Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutParks and Rec Advisory Board-Agenda Packets-1/4/1993 (2)~~~~ a fah Cl~NA. C `l/N city of 1 Texas PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT ~s e AGENDA PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD MEETING Monday, February 1, 1993 City Park Annex 7.00 p.m. 5109 Bransford Rd. CALL TO ORDER 1. Approval of January 4, 1993 minutes. 2. Discussion of the point scoring analysis for the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department park grant and its relationship to four park sites. Presentation by BO Bass of Schrickel, Rollins and Associates. 3. Discussion and consideration of facility improvements to Pleasant Run Park. 4. Update on the upcoming youth sports season: A) Soccer B) Baseball C) Softball 5. Discussion and consideration of adopting a policy for naming Parks and Recreation sites and facilities. 6. Discussion and consideration of naming the park site located in the Mill Creek subdivision 7. Update on Parks and Recreation Department projects: A) Naming of Pleasant Run Park B) Update on meeting facilities and policies C) Recreation brochure D) Hiring Parks and Recreation employee E) Park Ordinance F) New phone numbers ADJOURN 5205 Bransford Road P.O. Box 185 Colleyville, Texas 76034 /0~7\ BGC OCQi ®t-a8-~3 PARRS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 4, 1993 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Alan Linford called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. on Monday, January 4, 1993. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Alan Linford, Gail Mills, Mike Billings, Jack Hartnett, Yvonne Hatton, Jim Hoff, Dave Draz, Assistant City Manager and Sharon Curry, Recreation supervisor ABSENT: Paul Vigiletti, Curtis Hamilton APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes were amended as follows: Item #3: Gail Mills report on the Natatorium should read: "...location will be off Pool Road...Some issues discussed were community access, races, handicap ramps..." Item #5: Jim Hoff recommended including his comments that he does not think the City should pay for trees on Mr. Scott's property until the upcoming election determines if funding will be available for lighting at the new site which would eliminate the current problem. JIM HOFF MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS AMENDED. MIKE BILLINGS SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH PASSED BY A UNANIMOUS VOTE. 1. NAMING OF PARK SITE LOCATED ON PLEASANT RUN ROAD After much discussion by the Board concerning various names for the site and several citizens in the area expressing concerns over naming the park after an individual, it was the consensus of the Board to submit the name "Pleasant Run Park" to the City Council for approval. 2. DISCUSSION OF ATHLETIC FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE UPCOMING BASEBALL SEASON. Dave Draz briefed the Board on the facilities improvements requested by the baseball association at a recent meeting in which the City and Association discussed their concerns about flooding, drainage and field conditions. The construction of an additional field to accommodate anticipated growth was also discussed. He reported the City Manager has committed $25,000 to the project, and the City is committed to working with the association. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Minutes of January 4, 1993 Page 2... 3. UPDATE ON DEVELOPMENT OF THE PARR SITE LOCATED IN THE MILL CREEK SUBDIVISION Dave Draz reported there will be a meeting on Wednesday, January 13 to discuss the plans. At that time they will enter the local and state review process. Yvonne Hatton stated no action has been taken on naming the park at this time and asked the Board to give suggestions to her. 4. UPDATE ON THE 92-93 BASKETBALL PROGRAM Sharon Curry reported the basketball program has grown by 82 players from the 92 season and from 33 to 45 teams. The largest increase is in the girls program which grew from 24 players to 85. For the first time the program has reached maximum capacity and not all players registering after the registration deadline were able to be placed on teams. (Appendix I) The Board held a discussion regarding the overlapping of seasons, and better utilization of available facilities. It was the consensus of the Board that all athletic association presidents be required to submit season dates for consideration at a joint meeting with the city and a master schedule be worked out to eliminate as much overlap as possible. 5. DISCUSSION OF TEXAS PARRS AND WILDLIFE GRANT APPLICATION FOR CITY PARR Dave Draz reported that Shrickel, Rollins & Associates (SRA) has been hired by the City to do an analysis of the grant funding potential for various park projects. The conclusion of SRA is that City Park if submitted today, would score 87 points based on including the tennis center (25 points) being a major first time recreational opportunity, playground acres and multipurpose court. He reported interlocal agreements and cooperative sharing are critical to a competitive grant application, along with showing cash and/or donations, ADA compliance and mainstreamming the disabled population. He stressed to the Board that City Park project is larger than the grant application itself, and the application would be structured to gain the highest possible point score. Parks & Recreation Advisory Board Minutes of January 4, 1993 Page 3.... 6. OTHER CONCERNS Yvonne Hatton reported January 26 has been designated as design day for the creative playground and encouraged all Board members to attend. Jim Hoff made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:30 p.m. Mike Billings seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted: Sharon Curry Recreation Supervisor Approved by: Dave Draz Assistant City Manager Parks and Recreation Board February 1, 1993 Staff Briefing TP&WD Point Scoring Analysis for Four Potential Park Sites Back rg ound In October, the City Council approved the expenditure of funds to analyze several park (or possible park) sites for their potential as grant applications for matching funding. The sites included; City Park, Sparger Park; Kimzey Park; and Bransford Park. Analysis Schrickel Rollins and Associates (SRA) collected data on the sites and prepared the attached scoring analyses. These analyses identify the number of points that each project would score if certain facilities and features were included in the grant application. It is important to remember that the grant application scoring process is fairly complex and relates to the state's needs assessment for the region and area as defined in the Texas Outdoor Recreation Plan (TORP). As indicated in the summary letter, only City Park would score enough points to receive a grant. However this is based on a significant level of funding being available to match as local contribution. Because of the recent tax election, these funds will not be available in the immediate future. Sparger Park Extension, which is 21 acres of land along Little Bear Creek behind the Saddlebrook subdivision, is the next best current grant possibility. The initial grant scoring analysis indicates that it is borderline, but if some recommendations were taken it's potential could be enhanced. At this point the owner of the land has offered it in writing and the City is completing an exhibit that would allow the development of a conceptual plan. The final two sites analyzed, Kimzey Park Extension and Bransford Park currently have significant issues that keep them from being good park grant applications. Bo Bass with Schrickel Rollins and Associates will be at the Parks and Recreation Board meeting to present the findings and participate in discussion with the Board. Recommendation It is recommended that the Board review the attached analyses and direct staff to further research the possibility of submitting a grant application for the Sparger Park Extension. Schrickel, Rollins and Associates, Inc. La~~dscape :ire hiteclure • Plannin); • 6i);ineerin,t; January 7, 1993 Mr. David I. Draz, Jr. Assistant City Manager City of Colleyville P.O. Box 185 Colleyville, Texas 76034 RE: TP&WD Point Scoring Analysis for Four Potential Park Sites Dear David: V~ctur VV. Ba~tcr, :AFL ~ Kent E. Bosley, ALA Joseph E. Bradley, PE Terry T. Cheek, ASLA Terry E. Cullende r Dino I. Ferralli, PE Damel B. Hartman, PE Mark C. Ha~c hel, ALA Sanford P. LaRue, Ir., PE Hershel Lindly, ANA Albert W. Rollins, PE Gene Schrickel, FASLA Larry D. Slone, PE This submittal represents partial completion of the conditions our Service Agreement (dated October 21, 1992) concerning the above referenced work. The sole remaining work element relates to attending a meeting with either the Park Board and/or City Council in order to present the results of this effort. Accompanying this transmittal is one report for each of the four sites studied. Each details a forecasted score, a score range, recommendations for score improvement and a statement of opinion concerning the site's overall grant competitiveness. The following is a synopsis of the forecasted scores of each site compared to the minimum funded score of the most recent (January 31, 1992) TP&WD grant round: Park Site Forecasted Score Range Forecasted Score Recent Minimum Funded Score City Park 77 to 93 87 79 Sparger Park Extension 62 to 83 74 79 Kimzey Park Extension 32 to 69 69 79 Bransford Park Non-viable grant Non-viable grant NA The Texas Parks & Wildlife Commission is scheduled to meet on January 22, 1993 to determine grant awards for the July 31, 1992 program round. Anew minimum funded score will be established at that time and should be used by you as a new point of reference for assessing the competitiveness of these park sites. But, please remember that each grant round 1161 Corporate Drive West • Suite 200 • Arlington, Texas 76006 • (817) 649-32161Metro 640-8212/FAX (817) 649-7645 Page Two January 7, 1993 Re: TP&WD Point Scoring Analysis is viewed independently in terms of the number and quality of grants submitted, therefore, variability in minimum scores is inevitable. The average minimum funded score over the past eleven grant rounds is 72. Please contact me concerning your desire for a meeting to present our findings to the Park Board and/or City Council. I will not be available for a Wednesday night meeting during the months of January or February due to a previous commitment. Thank you for the opportunity to be of service. Sincerely, SCHR KEL, ROLLINS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Ogden "Bo" Bass, AICP Urban Planner Enc. (4) Schrickel, Rollins and AssO~iates, Inc. CITY PARK ;' TP&WD PARK GRANT SCORING POTENTIAL City of Colleyville A. FORECASTED POINT SCORE FOR CITY PARK GRANT PROJECT • Forecasted Score: 87 ~ • Range of Forecasted Score: 77 to 93 B. TREND OF MINIMUM REQUIRED PROJECT POINT SCORE Mean Sample Total Total Minimum Grant # Projects # Projects °Io Projects Score Period Submitted Funded Funded Funded 1987 - 1992 475 253 53°Io 72 • Lowest percentage projects funded: 31 °Io • Highest percentage projects funded: 100% • Lowest minimum required project score: 60 • Highest minimum required project score: 82 • Projection of Future Minimum Required Point Score: 76 to 77 (mean of four estimation methods) City Park TP&V1'll CRAIV'1' PO'rGNT1AL 12/11/92 Schrickel, Rollins and Associates, Inc. C. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MOST COMPETITIVE POINT SCORE 1. The tennis center must qualify as a "first time recreational opportunity" of its type within the sponsor's service area. Tennis center must be the focus of the project with most of it, if not all, being developed with assistance from this grant. This will score the project 25 points. 2. One hundred percent of both the local cash match and TP&WD cash match must be spent towards "Basic Recreational Facilities Costs." All costs for support improvements such as entry roads, parking, site lighting and possibly the tennis center pro-shop must be met with non-grant related monies. This will score the project 25 points. , 3. A formal joint usage, maintenance and/or participation agreement between the City and the Grapevine-Colleyville Independent School District must be executed. This agreement must be specific to City Park and detail what G- CISD program(s) will be conducted at the site. For example: high school tennis team practice on a regular basis at a predetermined non-peak citizen usage time for the tennis center. This will score 4 to 7 points. 4. A formal joint usage, maintenance and/or participation agreement between the Cities of Colleyville and Grapevine (or some other city) must be executed. The agreement must be specific to City Park and could take the form of an exchange of Council resolutions. This will score the project Z to 3 points. 5. Donations of land and/or cash from the private sector will score the project 1 to 5 points. 6. The project should provide innovative recreational opportunities for persons in excess of legal requirements. The proposed playground should be designed with the "main streaming" of disabled and non-disabled users. Contact should be made with Special Education officials with the G-CISD to determine their interest in supporting such a facility. Site specific programming agreements between the City and the G-CISD would be beneficial. In addition, some type of programming could be considered that includes the tennis center and/or other site amenities. This will score the project 1 to 2 points. i City Yark TI'&N'U GRANT PUTEN'I'IAL 12/11/92 Schrickel, Rollins and Associates, Inc. ~~ D. ESTIMATED PROJECT CASH CONSTRUCTION VALUE $1,000,000 (Land Cost, State & Local Cash Match) __($250,000) (Land Value) $ 750,000 (State & Local Cash Match) $ 750,000 Total Project Cash Value 112 00 A&E, Geotechnical, Topo~ranhic Fees $ 637,500 TOTAL PROJECT CASH CONSTRUCTION VALUE E. PRELIMINARY TABULAR SUMMARY (Grant and Non-Grant Items, Total Cost) (Source: City Park Master Plan of Development, ColleWille, Tezas, Schrickel, Rollins and Associates, Inc., 1990). 1. GRANT ITEMS (Basic Recreational Facilities) ITEM ESTIMATED COST • Tennis Center $ 696,000 (Control-concession-dressing bldg, mall, landscape, courts, lights, shade shelters, retaining walls) • Misc. Recreational Improvements 101 000 (Basketball court, playground, picnic units, benches) GRANT ITEMS SUBTOTAL $ 797,000 City Park TP&WD GKAN7' I'O'1'EN1'IAL 12/] 1/92 ' Schrickel, Rollins and Associates, Inc. 2. NON-GRANT ITEMS (Support Improvements) ITEM • Earthwork • Concrete Parking Lot (Approx. 1/2 of parking) • Flatwork Paving • Storm Sewer • Utilities • Landscape Development • Security Lighting NON-GRANT ITEMS SUBTOTAL: GRANT PROJECT COST TOTAL: 3. TOTAL COST ESTIMATED COST $ 69,000 $ 110,500 $ 83,000 $ 135,000 ~ $ 5,000 $ 51,000 8 000 $ 461,500 $1,258,500 $ 1,258,500 Grant Project Total ~ 637,500 Total Grant Project Cash Construction Value $ 621,000 Cost to be funded in addition to Grant City Park TP&WD GRANT 1'OTEN'CIAL 12/11/92 Schrickel, Rollins and Associates, Inc. F. CONCLUSION City Park has excellent potential as a TP&WD park grant project if 'the recommendations listed in C above are addressed. City Park TPR WD GRANT POTEN'T'IAL 12/I 1/92 Schrickel, Rollins and Associates, Inc. SPARGER PARK EXTENSION TP&WD PARK GRANT SCORING POTENTIAL City of Colleyville A. FORECASTED POINT SCORE: Forecasted Score: 74 Range of Forecasted Score: 62 to 83 B. TREND OF MINIMUM REQUIRED PROJECT POINT SCORE Sample Total Total Grant # Projects # Projects % Projects Period Submitted Funded Funded 1987 - 1992 475 253 53% • Lowest percentage projects funded: 31% • Highest percentage projects funded: 100% • Lowest minimum required project score: 60 • Highest minimum required project score: 82 Mean Minimum Score Funded 72 • Projection of Future Minimum Required Point Score: 76 to 77 C. Project Description: The acquisition of approximately 21 acres of land on the south side of the main stem channel of Little Bear Creek. The site is linear in shape conforming to the flow line of the creek and the rear lot lines of homes built within the adjacent Saddlebrook Subdivision. The site represents an opportunity to provide a linkage between the existing Sparger Park and, with some additional land acquisition, Mill Creek Park. The Schrickel, Rollins and Associates, Inc. effective connection to Sparger Park is limited only by providing a means for park users to cross Bedford Road at the Little Bear Creek bridge. The d connection with Mill Creek Park is more complicated because of the need to acquire land that connects with the S.H. 26 R.O.W., and providing a safe means for users to cross that busy highway. The property is being donated to the City and has a total donation value of $210,000 (21 acres @ $10,000/acre). Proposed improvements include a multi- purpose trail, an interpretative trail and security lighting. D. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INCREASING POINT SCORE 1. The project area for the grant should include the existing Sparger Park site. This will allow the local match value along with the State's grant amount to be used to add to or enhance improvements at Sparger. 2. All of the local project match value ($210,000) should be allocated for the exclusive development of "Basic Recreational Facilities Costs." Costs for security lighting improvements should be met by funds and/or services outside of the grant project value. 3. The development of a basketball court and a tennis court within existing Sparger Park. 4. Providing a playground within the 21 acres outside of the existing Sparger Park site. 5. The approval of a joint usage, maintenance, and/or participation agreement between the City and the G-CISD. 6. The approval of a joint usage, maintenance, and/or participation agreement between the City and an adjoining municipality. E. CONCLUSION The Sparger Park Extension Project has good potential to receive TP&WD grant funding. It will require addressing all of the recommendations listed above to increase its point score. The project's potential would be futher enhanced if some means of connection could be provided between it and Mill Creek Park Schrickel, Rollins and Associates, Inc. KIMZEY PARK EXTENSION A. TP&WD PARK GRANT SCORING POTENTIAL City of Colleyville FORECASTED POINT SCORE: 0 B. Forecasted Score: 69 Range of Forecasted Score: 32 to 69 TREND OF MINIMUM REQUIRED PROJECT POINT SCORE Mean Sample Total Total Minimum Grant # Projects # Projects % Projects Score Period Submitted Funded Funded Funded 1987 - 1992 475 253 53% 72 • Lowest percentage projects funded: 31% • Highest percentage projects funded: 100% • Lowest minimum required project score: 60 • Highest minimum required project score: 82 • Projection of Future Minimum Required Point Score: 76 to 77 C. Project Description: The expansion of an existing 7.86 acre public park site with an additional 11.377 acres. The total park site will contain approximately 19.23 acres. The site is located within the Longwood Estates at Ross Downs Estates residential subdivision generally located in the northwestern potion of the City. The park provides a connection between Melanie Drive (a residential collector street) with the main stem of Big Bear Creek. It represents an excellent opportunity to allow park users, as well as local homeowners, access to the Big Bear Creek floodplain environment. Schrickel, Rollins and Associates, Inc. Existing recreational site improvements within the 7.86 acre portion include a one acre pond, jogging trail, picnic area, playground and ballfield backstop. Proposed improvements will include amulti-purpose trail, an interpretative trail, pavilion, playground area, parking and security lighting. The 11.377 acre extension has been donated to the City with an estimated donation value of $10,000 per acre for a total of $113,770. D. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INCREASING POINT SCORE 1. All of the local project match value ($113,770) should be allocated for the exclusive development of "Basic Recreational Facilities Costs." Costs for parking and security lighting improvements should be met by funds and/or services outside of the grant project value. 2. Expand the project site to include additional area along Big Bear Creek and link to Grapevine's existing park site immediately downstream. 2. The development of a basketball court. 3. The project area for the grant should include the entire 19.23 acre existing and proposed park site. This will allow for the effective distribution of proposed improvements as well as the potential for enhancing existing facilities within the site's developed portion. This will present the TP&WD staff with a larger park site with a greater diversity of recreational opportunities. This will not gain additional points for the grant directly, but could help to create a more positive impression that this park has the capacity to serve users throughout the City and not just within the immediate neighborhood. E. CONCLUSION The Kimzey Park Extension Project has below average potential as a TP&WD park grant as it is currently configured. It will likely be viewed as a neighborhood level pazk with an accordingly limited service azea. Its potential would be greatly improved if it could be expanded to contain more of the main stem of Big Bear Creek and could be linked to the City of Grapevine's Big Bear Creek Nature Preserve and Park System site immediately down stream. Schrickel, Rollins and Associates, Inc. BRANSFORD PARK TP&WD PARK GRANT SCORING POTENTIAL City of Colleyville Bransford Park does not represent a viable TP&WD pazk grant project. Its small size (1.2 acres) prohibits the development of any effective level of outdoor recreational opportunities supported by the TP&WD grant program. PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT STAFF BRIEFING AGENDA ITEM #3 SOCCER association members and city staff have held informal discussions on developing a list of what improvements should be proposed in the second phase development of Pleasant Run Park. STAFF recommends a committee be formed consisting of Park Board and Soccer Association board members to review the list of improvements. Staff also recommends the list be prioritized and the Park Board assist the Soccer association in providing the new amenities to the park site. A list of suggested improvements and their costs will be presented at the meeting. PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT STAFF BRIEFING AGENDA ITEM #4 SOCCER On January 15, staff met with Jim Hoff to discuss the upcoming spring soccer season and to specifically address facility improvements to the existing soccer fields. Two under six fields were eliminated during the construction of the new Pleasant Run Park site, and two new under six fields were necessary to replace the fields that were lost due to construction. Staff has met soccer's request and two new under six fields have been constructed. Jim's other major concern is parking. Because of limited parking space, patrons to the site have been parking along the fence. This creates havoc by causing congestion along the driveway as well as unsafe conditions for pedestrians that are crossing from the fields to the parking lot. In an effort to eliminate the congestion, the City will erect "No Parking - Violators Will Be Towed" signs along the fence. Attached is an itemized list of tasks to be completed by the Department before the season begins. BASEBALL AND SOFTBALL On January 18th, staff met with representatives from Baseball and Softball to discuss the following: 1) The Facilities Utilization Agreement. 2) The Operation of the Concession Stand. 3) Construction of New Fields. Facilities Utilization Agreement Both associations discussed and agreed on the importance of utilizing each field to its maximum. In an effort to utilize the fields to their maximum capacity, Baseball will be allocated the girls softball fields on Saturday when girls games are not scheduled. PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT STAFF BRIEFING AGENDA ITEM #4 CONT'D Concession Stand Both associations are very reluctant to operate the concession stand because there is not enough revenue generated to cover expenses. The associations, therefore, feel their options are: A. Each association pay for their own officials (in the past revenue generated from the concession stand paid for officials) . B. Contract the operation of the stand to a private vendor. These two issues will be discussed further on February 9th, when the representatives will meet. Construction of a New Field Staff informed the associations that the City will be unable to construct a new field. Attached is an itemized list of tasks to be completed by the Department before the season begins. - 2 - PREPARATION FOR SPRING SOCCER TASK LIST TASK PROJECTED COMPLETION DATE *Layout soccer fields per soccer Asso. specifications Jan. 29 *Set timer on lights to go off at 9:15 p.m. Call David Scott to inform him lights will be available to soccer Perform task on on Jan. 25. on Jan. 25. *Add two more handicap parking spaces as per soccer Asso. specifications. Feb. 1 *No parking signs on fence up the hill more visible. This is to accomplished by placing signs on posts. See if it is possible to get signs made that say: NO PARKING VIOLATORS WILL BE TOWED. Feb. 3 *Parking: make the drive path on the East end of the parking lot more narrow. D.F. will advise as to how to accomplish task. Also set up parking lot. Block off access to new park. Use signs, yellow construction tape etc. Feb. 10 *Move bleachers per D.F.'s specifications Feb. 11 *Paint concession stand Begins as soon as it drys *Call Pepsi to service drink machine. D.F. to accomplish Feb. 10 *Investigate possibility of a pay phone. D.F. to accomplish. Jan. 27 *Two more Aorta-cans. D.F. to accomplish Feb. 10 *Make field number 1 larger: both length and width Jan. 29 *Research the possibility of purchasing colored chalk (DF) Jan. 29 *Check breakers in concession (Mickey) *Remove soccer sign and repaint *Relocate pedestrain entrance at top of hill *Relocate water fountain Parks and Recreation Board February 1, 1993 Staff Briefing Consideration of a Policy for Naming Parks and Recreation Facilities Back rg ound The City has added several parks and recreation facilities recently which have required the adoption of a name for those facilities. The City will also be adding additional facilities and sites in the near future. To assist in this process many cities have written policies which helps guide the naming process. Analysis The staff has acquired policies from eight cities for initial consideration. After careful review it was determined that the City of Plano policy would provide the best basis for crafting an appropriate for the City of Colleyville. It appeared to be the most comprehensive and provided guidance in completing the initial name generation process. Staff has minimally re-worked the Plano policy and prepared the attached draft for consideration by the Parks and Recreation Board. The draft is primarily intended to serve as a solid model that can be discussed and altered as seen fit by the Board. Recommendation It is recommended that the Parks and Recreation Board review the draft policy, hold discussion, make any changes and adopt a policy for naming parks and recreation facilities and sites. NAMING OF PARKS AND RECREATION SITES ~i ~'.,~~~~'t~~~ , T AND/OR FACILITIES With the acquisition of numerous park sites, the Parks and Recreation Board has found it necessary to formulate guidelines to establish a policy of naming park sites and/or facilities. This will permit a consistent approach by future board members in selecting names from the same guidelines. In the past, names for sites have primarily been assigned with the themes of early settler families. Broadening of the list of categories and themes is vital in maintaining a greater flexibility in names of sites and facilities. The park or facility name should be easily utilized or displayed. It is best to avoid difficult spellings or pronunciations. Without display, the name will not be utilized to the fullest advantage, and the general public would probably associate the property with an irrelevant place, name, or nickname. Properties in city-wide usage will be remembered regardless of name. Names that are too long are difficult to display. WHO NAMES THE PARK SITES OR FACILITIES The Parks and Recreation Board has the final responsibility in naming park sites and recreation facilities.* The Parks and Recreation Director will prepare a list of a minimum number of possible names for the Parks and Recreation Board to consider. The Board will choose the most suitable name of a site from the list prepared by the Director, and any additional names added to the list by the Board. The name must be approved in two successive meetings by a simple majority of the Board. * Since the Parks and Recreation Board is primarily advisory in nature, any name approved by the Board should be brought before the City Council for ratification. Upon naming of a site, an appropriate sign or plaque will be erected by the Parks Department at a reasonable time determined by the Parks and Recreation Director. GUIDELINES FOR NAME SELECTION 1. Naming of Park Sites or Facilities for Living Persons - There are occasions when it seems appropriate to name a park in honor of a person. It should be one who has made a major contribution to the community, and/or has been instrumental in acquiring the area. In most instances, the person should be honored posthumously. (See note above.) NAMING OF PARKS AND RECREATION SITES AND/OR FACILITIES PAGE 2 2. Naming of Park Sites or Facilities after Elected Officials Naming of park sites or facilities after elected officials should be done only posthumously. Consideration should be given to an elected official only if they have made a major contribution to any level of government, community, and/or have been instrumental in acquiring site/facility or funds. 3. Naming of Park Sites or Facilities after Donors or Donations - A site or facility can be named after the donor of a site or facility. The donation of land or funds should be a minimum of 80 percent of the total cost of the site, project, or facility. Any gift stipulating that the facility or site be named after the donor should meet the minimum 80 percent of the total cost of the facility or site. If a gift meets these requirements and stipulates naming a site after a living person, then criteria #1 must be evaluated thoroughly. 4. Agreements with Civic Organizations of- Clubs - Any civic organization or club asking to sponsor a site or facility, in return for naming of a site after their club or name of their choosing, should meet the minimum 80 percent of the total cost of the site, project, or facility. If a club or civic organization wishes to provide labor for construction or improvements, a minimum of 75 percent of the total man hours for completing the development of 'a project site or facility must be provided by the club if a site is named according to the wishes of the group. An estimate of the total number of man hours for the project will be prepared by the Parks and Recreation Director for establishing the minimum of the total man hours. 5. Plaques and Markers - Plaques and/or markers will be used in recognizing groups or people who contributed to a site, Been though a -facility or site is not named after them. If the 80 percent minimum total cost of participation is met, or the 75 percent minimum total manhours are met, the marker will be provided by the Parks and Recreation Department. If the minimum requirements are not met, but if a group participates with 50 percent of the total cost of an item, site, or facility, or construction of an item, a plaque or marker will be installed but must be provided by the group. The type of plaque and mounting must be approved by the Parks and Recreation Department. No plaques or markers will be installed if the participation is less than the 50 percent total cost of the item, site, or facility, or 50 percent of the labor of construction or development. NAMING OF PARKS AND RECREATION SITES AND/OR FACILITIES PAGE 3 6. Naming of Sections of a Park or Facility - Sections of parks or facilities may be affixed a name which is different from that of the overall facility. For instance, a garden area in a park, a swimming pool in a park, or a meeting room within a facility. Reasons for renaming a section of a site or facility must meet the criteria of naming of a site. This includes a major contribution to the community, instrumental in acquiring the site or facility, minimum contribution requirements of money, or minimum labor for construction in development. 7. Changing of Parks or Facility Names - Names of park sites or facilities can be changed. There may be a park or parks that have names with no rhyme or reason, and may be referred to by location or nicknames. Renaming of such properties is sometimes appropriate. Happenings can and do cause changes to occur. An example of this is the assassination of President Kennedy that stimulated many name changes in parks. However, no park site or facility should be renamed for the sake of renaming a site. There must be a purpose in selecting a new name. If a site or facility is to be renamed, the name must be selected according to the guidelines for name selection. 8. Terminology and Classification of Names - Terminology - in naming sites, greenbelts, sports fields, swimming pools, natatoriums, and tennis centers, they should be names in identifying fashion. For instance, neighborhood and community parks should be distinguished by having a park name, playgrounds should be distinguished by having a name with playground in the name, greenbelts should have the word trail in the name, sports fields should contain should contain sports fields, swimming pools should contain the word pool, natatoriums should contain the word natatorium, and tennis centers should be named tennis centers. NAMING OF PARKS AND RECREATION SITES AND/OR FACILITIES PAGE 4 Classification - Following is a list of general classifications that will provide the suggested names for consideration by the Parks and Recreation Board. The Parks and Recreation Director will compile a list of a minimum of 10 possible names for selection by the Parks and Recreation Board. 1. INDIAN TRIBES 2. PLACES AND FEATURE NAMES Definable Area or Neighborhood Assumed Names Natural Phenomena or Feature Combination of Natural Phenomena and Place Name Horticultural Combination Horticultural and Place Name Rivers/Creeks/Drainage Basin 3. HISTORIC EVENTS Westward Expansion Battles Explorations Treaty Signing Discoveries First Occurences 4. GREAT IDEAS Friendship Independence Peace Bicentennial 5. GREAT CAUSES Suffrage United Nations Equal Rights Women's Liberation 6. PERSON'S W@ME Donors Historic Group Local War Heroes National War Heroes Park Board Members ~ NAMING OF PARKS AND RECREATION SITES AND/OR FACILITIES ! PAGE 5 7. PERSON'S NAME State Official Local Official National Official Civilian National Heroes Names should be selected from within the above categories and be balanced among those categories. The selection of names from the various categories should be reviewed within three years of the initiation of this policy to evaluate the possible effects of one category dominating the names of park sites or facilities. Parks and Recreation Board February 1, 1993 Staff Briefing Consideration of a Name for the Mill Creek Park Site Background With the Mill Creek Park site project currently underway it is necessary for the Parks and Recreation Board to consider recommending a name for the park. Initially this site had been referred as Mill Creek Park. When the City held public hearings in preparing for a grant application a citizen addressed the City Council about considering another name, primarily because of the historical confusion that could result with the name Mill Creek Park being used to describe an area actually located on Little Bear Creek. The Parks and Recreation Board initially sent this issue to the Park Development Committee for Mill Creek for their consideration. The Committee came up with the following names for consideration: Colleyville Nature Center Colleyville Natural Area Colleyville Green Belt Colleyville Green Way Park Colleyville Preservation Center Ponds at Bear Creek Little Bear Creek Park Colleyville Wildlife Center Colleyville Trails Park Beaver Park Colleyville Nature Sanctuary Cottonwood Park Glade Park Mill Valley Park Recommendation The Committee concluded that the preferred names were Colleyville Nature Center or Colleyville Preservation Center. However, the Committee was equally interested in sharing the entire list of names with the Parks and Recreation Board for discussion and consideration. PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT STAFF BRIEFING AGENDA ITEM #7 A) NAMING OF PLEASANT RUN PARK Attached is a resolution indicating that the City Council approved the name of Pleasant Run Park as the name for the new soccer complex located on Pleasant Run Road. B) MEETING FACILITIES Due to the increased use of meeting facilities and the growing number of meetings planned without being scheduled through the Department the building use policy has been strictly enforced. The procedure for reserving a facility is present a $50.00 refundable deposit to the Department. The deposit serves as a security deposit. The group will be issued a key a day in advance of their meeting date and the key is to be returned to the Parks and Recreation Headquarters the next working day. If the facility is not left in a clean and orderly manner at the conclusion of the meeting, the user group will be notified that the check is being deposited and a clean up charge will be deducted. C) RECREATION BROCHURE Enclosed in your packet is the 1993 spring and summer activities brochure - family, adults, children, teens, seniors. Many thanks go out to Sharon for another job well done! D) HIRING PARKS AND RECREATION EMPLOYEE The 92-93 parks and recreation operating budget recognizes funding for a new parks maintenance employee. The Department is presently interviewing candidates. The Department anticipates the new employee will be on board February 22. E) PARK ORDINANCES The City Attorney is presently reviewing the park ordinances that were prepared by the Park Board. F) NEW PHONE NUMBER GOOD NEWS! The Department has three new phone numbers. They are 656-PARK(7275), 656-7283, and metro 498-4749. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 RESOLIITION R-93-855 A RESOLIITION APPROVING COIINCIL ACTION IINDER BIISINE88 AT THE REGIILAR COUNCIL MEETING OF JANIIARY 19, 1993 WHEREAS, Council has taken action on certain items on the agenda under Business, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEYVILLE, TEXAB: Sec. 1. THAT the agenda decisions approved by the Council action , under Business this date and not otherwise adopted by Ordinance and/or separate Resolution, as follows are hereby adopted: 1. THAT the City award and accept the Bid of 5.7415% from Clayton Brown & Associates for the sale of $2,855,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 1993 of i the City. 2. THAT the City settle the Northeast Properties ; Lawsuit by refunding impact fees on the same basis as the Builder's Association Lawsuit on the lots on which Northeast Properties claims it is entitled to a refund provided: I, a. No refund has previously been made on lot; b. The plaintiff deliver a release or assignment ~! from the person or entity which paid the fee in a form approved by the City Attorney for all lots except Lot 5, Block 10, Lot 4, Block 1, Lot 2, Block 1, and Lot 6, Block 2; ', c. That Northeast Properties and Raman Chandler execute an indemnity agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney indemnifying the city from any claim related to the impact fees j on the lots. 3. THAT the park on Pleasant Run Road be named "Pleasant Run Park". AND IT IS 80 RESOLVED. Passed by a vote of ~ to O on the ~ day of , 1993. ATTEST: J an Harris, CMC City Secretary Y OF COLLEYVILLE l ,~~ Richard Newton Mayor I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1? 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 RESOLUTION R-93-855 A RESOLUTION APPROVING COUNCIL ACTION UNDER BUSINESS AT THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF ', JANUARY 19, 1993 WHEREAS, Council has taken action on certain items on the agenda under Business, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEYVILLE, TERAS: ~ Sec. 1. THAT the agenda decisions approved by the Council action under Business this date and not otherwise adopted by Ordinance and/or separate Resolution, as follows are hereby adopted: 1. THAT the City award and accept the Bid of 5.7415% from Clayton Brown & Associates for the sale of $2,855,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 1993 of the City. 2. THAT the City settle the Northeast Properties Lawsuit by refunding impact fees on the same basis as the Builder's Association Lawsuit on the lots on which Northeast Properties claims it is entitled to a refund provided: a. No refund has previously been made on lot; b. The plaintiff deliver a release or assignment from the person or entity which paid the fee in a form approved by the City Attorney for all lots except Lot 5, Block 10, Lot 4, Block 1, Lot 2, Block 1, and Lot 6, Block 2; c. That Northeast Properties and Raman Chandler execute an indemnity agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney indemnifying the city from any claim related to the impact fees on the lots. 3. THAT the park on Pleasant Run Road be named "Pleasant Run Park". AND IT IS SO RESOLVED. Passed by a vote of ~" to ~_ on the IQ~ day of , 1993. ATTEST: QJ~-vy J an Harris, CMC City Secretary CI~Y~OF COLLEYVILLE /~ ~ ~~(! L""/ ichard Newton Mayor