Loading...
1999-08-23 SOUTHLAKE PARKS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION MEETING August 23, 1999 MINUTES Board Members Present: President Ronnie Kendall; Members: Sherry Berman, Debra Edmondson, and Rex Potter Board Members Absent: Norm Lyons, Rick Stacy, and Cara White Staff Present: Community Services Director Kevin Hugman, Deputy Director of Community Services Steve Polasek, Finance Director Sharen Elam, Assistant Finance Director Lynn Martinson, Administrative Assistant John Eaglen, and Secretary to the City Manager Kim Bush. Also present was Eddie Cheatham, Cheatham and Associates and Jim Sabonis, First Southwest. Agenda Item No. 1, Call to order. The meeting was called to order by President Ronnie Kendall at 6:00 p.m. Agenda Item No. 7B. Financial/Budget Report. President Kendall suggested that the financial report be discussed at this time in order to receive comments from the City's financial advisor Jim Sabonis with First Southwest. Sabonis presented an update on the SPDC financial plan and discussed additional funding capabilities. Mr. Sabonis stated that last year SPDC collected $1,260,000 and the budget was almost 20% more at $1,510,000, however, for this budget, year-to-date sales tax are exceeding last year by 23%. Based on these figures, Mr. Sabonis stated he prepared an updated senior lien plan (see handout presented at the meeting and included with the minutes). He stated that instead of using 20% he used the 15% annual increase approved in the five-year plan. He explained that, because SPDC has exceeded the sales tax projections, the three-year senior lien debt program showed a capacity right now of about $13,286,000 or approximately $400,000 more. The key thing to point out is that this is on a senior lien basis, and your senior liens mean that you always issue debt based on a coverage ratio of your maximum future debt service on any annual year at 1.4 times covered by historical sales tax collections. If you said what is our historical sales tax collection right now minus our maximum debt service payment in the future on the debt we have outstanding, we have $566,000 of excess cash flow that we can generate. The $566,000 based on a level 20-year debt service structure would generate $6.5 million. If the economy went down and the growth rate slowed, the first thing you would consider is not issuing the $13 million senior lien debt, you would only issue when you had the 1.4 coverage ratio. What would happen is that either the dollar amount in those years would be less or they would be extended out until you reached your coverage ratio. Secondly should you lose the 1.4 ratio and not be able to make your debt service payments, you could look at funding through a self-supporting debt 'ar to that of the Crime Control District, a combination of ad valorum tax citywide and sales tax aue bonds. What we would do in these cases is give a joint pledge based on historical coverage Minutes of SPDC Meeting, August 23, 1999 Page 1 of 7 ratio of 1.0 times. Mr. Sabonis recommend that, in aggregate, SPDC would have $13 million of -nior lien over the next 5 years plus an additional $17 million that SPDC could access in a junior lien acity, but still be based on 1 times capacity. He also recommended that projects be broken down mto two groups of projects - one would be absolute projects that you want to undertake phased into the next 5 years, and second, a "wish" list of projects phased in the same 5-year period. He then commented that he could show the Board what could be funded over what time frame for those projects Jim Sabonis recommend at this time to do the self-supporting COs like the Crime Prevention District, leave it outstanding and go forward and fund senior lien debt on a future basis. Lynn Martinson commented that SPDC has cash on hand from the bond issuance that was received in May, and SPDC could utilize those funds to make payments necessary on the land acquisition for the Tucker and Sheltonwood piece. She further explained that SPDC could still continue with the projects that have already been started, and then in the spring (February or March) the COs could be done in conjunction with the other City bond issuance. Jim Sabonis explained that the City would actually issue the COs on SPDC's behalf and SPDC would make budgeted payments for their debt service. He stated that COs have to be paid off within 30 years, but they could be structured to where there would not be a penalty for early pay off. He commented that COs are as cheap as the senior lien debt and cheaper than the junior lien debt. He believes that if something came up, and SPDC needed access to funds within 30 days, it would be possible to borrow those funds from the general fund and then make arrangements to reimburse the general fund. Director Hugman also reminded the Board that SPDC has $1.9 million right now in the budget that is sated for land acquisition and another $300,000 that was allocated for a specific piece of property. commented that to date, $389,000 has been spent for the Wilkinson tract so there is approximately $1.8 that can be readily accessed. Mr. Sabonis stated that SPDC also has $3 million of unencumbered bond proceeds that it can borrow on. He commented that at the time SPDC would do its next project you could look at actually funding $7 million, pay back the $3 million and have $4 million left over. Board member Berman commented that the $4 million would not be enough for the land purchases the Board has been reviewing. Mr. Sabonis explained that by October, as the sales tax grows (as we have seen it increase to 23 SPDC would have access to about $12 million. Mr. Sabonis offered to have a workshop with staff and Board members to discuss long term goals. He stated that he believes SPDC can fund what they need to fund, but the concern is what the long term implications are for overall park programs, from both capitol and operational perspectives. Agenda Item No. 7A. Bob Jones Park development. President Kendall suggested that Item 7A be discussed next since Eddie Cheatham with Cheatham and Associates was present to answer questions. Director Hugman stated that the purpose of the discussion is to review with the Board existing conditions, and current and future development issues associated with Bob Jones Park. Mr. Hugman ined that Eddie Cheatham is currently working on the design of a number of things planned for Jones Park, but there are some projects that have not been included in the contract with Minutes of SPDC Meeting, August 23, 1999 Page 2 of 7 Cheatham and Associates that the Board may want to consider adding. Deputy Director Steve D,)lasek added that there are some projects included in the CIP that have been identified but are not ler contract for design. He further explained that other items have not been identified in the CIP nor are they under contract for design. Staff would like to get direction from the Board on how to, or how much, to proceed with prior to any amendment to Cheatham's contract. Mr. Polasek explained that the original design contract with Cheatham and Associates was amended in March of 1998 to include a portion of the TPWD grant related items (i.e., playground, pavilion/dock, trail). Additional grant reimbursable park projects (pond #2, day camp facilities, park signage, and amphitheater) still need to be addressed in terms of their design. Mr. Polasek stated that the Park Board mentioned adding practice fields. He commented that the contract with Cheatham allows for the design of the practice fields including the irrigation design, but there is no money in the budget to actually irrigate the practice field areas. Other items that are included in the grant reimbursables but are not currently under contract for design include - pond #2 with a well and water feature for aeration purposes, park signage, day camp facilities, amphitheater. Mr. Polasek commented that there are also funding issues related to these items: the $102,000 budgeted for pond #2 will probably not be enough (based on experience with pond #1); the $1,000 for signage does not include any signage along the trails, directional signage, or entrance signage; and, currently no funding is included for utilities or landscaping irrigation to the amphitheater. The Board asked whether or not they could change some of the projects, for example, did they have to build the amphitheater. Mr. Hugman informed the Board that we have some flexibility but not a lot. He explained that if we are under on one particular component such as the amphitheater but over me of the other components, TWPD will work with us to shift that money around, but we need to b~ all the components of the grant application done that we said we would do. Steve Polasek commented that staff can look at scaling down the amphitheater as much as they think would be acceptable, and we could, for instance, only build two or three small pavilions and picnic tables instead of the larger number budgeted. The money that would be saved could then be allocated to another project within the grant component list, such as doing the irrigation for the additional practice fields. President Kendall commented that she believes this is what we should be looking at doing, and it should be based on recommendations by the Park Board. She commented that she does not believe there is much interest in an amphitheater. Mr. Polasek commented that staff could scale down the amphitheater to just a concrete slab so that if in the future, there was a desire to expand on it they would be able to, but for now it could still be a useable space. Board member Berman commented that what was envisioned was more of a place school kids could come to, like an outdoor classroom. Mr. Polasek commented that there are also items that are identified in the CIP that are not grant reimbursable items but still need to be built to complement the facility. These components include the loop road that will allow access to the nature center, as well as the practice fields and Phase 1 rest rooms and concession facilities near the soccer fields. The Board agreed that the rest room and concession facilities were necessary. Mr. Polasek further commented that other items that were important but not addressed in the CIP include: pump house building enhancements, storm drain wall enhancements, phase one drainage improvements, pond #1 water discharge feature, _muation of the pipe rail fencing, phase 1 parking lot surface coating, phase 2 front entrance arch Minutes of SPDC Meeting, August 23, 1999 Page 3 of 7 feature, landscaping, and irrigation, phase 2 rest room building, utilities for the phase 2 rest room I,Jilding, nature center, telephone, water, electricity, and septic, as they apply, additional parking lots ;1 we need to have parking areas near the loop road) and low level lighting around road ways and parking areas on timers, lighting on parking lot near existing soccer field areas, roadways with lighting, Corp of Engineers tree mitigation, and architectural fees. Board member Berman suggested that the amphitheater be moved closer to the nature center. Mr. Polasek commented that staff would bring back a conceptual design of the facility and get more comments from both the Park Board and SPDC as the design phase progresses. Board member Potter asked about improvements to the trailhead (near the creek off White Chapel Blvd.). Director Hugman explained that there were a couple of items in the general fund budget that were potential SPDC items, however, the City Manager had to make some cuts and the funding for developing parking at the north trailhead was one of the things that had to be taken out. Other items that had to be cut from the general fund included senior center parking lot expansion, bleachers for inline hockey and baseball fields, and capping water wells at Bob Jones Park. Mr. Hugman explained that the budget City Council has been reviewing includes SPDC operational budget and debt service but it does not include CIP projects. Board member Berman suggested that a list of the items cut be provided to the Board. Mr. Hugman commented that these items and other items requested by various organizations will be brought back to the Board for consideration. President Kendall commented that the SPDC also needs to be receiving the minutes from the Park Board in order to have a better understanding of what projects they are interested in. Polasek stated that staff can not design or identify the costs for the projects discussed in house, .__.,refore, staff is recommending that Eddie Cheatham develop cost estimates and provide an amendment to his contract for the design work. Mr. Cheatham commented that he does not anticipate a large expense for developing the cost estimates and is willing to absorb these costs. Mr. Cheatham also indicated that he will not move forward on the design of these projects until he and staff meet again with the Board. Agenda Item No. 6C. Authorization to bid landscaping and irrigation plans for Bicentennial Park Expansion Phase II. Director Hugman stated that the landscaping and irrigation is the last of the projects in the Phase II expansion. Mr. Hugman commented that there is $70,000 budgeted for this project, however, staff feels the landscaping alone will cost $70,000. He hopes to bid the whole project (landscaping and irrigation) and then go from there to see how both projects can be accomplished. He commented that staff will bring back to the Board different options to consider based on the bid results. Plans and Construction Superintendent Ben Henry reviewed for the Board the layout of the landscaping. Landscaping around the facility exceeds what is required by City ordinance. Board member Edmondson commented that she would like to see plants that provide food sources for nature be considered (tubular flowers, plants with berries, etc). Minutes of SPDC Meeting, August 23, 1999 Page 4 of 7 Motion was made to authorize staff to bid landscaping and irrigation plans for Bicentennial Park Urpansion Phase II. tion: Edmondson Second: Potter Ayes: Berman, Edmondson, Kendall, Potter Nays: none Approved: 4-0 Agenda Item No. 4. Public Forum. There were no comments during the Public Forum. Agenda Item No. 5A. Approval of the regular SPDC meeting minutes for July 26, 1999. Motion was made to approve the minutes of the regular SPDC meeting minutes for July 26, 1999 as presented. Motion: Berman Second: Edmondson Ayes: Berman, Edmondson, Kendall, Potter, Nays: none Approved: 4-0 Agenda Item No. 6A. Request from Northeast Tarrant Tennis (NETT) for matching grant is. Director Hugman stated that Northeast Tarrant Tennis (NETT) is requesting matching grant funds in an amount up to $15,000. He commented that NETT plans to implement a fundraising initiative. The solicitation of funds would be extended to their membership base as well as the merchants and businesses of Southlake. NETT intends to offer, in exchange for the donations received, a recognition plaque at the Tennis Center. Mr. Hugman stated that NETT is proposing to donate $2,500 to sponsor the center court and work with city staff on donating to other projects associated with the tennis center on a priority basis. The Park Board approved the request at their meeting on August 9. A discussion was held on the process for granting matching funds. SPDC matching grant funds are not payable until an organization raises the matching amount requested, matching funds are not granted for personal labor, and a time limit should be in place on how long to hold the funds in reserve for any particular organization. Board members had some concerns with individual sponsor plaques at each court because construction of the facility was funded through SPDC, however, they recognize that there should be some kind of recognition of donations. Staff suggested that the recognition plaque be one plaque on the building, or within the facility, with names of sponsors listed on the one plaque - not individual plaques at each court. Minutes of SPDC Meeting, August 23, 1999 Page 5 of 7 Motion was made to approve the request from Northeast Tarrant Tennis for matching grant funds up $15,000 and that sponsor recognition will be in the form of a plaque within the interior of the pro p as discussed. motion: Potter Second: Edmondson Ayes: Berman, Edmondson, Kendall, Potter Nays: none Approved: 4-0 Agenda Item No. 6B. Professional services agreement with Brinkley Sargent Architects for the design of the proposed Teen Center. Deputy Director Steve Polasek presented to the Board the professional services agreement for the proposed Teen Center. Mr. Polasek commented that funding in the amount of $150,000 for the Teen Center design is identified in FY1998-99 of the SPDC Five Year CIP. He commented that the proposed agreement is based on a construction budget of $850,000 as identified in the FY 1999/00 SPDC CIP. Mr. Polasek stated that a Teen Center Coordination Committee was established in 1998 in an effort to gather information and collect input relating to the development of a Southlake Teen Center. During the past year, the Committee has been actively involved in defining the scope of the teen center project. In May of 1999, a Request for Qualifications was sent out to eight local architectural firms and five responses were received. Their qualifications were reviewed by staff and interested members of the Teen Center Design Committee. Brinkley Sargent Architects of Dallas was determined to be the organization best suited for the Teen Center project. Mr. Polasek commented he spoke with six different cities regarding the projects Brinkley has completed for them, and ___y commented that they were very satisfied with the services provided and would use them again on future projects. Mr. Polasek commented that it is his understanding that the project should be right on budget or just under. Mr. Polasek explained that the $5,000 allocated for Facility Program Development is for five meetings with staff, the committee, and teens and users of the facility to discuss design concepts. Other costs associated with the agreement include $89,400 for Basic architectural services, $22,350 for construction administration, and $9,500 for reimbursables. Mr. Polasek stated that the Park Board approved a recommendation to SPDC and the City Council to enter into the agreement with Brinkley Sargent at their August 9, 1999 meeting (7-1 vote). Mr. Polasek explained that the recommendation to hire this firm was from staff based on his meetings with the committee including Vicki Johnson, Robert Glover, Robin Jones, Edith Sandlin. Mr. Polasek informed the Board that every effort will be made to get the youth involved, and he will invite SYAC members and the Youth Park Board members. Mr. Polasek added that the architects would also be looking at other uses for the facility during the day when the youth are at school. Board member Potter asked about how disputes were going to be handled since the arbitration part of the agreement has been deleted. Mr. Potter asked that the staff check with the attorneys to make sure there is a means to handle disputes prior to presenting to City Council for consideration. Minutes of SPDC Meeting, August 23, 1999 Page 6 of 7 Motion was made to approve entering into an agreement with Brinkley Sargent Architects for the A'sign and construction drawings for the proposed Teen Center. tion: Berman second: Edmondson Ayes: Berman, Edmondson, Kendall, Potter Nays: none Approved: 4-0 Agenda Item No. 7C. Status Report of SPDC Projects. No discussion was held on this agenda item. Agenda Item No. 2, Executive Session. President Kendall announced that the Board would be going into Executive Session pursuant to the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code, Section 551.072, land acquisition. SPDC adjourned for Executive Session at 8:55 p.m. SPDC returned to open session at 9:05 p.m. nda Item No. 3. Reconvene. There was no action necessary as a result of the Executive Session. Agenda Item No. 8. Adjournment. Motion was made and carried to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 p.m. Z--5-~~ rA~ President Ronnie Kendall ATTEST: K' Bush Se retary to the City Manager Minutes of SPDC Meeting, August 23, 1999 Page 7 of 7