Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 04.27.2010 CC-WThe City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met in Regular Session on the above date with Mayor George Garver presiding. Council Present: Council Absent: Keith Brainard, Gabe Sansing Ben Oliver Pat Bill Sattler, Dale Ross Berryman, Patty Eason Staff Present: Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager; Mark Sokolow, City Attorney; Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary; Kimberly Garrett, Director of Parks and Recreation; Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager for Utility Operations; Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer; Tom Benz, Systems Engineering Director; Skye Masson, Legal Assistant ' • �- • •F ia • • r • • - i �! ii ' A Parks and Recreation Operational Issues and Update -- Kimberly Garrett, Director of Parks and Recreation With a Powerpoint presentation, Garrett review the Parks and Recreation Operational Issues. She introduced members of the Parks Board to the Council and said she is going to give Council an update on what's happening in the Parks and Recreation department. She reviewed the points that will be discussed in the presentation. She spoke about the recreation center and said it is a very busy place and there are a large number of people that utilize the facility. She spoke about the increase in recreation center memberships. She said, after the opening of the new recreation center, the membership skyrocketed. She said, so far in 2010, we are on track to meet or exceed the 2009 numbers. She said they currently have over 9,000 active memberships and noted the largest percentage of those users are families. She said over 25% of the users are seniors. She said all memberships, including youth and senior memberships, are for the whole facility and not just portions of the center. She reviewed the recreation center fees and said they are reviewed each year by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. She said they added a senior rate in 2009 because those people are normally on a fixed income. Garrett said, in February, Williamson County was named the healthiest community in Texas. She said the fees were doubled when the new recreation center opened in 2009. She said, however, they did not double the youth fee. Councilmember Ross arrived at the dais. She said they increased the fees by 10% across the board in January 2010 after seeing the increase in membership in 2009. She said they charge the highest fees when compared to the surrounding areas. She showed Council a chart demonstrating the fee comparison with other cities. She said they offer monthly and quarterly memberships that are more palatable, but also more expensive in the long run. She showed Council a graph of the increase in membership revenue between 2005 and 2010. Brainard asked about the debt service on the recreation center. Brewer said she does not know off the top of her head, but she will get that information for Council. Garrett reviewed the recreation center's cost recovery and added the recreation center is recovering at about 50% of their costs. She spoke about the cost recoveries at various recreation centers around the area. Brainard asked and Garrett said the costs include everything but the bond. Garrett spoke about the senior center in Round Rock. Garrett spoke about the pyramid methodology, which is a pricing structure model that will encompass a City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 1 of 3 Pages comprehensive look at all programs and will allow for resource allocation. She showed Council a list of some of the programs parks and recreation offers to its citizens. She showed Council a picture demonstrating pyramid methodology and said this is a very long process. She noted most of the programs will be community benefits programs. She noted, as you go up the pyramid, you get more privatized programs. She noted there should be healthy conversations about which type of programs should be located in what area of the pyramid. She said the whole basis of the pyramid is based on the values of the City. She showed Council an example of a cost recovery pyramid that was done in Arlington, Virginia. She reviewed which programs were located in what area of that pyramid. She said the 50% cost recovery applies solely to the recreation center, but most of the parks and recreation programs actually make money. She said the swimming pools do not make money, but they are considered a community benefit, which is at the bottom of the pyramid. Ross asked about programs at private gyms and how the recreation center competes with those businesses. Berryman said the private gyms in the area offer very specialized programs and one on one attention and the programs at the recreation center are more generalized. Eason said these were bonds that were voter approved to build a recreation center, so it is inferred that the public wanted this type of services. She agreed that private enterprise businesses will not be able to provide the quality of the facility because of the fact that, as a public entity, it was important enough to the community that every citizen have access to the services the recreation center can provide. Garrett said some people still prefer to go to the private and specialized facilities. Berryman said this is a community asset for the community to use and the fees must be put at a level that members of the community can afford. Sansing added that the two other fitness centers opened after the new recreation center opened and they knew what their competition was. Mayor asked and Brandenburg described the conversations he has had with other private companies and fitness centers on this issue. Garrett said, along with success, comes additional problems. She said their revenue is about $1.2 million a year and they are open from 5:30 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. She noted there are different staff members there throughout the day. She said they changed their cash handling processes and added the increased membership limits their customer service. She said there are sometimes 300-400 people there at night. She said there is a larger population, increased members and more demand for programming, including special needs programming. She said they have to start offering programs for people with disabilities. She noted they recognize and plan for persons with disabilities using their facilities and attending programs. She noted the Parks and Recreation Board has formed the Friends of Georgetown Parks and Recreation (501 c3) to help with scholarships, recruit volunteers and projects. Garrett reviewed the recommendations from staff. She said they need a staff person dedicated to cash handling and administrative duties at the recreation center. She said they also need to anticipate a program for special needs population (required by the ADA). She said they are also requesting temporary staff to help with safety and security during special events and peak times. Brainard said it would be helpful if Council could see a cost comparison that includes all of the costs of the recreation center and also a comparison with like facilities. He asked if they can explore the cost and feasibility of opening on Sunday and possibly closing on another day, such as Monday. He spoke about the need to create a program for children who are autistic. B Discussion related to issues of alignment, design, environmental, Right of Way and other issues related to the constructability of the Southwest Bypass from SH 29 to IH -35 -- Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager for Utility Operations and Ed Polasek, Principal Planner Briggs and Polasek described the issue and said all options for the area went to the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB) at a special meeting. Polasek said GTAB started their meeting considering two options for the bypass. He described those two options and routes. He said GTAB had a very detailed discussion and noted they came up with the motion to work on the Northern route as their preferred option. He added there is a southern route that is a development driven road. He noted GTAB said the City can work on the Southern route only after they find the Northern route is not doable. He said they would like to leave open the option of some private partnerships of building these roads. Polasek described what the Northern route will provide in terms of short term solutions. Polasek said the City is at about $10-12 million for the northern route and between $13-$15 million for the southern route. Benz said one of the biggest problems is due to the railroad and how to cross the railroad with the proposed bridge. Briggs spoke about the southern project and how it is related to the quarry. He said the issue with the rail is being left alone until their is a study or evaluation done on rail and traffic safety at that location. Briggs spoke about a future four lane underpass in the area. Briggs said a lot of this depends on environmental issues and constructability of the road. He said the northern alignment is probably the most effective and the most constructible in terms of getting traffic flow and mobility to the area. Oliver asked and Briggs described the proposed frontage road on the map and added there is an item on the agenda to sign a County document to approve bonds for that project. Sansing spoke about how to deal with the City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 2 of 3 Pages traffic around the caverns. Briggs said all of this will have to go through TXDOT to get concurrence with the plan. Berryman asked, if the City proceeds with this project, could they address another related project at the same time. She also requested that the County explore the idea of not doing the bridge, but just intersecting 1-35 in that area. Commissioner Covey said they heard good news about the frontage road and said the project has moved onto the next step in the approval process. She said she understands the goal from the City Council is to get traffic off of downtown Highway 29. She said, in order to to that, they need this project or the "smiley" road as they call it. She noted, the reason why the lines on the map are red and yellow is to show the difference between the two projects. She said the only problem with doing just the red road is that it limits citizens to moving in one direction, from west to east. She said the yellow is necessary to allow for two way traffic. She noted it accomplishes all that the City and County wants to accomplish at this point. She said it will take more to get the yellow built and not the red. Berryman asked and Covey spoke about the timing of the two sections. Brainard said both the City and the County have really wanted to get this job done and they really need to keep it moving. Covey said the County is voting on how they are to split up the bond money. She said, if Council chooses not to approve the contract at tonight's meeting, they can not move forward and the money will go somewhere else. She said, if this were easy, it would have been done a long time ago. Ross asked about the frontage road and Covey noted the County is paying for that at a cost of roughly $5 million. She said that project would be the frontage road as well as road reversals. Ross asked and Covey continued to answer questions on the costs of the various projects. Ross asked and Covey said some of the yellow road is TXDOT right of way. She said they do not have a firm number on the yellow road at this time. Ross asked and Covey said she would ask that the City and the County partner on that project together. Ross asked and Briggs said the cost of the yellow line will depend on the road being in alignment with the frontage road. Briggs said the cost can range from $2 to $3.5 million. Ross asked and Covey said there has been no discussion yet on the cost allocation of this issue. Brainard said this issue tonight to just to agree to work on these projects together. He said the cost details will be worked out later. Covey agreed. Berryman said this is a major moment. Mayor asked and Briggs clarified the related item on the regular Council meeting agenda. Council recessed to Executive Session under Sections 551.071, 551.074 and 551.086 -- 5:19 p.m. Council returned to Open Session and adjourned -- 6:12 p.m. Approved : Mayor George Gfarver City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 3 of 3 Pages The meeting was adjourned at 06:12 PM.