Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutParks and Rec Advisory Board-Agenda Packets-1/10/1994GitY of Texas PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA JANUARY 10, 199 CITY PARK ANNEX CALL TO ORDER INTRODUCTION OF NEW MEMBERS APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 6, 1993 MINUTES ELECTION OF OFFICERS 5109 BRANSFORD ROAD PRESENTATION: LONGWOOD DEVELOPMENT PARK -DAVID BAGWELL DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF ATHLETIC USER FEE DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF UTILIZING VOLUNTARY PARK FUND FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TITLE SEARCH FOR POTENTIAL LAND DONATION DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF MILL CREEK DEDICATION OTHER CONCERNS ADJOURN I certify this agenda was posted at bulletin boards at City Hall. ~~ ~ Sharon L.. Curry, Recreatio pervisor a.m. on Friday, January 7, 1994 on the January 6, 1994 5205 Bransford Road P.O. Box 185 Colleyville, Texas 76034 (817) 656-8531 T ELECTION OF OFFICERS: City Ordinance # 0-89-719 establishing the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board requires that the Board hold annual election for the positions of Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Secretary. The Chairman shall be anon-voting member. Nominations and election will be held at this meeting. PRESENTATION: LONGWOOD DEVELOPMENT PARK: David Bagwell has requested to address the Board concerning the Longwood Development park. See attached information. DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF ATHLETIC USER FEE: During the 1993/94 budget process it was determined the Parks and Recreation Department would become responsible for 75 additional acres of park land during the next fiscal year, with no significant increases in staff or available funding. More than 40% of the total Parks and Recreation Department budget is expended for the maintenance of youth sports athletic facilities. $35,000 in Athletic User Fees were included in the budget to offset these costs. Staff will update at the meeting. DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF UTILIZING VOLUNTARY PARK FUND FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TITLE SEARCH: See attached memo from Jan Belcher, Assistant City Manager. DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF MILL CREEK DEDICATION: The dedication is scheduled for Saturday, February 26, 10:30 A.M. PARKS & RECREtl~ipl~ ADVISORY BOARD PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES MONDAY, DECEMBER 6, 1993 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Alan Linford called the meeting to order at 6:10 P.M. on Monday, December 6, 1993. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Alan Linford, Yvonne Hatton, Chuck Walton, Mike Billings, Pat Horn, Paul Vigiletti; Skip Keller, Parks and Recreation Coordinator, Sharon Curry, Recreation Supervisor ABSENT: Jack Hartnett INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUEST Chairman Linford introduced new Assistant City Manager Jan Belcher who briefed the Board on her background and stated she was looking forward to working with the Board and staff. APPROVAL OF MINUTES PAT HORN MADE A MOTION TO AMEND THE NOVEMBER 1, 1993 MINUTES TO REFLECT THE PRESENCE OF JACK HARTNETT AND TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS AMENDED. MIKE BILLINGS SECONDED THE AMENDMENT AND MOTION WHICH CARRIED BY A UNANIMOUS VOTE. DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF DONATION POLICY Chairman Linford stated the policy had been drafted based on the Board's previous discussions. Item #7 was amended to read "..The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board may accept all other donations. At the Board's discretion donations may be forwarded to the City Council for final approval." Item #11 was amended to read "A permanent location may be designated in each park site where donations will be recognized with the item donated, the name of the donor and the date." Item #12 was amended to read "Press releases may be issued..." PAT HORN MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE POLICY AS AMENDED. YVONNE HATTON SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH CARRIED BY A UNANIMOUS VOTE. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Minutes of December 6, 1993 Page 2... DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF PLANS FOR DEDICATION OF THE COLLEYVILLE NATURE CENTER. Skip Keller reported the Colleyville Nature Center should be finished by the end of the month. He suggested February 26 as a possible grand opening date. This would allow ample time for final clean up and finishing touches. Pat Horn suggested outgoing Park Board members be recognized at the ceremony. NO ACTION TAKEN DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF SIGN FOR CITY PARK ANNEX Skip Keller reported the City Manager has requested a uniform sign design for parks throughout the city. He recommended working with the Chamber Beautification committee to sponsor a contest for the sign design with divisions ranging between 1st grade and professionals and having nice prizes and cash to get nice designs. Board members agreed key elements, common throughout the park system, would give uniformity and identity. Mr. Keller will report back at the next meeting. DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF LIGHTING AT PLEASANT RUN SOCCER FIELDS Board members discussed the continuing problem of lighting at the Pleasant Run Soccer Fields. Board members agreed they have failed to be able to work out a solution after many meetings and compromises between Mr. Scott and the soccer association. As an advisory board they have gone way out to bring the two parties together. Utilizing only three banks of lights has created numerous safety hazards for players and created the potential for injury. Safety issues are a major concern. There have been confrontations with Mr. Scott which almost come to blows a few times over use of the southeast bank of lights. Members agreed that the City Council, as final arbitrator in these type situations, review the situation and make a final determination. Skip Keller made a recommendation that an ordinance be passed by the City Council limiting lighting in all city park facilities to coincide with the park curfew ordinance. CHUCK WALTON MADE A MOTION TO SEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE ISSUE OF THE LIGHTING WILL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE EXISTING PARK CLOSING ORDINANCE TO COINCIDE TIMEWISE WITH THE EXISTING ORDINANCE. PAUL VIGILETTI SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH CARRIED BY A UNANIMOUS VOTE. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Minutes of December 6, 1993 Page 3... Mike Gordy addressed the Board and presented a letter stating the Association's needs for the coming year. He also requested the City consider amending the current leash law to prohibit pets altogether at city parks during game days. He has had numerous requests from parents asking to ban pets in the parks because of the number of kids there during sporting events and the uncertainty of how pets and children will react. DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF UTILIZING VOLUNTARY PARK FUND FOR PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF SECURITY LIGHTING AT KIDSVILLE Staff presented pictures of proposed security lighting for Kidsville. The Board agreed to funding security lighting from the Voluntary Park Fund, however asked staff to present other possibilities and cost estimates at the next meeting. TABLED FOR FURTHER STUDY DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF YOUTH SPORTS USER FEES Youth Sports Association Representatives: Fred Parrish, '93 Football President Mike McElaney, 94 Football President Mike Grace, American Eagles Soccer Mike Gordy, Colleyville Soccer Assoc. James Taylor, Baseball Dan Eisner, Baseball Bill Carrol, Softball Alan Linford briefed the Board on the background of the user fee. The City Council has passed the budget with the concept of the fee and passed it back to the board for their comments and recommendation. Association comments were as follows: James Taylor: Work with other Boards to come up with a solution before passing the fee on to the kids; unfair to pass on to kids. They are trying to draw the kids back; revenues are down; it is easy to go someplace else where the fees are lower; has talked with the Rangers and they will help support some type of fundraising effort. "Together we are stronger than apart". ($70 per player) Mike Gordy: Not in favor of working together, their association strongly opposes the fee, citizens pay taxes for services and it is unfair and inappropriate to pay more because their children may use the parks more than other children; will continue to work with city and board to improve the Pleasant Run facility; does not feel they should be out soliciting money to cover the shortfall in the city budget ($45 per player) Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Minutes of December 6, 1993 Page 4... Dan Eisner: Agree with James, feel strongly that reduces incentive for volunteers, add fee parents and coaches think fields should be taken care of; don't give impression fee will take place of parents Fred Parrish: Football using limited amount of facilities for practice, games moved to CMS; space has decreased over time; they will loose a significant number of kids with user fee; competing with Keller, Grapevine, Coppell, it is difficult to pay more for less ($80 per player) Mike Grace: 60-70% of American Eagles non residents; already pay $10 more; don't add more' will hit select program hard; already costs $4-500 per season Mike Gordy: concerns over money going to general fund; will cost CSA $15-20,000 per year and have no say; wants input on use of fees; have no control; want control; against concept of taxing kids Bill Carroll: concerns with accountability; accounting; what will they see back? better fields, ready on time, maintained well? look at alternative ways to fund programs; sponsorship sign in lieu of user fee? ($50 per player) The consensus of Board members opposed the user fee; taxes kids without others; need alternatives although they don't want less service; community as a whole benefits when kids are involved. PAT HORN MADE A MOTION TO OPPOSE THE ADDITIONAL $10 REVENUE FOR ATHLETES AND TO STRONGLY OPPOSE A REDUCTION IN SERVICES IN ORDER TO ACCOUNT FOR $35,000 BUDGET SHORTFALL. CHUCK WALTON SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH CARRIED BY A UNANIMOUS VOTE. UPDATE ON PARK AND RECREATION PROJECTS Sharon Curry updated the Board on the Recreation Programs stating classes are going well; basketball season is beginning with 46 teams and close to 400 players; reported and new instructional league is being formed for Kindergartners and will update at the next meeting. Paul Vigiletti reported the community center committee will receive a final draft at the next meeting; being designed for the future; expressed concerns that no park department staff was represented on the committee. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Minutes of December 6, 1993 Page 5... Mike Billings and Yvonne Hatton reported Kidsville was highly successful; members are meeting at 9 AM every Saturday to finish up 16 picnic tables and encouraged everyone to come out and help. THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO DISCUSS, MIKE BILLINGS MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:00 P.M. CHUCK WALTON SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH CARRIED BY A UNANIMOUS VOTE. Colleyville Park and Recreation Advisory Board Longwood Estates at Ross Downs Agenda Item: January 10., 1994 The David Bagwell Company, developer of Longwood Estates at Ross Downs, and homebuyers in Longwood Estates wish the Advisory Board and City Staff to consider using park fiends already paid to the City of Colleyville (and to be paid to the City of Colleyville in the future) from Longwood and various phases of Ross Downs as follows: 1. to hire Suellen Thompson, Landscape Architect, to prepare a gen- eral plan for the Longwood park area and for additional improve- ments to the Kimzey park with input from area residents and according to direction of the Advisory Board and the City Staff; 2. upon acceptance of the plan by the Advisory Board, hire Suellen Thompson to prepare such detail drawings as necessary to imple- ment the first phase of the general park plan, using park funds paid to (and to be paid to) the City of Colleyville from Longwood and various phases of Ross Downs plus such park funds as may be obtainable from the State of Texas. ~.L~~~~~ 11LdTS`\+~~V 11d L1Ll C~V ~d:]l ]~9 .~'"gip.} r' y,,,• i' ~P ... ,~.~. LOU ifON /UA .Z"L.q~. ltlw.~000 Al 11M7 GOWN! 11057 OOMM7 -1y7(7 I-N 101N. MfA tl Y7 K. III.OO] K. /M.SN K. fors v7 au X71 wmn ~im7/K.) Lu 7 as 7.7] orpl v+tc u.ao .e. u.u K. 7s.:a ~e. PLAN ROSS DOIINS PXASRS I-VI ... LONC1IOO0 AT ROSS DO~lVS w nv CIfY OJ COIJJfI/Ll flltlt~MT C17UMf1; lIIAS r.snws WY~INIY ~ uwa55es re w u~ir n i ii an NI1tf. RW NqM n..5 µ-wW~ Wrrlr ..~-sw. Nc>nee~ ~w G~~Y of ® A Il~ Texas PLACE 1 Charles Walton 6320 Westcoat Colleyville, Texas 76034 H:485-1159/0:581-1288 Term: December 92-94 PLACE 4 Richard Hendler 2100 Highland Meadows Colleyville, Texas 76034 H:421-8164/0:817-421-8165 Term: December 93-95 PLACE 7 Steve Rahn 6709 India Court Colleyville, Texas 76034 H:817-481-4629 Term: December 92-94 update: 12/93 PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD Coordinator: Skip Keller Office: 656-7275 PLACE 2 Yvonne Hatton 307 W. McDonwell School Rd. Colleyville, Texas 76034 H:281-9262 Term: December 93-95 PLACE 3 Patrick Horn 2705 Jackson Court Colleyville, Texas 76034 H:545-2104/0:214-385-0680 Term: December 92-94 PLACE 5 Mike Billings 4900 Eversham Court Colleyville, Texas 76034 H:283-5864/0:214-615-3398 Term: December 92-94 PLACE 8 Raymond Brockie 1813 Arthur Colleyville, Texas 76034 H:545-7239/0:214-245-9411 Term: December 93-95 PLACE 6 Paul Vigiletti 604 Summertree Court Colleyville, Texas 76034 H:485-7417/0:355-1513 Term: December 93-95 P.O. BOX 185 COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS 76034 (817) 577-7575 MEMORANDUM To: Skip Keller, Parks & Recreation Coordinator From: Jan Belcher, Assistant City Manager Date: December 29, 1993 Subject: Use of Voluntary Park Fund Herman Smith has offered to donate land to the City along Little Bear Creek behind the Saddlebrook addition. This land is significant because it will allow us to develop a linear park with a trail that will ultimately tie into the trails system as envisioned in the parks master plan. The land is offered for free and will be put into the Bransford Parkland Trust until such time as we can request a grant from Texas Parks and Wildlife to develop it. We cannot accept the land, however, unless an environmental study and title search are done first. The level one environmental search costs $2,500 and will ensure that the land is environmentally safe for future development. The title search costs $60 and ensures that the City has a free and clear title to the property. Since the land is being donated, we have no legal justification for requiring the donor to provide these services. I would like for you to place this as an item on the next Parks & Recreation Board meeting agenda and request the Board approve these expenditures from the Voluntary Park Fund. Since one of the primary purposes of the fund is to acquire land and these expenditures must be made to take title to this land, the expenditure would seem fitting. Please let me know if you or the Board have any questions regarding this matter. MEMORANDUM To: Skip Keller, Parks & Recreation Coordinator From: Jan Belcher, Assistant City Manager Date: December 29, 1993 Subject: Use of Voluntary Park Fund Herman Smith has offered to donate land to the City along Little Bear Creek behind the Saddlebrook addition. This land is significant because it will allow us to develop a linear park with a trail that will ultimately tie into the trails system as envisioned in the parks master plan. The land is offered for free and will be put into the Bransford Parkland Trust until such time as we can request a grant from Texas Parks and Wildlife to develop it. We cannot accept the land, however, unless an environmental study and title search are done first. The level one environmental search costs $2,500 and will ensure that the land is environmentally safe for future development. The title search costs $60 and ensures that the City has a free and clear title to the property. Since the land is being donated, we have no legal justification for requiring the donor to provide these services. would like for you to place this as an item on the next Parks & Recreation Board meeting agenda and request the Board approve these expenditures from the Voluntary Park Fund. Since one of the primary purposes of the fund is to acquire land and these expenditures must be made to take title to this land, the expenditure would seem fitting. Please let me know if you or the Board have any questions regarding this matter. MEMORANDUM To: Parks & Recreation Board From: Jan Belcher, Assistant City Manager Date: January 7, 1994 Subject: Field Use Fees As you know, the City Council adopted a 93-94 budget with $35,000 in revenues coming from field use fees. In July of 1993, City Manager Bob Stripling wrote to all the youth athletic organizations informing them of that possibility and asking their assistance to come up with a viable solution. I know you have studied the issue at your December meeting, but that was before we had an opportunity to meet with the organizations to explain the facts and before we had an opportunity to prepare all the background information necessary for a decision to be ~~ made. For that, 1 apologize and ask that you accept the attached report, study it, discuss it at your January 10, 1994 meeting and reconsider the decision to be made. The user fees, whatever the form, must be assessed in this year's budget and need to be implemented as quickly as possible. If user fees are not implemented, some other approach (cutting the Parks & Recreation budget, supplementing the operating budget with Voluntary Park Fund revenues, etc) must be found to balance the budget. For that, your deliberation and recommendation are important to the City Council in order for them to make the best decision for all concerned. I thank you for the time and effort spent on this difficult decision and look forward to discussing this information with you at the January 10 meeting. Please feel free to call me before the meeting at 577-7575, Ext. 204 if you have questions. c: Bob Stripling Skip Keller MEMORANDUM To: Bob Stripling, City Manager From: Jan Belcher, Assistant City Manager f~ Date: January 6, 1994 Subject: User Fees -Youth Athletic Associations Background In May of 1993, the City Council adopted a five year financial plan. The 1993-94 City budget was written using the five year plan as a guideline to determine revenue and expense levels. In the 93-94 budget, additional revenues were identified as being necessary to maintain service levels in the Parks & Recreation Department. A total of 75 acres of park land in Pleasant Run Park, the Colleyville Nature Center and Kimzey Park has been added to park inventory since the 1992-93 budget was adopted. This represents an increase of 103%, for a total of 148 acres of park land. This staff report attempts to identify and weigh potential revenue sources and make a recommendation in order to implement the policy approved in the 1993-94 budget. Issues To maintain existing service levels in the Parks & Recreation Department, a decision must be made about a source for additional revenue. The following issues are important considerations: 1. Budget 2. Costs 3. Staffing 4. User Fee Philosophy 5. Fee Structure 6. Youth Athletic Associations 7. Parks ~ Recreation Board 8. Timing Page 2 These considerations are discussed below: Budget: During the 1993-94 budget process, City staff determined that additional revenue was needed in the Parks & Recreation budget to maintain service levels for existing and future park land. The City will be responsible for Pleasant Run Park, the Colleyville Nature Center and Kimzey Park, a total of 75 acres that were not included in the Parks inventory during the 1992-93 budget year. Due to the increased demand for services and a very limited amount of additional revenue available, the City Council adopted the budget with revenues of $35,000 identified as field use charges. That is approximately 8.5% of the 1993-94 Parks & Recreation Department budget of $412,255. Costs: In determining how the Parks & Recreation Department employees spend their time, it is estimated that approximately 75% of the available hours are spent working with youth athletic programs, most of which is spent maintaining fields for soccer, baseball, softball and football. A review of the 1992-93 budget was done to determine the costs associated with youth athletics. The cost estimate is shown as follows: Personal Services $ 76,522 Contractual Services 86,987 Supplies 7,409 Building Use 3,326 Capital Outlay 22,000 Total $196,244 The total of $196,244 represents approximately 47% of the total Parks & Recreation Department budget. A detailed line item review is included with this report as Exhibit 1. Exhibit 2 shows the same information in the form of a pie chart. It is important to note that the above cost information does not include debt service on the certificates of obligation to buy the land or the bonds to build Pleasant Run Park. ~; Page 3 Staffing: In a recent survey of area parks and recreation departments, our parks department continues to have one of the lowest operating budgets and staffing levels per number of park acres. That survey is attached as Exhibit 3 and a copy of the current Parks & Recreation Department organizational chart is attached as Exhibit 4. User Fee Philosophy: A user fee is defined as a charge to the user for a specific government service. Unlike taxes, most user fees are calculated only to cover the cost of that service, not to generate additional revenue to fund general public services that a given individual may or may not use. User fees are paid only by those who use the service in question. The choice of whether to use the service is left to the individual on the assumption that individuals will choose to use only those government-provided services that they want, need or cannot obtain elsewhere. Governments have come to depend heavily on user fees for funding selected services and programs. Examples that already exist in Colleyville include alarm permit fees for those who choose to have alarms in their homes or businesses, recreation program and summer camp fees for those who wish to participate, building permit fees for those wishing to build or add on to their homes, animal tag fees for those who wish to have pets, copying fees to cover costs of records for those who need them, etc. The list is quite lengthy. Advantages of user fees include: promoting equity by passing the cost for services directly to the end user, improved allocation of public resources by letting the users determine if the service has value or benefit and comparing that to the fee charged, political acceptability because it makes sense that those who use services should pay for them, and an unrestricted source of revenue because the amount of the user fee is restricted only by the demand for a service and the cost of providing it. Disadvantages of user fees include: creating a burden on low-income individuals who may need a service but are unable to pay for it, creafing a nondeductible fee where taxes to support the same service would be deductible, the tendency by some to call a user fee back door Taxation, and the difficulty in ascertaining the direct and indirect costs of a service. Although athletic facilities are a part of the City park inventory, they are a specialized use area primarily used by particular organizations. Their care and maintenance is highly labor intensive, requiring both specialized training and equipment. Therefore, they are very expensive to maintain. We surveyed the cities around us to see if the user fee philosophy was being used in our area for field maintenance for athletic facilities. The survey results are as follows: Page 4 CITY Bedford Euless Grapevine Haltom City Hurst Keller North Richland Hills Watauga FIELD USE FEE AMOUNT COMMENTS Yes Electricity Pay all electricity at current kilowatt per hour charge Yes $2.00 Per child, per season Yes Field Use Charge Charge $8-18 per hour or $250 per field per day during the off season to discourage use of soccer & baseball fields No -- -- Yes $7.50 Per child, per season No -- Play on private property Yes Electricity Pay all electricity, but looking at user fees currently N o -- -- Cities in other areas are actively pursuing user fees in the parks and recreation area. A reportfrom the International City Management Associationdlscussing userfees in general and giving examples is attached as Exhibit 5. Fee Structure: We originally attempted to determine a fee structure that would be fair to all, based on the actual time spent with each type of athletic use. Since we do not have a cost accounting system sophisticated enough to accurately allocate costs by type of field or type of activity, we can only estimate a fee structure. With a maintenance budget in excess of $196,000, the $35,000 in the budget represents only 17% of the cost to provide the services. By developing a fee based on a set amount per participant per season, all sports will pay at the same level, since we are spending more than $35,000 regardless of the sport or type of field. Fee structure options are discussed more fully under "Alternatives". Page 5 Youth Athletic Associations: During the 1993-94 budget process, City Manager Bob Stripling wrote a letter to each youth athletic association to notify them that the new budget would contain $35,000 in field use fees and requesting their assistance in determining how the fees should be levied. The letter is attached as exhibit 6. In order to understand the timing of the contacts with the associations, a table describing the sequence of events is shown below: EVENT DATE RESULTS Letter from Bob Stripling 7-22-93 93-94 budget effective 10-1-93 Park Board meeting Youth Athletic Assoc. Mtg. w/Skip Keller Park Board meeting Meetings with soccer & girl's softball associations $35,000 approved for field use fees 12-6-93 Discussion of representatives approve. user fees with association present. Board voted not to 12-21-93 Not in favor of user fees, but understand City's position; will work w/City for solution. 1-10-94 Board will discuss again at the request of City staff now that staff report with cost information is available. As a result of the December 21 meeting, the soccer association indicated they could pay their share of the user fee from their $25,000 budget surplus. The baseball association said they could also pay it out of their budget. The football association could pay for their part by doing more fundraisers. Finally, the girl's softball association said they could pass on a $10.00 per person fee and not lose participants. All of the associations were asked to provide a copy of their budgets for our review. The soccer association budget is the only one received and is attached as Exhibit 7. Letters from the soccer and baseball associations are attached as Exhibits 8 and 9. The above referenced letter from the Colleyville Baseball Association made reference to the use of fields by other groups and requested that they be included in any user fee charges. We understand that this is a small percentage of the field use, that other groups are not currently making formal field reservations and this issue warrants further study by the Parks & Recreation Department. Page 6 All of the associations indicated they have a way to provide scholarships for low-income families that might not be able to pay. The associations did mention that dedication of part of their revenues for user fees would decrease the amount of donations they are able to make to the City facilities. Past donations include goal posts, score boards, benches, etc. In an attempt to communicate with each association the City's intention to work with them to look at their needs, the maintenance levels, etc., Skip Keller has completed awalk-through of City facilities with each association. All of the issues identified are being prioritized for future action. Parks & Recreation Board: On December 6, 1993 the Parks & Recreation Board discussed the concept of user fees and voted not to recommend such fees to the City Council. This decision came after testimony from representatives of the youth athletic associations which were opposed to user fees. At the time of this meeting, the Board did not have this report as it was still under study and preparation. Since additional revenues need to be identified and the youth athletic associations have indicated a willingness to work with the City toward a solution, City staff has requested the Parks & Recreation Board take the matter under advisement again at their January 10, 1994 meeting. This report will be mailed to each Board member before that meeting. Timin :Due to the inclusion of $35,000 in this year's budget for field use charges, it is of the utmost importance that we pursue the discussion of user fees very quickly so the revenues can be included for this year as well as years to come. Another timing issue relates to the season sign-ups for youth athletics. The youth athletic associations were advised last summer that field use fees were to be included in the 1993-94 budget. We requested the associations delay mailing their registration materials for spring leagues until after the City Council made a decision on the fee structure. We learned on January 5 that the soccer and girl's softball information has already been completed and mailed. Their registration information does not reflect a user fee cost. Registration information from soccer and girl's softball is attached as Exhibits 10 and 11. Since the $35,000 is included in this year's budget, all the associations will be asked to contribute their fair share once the Council determines the method to be used. Page 7 Alternatives The following alternatives have been considered relative to field maintenance and user fees: 1. Charge a fee for each participant per season. Last year we had approximately 3,500 registrations for youth athletics, with an approximate total cost to provide service of $196,244. Options for a per person fee are as follows: a. $56.00 per person per season, which would cover the entire maintenance cost. b. $25.00 per person per season, which would cover almost half of the maintenance cost. c. $10.00 per person per season, which would cover the $35,000 revenue requirement in the 93-94 budget. 2. Charge each youth association a percentage of the $35,000. This could be estimated according to the number of participants, cost of maintenance for fields used and cost of facilities used. 3. Do not charge a fee, but decrease service performed on all athletic fields. For example, baseball fields are currently dragged, watered and line marked daily during baseball season, five to six days per week, six months per year. This would be decreased to once per week. The main disadvantage is the liability situation created when uneven, rutted playing fields are used and children trip and fall. Decreased maintenance is also unsightly, creating a visual embarrassment to the City. In order to cover the $35,000 shortfall in revenues, line items such as mowing, property maintenance, electricity and office equipment could be eliminated from the budget. The result of a decrease in the overall maintenance of City parks would include unsightly weeds, high grass, increased mosquitos and higher liability, as well as have a detrimental effect on economic development for the City. Page S ~~ 4. Do not charge a fee, but utilize volunteers for field maintenance. While this option sounds feasible, it has been proven in many other cities that the use of volunteers for regular maintenance activities will not work. They do not have the time, skills, funds and equipment for proper field maintenance to provide a safe and functional facility. Due to limitations in liability insurance coverage, volunteers would not be allowed to use City equipment to perform maintenance functions. 5. Utilize the Voluntary Park Fund for revenue. This alternative is not currently feasible as the restrictions establishing the Voluntary Park Fund prohibit its use for maintenance of city parks and facilities. The governing resolution would have to be changed. 6. Utilize the current non-resident fees for maintenance. In the 1992-93 budget, $7,965 was generated in non-resident user fees and was deposited in the Voluntary Park Fund as required by resolution. A copy of the resolution is attached as Exhibit 12. Although that amount of money would not cover the $35,000 needed, it would make an impact if added to the current budget along with future non-resident fees generated. At the Council meeting where the non- resident fee resolution was passed, it was discussed that the deposit of the fees into the Voluntary Park Fund was restricted to the first year. A copy of the minutes regarding that discussion are included as Exhibit 13. Conclusions 1. The 1993-94 City budget identifies $35,000 in revenues that are allocated to field use charges. 2. The Parks & Recreation Department spends approximately 75% of their time and resources working on youth athletics, including a large portion for field maintenance. 3. The estimated costs to provide those services from the 1992-93 budget are approximately $196,244, or 47% of the total budget. 4. Cities are relying more heavily on user fees as a fair way to assess costs to the actual users of the service. Page 9 5. Colleyville has many existing user fees in place at the current time such as alarm permit fees, animal tag fees, recreation class fees, building permit fees and records fees. 6. Athletic fields are a specialized use area, primarily used by particular organizations, which are very expensive to maintain to the high standards of those organizations. 7. Other cities around us are currently charging user fees in the way of per person costs or field use fees. 8. The City must determine a fee structure fair to all which helps to recover at least some of the high cost of field maintenance. 9. The youth athletic associations, while opposed to user fees in principle, have indicated an understanding of the problem and a willingness to work with the City toward a solution. 10. On December 6, 1993, the Parks & Recreation Board voted in opposition to field use fees. 11. It is necessary to make a decision as quickly as possible in order for spring season registrations to continue for soccer, baseball and softball. Recommendation 1-c. Charge a $10.00 per person fee for each participant per season. and 6. Utilize the current non-resident fees for maintenance. Staff recommends alternatives 1-c and 6 be implemented in the current budget by adopting a resolution to implement field use fees and to change the deposit of the non- resident fee revenues from the Voluntary Park Fund to the General Fund, allocated to parks maintenance. Since the current fee schedule was adopted by ordinance in the budget process, the Council will need to adopt a fee ordinance amendment for accounting purpose. City of Colleyville Maintenance Cost for Youth Athletics Fiscal Year 1992-93 PERSONAL SERVICES: Salaries $54,052.00 Overtime $2,789.50 FICA expense $4,048.16 Group Health Insurance $9,374.00 Workman's Compensation $3,450.19 Unemployment Compensation $315.00 Retirement $2,493.21 Personal Services $76,522.06 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES: Water $50,000.00 Utilities (Electric) $10,986.72 Telephone $608.00 Equipment Rental $5,166.00 Vehicle Maintenance $1,995.00 Gas 8~ Oil $1,723.50 Equipment Maintenance $2,400.00 Building Maintenance & Supplies $835.00 Property Maintenance $11,986.00 Miscellaneous $1,286.37 Contractual Services $86,986.59 SUPPLJES: Operating Supplies $2,888.00 Chemicals $3,000.00 Small Tools $400.00 Uniforms $1,121.01 Supplies $7,409.01 BUILDING USE $3,326.00 CAPITAL OUTLAY: New Equipment $22,000.00 Capital Outlay $22,000.00 GRAND TOTAL $196,243.66 ~6,~ i MAINTENANCE COST FOR YOUTH ATHLETICS FISCAL YEAR 1992-93 $86,987 44.3% $3,326 1.7% $7, 409 3.8% $22,000 11.2% $76, 522 39.0% E7Contractual Services OPersonal Services- OCapita.~~0utlay Supplies Building UseJ PARK AND RECREATION STAFFING LEVELS SELECTED METROPLES CITIES FY 1993 EMPLOYEES CITY BUDGET PARK ACRES FULL TIME TOTAL Hurst $1,933,704 240 29 46 Grapevine 1,541,353 566 26 39 Bedford 1,230,402 176 16 17 North Richland Hills 1,211,650 382 26 32 Euless 878,339 215 15 17 Highland Park 699,665 59 11 11 Colleyville 378,000 93 8 8 Haltom City 232,995 73 7 7 ~Yh~~ b~~3 z Y W W Q ~ W ~ aC ~ Q -- - Z V ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ W Y ~ ~ O -~ c ~ 3 3 3 3 3 3 ~"~ Z U ~ Z Z Z O ", tl rL tL tL Z tL W 4 '~j U ~ ~` D a D Q D Q O Q W J W J U Z Q O Q Y Y ~ Y ~O H Q LL ~O F- to ~ W Q ~ ~ a a o'a. as a fA a // ~~ V a a 0 -- V J Q ~ O O 1.~ ~ '' ~ ~ Z O ~ 2 ~ ~ ~~ry o T F- w~ ~ Jw ~ ~ -'a ~ ~ L.J.. Q ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ a ac vi C7 cn ui Z 'Q Deal g°Ve~ents face the challenge o f r din managm °~ g and g a constant level wee the resou~-ees far of se~Ces ees are pare becorniug scar ~Ce obta~ reasonable meat of User increas g aec~es~s ,sa revenue and kinds of u tl?'s reportt~~ aenc3'• in Ioc P blic fees cube ses the fours ~ g°Ve~urtents, the le y m use dation for tn~e user fee ~ ~ ees ata gos and disadvanta d the urce of reve ges of means of in~'eas' six steps necess zng of Qe C3'• The ~~ of a Siven se~Ce Calculate the the econo ~'e explained. factors to miC and Political fees are o be considered in settin There used' g Studies ' p°~'~~udes ~Ilustrat~ several case and Counties izn g hO~^' towns, cities, as a sample o e clement fees, as sell Jmpleznen~g and dart n educe for fees. g usex USER FEES: CU PRACTICE RRENT ,~ ~~ k F J' User Fees: Current Practice In these days of cutback management, all municipal programs are being scrutinized for ways to reduce costs. Levels of funding for many programs are starting to fall. Innovative managers are ardently seeking alternative sources of revenue, and no approach to revenue en- hancement is considered too farfetched. Privatization, development impact fees, payments and services in lieu of taxes, innovative accounting techniques, fund rais- ing, and user fees have all been suggested. Among these alternatives is one that can be instituted quickly with little friction: user fees. User fees can generate signifi- cant revenue and even cover the cost of some services. In this report, user fees are broadly defined as a charge to the user for a specific government service. Unlike taxes, most user fees are calculated only to cover the cost of that service, not to generate additional rev- enue to fund general public services that a given indi- vidual may or may not use. User fees are paid only by those who use the service in question. Thus, the actual users, whether individuals, groups, or businesses, must be identifiable. Generally, user fees are not compulsory. The choice of whether to use the service is left to the individual, on the assumption that individuals will choose to use only those government-provided goods and services that they want, need, or cannot obtain elsewhere. It is worth mentioning, however, that some fees are more avoidable than others. And some citizens have more al- ternatives to choose from than others: for instance, a car owner may choose to drive instead of paying a fee (fare) to use public transportation, but a person who does not own a car does not have this alternative. The degree to which user fees are truly optional is discussed later in this report. Ideally, a local government would produce only the level of services required and recoup costs by passing them directly to the users of the service. Waste would be minimal. However, because of tradition, practical- ity, and the need for social equity, local governments Donald Levitan and Adam D. Silverman are the authors of this report. Dr. Levitan, a professor in the School of Management at Suffolk University in Boston, Massachusetts, has worked in federal, state, and local government and written extensively in the field of government finance. Mr. Silverman is a former U.S. Army Intelligence officer and is completing his masters degree in public administration at Suffolk University. provide many services without direct charge. And the effort to reduce waste by offering only the levels of ser- vice that are really needed is complicated by a number of factors. First, it is difficult to gauge precisely the need for a service. Community requirements can be overes- timated and excessive levels of service provided. Sec- ond, local governments are not always able to control access to a service to ensure that only those who need it receive it. For some services, user fees provide an attractive solution. Phoenix, Arizona's rationale for user fees is persuasive: "Departments that charge fees are handing bills to their users for services rendered: this offers (the departments) incentive to keep costs down. This incen- tive is not as good when citizen users have become ac- customed to large regular fee increases ...."1 By tying service provision to consumer demand, through mar- ket pricing, local governments monitor more carefully the level of service actually needed, eliminating waste and increasing efficiency. In some cases, user fees can be used to regulate consumer consumption, reducing the demand for expensive services. Governments in both urban and non-urban com- munities have come to depend heavily on user fees for funding selected services and programs. The prelimi- nary results of a recent nationwide poll by the Govern- ment Finance Officers Association (GFOA) have confirmed the dramatic capability of user fees to pro- vide operating resources for many services? GFOA ex- cluded utility charges, licenses and permits, fines and forfeitures, and impact fees from its definition of user fees and still found that the governments who re- sponded to the survey have implemented user fees in more than fifty service areas. Respondents charge fees, for example, for camping on public land, data process- ing and engineering services, library privileges, pris- oner room and board, police reports, access to mass transit facilities, and entrance to recreation areas such as zoos, skating arenas, and beaches. 2 Management Information Service CATEGORIES The fees commonly used as alternative sources of rev- enue bylocal governments fall into two categories. The first category, charges for goods and services consumed, in- cludes fees charged for the actual consumption of the results of government efforts by individuals, groups of individuals, businesses, or organizations. Fees in this category are charged for goods or services that improve the quality of life; these fees are intended to help pay costs and are not set in order to regulate activities. Among these fees maybe charges for utilities provided -~ ~~User fees in a small town ='~~ lfie small town of Bethel, Maine (2,300), has estab- llshed an innovative array of fees and charges, some 'j;~lmposed on other jurisdictions that use its services, some imposed on commercial businesses that need _~, .. •.",;:public information or are subject to public regulation, !~:',and some imposed on town residents for various ,services. fie fees contribute significantly to Bethel's `=?h.annual budget. including negotiated fees and pay- ' ~w.ments in lieu of taxes, Bethel, which has an annual '~ r~budget of approximately $1.1 million, collected a - `~to#al of $357,779 from nontraditional revenue sources (=between July 1, 1986, and October 31, T990. '.;:<For instance, the town operates an ambulance ser- ~'wlce as an enterprise account. Two vehicles and 15 to r ~~. . -;~~1'T paid volunteers are on call. User fees from neigh- boring towns and payments from private insurance ~'=`:companies, Medicaid, and Medicare help cover the ~ :`-~~~costs of the service. ~~:^_Between July 1986 and October 1990, Bethel raised `:_"- $32,236 in site plan. and subdivision fees and $8,625 in :additional code enforcement fees. The town also paid $6,154 for outside professional help at the ex- pense of developers. The total dollar value was ,`;`$47,015. In the first year after the town enacted a sewer con- .`, . nection permit fee in June 1990, it collected $7,T50 in `.`=cash payments from developers. Other user fees 'F~:collected by the town to cover the costs of its sew- ''' age system (in addition to sewer rate charges) are a `'` sewer connection inspection fee ($50 per hour}, a fee `=~`' for rental of the town's sewer rodder ($75 per hour, to _~include manpower), and a septage receiving charge -;qf $.10 per gallon for nonresidents. Between July 1986 -::and October 1990, Bethel raised S2,632 in sewer in- spection fees and $1,244 in sewer rodder fees, for a total of $3,876. ~~ Other user charges levied by the town are a street opening permit fee ($75), a floodplain permit fee .- ($75), and a special amusement permit license x:`($150). i- - ~a'Informatton presented here is taken from 'Nontraditional ,Revenues: Keeping the Property Tax Under Control in a 'Small Town," by Rodney C. Lynch, published in Maine h Townsman. I by a municipality (e.g., water, sewer, or electric services), for services such as trash collection, and fees for recre- ational facilities and activities. In most cases, users are free to consume as many or as few of these goods and services as they want or need. The second category, regulaton~ charges, includes fees assessed individuals, groups of individuals, busi- nesses, or organizations for the opportunity to partici- pate in agovernment-regulated activity. These may include fees for construction permits to build or mod- ernize ahome or office building, court fees, or fees for permission to hold a garage sale. Besides covering the cost to society for special services or events, fees in this category allow local governments to control the cost to the general public of various private enterprises, such as the cost of increasing police, fire, and sewer services to serve a new housing development. (User fees charged to developers to cover the costs of increased service demand are generally called impact fees.) User fees can also be imposed in order to regulate demand for a service. For instance, in Tompkins County, New York, user fees charged for trash collection are structured to encourage residents to reduce waste, as well as to recoup the costs of the collection service (see case study on page 12). Similarly, two counties in Florida have employed user fees to control water usage (see page 14). The fees in these two broad categories maybe fur- ther classified according to whether or not they can be avoided by the user. Although according to judicial rul- ings, true user fees must be conceptually optional (see page 5), many fees commonly considered user fees by the local governments implementing them are really mandatory. Such fees force residents to pay for goods, services, or privileges in order to maintain a desired quality of life for the community. For example, prop- erty owners in some communities are obliged to pay a user fee for sewer services-regardless of the availabil- ity ofseptic tanks-since local law prohibits septic tanks. The owner is left with no alternative for sewage re- moval. In other communities, residents have to pay an annual fee for trash collection based on the cost of col- lectingrefuse from their neighborhood, even if they are willing to haul the garbage to the disposal site them- selves. In these cases, community laws effectively man- date the purchase of goods and services. Although in theory users have the option not to pay the fees, they cannot realistically bypass them, even if they do not consume the goods or services for which the fees are assessed. Other user fees are indeed optional. Users pay for nonessential goods or services to enhance their quality of life, but if they choose not to use these goods or ser- vices, they do not pay and their quality of life will not be appreciably reduced. For example, a homeowner purchases a construction permit only if he or she wants to build an addition to his or her house. Automobile owners, to give another example, have an alternative to public transportation. They may have to endure un- ~/~ User Fees: Current Practice 3 l ~~ pleasant rush-hour traffic if they drive, but at least they have access to another form of transportation. However, to avoid traffic, the cost of gasoline, and depreciation on their automobiles, car owners may choose to take the bus. For them, the fee for public transportation is optional. (On the other hand, the fee for public trans- portation can be considered mandatory for users who do not own cars.) Some states assess a user fee (toll) to cover the costs of construction and maintenance of a highway. A driver may choose to take the toll road because it provides a more direct, faster, route to work, or the driver may avoid the fee by taking atoll-free road or using public transportation. Some fees are only nominally optional, because individuals may experience a significant decline in their quality of life if they choose not to use a particular gov- ernment-provided good or service. If alternatives to the service do not exist, the fee becomes, realistically speak- ing, mandatory. A good example is the paid paramedic service widely available in New Jersey. If a citizen is seriously ill or injured, a free, volunteer ambulance service staffed by emergency medical techniaans provides rescue ser- vice. But if police dispatchers consider it necessary, a paid team of paramedics is also called. Once the para- medic team arrives on the scene, the victim is charged for its services, whether or not they are needed. Under the circumstances, the victim has little chance to accept or reject the services offered. In other jurisdictions, the public ambulance service maybe the only rescue alter- native available, and in this case, too, the fees it charges can not really be considered optional for the critically ill citizen. From conversations and interviews with manag- ers in many different local governments, the authors have constructed a matrix illustrating the classifica- tion of several user fees commonly levied by local governments, shown in the table on this page. The cat- egories shown on the matrix are overlapping, and the _: .. - .- - . _ .. •' ~ ., r Ciassitication of User Fees :~' ?` .~.. ~, `.' .. _. ,~, -_.~ ~ ..,., :.. ..''.gym: .. ..... ., ~..... -...- K::. MANDATORY OPTIONAL OPTIONAL, BUT... - GOODS/SERVICES CONSUMED REGULATORY CHARGES • Administrative • Refuse collection • Alarm permits • False alarms searches • Student activities • Animal pound • Library fines • Court fees • Tolls • Auto impoundment • Licenses • Driver education • Arrests • Police officer support • Forms and documents • Building inspections • Towing services • Business certificates • Zoning assistance • Administrative • Equipment rental • Court fees searches • Docka a boat g ( ) • Fishin g permits • Aptitude (personnel) exams • Library use • Huntin g permits • Athletic facilities/ • Notary • Killed animals greens • Parking • Burials/graves • Photocopies • Bus transit • Student activities • Civil assistance • Tolls (roads/bridges) (subpoenas) • Towing services • Community building use • Airline fuel/landing • Emergency services • Dental treatment • Ambulance • Fingerprinting • Medical treatment transportation • Transit pass 4 Management Information Service placement of some services may vary according to public or private circumstances, but this system of clas- sifyinguser fees may help local administrators decide whether a fee under consideration in their jurisdiction is truly optional or in fact mandatory. FEASIBILITY The extent to which a proposed fee is optional or man- datory should be a question that is asked (and an- swered) as local officials evaluate the feasibility and the legal implications of implementation. To determine fea- sibility, decision makers should consider four factors: demand, efficiency, equity, and politics. The level of dernarrd for a service determines whether the fee should receive further consideration. Administrators should determine who will benefit from the service, how large a constituency they form, and whether they can afford the service. The potential rev- enues must justify the administrative costs of imple- menting the user fee. It is also essential to establish methods of constantly projecting future demand, so that the service can be provided efficiently and fees can be set appropriately. The price elasticity of demand, or how much the size of the fee to be charged will affect de- mand, is important. The demand for some services is seasonal (e.g., outdoor sports), and for these services the timing of rev- enues must also be taken into consideration. The policy manager must determine the amount of the fee and what the fee will cost to implement and administer in order to evaluate its efficiency, which is determined by the portion of the cost of the provided goods or services that is recouped by the fee. The collectibility of the fee must also be considered. By re- viewing the costs of implementation and administra- tion and comparing these with the amount of the fee and the jurisdiction's ability to collect, the manager can establish a threshold of demand for the service. The issue of equity is explored to ensure that the user fee is fair. In tough economic times, the tempta- tion may exist to charge fees for every good and ser- vice provided. However, to avoid moral, ethical, and A philosophy to govern user fees The parks and recreation department of Boise, Idaho (108,000), includes user fees as an integral element of its budgetary plan. Among the general goals outlined in its discussion of user fee policy, Boise's parks and recreation department lists the following: • Provide the opportunity for all residents of Boise City to participate in recreation programs and activities and to utilize the facilities of the department • Provide Boise City residents the ability to participate at a lower fee and charges level than those residing outside Boise City limits • Establish user fees that should not discourage the use of the Boise Park System facilities and recreation programs • Establish user fees that do not create a restrictive or exclusionary effect. The key principle in establishing Boise Park System user fees is the principle of equity. It is the principle that "public goods" should be paid for out of general revenues while "private consumption" should be charged for • Provide an objective planning and operating management tool which provides the "real" costs of operating the department activities. In implementing these goals, the parks and recreation department declares that "basic park and recreation services should be free." Basic services are defined as those that tend to preserve and promote physical and mental well being, provide patron safety, and provide park and recreation services and facilities to groups with limited ability to provide for themselves, such as the young, the older citizen, the disabled, and the economi- cally disadvantaged. "Therefore," Boise's statement of policy continues, "public funds should be used for acqui- sition of lands, improvement of property and facilities, management, maintenance, and basic services.' User fees are considered appropriate fn the following ` circumstances: • Cost per hour of the service or operating facility is - expensive, because the service uses consumable -" materials; requires a facility with high capital, operating, or maintenance costs; requires special preparation or clean-up; or requires special instruction. • A fee will expand activities for all people, at the least possible cost to the majority of the citizens.. • Use of the service or facility is limited to a relatively few individuals or special interest groups of a private A character. • Public property is used for private economic gain. • Admission to special events yields profits that can be used to extend the activity or cover the cost of ' the event, • Imposition of a fee serves an independent function such as rationing limited facilities among a large number of users, aiding in discipline and control, or promoting respect for an activity or service. • The public demands more activities and more services but is unwilling to increase taxes to pay for them. The Boise policy on fees and charges also states that special consideration must be given to certain individu- alsand groups. For example, discount rates are man- dated for physically challenged citizens and senior citizens. A sample worksheet used by the Boise parks and recreation department in making budget recommenda- tions on user fee levels is shown in Appendix A. ~f User Fees: Current Practice 5 :, '`~ t ~ ~~~ costly legal dilemmas, local administrators must give the fairness of proposed fees close consideration. The community's legal counsel should be consulted. Advi- sors on social policy must decide whether the target population wants the good or service proposed or needs it. Most important, community representatives must determine whether the service is affordable and set the level at which the local government should start to sub- sidize it. Excerpts from the general principles governing Boise, Idaho's use of fees to support its parks and rec- reation program illustrate one local government's ap- proach to equity-see the Boise case study on page 4. Politics must also be taken into account in evaluat- ing the effects of user fees. Administrators should con- sider the views of the community's elected officials and their constituents. By talking with interested and con- cernedcitizens, administrators should be able to deter- mine how sensitive an issue a fee may be. Tompkins County, New York, surveyed its citizens to find out how they felt about a new trashtag fee and found them largely enthusiastic about this method of funding trash collection. Do not forget, however, that if they are not given adequate information, citizens and special interest groups, as well as politicians and the media, tend to assail plans that represent significant change. LEGAL FOUNDATION The four areas discussed above provide a practical ap- proach to evaluating the feasibility of user fees. Of more specific and technical importance are the legal implica- tions of a fee. The United States Supreme Court has defined a tax as "an enforced contribution to provide for the support of government." The Constitution of the United States upholds government's right to "lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises" to finance the common debts and services of the people; a similar statement may also be found in each state constitution. Although this right clearly exists for the U. S. Congress and individual states, cities, towns, and local govern- ment agencies-as creatures of the state-must gain approval from their states to tax. In some cases, approval must be obtained for the establishment of the user fee, if not for the amount of the fee itself. Although taxes represent the main source of rev- enue, nothing prohibits local governments from estab- lishing fees to pay the cost of individual services provided. The U.S. Supreme Court has allowed gov- ernment agencies to recoup the cost of program deliv- ery simply by chazging the recipients of government services fees based on the cost of the program and the value of the service to the recipient' In Central & South- ern Motor Freight Tariff Association v. Ll'nited States, the District of Columbia Circuit Court interpreted the In- dependent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 to allow user fees and established five tests that must be met by an agency to recover the full cost of provided services • The use of the assessed fee must be clearly de- fined. • The service should provide a special and private benefit. • The assessed fee should equal the value of ser- vices provided to the user. • The benefit must apply to a direct, private benefi- ciary and not to a general related group. • The service should not directly benefit the public, but consequential benefit to the public is allowed. Although the Central & Southern ruling established criteria for the federal government, it did not deal di- rectlywith the application of user fees by local govern- ments. Other case law has. The U. S. Supreme Court established athree-part test to determine whether a charge assessed by a community is a user fee.5 For a user fee to be valid, it must comply with the following conditions: The fee charged must provide a direct benefit to a party in exchange for payment in a way not shared by other members of sonety.b The fee must be optional with the party having the option of not using the government service.' The charge must compensate the specific govern- ment office for the provided service only: the fees received must not be collected with the purpose of raising revenue beyond the cost of the pro- vided service.$ Judicial opinion has held that the burden of prov- ing that charges are not valid user fees rests on those who challenge their legality. These rulings have established the groundwork for implementing user fees to fund the provision of ser- vices. As long as the fees meet these specific criteria, local governments may mandate payment to fund ser- vice delivery. ADVANTAGES OF USER FEES User fees clearly offer many advantages, as shown by the large number of local governments currently using them. The first advantage is that user fees promote eq- uity, bypassing the cost for goods and services directly to the end user, not to those who neither need nor want them. In essence, the charge is allocated to the users without burdening the general tax revenues for the pro- vision of something that benefits only a specific group of individuals. Another advantage of user fees is their effective- ness inallowing for improved allocation of public resources. By using a free market system similar to that of the pri- vate sector, municipalities can better determine the de- mand for these optional services. Users decide for themselves whether the service has value or benefit; they then compare the value or benefit with the fee for the service to determine whether they wish to pay it. 6 Management Information Service Government administrators can adjust the fee sched- ule or eliminate the service altogether according to the demand for the service. This system helps prevent the provision of unnecessary goods and services. Decatur, Georgia's after-school recreation program illustrates this concept-service expansion is carefully coordinated with demand to allow maximum efficiency. The third advantage is the political acceptabilih~ of user fees: it makes sense that those who use services should pay for them. In general, people do not resist the fees charged for user-specific goods and services because they have the option not to use them, or can control the extent of use. In addition, those who do not need the services support the fees because general taxes are saved for other, common purposes. With common general revenues such as property taxes, a practical limit exists on the amount of revenue that can be obtained to fund government. Administra- tors may have to cut or eliminate services if inadequate funds are raised to support them. The fourth advan- tage of user fees addresses this problem. User fees can provide a relatively unrestricted source of revenue to fund specific goods and services. The amount charged as a user fee is restricted only by the demand for a service and the cost of providing it. There must be a clear demand for the service, and the price level established must be affordable. The con- sumerdetermines whether the service is worth the fee- if the price is too high, demand will decrease, resulting in reduced funding for the service. Administrators have to find a balance between the cost to the government of providing the service and the cost to the consumer of using the service. Administrators must also control ad- ministrative costs so that they do not interfere with the provision of services. :User fees in a small city Decatur, Georgia (17;000), runs an after-school recre-_ ation program that recovers the full costs for staff and ,supplies through fees charged to parents. The size of -the program is increased in increments of 20 children...° to assure that costs for each addirional staff person . , can be recovered. Two schools in predominanriy low- -" income neighborhoods also offer a full complement, ; , of after-school activities, but the costs of these two ""`; programs are paid by funding received from non-city sources, so that children in these schools can be served at no cost to their parents. :,. Decatur uses a sanitarion service collection fee to encourage citizens to cooperate with the city's scan- dard collecrion schedule. In another area, user fees have sparked competition: a private softball League .., has been formed as an alternative to the city's recre- " anon league. The "country club' league charges - slightly lower playing fees than the city league and allows teams to drink beer in their dugouts. _ The last advantage of user fees is pricing flextbiIity. The inherent limitation of the property tax (in most ju- risdictions the major source of revenue) is its inability to keep pace with services desired. In addition, tax rates for general revenues are set annually or require special meetings. User fees, by contrast, can be adjusted imme- diately depending on demand or the cost of the service. While it is important that the local policy-making body approve the implementation of fees and set parameters for the fees, administrators maybe able to adjust costs as the number of users changes or in accordance with market fluctuations. This flexibility can result in in- creased savings or enhanced services. DISADVANTAGES OF USER FEES The most common argument against user fees is that they create a burden on low-income individuals who may need a service most and be least able to pay for it. Insti- tutinguser fees may deprive low-income citizens of vi- talgoods and services. Those opposed to user fees argue that A fair distribution of tax burdens is widely held to be one in which higher-income individuals pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes than do low-income taxpayers. This prescription of vertical equity will be violated by user-charge financing if low-income individuals spend a larger portion of their incomes on goods financed by user charges than do higher-income individu- dls 9 In response, proponents of user fees argue that property taxes-which compose the largest source of local government revenue--are more regressive than user fees. Their reasoning is that low-income individu- alspay alarger percentage of their gross income in rent, which often includes the burden of the landlord's prop- erty taxes. Decreasing the property tax and allowing dti- zens to choose and pay for the services they need may result in greater equity. According to this argument, if user fees are used instead of a tax, some poor families may choose not to use the service and those who douse it presumably benefit in proportion to the amount of the fee.lo Some proponents also point out that the means to combat the potential regressiveness of user fees exists. By using sliding-fee scales, government subsidies, group discounts, and payment deferral plans, a progressive system can be established. On another issue, opponents of user fees argue that because user fees are not considered to be taxes, they are nondeductible. The cost of a service cannot be de- ducted from federal income taxes as can property and income taxes, and although states establish their own allowed deductions, user fees are usually not one of the deductions allowed. (However, the regulations may F `V;.~' User Fees: Current Practice 7 1 change. The Advisory Commission on Intergovern- mental Relations predicted that user fees would be an allowable deduction after the sales tax deduction was completely eliminatedll; so far, this has not happened.) A third disadvantage cited is that local governments' attempts to find additional sources of revenue without raising property taxes have resulted in a proliferation of loosely controlled fees and charges, called"backdoor taxa- tion." Opponents of user fees feel that the system of taxa- tion already provides or should provide sufficient revenue for the operation of local government and that the number of sources of revenue should be decreased. This group believes that taxation based on property own- ership is more equitable than user fees. The argument is that property taxes fund all services and the burden is shared equally, whereas some user fees create an unfair burden on a select few, for example, business owners. A fourth objection to user fees as a source of rev- enue is that a user fee cannot cover the true direct and indirect costs associated with the service in question. Direct costs encompass areas such as employee salaries and wages, equipment, and supplies. These items can be closely controlled, but the control of indirect costs presents a greater challenge. Indirect costs are those re- quiredfor the delivery of the service that are not easily associated with the service, including costs incurred by government for data processing, purchasing, liability insurance, depreciation of buildings, and equipment shared by several departments. The argument that user fees do not provide com- plete financing for the goods or services provided de- serves some consideration, but except in the case of en- terprise funds, user fees are usually secondary, not pri- mary sources of revenue. For some services with high financial costs, only part of the cost of providing ser- vices can be recovered from users because a fee high enough to cover all the costs of provision would dis- courage those who need the service from using it. User fees must be set at a level that generates maximum rev- enue without discouraging potential users. ANNUAL REVIEW User fees should be considered within the annual bud- get process, so that revenues can be balanced against costs and treated as part of the complete revenue stream. The sidebar on this page presents the time schedule and process that Phoenix, Arizona, has used for several years to review its user fees. An annual review makes the legal department's job easier. For example, in Austin, Texas, the law depart- ment found it very difficult to certify when and even whether any particular fee among the city's dozens of fees and charges had been approved by the city coun- cil. Anadministrative decision was made to submit one consolidated schedule of all fees to the aty council with each year's budget. The result is that all fees are recon- sidered and approved annually. The city's attorneys have no difficulty demonstrating the legitimacy of any given fee, and the fee schedules are kept current with economic realities. .. ',Making user fees pay for parks and _ _: - Herndon also faces high costs for liability insurance reCreatlan COSts ~- : fiese costs escalate as facilifles are expanded (the div- " ing well is an example) and demand brings hundreds of ',The town of Herndon, Virginia (16,200), near Washing- Y housands of people into the town's recreation program. >':aon, D.C., fs surrounded by populous suburban coun- •. Another curb on the income from user fees is the ties-75,000 people live within 3 mites of Herndon's - ` town's commitment to providing affordable recreational "downtown. Capitalizing on its location, the town has ~ `opportunities to its low-and medium-income population. built a large recreation complex, which includes a Annual passes and discount passes are priced 25 per- '-state-of-the-art swimming and diving faGiity, to serve - .cent lower for town residents than for county residents, the region's demand for recreational programs.: _"~_ :and:alffeesare keptas low as is pracflcal. Low-income ~: °~ The parks and recreation department is charged with 'residents received 50 percent discount on registration recouping at least 65 percent of its personnel and oper- = . for recreation-sponsored classes. fie parks and recre- .-; =~"ating costs through user fees. Since 1988, it has routinely - - -- afion department coordinates community fundraising to .. =exceeded that goal. In 1991, the department brought ... :. -pay for vouchers that entitle low- and moderate-income - in approximately $1.T million,. which covered 68 percent ~of its $1 6 million bud etf ti g l d residents to additional discounts on class and facility fees. g or personne an n opera - ; - costs., ., ~ ~ ;; -_..• _ -,; - ,;• : _ ~~~` Herndon markets its recreational facilities and pro- «; Herndon operates an 18-hole golf course as art,enter TM prise activity. Green fees cover 100 percent of personnel ;grams aggressively,. regularly allotting $35,000 to $40,000 -and. operating costs as well as the-golf faciUty's sewer :: - ":of ffs annual parks and recreation budget to marketing ;expenses. fie parks and. recreation department uses ` : ~ and. water and general fund obllgattons. As much as 85 . " percent of the user fees for this activity come from out =.~ advertising, directmailing, direct contact with buss- ° . ~ ° of-town golfers. Demand has been so greaf that the `nesses, coupons, and other promotional strategies to town is considering raising the greens fee simply to re-LL, ~. I '~ keep usage rates high. In addition to the marketing . • duce use and provide more opporturiltyfar matnte- _ costs associated with a successful user fee program, Hance. ~ - - ~^ '• ._ ~` ~ _ - ~. :.,~ , _ ~. 16 Management Information Service APPENDIX A: Worksheets for Setting User Fees - Boise, Idaho (1992-1993) a.fi. BUDGET RECOMMENDED FEES AND CHARGES BOISE PARK SYSTEM Diviagn: Sefrnell Agency No• 505 Attniry: Teurnemen n Org No• 757 SuD•Attiviry: FY 90191 BUDGET A Sub•Org No: t t 4 CTUAL Edg Scary - D0it1 H4XgDY4 27,863 FeaslChargaa . 35,134 M60 9.1 S4 Ragist/Attantl - GPital- Othb Rsvanw - TPnI E%wnses - 36.617 lal Total Ravanw - 35.154 101 Tax $upoOR la•bl- 1.778 User FN % Of Rewvary - 65 % ID+aI FY 97192 APPROVED BUDGET EEglOigi B6Yl0Yfi Salary - 40,883 Faaa/Chargaa 47,000 MbD - 9,900 MggUARand - Gpinl- 1.000 Othaf Rawnw - Tagl Exwnsaa - 51.783 Isl Total Ravanw - 47.000 Ibl Tax $upPOR la•bl- x_763 User Fee % of RarAwry - _',LL% ID+eI EnRanca Fn 0-0iMSagn Fee RamaURes FN User Fee Licanas/Permk Fae Spacial Sarviw Fee X AttalManee X ARendanCe X 1H OI X Ragistntbna X ADPikadons X Reginration ~sscsa Deaeriotien ne Proerem• SohoaU townamanq: Tourtumann that an run by our dewrtmem offered [o enV team tMt taps imo tM eksslfiution of tM tournanlMt. A4o inekrtlY ASA, USSSA and Oenstlt nufMlMnq tMt an run by tM orgtlnuaoon wiM • ramal arxl makltartanw tN eharpas try tM CIry. Pertirinanon imoatt~ Approximately 1740 toumamams s cnaan. Awgga 575 tome x 15 DnVeq - 8.625 wnieipsma. Deeertmem eoac OHar gwliry nurNlMrlq for alt tliviaiom of play: goad, man'a, worwn'a, A-0 levaq, v4tnout aa[ura[Mg tM marktt and tM fNk1 usage. Feee end Charees Reeemmentled Atliuxtmenn• Norw Justi6eariom FY 92/93 RE[ 1. Dkedt Coaq: "7 2. Indirect Cwtt: 2.574 3. GpMI Dewbpmant: 4. Contingency: Toni Exwnaa: 46.742 ql Total Revenue - 43.688 (D) Ditferanee la•bl- 2.554 94 % Rax SuppoRl Uaar tee % Bwgat Dauihd Breakdown [ties b Chargsa Revenue t110.i150 a tnm tlaoanding on tM toumamant. ~: c-cy ~,F ~ a Il~ resas July 22, 1993 Mr. Mike Gordy President Colleyville Soccer Association 3454 Knob Oak Drive Grapevine, Texas 76051 Dear Mike: The City of Colleyville is currently involved in the budgeting process for the 1993-94 fiscal year. As part of that process we are reviewing the demand for services, the cost of services and the availability of revenues to offset services. The City is in a very difficult position this year because of the greatly increasing demand for services and the limited amount of additional revenue that will be available. In the area of Parks and Recreation, we are reviewing all of the recreation fees charged for the use of facilities and/or the provision of services. As part of the recently adopted City Five Year Financial Plan, no new resources are proposed for the Parks and Recreation program. In FY 1994, beginning October 1, 1993, the City will be responsible for an additional 75 acres of park land (Pleasant Run, Colleyville Nature Center and Kimzey Park). We are also in the process of acquiring open space behind Saddlebrook and other segments of a future linear park system. Given our limited staff, we are exploring contracting out some of our mowing operations. For instance, the estimated cost of mowing Pleasant Run Park for a year is $54,000. This is based on information provided by a contractor who is involved in similar contract services in other communities. To partially offset costs of this type, I am recommending a field user fee be charged. My proposed budget contains $35,000 in user fee revenues. We realize that this is a significant burden to place on the athletic associations, but the limitations on available funds and the need to address numerous essential tax- supported services in the City requires that we raise additional revenues if we are to continue to provide certain services in the City. If we do not raise the needed revenue we will be forced to provide services at a lower level or in some cases stop providing some services all together. P.O. BOX 185 COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS 76034 (817) 281-4044 Page 2 Before making a final recommendation to the City Council on how the fee should be levied, I would like to discuss this issue with you and hear your ideas. I would like to meet with you and the Parks and Recreation Board Chairman as soon as possible to discuss this situation further. Thank you. Sincerely, ~~ C. Robert Stripling City Manager cc. Alan Linford, Parks and Recreation Board Chairman COLLEYVILLE SOCCER ASSOCIATION (Income and Expenditures) FALL 1993 SPRING 1994 INCOME INCOME Balance Forward (as of 7/8/93) $30,447.00 Balance Forward (as of 12/3~~93) $ -2,153.00 Projected Fall Player Fees $25,000.00 Projected Spring Player Fees $40,500.00 Concession $ 1,500.00 Concession $ 1,500.00 Non-resident Fees $ 2,250.00 Non-resident Fees $ 2,250.00 59,197.00 54,794.00 EXPENSES EXPENSES Uniforms $25,000.00 Uniforms $ 5,000.00 Goals $ 9,000.00 Goals $ Player /Coaches Fees $ 7,400.00 Player /Coaches Fees $ 2,000.00 Referees/ Linesmen $ 7,000.00 Referees/ Linesmen $ 7,000.00 Nets, Corner Flags $ 2,500.00 Nets, Corner Flags $ Trophies $ 2,500.00 Trophies $ 2,500.00 Non-resident Fees $ 2,250.00 Non-resident Fees $ 2,250.00 Concessions $ 1,600.00 Concessions $ 1,600.00 Registration expense $ 900.00 Registration expense $ 900.00 Refunds (2%) $ 800.00 ~ Refunds (2%) $ 800.00 Opening Day $ 750.00 Opening Day $ Tournament Fees $ 600.00 Tournament Fees $ Coaches clinics $ 550.00 Coaches clinics $ 550.00 Office (postage, printing,etc) $ 500.00 Office (postage, printing,etc) $ 500.00 Pictures $ 5,000.00 61,350.00 Legal &Accounting $ 500.00 Dues & Subscriptions $ 100.00 28,700.00 BALANCE FORWARD $26,994.00 1 _~ 1 A ~e~~e~y~ye .~'e~~~P A~~©~~~~ya~s, p~r~. P.O. Box 875 Colleyville. Texas 76034 Mr. Pat Horn Chairman Colleyville Park Board Dear Mr. Chairman, Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the Park Board regarding the needs and desires of the Colleyville Soccer Association as we look to the future. But I can't talk about the future without talking about the past. Let me say how pleased we are with the long term positive relationship that has existed between the Soccer Association, the Park Board and the City of Colleyville over the past years. We truly appreciate the support you've given our organization during this time. This support has clearly demonstrated your commitment to the kids of Colleyville. We look forward to continuing this community partnership now and in the future. As we look to the future there are several items we would like to address. 1.) The proposed player fee, to make up for a budget shortfall in the Parks and Recreation budget. • The Colleyville Soccer Association wishes to go on record as strongly opposing such a fee. Citizens share in the cost of city services by paying taxes and expect these services without the additional financial burden of add on usage fees. For example, when a street is repaved in front of a citizen's home, that citizen is not asked to pay an additional fee because the repaving has a greater benefit to him because he uses that street more than other citizens. It is felt that imposing such a usage fee on citizens whose children may use the park facilities more than other citizens, is unfair and inappropriate for the same reason. However, the Colleyville Soccer Association remains willing to discuss with the Park Board and the City of Colleyville any opportunities where the Soccer Association can help financially with the care and improvement of the Pleasant Run facility 2.) Old Fields. • Lighting - In July of this year the Soccer Association agreed to limit the use of the Southeast bank of lightsto games only. It was felt this would be workable. However, after making a good faith effort, we find this to be a dangerous situation in that players cannot sufficiently see an oncoming ball if their backs are to the darkened lights. Due to these safety ..concerns, the Soccer Association strongly feels that all lights should be available for practices as well as games. We would ask that the availability of these lights be the same as City Park and would appreciate your support in this matter. Additionally, the lights all need to be re-aimed, burned out bulbs replaced and lamp shades fixed or replaced. We would also like to investigate the possibility of adding additional lights on the east poles facing east. These would be used for practices only. • Parking - We are concerned about long term parking at the old facility. Once the church begins their building program there will not be sufficient parking for practice or for games being played on the lighted field. We would also like to see the drive improved. There is currently one area which is deeply rutted, forcing carsto drive around the bad area. ~~ /~ • Field Improvements - In that the lighted field will be the only lighted field we will have for some time, we propose the following improvements. -Widen the field to 70 yards if possible -Lengthen the field to 105 -110 yards if possible -Install underground sprinkler system - Level low areas and re-sod where necessary and re-seed completely. - No practice allowed on the field from June through August. 3.) New Fields • Concessionstand -There is a need for a water faucet close to concession stand. • ~ ~ Fields - We propose extending the length of the U 12 South field to 110 yards if possible. Some leveling would be required atthe south end. - We would propose extending the length of the U12 Northeast field to 110 yards. Some leveling of the NW cornerwould be required. - We req~~estthat all sprinkler boxes be moved off fields of play. - We recommend that the City. of Colleyville place signs on the fencing with notification that the soccer fields are for sanctioned game use only, prohibiting soccer practice and hitting of golf balls. - We recommend fencing as a priority to ensure vehicles are not driven onto the fields of play. 4.) Leash Law • For the safety of children, we request that the City of Colleyville consider amending the current leash law by prohibiting pets from a city park anytime sanctioned sporting events are being conducted. Again, thank you for the opportunity to bring these issues before the Board. We look forward to working with you in the new year. ;'~` f ~ _ ~ ike Gar Pesident, CoJleyvi le Soccer Association TO: Colleyville Pazks Boazd FROM: Colleyville Baseball Association SUBJECT: Proposed $10 user fee DATE: December 6, 1993 Dear Pazks Boazd Members: The Colleyville Baseball Association would like to respectfully request that the proposed $10 user fee be reconsidered. Some of our concerns are as follows: 1. We believe that to add a $10/player fee to each child that participates places an unjustified burden on the participating families of Colleyville. Presently, a family already pays approximately $70 per child. 2. The CBA is currently attempting to make changes which would lure pla}•ers back from select leagues in Ft. Worth. This fee would only make our job of keeping kids in the program much hazder. 3. Will others who utilize the baseball fields be charged a fee? We refer to local adult softball teams who practice on these fields, select baseball teams which utilize the fields, etc. If our members aze required to pay this fee, so should the other groups. 4. We feel, that although additional pazk land is needed and desired, the city should make sure they can budget sufficient money to maintain these facilities before acquiring them. To develop new pazk land without the money to maintain same, and then tax the users at other pazks to pay for the maintenance is extremely short-sighted and we believe the citizens of Colleyville would agree. ~xhi~i'~ q .~ 5. A July 22, 1993 letter from the city manager to the past president of our board stated that if the needed revenue is not raised, the city will be forced to provide services at a lower level or stop providing services all together. In the past year, our baseball fields have received less attention than usual. Fields have not been striped on several occasions and shade tarps not installed on dugouts. The storage room where the equipment is kept is in shambles; trash on the floor, field striping equipment not cleaned as required, etc. 6. The city of Colleyville required that signs previously posted on the fences of the baseball fields be removed. The objection was that the signs did not comply to the city's sign ordinance. These signs aze a source of revenue that could help offset budget problems. If the decision is made to move ahead with this fee, we request that money collected from baseball usage be spent only on baseball fields. In summary, the Colleyville Baseball Association members stand ready to assist the city and parks board in developing a plan to provide our children with the highest level of recreational activities available in this azea. Thank you for your attention to this matter. James Taylor Colleyville Baseball Association COLLEYVILLE SOCCER ASSOCIATION Announces SPRING REGISTRATION Who: All boys and girls bom between August 1,1976 and December 31,1989 When: Saturday, January 8, 1994, 9:00 am to 3:00 pm Saturday, January 15, 1994, 9:00 am to 3:00 pm Friday, January 21, 1994, 7:00 pm to 9:00 pm Where: **NEW LOCATION** HIGHLAND MEADOWS CHRISTIAN CHURCH Hall Johnson & Pool Roads (across from Food Lion) Fees: $45 per player $15 per family additional nonresidents' fee $5 per player additional late registration fee ALL PLAYERS, PLEASE BRINC,~: Copy of birth certificate we can keep on fife. Players will not be placed on teams without them. Late Registration: January 24 through February 28, 1994 Star Sport Shop Village Park Shopping Center (between K-Mart and Albertson's) Season Starts: February 12, 1994 Questions: Ca11428-0940 ~. ~ ~~ ~ .~ - - C4LLEYVILLE _:GIRLS~ - .: ~ ._ - -_~.. ~F ~ - SO. _TBALL .~4SSOCIATIDN _.: .._ . . : _ _ ; - .:: : .. . ~w_....-. . . . ' - ~` ~` µANNOUNCES -, `~ W _. - - ,. ._ _ _ ~, .. ,. - - ~ .. .. ;_ _ . ... _ 5~ _ ;~` REGISTRATION :FOR ~ - ` .. . : . , _ s ~ ~ ~ x fa ~ x1994L~SEASON .:~~ : , ~}t~ ti R - } - ~ - ~+' ~ •' e .~ ~ '..-y C 2 ~ ti _ t t '~. ( f T 3' - JX P - 9 r '~ i ;t ~ ,=. ~ 9 . M < ~ - 3.r ~ ^ x . y t 4~ fry z ~ ~ Ages ~5 ~-~to~17~ }years ~otd ~ ~. sx . ~~ ~~~ Y~~~ ~}~~ w+ ~. ~. . ~ p- sue{` g~-ha"rs +r f.Y+•r r74T .'~`4 Fai"~sS ~#^-t';.'F!~2'a. t. s--...-!w.x".~.t ..K .~~;..: a< ..,,..rS ...e... .~._..-.~~.rt. .., ... !'~"+~" ,.~.q'!P.'rm' location: First-Baptist Ch Y .''i''[- i.I X... ,r by : -y£x -. tiz~ .fii~-'~- '~K .ac '~-c~;t -Rd ~~t t., - ~` 'r ~ 5300rColleyvitte k ,^^yzv'"+~.5-. ~z---.~-R'4rr ~C°"F' -F"rx' ~e ~a ~,.,ti. t+ rv = y "'* z a. ~w~r. *.. r. ~ _; ADates~ ~~.y~~Saturday ~~Jan_,~t q.a.,.,g. ~. "a} ^..:t~'+'TM#ar~. Yw'e"'.r~t urn. -b w~ ?t;-..y~t+,-~- ~,r',x~v+: r1~ ~ti ~ ;L`. ~..*o ? ; 4r i. ~~i;,•'~.~.r~~tas'Y+4~.kY,'~~a~?r"~.°?ytiG ~e'Y"'r '7~'~'~•~i^iy'"•2WS!.~..y ~-~ ~~~ ~' ~Thurs~day~Jan 2 1, z .~ ~i w~~ J..~ 'G~. ~ ~ '~-''~"1'~ f -,i' +~.w c _ w ,~,.dcY ~l;ya ~ 5~ ~~w~.~ ~,~Thursday Jan 2 A ~ ~~ ~ qrt +a-a 3 3'-~i YL.?~Y ~. _"'~e i4 t ~~ . s n ~.-;;.~ n. } v4-' -....~A^~-e ~~ ;~~ : ~i Saturday # Ja_n'2 :~U ~IY1 - 9: 30 pm =~9 Y '!~ t a ~~., , ,.,~~ :00 am. =;2: Late High School Registration ,Feb 5, y.994 10 00 am F:2 00 pm _@ .City Park ms's ,. t ri + ~t. Add~tional3Reg~strat~ on Available At STAR SP OR~'S During ~ - ~ P ~`4 ~~ , 1 '4~.N c'- _ k LEA ~-~,F ~ #. 4 _,4 ~ -. r 3 _'n~iP' / k~~ } ,t ~ ~` ~ .. ',~ ~ F+:'L ^~GY - .'S ~t ~ ~:~ '\t `.[ 1, ,/'+., >. - - .c. ~:!: .. ~.R~ Y ' r } ~_: ... y~' ..a S ~`4a +.~ ~ ?r "'.t ~S'ro!` f.,~ 3';~ * ~3 '_ Y+'~ x> ', ' ~ E~ [Normal Bus~riess Hours ~INearAlbertson's on~Eoll y ill Bl tl ~~~ ~` ~~-~ ~ L~,; ~' ~4.. . + ~ e v e v ~ : : _ ~, - - ~ r Check~~or Money Order Oniy ~ z ~ - ~ ~ r ' ~ R . ~,'~3'b-~~r ?c ~~1•a'w;t~: '`~ ,x~a.~ -~~tc~:'~'.~ ~r ., +~~.~t.~ rn".. ...a ,.s, '~~ _.~-!,. _ . ' .. .~. _,~s7. . yr. .~'v~~ ~ F.~ ic~^` .- - AT. ;~. _ ,.t ,c~ ^Y n ,Cy- ~.f .~.~s h h - ~. ~7'3 d ~', Z ~,~.• ..-.i:' ! yi. N'~.':g .~ ~.~ ~ -r ~:;+. s.:. ~' to ~~ r7 5 c Y ,.~"~. ; r ~~,-_ l.:y ;'sr ~~~~:19 n ~ ~ $50.00 per .(w+ ~.: $y 04.00 ~~Ci7~c .N,. "Y1, r• 4 i ~ ~ ~'W- ^Y h 'Y.'•Y~ ~\t F. Y)c T /iR~l 'yi'hT Y' yt ~.'{~•p.~ ~}~..~•C l~[~ 1~..~ ~Pl ~'f 3~fh•"Ni C.i.'Rww~ta~v~i.T} .~, ~1!/N/:Iy.~~~T.~ w' '. `+'- 2.`i.~ y ?M ~ ~~~~ ~" ~f y~X~ }.j.2~`.• ~ ~I~~ gel " '4h r FY•;+ ~;a ~ 5;~` 3 ~ y ^~ ~ .. -~ e• d' ~ ~ ,-. iire~_~ ` ~p-µ~ r~ ~'~ ~.~ ~ f ~ ~~~: ~ ^Y ~" ~ Y ~f h` M G. ~s ~atior~ ~ ees ~ ' ~ S ~ .~a 1 ^ K -i+N ~ ~ / - r 's rc t t ti. ' ' ~ ~ ; --+ . ' Y i } ~. j r ~ +Y, '+Y 4 ? d` ~ ., ~ to ye r r ~ ~ " ~ ' f , ~: ~' ..>.• Zb 'fbt: YSr.'A .~.., 1 ii Y 41 fH ' l 3 4~. v'4 9s ", _. h.ew L. . . Y^ - T ~ ~ .KH N ' SST • E~X P '` ~r .y.r,.. _ . j. ~ y, ,~. ,,, ~~.T'-ni1N fs C°'/. ...:...~,y ~ ly.J.. +,e,..r YfR" °~" w-w 'V ~ ~ ~ - -- ' ~4+yt.~+-i . _ -~: k - n ~ ~~ ~ . .. ~famit~ x~~~}~~ Ai T` jCl ~ Z-a`L -A~ 1f{+ ~~ 7° Y s<tmurn er . ;~ ~ i 'k - . : - w. a+ ~, ,/ . .~.~•'.••r--•- ~ ~_^ .~: ;.~s~..._..._, -rcae.i_,~ - '~vw _ ~.cT+.aw A+.,..-~~:~"' r:rt - ~ .. ..hs.~~a.. .OQ :non- ?tease bring a For Additions[ inform h Colleyvit[eaAy; j 7'" vd, Colleyville~ ~_ .~~> _ .~. _ .3, fx ~.-4~ _ 1994. __x:9.00 ~arr~ ~ ._ nt ,. ~~y o~ ~ta~yyer's, ;y-f ~.~+~.._wa'i. fib iF.h 3'Xd'; ~rtrContact 2.Y w-Aa ~. (~f cer~ifica Y 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ?, 8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 RESOLUTION R-92-741 A RESOLUTION APPROVING COUNCIL ACTION UNDER BUBINE88 AT THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 21, 1992 iPHEREAS, 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 $11,500 be authorized to be expended from the Voluntary Park Fund to perform park improvements by the Park Board. 2. THAT the non-resident recreation fee be added to the Voluntary Park Fund. ND IT IS 80 RESOLVED. assed by a vote of S to _~ on they/~ day of Q~~ r , 992. TTEST: CITY OF COLLEYVILLE _an Harris, CMC ity Secretary ~~~~~~~ ED MCKNIGHT MAYOR PRO TEM G_.L:L:.t~ I~ CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 21, 1992 Councilperson Ahlers seconded the motion. s Ayes: Councilpersons Ahlers, Newton, McKain, Feigel, and McKnight Nays: None Mayor Pro Tem McKnight declared the motion carried. 22. DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF AWARD OF BID FOR SALE OF $2,750,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 1992 Ms. Terry Leaks, Finance Director, advised the City had opened eight bids for the sale of these bonds and that Rauscher Pierce Refsnes was the low bidder with an effective interest rate of 6.04241. She also stated the staff's recommendation is to award the bid to Rauscher Pierce Refsnes. Mr. Boyd London, the City'a Financial Advisor with First Southwest Company, stated the bond buyers index had been distributed and that it shows the lowest interest rates in 15 years. He also stated he was pleased with the bide received and that the bond trip taken by Mr. Stripling, Ms. Leake, and himself was successful and that the rating agencies were pleased with the hard data they had received. He advised that the City of Colleyville compares well with the surrounding communities and that the City's rating went from an A- through an A to an A+. Mr. London stated that he had only seen that type of movement one other time in 17 years. In answer to a question of Councilman Newton, Mr. London stated this would save the City $400 - $600,000 over the life of this particular authorization of $13.5 million. He stated this is not a tangible benefit because you cannot see what the alternative would be unless you have a rating that is very poor. Councilman McKain moved to award the sale of the bonds to Rauscher Pierce Refsnes as recommended by staff and the bond counsel. Councilperson Ahlers seconded the motion. Ayes: Councilpersons Ahlers, Newton, McKain, Feigel, and McKnight Nays: None Mayor Pro Tem McKnight declared the motion carried. 23. DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF NON-RESIDENT RECREATION FEE ACCOUNTING Mayor Pro Tem McKnight asked if the Council was prepared to make a decision on this item or if additional information is needed. Councilperson Feigel stated that since the money is being collected, she feels a decision should be made as to where it should be deposited. Councilperson Feigel stated since this was not included in the annual budget process, she feels, as a concession to the persona that have been assessed this fee, for the remainder of this year, the fee should be put into the voluntary park fund. She also stated that as the budget process begins for 1992-93 that the park board create a budgeting process for each of the associations to participate in, so that the Council can anticipate what the expenses will be for the year. Councilman Newton expressed a concern with putting these monies in the voluntary park fund due to the difficulty~of reversing this at a later time and stated that he would rather see the monies put into the General Fund. Councilperson Feigel stated she feels this would reduce the parks budget even if the money was put into the General Fund. -13- CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 21, 1992 Councilman McKain stated this money is being collected because of the impact of ~r./ kids from outside the City. He also stated he feels the City has an obligation to offset that impact and would like to see the money go into the voluntary park fund. Councilperson Feigel stated the City should be concerned with image and public relations with the community. Councilman Newton moved to deposit these non-resident fees into the General Fund. Councilperson Ahlers seconded the motion. Ryes: Councilpersons Ahlers, and Newton Nays: Councilpersons, McKain, Feigel, and McKnight Mayor Pro Tem McKnight declared the motion failed. Councilperson Feigel moved to allocate these fees to the voluntary park fund for the current budget year. Councilperson Ahlers seconded the motion. Ayes: Councilpersons Ahlers, McKain, Feigel, and McKnight Nays: Councilman Newton Mayor Pro Tem McKnight declared the motion carried. REPORTS: 24. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS a. Minutes of Planning & Zoning Commission b. Minutes of the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board There was no action taken on this item. STAFF REPORTS: 25. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT There was no action taken on this item. 26. MONTHLY BUDGET REPORT There was no action taken on this item. CITIZEN COPII~NTS s 27. CITIZEN COMMENTS/PRESENTATION REGARDING ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Mr. Tom Michaels, 6001 Montford, addressed the Council concerning applicants for zoning cases presenting different information to the City Council than that they presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission. He stated he would like to see the Council give consideration to a briefing being given on the Planning and Zoning meetings and to have a Planning and Zoning Commission member present at all City Council meetings. In answer to a question of Councilman McKain, Mr. Michaels stated a pre- development meeting is a good idea; however, timing has been a problem. Mayor Pro Tem McKnight advised that per the City Attorney, discussion on this item is not appropriate, but that a workaeaeion might be possible in order to ~ discuss this subject at length. -14- Colleyville Park and Recreation Advisory Board Longwood Estates at Ross Downs Agenda Item: January 10,.1994 The David Bagwell Company, developer of Longwood Estates at Ross Downs, and homebuyers in Longwood Estates wish the Advisory Board and City Staff to consider using park funds already paid to the City of Colleyville (and to be paid to the City of Colleyville in the future) from Longwood and various phases of Ross Downs as follows: 1. to hire Suellen Thompson, Landscape Architect, to prepare a gen- eral plan for the Longwood park area and for additional improve- ments to the Kimzey park with input from area residents and according to direction of the Advisory Board and the City Staff; 2. upon acceptance of the plan by the Advisory Board, hire Suellen Thompson to prepare such detail drawings as necessary to imple- ment the first phase of the general park plan, using park funds paid to (and to be paid to) the City of Colleyville from Longwood and various phases of Ross Downs plus such park funds as may be obtainable from the State of Texas. J~y~~lll' 111 ~`1J~ V V 130 ~~ nlld ~/~~11 d 1]d V 11 LOGf10N XAP 10110R00D A/ RCSS DORMS ROSS ODRNS AMS[S 1-N ~ MAl ~~ 111p K, 117.00] k. /N.1M K. 101E 70 !N 111 OKN SRJICE 1110 It. 11.5! AC. 11.1! AC. PLAN ... ROSS DOIINS PHASE'S 1-i7 .~. LONGIIOOD AT ROSS DOE'1VS w m C!!1' Ol C+OllJl'Rlll lI1HlIN! L~Of/N17 lllAd HIOI~ R//lRMM •1 YMe1RM R 111 GI~/llii~ DI mn .w-aw rmr .«-Nrr ~ralsa rwt