Loading...
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