Loading...
1999-08-09 * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 2 PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEETING 3 4 August 9, 1999 5 6 MINUTES 7 8 Board Members Present: Sherry Berman, Chair; Richard Anderson, Vice-Chair; Cara White, 9 Secretary; Mary Georgia; James Glover; Chris Miltenberger; Robin Jones; Lisa Stokdyk. 10 11 Board Members Absent: Bill Kemp. 12 13 Staff Members Present: Kevin Hugman, Director of Community Services; Steve Polasek, 14 Deputy Director of Community Services; Ben Henry, Park Planning and Construction 15 Superintendent; John Eaglen, Administrative Assistant. 16 17 18 Regular Session: 19 20 Agenda Item No. 1, Call to order. The meeting was called to order by Sherry Berman, Chair 21 at 7:01 p.m. 22 23 Reports: 24 25 Agenda Item No. 2.A., Administrative Comments. Mr. Hugman announced that the 26 Administrative Secretary position has been filled by Ms. Judy Russeau, and she will be 27 starting on August 23, 1999. Ms. Berman asked if any members had comments for staff. 28 Ms. Jones announced that she has received comments regarding the organization of the youth 29 sports, and suggests that maybe staff needs secretarial assistance. Mr. Hugman responded 30 that the problems to date have been due to staffing, and Ms. Jones responded by suggesting 31 that the recreation staff needs help. Mr. Hugman said that the staffing issues are being 32 addressed and with the addition of Ms. Russeau, are fully staffed now. 33 34 Ms. Stokdyk asked about the fee schedule for the Tennis Center and inquired as to who Mr. 35 Joe Snailum is. Mr. Hugman explained that resident annual family memberships were 36 adjusted to five hundred and fifty dollars ($550) and non-residential family members were 37 adjusted to five hundred and seventy-five dollars ($575). Mr. Hugman stated that Mr. Joe 38 Snailum is the Tennis Center Manager, and explained that Mr. William Bryan had withdrawn 39 his name from consideration. Mr. Hugman also stated that Mr. Snailum had met with himself 40 and the City Manager prior to an offer. Ms. Jones clarified that the fee increase is consistent 41 with other public tennis facilities in the area, and that the league fees are a flat rate regardless 42 of residency. 43 44 45 46 47 48 Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, August 9, 1999 Page 1 of 15 C.- I TEMPI08091999b. doc * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 Motion was made to move Items 5-D and 5-E to the Consent agenda. 2 3 Motion: Stokdyk 4 Second: Miltenberger 5 For: Berman, Anderson, White, Stokdyk, Miltenberger, Georgia, Glover, Jones 6 Against: None 7 Approved: 8-0 8 9 Consent Agenda: 10 11 Agenda Item No. 5D. Shade structures for Bob Jones Park soccer fields. Request by the 12 Grapevine-Southlake Soccer Association (GSSA) to install shade structure at Bob Jones Park 13 for officials and referees. 14 15 Agenda Item No. 5E. Practice Areas for Southlake Baseball Association at Bicentennial Park 16 Approval of two backstops will increase the availability of practice areas, reduce usage of 17 the game fields as practice fields (thereby reducing maintenance), can be done at a minimal 18 cost, and will not impact any future park development plans. 19 20 Motion was made to approve the Consent agenda. 21 22 Motion: Miltenberger 23 Second: White 24 For: Berman, Anderson, White, Stokdyk, Miltenberger, Georgia, Glover, Jones 25 Against: None 26 Approved: 8-0 27 28 Regular Agenda: 29 30 Agenda Item No. 4, Public Forum. Ms. Berman asked if there were any requests to speak 31 during the Public Forum, and Mr. Hugman responded that there were no requests. Public 32 Forum was closed at 7:15 p.m. 33 34 Consider: 35 36 Agenda Item No. S.A., Park Dedication for Crown Ridge Addition. Ms. Berman introduced 37 Mr. Paul Spain of Terra Development. Mr. Paul Spain, 2807 Brookshire Drive, announced 38 that he came before the Board earlier in the year regarding this development, and explained 39 the size of sixty-four (64) acres and location of the development. Mr. Spain explained the 40 topography of the land. Mr. Spain stated that the development is a Planned Unit 41 Development (PUD) of eighty-five (85) lots and described their park dedication proposal. 42 43 Included in expense credit worksheet is 6.35 acres of open space - some of which is 44 intended to be public open space. This total reflects the required allocation of open space 45 as per the Planned Unit Development (PUD) regulations. 46 Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, August 9, 1999 Page 2 of 15 C: I TEMPW 8091999b. doc * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 ➢ Park land dedication of natural and unmaintained open space totaling 1.68 acres. 2 This land is adjacent to the southeast corner of T.W. King and Bob Jones Road and 3 runs along the south end of Bob Jones. 4 5 ■ Equestrian trail totaling 1,300 feet inside the proposed park land dedication along the 6 southern edge of Bob Jones Road. The proposal calls for this to be dedicated as public 7 trail. 8 9 ■ Concrete trail totaling 1,150 feet, the proposal requests credit for this as a private trail. 10 11 Ms. Stokdyk asked if there have been changes in the street along T.W. King Road. Mr. Spain 12 confirmed that City staff requested straightening of T.W. King at the intersection with Bob 13 Jones road. Mr. Anderson asked about the drainage areas in the center of the development. 14 Mr. Spain explained that this is a natural area to maintain the amount of trees along the area 15 and promote natural drainage. Ms. Berman asked if the hike and bike trail will cross the 16 equestrian trail, and expressed concern about this crossage. Ms. Berman suggested that it 17 could be dangerous to cross equestrian and pedestrian uses. Mr. Spain clarified that Ms. 18 Berman asked that the crossage be stopped or properly signed. Mr. Glover stated that it may 19 be acceptable to properly sign the area, as the crossing gives bicyclists access to Bob Jones 20 Road. 21 22 Mr. Glover asked about the greenbelt areas in the middle of the development, as it looks as if 23 they have sidewalks. Mr. Glover asked if the greenbelt areas have trails also. Mr. Spain 24 explained that these areas are drainage and utility easements and not trails, and the drainage 25 runs under the sidewalks. Ms. Stokdyk asked for clarification on the trail areas and drainage 26 areas. Mr. Spain clarified these areas. Ms. Stokdyk asked if the top part of the development 27 is heavily wooded, and Mr. Spain confirmed this. 28 29 Ms. Berman asked Mr. Hugman if the City would be responsible for the equestrian trail if 30 accepted. Mr. Hugman stated that the public area along Bob Jones Road and T.W. King 31 would be the responsibility of the City to maintain. Ms. Berman asked if the Southlake 32 Equestrian Association would be able to assist in the maintenance of this area, as it may 33 become burdensome to staff. Mr. Hugman stated that the area should not be a problem to 34 maintain, but the "flag" area along T.W. King may be a problem. Ms. Berman asked if the 35 area could be maintained by the developer, and Mr. Spain suggested that this would not be a 36 problem, as the area is heavily wooded. Mr. Anderson asked if the area along the new T.W. 37 King could also be maintained by the developer. Mr. Spain agreed to include this area in the 38 maintenance responsibilities of the homeowners association. 39 40 Ms. Georgia asked about the Trail System Master Plan, and if the easements have been 41 acquired along North White Chapel. Mr. Hugman stated that the developer is required to 42 dedicate the required right of way. Ms. Stokdyk asked what Mr. Spain's plans are for this 43 area. Mr. Spain stated that the plans are to landscape the area to provide a buffer zone. Ms. 44 Berman asked Mr. Spain about the possibility of putting in a sidewalk along White Chapel 45 across from City property on North White Chapel (Bob Jones Park). Mr. Spain asked about 46 the type of trail. Mr. Hugman explained that the Trail System Master Plan calls for an eight 47 foot (8') sidewalk trail in the area, however, the TSMP shows the trail on the park side of 48 North White Chapel. Ms. White asked if the Right-Of-Way given by Maguire-Thomas Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, August 9, 1999 Page 3 of 15 C: I TEMP 108091999b. doc * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 connects to this property. Mr. Anderson stated that it does not and clarified Ms. Berman's 2 request. Mr. Glover stated that he did not understand Ms. Berman's request. Ms. White 3 asked if the developer could provide improvements on City owned property, and Mr. 4 Hugman stated that they could as a donation. 5 6 Ms. Georgia asked if Mr. Spain was asking for credit for the 1.6 acres of open space, 1,300' 7 of equestrian trail, and the private open space credits. Mr. Spain confirmed this, and stated 8 that this proposal exceeds the dedication requirements. Mr. Glover asked if the developer is 9 asking to receive the credit in excess of the dedication, and Mr. Spain explained that they are 10 trying to show that the developer is willing to exceed the dedication requirements. 11 12 Ms. White asked if the Trail System Master Plan requires the construction of a sidewalk 13 along T.W. King. Mr. Hugman replied that the developer is not required to do this by the 14 Trail System Master Plan, as it only requires an on-road trail. Ms. White asked about the 15 requirements inside the development, and Mr. Hugman stated that the Sidewalk Ordinance 16 does require sidewalks inside the development. Mr. Glover stated that the proposal exceeds 17 the requirement. Ms. White suggested that with the SABRE development the available land 18 is diminishing. Ms. Stokdyk inquired about the donation of private trail, and Mr. Hugman 19 clarified that the developer can receive half credit for this and that T.W. King is a through 20 road, as it connects to State Highway 114. Ms. Jones suggested that as a private trail, the 21 developer would be required to maintain the property. 22 23 Ms. Berman suggested that there are several Planning and Zoning issues, and that if the 24 planning process changes the proposal, that it should come back before the Board. 25 26 Motion was made to accept the proposal as meeting the park dedication requirements of 27 $127,500, but no additional credit. 28 29 Mr. Anderson stated that the motion needs to call for the City to take ownership of the 30 property, but that the developer would maintain the property. Mr. Hugman stated that the 31 land next to Cobblestone Drive would not be a problem to maintain, but the eastern property 32 would need to be maintained by the developer. Ms. Georgia stated that the only change in 33 the motion needs to be the land next to lots 9 and 10. Ms. Berman asked if the motion gives 34 the developer credit for $288,000. Mr. Glover clarified that the motion accepts all of the 35 proposed items as fulfilling his $127,500 park dedication requirements. Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, August 9, 1999 Page 4 of 15 C: I TEMM08091999b.doc * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 Motion was made to accept the proposal with the amendment that the property adjacent to 2 Block F, Lots 2, 9, and 10 on Cobblestone Drive be donated to the City and maintained by 3 the Homeowners Association, as meeting the $127,500 park dedication requirements. 4 5 Motion: Glover 6 Second: Georgia 7 For: Berman, Anderson, Stokdyk, Miltenberger, Georgia, Glover, Jones 8 Against: White 9 Approved: 7-1 10 11 Agenda Item No. S.B., Recommendation from Northeast Tarrant Tennis (NETT) for 12 matching grant funds. Mr. Hugman explained the proposal and that NETT requests a 13 recommendation to SPDC of matching grant funds. Mr. Hugman explained that there is 14 $35,000 left in Fiscal Year 1999 and that it would be up to SPDC whether this would be 15 rolled into next year's budget. Mr. Hugman stated that staff discussed items that could be 16 purchased with the matching funds. 17 18 Ms. Stokdyk asked if the $35,000 is in this year's budget until October 1, 1999. Mr. Hugman 19 stated that this is true. Ms. Georgia asked if the City accepts proposals even if the matching 20 funds have not been received. Mr. Hugman stated that in the past, the City has accepted 21 proposals and authorized funding, but checks have not been issued unless the requesting 22 organization also has funds available. Ms. Jones stated that the pavilions are an example of 23 this, and Mr. Hugman confirmed this. Ms. Stokdyk stated that in the past the organizations 24 have had to have the money prior to receiving consideration. Ms. Stokdyk stated that this 25 may be unfair since other organizations have been put on hold in the past, and said this 26 request blocks access to the remainder of the balance for other organizations. Ms. Jones 27 reminded the Board that the Tennis Center needs to have items purchased to finish out the 28 facility, and there are no funds for this without the SPDC matching grant program. 29 30 Mr. Glover asked if all that NETT was asking for is twenty-five hundred dollars ($2,500). 31 Ms. Georgia clarified that the request totals fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000). Mr. 32 Miltenberger stated that in the proposal there are plaques to be placed around the facility to 33 get the funds, and asked if NETT is doing the fundraising or is the City. Mr. Hugman stated 34 that NETT would do the fundraising, similar to what was done for the Adventure Alley 35 pavilions. Mr. Anderson replied that by the end of the fiscal year the organization has to 36 raise the money or the funds could disappear. Ms. Berman replied that the leftover funds 37 could be applied to the next fiscal year budget. Ms. Stokdyk asked if SPDC has dedicated 38 the same amount of money for next year. Mr. Hugman confirmed that SPDC has allocated 39 one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) annually over a five year period in the 5-Year Parks 40 CIP. 41 42 Ms. Georgia asked about the amount the Parks and Recreation Board could allocate. Ms. 43 Jones explained that the Board could allocate up to five thousand dollars ($5,000), and that 44 over that the Board could only recommend to SPDC to approve matching grant funding. Ms. 45 White inquired about who has discretion over the project priority list, and Mr. Hugman 46 replied that staff determines the priority. Ms. Jones stated that the projects listed in the 47 NETT proposal are recommendations from City staff. 48 Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, August 9, 1999 Page 5 of 15 C: I TEMP108091999b.doc * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 Ms. Berman asked if there are other organizations that could have the same ability to sponsor 2 items at the Tennis Center. Mr. Hugman stated that the center court is the only item that will 3 be sponsored by NETT, and that in meeting with NETT President Lynn Jumper, staff 4 mentioned the possibility of sponsoring a membership for a specific period of time. Ms. 5 Jones stated that NETT is the only local tennis organization, and that all others in the area are 6 based in Dallas. 7 8 Ms. Lynn Jumper, 418 Southridge Lakes Parkway, explained that NETT would be soliciting 9 donations and other items from other sponsors, but that NETT would be the primary 10 organizer of the contributions. NETT's only contribution would be the sponsorship of the 11 center court. 12 13 Ms. Stokdyk asked if the previous organizations proposing projects have had a full amount of 14 cash in hand. Mr. Miltenberger stated that the Pavilion Committee had committed to raise 15 funds. Mr. Hugman explained that the projects do not move forward until the organization 16 has the matching requirements to begin the process. Ms. Stokdyk asked if the pavilion 17 committee had the money in hand to start when the project was approved by SPDC. Ms. 18 Stokdyk stated that if money is committed prior to funds being raised by the organization, it 19 could set a bad precedent. Mr. Glover stated that this is always the case. Ms. Jones stated 20 that when Keep Southlake Beautiful came forward, the organization wanted start up funds. 21 Ms. Stokdyk replied that they offered in-kind contributions. Ms. Berman stated that the 22 Board instructed Keep Southlake Beautiful to have cash on hand prior to starting the project, 23 and at that time Keep Southlake Beautiful went out and solicited funding. 24 25 Ms. White asked about the items on the proposal, and does the sponsorship pay the complete 26 cost of the facility or item. Mr. Hugman clarified that funding is not directly allocated to a 27 specific project at the Tennis Center. 28 29 Ms. Georgia stated that the proposal falls within the guidelines for acceptance, and that the 30 funds are available for one more month, and that NETT will work with staff on the placing of 31 the plaques. 32 33 34 Motion was made to recommend the approval of the request for matching funds in the 35 amount of $2,500 with a recommendation to SPDC to approve additional matching grant 36 funding in the amount of $12,500 with funds from Fiscal Year 1998-99 for a total matching 37 grant of $15, 000. 38 39 Motion: Georgia 40 Second: Jones 41 For: Berman, Anderson, White, Miltenberger, Georgia, Glover, Jones 42 Against: Stokdyk 43 Approved: 7-1 Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, August 9, 1999 Page 6 of 15 C: I TEMP 108091999b. doc * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 Agenda Item No. S.C., Recommendation of an agreement with Brinkley Sargent Architects 2 for the design and construction drawings for the proposed Teen Center. Mr. Steve Polasek, 3 explained the planning process leading up to acquiring the Request for Qualifications, and 4 how the firms who responded were evaluated. Mr. Polasek stated that through the evaluation 5 process with the planning committee, it was determined that Brinkley Sargent Architects 6 would be the best choice for this project 7 8 Mr. Polasek stated that the proposed fees for facility program development total five 9 thousand dollars ($5,000). Mr. Polasek noted that fees in this section are determinant upon 10 the number of meetings, which could be lower and thus lower the cost. Mr. Polasek provided 11 the other fees: eighty-nine thousand dollars ($89,000) for architectural services, and thirty- 12 two thousand and four hundred dollars ($32,400) for construction administration. The total 13 cost for this proposal is one hundred and twenty-six thousand, two hundred and fifty dollars 14 ($126,250). Mr. Polasek stated that he has met with representatives and the contract 15 dimensions are established, and the proposal is now being reviewed by the City Attorneys. 16 17 Mr. Miltenberger asked about the size of the percentage for construction administration. Mr. 18 Polasek replied that this percentage is slightly larger for this project due to the smaller scope, 19 but is typical for smaller scale projects. Mr. Glover asked about the planning process and the 20 focus groups that have put forth input into the facility. Ms. Jones stated that the 21 recommendations of the focus groups will be forwarded to the architect and these ideas are 22 the foundation of the concept. Mr. Polasek stated that in the process, the architect will 23 expand upon the discussions the focus groups have held. 24 25 Mr. Glover stated that this sounds like the architect will work around what has been provided 26 by the kids, and does not agree with that. Mr. Hugman stated that the architect will need to 27 hold discussions with the user groups in order to begin their design process. Ms. Jones stated 28 that she assumes that the information collected will be forwarded to the architect. Mr. 29 Polasek stated that the architect has the information. Mr. Glover stated that he does not want 30 to believe that the City would construct a desired Teen Center and then have no turnout 31 because it is not what the kids want after Board members have excessive input. Mr. 32 Miltenberger stated that he is in favor of including Board members in the process. Mr. 33 Polasek stated that the idea is to meet with participants again and have the architect speak 34 with them directly. Mr. Polasek stated that this information has been forwarded to the 35 architect, and the process will expand upon the information already provided by the youth 36 groups. Mr. Glover suggested that a starting and ending list be constructed, and have some 37 kind of comparison at the end of the process. 38 39 Ms. Bess Frost, 1928 Sheffield Drive (Grapevine), announced that the Teen Club has been 40 formed to have input on the Teen Center. Ms. Frost stated that the initial target group was to 41 be sixteen (16) years of age and younger, but that the focus should be expanded to address 42 the older teenagers also. Ms. Frost suggested that the Teen Center should have different 43 nights to provide functions tailored to diverse age groups. Ms. Frost stated that a good 44 example to use is a dance club in Irving that is heavily frequented by local teenagers. Ms. 45 Frost stated that the facility could serve multiple user groups, but the planning thus far has 46 been directed to younger kids, but that the older kids need to have an alternative place to 47 meet as well. 48 Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, August 9, 1999 Page 7 of 15 C: I TEMP108091999b.doc * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 Ms. Shelby Stengle, 318 Blanco Circle, stated that the facility should be somewhere where 2 older kids want to frequent, and this will increase the usage of the facility. Ms. Stengle 3 referenced a proposed petition that the Southlake Teen Club would like to distribute to gather 4 further input on the facility. Ms. Stengle stated that she and Ms. Frost are in the Southlake 5 Youth Action Commission, and during the input stages they did not get a correct picture as to 6 what the facility is going to look like. 7 8 Ms. Stokdyk asked if the Teen Center will be utilized by older kids in the evening. Ms. 9 Stengle stated that the facility would be used by older kids in the evening. Mr. Glover stated 10 that this is a good reason for having the planning process, and that the process should be 11 decided upon by the kids. Ms. White suggested that the feedback from the older kids was not 12 sufficient at the time of the planning. Ms. Jones stated that everything that has been proposed 13 is included in the final recommendations for the Teen Center. Ms. Stengle stated that the 14 kids do not want to dance in a gymnasium. Ms. Jones replied that they were not at the Teen 15 Center planning meetings. Ms. Stengle stated that the petition should be allowed to circulate 16 and gather public input. Ms. Jones replied that the petition is biased and will hurt the process 17 more than help. Ms. Jones said that the Teen Center idea came out of the Drug and Alcohol 18 Committee Study that suggested there needs to be recreational programming for kids from 19 the ages of eleven (11) to fifteen (15) years of age, but this does not prohibit the older kids 20 from using the facility. 21 22 Ms. Berman asked the teens why they have not been involved in the process to date. Ms. 23 Frost stated that the committee addressed SYAC in the winter, but that the ideas discussed at 24 the time were not acceptable to SYAC participants. Ms. Jones explained the process, and 25 that when the committee addressed SYAC, the discussion turned to programming when the 26 committee was at the facility stage. Ms. White stated that programming and design need to 27 be connected, and that the older kids feel like they have been excluded. Mr. Glover said that 28 Ms. Georgia's suggestion is valid, and added that there is a possible role for the Joint 29 Utilization Committee in gathering public input from kids. Ms. Jones encouraged the teens' 30 involvement on this issue. 31 32 Motion was made to accept Brinkley Sargent Architects as the architect firm for the Teen 33 Center at a cost of $126,250 and that sixty percent (60%) of the meetings involve children. 34 35 Mr. Hugman stated that staff has heard the direction of the Board, and intends to hold the 36 necessary meetings with the appropriate user groups. Mr. Hugman also requested that a 37 percentage figure not be attached to the motion, as it may be unnecessarily restrictive. Mr. 38 Miltenberger agreed with this request. 39 40 Motion was made to accept Brinkley Sargent Architects as the architect firm for the Teen 41 Center at a cost of $126,250 and the services outlined in the proposal. 42 43 Motion: Stokdyk 44 Second: Jones 45 For: Berman, Anderson, White, Stokdyk, Miltenberger, Georgia, Jones 46 Against: Glover 47 Approved: 7-1 48 Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, August 9, 1999 Page 8 of 15 C: I TEMP108091999b.doc * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 Agenda Item No. S. D., moved to the Consent agenda. 2 3 Agenda Item No. S.E., moved to the Consent agenda. 4 5 Ms. Berman called for a break at 8:15 p.m. 6 7 Meeting was reconvened at 8:35 p.m. 8 9 Discussion: 10 11 Agenda Item No. 6.A., Bob Jones Park Development. 12 13 Mr. Polasek provided a presentation to the Board at 8: 35 p. m. 14 15 Ms. White asked if there are still lots outstanding in the area discussed that impact planning. 16 Mr. Hugman replied that the land acquisition process is progressing and the lots will be 17 acquired shortly. Ms. Georgia asked about the timeline for the TPWD projects that are 18 required. Mr. Hugman stated that the grant was awarded in 1996, but began later. Mr. 19 Hugman said there have been problems with TPWD on entering into a contract, but that the 20 State has indicated that they will grant an extension for the project. Ms. Berman asked if the 21 City could get all projects completed and get the full amount of money from TPWD. Mr. 22 Hugman stated that the City anticipates completing the projects as scheduled and receiving 23 the full grant amount. 24 25 Mr. Polasek introduced Mr. Eddie Cheatham of Cheatham and Associates, Inc. Mr. 26 Cheatham stated that through discussions with staff numerous park construction items have 27 been identified and staff is interested in exploring an addendum to his existing design 28 contract. Mr. Cheatham stated that he would like to have some more information on certain 29 items that will allow for the design of the project. Mr. Cheatham introduced Mr. Gary 30 Kuliack, a landscape architect with extensive experience with amphitheaters. Mr. Cheatham 31 stated that the current budget will not get the project very far. 32 33 Mr. Kuliack of the Landscape Alliance addressed the Board, and stated that City staff has 34 asked him to come in and speak to the Board about the amphitheater project. Mr. Kuliack 35 stated that in terms of real world dollars, the sixty-four thousand dollars ($64,000) currently 36 in the budget will not construct an amphitheater. 37 38 Mr. Kuliack indicated that in planning an amphitheater there needs to be an extensive 39 planning process that gets the facility to an effective level. In communities where 40 amphitheaters are successful, there will be an organization or group that actively uses the 41 facility and directs the programming. In his project experience there have been numerous 42 projects that have provided effective benefits. Mr. Kuliack indicated that user groups tend to 43 be particular about the types of facility and utilities installed, and this can increase the cost. 44 Mr. Kuliack stated that the purpose of this discussion is to get information that directs staff 45 and the consultant on how to best proceed with the amphitheater planning process. 46 47 Mr. Glover asked the Board if there are any user groups who wish to utilize the facility. Ms. 48 Berman stated that several things have changed since the master plan for Bob Jones Park, Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, August 9, 1999 Page 9 of 15 C: I TEMP108091999b.doc * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 such as the addition of the Town Square pavilion. Ms. Berman stated that her idea of the 2 facility is that it is next to the Nature Center, and the use will be educational programming in 3 conjunction with the Nature Center. 4 5 Ms. White stated that the amphitheater was sold as a small, rustic facility that has no lighting 6 and electricity. Mr. Glover stated that he understood that the residents were promised by the 7 Parks Board that Bob Jones Park would be a passive park, and asked for clarification on this 8 definition. Ms. White stated that the initial concept of the park was that it would be an 9 athletic complex, and that the residents and the US Corps of Engineers held to approval of 10 passive uses. Mr. Miltenberger stated that with the athletic facilities included on the south 11 end of the park, it is essentially an athletic complex. Ms. Berman stated that the plan was a 12 compromise between the athletic associations and the Bob Jones Park residents. Ms. White 13 stated that the soccer fields on the north end were placed because the development was low 14 impact and that the City had not acquired the land to the south. 15 16 Mr. Hugman stated that the intent of the park was lower impact usage, passive activities. Mr. 17 Hugman stated that the purpose of the discussion is for Staff to gauge the Board's intent for 18 the amphitheater, but that the budget currently in place will not yield a very significant 19 facility. Mr. Hugman stated that the inference by the discussion is that the Board would like 20 to keep the amphitheater simple, but that there are other costs such as utilities. Mr. Hugman 21 stated that it may be necessary to build utilities, even if they are not initially used. Mr. 22 Miltenberger stated that he feels it is essential to build the facility with utilities. Mr. Hugman 23 stated that the City needs to build the amphitheater as committed to in the TPWD grant, or 24 face the possibility of putting the grant in jeopardy. Mr. Hugman said that this presentation 25 will be taken to SPDC later in the month, and if there are items presented tonight that are of a 26 concern to the Board, it will be relayed to SPDC. 27 28 Mr. Anderson stated that in regards to the drainage issues, it is necessary to finish out what 29 has already been constructed. Mr. Anderson also indicated that at the time of the initial Bob 30 Jones planning discussions a facility to have outdoor events like the Town Square pavilion 31 was not conceptualized. Mr. Anderson stated that as the amphitheater must now be 32 constructed, he would like to see the facility developed in conjunction with the Nature 33 Center, and have it be a low-impact facility. Ms. White added that as the budget amount is 34 already insufficient, the low-impact alternative makes the most sense. Mr. Hugman stated 35 that the planning for the facility in the future needs to be taken into account as well. Mr. 36 Miltenberger agreed, and said that the infrastructure needs to be included should the needs of 37 the facility change. Ms. White stated that in the future the need for an amplified facility next 38 to a Nature Center and around equestrian facilities will not be necessary. Ms. Stokdyk said 39 that some utilities (septic) will be necessary and can be in conjunction with the Nature 40 Center, however, she envisions the facility being low impact and developed with the Nature 41 Center. Ms. Stokdyk asked if there are some rock outcroppings that could help develop the 42 facility, and Mr. Henry replied that there are no such features to work with at Bob Jones Park. 43 44 Ms. Georgia stated that from what she has heard, the direction is to develop a low impact 45 facility with groundwork, but that she does not infer the need for concrete and large 46 structures. Mr. Anderson stated that the amphitheater established in the master plan calls for 47 a large facility, and that this is not necessary or feasible. Mr. Hugman stated that the staff 48 will keep the facility at a basic level. Mr. Kuliack mentioned a similar facility near the Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, August 9, 1999 Page 10 of 15 C: I TEMPI 08091999b. do c * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 Houston area that utilized the natural surroundings, but with the popularity of the site the 2 need for further development of the facility occurred due to demand. Mr. Kuliack stated it is 3 beneficial to develop a low impact facility, as it allows for flexibility in the usage and design 4 as the park matures. Ms. White mentioned the low impact development of Stone Mountain 5 Park in Georgia. Mr. Kuliack stated his understanding is that the facility envisioned by the 6 Board is for the development of a low impact and educational facility. 7 8 Ms. Berman asked if the discussion provided what the staff needed in regards to the 9 amphitheater. Mr. Polasek replied that with this information, the staff will proceed in a 10 direction consistent with the discussion of the Board. Ms. White asked about the practice 11 fields, and Mr. Polasek stated that he envisions these fields to be designed as a group. Mr. 12 Miltenberger asked if these fields could be irrigated, and Mr. Polasek replied that it is 13 possible to look at irrigating the fields. Mr. Miltenberger said that as fields get heavy use in 14 Texas, it will be consistent with the discussion earlier to build the fields properly, and this 15 includes irrigation. Ms. Berman asked if the funding for the loop road can be redirected to 16 some of the projects. Mr. Hugman stated that the loop road needs to be at least designed at 17 this time, and it will be a necessary component to access the park facilities once they are 18 built. Mr. Hugman stated that this listing of projects will need to be taken to SPDC, and a 19 review of the priorities will be established with the development of the SPDC Fiscal Year 20 1999-2000 Budget. 21 22 Mr. Miltenberger asked if bleachers for the soccer fields are budgeted. Mr. Polasek answered 23 that at this point there is no money available, but the possibility exists for a matching funds 24 project. Mr. Miltenberger stated that right now Bob Jones Park does not look appealing 25 without bleachers. 26 27 Mr. Miltenberger asked if the parking lot landscaping will be completed at Bob Jones Park 28 prior to opening the soccer season. Mr. Hugman replied that the parking lot landscaping 29 should be completed by that time. Ms. Stokdyk asked if the areas where erosion is occurring 30 around the pond have been seeded. Mr. Polasek stated that the pond areas have been seeded, 31 but that the success is limited to date due to a lack of rain. Mr. Hugman added that some of 32 the grass is not resistant to the runoff, and this limits the success. Ms. Stokdyk asked about 33 pond replenishment, and Mr. Hugman answered that the City irrigates with water from the 34 pond, and replenishes when necessary from the well. Mr. Polasek added that the pond will 35 replenish in the spring with the rainy season. 36 37 Agenda Item No. 6.B., FY 1999-2000 Parks and Recreation Division Annual Budget. Mr. 38 Hugman stated that the budget has been filed with the City Manager's Budget, effective July 39 31, 1999. Mr. Hugman outlined the proposed General Fund balance and the proposed Parks 40 and Recreation Budget. Mr. Hugman said that there were several factors that led to revision, 41 and projects deleted that are eligible for funding through SPDC will be taken to them next 42 month. Mr. Hugman stated that all personnel requests have been deleted from the budget, 43 and this is on a Citywide basis. Mr. Hugman added that the budget work sessions will be on 44 Tuesday, August 10, 1999 beginning at 7:00 p.m., and invited Board members to the work 45 sessions. 46 47 Ms. Berman stated that she will try and be at the sessions tomorrow. Mr. Glover asked about 48 the difficulty in getting funding for bleachers for Bicentennial Park from SPDC. Mr. Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, August 9, 1999 Page I1 of 15 C: I TEMPW 8091999b. doc * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 Hugman stated that he did not see this as problematic, and if so it may be able to come out of 2 Special Projects. Mr. Glover asked who owns the bleachers at the Intermediate School, and 3 Mr. Hugman stated he would investigate and look at the possibility of relocating them if 4 necessary. 5 6 Mr. Anderson asked about the personnel cuts, and Mr. Hugman replied that the five (5) 7 personnel requests were removed. Ms. Berman stated that this is problematic. Mr. Hugman 8 followed that there are two items driving the budget this fiscal year, one being funding for the 9 start up of a Library. The other major cost in the budget is the proposed pay plan revision for 10 current staff. Mr. Hugman stated that there are many positions in the City that are underpaid 11 in comparison to other cities, and in a tight labor market it has been a problem to hire new 12 people. Mr. Hugman stated that the City Council wanted to pay the current employees on a 13 market based pay rate. Mr. Glover stated that he believes that this is one reason the City lost 14 Ms. Kathy Schaeffer, and had initial problems filling Mr. Steve Moore's position. Mr. 15 Glover followed that he has had a conversation with Mr. Hugman about this issue in the past. 16 Mr. Anderson replied that this position is admirable, however the City has been acquiring 17 additional park land and there is no increase in staffing. Mr. Glover stated that it may be 18 beneficial to focus on infrastructure (utilities) and other things over the next year that do not 19 burden the maintenance staff. 20 21 Ms. Berman asked about the possibility of using grant funding for attaining staff. Mr. 22 Hugman stated that the option takes time to research and staff has been researching possible 23 grant funding as much as possible. Mr. Glover stated that personnel will be added in the 24 future due to the purchase of park land that will be developed, thus requiring more staff. Mr. 25 Polasek replied to this, stating that in the future when discussing projects, such as the Teen 26 Center, the operations and maintenance will be established so everyone has a clear picture of 27 what is required in terms of staffing. Mr. Miltenberger asked if anyone is satisfied with the 28 level of maintenance personnel. Mr. Hugman replied that no one is satisfied, and the focus is 29 to continue ways to best utilize the maintenance staff cost-effectively. Mr. Hugman said that 30 an example of this is the new requests of a tractor and batwing mower. Mr. Miltenberger 31 stated that it is obvious that Bicentennial Park is an overused facility. Mr. Hugman replied 32 that the new requests will improve maintenance and aesthetics of park facilities. Ms. Berman 33 asked about the possibility of utilizing citizen volunteers to help maintain facilities, such as 34 ballfield maintenance. Mr. Hugman replied that citizen volunteers do contribute to 35 maintenance in some areas. Mr. Polasek added that there has been a good cooperative effort 36 between the associations and the staff, and that he feels that everything has been done that 37 can be in this area. Mr. Hugman stated that the personnel issues are not only in Parks and 38 Recreation, and the priorities are sorted through by the City Council. 39 40 Ms. Stokdyk stated that she believed that the Town Square Banners and Arms were 41 eliminated by the Board. Mr. Hugman stated that this was left in the budget by staff and 42 discussed with City Council at their June retreat. He has spoken with Town Square officials 43 about furnishing a sound system that was removed from the budget. Mr. Hugman stated that 44 the banners will be used in conjunction with Parks and Recreation special events such as the 45 Fourth of July and the Christmas season. Mr. Hugman stated that staff is working on a policy 46 that allows for other organizations to purchase banners for special events. 47 Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, August 9, 1999 Page 12 of 15 C: I TEMPW 8091999b. doc * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 Ms. Georgia asked about the cost of bleachers similar to what is utilized at Town Square. 2 Mr. Polasek replied that the cost of bleachers depends upon length, size, and railing, but that 3 the cost of bleachers is more expensive than in the past. Ms. Georgia replied that while she 4 supports dressing up Town Square, she has a hard time supporting a budget that shortchanges 5 needed facilities to purchase banners at Town Square. Mr. Hugman replied that they will be 6 taking the bleacher purchases to SPDC, and that if necessary, money from the operating 7 accounts might be allocated to purchasing the bleachers. 8 9 Ms. Georgia stated that as a Board, the discussions always center around infrastructure, but in 10 terms of the budget, the Board only provides recommendations. Ms. Georgia followed that 11 she would like to have this understood in future discussions concerning infrastructure, 12 including discussions with developers, as the City has not historically dedicated funding for 13 infrastructure needs, it is unfair to push expectations onto developers and other parties. Ms. 14 Georgia stated that these decisions are left to SPDC, and that land acquisition has been the 15 focus. Mr. Miltenberger replied that this focus was agreed upon at the last Parks 16 Board/SPDC joint meeting in April. Ms. Georgia stated that this has not been communicated 17 to the public. 18 19 Ms. Berman replied that if people are not heavily involved in the process, it is hard to 20 communicate to them the logic behind decision making. Ms. White added that projects are 21 going on, but the demand has outrun the speed of development. Mr. Glover stated that the 22 root cause of this problem is communication about what is going on. Ms. White responded 23 that groups like SPIN relay information to public. Mr. Glover replied that the problem is that 24 there is a low connection between involvement and knowledge. Ms. Stokdyk asked what is 25 the solution. Mr. Glover answered that Ms. Georgia has a point that it needs to be better 26 communicated to the public that there are established priorities that guide action. Mr. 27 Hugman replied that communication can be improved and that due to staff turnover, the City 28 newsletter had been missed a couple of months. Hew would ensure an article in an upcoming 29 newsletter focused on SPDC projects.. Mr. Glover stated that governments have a hard time 30 explaining where money is allocated, and this needs to be improved. Mr. Miltenberger states 31 that he does not see this as a problem, and that the Board does a good job of communicating 32 the priorities to the public. Mr. Miltenberger said that the Board should press developers, as 33 the trails will never get built if they don't do this. Ms. Georgia agreed with this, but stated 34 that the Board needs to relay information to the public as to what is being done. 35 36 Agenda Item No. 6.C., Liaison Reports. 37 38 Youth Parks and Recreation Board - Ms. Berman asked about the membership. Mr. Hugman 39 replied that there needs to be an interview committee formed, and the interview panel must 40 consist of a Parks Board member and an SPDC member. Ms. Berman suggested advertising 41 through the schools, and Mr. Hugman replied that staff will investigate this option at their 42 opening. Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, August 9, 1999 Page 13 of 15 C: I TEMP108091999b. doc * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 Recreation/Special Events - Jones - No report. 2 3 Teen Center Update - Jones - No report. 4 5 Youth Sports Associations - Miltenberger - Mr. Miltenberger stated the need to have the 6 three (3) fields lighted at Bicentennial Park, as the associations have increasing participants. 7 Ms. Berman asked what the cost of lighting would be. Mr. Polasek replied that a full cost 8 study needs to be done. Mr. Miltenberger stated that the SBA Board is dominated by parents 9 of older children, and the younger age group needs to be queried. Mr. Polasek mentioned 10 that they met with SBA President Ed Agnew, and this item was discussed. Mr. Miltenberger 11 asked that if the SBA offered to pay for the lights, would the City pick up the lighting costs. 12 Mr. Hugman said he felt this could be considered. Ms. Stokdyk asked at what point does 13 restriction of registration become an option. Mr. Hugman answered that the association 14 capacity is determined by the availability of fields, and if the City cannot build facilities fast 15 enough, restriction may become an option. Mr. Hugman stated that this is the case in 16 Basketball. Mr. Glover stated that this is also the case with hockey, that practice time is 17 limited to Sundays. Mr. Glover said that with the larger in-line hockey court, splitting up the 18 court for practice time is an option. Mr. Glover stated that another alternative is the sports 19 associations developing a regional partnership. 20 21 Community Groups - Stokdyk, White - Ms. Stokdyk reported that Keep Southlake 22 Beautiful is conducting an officer retreat this month; Greater Southlake Women's Club is 23 conducting Summer Santa; Equestrians need to have another meeting. 24 25 SPIN - White - Meeting on Wednesday, August 11, 1999. Ms. White reported that an 26 Executive Committee meeting will be coming up soon due to border issues. 27 28 SPDC - Berman, White - Ms. White reported that land acquisition was discussed, and 29 authorization has been granted to move forward on one property. 30 31 JUC - Glover - Mr. Glover reported that there was no meeting in July. Ms. Berman asked 32 about the status of the high school plans. Mr. Hugman replied that at the Joint Meeting, the 33 School District stated that they have not made a decision. Ms. Berman said that this decision 34 will impact recreational programming, as one high school will limit available varsity spots, 35 thus increasing pressures on the recreation system. Mr. Miltenberger stated that he is writing 36 a letter to the CISD School Board concerning conditions of the Durham Elementary School 37 fields. Mr. Glover stated that he will bring the issue up at the next Committee meeting. 38 39 City Council Monthly Report - Jones - No report. 40 41 Tennis Center - Jones - No report. 42 43 Equestrians - White, Anderson - No report Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, August 9, 1999 Page 14 of 15 C.• I TEMP 108091999b. doc * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 Agenda Item No. 7, Adjournment. The meeting was adjourned by Chair Sherry Berman at 2 10:21 p.m. 3 4 5 6 Sherry Berman 7 Chair 8 9 10 11 Cara White 12 Secretary Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, August 9, 1999 Page 15 of 15 C: I TEMP108091999b. doc