Loading...
1996-06-11�w 21 CITY OF SOUTHLAKE JOINT UTILIZATION COMMITTEE Tuesday, June 11, 1996, 7:00 p.m. Minutes Members Present: Rick Wilhelm, Chairman; Bethann Scratchard, Park Board Representative; Robert Glover, Vice Chairman; Buddy Luce, Ex-Officio. Others Present: Mike Murphy, Assistant Superintendent, CISD; John Cochie, Interim Representative, CISD. Guests: Charles Vaughn, STAR SCOUT, BSA Troop 928. Agenda Item #1, Call to Order Chairman Rick Wilhelm called the meeting to order shortly after 7:00 p.m. A quorum was present. Chairman Wilhelm noted that the committee was short two members -- the School Board and City Council have not appointed representatives to fill those positions yet. He also announced that his term is up for appointment and that he would be happy to continue to serve as the "citizen member" on the Committee if the City Council would like or he would assist in transitional training of a new appointee. Agenda Item #2, Approval of the MINUTES of the March 13, 1996 JUC Meeting A motion was made, seconded, and voted upon to approve the minutes as presented. The vote was unanimous to approve. Robert Glover abstained from the vote due to his absence at that meeting. Chairman Wilhelm introduced Charles Vaughn, a STAR SCOUT member in BSA Troop 928. Mr. Vaughn was present for the JUC meeting to earn his Communication Merit badge. He is working toward becoming a Life Scout and then an Eagle Scout. Charles is in the 8th grade and has been a Southlake resident for the past four years and is hoping to pursue a career in computers. Chairman Wilhelm explained how the Joint Utilization Committee works and encouraged Charles to feel free to participate. Joint Utilization Committee Meeting June 11, 1996 Page 2 Agenda Item #3, Discussion: Parks, Recreation & Open Space Master Plan Recommendations Kim McAdams Lenoir, Director of Parks & Recreation Department with the City of Southlake, presented a draft of the Master Plan and explained that according to the City Charter, the Plan must be reviewed and updated every four years. The Plan was originally done in 1991. The Park Board has been in the process of reviewing and updating the Plan and making their recommendations. Ms. Lenoir said a telephone survey is being conducted by the University of North Texas to produce a clear and scientific needs assessment report. The report should be ready by the end of June and public hearings will be arranged thereafter. Ms. Lenoir explained that the handout contained historical data, administrative actions for five years, priority summary, the 1995 citizen survey results, needs list from the two Focus groups, the Park Board's ranking of the needs, and a facility summary needs analysis for the next five years and at build -out stage. Ms. Lenoir briefed the committee on the plans for the new Bob Jones Park, located off of North 4 White Chapel Boulevard. There has been some opposition to the plan from area residents. The city will purchase 131 acres and lease about 400 acres (Walnut Grove area) from the Corps of Engineers. The plans call for an equestrian facility on the south side, an open-air arena, polo field, hunter jumper course, parking for horse trailers. The next level circles through the woods where the amphitheater, nature center, day camping facilities are planned. The far north portion will be soccer and baseball fields. The Corps property will consist of hike and bike trails, equestrian trails and nature trails throughout. There will be access to the beach, fishing piers, and picnic tables along the lake. The park will be built in phases with a 20-30 year plan. The Board will be looking next month into the different phases required and the cost involved for each stage. Charles Vaughn commented that he rides his bike at Bicentennial Park and the Adventure Alley area. Mr. Vaughn said there are not many parks presently suitable for everyday use but that the plans for the Bob Jones Park sounds nice. When asked about the kinds of things Mr. Vaughn thinks are needed in the City for young people, he suggested a natatorium [indoor swimming pool] and bike trails. Ms. Lenoir said that an outdoor swimming pool is being planned for the Master Plan for Bicentennial Park. The pool is still 15-20 years away. Robert Glover questioned Ms. Lenoir about the Plan for the 1996-98 park land acquisition and asked if it included such items as a public golf course and amphitheatre. She said the plan is to purchase the land within the next two years and they are working on the cost. It is a high priority. Charles Vaughn asked if after the land is purchased for Bob Jones Park and the Walnut Grove Park and both parks are developed, would they be immune to future development. Ms. Lenoir responded that according to State Law, park lands are in perpetuity and would require the citizens to vote to convert the property away from the "park land" designation. Mr. Wilhelm explained Joint Utilization Committee Meeting June 11, 1996 Page 3 the legal aspects of calling land "park land." Buddy Luce came in at this time. Robert Glover had two other questions regarding the Park Master Plan: In regards to the #1 item listed for 1998-2001, which is to enter into a joint partnership to build a tennis center, has there been any discussion as to who that partnership would be with? Ms. Lenoir responded that both the CISD and a private partner is being considered. She said currently the plans show it in Bicentennial Park (where soccer fields are) but there are location problems to be worked out. There would be eights courts in the first phase -- and if the rest of the land can be purchased, the courts could be expanded at that location. The other question Mr. Glover had dealt with joint use facilities being available during school hours -- are there requests for these facilities during the day? Ms. Lenoir said there are many requests -- lunch time basketball, morning exercise classes for women, pre-school programs. She commented that a lot of other cities in the nation do have public use of libraries, swimming pools, etc. Mr. Glover stated that the CISD is in the process of planning the facilities for the next year or two and will look into the concept further. The committee needs to relay the specific items they would like to do with the CISD in this regard and incorporate into the designs of the new buildings, etc. Buddy Luce asked Mike Murphy to comment on the issue of having public use of the school facilities. Mr. Murphy said that in theory it is a good idea. He said, though, that in practicality and in scheduling, it becomes a little more difficult. He said in a "high growth district" it is difficult to forecast when the facilities [such as the gymnasium] will be open -- it is unpredictable. He cited a prime example as the tennis courts at the high school -- worked okay in the beginning but then the classes grew to such an extent that it was not "doable" anymore. Mr. Luce made comments about safety issues involved in having the public able to access school facilities during the day. He stated he is all for maximum joint utilization and feels it is important to address the practical realities of what the committee is considering, especially in light of the original agreement which provides for use by the public during "non -school" times. He further stated that this recommendation is against what the foundation agreement proposed. There are some concerns to be worked out. Mr. Wilhelm suggested that the Plan include a caveat to the effect, "The primary usage of the school is for education of the children of the District and any joint use has to be subordinate to that." It was also suggested to have the Plan expand on more "after-hours" uses at the school facilities. Mr. Murphy said, "The School District needs to be in step with whatever recommendation, even if it was a recommendation for discussion only, I would want the School District to be in step with that and have full communications prior to that." He went on to say, "If it comes out as a position paper and the School District is in a position of reacting or responding to it, that's not a partnership -- that's a more of an aggressive stance and I don't think that is what the City and the School District are trying to develop." Mr. Murphy Joint Utilization Committee Meeting June 11, 1996 Page 4 said that to the best of his knowledge, this is the first time "usage during the day -time" facilities has ever been discussed. He suggested the wording say that "a lot of different ideas are being explored, including during the day use and exploring more after hours use." Any recommendation that comes out of the Park Board, with respect to joint use, should be shared with the District to see if concept is acceptable to them. Mr. Luce then brought up the issue in the Plan about indoor soccer. Basically, it is being handled at the Durham School. Mr. Luce mentioned some problems being encountered with the gymnasium floor due to the soccer play. He commented that indoor soccer fields do not need to have fire outlets and scoreboards that can be hit by the balls, etc. He said we need to be cognizant of all the issues when these type arrangements are made. Charles Vaughn asked if the library could be sectioned off for the use by the students with research materials on one side, and another section for use by citizens during school hours with the entire library being used "after hours." Mr. Murphy said that he was interested in exploring more "after hours" use of the CISD facilities, such as libraries, computer labs, etc. which would be more "doable" on a short term basis than use of the facilities during the school day. Mr. Murphy told the committee about the design of the Rockenbaugh Elementary and how a section of the building will be secured from the rest of the building so it may be used for "after hours" use. It has its own parking area as well. The Committee's task for today's presentation of the Park Master Plan is to discuss the Park Board's recommendation -- not to vote on to approve the Plan and forward as Joint Utilization recommendation. Staff explained the Plan will go to the Park Board for consideration and then to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Ms. Lenoir said the Park Board has been working on the development of the Plan since October 1995 and a telephone survey is being conducted currently to finalize the recommendations scientifically by July or August. Rob Glover said he would like to see the Committee focus on joint use activities that can be done in near -term that have minimal financial impact. The fact is that in the near -term, funds are not available so the entities need to explore minimal -cost activities. An example of a recent joint use activity was the joint election sharing. Mr. Glover said he has received tremendous positive feed- back from the community about the election location sharing. Mike Murphy said the committee needs to think about joint -utilization beyond facilities -- such as joint -learning. There are training opportunities to be considered. These are easy to implement with minimal cost. Joint Utilization Committee Meeting June 11, 1996 Page 5 The Master Park Plan will be re -worked with the suggestions from the Committee incorporated and bring back at the next Joint Utilization Committee meeting. Ms. Lenoir said the schedule for next year will be brought forward to the Committee at the next meeting. The schedule will be signed off by the Athletic Director, principals, superintendent and City before it is brought to JUC. The Committee heard comments from members about the need to have better communication between the City and District and the process of learning from the joint -use experiences. The Committee talked about the differences in the priority lists presented by the two focus groups and the list presented by the JUC (which included input from the Park Board, School Board, City staff). Other questions were raised about the Plan, page 26, regarding the priority comparison list. Were the two Focus Groups (part 125 and 129) the groups that worked on Bicentennial Park Plan priority list? Yes. Did the priority comparison list involve any of the priorities determined by the City, School, Park Board, staff prior to the Bicentennial Park Focus Group? Kevin Hugman said the priority list the JUC considered about a year ago was the Future Joint Use Project List which was prioritized as a result of the survey conducted with the City staff, District, and Park Board. The two priority lists do have some overlap. Bethann Scratchard explained the makeup of the two focus groups and that they were charged with putting the list in priority order only. The focus groups' list consists of items they would like to see done, not "how" those items will be done. Rob Glover made a point that although the JUC priority -generated list shows a date of June 6, 1996, the Committee did not review the list at that date (revisions to the "comments" section were done on that day), and if they had, they might have changed their list. Mr. Glover also suggested adding a notation to the list of priorities generated by the focus groups and Park Board to indicate which survey it was based on. The JUC's survey includes park projects but the Park's survey does not include any JUC ideas. Agenda Item #4, Discussion: Municipal Complex Planning: Joint Use Planning Subcommittee Recommendations to Facilities Planning Subcommittee Kevin Hugman presented an update of the subcommittee's activities. The Joint Use Planning Subcommittee made their recommendations to the Facilities Planning Subcommittee and subsequently became a part of that committee once the recommendations were made. The Facilities Planning Subcommittee is still working on the design; it will probably a long-term planning process. It is important that a representative of the School District be at the Facilities Planning Subcommittee meetings. Mr. Hugman told the committee that at the meeting when the recommendations were made to the Facilities Planning Subcommittee, the Facilities Subcommittee had concerns and they wanted a commitment from the School District that the District was Joint Utilization Committee Meeting June 11, 1996 Page 6 planning to have their administrative offices at the municipal complex site. The District's interest in having their offices at the site was very clear from the members of the district involved in the Joint Use Subcommittee and these intentions had to be relayed to the Facilities Planning Subcommittee. Before the process gets to the point of a bond election, the cost will have be known. That is were the other two subcommittees come into play -- the Bond Election Subcommittee and the Finance Subcommittee. Kim Lenoir talked about the need to have a commitment from the District regarding their space requirements for the Administrative Offices, how they plan to pay for the building, whether it would be a joint bond election, when, etc. Kevin Hugmanexplained the role of the Project Steering Committee which is made up of the chair and vice -chair from each of the four subcommittees. They have not met yet and need to name a chairman for the committee -- it should take place very soon. Mr. Hugman said if the Project Steering Committee determines that there should be an interlocal agreement with the District, at that time the Joint Utilization Committee will be tasked with handling that. Mr. Glover commented to Buddy Luce, if a commitment is needed from the District, they need to understand when that commitment is needed, they need to back up and think about the things needed to make that commitment and then time to make that decision. Buddy Luce asked when the deadline goal is to have all the input from the subcommittees and have a unified answer from the City. Mr. Hugman answered there is no time line set yet -- the City did not want to constrain anyone. The Facilities Planning Subcommittee will take the longest. City staff s feeling is that they will not have anything until after the first of next year. A bond election will probably not occur until the Spring. At this point in the meeting, Charles Vaughn had to leave the meeting. The committee thanked him for coming and participating in the discussion. Another topic the JUC discussed were the concerns about doing joint -use with the other school districts. There are some citizens who have children in the Keller School District who are opposed to joint use because they see "joint use" as only pertaining to the City and the CISD. They object to paying city taxes and part of those tax dollars being spent on joint use projects with the CISD and they feel they are not benefiting from that arrangement. Education is needed -- there is benefit regardless. This could be a potential issue in the bond election. The Committee needs to be sensitive to projects the City can do with Keller ISD. No action was necessary from the Joint Use Committee regarding this item. Agenda Item #5, Report: Joint Polling Project IR A Joint Utilization Committee Meeting June 11, 1996 Page 7 This item will be discussed at the next Joint Use Committee meeting. Sandy LeGrand, City Secretary with the City of Southlake, Aloha Payne, Election Judge, and Karen House, CISD representative will make a report to the committee. Hugman reported preliminarily, there were some space logistics to be worked out due to the number of candidates. More communication is needed. The Potential Joint Use Projects list was handed out. The committee will reconsider the list at the next meeting and make revisions if needed. The items to be included in the City's preliminary budget need to be decided and forwarded to the City. . The School District will have a joint City/School meeting the end of June and will re -prioritize the list then. Mr. Hugman will have City staff update the comments and approximate cost and present the list at the next meeting as a discussion item. The list should have a section for "Other" items not listed. Agenda Item #7, Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. ATTEST 4�" -,00i-,A_ Kevin Hugman, Assi nt to the City Manager Rick Wilhelm, Chairman