HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_PAREB_01.13-2022Minutes of the Meeting of the
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
City of Georgetown, Texas
January 13, 2022
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 - Katherine Kainer, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Chair
The meeting was called to order by Katherine Kainer at 6:06 pm.
B Roll Call - Katherine Kainer, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Chair
Present: Katherine Kainer, Jack Flatau, Jolene Melancon, Brazos Fielder, Peter Bahrs, and
Lindsay Cooper were in person. Chad Holz was connected through Zoom.
Staff present: Kimberly Garrett, Jill Kellum
C Consideration and possible action to approve minutes from the December 9, 2021
meeting - Jill Kellum, Administrative Supervisor
Motion made by Lindsay Cooper, second by Brazos Fielder, to approve minutes from the
December 9, 2021 meeting. Approved 7 — 0
D Parks and Recreation staff member introduction and presentation — Kimberly Garrett,
Parks and Recreation Director
There was not a staff member introduction and presentation at this meeting.
E Update from the Friends of Georgetown Parks and Recreation — Peter Bahrs, Parks
and Recreation Advisory Boardmember Liaison
There was not an update from the Friends of Georgetown Parks and Recreation.
F Capital Project Updates — Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director
The Capital Project Updates were posted with the agenda and not reviewed at the meeting.
G Director Report — Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director
The Director Report was posted with the agenda and not reviewed at the meeting.
H Presentation and discussion on draft Cost Recovery Model — Teresa Jackson,
GreenPlay
Teresa Jackson with GreenPlay gave a presentation on the cost recovery model. She stated they
are not to a point where they have final recommendations, but they are getting close and
wanted to bring the board up to date on the work done the past few months and the steps that
will be involved before delivering a draft for review. She is going over the process that was
used, the key findings and touched on the next steps. They are looking to deliver the final in
February. Teresa Jackson stated they used a pyramid methodology that was adopted over 20
years ago, and it is a management tool that is used by agencies across the country. It articulates
the level of benefit each service provides. She explained on the bottom of the pyramid is where
the programs and services that have the broadest community benefit are placed and as you
work up the pyramid that benefit to the tax paying community is reduce. It is based on who
benefits and it recognizes that those basic levels of service should be free; they are supported by
tax dollars. These are things like the parks system and volunteer programs, but it also
recognizes what fees are responsible and necessary to supplement. As you move up the
pyramid, typically those fees are introduced into the scenario. So, it says the greater the
individual benefit the higher the cost recovery rate should be. At the top of the pyramid those
services are very individualized and that is where you see 100% cost recovery. The first step in
the process was to develop categories of service and group the programs into these categories.
There were 37 categories identified. The consultants sat down with the staff and the public to
sort these services onto the pyramid. From the sorting sessions, they were able to create the
pyramid. On the bottom of the pyramid are those programs and services with the most
community benefit. You see the department produced events, non -monitored and non -staffed
park and facility usage, public education, and volunteer programs. Those align very well with
the mission and core services and things that you would typically see subsidized at a high level.
In level 2, the considerable community benefit, there was a lot of value around youth
programming. This is where you find general recreation camps, youth classes, programs and
leagues, and the mobile pop-up outreach events and social clubs. As you get into level 3 this is
where you see more adult programs, senior programs, adaptive recreation, adult leagues,
facility membership, park pavilion rentals and other items. When you get into the more
individualized area, tier 4, this is where the advanced and competitive programs come into
play; department organized tournaments, field rentals, special event permits. When it was
reconciled with what public said and staff said, there were very minor variances between the
two. Both parties were very much on the same page. And lastly, looking at the most individual
benefit, the tier 5, that is where there are the attractions, cemetery lot sales, concessions, Garey
House full -service rentals, party packages and other items.
The next phase of the project is to understand what the current cost recovery is. This part is
critical because to set goals for the future we have to know where we are at. We don't want to
set goals that are out of reach. They should be within range. Over the last two months staff has
been working diligently to put all the revenue and programs and spread the expenses in a
software system. With this part of the project, they have partnered with a company called
Amelia and they have a cost recovery module within their recreation software. It will allow the
department to make data driven decisions and be able to keep their pulse on how the programs,
are currently performing and where modifications might be needed. Those modifications can
take the form of fee increases, introducing higher class minimums, or looking at what cost can
be reduced. Staff is working on entering this information and on Friday they should have the
actuals on cost recovery at the program, category, and tier level. After that, the goals can be set
for the future, based on this foundational information.
Teresa Jackson went over key findings that are preliminary and are items that recommendations
will be based. She stated these key findings are very common and are not unusual to our
agency. They are broken down into 3 categories: policy actions, administrative tasks, and cost
saving and revenue strategies. For policy action, the department does not currently have a
comprehensive financial policy regarding cost recovery and program pricing and that is
ultimately what this study will provide. There is an area for scholarship opportunities. There
was also mention of partnered rental agreements. Within the administrative tasks, cost
accounting at the activity level is challenging and this is common everywhere, but with the
software cost recovery tool you will be able to see the cost recovery in real time. It will take
time to implement and train staff. In a year from now, it will allow for that cost accounting to
occur at that activity level. A special recreation fund that allows the department to reinvest its
revenue into programs, services and facilities, does not currently exist and this is a key finding
and will need to be discussed if it is moved forward into a recommendation. Fee setting and
adjusting has been ad hoc and not always timely. Fees are typically based on market rate. The
market rate is the tool that staff has had and have used it wisely, but this is going to put a lot
more tools in their toolbox because they will be able to see in the system, if the minimum is
increased by one, can they do that instead of increasing the fee. In the cost savings and revenue
strategies, this is going to be a lot more robust. When you start seeing things are not apples to
apples, you can pull out programs that have high expense and drill down into the why to start
making some changes to bring that cost down. The current method of setting fees is conducted
using a methodology that aligns cost recovery and pricing that the community values. That is
what this whole process has been about; engaging the community at a high level so that these
fees align with what is valued most.
Teresa Jackson stated they are very close on completing the cost -of -service analysis, then final
data review and next week will be setting the tier targets that will allow them to start finalizing
recommendations. She will present to city council on January 251" on where they are with the
tier targets. They are looking to have the study approved in February. The implementation will
take time and there will be some implementation recommendations within the document and a
key piece will be the significant amount of evaluation especially over the first two years.
Peter Bahrs asked, for example, a field rental for a class at the recreation center, does cost
recovery mean how much did I spent last year on field maintenance and then I predict it will be
100 games and each game those people are going to have to pay that percent to recover the
whole cost. Likewise, if I have a class in the gym at the recreation center do I take into account
how much the mortgage is for that square foot for that room and the electric cost and then if
there are 4 people I pay more and if there are 10 people 1 pay less? Teresa Jackson stated it does
in a sense and for this study they are counting direct and indirect costs. Within the facility they,
are including the utility costs and on field rentals they are including the maintenance costs. In
this scenario, they are counting it all and then spreading it using percentages against programs.
A one -hour program in the recreation center is not going to have as much cost contributed to it
-as a 2-hour program. The software helps to do that and assign percentages. Peter Bahrs stated
the usage is variable in terms of number of people so do you charge per class or charge per
number of people. Teresa Jackson stated per number of people is how you set your fee and you
set it now and that correlates to what your cost recovery goal is. If you don't hit the minimum,
the program shouldn't move forward. However, there are always exceptions to that rule. But
in calculating the cost recovery it is using the length of the program; the time the individuals are
occupying the space. Kimberly Garrett stated in that calculation goes the cost of the instructor,
cost of supplies and for the recreation center that also includes the utilities. Katherine Kainer
asked if the paid programs are a monthly charge or a per class charge. Kimberly Garrett stated
both. Peter Bahrs stated the included classes in the membership are in a different category.
Kimberly Garrett stated this will take a while to figure out and looking at it every 6 months
because now the data isn't there. Jack Flatau asked if the minimums are set is there some
flexibility if someone is willing to pay more to have the class if the minimums aren't met.
Kimberly Garrett stated the system is set up for minimums and if you don't meet that
minimum, it will cancel the class. Teresa Jackson stated the minimums and maximums are a
tool the department is already using and how they set their fees. They know at a minimum that
they need to recover a certain amount of cost, for the instructor for example. Teresa Jackson
explained, if meeting the capacity of the class is 12 but I need 6, so I can pay the instructor, that
class minimum would be 6 and if they get 7, then their cost recovery is above what their goal
was. If they got 3, then they are in a situation where they are not going to be able to pay their
instructor and that is where you cancel the class. That is a tool they have always used, but this
system is incorporating into it and projecting out for example, if you raise your minimum by 1
your cost recovery will go up 3%; it will project that for that program. Kimberly Garrett stated,
with the Amelia software it is taking a little longer to get all the data in and couldn't get it all
done by today. They are scheduled to go to city council on January 251h and will have some of
that initial data by then. It will come back to the board in the February meeting and will have
the feedback from council as well. Peter Bahrs asked, on the pyramid with the categories and
different tiers, is there a goal for 2022 we want to improve by a certain percentage? Teresa
Jackson stated staff will look at those percentage and set those goals and then after that will
dive into recommendations about how you get there. For example, is it 2% each year for the
next 3 years; what is the most logical way to get there where you don't increase a fee in a way
that people are not signing up. Chad Holz asked if we are looking at the revenues that these
different programs bring in and how that affects cost recovery. Teresa Jackson stated the
revenues are the easiest to extract because of the use of the recreation software. Chad Holz
stated it had to do with taxes and the contribution that each taxpayer has to the overall parks
budget. Kimberly Garrett stated the department has been trying to get that dollar amount of
everyone's property tax that funds parks and recreation. That is the part we do not know. But
we do know the revenues that do come in from memberships and programs.
Public Wishing to Address the Board On a subject that is posted on this agenda: Please fill
out a speaker registration form which can be found at the Board meeting. Clearly print your
name, the letter of the item on which you wish to speak, and present it to the Staff Liaison,
preferably prior to the start of the meeting. You will be called forward to speak when the
-Board considers that item. On a subject not posted on the agenda: Persons may add an item
to a future Board agenda by filing a written request with the Staff Liaison no later than one
week prior to the Board meeting. The request must include the speaker's name and the
specific topic to be addressed with sufficient information to inform the board and the public.
For Board Liaison contact information, please logon to
lift :1 overnrnent. eor elown.or cate or /boards-coinniissions/.
I At the time of this posting, no one had signed up to speak.
Legislative Regular Agenda
J Presentation, discussion and possible recommendation on the proposed Draft Parks
and Recreation Master Plan - Dan Seder, GreenPlay
Dan Seder with GreenPlay stated we are in the final stages of the masterplan, and he reviewed
the key issues and some of the recommendations. He stated they identified 5 categories:
Organizational Effectiveness, Level of Service for Outdoor Recreation, Level of Service for
Indoor Recreation, Programming, and Financial. The consultant team along with the city
project team performed that exercise where they identified those key issues and then started to
look at the preliminary recommendations that lead to the creation of these final
recommendations and action plan. The recommendations were drawn from all the public
input, the inventory, the level of service analysis, findings feedback, and all that information
that was gathered during the masterplanning process. There was a primary focus on
maintaining, sustaining, and improving the Georgetown Parks and Recreation open space and
trails. Any cost estimates identified are 2021 figures and are best estimates at that time and it is
possible that some of these capital cost items could go up over the next year or two. For the
timeframe to complete the items that were identified as ongoing, are recommendations that
should be reviewed on an annual basis and reevaluated. The high timeframe is anything that
should be accomplished up to 3 years and provided an asterisk, that identifies what they
consider a very high priority that should be completed within the first year. The medium falls
in the 4 - 6 year timeframe, with low in the 7 -10 year timeframe. You will see many highs and
mediums and very few lows which is typical of a masterplan and knowing that some of those
can adjust.
Dan Seder showed the key issues that were identified in the Organization Effectiveness;
communication with residents, duplication of services and reach of services and programs to
the public. He showed some recommendations and how they would read and how they would
be used as a tool. For the first recommendation, improving communication with residents and
under that will list any actions that fall under that objective. The first one is to continue to
expand efforts based on communication methods identified in the community survey, solicit
resident feedback through registration questionnaires, program evaluations and outreach
efforts. It is identified if there are any operational budget impacts and identified if there are any
capital cost estimates. Dan Seder stated that on communication; whether the community does a
great job or a poor job, they always find that people identify that, and it is a recommendation
they typically call out and that is to stay engaged and find new ways to communicate. He went
on to the next factor and that was to develop community engagement opportunities to promote
community and neighborhood input on the development of programs, parks, projects and other
community related efforts. On this one, it is going out and asking the community, are there
new programs you would like to see or if you are getting ready to revise a new program and
getting input from the public. You are then creating your programs, projects and parks based
on what is going to meet the needs of the community with their input so that they are creating
that buy in.
Dan Seder stated the next key issue is the level of service for outdoor recreation. He stated a lot
of this information came from Dave's GRASP analysis as well as the work that Covey did in
looking at the trail. What they found was that there is a definite desire for more trails and
pathways, access to skate park, parks and trail safety, desire for community gardens, access to
aquatics and water opportunities, need for additional parks and open space to improve
walkability and access, internal standards for parks and components and implementation of a
standardized park classification based on components and park services. Dan Seder reviewed
some of the GRASP analysis information. The first recommendation listed is making park
improvements to better serve Georgetown residents and in turn improving the neighborhood
GRASP scores. In Appendix A there is a park recommendations table and they called out to
improve the low scoring parks in low scoring areas by adding amenities and replacing
amenities or adding other infrastructure elements as outlined in Appendix A. The operational
budget impact is to be determined and this is a high priority. He stated there are 8 parks that
have a high priority and they identified some of the park improvements they would like to see
for each of those parks and have identified what parks classification those parks fall into. He
also showed the medium and low priority parks and stated with the Appendix you have a very
valuable tool. Everything is listed on the priorities, the park names, the improvement, the
classifications and assigned park costs estimates in 2021 dollars to each of the park
improvements. Another recommendation was addressing the need for additional parks and
open space to improve that walkable level of service and general park access. The next finding
identifies acquiring new parkland to meet the growth starting with an acquisition for a
community park in southeast Georgetown. The operational budget impact is staff time and
capital cost estimate for this southwest Georgetown area is 4 million dollars. This is a high
priority with an asterisk, and this is something to accomplish in the first year. They also
provided some other projected parks and open space improvement with park names, park
classifications and the planning and visioning effort they would like to see. As you look to
make these improvement and acquiring this land you want to look at how does it help update
the existing masterplan, what are the long term improvements that you can do through the
planning process and conducting the neighborhood programming sessions and getting in to
find out how we should develop these parks and what these parks should look like based on
the neighborhoods they are located in and the needs of those people that live in these areas.
Another objective is the desire for more trails and pathways. Action items are identifying those
locations for future trail heads, creating standards and implement appropriate parking, lighting,
signage and other supporting facilities for current and new trail heads and trail access points,
and then aligning that trail system to facility type and responsible city entity for
implementation. These are all high priorities and ongoing. These are actions we want to get
going in the first 3 years and want to reevaluate and revisit these on an annual basis. In the
Appendix there is more levels of detail shown.
The next key issue was level of service with indoor recreation. The recommendation is to
renovate the current recreation center and they know there is a lack of current space that must
address the demand for more space with the projected future population growth. This was
combined into one objective item and what is called out is the renovation and expansion of the
current recreation center and build a new recreation center to address the need for additional
space to meet population growth and demand. The first item is to complete a feasibility study
to determine what is called out in Appendix B. It would be looking at that renovation and
expansion of the existing recreation center, which included reimagining the interior spaces for
efficiency, looking at refreshing the aging facility, looking at the heavy renovations and
reimagining the space to improve the experiences and improving the recreation services. The
feasibility study would also look at building a new westside facility and the relocation of the
exiting tennis center facility to meet the Georgetown level of service. They are also looking at
identifying the appropriate location on the westside most likely adjacent to a major
thoroughfare and identifying potential funding sources. BRS who performed this analysis has
provided an estimate for this study to be approximately $75,000 - $90,000. Again, this is a high
priority and something that need to be address as the population is growing and the demands
for this type of facility is growing and there is going to be that need for an additional facility.
This is something that needs to be looked at in the first 3 years.
Dan Seder stated the 4th key issue is programming and here there were 3 key issues. There was
in expressed desire for more environmental and educational enrichment programming, there is
always a need for more after school and summer programs, and there is a need for more youth
opportunities in zone 4. The objection is the need to provide a robust menu of programs to
meet the community needs and these are all high priorities with the first one with an asterisk
and want to look at this in the first year. It is to look at the options to increase programming in
parkland dedication 4 addressing that need for youth programming and looking for potential
partnership opportunities in that area to administer the programming. It also looks at the need
for afterschool programs and summer camps. Action items would be looking at what you are
doing, looking to see what opportunities exist to provide that programming, taking that
programming out to the people in their areas, as opposed to them coming to you, and how you
can address these issues. This was also part of Teresa Jackson's cost recovery, was looking at
the scholarship program to increase availability and reduce barriers to access. The scholarship
program is something that they want to reevaluate and develop so that everyone knows there is
an opportunity out there to be able to participate in the programs and make sure it is in place.
The 51h is the key issues for financial and with the community growth it will require additional
funding and full-time employees to provide the same standard of parks and recreation services.
They have called out a lot of recommendations that will be improving parks and growing the
parks system. The recommendations are to request full time employees to keep pace with the
growth, annual budget increases, implement a cost recovery philosophy and policy, pursue a
bond referendum for funding special projects to maintain the current level of service, elevate
the operations of the Friends of Georgetown to support future fundraising and planning efforts,
and consider the support through private/public partnerships in the form of sponsorships,
advertising, naming rights, who those partners can be in delivery of programming and in other
ways to reach the community, and provide those services.
Dan Seder stated they are in the final plan stage, and it will be taken to city council. There will
be final tweaks to the document after staff review with anything to updates and changes and
presented to city council. The final document will then be taken to city council to make the plan
implementable and moving forward with it.
Peter Bahrs asked on 5.11, does that mean we would see local business advertising with a
placard on the wall in the basketball courts. Dan Seder stated this is that 30,000-foot view so it
wasn't specifically called out they should advertise on their walls or fields. It's down to what
the philosophy is as an organization. But they are saying there are opportunities there and part
of the cost recovery will help make some of these decisions and if there are public and private
opportunities where you could draw in some advertising dollars. That would be a decision
from the staff and the parks board on how they would want to see that come about. Dan Seder
stated they know there are some opportunities out there especially knowing there will be more
expenses coming up. Kimberly Garrett stated we do get sponsorships for our special events
and youth soccer and the business name is on shirts, but there isn't a full-blown policy. Peter
Bahrs asked about 5.1.a, the 10 full time employees (FTEs) over 5 years, so the cost recovery
includes an increase in FTEs already and which one of the numbers gets presented to council
first; the details on cost recovery or the increase in people. Kimberly Garrett stated the parks
masterplan will be presented to the council first and some of those employees may be parks
maintenance and that the staff increase may not be related to recreation center programming
but may be related to the programs that are a community benefit. Peter Bahrs asked if that 10
covers over 5 years and what you think would be implemented in this plan over 5 years and the
need to support it, or would it be more people if everything was accepted. Dan Seder said they
did a benchmarking as part of this masterplan. They looked at what they are going to spend
per employee for the size of the agency and what you have. As they looked at the growth that
would potentially occur, they used those numbers to forecast out what they would need to
maintain that level of service as you grow, your spending per population, looking at the acres
and the programs. That is part of where those numbers came from and looking at that budget
would increase based with the population growth, who you are delivering to, based with the
number acres you are looking to add on. Peter Bahrs stated the 10 FTEs are to maintain the
current level of service, but you are somewhat proposing more things to do with the plan; so
the new things aren't covered by FTEs. Kimberly Garrett stated that is correct. Dan Seder
stated to maintain the current level of service, with the growth, these are the number of
employees you need to add, to maintain currently what the agency is doing.
Motion made by Peter Bahrs, second by Jack Flatau to recommend approval on the proposed
Draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Approved 7 - 0
K Consideration and possible action to recommend approval of a Task Order with
Covey Landscape Architects of Georgetown, TX, for professional services related to
Neighborhood Park development in the amount of $198,800.00 - Kimberly Garrett, Parks and
Recreation Director
Kimberly Garrett stated this is for Covey Landscape and the engineers to do all the design work
for these parks. She stated these are for the parks that were listed on the masterplan that need
to be developed. By combining all these parks together there is cost savings on some of the
permitting. She said there is a funding source in the parkland dedication fee. Some of these
parks have been there since 2002 because there was not a funding source at that time. It will be
about $250,000 per park and a small portion of that will go toward this design.
Motion made by Lindsay Cooper, second by Brazos Fielder to recommend approval of a Task
Order with Covey Landscape Architects of Georgetown, TX, for professional services related
to Neighborhood Park development in the amount of $198,800.00. In the discussion, Peter
Bahrs stated he would like for them to include solar powered security cameras. Kimberly
Garrett stated those would be amenities and this task order is for the design. This would
include how big the playground can be so there can be ample space for the sidewalk and they
will have to put in accessible routes and accessible sidewalks. They will also help with the
public input where they go out to each neighborhood for a public meeting to find out what they
want.
Approved 7 - 0.
L Consideration and possible action to recommend approval of replacement of the
divider curtains in both gymnasiums and basketball structures in one of the gymnasiums at
the Georgetown Recreation Center to 1-12I Group Inc. of Houston, TX using Buyboard
contract #583-19 in the amount of $68,258. - Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director
Kimberly Garrett stated this is for replacement amenities in the recreation center gym. There is
a special revenue fund which allows for replacement as things wear out. The gym curtains are
looking worn, and they allow for programming multiple activities at the same time. They do
get a lot of use going up and down and are at the end of their useful life and the basketball
goals as well. Staff is looking for automated goals. The current ones are manual, and it takes
multiple staff to move them up and down and they are in bad shape. They are wanting to
replace with automatic ones, and this will help with staff time. Kimberly Garrett stated they
want to coordinate this with the September maintenance closing. Staff is finding it is taking a
long lead time to get some of this equipment and pricing continues to go up.
Motion made by Jolene Melancon, second by Jack Flatau to recommend approval of the
replacement of the divider curtains in both gymnasiums and basketball structures in one of
the gymnasiums at the Georgetown Recreation Center to 1-12I Group Inc. of Houston, TX
using Buyboard contract #583-19 in the amount of $68,258. Approved 7 - 0.
Adjournment
Motion made by Katherine Kainer, second by Brazos Fielder to adjourn the meeting. The
meeting adjourned at 7:21 pm.
Katherine Kainer, Board Chair
Lindsay ooper, Secretary
`�.
r
J elIum, Board Liaison