soccer fields. 8. Lincoln Center leadership development and program enhancement — Support the goals of the Lincoln Center Advisory Committee. Vision Statement #4 As a result of our efforts citizens will be enriched by a range of cultural arts and recreational opportunities provided through citywide initiatives and collaborative efforts. Strategy #1 More emphasis on Making Parks More Intergenerational Implementation Plans a. Direct Parks Board to place more emphasis on "passive" parks, i.e. benches, walking paths Strategy #2 More Interaction Between Parks Advisory Board and Planning and Zoning and Shared Vision With Council Implementation Plans a. Schedule periodic meetings between Council and Parks Board Strategy #3 Continue to Update Comprehensive Plan Regarding Parks System Implementation Plans a. Establish design standards and criteria for development and placement of parks. Examine zoning ordinance as it relates to park land location and acquisition b. Analyze park distribution to determine areas that may be under served or under utilized. Strategy #4 Connectivity Between Greenways and Parks Implementation Plans a. Implement demonstration project to establish a future policy regarding greenway = park connectivity b. Greenways review (See Vision #8 Strategy #2) c. Wolf Pen Creek Masterplan implementation Strategy #5 Continued Emphasis on Parks Maintenance to Quality Standards through the Budget Process Implementation Plans a. Review fee structure and policy for possible revision in order to create funding for parks maintenance/upgrade. b. Review certain park maintenance service levels and identify options and associated costs to increase these service levels. Strategy #6 Develop Programs and Facilities for Senior Citizens Implementation Plans a. Staff work with Sr. Advisory Board to address space/facility needs. b. Address creating a Senior Citizen Advisory Board City of College Station Parks & Recreation Department Fiscal Year 2001 o Investigate the feasibility of cooperative ventures with CSISD :3 Support the implementation of a Greenways Oversight Committee to support the Greenways Master Plan a Establish policies and standards for re -appraisal of existing parks, facilities, and services offered by the Department Ei Encourage arboretum/garden parks and color emphasis in existing parks • Work on plans to make current and future parks intergenerational • Set up quality standards to measure performance for maintenance and field use for neighborhood and community parks • Revision of the Surcharge Policy Ei Review the Parks and Recreation Department Fee Policy • Intergenerational ideas spanning all age gaps • Develop programs and facilities for senior citizens 1111, Ill ��� Ill Ill Ill Ill Ill I Ill 1IF � A Will Will 5; 1 T"11-407"ffirl a Investigate the feasibility of cooperative ventures with TAMU on facilities and programs Ei Explore the feasibility of a commercial lee skating rink u More interaction between Parks Advisory Board and Planning and Zoning Commission, and shared vision with City Council • Monitor code review and revision projects currently underway with respect to codes impacting parks. • Identify areas of common concern between Parks Advisory Board and Planning and Zoning Commission. • Review the parkland dedication ordinance. Keep current a file of other city parkland dedication ordinances and review every three years. L3 Develop criteria for parkland dedication. What are the desired characteristics of a neighborhood park with respect to size, amenities, pedestrian access, vehicle access, lighting, vehicle parking, trees, open space, connectivity to greenways, connectivity to bikeways, drainage and retention ponds, ease of maintenance, location with respect to arterial streets and the neighborhoods served, etc. o Explore further the concept of advanced planning for neighborhood parks well ahead of the development in an area. ci Identify, as a part of the City's Comprehensive Plan, the future general location of community parks. Determine time frames for when they will be needed. Estimate land acquisition costs. Develop community park acquisition strategy. Page I of o Explore opportunities and identify locations where parks could serve as the focal point for a neighborhood, subdivision entrance, city gateway, or arterial corridor. o Further explore opportunities for developer fees and/or parkland dedication for development of community parks. Find out what other Texas cities are doing. o Identify obstacles to quality parkland dedication by developers. Work to remove obstacles that are within the control of the City. o Schedule a joint meeting of the Parks Advisory Board and the Planning and Zoning Commission once a year. o Schedule a joint workshop meeting of the Parks Advisory Board and the City Council once a year. o Implementation of the approved Capital Improvement Program. o Implementation of the Wolf Pen Creek Master Plan. Page 2 of 2 ftcl= rm couge:,op LLP PPROVED MAS TER PLAN pafffts Planning 203 S. Jackson (979) 836-7937 Mau 25, 20010 fl&L�T��*% v,xecutive Summary Cost of Services Study for the � M�I @ DMG-MAXMUS, INC. 2001 Helping Government Serve the People 13601 Preston Road, Suite 40OW Dallas, Texas 75240 (972) 490-9990 Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION .................................... ................................. I 111. ACTIVITY FEE STUDIES ........................................................... 8 A. Adult Activities ..................................................................... 8 B. Youth Activities .................................................................... 9 C. Aquatics ............................................................................ 10 D. Rentals ............................................................................. 12 E. Recreation Centers ....................................................... ....... 13 F. Other Activities ................................................................... 14 IV. BENEFITS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS ..............................15 I I -M 1. -11 p M.H111,11MMI'm 111 1 -M•� 1021 r ,' , The City of College Station, Texas, is a full service city government, which provides many services to its citizens and in some cases non-residents. As with cities throughout the United States, College Station is dealing with difficult issues in increased demands for services and increasing costs fueled by growth. In addition, the city desires to reduce the property tax burden on its citizens. As a result of these pressures, the City must examine all opportunities for enhanced revenues or new revenue sources to avoid reducing valuable City service levels. Accordingly, College Station engaged DMG- M kXD,f JS, 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- S' findings and recommendations resulting from'the study. The costs of many Parks services currently provided by the City either are or could be recovered from user fees. Revenues from user fees can be an appropriate means of achieving revenue enhancement for local government. Many times one or more of the following conditions exist before a full cost user fee study is undertaken in a city: Current user fees are set far below the actual cost of providing the services. No fees are being charged for services that could generate revenue. Current fee structure an policy have not been set with full knowledge of the relationship between the value of a service and the amount of a fee. Providing 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 DAIG- tiIAVIAIUS, INC.. 2001 Page 1 The User Fee Study presents the results of a DMG-NLANIMUS 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-MA)CWWS 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 defivering services includes direct labor costs, other direct operating and maintenance costs, departmental supervision costs, and citywide indirect costs. The study indicates that the full cost of fee related services are $3,216,392 and that $835,942 is being recovered in revenue. The subsidy currently required to support these services is, therefore, $2,380,450 as illustrated in the following graph: 21% N 0.392 In comparison to other DMG-MAXIIIAUS municipal clients, the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department appears to be in line with their current subsidy levels. However, the DMG-NLkXIWS has made recommendations to increase the charges for 1.) Cost ofServices Study for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department t AWG-,WI LYIAMS, INC., 2001 Page 2 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. Revenue Summary and Recommendations A summary of the cost/revenue analysis and the resulting fee adjustment recommendations by function are summarized in the tables that follow. DMG- S identified potential for new revenues in existing fee areas of $453,346. Percent of Activity Cost .Revenue Difference Cost Recovery Adult Activities $ 569,074 $ 177,195 $ 391,879 31.14% Youth Activities $ 288,452 $ 31,821 $ 256,631 11.03% Aquatics $ 1,064,728 $ 348,881 $ 715,847 32.77% Rentals $ 225,891 $ 50,721 $ 175,170 22.45% Recreation Centers $ 941,363 $ 148,145 $ 793,218 15.74% Other $ 725,171 $ 79,179 $ 645,992 10.92% 'total $ 3,814,679 $ 835,942 $ 2,978,737 21.91% In addition, DMGm S identified other services provided by the City of College 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. The amount of full cost involved for these activities totals $598,287, and include Soccer, Cemetery, Girls Fast Pitch, and Little League. Percent of Activity Cost Revenue (Difference Cost Recovery Soccer $ 152,097 $ - $ 152,097 0.00% Cemetery $ 168,178 $ - $ 168,178 0.00% Girls Fast Pitch $ 114,714 $ - $ 114,714 0.00% Little League $ 163,298 $ - $ 163,298 0.00% Total S 598,287 $ - S 598,287 0.00% The current policies for the collection of fees, as identified in the fiscal year 2001 operating budget, are as follows: Cost of Services Study for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department 2 DSIG-,NA,VI.VUS, INC., 2001 Page 3 v Full fee support (80-100%) will be obtained from enterprise operations such as utilities, sanitation service, landfill, cemetery, and license permits. Partial fee support (50-80%) will be generated by charges for emergency medical services, miscellaneous licenses and fines, and all adult sports programs. i Minimum fee support (0-50%) will be obtained from other parks, recreational, cultural, and youth programs and activities. DMG-MAXIMUS, INC. used these guidelines in establishing recommendations for new fees. Cost of Services Study for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department C DMG-M LYILIiiS, INC., 1001 Page 4 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-MAXEVUS' 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 D.WG-,VL4XIAfVS, INC., 2001 Page 5 The approach and methodology DMG-MA)GMUS staff utilized in the development of indirect cost allocation plans and the comprehensive user fee study developed the full costs associated with providing City Parks and Recreation services. Costs of services were not limited to direct departmental charges, but rather based on an analysis of the comprehensive costs incurred by the City in providing services. Total costs include allocation of the administrative and central support activities and other costs not traditionally assigned to departmental budgets such as building depreciation or use costs. The emphasis of this project was to comprehensively determine the costs of services and match these services to funding sources. The Citywide administrative indirect cost used for this engagement is provided by the Full -Cost Central Services Cost Allocation Plan prepared by DMG-MAXEVIUS, INC., based on budget data for fiscal year ending September 30, 2000. This approach is consistently applied for all City departments and services, regardless of funding source and allocates costs to departments based on an objective statistic that reflects or correlates to the use of the administrative services provided. 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-MAXEVUS 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-MAXTMUS went through the following stages of research and analysis: Cost of Services Study for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department z MIG-M.<Lt AMS, INC., 2001 Page 6 Conducted an analysis of service costs and revenues, including: o Interviews with key management and operational personnel throughout the department o Determined the full cost of each activity by identifying staff positions that provide the service, the number of units of the activity provided in a year, the amount of staff time required for each activity and related operating expenses o Determined current revenue for each activity o Processed the cost of services plan ➢ Reviewed first drafts with department staff and incorporated revisions ➢ Prepared Final Report incorporating Department Staff comments ➢ Reviewed the final draft with .the Parks and Recreation Board Sub -Committee ➢ Preparation of the final report This approach results in a detailed cost of service/revenue analysis that the City will use as a basis for restructuring existing fees and/or 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- S consultants and City staff. Cost of Sern•ices Study for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department g DAfG-VfXY1.VUS. LVC. 2001 Page 7 The following section presents the results of DMG-v1AXGNIUS' 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. 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 S 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 S 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 Activity Cost Revenue Difference Cost Recovery Units per Unit per Unit Adult Flag Football S 36,414 $ 4,080 S 32,334 11.20% 12 S 3,034.50 S 340.00 Adult Volleyball S 44,174 S 7,020 S 37,154 15.89% 52 S 849.50 S 135.00 Spring -Summer Slowpitch S 213,005 $ 116,280 S 96,725 54.59% 323 S 659.46 S 360.00 Fall Slowpitch S 141,899 $ 47,565 S 94,334 33.52% 160 S 886.87 S 297.28 Spring-SununerFastpitch S 88,122 S 2,250 $ 85,872 2.55% 6 $14,687.00 S 375.00 Fall Fastpitch S 45,460 S 1,890 S 43,570 4.16% 5 S 9,092.00 S 378.00 Total S 569,074 $ 179,085 S 389,989 31.47% Cost of Services Study for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department 9: D.UG-MAMMUS, INC., 2001 Page 8 In making a recommendation for the City of College Station's Adult Activities programs, DMG-MA)Cffv1US 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-MAXEVIUS has created the following recommendations: Activity Adult Flag Football Adult Volleyball Spring -Summer Slowpitch Fall Slowpitch Spring -Summer Fastpitch Fall Fastpitch Total Adult Activities recommendations Total Potential Current Cost Recommended Potential Additional Cost Revenue Units per Unit Fee Revenue Revenue S 36,414 S 4,080 12 S 3,035 $ 1,517 S 18,207 $ 14,127 $ 44,174 $ 7,020 52 $ 850 $ 1,500 $ 78,000 $ 70,980 S 213,005 $ 116,280 323 S 659 $ 330 $ 106,503 $ (9,778) S 141,899 $ 47,565 160 $ 887 $ 440 S 70,400 $ 22,835 S 88,122 S 2,250 6 S 14,687 $ 7,350 $ 44,100 S 41,850 S 45,460 S 1,575 5 S 9,092 S 4,550 S 22,750 $ 21,175 $569,074 S 178,770 S 339,960 S 161,190 As costs for many of these programs are very high, it would not be appropriate to meet the guidelines set forth by the financial policies in some cases. DMG-MAXIMUS has set recommendations based on a 50% cost recovery. It would be beneficial however for the City to perform a market survey to determine what costs are being charged in competing leagues, and what price the market will bear for these 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 4 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 $35, 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 8th). Participants play in 8 games per season on wither Mondays and Wednesdays, Tuesdays and Thursdays, as well as Saturday mornings. Units for this program are identified as individual participants. Each player receives a T-shirt and a trophy. The sliding scale for youth basketball is $30/$20/$10. Cost of Services Study for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department C MIG-MAXLIICS, INC., 2001 Page 9 The following table presents the costs, revenues, and percentage -of cost recovery for youth activities: Youth Activities Cost/Revenue Analysis Percent of Cost Revenue Activity Cost Revenue Difference Cost Recovery units per Unit per Unit Youth Flag Football $160,411 $ 11,120 S 149,291 6.93% 401 S 400.03 $ 27.73 Youth Basketball $128,041 $ 20,701 S 107,340 16,17% 774 $ 165.43 $ 26.75 Total $288,452 S 31,821 S 256,631 11.03% According to policies set in the budget process, youth activities require only minimal fee support (0 to 50%) and therefore, the DMG-MA_' GMUS recommendations have been set at 25% recovery, and are as follows: 111.14111 Total Potential Current Cost Recommended Potential Additional Activity Cost Revenue units per Unit Fee Revenue Revenue Youth Flag Football $160,411 $ 11,120 401 S 400.03 $ 100 $ 40,103 $ 28,983 Youth Basketball $128,041 $ 20,701 774 S 165.43 $ 40 $ 30,960 # S 10,259 Total $288,452 S 31,821 S 71,063 S 39,242 AIMEM � 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 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. Cost of Services Study for the City of College Stadon Parks and Recreadon Department C DWG-,VL4XIAIUS, INC., 2001 Page 10 The following table presents the costs, revenues, and percentage of cost recovery for aquatics programs: Aquatics Activities Cost/Revenue Analysis Percentage Cost Revenue Activity Cost Revenue Difference Cost Recovery Units per Unit per Unit open Swim $ 578,553 $ 257,054 $ 321,499 44.43% 114,319 S 5.06 $ 2.25 Swim Lessons S 303,473 S 74,762 S 228,711 24.64% 2,623 S 115.70 S 28.50 TAAF Swim Team S 182,702 S 17,065 $ 165,637 9.34% 201 S 908.97 S 84.90 Total $1,064,728 S 348,881 S 715,847 32.77% 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 ®pen Swim, DMG- S has established the recommendation for a 50% recovery rate, a 20% recovery rate for Swim Lessons, and a 10% recovery rate for TAAF Swim Team. The table below outlines the recommendations of DMG-MAXINTUS, INC. for fees for aquatics programs: Aquatics Activities Recommendations Total Potential Current Cost Recommended Potential Additional Activity Cost Revenue Units per Unit Fee Revenue Revenue open swim S 578,553 S 257,054 114,319 $ 5.06 $ 2.50 S 285,798 S 28,744 Swim Lessons S 303,473 $ 74,762 2,623 S 115.70 S 30.00 S 78,690 $ 3,928 TAAFSwim Team S 182,702 $ 17,065 201 S 908.97 $ 135.00 $ 27,135 S 10,070 Total $ 1,064,723 S 348,881 $ 391,623 $ 42,742 As some pools currently charge different fees than others, DMG-NiAXIMUS felt it would be appropriate to increase pool charges across the board by 25%. The following table indicates the proposed fees for each pool: Recommended Pool Fees (by Pool) Recommended Pool Current Fee % Increase Fee Hallarswnamas $ 2.00 25% S 2.50 Natatorium S 2.00 25% $ 2.50 Adamson S 3.50 25% $ 4.50 Cost of Services Study for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department CDVG-ft'fAX1MUS, 1iVC., 2001 Page 11 1` .' . 1 . Pavilion Rentals provide attractive, well -maintained outdoor covered facilities for the use of local residents and businesses for private gatherings (company parties, birthday parties, wedding receptions, family reunions, etc.). Pavilions range in size, accommodating anywhere from 30 to 300 people. All offer picnic tables and barbecue pits. Some also include rest rooms, full-size kitchens, exclusive use of playground equipment, volleyball courts, and horseshoe pits. Ball field rentals allow citizens to access softball fields for practice and tournaments. The individual or individuals in charge of a tournament must meet with representatives of the Athletic and Park Operations staff before the tournament to arrange any tournament and maintenance details. Pool rentals provide children with a 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. The following table provides costs, revenues, and percentage of cost recovery for rentals: Rentals .. i Activity Cost Revenue Difference Pavilion Rentals S 47,074 S 17,043 $ 30,031 Hallaran Rental S 12,873 S 3,150 $ 9,723 Thomas/Natatorium Rental $ 14,859 S 2,555 $ 12,304 Adamson Rental S 36,469 S 25,738 S 10,731 Ball Field Rental $ 114,616 S 2,235 $ 112,381 Total S 225,891 S 50,721 S 175,170 Percent of Cost Revenue Cost Recovery Units per Unit per Unit 36.20 355 $ 132.60 $ 48.01 24.47 24 S 536.38 $ 131.25 17.19 28 $ 530.68 S 91.25 70.58 71 S 513.65 $ 362.51 1.95 35 $ 3,274.74 S 63.86 22.45 According to the Financial Policies, rentals are required to yield 0 to 50% cost recovery. The following table indicates the recommendations of DMG-MA.XaWS, INC. for fees in this area, which are recommended to recover 50% of the costs: Cost of Services Study for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department z D.WG-AfA.I'LNUS, INC., 2001 Page 12 Activitv Pavilion Rentals Thomas Rental Hallaran/Natatorium Rental Adamson Rental Ball Field Rental Total Rentals Recommendations Current Cost Revenue -Units S 47,074 S 17,043 355 S $ 11,920 S 3,150 24 S S 14,859 S 2.555 28 S $ 36,469 S 25,738 71 s S 114,616 S 2,235 35 s $224,938 S 50,71 21 Total Potential Cost Recommended Potential Additional per Unit Fee Revenue Revenue 132.60 S 65.00 S 23,075 6,032 496.67 S 250.00 S 6,000 S 2,850 530.68 S 250.00 S 7,000 S 4,445 513.65 S 250.00 S 17,750 S (7,988) 3,274.74 S 1,650.00 S 57,750 S 55,515 $111,575 S 60,854 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 consists of two rooms with internet-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 fun 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 Activitv Cost Revenue Difference Cost Recovery Lincoln Center $ 293,632 $ 13,649 S 279,983 4.65% Teen Center $ 331,563 $ 10,424 $ 321,139 3.14% Conference Center S 316,168 S 124,072 $ 192,096 39.24% Total S 941,363 S 148,145 S 793,218 15.74% Cost of Services Study for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department C DMG-MAYI-VUS, INC., 2001 Page 13 The City of College Station operates the Wolf Pen Creek Amphitheater, which hosts a variety of entertainment events throughout the season targeted to al ages and interests. The full cost of maintaining this facility can be found in the table below. The City of College Station operates and enterprise fund for the Parks and Recreation Extra Education 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 68%, thus it is not meeting the requirements set forth. This is illustrated in the table below. The Parks and Recreation Department is responsible for the maintenance of the City of College Station Cemetery. Plots are purchased through the City Secretary's Office. The table below illustrates the full cost of maintaining the cemetery. Although the City may consider the implementation of a perpetual care fund, this would fall beyond the scope of this study. DMG-NIAXINMS has identified the costs of operating and maintaining the Cemetery in the iable below. The Parks and Recreation Department allows other organizations to utilize the facilities at no cost to participants. These leagues include Soccer, Girl's Fast Pitch Softball, and Little League. These activities require substantial maintenance costs, which are currently I not being recovered by the City. The table below identifies these costs: Activity Cost Revenue Difference Wolf Pen Creek Amphitheater $ 16,012 $ 4,179 $ 11,833 Extra Education $ 110,872 $ 75,000 $ 35,872 Soccer $ 152,097 $ - $ 152,097 Cemetery $ 168,178 $ - $ 168,178 Girls Fast Pitch $ 114,714 $ - $ 114,714 Little League $ 163,298 $ - $ 163,298 Total $ 725,171 S 79,179 $ 645,992 Cost of Services Study for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department C DMG-MAAIVIUS, INC., 2001 Page 14 Percent of Cost Recovery 26.10% 67.65% 0.00% 0.00% 0.010% 0.00% 10.92% III I'llil" 111 ;iiii i iliirii 0 WITn"M "IM-TIM MI 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. 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. Demand -Oriented The price charged for a service affects the quantity demanded by potential users. In many instances, raising the price of a service results in fewer units of service being demanded. And, the volume of that service produced affects the unit cost of a service. This poses a special problem for the City when attempting to set fees on a basis that will recover the full cost of providing the services. As noted above, the unit cost of a service Cost of Services Study for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department C DMG-MAXIMUS, INC., 2001 Page 15 may rise or fall depending on the volume produced, and that volum6 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. User fees are often established on a principle that requires those who use the service to bear the cost ®f producing it. Although this principle is firmly established in the private enterprise system, there may be City activities for which it is regarded as inappropriate. Accordingly, it may be preferable to set fees for some services below full cost. Consequently, the ramifications of a subsidization policy should be fully understood. 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. While 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 It may be desirable to use fees as a means of encouraging certain activities or patterns of use. For example, setting a relatively high fee for scarce resources such as water may Cost of Services Study for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department C D_bIG-MAXI till S, INC., 2001 Page 16 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 capaeity, 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. Although the City may monopolize certain services within its boundaries, there are many instances of competitive pressure, which contain the 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 traditionaUy 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 ofServices Study for the City of College Station Parks and Recreation Department C DMGLjVL4XFMUS, INC., 2001 Page 17 i forms of subsidization between entiti �`a e s ment shall be done at a minimum services, utilities, and customer classes. o once e three years. REVENUE ADEQUACY. The City shall require that there be a balance in the revenue system; i.e., the revenue base will have the characteristic of fairness and neutrality as it applies to cost of service, willingness to pay, and ability to pay. ADMINISTRATION. The benefits of a revenue source will exceed the cost of levying and collecting that revenue. The cost of collection will be reviewed annually for cost effectiveness as a part of the indirect cost and cost of service analysis. Where appropriate, the City will use the administrative processes of State or Federal collection agencies in order to reduce administrative costs. 6e DIVERSIFICATION AND STABILITY. A diversified revenue system with a stable source of income shall be maintained. This will help avoid instabilities in particular revenue sources due to factors such as fluctuations in the economy and variations in the weather. Stability is achieved by a balance between elastic and inelastic revenue sources. B. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS. The following. considerations and issues will guide the City in its revenue policies concerning specific sources of funds: 1. COST/BENEFIT OF INCENTIVES FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. The City will use due caution in the analysis of any tax or fee incentives that are used to encourage development. Ideally, a cost/benefit (fiscal impact) analysis will be performed as part of such evaluation. 2® NON -RECURRING REVENUES. One-time or non -recurring revenues will not be used to finance ongoing operations. Non -recurring revenues should be used only for one-time expenditures such as long-lived capital needs. They will not be . used for budget balancing purposes. 3® PROPERTY TALC REVENUES. All real and business personal property located within the City shall be valued at 100% of the fair market value for any given year based on the current appraisal supplied to the City by the Brazos County Appraisal District. Reappraisal A ninety-six and one half percent (96.5%) collection rate shall serve each year as a minimum goal for tax collections. The City Manager may, for budget and forecasting purposes, use up to the tax rate in effect for the current year's budget. This policy will require that the City Manager justify a tax rate that is different from the current tax rate. The justification will be based on City Council directions, needs arising from _ voter authorized bonds, or other extraordinary conditions as may arise. 4m I INCOME. Earnings from investment (both interest and capital gains) of available monies, whether pooled or not, will be distributed to the funds in accordance with the equity balance of the fund from which monies were provided to be invested. 5e USER -BASED 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 (80-100%) will be obtained from enterprise operations such as utilities, sanitation service, landfill, cemetery and licenses and permits. b. Partial fee support (50-80%) 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, recreationall cultural, and youth programs and activities. 6. ENTERPRISE E FUND RATES. The City will review and adopt utility rates as needed to generate revenues required to fully cover operating expenses, meet the legal restrictions of all applicable bond covenants, and provide for an adequate level of working capital. F-3, A MRK-Ub-2001 11z1b U'MHLLtY LINUINtLKb 'J (7 b.-')b (J,5b h', U5/10 DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATE NO. I FOR FOUR IRRIGATED UNLIGHTED SOCCER FIELDS WITH WASHED SAND ROOT ZONE SOIL AND LIGHTED PARKING, SOCCER RESTROOM BUILDING, TWO IRRIGATED UNLIGHTED SOFTBALL FIELDS WITH WASHED SAND ROOT ZONE SOIL AND LIGHTED PARKING, ONE BAY MAINTENANCE/RESTROOM BOLDING, AND RELATED UTILITIES OPINION OF PROBABLE COST BASED ON PRELIMINARY DESIGN CITY OF COLLEGE STATION VETERANS PARK AND ATHLETIC COMPLEX OE JOB NO, 675.01-RB/RC 2/20/2001 (Reformated 03/05/01) IBASE ' 131D - 1 Earthwork a. Excavation 60,000 CY 2.00 100,000.00 b. Embankment (Fill) 50,000 CY 150 125,000,00 SUSTO. AL EARTHWORK 225,000.00 2 Topsoil For Disturbed Areas a. Material 15,000 CY 4.00 60,000.00 fib. Placing Tapsoii 15,000 CY 1,00 1000.00 SUBTOTAL TOPSOIL FOR DISTURBED AREAS 75,000.00 Two Softball Fields With Special Root Zone Soil, No .bleachers, No Lights -_ a. 8" Washed sand root zone soil 4,200 CY 13.00 54,600.00 b. Common Bermuda 3.8 AC. 150.00, 570.00 c. Fences 2,460 LF 20.00 49,200.00 d. Backstop Fence 200 LF 50.00 10,000.00 e. Dugouts 4 EA 5,000.00 24,000.00 f. Sandy Clay Infield Soil 300 CY 8.00 2,400.00 Concrete Entrance/sidewalk (6' wide) 280 SY 30.00 8,400.00 h, Irrigation 2 Flds, 18,000.00 361,000.00 SUBTOTAL TWO SOFTBALL FIELDS WISPECIAL. ROOT ZONE S61L 186,1701,00 4 Four Soccer Melds Without Lights a, 8" Washed sand root zone soil 11,000 CY 13.00 143,000.00 b. Tifway 419 Grass 415,000 SF 0.08 33,200.00 c, irrigation 4 EA 22,000.00 88,000.00 SUBTOTAL FOUR SOCCER FIELDS WITHOUT LIGHTS 2640200.00 . 5 Street (From Hwy. 30 to End) a. Curb & Gutter 3,200 LF 10.00 32,000,00 b. Subgrade Stabilization 6,100 SY 3.50 21,350.00 c, Base Material 5,240 SY 8.00 41,920.00 d. Asphalt 5.000 SY 6.60 27,500.00 e. Fine Gradinq 1 LS 5.000.00 5,000.00 f MAR-06-2001 11:16 U' MRLLEY ENUiNEEKS t$ rJ b.sb .�Lighting per Pole. - 7.000�00 .,! 0.00 sI�STOTAL STR�'ET .._ 1. � -� 969,77 70.00. 6 Memo rial Area Lighted _ Parking Lot & Driveway W a Curb & Gutter 1,000 LF 10.00 10,000.00 b. .... Subgrade YStabilizaton ' 1,500 SY 3.50 5,250.00 c Base Material 1,220 SY 8.00 9,760.00 d. .. Asphalt _ 1.166 SY 5.50 6,380.00 = e Fine Grading_ -- 1 LS 1,000.00. 1.000.00 - f Lighting per Pale 1 EA 7,000.00 7,000.00 9. - - Concrete Sidewalk 122 SY 25.00 3,050.00 h Pole Relocation 1 LS _ 3,000.00 3,000.00 su roTAL MEMORIAL AREA LIGHTED PARKINGTO-T 4 5� EWAY — _ 45,440.00 7 Lighted Parking Lot For Four Soccer Fields _. a. Curb & Gutter 3,180 LF _ -....w 10.00 31,800.00 b. Subgrade Stabilization 9,880 SY 3,56 34,580.00 Base Material _ 8.950 SY 8.00 71,606.00 d. Asphalt 8,760 SY 5.50 48,180.00 a =_._. -- - FineWGrading - 1 LS 3,00000 3,000.00 _. fighting per Pole _. 3 EA 7,000.00 21,006.00 SUUTOTAL LiGHTE® PARKING LOT FOR FOUR SOCCER FAMS 210,160.00 8"Ughted karking Lot = For Two Softball Fields — a. " � °._. .......__ _......:_.,.._ Curb & Gutter-.__._.. _._. 2 140 LF _.. _ 10.00 21,400 00 b. ubgrade Stabilizatian _I_- 6,220 SY 3.50 21,770.00 c. Base Material 5.440 SY - 8.00 43,620.00 d - Asphalt 5,290 SY 6.50 29,095.00 e. Fine Grading _ 1 LS 3,000.00 3,000,00 = f. Lighting per Pole 2 EA 7,000.00 14,000.00 SUSTOTAL UGHTED PARKING L&T- FOR TWO SOFTBALL FIELDS 132,785.00 9 drainage Structures av 1e RCP 525 LF 30.00 _.... 15,750.00 b. 24" RCP _ 250 LF 45.00 11,260.00 = C. 36'' RCP 520 LF 60,00 31,200 .00 �_.. d. r 10' curb inlet _ 2 EA 2, 500.00 5,000.00 e. .-- 15' curb_ inlet _ 1 EA 3 000.00 3000.00 Area inlets -.- 3 EA 1 ,000.00 3,000.00 9. box 1 EA 2,000.0d 2,000.00 ,.__. _._ h. -Junction Sloped end treatment 4 EA 750.00 3,060.00 i - Concrete riprap __..._. 80 SY 28.00 2,600.00 SUBTO ALDRAINAGE STRUCTURES — _ 76,200.00 10 Potable Water a. 8" Line 1600 LF 12.00 19,200.00 b. 6" Line 1200 LF 10.00 12,000.00 c. Fire Hydrants _ 3 EA 2,000.00 6,000.00 d. Valves & Fittings 1 LS 8,000.00 8,000.00 . Te. Water Meters 1 LS 2,000.00 2,000.00. 2 LIAR-06-2001 16:00 O'MRLLEY ENGINEERS y'ry 8,36 ry s6 ra Ul/Ul I# (Small Dia. Lines at Softball Fields 8001 LF SUBTOTAL POTABLE WATER 11 Sanitary Severer a. 10" Line/Casing/By Bore 120 LF b 10" Line 1,400 LF c. 6" Line 1,500 LF d. Manholes 8 EA e. Service Line 200 LF SUBTOTAL SANITARY SEWER 12 Irrigation Supply Lines 3.00 2,400.00 49,600.00 125.00 15,000.00 12,00 16,800,00 10.00 000 It r 9,600.00 8.00 1,600.00 1 t . l l a. 12" Line 1,800 LF 12.00 b. 8" Line 800 LF 10.00 C. 6" Line 800 LF 8,00 d. 4" Line 800 LF 5.00 e. Other Small Dia. Lines 5,000 LF 3.00 f. Meter & Bac➢cflow Preventers 1 LS 15,000.00 q. Fittings & Valves 1 LS 12,000.00 SUBTOTAL 6RRICA rJON SUPPLY LINES 131 Primary Elec. Duct 0 3,0001 LF 6 16.00 SUETOTAL PRIMARY ELEC. DUCT 141 Miscellaneous Secondary Duct 1,200ILF 5.00 SUBTOTAL MISCELeL AWEOUS SECONDARY DUCT 15ILandscaping I 1ILS 1 40,000.00 _ SUBTOTAL LANDSCAPING ' ) 16 Buildings a. Soccer Restroorn 3 Building 1 LS 114,805.00 b. Maintenance (One Bay)/Softball Restroom Building 1 LS 127,860.00 SUBTOTAL BUILDINGS 17 , Concrete Driveway at Maintermar�/Softball Restroom Buildinq 160 Sy 30.00 SUBdOiAL CONCRETE ® eVEWAYAT MAINIENANCEISOFTBALL RESTROO 18ISeeding & Fertilizer I 1ILS 4 10,000.00 SUBTOTAL, SEEDING & FERTILIZER 19 Erosion/Siltation Control I I 1ILS I 151000,00 SUST0 rAL EROSION/SILTATION CONTROL _TOTAL OPINION OF PROBABLE BASE BID COST 127,860.00 242,665.00 4,800.00 4,800.00 10,000.00 10,000,00 15,000.00 15,000.00 1,936,790.00 K TOTAL P.01 MHK-0b-2UW 1 11 0 1 b U. 11HLLIL7 LNU d NttNb a r m b-)o r D.)o r. U,)/ A U II1I II ,Ilili lllllli Yuuuuei�We Wlu��l.luI.liu.uWUI.IdIIIYIIlk IIII, 11IIII�IkIII u.WI.IWYullli�.uuuWuleull.Yl011111IIIIIIIU IIIIJIllleullnlil.lulWuiW4unnYmaeuu.lwu Willilull.YIYLII,YW�+.I�uluu.u.Wei.uunwuullW��'AwIl1k, 13ASEIiuBID II k.11 I IIII l IIIl I�-I'll,nilw llliii u.I�iillllulLi,AI'll IlYlidlliln hill elwlilnll lllllmnluuuul.11uWll lul liiJ llu iu plliul' _ 1 E_ardwvork b. Embankment (Fill) 25.000 CY 2.50 62,600.00 _ SUBTOTAL EARTHWORK_ 112,500.00 2 Topsoil For Disturbed _-- Areas Material 10,000 CY 4.00 40 000.00 fib. Placing Topsoil 10,000 CY 1.00...........10,000.00 - SuBToTAL Tops®IL FaR o1STCIRBED AREAS 50,000.00 31Six Soccer Fields - - - Two Lighted 8" Washed sand root �a. zone ,500 CY 130-00 214,500.00 _ -- _�� Grass &1S n m Sprig 9 _ 652 000 SF .. 52,160A0 ; �_ .., �- _ Soccer Field Irrigation 6 EA 22,000,00---132,000.00 . Lighting for Two Seer d. -_- 'Fields 1 LS 106,400.00 106,400.00 -- SUBTOTAL SIX SOCCER FIELDS - TWO LIGHTED -- i 605,060.00 = 4 Street (From Hwy. 30 _ to Memorial Area) a. Curb & Gutter _ -- 1,7501LF 10.00 11,500.00 b . Subgrade Stabilization 3,850 SY 3.50 13,475.00 ; C. se Material 3,460 SY 8.00 27,600.00 _ 3,23QI Y_..._. 5.50 17,165.00 e. dine Gradin9 1 LS 3,000 00 3,000.00 f, Lighting per Pole 4 EA ,. 7,000.00 28,000.00 SUBTOTAL STREET _ . _....... - _. -- 107,340.00 5 Memorial Area Lighted Parking Lot & Driveway a. Curb I Gutter _ _ 760 LF 10,00 7,600.00 I b. Subgrade Stabiltzaton 1,280 SY 3.50 4,480.00 C. Base Material _. _.._. 1,070 SY 8.00 8,560.00 d. Asphalt 1,010 SY 5.50 5,555.00 e. Fine Grading 1 LS 1,000,00 1,000.00 f. Li9htin Q Per Pole J 1 EA 7,000.00 7,000.00 g. _ Concrete Sidewalk 122- SY 25.00 3,050,00 h. Flag Pole Relocation I LS 0 3,000.00 3,000.00 SUBT07 `lL MEMORIAL AREA LIGHTED PARKING L®r & DRIVEWAY 40,245.00 1 110a 1Y U'MHLLEY ENUINEEKb tf (t) bib * (tQ)b t-J. Wb/ 10 lCurb & Gutter 39900 LF b. -Subgrade Stabilization 14,700 SY C. Base Material 13,470 SY 1d. Asphalt 13,280. Y. e. 'Fine Grading 1 LS rT Lighting per Pole 6XA SUBTOTAL LIGHTED PARKING LOT SOCCER 71 Drainage SUIucturfl!' !!!III!:: SUBTOTAL DRAINAGE STRUCTURES 8 P6Q6�ife"M""Ater a. 8" Line 1600 LF 12.00 b. 6" Line 1,000 LF 10.00 A'�� Fire Hydrants 21EA 21000,00 d . Valves & Fittings LS 0 81006.0 e. Water Meters ......... ... ...... . ... I 11S 19500.00 01I i A a. 10" Une/Casilng/By Bore! 120 LF 125.00 b. 10" Line 1 04001 LF 12,00, ... ..... . C. 6" Line ...... . . 10.0 d. I 01 11200.00 2001 LF 1 8.00 14 Buildings 30 Soccer Restroom 1 ILS Maintee ance(One Building 1 LS i �S,08TOT'AL* BUILDIN6S N 114$805.00 127,860.00.1 19,200.00 10,000-00 41000.00 8$000.00 42P700.00 10000.00 629200.00 3T500.00 6,000.0 6,000.0 401000.0 4%000.0 fr CIHH—Idb—lc 4001 11= 1Y U' MHLLLY LNU I NELKS 'J (J t.3b (').)b I1. UY/1U = ete Driveway at 16 Concrete Maintenance/Softball Restroom Buildin 160 SY 30,00 SUSTO AL CONCRETE�R141EWAYAT MAINTENANC SOFTBALL RESTROOM 16 Limestone Driveway From End of Street to Maintenance Buildinq 2,220 SY 6.00 SU,6TOtAL LIMESTONE DRI4JFWAy FROM END OF STREET TO MAINT—ENANCE 17 Seeding fertilizer ( 1ILS 1 8,000.00 S�9 T® AL SEEDING & FERTILIZER 1r®slon/Siltation 8I _ _ I b Control �, .. 1 LS 12,00.0.00 .... . SUBTOTAL EROSION/S►LTA ON CONTROL TOTAL OPINION of PROBABLE BASE BID COST ,. , 3 . a 4,8800.00 4,800.00 12,000.00 12,000.00 1,678,080.00 INIHM-00-GUU1 11.1 ( U'11HILLILY LN01NtztZKb t$ (-) b,)b ('J-)b r. wtj/ 10 DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATE NO, 3 FOR SIX SOCCER FIELDS (TWO LIGHTED) WITH WASHED SAND ROOT ZONE SOIL AND IRRIGATION SYSTEM, SOCCER RESTROOM BUILDING WITH ONE SAY MAINTENANCE AREA, PARKING LOT FOR SIX SOCCER FIELDS, AND RELATED UTILITIES OPINION OF PROBABLE COST BASED ON PRELIMINARY DESIGN CITY OF COLLEGE STATION VETERANS PARK AND ATHLETIC COMPLEX OE JOB NO. 675.01-RB/RC March 5, 2001 ll 1 SIAAE BID Earthwork Excavaiaon 25,060 CY 2.00 50000.00 1a. b. Embankment (Fill) 25,000 CY 2.50 62,50-0.90— SUBTOTAL EARTHWORK ... ... ...... 112,500-00 2 Topsoil For Disturbed Areas ------ a. material 10,000 Cy 4.00 40,000.00 b. Placing Topsoil 10,000.CY 1.00 i 16,000.06' — __. SUBTOTAL TOPSOIL FOR DISTURBED AREAS 50,000.00 _3tix Soccer Fields - Two Lighted 8" Washed sand root Izone soil 15,500 CY . 13.00 ............. 214,500-00 o.'Grass & Sprigging 652,000.0 SF . 0.08 52,160-00 C. Soccer Field Irrigation ...... ............ .... . ... 6 EA 22,000.00 132,000.bb --- ---- - Lighting for Two Soccer d. Fields 11.1-S 106,400.00 106,400.00 SUBTOTAL SIX SOCCER FIELDS -TWO UGHTED .. ......... ...... . ..... 4 Street (From Hwy, 30 to Memorial Area) a. Curb & Gutter 1,750 LF 10.00 17,506.06 b, Subgrade Stabilization 3,850 Sy 3.60 13,476.00 Base Material 3,450 SY 8.00 27,600.00 - d. Asphalt 3,230 SY 5.50 17,765.00 e. Fine dii8ing'" I LS 3,000-00 ---- 3,000.00 i. LiqhtInq per Pole -- 4 EA . 28,000-00 - SUBTOTAL STREET 1079340.00 - 5 Memorial Aga Lighted — Parking Lot & Driveway_ Curb & Gutter 760 LF 10.00 7,600.00 b.' Subgrade Stabilization 1,280 SY 3.50 4,480.00 Base Material 1,070 SY 8.00 6,560.00 d- Asphalt isolo Sy 5.50 ­ 5,555.00 e. ... Fine Grading 1 LS 1,000.00 1,000.00 f. Lighting per Pole,,. 1 EA 7,000.00 7,000.00 9- Concrete Sidewalk 122 SY 25-00 3,050,00 h, Flag Pole Relocation I LS 3,000.00,1 3,000-00 SUSTOIAL MEMORIAL AREA LIGHTED PARKING LOT & DRIVE MAY 40,245-00 I MR—Ob-2001 11; lb U' MHLLEY Enka 1 NLLKS 'J (J b-Sb '(J.)b h'. u'jilu ,Lghted�Parkhg Lot,,,...,,..,...,,....,,, For Six Soccer Fields a. Curb & Gutter 3,900 LF 10.00 39,000.00 b. Subgrade Stabilizaton 14,700 SY 3.56 ( 51.450.00 c. I Base Material 13,470 SY 8.00 101,760.' - 00 [d. Asphalt 13,280 SY _ 5.50 . 73,040.00 e. JFine Grading 1 LS 4,500.00 4,500.00 g. (Lighting per Pole_ 6 EA I 7,600.06 42,060.00 SUBTOTAL LIGHTED PARKING LOT FOR SIX SOCCER FIE S - 1397,160.00 71Drainage Structures I 1ILS 1 20,000.00 20.000:00 SUBTOTAL DRAINAGE STRUCTURES 20,000.00 8 Potable Water a. 8" Line 1.600 LF 12.00 19,200.00 b. 6" Line 400 LF 10.00 4,000.00 c. Fire Hydrants - - -- 2 EA 2,000,00 4,000.00 d. Valves & Fittings 1 LS 8,006.06 8,606.00 e. Meters 1 LS 1,500.00 . 1,500.00 _Water SUBTOTAL POTABLE WATER - 36,700.6 9 Sanitary Sewer a. 10 Line/Casio B Bore 9 120 LF � .. 125.00 ' . 15,000.00 _._y _...._. _ b. -- 10" Line 1,400 LF 12 Q0 16 800.00 c. 6" line 300 LF 10.00 : 3,000.00 ._ ... d. Manholes --- 4 EA _ . , j 1,200 00 4,800.00 e. Service Line 100 LF 8.44 : - - 800.00 SUBTOTAL, SANITARY SEWER 40,400.00 3 10 IrrigaWn Supply Lines: r a. 12" Line 1,600 LF 12.00 19,200.00 b. 4" Line 600 LF - - -- 5.00 -- 3,000.00 C. Other Small Dia. Lines 5,000 LF 3.00. 15,000.00 _ = d. Meter & Backflow Preventer 5,000 LF 3.00 16,000,00 e. Fittings & Valves 1 LS 10 000.00 10,.00 SUBTOTAL IRRIGA770N SUPPLY LINES 62,200.00 11 Electrical Ducts ry 2� 00..F-LF 15.00 37,500.00 Miscellaneous , b. Secondary Duct 1,200,LF 5.00 6,000.00 _ SUBTOTAL ELECTRICAL DUCTS 43,500.00 1 2+Landscaping _..._ 1 LS ( 40,000.00+ 40,000.00 SUBTOTAL L4NDSCARINis ............ 40,000.00 13 Building a. Soccer Restroorn Building 1 LS 114,805.00 114,805.00 b. 25 X 25' M aintenance Bay Onto Soccer Restroom Building 1 LS 37,500.00 37,500.00 C. Concrete Apron at Maintenance Say 60 SY 30.00 1,800.00 SUBTOTAL BUILDING - 154,105.00 141 Seeding & Fertilizer 1 111.S 8,000 00 I 8,000 00 2 I1Hk—k�b—�I�YJ1 lla 1ti U'MHLLtY LNUINttkS SUBTOTAL SEEDING & FERTILIZER 15 Erosi®n/Siltatien Control I SUBTOTAL EROSION/SILTATION C®NTROL TOTAL OPINION OF PROBABLE BASE BID COST 3 7(y ti,5b (y.5b I-'.1J/lb 8,000.00 11 L5 1 12M0.00 12,000.00 12,000.00 1,549,800.00 TOTAL P.10 Parks and RecreaUon Department Fee Survey March 2001 Activity City Fee No. of Games Comments Slow Pitch - $360 (Spring/Summer) College Station $315 (Fall) 10 $55 for double elimination tourn. Fast Pitch - $375 (Spring/Summer) $325 (Fall) Baytown $140 12 Bryan $285 10 Conroe $400 14 No tournament Adult 10 (Spring) - 7 Softball Hurst $325 (Spring) $275 (Summer/Fall) (Summer/Fall) Killeen $325 12 includes pre -season tourn. Longview $285 ($25 late fee) 8 3 seasons offered Lubbock $280 ($25 late fee) 10 trying to raise to $285 San Marcos $295 10 + Playoffs Stephenville $300 12 $5 player contract per each Temple $110 team + $20/player 10 Waco $340 10 late registration $360 Activity city Fee No. of Carnes Comments College Station $340 8 Plus double elimination tourn. Baytown N/A N/A N/A Bryan $250 8 Conroe $225 6 Plus post season tourn. Hurst N/A N/A N/A Adult Flag Killeen $325 12 Plus pre -season tourn. Football Longview Lubbock San Marcos Stephenville Temple Waco $310 ($25 late fee) $280 ($25 late fee) $295 N/A $110 per team + $20 per player $290 1 10 10 10 N/A 10 Depends on # of teams & tourn. 1 fall season Trying to raise to $285 Plus playoffs N/A Activity City Parks Department Fee Survey �= s M College Station $265 8 Baytown N/A N/A Bryan $250 8 Conroe N/A N/A Hurst N/A N/A Adult Killeen $325 12 Basketball Longview $310 ($25 late fee) 10 Lubbock $300 ($25 late fee) 10 San Marcos $225 8 Comments Plus post season tourn./Program dropped Spring 01 because of lack of participation. N/A N/A N/A Plus pre -season tourn. Season (Nov. - Feb.) 200 fee was $280 Plus playoffs Plus $5 player contract per each Stephenville $275 10 team Temple $110 per team + $20 per player 10 Waco $240 10 Fee No. of Games Comments v Activity City College Station $140 8 Plus double elimination tourn. Baytown N/A N/A N/A Bryan $200 10 Conroe $200 6 Plus post season tourn. Hurst N/A N/A N/A Adult Killeen $325 12 Plus pre -season tourn. Volleyball Longview 150 8 to 10 1 Fall season Lubbock 160 ($25 late fee) 10 Trying to raise to $170 San Marcos $75 8 Plus playoffs Stephenville N/A N/A N/A Temple $110 team/$20 player 10 Waco N/A N/A N/A Parks •RecreationDepartment March Fee Survey Activity City Fee No, of Games Comments College Station $40/30/20 player 12U - 10 8/10U - 8 Use volunteer coaches Baytown $50 9 Bryan N/A N/A N/A Conroe N/A N/A N/A Hurst N/A N/A N/A Girls Killeen $30 10 Use volunteer coaches Softball Longview N/A N/A Offered through youth association Offered through youth association, Lubbock N/A N/A use City facilities, pay user fee San Marcos N/A N/A N/A Stephenville $25 12 Use volunteer coaches Temple N/A N/A Offered through youth association Waco N/A N/A N/A Activity V City Fee No. of Games Comments College Station $30/20/10 player 8 Use volunteer coaches Baytown N/A N/A N/A Bryan N/A N/A N/A Conroe N/A N/A N/A Hurst N/A N/A N/A Killeen $30 10 Use volunteer coaches Youth City league individual/Church Basketball Longview $40 individual/$265 team 8 league team Offered through youth association, Lubbock N/A N/A use City facilities, pay user fee San Marcos $20 6 Use volunteer coaches Stephenville $25 10 Use volunteer coaches Temple $25 8 Includes jersey Waco $200/team 10 Use volunteer coaches 3 •RecreationDepartment Fee Survey March 11 Activity City Fee No. of Games Comments College Station $35/25/15 player 8 Use volunteer coaches Baytown N/A N/A N/A Bryan N/A N/A N/A Conroe $40 6 Use volunteer coaches Hurst N/A N/A N/A Youth Flag Killeen $30 10 Use volunteer coaches Football Longview N/A N/A N/A Lubbock N/A N/A N/A San Marcos N/A N/A N/A Stephenville $25 10 Use volunteer coaches Temple N/A N/A N/A Waco N/A N/A N/A Activity City Fee No. of Classes Comments College Station 30 9 Baytown $22 8 Bryan $30 8 Conroe N/A N/A Hurst $25/Resident $27 Non-resident 10 Killeen $30 10 45 min. per class Swim Lessons Longview $28/35 Lubbock $25 San Marcos $15/20 Stephenville $25 Temple $30 Waco 30 0 10 - 45 min. classes 5 8 10 10 - 35 min. classes 10 depends on no. of students in class (14/8) Run by American Red Cross in City pool M-F 3 sessions Parks and Recreation p.. SurveyFee Warch 2001 No. of Weeks in Activity City Fee Program Comments College Station $85/65/45 15 Paid coaches Baytown N/A N/A N/A Bryan $85/65/45 Non-resident ($90/70/50) ? Conroe N/A N/A N/A Hurst N/A N/A N/A Swim Killeen N/A N/A N/A Team Longview N/A N/A Year round team not assoc. w/City Lubbock N/A N/A N/A San Marcos N/A N/A N/A Stephenville $50 12 Temple $60 5 2 hrs. day M-F Waco N/A N/A N/A 5