Loading...
2001-05-14 1 CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 2 PARKS AND RECRETION BOARD MEETING 3 4 May 14, 2001 5 6 MINUTES 7 8 Board Members Present: Sherry Berman, Chair; Chris Miltenberger, Vice-Chair; Cara 9 White, Secretary; Mary Georgia, Lisa Stokdyk, Michael Nelson and Jim Glover 10 11 Board Members Absent: None 12 13 Staff Members Present: Kevin Hugman, Director of Community Services, Steve Polasek, 14 Deputy Director of Community Services; Chris Carpenter, Senior Parks Planner; and 15 Administrative Secretary Linda Carpenter 16 17 Regular Session: 18 19 Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order 20 21 The meeting was called to order by Chair Sherry Berman at 7:00 p.m. 22 23 Agenda Item No. 2, Administrative Comments 24 25 Director of Community Services Kevin Hugman commented about the meeting location 26 and noted that future Park Board meetings would be held in the Town Hall, TH Training 27 Room 3-D. The Town Hall Use Policy designates specific meeting room locations within 28 Town Hall for city-appointed boards, committees and commissions. 29 30 Deputy Director of Community Services Steve Polasek shared information about the 31 construction progress at Bob Jones Park. The restroom/concession building is moving 32 ahead with the roof expected to be completed within the next 2-3 weeks; vertical 33 construction of the pavilion has begun on the boardwalk area - the piers are in place and 34 the columns are next - completion is expected within 4-5 weeks; the sanitary sewer line 35 has been installed from the concession/restroom building to White Chapel Boulevard; the 36 fields have been graded; the loop road has been cut; installation of the backstops for the 37 practice ballfields has begun; the pond has been dug out and the clay liner is holding the 38 water; the remainder of the drainage improvements along White Chapel Boulevard, 39 designed to pick up the water and carry into the pond, are near completion; the 40 amphitheatre is complete; and the playground has been staked as well as portions of the 41 trail. 42 43 Mr. Polasek clarified for Board member Stokdyk that the boardwalk pavilion is also 44 referred to as the fishing pier. 45 May 14, 2001 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 1 of 16 1 The contractor is responsible for establishing the Bermuda turf on the practice ballfields 2 at Bob Jones Park by hydo-mulching and watering. Once grass is established, further 3 watering is not available. The contractor may use a water truck or a city hydrant to 4 provide water to the area until established. 5 6 Board member Michael Nelson asked staff if foliage was going to be planted in the 7 parking lot median islands at Bob Jones Park? Mr. Hugman said Park Planning and 8 Construction Superintendent Ben Henry was working with Keep Southlake Beautiful on 9 a design for the islands, using native landscaping features. City staff will clean up the 10 islands prior to the up-coming soccer tournament and a "workday" is being planned to re- 11 work the islands with new plant material. Staff will seek the soccer association's 12 participation for the workday. 13 14 Mr. Hugman explained that the trees recently being planted in Bicentennial Park and 15 along North White Chapel Boulevard were part of the Traffic Management Bond 16 Program. Those trees are under a two-year warranty by contractor and are being 17 monitored by Public Works Deputy Director Charlie Thomas. 18 19 Mr. Polasek responded to Board member Mary Georgia's question about when the trees 20 from the Tree Farm would be used by stating that those trees are scheduled to be used 21 this coming fall, with the majority being planted in Lonesome Dove Park when irrigation 22 is added along the street side of Lonesome Dove Park, and along the trail. Additional 23 Tree Farm trees will be put in Chesapeake Park, Bob Jones Park and Bicentennial Park. 24 25 Ms. Georgia requested that the Park Board receive updated copies of the Trail Master 26 Plan and Master Park Plan approved by City Council. Park Planner Chris Carpenter will 27 supply copies to the Board when staff receives their copies from the consultant. 28 29 There were no further Administrative Comments. 30 31 Chairman Berman recognized Councilmember Ralph Evans and congratulated him on his 32 election to the Council. Ms. Berman also thanked Park Board members Jim Glover and 33 Michael Nelson, whose terms expired in May, for their volunteer services and fine job on 34 the Board. She also commented that her appointment expired in May and that she had 35 enjoyed working with City staff and hoped to be reappointed. 36 37 CONSENT AGENDA 38 39 Agenda Item No. 3-A, Approval of the Southlake Parks and Recreation Board meeting 40 minutes of April 9, 2001. 41 42 Agenda Item No. 3-B, Recommendation to enter into an interlocal agreement with St. 43 Martin-in-the-Fields Episcopal Church for practice ballfields. 44 45 A motion was made by Chris Miltenberger to move agenda items 5-A [Request from 46 Southlake Baseball Association for a variance to Facilities Utilization Agreement to May 14, 2001 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 2 of 16 1 extend hours of lighting for tournaments] and 5-F [Texas Parks and Wildlife 2 Recreational Trails Fund Application] to the Consent agenda. 3 4 Discussion: 5 6 Mr. Nelson commented about the interlocal agreement with St. Martin-in-the-Field 7 Episcopal Church, noting that the clause on Page 313-4, "Indemnification," was not 8 enforceable. He suggested that the section be phrased as a "hold harmless" provision and 9 that the Church be required to list the City as an additional insured on their 10 comprehensive general liability policy. Mr. Nelson explained that because the church is 11 listed on the City's policy as an additional insured, that constitutes circular indemnity in 12 the state of Texas, which means "nothing is going to happen if something goes wrong out 13 there." 14 15 The motion was modified to approve Consent items with corrections to the minutes 16 as submitted by Cara White, changes to the "Indemnification" section of the 17 contract with St. Martin-in-the-Fields Episcopal Church as noted by Mr. Nelson's 18 comments in the above paragraph, and moving agenda items 5-A and 5-F to the 19 Consent agenda. 20 21 Motion: Miltenberger 22 Second: White 23 Ayes: Berman, Georgia, Glover, Miltenberger, Nelson, Stokdyk and White 24 Nays: None 25 Abstention: None 26 Vote: 7-0 27 28 Motion carried. 29 30 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON CONSENT ITEMS 31 32 Agenda Item No. 3-A, Approval of the Southlake Parks and Recreation Board meeting 33 minutes of April 9, 2001. Approved as presented with corrections submitted to staff by 34 Cara White. 35 36 Agenda Item No. 3-B, Recommendation to enter into an interlocal agreement with St. 37 Martin-in-the-Fields Episcopal Church for practice ballfields. The City of Southlake and 38 the Church currently has an interlocal agreement allowing the City to utilize 39 approximately two acres of land for practice soccer fields. In return, the City has irrigated 40 the property and provides regular maintenance. With the recent acquisition of 41 Chesapeake Park, staff approached the Church about leasing additional land from them 42 for the development of ballfields. This additional two-acre site ties Chesapeake Park 43 together with the leased areas, resulting in a fifteen-acre park. The City will be 44 responsible for clearing the proposed lease site, constructing a backstop, irrigating the 45 site, and providing regular maintenance. This lease will provide for much needed practice 46 space for the growing youth sports associations (baseball, softball, and soccer) and is in May 14, 2001 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 3 of 16 I accordance with St. Martin's approved concept plan. Acceptance of this Agreement 2 requires the City to perform site improvements (clearing, irrigation, backstop) within two 3 years from the effective date. Improvements are estimated to cost approximately $15,000 4 with funding available in the SPDC Fund from Special Projects and/or Joint Use. The 5 Parks and Recreation Board approved this item during consideration of the Consent 6 agenda. 7 8 Agenda Item No. 5-A, Request from Southlake Baseball Association for a variance to 9 Facilities Utilization Agreement to extend hours of lighting for tournaments. This request 10 allows the Southlake Baseball Association (SBA) to keep the lighting on beyond the 11 currently permitted hours during their upcoming Pony tournament schedule. Because 12 Pony tournament games have no time limits, SBA has requested the lighting time limits 13 be extended only until 12:00 a.m. SBA has indicated they do not anticipate going beyond 14 the hours currently allowed for in the Facilities Utilization Agreement, but have asked for 15 approval should it be necessary. The Parks and Recreation Board approved this item 16 during consideration of the Consent agenda. Since this request involves a variance to an 17 approved agreement, City Council will consider the Park Board's recommendation at 18 their next meeting. 19 20 Agenda Item No. 5-F, Texas Parks and Wildlife Recreational Trails Fund Application. 21 Refer to the attached cover memo dated May 11, 2001 from Senior Park Planner Chris 22 Carpenter for a complete summary of the requirements and guidelines for this request. 23 Briefly, the application is for a trail project which must first be programmed into SPDC 24 CIP funding; the funding is an 80% cost reimbursement - not a grant - with the total 25 reimbursement from the state of $100,000; trails must serve recreational purpose, be on 26 public or federal property; and if the application is approved by the State, the City would 27 still have five years to begin construction of the project. The Park and Recreation Board 28 approved this item during consideration of the Consent agenda. Staff will complete the 29 project application and cost estimates, submit them to TPWD and upon any award of the 30 funding by the State, come back to the Board, SPDC and Council for authorization of 31 project expenditures within the 5-year time frame for initialization of the project. 32 33 34 REGULAR AGENDA 35 36 Agenda Item No. 4, Public Forum 37 38 Ms. Berman asked if anyone was present to speak during the Public Forum portion of the 39 meeting. Having no comments from the audience, Public Forum was closed. 40 41 Agenda Item No. 5-13, Controlling usage of softball batting cages 42 43 Mr. Hugman presented this item to the Board, explaining the location of the softball and 44 baseball batting cages in Bicentennial Park and provided background information about 45 construction funding of each. 46 May 14, 2001 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 4 of 16 I Matt Tuggey, president of Southlake Girls Softball Association, 1361 Cross Timber 2 Drive, explained that due to the proximity of the baseball fields 4, 5, and 10 to the 3 softball batting cages, there has been a considerable amount of usage of the softball 4 batting cages by baseball teams and/or players. Minor disagreements and conflicts have 5 arisen between various coaches and parents regarding who has the right to use the batting 6 cages, even with their respective signs placed at the entrance to each. Mr. Tuggey said 7 that both associations are aware of the problem, but have not found a solution. Mr. 8 Tuggey expressed his concern to the Board and asked for their guidance. 9 10 Mr. Tuggey offered the suggestion to give SGSA exclusive control over the softball 11 batting cages, keeping the cages locked during the regular season. He said that if this 12 arrangement was agreed upon, SGSA would also take on the responsibility of the 13 maintenance of those batting cages. 14 15 Mr. Hugman was asked by the Board to present staff's recommendation. Mr. Hugman 16 expressed concerns about locking the batting cages, which were constructed with SPDC 17 matching funds, making them unavailable to the general public. He said it was his 18 opinion that the associations continue to work together, because the only other solution 19 would be to lock the gates, which would create more issues than it would solve. 20 21 Bill Stroope, president of Southlake Baseball Association, 909 Hillcrest Drive, suggested 22 re-communicating to both associations' coaches the problem and ask them to relay it to 23 their team member's parents. He said their season would be over within two weeks, and 24 recommended for future seasons, that both association presidents and coaches exchange 25 cell phone numbers so that they could be contacted if a situation arises. 26 27 Chairman Berman recommended both associations exchange their board members phone 28 number lists or lock one of the batting cages during the season only. 29 30 Mr. Glover commented that locking the cages should be the last resort. 31 32 Board members discussed the options presented and commented on the logistics of 33 locking the batting cages, types of locks that could be used and how it could be 34 administered. 35 36 Mr. Miltenberger made a motion that one softball batting cage be locked for the 37 remainder of the Girls Softball Association season (about one and a half weeks). 38 39 Motion: Miltenberger 40 Second: Stokdyk 41 42 Discussion: 43 44 Board members talked about various locking and access issues at great length and 45 explored different ways it could be handled. There were suggestions that the softball 46 association coaches control the combination locks or keys, or that the locks be controlled May 14, 2001 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 5 of 16 I by the city park office personnel the same way the fields are now being handled. 2 Members expressed opinions about how access would be handled for the general public 3 use. Over the summer, the Girls Softball Association will be looking into having the 4 batting cages used on a "reservation basis" to address internal conflicts they are 5 experiencing. Staff said that the batting cage issue could be more fully addressed in the 6 facilities utilization agreements next year or additional signage could be installed on the 7 cages now emphasizing that the cages were constructed with SGSA funding and that they 8 have priority use and requesting the public to be cognizant of that fact. 9 10 Mr. Miltenberger withdrew his previous motion and made a new motion that this 11 item be TABLED with a strong recommendation to the boys that they be very 12 cognizant of the girls for the next week and a half. Once the SGSA determines how 13 they will address scheduling, the Board will come up with a policy before the next 14 season. 15 16 Ms. Stokdyk withdrew her previous "second" from the first motion. 17 18 The vote on the motion continued. 19 20 Motion: Miltenberger 21 Second: Glover 22 Ayes: Berman, Georgia, Glover, Miltenberger, Nelson, Stokdyk and White 23 Nays: None 24 Abstention: None 25 Vote: 7-0 to TABLE 26 27 Motion carried. 28 29 Additional comments regarding variances to Facilities Utilization Agreements with 30 Associations. 31 32 Chairman Berman asked Mr. Hugman to incorporate boilerplate language into the 33 agreements to address the associations' requests for a variance to the lighting provision 34 for tournament play. 35 36 Agenda Item No. 5-C, Concept Plan for Bob Jones Park Nature Center 37 38 Mr. Hugman led the presentation by providing the Board with background information 39 about the existing Nature Center building. He said the building was a triple-wide 40 manufactured home in need of repairs (roof, walls, carpet, doors, windows, etc.) in order 41 to make it usable by the public and staff. The building needed to be renovated to bring it 42 into compliance with building codes and accessibility standards. In addition to essential 43 repairs, the appearance of the building should be addressed. 44 45 A concept plan was developed with the intent of creating a facility that would blend in 46 with the natural surroundings of Bob Jones Park and present the look and feel of a nature May 14, 2001 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 6 of 16 I center. Staff has been working with Schutts Magee Architects to develop the concept plan 2 and construction cost estimates. Projected costs for the full design work, bid 3 specifications, and construction are estimated at $157,692. The FY 2000-01 SPDC 4 budget provides $100,000 for the improvements. If the Plan is approved, it would be 5 moved forward to SPDC to request additional funding of $57,692. 6 7 Mr. Polasek reviewed various aspects and costs of specific improvements in the concept 8 plan as presented in the Board's packet. As he reviewed the Plan, he answered questions 9 from the Board. See the attached cover memo dated May 9, 2001 from Steve Polasek and 10 graphic depiction for specific cost estimates and a photo presentation of the proposed 11 design. 12 13 Ms. Stokdyk had several questions. She commented that since this project was not part of 14 a TPWD grant, it was not driven by a timeframe. She asked if there were plans to put 15 office staff in the building, such as a building curator? Mr. Hugman addressed this 16 question and said it had been discussed as a security measure - at least part time - 17 perhaps using a volunteer from Keep Southlake Beautiful. Ms. Stokdyk asked if the 18 Concept Plan was approved, would it mean that Schutts Magee Architects would start the 19 construction without seeking bids from other architects? Mr. Hugman said the 20 architectural services would not be bid, but only construction services. He explained it is 21 against State law to bid for professional services such as architectural services. Proposals 22 can be requested and proposals may be negotiated. Schutts Magee Architects was chosen 23 because they designed the restroom/concession building at Bob Jones Park. 24 25 Ms. Georgia asked what the total replacement cost would be of the building. Staff 26 commented that the building could not be replaced for $100,000. 27 28 Ms. White expressed her concern with the costs of using a metal seam roof. She 29 suggested a shingle roof would be less expensive. Mr. Polasek said they would look at 30 the metal seam roof as an "add-alternate" feature. He added that the metal seam roof was 31 more of an old-fashioned "tin" roof instead of the standard metal seam roof, which would 32 be less expensive. 33 34 Members looked at the cost shown on Mr. Polasek's memo and commented that $7,500 35 may be a little high for HVAC costs and that some of the improvements could be done by 36 "sweat equity," using volunteers to do some of the work (such as demolition, painting) to 37 reduce the costs. The Nature Center Committee could ask for in-kind donations from 38 Lowe's or Home Depot, etc., to help lower the costs. 39 40 Mr. Hugman said there were some options that could reduce the costs and meet the 41 shortfall of funds. One option was that the scope of responsibilities for the Nature Center 42 Committee would be to identify fundraising opportunities and/or sponsorships for the 43 capital costs and operational costs of the Nature Center. Another option would be using 44 donated materials. This option presents numerous possible problems involving bidding, 45 and whether a contractor would honor the warranty of the materials or if the materials are May 14, 2001 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 7 of 16 1 the right materials required. But even with cost reductions, it will take $100,000+ to bring 2 the facility up to a workable Nature Center. 3 4 Mr. Glover said the question before the Board was whether the Board wants to 5 recommend to SPDC to move forward with the Nature Center? He said SPDC's response 6 may be that only a certain amount of funding would be available each year for 7 improvements which means the improvements would be done in segments as funding 8 was available. 9 10 A motion was made that the Park Board make a recommendation to SPDC to 11 approve the Nature Center Concept Plan as proposed. 12 13 Motion: Glover 14 Second: Nelson 15 16 Discussion: 17 18 Ms. Stokdyk's comments focused on her concerns about the costs exceeding the 19 budgeted amount and her concerns about not having the Nature Center Committee review 20 the proposed Concept Plan. Ms. Stokdyk said she was not comfortable approving a 21 concept plan at this point until it was decided "how humble a facility it is to be." She felt 22 the City could work with what they currently have and that to make so-called "basic 23 repairs" such as changing up the roof line and adding decking, which will cause the cost 24 to go over budget, may not be necessary at this time to get a Nature Center up and 25 running. Ms. Stokdyk recommended that the Park Board not approve this Concept Plan 26 until a committee is appointed and has an opportunity to look at the Plan. 27 28 Ms. Stokdyk elaborated on expenses that have not been considered, such as staffing and 29 furnishings. She said she favored seeing what the community (i.e., responses to a Nature 30 Center Committee call for members) desires. Ms. Stokdyk stressed the focus should be 31 on "nature," not the building. 32 33 Ms. White commented that the Nature Center Committee could be formed subsequent to 34 the Park Board approaching SPDC for funding. 35 36 Ms. Berman related her desire not to hold up the proceedings and leave the building to 37 further deteriorate. Although Ms. Berman was not comfortable with tabling this item, she 38 did agree with other Board members that it should not exceed the budgeted amount. She 39 favored passing the Concept Plan to SPDC and making recommendations to Council for 40 appointments to the Nature Center Committee. She said SPDC would evaluate the costs 41 and give direction to the Nature Center Committee on what could be funded and the 42 timeframe. 43 44 Board members discussed costs associated with the interior and exterior improvements, 45 the Concept Plan, and access to the Nature Center via the loop road and trail. 46 May 14, 2001 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 8 of 16 I Mr. Hugman told the Board the CIP budget amount for the Nature Center was never 2 intended for anything but to fund renovations of the building - it was never envisioned to 3 fund staffing or development of the outer part of the Nature Center. 4 5 Ms. White said a lot of people are interested and motivated in seeing the Nature Center 6 operational. She mentioned being uncomfortable with the cost figures as well, and 7 referenced the "miscellaneous demolition" item in the cover memo. 8 9 Ms. Georgia supported moving forward with a recommendation of approval to SPDC and 10 said she would volunteer to personally solicit donations from at least four businesses in 11 the Southlake area for building materials suitable for the building. 12 13 Another option that would help cut costs would be to utilize the SPDC matching grant 14 provision. 15 16 The motion continued with the vote. 17 18 Ayes: Berman, Georgia, Glover, Miltenberger, Nelson, Stokdyk and White 19 Nays: None 20 Abstention: None 21 Vote: 7-0 to approve the Nature Center Concept Plan "as is," with SPDC to 22 bring back options 23 24 Motion carried. 25 26 Mr. Nelson asked to have the architect review the seventeen categories of improvements 27 to the Nature Center listed in the packet memo and denote which items could be done by 28 citizens' "sweat equity" in order to determine a dollar amount to present to SPDC. 29 30 Agenda Item No. 5-D, Resolution appointing members to the Nature Center Committee 31 32 This resolution was prepared as directed by the Park Board at their last meeting to bring 33 forward a resolution to establish a committee and make appointments. The draft 34 resolution outlined the member configurations, appointment authorities, term of the 35 committee, and their duties and responsibilities. 36 37 Members asked what happened to the former Nature Center Committee? Mr. Hugman 38 said there was never any staff involvement with it and therefore, he didn't know. 39 40 Mr. Georgia made comments about the Committee make up. She suggested that at least 41 two positions remain open for Southlake citizens-at-large. Mr. Hugman said that although 42 the draft presented five positions, seven could be appointed, but that staff recommended 43 not appointing more than seven members. Other people could be involved through input 44 and through sub-committees. 45 May 14, 2001 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 9 of 16 1 Mr. Glover asked to whom the Nature Center Committee would report and why a 2 Council member would need to be appointed. He did not feel that it made sense to have a 3 council member appointed if the Committee was going to act as a Park Board sub- 4 committee. Mr. Hugman responded that the Nature Center Committee would be charged 5 with coming up with a scope, developing goals and objectives for the Nature Center, a 6 development plan, identifying fundraising sponsorship opportunities and making a 7 presentation to the Park Board of their plan. He did not see the Committee as a sub- 8 committee of the Park Board, but that their park-related recommendations would 9 circulate through Park Board, SPDC and then Council. 10 11 Ms. Berman asked Councilmember Ralph Evans to give his opinion about whether a 12 councilmember should be included in the committee makeup. 13 14 Ralph Evans, councilmember, 315 North Shady Oaks Drive, said councilmembers were 15 involved with a lot of committees - two besides the city council SPDC and TIF Board, 16 in addition to JUC and others. Mr. Evans said he did not have an opinion on whether the 17 Nature Center Committee should have a council member in the group or not, but that he 18 was "retired, unemployed but not out of work!" and that if a council member was 19 included in the Committee, he would let that position be filled by another council 20 member. 21 22 A discussion followed about the configuration of the membership of the Nature Center 23 Committee. Ms. Stokdyk felt that former Nature Center Committee members should be 24 invited to participate and that membership should be open to the public. She said only if 25 there was not a good response to the call for members, would appointments need to be 26 made. She favored working with community groups to ensure that every group in 27 Southlake was aware of the opportunity to participate. Ms. Berman commented that 28 sometimes committees are not able to progress because there are too many people on 29 them. She stressed how important it was to put a person in charge that would lead the 30 committee forward to accomplish its goals. Ms. White offered that there were three 31 people on the current Park Board (Mike Nelson, Lisa Stokdyk and herself) that wanted to 32 get the Nature Center moving. 33 34 Members agreed on the point that if the Park Board has to make recommendations to 35 spend money on the Nature Center, then there must be someone or some committee that 36 will be responsible directly to the Park Board. The Board felt it would not be good to 37 spend money on the Center if there was not a Nature Center Committee that would 38 actually be driving the project. 39 40 Ms. Stokdyk offered that she, along with Rosemary Hutchins, would be willing to co- 41 chair the Nature Center Committee until the committee is formed and officers appointed. 42 She said she visualizes there would be a third co-chair who would have corporate ties and 43 background. 44 45 Mr. Nelson was in favor of a seven-member committee, saying that any number of 46 subcommittees could be involved, but as for the reporting committee, there should not be May 14, 2001 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 10 of 16 I more than seven people as there would be too much inertia to pull and push. He 2 recommended a city staff member be part of the committee make up. 3 4 Mr. Glover presented his recommendation for the committee structure. He suggested that 5 instead of one member of the city council, appointed by the city council, there be two 6 members of the Park and Recreation Board, nominated by the Park Board and appointed 7 by the City Council; one member of Keep Southlake Beautiful; one volunteer 8 environmental science teacher or some lay person with environmental background; one 9 member from city staff; and two members from the general public, nominated by the 10 Parks Board and appointed by the City Council. The Park Board would provide Council 11 with their recommended list of names and let Council make the final approval. 12 13 Ms. Stokdyk expressed dissatisfaction with making the member appointments by the City 14 Council and said she felt it should be completely a volunteer effort. 15 16 Ms. Georgia remarked that the Park Board may need to "kick-off' [set up] the Committee 17 for the first one-year term, with the goal of the group being to start up the Committee, 18 elect officers and then be turned over to the Nature Center Committee after the first one- 19 year period. The initial committee would operate similar to how the athletic associations 20 work. 21 22 Members agreed to remove the city council member position from the resolution. Board 23 members argued for and against having members appointed by City Council. 24 25 Mr. Hugman reiterated a couple of concerns he had. One concern was having a staff 26 person assigned to a committee that would meet many times, but not make progress. A 27 "sunset clause" was included in the resolution to keep the Committee focused on their 28 task to completion. Mr. Hugman's second concern was that specific people need to be 29 identified because decisions would need to be made and the Park Board must know who 30 those decision-makers are. 31 32 A motion was made to accept the resolution with the following changes to Section 1: 33 eliminate (a) completely; change (b) to read "two members of the Park and 34 Recreation Board, appointed by the Park Board"; leave (c) as is, with "one member 35 of the Keep Southlake Beautiful, appointed by Keep Southlake Beautiful Board of 36 Directors"; (d) to read "one environmental science teacher or lay person with 37 environmental background, appointed by Park Board"; leave (e) as is, with "one 38 member of the City staff, recommended by the City Manager;" and add (f) to read, 39 "two members of the general public, appointed by the Parks Board." 40 41 Motion: Glover 42 Second: Georgia 43 Ayes: Berman, Georgia, Glover, Miltenberger, and Nelson 44 Nays: Stokdyk and White 45 Abstention: None 46 Vote: 5-2 May 14, 2001 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page Hof 16 1 2 Motion carried. 3 4 Agenda Item No. 5-E, Addition of horseback riding programs to City recreation programs 5 6 Mr. Miltenberger questioned if the past liability issues had been alleviated? 7 8 Mr. Nelson supported the program but believes the council member that had the liability 9 concerns was justified. He suggested that the City obtain signed releases from parents so 10 that it doesn't take any more risks than it has to. 11 12 Ms. Stokdyk commented the agenda item addresses only therapeutic horseback riding 13 classes and asked if beginner and basic classes would also be included? 14 15 Mr. Hugman addressed Mr. Miltenberger's and Ms. Stokdyk's questions saying that the 16 Rocky Top facility did offer basic horseback riding classes, however, only the therapeutic 17 recreation classes were being addressed at this time. He said the liability issues were still 18 present. 19 20 Mr. Nelson reasoned that a signed release by the parents of the participants puts the City 21 in a position to argue because the parents understand the risks associated with enrolling 22 their child. 23 24 Board members talked about various accidents and liability issues. 25 26 Mr. Hugman explained why the horseback riding program was previously dropped by the 27 City. The concern was that if the program was being offered by the private sector already 28 and was available, that the City, by offering it through their recreational programs, was 29 assuming some of that liability needlessly. The feeling was that since horseback riding, 30 which was perceived as a high-risk type program, was already being offered to the public 31 by another facility, there was no need for it to be offered through the City also. 32 33 Mr. Glover praised the horseback riding program and said it was an outstanding program 34 for the participants and very rewarding those who assisted the riders. 35 36 Ms. Berman asked the Board if they favored limiting the program to just the therapeutic 37 classes or whether they should offer the other non-therapeutic classes as well? 38 39 Mr. Glover suggested starting with the therapeutic horseback riding classes and reasoned 40 that the area of recreation for special needs children is needed. 41 42 Mr. Nelson and Mr. Miltenberger felt that it would be beneficial for the program to be 43 integrated so that those children with special needs and those children without special 44 needs could participate along side each other. 45 May 14, 2001 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 12 of 16 I A motion was made to approve Agenda Item No. 5-E, with the following 2 amendment: Add basic riding as one of the programs offered and to add under 3 "Legal Review" section of the cover memo, a request that a release from a parent or 4 a responsible adult be granted for every participant in the program; additionally a 5 recommendation to staff to include in the cost to the participant, the cost of listing 6 the City as an additional insured. 7 8 At this time, the Board debated how and why the cost to add the City as an additional 9 insured was even needed, making the City a middleman. Mr. Nelson suggested letting 10 Rocky Top run the program as other contractor programs are handled. 11 12 Mr. Hugman explained the contract procedure stating that when the City enters into a 13 contract with Rocky Top, the requirement for the City to be named as an additional 14 insured on their liability policy, would be a part of the contract. The City would get a 15 proposal from Rocky Top with the price they would charge for the additional insured and 16 pass that cost on to the individual participants with the objective being it would cover the 17 cost of the additional policy. He said the contractor retains 80% of cost with the City 18 retaining 20% to cover administrative overhead and cost of publication in the City's 19 recreation brochure. 20 21 The motion continued with a second. 22 23 Motion: Georgia 24 Second: Glover 25 Ayes: Berman, Georgia, Glover, Miltenberger, Nelson, Stokdyk and White 26 Nays: None 27 Abstention: None 28 Vote: 7-0 29 30 Motion carried. 31 32 Agenda Item No. 6-A, Revenue Policy Revisions 33 34 Recreation Supervisor Steve Moore handed out copies of the current Revenue Policy and 35 explained why this item was being brought forward, saying that staff had been asked how 36 they track program revenues and expenditures. The proposed Revenue Policy coincides 37 with the budget and will permit staff to match tracking of their programs with the policy. 38 Mr. Moore reviewed the proposed policy changes and said the revised Policy would 39 define the City's purpose, scope, statement of philosophy, general guidelines, costs and 40 types of fees. The proposed Policy also addresses scholarship and refund polices. 41 42 Mr. Glover commented that programs like basketball and hockey, where there are many 43 participants, help fund some of the start-up programs that Southlake is able to offer so 44 that those new programs do not have to be profitable from the outset. He said this was 45 one of the values of trying to manage the system in this manner. 46 May 14, 2001 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 13 of 16 I Ms. Berman related a recent experience she had with trying to start up basketball and 2 volleyball for seventh and eight graders and the volleyball did not make due to a logistics 3 problem. 4 5 Mr. Moore continued reviewing the policy and commented that staff will be able to 6 determine if certain programs need their participant cost to be increased or maintained. 7 Many athletic programs do not need to have the cost increased as revenue funds are 8 covering all associated expenses. He said some programs are quite different, such as the 9 Sweetheart Dance. The participant price needs to be increased as the revenue does not 10 cover all expenses for that event. 11 12 Mr. Moore said the revised Policy was modeled after the policy used in North Richland 13 Hills. 14 15 Each program category was explained in the memo dated May 7, 2001 from Steve Moore 16 and is attached to the minutes. Mr. Moore briefly reviewed each topic in the proposed 17 Revenue Policy and answered questions from the Park Board. 18 19 Mr. Nelson asked for clarification on Page 2, "Programs," in the second paragraph that 20 addressed refunds of supply fees. Mr. Moore explained that instructors are reimbursed 21 100% of the supply fee since they purchase the supplies. Mr. Nelson asked that the third 22 line say, "...the instructor is reimbursed 100% of the supply fee." 23 24 Ms. Georgia directed attention to the first paragraph of Page 2, "Programs" section, 25 which refers to outside instructors being brought in to teach, and suggested the language 26 be changed to say "...outside instructors are contracted to teach at designated facilities." 27 28 Mr. Nelson pointed out that just as he is always saying to be sure the City is listed as an 29 additional insured, it is equally important that the City get Certificates of Insurance from 30 the agent. That Certificate is necessary because if there is a failure to list the City as an 31 additional insured, and the City has the Certificate of Insurance, the City can sue the 32 agent. 33 34 Ms. Georgia asked to have the second paragraph on Page 2, "Programs" revised to say, 35 "Instructors may be required to provide liability insurance naming the City of Southlake 36 as an additional insured and provide a Certificate of Insurance obtained from the agent." 37 38 City managed recreation programs, city managed sports leagues, youth sports 39 associations, and special events were covered in Mr. Moore's review. 40 41 Mr. Polasek said the proposed Policy revision defines the city's recreation programs and 42 will provide target goals for each program category. 43 44 Mr. Glover commended the City on its management of city-managed recreation programs 45 and city-managed sports leagues saying that Southlake is light years ahead of the cities of 46 Arlington and Grapevine. Mr. Glover said that Southlake' staff is knowledgeable and that May 14, 2001 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 14 of 16 1 Steve Moore and his staff are approachable, willing to listen, willing to take suggestions 2 from the people who are participating in the programs and that is not what he finds in 3 Grapevine and in Arlington. He said in those cities someone is put in charge and it is 4 immaterial whether they know anything or not. He said the positive attitude displayed by 5 Steve Moore and his staff is something that needs to be maintained and continued as it is 6 obvious that the people in Southlake's recreation programs do care about the people who 7 participate in those programs. 8 9 This item will be brought back at the June Park Board meeting for consideration. 10 11 Agenda Item No. 6-B, Liaison reports 12 13 Board members received reports in their packets. 14 15 (a) Youth Parks and Recreation Board - No report from staff. 16 (b) Recreation/Special Events - No report from staff. 17 (c) Youth Sports Associations - No report from staff. 18 (d) Community Groups - Ms. Stokdyk announced KSB has put out a call for 19 new board membership. KSB and GSW is taking the summer off. 20 Metroport Humane Society will move out of their Grapevine facility 21 where garage sales and pet adoptions are held. 22 (e) SPIN - Ms. White said SPIN considered their goals and objectives at their 23 meeting last Tuesday. 24 (f) SPDC - Special meeting on May 15 to consider $4,690,000 in SPDC 25 bonds, and a change order for the second restroom building at Bob Jones 26 Park. 27 (g) JUC - Next JUC meeting will be held in July. 28 (h) City Council Monthly Report - Chris Miltenberger will handle 29 presentation. 30 (i) Equestrians - Progress is being made on the equestrian parking lot at Bob 31 Jones Park. Subcontracts will grade it out and lay more shingles. 32 (j) Traffic Management Bond - The trail is being constructed along 33 Southlake Boulevard. 34 35 Ms. Berman announced a meeting will be held Friday, May 18, 2001 at 2:00 p.m. in the 36 Executive Conference Room to discuss the YMCA. It is a posted open meeting. 37 38 Contact Ms. Stokdyk if you have a project for an Eagle Scout. 39 40 Ms. Georgia asked if Park Board members would see any of the bids that SPDC had 41 requested on Bob Jones Park versus Bicentennial Park for the girls softball association by 42 the next Park Board meeting? Mr. Hugman said that SPDC directed staff to move 43 forward with a contract for a detailed concept plan. Staff has spoken to Schrickel Rollins 44 about a scope of services project scope, but have not finalized any contract yet. 45 May 14, 2001 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 15 of 16 I Ms. Georgia said she was aware that the recommendation was that staff bring forward at 2 the next SPDC meeting a discussion item concerning the re-allocation of funds for the 3 restroom at Bob Jones Park and asked if it was appropriate that Park Board review that 4 first? Mr. Hugman said it was a change order to build the second restroom and was 5 directed by SPDC last October. The second restroom building was in the project plan for 6 Year Two of the Three Year Plan. SPDC asked them to move it up to the first year if 7 possible. So when the CIP was approved in October, another $450,000 had to be added in 8 for it and some other projects. The design had to be finished and then the contractor was 9 asked for a change order proposal. It is that proposal that is going forward to SPDC to go 10 ahead to move forward with construction. 11 12 Ms. White said it was the SPDC's motion to move that [$220,000] over to be used on the 13 bathroom on the Bicentennial Park plan. Mr. Hugman said there was discussion, but it 14 was not part of the motion at the SPDC meeting. 15 16 Ms. White said Ms. Kendall asked that the $220,000 being moved to Bicentennial Park 17 be put on the next SPDC meeting agenda. 18 19 Mr. Hugman said if the Change Order is denied, then that money would be there, but that 20 approval to re-allocate the funding was not what he recalled being part of the motion. He 21 will check with Kim Bush about this item again. 22 23 Mr. Nelson read from the SPDC minutes the motion stating, "Kendall recommends staff 24 bring forward as a discussion item concerning the re-allocation of funds for a single 25 restroom at Bob Jones Park to Bicentennial Park for the softball complex." 26 27 Mr. Glover thanked all the Park Board members and staff saying he had enjoyed working 28 with them during his term. He said that although they were not always in agreement, they 29 always appreciated each other and understand each other's positions. He said he was very 30 positive about the job staff has done and enjoyed working with them. 31 32 Agenda Item No. 7, Adjournment 33 34 The Board unanimously voted to adjourn the meeting at 10:15 p.m. 35 36 37 38 L_, 39 Sherry Berman 40 r s&R n dC it 41 42 43 Cara White 44 Secretary 45 46 47 NAParks & Recreation\BOARDS\PKBOARD\MINUTES\2001\051401.doc May 14, 2001 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 16 of 16 City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM May 11, 2001 TO: Kevin Hugman, Director of Community Services FROM: Chris Carpenter, Senior Park Planner SUBJECT: Texas Parks and Wildlife Recreational Trails Fund Application Action Requested: Parks and Recreation Board discussion and recommendation for submittal of TPWD Recreational Trails Fund Application. Background Information: The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department offers an annual application process for Recreational Trails Fund money. The following summary points characterize this particular funding opportunity and are meant to narrow the scope to projects most likely to be accepted for funding: 1. The funding mechanism is cost reimbursement; it is not a grant. Therefore, the trail project should have a great likelihood of being funded through the SPDC CIP process. In other words, submitting application for funding a project that SPDC would not normally fund would require finding another funding source for construction of the project prior to © h/~ reimbursement. The total funding reimbursed by the state is no more than $100,000. This w,n"' funding limits the amount and type of trail construction. (See #3 below). Also, the trails must serve a recreational purpose. In other words, their use must be recreational (i.e. not just for travel from point "A" to point "B." Examples would include trails that support a particular activity such as mountain biking, horseback riding, jogging, etc. 4. The trails must be on public property or on federal property (i.e. Corps property). There also are stringent standards for use of private property, but there are no trails identified in city plans which have the private property interests (i.e. easements, purchase) secured to the point of their inclusion in a funding application. There may be future opportunities for this aspect, however. The funding may also be used for trail maintenance. 5. If the application is approved by the state, the city would still have five years to begin construction of the project. This allows for breathing room for projects in out-year plans. Financial Considerations: In order to implement a trail project for this funding, the city must first program it with SPDC funding. The funding source is an 80% cost reimbursement. All expenses must be documented and meet state approval. E4-- Kevin Huglnan, Director of Community Services May 11, 2001 Page 2 Citizen Input/ Board Review: The Parks and Recreation Board is asked to review the criteria for this funding and make a recommendation based on the guidelines. Staff will submit the application by June 1, 2001, and anticipate a review by the state. Upon any award of the funding, staff would then come back to the Board, SPDC, and Council to authorize the project expenditures within the 5-year time frame for initialization of the project. Legal Review: Not Applicable. Alternatives: Parks Board discussion. Supporting Documents: Supporting documents include the following items: ■ Included is a blank application for the TPWD Recreational Trails Fund Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that this application be limited to near- to mid-term trail projects on city property or Corps property. The most likely candidates would be trail construction within city parks or on Corps property. A third avenue would be for trail and trailhead rehabilitation on Corps property. Based on these criteria, staff recommends the following discussion priorities: 1. Additional multi-use trail construction in Bob Jones Park. 2. Trail construction in an undeveloped neighborhood park (Sheltonwood, Nobel Oaks) 3. Trail/trailhead construction, rehabilitation on Corps property. Based on Park Board direction under one these general parameters (or another acceptable one), staff will complete a project application and cost estimates (in the $100,000 range) and submit it to TPWD. NAParks & Recreation\BOARDS\PKBOARD\MEMOS\01_memos\5-01\tpwd trail grant.doc SIF ^ 7, TEXAS RECREATIONAL TRAILS FUND PROJECT APPLICATION DUE JUNE 1, 2001 PROJECT NAME CITY/COUNTY 1. SPONSORING ENTITY CONTACT PERSON (person TPWD may contact for further information) TITLE MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE DAYTIME TELEPHONE FAX NO. Authorized Signature Date 2. INTENDED USES (Check One) • Motorized Use • Non-motorized Use • Combination Motor-Non-motorized Uses 3. TYPES OF USE (Check All That Apply) • Bicycling • Jogging/Running • Mountain Bicycling • Skating/Skateboarding • Hiking/Walking • Motorcycles • Equestrian • All Terrain Vehicles • Wheelchairs • Four-wheel Drive Vehicles • Provisions for Disabilities • Other 4. PROJECT LENGTH New construction (miles or feet) Renovation of existing (miles or feet) 5. GRANT FUNDS REQUESTED $ 1 sip -3 6. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT. Please provide a clear and concise description of the proposed project in the space below. Include a description of the trail length, width, surfacing, and configuration (loop, linear, network); trailhead and trailside amenities. Detail all work to be performed; any right-of-way or easements to be acquired; the relationship between project and any other work planned or existing; partnerships and/or community involvement; and educational/interpretive aspects of the project. 7. ITEMIZED BUDGET. Provide in the space below an itemized list of all activities to be undertaken and the cost of each activity. Provide as much detail as possible (consider materials - surfacing, lumber, stones, etc.; labor - volunteer or paid. service contracts; equipment/tool rental and/or value of in-house; land acquisition. Design, engineering, or architectural services may not exceed 10% of the total project costs; resource surveys/site assessments may not exceed 15%. Sponsor's administrative costs cannot be included. Please call with questions or for clarification. 8. PROJECT COSTS AND REQUESTED FUNDS. Total Itemized Project Costs (from item 6 on previous page) $ Federal Funds Requested (80% or less of above line) $ Local Match Required (at least 20% of top line) $ 9. PROPOSED METHOD OF FINANCING SPONSOR'S SHARE. Please describe in the space below the source of funds, donations, or in-kind contributions that will make up the sponsor's match (at least 20%). You may include government appropriations; private donations of land, easement, cash, labor, materials, and equipment; or in-house labor, equipment, and materials. 10. MAINTENANCE. In the space below, briefly describe the identified commitment to continued operation and maintenance of the project. Include who will be responsible for which tasks and who will finance them. 4 5 F - lD • 11. PROJECT USE AND BENEFITS. Provide in the space below a brief description of the benefits of the proposed project in terms of the project's quality, geographic scope, recreational needs met, and expected amount of trail use or population to be served. 12. TRAIL CORRIDOR INFORMATION. Describe below the ownership of the trail corridor. If the land is currently in public hands, identify the name of the public land. If the land is not in the sponsor's ownership, include a statement of permission to construct trail project from the landowner. If land, easement, or other property interest will be acquired, describe how this will be accomplished. If acquisition in fee, include a statement of why easement was not possible. 5 An original and 12 copies of the completed application package must be submitted to TPWD, Land Conservation Program, 4200 Smith School Rd., Austin, Texas 78744, postmarked by Friday, June 1, 2001. All applications should include the following supplemental documents: • Site map locating the trail for orientation purposes. The trail drawn on a park map or city map will do. • A U.S.G.S. topographic map (7.5 minute series) with the trail location drawn on map. We only need one of these, not 12 copies. An 8.5 x 11 inch copy of the portion of the map on which the project is located will suffice, but write the name of the quadrangle on the copy. • Photographs of the site If relevant to the specific project: • Statement of (public or private) land owner's willingness to allow the trail project, if not on sponsor's land • Statement of property owner's willingness to negotiate for a transfer, if property is proposed for acquisition • Statement that new trail construction on federal land is consistent with federal agency's land management plan for the impacted area Applications should not include: • Fancy covers or binders, they take up too much file space and don't impress anyone • Extra pages, try to be concise and keep text to space provided. 6 f City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM May 9, 2001 TO: Kevin Hugman, Director of Community Services FROM: Steve Polasek, Deputy Director of Community Services SUBJECT: Concept Plan for Bob Jones Park Nature Center Action Requested: Parks and Recreation Board review and consideration of the concept plan for the Bob Jones Park Nature Center. Background Information: The City currently has a triple wide manufactured home, donated by the developers of Monticello Estates, located at Bob Jones Park and designated as a future nature center. Due to damage resulting from age, vandalism, and other factors, the facility is in need of repair in order to make it usable by the public and staff. This would require bringing the building into compliance with building codes and accessibility standards, as well as performing other necessary repairs (roof, walls, carpet, doors, windows, etc.). In addition to addressing the essential facility repairs, the appearance of the building was also examined. A conceptual design was developed with the intent of creating a facility that would blend in with the natural surroundings of Bob Jones Park and present the look and feel of a nature center. Schutts Magee Architects have been working with City staff to develop the conceptual plans for the facility, as well as the cost estimate for construction. Current plans call for the interior of the facility to be repaired in good working condition, the carpet replaced with tile squares, and the walls finished with a cedar siding. The interior floor plan will remain virtually unchanged, thus providing for maximum flexibility in regards to the future use of the building. Financial Considerations: The FY 2000-01 SPDC budget provides $100,000 for the Nature Center improvements. Projected costs for the full design work, bid specifications, and construction are estimated at $157,692. An overview of costs is provided below: 1. Miscellaneous Demolition $ 9,000 2. Interior Walls $ 9,505 3. Exterior Siding $ 9,750 4. New Porch/Deck $12,300 5. Frame New Roof $13,932 6. Skylight $ 850 Kevin Hugman, Director of Community Services May 9, 2001 Page 2 7. New Roof Panel $ 8,603 8. New Door Frames $ 2,800 9. Building Insulation $ 21444 10. Gypsum Board Ceiling $ 1,429 11. Flooring $ 3,633 12. Paint/Finish $ 3,104 13. Plumbing $ 3,200 14. HVAC $ 7,500 15. Electrical $ 4,954 16. Contingency $13,950 17. Contractor Overhead $26,738 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $133,692 ARCHITECTURAL FEE/Printing $14,000 SEPTIC SYSTEM (City to manage) $10,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $157,692 Citizen Input/ Board Review: Not Applicable. Legal Review: Not Applicable. Alternatives: Parks Board discussion and input. Supporting Documents: Supporting documents include the following items: ■ A presentation of the Nature Center concept plan will be given at the upcoming meeting. ■ Bob Jones Park Site Plan Staff Recommendation: Place as an item on the May 14, 2001 Parks and Recreation Board agenda for consideration and recommendation to SPDC the concept plan for the Bob Jones Park Nature Center. 5c-rL r A X m a a z n -,:c T 0 a v I m 3 c_ w OR Z I O 5.41D~N3~r^o m oo N I m ~a m m ~ a. m I, a m R o g $ 3 w c m c A H r mi r 4 N 7 00 R i I \I T I F { i_J L_j. _ - ,mss ( i-I f -~wm 1 f 1 ~ % Imu x ~ m X41111 IINfN1 6NNHItlIBHN!!'9 U ~ ~ \ , i o m l I n ~.C o, C N o ,N. N , r n D _ 3 Lac p m tp z o° II l °'CS T - - =t tpV - m O C-i 1 O O _ I 0 03 21 one 1 a~ ca En a 3,/ cf) O m E M 'a ~CO) D d > Z - m~ x i • H:\Job\4118\1MPIan\sheets\Bob Jones-11x17.dwg, 03/22/01 03:36:02 PM, RFieste,, 1:1 5c-3 z 'r i ~ k . y- •i k3r'r' • li. _ F ~'1 • f~ ~a J.~ - p } Ln 1 ~ t ly f tr City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM May 7, 2001 TO: Kevin Hugman, Director of Community Services FROM: Steve Moore, Recreation Supervisor SUBJECT: Discussion of Revised Revenue Policy Action Requested: Parks and Recreation Board discussion and recommendation of proposed revisions to Revenue Policy. Background Information: After reviewing the current Revenue Policy it has been determined that in order to keep up with the growth of the recreation division, revisions need to be made to the current policy. The proposed changes will define the city's purpose, scope, statement of philosophy, general guidelines, costs and types of fees. The proposed changes will also address the scholarship and refund policies. The proposed Revenue Policy will coincide with the budget and will permit staff to improve the tracking of recreation revenues and expenditures. The proposed policy changes are as follows: ■ Contract Recreation Programs - Instructional programs in which outside instructors are brought in to teach at designated facilities. ■ City Managed Recreation Programs - Instructional programs in which city employees manage the program. ■ City Managed Sports Leagues - Recreational sports leagues in which city employees manage. ■ Youth Sports Associations - Organizations that provide athletic opportunities to residents. Youth Sports Associations are independent associations who enter into an agreement with the City to use athletic facilities. ■ Special Events - Events which bring the community together to celebrate an event or holiday. LA-1 Kevin Hugman, Director of Community Services May 7, 2001 Page 2 ■ Non-Departmental Events - Hosted by private non-profit organizations through the City. Financial Consideration: The proposed Revenue Policy will provide staff a greater ability to track expected revenues and expenses. Citizen Input/ Board Review: Park Board discussed at Retreat, February 16, 2001. Legal Review: Not Applicable Alternatives: Alternatives include the following: ■ Acceptance of the proposed revisions. ■ Provide input towards further revisions of Revenue Policy. Supporting Documents: Copy of proposed Revenue Policy regarding recreation programs and events. Staff Recommendation: Place as an item on the May 14, 2001 Parks and Recreation Board agenda to discuss the proposed revisions to the Revenue Policy. L A Parks and Recreation Division Policies and Procedures Manual Policy: Parks and Recreation Division Revenue Source: Parks and Recreation Board Category: Recreation Effective Date: Revised Date: PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to provide guidelines for determining pricing and revenue recovery for recreational programs and events. Southlake Parks and Recreation Division provides residents a diverse selection of recreational programs, parks, and facilities. Programs include leisure and educational classes, leagues, and special events. SCOPE Program pricing and revenue policies will apply to recreational programs offered by the Southlake Parks and Recreation Division. Program pricing is based upon the recovery of administrative service costs (indirect costs) and direct costs. Staff will evaluate the fee schedule on an as needed basis. This will allow for flexibility in responding to market conditions, competitive pricing, customer demands, and other critical situations. Pricing for Parks and Recreation programs and services will be consistent with the revenue policy as periodically recommended by the Parks and Recreation Board and approved by City Council. STATEMENT OF PHILOSOPHY The City's recreation and special events philosophy is to offer residents a wide variety of lifetime leisure activities including introductory, skill building, family and community centered, educational, social and entertainment opportunities. The City's sports philosophy is to provide residents the opportunity to participate in recreational lifetime sports, with emphasis on everyone playing, learning technical skills, enjoying team spirit, while enjoying the challenge of competition and the game. The City recognizes, however, that a demand for all services exceeds the City's ability to appropriate funds to support the demand, making it necessary to charge fees for those services that provide individual benefits. GENERAL GUIDELINES • Current markets in the public and private sectors shall be included for consideration in pricing programs, services and facilities. • Appropriate direct and indirect costs shall be considered in the pricing formula. 1 N:/Parks-Rec./Ref /Maual/Policies Draft • Specialized and individual-benefit programs such as classes or exclusive use of facilities may be priced to recover all direct costs associated with that specific program or service. • Admission fees may be charged to attend special performances or events which may include entertainment, access to unique facilities or to events requiring extra supervision or maintenance. DEFINITIONS Administrative Service Costs (indirect costs) - includes, but is not limited to, scheduling, marketing, registration, and accounting functions; encompasses all aspects of offering the program including City of Southlake staff time. Direct Costs - includes, but is not limited to, costs directly associated with holding the program such as instructor payments, participants t-shirts or uniforms, facility rental, awards, etc. Total Cost Recovery - occurs when all direct and administrative costs are recovered for a specific program or service. Net Revenue - includes revenue remaining after administrative service costs and direct costs have been deducted. PROGRAMS Contract Recreation Programs g Contract recreation programs are defined as instructional programs in which outside instructors Co+`~" ar brought in to teach at designated facilities. Instructors are independent contractors and are not employees of the City of Southlake. Instructors may be required to provide liability insurance . naming the City of Southlake as an additional insured. Participants enrolling in a recreation class/program pay a set fee to participate. The City of Southlake collects all fees and pays the instructor 80% of fees collected except in special circumstances approved by the City Manager. If a portion of the class fee includes a supply fee, the instructor is reimbursed 100%. Class fees are based upon current market pricing for comparable classes. Percentage is split based upon the cost of recovering identified direct costs and administrative service costs. Southlake Parks and Recreation Division contract recreation programs are open to residents and non-residents. Should enrollment become restricted, residents will be given first choice. Examples of contract recreation programs might include art classes, pre-school, youth, teen and adult classes, science camps, sports camps, swim team, track team, Mini-hawk programs, etc. 2 N:/Parks Rec./Ref./Maual/Policies Draft City Managed Recreation Programs City managed recreation programs are defined as instructional programs in which city employees manage the program. Participants enrolling in departmental recreation classes pay a set fee to participate. Program fee is based upon current market pricing for comparable programs. [Program participation fees are established and intended to recover 100% direct costs and IS% of indirect costs.] Southlake Parks and Recreation Division city managed recreation programs are open to residents and non-residents. Examples of city managed recreation programs might include Southlake Saturday Nite, Mini Dribblers, Summer Camp Mania, Teen Camp, Snack with Santa, Sweetheart Dance, etc. City Managed Sports Leagues Examples of city managed sports leagues might include In-line hockey, flag football, youth and adult basketball, adult softball, volleyball, etc. [League participant fees are established and intended to recover 100% direct costs and 20% of administrative service costs associated with offering the league.] Youth Sports Associations Youth sports associations are defined as an organization that provides athletic opportunities to residents. Youth sports associations are independent associations who enter into an agreement with the City of Southlake to use athletic facilities. Youth sports associations will be required to pay the City of Southlake a set field maintenance fee to cover a portion of direct and indirect costs for lighting and maintaining fields in playing condition as determined by facility usage agreement. Special Events Special events are those which bring the community together to celebrate an event or holiday. A nominal fee may apply on event or event activities that require participation limitations or the exchange of goods and services. Examples of special events might include Holiday Celebration, July 4th Celebration, Easter in the Park, Harvest Fest, Movies in the Park, Masterworks, etc. [The City will attempt to recover 10% of direct and indirect costs depending on the event.] Special events are funded through the City budgeted funds and/or corporate sponsors. Non-Departmental Events 3 N:/Parks Rec./Ref./Maual/Policies Draft ap"G Non-Departmental events are hosted by private non-profit organizations through the City of Southlake. Non-Departmental events might include Town Square events, T.A.A.F. tournaments, BCI tournaments, and tournaments hosted by youth sports associations that require City staff support. [These events cover 100% of direct and 10% of indirect costs.] TYPES OF FEES The Parks and Recreation Divisions shall charge the following types of fees: Admission Fees Includes charge to enter an event, i.e. Southlake Saturday Nite. Program Fees Fees charged for city managed and contract programs. Rental Fees Costs for the exclusive use of a specific facility, athletic field, hockey court, pavilion or picnic area, etc. Charges are based on local market conditions. Field Maintenance Fee Costs associated with the maintenance of a specific outdoor athletic facility. Youth sports associations pay a fee that is established and intended to cover a percentage of direct costs associated with these services. Sales Revenue Revenue associated with the operation of concessions. A net profit is usually gained from this venture. SCHOLARSHIP POLICY It is the policy of the City of Southlake that no individual shall be denied participation in a recreation program because of inability to pay. A scholarship program has been developed through donations to assist those with need. PROGRAM REFUND POLICY Our refund policy is "100% satisfaction guaranteed." Paid participants enrolled in Southlake Parks and Recreation Division programs may request a full refund prior to the second class date. After the second class date, refunds will be issued on a pro-rated basis. Any refund check process requires two (2) to three (3) weeks before delivery. Supply fees will not be refunded for supplies received and kept by the participant. 4 N:/Parks Rec./Ref./Maual/Policies Draft L: t va~sai jtl ' VI L£:W£0 L O/ZZ/£0 'Omp L tx t l-leiuuatuaoig\slaays\ueldW l\8 t l h\gof\: H Irr~- 8 $ ~ql ItI. v v Q Yx v c M 4) V Y Y V is p^18 ladvq0 a;tqM d u m a v m a ai za a u JZL o. z 'o C7r"a L1W P CO ~Nw O 1 N I V Y 3 L d U w 0_ IM C.) . v V @ 1 , OC d1i= 0 Z LLiLV I u,.Gm V v_~2 2 o -LLa I I 47 EN. J W d N~ Q 0 I LL G! m m m U O m m A It z I O (J -p .o I F Hmm ~u. U - mH~n C_ W I ° W W If+f ol or i+l+iENlIIffN LF~1 eZ V) - I o- x C~ ~ a 79 -ri rn O I. , ( -OHO C Y Y ro v LL' O m b ® ® Q) Q) E12 s . s a A -pp0~ ~fp0 pelts V _ ~s L: L "-ISO did Ad Z0:96:60 LO/ZZ/60 '6mp'L vi L--s-or goglslaayslu-IdW L19L Lt,\WVH C '`I d flu: ro ` ~ v x v a C7 a Zd~ LLJ Z a u b aw o CO Ira,-~ m F-C- O L a En w 1 1 J w cu _7 F u o LL 'N 0 , ~ ' ~ ~ • . ~ wJINWIINIHININ oeH~uuu;e~ n°i z I d 1\\~~ro I I L.-~LLU L T I. • ~I " ~1NNIHII{IIIIH!NIB aINI1NINfIIIhN4NIG C;~~~ m 1 J J -1' v o=a u~ T c C C b o• ~ w ~ O d u w ~ mr ~ro~'aa vr_i ti 0 d u p z z pis a~u w I ~'ro a ro~EEmrocr U via p a~auQZOw L4'Jalsaija'WV 6Z EZ:80 LOILZICO'6-P LL-IL-Wed yllwg VHlslaagsN-8IdvwgI,LV\gOrvH JD II uap IS@~j ~f"l 1• bLL ' v ~ N CL J 0E QWI(1) v v `JJ aZY ~1 i0~ L - VV JQ ~ I 1 MOO a 1 a~ u.UwU I `LJ yv O I c o. m W m ~ W J N _ Q 0 (D LR) "oo cy G) z ( z Q-) 8 O €lo E ~ o \n ~J J rr E b 0 O`5-y~ w Y 0 0 ci}) I.- ILL Z C-J. ~ry e vl } ro b V Z -A so 0 - - r ~ n.rV D ~ m x Q r- -Py usuyof - J ffi . m J ~ ~Dquapisab a CCo m 8Q¢+~p, 8R V LLa _ ro O O V f; ft laa. tL f/~ `Y VV 1` G. d H d N v ~r- t 0- V 'u5 A. 3 „;a!77 y Q m ~n O ~L ' N ~ fJ^~~ V V d ~ J I N V l:I 'ialsalda Ad LZ:LE:EO lO/ZZ/EO'B-P I LXI L Ml-d POOmuopagg~slaags~ueldW l\gt lmgOf,:H a 00 W V .Y W II~--I IF~1` v a V_ J ~~~U• J O m if & 1`r `a LL o ~hI v vb R~ Y m C, x y L (n( 1~/f 3 V b y zQ a Q) IL Z ! O ® lWV7 i m a 0 d o 0 'Z pboy anoQ Isby 3: o F- z o ~Wpu) I L U J o ! - 3 Z W I I m _ ` iL Vto u III ° Z o I = W / O W o _0 / J II /1 1` _O O Q I ~ U w (n N J O O ~ S N < < a o ~z 11 b I o w ~ T W C m ` / ~ ~ 1 / Q) ~ uog/ned 8u4six3 \ C I Ci W - .w+ a 0~ ~ m N 0 Q ~ c ~ a N -X-X-" G15uls i