2000-08-28Love Henry Homeowner Statements
In the early 1990's the expansion of Bicentennial Park began after the purchase
9
of property from then City Councilman Ralph Evans. During the planning of this
expansion the residents of Love Henry Ct. (Campbell, Annis, and Rickman)
appeared and voiced opinions that the intensity of the ball diamonds could be
better handled if located in other areas, where the Tennis Center now stands.
At that time, we were told we were too late that the money had been spent for the
study and there would not be any variance from the plan. The city did make an
ever so small concession to add shrubs and a wooden fence at the North
Boundary, their attempt of a buffer zone. The park was completed, the fence
went up, plants were planted, and most did not make it through the first year.
When baseball season got completely underway, the lights would allow the
residents of Love Henry to mow the lawn in the wee hours of the the night and
the chants to batters could be heard inside the homes, with windows shut and air
has Now lights have
conditioners on, that noise not changed. the been
adjusted and the timers set, but with a prevalent wind out of the South, the noise
4W
is unavoidable, and sometimes there is even a public address system.
In the spring of 1996, the development of Bob Jones Park was under way, and
the Master Plan for Bicentennial was also up for consideration. At this time we
met with the mayor and a councilman to express our concerns again, we also
spoke at all of the public hearings and aroused the interest of the residents near
Bob Jones Park, they in turn asked for much stricter codes, and buffers and their
requests were honored.
During the development of the 1996 Master Plan, the use of passive areas, and
trails was brought up in the survey and from many in the audiences that were
held.
As the master plan went through committees, we continued to voice the need for
a buffer for the 10 homes that are on our street, they now probably have a value
of at least 3 million dollars collectively, we are one of the last LOW DENSITY
subdivisions in the city, with lots ranging from 1.7 acres to 2 acres.
0
E
C`
E its,
I
P
Many homeowners moved to our street for the peace it provided. I don't think
many moved here to be sandwiched between the schools and park. We were
unsuccessful in getting a buffer, as "the land wasn't for sale" then. We were
promised in Parks Board meetings and City Council meetings that the priority
would be to purchase it before any other money was spent. We now have
money that has been spent on the Tennis Center, and the development of a
water area and hockey rink and other amenities. Still no Buffer, I know maybe
the land wasn't for sale then either.
Now it is the year 2000, and we are revisiting the Master Plan again, a new
survey has been taken and reported to the Parks Department, and new plans are
on the drawing board again, you as the board controlling the reccomendation to
City Council will voice an opinion by your vote.
We would like to see what was originally on the 1996 master plan, the
development of berm, maybe to include trails, and a water area also, We realize
the money will be needed for purchase of the land, maybe part of the land can be
incorporated into the road to connect Shady Oaks and 1709. We do not want
any more intense uses of this land as it adjoins our property.
In a survey that was interpreted on Aug 14th a need for trails was continually
voiced. It was stated that Bicentennial was an intense use park, where Bob
Jones is a more passive park even though it is roughly 8 times as large as
Bicentennial.
We live in a City that is very "consumer conscious, you have even addressed
Coke machines outside stores, why then will the city not react to protect these 10
homes?
We ask your support in placing the creation of a buffer berm of at least 10-12 feet
in height with heavy plantings, including trails and maybe a water pond to
encourage the wildlife to return, in place of the Batter's Chants.
C�
4
SOUTHLAKE BASEBALL ASSOCIATION
�w PRESENTATION TO PARKS & RECREATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS
AUGUST 14, 2000
LIST OF CONSIDER ITENISITNEEDS OF SBA FOR 2000-2001 SEASON — SAFETY ISSUES
1. INFIELD SOD — FIELDS 4 & S
Problem:
• Fields have developed severe "lips" in infield & outfield (where dirt meets grass)
• Once a batted ball contacts this "lip", the ball jumps into the air unexpectedly, often causing facial
injuries to our 7 & 8 year -old players
• Piece -meal solutions to problem over the past several years have not been successful
• Outstanding issue with City for over two years
Solution:
• Remove all infield grass, re -level field, re -sod entire infield area (except cutouts around bases &
pitchers mount)
• Requires work on sprinkler system to cover newly sodded areas
• Estimated cost - $10,000 to $15,000 per field (including irrigation)
2. SECURITY FOR CONCESSION STAND
Problem:
• SBA concession suffered two break-ins this past year — losses totaled approx. $2,000
• Locks were replaced and additional locks added (SBA & City shared cost)
• Poor lighting and no security system were contributing factors
Solution:
• Install additional lighting at concession stand & consider adding security system
• Recommended by SL Police Department
• Estimated cost - $1,000 to $2,000
3. BACKSTOP HEIGHTH — FIELDS 6, 7, 8 & 9
Problem:
• Foul balls behind home plate often exit the playing field and impact the area near the concession
stand where small children are playing
• We have encountered many "near -misses"
• Field backstops are not high enough to keep balls in the field of play
• Supports for existing backstops cannot handle additional weight/fencing
• Issue is critical for field #8, but also must be addressed on fields 6, 7 & 9
Solution:
• Conduct engineering study to determine how best to solve problem
• Two possibilities: (1) additional fencing or (2) covered spectator areas
• Take required corrective action as soon as possible, this is a significant risk
• Estimated cost - $2,000 for study
it
C
SOUTHLAKE BASEBALL ASSOCIATION
August 14, 2000
Page 2
E
4. ACCESS TO BATTING CAGES/WARM-UP AREA SAFETY
Problem:
• Access to batting cages requires pedestrians to travel through middle of warm-up area
• Two or more teams warm-up in this area at the same time
• Separate, fenced off warm-up areas have not been established
• Teams throw- in all directions, greatly increasing the risk of injury
• Plavers/parents/siblings play game of "dodge ball" getting to/from & waiting for cages
Solution:
• Construct concrete walkway to batting cages
• Erect fencing on both sides of walkway to create two separate & enclosed warm-up areas
• Erect fencing near entrance to batting cages (near field 49) to enclose warm-up area and protect
players/parents waiting outside cages
• Estimated cost - $7,000 to $10,000
OTHER ISSUES
L4W IRRIGATION REPAIRS AT BICENTENNIAL PARK
Problem:
• Fields at Bicentennial have suffered from lack of water
• Broken sprinkler heads, valves, high system pressure have contributed to problems
Solution:
• Progress has been made on fields 6, 7, 8 & 9
• Correct remaining irrigation issues on fields 4, 5 & 10
• Estimated cost - unknown
A/C IN CONCESSION STAND
Problem:
• Temperatures in concession stand during summer and early fall reach 100+ degrees
• Outside temperature, heat retention properties of brick building & heat discharged by new soft
drink coolers make the stand intolerable during summer operations
Solution:
• Allow SBA to install air conditioning in concession stand
• SBA is willing to share cost of this improvement with City
• Estimated cost — approximately $5,000 - $7,000
`4r
3
0
City of Southlake, Texas
MEMORANDUM
August 25, 2000
TO: SPDC Board of Directors
FROM: Kevin Hugman, Director of Community Services
SUBJECT: Board Meeting -- Monday, August 28, 2000
1. Agenda Item No. 2. Executive Session. We will have two items to discuss briefly with you.
2. Agenda Item No. 4. PUBLIC FORUM. This is the public's opportunity to address the Board
about non -agenda items. During this proceeding it is important that the Board not deliberate
(discuss among yourselves) or take action on any item brought up at this time. The. Boards'
options during this topic are 1) to listen, 2) ask questions and respond to the presenter only, 3)
request staff to look into the issue and report back to the Board or 4) request that the Chair
put the item on a future agenda for the Board to discuss or consider•
3. Agenda Item No. 5A. Approval of the minutes for the regular SPDC meeting on July 24,
2000. If you have corrections to the meeting minutes, please let Secretary to the City
Manager Kim Bush know in advance or make it part of the motion for consideration. Kim
can be reached via e-mail at kbush@cityofsouthlake.com or by calling her at 481-5581,
extension 702.
4. Agenda Item No. 5B . Approval of addendum to contract with Raymond Turco and Associates
for teen center survey. The base contract with Turco and Associates is for $10,000, however,
a change in direction as to the methodology of conducting the teen portion of the survey has
necessitated an increase in fees to the consultant. The addendum is in the amount of $5,000
for the increased scope of work. You will recall that we discussed this item at your last
meeting while discussing expected expenditures for the current CIP projects. The teen portion
of the survey was completed this past week and raw data results are expected to be presented
to the ad -hoc committee late next week.
5. Agenda Item No. 6A. FY 2000-2001 SPDC Operating Budget. Included in your packet for
consideration is the proposed operating budget for Fiscal Year 2001. The proposed budget
includes $1,997,670 of sales tax collection, expenditures of $304,214 and transfers out of
$1,318,522 (1,018,522 for debt service payments and $300,000 for capital projects). The
proposed expenditures of $304,214 will cover personnel cost for the Park Planning and
Construction Superintendent, 2 Crew Leaders, 4 Park Maintenance Workers and 4 Temporary
Maintenance Workers. If you have any questions related to this item, you may contact Sharen
Elam, Ext. 716.
SPDC Board of Directors
Board Meeting - Monday, July 24, 2000
Page 2 of 2
6. Agenda Item No. 7A. Proposed revisions to Bicentennial Park development plan. Staff has
been working with Shrickel Rollins and Associates on reviewing and revising the schematic
plan for Bicentennial Park. We have reviewed it twice with the Park Board prior to meeting
with SPIN. Meetings with SPIN are being scheduled for September, and we will take this
! opportunity to brief you on the proposed revisions.
7. Agenda Item No. 7B . Capital Projects Budget. Staff has reviewed the current and planned
projects and incorporated suggested changes from SPDC as well as new projects suggested by
the Southlake Baseball Association. These changes are described in the packet item cover
memo. Note that this is a discussion item as there are still some unknowns in our project
planning assumptions.
8. Agenda Item No. 7C. Sales tax report and Financial Statement. The monthly sales tax
report, detailed financial statement, and debt amortization schedules are included in your
packet.
9. Agenda Item No. 7D. Project Status Report. The monthly status report is included in your
packet.
Other Items included in your packet:
Letter from Ms. Alison Hubbs regarding potential recreation center site in Bicentennial Park
and my reply letter to her.
Executive Summary from Raymond Turco and Associates, "Survey of Attitudes about Parks
and Recreation in Southlake," undertaken for Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan
update. A full copy of his report is available if you would like, but since it is nearly 100
pages long, we did not make copies of it for you. If you do want the full report, please let me
know and we will get one for you.
We appreciate your commitment and service to the City. If you have any questions regarding the
agenda or materials, please feel free to contact me at 481-5581, extension 757.
M;4a
STAFF CONTACT INFORMATION:
Sharen Elam, Director of Finance, ext. 716
Kevin Hugman, Director of Community Services, ext. 757
Steve Polasek, Deputy Director of Community Services, ext. 772
Ben Henry, Park Planning and Construction Superintendent, ext. 824
Chris Carpenter, Senior Parks Planner, ext. 866
P
ALIsoN HUBBS
1H
802 Westminster Way • Southlake, TX 76092 • (817) 251-9013
Southlake Parks Development Corp.
City of Southlake
Community Services Dept.
667 North Carroll Avenue
Southlake, TX 76092
August 9, 2000
Dear SPDC Representatives:
AUG 1 2000
s
DEFF OF
PARKS & RECREATION
I am a Southlake resident who is concerned about a park improvement decision I was recently
made aware of: the siting of the new Recreation Center now in planning stages. I understand that
there is a possibility of siting the Rec Center on land in Bicentennial Park, close to the entrance.
off Whites Chapel Road.
Ladies and gentlemen, I have been to Bicentennial Park during softball season. The parking
situation is atrocious! It is impossible to find a place to park, even after circling around the lot
several times. Unless the new Rec Center is going to be extremely small (to allow for the addi-
tional parking spaces needed), or will include a parking structure as part of its design, siting the
new facility in this location will only worsen parking woes in Bicentennial Park.
Secondly, the purpose of city parks and the recreational opportunities they provide encompass
more than organized sports. While softball fields, tennis courts and other sports venues are
indeed valuable additions to our parklands, there are many people in our community who do not
participate in. team sports. Many who do not participate in organized sports nevertheless enjoy
recreational activities such as walking, jogging, rollerblading, and picnicking with their families.
Many of us moved to Southlake because we like the look and feel of open grassy spaces inter-
spersed with shade trees. Imagine what that grassy hill will look like as the trees which are now
planted there mature and provide shade. Imagine a walking/jogging/rollerblading path winding
through those trees with benches and water fountains, perhaps even a gazebo, providing resting
spots. We have a resource here which can add value to Bicentennial Park by widening its appeal
in the community.
One of the things that defines quality of life in a community is the number, size and quality of its
parklands. Land in our community is not going to get any cheaper (at least, let's hope not for the
sake of our property values) as time goes on. Since we have the opportunity to purchase more
parkland now, let's invest in the future and do it. We will be .happier in the long run having a Rec
Center with plenty of room to grow as our city grows. And we will preserve the open space that
is such an important part of our community as well.
Thank You,
Alison Hubbs
Mayor.
Rick Stacy
Mayor Pro Tem:
Gary Fawks
Deputy Mayor Pro Tem:
Ronnie Kendall
Councilmembers:
Rex Potter
Keith Shankland
Greg Standerfer
Patsy DuPre
City Manager:
Billy Campbell
Assistant City Manager:
Shana Yelverton
City Secretary:
Sandra LeGrand'
AW
I�
E
14
City of Southlake
Community Services
August 18, 2000
Ms. Alison Hubbs
802 Westminster Way
Southlake, TX 76092
Dear Ms Hubbs:
I have received your letter and will forward it to the board members of the
Southlake Parks Development Corporation (SPDC). You are correct in your
understanding that the site in Bicentennial Park near N. White Chapel is
being considered for a new recreation center. However, it is only one of
several potential sites that are being assessed at this time.
At a joint Park and Recreation Board / SPDC meeting in July, the board
asked about the possibility of siting the facility on the "hill" at Bicentennial
Park. We have contracted Shrickel, Rollins and Associates to perform.a
feasibility study of this particular site because of the many factors to
consider, one being the parking situation you mention. They will review and
assess vehicular and pedestrian ingress and egress, parking, availability of
water and sanitary sewer, storm water/drainage improvements necessary, and
site amenities that would be required such as retaining walls, landscaping,
and other elements. This information will assist the board and staff in
selection of a site.
At this time, we are also working with the consulting firm of Shrickel Rollins
in reviewing and updating the master development plan for Bicentennial
Park. The proposed plan will consider the needs of other park users as you
mention, and will incorporate. more trails and where possible, more picnic
and shade areas.
In summary, staff and the SPDC Board are considering the advantages and
disadvantages of several potential sites for a recreation center, one site being
the site on the hill at Bicentennial Park. Public input on the update of the
Bicentennial Park master development plan is planned for later this month or
early September. We will also hold a meeting specifically for the SPIN
neighborhood(s) directly affected by Bicentennial Park, This meeting date
has not yet been set, but notification will be sent when it is determined.
400 N. White Chapel - Southlake, Texas 76092
(817) 481-5581 - FAX (817) 421-24 75
'AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER"
Ms. Alison Hubbs
August 18, 2000
Page 2
Please feel free to contact me at 481-5581, extension 757 if you have any
further questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
17�
Kevin Hugman
Director of Community Services
cc: Members, Southlake Parks Development Corporation
Billy Campbell, City Manager
r RAYMOND TURCO and AS
SOCIATES
L
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Southlake retained the firm of Schrickel, Rollins & Associates to assist in the
development of its parks and recreation development plan. One of the objectives of the
development plan is to allow for maximum citizen input in the development and
IF implementation of the plan. As a component of the citizen involvement strategies, the
firm retained the public opinion research company of Raymond Turco & Associates to
conduct a scientifically valid sampling of residents in the community to generate an
analysis of their attitudes and how they relate to recreation in the city. The resulting
tabulations were analyzed to assist elected and appointed officials in understanding
public sentiment concerning these subjects.
GENERAL RECREATIONAL ATTITUDES /N SOUTHLAKE
• More than 9 of 10 Southlake residents were either satisfied (53%) or very satisfied
(38%) with the quality of recreation in their community, compared to 66/6 who were
w dissatisfied (6%) or very dissatisfied (0%-2 respondents). Overall satisfaction was
consistent throughout the city (92%-89%).
• Good programs and activities and nice parks (both 22%), along with good variety
(11 %), were the 3 most positive aspects about recreation in Southlake that
residents would relay to people considering moving into the city. Other responses
generated from this open-ended quesfion were good number of parks/open space
(9%), convenient location (7%) and well-maintained/nice landscape (5%).
• Residents described their favorite recreational hobby or sport as
walking/jogging/hiking (17%), and tennis and golf (both 11 %). When asked if they
could participate in their favorite hobby or sport using city facilities, 7 of every 10
residents (70%) could, while 29% had to venture outside the city. The subgroup
of respondents who had to go outside the city to participate in their favorite hobby
(110 individuals) identified Grapevine (40%) far and away their most popular
destination. Also, if the city had the facilities available, 84% of the subsample
(N=110) would utilize them in place of where they generally go.
Two activities, take kids to play (61 %) and walk/hike (53%) were the two most
popular activities mentioned by residents who went to a city park. Other activities
enjoyed by respondents at a park included organized sports (42%), picnic (36%)
and organized sports (32%). Additionally, 13% of the people sampled
PUBLIC OPINION RESEARCH 9 POLITICAL CONSULTANTS
2507 Elm Forest Circle • Arlington, Texas 76006
Metro (817) 695-1158 • Metro Fax (817) 695-1168 • E-Mail rturco@ix.netcom.com
acknowledged generally not going to parks.
• Three newspapers, The Southlake Joumal (76%), The Southlake Times (61 %)
and The Ft. Worth Star -Telegram (50%) and one city source, the Southlake
Scene, the city program brochure (62%) were most often utilized by residents to
gather information about recreational activities in Southlake.
RECREATION NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND QUALITY RATINGS
• More than 4 of 5 residents (84%) acknowledged visiting a city park or park facility
in the last 12 months. Majorities of respondents also participated in a city event
(66%), visited or used a city athletic field (64%) or utilized a bike or pedestrian
path (53%). Conversely, survey participants were least likely to have participated
in an adult athletic league or utilized an equestrian trail (both 15%) or visited a
Corps Of Engineer park (21 %). The subsample of respondents (N=179) who
indicated having participated in a youth athletic league named soccer (55%),
baseball (45%) and basketball (42%) as the athletic leagues their children
participated in most often.
• From a list of 12 general recreation items, residents were most satisfied with the
quality of recreational facilities (91 %), number of programs and overall recreation
program (both 89%). By comparison, satisfaction was lowest regarding the
availability of hike and bike trails (57%) and items impacted by higher no opinion
responses: number of baseball fields (62%, with 24% no opinion), number of
softball fields (59%, 29%) and number of soccer fields (55%, 29%).
• From a comprehensive listing of -potential recreational facilities, residents rated
multi -use trails (86%), playgrounds (82%) and picnic areas (81 %) as the most
important facilities to either construct or construct additionally in Southlake. Other
items rated important or very important by more than six- of ten respondents
included pavilions or shelters (71 %), off-road/BMX trails (63%) and practice
soccer fields, exercise stations along trails, fishing piers and a water park, with
pools and water activities (each 60%). The items rated least important included
tennis courts (35%), horseshoe pits (34%) and a disc golf course (41 %). Asked
to identify the most important recreational facility to construct, 22% selected
multi -use trails, 16% a water park, with pools and water activities, and 8%
playgrounds.
• When asked to express their level of satisfaction with components (number,
location, quality, safety) of general recreation, residents were most satisfied with
the safety of parks (94%), maintenance of parks (90%), overall quality of city parks
(89%), and variety of recreational facilities within parks (84%). Lower satisfaction
ratings were accorded to the quality of hike and bike trails (55%), number of
U
M
athletic fields (67%) and athletic fields conveniently located (71 %).
THE MASTER TRAIL PLAN AND OTHER RECREATIONAL INITIATIVES
• Thirty-nine percent of residents sampled could use city trails to walk or bicycle
from their home to visit friends, compared to 23% who could travel to schools,
20% to parks and 11 % to shopping areas. As over one-half (53%) of respondents
sampled acknowledged utilizing a bike path or pedestrian path in past year, this
would imply that a large percentage used the bike paths for nondestination
activities rather than moving towards a specific point.
• Survey participants expressed the highest percentage of agreement towards
desiring to see trails in Southlake: connect to routine destinations like parks,
schools and shopping areas (90%); be accessible from my neighborhood (86%);
and be located along creeks in the city (82%). Trails being placed along major
thoroughfares (60%) and along utility corridors (67%) gained the lowest
percentage of agreement. Additional natural surface trails for hiking and nature
study (both 83%) and cross country running (80%) gained the greatest degree of
support from survey participants, compared to a low rating of 74% for mountain
bicycling.
• More than 3 of 4 either supported (45%) or strongly supported (33%) using city tax
dollars to upgrade school property for use as neighborhood parks and practice
areas. By comparison, 18% opposed the concept, including 6% who strongly
opposed the use of tax dollars.
• Multi -use trails (43%) and playgrounds (40%) were twice as popular as other
items4hat respondents would- definitely want a park in their area of Southlake to
include. Additional answers generated from this open-ended question were picnic
areas (20%), and open grassy areas/landscaping (18%). Current facilities could
be improved to be made more useful by add/expand park facilities (27%) and
add/expand trails (22%), according to city residents who were asked this
open-ended question.
• Given the opportunity to voice their opinions to a series of recreation -related
statements, residents most often agreed that they were satisfied with recreational
facilities in Southlake (85%), and that they have adequate avenues to voice their
concerns about recreation in Southlake (84%). One statement did not achieve
majority agreement, although it did gain plurality agreement, as 49% agreed that
the city has a sufficient number of athletic fields. Also, a majority disputed the
statement that the city should improve the existing parks and not develop any new
ones (60%).
11
E
E.
Ni
MEMORANDUM
August 25, 2000
TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager
FROM: Kevin Hugman, Director of Community Services
SUBJECT: Approval of Contract Addendum with Raymond Turco and Associates for
Teen Center survey
Action Requested: SPDC consider approval of contract addendum to original scope of work
with Raymond Turco and Associates, for teen center survey.
Background
Information: At its December 6, 1999 meeting, SPDC approved a Capital
Improvements Plan that included $10,000 funding for a professionally
administered survey of Southlake adults and teens regarding the need for
a teen center in Southlake. The City Council approved the SPDC
Capital Improvements Plan at its December 7, 1999 meeting.
A contract with Raymond Turco and Associates was entered into in
February, 2000. The initial proposal included a random, telephone
survey of Southlake adults (400 interviews), and a self-administered
survey of Southlake teenagers. The contract amount was $10,000
($8,000 for the adult survey and comprehensive report, and $2,000 for
the self-administered teen survey).
An ad -hoc committee of interested citizens and City Council assisted
staff and the consultant in the development of the survey instrument.
City Council was also given an opportunity to review the instrument
several times, to meet with the consultant if desired, and to provide input
on the survey. During this period, it was strongly suggested that the teen
survey be conducted as a random telephone survey as well. The
consultant estimated the additional cost would be approximately $4,000.
An addendum was received from the consultant in the amount of $5,000
to conduct the teen survey as a random telephone survey similar to the
adult survey. This would involve calling Southlake residents known to
have school -age children, requesting if a teen is in the household, and if
so, would they be willing to participate in the survey. The goal would
be to achieve a statistically valid sample of 400 completed surveys.
Financial
Considerations: The approved FY 1999-2000 SPDC CIP has allocated $10,000 for the
conduct of the survey, which is the same as the contract amount.
Billy Campbell, City Manager
August 25, 2000
Page 2
Citizen Input/
NW
Board Review:
The ad -hoc committee and City Council has given staff and the
consultant direction on the development of the survey.
Legal Review:
N/A
Alternatives:
Not approve Addendum to contract and select alternative, less costly
method of administering teen survey.
Supporting
Documents:
• Addendum to contract with Raymond Turco and Associates, dated
July 18, 2000
• Original contract and proposal, dated February 11, 2000
Staff
Recommendation:
SPDC consideration of Addendum to contract with Raymond Turco and
Associates in the amount of $5,000 for additional services in conduct of
teen center survey.
t
t
t
E
r
E ,sa-a
rtRAYMOND TURCO and ASSOCIATES
E�w
CONTRACT ADDENDUM
July 18, 2000
Mr. Billy Campbell
City of Southlake
400 N. White Chapel Blvd.
Southlake, TX 76092
Dear Mr. Campbell,
This letter, when signed by -you, will serve as an addendum to our letter of agreement,
dated February 11, 2000. It details additional services; requested by city
...- councilmembers, to be performed by Raymond Turco & Associates and the appropriate
fees.
SERVICES: -Rather than conduct a self-administered mail survey of youth in the Carroll
ISD, as proposed in'our original proposal, the firm will attempt to complete 400
randomly generated telephone interviews of youth in the community. Additional
services will include:
• Purchase telephone list of adults in the community with children.
• Conduct fieldwork, using city -approved questionnaires. Attempt will be made to
complete 400 telephone interviewes.
FEES: For performance of the additional services the City of Southlake agrees to pay
Raymond Turco & Associates a fee of $5,000. Fees are due as follows:
• 50%, or $2,500, due upon signature of this letter of agreement and prior to
commencement of fieldwork
• Remaining fees ($2,500) due upon presentation of final report.
�w
PUBLIC OPINION RES��•POLrDCAL CONSULTANTS
J7 Elm �Ta500a 25ir I . Ire^^m
AAn+rn 52171 Far- IIrQ An+r =n 1C9?1 CZ0C !ICC w = hAnil -+-
^M
Southlake Addendum
Page 2
We look forward to working on this important project and pledge our best efforts on your
behalf.
Sincerely,
RAYMOND TURCO BILLY CAMPBELL, CITY MANAGER
RAYMOND TURCO & ASSOCIATES CITY OF SOUTHLAKF—
sa-y
0
(D
CD
T- <
(D CD
0
=3
(D
10 3 k
0
:3
0
CT
0
=r
(D
fa
w
ICI
0
0
0
z
,-I-
0
ffl
CD
,3
r4
>
z
-0
'a
CL
a)
c
CL
(D
0
cn
CD
cn
-n
-0
0
c
CD
co
ZI
3
0
z
3 ; n
c N'
c^o o N
co L M
D
O
3 b
p N
w
CA
4 0'
0
� N
3
O
cr
!0 CDr
N
� <p
c% (D
Vl
a.
3�
l�
a
O
ro
a
O
O
C
O.•
O
v
N
su
cr
C
.0
N
N
CA
o N
-,
0 0
U O
(5 a
_4 3
O
z
F
i
M
N
.p
CD
Sv
Z
U)
la
O
O
(D
r
Z
4
co
v
D
1
N
N
a
a�
VQ-
--j
cL
g
N
O
=
—
v (D
C
m
0
3��
c
3
z
Z-
_
�
O
Cl)
�°,
ai
0
to
O
._,
cr
X
i
3
O
o
72.
z
c
c
w
o
cr
(D
co
0
u
�'
f D
(n
m
m
3
0
o
m
v_i
a
CL
co3
z
.D
FA,
a
n
.:i
m
CL
w
a
3
o
2:
ca
o
m
a
2
�
3
�
a
c
Z3-
� �
-q
rn
a,
cf)z
map
co
G)
m
CO)
—i M
Q
0 r
�z>
CD
Fa
not
D G),
oz"n
�
c
FROM Raymond Turco & AsSoc. PHONE NO. : 817 277 3784 Feb. 11 2W-0 04:45PM P2
rtRAYMOND TURCO. and ASSOCIATES
February 11, 2000
Mr. Billy Campbell
City of Southlake
400 N. White Chapel Blvd,
Southlake, TX 76092
Dear Mr. Campbell,
This letter, when signed by you, will constitute an agreement whereby Raymond Turco
& Associates will perform the following services for the City of Southlake for the stated
fees, as detailed in our proposal (attached as part of agreement):
SERVICES: Prepare and implement a research project for the City of Southlake
W proposed Teen Center. Services will include:
• Meet with designated staffinembers and board members to develop areas of
interest to be addressed in adult telephone survey and self-administered teen
survey_
• Develop 2 surveys (adult and teen), subject to city approval
• Typeset and print student surveys (preliminary estimate of 1,000 surveys).
• Administer student surveys with city assistance in coordination and collection, if
necessary
• Purchase telephone list of residents for adult telephone survey contact at no
additional cost
• Divide city into subsectors
• Conduct and complete 400 telephone interviews
• Data entry services for both surveys
Produce Data Tabulation Report and provide 3 copies of both reports to city
• Prepare combined survey summary and analysis and provide 15 copies of final
report to city
• Make 3 oral presentations
iliw PUBLIC OPINION RESEARCH • POLITICAL CONSULTANTS
1700 Baird Farm Circle a Suite 1213 a Arlington, Texas 760M
Macro (8171 543-0434 a Fax (617) 2777---3784 • E-Mail nurco@ix.netcom.com
•.
FROM Raymond Turco & Assoc. PHONE NO. 817 277 3784 Feb. 11 2000 04:45PM P3
Southlake Agreement
�r 9
Page two
FEES: For performance of the above services, the City of Southlake agrees to pay
Raymond Turco & Associates a fee of $10,000 for implernentation of the research
project. Fees are due as follows:
• 50%, or $5,000, due upon signature of this letter of agreement and prior to
commencement of fieldwork
• Remaining fees ($5,000) due upon presentation of final report.
Raymond Turco & Associates agrees to deliver the final report in as expeditious a
manner as possible. Barring any unforeseen circumstances imposed by the city. a final
report will be delivered to the city, no later than April 28, 2000.
The city will approve the final questionnaires (adult and teen) prior to the
commencement of any fieldwork.
We look forward to working with you on this important project and pledge our best
ff its our b half
LowE
e o on y- e
Sincerely,
RAYMONb TURCO I
RAYMOND TURCO & ASSOCIATES
RAVMOND TURCO and ASSOCIATES
L
PROPOSAL
TO: Mr. Kevin Hugman
Director of Community Services
i City of Southlake
FROM: Mr. Ray Turco
Raymond Turco & Associates
1700 Baird Farm Circle #1213
Arlington, TX 76006
(817-543-0434)
DATE: January 24, 2000 ,
RE: Survey Proposal
Thank you very much for the opportunity to present the following proposal for design
and implementation of a comprehensive public opinion research project to assist
elected officials and city staff to better understand the needs or both residents and
teenagers as it relates to the proposed Teen Center facility. We are excited to have the
4W opportunity to work with you on this important project.
Raymond Turco & Associates is exceptionally well qualified to implement this project.
We have worked for numerous parks and recreation clients throughout the metroplex,
including Coppell, Arlington and Cedar Hill. We have also worked with cities on issues
that have political ramifications, based on the overall results of the survey. Further
review of our client Iisting.'will illustrate that. numerous cities have drawn on our
expertise to assist them in the analysis of the attitudes of their citizens on a myriad of
issues. You will additionally note that many cities have used our services for multiple
projects and oftentimes, for several years. We offer a comprehensive project, at a
competitive cost and in a timely manner. Ray Turco will work with you to develop a
questionnaire that addresses your needs. Interviewers are friendly and courteous, and
represent the company in a positive manner. Also, should there be any question or
concern, you work directly with the president and owner of the company -- there will be
no middle man or associate with which to deal. Rest assured, the needs of your city will
be addressed and met by Raymond Turco & Associates.
This survey proposal will address two types of research -- a random telephone survey
of 400 adult residents, as well as a self-administered survey of Southlake teenagers.
U
E �w SERVICES TO PROVIDE
1. Questionnaire Design - Raymond
g y Turco &Associates will meet with selected city
staff and citizens' committee to review survey objectives and how best to meet the
needs as outlined in the request for proposals. From that meeting, and any subsequent
discussions, areas of interest will be determined, by,which both surveys will be written.
Based on the proposal request, as well as our experience with this type of project, a list
of questions.will be developed to address relavent issues, from the perspective of both
adults and teenagers. Some of the issues to address may include, but not be limited to:
Voting activity (adults only)
• Satisfaction with current aspects of recreation (both groups)
• Current teenage recreational activities (teens)
Explanation of what is a Teen Center (both groups)
• Importance of city providing Teen Center (adults only)
• Construction preference -- stand alone or part of recreation center (both groups)
• Types of activities to provide at Teen Center (both teen and adult perspective)
• Likelihood of parents sending their children to participate at Teen Center (adults
only)
• Amount willing to pay to finance Teen Center (adults only)
• Information statements relative to Teen Center (both groups)
"' • Current activities in which teenagers participate (teens only)
• Type of facility for city to offer (both groups)
• Positive and negative aspects of proposed Teen Center (both groups)
• Demographic information (both groups)
The telephone survey to adults will consist of between 20 - 30 questions, including
open-ended ones, and will be developed and presented to staff for approval or changes
if necessary. The final questionnaire will contain a sufficient number of questions to
address the desired issues and not to exceed four pages of 11 x 14 length. Surveys of
this length average 14-18 minutes. The teen survey will contain many questions
identical to those in the adult survey, in order to compare results. In addition,
teen -oriented questions will also be incorporated into the document. The approved
teen survey will be typeset, printed and distributed to teens, either through the
appropriate school districts or teen gatherings.
2. Data Base - Data base selection is critical to the overall success of the telephone
research. Because the survey impacts all citizens, it is important to have the most
current listing of residents available. Raymond Turco & Associates recommends
selecting a random listing of the most current residents in the city with telephone
numbers. This list would be purchased from Experion, formerly TRW Marketing
Services, a list management firm located in Allen, Texas. The firm specializes in
targeted lists and updates its Texas files on a monthly basis.
City of Southlake Survey Proposal January 2000 Page 2
The firm will then develop a statistical model to divide the city into regional subsectors,
E�w in order to compare geographical attitudinal shifts. The number of residents
participating in each sector will be based - on the population of households with
telephones numbers and each of the subsectors will be statistically accurate. The list
will be in an order for this to occur.
It is this firm's recommendation that 400 surveys be completed, which would achieve a
sampling whereby the results would equate to a margin error of +/- 5% at the 95%
confidence level. • Telephone calls will be made in each sector until each quota is
attained.
The self-administered survey would be collected through the mail or by other means.
where the confidentiality of the respondent will be protected. Self-administered surveys
generally require additional time for people to respond as well as for collection. This is
especially true when compared to the fieldwork of a telephone survey. However,
through school district cooperation, it may be possible to conduct the teen surveys
during one scheduled time period, thus eliminating the longer collection process. This
firm would work with the city to contact the school districts to determine the feasibility of
the collection process, as well as to coordinate the distribution of the surveys.
3. Qualifying Respondents - Raymond Turco & Associates will use the approved
survey to contact residents to participate in the project. From our Grand Prairie and
Bedford, Texas, call centers, we will randomly contact the appropriate number of
W respondents. Each list will include the number of respondents to qualify out of that
sector. Interviewers will contact the appropriate number of individuals and when a
E�W
E
N
caller reaches the statistical quota for that area, further calling will cease.
Our interviewers are trained in the high standards of telephone research. In fact, most
interviewers who would work on this project have been employed by the firm for more
than one year. They have been instructed to protect the integrity and confidentiality of
both the client and the respondent. For example, callers are instructed not to create a
"bias" by revealing to residents for whom the project is being done, from where the calls
are being made, or any other item that could "skew" the results. Additionally,
interviewers are taught that if they cannot answer a particular question by repeating the
question or a portion of the question, to not answer. In this way, one respondent does
not have any more information by which to make a decision than another.
Training sessions are conducted for all employees at the beginning of the project.
Included in the instructions are application instructions, such as proper marking of the
individual questionnaires and contact lists, skip patterns and other pieces of information
that will- benefit the caller. The surveys are also read out loud so that interviewers can
feel comfortable with word verbiage, pronunciation and other nuances unique to a
particular client. - Additionally, a supervisor is available to assist or address any
situations which may occur.
City of Southlake Survey Proposal
January 2000
Page 3
t
Validation techniques utilized include a review of each individual questionnaire to
ensure accuracy as well as the random recontact of respondents to validate the
authenticity of each respondent.
4. Timetable -The projected tim
eline for design, implementation and analysis of this
research project is 10 - 12 weeks. Upon selection, design of the questionnaires will
take a week, with completion of the telephone fieldwork taking approximately ten days.
Collection of the teen surveys could take up to 4 weeks, if teens were allowed to take
them home from school. If a schedule could be worked out with the different school
districts, whereby the students could take 15 minutes on one given day to implement
the project, the schedule could be shorted significantly. Compilation, tabulation of the
WT data and preparing the draft survey summary and final report will take up the remaining
time. Upon selection, a project timeline will be submitted for approval. We are
prepared to being this project the day after selection.
6. Data Tabulation - Raymond Turco & Associates utilizes state-of-the-art equipment
and computer software for tabulating the data and producing tables that contain the'
maximum amount of information and yet are easy to -read.
The firm uses "Survey System 4.1," a data tabulation and research software package
developed by Creative Research Systems. It is a powerful yet flexible system, capable
of tabulating up to 32,000 questionnaires, with each questionnaire having up to 3,000
columns of data. Questionnaires can be weighted, and individuals can give more than
one answer to a question. The survey system can also combine responses from
multiple questions.
The Survey System can produce a variety of different kinds of tables, using a "banner"
format. A "cross -tab" table can be produced showing frequencies and column
percentages. A "score" table is a weighted average of the responses to one question.
It can be produced showing raw and standardized scores. It can have. up to 20
variables (20 items rated or questions answered) in a single score table. An "answer
comparison" table is produced to show the column percentages of different answers.
A variety of statistics are available on tables, with the kind of statistics dependent on the
table being created. Statistical formats include Chi square, mean, standard deviation,
standard error, median, T-Tests between both 2 variables and banner columns (only
real number tables), row mean (answer comparison tables) and difference between
proportions.
Upon receipt of the completed questionnaires, Raymond Turco & Associates will
recommend "banners," or the questions to tabulate against other questions in the table.
The firm will enter all data in a controlled environment to insure accuracy.
kw For report purposes, the firm utilizes several desktop publishing programs Pa eMaker
P P P PP 9P 9 ( 9
6.0, Ami-Pro 3.1, Microsoft Word 97) and -graphics programs (Lotus 123, Microsoft
City of Southlake Survey Proposal January 2000 Page 4
Excel 97, Microsoft Power Point and Quatro Pro) to create a document that is both
E %W attractive and informative.
6. Deliverables - The firm will provide 3 copies of the Data Tabulation Report, along
with 15 copies of the final version of the Survey Summary Report.
City of Southlake Survey Proposal
January 2000
Sid-//
Page 5
FEES
Raymond Turco & Associates agrees to perform the services, as described in this
proposal, for the following fees:
A. Teen Center Recreation Survey
(400 adult respondents)
• Questionnaire design
• Data Tabulation
(20 - 30 questions)
Report
• All field work (Interviewers
• Survey Summary
and supervisor)
Report
• Data entry and compilation
• Presentation
SURVEY COST (Comprehensive Report)
$8,000.00
SURVEY COST- (Executive Summary/Abbreviated Report)
$6,000.00
B. Teen Center Recreation Survey (self-administered teen
survey)
• Questionnaire design
• Data Tabulation
Report
• Printing of survey and
• Inclusion in Survey
return envelope (if
Summary Report
necessary)
• Collection of surveys -
SURVEY COST
$2,000.00
TOTAL PROJECT COST
$10,000.00
(Comprehensive)
TOTAL PROJECT COST
$8,000.00
(Abbreviated)
One half of the total project cost will be due upon commencement of the project, with
the femainder of the fees due upon final presentation:' Please note that this price will
be effective for 90 days.
City of Southlake Survey Proposal
January 2000
S�6 !C-A
Page 6
REVENUES
Sales Tax
Interest
Total Revenues
EXPENDITURES
Personnel
Operations
Capital
Total Expenditures
Net Revenues
Transfers Out
Proceeds from C.O. Sale
Total Other Sources (Uses)
Beginning Fund Balance
Ending Fund Balance
SPDC - OPERATING FUND
Parks/Recreation
2000-01 Proposed Budget and 1999-00 Revised Budget
1998-99 1999-00
Actual Adopted
$1,533,773 $1,737,104
52,594 37,500
$1,686,367 $1,774,604
$54,661 $67,098
$3,300 $3,300
$0 $0
$57,961 $70,398
$1,628,406 $1,704,206
(1,237,896) (1,380,583)
0 0
(1,237,896) (1,380,583)
$459.116 i $749,626
749 626 1 0$ 73,249
�A
$ Increase/
(Decrease) % Increase/
Adopted I -Decrease
$0
0.0%
0
0.0%
$0
0.0%
($12,437)
-18.5%
300
9.1%
0
0.0%
($12,137) -17.2%
$12,137
($110,345)
02:45 PM
alms 0
$ Increase/
(Decrease) % Increase/
Adopted -Decrease
$260,566
15.0%
0
0.0%
$260,666
14.7%
$233,516
348.0%
300
9.1%
0
0.0%
$233,81: 332.1%
$26,75
L�r
R
City of Southlake, Texas
MEMORANDUM
August 24, 2000
TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager
FROM: Kevin Hugman, Director of Community Services
SUBJECT: Proposed revisions to Bicentennial Park Development Plan
Action Requested: Update on the Bicentennial Park Schematic Design.
Background
Information: The Bicentennial Park Schematic Design is currently being reviewed as part
of the City's Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan update process.
The schematic design is intended to serve as a guide for the orderly
development of recreational facilities, open space, and infrastructure within
Bicentennial Park.
Schrickel, Rollins and Associates (SRA ) has been working with the Parks
Board and staff to develop the schematic design based on the input provided.
The schematic design takes in to account a variety of issues such as future
park expansion, new facilities such as softball fields and sand volleyball
courts, traffic and pedestrian access, parking lot expansions, trail layouts,
concession/restroom requirements, and possible locations for the City's
proposed community center.
Financial
Considerations: Not applicable.
Citizen Input/
Board Review: The Parks Board has reviewed the schematic design at their June 12, 2000
meeting and their August 14, 2000 meeting, and staff has also received input
from the youth sports associations. City-wide SPIN meetings for review and
input on the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan, including the
Bicentennial Park Schematic Design, have been scheduled for September 7
and September 13, 2000. A meeting for SPIN 410 and #13 will also be
scheduled as these areas are most affected by Bicentennial Park.
Legal Review: Not applicable.
Alternatives: SPDC review and comment.
Billy Campbell, City Manager
August 24.2000
Page 2
Supporting
Documents: Supporting documents include the following:
Preliminary Bicentennial Park schematic design
Staff
Recommendation: Update on the Bicentennial Park Schematic Design presented to the SPDC at
their August 28, 2000 meeting.
t-
N
City of Southlake, Texas
MEMORANDUM
August 25. 2000
TO: Billy Campbell. City Manager
FROM:Tr
Kevin Hugman. Director of Community Services
SUBJECT: Capital Projects Budget
Action Requested: SPDC discussion of the FY 2000-2001 SPDC capital projects budget.
Background
Information: At the joint SPDC / Parks and Recreation Board meeting on July 10, there
was general discussion regarding the current financial situation of the City in
terms of the City's General Fund for operations and maintenance, and the
fiscal status of the SPDC fund. Finance Director Sharen Elam discussed
generally the sales tax revenue projections and the debt capacity of SPDC.
At the JLiiy 24, 2000 meeting, SPDC discussed the current long range SPDC
Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) and budget. There was also discussion
regarding some new proposed projects and others the Board wanted the staff
to look at moving up in the plan.
Staff has reviewed the CIP and made some changes to it as a starting point
for discussion with the Board. Not all items are known yet, for example, the
issue of the Teen Center construction. Funding was allotted, and a survey
has been recently completed that will give SPDC information useful in
determining the direction of this project. Those results are unknown at this
time, but will be available prior to consideration of the SPDC CIP budget in
September.
The changes proposed by staff are:
• Move up construction of Restroom 92 at Bob Jones Park as suggested by
SPDC.
• Move up construction of water well #2 and aeration system for ponds # 1
and #2.
• Increase estimated cost of softball complex from $900,000 to $1,100,000
based on consultant recommendation as to current costs of ballfields.
parking, concession/restrooms.
• Continue funding for projects identified in FY 2000 (identified as
bold/italic in attached Proposed SPDC CIP sheet.)
• Reduce funding for Recreation center construction in FY 2002, shifting
difference to FY 2003, keeping the total funding same.
• New items to be considered by SPDC. Recall Park Board recommended
prioritization of these projects as shown with the exception of the baseball
6-/
Kevin Hugman, Director of Community Services
August 25, 2000
Page 2
warm-up area and concession stand air conditioning projects, which have
been added since that time.
The P P r following l ,� 4 l,
Parks Board at its Jul} 10 meeting considered r. d .he ..� lnv potential,
projects /items that could be funded in the SPDC Capital Improvements Plan,
and made its prioritized recommendations to SPDC as follows:
Descriptions for "New Projects" are:
Bleachers: Bob Jones Park currently serves as the only recreational youth
soccer facility in Southlake. The Grapevine Southlake Soccer Association
(GSSA) presently conducts a spring season and a fall season which draw
thousands of participants and spectators. The addition of bleachers at the
Bob Jones Park soccer facility would improve the comfort level for patrons
by providing adequate seating. The cost is based upon fourteen (14) sets of
bleachers which can be moved to accommodate the various field layouts.
Volleyball Court Improvements: The proposed volleyball court
improvements would include two (2) lighted sand volleyball courts to be
located at Bicentennial Park. The sand volleyball courts are very popular
with young adults and could also be used during family picnics. Other uses
might include small tournaments and leagues programmed through the
Recreation Division.
Baseball warm up area. Install fencing to protect players
ingressing/egressing the warm up area to get to the batting cages. This
affects the SBA batting cages only. Requested by SBA and staff concurs with
need.
Concession stand air conditioning units. The coolers provided by Coca-
Cola to the concession stands generate considerably more heat than
previously experienced with carbonated dispensers. Concession stands
become very hot and uncomfortable for volunteers working in these areas.
The proposed project would install units in the two concession stands in
Bicentennial Park and the new building in Bob Jones.
Pond Aeration System: The Chesapeake Park pond aeration system would
be similar to what is currently installed in the Bicentennial Park pond. The
aeration system is essential to improving the quality of the water in order to
reduce pond scum and support fish habitat.
Pavilion: The installation of a pavilion at Chesapeake Park would provide
for a shaded area for residents to enjoy. Park pavilions are very popular for
group picnics and birthday parties. The installation of the pavilion and the
pond aeration system would essentially complete the planned improvements
for this neighborhood park.
Kevin Hugman, Director of Community Services
August 25, 2000
Page 3
Financial
Considerations: To be discussed by Board and staff.
Citizen Input/
Board Review:
Parks and Recreation Board has provided a prioritized list of recommended
additions for consideration by SPDC.
Legal Review:
Not Applicable.
Alternatives:
Input towards the proposed amendments to the fiscal year 2000/2001 SPDC
Capital Improvements Plan.
Supporting
Documents:
• SPDC proposed CIP, FY 2001-2003
• Current SPDC Capital Improvements Plan as approved December 6, 1999,
exhibits 1 and 2.
s CIP Project Description Summaries
Staff
Recommendation:
SPDC discussion regarding the FY 2000-2001 SPDC Operating and Capital
•rr
Projects budgets.
� 7Q-3
6-
PROPOSED SPDC CIP 2001-2003 C�U
SPDC-CIP 2001-03 proposed.xls 8/28/00
0
SOUTHLAKE PARKS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Capital Improvements Plan
Exhibit 1
E
LAW
N
1999/2000
Option A
2000/2001
2001 /2002
2002/2003
Beginning Fund Balance
(733,000)
Junior Lien Debt'
3,700,000
Interest Earnings
125,000
175,000
125,000
175,000
Operating Funds Transfer
500,000
400,000
400,000
400,000
Matching Grant Proceeds (1)
250,000
250,000
Senior Lien Debt
4,400,000
5,500,000
Total Proceeds
3,842,000
5,225,000
525,000
6,075,000
Can only be used to purchase land
(1) Matching funds noted above for FY '00 will be used to offset FY '99 expenditures
Option A - Pays existing debt owed for prior land purchased and inciudes contingency money
to purchase future sites.
I �
L
Law
H
SOUTHLAKE PARKS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Capital Improvements Plan
Exhibit 2
1999/2000
Option A
2000/2001
2001 /2002
2002/2003
Carryforward balance
945,000
2,290,000
315,000
Total Proceeds
3,842,000
5,225,000
525,000
6,075,000
Total available funds
3,842,000
6,170,000
2,815,000
6,390,000
Capital Expenditures
Smith Park Planning
50,000
Matching funds
100,000
Continental Trails
320,000
Trailhead Improvements
16,000
Capping Wells
20,000
Bleachers
11,000
Game field, Lighting
200,000
Joint Use
20,000
20,000
Special Projects
50,000
50,000
Nature Center Improvements
100,000
On -Road Signage
10,000
Girls Softball Complex
900,000
Bob Jones Development
1,800,000
500,000
500,000
Natatorium
500,000
500,000
250,000
Survey
10,000
Purchase land
1,800,000
Planning
500,000
Construction
1,500,000
4,000,000
Teen Center Construction (2)
300,000
Total of Expenditures
2,897,000
3,880,000
2,500,000
4,750,000
TOTAL PROCEEDS LESS
TOTAL COMMITMENTS
945,000
2,290,000
315,000
1,640,000
(2) Contingent upon the results of the survey.
Option A - Pays existing debt owed for prior land purchased and includes contingency money
to purchase future sites.
SPDC 1999/2000 Capital Improvement Projects
• Smith Park Planning50 000 — Conceptual design and development of
($ � ) P 9 P
® construction plans for phase 1 improvements to Smith Park.
• Matching Funds — Community Projects ($100,000 per year) Established
to provide matching funds for community based programs which enhance the
quality of the City's parks and recreational programs.
• Continental Trail Phases I and II ($320,000) — 6' wide trail along south side
of Continental Drive from Davis to White Chapel.
• Bob Jones Trailhead Parking ($16,000) — Parking area for the proposed
north trailhead at Bob Jones Park.
• Capping of Wells at Bob Jones Park ($20,000) — Capping of undetermined
number of existing wells at Bob Jones Park per State requirements.
• Bleachers ($11,000) — Bleachers for baseball
• Game Field Lighting ($200,000) — Lighting for Bicentennial Park ball fields
#4, #5, and #10.
• Joint Use Improvements ($20,000) — Available funding for use in the
development and maintenance of joint use facilities.
■ Special Projects ($50,000 per year) — Available funding for unforeseen
projects and improvements which enhance the quality of the City's parks and
recreational programs.
• Survey ($10,000) —Review of community desire for Community Center/Teen
Center facilities.
• Land Acquisition ($1,800,000) — Acquisition of park land.
• Teen Center Construction ($300,000) — Pending results of survey.
NAParks & Recreation\BOARDS\SPDC\MEMOS\2000\8-00\CIP project descriptions. doc
C
C.
L
SPDC 2000/2001 Capital Improvement Projects
• Joint Use Improvements ($20,000) — Available funding for use in the
development and maintenance of joint use facilities.
■ Special Projects ($50,000 per year) — Available funding for unforeseen
projects and improvements which enhance the quality of the City's parks and
recreational programs.
■ Nature Center Improvements ($100,000) — Restoration and improvements
to the existing Nature Center building.
• Signage for On -Road Trails ($10,000) — On -road signage for trails. To be
implemented following the completion of the Trail System Master Plan
update.
• Girls Softball Complex ($1,100,000) —Girls softball four-plex.
• Bob Jones Park Development (Additional $2,250,000) — improvements to
Bob Jones Park including pond #2 with well and water feature, park signage,
day camp facilities, amphitheater with electric, turf, loop road with parking,
phase I concession/restroom building, pump house building enhancements,
,, ••► storm drain headwall enhancements, pond #1 water discharge feature,
continuation of pipe rail fencing, roadway lighting, phase II front entrance with
landscape, phase I drainage improvements, phase I parking lot surface coat,
utilities (Nature Center, phase I restroom), additional practice fields (6).
■ Natatorium ($500,000) — City participation in CISD Natatorium construction.
• Recreation Center Planning ($500,000) — Recreation Center planning and
design.
SPDC 2001 /2002 Capital Improvement Projects
• Bob Jones Development ($200,000) — Additional parking, irrigation,
landscaping, phase II restroom building with utilities.
■ Natatorium ($500,000) — City participation in CISD Natatorium construction.
■ Recreation Center Construction Phase 1 ($500,000) — Recreation Center
construction.
E
NAParks & Recreation\BOARDS\SPDC\MEMOS\2000\8-00\CIP project descriptions. doc
Zd-oc
L-
SPDC 2002/2003 Capital Improvement Projects
Bob Jones Development 35 000 — Additional parking,irrigation,
landscaping, phase II restroom building with utilities.
rim 2 00 — CISD Natatorium t • Natatorium ($ 50,0 ) City participation in C S o construction.
• Recreation Center Construction Phase 2 ($5,000,000) — Recreation Center
construction.
NAParks & Recreation\BOARDS\SPDC\MEMOS\2000\8-00\CIP project descriptions.doc
SOUTHLAKE PARKS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
1/2% SALES TAX REPORT
Actual
Budget
Actual
Estimated
(budget-est.)
%
1998-99
1999-00
1999-00
1999-00
Difference
Change
October
November
$155,384
103,444
$ 153,170
139,860
$155,259
150,165
$155,259
150,165
$ 2,089
10,305
1.36%
7.37%
December
94,247
154,226
125,632
125,632
(28,594)
-18.54%
January
156,915
127,185
176,808
176,808
49,623
39.02%
February
99,787
116,386
135,803
135,803
19,417
16.68%
March
97,318
109,438
120,289
120,289
10,851
9.92%
April
155,959
177,185
182,799
182,799
5,614
3.17%
May
128,839
149,391
148,210
148,210
(1,181)
-0.79%
June
124,662
142,443
150,393
150,396
7,953
5.58%
July
173,349
191,081
190,883
190,883
(198)
-0.10%
August
122,865
138,968
138,968
September
121,005
137,231
137,231
-
$1,533,774
$ 1,736,564
$ 1,536,241
$ 1,812,443
$ 75,879
13.22% 18.17%
L low
N
C`
SOtiTHLAKE PARK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION'
Capital Projects Status Report
August 23, 2000
Phase II construction
Design - Phase II Contract Began: June 17, 1997
Consultant: tiIES A Design Group Grand Opening: March 4, 2000
Status: Complete.
Entrance Road Repair - F.Y. 1998-99
Status: A itmerous contractors have declined to submit a quote to repair the
entrance road. Road repairs will be considered with the next phase of improvements to
Bicentennial Park pending completion of the Fevis�"cl Bicentennial Park Master
Development Plan.
Phase III
Park Trail - F.Y. 1998-99
Status: Remaining trails will be reviewed and addressed following the completion
of the Bicentennial Park Master Development Plan currenil'i being developed by
Shrickel. Rollins and Associates.
Phase II with TP" Grant -
Design - Phase II Contract Began: January 3, 2000
Consultant: Cheatham Associates Design Contract: S178,752.00
Status: The site plan has been presented and reviewed by SPIN 41, the Parks and
Recreation Board, and SPDC and City Council. The consultant is completing
construction documents. Plans will be submitted to the Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department and the US. Army Corp of Engineers for review and approval. Planning
and Zoning, and City Council have approved a preliminary plat and site plan.
PaLle 1
7z) - /
0
Al
Nature Center Planning -
Status: The iaciilry is to place. tdtnes w;77 be in stalled as part o,Bob Jones
construction.
Noble Oaks Park - F.Y. 2000-01
Status: A concept plan developed by Southlake resident and architect Scott
Martin, will he presented and reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Board at the
September, 2000 meeting.
Koalaty Park - F.Y. 2000-01
Status: The existing irrigation system along the frontage cif Pillage Green and
Continental Blvd as installed by the developer of Country -walk Estates is complete.
Royal and Annie Smith Park - F.Y. 1999-00
Status: SPDC approved 550,000 for planning and construction of initial park
improvements in FY 1999-2000. The conceptual park plan will be addressed within the
Parks, Recreation, and Open Space 1 1aster Plan update.
Lonesome Dove Park - F.Y. 1998-99
Status: All requirements of the developer's agreement are addressed Lighting
and playground improvements are complete. Existing irrigation repairs are progressing.
Staff is coordinating trail design criteria with a committee of six homeowners to address
concerns raised at a trail presentation meeting in June. Suggestions included stained or
stenciled concrete, crushed granite, and a boardwalk through the marsh area of the
storm water detention area. .4 final SPLV"meeting will be held prior to the Park and
Recreation Board.
"Chesapeake" Park - F.Y. 1999-2000
Consultant: Carter Burgess Inc. Matching Funds Approved: 535,794
Approved by Parks Board: February 14, 2000
Approved by SPDC: February 28, 2000
Status: Construction plans are complete. Vehicular paving is complete. Minor
earthwork remains. Trail implementation began in early July, with irrigation
improvements to follow. Staff is providing peripheral assistance during construction.
Upon completion of the park, the developer will submit invoices for the approved items
for reimbursement. Staff will coordinate the procurement and planting of'the shade and
ornamental trees in the park during the optimal planting season in A"ovember, 2000.
Pa_e 2
7Da
E
"Sheltonwood" Park - F.Y. I
Status: 'one.
ISTEA Grant - Cottonbelt Trail - F.Y. 1997-98
Status: The City of Colle Ville and Grapevine have an opportunity to build the
'rail more efficiently it-ith approved funding in the year 2005. An agreement to transfer
DART right-of-ivay obligations to the City of Grapevine is complete. a request has been
submitted to TCDOT to ivithdrait, City of Southlake participation. approval has been
delayed to allow further TxDOT discussion of the transfer of finding to the Ci1v of
ColleYvi.11e.
Continental Boulevard Trail (White Chapel to Davis) - F.Y. 1998-99
Design - Phase 1 Contract Completed: November 25, 1997
Consultant: Dunaway Associates, Inc.
Status: The trail improvements in association It ith the Phase 1 road improvements
are rearing completion. The off -road trail is being constructed south of Continental
"° Blvd from the Country Walk subdivision to N. Pe_vtonville. All Phase I construction is
essentially completed.
COMMUNITY FACILITIES
Teen Center -
Teen Center Survey — Contract Cost: 510,000
Consultant: Raymond Turco and Associates
Status: The adult portion of the survey is complete. The draft report of the teen
portion is expected next week.
Pa,e 3
�� rV
I %W
Lew
H
Southlake Baseball Association —
Approved by SPDC: January 25, 1999
Approved by Park Board: January 11, 1999
Status: SPDC approved 530.000 tit the January meeting to address requested
items by the Southlake Baseball Association. All items. including the batting cages, have
been completes.
Southlake Girls Softball Association —
Approved by SPDC: February 22, 1999 and January 24, 2000
Approved by Park Board: February 8, 1999 and January 10, 2000
Status: SPDC approved S8,366.50 at the Jt nuary meeting to complete batting
cage construction.
Southlake Equestrian Association —
Approved by SPDC: September 27, 1999
Approved by Park Board: September 13, 1999
Status: SPDC approved SI0.000 at the September meeting to install various items
requested by the Southlake Equestrian Association. Implementation of the northern
parking lot is nearing completion.
Northeast Tarrant Tennis —
Approved by SPDC: September 27, 1999
Approved by Park Board: August 9, 1999
Status: SPDC approved S1 S. 000 at the August meeting to provide items requested
by Northeast Tarrant Tennis. NETT has issued a check to the City in the amount of
$2, 500 towards their matching requirement.
Senior Tree Farm 91 -
Approved by SPDC: January 16, 1998
Approved by Park Board: December 8, 1997
Status: At the Lonesome Dove Park neighborhood workday on November 6, 1999,
four (4) Redbuds and two (2) Sawtooth Oaks from Senior Tree Farm #'1 were planted in
the park.
Page 4
7D-d/
n
Senior Tree Farm #2 —
""' Approved b • SPDC:
Approved by Park Board:
Status: The Texas Forest Service Grant of S8,g00 (S-4,200 Grant Airand ivith n_
S4,206-1 Required J Iatch) began on October 1, 1998. The City received a check for the
grant _7i-om the Texas Forest Service on December 1, 1999, and all project requirements
are completed. The grant money assisted in the planting offive hundred and twenty-eight
(528) trees at Senior Tree Farins -1 and 72, utilizing five hundred and eighty-three (583)
volunteer hours.
RI
Senior Tree Farm #3—
Approved by City Council: .June 15, 1999
Approved by Park Board: June 7, 1999
Status: The Texas Forest .Service Grant of S8, 600 (S4, 300 Grant Rivard with a
S4,300 Required Afatch or in -kind services) began on October 1. 1999. The third phase
has been establishedus an extension to Tree Farm 42 located at 273 Shady Oaks. Four
hundred i400) saplings (Lacebark Elm, Cedar Elm. Shumard Oak) were planted on
Februar�v 12, 2000. Building Inspector John Lesinski has donated an additional three
hundred 600) saplings that are being stored in containers at the Shady Oaks site; these
saplings are planned to be planted in conjunction with the fourth phase of the project
next f < . Pruning at Tree Fat -in 1 and routine maintenance at all three (3) phases has
begun.
Soccer Practice Fields - F.Y. 1998-99
Status: All improvements are completed at St. Martin's in -the -Field; four (!)
practice areas are available.
Joint -Use Equipment -
Status: Available as needed
Signage for all Parks -
Status: Staff is in the process of drafting a signage plan for various locations.
Page 5
?&S
1999 -
Complete S12,775.00 Bicentennial Park Phase lI pond surface aeration syster:n.
Complete S 5,277.00 Senior Activity Center irrigation system.
Complete $ 4,234.50 Senior Activity Center concrete sidewalks and patio.
Complete S 8,061.25 Bicentennial Park pavilion tables and benches.
Complete S 7,765.00 Bicentennial Park drinking water fountains.
2000 -
Complete $ 2,817.85 Bicentennial Park Erosion Control.
Complete S 3,000.00 Tree Transplanting at Bob Jones Park.
Complete $14,604.00 Bicentennial Park Phase II Wrought Iron Fencing.
Complete $ 499.00 Tennis Center Pro -Shop Window Tinting.
Complete S 459.00 Tennis Center Signage.
Complete S 1,300.00 Bob Jones Park Water Weli Discharge Piping.
Complete S 1.657.50 Bicentennial Park Pond Aeration Electric
Complete S 3,619.70 Bicentennial Park Ballfield Concrete Improvements
Complete $ 1,000.00 Senior Tree Farm Capital Items.
Complete $ 6,000.00 Bicentennial Park Bermuda Hvdro-mulch.
Q
City of Southlake, Texas
I
Ci
u
MEMORANDUM
September 22, 2000
TO: SPDC Board of Directors
FROM: Kevin Hugman, Director of Community Services
SUBJECT: Board Meeting -- Monday, September 25, 2000
1. Agenda Item No. 2. Executive Session. We have no items at this time to discuss with you.
2. Agenda Item No. 4. PUBLIC FORUM. This is the public's opportunity to address the Board
about non -agenda items. During this proceeding it is important that the Board not deliberate
(discuss among yourselves) or take action on any item brought up at this time. The Boards'
options during this topic are 1) to listen, 2) ask questions and respond to the presenter only, 3)
request staff to look into the issue and report back to the Board or 4) request that the Chair
put the item on a future agenda for the Board to discuss or consider.
Agenda Item No. 5A. Approval of the minutes for the regular SPDC meeting on August 28,
2000. If you have corrections to the meeting minutes, please let Secretary to the City
Manager Kim Bush know in advance or make it part of the motion for consideration. Kim
can be reached via e-mail at kbush@cityofsouthlake.com or by calling her at 481-5581,
extension 702.
4. Agenda Item No. 6A. Public Hearing for impending park projects. This item has been placed
on the agenda to be done in conjunction with item 6B. There are no publication requirements
associated with the Public Hearing, but it meets legislative requirements to place the capital
projects by name on a posted agenda and conduct a public hearing. Some of these items will
likely come before the Board again to approve bids, but some projects will not since they will
be below state bid limits. There are no specific packet materials for this item other than those
provided for in item 6B.
5. Agenda Item No. 6B. Approval of long range Parks Capital Improvements Plan, including
FY 2000-2001 Capital Improvements budget. The only changes to this item since your last
meeting are: (1) add $393,750 in -additional revenue that was realized from the junior lien
bond sales, but was not included in the currently approved budget; and (2) include a reserve
fund line item equal to 6 % of the total project (less land acquisition) expenditures for each
year.
In order to be conservative, we have shown the reserve line item as an expense each year, but
as with the other line items, any amount left would be carried forward each year. Staff
recommends this reserve fund be included to provide for the potential of bids over budget,
change orders that may be necessary, and any other contingencies that may arise.
SPDC Board of Directors
Board Meeting - Monday, September 25, 2000
Page 2 of 2
6. Agenda Item No. 7A. Teen Center Survey Report. As discussed before with SPDC, the teen
center survey was completed in August and the consultant has been working hard to complete
the analysis in time for your meeting, so that you would have this information as you consider
the CIP. Because of his work load and the necessity to travel out of town on other projects,
he was unable to have the report ready in time to include with your packet. He will have the
report for you Monday, as well as an executive summary. His presentation will cover the
highlights of the report and he will answer any questions you may have.
You may wish to move this item up on your agenda before the Consider item on the Parks
CIP.
7. Agenda Item No. 7B. Sales tax report. The monthly sales tax report is included in your
packet.
8. Agenda Item No. 7C. Project Status Report. The monthly status report is included in your
packet.
Other Items included in your packet:
• Draft Park Board minutes from September 11, 2000 Parks and Recreation Board meeting.
We appreciate your commitment and service to the City. If you have any questions regarding the
agenda or materials, please feel free to contact me at 481-5581, extension 757.
KH
STAFF CONTACT INFORMATION:
Sharen Elam, Director of Finance, ext. 716
Kevin Hugman, Director of Community Services, ext. 757
Steve Polasek, Deputy Director of Community Services, ext. 772
Ben Henry, Park Planning and Construction Superintendent, ext. 824
Chris Carpenter, Senior Parks Planner, ext. 866
UI
H
H
H"
L111,
[1
P
City of Southlake, Texas
MEMORANDUM
September 21, 2000
TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager
FROM: Kevin Hugman, Director of Community Services
SUBJECT: Approval of long range Parks Capital Improvements Plan, including FY 2000-
2001 Capital Improvements budget
Action Requested: SPDC approval of the FY 2000-2003 Parks Capital Improvements Plan (CIP)
and the FY 2000-2001 capital projects budget
Background
Information: At the July 24, 2000 meeting, SPDC discussed the current long range SPDC
Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) and budget. There was also discussion
regarding some new proposed projects and others the Board wanted the staff
to look at moving up in the plan, including construction of the second
restroom at Bob Jones Park.
Staff reviewed the CIP and made some changes to it as a starting point for
discussion with the Board at its August 28, 2000 meeting. The changes
proposed by staff at the August meeting were:
• Move up construction of Restroom #2 at Bob Jones Park as suggested by
SPDC.
• Move up construction of water well #2 and aeration system for ponds #1
and #2.
• Increase estimated cost of softball complex from $900,000 to $1,100,000
based on consultant recommendation as to current costs of ballfields,
parking, concession/restrooms.
• Continue funding for projects identified in FY 2000 (identified as
bold/italic in attached Proposed SPDC CIP sheet.)
• Reduce funding for Recreation center construction in FY 2002, shifting
difference to FY 2003, but keeping the total funding the same.
• New items to be considered by SPDC. Recall Park Board recommended
prioritization of these projects as shown with the exception of the baseball
warm-up area and concession stand air conditioning projects, which have
been added since that time.
Staff has also made the following changes to the proposed budget since the
August 28 meeting:
I(1) the inclusion of $393,750 in additional revenue realized from the junior
lien bond sales that was not reflected in the currently approved budget.
6B-1
Billy Campbell, City Manager
September 21, 2000
Page 2
(2) Addition of a reserve fund line item equal to six percent (6 %) of total
project (less land acquisition) expenditures.
The Parks Board at its July 10 meeting considered several potential
projects/items that could be funded in the SPDC Capital Improvements Plan,
and made its prioritized recommendations to SPDC. In addition, staff added
two other projects as noted.
Descriptions for "New Projects, " prioritized by Parks Board (with the
exception of the air conditioning units and warm up area fencing) are:
1. Bleachers: Bob Jones Park currently serves as the only recreational
youth soccer facility in Southlake. The Grapevine Southlake Soccer
Association (GSSA) presently conducts a spring season and a fall season
which draw thousands of participants and spectators. The addition of
bleachers at the Bob Jones Park soccer facility would improve the
comfort level for patrons by providing adequate seating. The cost is
based upon fourteen (14) sets of bleachers which can be moved to
accommodate the various field layouts.
2. Volleyball Court Improvements: The proposed volleyball court
improvements would include two (2) lighted sand volleyball courts to be
located at Bicentennial Park. The sand volleyball courts are very popular
+rW with young adults and could also be used during family picnics. Other
uses might include small tournaments and leagues programmed through
the Recreation Division.
3. Baseball warm up area. Install fencing to protect players
ingressing/egressing the warm up area to get to the batting cages. This
affects the SBA batting cages only. Requested by SBA and staff concurs
with need.
4. Concession stand air conditioning units. The coolers provided by Coca-
Cola to the concession stands generate considerably more heat than
previously experienced with carbonated dispensers. Concession stands
become very hot and uncomfortable for volunteers working in these
areas. The proposed project would install units in the two concession
stands in Bicentennial Park and the new building in Bob Jones.
5. Pond Aeration System: The Chesapeake Park pond aeration system
would be similar to what is currently installed in the Bicentennial Park
pond. The aeration system is essential to improving the quality of the
water in order to reduce pond scum and support fish habitat.
6. Pavilion: The installation of a pavilion at Chesapeake Park would
provide for a shaded area for residents to enjoy. Park pavilions are very
popular for group picnics and birthday parties. The installation of the
6B-2
Billy Campbell, City Manager
September 21, 2000
Page 3
pavilion and the pond aeration system would essentially complete the
planned improvements for this neighborhood park.
Financial
Considerations: To be discussed by Board and staff.
Citizen Input/
Board Review: Parks and Recreation Board has provided a prioritized list of recommended
additions for consideration by SPDC.
Legal Review: Not Applicable.
Alternatives: Input towards the proposed amendments to the long range Parks Capital
Improvements Plan and FY 2000-2001 capital projects budget.
Supporting
Documents:
• Proposed long range Parks CIP, FY 2001-2003
• CIP Project Description Summaries
Staff
Recommendation: SPDC approval of long range Parks CIP and FY 2000-2001 parks capital
projects budget.
�r
�W
6B - 3
PROPOSED SPDC CIP 2001-2003
Budgeted Existing
Existing
Existing
FY 1999/00 FY 2000/01
FY 2001102
FY 2002/03
Forward Balance
$945,000
$2,290,000
$315,000
;Carry
Total Proceeds
$5,225,000
$525,000
$6,075,000
Total Available Funds
$3,842,000 $6,170,000
$2,815,000
$6,390,000
Matching Funds
$100,000
Joint Use
$20,000
$20,000
Special Projects
$50,000
$50,000
Smith Park
$50,000
Continental Trails •
$320,000
Tralthead Improvements *
$16,000
Capping Wells
$20,000
Bleachers '
$11,000
Game Field Lighting
$200,000
Nature Center Imprvments
$100,000
Trail Signage
$10,000
Girls Softball Complex
$900,000
F" 'ones Development
$1,800,000
$500,000
$500,000
wilding ($300,000)
Well & Aeration ($150,000)
Natatorium
$500,000
$500,000
$250,000
Center Survey •
$10,000
Teen Center Construction
$300,000
Land Acquisition
$1,800,000
;Teen
Rec Center Planning
$500,000
Rec Center Construction
$1,500,000
$4,000,000
NEW ITEMS
Bob Jones Bleachers
Bic. Park Volleyball Improv.
Baseball Warm-up Area
Concession Stand A/C units
Chesapeake Aeration
Chesapeake Pavilion
Project Expenditures
$2,897,000
$3,880,000
$2,500,000
$4,750,000
Reserve (6%)
Total Proceeds Less
$945,000
$2,290,000
$315,000
$1,640,000
T-+al Commitments
SPDC-CIP 2001-03 proposed.As 6B - 4
9/22/00
SPDC 1999/2000 Capital Improvement Projects
■ Smith Park Planning ($50,000) — Conceptual design and development of
construction plans for phase I improvements to Smith Park, and initial
improvements.
■ Matching Funds — Community Projects ($100,000 per year) Established
to provide matching funds for community based programs which enhance the
quality of the City's parks and recreational programs.
■ Continental Trail Phases I and II ($320,000) — 6' wide trail along south side
of Continental Drive from Davis to White Chapel.
■ Bob Jones Trailhead Parking ($16,000) — Parking area for the proposed
north trailhead at Bob Jones Park.
■ Capping of Wells at Bob Jones Park ($20,000) — Capping of undetermined
number of existing wells at Bob Jones Park per State requirements.
■ Bleachers ($11,000) — Bleachers for baseball
■ Game Field Lighting ($200,000) — Lighting for Bicentennial Park ball fields
K #5, and #10.
• Joint Use Improvements ($20,000) — Available funding for use in the
development and maintenance of joint use facilities.
■ Special Projects ($50,000 per year) — Available funding for unforeseen
projects and improvements which enhance the quality of the City's parks and
recreational programs.
• Survey ($10,000) — Review of community desire for Community Center/Teen
Center facilities.
• Land Acquisition ($1,800,000) — Acquisition of park land.
■ Teen Center Construction ($300,000) — Pending results of survey.
1��
NAParks & Recreation\BOARDS\SPDC\MEMOS\2000\8-(
P
0
L�
Fi!
Fil
SPDC 2000/2001 Capital Improvement Projects
■ Joint Use Improvements ($20,000) — Available funding for use in the
development and maintenance of joint use facilities.
■ Special Projects ($50,000 per year) — Available funding for unforeseen
projects and improvements which enhance the quality of the City's parks and
recreational programs.
• Nature Center Improvements ($100,000) — Restoration and improvements
to the existing Nature Center building.
■ Signage for On -Road Trails ($10,000) — On -road signage for trails. To be
implemented following the completion of the Trail System Master Plan
update.
■ Girls Softball Complex ($1,100,000) — Girls softball four-plex.
■ Bob Jones Park Development (Additional $2,250,000) — Improvements to
Bob Jones Park including pond #2 with well and water feature, park signage,
day camp facilities, amphitheater with electric, turf, loop road with parking,
phase I concession/restroom building, pump house building enhancements,
storm drain headwall enhancements, pond #1 water discharge feature,
continuation of pipe rail fencing, roadway lighting, phase II front entrance with
landscape, phase I drainage improvements, phase I parking lot surface coat,
utilities (Nature Center, phase I restroom), additional practice fields (6).
• Natatorium ($500,000) — City participation in CISD Natatorium construction.
■ Recreation Center Planning ($500,000) — Recreation Center planning and
design.
SPDC 2001/2002 Capital Improvement Projects
■ Bob Jones Development ($200,000) — Additional parking, irrigation,
landscaping, phase II restroom building with utilities.
■ Natatorium ($500,000) — City participation in CISD Natatorium construction.
■ Recreation Center Construction Phase 1 ($500,000) — Recreation Center
construction.
NAParks & Recreation\BOARDS\SPDC\MEMOS\2001 6B — 6
t
EL
t
t-
D
SPDC 2002/2003 Capital Improvement Projects
• Bob Jones Development ($350,000) — Additional parking, irrigation,
landscaping, phase II restroom building with utilities.
■ Natatorium ($250,000) — City participation in CISD Natatorium construction.
• Recreation Center Construction Phase 2 ($5,000,000) — Recreation Center
construction.
NAParks & RecreationWARMSMMMEN
H
City of Southlake, Texas
MEMORANDUM
H
C
H
u
P
September 22, 2000
TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager
FROM: Kevin Hugman, Director of Community Services
SUBJECT: Teen Center Survey Report
Action Requested: Report by consultant on results of teen center survey.
Background
Information: In December 1999, the SPDC and City Council directed staff to
undertake a random sample survey of Southlake residents and teens to
determine their attitudes towards a teen center. After determining the
scope and intent of the project, staff sent out Requests for Proposals to
(RFPs) to several consultants specializing in survey research. In
February 2000, the City entered into a contract with Raymond Turco and
Associates for consulting services in developing a survey instrument and
conducting a random survey regarding the teen center issue.
An ad -hoc committee of two council members, one Park Board member,
one citizen, and two teens, was formed to assist staff and the consultant
in drafting a survey questionnaire. The survey sought to determine the
attitudes of adults and teens regarding a planned recreation center as well
as a potential facility for teens. The goal was to develop an instrument
that would be impartial and unbiased, but would provide SPDC and City
Council with enough information to determine whether a teen center
should be constructed, in what manner, and what it should include if
constructed, as well as provide information for planning of the future
recreation center.
After review by City Council members, the adult portion of the survey
was conducted from June 26 through July 10. The youth portion of the
survey was conducted from August 7 through August 20.
Mr. Raymond Turco of Turco and Associates will brief the SPDC on the
results of the two surveys and his analysis of the data. He will also
provide you with a report of the data at your meeting.
Financial
Considerations: The currently approved Parks CIP allocates $300,000 for construction of
a teen center, subject to the survey results.
7A - 1
Billy Campbell, City Manager
September 22, 2000
Page 2
Citizen Input/
Board Review: The ad -hoc committee and City Council has given staff and the
consultant direction on the development of the survey.
Legal Review: N/A
Alternatives: As may be determined during consideration of the long range Parks
Capital Improvements Plan and FY 2000-2001 parks capital projects
budget.
Supporting
Documents:
• Adult and youth survey instruments
• Survey analysis report and executive summary to be provided by
consultant.
Staff
Recommendation: Report by consultant and discussion as necessary.
7A-2
PROJECT 2190100 RAYMOND TURCO & ASSOCIATES May 23, 2000
MY NAME IS AND I'M WITH THE SUNRAY RESEARCH GROUP. OUR SURVEY
THIS EVENING IS ABOUT RECREATION
IN YOUR COMMUNITY. I WAS WONDERING
IF I
COULD TAKE A FEW MINUTES OF YOUR
TIME TO ASK YOU A FEW QUESTIONS?
AREA
AREA I . . .
1
AREA II . . .
2
AREA III . . . . . .
. 3
SEX
MALE . . . . . . . .
. 1
FEMALE . . . . . . .
. 2
1. THESE FIRST FEW QUESTIONS ARE
TO GATHER DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION. HOW
LONG
HAVE YOU LIVED AT YOUR CURRENT RESIDENCE?
LESS THAN ONE YEAR
1
1 - 3 YEARS . . . .
. 2
3 - 5 YEARS . . . .
. 3
5 - 7 YEARS . . . .
. 4
OVER 7 YEARS . . . .
. 5
REFUSE TO ANSWER
6
2. AND WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING AGE CATEGORIES DO YOU BELONG?
UNDER 25 . . .
1
.
26 - 35 YEARS . . .
.
. 2
36 - 45 YEARS . . .
. 3
46 - 55 YEARS . . .
56 - 65 YEARS . . .
. 4
. 5
OVER 65 YEARS . . .
. 6
REFUSE TO ANSWER . .
. 7
3. DO YOU HAVE ANY CHILDREN, LIVING IN YOUR HOME, UNDER THE AGE OF 18?
(IF
YES: OF THOSE, ARE ANY . . . .)
NO CHILDREN
1
AGE 3 OR UNDER . . .
2
(CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY) AGE 4 - 6 . . . . .
.
. 3
AGE 7 - 9 . . . . .
. 4
AGE 10-12. . . .
5
AGE 13 - 15 . . . .
. 6
AGE 16 - 18 . . . .
(DO NOT READ) REFUSED . . . . . .
. 7
. 8
4. PLEASE TELL ME IF YOU RECALL
VOTING IN THE FOLLOWING ELECTIONS?
A) 2000 CITY COUNCIL
YES NO DON'T REMEMBER
1 2 3
B) 1999 CITY COUNCIL
1 2 3
C) A 1999 SCHOOL BOND ELECTION
1 2 3
5. -PLEASE TELL ME HOW SATISFIED
SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF
OR DISSATISFIED.YOU ARE WITH RECREATIONAL
SOUTHLAKE FOR PEOPLE IN THE FOLLOWING
GROUPS . .
AGE
A) YOUNG CHILDREN (UNDER AGE 6)
Vs 2 3 4D 50
B) CHILDREN, AGES 7- 12
1 2 3 4 5
C) CHILDREN, AGES 13 - 18
1 2 3 4 5
D) ADULTS, AGES 19 - 45
1 2 3 4 5
E) ADULTS, AGES 46 - 65
1 2 3 4 5
F) ADULTS OVER THE AGE OF 65
1 2 3 4 5
6. WHAT ONE RECREATIONAL FACILITY WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE CONSTRUCTED BY
THE
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE TO IMPROVE RECREATIONAL
OPPORTUNITIES?
7.
THE CITY IS PLANNING TO CONSTRUCT
AN INDOOR RECREATION CENTER IN THE
NEXT
THREE YEARS. HOW NECESSARY OR UNNECESSARY DO YOU BELIEVE IT IS FOR THE CITY
TO CONSTRUCT AN INDOOR RECREATION
CENTER FOR CITY RESIDENTS? .
VERY NECESSARY . . .
. 1
NECESSARY . . . . .
. 2
UNNECESSARY . . .
. 3
VERY UNNECESSARY . .
. 4
NO OPINION' . . . . .
. 5
8. WHERE DO YOU CURRENTLY GO FOR
YOUR INDOOR RECREATION NEEDS?
CHURCH FACILITIES
'
1
SCHOOLS . . . . . .
. 2
ALL THAT APPLY PRIVATE CLUBS .
. 3
7A - 3
CITY FACILITIES . .
. 4
REFUSE TO ANSWER . .
. 5
9.
AND HAVE YOU EVER VISITED A CITY -OWNED RECREATION CENTER
. . .
IN ANOTHER CITY?
. . • 1
(IF YES, ASK #10, ALL OTHERS
NOS.
. .
.
SKIP TO #11)
DON'T REMEMBER .
. . .
3
REFUSE TO
ANSWER
4
10.
IN TERMS OF PROGRAMS OR ACTIVITIES,
WHAT DID YOU LIKE
MOST ABOUT
THE
RECREATION CENTER YOU VISITED?
11.
PLEASE NAME THREE ACTIVITIES THAT YOU WOULD LIKE
TO BE
ABLE
TO
PARTICIPATE IN AT THE NEW CENTER.
A.
B.
C.
12.
NOW, LET ME NOW READ YOU A LIST OF SOME
ACTIVITIES. PLEASE TELL
ME
HOW
LIKELY OR UNLIKELY YOU OR A MEMBER OF YOUR FAMILY WOULD BE TO PARTICIPATE
IN
ANY OF THESE ACTIVITIES AT A NEW RECREATION
CENTER
. . ..
VL
L
U
VU
NO
A)
INDOOR BASKETBALL
1
2
3
4
5
B)
JOGGING/WALKING AROUND ON AN.INDOOR
1
2
3
4
5
TRACK
C)
FITNESS OR AEROBICS
1
2
3
4
5
D)
LIFTING WEIGHTS/CARDIO EQUIPMENT
1
2
3
4
5
E)
PARTICIPATING IN RECREATIONAL CLASSES
1
2
3
4
5
F)
G)
INDOOR VOLLEYBALL
DANCING LESSONS
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
H)
ACTIVITIES GEARED TOWARDS TEENS
1
2
3
4
5
I)
IN -LINE OR ROLLERBLADE SKATING
1
2
3
4
5
J)
RACQUETBALL
1
2
3
4
5
K)
PARTICIPATING IN ARTS & CRAFT CLASSES
1
2
3
4
5
L)
ATTENDING COMMUNITY MEETINGS
1
2
3
4
5
M)
TAKING COMPUTER TRAINING OR LAB
1
2
3
4
5
N)
ACTIVITIES GEARED TOWARDS SENIOR
1
2
3
4
5
CITIZENS
0)
GYMNASTICS
1
2
3
4
5
P)
SWIMMING
1.
2
3
4
5
Q)
KARATE
1
2
3
4
5
R)
COMMUNITY THEATER/DRAMA
1
2
3
4
5
'fir,
S)
ROCK CLIMBING
1
2
3
4
5
T)
KITCHEN/COOKING CLASSES
1
2
3
4
5
13.
AS I READ THE RESPONSES TO THE PREVIOUS
QUESTION AGAIN,
PLEASE
TELL
ME
WHICH
ACTIVITY YOU WOULD MOST LIKELY PARTICIPATE IN
AS WELL AS WHICH
ONE YOU
WOULD
LEAST LIKELY PARTICIPATE? (PRINT
LETTER OF
SPORT)
A.
MOST LIKELY
B.
LEAST'LIKELY
14. HOW STRONGLY WOULD YOU SUPPORT OR OPPOSE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS BEING
INCLUDED IN A RECREATION CENTER . . . .
SS
S
0
50
NO
A)
BASKETBALL COURTS
1
2
3
4
5
B)
RACQUETBALL COURTS
1
2
3
4
5
C)
SAUNA/STEAM ROOMS
1
2
3
4
5
D)
COMPUTER LABS
1
2
3
4
5
E)
LEISURE POOL
1
2
3
4
5
F)
WEIGHT/CARDIOVASCULAR ROOM
1
2
3
4
5
G)
MEETING ROOMS
1
2
3
4
5
H)
EXERCISE/AEROBICS ROOM
1
2
3
4
5
I)
SPACE FOR SENIOR ACTIVITIES
1
2
3
4
5
J)
INDOOR JOGGING TRACK
1
2
3
4
5
K)
KITCHEN/SNACK BAR
1
2
3
4
5
L)
DAYCARE/NURSERY
1
2
3
4
5
M)
GAMEROOM, WITH POOL TABLES,
1
2
3
4
5
TABLE TENNIS, ETC.
N)
EXERCISE/LAP POOL
1
2
34
5
0)
SPACE FOR TEEN ACTIVITIES
1
2
3
4
5
P)
KARATE ROOM
1
2
3
4
5
Q)
GYMNASTICS ROOM
1
2
3
4
5
R)
COMMUNITY THEATER/DRAMA
1
2
3
4
5
S)
ROCK CLIMBING WALL
1
2
3
4
5
T)
STAGE AREA FOR CONCERTS
1
2
3
4
5
15. WHAT TYPE OF ACTIVITIES AT THE NEW RECREATION CENTER DO YOU THINK THE
CITY SHOULD OFFER THAT WOULD ENCOURAGE MORE PARTICIPATION FROM OLDER A - A
RESIDENTS OF THE COMMUNITY? t� 't
A.
B.
16. AND WHAT TYPE OF RECREATIONAL PROGRAMS WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE OFFERED TO
YOUTH AT THE NEW RECREATION CENTER?
A. B.
17. THE CITY IS ALSO STUDYING THE POSSIBLE CONSTRUCTION OF A "TEEN
CENTER"
FOR YOUTH IN THE COMMUNITY. HOW FAMILIAR
OR UNFAMILIAR WOULD.YOU SAY
YOU ARE
WITH THE "TEEN CENTER" PROJECT?
VERY FAMILIAR .
. . . 1
FAMILIAR . . . .
. . . 2
UNFAMILIAR .
3
VERY UNFAMILIAR
4
NO OPINION . . .
. . . 5
18. MANY PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT IDEAS OF
FRIEND IN A NEIGHBORING CITY ASKED YOU TO
JUST WHAT A "TEEN CENTER" IS. IF A
EXPLAIN WHAT A TEEN CENTER IS, HOW
WOULD YOU DESCRIBE IT?
19. WOULD YOU SAY THAT YOUR CONCEPT OF
A TEEN CENTER EMPHASIZES ATHLETIC
ACTIVITIES, SOCIAL ACTIVITIES OR BOTH?
ATHLETIC . . . . .
. . 1.
SOCIAL . . . . .
. . 2
BOTH . . . . . . .
. 3
REFUSE TO ANSWER
. 4
20. WHAT ONE OR TWO THINGS WOULD YOU
EXPECT TO BE INCLUDED IN
A "TEEN
CENTER"?
1.
2.
21. HOW NECESSARY OR UNNECESSARY DO YOU BELIEVE A "TEEN CENTER" IS FOR THE
YOUTH OF SOUTHLAKE?
VERY NECESSARY . . . . 1
NECESSARY . . . . . 2
UNNECESSARY . . . 3
VERY UNNECESSARY . . . 4
NO OPINION . . . . . . 5
22. LET ME READ YOU SOME STATEMENTS ABOUT A POTENTIAL "TEEN CENTER". AS I
READ EACH, TELL ME HOW STRONGLY YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH EACH. A TEEN
'sir►' CENTER . . .
SA A D SD NO
A) WOULD BE A GOOD PLACE FOR YOUTH TO BE ABLE 1 2 3 4 5
TO GATHER FOR SOCIAL ACTIVITIES
B) IS NOT A GOOD IDEA, BECAUSE MOST TEENS IN 1 2 3 4 5
SOUTHLAKE WOULD NOT EVEN USE THE FACILITY
C) WOULD BE A GOOD PLACE FOR YOUTH TO BE ABLE 1 2 3 4 5
TO GATHER FOR ATHLETIC ACTIVITIES
D) WOULD CREATE SAFETY CONCERNS IF IT WERE 1 2 3 4 5
CONSTRUCTED IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE OF
POTENTIALLY LARGE GATHERINGS OF YOUTH
., E) IS NOT NECESSARY BECAUSE WE WILL HAVE 1 2 3 4 5
SUFFICIENT RECREATIONAL FACILITIES WHEN
THE REC CENTER IS OPENED
F) IS NECESSARY BECAUSE THERE CURRENTLY ARE NO 1 2 3 4 5
FACILITIES WHERE JUST TEENS CAN GATHER
G) WOULD BE A GOOD TOOL WHEN ENCOURAGING 1 2 3 4 5
FAMILIES TO MOVE TO SOUTHLAKE
23. IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED .THAT A TEEN CENTER BE GEARED TOWARDS NONATHLETIC
ACTIVITIES SUCH AS DANCES, KARAOKE NIGHTS, COMEDY NIGHTS, CLASSES AND
MEETINGS. HOW STRONGLY WOULD YOU SUPPORT OR OPPOSE A TEEN CENTER IN
SOUTHLAKE THAT DID NOT INCLUDE ATHLETIC FACILITIES?
. STRONGLY SUPPORT 1
SUPPORT . . . . . . . 2
OPPOSE. . . . . . . 3
STRONGLY OPPOSE . 4
NO OPINION .. 5
24. IF A TEEN CENTER WERE CONSTRUCTED, WOULD THESE ISSUES BE OF MA30RCONCERN
TO YOU, MINOR CONCERN, OR OF NO CONCERN?
MAJOR MINOR NO C' NO
A) SAFETY TO YOUTH AT THE FACILITY 1 2 3 4
B) VANDALISM TO THE PROPERTY 1 2 3 4
C) LOUD NOISE 1 2 3 4
D) LOITERING IN THE AREA 1 2 3 4
E) LACK OF SUPERVISION 1 2 3 4
F) HAVING BOYS AND GIRLS OF DIFFERENT AGES 1 2 3 4
TOGETHER
7A-5
25.
HOW STRONGLY DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH
THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS.
THE NEEDS OF THE YOUTH OF SOUTHLAKE WOULD BE BEST MET . . .
A)
BY A TEEN CENTER CONSTRUCTED AS A STAND-ALONE
SA AD
1 2 3
SD
4
NO
5
FACILITY
B)
BY TEEN ACTIVITIES AS PART OF THE RECREATION
1 2 3
4
5
CENTER, BUT WITH A SEPARATE ENTRANCE
C)
BY TEEN ACTIVITIES INCLUDED IN A DESIGNATED
1 2 3
4
5
AREA OR ON A DESIGNATED EVENING AT THE
RECREATION CENTER
D)
THE NEEDS OF YOUTH ARE BEING ADDRESSED NOW
1 2 3
4
5
26.
AND HOW IMPORTANT OR UNIMPORTANT WOULD YOU SAY IT IS TO BEGIN
IMMEDIATE
CONSTRUCTION OF A TEEN CENTER? IS IT . . . .
VERY IMPORTANT
1
IMPORTANT . . .
. .
. 2
UNIMPORTANT
. .
. 3
VERY UNIMPORTANT
. .
. 4
NO OPINION . . .
. .
. 5
27. A PROPOSED TEEN ACTIVITY CENTER, AT AN ESTIMATED SIZE OF 5,000 SQUARE
FEET, COULD COST APPROXIMATELY $1 MILLION. HOW STRONGLY WOULD YOU SUPPORT OR
OPPOSE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS CENTER, BASED ON THE ESTIMATED COST?
STRONGLY SUPPORT 1
SUPPORT . . . . . . 2
OPPOSE. .. . . 3
STRONGLY OPPOSE . . . 4
NO OPINION . . . . . 5
28. IF $1 MILLION IS APPROPRIATED TO
CONSTRUCT A TEEN CENTER, THE RECREATION
CENTER CONSTRUCTION MAY HAVE TO BE DELAYED
A FEW YEARS. HOW STRONGLY WOULD
YOU SUPPORT OR OPPOSE CONSTRUCTION
OF THE TEEN CENTER, BASED ON THIS
INFORMATION?
STRONGLY SUPPORT . .
1
SUPPORT . . . . . . .
2
OPPOSE . . . . . . . .
3
STRONGLY OPPOSE . . .
4
NO OPINION . . . . .
5
29. REGARDING THE TEEN CENTER AND RECREATION
CENTER PROJECTS, WHICH WOULD
BE
YOUR PREFERRED CHOICE.
STAND-ALONE TEEN CENTER . .
1
TEEN CENTER AS PART OF, BUT
SEPARATE FROM REC CNTR
2
REC CNTR THAT INCLUDES
TEEN CENTER ACTIVITIES
3
-A RECREATION CENTER ONLY
4
NO RECREATION CENTER OR
TEEN CENTER . . . . . . .
5
NO OPINION . . . . . . . .
6
30. IF IT BECAME NECESSARY TO CHARGE
RESIDENTS A MONTHLY FEE FOR OPERATIONAL
COSTS AT THE INDOOR RECREATION FACILITY, HOW STRONGLY WOULD YOU SUPPORT
OR
OPPOSE PAYING EACH MONTH FOR
UNLIMITED USE. . .
V1
A) UNDER $20.00
2 3. 4U 50
B) $20.00 - $25.00
1 2 3 4 5
C) $25.00 - $30.00
1 2 3 4 5
D) MORE THAN $30.00
.1 2 3 4 5
31. AND WHAT ABOUT A FAMILY OF FOUR. HOW STRONGLY WOULD YOU SUPPORT OR
OPPOSE PAYING EACH MONTH FOR UNLIMITED USE OF THE INDOOR RECREATION
CENTER .
VL L U VU NO
A) UNDER $30.00 1 2 3 4 5
B) $30.00 - $40.00 1 2 3 4 5
C) $40.00 - $50.00 1 2 3 4 5
D) MORE THAN $50.00 1 2 3 4 5
THAT'S THE END OF OUR SURVEY BUT COULD I CHECK TO SEE IF I DIALED THE CORRECT
NUMBER. I DIALED AND COULD I HAVE YOUR FIRST NAME, ONLY IN
CASE MY SUPERVISOR HAS TO VERIFY THIS INTERVIEW?
THANK YOU AND HAVE A NICE EVENING.
CALLER INI SHEET # LENGTH OF SURVEY
MAY 23, 2000 DRAFT
7A-6
PROJECT 21901002 RAYMOND TURCO & ASSOCIATES JULY 2000
MY NAME IS AND I'M WITH THE SUNRAY RESEARCH GROUP. WE HAVE BEEN
HIRED BY THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE TO CONDUCT A SURVEY OF YOUTH IN YOUR AREA TO
DISCUSS RECREATION NEEDS AND
DESIRES FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE. I WAS WONDERING
IF YOU HAVE A CHILD IN GRADES 7 THROUGH 12 WHO MIGHT LIKE TO PARTICIPATE IN
A TELEPHONE SURVEY. THIS IS NOT A SALES CALL AND THE SURVEY SHOULD TAKE
10
MINUTES. IF YOU HAVE MORE THAN ONE CHILD, WE CAN TALK TO THEM ALSO. DO YOU
HAVE A CHILD WHO MIGHT LIKE TO PARTICIPATE? (IF YES: READ INTRO AGAIN. IF
NO: THANK YOU.)
AREA AREA I 1
AREA II 2
AREA I I I . . . . . . . 3
SEX MALE . . . . . . . . . 1
F+�
FEMALE . . . . . . . . 2
O
1. THESE FIRST FEW QUESTIONS ARE TO GATHER DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION. HOW LONG
HAS YOUR FAMILY LIVED AT ITS CURRENT RESIDENCE?
LESS THAN ONE YEAR 1
�1 - 3 YEARS . . . . . 2
3 - 5 YEARS . . . . .. 3
5 - 7 YEARS . . . . . 4
OVER 7 YEARS . . . . . 5
REFUSE TO ANSWER . . . 6
2. AND WHAT GRADE WERE YOU IN LAST YEAR?
7TH GRADE 1
8TH GRADE . . . . . . 2
9TH GRADE . . . . . . 3
LOTH GRADE . . . . . . 4
11TH GRADE . . . . . . 5
12 TH GRADE . . . . . . 6
REFUSE TO ANSWER . . . 7
3. PLEASE TELL ME HOW SATISFIED OR DISSATISFIED YOU ARE WITH RECREATIONAL
SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE FOR PEOPLE BETWEEN THE AGES OF 13
AND 18?
r, VERY SATISFIED . . . . 1
SATISFIED . . . . . . 2
DISSATISFIED . . . . . 3
VERY DISSATISFIED . . 4
NO OPINION . . . . . . 5
4. WHAT ONE RECREATIONAL FACILITY WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE CONSTRUCTED BY THE
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE.TO IMPROVE RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES?
5. THE CITY IS PLANNING TO CONSTRUCT AN INDOOR RECREATION CENTER IN THE NEXT
THREE YEARS. HOW NECESSARY OR UNNECESSARY DO YOU BELIEVE IT IS FOR THE CITY
TO CONSTRUCT AN INDOOR RECREATION CENTER FOR CITY RESIDENTS?
VERY NECESSARY . . . . 1
NECESSARY . . . . . . 2
UNNECESSARY . . . . . 3
VERY UNNECESSARY . . . 4
NO OPINION . . . . . . 5
_6. WHERE DO YOU CURRENTLY GO FOR YOUR INDOOR RECREATION NEEDS? IF YOU DON'T
GO ANYWHERE FOR INDOOR RECREATION, PLEASE TELL ME THAT ALSO.
CHURCH FACILITIES 1
SCHOOLS . . . . . . . 2
CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY PRIVATE CLUBS . . . . 3
CITY FACILITIES . . . 4
YOUR HOUSE/FRIENDS . . 5
NOWHERE . . . . . . 6
.
REFUSE TO ANSWER . . . 7
7. AND HAVE YOU EVER VISITED A CITY -OWNED RECREATION CENTER IN ANOTHER CITY?
YES . . . . . . . . . 1
(IF YES, ASK #8, ALL OTHERS NO . . . . . . . . . . 2
SKIP TO #9) DON'T REMEMBER . . . . 3
REFUSE TO ANSWER . . . 4
8. IN TERMS OF PROGRAMS OR ACTIVITIES, WHAT DID YOU LIKE MOST ABOUT THE
RECREATION CENTER YOU VISITED?
:,
7A-7
9.
PLEASE NAME THREE ACTIVITIES THAT YOU
WOULD LIKE
TO
BE
ABLE
TO
PARTICIPATE IN AT THE NEW CENTER.
A.
B.
C.
10. NOW, LET ME NOW READ YOU A LIST OF SOME ACTIVITIES. PLEASE TELL ME HOW
LIKELY OR
UNLIKELY YOU WOULD BE TO PARTICIPATE
IN THIS ACTIVITY
AT A
NEW
RECREATION CENTER .
A)
INDOOR BASKETBALL
VL
1
L U
2 3
VU
NO
B)
JOGGING/WALKING AROUND ON AN INDOOR
1
2 3
4
4
5
5
TRACK
C)
FITNESS OR AEROBICS
1
2 3
4
5
D)
LIFTING WEIGHTS/CARDIO EQUIPMENT
1
2 3
E)
PARTICIPATING IN RECREATIONAL CLASSES
1
2 3
4
4
5
5
F)
INDOOR VOLLEYBALL
1
2 3
4
5
G)
DANCING LESSONS
1
2 3
4
5
H)
ACTIVITIES GEARED TOWARDS TEENS
1
2 3
4
5
I)
IN -LINE OR ROLLERBLADE SKATING
1
2 3
4
5
J)
RACQUETBALL
1
2 3-
4
5
K)
PARTICIPATING IN ARTS & CRAFT CLASSES
1
2 3
4
5
L)
M)
ATTENDING COMMUNITY MEETINGS .
TAKING COMPUTER TRAINING OR LAB
1
1
2 3
2 3
4
4
5
5
N)
GYMNASTICS
1
2 3
4
5
0)
SWIMMING
1
2 3
4
5
P)
KARATE
1
2 3
4
5
Q)
COMMUNITY THEATER/DRAMA
1
2 3
4
5
R)
ROCK CLIMBING
1
2 3
4
5
S)
KITCHEN/COOKING CLASSES
1
2 3
4
5
11.
AS I READ THE RESPONSES TO THE PREVIOUS QUESTION
AGAIN,
PLEASE
TELL
ME
WHICH ACTIVITY YOU WOULD MOST LIKELY PARTICIPATE
IN AS WELL AS WHICH
ONE YOU
WOULD
LEAST LIKELY PARTICIPATE? (PRINT
LETTER
OF SPORT)
A.
MOST LIKELY
B. LEAST LIKELY
12.
HOW STRONGLY WOULD YOU SUPPORT OR
OPPOSE
THE FOLLOWING
ITEMS BEING
INCLUDED
IN A RECREATION CENTER . . . .
A)
SS
BASKETBALL COURTS 1
S
2
0
3
SO
4
NO
B)
RACQUETBALL COURTS 1
2
3
4
5
5
Iftr
C)
SAUNA/STEAM ROOMS 1
2
3
4
D)
COMPUTER LABS 1
2
3
4
5
5
E)
LEISURE POOL 1
2
3
4
5
F)
WEIGHT/CARDIOVASCULAR ROOM 1
2
3
4
G)
MEETING ROOMS 1
2
3
4
5
5
H)_
EXERCISE/AEROBICS ROOM 1
2
3
4
5
I)
SPACE FOR SENIOR ACTIVITIES 1
2
3
4
5
J)
K)
INDOOR JOGGING TRACK 1
KITCHEN/SNACK BAR 1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
L)
DAYCARE/NURSERY 1
2
3
4
5
M)
GAMEROOM, WITH POOL TABLES, 1
2
3
4
5
TABLE TENNIS, ETC.
N)
EXERCISE/LAP POOL 1
2
3
4
5
0)
SPACE FOR TEEN ACTIVITIES 1
2
3
4
5
P)
KARATE ROOM 1
2
3
4
5
Q)
GYMNASTICS ROOM 1
2
3
4
5
R)
COMMUNITY THEATER/DRAMA 1
2
3
4
5
S)
ROCK CLIMBING WALL 1
2
3
4
5
T)
STAGE AREA FOR CONCERTS 1
2
3
4
5
13. IF A RECREATION CENTER WERE CONSTRUCTED, HOW LIKELY WOULD
FAMILY BE TO USE IT?
YOU
OR YOUR
VERY LIKELY
1
LIKELY . .
.
. . .
. .
2
UNLIKELY . .
VERY UNLIKELY
. . .
. .
. .
. .
3
4
NO OPINION
.
. . .
. .
5
14.
AND WHAT TYPE OF RECREATIONAL PROGRAMS WOULD
YOU LIKE TO
SEE
OFFERED
TO
YOUTH AT THE NEW RECREATION CENTER?
A.
B.
7A-8
15. THE CITY IS ALSO STUDYING THE POSSIBLE CONSTRUCTION OF A "TEEN CENTER"
FOR YOUTH IN THE COMMUNITY. HOW FAMILIAR OR UNFAMILIAR WOULD YOU SAY YOU ARE
WITH THE "TEEN CENTER" PROJECT?
VERY FAMILIAR 1
FAMILIAR . . . . . . . 2
UNFAMILIAR . . . . . . 3
VERY UNFAMILIAR 4
NO OPINION . . 5
16. MANY PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT IDEAS OF JUST WHAT A "TEEN CENTER" IS. IF A
FRIEND IN A NEIGHBORING CITY ASKED YOU TO EXPLAIN WHAT A TEEN CENTER IS, HOW
WOULD YOU DESCRIBE IT?
17. WOULD YOU SAY THAT YOUR CONCEPT OF A TEEN CENTER EMPHASIZES ATHLETIC
ACTIVITIES, SOCIAL ACTIVITIES OR BOTH?
ATHLETIC . . . . . . . 1
SOCIAL . . . . . . . . 2
BOTH . . . . . . . . . 3
REFUSE TO ANSWER . . . 4
18. WHAT ONE OR TWO THINGS WOULD YOU EXPECT TO BE INCLUDED IN A "TEEN
CENTER"?
1.
2.
19. HOW NECESSARY OR UNNECESSARY DO YOU BELIEVE A "TEEN CENTER" IS FOR THE
YOUTH OF SOUTHLAKE?
VERY NECESSARY . . .
, 1
NECESSARY . . . . .
. 2
UNNECESSARY . . . .
. 3
VERY UNNECESSARY . .
. 4
NO OPINION . . . . .
. 5
20.
LET ME READ YOU SOME STATEMENTS ABOUT A POTENTIAL "TEEN CENTER".
AS I
READ EACH, TELL ME HOW STRONGLY YOU AGREE OR
DISAGREE WITH EACH. A
TEEN
CENTER . . . .
SA A D SD
NO
A)
WOULD BE A GOOD PLACE FOR YOUTH TO BE ABLE
1 2 3 4
5
TO GATHER FOR SOCIAL ACTIVITIES
B)
IS NOT A GOOD IDEA, BECAUSE MOST TEENS IN
1 2 3 4
5
SOUTHLAKE WOULD NOT EVEN USE THE FACILITY
C)
WOULD BE A GOOD PLACE FOR YOUTH TO BE ABLE
1 2 3 4
5
TO GATHER FOR ATHLETIC ACTIVITIES
D)
WOULD CREATE SAFETY CONCERNS IF IT WERE
1 2 3 4
5
CONSTRUCTED IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE OF
POTENTIALLY LARGE GATHERINGS OF YOUTH
E)
IS.NOT NECESSARY BECAUSE -WE WILL HAVE
-1 2 3 4
5
SUFFICIENT RECREATIONAL FACILITIES WHEN
THE REC CENTER IS OPENED
F)
IS NECESSARY BECAUSE THERE CURRENTLY ARE NO
1 2 3 4
5
FACILITIES WHERE JUST TEENS CAN GATHER
G)
WOULD BE A GOOD TOOL WHEN ENCOURAGING
1, 2 3 4
5
FAMILIES TO MOVE TO SOUTHLAKE
21.
PLEASE TELL ME HOW STRONGLY YOU WOULD
SUPPORT OR OPPOSE THE
CITY
CONSTRUCTING A TEEN CENTER IF IT CONTAINED THE
FOLLOWING ITEMS .
SS
S 0 SO
NO
A)
BASKETBALL COURTS 1
2 3 4
5
B)
STAGE AREA FOR CONCERTS 1
2 3 4
5
C)
COFFEE SHOP -LIKE AREA 1
2 3 4
5
D)
POOL/BILLIARD TABLES 1
2 3 4
5
E)
SWIMMING POOL 1
2 3 4
5
F)
WEIGHT/CARDIOVASCULAR ROOM 1
2 3 4
5
G)
MEETING ROOMS FOR PROGRAMS 1
2 3 4
5
H)
EXERCISE/AEROBICS ROOM 1
2 3 4
5
I)
CASUAL AREA, INCLUDING BIG SCREEN 1
2 3 4
5
TELEVISIONS AND COUCHES
J)
MAGAZINE/READING ROOMS 1
2 3 4
5
K)
KITCHEN/DINING AREA 1
2 3" 4
5
22.
IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED THAT A TEEN CENTER
BE GEARED TOWARDS NONATHLETIC
ACTIVITIES SUCH AS DANCES, KARAOKE NIGHTS,
COMEDY NIGHTS, CLASSES AND
MEETINGS.
HOW STRONGLY WOULD YOU SUPPORT
OR OPPOSE A TEEN CENTER IN
SOUTHLAKE THAT DID NOT INCLUDE ATHLETIC FACILITIES?
STRONGLY SUPPORT
1
SUPPORT . . . . . .
. 2
OPPOSE. . . . . . .
. 3
7A - 9
STRONGLY OPPOSE . .
. 4
NO OPINION . . . .
. 5
23. PLEASE TELL ME HOW LIKELY OR UNLIKELY YOU WOULD BE TO PARTICIPATE IN
THIS ACTIVITY IF IT WAS HELD AT THE TEEN CENTER .
VL L U VU NO
A) KARAOKE NIGHT 1 2 3 4 5
B) YOUTH BASKETBALL LEAGUES 1 2 3 4 5
C) CONCERTS 1 2 3 4 5
D) TEEN FORUMS OR SPEAKERS 1 2 3 4 5
E) DANCES/GUEST DJ NIGHTS 1 2 3 4 5
F) MOVIE NIGHTS ON BIG SCEEN TELEVISION 1 2 3 4 5
G) POOL TABLES/PING PONG TABLES 1 2 3 4 5
H) COMPUTER LABS 1 2 3 4 5
I) SPECIAL INTEREST CLASSES, LIKE 1 2 3 4 5
TAEBEO AND SWIMG DANCING
J) GROUP MEETINGS 1 2 3 4 5
K) RACQUETBALL COURTS 1 2 3 4 5
L) SAND VOLLEYBALL 1 2 3 4 5
24. HOW STRONGLY DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THIS STATEMENT:"A TEEN CENTER
IS NOT NECESSARY BECAUSE THE YOUTH OF THE COMMUNITY CAN USE THE RECREATION
CENTER FOR THEIR NEEDS?"
STRONGLY AGREE 1
AGREE . . . . , , , 2
DISAGREE . , 3
STRONGLY DISAGREE . . 4
NO OPINION . . . . . . 5
25. HOW STRONGLY DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS.
THE NEEDS OF THE YOUTH OF SOUTHLAKE WOULD BE BEST MET .
SA A D SD NO
A) BY A TEEN CENTER CONSTRUCTED AS A STAND-ALONE 1 2 3 4 5
FACILITY
B) BY TEEN ACTIVITIES AS PART OF THE RECREATION 1 2 3 4 5
CENTER, BUT WITH A SEPARATE ENTRANCE
C) BY TEEN ACTIVITIES INCLUDED IN A DESIGNATED 1 2 3 4 5
OR ON A DESIGNATED EVENING AT THE REC. CENTER
D) THE NEEDS OF YOUTH ARE BEING ADDRESSED NOW 1 2 3 4 5
26. REGARDING THE PROPOSED TEEN CENTER AND RECREATION CENTER PROJECTS, WHICH
WOULD BE YOUR PREFERRED CHOICE.
STAND-ALONE TEEN CENTER 1
TEEN CENTER AS PART OF, BUT
SEPARATE FROM REC CNTR 2
REC CNTR THAT INCLUDES
TEEN CENTER ACTIVITIES 3
A RECREATION CENTER ONLY 4
NO RECREATION CENTER OR
TEEN CENTER . . . . . . . 5
NO OPINION . . . . . . . . 6
HOW STRONGLY DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THIS STATEMENT: "IF THE CITY
COUNCIL DECIDES TO NOT CONSTRUCT A TEEN CENTER, THE NEEDS OF THE YOUTH IN
THIS COMMITTEE ARE NOT BEING MET."
STRONGLY AGREE . . . . 1
AGREE , 2
DISAGREE . . . . . . . 3
STRONGLY DISAGREE . . 4
NO OPINION . . . . . . 5
THAT'S THE END OF OUR SURVEY BUT COULD I CHECK TO SEE IF I DIALED THE CORRECT
NUMBER. I DIALED . AND COULD I HAVE YOUR FIRST NAME, ONLY IN
CASE MY SUPERVISOR HAS TO VERIFY THIS INTERVIEW?
THANK YOU AND HAVE A NICE EVENING.
CALLER INI SHEET # LENGTH OF SURVEY
7A - 10
11
SOUTHLAKE PARKS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
1/2% SALES TAX REPORT
Actual
Budget
Actual
Estimated
(budget-est.)
%
1998-99
1999-00
1999-00
1999-00
Difference
Change
October
$155,384
$ 153,170
$155,259
$155,259
$ 2,089
1.36%
November
103,444
139,860
150,165
150,165
10,305
7.37%
December
94,247
154,226
125,632
125,632
(28,594)
-18.54%
January
156,915
127,185
176,808
176,808
49,623
39.02%
February
99,787
116,386
135,803
135,803
19,417
16.68%
March
97,318
109,438
120,289
120,289
10,851
9.92%
April
155,959
177,185
182,799
182,799
5,614
3.17%
May
128,839
149,391
148,210
148,210
(1,181)
-0.79%
June
124,662
142,443
150,393
150,396
7,953
5.58%
July
173,349
191,081
190,883
190,883
(198)
-0.10%
August
122,865
138,968
153,898
153,898
14,930
10.74%
September
121,005
137,231
137,231
-
$1,533,774 $ 1,736,564 $ 1,690,140 $ 1,827,373 $ 90,809
13.22%
R
e`
e
19.14%
SOUTHLAKE PARK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Capital Projects Status Report
September 19, 2000
Entrance Road Repair - F.Y. 1998-99
Status: Numerous contractors have declined to submit a quote to repair the
entrance road. Road repairs will be considered with the next phase of improvements to
Bicentennial Park, pending completion of the revised Bicentennial Park Master
Development Plan.
Phase III
Park Trail - F.Y. 1998-99
Status: Remaining trails will be reviewed and addressed following the completion
of the Bicentennial Park Master Development Plan currently being developed by
Shrickel, Rollins and Associates.
Phase II with TPWD Grant -
Design - Phase II Contract Began: January 3, 2000
Consultant: Cheatham Associates Design Contract: $178,752.00
Status: The site plan has been presented and reviewed by SPIN #1, the Parks and
Recreation Board, and SPDC and City Council. The consultant is completing
construction documents. Plans will be submitted to the Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department and the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers for review and approval. Planning
and Zoning, and City Council have approved a preliminary plat and site plan.
Nature Center Planning -
Status: The facility is in place. Utilities will be installed as part of Bob Jones
construction. City Staff will seek a proposal in October from an architectural firm to
develop specifications for improvements.
Page 1
C
Noble Oaks Park - F.Y. 2000-01
Status: A concept plan developed by Southlake resident and architect Scott
Martin, was presented and reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Board at the
September, 2000 meeting.
Koalaty Park - F.Y. 2000-01
Status: All requested improvements are complete.
Royal and Annie Smith Park - F.Y. 1999-00
Status: SPDC approved $50, 000 for planning and construction of initial park
improvements in FY 1999-2000. The conceptual park plan will be addressed within the
Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan update.
Lonesome Dove Park- F.Y. 1998-99
Status: All requirements of the developer's agreement are addressed. Pavilion
lighting, irrigation and playground improvements are complete. Staff is coordinating a
VOW SPIN follow-up trail design meeting on September 28, 2000. The Park and Recreation
Board will then consideration the loop walk in October 2000.
"Chesapeake" Park - F.Y. 1999-2000
Consultant: Carter Burgess Inc. Matching Funds Approved: $35,794
Approved by Parks Board: February 14, 2000
Approved by SPDC: February 28, 2000
Status: Construction plans are complete. Vehicular paving is complete. Minor
earthwork remains. Trail implementation began in early July with irrigation
improvements to follow. Staff is providing peripheral assistance during construction.
Upon completion of the park, the developer will submit invoices for the approved items
for reimbursement. Staff will coordinate the procurement and planting of the shade and
ornamental trees in the park during the optimal planting season in November, 2000.
"Sheltonwood" Park - F.Y.
Status: None.
kMW Page 2
7C-a
ISTEA Grant - Cottonbelt Trail - F.Y. 1997-98
Status: The City of Colleyville and Grapevine have an opportunity to build the
trail more efficiently with approved funding in the year 2005. An agreement to transfer
DART right-of-way obligations to the City of Grapevine is complete. A request has been
submitted to TxDOT to withdraw City of Southlake participation. Approval has been
delayed to allow further TxDOT discussion of the transfer of funding to the City of
Colleyville.
Continental Boulevard Trail (White Chapel to Davis) - F.Y. 1998-99
Design - Phase I Contract Completed: November 25,1997
Consultant: Dunaway Associates, Inc.
Status: The trail improvements in association with the Phase I road improvements
are complete. The off -road trail is being constructed south of Continental Blvd from the
Country Walk subdivision to N. Peytonville. All Phase I construction is essentially
completed.
Teen Center - .
Teen Center Survey — Contract Cost: $15,000
Consultant: Raymond Turco and Associates
Status: The adult and teen survey is complete. A report will be given to SPDC at
the September 2000 meeting and the Park and Recreation Board in October 2000.
Southlake Baseball Association
Southlake Girls Softball Association —
Southlake Equestrian Association
Approved by SPDC: September 27, 1999
Page 3
7e-3
C
L
Approved by Park Board: September 13, 1999
Status: SPDC approved $10, 000 at the September meeting to install various items
requested by the Southlake Equestrian Association. Implementation of the northern
parking lot is nearing completion.
Northeast Tarrant Tennis —
Approved by SPDC: September 27,1999
Approved by Park Board: August 9, 1999
Status: SPDC approved $15, 000 at the August meeting to provide items requested
by Northeast Tarrant Tennis. NETT has issued a check to the City in the amount of
$2,500 towards their matching requirement. Funds have been used to purchase various
components including trash receptacles, tables, chairs, watercooler stands, etc.
Senior Tree Farm #1-
Approved by SPDC: January 16,1998
Approved by Park Board: December 8, 1997
Status: Many of the trees will be planted in Chesapeake Park this fall.
Senior Tree Farm #2'
Approved by SPDC:
Approved by Park Board:
Status: The Texas Forest Service Grant of $8, 400 ($4, 200 Grant Award with a
$4,200 Required Match) began on October 1, 1998. The City received a check for the
grant from the Texas Forest Service on December 17, 1999, and all project requirements
are completed. The grant money assisted in the planting of five hundred and twenty-eight
(528) trees at Senior Tree Farms #1 and #2, utilizing five hundred and eighty-three (583)
volunteer hours.
Senior Tree Farm #3—
Approved by City Council: June 15,1999
Approved by Park Board: June 7,1999
Status: The Texas Forest Service Grant of $8, 600 ($4, 300 Grant Award with a
$4,300 Required Match or in -kind services) began on October 1, 1999. The third phase
has been established as an extension to Tree Farm #2 located at 275 Shady Oaks. Four
hundred (400) saplings (Lacebark Elm, Cedar Elm, Shumard Oak) were planted on
February 12, 2000. Building Inspector John Lesinski has donated an additional three
hundred (300) saplings that are being stored in containers at the Shady Oaks site; these
saplings are planned to be planted in conjunction with the fourth phase of the project
next fall. Pruning at Tree Farm #1 and routine maintenance at all three (3) phases has
begun.
Page 4
7e-zl
Joint -Use Equipment -
Status: Available as needed. Funding has been used to replace carpet at the CIS
gymnasium building and to refinish and repaint the Carroll Middle School joint -use gym
floor. Both facilities are heavily utilized for City programs.
Signage for all Parks -
Status: Staff has installed Bicentennial Park signage.
2000
Complete
$ 2,817.85
Bicentennial Park Erosion Control.
Complete
$ 3,000.00
Tree Transplanting at Bob Jones Park.
Complete
$14,604.00
Bicentennial Park Phase II Wrought Iron Fencing.
Complete
$ 499.00
Tennis Center Pro -Shop Window Tinting.
AW
Complete
$ 459.00
Tennis Center Signage.
Complete
$ 1,300.00
Bob Jones Park Water Well Discharge Piping.
Complete
$ 1,657.50
Bicentennial Park Pond Aeration Electric
Complete
$ 3,619.70
Bicentennial Park Ballfield Concrete Improvements
Complete
$ 1,000.00
Senior Tree Farm Capital Items.
Complete
$ 6,000.00
Bicentennial Park Bermuda Hydro -mulch.
E�WwPage 5
E 7cs