Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutParks and Rec Advisory Board-Agenda Packets-6/7/1990~1 ~ SHE`D ,q ~ w,. Gity of (~ `~.rJ~ (~ _ ~'~ a ~ Il~ ~~ Texas A~]DA PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BQARD MEETING June 7, 1990 7:00 p.m. I. Call to order 6 ~~ II. Approval of.~=5-90 Minutes III. Presentation by Barbara Brown: Cca~muni.ty Center City Hall 5400 Bransford Rd. IV. Old Business A. Discussion and consideration of revising ordinance which addresses open space r~uirements. B. Approval of Park Master Plan doc.-~m~nt C. Review and discuss park ordinances V. New Business ~` A. Discussion and consideration of Parks and Recreation Deparfsnerit 90/91 budget r~dations B. Discussion and consideration of master plan for City Park C. Discussion and consideration of facilities utilization agreement VI. Reports A. Parks and Recreation Department B. Park Board Chai~nan C. Other Concerns VIII. Adjourrunent DF/df J P.O. BOX 185 COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS 76034 (817) 281-4044 AGENDA BRlE~lNG DEPARTMENT parks and Recreation SUBJECT Approval of Minutes 6-7-90 II MEETING AGENDA ~ i cu o. ~ 7'exee .~ f Approval of 5~-5-90 Minutes DEPARTMENT HEAD SIGNATURE DISPOSITION APPROVED ^~ OTHER ^ CITY MANAGER STAFF REVIEW 7/tl4 TMNI G~~oh~n ~i AGENDA BRIEt:ING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT MEETING Parks and Recreation Cc~lunity Center 6-7-A~ AGENDA ~ III Barbara grown will be present to make a presentation about the Community Center. DEPARTMENT HEAD SIGNATURE DISPOSITION APPROVED ^~ OTHER ^ CITY MANAGER STAff REVIEW ~ cu o~ ~ re:a• uw, i~ny T~ap~ G~~wun n~d~ AGENDA BRIEFING DEPARTMENT Parks and Recreation SUBJECT Revision of PUD ordinance 6-7-90 IV. A MEETING AGENDA ~ clt o~ ~ Texae .~ Enclosed is a revised. draft of the City ordinance which.addr~sses open space requirements. DEPARTMENT HEAD SIGNATURE DISPOSITION APPROVED ^~ OTHER ^ CITY MANAGER STAFF REVIEW AGENDA BRlEFlNG Parks and Recreation ct~ of DEPARTMENT SUBJECT Park Master Plan 6-7-90 N' B re:ar MEETING AGENDA ~ Schrickel, Rollins and Associates has canpleted the Park Master Plan. geconanendation is to approve the Master Plan and to also recomme-nd to the City Council that they approve the plan. DEPARTMENT HEAD SIGNATURE DISPOSITION APPROVED ^~ OTHER ^ CITY MANAGER STAFF REVIEW any r..... c..~.~. AGENDA BRIEFING DEPARTMENT Parks and Recreation SUBJECT Park Ordinances 6-7-90 IV. C MEETING nrFntna ~ CU o~ \ 7'e:a• ~~~ The Park Ordinance committee met on May 24 with the purpose of developing park ordinances that will assure citizens in the community a safe environment while they are•in the parks participating in activities. Please review the draft ordinances for the purpose of discussion. DEPARTMENT HEAD SIGNATURE DISPOSITION APPROVED ^~ OTHER (:ul: 7/tlY CITY MANAGER STAfF REVIEW AGENDA BRIEFING DEPARTMENT Parks and Recreation SUBJECT Fiscal Year 90/91 Budget MEETING 6-7'90 AGENDA ~ V. A I cu of ~ ~ re:ar f closed is a copy of the proposed FY 90/91 budget that will be -. presented to the City Manager. gecommenda.tion to the Board is to accept the budget proposal with the necessary revisions and to make a recndation to the Council. The original proposal does not address the fact that any of the budget requests be funded through the Voluntary park fund. However, the Board may wish to consider that scene of the capital outlay items be funded through the Voluntary park fund. DEPARTMENT HEAD SIGNATURE DISPOSITION APPROVED ^i OTHER ^ STAFF REVIEW CITY MANAGER AGENDA BRIEFING DEPARTMENT Parks ~ Recreation SUBJECT Fiscal Year 90/91 Budget MEETING 6-7-90 AGENDA ~ V. A r ct~ or ~ 7'e:ar ~ Enclosed is a Dopy of the proposed FY 90/91 budget that will be.-. presented to the City Manager. Reca~endati-on to the Board is to accept the budget proposal with the necessary revisions and to make a recanrendation to the Council. The original proposal does not address the fact that any of the budget requests be funded through the Voluntary. park fund. However, the Board may wish to consider that sore of the capital outlay it~ns be funded through the Voluntary park fund. DEPARTMENT HEAD SIGNATURE DISPOSITION CITY MANAGER STAFF REVIEW APPROVED ^i OTHER ^ AGENDA BRIEFING DEPARTMENT Parks and Recreation /~~ cu of , SUBJECT City Park Master Plan (( 6-7-90 V . B ~~~ Texas MEETING AGENDA ~ r Chairman T.inford at the 5-5-90 Park Board meeting discussed the need for a master plan for City Park. He contacted 5chrickel, Rollins and Associates and requested that they draft a letter addressing the particulars of a master plan. ' Recndation is to except SRA's proposal for a master plan for City Park and to also reczd to Council that the necessary funding be appropriated for the project. DEPARTMENT HEAD SIGNATURE DISPOSITION APPROVED ^~ OTHER ^ CITY MANAGER STAFF REVIEW ua. i/av rr... r....w...... Irv AGENDA BRIEFING DEPARTMENT Parks and Recreation SUBJECT Facilities Use Agreement 6-7-90 V. e MEETING AGENDA ~ I cu or \ re:.~ J Enclosed as a draft copy of facilities use agreement for your review. DEPARTMENT HFAD SIGNATURE DISPOSITION APPROVED ^ OTHER ^ CITY MANAGER STAFF REVIEW t.. . r.. AGENDA BRIEFING Parks and Recreation DEPARTMENT Reports SUBJECT 6-7-90 VI. A,B MEETING AGENDA ~ Clt o~ \ resar ~ f A. Parks and Recreation 1. S~r¢ner Recreation~Program update 2. Park projets update B. Paxk Board Chairman DEPARTMENT HEAD SIGNATURE DISPOSITION APPROVED ^~ OTHER ^ CITY MANAGER STAFF REVIEW Wl. /~tlY r-... r..~_~.- .....~ AGENDA BRIEFING Parks and Recreation ~ cu o~ \ DEPARTMENT SUBJECT Other Concerns ~ ~ VI. C Texo~ MEETING 6-~-an AGENDA ~ I. Mandatory Park Land Dedication Ordinance , At the 5-15-90 City Council meeting, the Council requested that the Park Board draft a mandatory park land dedication ordinance for their review and consideration. Lhclosed are copies of ordinances from other cities. II. Wildflowers Discussion of the possibility of mowing the wildflower field at City Park. DEPARTMENT HEAD SIGNATURE DISPOSITION APPROVED ^~ OTHER ^ CITY MANAGER STAfF REVIEW l:!/tlY r..... r.. ~....~ .....~ ~~~~~~~~ ~/~T/CGES ~~Di.C/A~c E.s- TEXAS SUPREME COURT REVERSES CITY OF COLLEGE STATION V. TURTLE ROCK AND OPENS THE DOOR FO_ R REASONABLE PARK DEDICATION ORDINANCES By Lowell Denton In an opinion on application for writ of error, the Texas Supreme Court recently reversed the 14th District Court of Appeals in City of College Station v. Turtle Rock Corpora- tion,r and announced a park dedication rule consistent with that of most other states. A Texas home rule city may re- quire park dedication in connection with subdivision plat ap- proval, where there is a "reasonable connection between the increased population arising from the subdivision development and the increased park and recreation needs in the neighborhood." To set aside such a requirement, a land developer must demonstrate to the Court that there is no such connection under the particular facts of its case. The College Station case was'the second stanza in the park dedication dispute following a 1980 decision by the 14th Court of Appeals in Berg Development Company v. City of Missouri City.2 In Berg, the Court of Appeals iden- tified three particular defects in the Missouri City ordinance and found it unconstitutional. However, the opinion went on to conclude, in dicta, that a requirement for dedication of park land did not, as a matter of law, bear a substantial rela- tionship to the safety and health of the community. This standard had previously been applied to uphold other sub- division dedication requirements for streets, alleys, sidewalks, utilities and other necessary subdivision in- frastructure. The City of College Station amended its ordinance in 1981 in an attempt to correct the three specific problems identified in the Missouri City case, choosing to ignore the dicta to the effect that correction of these problems would not ultimately render the ordinance constitutional. Subse- quently, Turtle Rods Corporation filed suit to invalidate the College Station ordinance, and moved for summary judg- ment on the-pleadings and admitted facts. With the case in this status;-tlte only issue was the question of the validity of the ordinance on its face -and thus whether or not the city's corrective surgery had resolved the constitutional problems specifically identified in Missouri City. Not presented in Col- lege Station, is the question of whether or not the or- dinance, as applied to a particular developer, is excessive or arbitrary. The trial court granted summary judgment for Turtle Rock Corporation, and the City of College station appealed to the 14th Court of Appeals, which held to its former opinion. After concluding that all three of the defects identified in the Missouri City ordinance had been resolved, that the or- dinance was nevertheless unconstitutional -again because parks do not necessarily benefit the community and are not substantially related to public health, safety and welfare, as a matter of law. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals on this key point and stated: "The issue in this appeal is not whether parks are always and necessarily a benefit to the community; the issue is whether Turtle Rock met its burden for summary judgment of showing that College Station's ordinance is invalid as a matter of law." Although parks and recreation professionals may have limited interest in the procedural aspects of the case, as I have discussed it, it is necessary to have some understan- ding of those factors to fully understand the results of the College Station opinion and its future effect on ordinance drafting and enforcement. Refusal of the writ of error in the College Station case would have been fatal to park dedication in Texas for the foreseeable future. With the Court of Appeals' conclusion that the ordinance was unconstitutional on its face, in spite of the resolution of the three defects in Missouri City's or- dinance; arefusal of the writ of error by the Supreme Court would have effectively prohibited park dedication re- quirements. The court did grant the writ, and its opinion clearly shows that park dedication requirements can be lawfully imposed, and will usually be upheld in the courts. After College Station v. Turtle Rock, the law in Texas can be summarized as follows: (1) A home rule city may require park dedication where the dedication requirement is substantially related to health, safety, and general welfare, if the regulation is reasonable and is not arbitrary as ap- plied. (2) An ordinance which is not arbitrary on its face is presumed to be valid, and to set such a require- ment aside, a developer must prove that there is no reasonable connection between the requirement and the increased population and concomitant park ~ri•ln.u ul yr ux, ul nu p,1r UC Ul,rl c:uiUlntit~~r l,.~t> (3) The courts will impose an "extraordinary burden' on the one attacking the ordinance. In other words. if reasonable minds could differ -the city council's determination of reasonableness will stand . (4) Dedication requirements are only permitted where they are a regulatory response to a developer's own activity; in other words, dedication requirements may not be imposed absent development activity. (5) Dedication ordinances must make reasonable pro- visions to relate the land or cash requirements con- tained therein to particular subdivisions, and should address, in a logical, reasonable way (preferably ex- plained in the ordinance), the issue of proximity and predictable park demand and use, as well as containing provisions requiring appropriate expen- diture of cash payment in lieu of dedication, for park development or acquisition. [f an ordinance contains such provisions, it should withstand facial review by the court, requiring a plaintiff to show that it is arbitrary as applied to him. (6) The determination of the arbitrariness or unreasonableness of an ordinance is a question of law for the trial court. It is not a fact question for a jury, but the court must consider the facts and A home rule city may require park dedication where the dedication requirement is substantially related to health, safety and general welfare... j' L ~ i ry.uy-.J^ ~ ~:. . `~ r-`s ~ 4 ~ J -r ~}~~~ '~% ..fit ;=v~;~Y. ~~-FFF ~~'~~ ~? ~ ~ -:~ ~ ~ ~ t/` ''~'hs ~'~ ~~SYa z y~ ,y~_. r,~ ` NP~L~ ~ 4 /~ .~ ~ / I: .bi... _ '•ti I ::~~ ^' w I '1 ~-'~ ~ ~~~ 1 ~, ~ J y~+' r ;: , •t '` i ,. ~' ~ -•. ' ~ ~ rtc. ~ . ..~; `_ ~ ~... r . ~. evrel~~nce presented by the developer, ,nui ni rebuttal by the city, in making that determin~~ion The Turtle Rock case will presumably be retired on re- mand to determine if ttte developer can meet its difficult burden of proof. It is likely that the proof presented will ~l~- clude many of the factors outlined by Claude Thomp son in the June/July, 19843 issue of this publication. However, the city need not prove the value of parks, or the reasonableness of its ordinance -that will be presumed. A developer/plaintiff must carry the burden of proving that park requirement unnecessary, arbitrary, or excessive, and that a city council could not reasonably conclude otherwise on the facts. The key is proof. This author disagrees with Thompson's conclusion that the Court of Appeals suf- fered from an educational weakness, rather than. a legal one in deciding the College Station case. Courts are not "educated" on these issues -they exist to take evidence and decide cases on their facts. Where the judges dispense with proof, and decide without the benefit of any evidence that a city legislative body could not possibly have reached valid conclusions, they substitute their own judgment on issues committed to local government. The Texas Supreme Court's opinion, in College Station, prevents that result, and restores appropriate deference to rational local legislation, while preserving a real remedy to the landowner where an ordinance requirement is truly excessive or unreasonable. Thus, the future role of parks and recreation officials is not to try to educate courts or the public that parks are always a good idea -this would repeat the Court of Appeals' error in reverse. In particular cases where a subdivider presents evidence placing the reasonableness of a parks requirements 'in issue, the parks and recreation professional will be called upon for rebuttal evidence: facts and StutiSt~CS frJm plivilC rZwrC{~, personal knowledge, and expert or lay opinion. This rebut- tal evidence will focus on the utilization of neighborhood parks, their convenience and proximity, park demand, the safety and recreation advantages of neighborhood parks over street or yard play for children. Most cases will focus on the balance between the subdividers' costs and burdens, and the real benefits to the localized public benefited by a neighborhood park. The informed judgment of profes- sionals will be necessary to resolve the ultimate issue of park dedication: Is the cost allocation of recreational space reasonable and fair in the context of demonstrated demand for utilization of the "amenity" required by the city incident to land development. To the extent that these factors can be demonstrated by such evidence, park dedication re- quirements will stand. To the extent that they cannot, such requirements can still be invalidated by the courts. r City of College Station v. Turtle Rock Corporation (C-Z918), 11/21/84, Berg Development Co. v. City of Missouri City, 6U3 S.W. 2d 273 (Tex. Civ. App. Houston/ loth Dist 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e ). ' Thompson, Claude. TRAPS, June/July, 19H4, pp lU 13 Lowell Denton, city attornc~y~ /ur fire City of San Antonio. was the College Station city attorney who successfully won the mandatory dedication e'usr in the 7~exas Supreme (wort 1HAPS MAHC'tl APttll. NS 1:4 The University of Texas at Arlington M E M O R A N D U I~1 DATE: April 10, 1990 TO: Respondents to Parks Survey FROM: Elise Bright Assistant Professor SUBJECT: Results of Research INSTITUTE OF URBAN STUDIES Box 19588 Arlington, Texas 76019 817-273-3071 PLEASE NOTE: This is corrects the previous mailing you received. The enclosure was inadvertently left out. Enclosed please find a summary of the research which I conducted on park acquisition techniques last year. I apologize for the delay--and realize that it has been more than a year since you were kind enough to respond to my survey. This research took much longer to complete than I had anticipated! If you would like more details, I have a 40-page paper which gives details .regarding acquisition methods as well as the survey research results, and is available for purchase from the Institute of Urban Studies here at UTA. Just contact Hilde Worsham if you would like information on this. Thank you again for your participation. good, and I am thankful for your time. The response was very Encl. '4 - ~dffiQ~IP °~~°°~~ Methods of Parks ' Gquisition Studied As cities search for more efficient ways to provide needed services within ever tighter budget constraints, acquiring the desirable amenity of urban parkland becomes both more challenging to achieve and more at risk in the ranking of priorities. IUS professor Elise Bright has completed a duo-level study of methods cities use to obtain parkland. Texas cities of 20,000 or more inhabitants and U.S. cities of 50,000 and over were surveyed in order to rank the effectiveness of a variety of acquisition tools. Responses were received from 133 cities in thirty-one states. Dr. Bright, who was a private consultant before joining the Institute faculty last year, explained: "We wanted to look into this subject because in discussing mandatory dedication, ease- ments, and other methods with city offi- cials over the years it became apparent ~t there is confusion about means cities ,~~ay use to acquire parkland. Many tech- niques are available to cities, but some are little known, and sometimes officials are uncertain about the legality of certain methods. We decided to see which methods are most used and how cities rank the methods they have used" In support of Dr. Bright's initial perceptions, by far the most widely used means of acquiring parkland is direct and straightforward, by fee simple title purchase. But surprisingly, the second most popular method was mandatory dedications. "The success of mandatory dedication was a revelation of this survey," Bright declared. "Those who used it ranked its effectiveness very highly. Ttus technique is especially important for areas with rapidly growing populations." Other methods used by cities include purchase of easements, donations, land 'uses, tax-delinquent properties and ~eclosures, and join[ purchase and land management agreements. One of the most important factors affecting a city's parkland holdings is whether or not the city has a plan for parks acquisition. Cities that have a plan and use it have been the most successful in acquiring parkland. Funds for land acquisition are obtained from many sources. The principal source is general tax revenues, but grant money provides an important secondary source. Other sources not nearly as widely used are special tax revenues, fees in lieu of land dedication, and other development impact fees. "We were surprised to fmd that fees to developers (fees in lieu and impact fees) accounted for nearly eight percent of the total," Dr. Bright added. "These figures were higher than we expected, and they show significant usage of these techniques." Bright also stated that some officials complained about the giving of floodplain land as required dedications. She noted, however, that this land is often the most desirable to have dedicated. The floodplain is usually the most scenic and heavily forested wildlife habitat in the urban area, is excellent for public walking and bicycling and is not well suited w building construction. "We did correlations and regressions with fifteen variables," professor Bright explained, "and we came up with some interesting and surprising conclusions. For example, we expected a positive relationship between per capita income and amount of parkland. We assumed wealthy communities would demand amenities such as parks and be able to pay for them. Instead, our survey revealed that the higher the income the fewer acres per person. The more accurate statement may be that because the wealthy can purchase their own private `parkland' in the form of clubs, and so forth, they are less supportive of public parks. We would conclude -and other income correlations froth the survey support this - that parks exist mainly to serve those who cannot afford large amounts of land of their own, and these are the people most likely to demand parks acquisition." According to the survey, middle-income cities have the greatest proportion of parkland per resident. In general, the parks research shows that at present citics arc too dependent on fee s~mplc purchase and all citics could benefit from using the wide array of acquisition techniques available to them. Particularly cities which are losing population could benefit from the non- purchase methods of acquiring land for parks. Above all, it is worthwhile to develop, adopt and use a comprehe :give parks plan. Econometric Model in Development Phase When he wanted a means to predict sales tax revenue, Plano's city manager, Thomas Muehlenbeck, turned to the Institute of Urban Studies and to the eco- nomics expertise of professor Rodney Hissong. "We're in the initial stages of constructing a statistical forecasting model for city level," Dr. Hissong explained. "The problems are [hat most available data sets are for state, county or CMSA level, and city level data can be misleading." To make projections for the city of Plano Dr. Hissong will use some "large- area" sources including statistics from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the Texas Employ- ment Commission. As for as existing city-level data, time series records of sales tax rebates are available as well as residential income data. "The trouble with local-level income and employment data in an area like the metroplex," Hissong explained, "is that residents of Piano may be employed in another city or may spend significant amounts of their income in another city and, conversely, sales in Plano are not exclusively to city residents." In order to determine how Plano is affected by changes at the CMSA level, Dr. Hissong's econometric model will use industry location quotients to augment local sales and income data. 1-iis ap- proach will be m look at all Curns located in Plano for the past twenty years and determine the average amoi~,n~ of output of a particular industry as a percent of ~~13r-'S ~s~~~l~i~v~ ,S~.PI~G l ~l ~a' iii v~ur v,~viriivr~ . PARKLAND DEDICATION-A viable method of ac- ordinance. quiring land for park development One important item that the Quimby Act points Many communities throughout the U.S. face the out is to generate public involvement in the problem of inadequate open space per capita. development of an ordinance. A{I groups including it is especially a problem in or near a metroplex elected officials, homeowners, environmental that is rapidly growing. Since most communities groups, municipal employees, attorneys and do not have the funding to purchase park proper- developers, should have a part in the creation of ty, they usually have to depend on bond elections an ordinance. Although most developers may be to acquire land for park purposes. If the bonds fail, initially opposed to parkland dedication, they can those communities remain deficient in park pro- be made aware of the escalating costs associated petty per capita. with providing parkland and that parks can be a One viable method of acquiring needed land for great benefit to their development. neighborhood or community parks is to establish Once an ordinance has been instituted, one an ordinance that would require residential sub- should be fair and somewhat flexible in the dedica- division developers to dedicate a portion of their tion process. For instance, in some cases one may proposed development for parks and recreation . be looking for flood plain for trails and linear parks purposes. In proposed subdivisions where there while in other cases, one may prefer non-flood is already adequate parkland, one may choose to plain property to develop other types of parks require the developer to pay cash in lieu of land. facilities. Also, if one has a cash in-lieu of require- Many cities in Texas have instituted such or- ment one may prefer cash to land in certain cases. dinances as a method of obtaining park property. Having a park master plan is also a great benefit All of these cities have adopted ordinances that when dealing with parkland dedication. A master are designed to meet the needs of their particular plan can give the needed direction on where future communities, and the amount of land or cash re- park sites are to be located. Developers will also quired varies from city to city. have more faith in the dedication process if the One state that feels parkland dedication is very community has a plan that is functional. important is California. California has developed In conclusion, parkland dedication is a viable a state act (The Quimby Act) to help local govern- method of acquiring land for park development. menns develop ordinances requiring residential Even though this concept has been tested in the developers to provide land or in-lieu fees for parks courts, a well written and instituted ordinance will and recreation purposes, generally hold its own in a court of law. A goal that The Quimby Act was established by the Califor- parks and recreation professionals in the state of nia Legislature in 1965 and substantially amend- Texas may went to set is to adopt a state policy. ed in 1982. This act is very detailed and gives a This would be a key tool in providing a viable and community a step by step approach in drafting an consistent means of acquiring parkland for many Texas municipalities. Gary Birdsong (817) 265-4664 ~~~ONG PRpp~ SPECIALIZING IN SPORTSLIGHTING SCOTSCO PRO POWER PRODUCTS 351 Exchange Drive, Arlington, TX 76011-7807 JOHN COSTEN Branch Manager (817) 461.9900 or Toll Free: t-800.633-5351 SCOREBOARDS w~arvroe~ PARK & PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT SITE AMENITIES SPORTS EQUIPMENT MARQUEE SIGNS SMALL ELECTRONIC MESSAGE CENTERS n~ sl saa-s2oo 1-(8001-392-5050 6 TRAPS SPRING 1988 ~,~rr~~ E o~ SO%i~T 1/~~v~rr~Es ~~~7rC' ~,u(y 1 ~t 3 b JOINT VENTURES: A Tool For Maximizing The Resource Base During Hard Times by Tony Neitzler In these days of scarce resources and limited funding it has become increasingly more impor- tant for providers of recreation facilities to max- imize their development and maintenance dollars. One way to achieve this maximum use is to avoid duplication of facilities and to seek out other agen- cies and programs that may share in facility development and ongoing maintenance costs. Since 1980 the city of Abilene's Community Ser- vices Department has aggressively pursued this concept, developing facilities and relationships that have brought the community $7.5 million worth of new recreational opportunities even dur- ing the lean economic times that presently plague all of Texas. A number of interesting "joint- utilization" arrangements have been achieved and some of these approaches might benefit others seeking to continue facility and program develop- ment in the face of funding shortages and declin- ing revenues. In August 1980 representatives of the Abilene and the Abilene Independent School District met in a joint session to discuss ways to eliminate duplicate programming and facilities and to seek ways to maximize the use of existing and propos- ~d facilities. It was the consensus of both govern- .~g bodies that opportunities to achieve these goals were possible and a study group was established to examine the issue in greater detail. As a result of the subsequent study it was felt that significant opportunities were available and that both entities should commit to the joint-utilization concept. The city council and school board formal- ly adopted the concept of entering "... into a joint school-community planning venture ... to cultivate a spirit of cooperation between the city and school administrations in order that tax dollars not be wasted by duplicate services." Staffs of each entity were instructed to open lines of communication and to maintain them. Ad- ministrators were also asked to develop pro- cedures for reaching shared use agreements when overlapping services were found. Ultimately a flexible framework for agreements to share facilities was developed and it is in use today. The first facility developed on the basis of this concept was the Lee Athletic Complex anine- field soccer-football complex built by the city on school district land adjacent to an existing elemen- tary school and neighborhood park. Costs were shared based upon district land contributions and the city's labor costs. Lee School property eventually became the location for a new Abilene Boys Club, too, a result of a three-way joint utilization arrangement bet- ween the city, school district and Abilene Boys Club, Inc. This move eliminated the need for the city to provide a recreation center in this neighborhood, provided the school district with dressing rooms for teams using the athletic com- plex and saved the Boys Club significant land ac- quisition costs. Since 1982 when the complex first opened, a jogging track has been constructed by the school district and a new playground has been installed by the city. The result has been one of the most heavily used facilities in Abilene with an estimated 200,000 user visits each year. Encouraged by this initial success the city and school district have developed a similar, though smaller, athletic complex on the other side of the community on the site of one of the district's mid- dle schools. Agreements have also been developed to enable the city to use four elemen- tary school gymnasiums during the summer months for recreation programming and an ex- isting, high school facility is being used year-round to provide special recreational and educational programming for handicapped children. The city also intends to use the kitchen facilities in this school during the summer of 1988 to prepare lun- ches for children participating in the City's Sum- mer Playground Programs at four other centers. The joint-utilization concept has also resulted in the development of jogging and fitness courses at two school sites and in this case the city, school district, and P.T.A. shared the development cost. .. Tninn nnrn-~n ....... Instill another variation, a land developer who was required to provide a floodwater detention facility participated in the construction of athletic fields in the detention structure itself to be shared by the pity's recreation programs and the school district's athletic program. The community services department has not been content to confine the sharing of resources to just city-school resources. The department pro- vided four acres of land in a relatively undeveloped municipal park to the Abilene YMCA for construc- tion of a $3 million dollar YMCA facility complete with swimming pools that are used by the A.I.S.D. as well. In another venture, a land developer needing street access to private property has join- ed forces with the State Highway Department and the city to build the street across park land pro- viding much needed access and off-street park- ing for the park in the process. The city also teamed up with the Texas Highway Department, the local Chamber of Commerce and the United States Air Force to jointly develop a landscaped boulevard entrance to Dyess Air Force Base. The local Senior Citizens Nutrition Program shares many facilities with the recreation division, the Abilene-Taylor County Public Health Unit pro- vides health services from one of the city's recrea- tion centers, and the local Community Action Pro- gram uses office space in a recreation center. All of these projects and joint-use activities are carried out within carefully drawn development and maintenance agreements, usually allocating on-going maintenance costs in proportion to level of use among the participants. These agreements have been so successful that the city and school district now have two additional athletic complexes in the planning stages, and a new project involy- ingthe city and the combined Rotary Clubs Inter- national of Abilene is just getting underway. A commitment to shared use of facilities and costs has proven itself an effective method for con- tinuing to provide new facilities even in hard times. In Abilene at least, new applications of the joint- utilization concept continues to stretch the public dollar in new ways. Perhaps other communities can gain similar advantages from this kind of pro- gramming. Carefully planned and coordinated joint-use facilities can work for everyone. Neitzler is assistant to the director of com- munity services for the City of Abilene. PEARCE &PEARCE, INC. P. O. DRAWER 2270 - 419 S. COIT ST. FLORENCE, SOUTH CAROLINA 29503 CALL TOLL FREE INSIDES. C.-I-B00-322-1255 OU'iSIDF. S. C.-I-SW-222-6491 REC- RECREATION ACCIDENT /NSURANCE JF.BB POTTF:RFIF.LD l ~ R Mme;, "I can turn Security IM Problems into handsome Profit Centers:' Whatever your type of _ recreational facility I can show you how to provide security :~ $ ~ ~ _ for customers' ~ ' ~ ~ ' ~~_ ~~ ' belongings and < f 7 turn a profit at the same time. < '~ ! t ~ ~~ STATESMAN Baked Enarrrel Lockers Asa 'locker man' _ ~ ,'~ MiNi-CHECK I can help you Far9rwYPersondE"ears equip your facility with d ,-'-- ----- s. security lockers to fit your nee L ' ~ I'm here to provide solutions to your security problems, handle ~ ~ !~ I< is ~~, all your service needs and offer ~ , ~ ,~, ~, you a hand in friendship. ~ ~+ And, it's all backed by " American's reputation for t ! unmatched product quality and - ~ ~ service excellence. ) ~ Call or write John Bassinger, 4200 Gus Thomasson, Suite 117, Mesquite, TX 75150 214/270-6434 AMBASSADOR ~~~ SYarc~ess Steel Lockers ~~ American Locker Security Systems, Inc. P.O. Box 489 Jamestown, NY 14702-0489 TReaS SPRING 1988 15