2000-06-22 * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * *
1 CITY OF SOUTHLAKE — CARROLL INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT
2 JOINT UTILIZATION COMMITTEE
3
4 MINUTES
5
6 June 22, 2000
7
8 Joint Utilization Committee Members Present: Jerry Lawrence, Vice -Chair and CISD Board of
9 Trustees Representative; Steve Harold, CISD Board of Trustees Representative; Patsy DuPre,
10 City Council Representative; Greg Standerfer, City Council Representative; John Rollins,
11 CISD Appointed Citizen; Wendi Carlucci, City Council Appointed Citizen; James Glover,
12 Parks and Recreation Board Representative
13
14 Committee Members Absent: None.
15
16 Staff Members Present: Steve Polasek, Deputy Director of Community Services for the City of
17 Southlake; Malcolm Jackson, Chief of Building Services for the City of Southlake; Keith
18 Martin, Landscape Administrator for the City of Southlake; Brent Kline, Total Project
19 Management (capital project consultant for CISD); Jim Beyers, Total Program Management
20 (capital project consultant for CISD); John Eaglen, Administrative Assistant for the City of
21 Southlake.
22
23 Agenda Item No. 1, Call to Order - Mr. Lawrence called the meeting to order at 6:08 p.m. Mr.
24 Lawrence mentioned that due to the completion of new appointments to Boards and Committees
25 by the City Council, current committee Chair Gary Fawks is no longer a member of the
26 Committee and that there were new Committee appointments in attendance. Mr. Lawrence
27 introduced the members and guests in attendance at the meeting.
28
29 Agenda Item No. 2, Administrative Comments - Mr. Polasek introduced himself and noted that
30 Mr. Steve Johnson was undergoing scheduled surgery and wished him the best, and that Mr.
31 John Craft was scheduled to be at the meeting tonight but had a conflict arise prior to the
32 meeting. Mr. Polasek mentioned that the City's "Stars and Stripes" Fourth of July event would
33 be on Monday, July 3 at 7:00 p.m. at the Family Park in Town Square.
34
35 Agenda Item No. 3, Approval of the Minutes from the April 13, 2000 meeting —
36
37 Motion to approve the minutes as submitted.
38
39 Motion: Harold
40 Second: Glover
41 Ayes: Lawrence, Harold, Glover, Carlucci, Rollins, Standerfer
42 Nayes: None
43 Abstentions: DuPre
44 Approved: 6 -0
45
Joint Utilization Committee Meeting, June 22, 2000 Page 1 of 12
N: Parks & Recreation \COMITEESIJUCMINUTES100 minutes106- 22.00.doc
* * OFFICIAL MINUTES * *
1 Agenda Item No. 4, Cancellation of July meeting — Mr. Polasek stated that as historically the
2 agendas for the summertime have been lighter and with the difficulty in coordinating a time
3 around vacation schedules, the Committee has reviewed whether or not to hold a July meeting in
4 the past. Mr. Polasek also mentioned that last year the Committee decided to cancel the July
5 meeting, and as such, staff has brought forth this item for the Committee to consider for this
6 year. Mr. Polasek stated that the next meeting would be scheduled for July 13; Mr. Polasek said
7 that Mr. Johnson and himself would most likely not be available for the meeting, however Mr.
8 Eaglen and Mr. Craft would be available to staff the meeting should the Committee so desire.
9
10 Mr. Lawrence stated that he would not be able to attend the meeting as well, but mentioned that
11 one issue that has come up recently is the pond between Elementary School #5 and Noble Oaks
12 Park. Mr. Lawrence stated that his understanding of the City Council's intent is to go ahead and
13 fill the pond in now. Ms. DuPre stated that Total Program Management (TPM) has offered to fill
14 the pond in with dirt from the school site, but mentioned that she reviewed the decision of the
15 Committee to hold off on making a formal recommendation until the summer months when the
16 state of the pond could be observed during this time of year.
17
18 Mr. Harold asked about the turtles, and Ms. Carlucci stated that this would be an issue, based
19 upon history of a similar situation during the development of the Carroll Junior High School site.
20 Mr. Glover stated that the Committee intended to hold off on an ecological controversy by
21 waiting to observe the state of the pond during the summer months, as they were told by staff
22 that the pond would dry up during this time. Ms. DuPre asked if TPM could leave some dirt
23 adjacent to the pond site should the Committee recommend that the pond be filled in
24 immediately. Mr. Kline replied that this option had been discussed in -house already, and it
25 would be possible to do this. Mr. Glover had mentioned that the Parks and Recreation Board had
26 also opted to wait and see what the state of the pond would be during the summer months in
27 order to avoid harming the natural habitat. Mr. Harold asked how long the bulldozers would be
28 on the #5 school site, and Mr. Kline replied that the bulldozers would be there for about a month
29 and a half. Ms. DuPre asked if the school district could request TPM to hold off on filling in dirt
30 until the last possible moment, and then gain direction from the School Board prior to finishing
31 the project. Mr. Rollins asked how much trouble and expense it would be to move a bulldozer
32 over across town, and Mr. Kline replied that it would be several thousand dollars.
33
34 Mr. Lawrence stated that the City committed to repay CISD in early 2001 for building the
35 expanded road section on Carroll, and according to the staff analysis the road improvements,
36 combined with the school site development, the pond will dry up. Mr. Lawrence stated that this
37 agenda item does not require discussing this item, and mentioned that a motion could be made
38 regarding this issue later on.
39
40 Mr. Lawrence asked if there was a problem with canceling the July meeting, and there was no
41 opposition stated. Mr. Lawrence mentioned that the next regular meeting would be scheduled
42 for August 10, 2000.
43
44 Agenda Item No. 5, Report on City and CISD election process — Mr. Lawrence introduced Ms.
45 Karen Cienki, election judge for the City, and Mr. David Baltimore, election judge for CISD.
46 Mr. Lawrence said he perceived that there were some procedural issues for the elections process
Joint Utilization Committee Meeting, June 22, 2000 Page 2 of 12
N :•\Parks & Recreation \COMJTEESJUCMINUTES100 minutes106-22. 00. doc
* * OFFICIAL MINUTES * *
1 during the May elections on the school side, and he asked Mr. Baltimore to look at the May
2 election process and make recommendations to avoid these concerns in the future.
3
4 Mr. Baltimore stated that he had provided a report, and that he felt that this information also
5 needed to be given to the CISD Board of Trustees, as it is not directly a joint use issue. Mr.
6 Baltimore mentioned that he and Ms. Cienki were working to schedule a joint CISD -City
7 meeting this summer to review potential election sites at different school campuses and City
8 facilities. Mr. Baltimore stated that he and Ms. Cienki were available at this time to answer any
9 questions.
10
11 Mr. Harold asked Mr. Baltimore for clarification of a comment in the report, where having
12 Tarrant County involved in the process did not add to the integrity of the electoral process, and
13 that it increased the cost. Mr. Baltimore replied that there are two (2) parts to the question, cost
14 and perceptions. Mr. Baltimore stated that he based the perception issues upon comments and
15 questions made during the elections, and mentioned that the comment was based upon his
16 opinion. Mr. Baltimore stated that in terms of cost, the County charged a premium for people
17 and parts provided, and that he is currently waiting for some requested data. Mr. Baltimore
18 stated that upon completion of the research, he felt confident that he would be able to show that
19 having the County involved in the process resulted in a higher administrative cost and less voter
20 turnout for the School Board elections.
21
22 Ms. DuPre stated that she voted during the early voting period, and asked if the day of the
23 elections, if the County had people to help administer the elections. Mr. Baltimore replied that
24 the people on hand to administer the elections for CISD were recruited by him. Ms. DuPre asked
25 if CISD had more clerks on hand than the City, and Mr. Baltimore confirmed this. Ms. DuPre
26 clarified that on the school side, the clerks had to call Fort Worth to verify residency within the
27 school district. Mr. Baltimore replied that the County controls this process through computer,
28 and that the were unable to locate the computer at the site chosen for the elections, and that to
29 him this is a communications issue between CISD and the City, as arrangements could have been
30 made to have computer access and physical space on -site for a computer.
31
32 Ms. DuPre asked for clarification on Mr. Baltimore's assertion that this is not a joint use issue,
33 and Mr. Baltimore replied that in his opinion a joint use issue involves the sharing of a resource.
34 Mr. Baltimore stated that in terms of sharing a facility and/or staff for the next election, then it
35 would then become a joint use issue. Mr. Baltimore stated that in terms of administering an
36 election, in his opinion each entity is responsible for administering their elections. Ms. DuPre
37 mentioned that a joint election site was one of the first issues raised by this Committee, and at
38 this time she would like to hear from Ms. Cienki regarding the City elections.
39
40 Ms. Cienki stated that the only problem with the City elections this year were the large number
41 of voters and the large amount of ballots processed throughout the day. Ms. Cienki stated that
42 due to the large turnout, there was a great deal of people waiting in line. Ms. Cienki said that
43 due to the City's growth, it would be very hard for the City and CISD to share the same room in
44 the future. Mr. Harold asked if there were problems with a wait on the CISD side, and Mr.
45 Baltimore stated that there was not a problem with the CISD side, since everyone chose to stand
46 in the City line when they first arrived versus splitting the line evenly between the City and
Joint Utilization Committee Meeting, June 22, 2000 Page 3 of 12
N :•IParks & Recreation \COMITEESUUCUIINUTES100 minutes106- 22.00.doc
* * OFFICIAL MINUTES * *
1 CISD. Ms. Cienki mentioned that there were four (4) lines that split upon alphabetical letters,
2 but that it took people some time to file into the different lines. Mr. Harold mentioned that the
3 signs were hard to see until people got closer to the front, and this may have attributed to the
4 confusion. Ms. DuPre stated that the facility issue may be very important for the next election,
5 as a facility like the high school or junior high may help allow more people inside. Mr.
6 Baltimore said that over the next few months, they would be working to visit the sites throughout
7 the area and make a recommendation, but each potential site has strengths and weaknesses.
8
9 Mr. Lawrence stated that his understanding of this situation is that there needs to be one (1) site,
10 but each entity would need to be physically located within different areas of the site. Ms. Cienki
11 mentioned that parking is an issue at certain sites, as there are a limited number of handicapped
12 spaces available at facilities like Johnson Elementary. Mr. Lawrence asked if the judges were
13 going to work with the two (2) entities and come back with a recommendation, and Mr.
14 Baltimore confirmed that himself, Ms. Cienki, Mr. Craft, and Ms. Sandy LeGrand would be
15 working on this issue and would provide a recommendation. Mr. Lawrence asked if they could
16 come back to the Committee in the future with a recommendation regarding holding the elections
17 in 2001.
18
19 Agenda Item No. 6, Landscape Committee Update — Mr. Lawrence reminded the Committee that
20 this sub - committee was established several months ago to review native landscaping alternatives
21 for the upcoming school sites, and that Ms. Carlucci and Ms. Vicki Glover had headed this
22 effort. Mr. Lawrence said that he was pleased to have Mr. Jackson and Mr. Martin present at the
23 meeting tonight to review the proposed landscaping plans along with the Committee.
24
25 Ms. Carlucci thanked the staff of both entities for their cooperation, and mentioned the purpose
26 of this effort is to maintain the rural character of Southlake and the natural resources (water) of
27 the community, while meeting and/or exceeding the requirements of the City's Landscaping
28 Ordinance. Ms. Carlucci stated that there are twelve (12) sites that the sub - committee reviewed,
29 and that Mr. Kline has several concept plans available for review.
30
31 Ms. Carlucci stated that this is a massive undertaking, that in the proposal there are 2,180 canopy
32 trees, 689 accent trees, 4,238 shrubs, with 18,712 square feet of ground cover, and a proposed
33 total of 2,106 square feet of annuals and perennials. Mr. Harold asked what the difference
34 between a canopy and an accent tree is, and Ms. Carlucci replied that canopy trees are shade
35 trees, whereas accent trees are color trees that blossom periodically.
36
37 Mr. Kline reviewed the proposed landscape plan for the Carroll Hijih School Site with the
38 Committee. Ms. Carlucci mentioned that according to the landscape ordinance, this site would
39 require 750 trees. Mr. Kline introduced Mr. Jim Beyers of TPM, who is responsible for tracking
40 the required tree mitigation from the City's landscape ordinance (Mr. Beyers distributed a list of
41 the required tree mitigation requirements for CISD for the various school sites). Mr. Kline and
42 Mr. Martin reviewed the tree mitigation requirements for the school sites with the Committee.
43
44 Mr. Harold stated that he does not see a total number of trees required for mitigation for each site
45 on the handout. Mr. Beyer replied that on the last page of the handout, there is a total measured
46 in inches, however this is not broken out into inches per facility at this time. Mr. Lawrence
Joint Utilization Committee Meeting, June 22, 2000 Page 4 of 12
N :• (Parks & Recreation \COMITEESUUCIMINUTES100 minutes106- 22.00.doc
* * OFFICIAL MINUTES * *
1 mentioned that the issue of looking at schools differently than other developments would need to
2 be discussed before the City Council at some point. Ms. DuPre replied that she would follow up
3 on this item for discussion at the upcoming City Council retreat. Mr. Standerfer added that with
4 the passage of the recent ordinance passed by the Council regarding tree mitigation at the high
5 school, the intent was to provide staff some additional flexibility in working with the CISD to get
6 the best product in the best methods.
7
8 Mr. Lawrence stated that other issues in regards to tree mitigation is the need for open space,
9 especially at the lower grade levels, and the security and operational concerns regarding a heavy
10 tree coverage on campuses. Mr. Kline replied that he has appreciated the opportunity to work
11 with the sub - committee and City staff to achieve a balance of all needs in developing this
12 proposal. Mr. Jackson stated that the City's role in this process is not to approve specific
13 species, but to make recommendations on the feasibility of a submitted proposal. Mr. Martin
14 added that staff would look at whether or not a proposed landscape plan was suitable for the
15 conditions of the development. Mr. Jackson reiterated that the role of staff is to advise a
16 petitioner of potential problems with a proposed landscape plan, and to work with the petitioner
17 to develop improvements. Ms. Carlucci stated that the sub - committee did not vary from the trees
18 listed in the Landscape Ordinance, but that the sub - committee tried to expand the number of
19 species visible in the proposed landscaping plans.
20
21 Mr. Rollins left at 7:29 p.m.
22
23 Mr. Harold asked if there are physical characteristics that vary between different locations within
24 the City. Mr. Martin replied that this is not the case, and added that the trees mentioned in the
25 Landscape Ordinance are not all native foliage, however the mentioned species are those that are
26 highly adaptable, and available for purchase around the area.
27
28 Mr. Kline reviewed the Carroll Intermediate School and Johnson Elementary School Sites
29 with the Committee. Ms. DuPre stated that at Carroll Elementary School there is a water garden
30 that was barren and then improvements were made and maintained by the parents and teachers.
31 Ms. DuPre asked if there were areas at these other sites that could be addressed through the tree
32 mitigation requirements. Mr. Kline replied that on each campus there have been an area
33 developed for similar gardens, and these areas have concrete borders and would have some good
34 topsoil to develop these items.
35
36 Mr. Kline reviewed the Durham Intermediate and Elementary School Site with the Committee.
37 Mr. Kline mentioned that this site had an agreement on landscaping, and that this agreement was
38 written in the developer's agreement. Mr. Kline stated that in response to this, additional
39 mitigation trees have been added at this site to meet the commitments made earlier. Ms. DuPre
40 asked when this landscaping would be planted, and Mr. Kline replied that the interior buffer yard
41 trees would be planted in coordination with the gymnasium construction. Mr. Kline stated that
42 there is a timing issue for the mitigation trees required at this site, as they need to plant this
43 landscaping in October. Ms. Carlucci stated that since there is a large volume of trees to go in
44 these sites, there are discussions of buying a whole farm or buying trees years in advance to meet
45 the demand and timing.
46
Joint Utilization Committee Meeting, June 22, 2000 Page 5 of 12
N :•IParks & Recreation \COMITEESVUCMINUTES100 minutes106- 22.00.doc
* * OFFICIAL MINUTES * *
1 Mr. Harold asked if there is a meandering sidewalk included in the Durham site. Mr. Jackson
2 replied that with the input received at the School Board, Planning and Zoning Commission and
3 City Council, staff would have to go back and piece the direction together from minutes from
4 meetings. Mr. Kline stated that he would have to review the minutes to gather a final
5 determination on the direction for the sidewalks at this site.
6
7 Mr. Kline reviewed the Carroll Middle School Site with the Committee. Mr. Martin mentioned
8 that at this site, along the east bufferyard a question was asked if it was possible to replace some
9 shrubs with canopy trees. Mr. Martin said that the ordinance allowed for a substitution of one
10 (1) canopy tree for six (6) shrubs, therefore there is the flexibility to do this. Mr. Harold asked
11 for clarification, and Mr. Kline reviewed the ordinance requirements and the proposed
12 replacement of shrubs with canopy trees.
13
14 Mr. Kline stated that the landscaping would have to be in at this site prior to the issuance of a
15 certificate of occupancy (C /O), and to do this in August will pose a problem, therefore this item
16 would need to be worked out. Mr. Lawrence asked if the City could issue a C/O contingent upon
17 a commitment from CISD to meet the landscaping requirements. Ms. Carlucci asked Mr.
18 Jackson if he wanted to proceed with his presentation in hopes to answer some of these types of
19 questions.
20
21 Mr. Jackson thanked Ms. Carlucci for working diligently with City staff on this issue, and for the
22 first time he feels that the City, TPM, CISD, and the Committee are all on the same page in terms
23 of a direction. Mr. Jackson stated that pre -1996 landscaping was not a requirement in Southlake.
24 Mr. Jackson said that the development of Durham Elementary in 1996 was the beginning of a
25 focus on landscaping, and a joint use effort was started, however the City came forward in
26 developing a landscaping ordinance and a separate bufferyard ordinance. Mr. Jackson
27 mentioned that a goal is to incorporate all of the various landscaping ordinances under one
28 collective document, as it is difficult for staff and the developers to work with multiple
29 ordinances. Mr. Jackson mentioned that the tree preservation ordinance has been changed twice
30 since the inception, eliminating the exemptions for City and school facilities. Mr. Jackson stated
31 that looking at the tree preservation ordinance, there are clear cut specifications, therefore there
32 is no flexibility. Mr. Jackson mentioned that in the past year there has been an effort to work
33 within the parameters in the ordinance, however to have some flexibility in working with the
34 ordinance. Mr. Jackson distributed and reviewed with the Committee a matrix presenting the
35 history and current situation regardinf the school sites.
36
37 Mr. Jackson stated that the working group had developed a four (4) point plan to maintain the
38 integrity of the ordinance and providing some flexibility in meeting the requirements. Mr.
39 Jackson recognized Mr. Standerfer for helping present this plan to the City Council. These
40 points include the following:
41
42 • Plant as many of the mitigation trees at the high school as possible while maintaining
43 a healthy and aesthetic appeal. If there are additional trees required for mitigation,
44 plant these trees at other sites that are in need of landscaping.
45 • Plant as many trees as possible at other sites, and upon completion develop a plan to
46 replace trees for shrubs.
Joint Utilization Committee Meeting, June 22, 2000 Page 6 of 12
N :\Parks & Recreation \COMITEESUUC\MJNUTES100 minutes106- 22.00.doc
* * OFFICIAL MINUTES * *
1 • Recognize that with the heavy period of school construction, the City would not
2 expect the landscaping to be in place or installed during harsh planting periods, such
3 as the summer.
4 • This plan would allow a five (5) year time period that would allow CISD to not
5 allocate bond proceeds to landscaping, that the landscaping requirements could be
6 met through operations and maintenance accounts. Mr. Jackson stated that the plan
7 requires one -fifth (1/5) of the total landscape requirements to be installed annually
8 over this time period.
9
10 Mr. Jackson said that the purpose of this plan is to create a "win -win" situation that provides
11 benefits to all parties. Mr. Jackson added that the Building Services Department has reviewed
12 the adoption of acceptance of a "waterless urinal" at different public sites, and that Sabre has
13 submitted a UM approved design. Mr. Jackson stated that the City wants to review the
14 implementation of this type of design at one (1) other site to review effectiveness. Mr. Jackson
15 mentioned that Sabre projected that they will save 450,000 gallons per month of water usage,
16 and that the installation cost is quite nominal and may be an avenue for CISD. Mr. Lawrence
17 asked if there are local examples of current usage, and Mr. Jackson replied that there are current
18 users relatively close in proximity.
19
20 Mr. Harold asked as far as the coordination of construction of sidewalks, would the sidewalks be
21 coordinated in the context of the four (4) point plan. Mr. Jackson stated that the City would
22 work with the developer to structure the planning in sync with the construction schedule. Mr.
23 Harold asked in regards to Durham Elementary, where the sidewalks are already in place,
24 therefore the sidewalk issue needs to be folded into the tree issues. Mr. Jackson replied that the
25 flexibility has been provided to meet the requirements due to the five (5) year timetable.
26
27 Mr. Kline asked about the issue regarding the C/O for the Middle School. Mr. Jackson explained
28 that upon coming into this position last year, there were an excessive number of temporary C /O's
29 issued without follow up, therefore in the past year only four (4) temporary C /O' s have been
30 issued. Mr. Jackson added that in working with CISD, the City has tried to establish an
31 understanding that there is a zero tolerance perspective on issuing temporary C /O's in health and
32 safety issues. Mr. Jackson stated that the City has no intention of closing down the school due
33 to landscaping requirements. Mr. Jackson followed that a temporary date would be firmly
34 established, and past that date a penalty for each day out of compliance would be issued versus
35 closing down the facility. Mr. Lawrence replied that CISD has no intention of not complying
36 with the requirements, however in the past CISD has needed to have this kind of communication
37 with the City. Mr. Jackson stated that this effort is derived from the efforts of the Committee to
38 forge increased communication that leads to a "win -win" situation.
39
40 Mr. Kline briefly reviewed the Stadium and Transportation Facility Site with the Committee.
41
42 Mr. Kline briefly reviewed the Elementary School #5 Site with the Committee.
43
44 Mr. Kline briefly reviewed the Johnson Elementary School Site with the Committee.
45
46
Joint Utilization Committee Meeting, June 22, 2000 Page 7 of 12
N :•IParks & Recreation \COMITEESIJUCI1vfJNUTES100 minutes106- 22.00.doc
* * OFFICIAL MINUTES * *
1 Mr. Kline briefly reviewed the Carroll Elementary School Site with the Committee.
2
3 Mr. Lawrence asked if there were any other questions. Mr. Jackson thanked the Committee for
4 their time and efforts. Ms. Carlucci stated that she had discussed with Mr. Jackson about
5 establishing a committee that has expertise with native plants and foliage, and the City staff was
6 on board with this effort. Mr. Lawrence thanked Mr. Jackson and Mr. Martin. Ms. Carlucci
7 stated that throughout this process, there was no one with the authority to follow the native
8 direction. Mr. Lawrence replied that while the School Board has not formally established the
9 direction, they have provided support for this effort. Ms. Carlucci replied that she feels there
10 needs to be some formal direction, and Mr. Kline stated that based upon history they have
11 proceeded in a direction until they are told to change. Mr. Standerfer suggested that Ms.
12 Carlucci could update the list provided by the City in the ordinance, and include native
13 landscaping. Mr. Martin asked for this information, and provided the caveat that some native
14 landscaping might not be readily available for purchase.
15
16 Agenda Item No. 7, Youth Activities for young adults — Mr. Polasek said that this item was
17 discussed at the joint meeting with the Parks and Recreation Board in March, and Recreation
18 Supervisor Steve Moore has worked with Mr. Bob Ledbetter over the past few months on this
19 issue. Mr. Polasek stated that with the opening of Carroll Middle School in the fall, the Parks
20 and Recreation Division would be able to add some additional programming, including expanded
21 basketball program for older kids, and a new volleyball program for grades 7 -12 in the fall. Mr.
22 Polasek added that these programs would be advertised in the school and through the coaches.
23 Mr. Polasek also mentioned that there would be expanded in -line hockey programming available
24 beginning in the fall for older ages. Mr. Glover added that there needs to be better cooperation
25 with the schools in getting the flyers out, as this has been a problem in the past. Mr. Glover
26 stated that Mr. Polasek and Mr. Ledbetter would be working to develop some alternatives for
27 advertising for the older age groups at the school. Mr. Standerfer suggested developing an e-
28 mail alternative to reach parents, as there is increased likelihood that the parents would read the
29 correspondence.
30
31 Mr. Polasek reviewed the increased number of school varsity teams per age group with the
32 Committee. Mr. Polasek stated that the increased number of school teams combined with the
33 additional recreational programming should provide an sufficient opportunity to kids in the City
34 that wish to participate in athletics.
35
36 Ms. DuPre stated that after attending a Joint Drug and Alcohol Committee meeting recently, a
37 featured speaker at a roundtable discussion was Chauncy Willingham. Ms. DuPre suggested a
38 joint City -CISD -Staff meeting with Mr. Willingham to discuss additional opportunities for
39 children outside of athletic venues, as he had some innovative ideas on this topic.
40
41 Agenda Item No. 8, Joint Use Agreement for the Natatorium Facility — Mr. Harold distributed
42 and outlined an alternative draft for the agreement, based upon the discussion of this item at
43 the last meeting. Mr. Harold asked for clarification of the legal authority of the Southlake Parks
44 Development Corporation (SPDC), and Mr. Polasek replied that while the SPDC is a separate
45 legal authority, the City Council ratifies the budget and actions of SPDC. Mr. Harold said he
Joint Utilization Committee Meeting, June 22, 2000 Page 8 of 12
N :•IParks & Recreation \COMITEESUUC\MJNUTES100 minutes106- 22.00.doc
* * OFFICIAL MINUTES * *
1 was attempting to reflect in his draft that SPDC allocated the $1.25 million contribution to the
2 natatorium project.
3
4 Mr. Harold said that in terms of the Aquatics Commission, he left out specific titles of the
5 membership that was present in the initial draft, and added another member to the Commission
6 to make it an odd number for voting purposes to attain a majority. Mr. Standerfer suggested that
7 it would be possible to structure the Commission with six (6) members by requiring a majority of
8 four (4) votes to pass an item under consideration. Mr. Polasek said that the intent was not to
9 slant the balance to one side or the other, and that the desired effect was a cooperative effort to
10 focus on the good of the community. Mr. Harold replied that while this is not a big point, it
11 would be clear cut to have a seven (7) member structure versus requiring a supermajority of four
12 (4) votes out of six (6) members.
13
14 Mr. Lawrence stated that he tends to agree that a seven (7) member structure is better, as it would
15 reflect CISD's majority interest in the facility. Mr. Glover replied that the point of the
16 Commission is to work out the programming and scheduling of the facility, not to govern the
17 operations of the facility. Mr. Harold compared this process to the budgeting process, where the
18 Commission sits down as a group and come up with what would be perceived as the schedule.
19 Mr. Glover replied that the purpose of the Commission is to focus on the programming and
20 scheduled slots for the City, and that the Commission would not provide input towards the day -
21 to -day operations of the facility. Mr. Lawrence stated that scheduling is an operations issue, as it
22 would determine who would get the facility and when. Mr. Standerfer replied that the initial
23 draft establishes a priority for the School District, and then it establishes the City's role in
24 utilization of the facility. Mr. Polasek replied that in terms of voting, the hope is that this process
25 would not be driven by votes, but rather by a consensus achieved through working together. Mr.
26 Polasek added that the CISD staff sees the value of the community -based programming, and that
27 the proceeds from this type of programming will help offset a portion of the daily operating
28 expenses of the facility.
29
30 Mr. Lawrence stated that the recommendations provided by this Commission would be going
31 before the School Board and the City Council, and scarcity of time will be a factor in some of
32 these recommendations. Mr. Lawrence added that in speaking just for the School Board there
33 would be questions regarding the recommendations from this body about the proportionality of
34 representation, as CISD is the major investor, and the purpose of the facility is to meet the needs
35 of the kids. Mr. Lawrence stated that in 95% of the cases, this would not be an issue; however
36 this facility would be the best in the area, and with that there would be pressures exerted upon
37 both the CISD and the City for access and use. Mr. Lawrence said that there would be a lot of
38 tough decisions coming down the road, and one issue that would come up at the School Board
39 level regarding this body would be is there a proportional representation based upon the share of
40 investment in the natatorium.
41
42 Ms. DuPre asked that if there is an increase in Commission members, should there also be a
43 change of focus from a staff - driven body to a shared staff - elected/appointed responsibility? Ms.
44 DuPre stated that she was aware of the potential pressures regarding the facility, however the
45 purpose of the SPDC /City investment in this project was to address deficiencies in current City
46 recreational programming. Mr. Glover stated that the $1.25 million pushed back other park
Joint Utilization Committee Meeting, June 22, 2000 Page 9 of 12
N :•\Parks & Recreation \COMITEESUUCVvfJNUTES100 minutes106- 22.00.doc
* * OFFICIAL MINUTES * *
1 projects, and in turn recreational programming opportunities, to invest in this facility. Ms. DuPre
2 suggested that if this direction is agreed upon, adding one (1) elected or appointed official from
3 each entity to join staff on this body should be considered.
4
5 Mr. Glover stated the changes in Mr. Harold's draft takes away the 50% partial usage stipulated
6 in the initial draft, and that the usage would be determined from a seven (7) versus six (6)
7 member body. Mr. Harold stated that the intent was included in the body of this draft, and Mr.
8 Glover replied that the intent is present, but there is no provision for a guaranteed return on
9 investment for the City in this draft. Mr. Harold replied that there would be no guarantees on the
10 return on investment, but that the City would be an integral part of this facility. Mr. Harold
11 mentioned that he does not see a $5.5 million to $1.25 million ratio equivalent to a four (4) to
12 three (3) split on the Aquatics Commission, however this draft includes that breakdown. Ms.
13 DuPre mentioned that the importance of the $1.25 million investment is that it allowed the
14 facility to be built as advertised to the citizenry.
15
16 Mr. Standerfer stated that another issue is that the non - school usage is intended to contribute
17 revenues to the annual operating costs of the facility. Mr. Standerfer mentioned that in reading
18 the previous minutes, Mr. Harold's draft contrasts sharply with the staff driven document. Mr.
19 Harold asked to clarify if the CISD staff were involved in the development of the initial draft.
20 Mr. Polasek stated that the initial draft was developed by a working group consisting of himself,
21 Mr. Steve Johnson, Mr. John Craft, Mr. John Sheely, Mr. Bob Ledbetter, Mr. Steve Moore, and
22 Mr. Patrick Henry of the Grapevine - Colleyville Independent School District (GCISD)
23 Natatorium. Mr. Polasek added that this group went through a four (4) step process in
24 developing the draft.
25
26 Mr. Standerfer stated that he understands the legal concerns expressed by Mr. Harold's
27 comments on the initial draft, however Mr. Harold's draft changes some items that the CISD and
28 City staff agreed upon in the initial draft of the agreement. Mr. Standerfer mentioned that there
29 was no disagreement upon the 50 -50 split of operational hours, and that in this draft the
30 agreement is terminable upon reasonable notice by any party. Mr. Standerfer stated that this
31 would not make SPDC comfortable, as the agreement could be terminated upon the completion
32 of the $1.25 million contribution. Mr. Harold replied that the $1.25 million would be paid over
33 time versus all at once. Mr. Standerfer suggested that CISD would never agree to a unilateral
34 termination agreement favoring the City, and Mr. Harold replied that the initial draft provided
35 the same termination clause. Mr. Standerfer disagreed, suggesting that the initial draft structured
36 the agreement as terminable only with the consent of both parties. Mr. Harold asked what would
37 happen if both parties did not agree on termination, which would lead to lawsuits to settle this
38 disagreement. Mr. Standerfer stated that the City could not agree to an arrangement where
39 SPDC funds would be allocated for a facility where usage would not be guaranteed for a ten (10)
40 year period. Mr. Standerfer said that on the structure of the Aquatics Commission, he felt that
41 the same result could occur within a six (6) member structure, however he did not have any
42 strong feelings about this issue.
43
44 Mr. Harold asked what Mr. Standerfer was proposing in the agreement regarding a termination
45 clause. Ms. DuPre stated that the agreement is structured to remove options that prevent the City
46 and CISD from working together. Mr. Harold replied that in his opinion, this agreement is not
Joint Utilization Committee Meeting, June 22, 2000 Page 10 of 12
N :•IParks & Recreation \COMITEESUUC1MINUTES100 minutes106-22. 00. doc
* * OFFICIAL MINUTES * *
1 enforceable from a legal standpoint, and even if it were enforceable, he would not believe that
2 anyone would ever exercise the termination provisions in the agreement. Mr. Harold stated that
3 his perspective of this process is that it restates the original agreement between the entities,
4 however the agreement needs to reflect the intent of both parties and reflect what the
5 contributions are to the project. Mr. Standerfer replied that he is responding to revisions present
6 in the draft before the Committee that differ from the initial staff proposal.
7
8 Mr. Standerfer stated that from reviewing the minutes, there seemed to be an agreement to a 50-
9 50 split of operational hours for the facility. Mr. Harold replied that he did not know what this
10 means, and that he did not agree to this provision. Mr. Glover explained that the meaning of the
11 partial use arrangement would be that at least 50% of the time there would be some portion of
12 the facility utilized by the City. Mr. Harold replied that he was not sure how this total was going
13 to be accounted for.
14
15 Ms. DuPre suggested that the Committee further review the drafts and consider this item again in
16 the future. Ms. DuPre stated that she agrees that there could be some revisions to the initial
17 draft, however she feels more comfortable working with the initial draft, where staff members
18 from the City and CISD participated in the development of the document. Mr. Standerfer stated
19 that he understands the desire among members of the Committee that clarifications need to be
20 included to the initial draft, but the draft presented tonight changes the context of the agreement
21 in certain areas that have not been reviewed by each party. Mr. Standerfer added that he
22 supports reviewing alternatives to refine the agreement to the point where all parties can agree.
23
24 Mr. Harold replied that he is not aware of the staff process for reviewing the initial draft, and that
25 he sees the Committee as establishing the review process for the agreement. Mr. Lawrence
26 stated that the 50 -50 split is defined in the agreement as measured in terms of hours, and that he
27 feels the facility can accommodate this standard, therefore he had no problem with this
28 stipulation. Mr. Lawrence mentioned that in terms of the Aquatics Commission, he felt that
29 there will be some decisions made by this body regarding whether the City should receive a 50%
30 representation for a 20% investment. Mr. Lawrence suggested that the staffs of both entities
31 need to get together again and begin to work on the areas discussed this evening, and then bring
32 the revised draft to the Committee for further review.
33
34 Mr. Polasek stated that the he would like to have the opportunity to continue working with the
35 CISD staff to address the points raised by the Committee's review of the proposed agreement.
36 Mr. Harold stated that his draft presented tonight is what he is comfortable with, as it reflects a
37 fair representation of the intent; however, he would be willing to work with this framework and
38 revise the draft to address reasonable compromises. Ms. DuPre asked that in regards to
39 scheduling for other joint use facilities, is there an equal distribution of staff representation
40 involved in developing the schedules. Mr. Glover stated that he hoped that the scheduling
41 process of this facility would not become politicized. Mr. Lawrence stated that an apples -to-
42 apples comparison of the representation issue is the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Zone, where
43 the City has seven (7) representatives, and the School Board has two (2) representatives. Ms.
44 DuPre replied that she does not have a problem with the seven (7) member body. Mr. Standerfer
45 suggested that staff circulate the issues regarding this agreement to members of the Committee
Joint Utilization Committee Meeting, June 22, 2000 Page 11 of 12
N :•IParks & Recreation \COMITEESUUCIMINUTES100 minutes106- 22.00.doc
* * OFFICIAL MINUTES * *
1 and encouraged everyone to work together to address these concerns. Mr. Harold replied that he
2 would be available to discuss this agreement with anyone at any time.
3
4 Agenda Item No. 9, Community Services Project Update — Mr. Polasek reviewed the list of
5 upcoming events sponsored by the Department of Community Services.
6
7 Agenda Item No. 10, City Project Update — Ms. DuPre stated that after speaking with Director of
8 Public Works Ron Harper, that there have been another warrant study for instigating a four -way
9 stop sign at Brumlow and Continental Boulevard. Ms. DuPre mentioned that this requires more
10 than one (1) warrant study, and that staff would proceed with this process. Mr. Polasek
11 reviewed the project status report prepared by Assistant City Engineer Shawn Poe, and stated
12 that Committee members may contact Mr. Shawn Poe should they have any questions or wish to
13 discuss items from this report in further detail.
14
15 Agenda Item No. 11, CISD Project Update —
16
17 Motion was made to advise TPM and their construction contractors that the in regards to filling
18 in the pond on CISD Elementary School Site #5 and Noble Oaks Park, crews should begin by
19 cutting off the flow of water to the pond and opening up a drainage pipe to give up to forty -five
20 (45) days for the wildlife living in or near the pond time to vacate and seek other natural habitat.
21
22 Motion: Lawrence
23 Second: Standerfer
24 For: Lawrence, Harold, DuPre, Standerfer, Glover, Carlucci
25 Against: None
26 Approved: 6 -0
27
28 Agenda Item No. 12, Future Joint Use Facilities, Projects, and Goals — There was no discussion
29 regarding this agenda item.
30
31 Agenda Item No. 13, Adjournment - Vice -Chair Lawrence adjourned the meeting at 9:41 p.m.
32
33
34
35
36
37 Je, ' La nce; Chair
38
39 Attest:
40
41
42
43 teve Po se , Deputy Director of Community Services
44
45
46
Joint Utilization Committee Meeting, June 22, 2000 Page 12 of 12
N :•1Parks & Recreation \COMITEFS'JUCIMINUTES100 minutes106- 22.00.doc