2002-07-08
' ***Official Minutes***
Approved by Parks and Recreation Board August 12, 2002
1 CITY OF SOUTHLAKE
2 PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEETING
3
4 July 8, 2002
5
6 MINUTES
7
8 Board Members Present: Bobby Rawls, Chairman, Mary Georgia, Secretary; Frank
9 Cornish, Vice-Chairman, Bobby Rawls, Eric Blomquist, and Dorothy Wood
10
11 Board Members Absent: Liz Durham and Tim O'Connor
12
13 Staff Members Present: Kevin Hugman, Director of Community Services; Steve Polasek,
14 Deputy Director of Community Services; Chris Carpenter, Senior Park Planner; and
15 Linda Carpenter-Elgin, Secretary
16
17 REGULAR SESSION:
18
19 Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order
20
21 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Rawls at 7:05 p.m.
22
23 REPORTS:
24
25 Agenda Item No. 2. Administrative Comments
26
27 Director of Community Services Kevin Hugman asked the Park Board if they would be
28 interested in taking a tour of the various City parks during July or August in conjunction
29 with the new board member orientation, to provide an overview of current and future
30 plans for each park facility. The Board was in favor of a Saturday morning tour; staff will
31 propose dates and times to members and finalize the arrangements.
32
33 Agenda Item No. 2-A. Nature Center Committee Report
34
35 Rosemary Hutchinson, Nature Center Development Committee member, presented the
36 report and talked about the possibility of the City purchasing the Clariden Montessori
37 School's portable building. The building is 26-feet wide by 60-feet long, is on wheels,
38 and would cost approximately $32,000.
39
40 Nature Center Development Committee Chairman Carol Lee Hamilton and Nature Center
41 Committee member Suzanne Tuttle presented information about the Committee's
42 progress during consideration of agenda item 5-C, application for Texas Forest Service
43 Urban Forestry Partnership Grant Program.
44
45 CONSENT AGENDA:
46
July 8, 2002 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page I of 15
***Official Minutes***
Approved by Parks and Recreation Board August 12, 2002
1 Agenda Item No. 3-A. Approval of the Southlake Parks and Recreation Board meeting
2 minutes of June 10, 2002.
3
4 A motion was made to approve the minutes of the Park Board meeting of June 10,
5 as corrected by Eric Blomquist.
6
7 Motion: Wood
8 Second: Cornish
9 Ayes: Blomquist, Cornish, Georgia, Rawls and Wood
10 Nays: None
11 Vote: 5-0
12
13 Motion carried.
14
15 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON CONSENT ITEMS
16
17 Agenda Item No. 3-A. Approval of the Southlake Parks and Recreation Board meeting
18 minutes of June 10, 2002. The minutes were approved as presented in the Park Board
19 packet with corrections to the motions on pages 3A-2, 3A-4, 3A-5, 3A-6 and 3A-7,
20 adding Ms. Wood's name to the "Ayes" section of each of the motions.
21
22 REGULAR AGENDA:
23
24 Agenda Item No. 4. Public Forum
25
26 Chairman Rawls opened the Public Forum.
27
28 Kelli Riley, 208 Bob-O-Link, Southlake Carroll Lacrosse Association. Ms. Riley read a
29 letter from the Association providing the Board with an update on lacrosse issues. A copy
30 of the letter is attached to these minutes for specific details of her comments. Highlights
31 of the letter include: the Association's appreciation for the lights purchased by the City
32 for the first designated lacrosse practice and playing field at Carroll Intermediate School,
33 installation of an irrigation system on the field, appreciation for usage of two baseball
34 diamonds at the former Texas School of Baseball; notice that the Association will
35 approach the Park Board at next month's meeting with a matching funds request
36 for enhancements at the lacrosse field; recent achievements of players; the biggest
37 challenge for the Association is finding sufficient number of volunteer coaches and
38 enough lighted field space; and the projected number of participants for the spring 2003
39 is 350, with 12-15 teams.
40
41 The Board thanked Ms. Riley for her presentation.
42
43 The Public Forum was closed.
44
July 8, 2002 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 2 of 15
***Official Minutes***
Approved by Parks and Recreation Board August 12, 2002
1 Agenda Item No. 5-A. Matching funds request from Southlake Baseball Association for
2 baseball field reconstruction in Bicentennial Park.
3
4 Director of Community Services presented the request for matching funds from the
5 Southlake Baseball Association (SBA) for improvements to the baseball fields at
6 Bicentennial Park. The request was in the amount of $25,000, with a total project cost
7 estimated to be $50,000. The proposed reconstruction would include removal of the clay
8 surfaces on fields 4-10, and replacement with crushed brick base and drainage system.
9 The approved SPDC Matching Fund budget is $100,000. To-date, $5,750 has been
10 allocated for other projects, leaving a balance of $94,250 for this fiscal year. The
11 Southlake Baseball Association will consider the SPDC Matching Funds Grant
12 application at their next meeting to be held this weekend. A copy of the SBA matching
13 grant application is attached to these minutes.
14
15 Mark Dennis, representative of the Southlake Baseball Association (SBA), presented the
16 handout, "Facility Improvements Proposal," and pictures for the Board to review. See
17 the attached handout for specific information Mr. Dennis shared with the Board.
18
19 Mr. Dennis explained why the SBA was requesting the project to improve the field
20 conditions at Bicentennial Park, noting that his observations were that the infield areas
21 were bare, has holes and he feels presents safety issues. He said drainage is inadequate
22 and has caused excessive rainouts and game delays. Mr. Dennis said that insufficient
23 field maintenance is due to the City's lack of resources and excessive use of the playing
24 fields due to insufficient practice facilities.
25
26 Mr. Dennis offered the following three action plans as solutions to the problem. (1) SBA
27 proposes to enter a into contract with David Holdbrook Company to redesign the infields
28 of the seven baseball fields to include: re-design of infields for proper drainage,
29 replacement of existing dirt and clay with appropriate crushed brick materials, re-sod all
30 infield grass areas and fill the holes and level the outfields. (2) SBA to gain access to two
31 fields at Bob Jones Park, two softball fields at Bicentennial Park and three fields at Texas
32 School of Baseball to be used as practice facilities. (3) SBA is investigating alternatives
33 for ongoing maintenance solutions - one option is to allow SBA to contract with a private
34 service provider, using City funds, to provide ongoing maintenance. A formal proposal
35 for this option will be brought to Park Board at a later date.
36
37 Mr. Dennis urged the Park Board to approve their request to provide matching funds in
38 the amount of $25,000 for implementing action plan 1, a contract with David Holbrook
39 Company for reconstruction of fields to be completed prior to the season opener on
40 September 21, 2002.
41
42 Discussion:
43
44 Mr. Hugman and Mr. Dennis answered questions from the Park Board. The Board's
45 questions related to whether the contract would be subject to the government competitive
46 bidding process (Mr. Hugman will seek clarification from the City Attorney); the
July 8, 2002 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 3 of 15
***Official Minutes***
Approved by Parks and Recreation Board August 12, 2002
1 meaning of "game-only field" terminology; the SBA proposal to contract with a private
2 provider for maintenance (many issues need to be discussed as this idea is very
3 preliminary at this time); current irrigation changes required to accommodate proposed
4 reconstruction (only minor modifications to current irrigation may be needed); experience
5 with Holdbrook Company; water timer issues; how drainage improvements would allow
6 for a faster turnaround of field usage; use impact on practice fields; current and future
7 allocation of fields at Bob Jones Park, Bicentennial Park and Texas School of Baseball
8 for athletic associations; expenditure of SPDC matching funds (typically not all the
9 $100,000 allocated yearly is spent); the Board's recommendation - it can be contingent
10 upon SBA approving matching funds application; and the number of City play and
11 practice fields in use.
12
13 Ms. Wood requested a copy of the proposed scope of services for the reconditioning of
14 the fields and also a schedule of field usage for all of the City's game and practice fields.
15
16 Citizens in the audience expressed the following comments:
17
18 Jim Kingsley, 1915 Cresson Drive, coach with SBA since 1998, commented on the lack
19 of practice fields and stated he felt that "the fields are being used for what they were
20 intended for."
21
22 Woody Margozawitzwitz, 913 Suffoulks Court, former resident of Plano/Addison area -
23 moved to Southlake four years ago. Mr. Margozawitzwitz expressed concern with the
24 field conditions and maintenance. He feels the Southlake fields are in poor condition. Mr.
25 Margozawitz said the athletic facilities are "phenomenal" in Southlake, but that he
26 believes the fields need better maintenance as they are "an embarrassment and Southlake
27 cannot get tournaments due to their condition."
28
29 Mr. Hugman responded to the irrigation issue and said that the timing problem had been
30 addressed. He expressed concern about the maintenance of the fields and explained that
31 the main issue was that the City does not have the resources, although the park's budget
32 is heavily weighted towards park maintenance. There are only eight maintenance workers
33 to care for the entire City parks system (approximately 600 acres).
34
35 Chairman Rawls mentioned that there had been some brainstorming discussions about the
36 SBA forming some sort of grounds crew committee to help handle some of the
37 maintenance responsibilities of the fields. Chairman Rawls said that the associations and
38 the city need to "think outside of the box" to come up with some creative options for
39 maintaining the fields in optimal conditions. Mr. Dennis shared that some of the
40 Association's board members had talked informally about the possibility of setting up a
41 grounds crew committee and using the allocation of funds that the City currently spends
42 on maintenance of the Bicentennial Park fields to maintain the actual fields inside the
43 fences. He said SBA would certainly like to explore that possibility as well as other
44 alternatives.
45
July 8, 2002 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 4 of 15
***Official Minutes***
Approved by Parks and Recreation Board August 12, 2002
1 Ms. Georgia asked if there was a restriction on matching funds that would prohibit
2 matching funds from being used for maintenance of sports facilities? Mr. Hugman said
3 the policy was set up for capital items.
4
5 A motion was made that the Parks and Recreation Board approve and make a
6 recommendation to the SPDC for the City participation in the reconstruction of the
7 baseball fields at Bicentennial Park for an amount not to exceed $25,000 of funding
8 allocated through the SPDC matching fund program, also with the provision that
9 the application would be approved through the SBA board this coming Sunday.
10 [Mr. Hugman added that the motion should include that it be contingent upon
11 staffs review and approval.]
12
13 Motion: Cornish
14
15 Ms. Georgia clarified that the motion was to approve, not to exceed matching funds of
16 $25,000, contingent upon staff's review and approval as well as review and approval by
17 the SBA board.
18
19 Discussion:
20
21 Mr. Blomquist asked what the Board's approval process was and if this item could wait
22 until the next Board meeting to allow more time for investigation into the issues?
23
24 Ms. Georgia asked if it would be appropriate to add to the motion that staff include in
25 their review of the proposal, that staff would also review the access to the additional
26 practice fields as part of their review and consideration to make sure that none of the joint
27 use agreements are violated? Ms. Wood and Mr. Rawls commented they did not think
28 that the joint use of the other fields was part of this action item. At this point, the
29 agreement is not for access to the other fields as represented in the SBA proposal
30 document.
31
32 Ms. Wood favored adding to the motion that staff come up with a program or a plan for
33 properly maintaining whatever agreements now held "so that we are making sure that
34 whatever we are doing we can, in fact, make it long-term as opposed to short-term."
35
36 The Board continued with a vote on the original, unchanged motion.
37
38 Second: Georgia
39 Ayes: Blomquist, Cornish, Georgia, Rawls and Wood
40 Nays: None
41 Vote: 5-0
42
43 Motion carried.
44
45 This matching funds request will be presented to the SPDC and City Council on July 16,
46 2002.
July 8, 2002 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 5 of 15
***Official Minutes***
Approved by Parks and Recreation Board August 12, 2002
1
2 Agenda Item No. 5-B. Review and recommendation of site alternatives for softball
3 complex, including Bicentennial Park, Bob Jones Park and former Texas School of
4 Baseball.
5
6 Director of Community Services Kevin Hugman began a presentation on this item by
7 providing background information on the progression of events for a softball complex for
8 the Southlake Girls Softball Association (SGSA). He reviewed factors associated with
9 locating a softball complex at Bicentennial Park, Bob Jones Park or the former Texas
10 School of Baseball and asked the Board to make a recommendation of their preferred
11 site.
12
13 Mr. Hugman commented that the SGSA favored the Bob Jones Park location over the
14 previously planned complex at the Texas School of Baseball.
15
16 Senior Park Planner Chris Carpenter reviewed a detailed summary of each proposed
17 location with the Board and a copy of that presentation document is attached to these
18 minutes to supply the exact information that was presented for comparison of each site.
19 The summaries included preliminary cost estimates that were prepared in the past
20 regarding Bicentennial Park and the Texas School of Baseball, as well as cost estimates
21 for transforming the current four practice baseball fields in the south end of Bob Jones
22 park into four competition softball fields. Along with the cost estimates for the three
23 alternatives, staff created a list of pros and cons for locating the complex at the respective
24 sites, per Park Board direction. The summaries offer alternative uses for each site, a
25 summary of the net results in terms of expected number of game and practice fields for
26 softball, baseball and lacrosse and an estimate of the construction time for each site.
27
28 Discussion:
29
30 A lengthy discussion was held by Park Board members and staff about the three sites
31 with many questions and views offered.
32
33 The Board expressed their concerns and opinions about lighting issues at each site,
34 residential adjacency, field grading, the change from the original preferred site of the
35 softball complex from the Texas School of Baseball to Bob Jones Park, and parking
36 issues.
37
38 Ms. Wood asked to see studies on illumination requirements for the different types of
39 field uses.
40
41 Ms. Georgia pointed out that Bob Jones Park was approved for lighted fields on the south
42 end.
43
44 Matt Tuggey, SBA president, explained that SBA had asked the Park Board for
45 reconsideration of the site location simply because of an economic issue. He mentioned
46 that the facilities at Bicentennial Park are "Class A" and that he feels the girls softball
July 8, 2002 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 6 of 15
***Official Minutes***
Approved by Parks and Recreation Board August 12, 2002
1 association should have equal facilities. Mr. Tuggey was in favor of the Bob Jones Park
2 site and asked the Board to move forward with the project - it is the quickest, the most
3 practical economic solution he said. Mr. Tuggey and Mr. Hugman shared background
4 history on the development of the Texas School of Baseball and Bob Jones Park as a
5 softball complex site and talked about the cost of each. Mr. Tuggey also shared his
6 opinion about accepting the inevitable changes in Southlake and the impact of the
7 lighting at Bob Jones Park upon the surrounding neighborhoods.
8
9 Ms. Wood said she did not feel that the Bob Jones Park site was the most economical in
10 view of what had already been spent. She said that as a citizen of Southlake she had
11 difficulty spending $3.9 million on four hundred girls that play baseball. She said that
12 there were 27 ball fields in Southlake and that she had a very hard time with this issue.
13 Ms. Wood said she believed the Board should "take a very close study of the issues
14 before jumping into something like they did 10 months ago with the assumptions that the
15 Texas School of Baseball was going to work as the site for the girls softball complex, and
16 then find out it is not the right solution." She stressed that she did not feel that she had
17 enough information to be comfortable with making a decision to spend $1.8 million.
18
19 Ms. Georgia responded that her view was that the money had not been spent on the Girls
20 Softball Association, but was spent on playing fields and practice fields and park land.
21 She said the City has needed lighted practice and playing fields for a long time and that
22 the money spent on the purchase of the Texas School of Baseball was not wasted money
23 as there is a real need for those fields.
24
25 Mr. Blomquist had a concern similar to Ms. Wood in that he received the site alternatives
26 information on Friday and did not feel that he had adequate time to absorb and
27 investigate all the issues in order to make a decision of this scope.
28
29 Chairman Rawls said he believed "the Bob Jones Park site location was a win/win/win
30 situation for all the athletic associations - the baseball association can take ownership in
31 Bicentennial Park, girls softball can go to Bob Jones Park and Texas School of Baseball
32 with lacrosse."
33
34 Citizens in the audience provided the following opinions to the Board:
35
36 Cara and Rick White, 4475 Homestead Drive. Ms. White said she believes that the Girls
37 Softball Association does deserve equal fields of their own. According to the most
38 currently approved Park Master Plan the fields at Bob Jones Park are not lighted. Ms.
39 White said the City has already spent money on the Texas School of Baseball for a
40 location for the girls softball fields. She said that moving the girls out to Bob Jones Park
41 will avert the costs - practice fields will be needed somewhere. Ms. White said she was
42 concerned that this site alternative issue was not publicly announced and that it is partly
43 wrong that we are comparing something that has already been talked about two or three
44 times. She said her neighbors did not have a clue that this was being considered and
45 believed this should be talked about in the community and citizens be made aware of the
46 changes and spending. Ms. White said the community directly affected by the action
July 8, 2002 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 7 of 15
***Official Minutes***
Approved by Parks and Recreation Board August 12, 2002
1 should have an opportunity to know about it. Mr. White talked about light intensity at
2 Bob Jones Park.
3
4 Kelli Riley, president of Southlake Carroll Lacrosse Association and Southlake resident,
5 spoke about adapting to the changes in Southlake and about the cost savings in selecting
6 the Bob Jones Park as the softball complex. She said she believed this proposal was a
7 winning situation for baseball, softball, lacrosse and a win for the community because of
8 the cost savings.
9
10 Joel Peterson, 1425 Dartmouth, softball coach, presented his perspective about the Texas
11 School of Baseball site and the lighting on the fields; he believes it is dangerous for the
12 players to do pop-drive drills as he believes the lighting is not adequate. Mr. Peterson
13 said he supports re-doing the lights at the Texas School of Baseball.
14
15 Chairman Rawls reviewed each site and told the Board that in reviewing the cost analysis
16 before them and evaluating each site, he believed that the Bicentennial Park location
17 should be excluded from consideration as the softball complex. He said the Texas School
18 of Baseball site originally looked good, but the fact was that the City purchased park land
19 and it would take another 13-18 months to ready those fields for softball at a $1.9 million
20 cost. Mr. Rawls believed the best solution is the Bob Jones Park site for the softball
21 complex, recognizing that there are lighting issues that could be addressed with advanced
22 shrouding systems.
23
24 Wendy Archer, 715 Southwind Trail, commented that she has two girls in softball and one
25 son in baseball and that she would be happy to drive to Bob Jones Park; she supports Bob
26 Jones Park as the location for the softball complex. Ms. Archer said that Southlake is a
27 growing community and that citizens need to recognize that all the athletic facilities will
28 be used eventually.
29
30 Kevin Levertson, 800 Westminister (Cambridge Place), said his neighborhood was very
31 concerned with the existing lighting at the Texas School of Baseball and believes that the
32 lighting issues are easier to deal with at Bob Jones Park in that the proximity of the lights
33 to the homes is greater than they are in Cambridge Place to the Texas School of Baseball.
34 Mr. Levertson said he wanted to make a point about the budget issue - that the City has
35 done their homework on evaluating each site. There is a solution that is least costly and
36 meets the needs of the group that will be using it and it is the one they prefer.
37
38 Dan Wineberger, 640 Oak Hill, said the reality in Southlake is that you are going to have
39 lights. His two daughters play softball and son plays lacrosse. He feels that the Texas
40 School of Baseball is perfect for lacrosse. Mr. Wineberger said the Southlake Girls
41 Softball Association has been treated like stepchildren in Southlake and it is sad to see
42 our girls pushed aside. Mr. Wineberger supports the Bob Jones Park location for the
43 softball complex primarily because it is the least expensive alternative.
44
July 8, 2002 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 8 of 15
***Official Minutes***
Approved by Parks and Recreation Board August 12, 2002
1 Kevin Smith, 1426 Walton Drive, coach, said "ditto" Mr. Wineberger's comments. He
2 said that Southlake does not have lighting issues - "go to the hill country and you will
3 find lighting problems." Mr. Smith said the community can work through this issue.
4
5 Chairman Rawls summarized the issues brought forth during the discussion. He reminded
6 members that the Park Board is a recommending board - their recommendation goes to
7 SPDC and then to City Council. The issues he sees is that it will take $1.9 million to
8 retrofit the Texas School of Baseball for the softball complex; it will take $1.5 million to
9 put the softball complex at Bob Jones Park. He said the City is generating enough
10 revenue at the Texas School of Baseball from the gymnasium to pay the note, thus
11 lacrosse can do some minor modifications to the TSB fields and play - they win in that
12 situation. Mr. Rawls said: "If girls softball is moved back to TSB, lacrosse loses. If the
13 girls softball goes to Bob Jones Park, they take ownership. There are some lighting issues
14 that do need to be worked out with SPIN and city staff." Mr. Rawls felt it was a simple
15 decision when costs are considered. He believed that this scenario is a win/win situation
16 for all the athletic associations and the community. Mr. Rawls asked the Board when they
17 were going to make this happen.
18
19 Mr. Blomquist restated that he was not comfortable making a decision of this magnitude
20 without having a little more time to review all the facts and to talk to the affected citizens.
21 He asked if it was possible to hold off on making a decision for one more month.
22
23 Ms. Wood added that she would like to have more than three days to make a decision and
24 more information on the needs analysis, the Master Plan, the lighting information, and the
25 reasoning behind the "nice to spend" or "have to spend" issues before she could make a
26 vote for the city of Southlake. She said the City has wonderful recreational facilities and
27 zero parks. "We have no parks in the City, but lots of rec," she stated. Ms. Wood stressed
28 that she was seeking the most bang for the City's buck and was looking for what she
29 believed the majority of citizens in Southlake could benefit from.
30
31 Ms. Georgia agreed with Ms. Wood about seeking action that would benefit the majority
32 of people. She stated she had seen these proposals before and that year after year had
33 seen the girls softball lose out, stating that it was shameful the lack of attention the girls'
34 softball teams have been given. She does not consider that the City has wasted any
35 money on park land. Ms. Georgia said she sees a win/win situation in that she does not
36 think that the Texas School of Baseball should have higher or more intense lighting
37 effects. Ms. Georgia said she does not believe that the Park Board ever had any
38 discussion about putting more intense lighting in at TSB and would find that very hard to
39 support as a Park Board member. There have been many discussions about Bob Jones
40 Park and she believes there will be more lighting at that location in the southern end of
41 the park where there are fewer homes. Ms. Georgia spoke about the early type of lighting,
42 like the lighting at Bicentennial Park, and said that is not the type of lighting being
43 proposed at Bob Jones Park. Ms. Georgia commented that based on what she observed
44 tonight, she has seen a very fiscally responsible set of plans put forward in that the Bob
45 Jones Park site is less than any other plan that has been presented and in addition, that use
46 of the Texas School of Baseball could be used for a very minimal amount of money. Ms.
July 8, 2002 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 9 of 15
***Official Minutes***
Approved by Parks and Recreation Board August 12, 2002
1 Georgia commended staff for the work they put into this proposal. Ms. Georgia favored
2 the Bob Jones Park location for the softball complex site after viewing the analysis. Mr.
3 Blomquist asked what the Board's approval process was and if this item could wait until
4 the next Board meeting to allow more time for investigation into the issues?
5
6 A motion was made to approve the Bob Jones Park location as the recommended
7 site for the Southlake Girls Softball Association playing fields four-plea.
8
9 Motion: Georgia
10 Second: Cornish
11 Ayes: Cornish, Georgia, Rawls
12 Nays: Wood
13 Abstention: Blomquist
14 Vote: 3-1-1
15
16 Motion carried.
17
18 The Board recessed for a five-minute break. The meeting resumed at 10: 05 p.m.
19
20 Agenda Item No. 5-C. Application for Texas Forest Service Urban Forestry Partnership
21 Grant Program.
22
23 Carol Lee Hamilton, 1210 Cross Timber Drive, chair of the Southlake Nature Center
24 Development Committee, handed out Nature Center Committee brochures, asking that the
25 Board share their thoughts by completing the questionnaire and returning it. Ms.
26 Hamilton quoted verbatim from the "Association of Nature Center Administrator's
27 Guidebook" the definition of a nature center. In part, the definition was: "A nature center
28 brings environments and people together... a nature center consists of a natural site of
29 home base to conduct educational programs, a separate legal entity with concise mission
30 statement managed by a governing body, a paid professional staff, and established
31 education programs." Ms. Hamilton commented that the Nature Center Committee would
32 be bringing their recommendations to the Park Board in October. She also shared
33 highlights of the Nature Center Committee's activities. Ms. Hamilton said the Committee
34 has received positive support for a nature center and have been told that Southlake has a
35 "crown jewel" of an opportunity in the combination of undeveloped City property and the
36 200 acres of Corp property.
37
38 Ms. Hamilton asked the Board to approve the request from the Nature Center Committee
39 for staff to apply for the Texas Forest Service Urban Forestry Partnership Grant in the
40 amount of $6,000 with a City match of $4,000 in funding and $2,000 in in-kind donation
41 (labor, materials). The funding would be used to commission a site assessment survey
42 and study of the Bob Jones Park and Corp property. The Nature Center Committee
43 intends to use this study to help it define a location and concept for the proposed Nature
44 Center. There is currently $10,000 in SPDC funding allocated for a Nature Center.
45
46
July 8, 2002 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 10 of 15
***Official Minutes***
Approved by Parks and Recreation Board August 12, 2002
1
2 Suzanne Tuttle, 3103 Briar Lane, naturalist, ecologist and employee of the Fort Worth
3 Nature Center, and chair of the Nature Center Committee Site Assessment Workgroup,
4 explained why the Nature Center Committee was in favor of the grant application and
5 what the Committee hoped to accomplish with the grant. Ms. Tuttle provided a brief
6 natural history background of this part of Texas. Southlake is totally located in a Post
7 Oak forest-type plant community called the Eastern Cross Timbers, which comprises a
8 very small section of Texas. Due to development, much of the Eastern Cross Timbers
9 region has been developed and very little of the natural region remains, such as the
10 portion found at Lake Grapevine. The Corp has already conducted a site assessment of
11 their property and the Committee hopes that with the grant, the City could do a more
12 detailed assessment that will combine with the Corp's assessment to cover the entire
13 400+ acres.
14
15 The Nature Center Committee will bring more information about various options and a
16 recommendation pertaining to the possible purchase of the portable building owned by
17 the Clariden Montessori School to the Park Board at a later date.
18
19 A motion was made to approve the recommendation for matching funds of $4,000
20 for the Nature Center Committee to do their research for the property for ongoing
21 development of a Nature Center.
22
23 Motion: Wood
24 Second: Georgia
25 Ayes: Ayes: Blomquist, Cornish, Georgia, Rawls and Wood
26 Nays: None
27 Vote: 5-0
28
29 Motion carried.
30
31 Chairman Rawls and the Park Board members thanked Ms. Tuttle and Ms. Hamilton for
32 bringing the information to them tonight and for the definition of a nature center.
33
34 A van tour of the City parks is being planned, which will include the Bob Jones Park
35 area.
36
37 Agenda Item No. 5-D. Proposed Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Parks and Recreation Division
38 Annual Budget.
39
40 The Board agreed to consider this item at their next board meeting.
41
42 A motion was made to table this item until the August meeting.
43
44 Motion: Wood
45 Second: Georgia
46 Ayes: Blomquist, Cornish, Georgia, Rawls and Wood
July 8, 2002 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 11 of 15
***Official Minutes***
Approved by Parks and Recreation Board August 12, 2002
1 Nays: None
2 Vote: 5-0 to Table
3
4 Motion carried.
5
6 Agenda Item No. 5-E. Ordinance No. 483-I, Amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance,
7 Article VII, Park and Recreation Dedication Requirements
8
9 Senior Park Planner Chris Carpenter presented the amendments to park dedication
10 requirements, explained the requirements of Article VII of the Subdivision Ordinance
11 No. 483 and outlined the changes being proposed. A copy of the draft of Article VII of
12 the Subdivision Ordinance and cover memo are attached to provide a detail explanation
13 of the proposed changes.
14
15 Mr. Carpenter said staff supports changing the ratio in the Park Dedication Ordinance so
16 that with the adoption of the Fee Schedule, if Council desires, the land would be valued
17 exactly the same. The ratio would be reduced for commercial development, which would
18 result in the same fee. The intent is to make the land value equitable and to adjust the
19 ratio accordingly so that the commercial developer pays the same amount they would pay
20 now.
21
22 Another proposed amendment to the Park Dedication Requirements would not require a
23 commercial developer to seek permission from the Park Board to pay fees in lieu of land
24 dedication.
25
26 Discussion:
27
28 Ms. Wood asked if the land value could be raised to $50,000 and leave the ratio the
29 same? Would that not provide more parkland and more resources for our citizens?
30
31 Mr. Hugman addressed Ms. Wood explaining that the parkland ratio was adjusted to keep
32 the fee the same, based on a previous Council's direction two years ago. At that time the
33 Council did raise the residential rate because we assessed the land value. The Council did
34 not want to change the fee for commercial development, because the impact of
35 commercial development on parks is a lot less than on residential development.
36
37 Mr. Rawls talked about the City's desire to obtain park land, understanding that the Park
38 Board does not want small acreage developments to have to come before them, but allow
39 them to go ahead and pay the fees.
40
41 Ms. Wood and Mr. Blomquist had concerns about the provision allowing developers to
42 pay the fees instead of dedicating parkland and said they would prefer a threshold number
43 be added to the ordinance guidelines. Ms. Wood cited Aventerra and Town Square
44 developments as prime examples of developments that could opt for paying the fees
45 instead of land dedication. The park master plans and park-related ordinances have
46 always had as a guideline that 5 acres or more be required for the City to accept as
July 8, 2002 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 12 of 15
***Official Minutes***
Approved by Parks and Recreation Board August 12, 2002
1 parkland. Ms. Wood said she felt five acres was still too big and favored the Park Board
2 have the option to look at each development, even smaller than five-acre parcels.
3
4 Mr. Hugman pointed out that a developer cannot be forced to dedicate land, but always
5 has the option of paying fees in lieu of land dedication, regardless of the size. The Park
6 Board makes their recommendation to City Council.
7
8 The Board heard Mr. Carpenter explain the issues faced from a maintenance standpoint
9 of accepting parkland dedication of less than five acres.
10
11 Ms. Georgia commented she did not like changing the proportion knowing how tight
12 money is, but recognized from a developer's point, the difficulty they encounter to build
13 in Southlake.
14
15 Ms. Georgia and Mr. Rawls said they would recommend that threshold wording be
16 included in the ordinance that "anything that would require up to five acres dedication
17 would be required to come through Park Board whether they were requesting to dedicate
18 land or paying the fees."
19
20 Ms. Georgia asked Mr. Carpenter about the appropriateness of the wording of the motion
21 - should it say a "five acre threshold" or "200 acre residential or 375 acre commercial"?
22 Mr. Carpenter said it would be good to say something along the lines of "in instances
23 where land dedication could result in a five acre dedication to the City or greater, it shall
24 come..."
25
26 Mr. Hugman told the Board about the City's right to exercise imminent domain and
27 condemn properties, however the City usually does not choose that option, but works
28 with developers to provide parks and amenities to citizens.
29
30 A motion was made that the Park Board go ahead and accept the changes to
31 Ordinance No. 483-I amendments with the following changes - that wording is
32 added to specify that in instances where the size of the development results in five
33 acres or more land dedication be required, the developer will be required to appear
34 before Park Board. (Mr. Hugman aided Ms. Georgia with the exact wording.)
35
36 Motion: Georgia
37 Second: Wood
38 Ayes: Blomquist, Cornish, Georgia, Rawls and Wood
39 Nays: None
40 Vote: 5-0
41
42 Motion carried.
43
44
45
46
July 8, 2002 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 13 of 15
***Official Minutes***
Approved by Parks and Recreation Board August 12, 2002
1 Agenda Item 6-A. Discussion: Recreation Center Grant update
2
3 Mr. Hugman informed the Park Board that the City would not be applying for Texas
4 Parks and Wildlife Indoor Grant this year due to many issues.
5
6 Agenda Item No. 7, Liaison reports
7
8 Board members reviewed the following:
9
10 (a) Recreation/Special Events (Durham/Blomquist) - no report
11
12 (b) Youth Sports Associations - (Cornish) - no report
13
14 (c) Community Groups (include equestrian and Nature Center)
15 (WoodBlomquist) - no report
16
17 (d) SPIN - (Georgia) - SPIN meetings anticipated regarding site at Bob Jones
18 Park for the Girls Softball Association fields.
19
20 (e) SPDC - (O'Connor) - Next meeting will be held July 16, 2002.
21
22 (f) JUC - (Rawls) - The July 11, 2002 meeting has been cancelled.
23 P3
24 (g) City Council Monthly Report volunteered to deliver the
25 Park Board Report at the July 16 City Council meeting.
26
27 Agenda Item No. 7, Adjournment
28
29 A motion was made to adjourn the meeting.
30
31 Motion: Georgia
32 Second: Cornish
33 Ayes: Blomquist, Cornish, Georgia, Rawls and Wood
34 Nays: None
35 Vote: 5-0
36
37 )Iofi)n arried.
38
39
40
41 Bobby R is
42 Parks & Recreation B and Chair
43
44 i
45 Mary eorgt
46 Secretary
47
July 8, 2002 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 14 of 15
***Official Minutes***
Approved by Parks and Recreation Board August 12, 2002
1 Attachments: Agenda Item No. 4, Public Forum - Re: Lacrosse Association - Letter dated 7/8/02
2 Agenda Item No. 5A, Matching Grant application from SBA for field reconstruction at Bic Park
3 Agenda Item No. 5-A, Matching Grant handout, "Facility Improvements Proposal"
4 Agenda Item No. 5-13, Site alternatives for softball complex - summary sheets
5 Agenda Item No. 5-E, Amendments to Ord. 483-I, Park Dedication Requirements w/cover memo
6
July 8, 2002 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 15 of 15
SOUTHLAKE CARROLL LACROSSE ASSOCIATION
July 8, 2002
Southlake Parks and Recreation Board
Southlake, Texas 76092
Dear Parks and Recreation Board Members:
On behalf of the Southlake Carroll Lacrosse Association, the following
is an update on some of our issues.
First, thank you for facilitating the light purchase for our first
designated lacrosse practice and playing field at the Carroll
Intermediate School. In conjuction with the CISD, an irrigation
system has been installed on that field. Kevin Hugman will give you
the sodding/turf status. At next month's Parks meeting, we will have
a matching funds request for enhancement at the lacrosse field.
Secondly, the usage of two baseball diamonds at the old Texas
School of Baseball practice fields this spring was truly appreciated.
Thirdly, in the attachments, a recent letter to the editor, encapsulates
some of our players achievements.
Additionally, in an effort to give back to the community, we have met
with Major League Lacrosse and NCAA lacrosse representatives to rent
out facilities for future lacrosse camps in 2003.
The association wishes to thank the Southlake Baseball and Softball
associations for their cooperation in field "loanage" as our growing
pains flourished. Many of our families currently participate as
members of these groups and we continue to support them and wish
them well.
The biggest challenges faced are: finding a sufficient number of
volunteer qualified coaches as well as having enough lighted field
space.
The association will initiate an advertising campaign to try to solve
our first challenge.
We continue to need your direction on finding enough lighted fields
for practices and games. During our inaugural season, 113 players on
parksty72002 ~aL~A WA V-k 5
Z+2yr. 4- \
4 teams took the fields. This past league season saw 223 players on
9 teams. The projection number for spring 2003 is 350 players on
some 12-15 teams. 1 Varsity boys, 2 ]V Boys, 1 Varsity Girls, 1 ]V
Girls, 1 7/8 grade girls, 3-4 5/6 grade boys, and 4-5 7/8 grade boys
is a jumping off point.
Also in the attachments, please find three letters addressed to Kevin
Hugman to express our need for fields in the spring, summer and fall.
Recently, it was stated that the possibility existed that our group may
be a victim of its own success because we are growing at a rate of
100% annually and the field space to accommodate the group, of
which 99% are Southlake residents is few and far between.
Please help ensure that our association's success will not become its
failure in continuing to help facilitate these players need for more
lighted field space.
Once again, thank you for facilitating the practice fields for our teams
this past spring and current summer programs. We look forward to
continuing our relationship in a positive, dynamic manner.
Regards,
I n ~~l
Kelli C. Riley
President, Southlake Carroll Lacrosse Association
parksty72002
'rL
SOUTHLAKE CARROLL LACROSSE ASSOCIATION
June 15, 2002
Kevin Hugman
Director of Community Services
City of Southlake
Kevin:
The Southlake Carroll Lacrosse Association will be conducting a
6 week fall instructional clinic beginning the week of September 23,
2002 and completing the week of October 28. Evenings we need
lighted facilities will be Monday-Thursday and Saturday mornings.
For the future, please plan that this fall clinic is now an
annual event that will always begin with the above
approximate time frames and times in the evenings. We will
always plan to use CIS field but need placement on a second
lighted field for the evenings of Monday-Thursday or a
non-lighted field for Saturdays.
The format is beginning at 6:30 PM and ending at approximately
8:00 PM primarily due to the Texas heat, the nature of the game and
school is in session. We will have girls and boys clinics.
CIS will be utilized for the fall. However, we fully anticipate
over 250 players for the fall and one field cannot support that number
of players and practices. For 2002, we are fielding 204 5-12 grade
boys and girls and 65 Fiddlesticks players, (grades 1-4).
I look forward to your 2nd recommended field confirmation by
August 1, 2002, so we can plan for our budgetary purposes for 2003
and beyond.
Regards,
Kelli Riley
cc: Steve P.
Bobby Rawls,
President, Parks and Recreation
fallprogram2002fieldrequest
SOUTHLAKE CARROLL LACROSSE ASSOCIATION
April 15, 2002
Revised June 15, 2002
Kevin Hugman
Director of Community Services
City of Southlake
Kevin:
The Southlake Carroll Lacrosse Association will be beginning its
spring practice season for 2003 the week of December 2, 2002 for 3
consecutive weeks. Then, it will resume practices the week of
January 6, 2003 and completing the week of May 5. Evenings we
need lighted facilities will be Monday-Thursday and Saturday
mornings.
The format is beginning at 6:30 pm and ending at
approximately 8:00 This past season, the association fielded about
220 players. We utilized 2 of the TSB fields 4 nights weekly and the
old Dragon stadium field 2 nights weekly. Saturdays, full field
practices were held at Carroll Middle School. We fully anticipate
350-400 players during this 2003 spring season.
I believe CIS will be available to handle some of the practices
but I don't think it can stand 400 players practicing 2 hours nightly for
about 5 1/2 months. I look for your guidance on the balance of the
fields we can use for practice and possibly playing games.
Some 55 league games were played in Southlake in the 2002
season for our 9 teams. With 350-400 players, we could have as
many as 14 teams.
I look forward to your field confirmation by August 1, 2002 for
budgetary purposes so we can get the information out to the
players by November 2002 for spring 2003 registration to be held in
November 2002.
Thanks for your help.
Regards,
Kelli Riley
cc: Steve P.
Bobby Rawls,
President, Parks and Recreation Board
spring2003 fieldrequestcityrevised L~
C O O v i y
o b a
CZ to Q
G> U
0 vs
m 0 CO
CO w E c p w w E E `o E o
o 4) E
I _ 4c~t, • U 4N U ^fl N qp O p~'i
fYV.. O B _ C C4 N to U 0 E y 0 N O 4,
° y cz v 4.. 0 cd ° R3 c
W sU. m U s. co O a -O Cl. 0 o p
C) 0
bb 'IV, 0 cc u V)
a' co
W „ o
h
J° w ° v°a 3 3 E 3 an 44
IL Ln 6. 1,3 In 0 Cd
t3 "
- 'tt d. :3 Cd
r c E N° 3 a~ Z g on 00 co
NMI W iz,
° s c g E 0 o ~b o = N cn o
o -0 cc o C 3 y O. as
o o~ Op
a~ N
W co
In (A
00
6.4
0. 0 Ca 0) cd
v E a y x y V) 0 cd U C* C U c
p
O v o,
L. >1 0 CA Cd
cd O, rn cd
-sz O cd t- ~C = U cd N ~ O ° ~f M U
y i
O ~ CL 4, , O 'O U
a) t. a co cd R t p O
v b ry o C cc
co bo
L. to
Co V) cd
h ..p 0 O 3 C 69 C 4. cd 4.
r c Q ° a
y O O a ° U y co cUd cd q + Z a to vi ^ U 0 bA -0 V) y ~j M O N U OU U ' b_A Li. a> U O -Lt
N
y o o t~ s s, N O w. U b O U y _O U y
00 Zt w .bo cd y C/)'O+ vi O C cn Lo ,L. t. O. O
U .r U t, t
L O cd U Cd r- p Cd t to
-0 a
to to
4.
y ~7 v N O 'i+ i. U s, cd O > s, y co 3 O En
a O U O> b 4. m
O O O cn O a
b O U i y U U n cd O by y cd cd i ti .O N°+ U
o i ~l O x ° U = 0 s I]. 4. C/1 -p O O pp ' cd OA
En cz Q)
r to
C~3 " En co
U
of tl eC N y N ~ U U ° ^ ~ 'O O y c~
N t+; • Lnn
cd ~U Cd U
w y .o 'O O n> fl CA O O O "G V] U N U i. U 8 y
o d o ? W U+ Q U cd O p cn cd N = L, = cd -p co,
sr N
r o " Q c cd o¢ E.... p b cL F bA M
U~~n~or 3 m n.°
U O o -d a) m s. a) a) cd i.
v`~.~Q ° o=de cn °~',-0 3 ~
~ ~ U O 'C y cu Q .C v) O O U ccz w U
= bo a) N N cd cd U) H "O 'C a U
fA O ~ ,c, C o U N w n" ~ o N o n U cd
NJ y ~.~~~,~~a~CQa;U~. ~,ca 3v~~~
a 3 w O: ' UP,~ . cd V~ Cn N 3 V~ v~ , U id
1
NoNo oon?,V ~c ~r~ 3
O N U M s. M C~ y cd 0~ O
N y ccd U y "C7 b b4 Q t~
3 E~ N o un c a, o s.
-N N U G1 cUd 6>
o cn C O .C 0 0 L3 N a) .bb = 0 i
C y b
~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ f_L O aoi a> ~ y
Q o a) «3 a n cd a) ) ~ U U y
N c~ cC U O ai y v O U cd 'ti
C .C O U cz p, U cd y t
v p O V bA N y~" O M i 7 O L
U Gr. N -O O . - cd O p ? GD p
3 U 4. o L y
V1 3 o d 'd o s A as
~h 3 U~ -b o a b' ~ 3 3 0 ~ s
o _o ° c o _o (U w
o o~ ~ o°~ ° n o
> L. V) U CA o
N O L .A. i b O O~ O a) N ~ bA a>
~ -O ~ a y ~ ~ ~ U ~ cOd O Q Lr
~ U a. ~ o.. o o a, o U o O .r w
CC3 4r O 'O -O O i. O ~ v cd a) tiA v~ a) 'C a> aJ bA C t3 0 N sp,
o 0 0° U ° o H ° v o o 0
s~~ ~s 3 o o U o -o , o .x ° o o_ o -o a`~i on o
O U' cd a cad d y y E-+ N a) v, • O + Q Q] • C y O O' U
cd cd y s . a) cd y C s . > O bq .4: cd
cd U O Z a) a) ` O F 4. 's. 4. a U cUd U .a) .r ~'N ~ U C O
j cxdF. - " o 3 a . a~ ° . ° a •c a) ~ o a~ cd ° a~ - o
? a) p U tU O O a. U N a O vNi U t x a) a) 4. V) > ° Ct C
N y o m v, O O cd U N n p U ~ -o II .fl b^A
-p. o o Q o. ti c 3 o a' Q c U o c
CA a.U~CA~ i °a~°Q ° a°i v O0 o.>U~ o o 0 3~ o
g ggBnP 9 a ~ ro ~
it p W
A ee
D
k a o 0
a
R ~ ~ V
C~ C •L
' v
r
City of Southlake, Texas
MEMORANDUM
July 3, 2002
TO: Southlake Parks and Recreation Board
FROM: Kevin Hugman, Director of Community Services
SUBJECT: Matching funds request from Southlake Baseball Association for baseball
field reconstruction at Bicentennial Park
Action Requested: Parks and Recreation Board approval of request from the Southlake
Baseball Association (SBA) for matching grant funding in the amount of
$25,000 for reconstruction of baseball fields at the Bicentennial Park
complex.
Background
Information: The Southlake Baseball Association has submitted a request to the City for
consideration of matching funds for the renovation of baseball fields at
Bicentennial Park. The proposed reconstruction would entail removal of
the clay surfaces on Fields 4 through 10, and replace with a crushed brick
base and drain system. This modification would allow the fields to drain
quicker after rains. The proposed reconstruction would serve the league
and is estimated to cost $50,000.
Financial
Considerations: Acceptance of this proposal would commit the City to fund a cost of up to
$25,000 as part of the FY2001/02 SPDC Matching Funds Program. The
approved SPDC Matching Funds budget is $100,000. Matching funds in
the amount of $5,750 have been allocated to date for other projects,
leaving an unencumbered balance of $94,250 for this fiscal year.
Citizen Input/
Board Review: The Southlake Baseball Association Board has not approved applying for
the SPDC Matching Funds Grant but is expected to consider it at their
next meeting.
Legal Review: Not Applicable.
Alternatives: Parks Board discussion and consideration may result in various project
alternatives.
Supporting
Documents: Supporting documents include the following items:
■ SPDC Matching Funds request form
5A-i
Staff
Recommendation: Parks and Recreation Board approve and make a recommendation to
SPDC for City participation in the reconstruction of baseball fields at
Bicentennial Park for an amount not to exceed $25,000 with funding
allocated through the SPDC Matching Funds Program.
5A-2
PROJECT MATCHING FUNDS REQUEST FORM
Project Name: S 0 118--' I o .J
Contact Person:m
Mailing Address:
City: U70~4xt Stater ZIP: Day Phone: /C~
Night Phone: R17 - 39'9 - 3a~ Fax No. 9 7,2 - 3 T 3 - 9 7527
Additional Contact Person: hxA.P.LY 65oxJ Day Phone: 91 7 -30 7 60
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
~L;,-,,V oVA Y r-/ADS L4 71 g, d A-r
Required Start Date: Projected Completion Date:
Projected Cost:i Amount of Funds Requested: 07 ~~C
I.c., Project and Community Matching Fund Request Policy, Page 4 of 3
A
Parks and Recreation Board Meeting
Monday, July 8, 2002
Southlake Baseball Association
"Facility Improvements Proposal"
S~
Topics of Discussion
1. Introduction
II. History / Background Information
M. Situational Analysis
IV. Root Cause Analysis
V. Immediate Action Plans
VI. Proposed Funding
VII. Conclusion
VIII. Discussion
1. Introduction
■ Presented by Mark Dennis, eight year Southlake Resident.
• Southlake Baseball Association consists of twenty seven (27)
volunteer board members.
■ 1,600 Player Participants in Fall and Spring Leagues.
■ Over 150 Teams per year.
■ More than 5,000 Southlake Residents when you count siblings, parents
and Grandparents - this represents approximately 20 - 25% of
Southlake.
II. History / Background Information
■ SBA has been managed by Volunteers for over thirty (30) years.
• Long Standing Partnership with the City of Southlake and the Parks
and Recreation Board.
■ Shade Structure Capital Improvements Project was a big success. SBA rll '
and the City of Southlake split the cost which exceeded $120,000.00.
III. Situational Analysis
■ Field conditions at BI-Centennial Park have reached an all-time low.
■ Infield areas that were once grass are now bare spots.
■ Surface areas are full of holes and has become a safety issue.
■ Drainage is completely inadequate and causes excessive rainouts and
delays.
IV. Root Cause Analysis
1. Insufficient allocation of City resources for on-going maintenance of
the fields.
2. Excessive use on the playing fields due to insufficient practice
facilities.
V. Immediate Action Plans
1. SBA to enter into a contract with David Holbrook's company to re-
design the infields of the seven (7) baseball fields at BI-Centennial
Park. Work to be completed to include:
A. Re-design the infield for proper drainage.
B. Replace the existing dirt and clay with appropriate crushed brick
material used at surrounding first class facilities.
C. Re-sod all infield grass areas.
D. Fill in the holes and level the outfields. Replace sod as needed.
2. SBA to gain access to the following fields to be used as practice
facilities:
A. Two (2) fields at Bob Jones Park (must be lighted)
B. Two (2) softball fields at BI-Centennial Park
C. Three (3) fields at TSB (Texas School of Baseball)
3. SBA is currently investigating various alternatives for ongoing
maintenance solutions. One option is to consider allowing SBA to contract
with a private service provider, using City funds, to provide the ongoing
maintenance. Further discussion and analysis of this alternative needs to
be completed prior to an official proposal being submitted. This
alternative may prove to be less expensive to the city and free up some of
the limited staffing resources.
VI. Proposed Funding
1. SBA and the City of Southlake to fund Action Plan #1 above using
matching funds. Estimated cost: $50,000.00.
VII. Conclusion
■ The SBA stands ready and committed to continue to provide a safe and
enjoyable atmosphere along with a first class facility.
■ We must take action now.
■ Work can be completed prior to the Season Opener on 9-21-02.
VUL Discussion
L
V r
Bicentennial Park Location - Pros and Cons
Pros:
1. Locates higher intensity recreation use (traffic, lighting, noise) in park already designated for
such uses.
2. Economy of scale in recreational trips possible with families also participating in baseball, in-
line hockey, basketball, tennis, etc.
3. Leaves options open for Texas School of Baseball property for other lighted multi-use purposes
and keeps practice ballfields in Bob Jones for that use.
4. Opens up previously undeveloped portion of city park property adjacent to Shady Oaks,
including accompanying passive recreational benefits.
Cons:
1. The most expensive alternative - no economy of scale realized for existing field grading,
parking, drive cuts, utilities, etc.
2. Not an optimal four-field diamond configuration - fourth field home plate is north of other three.
3. Parking shown west of drainage area 140 spaces is insufficient. Two alternatives exist: construct
a pedestrian bridge access across the channel to the existing parking lot, or build additional
parking north of the northernmost field - with accompanying second drive entrance off of Shady
Oaks.
4. Location not preferred by SGSA.
Alternative Uses of Site:
• Lacrosse/soccer fields
• Multi-purpose practice fields
• Passive recreational development
Net Field(s) If Site Used for Girls Softball Complex:
• Softball: (4) lighted game/practice on site, (2) unlighted practice fields at Bob Jones
• Baseball: (4) unlighted practice fields Bob Jones, (2) lighted practice fields at Bicentennial and
partial use of Field #2, (2) lighted practice fields at former TSB*
• Lacrosse: large lighted practice field at former TSB*
Estimated Construction Time:
• Design/Approval: 5 months
• Construction: 10 months
• Total: 15 months
*Allotment of fields at the former TSB, should it not be constructed as a Softball Complex, has not
been determined. Allotment shown is suggestion of staff.
5S3
Bicentennial Park Location - Cost Analysis
ITEM EXISTING PROPOSED ESTIMATED COST
Parking (concrete) Across drainage 140 additional $350,000
channel spaces
Four (4) softball fields: includes earthwork, None 4 fields $1,100,000
fencing, backstops, skinned infield, topsoil,
irrigation, tufgrass, sportslighting,
transformers
Spectator area: includes bleacher pad, None As shown $300,000
entrance walks, plaza area, small planter
seat walls
Utilities: includes sewer line, manholes, None As described $50,000
cleanouts, tap and tie-in for water and
irrigation
Pedestrian bridge across drainage channel None 8' wide, $100,000
approximately 60
linear feet
Subtotal #1 $1,900,000
Engineering 10% $190,000
Contingency 10% $190,000
TOTAL #1 $2,280,000
ADDITIONAL COMPONENTS
REQUIRED TO COMPLETE
Restroom/concession None As shown $300,000
Playground None 1 $30,000
Subtotal #2 $330,000
Engineering 10% $33,000
Contingency 10% $33,000
TOTAL #2 $396,000
GRAND TOTAL $296769000
50404
Former Texas School of Baseball Location - Pros and Cons
Pros:
1. Locates higher intensity recreation use (traffic, lighting, noise) in location already designated for
such uses.
2. Facility purchased for softball use.
3. Grading, infields and backstops for three fields can be adaptively reused in facility construction.
4. SGSA would have a separate, stand-alone facility.
5. Area designated in Bicentennial for new softball fields could be used for other lighted, multi-use
purposes.
Cons:
1. Not an optimal four-field diamond configuration - fourth field home plate is north of other three.
2. Existing sportslighting is inadequate and is prohibitively costly to salvage for reuse.
3. Residential adjacency maybe a concern for new 0' field north of existing three.
4. Location not preferred by SGSA.
Alternative Uses for Site:
• Lacrosse practice fields
• Baseball practice fields
• Lighted multi-use practice fields
Net Field(s) If Site Used for Girls Softball Complex:
• Softball: (4) lighted game/practice on site, (2) unlighted practice fields at Bob Jones
• Baseball: (4) unlighted practice fields Bob Jones, (2) lighted practice fields at Bicentennial and
partial use of Field #2
• Lacrosse: No additional
Estimated Construction Time:
• Design/Approval: 5 months
• Construction: 8 months
• Total: 13 months
"gq*
Former Texas School of Baseball Location - Cost Analysis
ITEM EXISTING PROPOSED ESTIMATED COST
Additional field #4: includes grading, None As shown $167,000
irrigation, backstop, fencing, dugouts, turf,
bleacher ad, retaining wall
Parking (concrete) 100 spaces 200 additional $154,000
spaces
Sports lighting None 24 poles $650,000
(Musco TLC or equivalent)
Demo and removal of poles, etc. 12 poles Removed $49,000
Primary electrical service Inadequate Sufficient for 4 $50,000
fields
Irrigation reconfiguration Inadequate 3 fields $53,000
Earthwork (field #4, parking) None As needed $60,000
Fencing for security, warm-ups, batting Some As shown $31,000
cages
Scoreboard, electrical None 4 fields $12,000
Subtotal #1 $1,226,000
Engineering 10% $122,600
Contingency 10% $122,600
TOTAL #1 $1,471,200
ADDITIONAL COMPONENTS
REQUIRED TO COMPLETE
Restroom/concession None As shown $300,000
Playground None 1 $30,000
Subtotal #2 $330,000
Engineering 10% $33,000
Contingency 10% $33,000
TOTAL #2 $396,000
GRAND TOTAL $1,867,000
5O-"?
i LANDFORM AND LAN050 APE 56 REENIN6
z
li c-
ENTRY' DRIVE
a
c
i APPROX. 70 PAR.KIN6 5PAGE5
1
S RETAINING WALL
4
f
EX6TI NS4 ENTRY
G R; VE _
ADDITIONAL
EXISTING FIELD #4
APPROX. 100
PARKING SPACES
- WARN-Up
- e~ WARM-W •4
04
i
-X15TIN6 eA u
i TICKET BOOTH
_ PPRQX EXISTING
tJ
.30 . BUILDIN6 l
SPACES E RECONF16URED
FIELD #1
f wnwi+-w
I~
1f
9EATHALL PLANTER (rnJ m
~ F`05EP , _
f~E5TROOM/ X
CONCESSION W Y BATTING 5ATTIN6 p
~ 0.
f BUILDING 0.
1 25'XSU' }g(
I 1250 S.P.
WARM uP EXI5TIN6 PAVILION
I +
I
4 -
RECONFI6URED
FIELD #2
I REGONFI6UtRED c
FIELD #3 E
~t
4
F ,
F t
4WE Yy4111Nd1P HARM-I1P
02
j 02
9 f
1 ~ ~l
Bob Jones Park Location - Pros and Cons
Pros:
1. Site would require the least additional expenditures to complete - the largest cost would be
sportslighting.
2. Quickest construction alternative
3. Optimal four-field configuration - diamonds and home plates form central plaza.
4. Economy of scale in recreational trips possible with families also participating in soccer
programs in Bob Jones and other recreational venues.
5. Leaves options open for Texas School of Baseball property for other lighted multi-use purposes.
6. Extensive trail system installed and/or under development contributes to passive recreational
aspect of location.
7. Existing restroom building constructed.
Cons:
1. Residential adjacency- area not previously considered as alighted field area
Alternative Uses for Site:
• Baseball practice
• Softball practice
Net Field(s) If Site Used for Girls Softball Complex:
• Softball: (4) lighted game/practice on site
• Baseball: (2) unlighted practice fields Bob Jones, (2) lighted practice fields at Bicentennial and
partial use of Field #2, (2) lighted practice fields at former TSB*
• Lacrosse: large lighted practice field at former TSB*
Estimated Construction Time:
• Design/Approval: 3 months
• Construction: 6 months
• Total: 9 months
*Allotment of fields at the former TSB, should it not be constructed as a Softball Complex, has not
been determined. Allotment shown is by suggestion of staff.
153 •
Bob Jones Park Location - Cost Analysis
ITEM EXISTING PROPOSED ESTIMATED COST
Parking (asphalt) 56 spaces 190 additional $90,000
spaces
Sports lighting None 24 poles $650,000
(Musco TLC orequivalent)
Additional 8-foot fencing for foul lines, Backstops Foul lines, outfield $40,000
outfield, and warm-up areas
Irrigation* None Four fields, plaza $100,000
Batting cages None 2 $12,000
Additional bleacher pads for southern two 2 2 additional $12,000
fields
5-row, 50' long bleachers None 3 per field (12) $13,500
Scalp, aerate and seed outfields, plaza None Outfields, plaza $40,000
Scoreboard, electrical None 4 fields $12,000
Subtotal #1 $969,500
Engineering 10% $96,950
-Contingency 10% $96,950
TOTAL #1 $1,163,400
ADDITIONAL COMPONENTS
REQUIRED TO COMPLETE
Concession building None As shown $250,000
Playground None 1 $30,000
Subtotal #2 $280,000
Engineering 10% $28,000
Contingency 10% $28,000
TOTAL #2 $336,000
GRAND TOTAL $194999400
*Funding for this item exists in the FY 02-03 SPDC budget.
FROP10
City of Southlake, Texas
MEMORANDUM
July 5, 2002
TO: Kevin Hugman, Community Services Director
FROM: Chris Carpenter, Senior Park Planner
SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 483-I, Amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance, Article
VII, Park and Recreation Dedication Requirements
Action Requested: Park Board recommendation on proposed amendments to park dedication
requirements.
Background
Information: When land is subdivided for new development, state law allows - and the
City of Southlake requires - the developer to provide an "exaction," or
payment-in-kind, in proportion to the impact the new development will
have on the Southlake parks system. This requirement is very similar to
the provisions developers make for water, sewer and roadway impact fees
for the "impact" new development has on those systems. In the case of
park dedication, developers may dedicate park land, pay fees in lieu of
land dedication, improve park land, provide equipment, or any
combination of the above.
The City Council has suggested streamlining the current requirements,
especially as they relate to developments for which there is no viable land
dedication alternative. Staff has edited the current requirements contained
in Article VII of Subdivision Ordinance No. 483 to:
(1) streamline the assessment of park dedication fees,
(2) more clearly state that the Developers Agreement is the dedication
instrument,
(3) clearly state that dedication options shall be based on the recently
adopted Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan, and
(4) rectify the inequities between the land value of residential and non-
residential dedication requirements by adjusting the ratio for non-
residential development from 1 acre per 50 gross acres to 1 acre per 75
gross acres so that the resulting fee of $800 per gross acre would remain
unchanged (see attached ordinance, page 2 for explanation).
The following edited ordinance shows underlined text as additions,
annotations where deletions or revisions were made, and staff comments
in bold italics under each change in parentheses explaining the reasoning
of the amendments.
5E-1
Kevin Hugman, Director of Community Services
July5, 2002
Page 2
Financial
Considerations: No changes to fee structure are contained in the ordinance itself.
Citizen Input/
Board Review: This is the first public meeting concerning this item. All prior park
dedication ordinance changes were reviewed by the Park Board, Planning
and Zoning Commission and City Council
Legal Review: This item is being forwarded to the City Attorneys for review of form and
legality as applicable to all ordinance revisions.
Alternatives: Any commentary as appropriate.
Supporting
Documents: Redline/strikeout version of Subdivision No. 483, Article VII, Park and
Recreation Dedication Requirements.
Staff
Recommendation: Recommend approval of Ordinance No. 4834, Amendments to the
Subdivision Ordinance, Article VII, Park and Recreation Dedication
Requirements.
N:\Parks & Recreation\BOARDS\PKB0ARD\MEMOS\02 memos\7-02\Park Dedication Memo.doc
5E-2
ARTICLE VII
PARK AND RECREATION DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS
(As amended by Ord. No. 483-F)
Section 7.01 Purpose and Intent:
The requirements for open space, park and recreational areas contained in this section are
intended to ensure that there will be sufficient land dedicated or otherwise set aside to
meet the demand and need of the future residents for open space and parks. In
determining the size, shape and quality of open space and parks areas that should be set
aside and reserved in the manner set out in this section, the City has considered the
projected growth in population and development within the municipality and the amount
of open space and park and recreational facilities needed to accommodate such growth as
stated in the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan.
Section 7.02 Applicability:
A. Unplatted Property: This section, as amended, applies to all property for which a
final plat has not been formally submitted to the City for approval, unless
otherwise noted herein.
B. Exempt Property: Any tract or lot occupied by an existing residential dwelling
unit at the time of adoption of this ordinance shall be exempt from the dedication
requirements of this section herein if the residential dwelling remains on the lot.
This exemption pertains only to the tract or lot with the existing residential
dwelling. Any additional lots created by further subdivision of the property shall
be subject to the requirements herein.
C. Date of Assessment: All requirements contained in this section shall be assessed
at the time of approval of the final plat of any applicable property.
Section 7.03 Land Dedication Requirements:
A. General: Land dedication requirements herein are based on the City's adopted
Land Use Plan and the Parks Recreation & Open Space Master Plan. It is within
the sole discretion of the City to require a developer to show the anticipated land
dedication requirements herein with the development plan, concept plan,
preliminary plat or other appropriate development submittal.
1. Residential Developments: Based on the population projected to reside in
the City of Southlake and the stated desire in the Parks, Recreation, and
Open Space Master Plan adopted by the City Council to provide 21 acres
of park land for every 1,000 residents in an ultimate condition, park land
meeting the requirements contained within this section shall be dedicated
to the City at a ratio of one (1) acre of park land for every forty (40)
residential dwelling units or prorated portion thereof.
1
SE•3
2. Non-Residential Developments: Although non-residential development
does not generate residential occupancies per se, it does create
environmental impacts which may negatively affect the living
environment of the community. These impacts may be ameliorated or
eliminated by providing park or open space areas which buffer adjoining
land uses, prevent undue concentration of paved areas, allow for the
reasonable dissipation of automotive exhaust fumes, provide natural
buffers to the spread of fire or explosion, and provide separation of
lighting, waste disposal, and noise by-products of non-residential
operations and activities from adjacent residential areas. The City has
therefore determined that non-residential developments must provide
dedicated parks and/or reserved open space at a ratio of one (1) acre of
park land for every seventy-five_ 75 non-residential gross acres of Deleted: fifty
development or prorated portion thereof. Deleted: (50)
The amount of land required for both residential and non-residential development is
regulated in the above sections I and 2. However, the amount of fees paid by
development in lieu of dedication is a combination of the above ratios as well as the
land value mentioned in Section 7.05 (A) (2). Currently, the value of residential land is
set at $60,000 per acre and non-residential at $40,000 per acre. The non-residential fee
was reduced in years past to recognize that type of development contributes far fewer
active participants in the park system than residential development. While this
reduction attains that goal, staff would prefer, at the time of these other ordinance
changes, to adjust the acreage ratio (from I to 50 to I to 75) downward and raise the
land value fee to $60,000 to match the residential value. The change recognizes that
commercial land should not be considered less valuable than residential land in order
to protect the city from protests. It also maintains the existing impact to commercial
development at $800 per gross acre. Other alternatives include the following: (1) status
quo - leave the value at $40,000 and the ratio the same, (2) raise the value to $60,000
and leave the ratio the same, which would result in a higher fee for commercial
development of $1,200 per gross acre.
3. Off-site Dedications: A developer may dedicate the required park land for
a development at another location owned by the same developer within the
City with the consent of the City, provided that the off-site land dedication
is in accordance with this section.
B. Transfers and Credits for Prior Dedications, Fees and Gifts: In considering the
amount of land dedication required of a proposed development, the City may, at
its discretion, apply former dedications which were in excess of the requirement
at that time to current or future dedication requirements of the same
owner/applicant. A dedication or cash payment in lieu of dedication made prior to
the passage of this Ordinance shall be controlled by the provisions of the
ordinance in effect at the time such obligation arose, provided the final plat has
been submitted to the City for approval prior to the passage of this Ordinance. At
the discretion of the City, any former gift of land to the municipality may be
2
credited under the terms of the current Ordinance toward eventual land dedication
requirements imposed on the donor of such lands.
Section 7.04 Characteristics of Parkland:
General: The City Council,~hall consider the character of proposed dedicated park land4 Deleted: Park Board shall annually
~
ecreation, and Open Space Master Plan and as recommended by recommend to the
outlined in the Parks, Recreation-,--and-
the Park Board. jn determining whether to accept or refuse the dedication of park lands Deleted: a summary of die
fees, facilities or a combination thereof as outlined in section 7.05 below, the Park Board Deleted: most desirable in meeting the
and City Council shall consider xhe Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan objectives of
- - Deleted:77hesecharacteristicsshallbe
YBCOn]melldatlOl7S and use it as a guideline for s- deCIS10riS. provided in an abbreviated written report
to all elected and appointed officials, city
community,
This section previously contained a reference to Appendix 11 in the Subdivision staff and tag shall and tbehe pllaaveced in n Appendix I I of
( of
Ordinance (attached), which was favored by a previous Park Board as the list of this ordinance.
characteristics of park land desired for dedication. With the adoption of the 2001 Park Deleted: this written report
Master Plan and its reformatted and detailed inventory lists, lists of deficiencies, and
priority rankings, the Master Plan itself represents the best source of community needs.
The Master Plan recommendations were generated after more than a year's worth of
survey analysis, data collection, and public commentary. A secondary list becomes
redundant and unnecessary.)
,Section 7.05 Alternatives to Land Dedication: Deleted: ¶
11
1f
In any case where a dedication is proposed, the City Council shall have the right to accept Deleted: required
the dedication as submitted for approval, or in the alternative, to refuse dedication of the
same, and in lieu thereof to require payment of cash under the formula contained in this
Section or to allow the developer to construct recreation or park improvements. The City
may permit a combination of dedication, improvements and fees to be used to fulfill this
requirement.
(No substantive changes made, language clarification).
A. Fee Payment Deleted: Alternative
1. Approval of Fee Payment; The City Council shalt accept a developer's Deleted: Alternative
payment of fees in lieu of the land dedication requirement of this section, Deleted: , upon recommendation of the
unless a land dedication is proposed by the developer, in which case the Park Board,
Park Board shall make a recommendation to the Council on the Deleted: determine the acceptability of
acceptability of the land dedication proposal.
(The Park Master Plan is very clear on the size and type of land
dedications needed in Southlake. In any new development where there is
no viable land dedication available, the payment of fees should be
automatically assessed and provided with other fees for public
infrastructure in the Developer's Agreement.)
3
2. Calculation of Fees: The City Council shall annually establish an acreage
land value cost figure to be used in calculating park fees. This
determination shall be based on a reasonable study and investigation
performed annually, and may be performed by an independent registered
land appraisal firm as to the average fair market value, as opposed to tax
value, of acreage in the City. This figure shall be the acreage cost under
which all park fees are calculated for the fiscal year.
a. Residential Dwelling Unit Fees: Fees paid in lieu of dedication
shall be based on the determined cost of one (1) acre of land
divided by forty (40), for a resulting fee per residential dwelling
unit.
b. Non-Residential Development Fees: The fee payment alternative
for non-residential development shall be calculated by dividing the
determined cost of one (1) acre of land by seventy-five 475), fora Deleted: fitly
resulting fee per non-residential acre cost, or prorated portion Deleted: (5o)
thereof. In the event the non-residential development is less than
,seventy-five (75) acres, the total acreage, net of perimeter right-of- Deleted: fifty (50)
way dedications, shall be divided by 75 to determine the prorated Deleted: 50
fee payment.
3. Collection of Fees: No building permit shall be issued nor shall any
construction be allowed to begin until payment of any fees required by this Deleted: fees
section outlined in an approved Developer's Agreement or other city
documentation has been made. Deleted: required by this section
(See page 2 for fee discussion. Also clarifies that the Developers
Agreement, or other city documentation, contains the final assessment
of park dedication issues)
B. Physical or Equipment Improvements to Parks
1. Compatibility with Park Master Plan: A developer may have the option of
improving existing facilities within municipal parks or improving
dedicated park land in lieu of park land dedication or payment of cash,
based on recommendations made in the Parks, Recreation, and Open
Space Master Plan. Should any of these options be exercised, the
municipality and the developer shall, prior to initiation of work on such
improvements, enter into a Developers Agreement for credit of expenses Deleted: n agree,ne» t
for authorized park improvements. In no case shall the municipality be
required to reimburse the developer if he chooses to improve parklands at
an amount greater than required. Such a proposed agreement to provide
facility improvements in lieu of dedication shall be submitted in writing
with the application for any required Concept Plan or Site Plan. In the
event that no Concept Plan or Site Plan is required, the agreement shall be
4
5E-Lo
submitted with the application for the preliminary plat. Any improvements
for which credit is requested must be submitted for approval by the City
Council in a Developers Agreement.
(Clarifies that the Developers Agreement contains the final assessment
of park dedication issues)
Section 7.06 Private Parks:
If a developer desires to incorporate private park, recreation or open space areas or
amenities within his development, he may request limited credit for these facilities
against his public open space dedication requirements. A developer may request credit
for any private park, recreation or open space area, but such private park, recreation or
open space amenities may never satisfy more than 50% of the total park and open spaces Deleted: 11
dedication requirement of this ordinance.
Section 7.07 Approval Process:
A. Land Dedications:
1. Park Board Recommendation: The Director of Parks and Recreation or
their designee shall report to the Park Board regarding any park land
dedication issues arising from development applications submitted to the
City for approval. The Park Board may then make a formal
recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission to accept or
refuse any proposed dedicated park land prior to the Commission's action
on the development.
2. Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The Planning and
Zoning Commission shall consider the recommendation of the Park Board
in determining the acceptability of any land dedications proposed on any
development. The Commission recommendation shall then be forwarded
to the City Council for final approval where applicable.
3. Final Plat Dedications: Where review of development applications has
resulted in the City's desire for land dedication, such land dedication shall
be shown on a final plat and shall contain a clear fee simple dedication of
that land to the City.
Deleted: Park Board Recommendation:
B. Fee Payments in Lieu of Dedication and/or Facilities Improvements: The Park Board shall make a formal
recommendation to the City Council as to
the acceptability of any proposed
1. City Council Approva _ The City Council shall enter into an agreement alternatives to park land dedication.11
with the developer for the provision of dedicated park land, fees in lieu of ` z. .
dedication, facilities construction or improvement, or a combination Deleted: Consid
thereof as outlined below.
Deleted: eration
Deleted: Upon receiving a formal
recommendation from the Park Board, t
5
(It is unnecessary for the Park Board to recommend approval of fee
payment if no land dedication is proposed or requested based on the
Park Master Plan)
a. Developer's Agreements: Developer's Agreements between the
City and the developer shall include the following requirements as
applicable:
(1) Boundary Corners Established: Each corner of the park
land to be dedicated shall be pennanently monumented
with 3/4" iron pins set in concrete. These shall be located
and identified on a recordable plat or land survey
completed by a land surveyor registered in the State of
Texas and provided to the City by the Owner and/or
Developer.
(2) Utility Extensions to Park: A minimum size of 6" water
main and sanitary sewer, where available, shall be extended
to the park, in location(s) specified by the Director of
Public Works.
(3) Short-term Maintenance: The Owner and/or Developer
agree that no construction materials shall be disposed of or
deposited within the park by its contractor, subcontractors,
employees or agents at any time while the subdivision is
being built. If materials are deposited or disposed of within
the park, the Owner and/or Developer shall be required to
remove these materials within 72 hours of written notice by
the City. Before the City accepts this land, the Developer
shall remove all trash and dead trees.
Section 7.08 Use of Funds:
A. Fund Established: Funds received by the City pursuant to this Section will be
deposited in a special fund dedicated to the accumulation of monies required by
this section.
B. Permitted Expenditures: Monies placed in this fund may be expended only for the
purchase, lease, or other acquisition of park and open space areas by the City of
Southlake, the improvement and site preparation of such areas and sites, the
extension of utilities to or within such sites, the installation of landscaping, play
equipment or recreation improvements on such sites, and/or attendant engineering
and planning costs associated with such park development.
6
C. Inappropriate Expenditures: Monies placed in this fund may not be utilized for
any other general business activity of the City or for maintenance of park
facilities.
D. Authorization for Use of Funds: All expenditures from this fund shall be made in
accordance with the City's Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan and
shall be approved by the City Council after a formal recommendation of the Park
Board.
PASSED AND APPROVED ON FIRST READING ON THIS DAY OF
, 2002.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY SECRETARY
PASSED AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING ON THIS DAY
OF , 2002.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY SECRETARY
7
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
City Attorney
Date:
ADOPTED:
EFFECTIVE:
8
PUBLIC FORUM Sign-In
for
Park Board Meeting
Monday, July 8, 2002
Name lease print) Address Phone or Email Topic
zo%
zk_ ~S
Li I
Suza m,i e Ttt4le 3i63 CDY- "CG r Y~?i , 3301 NaJZA e Cec1 r
r C~'~~~/~ 7
CL(I
M:\WP-FILES\FORMS\Sign In Sheet.doc