Loading...
1999-11-01 SOUTHLAKE PARKS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION SPECIAL MEETING November 1, 1999 MINUTES Board Members Present: President Ronnie Kendall; Members: Sherry Berman, Debra Edmondson, Norm Lyons, Rex Potter, Rick Stacy, and Cara White. Staff Present: Director of Community Services Kevin Hugman, Park Planning and Construction Superintendent Ben Henry, Deputy Director of Community Services Steve Polasek, Finance Director Sharen Elam, Administrative Assistant John Eaglen, and Secretary to the City Manager Kim Bush. Agenda Item No. 1, Call to order. The meeting was called to order by President Ronnie Kendall at 6:05 p.m. Agenda Item No. 2, Executive Session. There was no executive session held. Agenda Item No. 4. Public Forum. Tad Stevens, 804 Shorecrest Drive. Mr. Stevens introduced himself as the scheduler and appointed liaison for the Southlake Girls Softball Association. He commented that the SGSA board wants to be more involved with the SPDC and Parks and Recreation Board meetings. He also commented that no one from their association has been in contact with City staff as much as they should be. He wants the Board and staff to know that they enjoy the facilities and services they have in Southlake. Mr. Stevens introduced to the Board Jim Hardland, the current SGSA president, and Matt Tuggey the incoming president for 2000. Mr. Stevens commented that SGSA is a non-profit, self funded volunteer organization. He stated that they have a fall and spring session for play during the year. They have approximately 762 girls enrolled (last year they had 578) in softball and the league shares the three fields at Bicentennial Park with 2 adult teams and currently three high school teams. He expects that the numbers will continue to rise. Mr. Stevens commented that they are in need of fields for practice and games and commented that the association would like to have a four plex. He commented that they have been visiting with staff on a couple of options, and wanted SPDC to know that they want to also work together with the Park Board to come up with a solution. He mentioned that SGSA is also looking into the possibility of matching funds through SPDC, but they have not yet had SGSA Board approval. He estimated that within two years they could probably raise as much as $20,000. Mr. Stevens estimated that a four-plex would cost approximately $40,000 - $50,000. Director Hugman commented that staff has estimated $800,000 - $900,000 for a complete complex, including restroom/concession, lighting, parking, irrigation, etc. Mr. Stevens commented that girls softball fields are similar in size as the boys fields are for the younger groups. He believes they need at least one large field for the adults and older girls and three fields for the younger girls groups. He stated that they are hoping the high school will soon have its own fields. (See attached to the minutes the SGSA Summary handed out at the meeting.) There were no other comments during the Public Forum. Agenda Item No. 6A. Five-Year parks Capital Improvements Plan, including FY 1999-00 Capital Improvements Budget. Director Hugman stated that the Board discussed this item at the October 25, 1999 meeting and tabled consideration of the Parks CIP until this time to allow for input from members who could not be in attendance last Monday. He commented that the CIP included projects prioritized by the Parks and Recreation Board at their meeting on October 11. Mr. Hugman stated that included in the five-year CIP is a conservative projection for sales tax growth at 15 existing bond issuance schedule for every-other- year, construction and payment schedules, fund balance expectations, and the award of a $500,000 indoor grant from TPWD for the construction of a Community Center. An operating fund transfer of $500,000 from the SPDC operating fund is also assumed, which is revenues over and above debt service each year. Director Hugman commented that the CIP also assumes a matching funds program for FY 1999-00 of $150,000 (increased over previous year due to increased interests) and then $100,000 for each of the following years. Also included is $20,000 every other year for Joint Use projects and $50,000 each year for special projects (unanticipated things that come up throughout the year such as this year the pond aeration system, improvements at senior activity center, etc.). Director Hugman reviewed with the board the fund balances for each fiscal year of the CIP as follows: FY1999-2000 an ending fund balance of $425,000; FY 2000-20001 assumes a bond issuance of $4.4 million and an ending fund balance of $1,030,750; FY 2001-2002 an ending fund balance deficit of $64,250 which is due to the number of projects projected for this fiscal year, but the Board may need to consider adjusting projects to correct the deficit; FY 2002-2003 assumes another $500,000 grant proceed from TPWD for a recreation center, a bond issuance of $5.5 million, and an ending fund balance of $710,750; FY 2003-2004 assumes a fund balance of $90,750. Mr. Hugman stated that some of the lower priority projects identified by the Park Board are not included in the this five-year CIP due to funding constraints. Mayor Stacy asked staff about funding for a teen center. Director Hugman explained that the current five-year plan had allocated $150,000 for teen center planning in FY 98-99 and then $850,000 for construction in FY 99-00, however, in the discussions with the Park Board at the joint meeting, staff was directed to take the $850,000 out of the construction for the teen center and the $150,000 for planning was left in FY 98-99. At the Park Board meeting, it was decided to allocate $10,000 for a teen center study, but the issue concerning construction of a teen center was never resolved and therefore it was taken out of the CIP. SPDC Meeting Minutes, November 1, 1999 Page 2 of 13 Board member Potter asked staff about the status of projects - which ones have been completed, started, or what percentage complete. Director Hugman stated that for FY99-00 no projects identified have been started. President Kendall commented that she has visited with staff about preparing financial statements that will better reflect the status of projects financially. Board member Berman asked staff what happens with the funds allocated for the Continental Blvd. trail if reconstruction of the road is delayed. Director Hugman commented that Continental trail phase I was actually budgeted in FY98-99, but those funds have been rolled over into the funds allocated for FY99-00 due to delays. If for any reason it is delayed further the funds have been appropriated and would just roll over again unless the Board directs otherwise. Director Hugman explained to the Board that there is $1.9 million total amount set aside for land acquisition in the current CIP. He confirmed that the balance due on the purchase of the Marilyn Tucker property would be close to this amount. Mr. Hugman stated that alternative sources for funding are still being reviewed. President Kendall opened the meeting to any one in the audience wishing to speak. Casey Litaker, 701 Shorecrest Dr. Mr. Litaker addressed the Board concerning the under funding of approximately $1.2 million for the natatorium. Mr. Litaker stated that the school district was looking at alternatives to reduce the construction of the natatorium, but he feels this will sacrifice portions of the facility that are of most interest to the community. He commented that most of the Southlake kids, swimmers and divers, go to the Grapevine/Colleyville facilities and because of the growth in the area, there is a cap on the number of kids that can participate. He stated that there were 350 people from the area this last summer to sign up for diving lessons but only the top 10% were allowed to try out. He commented that a first class facility needed to be built without compromise, and he is present tonight to ask the Board to make that consideration. Susan Ansley, 607Loving Court. Ms. Ansley stated that she is asking the Board to help fund the natatorium so that it can be built in the manner that it was presented to the citizens who overwhelmingly approved its funding in the bond election. She presented a list of some of the benefits to the community including: water babies/tots, youth swim lessons, pre school swim lessons, senior fitness, scuba lessons, lifeguard training, fire department water rescue, scout swim badges, diving lessons, arthritis exercise class, open swim activities, mothers-to-be classes, deep water aerobics, birthday parties, etc. She stated that everyone in the community could benefit from a natatorium facility. Ms. Ansley quoted from a Dave Lieber article "...a swim center would provide teens with one more alternative to getting high on drugs. The more after school activities that are available to young people the less likely they are to engage in inappropriate activities." Ms. Ansley commented that she hoped the Board would agree that this facility is worthy of consideration. SPDC Meeting Minutes, November 1, 1999 Page 3 of 13 Karen Rourke, 1105 Normandy Drive. Ms. Rourke commented that she is a swimmer and she has five children that are swimmers. She agrees with the idea that when children have an opportunity to be involved in something the better chance you have of keeping them out of trouble. Ms. Rourke commented that Southlake kids are lucky to get an hour and 15 minutes of lane time at the Grapevine/Colleyville facility. She stated that her child is up at 5:00 a.m. in order to be at the facility by 6:00 a.m. to swim until 7:15 a.m. five days a week. She commented that this was not enough time and not fair to the Carroll teams - the more time they can have at a facility the more competitive they can be. She feels that if the facility can be built as voted on by the taxpayers of this community there is no limit to the opportunities and the swim meets that can be hosted. She commented that the number of people these meets attract would be a boost to the area economy and bring in money to this community. Ms. Rourke stated that she would like to see a facility that will attract the large meets, which would make the facility pay for its own operating cost. Jeff Luchey, 300 SouthRidge Lakes Parkway. Mr. Luchey commented that he agreed with the other speakers. He stated that the facility that was presented in bond issue three is what the community needs - the voters approved it, they agreed that it is what was needed. He commented that nothing should be taken out of the bond package that was approved by the voters and asked that the Board consider the additional funding needed. Gary Fawks, 330 Ravenaux Drive and Steve Harold, 1200 Cross Timber Drive - JUC Members. Mr. Fawks stated that they are here on behalf of the City of Southlake/CISD Joint Use Committee. He informed the Board that JUC met earlier this evening and passed unanimously JUC Resolution No. 99-02 encouraging joint use and financial participation in the proposed construction of the natatorium. (See resolution attached to the minutes.) Mr. Fawks commented that approximately a year ago JUC was approached by CISD about the possibility of a natatorium being a potential joint use facility. JUC was convinced that there was significant potential for joint use of such a facility and in January 1999 passed a resolution supporting the natatorium as a joint facility. He stated that CISD was informed that SPDC was pretty well committed for the next five years but beyond that would probably be able to step up with funding - that was acceptable to CISD. However, because of significant changes in the funding of the construction of the natatorium and the possibility of reducing the size, JUC was concerned that the potential benefits for joint use would go away. Mr. Fawks stated that JUC wanted to reaffirm their dedication to the natatorium as a joint use facility and urge the SPDC to find a way to participate in the additional funding needed. He related to the success of the joint use of the middle school gym that was built through SPDC funds. Mr. Fawks stated that he understood that CISD could put off the need for additional funding until FY 2001. Mayor Stacy asked whether JUC/CISD has seen an explanation of the reasons for the overage of $1.2 million and are we sure that will be all that is needed to build the facility as presented to the voters. Steve Harold suggested that Ted Gillum, Superintendent of Schools would be able to answer that question. Mr. Harold assured SPDC Meeting Minutes, November 1, 1999 Page 4 of 13 the Board that the CISD Board is just as concerned about cost overruns. He stated that he does not know what happened on the under estimation of cost, but he feels it was probably a series of things that occurred. He commented that the $5.5 million estimate came from CISD in-house consultant (TPM), however, the latest estimate the $6.7 million comes from the construction management firm. He informed the Board that construction is scheduled to begin in May 2000. Board member Potter commented that we would need a commitment from CISD that the design and quality of the facility would be maintained that if there are cost overruns CISD would find a way to cover those overruns and not jeopardize the quality and uses expected for this facility. Gary Fawks commented that JUC is recommending a formal program scheduling agreement prior to the release of any funds, and City staff would probably want to have some type of interlocal agreement that would outline all the stipulations. Mayor Stacy asked about the Aquatics Center listed on the Park Board project list and whether or not it would still be needed. Gary Fawks commented that he believed the natatorium would sufficiently meet the needs of the community. Board member Berman commented that when Bicentennial Park was master planned, the Park Board looked at what things could be built there if money was not an option - an outdoor aquatics center was one of those things. She commented that this was so far down the list that it may be decided later that it is really not needed. Ms. Berman commented that she believes the community really needs a natatorium but she is concerned about joint use problems. Ms. Berman stated that she has heard that the school staff is considering cutting off all joint use programs. Board member Potter stated that it would have to be in writing how the facility will operate - the uses and fees. Mr. Harold stated that he is confident joint use of the facility will work. He does not believe CISD trustees would consider cutting any joint use programs. Mr. Fawks commented that there have been scheduling difficulties in the past, but it has been his observation that over the past several months those problems have become less and less frequent. Mr. Fawks suggested that there may be a need for a larger interlocal agreement for joint use of facilities in general as opposed to just the natatorium. Ms. Berman agreed. Board member Potter commented that he does not want to see the natatorium attempt to become a moneymaking facility. He does not want there to be so many tournaments that it would take away time from the community to be able to use the facility. Ted Gillum, 1309 Hat Creek Trail, CISD Superintendent. Mr. Gillum explained the pricing of the bond packages. He stated that in September 1998 the bond proposal failed and when they decided to bring the proposal back to the voters in March 1999, they made a conscious decision not to increase the cost estimates primarily because they were going to be committed to staying on the same timeline for construction. He stated that the cost estimates for the natatorium were off primarily because of the inflation of construction materials such as steel. Mr. Gillum handed out to the Board a copy of the preliminary estimates based on schematic design drawings (see attached to the minutes). SPDC Meeting Minutes, November 1, 1999 Page 5 of 13 He commented that until all the subcontractors are selected they would not have a guaranteed maximum price. Mr. Gillum stated that they have looked at two other options for funding. One would be transferring funds from proposition one if that project is built under budget. The second is the interest off the bond monies that can be added to the project, however, this will not be a significant amount. He explained that they looked at decreasing the size of the facility, but this idea met with a lot of opposition from the community. He stated that they have looked at other areas to cut costs such as dressing areas, warm up pool, and these cuts had them down to within $700,000. Board member Lyons asked whether or not the increase in construction materials such as for steel, would also affect the district's plans to build the football stadium. Mr. Gillum commented that this was a concern with all of the facilities that are planned. He said there would be some design changes, such as the number of bleachers on the visitor side, to address the cost overruns on the stadium. Mayor Stacy asked whether or not CISD was going to need to go back to the voters with another bond election in order to finish these projects. Mr. Gillum stated that at this point they do not think so. President Kendall asked whether or not the inclusion of bulkheads would allow more use of the facility for different programs at the same time. Mr. Gillum commented that the cost does not include bulkheads, however, running different programs at the same time relies also on the depth of the pools in each area. He explained that simultaneous uses of the pool will be possible through the use of lane ropes at the different depths. Mr. Gillum stated that the district is committed to making this facility a community facility - it was said in the bond election and they mean it. He commented that CISD is planning to hire an aquatics director to manage the facility along the lines discussed and have the facility opened to the community. Board member Potter asked if CISD would consider letting JUC and other citizens work with CISD on the design of the facility. Mr. Gillum commented that it is CISD's intention for the contractor to do a preliminary design, take that design to the CISD Board, then take back to a citizen's committee for their input, and then present to JUC for their feedback. Mr. Gillum stated they are looking at completion of the natatorium in August 2001. As far as paying off the debt, he stated that in January 2001 they will still have left approximately $2 million remaining to be paid - between January 1, 2001 and August 2001 final payment would be due. Mayor Stacy questioned whether or not CISD could manage the funding if SPDC had to wait until 2002 to provide funding. Mr. Gillum commented that he understood there would be no option available from SPDC this fiscal year so they were looking at next fiscal year and then the year after and believed it would be workable. He commented that it may cost CISD approximately $200,000 in lost interest if they had to wait for two or three years for funding from SPDC, but they would make it work. Casey Litaker. Mr. Litaker wanted the Board to know that they believe the bulkhead is an issue - it is an officiating issue when you are running a swim meet. There is also a design issue with the number and size of diving boards and diving platforms. He stated SPDC Meeting Minutes, November 1, 1999 Page 6 of 13 that the citizens really do need to have input into the design of the facility - not just joint use but also the construction of the pool. He commented that if you are going to build it correctly then the bulkhead needs to be included. Mr. Litaker commented that US Diving has a grant program to where you put up 1/a of the cost and they will pay for the rest. Board member Lyons asked about the 700 seating - where that number came from and was it going to be sufficient. Mr. Litaker stated that the Grapevine/Colleyville facility has 350 seating, however, he considers the 700 to still be on the small side. Mr. Gillum commented that the 700 came from the swim coaches who estimated based on what they observed at the Grapevine/Colleyville facility. Susan Ansley. Ms. Ansley stated that Grapevine has recently passed a bond to increase the seating by 400. Kenneth Horn, 1215 Ashmoore Court. Mr. Horn asked whether any alternate funding has been looked in to such as corporate sponsorships i.e., Nike, soft drink companies, etc. He believes there would be an interest in this area. He also commented that the community has grown so much that the facility probably needs more like 1000-1200 for seating. He urged that alternative funding be looked in to. Jeff Wang, 595 S. Kimball. Mr. Wang informed the Board that the new proposed school will be right across the street from his front yard and the stadium will be in his back yard, however, his children have to go to GCISD. Mr. Wang wanted to stress that the SPDC organization is for the citizens of Southlake not just citizens within CISD. He believes the joint use should be worked out, and he believes the facility is a good idea. Gary Fawks commented that he believes joint use agreements could be worked out for other overlapping school districts to also benefit from the use of the natatorium. He stated that there are other joint use agreements with other school districts for other things and this is certainly something they desire to continue doing. Nancy Hartzell, 902 Cantebury Court. Ms. Hartzell stated that her daughter graduated from Carroll High School last year as a swimmer. She commented that she would probably use this facility every day. It is very important to her that the pool be built correctly so that it can be used by the whole community. Board member White commented that it is her concern that the entire city has usage of the facility (senior citizens, mothers, and adults) not just school purposes. She commented that this is why JUC needs to be involved in the process to ensure that the facility will be available to all citizens. SPDC Meeting Minutes, November 1, 1999 Page 7 of 13 Board member Berman commented that she would like to see CISD look for alternative funding first and then come to SPDC for funding if they can not get it through grants, etc. Board member Stacy suggested a number of alternatives for sponsorships. Board member White addressing Mr. Gillum directly, inquired as to why had he nor his financial advisors not considered, nor attempted to find alternative funding, citing that other schools in the area appear to have received quite a bit of sponsoring. Ms. White requested that Mr. Gillum make every attempt possible to find some alternative funding and added that this will be followed up on. Ms. White stated that there are a lot of other items that are equally, if not more so, important to the citizens of Southlake, which will have to be reprioritized due to this request. Rob Glover, CISD Trustee. Mr. Glover commented that he feels comfortable that the rest of the CISD Board would agree and make a commitment to seek alternative funding through grants and corporate sponsors. He stated that he believes any funding that can be acquired through these sources would be used to reduce any SPDC funding that is required. Mr. Harold agreed, but stated that they can not go forward with funding a $6.7 million facility without some kind of commitment from SPDC. Board member Edmondson commented that the natatorium is something our voters overwhelming supported. The school has run into a problem. She stated that she believes that part of the original mission of SPDC is to assist in joint use projects. She stated that an important part of finding funding for the natatorium is seeking grants and corporate sponsorships. Ms. Edmondson commented that the discussion about building an even bigger and better facility is where she would have to draw the line. She stated that she is totally supportive of working with the school to provide them the funding needed to build the facility that was put before the voters. However, she explained that SPDC also needs to address the needs of the other various user groups within the City. Board member Potter agreed that a premier facility needed to be built but not to go overboard. He stated that this is why it is important to have a citizens group involved in the designing recognizing that there will have to be compromises due to funding restrictions. Board member Edmondson stated that another issue that needs to be addressed is the Teen Center vis-a-vis Community Center or multi-use center. Ms. Edmondson stated that there is a need to work towards a facility that will keep as many youth as possible involved with extracurricular activity, but tax dollars are limited. She commented that a more appropriate concept might be to take the recommendations for a teen center and incorporate them into a recreation center type concept. Ms. Edmondson suggested that the Board look into the possibility of dividing the recreation center into two phases so that one phase of the project could get started sooner. Board member Potter agreed that a more diversified use facility was needed. Deputy Director Steve Polasek commented that the recreation facility in Hurst has a separate area for youth and teen functions. Mr. Potter commented that it might be appropriate to provide a separate entrance for SPDC Meeting Minutes, November 1, 1999 Page 8 of 13 the teen area. President Kendall stated that she also had the same concerns about a teen center vs. a recreation center. She commented that as SPDC members we have to look at the "bigger picture" and if we can wait another year and build a recreation center that incorporates much needed park department offices and community meeting rooms then that would be the most prudent and financially wise thing to do. Board member White commented that at the initial Teen Center Coordinating Committee meetings there were two teenagers who attended and commented that they would not use such a facility. Ms. White stated she agreed that tax dollars needed to be spent for a facility with a wider variety of uses that would benefit the whole community. Board member Edmondson stated that the Board needed to have more input possibly with the committee. She commented that it would not be a wise use of tax dollars to spend $850,000 on a 5,000 sq. ft. facility. Board member Stacy stated that his concern was that we have been promising a teen center for many years and there is still no teen center. Mr. Stacy commented that he believed a teen facility could be built in the same manner as the senior activity center was built - by renovating a house (such as the Smith house) built with donation and volunteer labor. Ms. Edmondson commented that she understood about the frustration, but the Board needed to focus on more activities that she believes can be achieved in a recreation center. Director Hugman commented that the design of a recreation center could include a gymnasium, fitness center, video rooms, meeting rooms, etc. He commented that staff has toured the Grapevine facility which includes two gymnasiums, racquet ball court, jogging track, weight room, game room, etc. These would be things that we would want to look at. He stated that staff is running in to problems with the use of gymnasiums through joint use (because of heavy usage) - registration for basketball has had to be limited. Other needs have been mentioned before such as practice fields. He commented that a recreation center with a gymnasium would help relieve the stress on both the park programs and the school. Director Hugman also commented that there is currently not any city-owned land large enough to construct the girls' softball complex. He stated that there are no funds in the budget to purchase additional land without another debt issuance. Ms. Kendall stated that personally she would like to see projects finished that have been started. She would like to see Bob Jones Park and Bicentennial Park finished. She believes that land needs to be purchased to address future park needs, however, planning and construction of projects need to wait until these other things are finished. Board member Berman agreed that Bob Jones and Bicentennial Parks need to be finished before any other projects are started. Board member Stacy commented that he believes it is important to look at some of the other parks and do something with them. He stated that a lot of money is not needed to make some of the other parks useable i.e., picnic areas. Board member Edmondson commented that passive use parks seem like a good idea, but she has concerns that in order for the park to be used even passively there will need to be parking areas, maybe even restroom facilities, SPDC Meeting Minutes, November 1, 1999 Page 9 of 13 maintenance, etc. Board member White commented that the park maintenance staff is already at a point where they can barely maintain what is currently developed. President Kendall suggested that tonight the Board look at setting the funding for the first two CIP budget years. Discussion on the proposed budget changes were discussed and the following is a list of the changes discussed by the Board: FY98-99 • In-line hockey cover - Reduce engineering services from $60,000 to $10,000 • Teen Center Planning - add to beginning fund balance for FY99-2000 ($150,000) • Koalaty Park Planning - add to beginning fund balance for FY99-2000 ($10,000) FY99-2000 • Smith Park Planning - reduce from $175,000 to $50,000 ➢ Use $50,000 to develop practice fields ➢ $125,000 to be put into fund balance ➢ House not suitable for public use would cost too much to bring up to City codes • Loop Trail from Bicentennial Park to Durham/CJHS - move construction to same timeline as trails listed in TMB (2001/2002) • Recreation (Teen) Center - move up planning to this year ($500,000) ➢ Consider planning cost in phases proportionate to construction cost in following year ➢ Include $10,000 (from FY99-2000) for teen center study and earmark for study to be done on teen center needs • Matching funds program - reduce from $150,000 to $100,000 FY2000-2001 • Bob Jones Park Development - reduce from $2.8 million to $1.8 million ➢ Priority now is to cover grant projects and some kind of road to get to the projects being funded through the grant i.e., amphitheater. • In-line hockey cover - delete from budget ($500,000) • Recreation (Teen) Center - allocate $1.5 million for first phase of construction • Joint Use/Natatorium - allocate $500,000 for Natatorium in this fiscal year SPDC Meeting Minutes, November 1, 1999 Page 10 of 13 FY2001-2002 • Smith Park Construction - reduce from $800,000 to $300,000 • Koalaty Park Phase I - $250,000 • Joint Use/Natatorium - allocated $500,000 for Natatorium in this fiscal year • Loop Trail Bicentennial/Durham CJHS - move to this fiscal year to match construction of trails included in TMB FY2002-2003 • JUC/Natatorium - allocate $250,000 for Natatorium in this fiscal year During the discussion on the budget changes, Director Hugman commented that a junior lien debt issuance might be a possible option for funding the purchase of additional land without effecting the capital projects budget. He commented that staff would need to confirm with the financial advisor but SPDC might be able to take the $1.9 million that is in the budget now and roll it into a junior lien debt issuance and reallocate the $1.9 to capital projects. Mr. Hugman stated that the current land purchase commitments could then be paid for from the junior lien debt issuance. Finance Director Sharen Elam commented that it could only be reallocated for projects if it was not stipulated in the $1.9 bond issuance that it could only be used for the purchase of land. She suggested that staff visit with the financial advisor, Jim Sabonis concerning the junior lien debt issuance and what capacity would be available then bring back a recommendation to the Board at the next meeting. Mayor Stacy stated that another option might be to visit with Ms. Tucker and see if a pay-out plan can be arranged. Motion was made to approve the budgeted amounts for fiscal years 2000 and 2001 of the Five-Year Parks Capital Improvements Plan as discussed tonight, including the participation in the funding of the CISD Natatorium for $500,000 in the fiscal year 2001 and $500,000 in the fiscal year 2002. The motion also included SPDC participation in the funding of the CISD Natatorium for $250,000 in the fiscal year 2003. SPDC participation in the CISD Natatorium is contingent upon: (1) the CISD entering into a written interlocal agreement with the City of Southlake for the joint use of the facility, (2) the CISD meeting with the citizens as well as creating a design committee (comprised of Joint Use Committee members and citizens at large) to ensure the facility will meet the needs of the City and School District participants and to ensure it is non-offensive to the adjacent homeowners, and (3) the CISD, with the assistance of the Joint Use Committee, making good faith efforts in pursuing other funding sources through grants, corporate sponsorships, individual donations, etc. for each of the fiscal SPDC Meeting Minutes, November 1, 1999 Page 11 of 13 years that SPDC participates and if funding should be secured by the CISD through these measures, the CISD will reimburse to the SPDC the contribution the SPDC has made in an amount equal to the other funding received by CISD but not greater than the total SPDC contributions. Motion: Potter Second: White Ayes: Berman, Edmondson, Kendall, Lyons, Potter, Stacy, White Nays: none Approved: 7-0 Agenda Item No. 6B. Amendment #3 with Cheatham and Associates for architectural and engineering services relating to proposed improvement at Bob Jones Park. Director Kevin Hugman asked the Board to consider Amendment #3 to the contract with Cheatham and Associates based on a reduced construction budget from $2.8 million to $1.8 million. He stated that staff will look at the individual components of the proposed improvements and decide what items can be cut. Director Hugman suggested that the fee not exceed 9.8% of the budgeted construction amount of $1.8 million. President Kendall suggested that changes in the scope be considered at the next Park Board meeting instead of staff having to make those decisions. Motion was made to approve Amendment #3 with Cheatham and Associates for architectural and engineering services relating to proposed improvements at Bob Jones Park as limited to a $1.8 million construction budget with the understanding that Cheatham and Associates' fees will not exceed 6.8% for engineering and design and 3 % for surveying. Motion: Stacy Second: Lyons Ayes: Berman, Edmondson, Kendall, Lyons, Potter, Stacy, White Nays: none Approved: 7-0 Agenda Item No. 7. Adjournment. Prior to adjournment it was decided that the next regular SPDC meeting would be scheduled for December 6, 1999. President Kendall asked that Jim Sabonis with First Southwest be present at the next meeting. There being no further business to discuss motion was made and carried to adjourn the meeting at 11:00 p.m. SPDC Meeting Minutes, November 1, 1999 Page 12 of 13 z2z/ President Ronnie Kendall ATTEST: Kim ush Sec tary to the City Manager SPDC Meeting Minutes, November 1, 1999 Page 13 of 13