Loading...
2001-03-26 SOUTHLAKE PARKS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION MEETING MINUTES March 26, 2001 Board Members Present: President Ronnie Kendall; Members: Sherry Berman, Rex Potter, Rick Stacy, Tad Stephens, and Cara White. Board Members Absent: Gary Fawks Staff Present: Deputy Director of Community Services Steve Polasek, Finance Director Sharen Elam, Parks Planning and Construction Superintendent Ben Henry, and Executive Secretary Kim Bush. Agenda Item No. 1, Call to order. The meeting was called to order by President Ronnie Kendall at 6:10 p.m. Agenda Item No. 2, Executive Session. No executive session was necessary. Agenda Item No. 4. Public Forum. There were no requests to speak during public forum. Deputy Director of Community Services Steve Polasek invited the Board to attend a tour of recreation centers in Coppell, Grapevine, and Arlington on Saturday, March 31. Participants will meet at the Community Center and leave at 9:30 a.m. CONSENT AGENDA. Item No. 5A. Approval of the minutes for the SPDC meeting of January 22, 2001. Motion was made to approve the minutes of the SPDC meeting of January 22, 2001, as presented. Motion: Potter Second: White Ayes: Berman, Kendall, Potter, Stacy, Stephen, White Nays: none Approved: 6-0 Agenda Item No. 6A, Recommending City execute Texas Parks and Wildlife grant on behalf of Southlake Equestrian Association (SEA) for equestrian trail improvements, and reauthorizing $10,000 SPDC matching grant funding. MINUTES OF SPDC MEETING MARCH 26, 2001, PAGE 1 OF 8 Deputy Director of Community Services Steve Polasek presented this request on behalf of the Southlake Equestrian Association. Mr. Polasek commented that SEA was awarded a grant from the Texas Park and Wildlife Department for trailhead improvements at Bob Jones Park in the amount of $6,317.00. However, in order to enter into the contract, TPWD requires an organization, if not a municipality or governing body, to be registered as a non-profit organization. SEA is not registered as a non-profit, and has indicated they will be unable to do so in a timely manner. The City can enter into the contract on behalf of SEA, but it requires City Council approval. In addition, as part of the Project and Community Matching Fund Request Policy, "the petitioner must complete the fundraising requirements necessary to match the requested City funding and have commenced work on the project within six (6) months of the final approval date." Since the time limit has expired, staff is asking on behalf of SEA for SPDC to reauthorize the matching funding previously approved in the amount of $10,000. SEA intends to raise the remaining $3,638.00 through individual donations and fund-raising events. Mr. Polasek stated that the funds were still available in the SPDC budget. The Parks and Recreation Board recommended approval of these actions (6-0) at its March 19, 2001 meeting. Mayor Stacy asked about an itemized list of estimated cost for the projects to be completed. Board member White commented that the items were listed in detail on the TPWD grant and she would be able to provide information on its contents. She stated the only thing not approved in the TPWD grant were the round pens that are needed while loading and unloading the horses and the additional trail signage that will coordinate with signage in the rest of the park. Board member Berman added that signage is needed to help keep four-wheelers / motorcycles off of the trails. Board members Berman and White also briefed the Board on the efforts of various organizations to secure funding for an equestrian and hiking bridge across the creek at Hwy 377 that would eventually provide for trail access along the north side of Grapevine Lake all the way to Flower Mound. Steve Polasek clarified that city staff would be handling the project (including input from SEA and Board member White) just like they have done for any other grant projects at Bob Jones Park. He further explained that there would be SPDC expenditure of funds up front while waiting for reimbursement from the TPWD. Mayor Stacy expressed concern about expending the matching funds prior to receiving funds from SEA because there might be a chance that the project will not get completed in time in order to collect the grant monies from TPWD. Mayor Stacy commented that he was not opposed to the project, but hoped everyone understood that we were expending $10,000 in matching funds prior to receiving the match. Mr. Polasek commented that staff feels comfortable the project will be completed on time. He commented that the grant request also will be presented to City Council for approval. Mayor Stacy requested that staff have an itemized estimate of cost available on the projects that are going to be funded with this request prior to City Council consideration. There were no comments during the Public Hearing. Motion was made to approve Agenda Item No. 6A, recommending the City execute the Texas Parks and Wildlife grant on behalf of the Southlake Equestrian Association (SEA) for equestrian trail improvements, and reauthorizing $10,000 SPDC matching grant funding. Motion: Potter Second: Berman Ayes: Berman, Kendall, Potter, Stacy, Stephens, White MINUTES OF SPDC MEETING MARCH 26, 2001, PAGE 2 OF 8 Nays: none Approved: 6-0 Agenda Item No. 6B, Approving SPDC matching grant funds request from Grapevine-Southlake Soccer Association (GSSA) for soccer goals at Bob Jones Park. Deputy Director Steve Polasek explained that the Grapevine / Southlake Soccer Association is requesting matching funds in the amount of $5,000 for the purchase of five additional sets of soccer goals for use at Bob Jones Park. He introduced Peter Gaal with GSSA and commented that he was available to answer any questions the Board may have. Mr. Polasek explained that the proposed soccer goals are estimated to cost $10,000 and would provide flexibility in the scheduling of games for various age groups and allow the site to host future tournaments. The estimated order and installation time for the soccer goals is forty-five days. He stated that the Parks and Recreation Board recommended approval (6-0) at its March 19, 2001 meeting. Mr. Polasek explained that the goals will be anchored at the park, but are removable and can be repositioned when necessary. He explained that they could not be easily carried off so there should be no problem with theft. There were no comments during the Public Hearing. Motion was made to approve the matching grant funds request from the Grapevine Southlake Soccer Association for soccer goals at Bob Jones Park in the amount of $5,000.00. Motion: Stacy Second: White Ayes: Berman, Kendall, Potter, Stacy, Stephens, White Nays: none Approved: 6-0 Agenda Item No. 6C, Recommending approval of Joint Utilization Agreement between Carroll Independent School District and City of Southlake for natatorium. Deputy Director Steve Polasek commented that City and District staff met on several occasions throughout the last year to develop and review a proposed interlocal agreement for the CISD Natatorium. The agreement was developed by CISD and City staff approximately one year ago and has been reviewed and discussed at the Joint Utilization Committee (JUC) meetings on numerous occasions during that time. The proposed agreement includes information defining the following key items: • Commitment of City funding through SPDC in the amount of $1.25 million. • Allows for revenue generated through donation, sponsorships, etc., to be split evenly with each entity receiving 50% up through the first $1.2 million received. • Allocates all revenue generated by the natatorium to the CISD. • Lists the CISD as being responsible for the operations and maintenance of the natatorium. • Establishes a minimum of 68 hours per week for operations. • Gives priority use of the natatorium for (1) CISD programs, followed by (2) CISD and City community programs, (3) lease or rental to private groups, and (4) specialized training for City personnel. MINUTES OF SPDC MEETING MARCH 26, 2001, PAGE 3 OF 8 • Establishes an Aquatics Commission consisting of City and CISD staff to identify and implement educational and recreational programming. • Establishes that 50% of the annual operating hours of the facility shall be dedicated to the full or partial use of the natatorium for community based aquatics programming. • The term of the agreement is for 15 years, and automatically renews for additional 5-year periods. The agreement may only be terminated if mutually agreed upon by both parties. Mr. Polasek further explained that the agreement reiterates the CISD's obligation to make a good faith effort to seek grant funding and donations. The intent is to reduce and/or reimburse a portion of the City's contribution up to an amount not to exceed $600,000, with the City and the CISD each receiving 50% of the first $1.2 million received. Also, all revenue generated through the use of the natatorium would belong to the CISD and used to offset maintenance and operational costs of the facility. Mr. Polasek also informed the Board that the City would not be hiring the director for the natatorium, but would be working with CISD on setting the criteria for the selection. Councilmember DuPre, as a member of the JUC, was present at the meeting to answer questions of the Board. Ms. DuPre commented that the City would not be participating in funding any portion of the director's salary or any other personnel hired to teach classes. Ms.' DuPre stated that the City was acting as the "middle man" to help create programs, collect fees, handle registration, and promote programs through advertisement in the Parks and Recreation brochure. All fees will be turned over to the natatorium. Board member Potter commented that the fees should be high enough to compensate the City for its employees being used to help with the operations (collecting fees, registering, and advertising). Mr. Polasek stated that staff anticipates that the fees collected would probably only offset the cost of operation of the facility. He stated that the Aquatics Commission that will be established through the agreement would consist of four CISD representatives and three City staff representatives. The Commission will work together to develop a program and set fees. The operation of the facility will remain with CISD administration. The City would support them with its existing staff, but programs will not be "city programs" they would be referred to as community based programs provided through the cooperative efforts of CISD and the City. Mr. Polasek explained that the school will run and operate the facility and the programs, but what is stipulated in the agreement is that the facility will be made available for community use - this is also how the facility was presented to the community in the school's bond election. So whether the City was a participant or not - the natatorium was to be made available to the public. The City will ensure that its investment is protected through its participation (with three members) on the Aquatics Commission. Ms. DuPre stated that a group of parents came in and suggested certain characteristics and criteria that they felt needed to be considered when hiring the director and coaches. Ms. DuPre further stated that the reason the JUC had a hard time getting through the agreement was because the school board members wanted to make sure there was an understanding about the maintenance and operation costs. Ms. DuPre informed the school board that the City would consider those costs, but it was her personal feeling that the facility belonged to the school - that it is not a City facility. MINUTES OF SPDC MEETING MARCH 26, 2001, PAGE 4 OF 8 Board member Stacy commented that he would like to know what those costs are because if the school board expects the City to help with operating costs then the City would need to share the revenues. Steve Polasek estimated that operating costs would be approximately $500,000 annually and revenues would be approximately $370,000 based on CISD's preliminary review. Mayor Stacy suggested that maybe a professional could run the facility similar to what was done at the tennis center. Board member Berman commented that there are some issues with the tennis center that staff is trying to work through - so this may not be a good way to do business. Ms. Berman stated that she has concerns that if the facility is operating at a deficit, CISD will look to bring in paying participants and then the facility will not be available for the citizens. Ms. DuPre stated that the school district sold the bond package to the community as a joint use, and they are committed to provide service first to the students, secondly to the citizens, and thirdly to outside groups. Ms. Kendall asked how the City would be ensured that community-use time is provided. Mr. Polasek stated that the agreement includes verbiage that 50% of the operating hours of the facility would be dedicated to full or partial use of the facility for community use. Mr. Polasek commented that it was his hope that there would not be any issues that City and CISD staffs could not work through. Board member Potter commented that something needed to be in the agreement that would cover those issues that could not be resolved by staff. Board member Stacy asked why the agreement limited the reimbursement for the $1.2 million provided by the City to $600,000. He also asked if CISD had done anything to try and seek donations and/or sponsorships. Ms. DuPre commented that negotiations went back and forth regarding the reimbursement. The reason JUC decided on 50150 was - (1) to give the CISD some incentive because if they had to give it all back there would be no motivation, and (2) if all the money was given back where would the joint use be. She commented that JUC needed to get the agreement out of their hands and on to SPDC and City Council. Ms. Berman commented that she heard there was someone from CISD administration looking into getting grants and sponsorships. Mr. Stacy suggested that maybe the City could try and seek donations and/or sponsorships and pay itself back for the $1.2 million not necessarily up front, but over the length of the agreement (15 years). Ms. Berman expressed concern that we would lose our priority for use of the facility if all the $1.2 million were reimbursed. Ms. DuPre explained that at the last JUC meeting she reiterated that the City invested $1.2 million towards the natatorium program with the hope that some of it would be reimbursed, but realizing that it might not happen. The City staff is going to be involved in registration and advertising, and this particular facility was sold to the public in the bond package as a joint use facility. Again her perspective was that the City was helping CISD fulfill its goal of providing a joint use facility as sold to the public in the bond election. She stated that the school board members still did not feel we were meeting them half way with this agreement. She commented that from her perspective, as a Councilmember, the City has gone way above what any other city would do. As far as maintenance and operation costs are concerned, there would be very little difference between a $5 million dollar facility and a $6.2 facility built with the assistance of SPDC funds. So if the City had not been involved they would still have the maintenance and operation costs. President Kendall stated that the reason she had supported the funding was because she was concerned that if CISD fell short of funds, the community-use programs would be cut from the program. A pool MINUTES OF SPDC MEETING MARCH 26, 2001, PAGE 5 OF 8 facility has been in the master plan for years and she believed that this would be the best way to make sure community programs would have a high priority. Board member Stephens stated that he did not really want the money back, but he wanted to see that the community received more use of the pool. Ms. Berman agreed and commented that the facility needed to be open on Sundays. Board member Potter explained the arrangement the City had with the County on the use of Town Hall - the County shares in the cost based on square footage. He agreed that what we really want is use of the facility - pay our fair share based on our use of the facility. Ms. Kendall agreed that she just expected the community to be able to use the facility. She stated that she spoke with Jerry Lawrence and he said that he would not recommend the school board approve this agreement. Ms. Kendall asked him what it would take to get the agreement approved by the school board and he mentioned maintenance and operation costs and the $600,000 reimbursement to SPDC. Ms. DuPre commented that Jerry Lawrence is upset because we did not do exactly what he wanted - our job is to represent the City's interest and his job is to represent the school board's interest. Ms. DuPre stated that Mr. Lawrence does not feel it is fair that we are asking for half of what we are contributing to be paid back even though we also will be contributing approximately $100,000 annually in program revenues. Ms. DuPre commented that when SPDC considered the $1.2 funding it was with the stipulation that (1) CISD would make an effort to pay the money back and (2) no funds would be given until a joint use agreement was complete. The agreement proposed by JUC met CISD half way by suggesting that at least half of the $1.2 million be reimbursed. Board member Potter commented that when SPDC first considered funding the $1.2 million for the natatorium it was with the thought that we would be able to use the facility - we thought it would be nice to get some of the money back, but the emphasis was on being able to use the facility. Mayor Stacy had to leave the meeting but commented that he hoped we would be able to reach some type of agreement if at all possible. He stated that there should be a joint effort with the City and CISD to try and get some of the money back through grants and sponsorships. Ms. DuPre suggested that a meeting be held with CISD. Board members agreed that a meeting needed to be held with the City Council and CISD. President Kendall asked Board members to state what concerns they had with the agreement. Board member Stephens expressed concern that there was not an authorized body to control and manage scheduling of the natatorium. The City's use in the agreement is too vague and he felt the City needed more use of the facility. He also wanted to know how disputes would be addressed between CISD and the scheduling or between citizens and CISD. Board member White commented that the agreement needed to outline the dispute process and state what the path for grievances would be. MINUTES OF SPDC MEETING MARCH 26, 2001, PAGE 6 OF 8 Board member Berman added that the facility needed to be available for use on Sundays. Board members Berman, Potter, Kendall, White, and Stephens all agreed that use of the facility was more important than receiving reimbursement for the $1.2 million. President Kendall had first suggested changing the length of the agreement to one year in order to see if the City was indeed getting to use the facility. She later changed her mind and recommended it remain at 15 years. There were no comments from the audience during the public hearing. Motion was made to table consideration of the Interlocal Agreement for the CISD natatorium and recommend that City Council meet with the CISD School Board to work out the specifics of the agreement including the concerns of the SPDC board members as stated tonight. Motion: Potter Second: Berman Ayes: Berman, Kendall, Potter, Stephens, White Nays: none Approved to table: 5-0 (Board member Stacy left the meeting prior to the motion.) Agenda Item No. 61), Resolution No. SPDC 01-01, A resolution setting a public hearing on the Southlake Parks Development Corporation undertaking projects and authorizing publication of notice of such public hearing. Finance Director Sharen Elam commented that setting the public hearing is the first step in preparing for the issuance of $4,700,000 in SPDC bonds. This issuance is one that has been planned for in this fiscal year's CIP. The resolution authorizes the publication of a notice in the newspaper of the City's intent to issue certificates of obligation. She commented that funding would be received in mid May. Ms. Elam stated that a very conservative approach was taken when considering pay off of this debt. She explained that even if sales tax collections do not increase the debt payment could still be met. The resolution calls for a May 15, 2001 SPDC public hearing just prior to the City Council meeting that same night. Ms. Elam handed out to the Board the 2001 Debt Issuance prepared by the financial consultants First Southwest Company (see copy attached to the minutes.). Motion was made to approve Resolution No. SPDC 01-01, setting a public hearing for May 15, 2001, on the SPDC undertaking projects and authorizing publication of notice of such public hearing. Motion: Potter Second: White Ayes: Berman, Kendall, Potter, Stephens, White Nays: none Approved: 5-0 Agenda Item No. 7A, Discussion - Sales Tax Report and Agenda Item No. 711, Discussion - Project Status Report. MINUTES OF SPDC MEETING MARCH 26, 2001, PAGE 7 OF 8 Board member Potter asked Finance Director Sharen Elam whether or not the sales tax report included the excess sales tax reported in the audit. Ms. Elam commented that the sales tax report shows collection of sales tax for the current fiscal year on a month-to-month basis. She stated that the excess sales tax collected would be reflected in the SPDC operating beginning fund balance. Board member Stephens asked about the well system at Bicentennial Park. Deputy Director Steve Polasek commented that Parks Planning and Construction Superintendent Ben Henry has been working on an irrigation master plan study for Bicentennial Park. Proposals have been received and Mr. Henry is in the process of reviewing. President Kendall informed the Board that the City Council approved the "Timarron/Richards" site as the location for the proposed recreation center. Agenda Item No. 8. Adjournment. There being no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. President Ronnie Kendall ATTEST: Kim sh Exec tive Secretary MINUTES OF SPDC MEETING MARCH 26, 2001, PAGE 8 OF 8