HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_PAREB_09.13.2018Minutes of the Meeting of the
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
City of Georgetown, Texas
September 13, 2018
The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board met Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 6:00 pm at
1101 N. College Street, Georgetown, TX 78626.
Regular Session
(This Regular Session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any
purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551.)
A Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Jim Hougnon at 6:00 pm.
B Roll Call - Jim Hougnon, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Chair
Staff present: Kimberly Garrett, Eric Nuner, Joe Armstrong, Jill Kellum
Board present: Jim Hougnon, Katherine Kainer, Scott Macmurdo, Larry Gambone, Wayne
Beyer, Danelle Houck, Michael Simpson
C Parks and Recreation staff member introduction and presentation - Kimberly Garrett,
Parks and Recreation Director
Kimberly Garrett introduced Joe Armstrong, Youth Adventure Program Coordinator. Joe
Armstrong has been with the City for 18 years and stated his position started with the After
School Action Program and The Georgetown Project and these programs were created for the
high risk students. He stated this is a 4 day a week program held through a GISD campus. He
states they go rock climbing, spelunking, kayaking, and canoeing. He also does weekend trips
for the general public of all ages. He takes teenagers on spring break and summer camp and
they go to New Mexico, and Arkansas. He states he loves those trips because he is able to build
some relationships with the youth in the community. He offers custom programming for
scouts, and other organizations. He also offers senior adventure programs. He states they go
kayaking locally and out of the area. Joe Armstrong states he has wilderness first responder
certification, rock climbing certification and swift water rescue training and he works together
with the challenge course coordinator on programming. Joe Armstrong stated there are usually
12 that can participate; we are limited by transportation and programmers. Joe Armstrong
stated he worked at Texas Lions Camp with kids in the summer camp after he graduated from
Texas A&M in Fishery and Ecology and Masters in Outdoor Recreation. He started working
with kids in summer camps and decided he wanted to work with something other than fish.
He started out with administration and decided he liked being with the kids and doing the
programs with the kids. He states he loves his job and it is a very fulfilling profession.
D Update from the Friends of Georgetown Parks and Recreation - Danelle Houck, Parks
and Recreation Advisory Board member
Page 19 of 24
Danelle Houck stated the Friends of Georgetown Parks and Recreation will have their annual
meeting on 09/17. On Saturday, October 27, from 7 pm — 9 pm they will have their Daddy
Daughter Dance and it will be a costume ball. On Thursday, November 22nd at 8 am is the 6th
annual 5 miler Turkey Trot which the Friends is one of the beneficiaries and the benefits are
split with Meals on Wheels and they also collect non -perishables for The Caring Place.
E Project Updates and Staff Report - Eric Nuner, Assistant Director of Parks and
Recreation
Kimberly Garrett thanked the Parks Board for attending the ground breaking and ribbon
cutting event for the San Gabriel Park Phase I and II renovation. Eric Nuner stated Garey Park
is still plugging along and substantial completion is there and they are working on final punch
items; specifically in the equestrian arena. The Native Plant Society will be out to do some plant
surveys and the Master Naturalist will be starting the wildlife viewing area and hope to be done
by October when they have their statewide symposium. Kimberly Garrett stated starting
September 15t, Tuesdays will be free admission day. It was asked how usage has been
compared to projections. Eric Nuner stated as far as projections there is not enough data yet to
know seasonally. With the summer and the first 2 weeks being free it threw the numbers off.
There is now a little different usage since summer if over. There are more people on trails
where before most of the activity was at the splash pad. There are events at the house with the
first weddings completed. There were questions about Garey House for the events as far as
staff. Kimberly Garrett stated there are temp on call staff and there may only be one staff
member there for an event. There will also be security and there may be porters for custodial
issues and set up. Kimberly Garrett stated the splash pad will stay open through the end of
October. Eric Nuner stated the San Gabriel Park Renovation is starting and there is
consideration on tree preservation. The columbarium is underway with the same weather
delays and same contractor. The Meadows Park is complete. Trail reconstruction is a spring
project. Staff is working with the ADA consultant. There is a device that will help with grades
and slopes as it will identify where improvements need to be done to the trail. The McMaster
and Village projects are complete. It was asked if drainage at Garey Park was an issue and Eric
Nuner stated there have not been drainage issues. Kimberly Garrett stated there was rain early
on which showed some areas that needed to be modified. It was asked about the dog park at
Garey Park and Eric Nuner stated there are some gate issues that need some reconstruction and
reinforcements that need to be made.
F Presentation and discussion regarding proposed changes to Section 6.06, Common
Amenity Area, Section 8.02, Tree Preservation and Protection, and Section 13.08, Parkland, of
the Unified Development Code (UDC) regarding Parkland Dedication requirements -
Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director
Jim Hougnon stated the group met last Tuesday and stated they made good progress.
Kimberly Garrett stated at the UDC Advisory Board meeting there was feedback from the UDC
committee, the city council and developers and there needs to be a common ground and they
will continue to work on something that works for both groups. The biggest thing that came
Page 20 of 24
about from the UDC meeting was the fees. This isn't really their purview, it is the Parks Boards
who looks at the fees, the land and the park and what it is supposed to serve. The UDC is
supposed to make sure it fits in with the Unified Development Code, through the process and if
it conflicts with other subdivision regulation and is it enforceable. The park development fee
was discussed and how it can be on a graduated scale based on density. Kimberly Garrett
stated one issue was the multifamily and the Parks Board doesn't usually see these because they
are required to do common recreation area which is in another code; 6.06. Kimberly Garrett
stated they are required to put in certain amenities and impose the same requirement on
multifamily as single family. This can be cost prohibitive especially since we are trying to have
affordable housing in Georgetown, so the consideration is to have a different scale for the park
development fee based on density. The single family probably doesn't have a problem paying
the full price but as we get to more house per acre, even apartments is decreasing that. We
don't want to call it a credit but a different scale based on density. Kimberly Garrett stated it
was proposed to be 50% for the fee for apartments; 20 units per acre. Some of the comments at
the UDC were about phasing this in. She stated City Council did not want to phase it in and the
developers would like to see it phased in as some of them have land they purchased and are in
contract in and they didn't factor that into the project.
Kimberly Garrett stated that on the fee in lieu of land, there were not comments. One developer
stated it was going from $200 per apartment and $2,000 per apartment which increases their
cost per square foot. The park development fee is to fund the park development. The
maintenance of the park would be turned over to the city. Kimberly Garrett stated they are
making changes to the common recreation area; taking out townhouses and detached
multifamily and cleaning up that language. She stated under the tree preservation,
developments can get up to a 15 unit reduction for every heritage tree they save on a piece of
parkland and right now we don't have a maximum which we would like to impose. We would
like the parkland to stay at a minimum of 2 acres. The dedication of parkland is not really
changing; there is still one acre per 50 units and cleaning up the language for it to say it is 5 or
more. In Section A4 instead of exemptions we are changing the wording to alternatives. We
would want them to recommend alternatives to the board. On the park development fee, this is
money to be able to develop the park. Kimberly Garret stated there are 4 standard amenities.
She stated it is hard to quantify the fee because we say the value of developing a park is
$250,000 and for us that is from the very beginning to the end which included engineers,
landscape architects and permitting. She stated the developer would have all of that built in to
their cost and development. The cost of the amenities are not $250,000 and by having a menu
for them to choose from, we can decide if it is appropriate for that particular park. The UDC
also suggested having another option which would be listed as; as approved by the park
director, which might include something trending at the time. She stated that the presented list
came straight from the masterplan. It was stated the wording doesn't include irrigation and
reestablishing turf maintenance which she stated she will have that added. It was stated that
items need to be spelled out as far as what the parks director approves vs. the board. For credit
for private parks, there has been a lot of discussion from the parks board, UDC, city council and
the developers. It is proposed to offer up to a 50% credit. The city attorney is now involved
Page 21 of 24
with this and asked what happens if an HOA goes under; who would maintain that park.
Kimberly Garrett stated the City would have to take it over, but we have to be willing to accept
what they put in. That is where the language can be tighten up, because for instance say we
don't want another swimming pool there is a thought of the non -exclusivity. The credit would
be for non-exclusive use. She stated she has seen developments that had a swimming pool,
splash pad, and a club house that is gated with key access but then next to it is a playground
with a picnic pavilion that is open to the general public. She stated a high percentage of people
from the neighborhood would be using it but it's not exclusive. There would also have to be
language for the HOA and if it meets the City's standard. It was asked if there is signage that
states if it is a city park or a private park. Kimberly Garrett stated it is hard to determine in an
open area if the people using it are exclusive to that area. Eric Nuner stated the city parks do
have consistent signage to show they are a city park. Kimberly Garrett stated to look at it from
a liability issue. If it is not exclusive and you let the public on it then the HOA is taking all the
responsibility. She stated the non-exclusive is new and we can ask the city attorney about the
wording. She also stated that we can also get feedback from developers. For the location site
and development standards, the drainage and storm water facilities would not be accepted as a
park amenity. The grass drainage areas that can be used as possible soccer fields; that is where
we would only accept it and we would not accept a concrete detention basin or a wet pond. It
also has to be approved by the board that it was a park feature. For the floodplain we have
allowed different percentages and there were no stipulations. Kimberly Garrett feels like some
of the floodplains are nice because it allows kids to access streams and rivers and you can
develop those. In the revised wording it states to have 2 acres outside the flood plain that we
can develop the park on; before we didn't have that. The floodplain makes your park look
bigger than what it is. There needs to be a depth defined that we can develop a park 2 acres
outside the flood plain. There is a stipulation that these can be reviewed and changed if
needed. Kimberly Garrett stated about sidewalks they would have to dedicate land in the
masterplan and that is for the trail corridor and that is in Section 12.07 now. It states that if
there is a regional trail on the development on the master plan, you have to build that trail and
dedicate the land as public or give the easement through there. We haven't had any new
development since that was adopted. It states also that you don't get parkland dedication for
doing that, it is an accessibility piece. Kimberly Garrett stated she felt we needed to cross
reference the other city plans but the UDC stated that is not good practice. Originally there
were 19 zones and what has been proposed is 4 zones. In the parks masterplan there are 4
quadrants that are basically the same lines we wanted. Kimberly Garrett stated what staff
would like to do, is in October, make a few more changes and get it where it can be posted to
the planning department website which will be posted for 30 days. Towards the end of that 30
days staff wants to host a public workshop. All the input received would then be massaged and
looked and recommendations would then be brought back to the Parks and Recreation
Advisory Board and UDC Board,
Legislative Regular Agenda
Page 22 of 24
F Presentation, discussion and possible action to recommend approval of the proposed
cemetery fees. - Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director
Kimberly Garrett explained when John Hesser was on the Parks Board he looked at the
cemetery and saw it as a losing thing and in the City's eye they saw it as an obligation that the
city was to maintain in perpetuity. He was instrumental in researching some things and found
that the trends with cremations was going up. We thought we were solving that need by doing
in ground burials for cremation. In the years we have had that option, we have only had a hand
full of cremation plot sales. In 2012, city council started setting aside $75,000 a year into a fund
that John Hesser thought would build a reserve fund and the interest off that would help fund
the maintenance. The finance department can't invest in anything that is very lucrative in
interest bearing just because we are the city. It was going to take 2 million dollars to generate
$10,000. The city decided that probably wasn't a good use of a lot of city funds. In researching
ideas, we built up about $150,000 in the cemetery fund, so we basically borrowed the CIP
funding to build the columbarium out of the special revenue fund. The idea was that, as we
sold the niches we would refund the initial invest and set aside the rest for a fund in perpetuity.
The purpose of this item it to get feedback and direction on the proposed fees for cemetery lots
and to set fees for the new columbarium that is being constructed. The concern by City
Council in 2012 related to ongoing costs for cemetery maintenance and that eventually all lots
will be sold, prompted the need to look for alternatives. Design for a columbarium was
approved in 2018 which would offer options for burial as well as help establish a fund for long
term maintenance. The columbarium is expected to be ready the end of 2018. In preparation
for the opening, fees must be established. Fees for traditional cemetery lots have not been
reviewed since 2007 so as part of this fee process, all fees were reviewed. Staff has researched
fees charged by many cities for both in ground burials and columbarium. Staff is proposing that
the fee for a double burial be the same as the fee for a niche in the columbarium that would hold
two urns. Fees for all in -ground burials were also reviewed and an increase is recommended.
Included in the fees above is an administrative fee of $50 and a maintenance fee of $300.
Additional fees would include $600 for the inscription plate for the columbarium (adjusted
periodically due to actual cost). A fee for marking a burial lot for a service, headstone setting or
curbing is also proposed at $100. An attachment is included detailing the fee analysis
comparison with other cemeteries. In addition, staff is recommending one fee for all cemetery
lots instead of a resident/nonresident fee. Many times the cemetery lot is for a long time
resident who did not have a lot, the family from outside the City comes to buy the lot and they
are not residents. Staff will be presenting a workshop to City Council on October 9th regarding
the cemetery fees.
Current and proposed fees are as follows:
Lot Size
Current Resident Fee
Current Non -Resident Fee
Proposed Fee
Double Lot
$1,550
$1,800
$2,500
Single Lot
$1,025
$1,175
$1,500
Urn Lot
$575
$625
$900
Page 23 of 24
Niche NA NA $2,500
There was additional discussion about headstones and inscription plates for the columbarium.
Motion made by Mike Simpson, second by Scott Macmurdo to recommend approval of the
proposed cemetery fees.
Approved 7-0
G Consideration and possible action to approve minutes from the August 9, 2018
meeting - Jill Kellum, Administrative Supervisor
Motion made by Danelle Houck, second by Katherine Kainer to approve minutes from the
August 9, 2018 meeting.
Approved 7 - 0
Adjournment
Adjourn - Jim Hougnon, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Chair
Motion made by Katherine Kainer, second by Larry Gambone to adjourn the meeting.
Approved 7 -0
Meeting adjourned at 7:55 pm.
Katherine Kainer, Secretary
Oklellum, Board Liaison
Page 24 of 24