Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
10/09/2001 - Regular Agenda - Parks Board
CITE PARKS AND f` (BOARD Staff Present: Steve Beachy, Director of Parks and Recreation; Eric Ploeger, Assistant Director; Pete Vanecek, Senior Park Planner; David Wood, Park Planner; Jane Kee, City Planner; Jessica Jimmerson, Staff Planner; Judy Downs, Greenways Coordinator; Kris Lehde, Staff Assistant. Board Members Present: John Nichols, Chairman; Larry Farnsworth; Glen Davis; Don Allison; Glenn Schroeder; Laura Wood (Alternate). Board Members Absent: Bill Davis; Jon Turton. Guests: Randy French, Developer Wallace Phillips, Developer David Scott, President of the Brazos Greenways Council Visitors: Debbie Hammon, P.O. Box 5206, Bryan, Texas 77805 Kourtney Rogers, 2910 Normand, College Station, Texas 77845 Aaron Melsohls, 1105 Hawk Tree Drive, College Station, Texas 77845 Kari Klaflcin, 4924 Spearman Drive, College Station, Texas 77845 Elizabeth Caldbrese, 117 Holleman Drive, College Station, Texas 77840 Buty Bows, 117 Holleman Drive, College Station, Texas 77840 Jaimie Hachett, Southwest Parkway, College Station, Texas 77840 Justin Smith, 401 Anderson #12 N., College Station, Texas 77840 Jennifer Bishop, 1800 Holleman, #608, College Station, Texas 77840 Christy Moug, 401 University Oaks, # 1305, College Station, Texas 77840 Ashley Griffin, 1315 Mullins Loop North, College Station, Texas 77845 Rachel Lyons, 950 Colgate, #167, College Station, Texas 77840 1. Call to order: The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. 2. Hear visitors: No visitors spoke at this time. 3. Pardon — Consider requests for absences of members from meeting: Larry Farnsworth made a motion to accept the absences of Bill Davis and Jon Turton as excused. Glen Davis seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 4. Approval of minutes from the regular meeting of September 11, 2001, and the joint meeting of September 20, 2001: Don Allison made a motion to approve the minutes from the regular meeting of September 11, 2001. Larry Farnsworth seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, October 9, 2001 Page I of 6 Don A. made a motion to approve the minutes from the joint meeting of September 20, 2001. Larry F. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 5. Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding the Castlegate Park site plan: Steve Beachy said that the current Parkland Dedication Ordinance has a provision in it, under Item #10b, that gives the developer an option to construct a neighborhood park in lieu of paying the development fee. Wallace Phillips, with the development of the Castlegate Subdivision is taking this option. Steve said that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board have already approved the dedication for the park. The action during the meeting would be to approve the site plan that will release Mr. Phillips to begin construction of the park. Eric Ploeger said that a draft of the site plan was brought to the Board during the July 10, 2001, meeting as an informational item with the intention that it would be brought back to the Board as a proposed site plan. He added that with the proposed site plan, Mr. Phillips is more than satisfying the amount that he would have been required to pay for the dedication fee. David Wood discussed the essential elements proposed for the park: - Tennis courts; - Basketball court; - Playground unit with rubber surfacing; - Shelter with stone columns to match the entryway theme; - Expanded walk with handicap ramps; - Shade trellis; - Drip irrigation system; - Benches; and - Sculpture. Steve stated that the park site incorporates intergenerational features and has maximum visibility and accessibility. Part of the dedication will also include the two (2) detention ponds that are at the entranceway to the subdivision. Mr. Phillips said that there would be lit sidewalks that would go through the park and in front of the tennis courts, and that there would also be a handicap drinking fountain. There will be no off-street parking. He said that the park would be a showcase for the City of College Station, as well as the Castlegate Subdivision, and that the intent is for the park to be more of a community -type park for the subdivision. Mr. Phillips pointed out on a map the property that would become a future City park as well. Steve said that Parks and Recreation Department staff recommends approval of the site plan. John Nichols asked if the signage of the park would be recognizable and comparable with the standard style that is currently being used in other City parks. Steve said that the signage would be more consistent with the theme of the subdivision than with what would typically be put in a neighborhood park. John asked if there would be signage that would identify the park as part of the City park system. Mr. Phillips stated that he is proud that Castlegate Park is a City park, and would not have a problem incorporating the City's logo into the park signage. John asked about the maintenance of the park. Steve said that due to the fact that the park is in a fairly remote area, the City has opted to include the park in the landscaping Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, October 9, 2001 Page 2 of 6 maintenance contract that the City has. He added that the cost of maintenance of the park may be a little higher than for a typical neighborhood park, due to the cost of electricity to light the tennis courts, and the cost to resurface the courts every six (6) to seven (7) years. He added that funds have been approved in the fiscal year budget to include the contract maintenance for the park. Glen D. made a motion to approve the site plan for Castlegate Park. Don A. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 6. Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding parkland dedication requirements for the Westfield addition: Steve stated that this item involves a tract of land for which a dedication was approved in January 1998 (under the old Parkland Dedication Ordinance) where land was dedicated in excess of the requirements needed for the phases of the subdivision being developed. At that time, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board had moved to recommend that the Board accept the proposed dedication, with a stipulation that future development must occur within a ten year timeframe for the credit to be valid on future dedication requirements. The initial dedication had 219 dwelling units, which equated to a dedication requirement of 1.65 acres for Phases I through IV of the development. The dedication that was made on the plat was actually 4.299 acres, which was in excess of the requirement. The intent was that as future phases came up, the dedication would be met up to that point. Steve said that since the time the original dedication occurred, the property has changed ownership. The question now is, does the dedication credit follow future tracts, or does it follow the owner? Steve presented a map of the property, which is located in the southern portion of the City in Park Zone 10. Jane Kee added that the original developer was John Szabuniewicz. Mr. French picked up the third and fourth phases of the development from Mr. Szabuniewicz, and also an additional tract of adjacent land to the south. The decision at present is whether or not the excess dedication credit will be applied to the adjacent tract of land to the south. Mr. French said that when he purchased the land, he obtained a written document that states that Mr. Szabuniewicz dedicated all of his credits to Mr. French. After some discussion, Glen D. made a motion to approve the 4.299 acres as the parkland dedication for both tracts of land (the original Westfield Subdivision, Phases I through IV, and the tract of land adjacent and to the south). In addition, for verification, Mr. French will provide the written documentation that he received when he purchased the property from Mr. Szabuniewicz, indicating acknowledgement of the transfer of any parkland credits to Mr. French. Any excess parkland credit from Westfield, Phases I through IV, will be applied to the remainder of Westfield at the original rate of one acre per 133 dwelling units and to the new development to the south at the current rate of one acre per 101 dwelling units. The current development fee will apply only to new development to the south (the tract south of the future east/west feeder road). Don A. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. Larry F. made a motion requesting that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board review Mr. French's plat for connectivity between the existing park and the tract adjacent to the south before it is presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Glen D. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, October 9, 2001 Page 3 of 6 7. Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding potential parkland donation in the Pebble Creek Subdivision: Steve said that this item does not pertain to a dedication requirement, and that there was no action required of the Board at the meeting. The developer of the Pebble Creek Subdivision has indicated a desire to donate some land to the City for the use as a neighborhood park. He added that the Pebble Creek Subdivision has no additional dedication requirements because of the initial land trade deal that took place when the Subdivision and the College Station Business Park were created. Steve showed a map of the proposed parkland donation, which is in the southern boundary of the Subdivision, and is approximately 4.4 acres. The property will have frontage on one of the future streets and has connections to cul-de-sacs. He added that the property is heavily wooded, and the intent of the developer is to keep it that way, with the possibility of building a small play unit on it. Eric and Steve have visited the site with the developer, and suggested scheduling a site tour with the Board as well. Steve added that the City does not have an obligation to accept the parkland donation, but he does feel that the park would help service access to some of the new neighborhoods. Steve added that by accepting the park, the City would incur future operation and maintenance costs for the park. The Board was in consensus on having a site tour of the property in the future. This was an informational item only, and no motion was made. 8. Presentation and discussion of the College Station Greenways Program: Steve said that this is an item that the Board had requested. He introduced Judy Downs, the City's Greenways Coordinator. Judy passed out several handouts: an educational brochure about the College Station Greenways Program, the Proposed Greenways Education Program, and a printed PowerPoint presentation of the Project Status of the College Station Greenways Master Plan (see attachments). She added that the City has hired a Transportation Planner and a Transportation Engineer to help with the Greenways Program. She pointed to a GIS map that showed the City's Greenways, and explained several projects that were currently underway. Judy said that one of the purposes of having greenways is to connect people through natural trail systems, and asked the Board to consider keeping greenways and parkland dedication separate. She added that there are several grants available that can assist with the acquisition of greenways. Judy introduced David Scott, the President of the Brazos Greenways Council. Mr. Scott stated that he hopes that College Station Parks and Recreation and the greenways fully integrate, because he feels that the greenways will become good recreation amenities for the community. He pointed to several studies that encouraged recreational trail activities (i.e. bicycling, walking, running, jogging, and in -line skating activities). He added that these types of trail activities supercede activities such as baseball or softball. Laura Wood asked how the Greenways Master Plan would fit into parkland dedication. Judy responded that she tries to attend all of the predevelopment meetings to ensure that the Greenways Master Plan is being followed. Steve added that staff is also in the process of creating a review checklist for parkland dedication that would incorporate greenways into it to ensure that the proposed dedication is supportive of the Master Plan. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, October 9, 2001 Page 4 of'6 John N. asked who was responsible for maintaining the greenways in College Station. Steve replied that both the Public Works and the Parks and Recreation Departments would be responsible for the maintenance. John invited Judy to come back to the Board with future updates. Glen D. suggested having greenways reports on a semi-annual basis (i.e. fall and spring). This was an informational item only, and no motion was made. 9. Discussion, consideration, and possible action regarding possible revisions to the Parkland Dedication Ordinance: Steve said that this item has been discussed by the Board during the last several meetings. The Parkland Dedication Ordinance was last revised in January 1999, with the strong recommendation that it be revised every three (3) years. Revisions to the ordinance will be presented to the City Council in February 2002. He added that the ordinance would be forwarded to the Legal Department after the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board had given their input. The ordinance would then be taken to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their approval in November 2001. Steve referred to the handouts that included the proposed changes to the Parkland Dedication Ordinance, as well as the proposed Parkland Dedication Fee Methodology for 2001 Review (a) and (b), and a comparison table (see attachments). He pointed out the proposed changes to the ordinance, and asked Jane to comment on the methodology. Jane said that Methodology (a) is based on the assumption that one acre costs $15,000 to purchase, and that Methodology (b) is based on the assumption that one acre costs $20,000 to purchase. She referred to the handout that showed a comparison for single and multi -family dwelling units at the current dedication, the proposed dedication if the land cost were left at $15,000, and the proposed dedication if the land cost were increased to $20,000. The question was asked how the $15,000 for the average land value was originally determined. Jane responded that the figure was determined through staff research, as well as from input from a focus group meeting with local developers in 1998. Steve said that the intent at the meeting was to get the Board's feedback and possible approval of the wording of the ordinance so that it can be taken to the Legal staff, and then to the Planning and Zoning Commission. There was a consensus of the Board to have staff explore the possibility of having variable zone rates incorporated into the methodology during the next three (3) year review cycle of the ordinance. Glen D. made a motion to approve the proposed revisions to the Parkland Dedication Ordinance as presented by Staff, as well as the proposed Methodology (b), based on the $20,000 average land value in the City, and the $300,000 as a reasonable cost for neighborhood park development. Larry F. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. Jane added that support from the Board is welcome when the ordinance revisions are presented to the City Council for their approval in February. 10. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board's Fiscal Year 2002 Goals and Objectives: Glen D. made a motion to approve the Board's Fiscal Year 2002 Goals and Objectives that were included in the Board packets. Don A. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 11. Discussion, consideration, and possible appointment of members to the Conference Center Advisory Board: Glen D. made a motion to table this agenda item to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, October 9, 2001 Page 5 of'6 November 13, 2001, meeting in order to give staff more time to recruit new members to serve on the committee. Don A. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 12. Report, discussion, and possible action concerning the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board's recommendations to the City Council (Reference: Memorandum dated May 2001): This item is related to a request that was made by one of the Board members for an update of the Board's recommendations that were presented to the City Council during the joint meeting of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and the Council on May 10, 2001 (refer to memo titled "Response to Parks and Recreation Advisory Board's Recommendations to Council, " dated September 11, 2001). Steve went over the memo with the Board. This was an informational item only, and no motion was made. 13. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning City Council Vision Statements: This is a standing item, and there were no updates to report during the meeting. 14. Consent items; Capital Improvement Project Report: Eric reported that there is money budgeted in the Fiscal Year 2002 budget to concrete the surface of the jogging tract at Jack and Dorothy Miller Park. Staff have met with the College Station Independent School District and the Parent Teacher's Organization to discuss the possibility of coming up with an interlocal agreement to pay for rubber surfacing to be put over the concrete. If approved, the intention is to complete the work during the Christmas break. Eric reported that bids were opened for Phase I construction of Veterans Park and Athletic Complex on October 3, 2001. There were five (5) bidders, and the low bid was Acklam Construction. He added that the total cost for all of the alternates to the project totaled just under $3 million dollars. There was approximately $2.7 million available for construction, so at this time, the City would not be able to pay for the entire project. He added that the only alternate that the City would be able to fund was the landscaping alternate. The additional two (2) soccer fields and parking would not be funded at this time (there would only be four (4) soccer fields, instead of six (6)). The cost for this alternate was estimated at $300,000, which is significantly above what the engineering firm estimated that it would be. Next meeting date and agenda: The next regular meeting of the Board will be held on Tuesday, November 13, 2001, at 7:00 p.m, at the Central Park Conference Room. John N. added that he would be out of town on business and would not be able to attend the meeting. 15. Adjourn: The meeting adjourned at 9:52 p.m. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, October 9, 2001 Page 6 of 6 - - - ---------- ----- - ' ------- -- '~-~----�RT----------�-"---�--- � The City ®f k�ollege Station, Texas (�IVP4—oj Embracing the Past, Exploring the Future. P.O. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue 4. College Station, TX 77842 (979) 764-3500 www.ci.college-station.tx.us TO: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board FROM: Steve Beachy, Director of Parks and Recreation I11 SUBJECT: Response to Parks and Recreation Advisory Board's Recommendations to Council. I have prepared a brief update, as requested, concerning the response to the Advisory Board's memo to the City Council in May. This memo outlined four (4) major areas of concern, along with twelve (12) priority budget issues. The following actions have been taken: 1® Nei2hborhood Park Land Acquisition — Issue: The Advisory Board requested funds to acquire neighborhood park sites prior to development. Response: The City Council was not in favor of committing funds to acquire land for neighborhood parks in advance of development; However, Council has established a Strategic Issue related to the creation of incentives to encourage developers to provide better park sites. Funds in the amount of $200,000 have been included in the Fiscal Year 2002 budget request to support this process. . Potential ideas for incentives will be discussed with developers and the Advisory Board this fall. The Advisory Board will discuss and develop recommendations for incentives at the December meeting. The recommendations will be presented to the City Council in February 2002. Page I of 4 Home of Texas A&M University 0 0 EN PlavL,round Safetv ~ Issue: The Advisory Board requested an additional $200,000 to fund playground replacements in Fiscal Year 2002, and that an additional $50,000 be included annually thereafter. Response: In Fiscal Year 2001, four (4) playgrounds were replaced utilizing a combination of bond funds and departmental replacement funds. The Gabbard Park playground replacement is under contract and will be completed this fall. Playground Funding Source Amount Status Brothers Pond '98 Bond $26,087 Complete Merry Oaks Replacement Account $23,843 Complete Lemon Tree '98 Bond $21,000 Complete Raintree '98 Bond $28,287 Complete Gabbard Replacement Account $34.124 Under Contract Total $204,271 T� - KI - aaamon orSZ!i7V174—,p-e-r year to the existing replacement account for the Fiscal Year 2002 budget. Following the Gabbard playground replacement, Georgie K- Fitch and Hensel Park playgrounds are scheduled for replacement in Fiscal Year 2002. These playgrounds are the next priority. Skateboard- Park - Issue: The Advisory Board requested the allocation of additional funds to construct and operate a skateboard facility. Response® Council established the preparation of a feasibility report on a skateboard park as a Strategic Issue. The report will include a survey of what other cities are doing as well as the development of recommendations for construction, operation, maintenance, and funding of the facility. The report will be presented to the Advisory Board in December. Also, the development may be included in a future CIP program based upon these recommendations and Council direction. Greenways Plan - Issue: The Advisory Board recommends the creation of a citizen advisory committee for the Greenway Plan. Page 2 of4 Response: Council has not created a separate committee. The staff Greenways Coordinator continues to work closely with the Brazos Greenways Council and will provide an update at the October Advisory Board meeting. Additional Goals and Priority Budget Issues: Urban Forest Management Plan: A grant application has been approved by the Texas Forest Service in the amount of $10,000. An additional $20,000 has been requested in the Fiscal Year 2002 budget. This is a City Council Strategic Issue and the report is scheduled to be given to the Council in May 2002. 30/60 Corridor: The City Council approved the 30/60 Corridor Plan with the Master Plan of Veterans Park and Athletic Complex intact. No additional north/south roads were permitted in or adjacent to the park. Greenways Oversight Committee; Comments same as previously stated. Park Maintenance Standards Plan: The plan was approved by the City Council and will be implemented over a multi -year period. This is a Council Strategic Issue and quarterly inspections and reports will begin in the fall of 200 1. Intergenerational Parks: The City Council received and approved the report thi, occur through the on -going CIP process. Some of intergenerational features are Gabbard and Brison Parks term issue. Skateboard Park: Comments same as previously stated. Land Acquisition: Comments same as previously stated. spring. implementation will the projects that will include improvements. This is a long - Bee Creek Backstops/Batting Cages: No action at this point. Staff will develop cost estimates and a site analysis, and report back to the Advisory Board. Senior Programs: This is a City Council Strategic Issue. The fall semester Eisenhower Leadership Development Program will assign this as a follow-up project. A survey of local seniors will be conducted. The results will be presented to the City Council in November. Page 3 of 4 Park Access Plan: This issue will be discussed with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and the Planning and Zoning Commission as a concern at the joint meeting on September 20, 2001. Park Land Dedication Ordinance: The ordinance will be revised over the next 3-4 months. The staff is working on this issue and will meet with developers in September. Additional review with the Advisory Board and the Planning and Zoning Commission will occur prior to the presentation to the City Council in February 2002. This is a City Council Strategic Issue. Page 4 of 4 From: "George W.R. (Bill) Davis" <bill@pianoplace.net> To: 'Kris Startzman Lehde' <Klehde@ci.college-station.tx.us> Date: 10/3/01 10:57PM Subject: Request for Excused Absence Kris and Parks Board I am leaving town tomorrow and will not return until October 13th. Please excuse my absence from the meeting on Tuesday. Bill Bill Davis, RPT Jorja Davis, Instructor The Piano Place 1219 Boswell St College Station TX 77840 www.pianoplace.net From: Jon Turton <jturton@mail.st-joseph.org> To: 'Kris Lehde' <klehde@ci.college-station.tx.us> ®ate: 10/9/01 8:35AM Subject: RE: Meeting Reminder Kris, I'm in the unfortunate position that I again have to request an absence from the meeting. I have a work function tonight that begins at 6:30 and will not end until after 9:00pm. Please excuse my absence. Jon Turton OC-� From: Jon Turton <jturton@mail.st-joseph.org> To: 'Kris Lehde' <klehde@ci.college-station.tx.us> Date: 10/9/01 8:35AM Subject: RE: Meeting Reminder Kris, I'm in the unfortunate position that I again have to request an absence from the meeting. I have a work function tonight that begins at 6:30 and will not end until after 9:00pm. Please excuse my absence. Jon Turton From: "George W.R. (Bill) Davis" <bill@pianoplace.net> To: 'Kris Startzman Lehde' <Klehde@ci.college-station.tx.us> Date: 10/3/01 10:57PM Subject: Request for Excused Absence Kris and Parks Board I am leaving town tomorrow and will not return until October 13th. Please excuse my absence from the meeting on Tuesday. is Bill Davis, RPT Jorja Davis, Instructor The Piano Place 1219 Boswell St College Station TX 77840 www.pianoplace.net From: "George W.R. (Bill) Davis" <bill@pianoplace.net> To: 'Kris Startzman Lehde' <Klehde@ci.college-station.tx.us> Date: 10/3/01 10:57PM Subject: Request for Excused Absence Kris and Parks Board I am leaving town tomorrow and will not return until October 13th. Please excuse my absence from the meeting on Tuesday. Bill Bill Davis, RPT Jorja Davis, Instructor The Piano Place 1219 Boswell St College Station TX 77840 www.pianoplace.net STATION LDVISORY BOARD ing 9 2001 ference Room Road is 77840 Call to order. 2. Hear visitors. 3. Pardon — Consider requests for absences of members from meeting. 4. Approval of minutes from regular meeting of September 11, 2001, and joint meeting of September 20, 2001. 5. Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding the Castlegate Park site plan. 6. Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding park land dedication requirements for the Westfield addition. 7. Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding potential park land donation in the Pebble Creek Subdivision. 8. Presentation and discussion of the College Station Greenways Program. 9. Discussion, consideration, and possible action regarding possible revisions to the Park Land Dedication Ordinance. 10. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board's Fiscal Year 2002 Goals and Objectives. 11. Discussion, consideration, and possible appointment of new members to the Conference Center Advisory Board. 12. Report, discussion, and possible action concerning the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board's recommendations to the City Council (Reference: Memorandum dated May 2001). 13. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning City Council Vision Statements: ➢ Vision Statement #3, Strategy #4a (Develop and Urban Forestry Plan) and ➢ Vision Statement #4 (Cultural Arts and Recreational Opportunities), ➢ Strategy # 1 (Performing Arts Center); ➢ Strategy #2 (Parks Maintenance Standards); ➢ Strategy #3 ( Intergenerational Parks); ➢ Strategy #4 (Comprehensive Parks Planning); ➢ Strategy #5 (Comprehensive Leisure Programs); ➢ Strategy #6 (Enhance Cultural Opportunities Through Existing Art Program); ➢ Strategy #7 (Connect Greenways); and ➢ Strategy #8 (Improve Communication between Boards) 14. Consent items: — Capital Improvement Project Report. — Next meeting date and agenda. 15. 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) I-800-735-2989. Agendas posted on Internet Website http://www.ei.college-station.tx.us and Cable Access Channel 19. lj� if 1) rill Al Y.' `yalA !-TO,i A SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT PROCESS Development"' 's8 - �Effi Preclevelopment Meeting LZoning Process Platting Process I Permitting/Construction • Market studies. • Site selection. • Feasibility studies. • General concept plan developed. I NN"No" • Initial contact with City Staff. • Identify major issues that need further analysis. • Discuss the development process and permitting requirements. Y.ITAVU 4-:N, ?; RF1*rkQV-, vl 11p,tr OU C. to-" C-, - Developer requests to rezone the property. - The Planning & Zoning Commission makes a recommendation to City Council. - The City Council makes the final decision. - Master Development Plan — Proposed land uses. — General drainage information. — Public improvements such as parks, schools and other public facilities. I rag .• r ! �Gferw �i wttt�t � s'ii/ �}`tOP,, i����.11 �'.'isl"l; \ti �i'. i��'1":. • Preliminary Plat — Detailed subdivision layout including lots, local streets, utilities, etc. — Proposed parks or other public area. — Topographic information & location of the 100 year floodplain. — Phasing of the development. • Final Plat — Exact location of lots, streets, utilities, drainage improvements with complete construction documents. — Exact location of parks or other public areas with complete construction documents. 0IYM!V`#. .41 ItAdt;ttV�"Mf i, Ate • Development permits issued for construction of infrastructure. • Once construction is completed & accepted, the final plat is filed for record. • Building permits are issued. 3 City of College Station PARKLAND DEkDICATIO REVIEW DEDICATION REQUIREMENT .-Efther Land or Fee In Ueu of Land Fee for Development Cost or Development 9n Ueu of Fee ,-3-Year Review of Fees ifiFit-IM �J ,--Calculation Based on: ® Current Service Level - 3.5 acre neigh. parkland / 1,000 pop. ® 1990 Census Figures ® 2.81 PPH - SF 2.13 PPH - MF �-Requirement * SF - One acre per 101 Units * MF - One acre per 134 Units �-Proposed Calculation Based on: Same Service Level - 3.5 acre neigh. parkland / 1,000 pop. 2000 Census Figures - 2.80 PPH - SF 2.28 PPH - MF ,—Requirement o SF - One acre per 101 Units • MF - One acre per 125 Units wCalculation Based on: 9 Acquisition cost - $16,000 f acre .—Requirement • SF - $15,000 101 DU $148 1 Unit • MF - $15,000 134 DU $112 / Unit ,—Proposed Calculation Based on: Acquisition cost111 / acre Requirement o SF - $15,000 / 101 ®U = $148 / Unit m MF - $15,000 / 125 ®U = 120 / Unit ,—Average Park Size - 3 acres ,—Average ®ev. Cost per Acre = $31,250 ,—Requirement o SF - $31,250 1101 Units = $309 / Unit o MF - $31,250 1134 Units = $233 / Unit ,—Alternative PROPOSED P O QED D, ' t Lr E M FEE ,—Average park costs - $300,000 (includes intergenerational facilities) ,—one park serves 2,341 people ,—Costs $128 per person .—Requirement •SF - $128X2.80PPH=$358/Unit • MF - $128 X 2.28 PPH = $292 / Unit r CURRENT Single Family I acre per 101 units Multi Family 1 acre per 134 units Single Family I acre per 101 units Multi Family 1 acre per 125 units CURRENT PROPOSED Single Family Single Family . Land - $148 . Land - $148 . Dev. - $309 . Dev. - $358 Total $457 Total - $506 Multi Family Multi Family . Land - $112 . Land - $120 . Dev. - $233 . Dev. - $292 Total $345 Total - $412 City of College Station July 5, 2001 Page 15 Also, real estate brokers active in the area were consulted as to their knowledge of properties currently offered on the market for sale which would be in competition with the subject property if it was offered for sale on the open market. The available market data was investigated, analyzed and compared to the similar and dissimilar characteristics. Then adjustments were made accordingly in reaching the value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach. In the valuing of properties with the Sales Comparison Approach there are several units of comparison that may be utilized. The most commonly used method in valuing development tracts is on a price per acre basis. Therefore, this was the method utilized in our analysis of the subject property. The following is a brief synopsis of the sales which were utilized in our analysis of the subject property. (The detailed information for these sales is located in the Addenda of this report.) Subject Easterly line of State Highway 6, north N/A 18.848 N/A of Greens Prairie Road, College Station, Texas One East line of Texas Avenue (State April 1998 15.81 $21,000.00 Highway 6), north of Greens Prairie Rd., College Station, Texas Two North line of Rock Prairie Road, west of Dec. 1998 45.23 $8,500.00 Bird Pond Rd., College Station, Texas Three West line of Texas Ave., south of June 1999 21.10 $11,848.00 Graham Rd., College Station, Texas Four North line of Arnold Rd., east of Nov. 1999 17.215 $17,427.00 Schaffer Rd., College Station, Texas Five South line of Greens Prairie Rd., east of March 2000 46.464 $19,200.00 Lakeway Dr., College Station, Texas Six East line of Rock Prairie Rd., south of March 2000 26.25 $7,500.00 Bird Pond Rd., College Station, Texas Seven Southeast corner of Harvey Rd. and July 2000 6.63 $16,591.00 Linda Ln.. College Station. Texas A�e�a� � �(Cri'�-g'o L VACANT LAND Club T� 1'� � �/— SALE 7 J _ - i om)9 DeLomie- Street Ad:7t-el SALES - Z �/ X\,\ \ 8 •d SALE 2 's SALE 6 SALE 4 SALE 3 8 SALE 1 SALE 5 r• —Eadhom ---- - ------ IRPNEIMME City of College Station July 5, 2001 I -IRN .56 -A - NO- NA.' MIIQ A.- SubjectII Northerly line of Krenek Tap Road, west of I) State Highway 6, College Station, Texas OneI) North line of Krenek Tap Road, west of II State Highway 6, College Station, Texas Two II Southeast corner of F.M. 2818 and Luther II Street, College Station, Texas ThreeII North line of Krenek Tap Road, west of II State Highway 6, College Station, Texas Four South line of Southwest Parkway, just west of Welsh Street, College Station, Texas Five Northwest corner of Copperfield Drive and II Pendleton Drive, Bryan, Texas Page 13 �q 8.98 NIA II 8.986 $1.90 1 U+ II 18.64(I ���%�, $1.65 8.986 $1.50 II 6.8031 $1.47 M I� 16.593I � I $1.65 g, � I Six Easterly line of Holleman Drive, just north Sept. 1999 16.235 $1.55 of Harvey Mitchell Parkway, College Station, Texas Seven Northerly line of Southwest Parkway, west Dec. 1998 7.99 $1.40 of the intersection of Welsh and Southwest Parkway, College Station, Texas Eight Wraps the southwesterly corner of March 1998 7.89 $1.45 Dartmouth Street and Southwest Parkway, 1612— College Station, Texas The sales summarized above constitute a cross section of the most similar properties wi�ich have recently sold. Each of these sales has been compared to the subject property with adjustments being made for the various differences. The wide range of sales prices for the comparable sales is considered to reflect the diverse physical and locational characteristics of tracts similar to the subject property. Nevertheless, the sales utilized in this analysis were considered to be the best available and the most indicative of current market trends for properties of the subject's type. N/A Feb. 2001 Feb. 2001 Aug. 2000 July 2000 May 2000 The available market data was investigated, analyzed, and compared to the similar and dissimilar characteristics, and adjustments were made accordingly in reaching the value estimate by the Sales Comparison Approach. sake sale 0,b 41 AUTL— oe- 4k, 4e 8�- C-k A'I Wj o!O v 47- 461, -44 IIq-r hr cer, 41 41 E - 4ir CW. F"m A404A tP �s CLAM I)k 41* fL ov CM tood, Con MAO, seoilce State godke 9101fle N stake Locale POSIO .Pam, eek 'tiake( toe! A000 Parks and Recreation Department Staff Present: Steve Beachy, Director of Parks and Recreation; Eric Ploeger, Assistant Director; Kris Lehde, Staff Assistant. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board members present: John Nichols, Chairman; Bill Davis; Don Allison; Larry Farnsworth. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board members absent: Glenn Schroeder; Jon Turton; Glen Davis; Laura Wood (Alternate). Development Services Staff Present: Jim Callaway, Director of Development Services; Sabine Kuenzel, Senior Planner; Jessica Jimmerson, Staff Planner; Ted Mayo, Assistant City Engineer; Natalie Ruiz, Development Review Manager; Bridgette George, Assistant Development Review Manager; Ken Fogle, Transportation Planner; Tammy Macik, Secretary. Planning and Zoning Commission members present: Richard Floyd, Chairman; Ronald Kaiser; Carolyn Williams; Phil Trapani. Planning and Zoning Commission members absent: John Happ; Kyle Hawthorne; Wallis McMath. Visitors: Chris Scherwin, 1800 Holleman, Apt. 1007, College Station, Texas 77840 Chris DeChillo, 1813 C. Yellowhouse Cr., College Station, Texas 77840 Deborah Dutton, 1201 Harvey Road, Apt. 156, College Station, Texas 77840 Jaime Griffith, 3535 Plainsman, #B29, Bryan, Texas 77802 Christina Thomas, 110 Redmond, College Station, Texas 77840 Liz Moore, 7600 Central Park, #1507, College Station, Texas 77840 Matt Gardiner, 503 Southwest Parkway, #207, College Station, Texas 77840 Nick Whitaker, 2201 Colgate Drive, College Station, Texas 77840 Rebecca Cipriano, 313 Stanford, College Station, Texas 77840 Stephanie West, 2508 Westwood Main, Bryan, Texas 77807 Derek Mayfield, 3405 Dallis, College Station, Texas 77845 Stacey Alexander, 401 Montclair, College Station, Texas 77845 Derek Young, 1700 Southwest Parkway, College Station, Texas 77840 Stephanie McMeans, 1404 Sunny Court, College Station, Texas 77840 Joint Meeting Parks & Recreation Advisory Board and Planning and Zoning Commission Thursday, September 20, 2001 Page 1 of 5 1, Call to order: The meeting was called to order at 5:20 p.m. by Planning and Zoning Commission Chairman Richard Floyd and Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Chairman John Nichols. 20 Discussion of Parkland Dedication Ordinance and related process: Eric Ploeger discussed the process that is currently underway to update the Parkland Dedication Ordinance (see attached PowerPoint presentation). He said that two Council Strategic Issues deal with park accessibility and the process that the City goes through to accept park land. Both Parks and Recreation and Development Services staff have been working on new internal procedures related to how the City accepts park land and how it gets the information to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board so that they can make informed recommendations. These new procedures will require developers to submit clearer and more concise information so that the two Departments can put it into a packet that is easily understandable for the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. Included in the packet will be information related to floodplain location and the exact number of proposed dwelling units. Eric said that a meeting has been scheduled with City staff and local developers to review possible changes to the ordinance and to get input from the development community. The meeting will be held on Friday, September 21, 2001. Eric added that suggestions will also be gathered from City staff, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, and local developers concerning suggested changes to the ordinance. Those suggestions will be brought back to the Board for their recommendation to the City Council. The ordinance is also scheduled to be brought back to the Planning and Zoning Commission in January 2002 for approval and later to the City Council in February 2002 for final approval. The dedication requirements that are currently being reviewed are the - Land dedication or the fee in lieu of land dedication; and - Fee for development cost or development in lieu of the fee for development cost. Eric said that there are some suggested changes to the ordinance that pertain to fees. One suggestion is to increase the multi -family dedication requirement in order to gain more property or to receive a higher cash amount for each dwelling unit. The reason for this suggested increase is due to the fact that the 2000 census figures show an increase in the density of the multi -family housing —single family has basically not changed. Another suggestion is to increase the development fee with an emphasis on intergenerational park features, which would mean adding additional amenities to include a wider age range of neighborhood park users. There are also several suggested changes to the ordinance that pertain to the language. One suggestion relates to floodplain and would state that when the dedication is below five acres, no floodplain or floodable land would be accepted as part of the required dedication. Additional floodable land will be accepted on a case -by -case basis. Another suggestion relates to detention/retention facilities. It states that detention/retention areas will not be accepted as part of the required dedication, but only in addition to required dedication. This change to the ordinance would require that the Joint Meeting Parks & Recreation Advisory Board and Planning and Zoning Commission Thursday, September 20, 2001 Page 2 of 5 detention or retention area design would have to be approved by City staff and meet the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board's policy concerning detention/retention area design. In other words, if a developer wishes to dedicate a detention or retention facility, the facility would have to be over -and -above the required dedication. Eric added that City staff is currently working on design criteria to better control the type of detention/retention facilities that the City will accept. Another suggestion relates to the fee in lieu of land dedication and the development fee. It states that the land fee and the development fee could be spent on either category and could be used for future park development. Eric referred to a handout, which had a listing of two recent real estate appraisal listings from the City's Land Agent, Mark McAuliffe (see attachment). One listing contained seven appraisals for rural areas on the easterly line of State Highway 6, north of Greens Prairie Road, in College Station (average sales price is $14,580). The other listing contained eight appraisals for land that is closer to College Station, on the northerly line of Krenek Tap Road, west of State Highway 6 (average sales price is $68,444). He said that at this time, there is not a recommendation for the land fee, but the possibility of varying the fee from zone to zone had been discussed with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. Chairman Nichols said that the possibility of having a variable fee would have to be researched to justify the certain differentials between the zones. Steve Beachy said that it may be difficult to come up with a formula and to determine the appraisals between the zones. Commissioner Kaiser asked what the percentages of the development cost residents are required to pay for a neighborhood park. Jim Callaway responded that the ordinance was originally set up to recover 100% of the development cost, but it may be less than that. Commissioner Kaiser stated that there should be a policy question concerning the fact that the development costs fluctuate from zone to zone. Chairman Floyd asked the members of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board what they felt the role of the Planning and Zoning Commission is in terms of park land dedication. Steve said that the current process that staff and the appointed committees have needs to be improved upon. City staff will try to obtain more information from developers in the early stages of development in order to give this information to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board for them to make a more educated decision. Chairman Nichols stated that continued dialogue with the Planning and Zoning Commission, future clarification concerning what type of park land the City will accept, and the improvement of the development process will aid in any future decisions the Board has to make. Chairman Floyd stated that it is important for the City Council to know that the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board are now "on the same page." Steve added that staff is creating a checklist to include in the meeting packets that will provide information concerning upcoming development to aid in making future park land dedication decisions. Commissioner Kaiser said that park land dedication is a reactive approach. He asked if the question of the possibility of buying land prior to development had ever been discussed. Steve said that there are two ways that this topic has been approached. One Joint Meeting Parks & Recreation Advisory Board and Planning and Zoning Commission Thursday, September 20, 2001 Page 3 of 5 way is to buy land prior to development and reimburse the land through the dedication process. Another way is to designate an area of reserve and buy into that reserve as dedication occurs. 2. Discussion regarding Accessibility for Parks: Steve said that a study was conducted to look at the accessibility of all of the parks in College Station per park zone using GIS (see attached PowerPoint presentation). The report showed that the park zones have a great degree of variance as to accessibility to parks. The good news from the report is that overall, the City has a good percentage of the population being served. The bad news is that there are places in the City that are not being served. Among the options to improve the number of people being served is to obtain more parks and to make linkages through existing parks. The bottom line is that once park sites are located, the key is to make sure that the streets and pedestrian pathways provide linkages to other parks. Sabine Kuenzel added that the topic of park accessibility had been discussed during the joint meeting with the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council on July 11, 2001. Currently, the City's Subdivision Regulations encourage linkages at the backs of cul-de-sacs. The Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Consultant was given direction to tighten up the language in the Parkland Dedication Ordinance to make these types of linkages a requirement. Jim said that a problem that the Development Services staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission have faced in the past is the lack of knowledge as to where future parks will be located, particularly in smaller subdivisions. however, over the years, staff have had better communication with developers concerning linkages. He added that the although the City Council did not appear in favor of acquiring land prior to development, they did appear interested in planning better park locations prior to development. Steve said that the Council has also directed staff to come up with some kind of positive incentive to encourage developers to dedicate better quality park land. Commissioner Trapani asked if potential park property has been identified that would aid the Development Services staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission in making decisions when they are presented with plats for development. Steve responded that the Recreation, Park, and Open Space Master Plan only identifies park needs by zone. Chairman Nichols suggested having a rule that would state that whenever the School District buys property, the City would buy property next to it. 3. Discussion of common goals and areas of interest: Chairman Nichols referred to the Board's recommended goals and objectives (see attachment) and explained the process that the Board goes through to develop them. Steve added that the goals and objectives would also be presented to the City Council for their approval. Jim referred to the document that listed potential areas of common interest and possible goal setting with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (see attachment). 4. Discussion of the Unified Development Ordinance and how it pertains to the definition of Open Space: The Unified Development Ordinance will contain all of the City's development ordinances and regulations combined into one document. Jim said that the new UDO would provide a definition of open space and have a requirement that a certain percentage of development be devoted to it. Sabine added that a requirement of Joint Meeting Parks & Recreation Advisory Board and Planning and Zoning Commission Thursday, September 20, 2001 Page 4 of S approximately 10-20% of the development sites would be devoted to open space. She added that commercial sites might have some difficulty meeting the new requirement. 5. Adjourns Commissioner Trapani made a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Kaiser seconded the motion. Advisory Board member Bill Davis made a motion to adjourn. Advisory Board member Farnsworth seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Approved — Richard Floyd Date Planning and Zoning Commission Chairman Approved — John Nichols Date Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Chairman Joint Meeting Parks & Recreation Advisory Board and Planning and Zoning Commission Thursday, September 20, 2001 Page 5 of 5 FARKLAND ®E NCATMO ORDNNANCE --Adopted - 1981 <;-Revised o 1998 P-3-Year Review 0 PARKLAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE -A - Purpose .—B - Fee / Dedication Required wC - Prior Dedication -D - Right to Refund .—E - Comp Plan Reference .—F - Specific Criteria wG - Approval -H a Review of Fees WIN.151,11 ,—Dedication Requirement ,Specific Criteria for Acceptance and Development either Land or Fee In Lieu of Land --Fee for Development Cost or Development In Lieu of Fee 0 ND DED1'.. TION ETHODOL bG Calculation Based on: o Current Service Level 3.5 acre neigh. parkland 11,000 pop. 2.81 PPH - SF 2.13 PPH - MF ,—Requirement ® SF - One acre per 101 Knits ® MF - One acre per 134 Units z--Caiculation Based on. Acquisition cost - $15,000 / acre --Requrement * SF - $15,000 / 101 DU m $140 / Unit MF - $15,000 / 134 ®U ® $112 /Unit DEVELOPMENT FEE Average ®ev. Cost per Acre - $31,250 ,-Requirement ® SF - $31,250 1101 Units = $309 / unit o MF - $31,2501134 Units = $233 / Unit 93 TOTAL FEE REQUIRED -Single Family Land- $148 ® Dev. - $309 _r ��� 4: it �IIrVYWllYVWi�Yt�"L' l+j�l 2WMulti Family . Land - $112 . Dev. - $233 '2®1 RMEW Population numbers Land and development costs lntergeneratlona8 parks Focus Croup Parrs Bard P&Z / Council PARKLAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE ,wFee / Dedication Requirement ,wSpecific Criteria for Acceptance and Development f 4. • M3 PLAN REFERENCE wME The parks & ®pen Space Plan provides the parks Board guidance upon which to base decisions. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Section 4.04 o Comprehensive Plan z-Section 10-F - Subdivision Regulations ACCEPTANCE DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA ,—"Floodable" Land 2-Central Locations .—Safety .—Togo 1 Scenic Elements z—Adjacent to Schools ,—Easy Access ,,-,Street Frontage 6 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA .,-,Any land dedicated to the City under this section must be suitable for park and recreation uses. ,--Floodable99 sand . Consideration will be given to land that is in the floodplain.....as long as ... it is suitable for park improvements. ACCEPTANCE C I E M 2-Central Locations . Parks should be adjacent to residential areas in a manner that serves the greatest number of users. NO ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA ,—Togo / Scenic Elements ®'Sites should not have unusual topo which would render the land unusable for organized activities. Sites should have existing trees or other scenic elements. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA -Parks should be easy to access, open to public view, benefit area development, enhance visual character of the city, protect health, safety and welfare, minimize conflict with adjacent land uses. 6 ,DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA wAdjacent to Schools ® Where physically feasible, park sites should be located adjacent to schools in order to encourage shared facilities. �d-Easy Access o A proposed subdivision adjacent to a park may not be designed to restrict reasonable access to the park from other area subdivisions. ® Street connections to existing and future adjoining subdivisions may be required. DEVELOPMENTCRITERIA ,—Screening ® Non-residential uses abutting a park must be separated by screening (walls, fences or landscaping). . Access points may be allowed by the P&Z for public benefit. " 93 DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA .—Street Frontage . 50%of the perimeter of a park should abut a public street. ® City may require collector street adjacent to the park, ®P may be requested. PARKS BOARD AUTHORITY -10-G. Any proposal considered by the P&Z shall have been reviewed by the Parks Board and its recommendation given to the P&Z. z?-The P&Z may vote contrary to the Parks Board only by a concurring vote of at least 5 members. r� t 51 Potential areas of common interest, possible goal setting with Parks Board ® Establishing parks as a Focal Point in residential development. ® Often considered as providing parks in centralized locations. ® Thomas, Brison Parks cited as examples. Not fully addressed by just placing parks in more central locations in subdivisions. ® Orientation and relationship of development to park is also important. ® Design and facilities should address the needs of the neighborhood. ® Possible conflicting goals- Focal point locations V. co -location with elementary schools. ® Facilities, features other than parks may be appropriate- private common property, Home Owners Association facilities, etc. ® Funds for creating incentive program included in proposed FY 01-02 budget. ® Improving the current parkland dedication process. ® Current process is developer driven, occurs in response to a proposed development plat. ® Park sites not pre -selected, Parks, Recreation and Open space Plan notes need for additional acreage by park zone, does not identify preferred sites, alternate sites, etc. ® Not enough "locational" criteria in current regulations- relates to acceptability (size, access, floodplain, etc.). Does talk about adjacency to schools and majority of users but not much more related to location. ® If plan is inadequate then developers, Commission, Parks Board in ad hoc planning mode on case by case basis. ® Improving connections between parks and residential areas ® Review dedication ordinance to provide language whereby P&Z can require this connectivity in response to development. ® Can also be implemented through the greenways program ® Can be done with greenway / trail connections and/or sidewalk connections ® Improving communication between Parks Board and P&Z. ® When Parks Board reviews G&O of Parks Master Plan, involve P&Z ® Be sure G&O are in sync with comprehensive plan or suggest plan amendments ® Inform P&Z of facility needs and priorities to foster support City of College Station Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Fiscal Year 2002 Goals and Objectives (not prioritized) ***Draft*** ❑ Establish policies and standards for re -appraisal of existing parks, facilities, and services offered by the Department. ❑ Review quarterly reports on park maintenance standards and develop recommendations regarding levels of service. ❑ Review proposed park conceptual plans and make recommendations for intergenerational features. ❑ Review and develop recommendations for Urban Forestry Plan. ❑ Review preliminary cost estimates prepared by Staff. ❑ More interaction between Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and Planning and Zoning Commission, and shared vision with the City Council. ❑ Assist with the review and preparation of the Unified Development Ordinance. ❑ Review and recommend possible changes to the Park Land Dedication Ordinance. ❑ Conduct a joint meeting with the Planning and Zoning Commission to discuss goals. ❑ Conduct a joint meeting with the City Council to confirm goals. ❑ Implementation of the approved Capital Improvement Program. ❑ Castlegate Park site review. ❑ Lick Creek Park site review. ❑ Woodway Park site review. ❑ Shenandoah Park site review. ❑ Madeley Park site review. ❑ Planning and coordination for the next bond issue. ❑ Identify and assess the needs for future park facilities. ❑ Review preliminary cost estimates prepared by Staff. ❑ Determine priorities for development. ❑ Develop a recommendation for consideration in the 2002 bond program. ❑ Review and update the Recreation, Park, and Open Space Master Plan. ❑ Review and update goals and objectives of the plan. ❑ Review and update facility concepts and standards. ❑ Review and update needs assessment. ❑ Review and update priorities. ❑ Develop recommendation for plan adoption by the City Council. Parks & Recreation Advisory Board FY2002 Goals and Priorities Updated: September 20, 2001 Page 1 of 2 ❑ Veterans Park and Athletic Complex, Phase 11 Development. ❑ Review needs for future facilities and programs. ❑ Review preliminary cost estimates prepared by Staff. ❑ Determine priorities for development. ❑ Develop recommendations for implementation. ❑ Skate Park facility planning. ❑ Develop recommendation for scope of project. ❑ Develop recommendation for facility use. ❑ Develop recommendation for implementation. ❑ Review funding sources for the installation of two backstops and two batting cages at Bee Creek Park. ❑ Determine needs for program requirements. ❑ Develop recommendations for scope of project. ❑ Review preliminary cost estimates prepared by Staff. ❑ Develop recommendations for implementation. ❑ Review funding sources for the repair or replacement of the jogging track at Jack and Dorothy Miller Park. ❑ Review proposed project cost estimates. ❑ Review funding alternatives. ❑ Develop recommendations for implementation. ❑ Support implementation of the Greenways Master Plan. Li Receive update report from Greenways Coordinator. ❑ Review Recreation, Park, and Open Space Master Plan as it relates to greenways. ❑ Support the City Councils Interagency Plan in any Park and Recreation related issues. ❑ Continue dialog with the College Station Independent School District regarding future school/park developments. ❑ Continue dialog with Texas A&M University regarding Hensel Park and Veterans Park and Athletic Complex. ❑ Develop programs and facilities for Senior Citizens. ❑ Receive input from fall Eisenhower Leadership Development Program group., ❑ Determine priorities for programs and facilities. ❑ Develop recommendations for implementation. Parks & Recreation Advisory Board FY2002 Goals and Priorities Updated. September 20, 2001 Page 2 of 2 ,POST/1,STIMATE WORKSHEET PROJECT v ��'�� ?�z1 ESTIMATE NO. ® PREPARED BY LOCATION PHASE CHECKED BY ITEM QUANTITY INSTALLATION NO. • DESCRIPTION NO. UNIT $ PER UNIT TOTAL SHEET OF DATE DATE MATERIALS O & P TOTAL $ PER UNIT TOTAL COST �✓ r �����%f7,lam: I - �- I wi I K96Auoctclos.lnc Fofm AA m hud i�l' s m i ,iuul in order online - www.hsnsparts.cam DOUBLE BACK t 0 ALL TUNNELS HAVE 3 EACH 1/4" ROPES ON TOP, RUNNING THE LENGTH OF SIDES AND MIDDLE TO REDUCE SAG. SIZE a'© d�ee� tting Collegiate Scholastic #642 Knotless Nylon Netting ; #530 Knotless Nylon Ne' #420 Knotless Nylon Netting 1 344' Square Mesh (42 Thread) 1 3/4' Square Mesh (30 Thread) 1 3/4' Square Mesh (21 Thread) Over 320 lbs. Breaking Test Approx. Over 230 lbs. Breaking Test gpprox. Over 180 lbs. Breaking Test Approx. SPECS 14 oz. vinyl sewn bottom Diameter ® 14 oz. vinyl sewn bottom Diameter: 14 oz vinyl sewn bottom Diameter: Weather Treated Black Weather Treated Black Weather Treated Black BS-8BT#614B-F ...$1,028.1S ea. aga „ BS-BBT#5146 F ....$909.35 ea. 403M BS-BBT#4128-F .. .$633.95 ea. 4 Weather Treated Green Weather Treated Green . Weather Treated Green Il2° BS-BBT#61 4G-F ...$1®028.15 ea. BS-BBT#Si4G-F .....$909.35 ea. BS-68T#41264 ..1..:$633.95 ea. ORM ° 75' x 24' x 12' Treated Double Size wJ Center Divider ' 75' x 24' x 12' T reated� Double Size w/ Center Divider' BS-BBT#S286-F ...$1,605.45 ea. IQs. _ BS-BBT 4246-F ...$1,144.9S ea. 1Q BS-BBT#6126-F..... $995i.00 ea. �m m BSetherTreated Black _ Weather S BBT#4026-F .....$60S.10 ea. 09Y BBT#512B-F ... .$855.75 ea. BS- . Weather Treated Black W therTreated Black 12r� Weather Treated Green Weather Treated Green Weather Green BS-BBT#612G-F .....$995.00 ea. �' BS-BBT#S12G-F .....$855.7S ea. jQ_ ,, BS-BBT#402G-F .....$60S.10 ea. 121 BS-BBT#61SB-F .$1,081.70 ea. . BS-BBT#S S...... ®°L Weather Treated Black Weather Treated Black Weather Treated Black �„ _ ISB .. ...$952.15 ea. BS-BBT#4i5B-f .....$641.55 ea. NQM. Ism Weather Treated Green Weather Treated Green Weather Treated Green 12°8 BS-B6T#615G-F ...$1,081.70 ea. BS-BBT#515G-F .....$952.15 ea. 10 BS-66T#415G-F .....$641.55 ea. 4Q; Weather Treated Black Weather Treated Black Weather Treated Black 155 d BS-BBT#655B-F .....$830.00 ea. 10.. .. 6S-BBT#555B-F .....$696.15 ea. �� ;;_ BS-BBT#4556-F .....$562.25 ea ® 12V Weather Treated Green Weather Treated Green Weather Treated Green 12°� BS-BBT#655G®F .....$830.00 ea BS-BBT#555G-F .....$696.15 ea. 4 Xmy BS-BBT#455G-F ... ..$562.2S ea. iQ PRICES AKI) .............»...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Mutt[ -Use Tunnel 75' x 12' x 12' (Weather Treated) #452 Knotless Nylon (twice the strength of #252). BS-884S2(OM-F..............................$1,097.7S ea. a (BASEBALL AND GOLF) 75' x 12' x 12' (Weather Treated) #252 Knotless Nylon. Knotless nylon • 3/4" square mesh throughout • Two 75' top ropes and vinyl bottom • BS-BB252COM-F $877.1S ea. 1` Q Use as a batting tunnel or lift the side to practice golf shots................................ Custom Frames: OUR REVOLUTIONARY OUTDOOR UNIT DESIGN! WE CAN MAKE IT WITH NO, '1ABLES! NO TIGHTg�ING gE}(ICES! nproved design outdoor uI ffor permanent and semi -permanent installations using 3%" heavy wall galvanized pipe, ground sleeves and three 75' chains. Truck shipment. Double size frames available. Please call for special order information. Stock Frames: SIZE: To fit 12' x 12' up to 751 Tunnel BS-BBTFRAMO-F...............................$845.05 ea.1Q SIZE: To fit 15' x 12' up to 701 Tunnel BS-BBTFRMIS-F .............................. 4872.85 ea. 10 Double frame. BS-BBTFRMOB-F ........................... . ..$1,601.15 ea. 1O Player's Benches ® 1-5/8" (4.1cm) O.D. galvanized welded frame for bench with back. ® 2" (S.Icm) galvanized pipe upright frame for bench without back. With Seat Only Length Permanent Portable Weight Price 6*0" (1.8m) N/A #2156 31 lbs. (14.1 kg) $220 8'0" (2.4m) #2108 #2158 34 lbs. (15.4 kg) $260 15'0" (4.6m) #2115 #2165 54 lbs. (24.5 kg) $315 With Seat & Back Length Permanent Portable Weight Price 6'0" (1.8m) #2126 #2136 40 lbs. (18.1 kg) $285 9'0" (2.4m) #2128 #2138 46 lbs. (20.9 kg) $330 15'0" (4.6m) #2125 #2145 76 lbs. (34.5 kg) $570 _B_..A_SJt B-A 11 Ug _S #2398 (Shown) Price: $3,145 Weight: 712 lbs. (323.0 kg) #1941 SP with colored uprights Price: $3,145 Weight: 712 lbs. (323.0 kg) Actual Equipment Size: 712 lbs. (323.0 kg) Uprights and end frames are 2-1/2" x 1-112" x 3/16" (6.4cm x 3.8cm x 0.5cm) square tubing, powder coated black. ,, Rafters are 2-1/2" x 3/16" (6.4cm x 0.5cm) square tubing with aluminum roof panels. ® Bench is 14-gauge 1-112" x 9-1/4" x IS' (3.8cm x 24cm x 4.6m) anodized aluminum extrusion with 2-3/8" (6.0cm) O.D. galvanized steel legs. - Chain link is 9-gauge 2" (5.1cm) galvanized mesh. • 2" (5.1cm) heavy-duty galvanized steel pipe uprights. ® 1-1/4" (3.2cm) heavy-duty galvanized pipe cross ties. • 10' x 6' (3.1 rn x 1.8m) overhang sections. ® Galvanized 9-gauge fence. • On model Nos. 3112, 33121 4122, and 4124, the 2" (5.1cm) pipe is miter cut and welded to form the overhangs to a 15' (4.6m) height. Description Mode( # Weight Price Eal One 10'0" (3.1 m) back pane( with one wing panel at each side, 12'0" (3.7m) high. #3012 665 lbs. (301.6 kg) $1,475 One 10'0" (3.1 m) back panel with one 15'0" (4.6m) center overhang section & one wing panel at each side. #3112 788 lbs. (357.4 kg) $1,775 Same as Model No. 3012 with three overhangs, 15'0" (4.6m) high. #3312 978 lbs. (443.6 kg) $2,310 Two 10'0" (3.1 m) back panels with one wing panel at each side, 12'0" (3.7m) high. #4120 875 lbs. (396.9 kg) $1,950 Two 10'0" (3.1 m) back panels with two wing sections with overhangs, 15'0" (4.6m) high. #4122 1,103 lbs. (500.3 kg) $2,515 Same as Model No. 4122 with four overhangs, 15*0" (4.6m) high. #4124 1,293 lbs. (586.5 kg) $2,990 74 09/06/01 10:33 e979 764 3513 COL STA CONF CTR M CITY OF COLLEGESTATION ConferencieCEInter 13DO George Bush Drivc College Station, TX 7784�) Telephone: (979) 764-372 D FAX: (979) 764-3513 Internet: www.cLoollege-statloriAx.us Fao%csimilve over Sheet .����._LL..4Y�. To: 0 Company, Ph6nee. Fox: -737 From: Company: Phone: Fax: IS Date., Pages lnduWng We cover page© 09/06/01 10:34 &979 764 3513 COL STA CONF CTR .. ............ 0 2 P� 1 t * * COMMUNICATION RESULT REPORT ( SEP 1.2001 3:25PM ) * A TRANSMITTED/STORED : SEP, 1,2001 3:18PM FILE MODE OPTION ADDRESS ®__-r__o___o®-®®_____--___®___m-__-___-___®_--_ 454 MEMORY TX STAFF 97643513 FAX HEADER; COMPUTER SCIENCE RESULT PAGE __ .m -- ________________ __ _________ E-3) 3) 0/1 ------_--_------------ --------------- RE,a�O{V FOR EPEROR E-1I IiANR OF OR LINE FATL E-2) Btd®Y H 3) NO ANS ra OR E-4' NO PAC$%MIL% CONNEC71ON i OTE® A'm 4EIkL £sif 9�x£s' E3 42LCLY Fixm35-da air ycnkls naIs s, aad=Qp0wo amd v 5ono nu Wig' wtll lb;® tH'a VWM&W cmn�d 1--hem apmzk�)lloa Rill githe �8 ���&�ia�t �@ E�T1 s�, �. wmm,dr In G43 s+ ,� iiil ,�bo Ap Lloim lc�nm °a'�c i.�3,II� Qn OL2.@ Oi�� pe-ri.0ca Qw vntl6m ddffimm avp11w'%� �rEp(gav'vee an wbuc��ma '�'-Enz'�(@5 Q IslrCED Qnqffi who wg4g -9��Q�®�n�` WAX-% xpQ ,�q DATF, DREGS �c&�fi� hana.'.we occurA ION e �e� silk ar ✓� �. CONKUNYTIE APPLXCATIONS ram THE FOMMOMMM93 Qac oxz� &RFOXNT D S® ico xosmo s/ p2 e asm =mirk 1-1ve �mcmmli--Imm®m You aL'm In mmrvwlnq ( $ c'me 0--ftr C ) zlaotridla1 Ex . �.nInci Board Co tanity ��� a �� ® �t�a� e b �saarBy "iftnagembnt Committee Cn'n;E'&wftr1'=0 cant-=elr Ad-wimar°y cam=, '90:L t R40i.1:Lmf .Fundlnq Ravlow Cemm. t I Co Unity Dwvelopmm-, Moan Comm. ( ) Parks cmd Reareation Soa=d. Boa-r of Planning and ManIncs commlum Lon* ana Appealm (AKaxia Bra rva'tion ComiafttQe 8.0I OF ik E-rimANT Ln02 ode V0t03r°0 1`®rti,.Cicate V0ta=0a.Cartitiaate No. o PIOMOe 1ndL=ata i9 YOU ha-Vft m,mr'wed on a board or mommLazzon Please rfm--uzm tk%Lm 9®visa t®® citY OE Collage Staff„8.an 099100 �.�. Sox 9960 '0011090 St&tiono 'dommo 77642 APPOINTED To (Bcm�ra/aau=lseeton/ aam AVIS:NNA 09/1@/2001 09:26 9798622679 ACADEMIC AND STUDENT PAGE 02 A A-PIPLXCATZON PCM CITY SOARDO/C0 ISSIONS/C0ITT)92B NOTE,. As an applicant for a `amity Board, Commission, or Committee, your name, address, and phone number wil`L be available to the press and the public. All other information will remain confidential. Applications remain on file for a period of two years or until the applicant receives an appointment Incumbents whose terms expire and who are eligible for reappointment will be sent a new appl cation prior 1:0 the expiration date. PLEASE TYPE OR hINT—CLIE DATE,. a ADDRESS-. ( es2 d nce) �� � (W) 1 �3 CL.I ur� t®L)V-- -2,794� 1 have livied. an College Station � J a 1B r� �-7 9 Lf2. Years S -f� 'ro -D_-POTV CF4AAIC�C_LL001Z_ OCCUPATI ON o ry� U N W&POE S B i-/ ---TY-STEM (19 ^etired, pleas,,R indicate former occupation or Profession) o EDUCATIOW a ( Opt onal ) OM ^+ _X'v'ITIES: &.�- _ _ y '—T. — vri �1' „1?', i� �i• �Piir h i 1 � r d" ' 1H 1,4 zS IOMd dL PERTl6Cs�yAtl IIE:11161FIOIRWAT 15O /RE E@`ElS CES o Ci 1 A 1 8 Ob4V i /OAd u. E HE FOLLOWING COUNCIL � APPOINTED BOARD/ COMMISSIONS/ _T e committees y(nn are interested in serving EPT ON ( cemetery Co ittee ( Electrical EXamin.ing Board ( Community veayanca Committee Energy management Committee COnf8r6ncs enter AdvisOrY CO a ( Joint ftlieZ Funding Review Comm'. ( C=Munaty D valopffient Loan C® o ( Parks and Recreation Board CQnStrUctio; Board Of Adi-iistments ( Planning and. Zoning Co ission-k and hppeals� ( Historic Preservation Committee ( Eaasterwood �irpart Zoning Board ( Zoning Board of Adj ustments *If applying fo:'f P&Z Commission, inched. voteros Certificate No. *If applying fo,� ZBA, include `doter®s Certificate No. rnm®z Name of Board/C-ammzssion � P C7er Please indicate of you have served an a board or commission Please ifeturn t`-iis form too City of College. Station Attu, Council Office P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 POINTED TO on (Board/Commission/ Committee) (Date) TO: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board FROM: Steve Beachy, Director of Parks and Recreation DATE: September 11, 2001 ParksSTBJECT: Response to Recommendations to Council. I have prepared a brief update, as requested, concerning the response to the Advisory Board's memo to the City Council in May. This memo outlined four (4) major areas of concern, along with twelve (12) priority budget issues. The following actions have been taken: 1. Nei2hborhood Park Land Acquisition Issue: The Advisory Board requested funds to acquire neighborhood park sites prior to development. Response: The City Council was not in favor of committing funds to acquire land for neighborhood parks in advance of development; However, Council has established a Strategic Issue related to the creation of incentives to encourage developers to provide better park sites. Funds in the amount of $200,000 have been included in the Fiscal Year 2002 budget request to support this process. Potential ideas for incentives will be discussed with developers and the Advisory Board this fall. The Advisory Board will discuss and develop recommendations for incentives at the December meeting. The recommendations will be presented to the City Council in February 2002. Page 1 of 4 Q KI 4. Plavground Safetv Issue: The Advisory Board requested an additional $200,000 to fund playground replacements in Fiscal Year 2002, and that an additional $50,000 be included annually thereafter. Response: In Fiscal Year 2001, four (4) playgrounds were replaced utilizing a combination of bond funds and departmental replacement funds. The Gabbard Park playground replacement is under contract and will be completed this fall. Plavground Funding Source Amount Status Brothers Pond '98 Bond $26,087 Complete Merry Oaks Replacement Account $23,843 Complete Lemon Tree '98 Bond $21,000 Complete Raintree '98 Bond $28,287 Complete Gabbard Replacement Account $34,124 Under Contract Total $204,271 The City Council is considering the addition of $25,000 per year to the existing replacement account for the Fiscal Year 2002 budget. Following the Gabbard playground replacement, Georgie K. Fitch and Hensel Park playgrounds are scheduled for replacement in Fiscal Year 2002. These playgrounds are the next priority. Issue: The Advisory Board requested the allocation of additional funds to construct and operate a skateboard facility. Response: Council established the preparation of a feasibility report on a skateboard park as a Strategic Issue. The report will include a survey of what other cities are doing as well as the development of recommendations for construction, operation, maintenance, and funding of the facility. The report will be presented to the Advisory Board in December. Also, the development may be included in a future CIP program based upon these recommendations and Council direction. Greenways Plan Issue: The Advisory Board recommends the creation of a citizen advisory committee for the Greenway Plan. Page 2 of 4 Response: Council has not created a separate committee. The staff Greenways Coordinator continues to work closely with the Brazos Greenways Council and will provide an update at the October Advisory Board meeting. Additional Goals and Priority Budget Issues: Urban Forest Management Plan: A grant application has been approved by the Texas Forest Service in the amount of $10,000. An additional $20,000 has been requested in the Fiscal Year 2002 budget. This is a City Council Strategic Issue and the report is scheduled to be given to the Council in May 2002. 30/60 Corridor: The City Council approved the 30/60 Corridor Plan with the Master Plan of Veterans Park and Athletic Complex intact. No additional north/south roads were permitted in or adjacent to the park. Greenways Oversight Committee: Comments same as previously stated. Park Maintenance Standards Plan: The plan was approved by the City Council and will be implemented over a multi -year period. This is a Council Strategic Issue and quarterly inspections and reports will begin in the fall of 2001. Intergenerational Parks: The City Council received and approved the report this spring. Implementation will occur through the on -going CIP process. Some of the projects that will include intergenerational features are Gabbard and Brison Parks improvements. This is a long- term issue. Skateboard Park: Comments same as previously stated. Land Acquisition: Comments same as previously stated. Bee Creek Backstops/Batting Cages: No action at this point. Staff will develop cost estimates and a site analysis, and report back to the Advisory Board. Senior Programs: This is a City Council Strategic Issue. The fall semester Eisenhower Leadership Development Program will assign this as a follow-up project. A survey of local seniors will be conducted. The results will be presented to the City Council in November. Page 3 of 4 Park Access Plan: This issue will be discussed with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and the Planning and Zoning Commission as a concern at the joint meeting on September 20, 2001. Park Land Dedication Ordinance: The ordinance will be revised over the next 3-4 months. The staff is working on this issue and will meet with developers in September. Additional review with the Advisory Board and the Planning and Zoning Commission will occur prior to the presentation to the City Council in February 2002. This is a City Council Strategic Issue. Page 4 of 4 CIP Project List (updated 1 (111 p . . .... ... ........ - ... ... ' . .. ..:.. ..... .. .. ,.. ... ..... ... .. ..':. �t tub .:. Pr®}act. :. get .. .. $91�d e � P ate ' Ceyrii pet �n ate C st. 1 Business Center Landscapinq Project In Construction GG9705 $250,000 G.O. 07/31/01 2 Millennium Winds Improvements (FY'01) Complete HM0104 $7,195 FY'01 08/31/01 7/31/01 1 Veterans Park, Phase I Bid Open 1013/01 PK9941 $2,120,000 98 G.Q. 11/31/02 2 Castlegate Park Design In Design 03/31/02 2 Gabbard Park Improvements In Design PK0102 $78,000 98 G.O. 04/30/02 2 High School Tennis Court Lights (FY'01) Under Construction PK0109 $91,500 FY'01 *02 I 2 Lincoln Improvements In Design CD1292 $90,000 FY'01 C.D.B.G. 3131101 2 Merry Oaks Improvements In Design PK0103 $37,000 98 G.O. 03/31/02 i I 2 Oaks Park Bridge Out to Bid l PK0067 $28,000 98 G.O. 3131/02 3 Brison Park Improvements In Design PK0100 $54,600 98 G.O. 3131f02 j 2 Woodway Park Development Negotiating Land Purchase PK9803 $600,000 3 Shenandoah Park Development On Hold $48,000 Park Land Dedication j I 1 Hallaran Pool Filters & Coating (FY'01) In Construction PK0106 $120,000 FY'01 03/31/02 i 1 Cemetery Land Acquisition GG9905 $275,000 98 G.O. l 3 Central Park Improvements PK0101 $17,000 98 G.O. j I C.S.S.C. Agreement (clubhouse) Madeley Park PK9706 $48,000 Lick Creek Park Development PK0069 $398,000 98 G.O. Lick Creek Park Bridges $126,265 Grant 98 G.O. Thomas Pool Shade Cover PK0104 $19,000 98 G.O. I Lincoln Center Expansion/Improvements $50,000 C.D.B.G. 9/1/02 I Thomas Pool Renovation $277,255 FY'02 3/31/03 Georgie Fitch Playground Replacement $30,000 Replacement FY'02 8/1/02 l Hensel Park Playground Replacement $40,000 Replacement FY'02 8/1/02 I Pebble Creek Park Improvements In Design PK0061 $27,000 Park Land Dedication I Others l ISkateboard Park I On Holdl PK0073 I $162,000 I FY'00 I I I I 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. CITY OF COLLEGE STATROT4 OWNIF 7E,10MIM, CE MHTTITZR ADVISORY CODATIDWOI ITTEE Regular Wfeeting Wedmesdsy, June 1392001,12-.00p.m. College Station Conference Center PA M, 11 u If Z S Staff PRIesent: Grace Calbert, Conference Center 'Facifity Supervisor Nita Hflburn, Conference, Center Secretary/Event Coordinator 11A en R b rr's P Pe 2 e -L' h/UH,e Guin (Chmhr), Ed lloldredgeq=� , Eileen Sal -her Ynem, beEr Ahs-mmmat�, Frain Lamb (Vilce Chair), Aim Corner Qq � "I T G (D" -' Ak Ir - T'he Meetingwas called to order at 12-,55p.ra. Pawdon -1-C'onsider requ en- � ibr of -mLefmmbemm Fromm meev R-Eo Noim,-, Herup vimtom - None AppruvFJ of the hif�rhtmttes- ?%/i'c,,I!y Grin.n requeTted the mbrautes of May 8, 20001 regular rne-eting of the Conference Center Advisojq Coums-ittee be reviewed. and aprprroved Eileen Sather namde a motion to approve the immumates as vc, itten. Ed I-Ioldredge se-condled the motion. Adl were in favor, tine tnotion passed -unanimously. R,evenue reports were reviewed for May 2001. Revenues for May 2001 were $10436.69,,fersus May 2000 of $14,697.42. 1',,Tljrp-U-er of clients served in May 2001 were 5662 vs. May 2000 of 9603. Adjourn. The Meeting was adjourned at I A5pr. The next meeting, will beheld at the College Station Conference Center on Wednesday July 18, 2001, at 12:00pm. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION LINCOLN RECREATION CENTER ADVISORY COMMITTEE Regular Meeting Minutes Monday, August 13, 2001 Lincoln Recreation Center 1000 Eleanor Street 5:45 PM 1. Call to order- The meeting was called to order by Chairman Carolyn Williams at 5:45 p.m. 2. Hear visitors- There were no visitors present 3. Pardon N Consider requests for absences of members from meeting- Absent members were: Joe Dan Franklin, Eleanor Williams and Barbara Clemmons. Requests for absences were received from Eleanor Williams and Barbara Clemmons. 4. Approval of minutes from Regular June 11, 2001 Lincoln Recreation (LRC) Committee Meeting- The June 11t" LRC Meetings were approved as read. 5. Discussion on LRC Board Bylaws and Constitution- Jackson presented a copy of the LRC Committee Bylaws and Constitution for committee review. After reviewing the afore -mentioned, the committee suggested changes should be made in the following sections: Page 1, Section II, under Terms of Office, Page 1, Section III, under Termination, Page 2, Section I, Annual Meetings, and Page 3, Section VIII. Jackson will finalize the LRC Committee Bylaws and Constitution and bring to the September 10, 2001 Committee Meeting. 6. Discussion on Lincoln Recreation Center telephone Communications- After discussions, Jackson suggested the addition of two phone lines would alleviate the problems associated with telephone communication at the LRC. Jackson will be pursuing this need with the city. 7. Discussion of newsletter procedures and publishing dates- In an attempt to provide assistance for Eleanor Williams and ensure the timely publications of Newsletters, Jackson will coordinate a discussion with Eleanor Williams and Debra Thomas. Thomas will also speak with an interested party in regards to providing assistance with the newsletter. It was also decided the LRC Advisory Committee would review the newsletter prior to publishing. 8. Report(s): N Treasurer- Treasurer, Clemmons was absent from the Meeting N Adolescent Outreach Subcommittee- Thomas and Jackson discussed proposed workshops, with no definite scheduling. Lincoln Recreation Center Advisory Committee Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 —Public Relations Subcommittee- Information for this item was provided in Agenda Item. N Education Subcommittee - (a) Discussion on Fall TARS Buster Rally- Clemmons will discuss this item further at the September committee meeting. —Facilities Subcommittee- Jackson discussed current LRC expansion plans with the committee. —Seniors Subcommittee- Comments from Chairperson Robinson - Robinson reported no activity for the month of August. N LRC Supervisor's Report- Lance Jackson (a) Discussion of Boys & Girls Clubs After School Program 2001- Jackson discussed the after school program with the committee. (b) Discussion of Potential Board Replacements- Due to the fact that LRC Chairperson Carolyn Williams, Vice -Chairperson Joe Dan Franklin and Secretary Cathy Watson will be rotating off the committee in October 2001, it was decided that Jackson would expedite requests for replacements and report results at the September LRC committee meeting. (c) Report, Discussion and Possible Consideration of Revised Rental policies for the LRC- Jackson discussed this item with the committee. It was decided that there would be no change in rental fees at this time; the current membership fees would also remain unchanged; however the summer membership fees would be increased to $30.00 for the summer. (d) Feedback from Jackson re: LRC Youth Athletics Council - Jackson advised the group that comments would be returned by September 14, 2001. (e) Report, Discussion and Possible Consideration of LRC FY 02 Fee Change Proposal — Jackson informed the committee that the regular membership fee would not change; however summer membership fees would be increased to $30.00 per summer. 8. Future Agenda Items: Health Care Insurance 9. Adjourn- The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. — Next LRC Committee meeting will be held Monday, September 10, 2001 starting at 5:45 at the LRC.