Loading...
2004-08-12 ** *Official Minutes * ** Approved by Joint Utilization Committee 9/9/04 JOINT UTILIZATION COMMITTEE Minutes August 12, 2004 Joint Utilization Committee Members Present: Donna Feuchter, CISD Board of Trustees Representative; Emily Galpin, Parks and Recreation Board Representative; Virginia Muzyka, City Council Representative; John Nussrallah, CISD Board of Trustees Representative; Craig Rothmeier, City Council Citizen Appointee; Erin Shoupp, CISD Board of Trustees Representative, and John Terrell, City Council Representative. Committee Members Absent: Darla Reed, Ad Hoc Member Staff Members Present: Malcolm Jackson, Director of Community Services, Steve Polasek, Deputy Director of Community Services, Dr. Derek Citty, CISD Chief Personnel Officer, Todd Thompson, CISD Director of Maintenance, and Harry Ingalls, CISD Director of Finance. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order JUC member John Terrell called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. A quorum of voting members was present. Agenda Item No. 2. Administrative Comments: An orientation meeting will be arranged in the next few weeks for new and continuing Joint Utilization Committee members. Some of the topics will be the current interlocal agreements, duties and responsibilities of members, Texas Open Meetings Act, and other related items. Anyone having specific items for the orientation meeting should submit them to either CISD or City representatives. New CISD Board of Trustees appointed representatives John Nussrallah and Erin Shoupp were welcomed to the Committee. Dr. Citty provided positive feedback about the prospect of beginning a new school year. Agenda Item No. 3. Consider: Approval of the Minutes from the July 8, 2004 meetings. A motion was made to approve the minutes as corrected. Motion: Muzyka Second: Rothmeier Ayes: Feuchter, Galpin, Muzyka, Rothmeier and Terrell Nays: None Abstention: None Approved: 5 -0 Motion carried. August 12, 2004 JUC Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 5 New JUC CISD representatives John Nussrallah and Erin Schoupp will be administered the Oath of Office at the next JUC meeting. Agenda Item No. 4. Consider: Election of Officers for 2004 -05 A motion was made to Table the election of officers until September 9 regular meeting. Motion: Muzyka Second: Rothmeier Ayes: Feuchter, Galpin, Muzyka, Rothmeier and Terrell Nays: None Abstention: None Approved: 5 -0 Motion carried to Table election of officers until September 9, 2004. Agenda Item No. 5. Consider: Status of Joint Utilization Analysis Report A comprehensive PowerPoint review of the draft Joint Utilization Analysis Report was presented. Six possible options and recommendations based on various levels of participation as developed through the combined efforts of the City of Southlake and the Carroll Independent School District were introduced and examined by the Committee. The Report is the result of a request made at the January 8, 2004 JUC meeting that CISD and City staff jointly review and analyze the costs associated with providing school facilities for joint use for City programs and events. A draft report along with a cost spreadsheet was presented to the Committee at the April 1, 2004 meeting, which resulted in a refinement to the original document. The draft report now being considered is the most recent revision. The Report provides background information, calculations and financial data, options and recommendations to aid in decisions related to the joint use of CISD and City facilities. The four sections covered in the Report are: 1. Questions and answer style information 2. Methods and assumptions utilized in the analysis 3. Options for conducting joint use 4. Review of options and recommendations for consideration by the City and CISD A copy of the Joint Utilization Analysis Report PowerPoint outline is attached to the minutes to review the specific options and recommendations that were presented during the meeting. Due to an insufficient method to successfully gage individual water usage for specific joint use programs at the CISD facilities, the per /unit method of utility water costs contained in the report is only reflected in the water use of the Aquatics Center. 3 -2 Of the six possible participation level options, Mr. Ingalls and Dr. Citty were most amenable to either the second or third option with the third option being the most favorable one. City staff also favored option three as the most viable. The meeting was briefly recessed then reconvened at 6:31 p.m. Staff's presentation resumed. Both the CISD and City staff's were praised for their diligent efforts in compiling the report. Discussion: Questions were asked about the differences between option 2 and option 3, about subsidizing of the aquatics center by the District, the center's hours of operation and uses by school and city program. One of the main issues discussed was how often the Analysis Report should be reviewed by the Committee and the participation options assessed. It was generally thought there should be two reviews: 1) annual review to look at the previous year's expenditures and revenues and re- calculate next year's projected cost, and 2) a review of the document itself every 2 -3 years to ensure it is still viable and adaptable with what's going on with the City and the District. The participation option selected by the Committee would become the new "model" and basis of City budgeting for joint use programs and would be periodically revisited and updated. There have been substantial expenditures for joint use programs by both entities, however, the purpose of the Report is not to try and recapture any of the past capital expenditures, but rather focus on the annual operation of the joint use programs. The Report is a document that provides a formula that helps the District and City evaluate more accurately what operational expenses are for the joint use programs. Staff will check whether an amendment pertaining to the hours of operation of the aquatics center is needed in the Natatorium Agreement. It was believed that the Agreement does not require an amendment if operation is over and above 68 hours (six days). Regarding current and future use of City facilities by CISD, the Committee suggested adding a line item (perhaps "City Facilities — Insignificant ") to the CISD Joint Use Costs spreadsheet that could be activated should the City decide to charge the District for those uses. Currently, the City does not charge anything because it would be very minimal. The presence of the line item could be useful for future annual reviews. Members talked about the public's misconception that lacrosse is a city and school- sponsored sport when it is more of a community or club sport that uses the school's name and city and school facilities for practice and games. 3 -3 There was committee support for participation option 3 and for the continued flow of revenue to CISD for City programs at the aquatics center. Although members favored participation option 3, they believe that option 3 should also contain language to allow for consideration of joint use capital (or catastrophic) funding consideration on a case -by -case basis. Points from the Committee's discussion: • Option 3 is the preferred participation level at this review • Recommend including provision under Option 1 regarding "joint use capital funding considered by the City and CISD on a case by case basis" to Options 2 or 3. (Contract terms still remain.) • Insert line item on CISD Cost spreadsheet as a placeholder for future use when and if the City should start charging the District for use of City facilities. • New CISD representatives should be sworn-in at the next JUC meeting; vote on this issue at that time. • Staff will explore legal issues and possible need to amend existing joint use agreements as a result of adopting one of the participation options at the next JUC meeting • Schedule next JUC meeting at CISD facility. Agenda Item No. 6. Discussion: CISD Project Update The District has many projects underway this summer, however, none of them affect joint use facilities. The District paid about $15,000 for cable and fiber optics installation at their Dove Road facility because they were not allowed to use the City's facilities for board meetings. Agenda Item No. 7. Discussion: City Project Update A copy of the August 2004 City Project Update was included in the JUC packets. The report contained status information about various City road construction projects. Contact Deputy Director of Public Works Charlie Thomas (817.481.2175) regarding projects or construction status. Carroll Avenue and Continental Boulevard Roundabout — The District may need to station a crossing guard at the Carroll Avenue and Continental Boulevard intersection to aid walkers crossing the new roundabout to Old Union School due to pedestrian safety concerns. One solution would be to connect the existing sidewalk on Continental Boulevard with the cross -walk on Carroll Avenue, which will require about 400 feet of sidewalk. Agenda Item No. 8. Discussion: Future Joint Use Facilities, Projects and Goals 3 -4 The District will coordinate with Steve Polasek to provide CISD trinkets or gifts for Sister Cities delegates visiting Toyoma, Japan in September. An item for future JUC discussion may be the possibility of joint sharing of maintenance facilities, landscaping and maintenance crews. Community Services secretary Linda Carpenter will contact members to arrange a date and time for the orientation meeting. Agenda Item No. 9. Adjournment A motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 7:36 p.m. Motion: Rothmeier Second: Muzyka Ayes: Feuchter, Galpin, Muzyka, Rothmeier and Terrell Nays: None Abstention: None Approved: 5 -0 Motion carried. _ $ John Terrell, Cit Council Representative Attest: -Steve Pddek, Deputy Director of Community Services Attachments: Agenda Item 5 — Joint Utilization Analysis Report 3 -5 JUC AGENDA ITEM #5 — Joint Utilization Analysis Report (PowerPoint presentation by Outline) Analysis of Joint Utilization • JUC request at January 8, 2004 meeting to review and analyze costs associated with joint use. • City and CISD staff review and document development with initial draft presented April 1, 2004 • Analysis based on JUC input and current information provided by CISD and City Analysis of Joint Utilization • Report comprised of four distinct sections and exhibits: • Questions and Answers • Analysis of costs relating to joint utilization • Options • Recommendations (also includes exhibits) What facilities are used by COS? • Determined facilities utilized and frequency of use.* • This provided base data for calculating various factors. • Note: Outdoor open space excluded from square foot calculations. Incorporated as part of CISD actual FY 02 -03 maintenance and operating costs. * derived from 2003 schedules for city use of the facilities What are costs to CISD for that use? • CISD 2002 -03 Maintenance and Operating Costs • Includes; insurance, personnel, utilities, supplies, & operations. What is the per/unit method? • Utility costs per square foot per campus assuming 241 days of operations at 16 hours per day. • Operational and maintenance costs derived on an equal per square foot basis for each campus_ 3 - l� • Assumes average of fifty percent usage of natatorium facility based on actual use of the natatorium. What are the current city funding mechanisms and revenue sources? • Current City budget for joint use maintenance and improvements . SPDC fund ($20,000 annually) . General Fund ($2,500 annually) • Revenues received by CISD for City administered joint use activities • aquatics revenue ($7,404 in 2003) • CIS field ($1,510 since fall of 2002) Considerations for report development ■ Staff review of data ■ Considerations: • Current joint use agreements • Direct financial impact of joint use programs • Acknowledgement of current school funding issues • CISD fee schedules for general rentals • Determination of options representing various levels of joint use participation Options • Option #1 - Continue joint use in present form • City expenditures and CISD revenues of approximately $30,700. • City continue budgeting for joint use maintenance and improvements ($22,500) • CISD to receive joint use revenues (approx. $8,200 annually) • Joint use capital funding considered on case by case basis Options • Option #2 - Annual fee based on previous year actual facility usage and costs, excluding aquatic revenues to CISD. • City expenditures and CISD revenues of approximately $62,367_ • Payment to CISD joint use costs ($61,267) • CISD receives CIS field revenue (est. $1,100 annually) • Excludes direct allocation of SPDC and General Fund monies • Excludes City payment for aquatic revenues from City programs 3 -7 Options Option #3 - Annual fee based on previous year actual facility usage and costs, including aquatics revenues to CISD. • City expenditures and CISD revenues of approximately $69,767 • Payment to CISD joint use costs ($61,267) • CISD receives revenue for City programs at natatorium (est. $7,400 annually) and CIS field (est. $1,100 annually) ■ Excludes direct allocation of SPDC and General Fund monies Options • Option #4 - Facility use based on city rental as shown in established CISD rental fee structure. • City expenditures and CISD revenues of approximately $712,575 • Discontinuation of joint use agreements and processes. • Not seen as a viable option by staff, but included for consideration. Options • Option #5 — CISD assumes programming responsibilities. • CISD assumes all revenue and expenditures with recreational programming • City ceases joint use recreation programming. ■ Not seen as a viable option by staff but included for consideration. Options • Option #6 — Any additional options desired as a result of Joint Use Committee discussions. Recommendations • Option #1 — Continue joint use in present form • Proven track record of success • Fails to consider current school finance issues • Provides limited reimbursement of CISD expenses • Only be considered if agreed that CISD can continue to absorb financial impact • Result - City expenditures and CISD revenues of approximately $30,700 3 - % Recommendations • Option #2 — City payment of fees resulting from direct impact of joint use • Suggests lump sum payment in lieu of current funding method • Eliminates payment for City managed aquatic programs* • Continues CIS field fee payment • Provides greater financial support for joint use operational costs. • Result - City expenditures and CISD revenues of approximately $62,367. * Would require amendment to agreement or reduction in annual payment to CISD Recommendations • Option #3 — City payment of fees resulting from direct impact of joint use • Suggests lump sum payment in lieu of current funding method • Continues payment of City managed aquatic revenue • Continues CIS field fee payment • Provides greater financial support for joint use operational costs. • Result - City expenditures and CISD revenues of approximately $69,767. * Results in net positive gain for CISD above actual joint use costs Recommendations ■ Option #4 — CISD fee schedule applied to joint use • Elimination of some, if not all, programs . Application of user surcharge fees • Disparity in fees versus actual costs to operate • Potential effects on future joint use programs • Failure to meet community expectations . Disincentive to present and future joint use opportunities • Result - City expenditures of approximately $712,575 • Option #4 is not recommended 3 -9 Recommendations • Option #5 — CISD to assume joint use programming • City familiarity • Disruption in service levels • Direct financial impact on CISD • Limitations in future cooperative joint use opportunities • Result - CISD assuming all revenues and expenditures relating to joint use • Option #5 is not recommended Recommendations • Option #6 — Additional options or derivatives as recommended by the JUC. Joint Utilization Analysis • Staff appreciates the opportunity to present this analysis and seeks direction from the Joint Utilization Committee • Staff is available to address any question or comment. 3 Please sign in ... Joint Utilization Committee Meeting Thursday, August 12, 2004 Name (please print) Address Phone or Email Organization /r6hNil1- M 11/l - 8 a: A-ti 6�Y 40L. �I�I ��'/ 3 d; SL 1 ( F A-ta 6t 670 bu c y (zs6 e C 74b t- % ` p Folc on my/air. 3t CA, SJO `(/G./-gitt.A-a -4 11/7W tilC/A--/ta M: \WP- FILES\FORMS \Sign In Sheet.doc 3w■ t,