Loading...
2000-01-27 * * UNOFFICIAL MINUTES * * NOT APPROVED BY THE JOINT UTILIZATION COMMITTEE MEMBERS 1 CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 2 TUC-JOINT UTILIZATION COMMITTEE MEETING 3 4 January 27, 2000 5 6 MINUTES 7 8 9 Committee Members Present: Gary Fawks, Chair and City Council Representative; Jerry 10 Lawrence, Vice Chair and CISD Representative; Patsy DuPre, City Council Representative; 11 Steve Harold, CISD Representative, Wendi Carlucci, City Council Appointed Citizen 12 13 Committee Members Absent: James Glover, Parks and Recreation Board Representative, 14 John Rollins, CISD Board Appointed Citizen 15 16 Staff Members Present: Steve Polasek, Deputy Director of Community Services for the City 17 of Southlake; Steve Johnson, Assistant Superintendent for Carroll Independent School 18 District; John Eaglen, Administrative Assistant for City of Southlake 19 20 21 Agenda Item No. 1, Call to Order — The meeting was called to order by Chair Gary Fawks at 22 6:04 p.m. 23 24 Agenda Item No. 2, Administrative Comments — Mr. Polasek said that the natatorium was 25 moving forward and all groups involved seemed to be pleased. 26 27 Ms. DuPre said that she knew that the group had discussed this before but she wanted to make 28 sure that there would still be joint use possibilities despite only having one pool. 29 30 Mr. Polasek said that there would be joint use potential because the pool would have the two 31 (2) bulkheads. 32 33 Consider: 34 Agenda Item No. 3 Approval of Minutes from the December 9, 1999 Meeting — Mr. Harold 35 indicated he had some questions concerning the minutes. He did not remember if Mr. Gillum 36 had been present during the meeting as was mentioned on page three (3) line 27 and 29 of the 37 minutes. 38 39 Mr. Fawks indicated that Mr. Gillum had been present. 40 41 Mr. Harold suggested the following changes to the minutes: 42 43 • Page eleven (11) line 44 should read `for" Peytonville instead of from. 44 • Page twelve (12) line 24 change "and" to "had". 45 46 Motion was made to approve the December 9, 1999 meeting minutes with the proposed 47 change. Joint Utilization Committee Meeting, January 27, 2000. Page 1 of 6 N:IParks & Recreation \COMITEESUUCMINUTESI00 minutes101- 27- 00.doc * * UNOFFICIAL MINUTES * * NOT APPROVED BY THE JOINT UTILIZATION COMMITTEE MEMBERS 1 2 Motion: Harold 3 Second: DuPre 4 Ayes: Lawrence, Carlucci, Fawks 5 Nayes: None 6 Approved: 5 -0 7 8 Agenda Item No. 4, Interlocal Agreement for Park, Playground, and Other Recreation Facilities 9 — Mr. Polasek briefed the Committee on the proposed revisions and additions to the 10 Interlocal Agreement for Park, Playground, and Other Recreation Facilities. Mr. Polasek 11 explained that the proposed revisions reflected changes in the annual scheduling periods for 12 joint use, the process to address shared maintenance (both minor and major), clarification of 13 user responsibilities for each party, and the inclusion of an event report form for the use of the 14 facilities. 15 16 Ms. DuPre asked why the scheduled dates for submitting usage requests was changed. Mr. 17 Polasek answered that the change would assist the City in getting the brochures out and that the 18 school district indicated that they did not have a problem with the proposed change. 19 20 Mr. Harold said that the language concerning the statement "The district shall approve the 21 schedule as submitted or with any modifications deemed necessary for the district" and the 22 similar language concerning the City was unnecessary because both statements were saying the 23 same thing. Mr. Harold said that the recipient had to sign it as submitted or reject the request. 24 25 Mr. Fawks stated that the process allows for modifications from the beginning in that each 26 entity would be able to modify and approve the schedule. Mr. Fawks added that it should be 27 clear in the agreement that whichever entity is reviewing the schedule should either have to 28 accept it or modify it and then return the signed agreement to the other entity so that there is no 29 question that the facilities are available. 30 31 Mr. Lawrence said that he could see this process working, but asked who will be responsible 32 for administering the scheduling for each entity. Ms. DuPre suggested that it would be the 33 Superintendent and the City Manager or his/her designee. Mr. Lawrence stated that the 34 agreement addresses final approval, but asked whom from each entity sits down and does the 35 work. Mr. Polasek indicated that it would be himself and Steve Johnson, but mentioned that 36 this designation was not specified in the agreement as staff assignments are subject to change. 37 38 Mr. Lawrence said that was fine but that the document is not clear on who is responsible for 39 administering the schedule. Ms. Carlucci added that this was a valid point because people put 40 forth reservation requests frequently, and they would need to know who is in charge of 41 scheduling. 42 43 Mr. Polasek said that they would add to the document a section which addresses the 44 responsibility for administering the schedule. 45 46 Mr. Harold asked what had been decided with regards to his previously mentioned statements. 47 He also added that he didn't have a problem with removing those sentences. Mr. Fawks stated Joint Utilization Committee Meeting, January 27, 2000. Page 2 of 6 N :•( Parks & RecreationlCOM1TEESIJUCMINUTES100 minutes101- 27- 00.doc * * UNOFFICIAL MINUTES * * NOT APPROVED BY THE JOINT UTILIZATION COMMITTEE MEMBERS 1 that he didn't see an issue with keeping the language intact because it outlined the necessary 2 steps for reviewing the schedules. Mr. Harold said that he would withdraw his objection to the 3 verbiage, but stated that in his opinion the sentences did not contribute to the agreement. 4 5 Mr. Polasek continued briefing the Committee on the proposed revisions, covering the next 6 item on major and minor maintenance. Mr. Polasek explained that the City Manager and the 7 Superintendent, or his/her designee, would meet on a quarterly basis to discuss minor 8 maintenance items and cost sharing. Also, under the agreement the district will submit a work 9 schedule of minor maintenance items to the City no later than December 31 of each year. Mr. 10 Polasek stated that major maintenance items are those over $5,000.00, and would be addressed 11 at the quarterly meetings as well so that they could be addressed during the annual budget 12 process. Mr. Harold asked how the committee was going to come up with a list of items to 13 share costs on. Mr. Fawks said that what he read into the agreement was that the Committee 14 was not going to "count paper towels," but instead focus on sharing the cost of ongoing 15 maintenance. 16 17 Ms. DuPre asked how they were going to figure out the shared costs. Mr. Fawks explained 18 that in a situation where the district has to resurface a gym floor, each entity would pay their 19 share of the cost. Mr. Harold questioned though how each entity would determine what their 20 share would be. Mr. Fawks stated that he didn't think it would be possible to develop that 21 process in this agreement. 22 23 Mr. Polasek said that currently there was no data available to develop detailed costs on a site - 24 by -site basis. Mr. Polasek stated that this section of the agreement was developed in order to 25 show the cooperative nature between the District and the City to share costs on a good faith 26 basis as the need arises. 27 28 Mr. Polasek said that an example of the way the process would work is that if a gym needed to 29 replace all six (6) of its goals, and the district had received a quote over $25,000.00, this item 30 would be discussed at the next quarterly maintenance meeting. If the gym were one that the 31 City used heavily, such as Durham, the City and District could then address through the budget 32 process the possibility of sharing the cost for replacement. Mr. Polasek stated that each major 33 maintenance item would be addressed individually as it comes up. Costs for smaller 34 maintenance items would be addressed quarterly. 35 36 Mr. Fawks said that the committee could go in any direction it wants, however in the past the 37 Committee has not tried to get out a general ledger and balance joint use costs. Mr. Fawks 38 explained that the district and the City are building facilities, and joint use allows both entities 39 to have more facilities without each one having to build them separately. 40 41 Mr. Polasek indicated that quarterly reports could be presented to the Committee which outline 42 the major and minor maintenance items, their associated costs, and the expenditures from each 43 entity related to these items. 44 45 Mr. Harold also asked about whether the language in the first paragraph should be 46 "coordinated" or "approved" by the owner of the facility. 47 Joint Utilization Committee Meeting, January 27, 2000. Page 3 of 6 N.•I Parks& Recreation \COMITEESUUCWIINUTESI00 minutes101- 27- 00.doc * * UNOFFICIAL MINUTES * * NOT APPROVED BY THE JOINT UTILIZATION COMMI F hE MEMBERS 1 The committee discussed this issue and it was determined that "coordinated" is the correct 2 language because each entity will schedule its own facilities. 3 4 Mr. Polasek said that the agreement also updates user responsibilities and that an event report 5 form was developed in order for the user to have a checklist in which they can check off the 6 listed maintenance and security items and sign the form. Mr. Polasek further stated that they 7 had left the term for reviewing the agreement open and on an as- needed basis so as not to delay 8 necessary changes which may arise. The exhibits would be reviewed annually. 9 10 Mr. Harold asked if the exhibits should be reviewed on an as needed basis as well. 11 12 The committee felt that the exhibits should be reviewed on an as needed basis. 13 14 Motion was made to pass the Interlocal Agreement with the discussed changes. 15 16 Motion: DuPre 17 Second: Lawrence 18 Ayes: Harold, Carlucci, Fawks 19 Nayes: None 20 Approved: 5 -0 21 22 Agenda Item No. 5 Traffic issues at Carroll Junior High 23 Mr. Fawks said that he had received a letter from parents and students at Carroll Junior High 24 School expressing their concerns regarding the lack of lights along White Chapel near the north 25 and south entrances to the school. 26 27 Mr. Polasek stated that he had looked into the issue and had some general information about 28 street lighting. Mr. Polasek said that the cost of lighting would be driven by whether or not 29 there is an existing pole at the site. If a pole exists, then there is little if any cost to install a 30 standard streetlight. Mr. Polasek further mentioned that if there was no pole currently in place, 31 then the cost would be roughly $1,000, and for ornamental lighting the cost rises to roughly 32 $3,000. 33 34 Mr. Fawks asked if anyone had any firsthand knowledge of the issue. 35 36 Mr. Lawrence said that he had spoken to Robin Ryan about it and that he said it is dark at the 37 intersections and thought that lights could be useful. 38 39 Mr. Fawks said that he almost would like to see this on the agenda again with more 40 information, and added that the lights on Byron Nelson around Timmaron should be looked at 41 because they might work in this situation. 42 43 Ms. DuPre said that she thought they would decide on this issue tonight. Mr. Polasek said that 44 in bringing this item back to the Committee, staff would be able to provide more information 45 and possibly some different options. Once a recommendation is made by the Committee, the 46 project could proceed through the proper channels, including meeting with the surrounding 47 neighbors. Joint Utilization Committee Meeting, January 27, 2000. Page 4 of 6 N :•IParks & Recreation \COMITEESUUCMINUTES100 minutes101- 27- 00.doc * * UNOFFICIAL MINUTES * * NOT APPROVED BY THE JOINT UTILIZATION COMMITTEE MEMBERS 1 2 Mr. Fawks asked staff to research the issue further and bring this item back before the 3 Committee as a consideration item at the next meeting. 4 5 Agenda Item No. 6 Joint meeting with Park and Recreation Board 6 Mr. Polasek stated that he had included a draft agenda of potential topics for the joint meeting 7 that includes input from some of the members of the Parks and Recreation Board. 8 9 Mr. Fawks suggested that due to the members of the Committee having other meeting 10 responsibilities that the meeting should be coordinated with one of the regular meetings. 11 12 The Committee discussed the date and time of the meeting and decided that the joint 13 meeting would follow the regular meeting on March 0. The regular scheduled meeting 14 would be from 6:00 pm to 7:30 pm and the joint meeting would be scheduled from 7:30 15 pm to 9:00 pm. 16 17 Agenda Item No.7, Community Services Project Update 18 Mr. Polasek informed the committee that staff was moving forward on the master plans 19 for trails, parks and open space, as well as the Bicentennial Park Schematic Design. Mr. 20 Polasek said that these documents would serve as necessary planning tools for the 21 Department as future park development will have a significant impact on the community. 22 Mr. Polasek announced that there would be several public meetings on the plans and that 23 it would be a lengthy process. 24 25 Agenda Item No. 8, City Project Update 26 Mr. Polasek said that he had included for the Committee the latest update from Senior 27 Civil Engineer Shawn Poe on the various construction projects on road and intersections 28 in Southlake. Mr. Polasek quickly reviewed the information and indicated to the 29 Committee that if they needed further information to please contact Mr. Poe at the phone 30 number listed in their packets. 31 32 Agenda Item No. 9, CISD Project Update 33 Mr. Fawks announced that the stadium would be brought before the Planning and Zoning 34 Commission next Thursday. Mr. Fawks stated that one of the residents had called and asked 35 him a question about the plan, and told him that there would be no residential adjacency 36 standards included. Mr. Fawks asked why that would not be in there. 37 38 The Committee did not know the answer. Mr. Fawks said that he would find the answer 39 when staff put out their memo on the plan. 40 41 Agenda Item No. 10, Future Joint Use Facilities, Projects, and Goals 42 Mr. Fawks asked if Mr. Harold would like to continue his discussion about cost accounting for 43 joint use. Mr. Harold said that they had discussed the issue enough, but mentioned that he 44 believed that the cost accounting should be in the middle of both extremes. 45 Joint Utilization Committee Meeting, January 27, 2000. Page 5 of 6 N :\Parks & Recreation \COMITEESl1UCIMINUTES100 minutes101- 27- 00.doc * * UNOFFICIAL MINUTES * * NOT APPROVED BY THE JOINT UTILIZATION COMMITTEE MEMBERS 1 Mr. Lawrence said that the field lighting issue at Carroll Intermediate needs to be addressed so 2 that the school district will know what to do. Mr. Polasek said that he walked the site with 3 John Craft, and that the lights were old, low grade, and utilized aerial wire. They would cost 4 about $150,000 to replace. Mr. Polasek stated that the City did not have a need for the 5 bleachers, and that the lighting issue will be brought to the Parks and Recreation Board on 6 February 14". Mr. Polasek announced that the district would receive a response from the City 7 very soon regarding this issue. 8 9 Mr. Lawrence said that there was a possibility that the field at Carroll Intermediate would go 10 away and then they would only have two (2) lighted fields. Ms. DuPre asked if it was cheaper 11 to keep the Carroll Intermediate field then to light the new schools. Mr. Lawrence said that the 12 cost is about the same but the new facilities would be much nicer. 13 14 Mr. Harold asked if the lighting needs and issues had been explained to the residents. Ms. 15 DuPre replied that the issue had been explained, but that the neighbors haven't had lights for 16 years, and they don't want lights now. 17 18 Ms. Carlucci asked if there was something that could be done about lighting because most of 19 the junior high football games are played during non - evening hours. Ms. DuPre said that if 20 they limited the lighting then it would limit joint use. 21 22 Mr. Lawrence stated that the neighbors hadn't wanted the facility to be joint use and that the 23 district differed with them on this issue. 24 25 Agenda Item No. 11, Adjournment Chair Gary Fawks adjourned the meeting at 8:31 p.m. 26 27 28 i 29 .,411 f 4 31 • Cha 32 33 Attest: 34 35 `-- 36 teve Po ek, Deputy Director of Community Services 37 Joint Utilization Committee Meeting, January 27, 2000. Page 6 of 6 N :•\Parks & Recreation \COMITEESUUCWIINUTES100 minutes101- 27- 00.doc