HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Agenda 08-05-034:00 P.M.
4:30 P.M.
II.
II.
IV.
Vo
VI.
AGENDA
#2315
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
TUESDAY, AUGUST 5, 2003 AT 5:00 P.M.
EXECUTIVE SESSION UNDER SECTION 551.071 OF THE TEXAS
GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION WITH CITY ATTORNEY
WORK SESSION FOR AGENDA REVIEW
INVOCATION Councilmember Jim Roberts
INTRODUCTION OF STAFF - City Manager Bob Livingston
AWARDS AND REQUESTS FROM CITIZENS
A. CERTIFICATE OF AWARD: Gus Walton, Dispatcher Ledbetter
Tab I
ITEMS FROM THE FLOOR
Anyone wishing to address an item not on the Agenda or having questions about items
on the Consent Agenda should do so at this time. Questions and comments regarding
Main Agenda items may be made when that item is addressed by the City Council.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. CONSIDER: Ordinance regarding denial of natural gas rate request Austin
Tab II
B. CONSIDER: Proposal from C&P Engineering for design of water & sanitary
sewer improvements in alley bounded by Stanhope, Shenandoah, Preston &
Armstrong Smallwood Tab III
C. CONSIDER: Final payment to Barson Utilities, Inc., for water, sanitary sewer
improvements and alley paving, Project No. 42710 Smallwood Tab IV
D. CONSIDER: Final payment to Barson Utilities, Inc., for water, sanitary sewer
improvements and alley paving, Project No. 42711 & 44170 Smallwood
Tab V
E. CONSIDER: Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes for July 16, 2003
Wilson Tab VI
MAIN AGENDA
A. PUBLIC HEARING: Amending Hillcrest Hotel Planned Development
B. CONSIDER: Ordinance amendment to Hillcrest Hotel Planned Development
McLaurin Tab VII
C. CONSIDER: Ordinance to adopt commercial building heights McLaurin
Tab VIII
D. CONSIDER: Amendment to Sign Ordinance regarding temporary signs
McLaurin Tab IX
E. PRESENTATION: Proposed FY2004 Budget Austin Tab X
F. CONSIDER: Acceptance of $99,099 federal grant for assistance for homeland
security Ledbetter Tab XI
G. CONSIDER: Engineering contract with R.L. Goodson for design of Lovers Lane
Smallwood Tab XII
H. CONSIDER: Ordinance changing title from Environmental Inspector to
Neighborhood Integrity Officer Smallwood Tab XIII
As authorized by Section 551.071(2) of the Texas Government Code, this meeting
may be convened into Closed Executive Session for the purpose of seeking
confidential legal advice from the City Attorney on any agenda items listed herein.
VII.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
INFORMATION AGENDA Tab XIV
REPORTS, BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
EMPLOYEE BENFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
PARK ADVISORY COMMITTEE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes for March 17 & May 19, 2003
PROPERTY CASUALTY & LIABILITY iNSURANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
PUBLIC WORKS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
URBAN DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
ZONING ORDINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
CAPITAL PROJECTS REVIEW COMMITTEE
CAPITAL PROJECTS UPDATE for Week of August June 1, 2003
AGENDA MEMO
(08-05-03 Agenda)
DATE: July 28, 2003
TO: Nina Wilson, Executive Secretary
FROM: Denise Rencher, Public Safety Communications
SUBJECT: Silent Hero Award for Augustest Walton
The State of Texas, Commission on State Emergency Communications, has awarded Mr.
Augustest Walton with the "Silent Hero Certificate of Achievement" award. This award
is given to 9-1-1 call-takers/dispatchers for their exemplary conduct in the field of
emergency telecommunications. This award acknowledges Mr. Walton's
professionalism, dedication, positive attitude and tireless efforts to serve the public.
Mr. Walton joins the ranks of only 63 other 9-1-1 call-takers that were selected this year
to be recognized for their outstanding job performance, exemplary attitude and devotion
above and beyond the call of duty.
In addition to receiving this award at the city council meeting, Mr. Walton will also be
introduced during an Awards Luncheon, held by the Commission on State Emergency
Communications, at the annual Texas Emergency Number Association conference in
August 2003.
* The call that prompted Mr. Walton to be nominated for this award was a call he handled
in September of 2002. This particular call led officers to a homicide scene. Mr. Walton's
ability to receive and disseminate the information correctly played a key role in what
officers would find on scene. With the information that was provided by the suspect,
Communications Specialist Augustest Walton was able to keep the officers updated for
their safety as well as securing a crime scene with adequate personnel.
ATTACHMENTS:
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
Commission on State
Emergency Communications
S~lent Hero
CERTIFICATE OF ACHTE, VEME. NT
presented to
Augustest Walton
in recognition of exemplary conduct in the field
of emergency telecommunications.
Your professionalism, dedication, positive attitude
and tireless efforts to serve the public are an
inspiration to all who strive for excellence.
Paul Mallett
Executive Director
August 2003
cD~:~)rtwhYo mMa°nr~ (~]
Commission on
State Emergency
Communications
333 Guadalupe Street,
Suite 2-212
Austin, Texas
78701-3942
Phone:
512-305-6911 V/TTY
Fax:
512-305-6937
www.911 .state.tx.us
June 27,2003
Denise Rencher
City of University Park
3800 University Blvd.
Dallas, TX 75205
Dear Ms. Rencher,
Thank you for submitting the nomination of Augustest Walton for recognition
as a Silent Hero. Enclosed is the individual's Certificate of Achievement for
you to present at the time and place of your choosing. Your nominee has
already been notified that he is being honored as a Silent Hero.
We have planned additional recognition for Silent Heroes who will be able to
attend 9-1-1 Appreciation Day festivities in Piano, during our
Telecommunicator Awards Luncheon on Wednesday, August 27th. We
hope both you and your nominee will be able to join us for the 9-1-1
Appreciation Day activities. As a reminder CSEC and TENA will be covering
the conference registration costs for your Silent Hero.
We extend our sincere appreciation to you for taking the time to complete
the nomination process and identify a calltaker from your PSAP who
deserves to be singled out for outstanding performance. The 9-1-1 system
works because of the people behind it, and we're pleased to be able to
acknowledge excellent work.
We would appreciate it if you would send copies of any articles that appear
in your local newspaper about your Silent Hero to Robert Gonzalez, our
Public Education Specialist. Again, thank you for your participation in the
Silent Hero recognition program.
Sincerely,
Executive Director
PM/rg
Commission on
State Emergency
Communications
333 Guadalupe Street,
Suite 2-212
Austin, Texas
78701-3942
Phone:
512-305-6911 V/TTY
Fax:
512-305-6937
www.911 .state.tx.us
June 27,2003
Augustest Walton
University Park
3800 University Blvd.
Dallas, TX 75205
Dear Augustest,
We are delighted to acknowledge your exceptional professionalism in the field
of emergency communications and to officially recognize you as a Silent Hero.
You join the ranks of 63 other 9-1-1 calltakers selected this year to be
recognized for outstanding job performance, exemplary attitude, and devotion
above and beyond the call of duty.
Your certificate of recognition as a Silent Hero is being sent to Denise Rencher,
who nominated you for this special award, so that it can be presented to you in
your community. We, at the Commission on State Emergency
Communications, would also like to celebrate your achievement, and invite you
to be our guest at the annual 9-1-1 Appreciation Day celebration, being held
this year August 26th- 27th in Plane, TX.
Silent Heroes attending 9-1-1 Appreciation Day activities will be introduced
during the Awards Luncheon, and are also invited to participate in a variety of
other activities. A flyer with details is enclosed, along with a response form for
you to advise us of your attendance plans. Please keep in mind that the
deadline to make reservations at the Doubletree Legacy Hotel is August 1st
Again, congratulations on your outstanding accomplishments as a 9-1-1
calltaker. We are proud to salute you!
Sincerely,
Executive Director
PM/rg
cc: Denise Rencher
AGENDA MEMO
(08/05/03 AGENDA)
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
July 30, 2003
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Kent R. Austin, Director of Finance
Denial of gas rate request
ITEM:
Attached is a memo from attorney Geoffrey Gay and an ordinance denying TXU Gas
Company's request for a gas rate increase. As you remember, the City passed a resolution
in May 2003 suspending TXU's request. The attached documents explain the reasoning
for now denying the rate request.
RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends denial of the TXU gas rate request.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Memo from Geoffrey Gay, 7/3/03
2. Ordinance
3. "Proposed Findings Supporting Denial of TXU's Request to Increase Rates for
Natural Gas" memo
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson\Local Settings~Temporary Internet Files\OLK21\Gas rate cover memo 080603.doc 3:59 PM 07/31J
111 CONGRESS AVENUE
SUITE 1800
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701
LLOYD, GOSSELINK, BLEVlNS, ROCHELLE,
BALDWIN & TOWNSEND, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Mr. Gay's Direct Line: (512) 322-5875
Email: ggay@lglawfirm.com
TELEPHONE (512) 322-5800
TELECOPIER (512) 472-0532
www. lglawfirm.com
CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
123 Cities Allied In Opposition To TXU Gas
Geoffrey M. Gay on behalf of your Steering Committee
July 3, 2003
Status Of Case; Need To Adopt Ordinance Denying Rate Relief To TXU Gas
Last Friday, June 27, 2003, was the effective date of the new gas rates proposed by TXU
in its statewide rate filing. Your city suspended the effective date, authorized the joining of a
coalition of cities working under the direction of a Steering Committee~ and authorized the filing
of an intervention in the proceeding on TXU's rate application pending at the Railroad
Commission (RRC), GUD No. 9400.
For ease of identification in GUD No. 9400, the 123 cities that passed the suspension
resolution recommended by the Steering Committee and joined the coalition chaired by Jay
Doegey, City Attorney of Arlington, are being referred to as Allied Coalition of Cities (ACC).
Attached please find a current listing of all cities that have authorized participation in the
ratemaking process. Pleadings are on file at the RRC to intervene each of the 123 cities as part
of ACC.
There are 1.4 million customers on the TXU Gas system. Residents of ACC members
total approximately 870,000 or approximately 63% of all TXU gas customers. If the City of
Dallas (with about 234,433 customers) decides to join ACC, your coalition will be speaking on
behalf of nearly 80% of all customers and reflecting more than 80% of total sales volumes.
~ Your Steering Committee members are: Jay Doegey, Arlington; Chester Nolen, Cleburne; Nick Fehrenbach, Don
Knight and Amy Bock, Dallas; Tom Akins, Denison; Margaret Somereve and John Boyle, Farmers Branch; Van
James and Steve Williams, Flower Mound; Danny Reed, Fort Worth; Cathy Cunningham, Irving; Diane Wetherbee
and John Gilliam, Plano; John Gayle and Carolyn House, Snyder; Dale Cheatham, The Colony, Art Pertile, Waco;
and Bok Sokoll and Janet Adkins, Waxahachie.
1668\09\9400krnmoO30703gmg
There is another group of cities, referred to as Association of TXU Municipalities
(ATM), represented by Jim Boyle and Monte Akers, involved in the RRC proceeding. ATM has
46 members, mostly small cities. The number of residents of ATM cities is about 9% of total
customers and they consume about 6% of the gas sold on the system.
During the period of time that cities were considering whether to deny or suspend TXU's
application, my office negotiated concessions from TXU regarding development of a procedural
schedule for RRC proceedings. As this statewide case is the first of its kind with many
controversial and difficult issues, it is unlikely that Cities' case could be thoroughly developed
within the traditional 185 day time frame. We successfully negotiated an agreement from the
Company to extend the Commission jurisdiction from 185 days to 300 days; in return, ACC
agreed that the Cities would expedite the process of getting RRC jurisdiction over city action by
expediting denials that could be appealed. Having worked out that agreement with TXU, it is
now appropriate for the members of the coalition that ! represent to pass ordinances denying the
Company's application. ! have revised the denial ordinance TXU previously asked you to pass.
It is attached to this memo and should be placed before your council at the earliest convenient
time.
! had several Steering Committee members ask that ! include findings of fact to justify
denial. The Steering Committee then directed that such findings be included with this package.
! have included a list of proposed findings which are also reflected in the ordinance. ! have
carefully structured the findings to address generic issues so that we can avoid premature release
of issues being pursued by your consultants.
Your consultants were selected to tap the strengths of several different firms. A three-
phased approach is being used to develop your positions. Phase 1 was used to evaluate issues
and potential consultants. Phase 2 is the discovery and development phase that we are in
currently. A six-hour meeting was held in my office on July 1st with the various consultants to
share ideas and issues. Phase 2 will continue through the end of August. Phase 3 will focus on
development of testimony and re-evaluation of preliminary decisions as to who should testify.
Your consultants and witnesses consist of several members from R.J. Covington Consulting,
Steve Hill (on rate of return), Steve Andersen (on class cost allocation and rate design), Connie
Cannady and 4MP, consisting of former TXU employees.
The first prehearing conference at the RRC in GUD No. 9400 will occur on Monday,
July 14, 2003.
1668\09\9400Lrnmo030703 gmg
GUD NO. 9400
PARTICIPATING CITIES IN THE
ALLIED COALITION OF CITIES
Abilene
Addison
Allen
Alvarado
Angus
Argyle
Arlington
Athens
Bedford
Bellmead
Bells
Benbrook
Blossom
Blue Ridge
Bowie
Brownwood
Bryan
Burkburnett
Burleson
Caddo Mills
Carrollton
Celina
Cleburne
Clyde
College Station
Colleyville
Comanche
Coppell
Corinth
Corral City
Crandall
Crowley
Dalw. Gardens
Denison
DeSoto
Duncanville
Early
Eastland
Edgecliff Village
Ennis
Euless
Everman
Fairview
Farmers Branch
Farmersville
Fate
Flower Mound
Forest Hill
Fort Worth
Frisco
Gainesville
Grand Prairie
Grapevine
Haltom City
Harker Heights
Haskell
Haslet
Henrietta
Highland Park
Highland Village
Honey Grove
Howe
Hurst
Irving
Justin
Kaufman
Kennedale
Kerrville
Killeen
Lancaster
Lewisville
Lincoln Park
Little Elm
Malakoff
Mansfield
McKinney
Megargel
Mesquite
Midlothian
Murphy
Nocona
Northlake
N. Richland Hills
Ovilla
Palestine
Parker
Paris
Pecan Hill
Petrolia
Plano
Ponder
Pottsboro
Putnam
Red Oak
Richardson
Richland Hills
Robinson
Rockwall
Rowlett
Sachse
Saginaw
San Angelo
Seagoville
Sherman
Snyder
Southlake
Stamford
Stephenville
Sulphur Springs
Sweetwater
The Colony
Throckmorton
Trophy Club
University Park
Vernon
Waco
Watauga
Waxahachie
Westworth Vilge.
White Settlement
Wichita Falls
Woodway
Wylie
1668\09\9400Lrnmo030703 gmg
ORDINANCE
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ., TEXAS, DENYING
TXU GAS COMPANY'S REQUEST TO CHANGE RATES IN THIS
MUNICIPALITY, AS A PART OF THE COMPANY'S STATEWIDE GAS
UTILITY SYSTEM; PROVIDING A REQUIREMENT FOR A PROMPT
REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS INCURRED BY THE CITY; FINDING
THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS ORDINANCE IS PASSED IS
OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW; AND PROVIDING
FOR NOTICE OF THIS ORDINANCE TO TXU GAS COMPANY
WHEREAS, on or about May 23, 2003, TXU Gas Company (the "Company") filed with
the City of University Park ("City"), a Statement of Intent to change gas rates in all
municipalities within the Company's statewide gas utility system effective June 27, 2003;
WHEREAS, the City has previously extended the effective date of the Company's rate
filing;
WHEREAS, the City has exclusive original jurisdiction to evaluate the Company's
Statement of Intent as it pertains to the distribution facilities located within the City, pursuant to
Texas Utilities Code §§ 102.001(b) and 103.001;
WHEREAS, the Texas Utilities Code § 103.022 provides that costs incurred by the City
in ratemaking activities are to be reimbursed by the regulated utility;
WHEREAS, the City is participating with a coalition of over 120 other Cities in
opposition to the Company's filing at the Railroad Commission, said coalition being known as
Allied Coalition of Cities ("ACC"), in GUD No. 9400 pending at the Commission;
WHEREAS, ACC and the Company have reached a procedural agreement regarding the
schedule for processing GUD No. 9400 that includes TXU's concession to allow one hundred
fifteen (115) additional days to process the rate case and ACC's commitment that member Cities
expedite the process of getting city action appealed to the Commission;
WHEREAS, ACC and TXU jointly endorse the City's denial of the Company's rate
application pending before the City;
WHEREAS, counsel for ACC, upon review of the Company's filing and upon
consultation with various consultants, recommends findings that the Company's proposal is
unjustified and unreasonable; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS:
SECTION 1. The Company's Statement of Intent to change gas rates within the City, as
part of the Company's statewide gas utility system, is found to be unreasonable because: (a)
TXU's requested return on equity is excessive, generating more than 86% of the requested
increase in rates; (b) the basis for TXU's proposed consolidations (of regional distribution
systems and of pipeline costs with distribution costs) has not been established; (c) the City's
jurisdiction to increase pipeline rates has not been established and, therefore, the proposed
pipeline cost increases should be disallowed; (d) revenue requirements should be reduced rather
than increased; and (e) the TXU filing should be denied pursuant to agreement with the
Company; and is therefore denied in all respects.
SECTION 2. The costs incurred by the City in reviewing the Company's application be
promptly reimbursed by the Company.
SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately from and after its
passage, as the law and charter in such cases provide.
SECTION 4. That it is hereby officially found and determined that the meeting at which
this Ordinance is passed is open to the public as required by law and that public notice of the
time, place and purpose of said meeting was given as required.
SECTION 5. A copy of this ordinance, constituting final action on the Company's
application, be forwarded to the appropriate designated representative of the Company within 10
days as follows: Autry L. Warren, Director Gas Regulatory, TXU Business Services, 1601
Bryan Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-3402.
DULY PASSED and approved by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas,
on this the 5th day of August, 2003.
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
1668\09\9400Lrnmo030703 gmg
PROPOSED FINDINGS SUPPORTING DENIAL OF TXU'S
REQUEST TO INCREASE RATES FOR NATURAL GAS
1. TXU's requested return on equity is unreasonable. By far, the largest cost
component of the Company's request for a rate increase is associated with rate of return on
equity. At a time when interest rates are at the lowest point in decades and investors'
expectations for return on investment are the lowest in many years, TXU proposes to increase its
return dollars from gas operations by $60,255,075 (86.7 percent of the total rate increase). Such
request is irrational in light of national economic conditions and outrageous in light of the fact
that TXU Corporation recently wrote off more than $4 billion in shareholder equity related to
poor or imprudent management of European Operations. Any increase in current return dollars
is unjustified.
2. The basis for proposed consolidation has not been established. The
Company's filing fails to prove that it is reasonable and necessary to incorporate the pipeline
cost of service into the distribution cost of service and to consolidate various regional
distribution systems into a single statewide system.
3. The City's jurisdiction to increase pipeline rates has not been established
and, therefore, the proposed pipeline cost increase should be disallowed. The Railroad
Commission has always exercised exclusive original jurisdiction over pipeline costs, while
municipalities have exclusive original jurisdiction over gas distribution rates. With this filing,
TXU has incorporated pipeline costs in excess of those previously approved by the Commission
into the proposed distribution rate to be considered by the City, and all such pipeline costs should
be disallowed.
1668\09\9400krnmo030703 gmg
4. Revenue requirements should be reduced rather than increased. Cities have
provided consistent and more than fair rate relief to TXU over the past five years. This case
should be thoroughly reviewed at the Railroad Commission from the perspective that current
revenue requirements are excessive and that revenues should be reduced rather than increased by
$70 million as proposed by TXU. The proposed consolidations should result in cost savings, not
cost increases.
5. The TXU filing should be denied pursuant to agreement with the Company.
Cities and TXU have reached a procedural agreement for development of a thorough rate hearing
and consideration by the Railroad Commission. That agreement calls for TXU to extend
Commission jurisdiction from 185 days to 300 days in exchange for Cities taking prompt action
at the local level to allow perfection of all appeals before development of the case commences at
the Commission.
1668\09\9400Lrnmo030703 gmg
AGENDA MEMO
(08-05-03 AGENDA)
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
July 31, 2003
Bob Livingston
City Manager
Gene R. Smallwood, P.E.
Director of Public Works
Consider proposal from C&P Engineering in the amount of $83,936
to provide engineering and surveying services associated with the
design of water and sanitary sewer improvements in the alley
generally bounded by Stanhope, Shenandoah, Preston Road, and
Armstrong.
Background. The attached proposal from C&P Engineering, in the amount of
$83936, provides for the engineering and surveying services associated with the
design of water and sanitary sewer improvements in the alley generally bounded by
Stanhope, Shenandoah, Preston Road, and Armstrong. This work is driven by the
deteriorating condition of the sanitary sewer.
Recommendation. Staff recommends City Council approval of the C&P
Engineering proposal.
CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
PAVEMENT/UTILITY REPLACEMENT
ALLEY SOUTH OF STANHOPE AVENUE
FROM ARMSTRONG PARKWAY TO PRESTON ROAD
C & P PROJECT # 03037
THIS AGREEMENTmade and entered into on the date last stated below between the
City of University Park, hereinafter called "CITY", acting by and through Bob Livingston_~
City Manager, duly authorized to act on behalf of the CITY and, C&P Engineering, LTD.,
hereinafter called "ENGINEER", acting by and through Michael Cummings, P.E., duly
authorized to so act on behalf of the ENGINEER.
WHEREAS, the CITY desires PROFESSIONAL engineering/surveying services in
connection with the design of paving and utility replacement in the alley south of
Stanhope Avenue from Armstrong Avenue to Preston Road for the City of
University Park, hereinafter called "the PROJECT"; and
WHEREAS, the CITY has determined that the ENGINEER has experience in the area
involved in the Project and is qualified to perform the work, and the ENGINEER is
willing to enter into a contract with the CITY to perform the engineering services desired
by the CITY in connection with the PROJECT.
THE CITY AND ENGINEER AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
The CITY hereby retains the ENGINEER to perform engineering services in connection
with the PROJECT described above.
1. SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of Engineering/Surveying services to be performed by the ENGINEER shall
be as follows:
1.1 Approach to Project
Survey and prepare engineering plans and construction takeoff for the design of paving
and utility replacement in the alley south of Stanhope Avenue from Armstrong Avenue
to Preston Road
Page 1
CS Documents and SettingsLnwilson~Local Settings\Temporary Intemet Files\OLK2 l~Engineering03037.doc
1.2 Detailed Scope of Services
Preliminary site investigation
Design Survey
Locate Existing Utilities (Actual physical location where possible and required but
on all else the location will be based on existing plans and information furnished
by the City and franchise utilities)
Engineer Plans for paving and utility improvements
Consideration of Wall, Fencing, Drainage, Misc. Alternatives
Preparation of Quantity Takeoff
Construction Controls
Preparation of As-Built Plans
2. CITY'S RESPONSIBILITIES
So as not to delay the services of ENGINEER, the CITY shall do the following in a
timely manner:
2.1 Provide Existing Data
City to furnish:
Existing engineering plans
Property owner information
Existing data delivered to the ENGINEER by the CITY remains the property of the CITY
and must be returned to the CITY after completion of the PROJECT.
2.2 Provide Standards
After authorization to proceed, if required by the Scope of Work, provide CITY standard
bidding and contract documents which are to be used for public bidding of the
PROJECT. The CITY agrees to bear total responsibility for accuracy and content of
CITY furnished documents. If required by the Scope of Work, the ENGINEER shall
provide all bid item descriptions, item quantities, special provisions, technical
specifications, plans and other project specific information that is required for bidding
the PROJECT.
2.3 Provide Access
Arrange for access to, and make all provisions for, ENGINEER or ENGINEER'S
Subconsultants to perform services under this AGREEMENT.
Page 2
CS Documents and SettingsLnwilson~Local Settings\Temporary Intemet Files\OLK2 l~Engineering03037.doc
2.4 City Representative
CITY shall designate a representative to act as a contact person on behalf of the CITY.
2.5 Franchise Utilities
CITY shall assist in the project coordination with the Franchise Utilities.
furnish the current list of contacts for all Franchise Utilities.
CITY shall
3. SCHEDULE
The ENGINEER'S services shall be performed in a timely manner consistent with sound
professional practices. The ENGINEER will complete the work according to the
following schedule:
Preliminary site investigation
Design Survey
Locate Existing Utilities( Actual physical location
where possible and required but on all else the
location will be based on existing plans and
information furnished by the City and franchise utilities)
Engineer Plans for for paving and utility improvements
Preparation of Quantity Takeoff
Construction Controls
Preparation of As-Built Plans
1 Week
5 Weeks
16 Weeks
1Week
23 Weeks
The time limits set forth in the schedule does not include allowances for review time by
the CITY and/or approval by authorities having jurisdiction over the PROJECT. Any
adjustments made to the agreed upon schedule shall be made in writing and acceptable
to both parties.
The ENGINEER shall begin work within 10 days of receipt of the executed Agreement
and written Notice to Proceed.
3.1 Completion of Services
ENGINEER'S services under each item of the finalized Scope of Work shall be
considered complete on the date when the submissions for that item have been
accepted by CITY.
Page 3
CS Documents and SettingsLnwilson~Local Settings\Temporary Intemet Files\OLK2 l~Engineering03037.doc
3.2 Changes
If the CITY requests significant modifications or changes in the Scope of Services,
general scope, extent or character of the PROJECT, the time of performance of
ENGINEER'S services, the various rates of compensation and schedule shall be
adjusted equitably.
3.3 Written Authorization for Additional Work
Any provision in this Contract notwithstanding, it is specifically understood and agreed
that the ENGINEER shall not authorize or undertake any work pursuant to this Contract
which would require the payment of any fee, expense or reimbursement in addition to
the fees stipulated in Section 4. (Payment for Services) of this Contract, without first
having obtained the specific written authority to do so from the CITY.
4. PAYMENT FOR SERVICES
4.1 Terms
Terms used in describing the applicable method of payment for services provided by the
ENGINEER shall have the meaning indicated below:
Basic Engineering Fee:
Basic Engineering Fee shall mean those expenses incurred by the ENGINEER in
prosecuting the PROJECT Scope of Services.
Reimbursable Expenses
Reimbursable Expenses shall mean the actual expenses incurred by ENGINEER in the
interest of the PROJECT not covered under the Scope of Services, for courier or
express mail service and telegrams, reproduction of reports, drawings, specifications,
bidding documents, and similar PROJECT-related items in addition to those required
under Section I.
Additional Services
Additional services not covered under the Scope of Services, will be provided to the
CITY on an hourly basis plus reimbursable expenses as agreed in writing at the time
such services are authorized.
Page 4
CS Documents and SettingsLnwilson~Local Settings\Temporary Intemet Files\OLK2 l~Engineering03037.doc
4.2 Basis and Amount of Compensation for Basic Services
Preliminary site investigation
Design Survey
Locate Existing Utilities( Actual physical location
where possible and required but on all else the
location will be based on existing plans and
information furnished by the City and franchise utilities)
Engineer Plans for paving and utility improvements
Additional For Wall, Fencing, Drainage, Misc. Alternatives
Preparation of Quantity Takeoff
Construction Controls
Preparation of As-Built Plans
$ 1,500.00
$17,500.00
$62,156.00
$ 3,000.00
$ 1,080.00
$ 8oo.oo
$ 9oo.oo
TOTAL $83,936.00
The total amount of the engineering contract is 5;83,936.00.
4.3 Basis and Amount of Compensation for Reimbursable Expenses
(See attached fee schedule)
4.4 Basis and Amount of Compensation for Additional Services
(See attached schedule of rates)
4.5 Partial Payments for Services
Partial fee payments may be applied for at monthly intervals, based upon statements
which reflect the percentage of work completed for the various items listed under Scope
of Services, Reimbursable Expenses and Additional Services. These statements shall
be prepared by the ENGINEER and must be verified and approved by the CITY.
4.6 Delay
If ENGINEER'S design services or service during construction of the PROJECT are
delayed or suspended in whole or in part by the CITY for more than one year for
reasons beyond ENGINEER'S control the various rates of compensation, including
Additional Services, provided for elsewhere in this AGREEMENT shall be subject to
equitable adjustment.
Page 5
CS Documents and Settings~nwilson~Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK2 l~Engineering03037.doc
5. TERMINATION, SUSPENSIONS OR ABANDONMENT
5.1 Termination
The CITY or the ENGINEER may terminate this AGREEMENT for reasons identified
elsewhere in this AGREEMENT. In the event such termination becomes necessary, the
party effecting termination shall so notify the other party, and termination will become
effective thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of the termination notice. Irrespective of
which party shall effect termination or the cause therefor, the CITY shall within thirty
(30) calendar days of termination remunerate ENGINEER for services rendered and
costs incurred, in accordance with the ENGINEER'S prevailing fee schedule and
expense reimbursement policy. Services shall include those rendered up to the time of
termination. All plans, field survey, and other data related to the PROJECT shall
become the property of CITY upon termination of the AGREEMENT and shall be
promptly delivered to the CITY in a reasonably organized form. Should CITY
subsequently contract with a new Engineer for continuation of services on the
PROJECT, ENGINEER shall cooperate in providing information. No amount shall be
due for lost or anticipated profits.
5.2 Suspension
If the Project is suspended by the CITY for more than 30 consecutive days, the
ENGINEER shall be compensated for services performed prior to notice of such
suspension. When the Project is resumed, the ENGINEER'S compensation shall be
equitably adjusted to provide for expenses incurred in the interruption and resumption of
the ENGINEER'S services.
5.3 Abandonment
This Agreement may be terminated by the City upon not less than seven (7) days
written notice to the ENGINEER in the event that the Project is permanently abandoned.
If the Project is abandoned by the CITY for more than ninety (90) consecutive days, the
ENGINEER or the CITY may terminate this Agreement by giving written notice.
5.4 Failure to Pay
Failure of the CITY to make payments to the ENGINEER in accordance with this
Agreement shall be considered substantial nonperformance and cause for termination.
If the CITY fails to make payment to ENGINEER within thirty (30) days of a statement
for services properly performed, the ENGINEER may, upon fourteen (14) days written
Page 6
CS Documents and SettingsLnwilson~Local Settings\Temporary Intemet Files\OLK2 l~Engineering03037.doc
notice to the CITY, suspend performance of services under this Agreement. Unless
ENGINEER receives payment in full within fourteen (14) days of the date of the notice,
the suspension shall take effect without further notice. In the event of a suspension of
services under this section, the ENGINEER shall have no liability to the CITY for delay
or damage caused the CITY because of such suspension of services.
6. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
6.1 Professional Standards
Services performed by the ENGINEER under this AGREEMENT will be conducted in a
manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of
the profession currently practicing in the same locality under similar conditions. The
ENGINEER shall comply with the applicable laws and rules of the current "Texas
Engineering Practice Act", the "Professional Land Surveying Practices Act" and the
"Texas Board of Professional Land Surveying General Rules of Procedures and
Practices". The CITY'S approval, acceptance, use of or payment for all or any part of
the ENGINEER'S services herein under or of the project itself shall in no way alter the
ENGINEER'S obligations of the CITY'S rights thereunder.
6.2 Progress and Performance
The provisions of this Contract and the compensation to ENGINEER have been agreed
to in anticipation of continuous and orderly progress through the completion of the
ENGINEER'S services. Time for performance shall be extended to the extent
necessary for delays due to circumstances over which the ENGINEER has no control.
If the ENGINEER'S services are suspended or delayed the times of performance shall
be extended to the extent of such delay or suspension. A delay or suspension shall not
terminate this agreement unless ENGINEER elects to terminate in accordance with the
provisions of Section V of this Contract. If a delay or suspension extends for a period of
greater than one year for reasons beyond the control of the ENGINEER, the fees and
rates of compensation set forth in Section IV shall be subject to re-negotiating.
6.3 City Control
It is understood and agreed that the CITY shall have complete control of the services to
be rendered, and that no work shall be done under this Contract until the ENGINEER is
instructed to proceed with the work.
Page 7
CS Documents and SettingsLnwilson~Local Settings\Temporary Intemet Files\OLK2 l~Engineering03037.doc
6.4 Independent Agent
ENGINEER and CITY agreed that ENGINEER and any officer, employee or agent of
ENGINEER, in the performance of this Contract shall act in an independent capacity
and not as an officer, agent or employee of the CITY.
6.5 Compliance with Laws
ENGINEER shall comply with all Federal, State, and local laws and ordinances in the
execution of all work in connection with this PROJECT.
6.6 No Additional Work Without Authorization
Any provision in the contract notwithstanding, it is specifically understood and agreed
that the ENGINEER shall not authorize or undertake any work pursuant to this contract,
which would require the payment of any fee, expense or reimbursement in addition to
the fee stipulated in Article 4 of this Contract, without having first obtained specific
written authority therefor from the CITY.
6.7 Assignment & Subcontracting
This contract shall not be assigned or subcontracted in whole or part without the written
consent of the CITY.
6.8 Indemnification
ENGINEER, its officers, agents and employees agree to indemnify, hold harmless, and
defend the CITY, at ENGINEER'S cost, its officers, agents, and employees from and
against any and all claims or suits for injuries, damages, loss, or liability of whatever
kind of character, arising out of or in connection with the performance by the
ENGINEER of those services contemplated by the Agreement, based upon negligent
acts or omissions of ENGINEER, its officers, agents, employees, consultants and
subcontractors, whether or not caused solely by the ENGINEER, its officers, agents,
employees, consultants or subcontractors or jointly with any other party.
6.9 Insurance
ENGINEER shall secure and maintain insurance that will protect him from claims under
the Worker's Compensation Act (statutory amounts).
ENGINEER shall secure and maintain Commercial General Liability Insurance that will
protect him from claims for bodily injury, death or property damage which may arise
from the performance of his services under this CONTRACT, written on an
occurrence basis, in the following amounts:
Page 8
CS Documents and SettingsLnwilson~Local Settings\Temporary Intemet Files\OLK2 l~Engineering03037.doc
For engineering design contracts in the amount of $10,000.00 or less, insurance
in an amount not less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence and $1,000,000.00 per
annual aggregate for bodily injury or death and property damage. ENGINEER
shall maintain Comprehensive Automobile Liability Insurance covering all owned,
non-owned, and hired vehicles with combined single limit coverage of $500,000
for bodily injury, death or property damage, written on an occurrence basis.
For engineering design contracts for more than $10,000.00, insurance in an
amount not less than $1,000,00 per occurrence and $2,000,000 annual
aggregate for bodily injury or death and property damage. ENGINEER shall
maintain Comprehensive Automobile Liability Insurance covering all owned, non-
owned, and hired vehicles with combined single limit coverage of $1,000,000 for
bodily injury, death or property damage.
ENGINEER shall maintain, at no expense to CITY, a professional liability (errors and
omissions) insurance policy placed with a company rated at least A-NIl by Best's Key
Rating Guide, authorized to do business in Texas. This coverage must be maintained
for at least two (2) years after the PROJECT is completed. Coverage must be written
on an occurrence basis. However, at its sole discretion, the CITY may accept coverage
written on a claims-made basis if the policy provides for a retroactive date equivalent to
the inception date of the CONTRACT or earlier, maintained during the full term of the
CONTRACT. The minimum limits of coverage shall be in the following amounts:
For engineering design contracts in the amount of $50,000 or less, insurance in
an amount not less than five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000).
For engineering design contracts over $50,000, insurance in an amount not less
than one million dollars ($1,000,000).
All policies, except Worker's Compensation and Professional Liability, shall name the
CITY as additional insured. All policies shall contain a waiver of subrogation in favor of
the City and shall require the giving of written notice to CITY at least thirty (30) days
prior to cancellation, non-renewal or material modification of any policies, evidenced by
return receipt of United States Certified Mail. ENGINEER shall furnish CITY with copies
of said policies or certificates evidencing such coverage.
6.10 Property
All documents, including drawings, field notes, surveys, tracings, calculations, computer
input and output, digital or computer files, etc., prepared by the ENGINEER pursuant to
this contract shall become the property of the CITY. The ENGINEER may retain copies
of all documents. Any reuse of the documents shall conform to The Texas Engineering
Practice Act.
Page 9
CS Documents and SettingsLnwilson~Local Settings\Temporary Intemet Files\OLK2 l~Engineering03037.doc
6.11 Governing Law
This CONTRACT has been made under and shall be governed by the laws of the State
of Texas. The parties agree that the performance and all matters related thereto shall
be in Dallas County, Texas.
7. DOCUMENT EXECUTION
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the
of May, 2002.
day
CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK
By:
Bob Livingston, City Manager
Attest:
Nina Wilson, City Secretary
Approved as to Form:
By:
Robert L. Dillard III, City Attorney
Or His Designee
Page 10
CS Documents and SettingsLnwilson~Local Settings\Temporary Intemet Files\OLK2 l~Engineering03037.doc
ENGINEER
By:
C&P Engineering, LTD.
Michael Cummings, P.E.
Vice President
Attest:
Secretary of the (ENGINEER'S) Corporation
If ENGINEER'S firm is a corporation, affix corporate seal.
Page 11
CS Documents and SettingsLnwilson~Local Settings\Temporary Intemet Files\OLK2 l~Engineering03037.doc
AGENDA MEMO
(8/05/03 AGENDA)
DATE: July 31, 2003
TO: Bob Livingston
City Manager
FROM: Bob Whaling, P. E.
City Engineer
SUBJECT:
WATER, SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS AND ALLEY
PAVING PROJECT, PROJECT NO. 42710
On November 6, 2001, the City Council approved a contract with BARSON UTILITIES,
INC., in the amount of $1,801,954.25 for the above-referenced project. On July 30,
2002 the City Council approved Change Order No. 1 for the reconstruction of the
Stanford/Purdue Alley from Preston Road to Tulane Boulevard in the amount of
$300,000.00. The Engineering Department has accepted the completed work. The
actual work performed and the material furnished as provided by the contract brought
the University Park's project total to $2,204,233.67 (22.32% over run).
The overrun for this project is due to the following:
1. During the progress of the work, subsurface conditions were encountered for the
sanitary sewer line and the existing storm sewer in Tulane Boulevard that
differed materially from those ordinarily encountered and generally recognized as
inherent to the work. Specifically, the existing trench material from the storm
sewer was caving off into the trench being dug for the proposed sanitary sewer
line. A field change for the additional hauling of spoil material and increased
backfill material was necessary.
2. A field change that extended water and sewer lines from the Lovers
Lane/Amherst alley to Amherst along Baltimore Drive. Also, the street was
reconstructed from south of the Lovers Lane/Amherst alley to Amherst along
Baltimore Drive instead of the usual utility trench pavement repairs.
3. A field change to provide sloped walls/retaining walls in the Lovers Lane/Amherst
alley from Baltimore Drive to Tulane Boulevard.
4. Change Order No. 1 for the reconstruction of the Stanford/Purdue Alley from
Preston Road to Tulane Boulevard.
5. A field change to reconstruct the Tulane/Bryn Mawr intersection instead of the
utility trench pavement repairs as required by construction plans.
Partial payments in the amount of $2,094,021.99 have been made to the contractor
resulting in a final payment in the amount of $110,211.67.
PROJECT COST HISTORY
APPROVED CONTRACT AMOUNT
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1
11/06/00 $ 1,801,954.25
7/30/02 $ 300,000.00
TOTALS $ 2,101,954.25
The total cumulative value of the contract was increased by $402,279.42 or 22.32% of
the total contract.
AGENDA MEMO
(8/05/03 AGENDA)
DATE: July 31, 2003
TO: Bob Livingston
City Manager
FROM:
Bob Whaling, P. E.
City Engineer
SUBJECT:
WATER, SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS AND ALLEY
PAVING PROJECTS, PROJECT NO. 42711 AND PROJECT
44170
On November 6, 2001, the City Council approved a contract with BARSON UTILITIES,
INC., in the amount of $665,356.50 (42711 - $434,264.00 and 44170 - $231,092.50) for
the above-referenced project. The Engineering Department has accepted the completed
work. The actual work performed and the material furnished as provided by the contract
brought the University Park's project total to $540,716.20 (42711 - $385,027.02 and
44170 - $155,689.18).
Partial payments in the amount of $517,582.06 (42711 - $366,169.94 and 44170 -
$151,412.12) have been made to the contractor resulting in a final payment in the
amount of $22,739.87 (42711 - $18,462.81 and 44170 - $4,277.06). The final payment
includes a credit of $394.27 (42711) for water utility payments for the 3700 blocks of
Lovers Lane and Amherst.
PROJECT COST HISTORY
Project 42711
APPROVED CONTRACT AMOUNT
11/06/01 $ 434,264.00
TOTALS $ 434,264.00
The total cumulative value of the contract was decreased by $49,236.98 or 11.34% of
the total contract.
Project 44170
APPROVED CONTRACT AMOUNT
11/06/01 $ 231,092.50
TOTALS $ 231,092.50
The total cumulative value of the contract was decreased by $75,403.32 or 32.63% of
the total contract.
MINUTES
#2314
CITY COUNCIL MEETING/WORK SESSION
CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS
CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM
WEDNESDAY, JULY 16, 2003 AT 7:30 A.M.
Mayor Harold Peek opened the meeting. Present were Mayor Pro Tempore Dick Davis and
Councilmembers Jim Roberts, Harry Shawver and Blackie Holmes. Also in attendance were
City Attorney Rob Dillard, City Manager Bob Livingston, and City Secretary Nina Wilson.
AWARD S:
PROCLAMATION HONORING CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK RESIDENT AS PRE-TEEN
MISS MAJORETTE OF TEXAS: Whereas Miss Carly Bender brought recognition to the City,
Mayor Peek declared July 21-27 as National Baton Twirling Week.
Mayor Pro Tem Davis moved acceptance of the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Roberts
seconded, and the vote was unanimous to approve the following:
CONSENT AGENDA
CONSIDER PROPOSAL FOR ISO GRADING INSPECTION: The proposal from Mr. Mike
Pietsch, P.E. Consulting Services, Inc. will assist the City in an ISO (Insurance Service Office)
grading inspection to reduce the Public Protection Class (PPC) currently held by the City. The
current PPC is a Class 4. Mr. Pietsch will assist the City in lowering the PPC to a Class 3 or
Class 2 rating. The cost of his services will be $10,800, and it will take approximately nine (9)
days to start and complete the process. A reduction in the PPC will benefit the residents by
reducing the amount of insurance premiums paid on homeowners insurance. A Class 2 rating
can reduce the resident's savings as much as 12% on yearly premiums.
CONSIDER RESOLUTION AMENDING THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE: Staff is currently
working on several new processes to coordinate work in the alleys and other public rights-of-way
to minimize impact construction has on residents. Historically, one significant problem has been
multiple alley cuts and closures related to the construction of a single new home. Staff has
developed a new process to coordinate with the gas company to reduce the frequency of alley
"closures" to one per home construction. However, additional action will be required to reduce
the number of alley "cuts" per home. The new fee schedule will make excavation and pavement
replacement an individual line item rather than assuming separate alley cuts and excavations for
each type of connection. Reducing the number of excavations will reduce the amount of time the
alley will have to be closed to traffic. The new fees will reduce the amount paid by a builder
who consolidates the locations of his utility connections. The amendment for Utility Service
Construction Fees will apply as follows:
1" water meter and tap installation $400.00 each
Sanitary sewer tap installation $200.00 each
Existing water meter or sanitary sewer $100.00 each
tap removal
Utility excavation $1,500.00 each
(1) Each utility excavation includes the removal of existing alley pavement,
excavation, backfill/compaction, and concrete replacement of not more than ten
(10) linear feet of alley.
(2) The City, based on the size, location, current costs and specifications, will
determine the price for the installation of water meters greater than one inch (1")
and excavations other than in an alley.
RESOLUTION NO. 03-10
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK,
TEXAS, AMENDING MASTER FEE RESOLUTION 03-08 BY AMENDING SECTION 9,
UTILITY SERVICE CONSTRUCTION FEES, ARTICLE III "UTILITIES"; AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
CONSIDER APPROVAL: Of City Council Meeting Minutes for July 1, 2003.
MAIN AGENDA
DISCUSS PROPOSED COMMERCIAL BUILDING HEIGHTS FOR GENERAL RETAIL
(GR) ZONING DISTRICT ALONG PRESTON ROAD: At the July 1, 2003, city council
meeting, council was satisfied that the proposed changes to the building height restrictions
recommended by the Planning & Zoning Commission would provide the desired results in
Snider Plaza, Miracle Mile and the General Retail Zoning District along Hillcrest, but instructed
staff to prepare diagrams or building elevations to illustrate current and proposed building
heights along Preston Road. Staff put together illustrations to show current building heights,
allowable building heights, and a proposed allowance for additional height based on setbacks.
An ordinance will be drawn up to allow a 40' height with a 10' setback on all four (4) sides of
the building.
DISCUSS ENTRANCES AT SMU AND UNIVERSITY BOULEVARDS: Council instructed
the Park Director to have drawings completed in order to hold a meeting with Southern
Methodist University (SMU).
DISCUSS PAY AND DISPLAY PARKING: There are currently 625 public parking spaces
serving Snider Plaza, not including private lots, on-street spaces, garages, employee spots behind
businesses, street parking on the east side of Hillcrest or spaces serving the shopping area on
Hillcrest south of McFarlin. The spaces allow two-hours per space. Parking time limits are
enforced with a parking enforcement officer who marks tires and tickets when a marked car is
over the two-hour limit. The Cirrus Group finished construction of the Park Cities Medical Plaza
(PCMP) providing 114 free parking spaces in their underground parking garage, but few
shoppers, diners or employees have chosen this parking option. In 2003, the city and PCMP
entered into an agreement whereby PCMP would provide valet service in Snider Plaza. This
venture has also failed to reduce congestion with few parkers taking advantage of valet parking.
A study of Snider Plaza businesses in 1990 listed employee parking and student parking as a
major issue for Snider Plaza. The city still receives complaints from business owners and
residents about the parking situation in Snider Plaza, citing students and employees are still the
main violators of the two-hour parking requirement. Enforcement of the two-hour limit is
difficult because parkers are willing to either move their vehicle or constantly rub off the marked
applied by the enforcement officer. Tom McConnell, resident of the city, suggested pay and
display metering as an alternative to boost enforcement efforts and apply a real incentive for
parkers to "follow the rules." Pay and Display Parking utilizes pay stations that work like
traditional parking meters, except that one pay station covers one side of an entire on-street block
or 10-14 spaces off-street. After parking, the person walks to the nearest pay station and inserts
payment. The machine provides a ticket to be placed in the windshield of the person's car and a
receipt to be carried with the parker to remind then when their time is up. The pay stations also
report on parking usage and call the city when a part is broken, detailing the problem so it is
easily repaired. Revenue is gained by charging for parking, and the system allows for multiple
selling of spots. It encourages parkers to comply with time limits and still allows for ticketing if
purchased time lapses. Pay and display parking has been in place throughout Europe for almost
30 years and has spread extensively to Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Implementation in
the United States is increasing dramatically with more cities, federal parks, airports, parking
authorities and universities introducing the system monthly. Council suggested staff meet with
merchants and talk to all city committees, when they meet, to seek input on the pay and display
system.
CONSIDER PROPOSAL FOR DESIGN AND REPLACEMENT OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT
VARIOUS INTERSECTIONS ALONG LOVERS LANE: The city council recently authorized
staff to proceed with the development of plans and specifications for the reconstruction of Lovers
Lane from Hillcrest east to Boedeker as a joint project with the City of Dallas while they are
constructing sections of Lovers Lane east of Boedeker to North Central Expressway. Part of the
necessary work involves the replacement of traffic signals at Lovers Lane at Airline and Lovers
Lane at Boedeker. A proposal from C&P Engineering, Ltd. In the amount of $12,000 to provide
the necessary engineering services was moved for approval by Councilmember Roberts.
Councilmember Shawver seconded, and the vote was unanimous to accept the proposal.
CONSIDER SOUTHWESTERN BELL'S (SWB) REQUEST FOR EASEMENT AT PRESTON
ROAD AND PRESTON PARKWAY FOR ABOVE-GROUND CABINET: The location is the
parkway, south of McFarlin and south of an existing SWB cabinet installed a few years ago.
There is a need for additional phone lines for DSL service in that part of the city. The size of the
new easement will be 10' by 20'. SWB will pay $17,000 for the easement, which includes the
landscaping. Screening both the new and existing cabinets will be accomplished by the 8' space
between the curb and concrete slabs the cabinets are set on. The council discussed with Ms.
Ruth Swancy, SWB representative, the difficulty the city has had in getting some problems
resolved, including acquiring permits to work in the city. Ms. Swancy stated she would get with
staff to try and resolve any problems. Mayor Pro Tem Davis moved approval of the easement
subject to getting a permit. Councilmember Holmes seconded, and the vote was unanimous to
approve the easement.
CONSIDER BID AND AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR LARGE FORMAT SCANNER AND
PRINTER: The building and engineering divisions have a need for document imaging for
building plans and construction drawings. Staff determined that Oce' products best fit their
needs, and the Texas Information System Vendor (QISV) program was used to solicit bids.
Stewart Engineering Supply, Inc. was the low bidder in the amount of $37,808. Mayor Pro Tem
Davis moved approval of the bid. Councilmember Roberts seconded, and the vote was
unanimous to approve the bid and award the contract to Stewart Engineering Supply, Inc.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
Mayor Harold Peek then convened the City Council into Executive Session at 8:55 a.m. under
Section 551.072 of the Texas Government Code, for deliberation regarding real property. The
Executive Session was adjourned at 9:50 a.m. No action was voted on or taken during the
meeting.
Passed and approved this 5th day of August 2003.
ATTEST:
Harold Peek, Mayor
Nina Wilson, City Secretary
AGENDA MEMO
(8/5/03 AGENDA)
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
July 31, 2003
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Wade McLaurin, Building & Zoning Administrator
Amendment to Planned Development 22 - 6101 Hillcrest
BACKGROUND:
On July 21, 2003, the Planning & Zoning Commission approved a request by 6101 Hillcrest
Group, L.P. to amend Planned Development 22 (PD-22). The request is to allow for the continued
hotel use on the property in lieu of the assisted care facility use that was approved in June of 1997.
Staff recommended that the existing PD be amended after the project was expanded beyond the
permitted interior remodel. The project expansion was a result of asbestos and mold that was
encountered during the remodel.
The submitted plans show that the existing building setbacks, building height, and number of
parking spaces (49) will be maintained. The submitted floor plan shows 52 rooms, which according
to the applicant, is one less than what the hotel previously had.
PUBLIC NOTICE: Notice for Public Hearing was advertised in the Park Cities People on
the following dates:
· For P&Z- 7/3/03
· For Council - 7/17/03
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff would recommend approval of the enabling ordinance amending Planned Development
District 22 (PD-22) to allow the continued hotel use on the property, and approval of the submitted
site plan and elevations.
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, AMENDING
THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF
UNIVERSITY PARK, AS HERETOFORE AMENDED, SO AS TO AMEND PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 22 FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1, 2,
AND 3 OF BLOCK D, UNIVERSITY ANNEX NO. 2, AN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF
UNIVERSITY PARK, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, AND MORE COMMONLY KNOWN
AS 6101 HILLCREST, UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS; APPROVING A SITE PLAN;
PROVIDING SPECIAL CONDITIONS; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL
ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING
FOR A PENALTY OF FINE NOT TO EXCEED THE SUM OF TWO THOUSAND
DOLLARS ($2,000.00) FOR EACH OFFENSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of University Park and the City
Council of the City of University Park, in compliance with the laws of the State of Texas with reference
to the granting of zoning classifications and changes, have given the requisite notices by publication and
otherwise, and have held due hearings and afforded a full and fair hearing to all property owners
generally and to all persons interested and situated in the affected area and in the vicinity thereof, and
the City Council of the City of University Park is of the opinion and finds that a zoning change should
be granted and that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and Map should
be amended; Now, Therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY
PARK, TEXAS:
SECTION 1. That the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and Map of the City of University
Park, Texas, be, and the same are hereby, amended so as to grant an amendment to Planned
Development District No. 22 so as to allow a hotel or motel use on the property described as Lots 1, 2,
and 3 of Block D, University Annex No. 2, an addition to the City of University Park, Dallas County,
Texas, and more commonly known as 6101 Hillcrest, University Park, Texas.
SECTION 2. That the conceptual site plan depicting the improvements on said lots is
attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and made part hereof for all purposes the same as if fully copied herein.
That such conceptual site plan contains the data required by Sections 22-300 and 22-500 of the
57977
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance,
waived..
SECTION 3.
special conditions:
and the requirement for filing a Detailed /site Plan is hereby
That this Planned Development District is granted subject to the following
(a) That the property will be developed only in conformance with the requirements of this
ordinance and the approved detailed site plan.
(b) That the property will be landscaped in accordance with the approved landscape plan
attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and made part hereof for all purposes, the same as if fully copied herein;
and
(c) That the property will be used only for a hotel or motel, as those terms are defined by the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance.
SECTION 4. That all ordinances of the City of University Park in conflict with the provisions
of this ordinance or the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance as amended hereby be, and the same are
hereby, repealed.
SECTION 5. That should any sentence, paragraph, subdMsion, clause, phrase or section of
this ordinance or the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, as amended hereby, be adjudged or held to be
unconstitutional, illegal, or invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of this ordinance or the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance as a whole, or any part or provision thereof, other than the part
decided to be invalid, illegal or unconstitutional.
SECTION 6. That any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions or terms
of this ordinance or the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, as amended hereby, shall be subject to the
same penalty as provided for in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City of University Park,
Texas, and upon conviction in the municipal court of the City of University Park, Texas, shall be
57977
punished by a fine not to exceed the sum of two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) for each offense, and
each and every day such violation is continued shall be deemed to constitute a separate offense.
SECTION 7. That this Ordinance shall take effect immediately from and after its passage
and the publication of the caption, as the law and Charter in such cases provide.
DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on the 5th day
of August, 2003.
APPROVED:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY SECRETARY
CITY ATTORNEY
(RLD/7-29-03)
57977
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, AMENDING
THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF
UNIVERSITY PARK, AS HERETOFORE AMENDED, SO AS TO AMEND PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 22 FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1, 2,
AND 3 OF BLOCK D, UNIVERSITY ANNEX NO. 2, AN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF
UNIVERSITY PARK, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, AND MORE COMMONLY KNOWN
AS 6101 HILLCREST, UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS; APPROVING A CONCEPTUAL
SITE PLAN; PROVIDING SPECIAL CONDITIONS; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF
ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE;
PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY OF FINE NOT TO EXCEED THE SUM OF TWO
THOUSAND DOLLARS ($2,000.00) FOR EACH OFFENSE; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on the 5th day of
August, 2003.
APPROVED:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY SECRETARY
57977
LO'[¥
):
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
AGENDA MEMO
(8/5/03 AGENDA)
July 31, 2003
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Wade McLaurin, Building & Zoning Administrator
Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Commercial Building Heights
BACKGROUND:
A recommendation was made by the Planning & Zoning Commission on March 17, 2003 to place the
following height restrictions on commercial properties:
· PD-1-R (Snider Plaza) - 40 feet overall
· PD-2-R (Miracle Mile) - 26 feet, with an additional 9 foot allowance for equip. & screening
· General Retail (GR) - 40 feet overall
After reviewing comments from several property owners, the Council asked staff to bring back the
original ordinance recommended by P&Z, and to begin the process for creating an additional General
Retail zoning classification. The new classification will provide for a greater building height for those
properties currently in a General Retail district that are not adjacent to single family districts.
I have included a letter from Bill Blackburn, the attorney for the property owner at 6709 & 6921
Preston. Mr. Blackburn is appreciative of the Council's efforts, but still believes a burden is being
placed on his client. He is requesting that the City proceed with the rezoning of his client's properties
into the proposed new General Retail zoning district, rather than his client having to do so at a later
date. Mr. Blackburn is concerned that while the current Council may believe that his client's property
warrants the additional height allowance, a future Council may not be so inclined.
PUBLIC NOTICE:
following dates:
Notice for Public Hearing was advertised in the Park Cities People on the
· For P&Z - 2/27/03
· For Council - 4/17/03
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the enabling ordinance amending the maximum building heights in the
PD-l-R, PD-2-R, and General Retail zoning districts. Staff will bring a new ordinance which creates
an additional General Retail zoning district to the August Planning & Zoning Commission meeting.
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS,
AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
OF UNIVERSITY PARK, AS HERETOFORE AMENDED, BY AMENDING
SECTION 18-800 TO REGULATE THE HEIGHT OF STRUCTURES IN THE
GENERAL RETAIL (GR) DISTRICT; AMENDING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT-l-RETAIL (SNIDER PLAZA) TO REGULATE THE HEIGHT OF
STRUCTURES; AMENDING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT-2-
RETAIL (MIRACLE MILE) TO REGULATE THE HEIGHT OF STRUCTURES;
PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT;
PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY OF
FINE NOT TO EXCEED THE SUM OF TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS
($2,000.00) FOR EACH OFFENSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of University Park
and the City Council of the City of University Park, in compliance with the laws of the
State of Texas with reference to the granting of zoning classifications and changes, have
given the requisite notices by publication and otherwise, and have held due hearings and
have provided a full and fair hearing to all property owners generally, and the City
Council of the City of University Park is of the opinion and finds that said
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance should be amended; Now, Therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS:
SECTION 1. That the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City of
University Park, Texas, be, and the same is hereby, amended by amending Section 18-
800 to read as follows:
"18-800 HEIGHT REGULATION
The maximum height allowed for any structure, including air conditioning equipment,
cooling towers, chimneys, radio and television antennae and vent stacks, shall be forty
feet (40')."
SECTION 2. That the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City of
University Park, Texas, be, and the same is hereby, amended by amending the height
55318
restrictions of Planned Development District-1-Retail (Snider Plaza), as heretofore
amended, to read as follows:
"The maximum height allowed for any structure, including air conditioning
equipment, cooling towers, chimneys, radio and television antennae and vent stacks, shall
be forty feet (40'), provided that the floor area ratio to site area in any one unit shall not
exceed 3:1 and provided further that the total floor area shall not exceed the area resulting
from multiplying the available off-street parking spaces by 300. All buildings exceeding
twenty feet (20') in height shall be set back a minimum distance of one-half (1/2) the
building height above grade as measured from the center of the adjacent alley or street,
except in no case need such setback exceed thirty-five feet (35')."
SECTION 3. That the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City of
University Park, Texas, be, and the same is hereby, amended by amending the height
restrictions of Planned Development District-2-Retail (Miracle Mile), as heretofore
amended, to read as follows:
"The maximum height allowed for any structure, not including air conditioning
equipment, cooling towers, chimneys, radio and television antennae and vent stacks, shall
be twenty-six feet (26'), provided that an additional nine feet (9') of height shall be
allowed for any of such items or a parapet wall for the screening thereof from public
view."
SECTION 4. That all ordinances of the City of University Park in conflict with
the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same are hereby, repealed.
SECTION 5. That should any word, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, clause,
phrase or section of this ordinance or the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, as amended
55318
hereby, be adjudged or held to be unconstitutional, illegal or invalid, the same shall not
affect the validity of this ordinance as a whole or any part or provision thereof, other than
the part so declared to be invalid, illegal or unconstitutional, and shall not affect the
validity of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance as a whole.
SECTION 6. That any person, firm or corporation violating any of the
provisions of this ordinance or the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, as amended
hereby, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction in the municipal
court of the City of University Park, Texas, shall be punished by a fine to exceed the sum
of two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) for each offense, and each and every day such
violations shall continue shall be deemed to constitute a separate offense.
SECTION 7. This ordinance shall take effect immediately from and after its
passage and the publication of the caption, as the law and charter in such cases provide.
DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on
the day of _, 2003.
APPROVED:
HAROLD PEEK, MAYOR
ATTEST:
NINA WILSON, CITY SECRETARY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY
(RLD/04/08/03)
55318
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS,
AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
OF UNIVERSITY PARK, AS HERETOFORE AMENDED, BY AMENDING
SECTION 18-800 TO REGULATE THE HEIGHT OF STRUCTURES IN THE
GENERAL RETAIL (GR) DISTRICT; AMENDING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT-l-RETAIL (SNIDER PLAZA) TO REGULATE THE HEIGHT OF
STRUCTURES; AMENDING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT-2-
RETAIL (MIRACLE MILE) TO REGULATE THE HEIGHT OF STRUCTURES;
PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT;
PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY OF
FINE NOT TO EXCEED THE SUM OF TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS
($2,000.00) FOR EACH OFFENSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on the
day of .,2003.
APPROVED:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY SECRETARY
55318
WILLIAM M. BLACKBURN
ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR
9400 North Central Expressway, Suite 1616
Dallas, Texas 75231
214-368-7911
Telecopy 214-265-7008
e-mail:
blackburn~cherryhowell, com
July 23, 2003
Mr. Wade McLaurin
Building Official
City of University Park
3800 University Boulevard
University Park, TX 75205
Via e-mail and U.S. Mail
Re: Proposed Zoning Changes to Height Allowances in Retail Districts
Dear Wade,
I understand that the City Council is scheduled to adopt a Zoning Ordinance change
previously considered which would reduce the height allowed in General Retail zoned districts
by ten (10) feet. Chris Jordan, representing my client, Intercity Investments, Inc., and I have
previously spoken in opposition to such change to the extent it would affect my client's retail
properties along Preston Road. I now am told that the Council has recognized that the Preston
Road properties should not be penalized with such a height reduction, since there is no
residential adjacency issue, as is the concern over the Miracle Mile and Snider Plaza areas.
Apparently the suggestion is to adopt in the near future another amendment to your Zoning
Ordinance. This proposal would create two (2) Retail Districts, e.g., GR-1 and GR-2, one of
which would allow the same height as my client's properties now enjoy.
While we appreciate the recognition of the inequity of down zoning the Preston Road
properties, it is cold comfort to say that my client, or some potential purchaser, will be free to
seek in the future a reversal of this down zoning by applying for yet another re-zoning to the new
category. As you well know, this current Council cannot bind future City Councils to grant such
zoning. This burden on my client and its properties is a matter which could be avoided if the
current Council would (i) postpone action until the new zoning categories are approved and
adopted as part of your Zoning Code, and then (ii) re-zone the Preston Road properties to the
new GR District allowing the height permitted under the current zoning. We respectfully request
the City's consideration of this more measured and fair approach.
Mr. Wade McLaurin
July 23, 2003
Page 2
I would be pleased to meet with you, Rob Dillard or Members of the Zoning Commission
or the Council to discuss this issue further if ! can be of assistance in resolving the concerns of
my client, which concerns are apparently shared by the Council Members.
Yours very truly,
William M. Blackburn
WMB:ds
cc: Mr. Chris Jordan
Intercity Investments, Inc.
4301 Westside Drive, Suite 100
Dallas, TX 75209-6546
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
AGENDA MEMO
(8/5/03 AGENDA)
July 31, 2003
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Wade McLaurin, Building & Zoning Administrator
Amendment to the Sign Ordinance - Temporary Sign Regulations
BACKGROUND:
As was discussed at the June 18th Council Work Session, the Urban Design and Development Advisory
Committee (UDADAC) was asked to review the current requirements for temporary signs found in the Sign
Ordinance and make recommendations as to how potential constitutionality issues regarding our political
sign restrictions could be resolved. In an effort to also make the residential neighborhoods in the City less
cluttered, UDADAC reviewed all of the temporary sign regulations and made the following
recommendations:
· Set a maximum of six (6) square feet for any temporary sign. The current maximum square
footage for a political sign is three (3) square feet, while real estate or contractor signs are
allowed to be six (6).
· Provide for a total aggregate square footage of twelve (12) square feet for temporary signs
per lot. This would allow for multiple political signs on a property or the combination of
different types of temporary signs (i. e. a real estate sign and a political sign on the lot at the
same time).
· Maintain the current maximum height of four (4) feet for temporary signs.
· Amend the ordinance to prohibit the use of contractor signs. UDADACfelt that it would be a
positive change for University Park to borrow this restriction currently in place in Highland
Park. In addition, there would be no more debate over the use of temporary signage by sub-
contractors, painters, pool companies, or similar "contractors"
The proposed changes will provide for political signs to be regulated the same as other temporary signs,
which eliminates the constitutionality issues, and creates enforceable restrictions on these types of signs.
Contractor signs will be eliminated unless they are part of a real estate sign.
PUBLIC NOTICE: N/A
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the enabling ordinance amending Article 12.200 of the University Park Code
of Ordinances regarding the sign regulations of the City.
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS,
AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF
UNIVERSITY PARK, CHAPTER 12, SIGN REGULATIONS, BY AMENDING
SECTION 12.229 REGULATING REAL ESTATE SIGNS; AMENDING
SECTION 12.231 TO PROHIBIT CONSTRUCTION SIGNS IN RESIDENTIAL
ZONES; AMENDING SECTION 12.233 TO REGULATE AGGREGATE
AREA OF TEMPORARY SIGNS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES; AMENDING
SECTION 12.237 REGULATING POLITICAL SIGNS IN RESIDENTIAL
ZONES; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN
CONFLICT; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A
PENALTY OF FINE NOT TO EXCEED THE SUM OF FIVE HUNDRED
DOLLARS ($500.00) FOR EACH OFFENSE; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS:
SECTION 1. That Chapter 12, Article 12.200, Section 12.229, of the Code of
Ordinances, City of University Park, Texas, is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 12.229 Real Estate Signs in Residential Zones
Real estate signs shall not exceed six (6) square feet in area. Such temporary
signs shall be erected or constructed so that no portion thereof exceeds a height of four
feet (4') from the ground. In addition, a temporary "Open" sign, not to exceed two (2)
square feet in area, may be used on the property for a maximum of eight hours per day
when the dwelling is open for public inspection. Real estate signs must be removed not
later than ten (10) days after the transaction pursuant to which the property is sold or
leased is closed."
SECTION 2. That Chapter 12, Article 12.200, Section 12.231, of the Code of
Ordinances, City of University Park, Texas, is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 12.231 Construction Signs Not Permitted in Residential Zones
Construction signs shall not be permitted in residential zones."
SECTION 3. That Chapter 12, Article 12.200, Section 12.233, of the Code of
Ordinances, City of University Park, Texas, is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 12.233 Aggregate Area of Temporary Signs in Residential Zones
The aggregate area of all temporary signs (i.e. real estate signs, political signs),
excluding the area of authorized address signs, permitted on a lot in a residential zone
shall not exceed twelve (12) square feet."
SECTION 4. That Chapter 12, Article 12.200, Section 12.237, of the Code of
Ordinances, of the City of University Park, Texas, is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 12.237 Political Signs in Residential Zones
Political signs, each not exceeding six (6) square feet in area or four feet (4') in
height, shall be permitted on a residential lot, subject to the requirements of
Section 12.235."
SECTION 5. That all provisions of the Code of Ordinances of the City of
University Park, Texas, in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same
are hereby, repealed.
SECTION 6. That should any word, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, clause,
phrase or section of this ordinance or of the Code of Ordinances, as amended hereby, be
adjudged or held to be void or unconstitutional, the same shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portions of said ordinance or the Code of Ordinances, as amended hereby,
which shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 7. Any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions
of this ordinance shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction in the
municipal court of the City of University Park, Texas, shall be punished by a fine not to
exceed the sum of five hundred dollars ($500.00) for each offense, and each and every
day any such violation shall continue shall be deemed to constitute a separate offense.
SECTION 8. That this Ordinance shall take effect immediately from and after
its passage and the publication of the caption, as the law and Charter in such cases
provide.
DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on
the 5th day of August, 2003.
APPROVED:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
HAROLD PEEK, MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY ATTORNEY
SECRETARY
(RLD/7-29-03)
NINAWILSON,
CITY
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS,
AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF
UNIVERSITY PARK, CHAPTER 12, SIGN REGULATIONS, BY AMENDING
SECTION 12.229 REGULATING REAL ESTATE SIGNS; AMENDING
SECTION 12.231 TO PROHIBIT CONSTRUCTION SIGNS IN RESIDENTIAL
ZONES; AMENDING SECTION 12.233 TO REGULATE AGGREGATE
AREA OF TEMPORARY SIGNS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES; AMENDING
SECTION 12.237 REGULATING POLITICAL SIGNS IN RESIDENTIAL
ZONES; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN
CONFLICT; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A
PENALTY OF FINE NOT TO EXCEED THE SUM OF FIVE HUNDRED
DOLLARS ($500.00) FOR EACH OFFENSE; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on
the 5th day of August, 2003.
APPROVED:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS
TO:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Manager
DATE: August 5, 2003
SUBJECT: FY 2004 Proposed Budget
OVERVIEW
This memo presents the City Manager's proposed budget for FY 2004 (October 1, 2003 September 30,
2004). The FY 2004 budget continues trends familiar in prior year budgets:
· A reduction in the City's tax rate for the 9th consecutive year.
· Maintenance of existing service levels with optimal workforce size and competitive
compensation.
· Continuation of aggressive pay-as-you-go funding of infrastructure replacement.
· No user fee increases.
Highlights of the proposed budget include:
· A property tax rate decrease of 1%, from $0.32932 to $0.32601. The tax levy for an average
single-family home, valued 1.7 % higher than last year, would increase $12.35 (0.7%).
· A balanced General Fund budget.
· A $250,033 increase in funding for capital projects.
· The addition of two full-time positions Fire Department Training Officer and Utilities Office
Billing/Mail Clerk.
Total expenditures
The proposed FY04 budget totals $32.05 million, an increase of $1.43 million, or 4.67%, from FY03's
total $30.62 million. As in past years, personnel-related costs are the primary reason for the increase
($1.14 million), followed by capital project transfers ($250,033) and supplies/other ($151,802). The
proposed budget does not include any major equipment or new programs.
Personnel costs
Salaries and benefits represent 52% of the proposed budget's makeup. Total personnel costs for FY2004
are $17.51 million, up 7.0 % or $1.14 million from FY03's $16.37 million. Of this, $630,098 represents
increased salary-related costs and $512,320 represents increased benefit costs. The proposed budget
includes a 3% market-based salary increase and a 52% increase in employer health insurance payments.
Even though our employees have supported attempts to control costs, including paying higher amounts for
their coverage, health costs have been rising 15% to 20% per annum for several years. Consecutive years
of high claims forced a sharp increase in the City's contributions starting last January. This increase is now
included in the FY 2004 Budget.
1
C:[Documents and Settings[nwilson[Local Settings[Temporary Internet Files[OLK21 [CM Budget Letter FYO4. doc
08/01/03 9:58AM
Comparisons
The table below provides a comparison of total budgeted expenditures for the City's three budgeted funds.
Three other funds Capital Projects, Equipment Services, and Self-Insurance are not included in the
formal budget, although they each receive contributions from the budgeted funds. Departmental and line
item detail is provided in the attached schedule.
TOTAL BUDGETED EXPENDITURES - FY02 TO FY04
FY02 FY03 FY04 % CHANGE
FUND ADOPTED ADOPTED PROPOSED FY04 V. FY03
General
Utility
Sanitation
Debt Service
Total
17,910,128 18,957,713 19,923,714 5.10%
8,674,252 9,288,817 9,632,850 3.70%
2,215,774 2,376,790 2,496,972 5.06%
220,913 -0- -0- 0.00%
$29,021,067 $30,623,320 $32,053,536 4.67%
As in past years, the General Fund expenditures increased the most compared to the other funds. The bulk
of the City's personnel and operations are contained in the General Fund, which in tum is supported
primarily by property taxes (63% of General Fund revenue).
By way of reference, over the past year, the Consumer Price Index (CPI)-All Urban Consumers for Dallas-
Fort Worth increased 2.3%. The City's FY04 proposed budget is 4.67% higher than last year's adopted
budget. What accounts for the more rapid increase in City expenditures compared to the CPI? Simply put,
the CPI's collection of consumer goods does not align with the items purchased by the City. The proposed
FY2004 budget is especially hard hit by sharp rises in personnel-related costs, such as health insurance as
well as other items such as fuel costs, which have increased dramatically during the past year. The only
bright spot is that we perceive a larger number of contractors are now willing to bid our capital projects.
Whether or not this will translate into lower costs, particularly since contractors face many of the same
personnel and other costs as we do, is difficult to determine.
Revenue considerations
The proposed budget includes modifications to non-property tax revenues in the General Fund, which help
lessen the burden placed on the property tax. For FY2003 there was little opportunity to project increases
in key General Fund revenues, like sales taxes, franchise fees, interest eamings and building permits. This
year is similar, although we are projecting increases in franchise fees and direct alarm monitoring charges.
We have also projected slight increases in an assortment of other General Fund revenues, such as
ambulance billing. Overall, non-property tax General Fund revenues are budgeted to increase 5.1%, the
same percentage as property-tax-related revenues.
Tax rate decrease
The trend of consistent sharp increases in property values throughout the city appears to be ending. Last
year, market values citywide rose 8.27%, while this year the increase is 2.67%. Despite this, taxable value
increased 6.06%, reflecting the release of property parcels whose taxable value was capped last year. The
FY04 budget includes a proposed rate reduction of 0.0033 cents, from $0.32932 to $0.32601 per $100
taxable value. This represents a 1.0 % decrease in the property tax rate. Due to the increased taxable
value, however, the proposed rate will increase the typical single-family homeowner's bill by about 1.7 %.
This equals about $1.00 a month for the average University Park homeowner.
PROPERTY TAX RATE COMPARISON FY01 TO FY04
2
C:[Documents and Settings[nwilson[Local Settings[Temporary Internet Files[OLK21 [CM Budget Letter FYO4. doc
08/01/03 2:10£M
TAX ADOPTED ADOPTED PROPOSED PROPOSED
P U R POS E FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04
O&M
Operations
Capital
Total O&M
Debt Service
Total Tax Rate
$0.28002 $0.25948 $0.25789 $0.25488
$0.07683 $0.07377 $0.07142 $0.07113
$0.35685 $0.33325 $0.32932 $0.32601
$0.01474 $0.00675 $0.00000 $0.00000
$0.37159 $0.33999 $0.32932 $0.32601
For FY04 the average single-family home in University Park is valued at $717,626, an increase of
$11,887 (1.7%) over last year. The owner of an average home whose value did not increase in assessed
value this year would pay $18.69 less in City taxes compared to FY03.
TAX LEVY COMPARISON FY01 TO FY04
ADOPTED ADOPTED ADOPTED PROPOSED
FYO 1 FY02 FY03 FY04
Assessed Value (Market)
Less 20% Hmstd Exmp
Taxable Value
Tax Rate per $100
City Tax Levy
$552,938 $637,009 $705,739 $717,626
(110,588) (127,402) (141,148) (143,525)
$442,350 $509,607 $564,592 $574,101
$0.37159 $0.33999 $0.32932 $0.32601
$1,643.73 $1,732.61 $1,859.30 $1,871.65
Over the period FY01 to FY04, the average single-family home has increased 29.8 % in market value,
while the City tax levy has increased 13.9%.
CAPITAL PROJECTS
The proposed budget continues the program of replacing the City's aging infrastructure. Project funding
included in the adopted FY02 and proposed FY03 budgets is shown as follows:
PROJECT FY03 FY04
Mile-per-year water, sewer, and alley replacement
Curb and gutter replacement
General Fund contribution - undesignated
Asphalt overlay program
Fire hydrant installation
Utility Fund contribution - undesignated
Total
$1,850,000 $1,962,665
$ 811,275 $ 877,224
$ 917,000 $ 944,510
$ 510,000 $ 541,059
$ 135,000 $ 143,222
$ 76,000 $ 80,628
$4,299,275 $4,549,308
In addition to these operating contributions, the City regularly transfers additional funds to the capital
3
C.' IDocuraents and S'ettingslnwilsonlLocal S'ettingsl Temporary lnternet FileslOLK2] ICM Budget Letter FY04. doc
08/01/03 9:55etM
project fund each year. These are accomplished using transfers from unappropriated fund balances in the
General and Utility Funds. When combined with the transfers shown above, they allow the City to fund
and construct and average of more than $6 million in projects each year.
SALARIES AND PERSONNEL ADJUSTMENTS
Personnel changes
The proposed budget includes two new positions, bringing the full time headcount total to 237. This
number continues to be lower than the 244 the City employed in the early 1990's. One of the new
positions is the Fire Department Training Officer. This position was requested last year but cut. As we
have discussed in briefings, this position is needed to oversee and coordinate the increasingly complex
training our paramedics must undergo as well as the increasing requirements of Federal, State, and local
programs to deal with emergency preparedness. Second, the budget includes the restoration of the Utility
Billing/Mail Clerk position eliminated three years ago. This position is currently filled on a temporary
basis and now includes receptionist relief responsibilities.
Salary changes
Salary related costs in all funds increased approximately $630,098, from $12.362 million to $12.991
million for FY04. As in past years, we have performed salary surveys to compare our relative position in
both the public and private job markets. Last year, the results of the survey indicated that to remain
competitive, the City only needed to increase Police and Fire salaries. This year, the results indicated that
a 3% salary increase for all positions is appropriate. Some employees will be eligible for a merit increase
depending upon their current step in the pay plan. However, each year the number of such eligible
employees declines as more reach the top steps of their respective pay ranges.
Benefits costs
The proposed Budget does include one minor benefit adjustment. For employees covered by the Texas
Municipal Retirement System (TMRS), I am proposing to reduce from 25 to 20 the years of service
required for retirement. The only employees not be affected will be fire personnel. They are covered by
their own system and can already retire after 20 years of service. The annual cost will be approximately
$27,000.
The cost of existing benefits in all funds is rising by $512,320, a 12.8%increase. As mentioned
previously, employers of all sizes are experiencing rising health care costs. The City's claim's experience
continues to be poor. The 46-year average age of our group, coupled with the high increases in medical
costs overall, does not help to lower claims. For FY04 employer health insurance premiums make up
$398,430 of the $512,320 benefit costs increase. This is fully 52% higher than what was budgeted last
year. On a positive note, the budgeted amounts for life and ADD insurance rose only 3.3%, and workers
compensation insurance decreased 3.8%.
UTILITY FUND
The proposed Utility Fund budget includes no rate increases for water or sewer charges. The City of
Dallas has informed us that our wastewater treatment cost will rise 5.4%, from $1.95 million to $2.05
million. No increase is forecasted for water treatment charges, which are currently budgeted at $2.27
million. Largely as a result of the $105,241 wastewater treatment increase, and $188,784 increase in
salary and benefit costs, the proposed FY04 Utility Fund budget is out of balance by $181,175. Because
4
C'.' IDocuments and S'ettingslnwilsonlLocal S'ettingsl Temporary lnternet FileslOLK21 ICM £udget Letter FY04. doc 08/01/03
Utility Fund water revenues are so volatile, however, the projected deficit may not be realized. Rather
than eliminate positions or raise rates, I recommend approving the Utility Fund budget as proposed. The
budgeted deficit ($181,175 ) represents 1.8% of Fund expenditures.
SANITATION FUND
The proposed Sanitation Fund budget is also out of balance, which is consistent with budgets for this Fund
over the last five years. Unlike the General Fund, Sanitation Fund revenues only increase if rates are
raised. The Fund routinely expends less than its budget, which allows it to finish the year with a positive
balance. At the end of the third quarter of FY2003, the Sanitation Fund had a year-to-date positive
balance of $75,000 and should end the year with a $70,000-$90,000 gain. Our Sanitation employees and
Superintendent Kenneth Chance continue to perform an outstanding job. Further, and also consistent with
past years, the Sanitation Budget contains a $100,000 placeholder, which is intended to allow
accumulation of reserves toward future landfill needs. Using this approach, the unappropriated fund
balance for Sanitation was $797,000 at the end of this June. A year ago it was $616,000 and two years
ago it was $589,000. Again, this growth is planned in order to create a reserve for future landfill needs.
CONCLUSION
As in the past, the proposed budget will be sent to the Employee Benefits, Finance, and Insurance Advisory
Committees for review. Staff`has begun scheduling those meetings. Because we propose to increase
property tax revenues more than 3%, State Truth-in-Taxation law requires that a separate public hearing be
held before the meeting at which the tax rate is adopted. To comply with this law, staff`proposes the
following schedule for the FY2004 budget's adoption.
Date Day
August 5 Tuesday
Description
Submit proposed budget to City Council
Vote to hold public hearing re. proposed tax rate
August 20 Wednesday Conduct public hearing re. proposed tax rate
August 28 Thursday Notice of vote on tax rate appears in Park Cities People
Sept. 2 Tuesday
Conduct public hearings on budget and tax rate
Approve ordinances adopting budget and tax rate
Oct. 1
Wednesday New budget takes effect
5
C:[Documents and Settings[nwilson[Local Settings[Temporary Internet Files[OLK2] [CM Budget Letter FYO4. doc
08/01/03 9:58AM
CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS
FY 2004 PROPOSED BUDGET
SUMMARY BY FUND AND DEPARTMENT
GENERALFUND
01-11 REVENUES
TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES
EXPENDITURES
01-02 EXECUTIVE
01-03 FINANCE
01-04 HUMAN RESOURCES
01-05 INFORMATION SERVICES
01-10 COURT
01-19 BUILDING
01-20 ENGINEERING
01-25 TRAFFIC
01-35 FACILITY MAINTENANCE
01-40 FIRE
01-50 POLICE
01-70 PARKS
01-75 SWIMMING POOL
01-80 STREETS
01-85 TRANSFERS
TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
DIFFERENCE
UTILITY FUND
REVENUES
02-11 REVENUES
EXPENDITURES
02-21 UTILITY OFFICE
02-22 UTILITIES
02-85 TRANSFERS
TOTAL UTILITY FUND EXPENDITURES
DIFFERENCE
SANITATION FUND
04-11 REVENUES
TOTAL SANITATION FUND REVENUES
EXPENDITURES
04-60SANITATION
TOTAL SANITATION FUND EXPENDITURES
DIFFERENCE
TOTAL REVENUES
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
DIFFERENCE
FY03
ADOPTED
BUDGET
$18,957,713
$18,957,713
FY04
PROPOSED
BUDGET
$19,924,227
$19,924,227
$605,755
$892,781
$3O4,568
$462,172
$234,353
$552,889
$808,789
$694,104
$572,835
$3,328,761
$4,307,531
$1,958,841
$171,450
$1,524,609
$2,538,275
$18,957,713
$618,054
$918,432
$303,261
$485,068
$249,236
$580,616
$872,773
$740,709
$611,069
$3,502,650
$4,523,224
$2,064,482
$166,950
$1,606,127
$2,681,063
$19,923,714
$0 $513
$9,451,675 $9,451,675
$9,451,675 $9,451,675
$5,018,501 $5,140,536
$2,509,316 $2,624,069
$1,761,000 $1,868,245
% CHANGE $ CHANGE
5.10% $966,514
5.10% $966,514
2.03% $12,299
2.87% $25,651
-0.43% ($1,307)
4.95% $22 896
6.35% $14 883
5.01% $27 727
7.91% $63 984
6.71% $46 605
6.67% $38 234
5.22% $173 889
5.01% $215 693
5.39% $105,641
-2.62% ($4,500)
5.35% $81,518
5.63% $142,788
5.10% $966,001
$513
0.00% $
0.00% 0%
2.43% $ 122,035
4.57% $ 114,753
6.09% $ 107,245
$9,288,817 $9,632,850 3.70% $ 344,033
$162,858 ($181,175)
$2,231,450 $2,231,450
$2,231,450 $2,231,450
$2,376,790 $2,496,972
$2,376,790 $2,496,972
{$145,340) ($265,522)
$30.~640~838 $31r607,352
$30,623~320 $32r053,536
$17,518 ($446,184)
$ (344,033)
0.00% $o
0.00% 0
5.06% $120,182
5.06% $120,182
($120,182)
3.15% $966,514
4.67% $1,430,216
($463,702)
CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS
FY2004 PROPOSED BUDGET
PROPERTY TAX IMPACT
TOTAL TAXABLE VALUE (CERTIFIED)
TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES
NON PROPERTY TAX REVENUE
Sales tax
Franchise fees
Building permits
Traffic/parking fines
Service charges
Direct alarm monitoring fees
Miscellaneous
TOTAL NON PROPERTY TAX REV.
PROPERTY TAX REVENUE
Operations & Maintenance (O&M) need
Penalty/interest & attorney's fees
Delinquent (prior years) taxes
TOTAL PROP TAX OP REQUEST
DEBTSERVICE REQUIREMENT
PROPERTY TAX RATE
Operations & Maintenance (O&M)
Debt Service
Total Property Tax Rate per $100
IMPACT ON HOMEOWNER
Average single-family market value
Less: 20% homestead exemption
Average single-family taxable value
FY2002 FY2003
ADOPTED ADOPTED
BUDGET BUDGET
$ 3,272,644,258 $ 3,553,903,488
$ 17,910,497 $ 18,957,713
$ 2,160,220 $ 2,160,220
1,543,630 1,650,000
700,000 700,000
355,000 355,000
365,160 400,160
210,000 285,000
1,505,781 1,533,228
$ 6,839,791 $ 7,083,608
$ 10,905,718 $ 11,703,605
106,619 110,000
58,000 60,500
$ 11,070,337 $
$ 220,913 $
11,874,105
$ 0.33324 $ 0.32932
0.00675
$ 0.33999 $ 0.32932
637,009 705,739
(127,402) (141,148)
509,607 564,592
FY2004
PROPOSED % Change $ Change
BUDGET FY04/FY03 FY04 V. FY03
3,769,405,331 6.06% $ 215,501,843
$ 19,924,227 5.1% $ 966,514
2,160,220 0.0% $
1,805,000 9.4% $ 155,000
700,000 0.0% $
355,000 0.0% $
452,160 13.0% $ 52,000
350,000 22.8% $ 65,000
1,621,562 5.8% $ 88,334
$ 7,443,942 5.1% $ 360,334
12,288,785 5.0% $ 585,180
115,000 4.5% $ 5,000
76,500 26.4% $ 16,000
$ 12,480,285 5.1% $ 606,180
$ 0.0% $
Tax levy $ 1,732.61 $ 1,859.30
Change Eom prioryear $ 88.88 $ 126.69
Fund: GENERAL FUND I Department: ADMINISTRATION I Division:::~ EXECUTIVE (01-02)~/
01-02-1002 OVERTIME EARNINGS ISALARIES~& BENEFITS $358 $500 I$o $500 I$0 3.00%
01-02-1007 CAR ALLOWANCE /SALARIES ~BENEFITS $7 200$71200 /$7:200 $7:200 l$O 3.00%
Ol-O2-112o EMPLOYERS SHARE T. MRS. ISALAR,ES & BENEFITS 534,751 534,994 1534,994 s35,894 1$900 2.5,%
I
Ol-O2-113o INSURANCE-EMPLOYEE LIFE [SALARIES& BENEFITS $1 399 $1 589 /51155o $11640 ~$51 3.21%
01~02-2100 OFFICE SUPPLIES ~SUPPLIES ~ ~ ~ $1 724 $2~42~ ~m[$2~000 $2,121 ~($300) -12.39%
01-02-3003 BOARD MEETINGS [PROFESSIONAL $647 $11150 /$65o $900 ($250) -21.74%
~ ISERVICES
/
01-02-3014 PUBLICATIONS IPROFESSIONAL $12,001 $1,200 [$2,779 $1,200 $0 0.00%
[SERVICES
I
01-02-3063 PROGRAMMING/MAINTENANCEIPROFESSIONAL $2,500 $3,500[$3,50056,625 53,125 89.29%
~SERVICES ~
01-02-4110 HEAT. LIGHTWATER UTIL IUTILITIES $1,515 $1,879 ~ |$1:879 $1 879 $0 0.00%
01-02-5504 INSURANCE-EXCESS LIABILI~ [INSURANCE ~ ~ $471000 $47 000 1547 000 $11098 ($45 902) -97.66%
01-02-5514 INSU RANCE-PUBL.O~:F'L LIAB IINSURANCE $39,300 $39,300 ~ 1539,300 $50,000 $10,700 27.23%
01102-6200EQU'PREPAIRS/NONVEHICLEIOUTSIDESERVlCES, $1,909 ;$1,800L~-P1',8°° ....... $1,800 $0 0.00%
31-02-7151 CONTINGENCY FUND [OTHER 50 $0 ]$.~0~ $0 ]$0 ~ #DIV/0!
01-02-7153 CAPITAL PROJECTS CONTRIB /OTHER 50 $0 I$o $o I$O ~D,V,O,
/
I
I
01-02-7202MICROCOMPUTE SOF A""IOTHER t0 ,,ooo /: oo :,ooo i,o o.oo%
01-02-7240 TUITION & TRAINING IOTHER $29~681 $17 350 [$15 650 $~650 1($14~700) -84.73%
01-02-7432 ELECTIONS [OTHER $3.480 $o I$o $7150~~ ~OlV/O!
01-02-9201 MICRO COMPUTER CAPITAL EXPENDITURES $200 $810 /$851 $500 [($310) -38.27%
EQU PMENT I
I
I
~ ~ ., :~ ,,. ~, ~: .. .... ~, m-,-::. ~
SALARIES & BENEFITS $344r539 $355r0491 $356,283 $372,1111517:062:4.81%
SUPPLIES $11943 $21921] $2:000
PROFESSIONALSERVlCES $115~461 $109~050 $137~579 $138~775[$29~725 27.26%
UTILITIES $4,951 $5,312 $5,312 $ 5,312~?. ~,~... ~;~ ~t~
INSURANCE $91,048 $91,048] $91,048 $55,957[($35 ~91} -38.54%
OUTSIDE SERVICES $1,909 $1,800] $1,800
OTHER $56~013 $39~765[ $37~465 $39~978[~213 0.54%
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES $327 $810 $1:076 $1,500~9~
DEPARTMENT TOTALS $616~191 $605~765 $632~563 $618,054~$12,299 2.03%
Fund: GENERAL FUND I Department: FINANCE I Division: FINANCE (01-03) /
01-03-1002 OVERTIME EARNINGS ~ ISALARIES ~&~BENEFITS 153,158 151,500 ,~15500 I$1 500 I$0 0.00%
01-03-1007 CAR ALLOWANCE /SALARIES & BENEFITS ]$7,200 /$7,200 157,200 /$7,200 /$0 0.00%
01-03-1120 EMPLOYERS SHARE T.M.R.S. ISALARIES&BENEFITS 1559,388 1569,100 1569,100 /$71,835 152,735 3.96%
01-03-1131 INSURANCE-WORKMENS COMP .~ /SALARIES & BENEFITS t$839 151,331 151,331 ~$1,387 1556 4.21%
01-03-1135 HEALTH INSURANCE /SALARIES & BENEFITS ~ 1520,102 /527,461 ~$27,461 ~$40,221 ~$12,760 46.47%
01-03-2100 OFFICE SUPPLIES ISUPPLIES ~ /56,204 154,320 154,320 /$4,~40 1520 0.46%
01-03-2320 GAS, OIL & GREASE ISUPPLIES ~ /$0 /$0 /$0 I$0 /$0 #DIV/0!
'"it: ~i .... : :;~: ......... ~ ' i ~' ' :~' '~: :~ ii ......
01-03-3065 CREDIT CARD FEES /PROFESSIONAL SERVICES I$0 /$0 I$0 I$0
01-03-3140 HPISD T~ COLLECTION SERV /PROFESSIONAL SERVICES IS0 IS0 IS0 IS0 IS0 ~DIV/0!
o1-o3-4~2o TELEPHONE SERVICE ~ lUT~UT~ES ISS,0~ 154,465 154,465 154,465 I$0 o.oo%
01-03-5506 INSURANCE-GEN'L LIABILITY /~NSURANCE J$758 157~S /$7SS 152,427 I$~,e69 220.~8%
01-03-5520 RISK, LOSS, CLAIM MGMT [INSURANCE [$0 [$0 [$0 [$0 /$0 ~DIV/0!
01-03-6195 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE ]OUTSIDE SERVICES 150 [$0 [$0 I$0 I$0 ~DIV/0!
01-03-7150 DUES & SUBSCRIP~ONS [OTHER ~ [$5,318 [$4,347 [$4,347 [$4,911 [$564 12.97%
01-03-7202 MICRO COMPUTER SOF~ARE [OTHER [$23~ 15250 1$2,700 1$250 I$0 o.o0%
01-03-7240 TUITION &TRAINING ~ IOTHER ~ l~6,789 l$5,404 ~ l$5:40~ ~]~2,145 l($3,259} 160.31%
0~-03-8000 INTEREST CONTRIB.-BYRD I*~"S~S I:0 l:0 l:0 ~:0
01-03-9100 OFFICE EQUIPMENT ICAPITAL EXPENDITURES 150 15500 15500 15500 ]$0 0.00%
01-03-9201 MICRO COMPUTER EQUIPMENT [CAPITAL EXPENDITURES [$8,456 [$3,560 1$2,400 /$3,000 /($550~ -15.73%
~-03-GG~0 OFFICE ~URNITURE [CAPITAL EXPENDITURE~ $0 ~0 $0 $0 [$0 ~DIV/Ot
SUPPLIES I $~,20~I $~:320l $~,3201 S~,3~01520 ~.~%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES I $244,795 $222,584 $217,762 $221,886~[~[
U*ILmES I SS'~S~I :S'~l SS':~l SS':~el.~° 0.00%0
INSURANCE I $7581 $7581 $7581 $2,427 ~?~ ~:
OUTSIDE SERVICES I $8901 $5501 $5501 $550150 0.00%
OTHER I S~ee941 S1~04~[ $~e4911
T~ANSFE~S I S01 $01 $0~ S0[~b ~ r, :~DIV/0:
CA~TALEXPENDITURES [ SS4561 $~3,0e01 S1:,9001 $3,S00~'
DEPARTMENT TOTALS I ~820,5921 ~892,7811 ~888:2491 ~918:432152~,651 2.87%0
Fund: GENERAL FUND I Department: ADMINISTRATION I Division: HUMAN RESOURCES (01-04)
01-04-1002 OVERTIME EARNINGS /SALARIES ~&~BENEFITS /$353 ~, I$o /$o $o I$o Io.oo%
01-04-1007 CAR ALLOWANCE /SALARIES & BENEFIT~ l$7,200 157,200 157,200 $7,200 I$0 10.00%
~~P~E~~[{I~EEi~~~$~][t~~~ $22,436 ~$1,06010.00%
~PMP I / / / .~
/
01-04-1135 HEALTH ~NSUP~NCE ,~ ISALAR~ES & BENEFitS 155,71 1$10,216 ~ 1$10,~,!6 $10,155~/($6~) 10.00%
~~~~~~i~ ?: ~ ::. ~:~i.~-~[S~'~,.~l ======================
01-04-2100 OFFICE SUPPLIES ISUPPLIES /$1,592 /$1,550 151,200 $1,350 1($2o~? Io.oo%
01-04-4110 HEAT,LIGHT,WATER UTIL IUTILITIES~ ~ 15406 ~4,,86 15486 - $486 I$o ~ Io.oo%
01-04-5504 iNSURANCE-EXCESS LIABILIT IINSURANCE ~ ~ I$0 I$0 I$0: : : $0 ' ~ I$0 .~ ~ I0.00%
~1-04-5520 RISK, LOSS, CLAIM MGMT IINSU~NCE I$35,000 I$35,000 I$35,000 $45,000 I$I0,000 I0.00%
~1-04-7110 EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION ~,~]~HER~ 156 127 I$S 000 159 000 $9,000 ,~ 150 10.00%
01-04-7170 TRAVEL EXPENSE IOTHER ....... 153~9 153,600 /53,600 ~ $2,7~0 /15~60~ 10.00%
01-04-7221 OTHER EXPENSE [OTHE~m I$219 I$2,000 I$2,000 $2,000 I$0 I0.00%
01-04-7245 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT IOTHER I$0 I$o I$o $o~ I$o ~ Io.oo%
Ol-O4-92Ol M,CRO COMPUTER ICAP:TAL EXPEND:TURES I$0 I$0 /$0 $0 I$0 10.00%
EQUIPMENT / I /~ /
I
/
SALARIES&BENEFITS / $208'5461 $Z00,4501 $200,450 :204,0801:3,630
SUPPLIES / $1 ~5921 $1,5501 $1,200 $1
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES I $34'0931 $32,6001 $25,050 $20,6001{$3,000} I0.00%
UTILITIES $2,2551 $2,2631 $2,263 $2,2631~
INSU~4NCE $35,2601 $35,2601 $35,260 $45,896151716 I0.00%
OUTSIDE SERVICES S01 $4001 $400 $ 400 l~:: ~l~.~ 0,:~?,,~
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES $0 $0 $0 $
DEPARTMENT TOTALS ~292:066 ~304,568 ~287:5681 ~303,26~1($1,307) ]0.00%
Fund: GENERAL FUND J Department: INFORMATION SERVICES I Division: INFORMATION SERVICES (01-05)
01-05-1005 LONGEVITY PAY SALARIES & BENEFITS
01-05-1110 EMPLOYERS SHARE F.I.C.A. SALARIES & BENEFITS
01-05-1130 INSURANCE-EMPLOYEE LIFE SALARIES & BENEFITS
01-05-1132 INSURANCE-UNEMPLOYMENT SALARIES & BENEFITS
01-05-2029 CLOTHING ALLOWANCE
01-05-2318 COMPUTER SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
01-05-3060 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
01-05-4110 HEAT,LIGHT,WATER UTIL UTILITIES
01-05-5506 INSURANCE-GEN'L LIABILITY INSURANCE
01-05-7150 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS
01.05-7202 MICRO COMPUTER
SOFTWARE
01-05-7240 TUITION & TRAINING
01-05-9100 OFFICE EQUIPMENT
!OTHER
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
01-05-9201 MICRO COMPUTER
EQUIPMENT
EXPENDITURES
01-05-9910 OFFICE FURNITURE
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
SALARIES & BENEFITS
SUPPLIES
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
UTILITIES
INSURANCE
OUTSIDE SERVICES
OTHER
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
DEPARTMENT TOTALS
Fund: GENERAL FUND I Department: FINANCE I Division: COURT (01-10)
01-10-1002 OVERTIME EARNINGS SA~RIES & BENEFITS $8,463 $9,000 ~$0 $9.000 $0 0.00%
01-10-1006 EDUCATION PAY SA~RIES & BENEFITS $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ~DIV/0;
91-I0-1110 EMPLOYERS SHARE F.I.C.A. SA~RIES & BENEFITS $9,956 $12,018 S0 $12,429 S0 0.00%
31-10-1130 INSURANCE-EMPLOYEE LIFE SA~RIES & BENEFITS $483 $486 $0 $516 $0 0.00%
01-10-2029 CLOTHING ALLOWANCE SUPPLIES $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ~DIV/0!
01-10-2318 COMPUTER SUPPLIES SUPPLIES $145 $500 $100 $500 $0 9.00%
01-10-2350 SUPPLIES & MATERIALS SUPPLIES S0 $1~500 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
01-10-3010 POSTAGE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 82,773 $2,000 $3,171 $3,000 $0 0.00%
01-10-3060 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $13,852 $8,752 $10,000 $9,052 $0 0,00%
01-10-3063 PROGRAMMING/MAINTENANCE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $24,789 $7,090 $482 $7,445 ,$0 0.00%
01-10-3113 PRINTING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $1,330 $0 $400 81,500 $0 ~DIV/0!
01-10~120 TELEPHONE SERVICE UTILITIES $3 898 $3,555 $0 $3 555 $0 0.00%
01-~0-5506 INSURANOE-GEN'L LIABILITY INSURANCE $30~ $308 ~0 $987 $0 0.00%
01-10-6195 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE OUTSIDE SERVICES $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
~1-~0-7~0 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS OTHER $409 S750 *750 $775 $0 0.00%
31-10-7202 MICRO COMPUTER SOF~ARE OTHER $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 CDIV/0!
01-10-7240 TUITION & TRAINING OTHER $0 S925 $100 $355 $0 0.00%
01-10-9000 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT REP~CE CAPITAL EXPENDITURES $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ~DIV/OI
OlqO-92oo M~D RANGE COMPUTER EaUIP CAPITAL EXPENDITURES $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ~D~V/0!
01-10-9202 MID RANGE COMPUTER CAPITAL EXPENDITURES $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
PROGR.
SA~RIES & BENEFITS $184r439 $196r768 $( $209,692 $12~924 S.57%
SUPPLIES $1,317 $3,200 $25( $1,90(
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $44,058 $21~523 $17,053 $24~67~ $3r155 14.66%
UTILITIES $4,655 $4,584 $( $4,58~
INSURANCE $308 $30~ $~ $987 ~679 220.45%
OUTSIDE SERVICES $131 $50( $20~ $50C
OTHER $2~301 $6~77{ $4,99~ $6~200 $575) -8.49%
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES $0 $69~ $10C $695
DEPARTMENT TOTALS ~237,209 $234,353 $22,593 ~249,236 $14,883 6.35%
Fund: GENERAL FUND J Department: PUBLIC WORKS I Division: BUILDING (01-19)
01-19-1002 OVERTIME ~RNINGS ISAURIES & BENEFITS [$0 1$500 l$o lisoo
01-19-1007 CAR ALLOWANCE ~ISA~RIES & BENEFITS I$0 ~$0 I$0 iS0 ~ $0 I~DIV/0~
01-19-1120EMPLOYER~SHARET.M.R.S. /SA~RIES&BENEFITS ls52,4~ I853,61, 1s83,6:: I856,121 $2,510 /4.68%
::.~l::3: ~NSU~NCEiWORKMENS ISAm.~ES S BENEFITS Is~,~39 Is~,~7~ Is~,~7~ IS~,S:~ $337 15.20%
C?P I / ~ / I /
/
0~-:91::35H~LTHiNSU~NCE ISA~mESSBENEF~TS ls20:00S l~23,~80 I$23880 I$35.047
oi-19-2100 OFFICE SUPPLIES lSUPPLIES I:: ~ I:~:~oo l:z ~oo l:~ ~oo ::o lO.OO%
01-19-2320 GAS~ OIL & GR~SE [SUPPLIES [$I:~S 1:i 870 I::,775 I$I 570 $0 I0.00%
01-19-3014 PUBLICATIONS
oi-19-3o63 [PROFESSiONALSEaVlCES Is0 I$~,:00 I$~,I00 I$~,~0S $Z 0~
PROG~MMING/MAINTENANCE / / ~/ ~: ~1 ~ I :~
O~?-4~=?,T~Hg~ s~avlc~ lU,lLm~s l$7,~ l$7 ~04 I$~ 7so l$7 ~04 $0 I0.00%
01-19-5506 INSU~NCE-GEN'L LIABILI~ [INSU~NCE ~$522 /$522 ~$522 I$1 673 i$1 151 1220.50%
D1-19-6195 EQUIPMENT~INTENANCE /OUTSIDE SERVICES /87 634 1$8,812 1$8 812 1$7 556 ($: 256)l-14.25%
01-19-7150 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS IOTHER /$1 732 I$L425 I$~ 425 151:350 ($75) ~1:~.26% /
o:-~-7~o~.c.oco~.um~. I0..~. Is~,~:s Is7so Is7so Is~so s0 /0.00% /
~[~ARE I~/ / / I
/
/
01-19-7240 TUITION & T~INING IOTHER [84,~52 /~2 390 1$2 000 1~2 810 8420 117.57%
01-19-7300 HANDICAP ~MP RElUB~ IOTHER Is0 Is0 Is0 Is0 ~ S0
O~-:*-~:O00FF~C~E~UIPMENT ICAPIT~L~XPENDITURES I~0 I*0 ISO ISO SO . I~DIV/Ot ]
~:-:9-9~e ~UTO~OBILES 1C~PlT~L EXPEH~IT~RES Ise lse /Se Ise Se 1~lv/e~ I
SAUEIES & BENEFITS $489:8911 :~,o~71 :~s:s~71 :s:o,~: :~:zz~ l~.~o% 1
SUPPLIES $5,886 $6,520 $6,6501 $6,520
UTILITIES S10,2911 $9,8431 $8:9091 $9:843 :i:
:usus.cE Ssz71 S8771 $577 ~:,7~s ~;~ '"[~5.s~;;; 1
OUTSIDE SERVICES $10,2301 $11,0281 $10,262 $9,772
OTHER [ $14,905[ $8,6~51 $7J75[ $7,385($1,230) 1-14.28% I
CAPITAL EXPENDITURESI $7,5111 $13,199 $13,199 $7,793 ~;' ~ I
DEPARTMENT TOTALS ~562,1181 $552:889 ~556,619 ~580:616 $27:727 15.01Yo I
Fund: GENERAL FUND J Department: PUBLIC WORKS I Division: ENGINEERING (01-20)
01-20-1002 OVERTIME EARNINGS
01-20-1007 CAR ALLOWANCE
01-20-1120 EMPLOYERS SHARE T.M.R.S.
SALARIES & BENEFITS
SALARIES & BENEFITS
SALARIES & BENEFITS
01-20-1131 INSURANCE-WORKMENS
COMP
SALARIES & BENEFITS
01-20-1135 HEALTH INSURANCE
01-20-2100 OFFICE SUPPLIES
01-20-2320 GAS, OIL & GREASE
01-20-3003 BOARD M~-~- ~ ~NGS
SALARIES & BENEFITS
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
PROFESSIONALSERVICES
91-20-3014 PUBLICATIONS
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
01-20-3063
PROGRAMMING/MAINTENANCE
PROFESSIONALSERVICES
01-20-4110 HEAT,LIGHT,WATER UTIL UTILITIES
01-20-5500 INSURANCE-AUTO LIABILITY INSURANCE
01-20-6190 AUTO REPAIRS OUTSIDE SERVICES
01-20-6200 EQUIP REPAIRS/NON VEHICLE OUTSIDE SERVICES
01-20-7170 TRAVEL EXPENSE
OTHER
01-20-7221 OTHER EXPENSE OTHER
01-20-7245TUITION REIMBURSEMENT OTHER
01-20-9100 OFFICE EQUIPMENT
CAPITALEXPENDITURES
01-20-9910 OFFICE FURNITURE
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
SALARIES & BENEFITS
SUPPLIES
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
UTILITIES
INSURANCE
OUTSIDE SERVICES
OTHER
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
DEPARTMENT TOTALS
AGENDA MEMO
08/05/03 AGENDA)
DATE: July 31, 2003
TO: Honorable Mayor and
City Council
FROM: David Ledbetter,
Fire Chief
SUBJECT:
Texas Domestic Preparedness Assessment Grant
In April 2003 the City of University Park participated in a statewide assessment to
evaluate the threat, vulnerability, capabilities, and needs of jurisdictions within the State of
Texas to handle bio-terrorism and terrorists events. The purpose of this assessment was
to make available grant monies from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to be
allocated to the State of Texas and local jurisdictions.
A joint task force from the Police, Fire and Public Works Departments participated in this
assessment to evaluate the need for equipment and training within our jurisdiction. In
June 2003 we were notified that the City of University Park had been awarded $99,099
toward the purchase of equipment and training. Of those funds $69,099.00 was allotted
directly to the City and $30,000.00 was allotted to the North Central Texas Council of
Governments to improve regional capabilities. The North Central Texas Council of
Governments (NCTCOG) has outlined specific areas of equipment categories that the
grant monies can be used for that include personal protective equipment garments,
decontamination equipment, detection equipment, pharmaceuticals, and communication
equipment.
Based on the findings of the task force the City's greatest needs for equipment are within
the same categories outline by NCTCOG. These grant monies would allow the Police,
Fire and Public Works Departments to stockpile this equipment and be operationally
prepared for local or regional terrorist events.
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Mayor and Council approve the grant.
The City Attorney has reviewed the grant agreement.
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson\Local Settings~Temporary Internet Files\OLK21\agenda memorandum Texas Domestic
Assessment Grant.doc 4:54 PM 07/31/03
June 27, 2003
JUL Og
Chief David Ledbetter
3800 University Boulevard
Dallas, TX 75205
Dear Recipient:
You are receiving the enclosed Subrecipient Agreement and Statement of Work because
you were registered as the Jurisdiction Point of Contact on the Texas Domestic
Preparedness Assessment website. If you are no longer serving in that capacity please
immediately give this packet to the correct individual.
The enclosed documents contain the necessary documentation and instructions for you to
utilize your State Homeland Security Grant Program sub-grant to improve your jurisdiction's
ability to respond to potential terrorist use of a Weapon of Mass Destruction.
Please return a signed copy of the Subrecipient Agreement to TEEX by July 31, 2003.
Address:
Director of Domestic Preparedness
John B. Connally Building
301 Tarrow-TEEX
College Station, TX 77840-7896
Fax: (979) 458-6927
Email: charley.todd~,teexmail.tamu.ed u
If you have any questions, or require further information regarding this award, please do not
hesitate to contact Charles Todd, TEEX Director of Domestic Preparedness, at (979) 458-
6815. Alternate contacts are Teresa Wyatt at (979) 458-6854, and Peter Walsh at (979)
458-6930
Sincerely,
Charles Todd
Director of Domestic Preparedness
Texas Engineering Extension Service
Agreement No.74492
TEXAS ENGINEERING EXTENSION SERVICE - TEEX
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT
State Homeland Security Grant Program
THIS AGREEMENT, by and between the City of University Park (hereinafter called
"Subrecipient"), located at 3800 University Blvd. University Park, TX 75205-1711, and
the Texas Engineering Extension Service (hereinafter called "TEEX"), established under
the laws of the State of Texas as a state agency component of the Texas A&M
University System, located at 301 Tarrow, College Station, Texas, 77840-7896,
WHEREAS, TEEX has been awarded a grant entitled "State Homeland Security Grant
Program" from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Domestic
Preparedness, and TEEX desires that Subrecipient perform certain project tasks, all as
herein provided, involving the procurement and management of equipment;
WHEREAS, Subrecipient has agreed to do so under the terms and conditions
hereinafter set forth;
NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto mutually covenant and agree as follows:
SECTION 1 - PARTIES TO AGREEMENT
TEEX and Subrecipient have severally and collectively made and entered into this
Agreement which, together with the documents attached or incorporated by specific
reference, constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties.
SECTION 2 - AGREEMENT PERIOD AND AMOUNT
2.1
2.2
2.3
The period for performance of this Agreement shall begin on July 1,2003 and
shall terminate March 31, 2005, as further specified in the Statement of Work
attached to and made a part hereof.
The total budget amount to be expended by Subrecipient for this Agreement shall
not exceed $99,099.00.
Subrecipient shall abide by all special conditions and requirements contained in
the attached statement of work.
Agreement No.74492
SECTION 3 - LEGAL AUTHORITY
3.1
The Subrecipient represents and guarantees that it possesses the legal authority
to enter into this Agreement, receive funds authorized by this Agreement, and
conduct the Statement of Work.
3.2
The person signing this Agreement on behalf of Subrecipient hereby warrants
that he/she has been fully authorized by Subrecipient to execute this Agreement
on behalf of Subrecipient and to legally bind Subrecipient to all the terms,
performances and provisions herein set forth.
SECTION 4- RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARTIES
The relationship of the parties is that of independent contractors, and not as agents of
each other or as joint venturers or partners.
SECTION 5- AGREEMENT PERFORMANCE
The Subrecipient shall provide the services specified in its attached Statement of Work,
and the terms and conditions imposed and required by this Agreement.
SECTION 6 - AGREEMENT OBLIGATIONS
6.1 Measure of Liability
In consideration of Subrecipient's full and satisfactory performance of the services
specified in the attached Statement of Work, TEEX shall be liable to the Subrecipient in
an amount equal to the actual allowable costs incurred by the Subrecipient in rendering
such performance, subject to the following limitations:
6.1.1
TEEX shall not be liable for expenditures made in violation of the legal
authorities cited in Section 8, Compliance with the Law, of this Agreement,
or any other law or regulation applicable to the specific project or service
performed under this Agreement.
6.1.2
Except as otherwise provided by this Agreement, TEEX shall be liable to
Subrecipient in an amount equal to the actual allowable costs incurred by
Subrecipient in rendering required performance as represented in Section
5, Agreement Performance.
6.1.3 Except as otherwise specifically authorized by TEEX in writing, TEEX shall
only be liable for expenditures made in compliance with the cost principles
2
Agreement No.74492
and administrative requirements set forth and referenced in this
Agreement.
6.1.4
TEEX shall not be liable to Subrecipient for costs incurred or
performances rendered by Subrecipient before commencement of the
Agreement or after completion of this Agreement.
6.1.5
TEEX shall not be liable for any costs incurred by Subrecipient in the
performance of this Agreement which have not been billed to TEEX within
sixty (60) days following termination of this Agreement
6.2 Reimbursement Procedures
TEEX will reimburse Subrecipient for no more than the actual cost of the Statement of
Work for which Subrecipient seeks payment.
6.3 Purchase of Equipment
Subrecipient may purchase specialized equipment under this Agreement as specified in
the Statement of Work.
SECTION 7- FISCAL ADMINISTRATION
7.1 Availability of Funds
Notwithstanding any other Agreement provisions, the parties hereto understand and
agree that TEEX's obligations under this Agreement are contingent upon the availability
of adequate funds to meet TEEX's liabilities hereunder.
7.2
Limitation on Liability
7.2.1
The Subrecipient understands and agrees that it shall be liable to repay to
TEEX any funds not expended in accordance with this Agreement or
determined to be expended in violation of the terms of this Agreement.
7.2.2
TEEX will pay costs properly incurred by the Subrecipient for
performances rendered under this Agreement in the amount specified in
Section 2.2, or any mutual amendments hereto.
7.2.3 TEEX shall not be liable to the Subrecipient for costs under this
Agreement which exceed the amount specified in Section 2.2.
3
Agreement No.74492
7.2.4
TEEX may deobligate awarded funds after consultation with the
Subrecipient and upon determination by TEEX that funds will not be spent
in accordance with the Agreement or will not be spent in a timely manner.
SECTION 8 - COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW
8.1
As a condition to award of monies under this Agreement, Subrecipient assures,
with respect to the operation of a federally funded program or activity, that it will
comply fully with the non-discrimination and equal opportunity provisions of the
following laws to the extent applicable: (a) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
as amended; (b) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; (c)
the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended; (d) Title IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972, as amended; (e) Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990;
and (f) any other statutory provisions relating to non-discrimination.
8.2
In the performance of this Agreement, Subrecipient shall comply with the
following Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circulars applicable to its
organization, institution or agency:
· Administrative Requirements (A-102 and A-110);
· Cost Principles (A-21, A-87 and 122); and
· Audit Guidance (A-133).
The parties agree to be bound by all terms of this Agreement and all applicable state
and federal statutes and regulations, and all provisions contained therein, including the
Office of Justice Programs "Financial Guide" located at:
http :llwww. oip.usdoi..qovlFinGuidel
SECTION 9- REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
9.1
9.2
The Subrecipient agrees to provide to TEEX, in accordance with procedures and
time frames prescribed by TEEX, any technical or program reports, data, and
information on the operation and performance of this Agreement deemed
necessary by TEEX or as required by the Statement of Work reporting schedule.
If Subrecipient fails to submit to TEEX in a timely and satisfactory manner any
report required by this Agreement, or otherwise fails to satisfactorily render
performances hereunder, TEEX may withhold payments otherwise due and
owing Subrecipient. If TEEX withholds such payments, it shall notify
Subrecipient in writing of its decision and the reasons therefor. Payments
withheld pursuant to this paragraph may be held by TEEX until such time as the
delinquent obligations for which funds are withheld are fulfilled by Subrecipient.
4
Agreement No.74492
SECTION 10 - RETENTION AND ACCESSIBILTY OF RECORDS
10.1
Subrecipient shall maintain all records, financial management records and
supporting documentation for all expenditures of funds made under this
Agreement, in compliance with all retention and custodial requirements for
records referenced in this Agreement.
10.2
Subrecipient shall retain all fiscal records and supporting documents for a
minimum of three (3) years after final Agreement closeout. In the event there is
litigation or an unresolved audit discrepancy at the end of such retention period,
the records will be retained until the litigation or discrepancy is resolved.
10.3
Subrecipient shall provide state or federal auditing agencies, TEEX, or any of
their duly authorized representatives, access to and the right to examine, copy,
or reproduce all reports and records pertaining to this Agreement. Such rights to
access shall continue as long as the records are retained by the Subrecipient.
10.4
TEEX shall have the right of timely and reasonable access to Subrecipient and
Subrecipient premises and personnel for the purpose of inspection, monitoring,
auditing, evaluation, or interview, related to all records required to be retained
under this Section.
SECTION 11 - CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS
Any alterations, additions, or deletions to the terms of this Agreement or Statement of
Work shall be by modification hereto in writing and executed by both parties to this
Agreement before the changes to the Agreement are implemented.
SECTION 12 - SEVERABILITY
If a provision contained in this Agreement is held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable
for any reason, it shall not affect any other provision of the Agreement. It is the intent of
the parties that if any provision is held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, there shall
be added in lieu thereof a valid and enforceable provision as similar in terms to such
provision as is possible.
SECTION 13- AUDITS OR EVALUATIONS
13.1
TEEX reserves the right to conduct or cause to be conducted an independent
audit of all funds received under this Agreement, which may be performed by
government audit staff, a certified public accounting firm, or other auditors as
designated by TEEX. Subrecipient shall cooperate with all authorized auditors
5
Agreement No.74492
and shall make available all accounting and project records including supporting
source documentation. Such audit will be conducted in accordance with
applicable state and federal rules and regulations, Agreement guidelines, and
established professional standards and practices.
13.2
Subrecipient shall be liable to TEEX for any costs disallowed as a result of an
audit. Subrecipient shall further be responsible for any audit exception or other
payment deficiency in the project covered by the Agreement, and all
subcontracts hereunder, which are found to exist after monitoring, review, or
auditing by any party as authorized or required by TEEX.
13.3
Subrecipient, or the auditors that monitor or audit the Subrecipient, shall
immediately report to TEEX any incidents of fraud, abuse or potentially criminal
activity in relation to the provisions of this Agreement.
SECTION 14 - MONITORING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
14.1
TEEX, or its designee, retains the right to monitor, examine and audit all records,
documents and activities related to projects funded by this Agreement, and to
perform such project evaluation studies that TEEX deems necessary to
determine the adequacy of the services performed.
14.2
TEEX will notify the Subrecipient in writing of any deficiencies noted during such
review, and may withhold payments as appropriate based upon such review.
TEEX will provide technical assistance to the Subrecipient to correct the
deficiencies noted. TEEX may conduct follow-up visits to review the previous
deficiencies and to assess the efforts made to correct them. If such deficiencies
persist, TEEX may terminate this Agreement effective immediately and/or apply
sanctions pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement, or take such other action as
it deems appropriate.
SECTION 15- PREVENTION OF CONFLICTING INTERESTS
The Subrecipient, by signing this Agreement, covenants and affirms that:
15.1
No employee of the Subrecipient or a Subrecipient, no member of the
Subrecipient's or a Subrecipient's governing body, and no person who exercises
any function or responsibility in the review or approval of the undertaking or
carrying out of this Agreement shall participate in any decision relating to this
Agreement which affect his or her personal pecuniary interest.
15.2 The Subrecipient shall take every reasonable course of action to maintain the
integrity of this expenditure of public funds and to avoid favoritism and
6
Agreement No. 74492
questionable or improper conduct. This Agreement shall be administered in an
impartial manner, free from efforts to gain personal, financial or political benefit,
tangible or intangible. The Subrecipient, its executive staff and employees, while
administering this Agreement, shall avoid situations which could give the
appearance that any decision was influenced by prejudice, bias, special interest
or desire for personal gain.
15.3 Subrecipient shall immediately inform TEEX in writing of any potential conflict of
interest which arises at any time during the term of this Agreement.
15.4
If Subrecipient fails to abide by the foregoing covenants and affirmations
regarding conflict of interest, the Subrecipient shall not be entitled to recover any
costs or expenses incurred in relation to this Agreement and shall immediately
refund to TEEX any fees or expenses that may have been paid under this
Agreement, and shall further be liable for any other costs incurred or damages
sustained by TEEX relating to this Agreement. Such failure may subject
Subrecipient to sanctions as provided in Section 19 of this Agreement.
SECTION 16- FORCE MAJEURE
In the event that performance by either party of any of its obligations under the terms of
this Agreement shall be interrupted or delayed by an act of God, by acts of war, riot, or
civil commotion, by any act of government, by strikes, fire, flood, or by the occurrence of
any other event beyond the control of the parties hereto, that party shall be excused
from such performance for such period of time as is reasonably necessary after such
occurrence abates for the effects thereof to have dissipated.
SECTION 17- NON-ASSIGNMENT
This Agreement is not assignable. Notwithstanding any attempt to assign the
Agreement, the Subrecipient shall remain fully liable on this Agreement and shall not be
released from performing any of the terms, covenants and conditions of this Agreement.
The Subrecipient shall be held responsible for all funds received under this Agreement.
SECTION 18 - TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT
18.1
This Agreement may be terminated, in whole or in part, whenever TEEX
determines that such termination is in the best interest of the project, such
termination to be effective upon the Subrecipient's receipt of written notification of
termination from TEEX. In the event of such termination, the Subrecipient shall
be entitled to compensation under this Agreement for allowable expenditures up
to the termination date.
7
Agreement No.74492
18.2
When justified, TEEX may terminate this Agreement for cause, whereupon all
compensation to the Subrecipient shall cease pending completion of any final
report and any closing audit required by TEEX.
18.3
If the Subrecipient fails to perform in accordance with the provisions of this
Agreement or the attached Statement of Work, TEEX may terminate this
Agreement after issuing written notice of default to the Subrecipient and allowing
the Subrecipient thirty (30) days following the issuance of such notice in which to
correct the deficiency to the satisfaction of TEEX. Such termination shall not be
an exclusive remedy but shall be in addition to any other rights, sanctions and
remedies provided by law or under this Agreement.
18.4
Notwithstanding TEEX's exercise of its right of early termination, the Subrecipient
shall not be relieved of any liability for damages due to TEEX. TEEX may
withhold payment to the Subrecipient on this or any other Agreement until such
time as the exact amount of damages due to TEEX from the Subrecipient is
agreed upon or is otherwise determined by TEEX.
18.5
If Federal funds are not available, or in the event that State laws or regulations
should be amended or judicially interpreted to render continued fulfillment of this
Agreement by either party substantially unreasonable or impossible, or if the
parties are unable to agree on an amendment to enable the substantial
continuation of performance under this Agreement, then the parties shall be
discharged from any further obligations under this Agreement, except for the
equitable settlement of the respective accrued interests or obligations incurred up
to the effective date of termination.
18.6 The Subrecipient shall cease to incur costs under this Agreement upon
termination or receipt of written notice to terminate, whichever occurs first.
SECTION 19 - SANCTIONS OR REMEDIAL MEASURES
19.1
If Subrecipient materially fails to comply with the terms and conditions of this
Agreement, TEEX shall notify the Subrecipient in writing describing performance
that is not in compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The
Subrecipient shall attend a meeting with TEEX to discuss the non-compliance
and necessary corrective actions to ensure performance will be in compliance.
19.2 If TEEX and Subrecipient cannot agree on corrective actions, TEEX may take
one or more of the following actions, as appropriate:
8
Agreement No.74492
19.2.1 Temporarily withhold cash payments pending correction of the deficiency
by Subrecipient;
19.2.2 Disallow (that is, deny both use of funds and any applicable matching
credit for) all or part of the cost of the activity or action not in compliance;
19.2.3 Wholly or partially suspend or terminate the current award;
19.2.4 Exercise any other available remedies.
SECTION 20 - Sectarian Activity
None of the activities or performances rendered under this Agreement shall involve, and
no portion of the funds received by Subrecipient shall be used for any sectarian or
religious activity.
SECTION 21 - Political Activity
None of the activities or performances rendered hereunder by the Subrecipient shall
involve and no portion of the funds received by the Subrecipient shall be used for any
political activity, including but not limited to any activity to further the election or defeat
of any candidate for public office, or any activity undertaken to influence the passage,
defeat, or final contents of legislation.
SECTION 22 - Rights in Data, Copyrights and Publication
TEEX will be free to publish the results of all work done under this Agreement.
Ownership of all data produced under this Agreement will remain with TEEX. Title to
and the right to determine the disposition of any copyrights, or copyrightable material,
first produced or composed in the performance of this Agreement shall remain with
TEEX, provided that TEEX shall grant to Subrecipient an irrevocable, royalty-free, non-
exclusive license to reproduce, modify, and use all such data and copyrightable material
for its own use, but not for any commercial purpose.
SECTION 23 - Governing Law
This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the
State of Texas.
9
Agreement No.74492
SECTION 24 - Dispute Resolution
The dispute resolution process provided for in Chapter 2260 of the Texas Government
Code shall be used, as further described herein, by TEEX and the Subrecipient to
attempt to resolve any claim for breach of contract made by the Subrecipient:
A Subrecipient's claim for breach of this Agreement that the parties cannot resolve in
the ordinary course of business shall be submitted to the negotiation process
provided in Chapter 2260, subchapter B, of the Government Code. To initiate the
process, the Subrecipient shall submit written notice, as required by subchapter B, to
Arturo Alonzo, TEEX Deputy Director. Said notice shall specifically state that the
provisions of Chapter 2260, subchapter B, are being invoked. A copy of the notice
shall also be given to all other representatives of TEEX and the Subrecipient
otherwise entitled to notice under the parties' Agreement. Compliance by the
Subrecipient with subchapter B is a condition precedent to the filing of a contested
case proceeding under Chapter 2260, subchapter C, of the Government Code.
The contested case process provided in Chapter 2260, subchapter C, of the
Government Code is the Subrecipient's sole and exclusive process for seeking a
remedy for any and all alleged breaches of the Agreement by TEEX if the parties are
unable to resolve their disputes under subparagraph (A) of this paragraph.
Compliance with the contested case process provided in subchapter C is a condition
precedent to seeking consent to sue from the Legislature under Chapter 107 of the
Civil Practices and Remedies Code. Neither the execution of this Agreement by
TEEX nor any other conduct of any representative of TEEX relating to the
Agreement shall be considered a waiver of sovereign immunity to suit.
The submission, processing and resolution of the Subrecipient's claim is governed
by the published rules adopted by the Office of Attorney General of Texas pursuant
to Chapter 2260, as currently effective, hereafter enacted or subsequently amended.
These rules are found at I T.A.C. Chapter 68.
E. Neither the occurrence of an event nor the pendency of a claim constitutes grounds
for the suspension of performance by the Subrecipient, in whole or in part.
The designated individual responsible on behalf of TEEX for examining any claim or
counterclaim and conducting any negotiations related thereto as required under
{}2260.052 of H.B. 826 of the 76th Texas Legislature shall be Arturo Alonzo, TEEX
Deputy Director.
Subrecipient hereby acknowledges that it has read and understands this entire
Agreement. All oral or written Agreements between the parties hereto relating to the
subject matter of this Agreement that were made prior to the execution of this
Agreement have been reduced to writing and are contained herein. Subrecipient
agrees to abide by all terms and conditions specified herein and certifies that the
10
Agreement No.74492
information provided to TEEX is true and correct in all respects to the best of its
knowledge and belief.
This Agreement is entered into by and between the following parties:
TEEX:
Texas Engineering Extension Service
301 Tarrow - TEEX
College Station, TX 77840-7896
Contact Person: Charles Todd, Director of Emergency Preparedness
TEL: 979.458.6815
FAX: 979.458.6927
SUBRECIPIENT:
Contact Person:
TEL:
FAX:
APPROVED:
Texas Engineering Extension Service Subrecipient here
Signature
Dr. Arturo Alonzo, Jr.
Typed or Printed Name
Deputy Director
Title
Date Signed
37167167164025
TX Vendor IDNIN
Signature
Typed or Printed Name
Title
Date Signed
TX Vendor I DNIN
11
Agreement No.74492
Statement of Work
Overview
This overview provides the process and timeline that will be followed during the
administration of the 2002, 2003, and 2003 II State Homeland Security Grant Program
Grant. The grant award to the City of University Park is funded from the Fiscal Year
2003 State Homeland Security Grant Program Program. Items procured under the
grant must meet the criteria of the 2003 Authorized Equipment List (Attachment I).
Grant Award
Total Grant Award
$99,099.00
Base Grant Award $69,099.00
Regional Allocation from COG
$30,000.00
COG Requirements
The regional allocation to the City of University Park should be used to purchase
equipment in the following categories:
Personnel Protection Equipment
Decontamination
Detection
Pharmaceuticals
Communications
All communications purchases must be discussed with NCTCOG and/or the Region 40
Communications Board prior to purchasing/ordering.
13
AGENDA MEMO
(08-05-03 AGENDA)
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
July 31, 2003
Bob Livingston
City Manager
Gene R. Smallwood, P.E.
Director of Public Works
Consider proposal from R.L. Goodson in the amount of $176,000 to
provide engineering and surveying services associated with the
design of street improvements for Lovers Lane, from Hillcrest east
to North Central Expressway.
Background. Pursuant to recent discussions with the Capital Projects Review
Committee and the City Council, staff solicited a proposal from R.L. Goodson to
provide engineering and surveying services associated with the design of street
improvements for Lovers Lane, from Hillcrest east to North Central Expressway
(NCE). The proposal includes a distribution of costs between University Park
(Hillcrest to Boedeker) and Dallas (Boedeker to NCE). Upon approval by the City of
Dallas, staff will ask the Council to consider an interlocal agreement detailing the
responsibilities for each City for design and construction. Briefly, University Park will
administer to design and construction contracts, and Dallas will reimburse all costs
for which they are responsible.
The RLG proposal includes design for street and drainage improvements, civil
design associated with miscellaneous undergrounding of a few aerial utilities, and
service for decorative streetlights. City staff will provide design for a 12" water main
and a short section of sanitary sewer, which will be constructed prior to the start of
the street and drainage improvements.
Recommendation. Staff recommends City Council approval of the R.L. Goodson
proposal, subject to deleting the "limit of liability" clause.
OPINIONS OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST
CITY OF DALLAS
LOVERS LANE PAVING PROJECT
BOEDEKER ST. TO EAST OF WILLARD ST.
JULY 16, 2003
ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY COST TOTAL
G-1 MOBILIZATION LS 1 $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00
G-2 BONDS LS 1 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00
G-4 BARRICADES LS 1 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00
G-5 EROSION CONTROL LS 1 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00
G-6 SURVEYING-CONSTRUCTION LAYOUT LS 1 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00
D-1 REMOVE EXIST. PVMT. SY 5,575 $ 20.00 $ 111,500.00
D-2 REMOVE EXIST. SIDEWALK SY 11,100 $ 10.00 $ 111,000.00
D-3 REMOVE EXIST. DRIVE APPROACH SY 870 $ 15.00 $ 13,050.00
D-4 REMOVE EXIST. INLET EA 2 $ 1,500.00 $ 3,000.00
P-1 CONST. HC RAMPS EA 6 $ 1,500.00 $ 9,000.00
P-2 COMPACTED SUBGRADE SY 5,600 $ 3.00 $ 16,800.00
P-3 9" REINF. CONC. PVMT. SY 5,600 $ 50.00 $ 280,000.00
P-5 GRASS BLOCK SOD SY 1,900 $ 8.00 $ 15,200.00
P-6 FULL DEPTH SAWCUT LF 250 $ 3.00 $ 750.00
P-7 PAVEMENT MARKINGS LS 2,830 $ 5.00 $ 14,150.00
P-8 8" CEMENT MODIFIED SOIL SY 5,600 $ 5.00 $ 28,000.00
P-9 CEMENT TON 140 $ 125.00 $ 17,500.00
P-10 SPRINKLER REPAIR LS 1 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00
P-11 6" INTERGRAL CURB LS 2,830 $ 3.00 $ 8,490.00
ST-1 CONST. 10' REC. INLET EA 2 $ 4,000.00 $ 8,000.00
SUBTOTAL $ 706,440.00
CONTINGENCY 15% $ 105,966.00
TOTAL $ 812,406.00
In providing opinions of probable construction cost, the Client understands that the Consultant has no control over the cost or availability of labor,
equipment or materials, or over market conditions or the Contractor's method of pricing, and that the Consultant's opinions of probable
construction costs are made on the basis of the Consultant's professional judgment and experience. The Consultant makes no warranty,
express or implied, that the bids or the negotiated cost of the Work will not vary from the Consultant's opinion of probable construction cost.
7/31/2003
OPINIONS OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST
CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK
LOVERS LANE PAVING PROJECT
BOEDEKER ST. TO EAST OF WILLARD ST.
JULY 16, 2003
ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY COST TOTAL
G-1 MOBILIZATION LS 1 $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00
G-2 BONDS LS I $ 60,000.00 $ 60,000.00
G~3 TRENCH SAFETY LS I $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00
G-{ BARRICADES LS I $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00
G-5 EROSION CONTROL LS I $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00
G-6 SURVEYING-CONSTRUCTION LAYOUT LS I $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00
D-1 ~EMOVE 2' RETAINING WALL LF 500 $ 10.00 $ 5,000.00
D-2 REMOVE EXIST. PAVEMENT SY 13,600 $ 20.00 $ 272,000.00
D-3 REMOVE EXISTING SIDEWALK SF 2,800 $ 10.00$ 28,000.00
D-4 REMOVE EXIST. DRIVE APPROACH SY 2,255 $ 15.00 $ 33,825.00
D-5 REMOVE EXIT. INLETS EA 27 $ 1,500.00 $ 40,500.00
D-6 REMOVE EXIST. RCP 21" & SMALLER LF 660 $ 25.00 $ 16,500.00
D-7 REMOVE EXIST. TREES EA 20 $ 1,500.00 $ 30,000.00
E-1 ORNAMENTAL STREET LIGHT EA 10 $ 7,500.00 $ 75,000.00
E-2 STREET LIGHT CONDUIT - 2" LS 2,000 $ 15.00 $ 30,000.00
E-3 REMOVE 4 SIDEWALK SY 900 $ 10.00 $ 9,000.00
E-4 4' SIDEWALK SY 900 $ 30.00 $ 27,000.00
E-5 REMOVE ALLEY ARRPOACH SY 200 $ 15.00$ 3,000.00
E-6 CONC. ALLEY APPROACH SY 200 $ 50.00 $ 10,000.00
P-1 2' RETAINING WALL LF 500 $ 50.00 $ 25,000.00
P-2 6" TREES EA 20 $ 1,000.00 $ 20,000.00
P-3 CONST. HC RAMPS EA 16 $ 1,500.00 $ 24,000.00
P-4 COMPACTED SUBGRADE SY 13,600 $ 3.00 $ 40,800.00
P-5 9" REINF. CONC. PVMT. SY 13,600 $ 50.00 $ 680,000.00
P-6 ASPHALT PATCH TON 50 $ 90.00 $ 4,500.00
P-7 SEPARATE CURB & GUTTER LF 200 $ 10.00 $ 2,000.00
P~ GRASS BLOCK SOD SY 4,400 $ 8.00 $ 35,200.00
P-9 SPRINKLER REPAIR LS I $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00
P-10 FULL DEPTH SAWCUT 500 $ 3.00 $ 1,500.00
P-11 PAVEMENT MARKINGS LF 6,100 $ 5.00 $ 30,500.00
P-12 8" CEMENTMODIFIED SOIL SY 13,600 $ 5.00 $ 68,000.00
P-13 CEMENT TON 340 $ 125.00 $ 42,500.00
P-14 6" INTEGRAL CURB LF 6,100 $ 3.00 $ 18,300.00
P-15 4" CONC. SIDEWALK SY 2,800 $ 30.00 $ 84,000.00
ST-1 CONST. 10' RECESSED INLET EA 17 $ 4,000.00 $ 68,000.00
ST-2 CONST. 10' INLET EA 14 $ 3,500.00 $ 49,000.00
7/31/2003
OPINIONS OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST
CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK
LOVERS LANE PAVING PROJECT
BOEDEKER ST. TO EAST OF WILLARD ST.
JULY 16, 2003
ST-3 INSTALL 21" CL III RCP LF 1,000 $ 90.00 $ 90,000.00
ST-4 INSTALL 48" CL III RCP LF 850 $ 150.00 $ 127,500.00
ST-5 INSTALL 60" CL III RCP LF 1,250 $ 200.00 $ 250,000.00
ST-6 CONST. JUNCTION BOX EA 1 $ 7,500.00 $ 7,500.00
ST-7 CONST. 5' DIA. MANHOLE EA 5 $ 6,500.00 $ 32,500.00
SUBTOTAL $ 2,485,625.00
CONTINGENCY 15% $ 372,843.75
TOTAL $ 2,858,468.75
OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST DOES NOT INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:
1) SIGNALIZATION
2) WATER DESIGN
3) SANITARY SEWER DESIGN
In providing opinions of probable construction cost, the Client understands that the Consultant has no control over the cost or availability of labor,
equipment or materials, or over market conditions or the Contractor's method of pdcing, and that the Consultant's opinions of probable
construction costs are made on the basis of the Consultant's professional judgment and experience. The Consultant makes no warranty, express
or implied, that the bids or the negotiated cost of the Work will not vary from the Consultant's opinion of probable construction cost.
7/31/2003
July 1, 2003
Mr. Bud Smallwood
City of University Park
4420 Worcola
Dallas, TX 75206
Re:
Lovers Lane Improvements
Hillcrest Avenue to Boedeker Drive
Boedeker Drive to US 75 approximately 300 ft. east
RLG File No. 03340
Dear Bud,
Pursuant to your request, we are pleased to submit the following proposal for work related to the subject
project. The scope of work and related fees are as follows:
I. SCOPE OF SERVICES:
A. SURVEY PHASE
Perform field work to establish horizontal and vertical control necessary for
design.
Set vertical and horizontal control points for use by the Contractor performing the
construction phase. All control will be tied to the City of University Park's existing
GPS Monumentation.
Locate existing available property corners to establish block corners and street
rights-of-way.
Locate all physical improvements and visible utilities within the street rights-of-
way.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
1. Pavement design will be based upon previous report by HBC Engineering, Inc.
dated November 1998. (Report No. 42-2396-98)
PAVING, DRAINAGE, AND SANITARY SEWER DESIGN
1. Prepare plans for the construction of new concrete paving.
2. Prepare drainage area map calculations and storm drainage plans.
3. Prepare sections and additional details as required to supplement the Standard
City Details.
4. Prepare horizontal control sheet tied to the City of University Park's existing GPS
Monumentation.
5. Prepare erosion control plan.
6. Prepare specifications as required for the construction documents.
7. Plans will be prepared at a scale of 1" = 20' horizontal and 1" = 6' vertical.
8. Plans will show traffic signal locations as provided by City of University Park or
their traffic consultant. City of University Park is to provide signalization design
and support/design and locations.
9. Prepare traffic striping plan.
Mr. Bud Smallwood
City of University Park
July 1, 2003
Page Two
II.
III.
IV.
10.
11.
12.
Plans will show new street light locations as determined by the City of University
Park and ONCOR Electric. Conduit runs will be a single 3" conduit, connecting
to a power source in the alley north/south of Lovers Lane.
Prepare construction cost estimate based upon completed design drawings.
Review construction sequencing plans, including barricading and traffic control,
prepared by the contractor.
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
1. Periodic site visit for consultation with contractor and City. Construction
inspections will be provided by each respective City and is excluded from this
scope of work.
FEES
Our fees for the above listed scope of services is as follows:
City of Total
University Park Dallas Fee
A. Surveying Phase $ 20,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 23,000.00
B. Paving, Drainage Design Phase $110,000.00 $30,000.00 $140,000.00
C. Construction Phase (hourly rates) $ 5,000.00 (est) $ 3,000.00(est)$ 8,000.00
D. Reimbursables (estimated) $ 4,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 5,000.00
BILLING
Statements will be submitted monthly based on the percent of services completed, and payment
will be due within thirty (30) days of the statement date.
GENERAL CONDITIONS OF AGREEMENT
A. FEES
Billing for services rendered will be submitted upon completion of the assignment, or for
projects requiring more than 30 days to complete, that portion of the work completed will
be billed approximately the first of each month as work progresses. All invoices are due
and payable in thirty days.
If the contract is based on hourly rates, the standard hourly rates as indicated on the
attached fee schedule are hereby made part of this Agreement. The rates are
periodically updated and are subject to change upon advance written notice.
In the event the project is not carried to completion, services for that portion of the work
which has been completed will be paid for at the standard hourly rates.
IF THE SERVICES covered by this Agreement have not been completed within twelve
(12) months of the date hereof, through no fault of Raymond L. Goodson Jr., Inc., the
amounts of compensation and rates set forth herein shall be equitably adjusted.
Mr. Bud Smallwood
City of University Park
July 1, 2003
Page Three
The client agrees to pay to Raymond L. Goodson Jr., Inc., in addition to the stated fee, all
reimbursable items such as reproduction, travel, messenger services, photographs, long
distance telephone calls, filing fees, review and recording fees, etc., at actual cost plus 10
percent, and all applicable sales tax on surveying services according to H.B. 61.
The client agrees to pay Raymond L. Goodson Jr., Inc. all charges due for surveying
services performed for the purpose of transfer of title whether or not said transfer of title
is consummated.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Estimates of probable construction costs prepared by Raymond L. Goodson Jr., Inc.,
represent our best judgment as design professionals. It is recognized by the client that
Raymond L. Goodson Jr., Inc., has no control over the cost of labor, materials or
equipment, or over the contractors' methods of determining bid prices, or over
competitive bidding or market conditions. Raymond L. Goodson Jr., Inc., cannot and
does not guarantee that bids will not vary from any estimate of probable construction
costs.
Unless otherwise stated specifically in the contract, Raymond L. Goodson Jr., Inc., is not
responsible for (1) the means and methods used by the contractor, (2) failure of the
contractor to perform all work per the contract documents, (3) release of any pollutant or
toxic discharges from the site, or (4) job site safety.
THE CLIENT AND OWNER AGREE TO LIMIT THE LIABILITY OF RAYMOND L.
GOODSON JR., INC., TO THE CLIENT AND OWNER AND TO ALL CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS ON THE PROJECT ARISING FROM THE
ACTS, ERRORS OR OMISSIONS OF RAYMOND L. GOODSON JR., INC., SUCH THAT
THE TOTAL AGGREGATE LIABILITY OF RAYMOND L. GOODSON JR., INC., TO ALL
THOSE NAMED SHALL NOT EXCEED $25,000.00 OR THE FEE FOR THE PROJECT,
WHICHEVER IS LESS. THE CLIENT AND OWNER FURTHER AGREE TO REQUIRE
OF THE CONTRACTOR(S) A SIMILAR LIMITATION OF THE LIABILITY OF RAYMOND
L. GOODSON JR., INC., AND OF THE CLIENT AND OWNER, TO THE CLIENT
CONTRACTOR(S) AND HIS SUBCONTRACTOR(S) DUE TO THE ACTS, ERRORS,
OR OMISSIONS OF RAYMOND L. GOODSON JR., INC.
According to Section 29 of the Professional Land Surveying Practices Act, complaints
about surveying services may be forwarded to: The Texas Board of Land Surveying,
7703 North Lamar, Suite 304, Austin, Texas 78752.
Mr. Bud Smallwood
City of University Park
July 1, 2003
Page Four
If this proposal is acceptable, please sign on the designated line and return one copy to this office. Thank
you for considering our firm for these services.
Respectfully submitted,
John F. Stull, P.E.
Chief Executive Officer
/mc
CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK
ACCEPTED this the __ day of
By:
,2003.
Title:
G:\Projects\Civil\Administrative\2003\03333\Proposals\030701. LoversLanelm provements, bsmallwood.doc
JANUARY 1, 2002
PROFESSIONAL FEES
ENGINEERING SERVICES
PRINCIPALS
SENIOR PROJECT MANAGERS
PROJECT MANAGERS
PROJECT ENGINEERS
SENIOR PROJECT TECHNICIANS
DESIGN ENGINEERS I
DESIGN ENGINEERS II
PROJECT TECHNICIANS
TECHNICIANS
SURVEY MANAGERS
SURVEY CREW (3 MEN)
(2 MEN)
CLERICAL
REIMBURSABLE ITEMS
Reproduction
Filing Fees
Outside Consulting Fees
Mileage
Miscellaneous Charges (delivery services, etc.)
Stakes
RATE PER HOUR
$130.00
110.00
85.00
75.00
70.00
70.00
60.00
60.00
50.00
85.00
120.00
95.00
45.00
Cost + 10%
Cost + 10%
Cost + 10%
Mile 0.365
Cost + 10%
Each 0.20
AGENDA MEMO
(08-05-03 AGENDA)
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
July 31, 2003
Bob Livingston
City Manager
Gene R. Smallwood, P.E.
Director of Public Works
Consider Ordinance No __ amending Section 6, Article 6.500 of
the Code of Ordinances of the City of University Park, changing the
title of "Environmental Health Officer" to Neighborhood Integrity
Officer".
Background. During a recent review of the Environmental Health Officer
position, staff reviewed job descriptions for similar positions in other Metroplex
communities. The current job does not truly deal with environmental issues, but
more with right-of-way code compliance matters. Although the position will not be a
certified Code Enforcement Officer, the name of Neighborhood Integrity Officer
seems more applicable.
Recommendation. Staff recommends City Council approval of the Ordinance
amending Section 6, Article 6.500 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of University
Park.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, AMENDING
THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, AS HERETOFORE AMENDED, BY AMENDING
ARTICLE 6.500 TO DESIGNATE THE NEIGHBORHOOD INTEGRITY OFFICER FOR
THE CITY; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT;
PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY
PARK, TEXAS:
SECTION 1. That Chapter 6, Article 6.500 "Environmental Health Officer", the Code of
Ordinances, City of University Park, Texas, is hereby amended in part as follows:
"ARTICLE 6.500 Neighborhood Integrity Officer
Section 6.501. Office Created
There is hereby created the office of Neighborhood Integrity Officer for the City.
The Neighborhood Integrity Officer shall be employed by and under the direction
and control of...
Section 6.502. Duty to Inspect Alleyways
The Neighborhood Integrity Officer shall have the responsibility...
SECTION 2. That any other reference to "Environmental Health Officer" contained in the
Code of Ordinances or any other applicable code or ordinance of the City of University Park be, and
are hereby, changed to read "Neighborhood Integrity Officer".
SECTION 3. That any provision of the ordinances of the Cky of Universky Park in
conflict with the provisions of this ordinance is hereby repealed.
SECTION 4. That should any sentence, paragraph, subdivision, clause, phrase or section
of this ordinance be adjudged or held to be unconstitutional, illegal, or invalid, the same shall not
58026
affect the validity of this ordinance as a whole, or any part or provision thereof, other than the part
decided to be invalid, illegal or unconstitutional.
SECTION 5. That this ordinance shall take effect immediately from and after its passage,
as the law and Charter in such cases provide.
DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on the
day of ,2003.
APPROVED:
HAROLD PEEK, MAYOR
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
NINA WILSON, CITY SECRETARY
CITY ATTORNEY
(RLD/7/31/03 )
58026
CAPITAL PROJECTS UPDATE
Week of August 1, 2003
Project
No.
42450
Description
Fondren Tower - Fire Station No. 2
Cost
$30,000.00
(E) *
*
Major Tasks Uncompleted
In-house construction (FD & FM)
RLG completion of structural design
Target
Date
TBD
Complete
42730
Lovers Lane Reconstruction II - Hillcrest to NCE
(1) Water & sanitary sewer construction
(2) Pavement & Drainage Improvements
$4,000,000.00 (E)
* Design
* Bids
* Interlocal agreement with City of Dallas
* Design
* Bids
Aug-03
Sep-03
Sep-03
De~03
Feb-03
42903 NCE Wall - Streets - Landscaping
Tree / Street Lighting - Sidewalks
$150,000.00 (E)
* Street light equipment installed
* "Entry Plaza" construction
Complete
Sum-03
42980
C& G Replacement FY00-01
Change No 1 (**)
$2,223,254.65 (A)
$351,523.50 (A)
* Amherst, Durham to Airline
** Amherst, TC Blvd to Tulane
* Baltimore, Lovers Lane to Hanover
* Bryn Mawr, Boedeker to Airline
* Caruth, Turtle Creek Blvd to Thackeray
Complete
Complete
Page 1
Centenary, Thackeray to Baltimore
I-I,t~r I~z~H,~L-~r~.,~ kl/'~r- /~r~+
Glenwick, Preston to Westwick
Glenwick, Preston to HPHS parking garage
Grassmere, Preston to Westchester
~rnn~Nn ~1;~ ~;nh ~hnnl
Granada, Hillcres~ ~o Key
G~eenbde~, Preston ~o Douglas
Hanover, Preston ~o Baltimore
Hyer, P~es~on ~o ~es~ches~er
LarchmonL Armstrong ~o Lomo Al~o
Ma~que~e, Baltimore ~o Pickwick
Ma~que~e, Tulle Creek Blvd ~o Thackeray
No~mandy, Armstrong ~o Lomo Al~o
Purdue, Durham ~o Dickens
Rosedale, Thacke~ ~o ~o1~
San Cados, Preston ~o A~ms~ong + Lomo A~o
~henandoah, Douglas ~o Armstrong
Shenandoah, Roland ~o Armstrong
Shenandoah, Hillc~es~ ~o Aubumdale
S~an~o~d, Airline ~o Hillcres~
S~anhope, Armstrong ~o Lomo Al~o
Thackeray, Rosedale ~o Milton
Un~versi~y Blvd, Gol~ ~o alley eas~ o~ Haynie
~ndso~ Pk~y, Douglas ~o Preston Pk~y
~ndso~ Pk~y, Douglas ~o Lomo Al~o
Delete
Complete
Complete
Complete
Delete
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
Oct-03
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
Page 2
45210
45600
46310
46510
46700
Traffic Signal - Hillcrest (~ Normandy
$71,000.00 (E)
Infiltration-Inflow Remediation $104,429.04 (A)
* MH rehabilitation
MPY-Caruth Park Area
Water / San Sewer ! Stm Sewer
$2,135,000.00 (E)
MPY-Sanitary Sewer / Water / Pavement
(1) 4100 blk - Emerson / University alley
(2) 4100 blk - Emerson / Glenwick alley
MPY - Sanitary Sewer ! Storm Sewer ! Water / Paveme $2,100,000.00
(1) 32-3300 blk - Colgate / Marquette alley (Hillcrest to Airline)
(2) 3400 blk - Colgate / Marquette alley (Hillcrest to TC Blvd)
Page 3
(E)
* Materials / equipment ordered
* Signal installation
* Design / Bids
* Council Consideration of bids
* Design
* Waterline installation
* Sanitary Sewer Installation
* Storm Sewer Installation
* Alley pavement replacement
* Water line installation
* Sanitary Sewer Installation
* Storm Sewer Installation
* Alley pavement replacement
* Water line installation
* Sanitary Sewer Installation
* Storm Sewer Installation
* Pavement repair/replacement
* Waterline installation
* Sanitary Sewer Installation
* Pavement repair / replacement
Complete
Sum-03
Complete
Jul-03
Sum-03
TBD
Oct-03
TBD
TBD
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
TBD
Complete
TBD
TBD
Complete
Complete
Complete
(3) Airline, Colgate/Marquette alley to NW Hwy
(4) Hillcrest, Colgate/Marquette alley S to Caruth Pk
(5) Marquette / Colgate Street - Alley, 3213300 blk
* Waterline installation
* Sanitary Sewer Installation
* Storm Sewerlnstallation
* Pavement repair/replacement
* Waterline installation
* Storm Sewer Installation
* Pavement repair / replacement
* Storm Sewer Installation
Aug~03
Complete
TBD
TBD
Complete
Complete
Sum-03
TBD
43700 City Hall - Renovation and Expansion
$9,000,000.00 (E)
* Conceptual Design
* Construction Plans & Specs
Complete
Spr-04
43710 City Hall II
- Drainage Improvements
$2,200,000.00 (E)
* Design
* Corps of Engineers 404 Permit
* Wetlands Mitigation Credits
* Bids
Aug-03
Complete
Complete
Oct-03
43710 City Hall III - 24" Water main Installation
$630,000.00 (E)
* Design
* Bids
Complete
Aug-03
43720
Vassar Street Improvements
$590,000.00 (A)
* Remove & replace street pavement (SBL)
* Remove & replace street pavement
* Remove & replace driveway approaches
* Remove & replace sidewalks
* Cleanup & punchlist
Sep-03
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
48100 Paint Fondren Elevated Tank
$300,000.00 (E)
* Specification / Bid Documents
* Bids
Fall-03
TBD
Page 4
48200 MPY-Auburndale-Key/Water/Sanitary Sewer / Stomn $555,000.00 (E)
* Design
* Bids
Sep-03
TBD
48300 Automated Meter Reading
$1,200,000.00 (E)
* AMR installation - Cycle 1 (N of Lovers Lane)
* AMR installation - Cycle 2 (S of Lovers Lane)
Complete
Aug-03
Page 5
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES
March 17, 2003
The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of University Park met on Monday, March 17, 2003
at 5:30 P.M. in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 3800 University Blvd. University Park, Texas. The
following are minutes of that meeting.
Commission Members Attending
Staff Members Attending
Fred Ligon - Chairman
Randy Biddle
Bob West
Bea Humann
Ed Freeman
Wade McLaurin - Bldg. & Zoning Administrator
Rob Dillard - City Attorney
Chairman Ligon introduced the Commission members and opened the public hearing.
Ligon asked for a motion to approve the minutes from the February 17, 2003 meeting. Mr. West
made a motion to approve the minutes, with a second from Mr. Biddle. The motion was approved
unanimously.
Chairman Ligon explained to those in attendance that discussions would take place regarding the
maximum building heights in three different zoning districts. He asked that any comments regarding
a certain area of the city be made during the actual discussion of that particular case. He then read the
specifics of the first case:
PZ 03-03 - Review building height restrictions in the PD-2-R (Miracle Mile) district in
order to clarify existing requirements' and provide new regulations that may result in future
construction having less impact on the adjacent residential neighborhoods'.
It was noted that the current height restrictions in this planned development were for a maximum
building height of two (2) stories and that the purpose of this hearing was to amend the height
restriction to provide for an actual maximum building height in feet, especially since there is no
definition for the height of a story. Chairman Ligon asked for anyone in attendance that wished to
make a comment on the building height restrictions for this district to come forward.
Walther Harvey, of 4332 Hyer, came forward to say that he didn't think that the district should be
allowed to build more than one story in height due to the adjacent residential properties.
Wade Mayo, of 3613 Haynie, stated that he felt that the Commission should be looking at more than
just height issues on all of these districts. He expressed concern about new construction that would
change the character of these shopping areas.
Starter Bowman, of 4325 Amherst, asked that the parking requirements be strictly enforced for any
new construction.
Ron Taylor, of 4416 Hyer, said that he did not realize that two stories were allowed and that he
believes they should be held to only one story to protect the adjacent residential homes.
Mr. Ligon closed the public hearing.
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
March 17, 2003
Page 2
Mr. Freeman made a motion to amend the maximum height requirement in PD-2-R to a maximum of
25 feet. Mr. Biddle asked if that was to me measured to the highest point including any mechanical
equipment or if it was just to the top of the building.
Mr. Biddle asked Mr. McLaurin if the maximum height in a residential district was 35 feet. Mr.
McLaurin replied that he was correct. Mr. Biddle stated that he did not feel that the commercial
heights should be limited to anything less than that found in a residential district.
Mr. Freeman amended his original motion to state a maximum height of 26 feet, with an allowance
for an additional 9 feet for roof-top mechanical equipment and/or screening. Mr. Biddle seconded the
motion, which was approved unanimously.
Chairman Ligon read the specifics of the second case:
PZ 03-04 - Review building height restrictions in the PD-1-R (Snider Plaza) district in
order to clarify existing requirements and provide new regulations that may result in future
construction having less impact on the adjacent residential neighborhoods.
It was noted that the current height restrictions in this planned development were for a maximum
building height of four (4) stories and that the purpose of this hearing was to amend the height
restriction to provide for an actual maximum building height in feet, as was the case in the previous
case. Chairman Ligon asked for anyone in attendance that wished to make a comment on the
building height restrictions for this district to come forward.
Wade Mayo, of 3613 Haynie, made a suggestion that the maximum height for Snider Plaza
be set at 35 feet, with an allowance for an additional 9 feet for equipment and/or screening.
John Jackson, of 3522 Colgate, said that commercial buildings should not be allowed to have
windows above the first floor when located across the alley or adjacent to residences.
Nancy Newman, of 3529 Haynie, thanked the Commission for discussing the issue and urged
them to be very specific on whatever number was decided upon, so that there would not be
any room for interpretation.
Steve Dawson, of 8440 Tulane, said that he thinks that the rights of the homeowners should
be placed before those of commercial property owners.
Mr. Ligon closed the public hearing.
Mr. West stated that he believed that the maximum height should be 40 feet to the highest
point, including mechanical equipment.
Mr. Biddle stated that he himself did not particularly care for the height of the Park Cities
Medical Building that was built in Snider Plaza.
Mr. West made a motion to change the maximum building height in PD-1-R from 4 stories to
a maximum of 40 feet to the highest point. Mr. Freeman seconded the motion, which was
approved unanimously.
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
March 17, 2003
Page 3
Mr. Ligon commented to the audience that he appreciated everyone's comments, as well as
the requests for the Commission to take more time on this issue and to look at more than just
the height requirements in these areas, but he explained that the charge to the Commission
that was handed down by the City Council was for them to clarify the existing height
restrictions in these zoning districts in an expeditious manner. He added that he hoped that in
the future the City would commission a more expansive study of these areas that would
address some of the concerns that had been discussed at this meeting.
Chairman Ligon read the specifics of the third case:
PZ-03-O$ - Review building height restrictions in the General Retail (GR) district in order to
consider amendments that may result in future construction having less impact on the
adjacent residential neighborhoods.
Nancy Newman, of 3529 Haynie, said that the current height allowance of 50 feet total is too tall,
especially adjacent to residential properties.
Wade Mayo, of 3613 Haynie, said that he wanted to echo the sentiments of Ms. Newman.
Ron Taylor spoke from the audience and said that he thinks the Commission should be consistent in
its measurements between the stories in the different zoning districts being discussed tonight.
Steve Dawson, of 8440 Tulane, said that he doesn't believe that the City would want 4 story buildings
up and down Hillcrest and Preston.
Mr. McLaurin asked Chairman Ligon if he could address the issues that had just been brought up
regarding consistency in the heights being discussed tonight. Mr. McLaurin explained to those in
attendance that the purpose of the Commission meeting was to define actual measurements in feet
rather than in stories for the PD-1 and PD-2 planned development districts, and to also determine if
the height restrictions in the General Retail districts should be amended. He added that the
Commission had chosen not to define what the height of a story should be, but to set an overall
maximum building height in feet.
Betty Marcus, asked if the reference to stories would remain in those zoning districts or if only the
maximum height in footage would be used. Chairman Ligon replied that the reference to stories
would be eliminated from the PD-1 and PD-2 districts.
Chairman Ligon closed the public hearing.
Mr. Freeman made a motion to set a maximum height in the General Retail zoning districts of 40 feet,
which would include any roof-top mechanical equipment or screening. Mrs. Humann seconded the
motion, which passed unanimously.
There being no further business before the Commission, Chairman Ligon adjourned the meeting.
Fred Ligon, Chairman Date
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES
May 19, 2003
The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of University Park met on Monday, May
19, 2003 at 5:30 P.M. in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 3800 University Blvd. University
Park, Texas. The following are minutes of that meeting.
Commission Members Attending
Fred Ligon - Chairman
Randy Biddle
Bill Foose
Bea Humann
Ed Freeman
Staff Members Attending
Wade McLaurin - Bldg. & Zoning Administrator
Jennifer Patrick - Administrative Secretary
Rob Dillard - City Attorney
Mr. Ligon opened the public hearing. He then read the specifics of the first case:
PZ 03-09 - Analytical Surveys, representing the owner of the property, requesting a replat
of Lot 5 Block C, of H. C. Clogenson's Addition of the City of University Park, more
commonly known as 3516 Asbury, from one (1) lot to two (2) Single Family Attached lots'.
The property is zoned SF-A.
Mr. Ligon asked if the submitted plat conforms to the requirements of the City. Mr.
McLaurin replied that it did.
Mr. Ligon asked for a motion. Mr. Foose made a motion to approve the replat, with a second
from Mr. Biddle. The motion was approved unanimously.
Mr. Ligon asked for a motion to approve the minutes from the April 21, 2003 Planning &
Zoning Commission meeting. Mr. Freeman made a motion to approve the minutes, with a
second from Mr. Foose. The motion was approved unanimously.
There being no further business before the Commission, Mr. Biddle adjourned the meeting.
Date