Loading...
1999-09-13 * * OFFICIAL MINUTES APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 2 PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEETING 3 4 September 13, 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; Bill Kemp; Lisa Stokdyk. 10 11 Board Members Absent: Robin Jones 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; Chris Carpenter, Senior Planner; John E4glen, Administrative Assistant; 16 Judy Russeau, Administrative Secretary. 17 18 19 Regular Session: 20 21 Agenda Item No. 1, Call to order. The meeting was called to order by Sherry Berman, Chair 22 at 7:05 p.m. 23 24 Reports: 25 26 Agenda Item No. 2.A., Administrative Comments. Mr. Hugman introduced Judy Russeau as 27 the new Administrative Secretary. 28 29 Mr. Hugman reminded the board that there would be a joint Park Board/SPDC meeting 30 Monday, September 27, 1999 at 7:00 PM. This is the normal meeting day for SPDC. 31 Development of the next 5-Year Capital Improvements Plan for Parks and the Land 32 Acquisition Plan will be discussed. There will be a joint, closed executive session to discuss 33 land acquisition. 34 35 Ms. Stokdyk requested that she be penciled in for the November 16 City Council Meeting. 36 37 Mr. Miltenberger said that the fields at Bob Jones Park worked very well for soccer Saturday. 38 He said that he had heard comments regarding the lack of seating at the fields and that 39 bleachers would need to be purchased at some time in the future as fundin' ermits. 40 41 Amotion was made to move Consider Items 5-D and 5-E to the Consent agenda and approve 42 the tninutes of the August 9, 1999 meeting with corrections. 43 44 Motion: White 45 Second: Miltenberger 46 For: Berman, Anderson, White, Stokdyk, Miltenberger, Georgia, Glover, Kemp 47 Against: None 48 Approved: 8-0 Parks and Recreation Board Regular lVeeting, September 13, 1999 Page 1 of 17 N: (Parks & Recreation tBOARDSIPKBOARDUVII7VUTES119991091399.doc * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 Consent Agenda: 2 3 Agenda Item No. 5D. Usage of Bicentennial Park tennis courts. Staff requested the Park 4 Board's input on the recommended clarifications to the Park Use policy concerning the 5 Bicentennial Park tennis courts on the hill. 6 7 ■ The two courts on the hill at Bicentennial Park will be first come, first served, no 8 reservations take. 9 ■ There will be no fees for play on these courts. 10 ■ Signage will be installed requesting users to limit their time to 90 minutes. 11 ■ Users can-conduct lessons or drills on the courts, with a pro if they choose, subject to the 12 availability of the court and the time restrictions. 13 ■ The courts may not be reserved for lessons, league play or drills, and may not be 14 advertised as a site to conduct lessons. 15 16 Agenda Item No. 5E, Appointments to the Youth Parks and Recreation Board. Five 17 applicants have been recommended to fill the vacancies on the Youth Parks and Recreation 18 Board. Recreation Specialist Teddi Zonker will continue to serve as the staff liaison to this 19 board. The applicants approved were: 20 21 Dave Clark 22 Hayes Stripling 23 Matthew S. Coons 24 Kim Smiley 25 Lauren Chaffin 26 27 Motion was made to approve the Consent agenda. 28 29 Motion: Miltenberger 30 Second: White 31 For: Berman, Anderson, White, Stokdyk, Miltenberger, Georgia, Glover, Jones 32 Against: None 33 Approved: 8-0 34 35 Regular Agenda: 36 37 Agenda Item No. 4, Public Forum. Ms. Berman asked if there were any requests to speak 38 during the Public Forum. There were no requests. Public Forum was closed at 7:11 p.m. 39 40 Consider: 41 42 Agenda Item No. S.A., Request from Lonestar Assistance Dog Service for Fundraising event 43 at Bicentennial Park. Mr. Hugman said that this request was withdrawn by the applicant. 44 45 Mr. Miltenberger asked if the Consider Agenda Items could be discussed out of order to 46 accommodate attending participants. 47 48 Agenda Item No. 5. C. was moved up within the agenda. Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, September 13, 1999 Page 2 of 17 N.•IParks & Recreation IBOARDSIPKBOARDIMI7VUTESI19991091399.doe } * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 2 Agenda Item No. 5. C. Request from Southlake Equestrian Association (SEA) for matching 3 grant funding. Mr. Hugman said that SEA recently applied for a grant from Texas Parks and 4 Wildlife for trailhead development at•Bob Jones Park and was awarded the grant for $6,317. 5 SEA is requesting a matching grant in the amount of $10,000 from the SPDC for 6 improvements including: 7 8 ■ General trail repair 9 ■ Benches 10 . Hitching posts and corrals 11 ■ Horse watering facilities 12 ■ Trail signage 13 14 SPDC currently has $20,000 left from the one hundred ($100,000) matching line item that 15 has not been appropriated. a 16 17 Julie Landesberg President of the Southlake Equestrian Association (SEA). Ms. Landesberg 18 said the City of Southlake was sent a letter requesting Matching Grant Funds in the amount 19 of $10,000.00. SEA will be matching this amount with the funds awarded to them from the 20 Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission. Ms. Landesberg said that SEA feels confident they 21 would be able to raise $3,683.00 from vendors such as feed stores and local interest groups. 22 SEA would use these funds to finish the two trailheads on the master plan. 23 24 Ms. Stokdyk asked Ms. Landesberg if any matching funds were granted at a previous 25 presentation. Ms. Landesberg said that at the time SEA presented the grant proposal to the 26.- board for support to present to TPWC. No City funds were requested at that time. 27 28 Ms. White asked how much money was left in the budget for matching funds for the 29 remainder of this fiscal year. Mr. Hugman said that there is $20,000.00 remaining from the 30 $100,000.00 allocated for this fiscal year. Ms. Berman said that the new budget begins in 31 October, '1999 with another $100,000.00. Mr. Hugman said staff is looking at increasing the 32 budgeted amount from $100,000.00 to $150,000.00. The increase is due to the amount of 33 requests received. SPDC has not made a decision as to the handling of left over funds from 34 this fiscal year. This will be discussed later in the agenda with the five (5)-Year CIP. 35 36 Mr. Anderson said that it was his understanding this requested amount would come out of 37 this fiscal years budget. Mr. Hugman agreed. Mr. Anderson said that this would mean that 38 the entire amount of the new budget would be available for use for other future activities. 39 40 Mr. Glover questioned whether there has been any prior precedence set regarding 41 recommending or not recommending matching funds that have not been raised. Mr. Hugman 42 said~that this issue was discussed last month. Each project has been handled individually. 43 Two years ago funding of $25,000.00 was allocated to Leadership Southlake for Bicentennial 44 Park Pavilions without matching funds being raised. That organization never raised the 45 necessary funding. Last year, Mr. Larry Abernathy, representing a separate organization, 46 requested matching funds for this project. $25,000.00 had been earmarked for Adventure 47 Alley Pavilions and in July 1998 he requested funding at a Public Forum. $15,000.00 was Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, September 13, 1999 Page 3 of 17 N: (Parks & Recreation OOARDSIPKBOARDIMI7VUTES119991091399.doc * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 awarded in August 1998, and at the time Mr. Abernathy had $15,000.00 on hand. He 2 received two more grants later, one of $10,000.00 and one of $5,000.00. 3 4 Mr. Kemp said that the letter implies that the Tennis Association has received funds without 5 raising money. Mr. Hugman said that NETT came forward with a request that $15,000.00 be 6 earmarked. NETT had $2,500.00 that they would give and have given the City a check for 7 that amount since. Mr. Hugman stated that we have not funded any projects before an 8 organization has had the matching funds. The scopes of the projects have varied. The 9 Pavilion and the KSB Waterscape were large projects. NETT came forward with items for 10 purchase and items can be purchased as funds become available. Mr. Hugman distributed 11 copies of the Project and Community Matching Fund Request Policy and said that it does not 12 really address whether funds need to be on hand. Mr. Hugman called the board's attention to 13 paragraph 8: All projects will be considered for acceptance on a project-by project basis. 14 The length of time required to complete the project will br considered. Not meeting the start 15 and completion dates indicated may jeopardize funding. The project status will be reviewed 16 by the Director of Parks and Recreation and the Parks and Recreation Board. Mr. Hugman 17 said that he reads that to say that if funding is allocated and funds are not raised, the SPDC 18 has the discretion to pull the funds if desired. 19 20 Ms. White said she thought that there was a three (3) year time limit for NETT. Mr. Hugman 21 said that was more in the terms of sponsorship. NETT said they felt they could raise a large 22 portion of the money before the end of this fiscal year. They were also told that SPDC has 23 the call on how the funds are allocated and appropriated and whether the funds would be 24 available at the end of the year. Ms. White said she thought SPDC wanted to be sure to set a 25 time limit. Ms. Stokdyk asked for clarification - sponsorship would expire if a project is not 26 completed within the three (3) year time limit. Ms. White said yes. 27 28 Ms Berman asked if this is a policy that the board should make a recommendation to the 29 SPDC or City Council. Mr. Hugman said the Board could make a recommendation to the 30 SPDC, if desired. He also said the Board should consider if a project meets the criteria in 31 terms of'desired park projects and if so, the Board recommends the project to SPDC. SPDC 32 is the funding branch and would determine the funding portion of the project. Their approval 33 should be sought for any changes to the policy in this regard. 34 35 Ms. Berman said that if the board feels this is a problem, it should be put on the agenda next 36 month for review. 37 38 Mr. Kemp commented on item no. II on the first page of the Project and Community 39 Matching Fund Request Policy. One of the items to present is the mechanisms of funding of 40 the project. Mr. Kemp said that he would infer from this that the organization does not have 41 to-have the money on hand when requesting matching grant funding. 42 43 Mr. Miltenberger asked if there has been any thought that it is okay to provide matching 44 funds for something already received in a grant. Mr. Hugman said it had not be discussed 45 before that he knew of. Ms. Stokdyk recalls working with Mr. Larry Abernathy and Mr. 46 Scott Martin in fund raising and some money was raised to do at least a portion of the project 47 before matching funds were requested. Ms. Stokdyk feels that since the SEA project is in 48 phases and the $6,317.00 covers most of the items, she is comfortable with approval of this, Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, September 13, 1999 Page 4 of 17 N.•IParks & RecreationlBOARDSIPKBOARDIMINUTES119991091399.doc * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 but is not comfortable with saying funds are set aside. She does not feel that there has been 2 consistency with approvals. 3 4 Mr. Anderson suggested that this be brought up as a matching fund issue on the agenda for 5 discussion. He feels that the SEA request is reasonable. Mr. Hugman said this may be an 6 issue to talk to SPDC about at the joint meeting. 7 8 Mr. Miltenberger asked how long it would take to get the other $3,683.00. Ms. Landesberg 9 said she did not think it would take long. Since the grant has just been awarded, SEA has not 10 attempted to obtain the rest of the money. The original proposal to the Texas Recreational 11 Trail Funds was for a little over $15,000.00. However, a couple of items have been identified 12 that SEA feels would be beneficial such as landscaping between the north trail of Bob Jones 13 and the soccer fields and waste receptacles. The extra funds would help with these 14 landscaping issues. 15 16 Ms. Georgia asked if it was appropriate to make a motion to SPDC to match the $6,317.00 17 and upon obtaining the $3,683.00 match this amount. 18 19 Mr. Hugman said that funds can be appropriated, but as stated earlier, they are not expended 20 until an organization comes forward with the money. 21 22 Ms. Georgia made a motion to recommend to SPDC to match $6,317.00 and upon SEA 23 obtaining $3,683.00 to also match this amount. 24 25 Motion: White 26 _ Second: Glover 27 For: Berman, Anderson, White, Miltenberger, Georgia, Glover, Kemp Stokdyk 28 Against: None 29 Approved: 8-0 30 31 Agenda Item No. 5.13. Request from Lake Cities Mothers of Multiples for fundraising event 32 at Bicentennial Park. 33 34 Mr. Hugman said that there have been some requests in the last couple of weeks for 35 fundraising events from organizations not associated with the City to hold a specific event on 36 city property. This does raise some issues for setting a precedent and creating some legal 37 challenges. Surrounding cities have been contacted and asked about their policies regarding 38 this issues. Most cities do not permit fundraising events other than events such as "fun runs" 39 where funds are not collected on site. North Richland Hills has a library of policies and will 40 send the information to us. 41 Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, September 13, 1999 Page S of 17 N.-Tarks & RecreationlBOARDSIPKBOARDIMINUTES119991091399.doc * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 This item is being brought to the board for consideration. This issue has been discussed with 2 the city attorney. The most conservative approach would be to not allow any fundraising. 3 The second would be to allow some events but draft a policy with language that passes the 4 constitutional test and would minimize legal challenges. This is not unlike liability issues for 5 recreational programs. There are some recreational programs not pursued due to liability 6 issues, but there is also some assumed risk. There are two questions brought before the 7 board: 8 1. Is a policy desired and what direction should be taken 9 2. Request from Lake Cities Mothers of Multiples 10 11 Cathy Hendrickson, 520 Ravenaux, Southlake. Ms Hendrickson said that this organization 12 provides assistance and support to mothers of twins and triplets in the Southlake, Grapevine, 13 Colleyville, Keller areas. There are roughly forty (40) members in the local area, it is state 14 wide and has over one thousand (1,000) members nationally . Assistance is provided not 15 only to members, but to the community as well. Money is being raised for the Annual 16 Christmas Program and twin foster children are invited to attend. She said that 17 approximately $200.00- $250.00 is raised and the club takes tert'(10) % of the sales. Ms. 18 Hendrickson also said that other cities have rejected their request, however, Ms. Hendrickson 19 feels that Southlake is a unique community with a great deal of involvement with its citizens. 20 21 The organization is requesting a facility to hold a garage sale October 23, 1999. Any items 22 left are donated to G.R.A.C.E. 23 24 Ms. Stokdyk commented that Rotary was having a garage sale October 2, 1999 and that 25 Ms. Hendrickson's group may be interested in participating. The Humane Society is holding 26 , a garage sale October 23, 1999 and this may be a conflict. 27 28 Ms. Berman said the issue at hand is the policy and consistency for all groups. 29 30 Mr. Miltenberger said he would like the flexibility to look at each project on a case-by-case 31 basis. His recommendation to staff is to consult with whoever is needed and possibly revise 32 the policy. 33 34 Mr. Hugman said that in reviewing on a case-by-case basis, the board is considering an issue, 35 but a precedent is being set and legal ramifications with constitutional rights could arise. 36 While many groups might be acceptable, others that also want to do fundraising may not be 37 acceptable. The borderline organizations or "gray area" could make a decision difficult and 38 place the City in a legal challenge. Mr. Kemp asked how the Board would approach a 39 request by a 501 (c)(3) organization named Southlake Residents for the Legalization of 40 Marijuana. 41 42 Ms. Perman asked if the city attorney drafted a policy, would there still be some risk. Mr. 43 Hugman said the attorneys could draft something but there would still be some risk. The best 44 way to minimize risk is to not permit any fundraising events for other organizations. 45 Community benefit would need to be defined if this was to be used as a standard, and that 46 could be difficult. 47 Parks and Recreation Board Regular iVeeting, September 13, 1999 Page 6 of 17 N:1Parks & Recreation IBOARDSIPKBOARDIMI7VUTESI19991091399.doc * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 Mr. Anderson said if no events were permitted, the Cancer Society, or Heart Association or 2 like organizations could not use the park for walk-a-thons, etc. Mr. Hugman said some cities 3 permit walk-a-thons, but do not allow them to collect money on the property. 4 5 Ms. Berman said as Mr. Miltenberger. stated earlier in the work session, you could get tied up 6 in litigation and benefits outweigh any other objections. She would like to have the city 7 attorneys draft a policy for review. 8 9 Mr. Glover asked for clarification on action being taken at this time. Is this decision final? 10 He asked if they were to make a recommendation to City Council and based on the timing of 11 this particular proposal, would the opportunity pass? He recommends taking action at this 12 time due to time constraint for the organization. 13 14 Mr. Miltenberger said he would not like to be rushed into making a decision in general, based 15 on the time constraint at hand. He is in favor of approving this garage sale as a specific case, 16 and would like to review future projects on a case-by-case basis. 17 18 Ms. Stokdyk asked Ms. Hendrickson if this was a 501 (c) 3 organization. Ms. Hendrickson 19 said yes. Ms. Stokdyk questioned whether to suggest that fundraising groups be (50%) 20 members of Southlake Northeast or Tarrant County. She is more comfortable if some of the, 21 members live in Southlake as opposed to groups totally based in Dallas or other areas. 22 23 Ms. Georgia said she feels that this organization represents Southlake residents and it appears 24 that the request is for the use of a building. She asked Mr. Hugman what the normal use of 25 the Building would be 8:00 AM - 1:00 PM on a Saturday. Mr. Hugman said the building is 26 not being used during that particular time. 27 28 Ms. Georgia made a motion that the Board approve the request of the Lakes City Mothers of 29 Multiples for the fundraising event. 30 31 Motion: White 32 Second: Glover 33 For: Berman, Anderson, White, Miltenberger, Georgia, Glover, Kemp Stokdyk 34 Against: None 35 Approved: 8-0 36 37 Ms. Georgia requested that staff work with city attorneys to prepare a proposed policy for the 38 Park Board to consider. 39 40 Ms. Georgia suggested putting this item on the agenda next month with a recommendation 41 f -am. staff. 42 43 Discussion Agenda Item No 6 A was moved up within the agenda. 44 45 Agenda Item No. 6.A., Proposed Changes to Park Dedication Fees. 46 Mr. Hugman said that a handout of Board member Bill Kemp's points was distributed to the 47 board with the current ordinances and questions as understood by staff, and potential 48 revisions to ordinances and master plans. Parks and Recreation Board Regular !fleeting, September 13, 1999 Page 7 of 17 N: (Parks & RecreationlBOARDSIPKBOARDINIINUTES119991091399.doc * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 2 Copies of the Park Dedication Requirements Discussion Matrix were distributed. 3 4 Mr. Kemp said he has been involved in revisiting a good number of Southlake's ordinances. 5 Mr. Kemp said that since his first Park Board meeting he has had some concerns at the city's 6 approach to park dedication. Based on his preliminary research, he drafted comments on his 7 suggestion of changes and summaries of Plano and Flower Mound park dedication 8 requirements. Mr. Kemp feels that the Plano approach is very good. He feels that the City of 9 Southlake approach puts the control in the hands of the developer. 10 11 Mr. Hugman said that the Park Dedication Ordinance reads that land is required and any 12 other alternative including fees must be considered by the Park Board, however typically, 13 developers do select the piece of property they would like to propose. Ms. Stokdyk stated 14 that if the project is large enough the developer is required-to give land. Mr. Hugman stated 15 that as the ordinance reads every developer is required to dedicate land regardless of size of 16 project. Prior to the last ordinance change, the developer was given the option of dedicating 17 fees or land. 18 19 Ms. Stokdyk said that the board has set the precedent that if it is a small development and 20 dedication requirement is only six-tenths (6/10) of acre we have the option of taking fees 21 because the optimal is having over one (1) acre. Mr. Hugman said the city would prefer over 22 five (5) acres for development as a park, since neighborhood parks are typically five (5) acres 23 or more. The Park Board has accepted smaller tracts as dedication in certain specific 24 instances, such as for trails. Current requirement is one (1) acre per forty (40) dwellings units 25 and to get a five (5) acre piece would require a development of more than two-hundred (200) 26 homes. The five (5) acre preference has not been set, but the Parks and Recreation Open 27 Space Master Plan defines neighborhood parks as being five (5) acres or more. Small, 28 scattered parks throughout the city could create a maintenance problem, Mr. Hugman said. 29 30 Mr. Kemp clarified that the first step is that the developer proposes to dedicate specified 31 property. Mr. Kemp's recommendation is that the board start the process as opposed to the 32 developer. 33 34 Mr. Carpenter said that the frustration may occur in the wording and language. There should 35 be a process in the ordinance or policy that direction is given during the preliminary phases 36 as to what the city wants to see as a dedication. 37 38 Mr. Miltenberger commented on Timarron as an example of dedication being pushed. Ms. 39 White also commented on the golf course and Timarron's reliance on it in the past to meet 40 their park dedication requirement.. 41 42 Mr. Hugman said there are two issues: 43 = 1. The process is not formalized but is being worked on by Planning and 44 Community Services to ensure developers appear before Park Board earlier in the 45 process. 46 2. Master Plan does not define specific sites for parks. Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, September 13, 1999 Page 8 of 17 N.-1Parks & Recreation OOARDSiPKBOARDIMINUTES119991091399.doc * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 Some cities do bubble in areas for parks. Mr. Hugman said Southlake's Master Plan only 2 says there will be a community size park in the southwest part of the city. It does split up the 3 city in neighborhood zones though, but again, does not specifically identify park sites. 4 5 Ms. Berman asked Mr. Kemp if his recommendation is for the board to pick sites for parks? 6 Mr. Kemp said yes, but he recognizes it can be a political issue. As he reads the park 7 dedication requirement ordinance, the developer identifies property he wants to use for 8 dedication. If the city refuses the land, a cash requirement comes into place. 9 10 Ms. Berman said if the Master Plan identified sites in advance, the developer would know the 11 selection of sites. 12 13 Ms. Stokdyk asked Mr. Kemp for clarification on the Plano and Flower Mound process. Mr. 14 Kemp said this can only come into play if someone requests to sub-divide their property. 15 d 16 Mr. Hugman said just as with the Land Use Plan, it can be a political issue. The Master Plan 17 process will be reviewed next year, as required by the Charter. =A consultant will be hired for 18 the process and this approach will be considered. 19 20 Ms. Stokdyk asked if we are required to accept the money if a site is rejected or can we 21 enforce the selection of another site. 22 23 Mr. Kemp read from the ordinance: In any case where a dedication is required, the City 24 shall have the right to accept the dedication as submitted for approval, or in the alternative, , 25 to refuse dedication of the same, and in lieu thereof to require payment of cash under the 26 formula contained in this Section or to allow the developer to construct recreation or park 27 improvements. The City may permit a combination of dedication, improvements and fees to 28 be used to fulfill this requirement. Mr. Kemp would like to change the ordinance so the 29 developer does not have the option to make it a take-it or leave-it deal. Re-drafting 7.05 30 could be done easily. 31 32 Mr. Carpenter said that the bolded and italicized items will be reviewed thoroughly and come 33 back to the board with a comprehensive set of language proposals. Mr. Hugman said these 34 could be brought back as consider items. Mr. Hugman said the city attorneys will be 35 consulted as well. Mr. Kemp said there are legal limitations on park dedications. 36 37 Ms. Georgia asked what process is used to monitor park dedications. Mr. Hugman said there 38 is no specific process, but the plans are checked during development by the Building 39 Inspector. Ms. Georgia said there is some concern with regards to broken commitments. Mr. 40 Hugman said the staff would continue to monitor. All park dedication commitments are 41 documented and sent to Public Works for inclusion in the developer's agreement. 42 43 Ms. Berman requested that Mr. Carpenter keep Mr. Kemp informed while reviewing this 44 process. 45 46 Mr. Kemp discussed the Park Fee Fund and Plano's approach being to fund large regional 47 parks through the Capital Improvement Plan and neighborhood parks through park dedication 48 fees. Southlake uses mostly SPDC funding for all parks. Plano's system is set up so that, Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, September 13, 1999 Page 9 of 17 N.-IParks & Recreation IBOARDSIPKBOARDUIfINUTES119991091399.doc * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 theoretically, there should be a constant base maintained. Mr. Kemp said that he only hears 2 reports on SPDC. He says he has not heard any discussion on park fee funds received as cash 3 in lieu of park dedication. Mr. Hugman said that $100,000.00 has been estimated in revenues 4 for this year. Recent expenditures have been for engineering services, purchase of land. 5 6 Ms. Berman said she would like these funds to be dedicated to linear parks and trails. Mr. 7 Kemp said that if you buy into the notion a regional park benefits the city as a whole and 8 therefore should be paid for by the city, this could be distinguished from a small park that a 9 developer should pay for. The cost of developing a small neighborhood park should be 10 determined. Mr. Kemp said that Plano identifies park dedication fees to a specific 11 neighborhood park. Mr. Hugman said this could be done with Southlake, however certain 12 things need to be considered. Some areas are pretty much developed, especially in the south 13 part of the city. There would not be much in the way of park dedication fees. In Southlake 14 there are also a fair number of parks that are private parks-put in by the developers and 15 therefore, meet some of the needs addressed in the Parks Master Plan. a 16 17 Mr. Carpenter said that Plano applies the fees to zones. Mr. Hugman said that Southlake has 18 standard park dedication fee for the entire City, but some cities like Plano, define their fees 19 by neighborhood zones. Ms. Stokdyk said she thought that the park dedication fees are too 20 minimal to cover any cost. Mr. Hugman said that park dedication fees are based on land 21 requirement of one (1) acre per every forty (40) dwelling units. Fees are based then on a raw 22 acreage value and are currently $60,000.00 per acre, raising park dedication fees by 50%. 23 Ms. Stokdyk said small dedication fees are still being obtained. These small fees do not 24 cover the cost of purchasing acreage in today's market. This is a minimal cost to the 25 developer. Mr. Hugman said if a developer is dedicating land though, the dedication would 26 also be significantly less than one (1) acre. 27 28 Mr. Kemp said there is the issue with SABRE and the sidewalk/trails. Mr. Kemp 29 summarized how he reads the requirements. Mr. Kemp says he feels we should be more 30 aggressive in designing the Master Trail Plan, identifying more locations for trails so that an 31 option could be exercised in requiring trails. Mr. Kemp had some concern regarding the 32 language on trail construction. As he reads it, if the development is residential, the developer 33 must put in sidewalks on all arterial and collector streets. Mr. Carpenter said if one of the 34 outside boundary lines of the subdivision along the major roads is on the trail plan they must 35 implement the trail as per the trail plan. They must also show a pedestrian access plan, 36 showing how to get residents within the subdivision to the trail. The same is true for 37 commercial development. The issue is not resolved, commercial developments not showing 38 any trail system or specific language to direct them. Mr. Kemp said that the only requirement 39 for commercial, non-residential, is the trail as shown on the Trail System Master Plan. There 40 is no obligation past that. Mr. Carpenter said the last sentence of 3 a. gives us the ability to 41 tell them they are not fulfilling their obligation. Mr. Kemp said that SABRE was asked to 42 build a trail as an access. Ms. Berman said that she thought SABRE declined the trail 43 request. Mr. Carpenter the way it was intended in the sidewalk ordinance is for the 44 development to demonstrate their intent for the trail. If the intent is not demonstrated to our 45 satisfaction the board could recommend non-approval. Mr. Kemp recommended that the 46 SABRE issue be kept in mind when reviewing the issue of trail requirements. Mr. Carpenter 47 said he will review the issue with the city attorneys. 48 Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, September 13, 1999 Page 10 of 17 N. (Parks & Recreation lBOARDSIPKBOARDiMTNUTES119991091399.doe * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 Ms. Stokdyk asked if the creek bed is part of the flood plain and what are the requirements. 2 Mr. Kemp would like to pursue this issue in more depth in the future. Ms. Berman said she 3 would recommend John, Chris and Bill work together on possible changes. Mr. Hugman 4 said that small items could be accomplished fairly soon. More comprehensive changes and 5 those requirements that emanate from the master plans will require master plan revisions 6 and/or more comprehensive changes to ordinances. 7 8 Ms. Berman recommended that any items that could be resolved immediately come back as a 9 consider item, more comprehensive items should come back as a discussion item. 10 Ms. Stokdyk thanked Mr. Kemp for his work and research. 11 - 12 Mr. Hugman said that the current Trail System Master Plan does not identify trails along 13 flood ways, creeks, power lines and easements. Mr. Hugman said that his understanding of 14 when the plan was developed four (4) years ago, was that people did not want wide trails 15 behind their homes. The Master Plan developed four (4) years ago is due for revision and a 16 consultant will be utilized for this revision. A contract with the consultant will be brought 17 forward very soon. The Master Plan revisions will also be reflected in the ordinances. Mr. 18 Kemp said that since his involvement in the Trail Master Plan the politics and dynamics of 19 Southlake have changed considerably. Mr. Hugman said that it has been evidenced in other 20 cities that trails behind homes are self-policed due to high usage, and there are many benefits 21 to having trails along floodways, and creeks, etc. 22 23 Ms. Stokdyk said she would like to be progressive and have greenbelts for wildlife and open 24 space. Ms. Stokdyk said that Julia Smith has spoken of an organization in Dallas dedicating 25 property to greenbelt. 26 27 Chair Berman called for a break at 8:40 PM. 28 29 The meeting was re-convened at 8: 47PM 30 31 Agenda Item No. 5 F., Parks Capital Projects Prioritization. 32 33 Mr. Hugman began this item by stating that staff was requesting the board to (1) recommend 34 approval of the projects priorities as staff is recommending or (2) to recommend any changes 35 of priorities and forward the changes to SPDC. There will be a joint meeting with SPDC 36 and the Parks Board in September. The goal is to look at a new five (5) year capital 37 improvement plan including a new FY 1999/2000 Capital Project Budget for SPDC. There 38 will be several factors including a land acquisition plan. Land acquisition has been set by the 39 SPDC and the Park Board as the number one priority consideration for funding. 40 41 Mr. Hugman provided a presentation to the Board at 8:47 PM. 42 43 Copies of the Southlake Park Development Corporation Capital Projects Status Report were 44 distributed to the Board. 45 46 The first five (5) year plan was completed last September. The Park Board prioritized the list 47 of projects. The prioritization was based on the 1997 Southlake Citizen Survey. 48 Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, September 13, 1999 Page 11 of 17 N--IParks & Recreation OOARDSIPKBOARDIMINUTES119991091399.doc i * * OFFICIAL MINUTES APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 Copies of the 1997 Southlake Citizen Survey were distributed to the Board. 2 3 When the five (5) year CIP was done last year, projects that were currently underway were 4 reviewed and the grant projects such as, Bob Jones were allocated in the five (5) years 5 current year's funding. All prioritized projects were allocated over the five (5) years based 6 on the priorities of the Park Board and how they fit into the assumed funding. 7 8 Copies of the FY 1998199 Capital Projects Budget were distributed to the Board. 9 10 These projects are still in the budget. The handout shows the changes in the current five (5) 11 year plan. Continental Phase I trail was in this current fiscal year funding (1998/99), but was 12 tied to the road project and the road project has not been started. Continental Phase I was 13 moved into the upcoming fiscal year (1999/2000) along with Continental Phase II. Smith 14 Park Phase I was shifted out to another fiscal year: Some 43ob Jones projects were also 15 shifted out because funds would not have been spent in this fiscal year. On-road trail signs 16 was also moved out until after the master trail plan was completed. Special Projects and 17 Joint Use Projects are still in. Proposed changes include adding in new items that were 18 removed from the general fund requests: capping of abandoned water wells at Bob Jones, 19 bleachers for in-line hockey and additional bleachers for ball fields, Bob Jones parking for 20 north equestrian trail head, Senior Center parking lot expansion, $50,000.00 for city entrance 21 improvements such as portals. This has been talked about by other city groups, Chamber of 22 Commerce being one. There is a portal committee working on this issue. Mr. Hugman said 23 Park Board members were invited to serve on this committee. 24 25 Mr. Kemp asked for clarification on sheet number 1 of the handout. Mr. Hugman said this 26. sheet showed current fiscal year projects that will be rolled over to the next fiscal year or 27 until completion. Mr. Miltenberger asked when the lights on the Bob Jones Soccer Fields 28 would be completed. Mr. Hugman said the plan is to do all the Bob Jones projects at one 29 time. The staff is working with an engineer, Eddie Cheatham to design all components of 30 Bob Jones. It is anticipated that construction could start next year, but not in time for the 31 spring season. Lighting is only on the adult fields Mr. Hugman said but, lighting is a grant 32 item and reimbursable by the Texas Parks and Wildlife. There will be some additional items 33 discussed later for Bob Jones. 34 35 Mr. Glover asked for clarification on the city entrance. Mr. Hugman explained that the city 36 entrance portals were recommended in the corridor overlay zone study. Mr. Hugman said the 37 portal concept is a landscape, entry sign feature at the major entrances to the City. Three 38 sites are being reviewed: 1709/114 (east side); Pearson/1709 (west side) and on Davis, 39 although, there is still discussion as to exact location. The money and land is determined for 40 the 1709/114 portal. There was a question raised as to why the Park Department would be 41 responsible for these portals. Mr. Hugman said because of the landscaping, water feature, if 42 any,, and maintenance. The improvement costs include landscaping and construction. Mr. 43 Hugman said that SPDC has not discussed this project, but it is an eligible SPDC cost. 44 45 Mr. Hugman continued with discussion of FY 2000/2001 projects. Phase I Koalaty Park, 46 has been increased to $390,000.00. Phase I only includes the development of the park itself. 47 Bob Jones cost proposal is $1.53 million and includes some grant required items. This cost is 48 an estimate and staff is continuing to work with Eddie Cheatam. Some items had not been Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, September 13, 1999 Page 12 of 17 N: (Parks & Recreation lBOARDSIPKBOARDW17VUTESI19991091399.doc * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 budgeted. Ms. Georgia asked if there was a possibility of getting an extension on the grant 2 items. Mr. Hugman said a one year extension had been granted. Mr. Polasek said that some 3 items were under-funded in the initial grant and this is a more realistic figure. Mr. Hugman 4 said grant items were required to be completed, but cost can be held down on less critical 5 items. Ms. White asked if the loop trail, Bicentennial/Durham/Carroll Jr. High, included 6 fixing the field. Mr. Hugman said no, this is a trail along FM1709, White Chapel and 7 Highland. Ms. White recommended this area be improved and could be done as a joint use 8 project. 9 10 Mr. Hugman said the Nature Center was budgeted for $600,000.00 but has been decreased to 11 $100,000.00 and moved up in the five (5) year plan due to the donation of a trailer for use as 12 the Nature Center Building. The Recreation Center design was shifted out. Mr. Hugman 13 said funding for Joint Use Projects - $20,000.00 has been moved to every other year. Special 14 Projects he said is for unexpected small projects. Ms. Stokdyk asked if $100,000.00 would 15 be sufficient for the Nature Center. Mr. Hugman said $20,000.00 had been budgeted for this 16 year and spent. The $100,000.00 will be used next year for improvements and utilities for 17 the site. Mr. Hugman said his understanding is that the Nature Center Committee is looking 18 for donations and sponsorships for the nature areas. Mr. Polasek said that at the JUC the 19 school expressed an interest in being part of the Nature Center and could possibly help fund. 20 Ms. Berman asked if the Nature Center would be completed by the year 2001. Mr. Polasek , 21 said that as Bob Jones is developed the Nature Center will be completed as well. 22 23 For FY 2001/2002, the Recreation Center was shifted out and there was no change on other 24 items. The proposal and additions include increasing the budget on Noble Oaks Parks 25 Development, and including the Recreation Center planning and design, and the Special 26 Projects and Joint Use Projects line items. The Recreation Center design and construction 27 budget was increased to better estimate costs for a forty thousand (40,000) square foot 28 facility. This is a typical size for a community the size Southlake will be. 29 30 FY 2002/2003, the cost was split on the Aquatics Facility and funding included for 31 construction of the Recreation Center. The funding is fit into the assumptions of the current 32 five (5) year plan. There was a bond issuance this year, one due in two (2) years and another 33 one in year five (5). There is an operating transfer in of $500,000.00 every year from the 34 SPDC revenue fund. The budget was fit into these current assumptions, which are very 35 conservative. Staff has been discussing with SPDC as to whether to issue more debt using 36 the reserve in the SPDC fund. This factor could affect these assumptions. Mr. Glover asked 37 if there had been any consideration in increasing the '/z cent sales tax. Mr. Hugman said that 38 there is a cap on sales tax and Southlake is at the cap with the sales tax for parks and the 39 crime control district half-cent sales tax. 40 41 Mr. Kemp asked for clarification on the Aquatics Center. Mr. Hugman that the Bicentennial 42 Park Master Plan shows an outdoor pool. Ms. White commented on the Ralph Evans 43 property and how it ties into the Bicentennial Park Master Plan. 44 45 Mr. Hugman said there is still an issue regarding an indoor or outdoor facility and a financial 46 commitment has not been made with the school district regarding the planned natatorium, 47 although, there is a concept of joint use. 48 Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, September 13, 1999 Page 13 of 17 N: (Parks & Recreation WOARDSIPKBOARDIMINUTES119991091399.doc * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 Ms. Berman asked when another citizens' survey will be conducted. Mr. Hugman said that 2 there are discussions regarding doing a strategic plan and these surveys were done as a 3 precursor to kicking off a strategic planning process. Shana Yelverton, Assistant City 4 Manager, will be working with Councilmember Edmondson in looking at a strategic planning 5 process soon, and a survey will probably be a part of that process again. 6 7 Ms. Georgia asked for clarification on project expenditures increasing from $17 million to 8 $18.4 million over the next five (5) years. Mr. Hugman said the sales tax revenue estimates 9 are based on 15% increase in revenues. Ms. Georgia said outside of the bond package and 10 some of the loop phases she does not see anything addressing the Trails Systems Master Plan. 11 Mr. Hugman -said that the bond issuance is a large sum of money that is being allocated 12 toward trials and is a separate source of funding that did not put a drain on the SPDC fund. 13 There is also $320,000.00 for Continental and there is $10,000 in the budget for signage and 14 money in the general fund to revisit Trail System Master Plan. Mr. Hugman said there is 15 also $230,000 for the Durham/CJHS/Bicentennial loop/trail. The largest source of money for 16 the trails is the bond issuance. Ms. Georgia said that if ari effort is being made to get a citizen 17 survey, a report should be made to show progress toward these priorities. She feels 18 uncomfortable funding trails only through land acquisition and bond passage. Mr. Hugman 19 said there is also a right-of-way issue at hand. FM1709 is the only road with total right-of- 20 way. Mr. Polasek said that total bond money for trail systems is $7.4 million. Mr. Hugman, 21 said his goal is to develop an implementation plan, with the help of a consultant as part of the 22 TSMP review process.. 23 24 Ms. Berman said that she met with Mr. Hugman and Mr. Ron Harper to discuss if there is 25 going to be a 10 year interim road, then a trail should be put in as well. Ms. Berman said Mr. 26 Harper said he is responsible for this implementation goal and will coordinate with Mr. 27 Hugman when planning road construction projects to also look at trails. Ms. Berman said she 28 would like to see a fund set in the SPDC just for trails. 29 30 Mr. Glover requested that beneficial priorities tied with cost be put on the citizens' survey so 31 citizens could rank projects on perceived value given how much the project may cost as well. 32 He used examples of how people could want certain things, but if they are told the cost is 33 high, they may decide it is not as high a priority. 34 35 Mr. Hugman said that other items for the future are more improvements for Lonesome Dove 36 Park, Girls Softball Complex, improvements to Quality Park Phase II, Phase I development 37 of Sheltonwood Park and Equestrian Facilities at Bob Jones Park. Ms. Berman asked if the 38 Equestrian Facilities improvement is the Marilyn Tucker property. Mr. Polasek said that it is 39 possible, but not yet determined. Ms. Berman had some concerns regarding the early 40 vacancy of the Marilyn Tucker property and the budget time-line. Mr. Hugman said that 41 priorities may change in the five (5) year plan and need to be considered by the Park Board 42 and SPDC. Ms. Stokdyk asked if it would be possible to allocate $50,000.00 Special Projects 43 for maintenance and improvement for a specific project. Mr. Hugman said that he would not 44 recommend this as it is intended to be a flexible amount for smaller projects that are 45 unanticipated. He said larger specific projects should be given consideration as stand-along 46 items. 47 Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, September 13, 1999 Page 14 of 17 V (Parks & Recreation OOARDSTKBOARDW17VUTES119991091399.doc * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 Ms. Stokdyk asked for clarification on why funding is included for open undeveloped land, 2 with regards to Sheltonwood. Mr. Hugman said a road and parking area would be necessary 3 and there may not need any other improvements but there would still be a cost. Mr. Polasek 4 said there needs to be a balance between open park land and needs of youth sports, etc. 5 6 Copies of the Southlake BalNeld Inventory were distributed 7 8 Mr. Hugman said that SPDC was shown the park inventory by acreage and how it compared 9 to the master plan and where the deficiencies were. This has been refined this year. 10 Ballfields are also being looked at as far as deficiencies, but the, deficiencies are in the 11 practice field areas, not the game field areas. At this time, ten (10) soccer practice field areas 12 have been added and more practice ballfields will be added as Bob Jones is developed. The 13 development plan for Bob Jones will be presented to the board. The proposal is that the 14 active uses are along White Chapel and past that is passive-park land. Ms. Stokdyk said the 15 practice field size is very large and there is a need for more passive park land and she feels 16 Bob Jones is being developed too much. 17 18 Mr. Kemp asked for clarification whether the $3.2 million for 1998/99 has been spent. Mr. 19 Hugman said it has not all been spent. There are a number of properties that SPDC would 20 like to buy, but the money is not available. The Marilyn Tucker purchase was not figured in, 21 the five (5) year plan. There are funds to pay for this at this time without issuing a bond, 22 however the money appropriated was earmarked for something else. The SPDC has a 23 concern as to how much money to ask for in a bond issuance if that is done and what does 24 this do to the SPDC revenue assumptions and capital project expenditures. The financial. 25 advisor has given the SPDC some options, but no decision has been made yet. The issue is 26 how much land to purchase and how much money to set aside for future purchases. 27 28 Mr. Kemp said that what he sees is $2.53 million for land acquisition and a total five (5) year 29 plan of $18 million. Mr. Hugman said that a substantial amount of money has already been 30 spent on land acquisition and this is in addition to the money set aside for Bob Jones, and 31 previous'Bicentennial land acquisitions. SPDC also struggles with having to pushing 32 projects out he said. Ms. White said there has been a concern regarding completion of 33 projects. 34 35 Ms. Berman asked Mr. Hugman for some Board direction on these issues. Mr. Hugman said 36 the proposed five (5) years plan will be discussed at the joint meeting, but he wanted Park 37 Board to see these prior to that meeting. He requested that the board give direction on the 38 five (5) year plan priorities as discussed. Ms. Berman suggested that the board table this until 39 the joint SPDC meeting to get input from SPDC. 40 41 Ms. White asked why the hockey court roofing was moved out. Mr. Hugman said that it was 42 due to the cost. Mr. Glover had a question about the two (2) different designs for 43 approximately $.5 million. There was discussion regarding the roof for in-line hockey. Mr. 44 Glover would like to see other options. Mr. Glover had concerns that the amount set in the 45 five (5) year plan does not increase with inflation. Ms. Stokdyk questioned the reason for a 46 roof on the in-line hockey. Mr. Glover said this would increase usage of the facility. 47 48 Mr. Miltenberger motioned to table until after the SPDC meeting. Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, September 13, 1999 Page 15 of 17 N: (Parks & Recreation lBOARDSIPKBOARDIMINUTES119991091399.doc * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 2 Motion: White 3 Second: Glover 4 For: Berman, Anderson, White, Miltenberger, Georgia, Glover, Kemp Stokdyk 5 Against: None 6 Approved: 8-0 7 8 Agenda Item No. 6.C., Liaison Reports. 9 10 Youth Parks and Recreation Board - Ms. Berman stated that there are five new members as 11 approved by the Park Board earlier in the agenda. 12 13 Recreation/Special Events - Jones - No report. 14 - 15 Teen Center Update - Jones - Mr. Hugman said that the staff is taking the contract for an n 16 architect for the Teen Center to the council next week. 17 18 Youth Sports Associations - Miltenberger - Mr. Miltenberger asked why the proposed 19 practice fields at Bob Jones could not be game fields. Mr. Hugman said there is a cost issue 20 as well as maintenance issue. 21 22 23 Community Groups - Stokdyk, White - Ms. Stokdyk said she met with Mr. Scott Martin 24 and that the Nature Center Committee members will be contacted. He will be soliciting 25 feedback and information regarding staying on the committee and who should be 26 recommended for the committee. He will start compiling information from the road trips. 27 Ms. Berman asked if Ms. Stokdyk could inform Mr. Martin regarding the school district's 28 interest in the Nature Center. 29 30 Keep Southlake Beautiful will be having a picnic, open to all, at the Senior Center September 31 26, 1999 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM. The Home Tour sponsored by the Southlake Newcomers Club 32 is November 7, 1999. Tickets are $10.00 at the door. November 1, 1999 is the deadline for 33 fund requests. Senior Center is holding their once a month potluck Friday, September 17, 34 1999, all are invited. 35 36 SPIN - White. - No Report. 37 38 SPDC - Berman, White - Will be discussed at the next meeting. 39 40 JUC - Glover - Mr. Glover reported that there was not a quorum at the last meeting, 41 however discussion took place regarding the school district's participation in the Nature 42 Center. A decision has not been made regarding the school district having one or two high 43 schools. This is a very controversial issue. 44 45 City Council Monthly Report - Jones - No report. 46 47 Tennis Center - Jones - No report. 48 Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, September 13, 1999 Page 16 of 17 N.-'Parks & Recreation 00ARDSIPKBOARDW-NUTEY19991091399.doc * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 Equestrians - White, Anderson - No report 2 3 Agenda Item No. 7, Adjournment. The meeting was adjourned by Chair Sherry Berman at 4 10:10 p.m. 5 7 8 Sherry Berman 9 C~ 11 - r, 11 12 13 Cara White _ 14 Secretary 15 16 17 Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, September 13, 1999 Page 17 of 17 .V•1Parks & RecreationlBOARDSIPKBOARDIMINUTES119991091399.doc