HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_PAREB_02.10.2022Notice of Meeting for the
P arks and Recreation Adv isory B oard P arks and Recreation Administration Office
of the City of Georgetown
F ebruary 10, 2022 at 6:00 P M
at 1101 N. College Street, Georgetown, T X 78626
T he C ity of G eorgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you
require as s is tance in partic ipating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reas onable
as s is tance, adaptations , or ac commodations will be provided upon request. P leas e c ontact the C ity S ec retary's
O ffic e, at leas t three (3) days prior to the sc heduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or C ity Hall at 808 Martin
Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626 for additional information; T T Y users route through R elay
Texas at 711.
Regular Session
(T his R egular S es s ion may, at any time, be rec es s ed to c onvene an Exec utive S es s ion for any purpose
authorized by the O pen Meetings Act, Texas G overnment C ode 551.)
A C all to O rder - Katherine Kainer, P arks and R ec reation Advisory Board C hair
B R oll C all - Katherine Kainer, P arks and R ecreation Advis ory Board C hair
C R ec ognition for O utgoing Board Member - Kimberly G arrett, P arks and R ec reation Direc tor
D C ons ideration and possible action to approve minutes from the January 13, 2022 meeting - Jill Kellum,
Adminis trative S upervis or
E P arks and R ec reation staff member introduc tion and presentation - Kimberly G arrett, P arks and
R ec reation Direc tor
F Update from the F riends of G eorgetown P arks and R ecreation - P eter Bahrs, P arks and R ec reation
Advis ory Boardmember Liais on
G C apital P rojec t Updates - Eric Nuner, Assistant Direc tor of P arks and R ec reation
H Direc tor R eport - Kimberly G arrett, P arks and R ec reation Direc tor
P ublic Wishing to Address the B oard
O n a s ubjec t that is posted on this agenda: P lease fill out a speaker regis tration form whic h can be found at the
Board meeting. C learly print your name, the letter of the item on which you wish to speak, and pres ent it to the
S taff Liais on, preferably prior to the start of the meeting. You will be c alled forward to speak when the Board
cons iders that item.
O n a s ubjec t not posted on the agenda: P ersons may add an item to a future Board agenda by filing a written
request with the S taff Liais on no later than one week prior to the Board meeting. T he reques t must include the
s peaker's name and the spec ific topic to be addres s ed with sufficient information to inform the board and the
public . F or Board Liaison c ontact information, pleas e logon to
http://government.georgetown.org/c ategory/boards -commissions /.
I At the time of this posting, no one had signed up to speak.
L egislativ e Regular Agenda
Page 1 of 28
J Disc ussion and possible recommendation to approve the propos ed P arkland Dedication for the Madison
Trac t, a Munic ipal Utility District-- Kimberly G arrett, P arks and R ecreation Director
Adjournment
Ce rtificate of Posting
I, R obyn Densmore, C ity S ecretary for the C ity of G eorgetown, Texas, do hereby c ertify that this Notic e of
Meeting was posted at C ity Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626, a plac e readily
acc es s ible to the general public as required by law, on the _____ day of _________________, 2022, at
__________, and remained s o posted for at leas t 72 c ontinuous hours prec eding the s cheduled time of said
meeting.
__________________________________
R obyn Dens more, C ity S ec retary
Page 2 of 28
City of Georgetown, Texas
Parks and Rec Advisory Board
February 10, 2022
S UB J E C T:
R ecognition for O utgoing Board Member - Kimberly G arrett, P arks and R ecreation Director
IT E M S UMMARY:
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Kimberly G arrett, P arks and R ec reation Direc tor
Page 3 of 28
City of Georgetown, Texas
Parks and Rec Advisory Board
February 10, 2022
S UB J E C T:
C onsideration and pos s ible ac tion to approve minutes from the January 13, 2022 meeting - Jill Kellum,
Administrative S upervisor
IT E M S UMMARY:
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Jill Kellum, Adminis trative S upervis or
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
Minutes Backup Material
Page 4 of 28
Minutes of the Meeting of the
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
City of Georgetown, Texas
January 13, 2022
Regular Session
(This Regular Session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any
purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551.)
A Call to Order - Katherine Kainer, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Chair
The meeting was called to order by Katherine Kainer at 6:06 pm.
B Roll Call - Katherine Kainer, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Chair
Present: Katherine Kainer, Jack Flatau, Jolene Melancon, Brazos Fielder, Peter Bahrs, and
Lindsay Cooper were in person. Chad Holz was connected through Zoom.
Staff present: Kimberly Garrett, Jill Kellum
C Consideration and possible action to approve minutes from the December 9, 2021
meeting - Jill Kellum, Administrative Supervisor
Motion made by Lindsay Cooper, second by Brazos Fielder, to approve minutes from the
December 9, 2021 meeting. Approved 7 – 0
D Parks and Recreation staff member introduction and presentation – Kimberly Garrett,
Parks and Recreation Director
There was not a staff member introduction and presentation at this meeting.
E Update from the Friends of Georgetown Parks and Recreation – Peter Bahrs, Parks
and Recreation Advisory Boardmember Liaison
There was not an update from the Friends of Georgetown Parks and Recreation.
F Capital Project Updates – Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director
The Capital Project Updates were posted with the agenda and not reviewed at the meeting.
G Director Report – Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director
The Director Report was posted with the agenda and not reviewed at the meeting.
H Presentation and discussion on draft Cost Recovery Model – Teresa Jackson,
GreenPlay
Teresa Jackson with GreenPlay gave a presentation on the cost recovery model. She stated they
are not to a point where they have final recommendations, but they are getting close and
wanted to bring the board up to date on the work done the past few months and the steps that
will be involved before delivering a draft for review. She is going over the process that was
Page 5 of 28
used, the key findings and touched on the next steps. They are looking to deliver the final in
February. Teresa Jackson stated they used a pyramid methodology that was adopted over 20
years ago, and it is a management tool that is used by agencies across the country. It articulates
the level of benefit each service provides. She explained on the bottom of the pyramid is where
the programs and services that have the broadest community benefit are placed and as you
work up the pyramid that benefit to the tax paying community is reduce. It is based on who
benefits and it recognizes that those basic levels of service should be free; they are supported by
tax dollars. These are things like the parks system and volunteer programs, but it also
recognizes what fees are responsible and necessary to supplement. As you move up the
pyramid, typically those fees are introduced into the scenario. So, it says the greater the
individual benefit the higher the cost recovery rate should be. At the top of the pyramid those
services are very individualized and that is where you see 100% cost recovery. The first step in
the process was to develop categories of service and group the programs into these categories.
There were 37 categories identified. The consultants sat down with the staff and the public to
sort these services onto the pyramid. From the sorting sessions, they were able to create the
pyramid. On the bottom of the pyramid are those programs and services with the most
community benefit. You see the department produced events, non-monitored and non-staffed
park and facility usage, public education, and volunteer programs. Those align very well with
the mission and core services and things that you would typically see subsidized at a high level.
In level 2, the considerable community benefit, there was a lot of value around youth
programming. This is where you find general recreation camps, youth classes, programs and
leagues, and the mobile pop-up outreach events and social clubs. As you get into level 3 this is
where you see more adult programs, senior programs, adaptive recreation, adult leagues,
facility membership, park pavilion rentals and other items. When you get into the more
individualized area, tier 4, this is where the advanced and competitive programs come into
play; department organized tournaments, field rentals, special event permits. When it was
reconciled with what public said and staff said, there were very minor variances between the
two. Both parties were very much on the same page. And lastly, looking at the most individual
benefit, the tier 5, that is where there are the attractions, cemetery lot sales, concessions, Garey
House full-service rentals, party packages and other items.
The next phase of the project is to understand what the current cost recovery is. This part is
critical because to set goals for the future we have to know where we are at. We don’t want to
set goals that are out of reach. They should be within range. Over the last two months staff has
been working diligently to put all the revenue and programs and spread the expenses in a
software system. With this part of the project, they have partnered with a company called
Amelia and they have a cost recovery module within their recreation software. It will allow the
department to make data driven decisions and be able to keep their pulse on how the programs
are currently performing and where modifications might be needed. Those modifications can
take the form of fee increases, introducing higher class minimums, or looking at what cost can
be reduced. Staff is working on entering this information and on Friday they should have the
actuals on cost recovery at the program, category, and tier level. After that, the goals can be set
for the future, based on this foundational information.
Page 6 of 28
Teresa Jackson went over key findings that are preliminary and are items that recommendations
will be based. She stated these key findings are very common and are not unusual to our
agency. They are broken down into 3 categories: policy actions, administrative tasks, and cost
saving and revenue strategies. For policy action, the department does not currently have a
comprehensive financial policy regarding cost recovery and program pricing and that is
ultimately what this study will provide. There is an area for scholarship opportunities. There
was also mention of partnered rental agreements. Within the administrative tasks, cost
accounting at the activity level is challenging and this is common everywhere, but with the
software cost recovery tool you will be able to see the cost recovery in real time. It will take
time to implement and train staff. In a year from now, it will allow for that cost accounting to
occur at that activity level. A special recreation fund that allows the department to reinvest its
revenue into programs, services and facilities, does not currently exist and this is a key finding
and will need to be discussed if it is moved forward into a recommendation. Fee setting and
adjusting has been ad hoc and not always timely. Fees are typically based on market rate. The
market rate is the tool that staff has had and have used it wisely, but this is going to put a lot
more tools in their toolbox because they will be able to see in the system, if the minimum is
increased by one, can they do that instead of increasing the fee. In the cost savings and revenue
strategies, this is going to be a lot more robust. When you start seeing things are not apples to
apples, you can pull out programs that have high expense and drill down into the why to start
making some changes to bring that cost down. The current method of setting fees is conducted
using a methodology that aligns cost recovery and pricing that the community values. That is
what this whole process has been about; engaging the community at a high level so that these
fees align with what is valued most.
Teresa Jackson stated they are very close on completing the cost-of-service analysis, then final
data review and next week will be setting the tier targets that will allow them to start finalizing
recommendations. She will present to city council on January 25th on where they are with the
tier targets. They are looking to have the study approved in February. The implementation will
take time and there will be some implementation recommendations within the document and a
key piece will be the significant amount of evaluation especially over the first two years.
Peter Bahrs asked, for example, a field rental for a class at the recreation center, does cost
recovery mean how much did I spent last year on field maintenance and then I predict it will be
100 games and each game those people are going to have to pay that percent to recover the
whole cost. Likewise, if I have a class in the gym at the recreation center do I take into account
how much the mortgage is for that square foot for that room and the electric cost and then if
there are 4 people I pay more and if there are 10 people I pay less? Teresa Jackson stated it does
in a sense and for this study they are counting direct and indirect costs. Within the facility they
are including the utility costs and on field rentals they are including the maintenance costs. In
this scenario, they are counting it all and then spreading it using percentages against programs.
A one-hour program in the recreation center is not going to have as much cost contributed to it
as a 2-hour program. The software helps to do that and assign percentages. Peter Bahrs stated
the usage is variable in terms of number of people so do you charge per class or charge per
Page 7 of 28
number of people. Teresa Jackson stated per number of people is how you set your fee and you
set it now and that correlates to what your cost recovery goal is. If you don’t hit the minimum,
the program shouldn’t move forward. However, there are always exceptions to that rule. But
in calculating the cost recovery it is using the length of the program; the time the individuals are
occupying the space. Kimberly Garrett stated in that calculation goes the cost of the instructor,
cost of supplies and for the recreation center that also includes the utilities. Katherine Kainer
asked if the paid programs are a monthly charge or a per class charge. Kimberly Garrett stated
both. Peter Bahrs stated the included classes in the membership are in a different category.
Kimberly Garrett stated this will take a while to figure out and looking at it every 6 months
because now the data isn’t there. Jack Flatau asked if the minimums are set is there some
flexibility if someone is willing to pay more to have the class if the minimums aren’t met.
Kimberly Garrett stated the system is set up for minimums and if you don’t meet that
minimum, it will cancel the class. Teresa Jackson stated the minimums and maximums are a
tool the department is already using and how they set their fees. They know at a minimum that
they need to recover a certain amount of cost, for the instructor for example. Teresa Jackson
explained, if meeting the capacity of the class is 12 but I need 6, so I can pay the instructor, that
class minimum would be 6 and if they get 7, then their cost recovery is above what their goal
was. If they got 3, then they are in a situation where they are not going to be able to pay their
instructor and that is where you cancel the class. That is a tool they have always used, but this
system is incorporating into it and projecting out for example, if you raise your minimum by 1
your cost recovery will go up 3%; it will project that for that program. Kimberly Garrett stated,
with the Amelia software it is taking a little longer to get all the data in and couldn’t get it all
done by today. They are scheduled to go to city council on January 25th and will have some of
that initial data by then. It will come back to the board in the February meeting and will have
the feedback from council as well. Peter Bahrs asked, on the pyramid with the categories and
different tiers, is there a goal for 2022 we want to improve by a certain percentage? Teresa
Jackson stated staff will look at those percentage and set those goals and then after that will
dive into recommendations about how you get there. For example, is it 2% each year for the
next 3 years; what is the most logical way to get there where you don’t increase a fee in a way
that people are not signing up. Chad Holz asked if we are looking at the revenues that these
different programs bring in and how that affects cost recovery. Teresa Jackson stated the
revenues are the easiest to extract because of the use of the recreation software. Chad Holz
stated it had to do with taxes and the contribution that each taxpayer has to the overall parks
budget. Kimberly Garrett stated the department has been trying to get that dollar amount of
everyone’s property tax that funds parks and recreation. That is the part we do not know. But
we do know the revenues that do come in from memberships and programs.
Public Wishing to Address the Board On a subject that is posted on this agenda: Please fill
out a speaker registration form which can be found at the Board meeting. Clearly print your
name, the letter of the item on which you wish to speak, and present it to the Staff Liaison,
preferably prior to the start of the meeting. You will be called forward to speak when the
Board considers that item. On a subject not posted on the agenda: Persons may add an item
to a future Board agenda by filing a written request with the Staff Liaison no later than one
Page 8 of 28
week prior to the Board meeting. The request must include the speaker's name and the
specific topic to be addressed with sufficient information to inform the board and the public.
For Board Liaison contact information, please logon to
http://government.georgetown.org/category/boards-commissions/.
I At the time of this posting, no one had signed up to speak.
Legislative Regular Agenda
J Presentation, discussion and possible recommendation on the proposed Draft Parks
and Recreation Master Plan – Dan Seder, GreenPlay
Dan Seder with GreenPlay stated we are in the final stages of the masterplan, and he reviewed
the key issues and some of the recommendations. He stated they identified 5 categories:
Organizational Effectiveness, Level of Service for Outdoor Recreation, Level of Service for
Indoor Recreation, Programming, and Financial. The consultant team along with the city
project team performed that exercise where they identified those key issues and then started to
look at the preliminary recommendations that lead to the creation of these final
recommendations and action plan. The recommendations were drawn from all the public
input, the inventory, the level of service analysis, findings feedback, and all that information
that was gathered during the masterplanning process. There was a primary focus on
maintaining, sustaining, and improving the Georgetown Parks and Recreation open space and
trails. Any cost estimates identified are 2021 figures and are best estimates at that time and it is
possible that some of these capital cost items could go up over the next year or two. For the
timeframe to complete the items that were identified as ongoing, are recommendations that
should be reviewed on an annual basis and reevaluated. The high timeframe is anything that
should be accomplished up to 3 years and provided an asterisk, that identifies what they
consider a very high priority that should be completed within the first year. The medium falls
in the 4 – 6 year timeframe, with low in the 7 – 10 year timeframe. You will see many highs and
mediums and very few lows which is typical of a masterplan and knowing that some of those
can adjust.
Dan Seder showed the key issues that were identified in the Organization Effectiveness;
communication with residents, duplication of services and reach of services and programs to
the public. He showed some recommendations and how they would read and how they would
be used as a tool. For the first recommendation, improving communication with residents and
under that will list any actions that fall under that objective. The first one is to continue to
expand efforts based on communication methods identified in the community survey, solicit
resident feedback through registration questionnaires, program evaluations and outreach
efforts. It is identified if there are any operational budget impacts and identified if there are any
capital cost estimates. Dan Seder stated that on communication; whether the community does a
great job or a poor job, they always find that people identify that, and it is a recommendation
they typically call out and that is to stay engaged and find new ways to communicate. He went
Page 9 of 28
on to the next factor and that was to develop community engagement opportunities to promote
community and neighborhood input on the development of programs, parks, projects and other
community related efforts. On this one, it is going out and asking the community, are there
new programs you would like to see or if you are getting ready to revise a new program and
getting input from the public. You are then creating your programs, projects and parks based
on what is going to meet the needs of the community with their input so that they are creating
that buy in.
Dan Seder stated the next key issue is the level of service for outdoor recreation. He stated a lot
of this information came from Dave’s GRASP analysis as well as the work that Covey did in
looking at the trail. What they found was that there is a definite desire for more trails and
pathways, access to skate park, parks and trail safety, desire for community gardens, access to
aquatics and water opportunities, need for additional parks and open space to improve
walkability and access, internal standards for parks and components and implementation of a
standardized park classification based on components and park services. Dan Seder reviewed
some of the GRASP analysis information. The first recommendation listed is making park
improvements to better serve Georgetown residents and in turn improving the neighborhood
GRASP scores. In Appendix A there is a park recommendations table and they called out to
improve the low scoring parks in low scoring areas by adding amenities and replacing
amenities or adding other infrastructure elements as outlined in Appendix A. The operational
budget impact is to be determined and this is a high priority. He stated there are 8 parks that
have a high priority and they identified some of the park improvements they would like to see
for each of those parks and have identified what parks classification those parks fall into. He
also showed the medium and low priority parks and stated with the Appendix you have a very
valuable tool. Everything is listed on the priorities, the park names, the improvement, the
classifications and assigned park costs estimates in 2021 dollars to each of the park
improvements. Another recommendation was addressing the need for additional parks and
open space to improve that walkable level of service and general park access. The next finding
identifies acquiring new parkland to meet the growth starting with an acquisition for a
community park in southeast Georgetown. The operational budget impact is staff time and
capital cost estimate for this southwest Georgetown area is 4 million dollars. This is a high
priority with an asterisk, and this is something to accomplish in the first year. They also
provided some other projected parks and open space improvement with park names, park
classifications and the planning and visioning effort they would like to see. As you look to
make these improvement and acquiring this land you want to look at how does it help update
the existing masterplan, what are the long term improvements that you can do through the
planning process and conducting the neighborhood programming sessions and getting in to
find out how we should develop these parks and what these parks should look like based on
the neighborhoods they are located in and the needs of those people that live in these areas.
Another objective is the desire for more trails and pathways. Action items are identifying those
locations for future trail heads, creating standards and implement appropriate parking, lighting,
signage and other supporting facilities for current and new trail heads and trail access points,
and then aligning that trail system to facility type and responsible city entity for
Page 10 of 28
implementation. These are all high priorities and ongoing. These are actions we want to get
going in the first 3 years and want to reevaluate and revisit these on an annual basis. In the
Appendix there is more levels of detail shown.
The next key issue was level of service with indoor recreation. The recommendation is to
renovate the current recreation center and they know there is a lack of current space that must
address the demand for more space with the projected future population growth. This was
combined into one objective item and what is called out is the renovation and expansion of the
current recreation center and build a new recreation center to address the need for additional
space to meet population growth and demand. The first item is to complete a feasibility study
to determine what is called out in Appendix B. It would be looking at that renovation and
expansion of the existing recreation center, which included reimagining the interior spaces for
efficiency, looking at refreshing the aging facility, looking at the heavy renovations and
reimagining the space to improve the experiences and improving the recreation services. The
feasibility study would also look at building a new westside facility and the relocation of the
exiting tennis center facility to meet the Georgetown level of service. They are also looking at
identifying the appropriate location on the westside most likely adjacent to a major
thoroughfare and identifying potential funding sources. BRS who performed this analysis has
provided an estimate for this study to be approximately $75,000 - $90,000. Again, this is a high
priority and something that need to be address as the population is growing and the demands
for this type of facility is growing and there is going to be that need for an additional facility.
This is something that needs to be looked at in the first 3 years.
Dan Seder stated the 4th key issue is programming and here there were 3 key issues. There was
in expressed desire for more environmental and educational enrichment programming, there is
always a need for more after school and summer programs, and there is a need for more youth
opportunities in zone 4. The objection is the need to provide a robust menu of programs to
meet the community needs and these are all high priorities with the first one with an asterisk
and want to look at this in the first year. It is to look at the options to increase programming in
parkland dedication 4 addressing that need for youth programming and looking for potential
partnership opportunities in that area to administer the programming. It also looks at the need
for afterschool programs and summer camps. Action items would be looking at what you are
doing, looking to see what opportunities exist to provide that programming, taking that
programming out to the people in their areas, as opposed to them coming to you, and how you
can address these issues. This was also part of Teresa Jackson’s cost recovery, was looking at
the scholarship program to increase availability and reduce barriers to access. The scholarship
program is something that they want to reevaluate and develop so that everyone knows there is
an opportunity out there to be able to participate in the programs and make sure it is in place.
The 5th is the key issues for financial and with the community growth it will require additional
funding and full-time employees to provide the same standard of parks and recreation services.
They have called out a lot of recommendations that will be improving parks and growing the
parks system. The recommendations are to request full time employees to keep pace with the
Page 11 of 28
growth, annual budget increases, implement a cost recovery philosophy and policy, pursue a
bond referendum for funding special projects to maintain the current level of service, elevate
the operations of the Friends of Georgetown to support future fundraising and planning efforts,
and consider the support through private/public partnerships in the form of sponsorships,
advertising, naming rights, who those partners can be in delivery of programming and in other
ways to reach the community, and provide those services.
Dan Seder stated they are in the final plan stage, and it will be taken to city council. There will
be final tweaks to the document after staff review with anything to updates and changes and
presented to city council. The final document will then be taken to city council to make the plan
implementable and moving forward with it.
Peter Bahrs asked on 5.1.f, does that mean we would see local business advertising with a
placard on the wall in the basketball courts. Dan Seder stated this is that 30,000-foot view so it
wasn’t specifically called out they should advertise on their walls or fields. It’s down to what
the philosophy is as an organization. But they are saying there are opportunities there and part
of the cost recovery will help make some of these decisions and if there are public and private
opportunities where you could draw in some advertising dollars. That would be a decision
from the staff and the parks board on how they would want to see that come about. Dan Seder
stated they know there are some opportunities out there especially knowing there will be more
expenses coming up. Kimberly Garrett stated we do get sponsorships for our special events
and youth soccer and the business name is on shirts, but there isn’t a full-blown policy. Peter
Bahrs asked about 5.1.a, the 10 full time employees (FTEs) over 5 years, so the cost recovery
includes an increase in FTEs already and which one of the numbers gets presented to council
first; the details on cost recovery or the increase in people. Kimberly Garrett stated the parks
masterplan will be presented to the council first and some of those employees may be parks
maintenance and that the staff increase may not be related to recreation center programming
but may be related to the programs that are a community benefit. Peter Bahrs asked if that 10
covers over 5 years and what you think would be implemented in this plan over 5 years and the
need to support it, or would it be more people if everything was accepted. Dan Seder said they
did a benchmarking as part of this masterplan. They looked at what they are going to spend
per employee for the size of the agency and what you have. As they looked at the growth that
would potentially occur, they used those numbers to forecast out what they would need to
maintain that level of service as you grow, your spending per population, looking at the acres
and the programs. That is part of where those numbers came from and looking at that budget
would increase based with the population growth, who you are delivering to, based with the
number acres you are looking to add on. Peter Bahrs stated the 10 FTEs are to maintain the
current level of service, but you are somewhat proposing more things to do with the plan; so
the new things aren’t covered by FTEs. Kimberly Garrett stated that is correct. Dan Seder
stated to maintain the current level of service, with the growth, these are the number of
employees you need to add, to maintain currently what the agency is doing.
Page 12 of 28
Motion made by Peter Bahrs, second by Jack Flatau to recommend approval on the proposed
Draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Approved 7 – 0
K Consideration and possible action to recommend approval of a Task Order with
Covey Landscape Architects of Georgetown, TX, for professional services related to
Neighborhood Park development in the amount of $198,800.00 – Kimberly Garrett, Parks and
Recreation Director
Kimberly Garrett stated this is for Covey Landscape and the engineers to do all the design work
for these parks. She stated these are for the parks that were listed on the masterplan that need
to be developed. By combining all these parks together there is cost savings on some of the
permitting. She said there is a funding source in the parkland dedication fee. Some of these
parks have been there since 2002 because there was not a funding source at that time. It will be
about $250,000 per park and a small portion of that will go toward this design.
Motion made by Lindsay Cooper, second by Brazos Fielder to recommend approval of a Task
Order with Covey Landscape Architects of Georgetown, TX, for professional services related
to Neighborhood Park development in the amount of $198,800.00. In the discussion, Peter
Bahrs stated he would like for them to include solar powered security cameras. Kimberly
Garrett stated those would be amenities and this task order is for the design. This would
include how big the playground can be so there can be ample space for the sidewalk and they
will have to put in accessible routes and accessible sidewalks. They will also help with the
public input where they go out to each neighborhood for a public meeting to find out what they
want.
Approved 7 – 0.
L Consideration and possible action to recommend approval of replacement of the
divider curtains in both gymnasiums and basketball structures in one of the gymnasiums at
the Georgetown Recreation Center to H2I Group Inc. of Houston, TX using Buyboard
contract #583-19 in the amount of $68,258. – Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director
Kimberly Garrett stated this is for replacement amenities in the recreation center gym. There is
a special revenue fund which allows for replacement as things wear out. The gym curtains are
looking worn, and they allow for programming multiple activities at the same time. They do
get a lot of use going up and down and are at the end of their useful life and the basketball
goals as well. Staff is looking for automated goals. The current ones are manual, and it takes
multiple staff to move them up and down and they are in bad shape. They are wanting to
replace with automatic ones, and this will help with staff time. Kimberly Garrett stated they
want to coordinate this with the September maintenance closing. Staff is finding it is taking a
long lead time to get some of this equipment and pricing continues to go up.
Motion made by Jolene Melancon, second by Jack Flatau to recommend approval of the
replacement of the divider curtains in both gymnasiums and basketball structures in one of
Page 13 of 28
the gymnasiums at the Georgetown Recreation Center to H2I Group Inc. of Houston, TX
using Buyboard contract #583-19 in the amount of $68,258. Approved 7 – 0.
Adjournment
Motion made by Katherine Kainer, second by Brazos Fielder to adjourn the meeting. The
meeting adjourned at 7:21 pm.
_____________________________________
Katherine Kainer, Board Chair
____________________________________
Lindsay Cooper, Secretary
______________________________________
Jill Kellum, Board Liaison
Page 14 of 28
City of Georgetown, Texas
Parks and Rec Advisory Board
February 10, 2022
S UB J E C T:
C apital P roject Updates - Eric Nuner, As s is tant Director of P arks and R ecreation
IT E M S UMMARY:
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Eric Nuner, As s is tant Director of P arks and R ecreation
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
Project updates Backup Material
Page 15 of 28
Parks and Recreation
Capital Improvement Projects – February 2022
Heritage Gardens (Community Garden) The restroom has been installed and phase 1 of the concrete work has been
completed. Fencing and utilities for the restroom have been installed. Stone for the raised beds has been delivered and
beds are being built.
University Park – Staff has begun the planning process for redevelopment of University Park to include playground
replacement, landscape improvements and additional site amenities. Play units have been ordered and will be installed
in Spring 2022. No change. Staff is waiting for delivery of the play unit.
Wolf Crossing Trail – Preconstruction meeting was held February 1st with Lone Star Site Work. The notice to proceed will
be issued for February 21st. The contract duration is 7 months. The trail will begin at the Hwy 35 bridge and will
terminate at 29th Street.
Page 16 of 28
Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Update – The final draft plan was presented to Parks Board on January 13,
2022, and City Council on January 25, 2022. The public hearing and first reading to adopt the plan through ordinance
was presented to City Council on February 8, 2022.
Pinnacle Park, Raintree Park – Both parks will see improvements to include ADA compliance and playground structure
replacement. Neighborhoods will be involved in the planning process. Parks staff will complete installation and finish out
both parks. Staff have gathered all materials for public input meetings will begin in February.
San Gabriel Park Phase 3 – Design of Phase 3 will include one large multi-use performance pavilion, splash pad plaza,
entry monuments, roadway and parking improvements, three shade shelters, one new restroom building, one lighted
skate park, directional and interpretive signage, open spaces and landscaping, and a low water crossing across the San
Gabriel River. Planning is underway. Concept plans have been reviewed and Rvi is looking at comments to make
adjustments to the concept plans.
Regional Trail Development – Staff is evaluating links to existing trail systems. Design will begin in early 2022.
Southeast Community Park – Purchase of additional park property in the southeast area of Georgetown.
La Conterra Park, Westhaven Park, Vista Vera Park, Crystal Knoll Park, Waypoint Park, 84 Lumber Park – Six new parks
to be provided by Parkland Dedication funding. Public input meetings will be held to establish need. The design process
and public input will take six months.
La Conterra Park and Westhaven Parks
Page 17 of 28
Vista Vera Park
Crystal Knoll
Page 18 of 28
Waypoint Park
84 Lumber Park
Page 19 of 28
City of Georgetown, Texas
Parks and Rec Advisory Board
February 10, 2022
S UB J E C T:
Director R eport - Kimberly G arrett, P arks and R ecreation Director
IT E M S UMMARY:
Director R eport is attached.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
NA
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Kimberly G arrett, P arks and R ec reation Direc tor
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
Director Report Backup Material
Page 20 of 28
Director’s Monthly Report
Parks and Recreation
February 2022
Highlights
The Parks Master Plan was presented to the City Council at their January 25th workshop. The
City Council provided direction related to Objective 2.2.b regarding adding SG Park Phase IV and
additional phases of Garey Park to the recommendations. Also, under Objective 3.1a, they
provided direction to remove west from the recommendation regarding the location for a new
recreation center and simply just recommend a new recreation center is needed. At the
February 8, 2022, City Council Meeting, the Parks and Recreation Master Plan is scheduled to
have a 2nd Public Hearing and a 1st reading to adopt the master plan as an element of the 2030
Comprehensive Plan. The 2nd reading is scheduled for February 22nd. The first Public Hearing
was held at the January 18th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. There was no one that
signed up to speak and the Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously recommend approval
of the Master Plan.
The Cost Recovery Policy draft was presented to City Council at the January 25th workshop. An
update on the Cost Recovery Policy including recommendations will be presented to the Parks
Board on March 10th and tentatively scheduled for March 22nd City Council Workshop.
Cupid’s Chase 5K is scheduled for February 12, 2022. There are 575 participants registered so
far. We anticipate 50 – 100 more people signing up before or at the event. The race will start
and end in San Gabriel Park.
A preconstruction meeting for Wolf Crossing Trail was recently held. The contractor will
mobilize on February 21st and the project is expected to take 7 – 8 months to complete.
Construction on the new pavilion at Garey Park is going well. Estimated date of completion is
the end of February.
The San Gabriel baseball field lights that were damaged by lightning in December are being
repaired. The repairs should be completed in 2-3 weeks.
Parks staff has met with the transportation department on some ideas to improve safety at the
pedestrian trail crossings particularly the trail crossing on Morrow Street at the College Street
Bridge. Once a solution has been decided upon, staff will work to improve the other trail
crossings.
Work continues at Heritage Community Gardens. Garden plots are now available for rent, there
have been 2 out of 8 ADA beds rented, 36 of the 48 raised beds rented and 13 of the 25 in
ground beds. The goal is to have everything ready by March 1st, the weather has impacted
construction some.
The McMaster inaugural pickleball tournament was a big success. There were 128 players that
participated.
Page 21 of 28
The basketball goals and gym curtains will be replaced during facility closure in September.
The Recreation Center will host the GISD Sea Perch on March 25th.
There is a public tree planting scheduled for February 26th. There has been an overwhelming
response for volunteers for the event.
The Recreation Center will participate with the Citizens Memorial Association’s Black History
Month celebration on February 26th.
Recreation Center staff will also participate in the Wolf Ranch Health Event on March 26th
Spring/Summer program registration started February 1st. The brochure is posted on the
website at https://indd.adobe.com/view/e2538cde-bf43-48a3-9a0f-affd3611da96
Seasonal summer jobs are posted, such as lifeguards and camp counselors. There has been a
push on social media to help advertise the openings.
Page 22 of 28
City of Georgetown, Texas
Parks and Rec Advisory Board
February 10, 2022
S UB J E C T:
Dis cus s ion and pos s ible rec ommendation to approve the proposed P arkland Dedic ation for the Madis on
Tract, a Municipal Utility Dis tric t-- Kimberly G arrett, P arks and R ec reation Direc tor
IT E M S UMMARY:
T he Madis on Tract is a proposed In C ity Munic ipal Utility District development loc ated in the NW area of
G eorgetown between R onald R eagan and S tate Highway 195. T he propos ed projec t inc ludes a mix of
res idential types inc luding multi-generational residential, age restricted residential as part of S un C ity,
multifamily and townhouse units.
T he developer is propos ing to meet the parkland dedic ation requirements in a variety of methods. T his
inc ludes a public park with improvements, parkland dedication fees for dedication to be us ed towards
development and heritage tree credit. Additional park benefits include non-exclus ive amenities in the private
amenity center lot and a passive park with nature trail.
Del Webb/Sun City
T his portion of the development inc ludes age res tric ted homes that will become part of the S un C ity
Development. T here is 117.2 ac res with 469 homes proposed. S inc e this development will be part of S un
C ity, they will have acc es s to all their amenities. T hey propos e to pay fee in lieu of land and development.
T here fees are projec ted to be as follows:
P arkland Dedic ation 469 homes x $650 per unit = $304,850
P arkland Development F ees 469 homes x $1,000 per unit = $469,000
Total fees to be paid $773,850
M ulti Family/To wnho mes
T he multifamily and townhomes will s atisfy the parkland dedic ation and development with fee in lieu of.
T he exact amount of fees will be determined at site plan when the
development is planned.
Multi-Generational Residential
T he majority of the public improvements will c ome from the multi generational residential units. T his area
is approximately 159.5 ac res and is propos ing 718 units . T he required parkland dedication is 8.98 acres.
T he developer is propos ing a combination of a developed public park, parkland dedication fees , and
heritage tree credit. In addition, there will be one mile of trail, 10’ wide concrete and a nature trail on the
pas s ive parkland.
R equired P arkland 8.98 acres
P ublic P ark 5.5 ac res
Heritage Tree C redit 3.19 acres (17 HT x 15 unit c redit for eac h tree s aved in a public park)
T he difference or shortfall is 0.29 acres of parkland. T he developer is propos ing to pay a fee in lieu of for
the remaining amount and put thos e funds toward the development of the public park.
Page 23 of 28
In addition to meeting the parkland requirements, the developer is proposed to add amenities in the amenity
center park lot which will be open to the public (s ample private park s chematic attac hed). In addition, there
is an 11.4 ac re passive park that is a buffer for kart features in the Del Webb development. In working with
Williams on C ounty C ons ervation F oundation, the developer was able to s ecure a nature trail in the area
giving all res idents ac cess to this additional open s pace and providing for an education opportunity.
A detailed P UD agreement (P lanned Unit Development) and Development Agreement will be drafted to
ensure park standards are met.
T he developer also propos es that the HO A will perform the maintenanc e at the public park through a
parkland maintenanc e agreement.
S taff Recommendation
S taff recommends approval of the proposed parkland dedic ation whic h has been in coordination with the
planning department and C ity C ouncil.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Kimberly G arrett, P arks and R ec reation Direc tor
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
Madison Tract site plan Backup Material
Madison Location map.Backup Material
Pas s ive Park Exhibit Exhibit
Sample Private Park Backup Material
Page 24 of 28
Page 25 of 28
C
R
2
4
8
TowerRd
S
C
R
2
8
9
Berry Creek
B
e
a
v
e
r
L
n
C R 2 4 1
O
l
d
1
9
5
P V R 9 0 4
C
R
2
4
5
C R 2 4 6
S
H
1
9
5
R
M
2
3
3
8
Cobbs Cav ern
KFA
945 ft
1033 ft
1032 ft
N
orthForkS a n G abrielRiver
2338
2338
C o o l Sprin g W ay
I n d i a n S p r i n g s R d
S
u
n
CityBlv
d
RonaldWReaga n B l v d
S ilve r S p urBlvd
CR2
4
8
N L a k e w o o d s D r
C
R
2
6
1
WilliamsDr
FM 3405
RM 2338
Cowan Creek
Gol f Club
Lake
Georgetown
Recreational
Area
Fountainwood
Linear Park
Ji m Hogg Park
Russel l Park
Twin Springs
Preserve
1082 ft
L a k e
G e o r g e t o w n
L i v e O a k T r l
RattlesnakeRd
R o n a l d W R e aganBlvd
C
R
2
3
4
C R 2 3 9
C R 2 3 8
SH19
5
Coff i n Cave
Preserve
Balcones
Escarpment
811 ft
130
195
195
35
M
a
d
ri
dDr
C h a m p i o n s Dr
Oak B r a n c h D r
S e d r o T r l
Del W e b b Blvd
AirportRd
B o n n e t L n
CR
234
C R 1 4 7
C R 1 4 3
W
illia
msDr
SH195
Whi te Wing
Gol f Club
Berry Creek
Country C lub
Georgetown
Municipal
Airport
S erena da
S un C i t y
Balcones
Escarpment
N
AustinAve
Lak e w ayDr
S t a d i u m D r
B o o t y s C r o ssingRd
Cedar Breaks
Park
1105
1105
C
R
2
3
7
C R 3 1 1
C
R
3
7
5
C
R
3
8
8
C
R
1
4
5
C R 3 1 5
C R 1 4 4
C R 2 3 8
R o n a l d W R e a g a n B l v d
C R 3 1 0
D
r
v
w
C R 1 4 6
N e w C o rn Hi l l
T he o n
865 ft
B er r y Creek
972
1105
1105
35
G r o v e L n
CR154
C R 1 5 0
G r e e n A c r e s
C R 1 4 4
CR153
C
R
1
4
0
C R 1 4 9
C
R
1
4
1
F
M
1
1
0
5
F M 1 1 0 5
F M 9 7 1 F M 9 7 1
Berry Springs
Park And
Preserve
W a l bu r g
C R 1 2 4
Pecan Branch
Linear
Greenbelt
W e i r
832 ft
F M 9 7 2
Q u e e n H i l l
Planning Map
Baylor University, County of Williamson, Texas Parks & Wildlife,
CONANP, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS,
EPA, NPS, USDA, Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA
Georgetown ETJ
Georgetown City Limits-Zoomed Out
2/7/2022, 1:54:52 PM
0 1.5 30.75 mi
0 2.5 51.25 km
1:72,224
Georgetown Planning
Baylor University, County of Williamson, Texas Parks & Wildlife, CONANP, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc., METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA | Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA | City of Georgetown |
Page 26 of 28
Legend *Trail Head
o Dog Station
c Bench
o Trash Receptacle
SEC Planning, LLC
Land Planning + Landscape Architecture + Community Branding
AUSTIN, TEXAS
t512.246.7003
www.secplanning.com + info@secplanning.com
EXHIBIT B - 11.4 ACRE PASSIVE PARKLAND
MADISON TRACT
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
�
o
�S
•c•al•
e
•:•:��0 •=•2•0•0 ••2Joo _______ 400
North Date: October 21, 2021
SHEET FILE: G:\Cadfiles\2018 Madison Expansion\Cadfiles\PLANNING\Concept G_Parkland exhibit.dwg
Base mapping compiled from best available information. All map data
should be considered as preliminary, in need of verification, and
subject to change. This land plan is conceptual in nature and does not
represent any regulatory approval. Plan is subject to change. Page 27 of 28
A R K S I DP E ON THE RIVER
PH. 2 AMENITY
SCALE:
1”=30’
JANUARY 11, 2022
This illustration is for planning purposes only, and subject to change without notice
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
POOL - 3,914 SF
CLUBHOUSE - 3,100 SF
COVERED PATIO - 600 SF
PLAYGROUND - 1,800 SF
SHADE SAIL -340 SF
PLAY LAWN
PARKING - 38 STALLS
Page 28 of 28