Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutParks And Recreation Board - Minutes - 03/22/2006PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting March 22, 2006 215 North Mason Community Room 5:30 pm. Council Liaison: Kelly Ohlson Staff Liaison: Marty Heffernan, 224-6064 President: Jessica MacMillan Phone: 495-1270 (Work) 407-8896 (Home) Call Meeting to Order: Greg Miller called the meeting to order at 5:38 p.m. Jessica MacMillan was absent. Agenda Review: None Items of Note: None Citizen Participation: Students from CSU attended. They were from two classes; Natural Resources History and Policy, and Social Aspects of Natural Resources. They attended to watch the workings of the Board. One student asked how they would get on a Board, and Marty explained the process. Between Agenda items #6 and V, Greg asked the classes if they had any comments on what they would like to see in the park system. Their unanimous responses were more dog parks and more frisbee golf courses. One student asked if there was a roller hockey rink with better surfacing. Craig suggested he try the rink at Fossil Creek Park as it was the newest. They also asked what facilities would be put in at Spring Canyon Community Park. Craig listed out the facilities for them. Another student complimented staff on the Fossil Creek Skate Park. He stated that it was a good park, and that often skate parks miss the mark, but this one did not. He said the City took care of getting kids off the street. Approval of Minutes: Walt felt that the previous minutes did not accurately cover all of the details in the conversation regarding Spring Canyon Community Park. He also felt that the order of the information was incorrect. He requested to wait until Jessica was back in town so they could discuss it further. The Board agreed to table the Approval until April's meeting. Suring Canyon Community Park Bid Status Marty opened the floor for discussion. Cathy asked what the current status was. Marty stated that the contract had not been awarded. The City Manger will talk to City Council on Friday about the status of the bid, and his (City Manager) ideas about the decision making process. Depending on that discussion he may make the decision to rebid or not, or Council may decide to be more involved. Council has a retreat this coming Friday and they will introduce this as a topic. Marty added that they could know something next week. Cathy asked if anyone knew what the recommendation would be. Marty stated that they will be discussing whether Council should be involved in the bidding process. In the Purchasing Code it is listed as a Manager/Staff decision. If Council wants to be involved they would need to make a Code change. They have to decide if they are comfortable with the City Manger making the decision. Ann asked if it has always been a City Manager decision. Marty responded yes, and that then he typically delegates these decisions to the Manager of Purchasing. Mark asked if that was the same process in other departments. Marty stated that Council is often involved in the public outreach process and often in approving the original project design, but once a project goes through the City bidding process it goes to Parks and Recreation Board Minutes March 22, 2006 Page 2 the Purchasing Department. If there is a fundamental change to the project that Purchasing determines to be significant, they either make the decision to rebid or they take it to the City Manager for further discussion. If there is a significant issue that might be of interest to Council, the City Manager would have the option to take those issues to the Council. The purchasing decisions are set up so that the awards of bids are not political because there is a history in many communities where it can lead to cronyism and other difficulties. At this point in the meeting, Greg took a moment to explain the Spring Canyon Community Park project to the visiting classes. Continuing the Board discussion, Greg asked if the process Marty described was similar to the process used for the police station. Marty stated that he was not familiar with that project, but he thought it was a design build process. He thinks they have already awarded it and are now in the construction phase. Greg then asked if everyone on the Board received the memos that were sent to the Mayor and Council regarding the Spring Canyon Community Park bid process. Everyone received the March 10 memo from the Board and not everyone received the March I e memo from Marty and Jim O'Neil. Marty said that Dawn e-mailed it to the Board today and that he will verify that. Cathy asked if the Board would be updated at the neat meeting as to the status of the SCCP bid, and what the feud process will be for future bids. Marty said he would send out an e-mail as soon as they beer what the City Manager and Council decide and that they could commit to involve the Board more. Parks and Recreation Policy Plea Update Craig referred to the memo he sent the Board on March 10 that included the demographics from the 2000 Census, the City's Advanced Planning Division, and the Poudre School District. Craig walked the Board through the process of logging on to the U.S. Census Bureau's website. He added that if any of them needed help locating the Fort Collins information to contact him. Craig then reviewed the Advanced Planning information. He said that Ken Waido sent this information out to City staff so they would have accurate data. It tracks the population and number of housing units. Ken also told Craig that the City's annual projected growth rate is 2%. They estimate that the City will be built out at about 190,000. He added that if the college students were included it would be approximately 200,000. The last page Craig reviewed was from the Poudre School District The information was the latest they had on population projections by the district and included elementary, junior high and high schools. It shows the elementary schools going up in enrollment, and the junior high and high schools going dawn a bit. The school district is planning on updating a few numbers, but most of it will stay the same. Craig then continued with a presentation stowing the Board's discussion points from the February meeting. Those items were: • Retirement population/college student blend • Loss of lower and middle income families • Parallels to Boulder • Outdoor vs. indoor recreation • Education • Use of our facilities by other communities There were no further questions or input from the Board regarding the list. Craig then discussed the RFP (Request for Proposal) for a consultant. The scope for the consultant would be: Parks and Recreation Board Minutes March 22, 2006 Page 3 A) Provide a picture of past and future trends for tennis, adult softball, soccer, skateboarding, in -line hockey and dog parks; as well as an analysis of how Fort Collins compares to other towns in these areas. Questions we would like to see answered are; is tennis cyclic, will adult softball come back up, is skateboard still interesting, is one in -line hockey rink enough, do we need more dog parks? Mark asked why we are specifying specific activities. He said it seems like their approach would be to take the demographics and find out where the population will be from an economic/age point of view. He feels there should be a study that shows these things and then they could cross-reference the demographics to particular interests. Craig replied that Jean Helburg, the Recreation Manager, wanted the consulting group to look at these areas. They also feel they do not need to break out the other items because those mentioned are the high price items. He suggested we test Mark's ideas with the consultant. Mark stated that we may end up with same list, but it would not be a forced list. B) Provide an evaluation on demographics related to recreational needs for the next 10-15 years. The data would reflect a general scope for the United States and narrow down to the Colorado, the Front Range, and Fort Collins. Data will provide information as to what each specific section of the population wants to do for recreation. The Consultants will then cross-reference this information with the other demographic information we have. Ann asked if we had done projections like this before. Craig said we did in 19%. Ann then asked if we could look at those projections and see how they panned out Craig stated that we use the projections, the fee schedule, and input from citizens. He added that if we went back to those projects, the beg parks and skate parks were undeserved at the time. He feels it will be interesting to we what the consultants say about recreation centers and how many we might need. They also may be able to give us information about trends from other parts of the country that we don't know about here. Mark asked if we could ask for the top five needs. Craig said that information would be provided under the "needs" section. He added that no one saw the drop off of softball in the last few years. That's why they are interested in finding out which sport is going to drop off in the next ten years. C) Provide assistance in defining the public process. We currently use open houses and the web page, but we want to have a consultant come in and tell us the type of successful tools they have used in the past. We would like our open houses to be even more successful. D/E) Provide an analysis of our large event need. Craig explained that they touched on this in the last policy plan, but now that the City is growing larger, the need is becoming greater, and they want to make sure that they will be able to accommodate those events without putting a strain on the park system. They want to look at the value to the citizen who is using the park. If these large events impact the rest of the park, how do you say no to those people and make it work for everyone else. They want to know now if a town this size is going to make it work. Mark stated that he was not aware of any land that is large enough to accommodate a sports complex, so he wondered if it mattered if they would say we would need one. Craig responded that it did matter because we might be able to work with some other cities to create one. He added that a large sports complex would be regional. They continue to hear that there is going to be one, so they want to see if it is something the City should have in the system. It is a huge concept and cannot all be paid for with community park funding. Mike asked if they were going to explore an IGA situation where some of the surrounding communities partner together. Craig stated that about 10 years ago they were thinking about putting together a Regional Recreation Plan but some of the surrounding cities didn't have City Plans completed yet. Now that they all have their Plans completed it is something they can think about. F) Provide an evaluation of the City's existing tennis courts in neighborhood parks and how these courts fit into the City's present and futme service level. The consultant will help the City decide what to do with aging courts, if they should put in more or take some out, if they should be grouped in Community Parks and Recreation Board Minutes March 22, 2006 Page 4 Parks, if they should they be switching to concrete courts, and if they are taken out should multi -use pads be put in. G) Provide information about the philosophy of recreation fees. Craig reminded the Board that at the last meeting Marty told them about our fee policy and how it is out of line with how we do business. Marty added that the Budgeting for Outcomes process puts more pressure on us to generate fee revenue through the recreation program. In the current situation there is a need to be more focused on fees because it is out of line with the policy adopted by Council over 10 years ago. This looks at the distinction in tax payer dollars paying for community good associated with having parks, a healthy community, and recreation programs. That pays for all of the full-time staff and all of the costs that are not directly associated with putting on a specific program. Then the direct experience costs (referees, lights, having the gym open, heating the pool, lifeguards) that the customer is benefiting from were put in to the fee structure. The policy is not working for us now that we have to bring in more revenue from fees. The consultants could give us information on how other communities handle thew• fees. The Plan will be adopted by Council so it is a good way to update the fee policy without having to go through a whole separate process. 1T) Provide an overview of the City's present parks, trails, forestry and recreation facilities and programs to answer the question "Are we missing something now that would be important in the future". 1) Provide a statistically valid city wide survey. Craig stated they would like to have the survey tailored to help support the BFO process that includes maintenance of future parks. It's good information to provide to Council. Craig will look at the Consultant Proposal with his staff and try to get it to Purchasing in April. It will then go to advertising in May, with a selection in June. Mike asked if we have a budget for the proposal. Craig stated that based on this list it would be in the $40,000 range. Community Parkland Maintenance Fees Marty stated that they will be giving Council some additional information for their April 1 la Work Session on considering the implementation of a Parks Maintenance fee as a method whelp balance the budget next year. Council is considering a variety of different funding sources because there is still a funding gap of $2.3 to $2.6 million dollars. In the recommended budget that was adopted by Council last year, the City Manager recommended that Council adopt a Transportation Maintenance fee to help maintain the streets. Council reluctantly adopted that portion of the budget with a caveat that they study other funding sources to fill the gap. They have been in the process of asking staff far other options to create revenue or reduce services to balance the budget for next year. Marty spoke to them in February about a Library District and a Parks Maintenance fee in addition to a Transportation fee. In February, Council indicated that they were interested in the Library District, which would require a vote from people in the district in November. If the vote was succouful, then it would produce enough money for the Library, so the $3.5 million dollars that now comes from the general fund would be paid for through property taxes to the District. That would free up the same amount to balance the budget for next year with a little left over. With the extra money they could bring back some services that have been cut, or possibly enhance some services. If a Library District did not pass, Council would need a back up plan. They have expressed interest in a Parks Maintenance fee, because it doesn't have any impact on businesses or commercial enterprises in the community since it is a residential fee. The fee would create enough revenue to maintain the community park system with an option to maintain the entire park system. The benefit from Parks standpoint is that there would be a dedicated finding source for the maintenance of Community Parks, so they would not have to compete for the general fund every budget cycle. It would give them $2.1 to $2.2 million doll=. The funding gap is $2.2 to $2.6 million dollars, so it gets us close. Marty feels that Council is looking at that more favorably than the Transportation fee, Parks and Recreation Board Minutes March 22, 2006 Page 5 because businesses have come forward against the transportation fee. They feel the transportation fee is going to have a disproportionate impact on commercial and business enterprises, because it is based on how many trips are generated by the activity that is going on. At a time when our economy is not doing as well as we would like, Council may fee it is not the best option. Council still wants to study the Transportation fee and the Parkland fee. At the meeting on April 1 lth they will discuss their thoughts about the Library District and the Parks Maintenance fee, so it's an opportunity for the Board to render advice to Council. David Roy will be hosting an open house on Saturday at Council Chambers from 10:00 a.m. to noon to discuss the library district issue. Greg stated that last month it was indicated that if Forestry was included the monthly fee would go up. Marty responded that they have since discussed it with the legal department. They indicated that the benefit provided from the urban forests for residents is the same as businesses, so they did not feel we could do the fee on a residential basis if Forestry were included. With the parks they can show that the benefit is more to those residing in a community than to those who are conducting business. Staff was comfortable from a legal standpoint that the benefit is specific enough on the Parks Maintenance to be residential based. The other option for Council is if they want to have a greater amount of fees generated for Parks Maintenance they could extend it to Neighborhood Parks. Ann asked if it would then be closer to $3.00 per month? Marty responded that the Community Parks fee alone is $3.50 a month plus the Utility charge to put it on the bill. Wait asked how long Council has been considering the Parks Maintenance fee. Marty responded that they took the concept to them a few years ago; it was in a discussion when they were looking for additional dollars for transportation. They were considering a transportation fee at that time, and asked for additional ideas. The feeling at the time was that if you have a transportation problem you shouldn't try to solve it with a Parks fee. Walt asked if the new Council is considering it. Marty said they were because it is a budget problem and not a transportation issue, so they are looking at all of the options. Walt asked how Marty thinks people are going to remit to a $4.00-$5.00 increase in their bill. Marty responded that it is Council's decision. Ann asked if Marty could go over the timeline again, and asked if the Library District was fast and the Parks Fee is a backup. Marty said that Council has not determined for sure. He added that they could say that the Library is the chief option, but because it requires a vote, they need a fall back position. Ann asked if there was a chance they would do both. Marty stated that it had not been discussed, but it could be possible, particularly if they have any other projects they want to fund. Marty stated that anything is possible at this stage. Greg asked if the Board wanted to make a recommendation on this issue. Cathy commented that they would not know about the district for a while. Greg reiterated that he was just opening it up for a motion or not. Walt stated to let it go. Pr aieet Updates Oak Street Plaza — Craig showed a conceptual drawing of the plaza and stated that the same drawing was posted at the plaza so citizens could see the end result. The contractors started two weeks ago. Right now they are putting in some new handicap tamps by the Museum of Contemporary Art, and they have taken out the planter bones. Craig also passed around pictures of the polished granite bases that the water fountain jumps in and out of. Aqua Engineering is doing the fountain work. Cathy asked what kind of maintenance we might be looking at Craig responded that Parks maintenance has been involved in the discussions, and that it should not be a problem as it is very similar to the Civic Center fountain. The paving stone will be done in late July and August. Ann asked how they could guarantee the movable chairs will stay in the park. Craig stated that they would see what happens first, and if there are problems they will do something different. Fossil Creek Underpass — Craig stated that the wing walls are in and look good. The top of the walls are wavy as part of the artists rendition, so there are low points that will let the water pass over in sections instead of a whole wail of water at one time. Craig thinks it looks really good. They put the foundations Parks and Recreation Board Minutes March 22, 2006 Page 6 in and are pulling the water back. They have a good contractor on the project and it should be done in July. It's going just how they wanted it to. Trail Rehabilitation Project — The contractor will start in two to three weeks and should be done sometime in May. Discuss Renewine the NRPA Membership Marty asked the Board if they wanted to keep their membership. He stated that they all get a monthly publication and asked if it was beneficial. Some of the Board members commented that it was. Greg asked how much it costs. Marty stated it was $300.00 to include the Board in their membership. The Board did not have any comments so Marty said they would renew it. Other Business Mark stated that he read in the paper that Larimer County has created a Parks Board and will be meeting in the next week or two. He thought it would be a good idea to have someone fiom our Board go to their meeting every once in a while to keep in touch with them and possibly share minutes. Walt added that it was a new Planning Board. The Board discussed ways to communicate with them and who would go to the meetings. Greg appointed Mark as the liaison and to report back to the Board. Board Member and Staff Comments None Correspondence None Adjournment: The Board unanimously agreed to adjourn at 7:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, VO(qw,00vc- Kelly Moore Administrative Support Supervisor Board Attendance Board Members: Mary Carlson, Michael Chalon, Ann Hunt, Cathy Kipp, Mark Leuker, Greg Miller, Walt Peeples, Jon Sinclair Staff: Craig Foreman, Marty Heffernan, Kelly Moore Guests: None