HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 02.29.1992 CC-SThe City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met in special joint session on the above
date with Mayor Bill Connor presiding.
Council Members
Present:
Mike McMaster
Jane Voltz
Ferd Tonn
Shorty Valdez
Bob Schrawger
Bill Shelby
Staff Present:
Council Members
Absent:
Winfred Bonner
Bob Hart, City Manager Ed Barry, Dir. of Development Svcs.
Marianne Landers Banks, City Attorney Hildy Kingma, Chief Planner
Randy Morrow, Dir of Parks & Recreation
Members of Parks Plan Working Group Present:
Harold McDonald Ed Sabella
Nelson Shipman Mike Barnes
Roger Pena Johnny Lacy
Robin Hallett Kathryn Stallard
Called to Order by Mayor Connor at 9:05 a.m.
The Mayor opened the meeting and began by reviewing the "basic principles" of the Plan listed
in the Introduction. He then asked each member of the Working Group to review the section of
the Plan which was their primary responsibility. The discussion is described below by chapter.
Administration and Funding: Jane Voltz pointed out that the statement of purpose (p.9) should
be incorporated into the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board's statement of purpose. This
chapter describes a range of suggested sources of funding but does not recommend specific
funding levels. Mike Barnes pointed out that the Plan recommends that user fees collected for
parks and recreation purposes be channeled back to the parks and recreation budget. Bob Hart
said that, although user fees are not deposited into a district account earmarked for parks and
recreation expenses, the budget shows "a correlation in terms of management oversight". Mike
Joint City Council/
Parks Plan working Group Minutes
February 29, 1992
Page 1 of 3 Pages
Barnes said that this is the type of connection that was intended because it documents that the
parks and recreation budget gets the benefit from the revenues it generates. The Mayor asked
whether the Working Group ever intends that the user fees will generate more revenues than the
parks and recreation budget requires. Mike Barnes said that this is not likely, and the Working
Group did not intend for parks and recreation to become a money -making endeavor.
Jane Voltz said that it might be beneficial for the City to have a staff person responsible
solely for grant writing. Johnny Lacy pointed out that the County has the same need and it might
be possible for the two entities to enter into a joint venture to obtain this expertise.
The need for the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board to be designated a 501C(3)
organization was discussed. It was generally agreed that this is not necessary for the City to
accept donations of money and land, but some entities that make these donations require it
nonetheless. Therefore, in order to ensure that the City is in the best position to obtain these
donations, this recommendation should be implemented.
Parks Standards and Guidelines: Robin Hallett provided a brief overview of this chapter. There
was no discussion about it.
Recreation: Roger Pena described the recommended association of recreation providers. Mike
McMaster said that when the youth board was established, one of the first goals was to provide
a means of "one-stop shopping for recreation activities." This goal was never implemented, and
the idea of the association of recreation providers will help to achieve it. He also suggested that
the GISD should be included in the association because they provide so many recreational
activities.
Future Park System: Robin Hallett outlined this chapter. Jane Voltz said that the Subdivision
Review Advisory Committee considered many of the recommendations of the Plan in the
deliberations of potential revisions to the Subdivision Regulations. The recommendation to
require dedication of land or fees in lieu for open space purposes was determined to be in
conflict with economic development goals. Robin Hallett pointed out the distinction made in the
Plan between parks and recreation and open space, greenbelts, and conservation areas. She said
that non-residential development has a greater impact on the second type of land. Then Robin,
Kathryn Stallard, and Nelson Shipman all described the need to maintain a high quality parks and
open space system and stated that non-residential development does benefit from these facilities.
Johnny Lacy agreed, stating that industrial growth has to help participate in the development of
the parks and open space system. Roger Pena stated that in his opinion, a business willing to
make this type of dedication of land is likely to have a lot more commitment to the community.
The Mayor pointed out that if this requirement is incorporated into the Subdivision Regulations,
it should occur at the subdivision phase of the development process. Robin Hallett agreed and
said that this is consistent with the recommendation in the Plan.
The Council briefly discussed the recommended policy for naming parks. This policy
requires that if a park is to be named after a person, it must be a posthumous honor, or the
Joint City Council/
Parks Plan Working Group Minutes
February 29, 1992
Page 2 of 3 Pages
person must have contributed a minimum of 80 percent of the cost or effort to develop the park.
This recommendation met with the approval of the City Council.
Mayor Connor left at 11:05 a.m./Mayor Pro -Tem Mike McMaster presided over
remainder of meeting.
River Corridors Park: Harold McDonald described the basic goals behind the recommendation
for a River Corridors Park (p.78) and the priorities for the park. He stressed that this is a long-
range plan, and said that now is the time for the City to make the decision whether or not to use
the river corridors for this public purpose. The question of whether or not the inclusion of the
River Corridors Park in the Plan creates a cloud on the property owners' title was discussed.
Marianne Banks, City Attorney, said she has researched this issue and concludes that it does not
constitute a compensable taking. Mike Barnes pointed out that the recommendations are stated
such that the eventual development of the park does not have to impact people that do not want
it. The feasibility of building the park will be based on topography and the ease of obtaining the
use of the land. Further, the phasing of the park as recommended in the Plan will enable the
whole community to see what type of asset it will actually be and determine whether or not it
should be extended throughout the community.
Mike McMaster stated that in addition to the actual development and construction of the
park, he is also concerned about its maintenance over time. Mike Barnes urged the Council not
to make decisions about changing the Plan based on concerns for its costs. He said that the City
has never tapped all of its funding resources, and because this is a long-range plan, it is not
possible to predict what will be possible to achieve. The Plan should be viewed as establishing
a visionary goal that will be implemented over time as conditions allow.
Robin Hallett asked what the next step will be in the process of adopting the Plan. Mike
McMaster noted that the City Council will probably conduct one more public hearing, and
possibly another workshop. Robin Hallett said that the citizen participation in this Plan,
especially the river corridors portion of it, was very high. If the City Council intends to make
changes in the Plan, she urged them to discuss those changes again with the Working Group to
ensure that the overall intent of the Plan remains intact.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:13 p.m.
These minutes were compiled by Hildy Kingma.
Approved:
J
Joint City Council/
Parks Plan working Group Minutes
February 29, 1992
Page 3 of 3 Pages
Attest:
Elizabeth Gray, Secretary