Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/03/1998 MINUTES OF THE COLONY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF THE COLONY HELD ON SEPTEMBER arm, 1998 A WORK SESSION OF The Colony Community Development Corporation (4B) Board was called to order at 7:10 p.m. with the following members present: Don Goebel President Sue Walden Member Susan King Member Vicki Briggs Member Morris Seay Member Rick Manser Member and with no members absent; thus a quorum was established. Also in attendance was Pam Nelson, Director of Parks & Recreation, Gene Ramsey, Director of Community/ Economic Development for The Colony, and members of The Parks & Recreation Board - John Sanders, Donna Baggett, Laura Bickerstaff, Scott Calabro, Jim Cottle, and Berretta Henville- Shannon, City Council Liaison to the 4B Board. 1. CITIZEN'S INPUT. None. Member Walden welcomed the new Economic/Community Development Director - Gene Ramsey. Member Walden asked Gene to provide her with some dates that he and his wife would be available for a reception to welcome them to The Colony. Member Walden stated she would get with Mary to see what she has planned. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 20, 1998. President Goebel stated that when he said he contemplated on recessing the board at the August 201h meeting, he did not mean it "forever", he meant only until a new Director was here. President Goebel said in item #5, it stated we narrowed our choices down to 3 finalists and chose the first person we interviewed - Gene Ramsey, it sounds like the first one in, we hired. Member Walden stated we narrowed our choices to 7 then we selected 3 finalists and chose the first person we interviewed - Gene Ramsey. Member Briggs made a motion to approve the minutes of August 20, 1998 with the following stipulations - add to President Goebel's statement - he did not mean recessing the board as in "forever" but until the new Director was here. Item #5 should read we narrowed our choices to 7 then we selected 3 finalists and chose the first person we interviewed - Gene Ramsey. Member Walden seconded the motion. Ayes: President Goebel, Members Briggs, Walden, Seay, and Manser Noes: None Abstain: Member King 3. WORK SESSION WITH THE PARKS & RECREATION BOARD. John Sanders stated that everyone is aware of what happened at the last City Council meeting. I'd like to suggest that we put our efforts in the 28 acres that has been deeded to the city. If everyone was impressed enough with Dunkin & Associates, I think we should bring them on board and start planning sessions on how we can develop a multi million dollar recreation center, a couple of tennis courts and still have enough left over for the library. John stated he was more impressed with Dunkin & Associates because he was more prepared, gave a better presentation, had more information, and brought references that were impressive. Susan King and Donna Baggett agreed with John. John said there is no move to resurrect the JNC purchase. I think if we start moving on developing and planning these 28 acres, if by some miracle it did happen, then we'd already have someone on hand ready to go with the rest of the development. Susan King stated when Pam asked the Parks Board to come up with their top 3 priorities from our lists, I started planning for existing facilities. I think it would be prudent of us to have a master plan in place that addressed just that issue with our other existing parks so as we go in with money that we are going to allocate each year toward improvements to facilities, we aren't doing it haphazardly - we have a plan in place so nothing put in, in year 5 has to be ripped out in year 10 because it didn't fall in line with the rest of the plan. Ms. Nelson stated that this point keeps coming up - you need to work on the parks you have. There is a list of those items in our existing Master Plan. I think you need to focus on prioritizing and maybe expanding on some of the development ideas that were on that list an be more specific about some of the things you want to see done - like if you want to see the baseball fields bulldozed and rebuilt, it needs to be expressed on that list. John Sanders stated if we did have a Park Planner on board, we could expand his area to include all our parks to get a better idea of what we can do with them. Ms. Nelson stated we've been talking about doing an update on the Parks Master Plan anyway. Susan King stated that Dunkin & Sims should have the expertise we need because they worked on our original Master Plan. Member Walden asked about the Centex Property. It belongs to Lewisville, but my understanding is they want $22,000 per acre. It's at the end of Memorial Dr - if we bought that it would be easy, as owners, for us to deannex that from Lewisville and annex it into The Colony. They're not going to want to provide us with any city services if they're not getting any taxes off of it. John Sanders stated it's Centex property in Lewisville's domain. The owner has priority as long as they agree. If they don't agree, you're stuck. Bernetta stated the owner of the property has priority. Some members of staff are checking into the legalities of whether or not that if you did purchase the property, do you as the owner, have the right to deannex into the city that you wish to come in. That's kind of along the same lines as Austin Ranch did. Ms. Nelson stated she had a conversation with the Parks Director of Lewisville and he informed her that he, and the City Manager of Lewisville, has been approached about the possibility of doing that. If that's what we want to do, we are in for a big fight. Bernetta stated, however you look at it, it will be up to the City Council of Lewisville. Ms. Nelson stated that questions keep coming up about how much land is available at Wynnewood and where is it. I contacted Carter & Burgess, who have done the engineering for the golf course development at Wynnewood, and asked them to do a map for me showing the area we're looking at. The elevation spillway is at 537 feet, so the highest level it could go is 537 - anything above 537 is O.K. because the water will go over the spillway before it will reach any higher elevation than that on the lake. Anything below 537 level is susceptible to flooding. The last time the area flooded was in 1989. She also stated there is a portion of the land identified as a possible location for a marina. There would be some land development that would take place in conjunction with the marina, if a marina were located there. There are also plans on the Denton County Thoroughfare Plan for a 6-lane thoroughfare bridge to cross the tip of the peninsula. Member Walden asked if the $2.4 million from Crow-Billingsley has to be spent for the purpose of benefiting Austin Ranch. Ms. Nelson replied it must benefit the residents of that development. There will be more benefit to the residents of that development on facilities here in town rather than at Wynnewood because of proximity. There's no reason why the money couldn't be spent on a Community Center on that 28 acres site. Member Briggs stated that even if all the Parks & Rec. Board members were for Wynnewood, you still couldn't take the money and spend it there because it won't benefit Austin Ranch. Ms. Nelson stated we would probably have to get some legal rulings before we could say it would benefit those residents. Member King stated it would depend on what kind of facility you would build at Wynnewood. I can't think of any kind of facility that would benefit Austin Ranch in the flood plain. Ms. Nelson stated that's why I said the most logical place to spend that Austin Ranch money is going to be on that 28 acre site that's close in proximity to their development in whatever it is that we put on that site. It may be putting that $2.5 million into a Community Center facility. Member Seay asked if we do a Community Center for the entire city, including Austin Ranch, why does it matter where it goes? If we put a Rec. Center on Wynnewood, it will benefit the entire city. The assumption we're making is that it has to be in the location where Austin Ranch is. John Sanders stated it does matter where we put it - it has to be centralized. The location has to be in easy reach to Austin Ranch. If we build it on the 28 acres, it's in the middle of the city where it is directly available to every resident. President Goebel said he would like to see something in writing in regards to the proximity issue. Bernetta stated the Board should get a copy of how it's worded in the Developer's Agreement. John Sanders stated it's also in the Parks Ordinance. Member Briggs asked if the Parks Board could spend the money on Centex land? Member Walden responded, if they bought the land and 4B couldn't develop it, then we'd have land with nothing on it. John Sanders said once we spend money on land that is dedicated as ParkLand, then we can't turn around and sell it because we can't use it. Ms. Nelson responded we would have to have a referendum for voters to say that we can't lease that land. Member King stated if it's not within our city limits, if we don't dedicate it as parkland in Lewisville, then it's non-binding - it's not within our city limits. Ms. Nelson said if city money was used to acquire that land, then it would be binding. Bernetta asked what happens if the Austin Ranch development is 60% corporate and not multi-family? John Sanders stated it doesn't matter because they signed a contract dedicating money no matter what they do. He continued, it doesn't matter what their population is, we still have to accommodate them because that's how the contract is written. President Goebel stated it will take 3 years to detennine what the mix will be. Bernetta continued that when you're dealing with developers, it's important to get development schedules so you can find out exactly what thew time fi-ame is. We've received a time frame from Austin Ranch, and so far they are adhering to it - we did not have one on JNC as to what they were planning on doing. Member Seay asked if there were any advantages to the Wynnewood property. Ms. Nelson stated the land is free, the problem is we'd be sharing in part of the infrastructure costs. Bernettata stated the county would also share the expenses of infrastructure. Member Seay then asked if the golf course would contribute any way to the development of the area. John Sanders stated they will pay for 1/3, we will pay 1/3, and the county will pay 1/3. Ms. Nelson stated the terms of the lease of the golf course do adhere they do pay rental on that property so there will be a small amount of revenue in the first few years coming in. Gene Ramsey asked if the percentages of allocations have been voted on by the 4B Board. President Goebel stated we came up with what we thought it would be. Other than savings and administration, we had 3 other categories - Existing, New Projects, and Community Complex. The Community Complex is still going to happen no matter where we put it; we still need to put money back for it. The percentages we came up with are - First Year Second Year Third Year Existing Facilities 15% 15% 15% New Projects 10% 10% 10% Community Complex 43 % 43% 55% President Goebel continued the Community Complex increased in the 3`d year because what we were putting aside for savings could be dropped because we wanted to have 3 months in reserve. After 2 years, we will have that 3 months in reserve. From that point on, it's 15%, 10%, 55% - the reserve, because of interest, can still be tailored back to keep that months in reserve for the savings account. We're forecasting those percentages to equate to - First Year Second Year Third Year Existing Facilities $ 94,000 $ 128,000 $ 150,000 New Projects 63,000 86,000 100,000 Community Complex 270,000 368,000 550,000 This has been given to City Council but has not been adopted by them. Up to this time, we have put in - Existing Facilities - $373,000 New Projects - $248,000 Community Complex - $1.2 million We can always talk about moving money from community complex into existing facilities and new projects. Over the next 3 years, we're probably looking at spending $1.8 million for projects. Ms. Nelson proposed the question - Does the 4B Board tell the Parks Board how much money you want to allocate towards their projects - then the Parks Board picks and chooses from their list what will fall within those financial limitations - or does the Parks Board give the 4B Board their list with what they want to do in year 1,2, and 3 and put dollar amounts to those items and the 4B Board decides if they are willing to fund those projects? Member Manser stated he thinks we should go out and pursue a company to come up with a Comprehensive Plan for the city. Member King stated she would like to see a Concept Plan showing every single sport facility in the city revamped. Member Manser added we would go with a list of requirements from the consulting firm and each park would have their own list of requirements. Member Briggs stated we still need fields, so we need to get someone out here to tell us this can go here, it will cost this much, and it will look like this. Gene Ramsey stated it is his job to come up with requests for proposals. You tell me exactly what you want and the RFP. I will search for proposals and schedule presentations with the understanding that the clock is running. Member Walden asked if we would have to go to City Council to get permission to do that? Ms. Nelson answered yes. Gene added that he would like to have a list of what the Board wants. This will enable him to find out who can provide those services. He continued that if you come up with perimeters of what you want, then we can go out for proposals and the proposals could come to you and you can evaluate them. President Goebel stated before we go to Council, we have to have a forum - we go to Council for approval and Council gives us approval. Member King added that the public has 60 days to get a petition of 10% of the registered voters to nix the project. If they don't do that within that time, then we are free to take it to Council. We only have to take it to Council one time. We can hold a public hearing tonight and take it to Council tomorrow - if they approve it, then we just have to wait 60 days. The AG Handbook does not say when we have to take it to the Council, we just have to. Gene Ramsey stated we need to define what the project is. Ms. Nelson stated Gene needs to know the scope of services of what you want. He's going to need to put that into the RFP. Gene continued that you should hire someone who has the expertise and experience - they say based on our studies, it's our recommendation that you put the development in this way and this is how you can enhance your existing parks - it's an overall development concept. Member King stated we need a plan to tell us how to upgrade the parks. Ms. Nelson stated there is a section in the Plan for that, but it doesn't go into specifics of dollar amounts. She added you have to be careful as to how you define what a maintenance improvement is and what a renovation improvement is. Little things may not be able to be covered by 4B money, but big major renovations or upgrades probably can be. John Sanders said we need to bring in someone like Dunkin & Sims or Carter & Burgess who specializes in Park Planning. Gene Ramsey stated that if you were to do an overall concept of enhancing the existing parks that would be acceptable in the 4B guidelines. Member Walden responded that was correct. We could select what we think we could pay for. Member Manser stated once we show improvements to existing parks, we'll start seeing more people supporting a larger facility. The dilemma is where. There is still an economy that is slowing up, so the land won't get snapped up and Wynnewood is always a possibility. Bernetta stated the land we have is scattered. If the drainage problems we have were corrected, we'd have more land available. John Sanders stated Bernetta is referring to the greenbelt drainage behind the existing baseball fields behind Griffin Middle School and the drainage behind the Aquatic Park. Ms. Nelson stated the thing that needs to be identified along with that in the study is the feasibility of reclaiming that - is it cost effective to spend $2,000,000 to reclaim 20 acres of land - probably not. Ms. Nelson asked if there is a possibility of purchasing a smaller part of the INC property rather than the entire 130 acres? She is thinking in terms of the east tract where it's zoned single family residential at this time. John Sanders replied that was addressed with Bill Sheveland and he said you buy all the land or none of it. Ms. Nelson stated she thinks the idea of updating the existing Parks Plan and becoming more specific on some of the existing park projects that are listed there - identifying those and looking at the feasibility of adding onto the Park Plan, the feasibility of including facilities on for drainage areas or try to identify other sites in town that weren't identified originally in this Park Plan. When this Park Plan was done, it was part of a Comprehensive Master Plan - it was not as detailed as it could have been because there was a limit on the amount of finances we had that was done in conjunction with the complex. It may be worth it to invest the money into amending and elaborating on the existing Park Plan; expand on it to give everyone a better sense of direction as to what needs to be done as well as identifying the financial impact it will have and whether it can be done with 4B funds or the general fund. If 4B is willing to fund an upgrade of the existing Park Plan, then we should get Gene the ideas we have on developing the scope of services so we can go out for RFP, get some proposals in and find out how much money we're looking at to do an upgrade to the existing Park Plan. Member Walden stated 4B needs to have a public hearing on spending this amount of money. Gene will find out how much it will cost, we'll hold a public hearing, make a proposal to City Council and hope they would O.K. it, wait the required 60 days, and in the interim, 4B could decide what we think we want to tackle as far as park projects are concerned so that when the 60 days is up, we can take some action. Gene Ramsey summarized that what is wanted in the RFP is - Updating the existing Parks Plan, amending and elaborating on it to identify those that can be used for 4B funds. Ms. Nelson added - the feasibility of facility locations throughout the city, whether it was Wynnewood Peninsula, drainage areas or even if there is other land that can be acquired through purchasing that we're not aware of. Member King stated we are talking about big ticket items. Ms. Nelson stated it's important to bring all these aspects together and put them all in one plan so that everyone is on the same page and we need to be able to get Council to sign off on it so that when it comes to future projects, whether it be on existing parks or new facilities, everyone is on the same page. President Goebel said a public hearing should be held on 2 items - 1) Spending money on the planning 2) Spending money on something specific, a project. Gene Ramsey asked if Council has authorized the 4B Board to move forward on any projects yet. Member King replied that according to the AG Handbook, Council is an oversight committee; they appoint members, and approve our budget and projects. They do not send directives to us telling us what projects to move ahead on. This is an advisory board. Member Walden stated Council has approved our budget. Gene Ramsey suggested to the Board, that in the first step, after you are comfortable with the proposals, then you go to Council with a recommendation for the project before you have the public hearing. The scope of the entire project is approved by the board of directors at the beginning of the year, the individual activities on how to accomplish that programming is up to committees given that authority. Until the entire scope has been approved, you can't go forward. The budget has been approved, but the work projects have yet to be submitted to Council. Member King stated the board has submitted several projects to Council and everything has come back except for the budget. We've done our bylaws and we've come to Council several times with different items and we've had them handed back. Bernetta replied that the Board has not submitted several different projects to Council. Bylaws are not projects, they are administrative. Council would like to see what visions you have as far as what 4B and Parks Board wants to do. That has never been discussed. John Sanders stated different people put us on artificial deadlines and there was no time for other projects. Bernetta stated you have had a work session with Council to approve bylaws. You have not had a work session with Council on what your idea, other than JNC was. There is a difference between paperwork and projects. Member Briggs stated she likes idea of going to Council first appealed to her because if they don't like the idea, you don't have to have a public hearing. Gene Ramsey continued, that if Council does approve it, then you come back with the estimate for the entire endeavor - that's approved and then you go to public hearing for process. If you want 3 firms to make presentations to you to fit these specific categories, we'll schedule meetings for presentations. You will select the one you like and that proposal and price will be submitted to Council. John Sanders stated the Parks Board would like the 4B Board to hire someone to come in and we recommend Dunkin & Sims be considered for the job. President Goebel stated the Parks Board has the list and it hasn't been presented yet. John Sanders replied that it wasn't going to be presented to our Board until our next meeting. Once we narrow down our proposals, we'll submit it to the 4B Board to be submitted in the public hearing. There was a consensus from everyone that they wanted Gene to bring them a scope of services that he will put in the RFP for them to approve before it goes out to firms. Ms. Nelson stated the next step is to get the scope of services for the RFP; get everyone to approve it and then send the RFP'S out so we can get some proposals back. In the interim, the Parks Board will be meeting to reevaluate their existing Park Project List. They're putting together a list of existing park projects so they can come back to 4B and tell them this is what we want to spend the first $100,000 on. The 4B Board should review their percentages to snake sure that's the direction they still want to go. If the 4B Board wants to change the allocations because the community complex may not be a priority now that JNC has gone away - maybe we have more time to look at some other things or leave it as high as it was. That needs to be discussed and formally approved and get it before Council for their approval also so we can get rid of all the questions. Berretta stated, from a Council's point of view, we would like to see what you want to do in the next 2 - 5 years. Member Manser asked what kind of duration are we looking at for this plan to be developed. Gene replied that we could set the time line. You can say you want this information within 90 days, within 90 days after that you want intermediate information, then 90 days after that you want the complete project. This can be included in the perimeters of the RFP. Gene submitted to everyone present an agenda; he was unaware that the Board already had one for the meeting. He stated this is not the plan, just a concept. I tried to determine the differences between what is 4A and what is 4B. 4A is contained in the first paragraph of the document I gave everyone. It gives the limitations of what 4A can do. I put down all the things 4B can do. The Articles of Incorporation says that Council has the sovereignty over the 4B Board. At the next meeting, I would like to talk about divisions of the corporations, which I think we have done tonight, but I'd also like to talk about a PERT Chart. I have drafted something about timelines and my responsibilities and how we can do that. My job is to come up with a plan for a retreat with the 413 Board as it is with the 4A Board. In talking with Mr. Goebel and the leader of the 4A Board, we discussed the need for the Boards to meet together at the retreat. I'd like to have goal setting for the community to say this is what 4A is going to do and this is what 4B is going to do; then after that agreement, by all involved, the overall projects are submitted to Council, Council modifies it as it is their opportunity and responsibility, then you have your authority to move forward. That is something I would like to do. I think the retreat should be an all day affair. We could bring in a facilitator to take us through the process. I would like your direction on this. I'll meet with 4A on Tuesday night to see if they like the idea. I'll work on the timing. At this time, we are accepting applications for a secretary, full time, with nights. I need help desperately. Some things I need to make you aware of - 1. Nov. 1 - 6, I will be in San Antonio for a basics course - Certified Economic Developer. 2. Texas Economic Development Council - I would like to be associated with them because they give updates on 4A and 4B expenditures. 3. The 4A Board requested the City Attorney to come up with bylaw changes so there is a designated ex- officio position between the 4A and 4B Boards. Mr. Hill has faxed me a draft of the bylaw changes. I'd like to ask Pam to brief me on those. 4. REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES FOR PARK FACILITIES. President Goebel stated there was an impromptu meeting called on Sunday by David Kovatch. David, Sue Walden, John Sanders, and myself met to discuss bringing JNC back to life. The items that need to be done so that Council would approve it are: 1. Get a firmer estimate on the land and infrastructure costs. 2. Wynnewood would cost this much more - get good numbers from Tim House. Bernetta stated we requested an itemized list from Bill Sheveland; he said he was going to get us one then at the end he wasn't going to supply it until we moved forward. 3. What will 4A pay for as far as infrastructure goes? 4. Maintenance and operations budget for the park. 5. Timeline for existing parks - quarter by quarter. 6. Good infrastructure costs from both sides. 7. The sports associations need to know what they are expected to get. 8. A Development Plan showing the design phase, development phase, and implementation phase of the complex. 9. Determine sources of funding for the community center and library. 10. Wants 413 to purchase the land and not Parks. If Parks bought the land, it could only be used for parks - but if 4B buys the land, it can be used for what it's already zoned as. Bernetta stated, according to what I know, Bill Sheveland is a little ticked off. I think you should let it lie for a while. I think the market is going to determine whether the land is affordable. You may be able to get the land for cheaper than it was quoted for. Bernetta asked Don if he shared the letter from Bill Sheveland with the Board, if you haven't, I think you should. President Goebel replied, the letter basically states that everything we talked about, he couldn't commit to anything without Jon Lau committing to it. John Sanders added the letter says just as you can't guarantee how your Council will support our agreement, I can't guarantee that Jon Lau will. Bernetta stated it was Bill Sheveland's opinion that our negotiations were not binding because he couldn't get it binding with Jon Lau. Everyone should read the letter. 5. ITEMS OF CONCERN TO THE BOARD. Member Walden inquired as to when we will be getting our contract back from the city and when they will submit our bylaws that we worked on last Spring. Member Manser replied we were waiting for the new Director. Gene Ramsey stated for the next meeting's agenda, include a status report regarding the contract, Articles of Incorporation, and Bylaws. There being no further discussion, it was unanimously decided to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 p.m. Kathy Neal, Recording Secretary Don Goebel, President