Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutParks And Recreation Board - Minutes - 03/27/1996Approval of Minutes: The minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 28, 1996 were unanimously approved on a motion by Marilyn Barnes, seconded by Eric Reno. Agenda Review: No changes to the printed agenda Citizen Participation: No citizen participation. Parks and Recreation Policy Plan Park Planner Janet Meisel referred to the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan Implementation Action. She explained how this is a direct linkage to the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Assistant to the Director Marty Heffernan updated the Board on the Capital Improvement Plan. He explained that we have three 1/4 cent sales taxes that will sunset next year. The quarter cent that funded our Choices 95 is the tax that we will be asking the voters to reinstate for the next 10 years of capital improvements. He said staff has put together a list of the capital improvement projects Parks and Recreation will need for the next 20 years. He said that this Board will review approximately 25 projects that will be on the CIP list. After review, the Board will hold a public meeting to receive input from the citizens. As a staff, we will help the Board advertise, conduct the meetings, etc. The Board's recommendations will then be given to City Council for their review. Once they compile their list, that list will go to the voters. Diane asked what criteria we are using to emphasize the needs to the public. She would like a worksheet for the Board to review similar to the matrix staff gave the Board tonight. She suggested referring to the surveys as to what the citizens want. The Board will then prioritize the importance of the projects. Diane would like to see a work plan for the next meeting so that the Board can start to plan a time line. Janet reviewed the Implementation Plan starting with the New Community Facilities. A question was raised about the cost of replacement of the Northside Communitv Center. Janet will verify costs. Parks and Recreation Board Minutes March 27, 1996 Page 2 Questions were raised about partnerships. Janet explained that if we recognize there is a need then we would partner. Eric questioned if we are considering a second sheet of ice at EPIC in the CIP project? Jean said that the Recreation staff has not prioritized a second sheet of ice in this next CIP. Marilyn said it should be on the list for our CIP projects. The Board was in agreement that staff should explore partnerships with private recreation providers to meet specific demands for soccer, ice skating and other community needs. Janet will make this correction prior to the City Council Study Session. Rich Feller said we need to look at what our community does not have and that needs to be the top priority. Community Facilities Upgrade: Diane asked about the impact on Edora Park if we expand facilities at that site? Janet noted that EPIC is on its own site and would be reviewed under PUD requirements. Jessica MacMillan said that the patch ice rink is a waste of money and that we should build a full size rink. Community Facility Renovation/Replacement: Diane thinks that City Council should set up a funding source for parks and recreation. Trails: Question was raised as to how long will it take to develop the Fossil Creek Trail? Craig replied five years. Natural Areas: Roger Tarum said that we need to have natural areas and we need to have `usable' natural areas or passive recreation areas. Janet said the natural areas plan does allow for managed natural areas. Both the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan and the Natural Areas Plan should allow for passive recreation areas. Diane said we need more passive recreation areas. FUndine: Board Members felt that the word "pursue" (in the Policy Plan) funding for deficit of community parkland needs to be changed to "adopt". Staff asked the Board what they thought about redirecting the Conservation Trust Fund revenues to fund acquisition and development of community parks and recreation facilities. The Board feels that we shouldn't touch the Conservation Trust Funds for anything other than trails. Janet will make this correction prior to City Council Study Session. Janet asked if there were any items that are missing from this document. Under neighborhood Parks, Rebecca questioned the amount of people needed to trigger development of neighborhoods? Janet explained that when the neighborhood is two-thirds developed in an area, then we develop the park. The Board felt there is a need to develop Hickory Park and it should be moved up to the two -to -five year category and if funding is available, then move it to the one year. Board Recommendation on Community Park Funding Janet explained this is in addition to the Neighborhood Parkland Fee. Jessica said that this is over Parks and Recreation Board Minutes March 27, 1996 Page 3 $2,000 in development fees per new house for park impacts. Diane asked if the impact fee does not pass, what is plan B? Janet said it could be an excise tax and would still impact just new development. Marilyn Bames feels that she has a conflict of interest and will not participate in the discussion. Diane asked what happens when the development slows down? She said this is based on new development and we need steady long-term funding. Mike Powers explained the new developments will pay for the next community park not the one we need now and the need is driven by new population. Diane asked what the entire impact fee would be to build a house? Staff replied that the fees would go up to approximately $10,000. Janet said the funding is based totally on the new developments. If no new people move to Fort Collins, then we won't need to build new parks. Jessica said we need to implement our own lottery. Marty said it would be illegal and we can't have little lotteries for cities. Eric said that Option 1 is what he has heard for the three years he has been on the Board. Jessica said she is in agreement with the five levels as we need to support the lower income housing. On a motion by Eric Reno, seconded by Roger Tarum, the Board voted to approve Option 1 as presented by staff tonight. The vote was 6-2-1. Sylvia Cranmer, Rich Feller, Mary Ness, Rebecca Chavez, Roger Tarum, and Eric Reno voted yes; Diane Thies and Jessica MacMillan voted no; and Marilyn Barnes abstained. Special Recreation Funding;_ Janet further discussed with the Board the unfunded recreation/special facility needs as follows: The Plan shows a need for a Southeast Recreation Center with an indoor -outdoor pool; and Southwest Recreation Center with a pool. The question is how do we fund these? Does the City fund through an impact/expansion fee that would be collected on new development? Level of Service Standards: Janet explained that we presently try to keep pace with the National Recreation and Parks Standards which we are not achieving at the present time. Presently, in the multi -purpose Recreation Center Category, Fort Collins has 1/48,480 population and 1/33,300 is the National standard. For the outdoor/indoor pool, we are presently serving 1/32,230 and we should provide indoor/outdoor poor for 24,240 people. Excise Tax: This would be collected on new dwelling units. Should the City consider impact fees for regional trails, museum, cultural facilities? Does the Board think it is worth exploring? The Board discussed availability of Poudre R-1 schools in the neighborhood and felt we need to use those facilities as they are existing public buildings. Jean said there's so much activity in the schools after hours that they are being overused already. There are no junior or senior highs that are not impacted nightly by the community. Diane asked why businesses are not being impacted? Janet replied it is a population impact and we provide service to the people (residents) not to businesses. Parks and Recreation Board Minutes March 27, 1996 Page 4 The Board felt that staff should explore further and look at what the private providers would contribute. Mike said we are not asking for decision by the Board on these impact fees for unfunded recreation facilities. Park Manaeement Plans -- Parks management plans for all of our parks (neighborhood parks and community parks) Janet said staff needs this as an implementation tool for the plan. It will include when and how often do we schedule activities in the parks, lights, curfews, etc. Marilyn asked for a designated phone line for citizens to call to give Parks and Recreation comments or concerns. Mary stated his concern about over legislation. Staff agreed that the management plans should not be excessively restrictive. Resident/Non-Resident Recreation Fees Recreation Manager Jean Helburg said that we were asked by City Council to look at resident/non- resident differences. She explained that we use the same boundaries as the school district. The percentages are relatively low for non-residents. She spoke to other Recreation Managers in other Front Range communities who said that if their non-resident participation is less than 20 percent than it is not worth administering a non-resident fee. She spoke of the softball tournaments. She said we do not run softball tournaments as that is done by private individuals who rent the fields. Jessica said it looks like we could generate a higher fee. Mary said to generate more revenue in softball tournaments the City should run the tournaments and hire our own softball tournament director. Rebecca said that she participated in tournaments in Loveland where they were charged a $10 non-resident fee. Mary said the areas that are maxed out are the ones to charge for non-resident such as ice time. Marilyn said give residents priority instead of charging extra for non-residents. Jessica asked about raising the fees at EPIC. She suggested $2.50/$1.50 (adult/child). Jean said we looked at differential fees at the pools, however, it is too confusing for the consumer to have various swim prices at all the community pools. If the participant who regularly uses EPIC and it's not available during a swim meet, they can use their pass at the Mulberry Pool. Mary said all the fees should be equitable, for example, if we charge non-resident for Recreation Programsthen we should charge non-resident for Lincoln Center Showstoppers Series. Mike said we will continue to monitor the resident/non-resident and look at it again during the year. Recreation Fee Policy Mike said Council asked staff to look at alternative funding for maintenance costs. There are certain items that we could cover under other sources: First is the life cycle and second is minor capital, which affects new requests in the parks. We are doing an analysis of the Recreation Fee Policy. Marty added that the policy was originally designed for the user to pay for their direct expense and for the community good to be funded through the Parks and Recreation Board Minutes March 27, 1996 Page 5 General Fund. Marty reviewed the benefits from the implementation. Mary asked how much money is generated from Recreation fees charged. Jean replied that approximately $2,500,000 and that goes for direct benefits. The remainder goes into the reserve which is used to enhance facilities and programs. Mary said we need to let the customer know what their money is going for and how much is generated. Marilyn asked what information is available for single parents with three kids who are classified as low income? Staff explained that it is in the Recreator. Rebecca read the "Low Income Criteria" as it appeared in the Recreator and the Board asked that it be better defined. Jessica asked if staff has thought about setting up a program for donations of trail segments? Mike said staff will follow-up on this and that it is a great idea. Marilyn also asked about installing memorial benches along the trail. April 23 City Council Study Session -- Mike talked about presenting the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan to Council at Study Session on April 23 at 6:30 p.m. He asked the Board if they could be present at the meeting with President Diane Thies as spokesperson for the Board. Other Business Mike Powers asked the Board if they are interested in having a joint meeting with the Natural Resources Board to discuss the Foothills Management Plan. Roger said that he felt during our last meeting the Parks and Recreation Board made some good points of uses on the natural areas. Board members asked for a tour to Pineridge instead of a joint meeting with the Natural Resources Board. Mike Powers reminded the Board of the Boards and Commissions appreciation show at Lincoln Center. Eric Reno invited the Board to visit the open house to see the model of the new branch library at Front Range Community College on April 1. Rebecca asked Mike about the Rockies field at Lincoln Junior High. Mike said that they (Rockies) are negotiating and Youth Baseball and the City have come up with $30,000 each to build the fields. Parks and Recreation Board Minutes March 27, 1996 Page 6 On a motion by Mary Ness, seconded by Sylvia Cranmer, the Board adjourned at 10:00 pm. submitted, J ie Rael inistrative Aide II Meeting Attendance Board Members Staff Guests Diane Thies Mike Powers Lance Freeman Marilyn Barnes Marty Heffernan Sylvia Cranmer Jean Helburg Rebecca Chavez Virgil Taylor Rich Feller Janet Meisel Jessica MacMillan Craig Foreman Mary Ness Randy Balok Eric Reno Jackie Rael Roger Tarum