Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda 09-4-07 City Council
AGENDA #2718 CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK COUNCIL CHAMBER – CITY HALL MODULAR BUILDING TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 2007 5:15 P.M. 4:00-5:00 PM WORK SESSION FOR AGENDA REVIEW – City Hall, Fire Department Training Room PUBLIC COMMENTS Questions and comments regarding Main Agenda items should be made when that item is addressed by the City Council. Please be advised that under the Texas Open Meetings Act, the Council may not discuss or act at this meeting on a matter not listed on the Agenda. Other questions or private comments for the City Council or Staff should be directed to that individual immediately following the meeting. I.CALL TO ORDER INVOCATION– Community Information Officer Steve Mace PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Community Information Officer Steve Mace/Boy Scouts – INTRODUCTION OF COUNCILMayor James H. Holmes, III INTRODUCTION OF STAFF– City Manager Bob Livingston II.AWARDS AND RECOGNITION DEPARTMENT PINS: Sanitation Driver III, Lupe Gracia, 25 years, Maintenance Technician II, Streets Division, Rene Rodriguez, 20 years, Maintenance Technician II, Utilities Division, Octavio Villa, 10 years. III.CONSENT AGENDA A.CONSIDER AND ACT: On an Ordinance amending the Boundary Adjustment Agreement with the City of Dallas on Northwest Parkway – Smallwood Page 3 B.CONSIDER AND ACT: On an Annual Interlocal Agreement with Dallas County to coordinate a County-wide Household Hazardous Waste Disposal Program for FY2008 – Speer Page 12 C.CONSIDER AND ACT: On an Addendum to the contract with R.L. Goodson in the amount of $26,500 to provide engineering services associated with the development of a hydraulic analysis of Turtle Creek south of City Hall (Project No. 48700) – Smallwood Page 44 D.CONSIDER AND ACT: On Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes for August 28, 2007 – Smith Page 46 IV.MAIN AGENDA A.PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed FY2008 Budget and Property Tax Rate – Austin Page 52 ï ±º ïîç B.CONSIDER AND ACT: On Appointment of a Builders Committee to work with the Consultant in reviewing Development Issues in the Single and Multi-Family Districts – Persaud Page 104 C.CONSIDER AND ACT: On Approval of Computer Software and Server enhancements and upgrades – Criswell Page 112 D.CONSIDER AND ACT: On a Resolution denying 2006 Atmos GRIP rate increase – Austin Page 115 E.RECEIVE: Information regarding revisions to DART bus lines in University Park – Smallwood Page 126 F.DISCUSS: Dates in October or November for an upcoming 2 hour Incident Command course to be given by Dr. Thomas Russell – Ledbetter Page 129 V. ITEMS FROM THE FLOOR Anyone wishing to address an item not on the Agenda should do so at this time. 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. î ±º ïîç AGENDA MEMO (09-04-07 AGENDA) DATE: August 31, 2007 TO: Bob Livingston City Manager FROM: Gene R. Smallwood, P.E. Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Consider Ordinance No. ___ of the City of University Park, Texas, approving a boundary adjustment agreement with the City of Dallas, Texas. Background. The attached ordinance is a replaces Ordinance 07/08 dealing with the annexation of the strip of land adjacent to Northwest Parkway, between Airline and Hillcrest. The previous ordinance included a service plan, prepared by City of Dallas staff, which was not germane to a six-foot wide strip of parkway. The new ordinance simply replaces the service plan with one that is more appropriately defined. Recommendation. Staff recommends City Council approval of the new annexation ordinance. í ±º ïîç ORDINANCE NO. _________________ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, APPROVING A BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS, ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBIT “A” AND MADE A PART HEREOF FOR ALL PURPOSES, INCLUDING THE RELEASE OF PROPERTY AND RELOCATION OF CITY LIMIT LINE DESCRIBED THEREIN AND THE SERVICE PLAN ATTACHED THERETO; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCE 07/08; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS: SECTION 1. That the Boundary Adjustment Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and made a part hereof for all purposes, including the release of property and relocation of city limit lines described therein and the Service Plan attached thereto, is hereby approved in all respects. SECTION 2. That the City Manager is authorized and directed to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City and to process all further actions necessary to give effect thereto. SECTION 3. That Ordinance 07/08 is hereby repealed. SECTION 4. That this ordinance shall take effect 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 ______________ 2007. APPROVED: ______________________________ JAMES H. HOLMES III, MAYOR APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: ______________________________ ______________________________ CITY ATTORNEY (15176/19383) KATE SMITH, CITY SECRETARY ì ±º ïîç EXHIBIT A BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the City of Dallas, Texas, hereinafter referred to as Dallas, and the City of University Park, Texas, hereinafter referred to as University Park. WHEREAS Dallas’s southern boundary is in part contiguous with the northern boundary of University Park; and WHEREAS this existing boundary does not presently allow the efficient development and delivery of city services to the area; and WHEREAS the cities desire to modify their mutual boundary so as to allow more efficient development and delivery of city services to the area; and WHEREAS representatives of Dallas and University Park have met and agreed on a mutually acceptable boundary which is in the best interest of the citizens of each city. NOW THEREFORE for and in consideration of the mutual covenants conditions and promises expressed herein Dallas and University Park agree as follows: SECTION I Statement of Intent It is the intent of Dallas and University Park to modify their respective boundaries in the following manner. Transfer a 0.2120 tract north of Northwest Parkway between Hillcrest Road and Airline Road from Dallas to University Park to allow University Park to build a sound wall. To accomplish this objective, Dallas agrees to release a portion of its city so as to allow University Park to include the same. SECTION II Release of Territory Dallas agrees to release the following property to University Park: See Attachment No 1 1 Boundary Adjustment (north of Northwest Parkway between Hillcrest Road and Airline Road) – Page ë ±º ïîç TM19383 SECTION III Waiver of Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Dallas does hereby waive all of its extraterritorial jurisdiction rights existing by reason of the property described in Section II in favor of University Park It is expressly agreed andunderstood that this waiver shall operate only in favor of University Park and shall not constitute a waiver of any right including extraterritorial jurisdiction rights which Dallas may be able to assert against any other municipality. SECTION IV Service Plan Upon ratification and adoptionof this agreement by the city council of University Park, University Park does hereby agree to immediately begin implementation into the affected area of the service plan attached to and made a part of this agreement as Attachment No. 2. SECTION V Effective Date Dallas and University Park agree that thisagreement shall take effect only upon ratification and adoption by the governing bodies of each city . SIGNED this the ____ day of ______________________, 2007. CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK TEXAS CITY OF DALLAS TEXAS _____________________________ ________________________________ City Manager City Manager 2 Boundary Adjustment (north of Northwest Parkway between Hillcrest Road and Airline Road) – Page ê ±º ïîç TM19383 APPROVED AS TO FORM APPROVED AS TO FORM THOMAS P PERKINS, JR., City Attorney ______________________________ By_________________________________ City Attorney Assistant CityAttorney ATTEST: ATTEST : ___________________________________________________________ City Secretary City Secretary 3 Boundary Adjustment (north of Northwest Parkway between Hillcrest Road and Airline Road) – Page é ±º ïîç TM19383 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 CITY OF DALLAS AND CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK RELOCATION OF CITY LIMIT LINE HILLCREST AVENUE TOAIRLINE ROAD ABSALOM BRANDENBURG SURVEY ABSTRACT NO. 77 CITY OF DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS Being a tract or parcel of land situated in the Absalom Brandenburg Survey Abstract No. 77, City of Dallas, Dallas County, Texas, and being part of Northwest Highway (a 100’ right-of-way), and being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at 3-1/4” brass disk stamped “University Park City Limit Line” set at the intersection of the west line of Airline Road (60’ right-of-way) and the south line of said Northwest Highway; THENCE South 89º 11’53” West along the south line of said Northwest Highway and the City Limit Line between the City of University Park and the City of Dallas passing at a distance of 1063.35 feet a TXDOT PK Nail, continuing along the south line of said Northwest Highway and along said City Limit Line a total distance of 1063.50 feet to a point for corner at the intersection of the south line of said Northwest Highway and the east line of Hillcrest Avenue (an 80’ right-of-way); THENCE North 01º 33’ 31” West, departing the south line of said Northwest Highway and along said City Limit Line, a distance of 8.69 feet to a MAG Nail set for corner; THENCE North 89º 11’53” East, departing said City Limit Line, a distance of 1063.50 feet to a MAG Nail set for a corner; THENCE South 01º 33’ 31” East a distance of 8.69 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING and containing 9,236 square feet or 0.2120 acres, more or less. __________________________________________________________________ G Richard Busby R.P.L.S. 4111 BASIS OF BEARINGS: THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK GEODETIC CONTROL MONUMENT NO. 6 AND AZIMUTH MARKER. CONTROLLING MONUMENTS: A 1/2” IRON ROD FOUND AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 28, BLOCK 62, UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS, EIGHTH SECTION AND A 3/4” IRON PIPE FOUND AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 17, BLOCK 62, SAID UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS, EIGHTH SECTION. Boundary Adjustment (north of Northwest Parkway between Hillcrest Road and Airline Road) 1 of 2 Attachment No. 1 – Page TM19383 è ±º ïîç Boundary Adjustment (north of Northwest Parkway between Hillcrest Road and Airline Road) 2 of 2 Attachment No. 1 – Page TM19383 ç ±º ïîç ATTACHMENT NO. 2 ANNEXATION SERVICE PLAN In connection with the annexation of an approximately .2120 acre tract of land by the City of University Park, Dallas County, Texas, described in Exhibit “A”, the following service plan is adopted as required by Section 43.056 of the T EXAS LGC. OCALOVERNMENTODE The City of University Park will, to the extent it provides or authorizes such services itself or through contractual arrangements with other entities, provide the following services in the area upon the effective date of the annexation of the area: (1) Police protection; (2) Fire protection; (3) Solid waste collection; (4) Maintenance of water and wastewater facilities in the annexed area that are not within the service area of another water or wastewater utility; (5) Maintenance and operation of roads and streets, including road and street lighting; (6) Maintenance and operation of parks, playgrounds, and swimming pools; (7) Maintenance and operation of any other publicly owned facility, building or service; and (8) Emergency medical services. The City of University Park will also provide other services such as planning, zoning, code enforcement, subdivision regulation, animal control, court, construction codes and general administration, to the extent it now provides any such service, on the effective date of the annexation. Full municipal services will be made available to this property immediately upon annexation. Boundary Adjustment (north of Northwest Parkway between Hillcrest Road and Airline Road) 3 of 2 Attachment No. 1 – Page TM19383 ï𠱺 ïîç Miscellaneous Provisions: (1) This service plan is valid for ten years. Renewal of the service plan is at the discretion of the City of University Park. (2) This service plan does not require a uniform level of full municipal services to each area of the City, including the annexed area, if different characteristics of topography, land use, and population density are considered a sufficient basis for providing different levels of service. (3) This service plan shall not be amended unless public hearings are held in accordance with V.T.C.A., Local Government Code, Section 43.052. (4) This service plan is adopted as Exhibit “B” to the Ordinance annexing the property described in Exhibit “A” to the City of University Park. The City shall provide the area or cause the area to be provided with services in accordance with this service plan. Boundary Adjustment (north of Northwest Parkway between Hillcrest Road and Airline Road) 4 of 2 Attachment No. 1 – Page TM19383 ïï ±º ïîç AGENDA MEMO (09/04/07 AGENDA) DATE: August 28, 2007 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Jacob Speer, Assistant Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Consider annual Interlocal Agreement with Dallas County to coordinate a Countywide Household Hazardous Waste Disposal Program for FY 08. ITEM: The proposed Interlocal Agreement with Dallas County is an annual renewal of the Household Hazardous Waste Disposal Program that was initiated in 1994. Citizens of University Park have used either local events, usually held quarterly in one of the local communities, or the Home Chemical Collection Center (located at 11232-34 Plano Road) to dispose of their paint, herbicides, pesticides, etc. University Park’s annual contribution to the program is funded as a $25,000 expenditure from the proposed Sanitation Division FY 2008 Budget. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council authorization for the City Manager to execute the Interlocal Agreement with Dallas County to coordinate a Countywide Household Hazardous Waste Disposal Program. ATTACHMENTS: Proposed FY 2008 Household Hazardous Waste Interlocal Agreement Dallas County Commissioners Court Order Approving the Agreement ïî ±º ïîç HHW Interlocal Agreement 2008 STATE OF TEXAS ) COUNTY OF DALLAS ) AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF UNIVERISTY PARK AND DALLAS COUNTY WHEREAS, the City of University Park, Texas, (the “City”) and the County of Dallas, Texas, (the “County”) wish to enter into an agreement (the “Agreement”) to join the Household Hazardous Waste Network (the “HHW Network”) to coordinate the planning and implementation of a hazardous waste collection program from October 1, 2007, through September 30, 2008, with options to renew for four additional one-year terms; and WHEREAS, the Interlocal Cooperation Act, Chapter 791 of the Texas Government Code, as amended, provides authorization for local governments to enter into contracts with other local governments and state agencies; and WHEREAS, the Dallas County Commissioners Court adopted Court Order Number 94- 751 establishing the HHW Network to coordinate the planning and implementation of a HHW collection program; and WHEREAS, the HHW Network has successfully served the residents of the participating cities since its inception in 1994 and is prepared to continue its services; NOW, THEREFORE, THIS AGREEMENT is hereby made and entered into by the City and the County upon mutual consideration stated herein: PURPOSE: It is the desire of the City to voluntarily join with the County and other interested jurisdictions, to participate in a HHW collection program as a continuation of the 1994-2007 program. The terms and conditions set forth within this agreement provide the cooperative framework for the City and the County to undertake a variety of activities necessary to coordinate the planning and implementation of a HHW collection program and to provide public education aimed at decreasing the generation of HHW. GENERAL CONDITIONS: ïí ±º ïîç 1 HHW Interlocal Agreement 2008 The specific Scope of Services (see Exhibit A2008) has been reviewed and approved by the HHW Network. Any and all changes having a financial impact must be approved in advance by a mutually executed letter of agreement between the City and the County. Each letter of agreement, upon full execution, shall become an addendum to this agreement. WITNESSETH: I. TERM The Term of this Agreement shall begin on the date executed below and continue until September 30, 2008. This Agreement may be extended annually for four (4) additional one-year terms, upon mutual written agreement by all parties. II. NOTICE Any notice to be given under this Agreement shall be deemed to have been given if reduced to writing and delivered in person or mailed by overnight or Registered Mail, postage pre-paid, to the party who is to receive such notice, demand or request at the addresses set forth below. Such notice, demand or request shall be deemed to have been given three (3) days subsequent to the date it was so delivered or mailed. Dallas County Contact City Contact (Name, Title, Address, Phone, Fax) Sandy Cook Kenneth Chance HHW Program Manager Superintendent, Sanitation Services Dallas County City of University Park 11234 Plano Road 3800 University Boulevard Dallas, TX 75243 University Park, TX 75205 PHONE: (214) 553-1765 PHONE: (214) 987-5450 FAX: (214) 553-5007 FAX: (214) 987-5499 III. COUNTY RESPONSIBILITIES During the term of the agreement, the County agrees to the following provisions: 1. To provide HHW project management, HHW disposal contract negotiations and signatory, a HHW Mobile Unit, HHW public education, assistance with advertisement of HHW collections, all as per funding scheduled and provided by the participating cities, grants, and contributions. ïì ±º ïîç 2 HHW Interlocal Agreement 2008 2. To enter into an agreement with disposal vendor(s) to provide household hazardous waste services including a series of disposal events and disposal services at the County’s fixed-site HHW collection center. The City recognizes that compensation for vendors under such agreements will be payable only to the extent that City funds are made available. 3. To provide two representatives on the HHW Network. 4. To provide, manage, operate, and maintain a site at 11232-11234 Plano Road in Dallas for exclusive use as a Home Chemical Collection Center. 5. To provide regular reports to the City regarding collection statistics taken from event surveys. IV. CITY RESPONSIBILITIES During the term of the agreement, the City will provide: 1. A sum not to exceed $25,000 for disposal, setup, operational, capital and transportation costs for HHW collection for residents of the City, during the period from October 1, 2007 through September 30, 2008. a) Collection, setup, and disposal costs will be paid after-the-fact, based on actual usage by the city at events and at the collection center. b) Operational and capital costs shall be paid quarterly in advance. c) In the event of early withdrawal, the operational and capital costs will not be pro-rated for partial quarter participation but will become immediately due and payable in full. 2. Evidence in appropriate form (City Council resolution, approved line item budget, letter from department head or other official authorized to encumber funds, etc.) that funding has been committed and will be available for obligations herein. 3. A request to the County in writing when the City wishes a collection event to be held within the city’s jurisdiction and assistance in obtaining HHW collection site location(s), community support, volunteers, and volunteer amenities for the requested event. 4. Onsite representation at HHW collection(s) within its jurisdiction. 5. Notification to the County in writing at least sixty (60) days prior to withdrawal from the agreement by the City. 6. One representative and one alternate on the HHW Network to attend Network meetings and participate in the decision-making process. ïë ±º ïîç 3 HHW Interlocal Agreement 2008 The City acknowledges that the financial responsibility for vendor’s disposal, set up, and transportation costs, based on actual usage by residents of the City, rests with the City. The City further acknowledges financial responsibility for a proportional share of the program Operational and Capital Budgets, based on the City’s percentage of total single- family households served and using single-family household projections from North Central Texas Council of Governments. The Operational and Capital Budgets will be determined by the County and the HHW Network. No City will be obligated to incur expenses without their prior knowledge and approval. V. HHW NETWORK RESPONSIBILITIES Under the Bylaws of the HHW Network as included in Exhibit B2008, the HHW Network will: 1. Provide guidance and direction to the Program Manager in the selection of a HHW disposal contractor, in identifying and selecting waste disposal options, in advertising HHW collections, and in developing and implementing a HHW public awareness program. 2. Create a Finance Committee, composed of those HHW Network members that contribute funds, to make recommendation to the Network regarding expenditures of funds for the HHW Program. 3. Provide guidance and direction to the Program Manager in scheduling community HHW collection events. The HHW Network will attempt to honor all requests from member cities wishing to host a community HHW collection event. Should insufficient dates be available to accommodate all such requests, the number of events hosted by a single member City annually may be scheduled at a rate that is proportional to that City’s share of single family households served. 4. Pay for all routine maintenance at the Home Chemical Collection Center and be responsible for capital additions necessitated by program operations. VI. LIABILITY To the extent allowed by law, and without creating a sinking fund, the County agrees to be responsible for any liability or damages the County may suffer as a result of claims, demands, costs or judgments against the County, including workers’ compensation claims, arising out of the performance of the work and services under this agreement, or arising from any accident, injury or damage, whatsoever, to any person or persons, or to the property of any person(s) occurring during the performance of this agreement and caused by the sole negligence of the County, its agents, officers and/or employees. To the extent allowed by law, and without creating a sinking fund, the City agrees to be responsible for any liability or damages the City may suffer as a result of claims, demands, costs or ïê ±º ïîç 4 HHW Interlocal Agreement 2008 judgments against the City, including workers’ compensation claims, arising out of the performance of the work and services under this agreement, or arising from any accident, injury or damage, whatsoever, to any person or persons, or to the property of any person(s) occurring during the performance of this agreement and caused by the sole negligence of the City, its agents, officers and/or employees. County and City agree that any such liability or damages as stated above occurring during the performance of this agreement caused by the joint or comparative negligence of their employees, agents and officers shall be determined in accordance with the comparative responsibility laws of the State of Texas. This agreement is made solely for the benefit of the parties, and nothing herein shall be construed as granting any rights or cause of action to any third party. This agreement is made subject to the County’s and City’s sovereign immunity, Title 5 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code and the Texas Tort Claims Act. VII. RENEWAL, CANCELLATION AND AMENDMENTS This agreement may be renewed on October 1 of each year for four additional one- year terms. Either party may withdraw from this agreement at any time without cause, provided that it has notified the other party in writing at least sixty (60) days prior to its intended withdrawal date. Amendments may be made to this Agreement only upon written approval by both parties. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, County’s obligations contained in this Agreement and any extension hereto are expressly contingent upon the availability of funding for each item and obligation. Neither the State of Texas nor any City or any other person or entity shall have any cause of action against the County of Dallas regarding this Agreement in the event that the County is unable to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement as a result of the lack of sufficient funding from any source utilized to fund this Agreement or failure of any funding party, including the County, to budget or authorize funding for this Agreement during the current or future fiscal years. In the event of insufficient funding by County or any other funding source, or if funding for this Agreement is terminated, limited, suspended or withdrawn, or if funds become unavailable in whole or part, the County, at its sole discretion, shall have the right, but not the obligation, to terminate County’s obligations herein and withdraw from this Agreement with at least sixty (60) days prior written notice to the other Network parties. Nothing herein shall prevent the County, in its sole discretion, from providing funding from a separate source. VIII. PAYMENT ïé ±º ïîç 5 HHW Interlocal Agreement 2008 The City, once receiving an invoice from the County for services rendered (operational, disposal, capital, set up, and/or transportation costs), shall provide payment within thirty (30) days to the County as per this agreement and any addendum(s) to this agreement. Cities which fail to pay within thirty (30) days will be charged a late fee of one percent (1%) of the invoice amount for each additional month or portion thereof. Disputes should be directed to the HHW Program Manager. Interest charges on disputed amounts will be suspended until an accurate figure has been documented and re-submitted to the City by HHW staff. Upon written request from the City, invoices from the County shall be accompanied by copies of all participant surveys and/or other backup documents relevant to the invoice. Payments required under this agreement must be in amounts that fairly compensate the performing party for the services or functions performed and shall be made from current revenues available to the paying party. IX. AMENDMENTS AND CHANGES IN THE LAW: No modification, amendment, innovation, renewal or other alteration of this Agreement shall be effective unless mutually agreed upon in writing and executed by the parties hereto. Any alteration, addition or deletion to the terms of this Agreement which are required by changes in federal or State law are automatically incorporated herein without written amendment to this Agreement and shall be effective on the date designated by said law. Provided, however, that if the change in federal or State law renders the basic purposes of this Agreement illegal, invalid or unenforceable then either party may, upon written notice to the other, terminate this agreement, and the parties agree to enter into good faith negotiations to replace this Agreement with an agreement as similar to the terms and conditions of this Agreement as legally permissible. X. SEVERABILITY: If any provision of this Agreement is construed to be illegal or invalid, this will not affect the legality or validity of any of the other provisions herein. The illegal or invalid provision will be deemed stricken and deleted, but all other provisions shall continue and be given effect as if the illegal or invalid provisions had never been incorporated. XI. SIGNATORY WARRANTY: This agreement has been authorized by the City through a duly enacted resolution passed by the City Council. The person or persons signing and executing this Agreement on behalf of City, or representing themselves as signing and executing this Agreement on behalf of City, do hereby warrant and guarantee that he, she or they have been duly authorized by City to execute this Agreement on behalf of City and to validly and legally bind City to all terms, performances and provisions herein set forth. ïè ±º ïîç 6 HHW Interlocal Agreement 2008 XII. ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This Agreement, including all exhibits and attachments, constitutes the entire agreement between the parties hereto and supersedes any other agreement concerning the subject matter of this transaction, whether oral or written. XIII. BINDING EFFECT: This Agreement and the respective rights and obligations of the parties hereto shall inure to the benefit and be binding upon the successors and assigns of the parties hereto, as well as the parties themselves. XIV. FEDERAL FUNDED PROJECT: If Agreement is funded in part by either the State of Texas or federal government, the City agrees to timely comply without additional cost or expense to County, unless otherwise specified herein, to any statute, rule, regulation, grant, contract provision or other State or federal law, rule, regulation, or other similar restriction that imposes additional or greater requirements than stated herein and that is directly applicable to the services rendered under the terms of this Agreement. Provided, however, that if the change in federal or State law renders the basic purposes of this Agreement illegal, invalid or unenforceable, then either party may, upon written notice to the other, terminate this agreement, and the parties agree to enter into good faith negotiations to replace this Agreement with an agreement as similar to the terms and conditions of this Agreement as legally permissible. XV. DEFAULT/CUMULATIVE RIGHTS/MITIGATION: It is not a waiver of default if the non-defaulting party fails to immediately declare a default or delays in taking any action. The rights and remedies provided by this Agreement are cumulative, and either party’s use of any right or remedy will not preclude or waive its right to use any other remedy. These rights and remedies are in addition to any other rights the parties may have by law, statute, ordinance or otherwise.The City has a duty to mitigate damages. XVI. COUNTERPARTS, NUMBER/GENDER AND HEADINGS: This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. Words of any gender used in this Agreement shall be held and construed to include any other gender, and any words in the singular shall include the plural and vice versa, unless the context clearly requires otherwise. Headings herein are for the convenience of reference ïç ±º ïîç 7 HHW Interlocal Agreement 2008 only and shall not be considered in any interpretation of this Agreement. The County of Dallas, State of Texas, has executed this Agreement pursuant to Commissioners Court Order Number _______________________________ and passed on the _____ day of _______________, 200__. COUNTY: EXECUTED THIS _____ DAY OF _______________, 200__. ______________________________ BY: Jim Foster Dallas County Judge RECOMMENDED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________________ ______________________________ BY: Rick Loessberg BY: Bob Schell Director, Planning and Development Chief, Civil Section * *By law, the District Attorney’s office may only advise or approve a contract or legal document on behalf of other parties. Our review of this document was conducted solely from the legal Perspective of our client. Our approval of this document was offered solely for the benefit of our client. Other parties should not rely on this approval, and should seek review and approval by their own respective attorney(s). CITY: Approved by the City Council of the City of ______________________, Resolution Number ___________________ on the _____ day of _________________, 200__. EXECUTED THIS _____DAY OF __________, 200_. __________________________________________ BY: TITLE: î𠱺 ïîç 8 HHW Interlocal Agreement 2008 Exhibit A2008 Scope of Services Overview For the term of this agreement, Dallas County proposes to operate a Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) disposal program on behalf of the participating cities of the Dallas Area Household Hazardous Waste Network (HHW Network). To accomplish this, the County will continue to use the HHW Network as multi-jurisdictional guidance to the HHW Program Manager in order to maintain an efficient and jurisdictionally sensitive collection program. As the nucleus of a management structure, the County, through Interlocal Agreements with participating cities, will continue to direct and manage the planning, coordination, and implementation of the HHW Network and HHW collection program. The HHW Network will function as an advisory board and will consist of representatives from participating cities, environmental or other relevant citizen interest groups, Texas Cooperative Extension Service, and Dallas County. County staff will provide project governance and oversight. Strategy Each spring and fall, the HHW program will target a series of temporary collection sites throughout the participating area, as selected by participating cities in the HHW Network, for one-day community collection events. The participating cities will select the days of the events. The County will oversee the operation of a fixed-site HHW Collection Center for year-round access in addition to the aforementioned collection events. Each city will be able to participate in each of the one-day community collection events. Each event will be held on a different day, at a different location, as determined by the HHW Network. Residents of each participating city also can use the collection center on a year-round basis. For all community collection events, the HHW Program Manager and staff will coordinate scheduling, vendor services, equipment, supplies, advertising, and labor for onsite activities. The host city will provide for traffic control and site security, and will have an onsite City representative for the duration of any collection held within its jurisdiction. The host city will also assist in providing volunteers and volunteer amenities. The County will negotiate the disposal or diversion of HHW on behalf of the HHW Network participants, according to the criteria established by the HHW Network. Dallas County will provide office space, a Home Chemical Collection Center site, and project management. The HHW Program Manager and staff shall be County employees, whose salaries and benefits are funded by the participating cities and/or through grants. All disposal, set up, and transportation costs will be funded by the participating cities, based on participation rates. All operating costs, including personnel, îï ±º ïîç 9 HHW Interlocal Agreement 2008 Exhibit A2008 facility and equipment maintenance, advertising, supplies, services, and other operational costs will be funded by the participating cities proportionally, based on the most current single family population figures from the North Central Texas Council of Governments. Program enhancements and capital additions necessitated by program operations will be the responsibility of the HHW Network and funded by the participating cities and/or by grants. All overhead for the Household Hazardous Waste Program and Home Chemical Collection Center will be funded through the HHW Network operating and capital budgets. Each participating city must provide the County with funds to cover its collection, disposal, transportation and setup costs within thirty (30) days of receiving an invoice from the County. Operational and capital costs will be paid quarterly in advance. The city will pay a percent of the operational and capital costs equivalent to its percent of the total of single family households in all participating cities.Single family household totals will be acquired from statistics published by the North Central Texas Council of Governments. Collection center disposal costs will be billed to the city at the end of each billing period, according to the number of residents participating during the billing period. Collection event costs, including setup, disposal, transportation, etc., will be billed after each event, according to the number of residents participating at the event. The County, as signatory on all contracts, will pay the HHW disposal contractor and all other vendors with the funds received from the cities. If, at any time, it appears that a city lacks sufficient funding to complete the contract year, the city must choose one of the following options: The city may cap its costs, and no longer pay for its residents to drop off their waste at the collection center or future one-day events to be held within the term of the agreement; or The city may decide to continue to allocate funds and allow its residents to participate in the collection center and future events to be held in the agreement year. * * If a city decides to continue to fund costs for its residents above the sum provided for in its Interlocal Agreement with the County, then the city must provide the County with a letter of agreement as an addendum to the Interlocal Agreement whereby the city is contractually obligated to pay the County any additional costs for HHW collection during the period in which it wishes to extend its payment obligations. If a city does not make a provision to cover a cost overrun, and the city reaches its contractual limit (as provided for in the Interlocal Agreement or its addendum(s)), subsequent participants from that city must pay their own collection fees in order to dispose of their HHW at the collection center or community collection event sites until an addendum is added to the agreement to cover additional costs. This fee will be calculated from the most recent average collection cost per household or from actual disposal costs, whichever is greater. îî ±º ïîç 10 HHW Interlocal Agreement 2008 Exhibit A2008 Program Objectives The ultimate objective of the HHW program shall be to minimize or eliminate the disposal of HHW in area landfills and storm water sewers through reuse/recycling, education and collection/disposal. Toward this end, this program shall: 1. Operate a year-round collection center and a series of one-day community collection events each spring and fall throughout Dallas County, serving at least 9,000 households annually. 2. Provide HHW Network cities an opportunity and forum to address storm water pollution and HHW issues. 3. Involve as many cities as possible in the HHW Network. 4. Establish a precedent in Dallas County for handling HHW through a regional approach that will serve as a model for other multi-jurisdictional areas. 5. Educate the public as to alternatives, wise purchasing, and safe disposal through the use of as many of the following as possible: internet sites, utility bill stuffers, newspaper, television & radio public service announcements, contact with local environmental groups, trade show exhibits, presentation at schools, neighborhood organization meetings, service organizations, etc. 6. Gather data regarding citizen interest as well as types and amounts of HHW diverted from the waste stream by surveying collection participants. 7. Divert a substantial amount of HHW from municipal landfills. 8. Involve local businesses, especially those connected with the manufacture or sales of HHW generating products. 9. Involve local environmental groups, Dallas County Public Health Advisory Committee, Dallas County Health Dept., Texas A&M/Dallas County Agricultural Extension Services, and the Institute of Forensic Sciences. Special Training Requirements EPA First Responder Technical Level training will be required for all workers (such as county, city, volunteer, contract personnel, etc.) who come in contact with chemicals and/or chemical containers.The contractor will provide these personnel at collection events and be responsible for their training. Police, Fire, and Haz Mat Response Teams will have training appropriate for their functions. Citizen volunteers will be used at the collection sites only for the purposes of taking îí ±º ïîç 11 HHW Interlocal Agreement 2008 Exhibit A2008 surveys, distributing educational literature, processing non-hazardous recyclables, and assisting with traffic control. Volunteers who assist with the consolidation of paint, used motor oil, antifreeze, or oil filters must have completed EPA First Responder Technical Level training or abbreviated EPA First Responder Awareness Level Training and/or must satisfy the experience level requirements as determined by the County’s onsite Safety Officer. All volunteers will be required to attend a brief onsite orientation session prior to beginning a work shift. The Program Manager and program staff will be responsible for volunteer training. Records and Reporting The Program Manager and staff will prepare quarterly progress reports for the County, HHW Network, and relevant grant agencies. Financial reports and progress reports will be presented at least quarterly and in accordance with grant requirements. Financial records, contacts, and data from the collection surveys will be computerized. A final report will be presented within 90 days of the end of each collection event, fiscal quarter, and fiscal year. It will include the results of surveys taken from participating citizens and participating cities to gather data including frequency of use and materials collected. Program Goals Participation by at least 9,000 of the area households annually Participation by at least 50% of the cities in the County Increase public outreach to households in participating cities Coverage by general circulation newspaper and/or broadcast media Involvement of the community at all levels; government, industry, and citizens îì ±º ïîç 12 HHW Interlocal Agreement FY08 Exhibit B2008 BYLAWS OF THE DALLAS AREA HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE NETWORK Article I: Name Dallas Area Household Hazardous The name of this organization shall be the Waste NetworkHHW Network.” , herein after referred to as the “ Article II: Mission The purpose of the HHW Network shall be to efficiently organize and promote the collection of household hazardous wastes (HHW) among individuals residing in Dallas County, or in counties adjacent to Dallas County, as agreed to by the Network Members. In order to accomplish this mission, the HHW Network will actively promote cooperative arrangements among governmental agencies in the County and will provide a forum for discussion of techniques for collection and disposal of HHW. Article III: Members Voting Members - Voting membership in the HHW Network will be offered to one representative of each city volunteering to participate in the HHW Network and to one representative of Dallas County. Any city requesting membership shall provide an official indication of the name of the individual to be designated as the HHW Network member. Once designated, an individual member shall arrange to have an alternate designated to participate in the absence of the member. Advisory (Non-voting) Members - the County Judge shall name additional Advisory (Non-voting) Members to the HHW Network representing the following categories or organizations: one member representing Dallas County, other than the County’s voting member one member representing the North Central Texas Council of Governments three members representing advocacy, environmental, or other citizen groups such as: Texas Cooperative Extension Service, Audubon Society, and League of Women Voters two members representing the private sector Term - each of the designated individuals shall serve until his/her successor is designated. Article IV: Meetings The HHW Network will meet as required to conduct its business. All HHW Network meetings will be public meetings open to all participants. The Project Manager of the HHW Network will establish a mailing list for notification of all meetings, and shall include îë ±º ïîç 13 HHW Interlocal Agreement FY08 Exhibit B2008 on this list any individual that requests notification. Quorum - At any regular meeting of the HHW Network, a quorum shall consist of half of the individuals who have then been duly designated or appointed pursuant to Article III. Article V: Voting Each Voting Member of the HHW Network will have one vote. Article VI: Officers and Committees The HHW Program Manager shall preside at all meetings. The HHW Program Manager and staff shall be responsible for all staff work and notifications related to the Network. The Program Manager shall not be a voting member of the Network. The HHW Network, by majority vote, may establish such committees as shall be deemed necessary to carry out the work of the organization. Finance Committee - The Finance Committee shall consist of representatives of each city that has made a binding commitment to participate in a disposal program and the County’s voting member. The Program Manager will serve as an ex officio member of this committee. No contract or other financial arrangement affecting the participants may be referred to the HHW Network without first receiving approval of the Finance Committee. Article VII: Amendments These bylaws shall become effective when ratified by a majority of HHW Network voting members attending a regular meeting, and when approved by Dallas County Commissioners Court. Amendments may be proposed by any member at any time, in writing. Such amendments will be voted on at a duly called HHW Network meeting to which notice has been given that an amendment will be proposed. Amendments passed by 2/3 of the voting members present shall become part of the bylaws. îê ±º ïîç 14 HHW Interlocal Agreement FY08 Exhibit C2008 Exhibit C2008 FY2008 HHW PROGRAM BUDGET SUMMARY This exhibit summarizes the total program funding for FY08 as approved by the Dallas Area Household Hazardous Waste Network at its regular meeting on April 5, 2007. Fixed costs include personnel and operating costs, which are shared by the Network cities based on single-family household projections published by North Central Texas Council of Governments. Personnel costs include all HHW staff salaries and fringe. Operating costs include supplies, equipment, advertising, public education, volunteer support, staff development, printing, postage, facility maintenance, utilities, and all other direct programming costs. Capital costs are provided by the cities based on single-family household projections published by North Central Texas Council of Governments and set aside for capital maintenance and improvements including building repairs, equipment repair or replacement, mechanical upgrades, and expansion projects. Variable costs are comprised of vendor costs for collection, contract labor, and disposal, which vary according to actual usage and are indicated in the budget summary for planning Funding for collection, contract labor, and disposal costs will be purposes only. collected from the cities after the fact, on an as-used basis. Budget adjustments made during the term of the agreement shall not result in a City Funding amount that exceeds the approved budget total shown herein. The County may make line item transfers within the budget when these transfers do not exceed $5,000. Budget adjustments in excess of $5,000 must be approved by the HHW Network. BUDGET SECTION CITY FUNDING OPERATIONAL BUDGET (FIXED COSTS) Personnel Costs $ 362,400 Operating Costs $ 229,650 Sub-Total $ 592,050 CAPITAL EXPENSE BUDGET $ 20,000 COLLECTION / LABOR / DISPOSAL BUDGET (VARIABLE COSTS) $ 545,000 TOTAL PROGRAM BUDGET $1,157,050 îé ±º ïîç 15 îè ±º ïîç îç ±º ïîç í𠱺 ïîç íï ±º ïîç íî ±º ïîç íí ±º ïîç íì ±º ïîç íë ±º ïîç íê ±º ïîç íé ±º ïîç íè ±º ïîç íç ±º ïîç ì𠱺 ïîç ìï ±º ïîç ìî ±º ïîç ìí ±º ïîç AGENDA MEMO (09-04-07 AGENDA) DATE: August 30, 2007 TO: Bob Livingston City Manager FROM: Gene R. Smallwood, P.E. Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Consider addendum to contract with R.L. Goodson in the amount of $26,500 to provide engineering services associated with the development of a hydraulic analysis of Turtle Creek south of City Hall (Project No 48700) Background. At their 12.19.06 meeting, the City Council approved a contract with RL Goodson to perform engineering services associated with the modeling of stormwater flows in Turtle Creek south of City Hall. Since December, the consultant has developed the hydraulic model to the extent of conceptualizing the general type and size of the proposed McFarlin bridge replacement structure. In order to expedite the project, we asked him to expand on his scope of services to consider the impact of alternatives for the existing dam downstream of McFarlin. Because of the current and proposed expansion of services and budget, we solicited a formalized addendum to the December contract (See attached). The proposed addendum will conclude with specific recommendations for the McElvaney Dam and the replacement of the McFarlin Bridge. At that time we will bring a proposal for engineering design and construction services to the Council for consideration. Recommendation. Staff recommends City Council approval of the addendum to the existing R.L. Goodson contract the amount of $26,500, subject to deleting the "limit of liability" clause. ìì ±º ïîç ìë ±º ïîç MINUTES #2717 CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS COUNCIL CHAMBER – CITY HALL MODULAR BUILDING TUESDAY, AUGUST 28, 2007, 5:15 P.M. Mayor James H. Holmes, III, convened the City Council into an executive session in the conference room at 4:00 p.m. for consultation with the City Attorney under Section 551.074 of the Government Code. The executive session was concluded at 4:18 p.m. No action was voted on or taken during the meeting. Mayor Holmes opened the regular City Council Meeting at 5:15 p.m. in the Council Chamber in the City Hall Modular Building. Present were Mayor Pro Tempore Harry Shawver and Councilmembers Syd Carter, Jerry Grable and Kelly Walker. Also in attendance were City Manager Bob Livingston, City Attorney Rob Dillard and City Secretary Kate Smith. Councilmember Walker moved approval of the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Carter seconded, and the vote was unanimous to approve the following: CONSENT AGENDA CONSIDER APPROVAL OF FREQUENCY RECONFIGURATION AGREEMENT: On November 08, 2005, the City Council approved the acceptance of a proposal from Tusa Consulting to act on the behalf of the City to negotiate with Nextel cellular service on a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ruling that 1,700 public safety agencies throughout the United States must relinquish their 800 MHz frequencies to Nextel. Nextel’s frequencies were within the operating range of these public safety frequencies and often caused interference on the public safety channels. FCC ordered Nextel to supply the 1,700 public safety agencies with new frequencies away from their operating range. Each of the 1,700 public safety agencies had to negotiate a Frequency Reconfiguration Agreement that ensures each agency received good operating frequencies and that all costs would be born by Nextel.The reconfiguration must be completed on each and every mobile and portable radio the Public Safety and Public Works Departments utilize, including all repeater radios. Also, all Highland Park and SMU mobile, portable and repeater radios must be reconfigured since automatic aid, mutual aid and first response runs are made with these entities. A major concern in this process was the fact that the Public Works portable radios could not be moved to the new frequencies. Nextel was therefore required to replace these radios. We were able to purchase a better quality radio and the City agreed to pay a difference of approximately $7,500.00. Nextel must pay for the time each City employee will be away from their regular duties while their radios are being reprogrammed. Approximately 442 hours will be spent away from duties while the radios are reconfigured, a cost of $15,000 that Nextel must reimburse. CONSIDER UNIVERSITY PARK LIBRARY SPECIAL SECTION FOR THE OCTOBER 2007 ARBOR: In order to update the community on various Library programs and services, U.P. Friends of the Library has asked the City for permission to use pages 3 and 4 of the October ìê ±º ïîç 2007 Arbor. They will match our font and color scheme. Several days before going to press, the group will provide the Community Information Officer with print-ready copy and photos. Under this arrangement, the City’s content in the October edition will appear on pages 1 and 2. The November Arbor will return to four pages of City content. CONSIDER AGREEMENTS WITH CARUTH/PRESTON ROAD ASSOCIATES, LTD. FOR PRIVATE USES OF THE CITY’S RIGHTS-OF WAY WITHIN THE PLAZA AT PRESTON CENTER: The license agreements allow the management of the Plaza at Preston Center to use the City’s right-of-way at two specific locations for improvements at Taco Diner and at Café R&D. Taco Diner proposes to expand the outdoor dining area on the Villanova frontage and construct an arbor above the area. Café R&D proposes to construct a shallow Koi pond near the entrance to their restaurant. Improvements at both locations encroach on the R-O-W, and as with facilities in Snider Plaza, the license agreements establish the parameters by which this would be allowed. The improvements at both locations would include re-routing the public sidewalk in a manner acceptable for ADA compliance. Several parking spaces would be displaced, but the shopping center still exceeds the number of spaces required by the Zoning Ordinance. CONSIDER LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH MAX-A-MILLION CARRIAGE RIDES: Max-A-Million Carriage Rides would like to operate horse-drawn carriage rides through University Park during the Christmas holiday season, or between Thanksgiving and Christmas 2007. This is a business venture and riders will be charged a fee. These are the same horse- drawn carriage rides offered in Snider Plaza the last few years. It is recommended that Max-A- Million Carriages be allowed to set up the two additional signs this year in Snider Plaza that were allowed in the last two previous years at the points where customers will board the carriages. These two signs are to be set up and taken down at the beginning and end of each day of operation. It is also recommended that Max-A-Million be allowed to operate Wednesday through Sunday. Allowing this request sets forth certain conditions including: a $500.00 fee with $300.00 to be refunded if all conditions are met; cleaning of storage spaces and other areas affected by the horses; a design or plan for the use of the parking spaces to be approved by the Chief of Police; an indemnity clause; and a one million dollar public liability insurance policy with a Certificate of Insurance. CONSIDER INTERLOCAL CONTRACT WITH THE HARRIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FOR COOPERATIVE PURCHASING: This contract with Harris County Department of Education (HCDE) would facilitate participation in HCDE’s contracts. Specifically, HCDE has a contract with Nouveau Construction and Technology Services for Job Order Contracting (JOC). The Facilities Maintenance Division has expressed interest in using JOC for some routine maintenance projects. This type of cooperative purchasing is allowed through the Interlocal Cooperation Act (VTCA Government Code, Chapter 791). CONSIDER INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF FORT WORTH AND COOPERATIVE PURCHASING OF FUEL: The City’s annual contract with Petroleum Traders (Bid #05-15, June 2005) for the purchase of fuel expired on July 31, 2007. The City of Fort Worth has existing cooperative contracts for the purchase of gasoline and diesel fuel. Fort Worth achieved lower mark-ups on their contracts due to the high volume of fuel purchased annually and aggregating the purchases of other Metroplex agencies in their contract. Attached is a list of ìé ±º ïîç other participating agencies. Fuel is priced based on a mark-up or mark-down from the daily average wholesale fuel prices for the Dallas/Fort Worth area as published by the Oil Price Information Service (OPIS). Last year, the City spent $316,165.16 in fuel. CONSIDER RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2007 CERTIFIED PROPERTY APPRAISAL ROLL: Each year by July 25 the Dallas Central Appraisal District (DCAD) provides the City with the certified tax roll. The roll is a list of all property parcels in the city and their associated market and taxable values. The total taxable value then becomes the basis for the City to set its property tax rate for the upcoming budget year. Official adoption of the tax roll occurs by Council resolution. This year’s taxable value is $5,444,836,544, a 13.3% increase from last year’s value of $4,804,267,737. Total market value rose 17.7% to $7,510,495,590. Of the $1.13 billion increase in market value, over $186 million is from new construction, compared with $136 million from the year before. While the average single-family home value increased 15.9% from $918,583 to $1,064,621, the taxable value increase is capped at 10% per year. RESOLUTION NO. 07-16 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, ADOPTING THE 2007 APPRAISAL ROLL OF THE DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT FOR THE CITY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES: FOR AUGUST 7, 2007 MAIN AGENDA PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED FY2008 BUDGET AND PROPERTY TAX RATE: Texas statutes require that cities provide notice and hold public hearings before adopting an annual budget and property tax rate. State law requires that a budget hearing be held no sooner th than 15 days after the proposed budget is filed with the municipal clerk. Using August 7 as the th filing date, a hearing on August 28 meets this requirement. A second budget hearing is scheduled for the September 4 Council meeting; and a third hearing will occur at the September 18 meeting, when the Council acts upon the proposed budget and tax rate. Mayor Holmes opened the Public Hearing. Finance Director Kent Austin presented the proposed FY08 budget. The proposed FY08 budget of $39.577 million is 4.48% larger than the adopted FY07 budget of $37.879 million. The proposed budget includes a tax rate decrease, rate increases for water or sewer service, and $5.163 million in capital project funding. The property tax is the General Fund’s primary source of revenue. The proposed FY08 rate is $0.26836, an 8.32% reduction from last year’s adopted rate of $0.29272. The certified taxable property base rose 13.3%. The proposed budget would collect $548,385 more in current property taxes than last year, a 3.9% increase. Due to the intricacies of the official effective tax rate (ETR) calculation, the proposed $0.26836 rate that will raise 3.9% more tax revenue represents an effective tax increase of only 1%. The ETR drives the notice and hearing requirements a city must meet per the Texas Truth- in-Taxation law. The Dallas County Tax Assessor-Collector performs the effective tax rate calculation. The ETR’s purpose is to identify the tax rate that produces the same revenue dollars this year as last year. Instead of using the new 2007 certified tax roll ($5.444 billion) as the base, the ETR calculation considers only those properties that were on the tax roll one year ago, after adjustment for changes in exemptions, values under protest, and court-ordered reductions. The ìè ±º ïîç resulting tax base number is known as the “2007 Adjusted Taxable Value” and omits the $192 million added by new construction in University Park this year. This new construction makes up 17% of the $1.13 billion increase in the certified taxable value. At the same time, the taxes levied one year ago are also adjusted for refunds and are known as the “Adjusted 2006 taxes with refunds.” Dividing this figure ($13.28 million) by the adjusted tax base ($4.677 billion) produces an effective tax rate of $0.26569/$100.Comparing the new proposed tax rate of $0.26836 against the ETR yields an effective tax increase of 1%. While the average single- family home, with a market value of $1.064 million, would pay $2,286 in City property taxes, the existing 10% appraisal cap reduces the tax bill for residents who owned their home last year. The proposed 8.32% tax rate reduction combined with the 10% appraised value increase results in a tax bill of $2,169, only $18 more than last year. In response to continuing complaints about speeding and traffic violations, the proposed budget also includes a new three-officer Police traffic enforcement unit at $265,903. If approved as proposed, the number of full-time employees will be 245, still below the 247 employed in the early 1990’s. Also proposed in the budget is $159,292 for services for the University Park Public Library. This $68,800 increase would allow the library to add two new positions, a receptionist and children’s librarian. Dr. David Ellis, immediate past president of the University Park Library Board, was present at the meeting to answer any questions. Mr. Ellis indicated that this year, there have been approximately 40,000 items checked out of the library, 20% ahead of this time last year. He also noted that they have about 11,000 library card holders and that they had more summer reading program participants this year than last. Ms. Kitty Holleman, 3939 Marquette, asked if there is a library at each school. Councilmember Carter responded that there is, but that they are not open during the summer. Finance Director Kent Austin noted that the The Finance Advisory Committee met on August 16, 2007 to review the proposed budget. Although a quorum (six members) was not present, the five attending Committee members recommended approval of the proposed budget. They made two other recommendations: 1) that the three-officer traffic enforcement unit be approved; and 2) that the City’s percentage contribution to the firefighter retirement fund not exceed the percentage contribution to the Texas Municipal Retirement System. He indicated that two other Advisory Committees – Employee Benefits and Property/Causality/Liability Insurance – will meet soon. Mayor Holmes closed the Public Hearing and noted that a second Public Hearing on the proposed FY2008 Budget and Property Tax Rate will be held on Tuesday, September 4, 2007. CONSIDER PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION ON 25 MPH SPEED STUDY: During the June 19, 2007, City Council meeting, a presentation on the 25 MPH speed study was given by Director of Public Works Bud Smallwood. After discussion by council, traffic consultant Dannie Cummings and members of the community, the matter was sent to the Public Safety Committee for review and recommendation. The Public Safety Committee met on July 10, 2007. The 25 MPH speed study was the lone agenda item and the only business discussed. The committee voted to recommend the same speed study be conducted a second time with the addition of enforcement to determine if the speeds could be reduced. It was decided by the committee, that the second study begin after the traffic unit (as proposed in the FY2008 budget) was established, when officers could be assigned to work the designated area. The study will be conducted in the same area for the same length of time. Mayor Pro-Tempore Shawver moved approval of the Public Safety Committee’s recommendation to conduct a second ìç ±º ïîç speed study in the same area with enforcement. Councilmember Grable seconded, and the vote was unanimous to conduct a second speed study with enforcement. CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO CITY ORDINANCE REGULATING PHOTO th ENFORCEMENT AND RED LIGHT CAMERAS: The 80 Session of the Texas Legislature enacted legislation that regulates photo enforcement of traffic signals by Texas Cities. In order to be in compliance with the new legislation, the existing ordinance has been amended to reflect and adopt all required changes. These changes include: setting a cap on late fees, that 50% of all revenues received by the City will be sent to the State of Texas for use in trauma centers across the state and if any additional intersections were to be red-light enforced, a traffic-study would have to be conducted. Councilmember Carter moved approval of the amendment to the city ordinance regulating photo enforcement and red light cameras. Councilmember Walker seconded, and the vote was unanimous to approve the amendment to the city ordinance regulating photo enforcement and red light cameras. ORDINANCE NO. 07/30 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 10.1600A “AUTOMATED TRAFFIC SIGNAL ENFORCEMENT”; PROVIDING A REPEALING CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR THE IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTIES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. CONSIDER COFFEE PARK MASTER PLAN DESIGN FEES: In November 2006, the City Council approved a new concept drawing for a Master Plan of Coffee Park. Since that time, staff has been working with the architect and a citizen committee to finalize additional park components and cost estimates. These additional components include: discussion, design and placement of a barrier free playground, a sculpture designed by Bob Coffee, a historical timeline and narrative stations, and also project cost estimates. The architect is requesting additional funds for meetings, project design and construction services. The original contract was based on a project cost estimate of $300,000. The amended proposal reflects design fees based on an estimated $700,000 plus project cost. The current contract for architectural services is $28,865.00. The amendment request is $28,635.00 for a new contract amount of $57,500.00 Mayor Holmes stated that in the Council Meeting Pre-Session, they discussed approving the design fees, but would like to send this item to the Capital Projects Committee for further review and recommendation. Councilmember Grable moved approval of amending the contract with GGOArchitects in the amount of $28,635.00, for a new total contract amount of $57,500.00. Mayor Pro-Tempore Shawver seconded, and the vote was unanimous to approve the contract amendment with GGOArchitects in the amount of $28,635.00, for a new contract amount of $57,500.00 CONSIDER POOL MASTER PLAN – PHASE I: In April 2007, the City Council approved a design contract with The Brannon Corporation to develop concept plans for upgrades at Curtis Park Swimming Pool. For the past few months, the Park Advisory Board has been working with Brannon to identify potential pool water features, mechanical upgrades and address ADA ë𠱺 ïîç compliance issues. Based on the overall costs associated of the entire project, the Park Advisory Board has recommended separating the project into two phases. Phase I will address the children’s pool and Phase II will address the main pool. The proposed contract with The Brannon Corporation for Phase I is in the amount of $30,000.00 for design, construction and bid documents. Staff will also review the project with the Capital Projects Committee. Mayor Holmes moved approval of the contract with The Brannon Corporation in the amount of $30,000.00 for Phase I design, construction and bid documents, with removal of the Limitation of Liability clause. Councilmember Grable seconded, and the vote was unanimous to approve the contract with The Brannon Corporation in the amount of $30,000.00 with removal of the Limitation of Liability clause. ITEMS FROM THE FLOOR Ms. Kitty Holleman, 3939 Marquette, stated that she would like to be on a committee to discuss and address McMansions and design standards. She also feels that SMU needs to build more student housing. She noted that a large old tree had died as a result of new home construction in the 3800 block of Marquette. Mayor Holmes asked Park Director Gerry Bradley to look into this matter and see if it is a possible violation of the City’s Tree Ordinance. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. th PASSED AND APPROVED this 4 day of September 2007. James H. Holmes, III, Mayor ATTEST: Kate Smith, City Secretary ëï ±º ïîç AGENDA MEMO (09/04/2007 AGENDA) DATE: August 30, 2007 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Kent R. Austin, Director of Finance SUBJECT: Budget and tax rate public hearings at 9/04/2007 meeting BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION Texas statutes require that cities provide notice and hold public hearings before adopting an annual budget and property tax rate. Proposed FY2008 budget State law requires that a budget hearing be held no sooner than 15 days after the proposed budget is filed with the municipal clerk. Using August 7 as the filing date, a hearing August 28 meets this requirement. A second budget hearing is scheduled for the September 4 Council meeting; and a third hearing will occur at the September 18 meeting, when the Council acts upon the proposed budget and tax rate. The proposed FY08 budget of $39.577 million is 4.48% larger than the adopted FY07 budget of $37.879 million. The proposed budget includes a tax rate decrease, no rate increases for water or sewer service, and $5.163 million in capital project funding. The Finance Advisory Committee met August 16 to review the proposed budget. Although a quorum (six members) was not present, the five attending Committee members recommended approval of the proposed budget. They made two other recommendations: 1) that the three- officer traffic enforcement unit be approved; and 2) that the City’s percentage contribution to the firefighter retirement fund not exceed the percentage contribution to the Texas Municipal Retirement System. The Employee Benefits Advisory Committee met August 30 to review the salary and benefits elements of the budget. Following review, they unanimously recommended approval of the proposed FY2008 budget. The Property/Casualty/Liability Insurance will meet August 31, 2007. More detailed information about the budget is included in the attached August 7 memo from the City Manager and supporting line item detail. ëî ±º ïîç Proposed property tax rate The property tax is the General Fund’s primary source of revenue. The proposed FY08 rate is $0.26836, an 8.32% reduction from last year’s adopted rate of $0.29272. The certified taxable property base rose 13.3%. The proposed budget would collect $548,385 more in current property taxes than last year, a 3.9% increase. Thus it is correct to say that the City is both cutting the tax rate and raising taxes. Due to the intricacies of the official effective tax rate (ETR) calculation, the proposed $0.26836 rate that will raise 3.9% more tax revenue represents an effective tax increase of only 1%. The ETR is significant because it drives the notice and hearing requirements a city must meet per the Texas Truth-in-Taxation law. Cities proposing an effective tax increase greater than the prior year must hold two separate public hearings about the tax rate. The Dallas County Tax Assessor-Collector performs the effective tax rate calculation. Quarter-page notices of the ETR occurred in the August 16 and 23 editions of the Park Cities News, as did notices of the two hearings. The ETR’s purpose is to identify the tax rate that produces the same revenue dollars this year as last year. Instead of using the new 2007 certified tax roll ($5.444 billion) as the base, the ETR calculation considers only those properties that were on the tax roll one year ago, after adjustment for changes in exemptions, values under protest, and court-ordered reductions. The resulting tax base number is known as the “2007 Adjusted Taxable Value” and omits the $186 million added by new construction in University Park this year. This new construction makes up 17% of the $1.13 billion increase in the certified taxable value. At the same time, the taxes levied one year ago are also adjusted for refunds and are known as the “Adjusted 2006 taxes with refunds.” Dividing this figure ($13.28 million) by the adjusted tax base ($4.677 billion) produces an effective tax rate of $0.26569/$100. Comparing the new proposed tax rate of $0.26836 against the ETR yields an effective tax increase of 1%. While the average single-family home, with a market value of $1.064 million, would pay $2,286 in City property taxes, the existing 10% appraisal cap reduces the tax bill for residents who owned their home last year. The proposed 8.32% tax rate reduction combined with the 10% appraised value increase results in a tax bill of $2,169, only $18 more than last year. RECOMMENDATION At the public hearing on September 4, the City Council should invite comment on the proposed tax rate of $0.26836. Adoption of the budget and tax rate is scheduled for the September 18 meeting. ATTACHMENT: City Manager’s budget memo of 8/7/2007 ëí ±º ïîç AGENDA MEMO (09/04/2007 AGENDA v4) DATE: August 30, 2007 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Bob Livingston, City Manager SUBJECT: Presentation of the City Manager’s Proposed FY 2008 Budget INTRODUCTION This memo presents the City Manager’s proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2008 (FY08, or October 1, 2007 – September 30, 2008). Highlights of the proposed $39.5 million budget include: th A reduction in the City’s property tax rate for the 13 consecutive year. The proposed tax rate of 26.836 cents is 8.3% lower than last year’s rate of 29.272 cents per $100 taxable value. Balanced General, Utility, and Sanitation Fund budgets. Dedicated three-man police traffic enforcement unit. Additional support for the University Park public library. The first utility rate increases in five years – 8% for water and sewer service. A 10% increase is also proposed for sanitation. Continued investment in automation and effective use of technology. Over $5.1 million in pay-as-you-go capital project funding, up 3% from last year. The continuing cost increases from the City’s water and wastewater treatment providers are the main driver for the water and sewer increases. In some years, increased water or wastewater sales offsets the effect of the increases, but after five years of no change at the retail level, the City’s rates must be adjusted to keep the fund balanced. The fixed nature of sanitation revenues also means that annual cost increases cannot be absorbed indefinitely. The table below compares total expenditures for the City’s three budgeted funds – General, Utility, and Sanitation. Three other funds – Capital Projects, Equipment Services, and Self- Insurance – are not included in the formal budget, because their revenues come from line-items in the three budgeted funds. A summary page showing the proposed budget by fund and department is attached, as is a worksheet detailing the property tax impact of the proposed FY08 budget. ëì ±º ïîç Total Budgeted Expenditures FY2006FY2007FY2008DollarPercent FundAdopted Budget Adopted Budget Proposed Budget ChangeChange General $22,150,141 $24,187,449 $25,418,917$1,231,467 5.1% Utility 10,001,679 11,032,45911,300,488268,029 2.4% Sanitation 2,649,308 2,659,8602,857,928198,068 7.4% Total $34,801,128 $37,879,768 $39,577,333$1,697,564 4.5% By comparison, over the past year, the Consumer Price Index - All Urban Consumers (CPI) for Dallas-Fort Worth increased 1% and the Municipal Price Index, which more closely tracks services and goods a municipality purchases, increased 3.7%. CITYWIDE ISSUES The major increases can be traced directly to three expenditure categories, which together account for over 73% of the increase in the FY08 budget. The impact of these three categories is shown below: Expenditure category Increase in General Fund Increase in All Funds Personnel costs 1,058,000 1,433,000 Fuel and equipment 128,000 151,000 Capital projects contributions 88,000 150,000 Totals$1,274,000 $1,734,000 Personnel costs Salaries and benefits make up 56% ($22.2 million) of the total budget, and they comprise 86% of the General Fund’s increase. New positions -- Police traffic enforcement unit, $265,903 In response to continuing complaints about speeding and traffic violations, I am proposing to add three full-time police patrol positions in FY2008. The three-officer team would work traffic exclusively. This will allow enforcement to be directed to problem areas without spreading the regular patrol operation too thinly. While there should be some offsetting fine revenue, estimated at $96,000, ultimately the team’s purpose is increased safety on UP streets. If approved as proposed, the number of full-time employees will be 245, still below the 247 employed in the early 1990’s. Excluding the civil engineer position in the Capital Projects Fund, which is not part of the operating budget, the number of full-time budgeted funds is 244. ëë ±º ïîç Salary changes Non-public safety positions The proposed budget includes market-based raises of 4% depending upon position. The Hay Group compensation study, which identifies salary levels for all employees except police and fire, recommends salary adjustments over the entire range by position. The study is a systematic review of pay in both private and government jobs of comparable complexity, skill, and education. I recommend that the increases be approved to keep our salaries competitive with other employers. Public safety positions The FY2008 budget also includes increases of 4% for most employees, and 6% for some specific supervisory positions. This recommendation is based on comparisons with a group of North Texas cities that includes Addison, Garland, Dallas, Arlington, Plano, and Richardson. This increase serves to keep us competitive with other agencies. We continue to enjoy a very low employee turnover rate, which is in part an indicator that our salaries and benefits are competitive with other area cities and private employers. Just as reported last year, maintaining a competitive salary and benefits plan is essential for retaining and recruiting quality employees. Benefit changes Employee health insurance Health insurance costs continue to challenge us. Paid claims for the period from July 2006 to June 2007 totaled $2.3 million, compared with $1.6 million during the prior twelve month period. While some of this increase was due to some catastrophic claims, an increase of 10%, or $268,000, is included in health insurance premiums for FY2008. This compares to last year’s 14.25% citywide for health insurance. Health insurance, along with other benefit proposals, will be reviewed by the Employee Benefits Advisory Committee after the budget is transmitted from the City Council. Retirement costs The employer contribution for the City’s retirement plan is almost level, dropping at 14.87% to 14.86%. Because of the three proposed new positions and recommended salary increases, however, retirement costs are projected to rise $86,000, or 4.9% more than in FY2007. No changes to the retirement plan’s benefits are included or proposed at this time. The employer contribution rate is set by TMRS (Texas Municipal Retirement System) and is driven by factors such as employee turnover and tenure. TMRS is structured like a defined contribution plan, wherein employee contributions, interest credits, and an employer match combine to produce an amount that is annuitized at retirement. As a result, TMRS is not experiencing the financial difficulties faced by many defined benefit pension funds, both public and private. Firefighter pension fund issue University Park Fire Department personnel are the only City employees who are not members of TMRS. They belong to a separate system that is governed by a local board made up of three firefighters, two local residents, and two City staff members. The FRRF is structured as a defined benefit plan and is currently underfunded on an actuarial basis. After extensive study and discussion over the last two years, the fire personnel considered converting their plan to ëê ±º ïîç TMRS. Due to the lower projected retirement benefits at an eligibility age of 50 years, most fire personnel voted against the conversion. City staff and the FRRF Board are now awaiting the results of the 12/31/2006 actuarial valuation, which will recommended any changes needed to retain the FRRF’s actuarial soundness. The valuation may include a recommendation to increase contributions to the plan. The decision whether this increase comes from the City, the employees, or a combination of each will require special consideration by the Council. The Finance Advisory Committee has recommended that the City contribution percentage to FRRF not exceed the City contribution to TMRS University Park public library support Included in the proposed FY2008 budget is $159,292 for the UP public library, a $68,800 increase over FY2007. The Friends of the Library for the Park Cities, which operates the library, approached the City in June to request this additional funding. The money will be used to pay for two new positions – a children’s librarian and a front desk coordinator. Fuel/equipment costs The continued rise in gasoline and other fuels is well known. Although the City has three underground tanks for gasoline and diesel, as well as a propane tank, even bulk purchases cannot offset the sharp increases. The proposed budget includes a 17% ($57,000) increase in fuel purchases, from $344,000 to $402,000 citywide. The City budgets for equipment replacement by purchasing vehicles in the Equipment Services Fund and then charging an annual contribution back to the operating departments. This levels the impact on the annual budget. For FY08, equipment replacement contributions will total $552,000, up only $7,700 from last year. Finally, maintenance costs are budgeted to increase 6% ($57,000) to $974,000. This represents the cost of operating the City’s garage and warehouse and is primarily personnel driven. Capital project contributions The FY08 budget continues the City’s successful practice of funding its capital projects on a pay-as-you-go rather than debt basis. As predicted last year, FY07 has seen the largest expenditure for capital projects in the City’s history, approximately $17 million. The scheduled $3.0 million contribution from the General Fund and $2.1 million from the Utility Funds is a 3% increase over FY2007. These amounts are included in the Transfers Departments in the General and Utility Funds. The budgeted transfers and other sources help fund the City’s Capital Improvements Program (CIP), so that in a given year the amount of project expenditure may be sharply higher or lower than the annual budgeted contribution. In FY2008, for example, the proposed project list exceeds the annual contribution but still leaves a positive balance in the Capital Projects Fund. The Capital Projects Review Committee met with City staff to propose the following project list for FY2008. Any subsequent changes to the FY2008 CIP must first be reviewed by the Committee before being considered by the City Council. ëé ±º ïîç These outlays will be made from the City’s Capital Projects Fund and will not directly impact the FY08 budget. ëè ±º ïîç DISCUSSION OF TAXES AND UTILITY RATES GENERAL FUND Revenue considerations This year’s proposed budget again includes major adjustments to the City’s key non-property tax revenue projections. The projected sales tax amount, $3.4 million, is an 11% increase over FY07’s $3.1 million. The projection is based on actual monthly sales tax revenues following the reallocation project undertaken in 2005. Interest revenues are also projected to rise, from $600,000 to $630,000 in FY08. Short-term interest rates have remained above 5.2% for the past year. Building permit revenues are expected to continue at their current levels, which already greatly exceed the budgeted amount. Overall, non-property tax General Fund revenues are projected to grow by about 10%. Tax rate decrease The City’s total certified taxable value rose by 13.3% compared to last year. The FY08 budget proposes to reduce the tax rate from $0.29272 to $0.26836 per $100 taxable value, a rate reduction of 8.32%. The table below compares this year with the past three: Property tax rate comparison, FY2005 – FY2008 AdoptedAdoptedAdoptedProposed Tax purpose FY05FY06FY07FY08 Op. & Maint. 0.32539 0.309580.292720.26836 Debt Service 0.00000 0.000000.000000.00000 Total Tax Rate $0.32539 $0.30958$0.29272$0.26836 For FY08, the market value of the average single-family home in University Park is $1,064,621, The proposed tax rate results in a 3.9% a 15.9% increase from last year’s $918,583. increase in the tax levy itself. The owner of an average home with a homestead exemption whose value did not increase in assessed value this year would pay $179 less in City taxes compared to FY07. As shown below, the owner of a home whose value increased by the citywide average would pay $134 more in City property taxes – just $11 a month. Property tax levy comparison, FY2005 – FY2008 AdoptedAdoptedAdoptedProposed FY05FY06FY07FY08 Assessed Value (Market) $737,035$816,423$918,583$1,064,621 Less 20% Hmstd Exmp (147,407)(163,285)(183,717)(212,924) Taxable Value $589,628$653,138$734,866$851,697 Tax Rate per $100 $0.32539$0.30958$0.29272$0.268836 City Tax Levy $1,918.59$2,021.96$2,151.12$2,285.59 Over the period FY05 to FY08, while the average single-family home in University Park increased 44% in market value, the City tax levy increased 18%. Of the three taxing jurisdictions within the city’s boundaries – the City, Dallas County, and HPISD -- the City portion ëç ±º ïîç comprises only about 20% of a resident’s total tax bill. The impact of the existing 10% appraisal cap is worth noting this year. Residents with a homestead exemption who owned their home last year will have an average City tax bill of $2,169 instead of $2,286, an increase of $18 instead of $134. UTILITY FUND After five years without a rate increase, staff is proposing 8% increase to the City’s water and sewer rates. This will allow the City to continue funding capital projects, like the systematic replacement of water and sewer lines, maintain the existing distribution and collection systems, and maintain adequate fund balances. The City’s policy is to maintain fund balance equivalent to at least three months of operating expenditures. Below is a table of proposed rates: Current Proposed Water base rate $8.65 $9.34 Water per 1,000 gals $2.47 $2.67 Conservation$0.68 $0.73 surcharge Sewer base rate $16.95 $18.31 Sewer per !,000 gals. $2.54 $2.74 For a household that uses 35,000 gallons of water a month during the summer, the bill would increase $9.17. A household that uses an average of 10,000 gallons of water during the winter months would pay $2.99 more per month in sewer charges. SANITATION FUND Unlike the General and Utility Funds, Sanitation Fund revenues only increase if rates are raised or the number of serviced locations increases. In prior years, the Fund routinely expended less than its budget, which allowed it to finish the year with a positive balance. The Fund is finished FY06 with a positive balance and will finish FY07 just above break-even. Consistent with past years, however, the Sanitation Budget contains a $100,000 placeholder (labeled “Disposal Fees Contingency” in the line-item budget), which is intended to allow accumulation of reserves toward future landfill needs. To maintain a positive contribution toward the fund’s reserves and keep up with rising costs, the following 10% rate changes are proposed: Current Proposed Residential $17.50 $19.25 Recycling $2.90 $3.19 Total $20.40 $22.44 The average single family household would pay $2.02 more per month for sanitation service under this proposal. ê𠱺 ïîç CONCLUSION The proposed budget is now ready for review by the Employee Benefits, Finance, and Insurance Advisory Committees. Staff has scheduled the necessary public hearings and begun publishing the official notices, according to the State Truth in Taxation law. Staff proposes the following schedule for the FY2008 budget’s adoption: Date Day Description August 7 Tuesday Submit proposed budget to City Council; vote to hold public hearing re: proposed tax rate and budget August 16 Thursday First public hearing notice appears in Park Cities News August 23 Thursday Second public hearing notice appears in News August 28 Tuesday Receive staff briefing on proposed budget Hold first public hearing re: proposed tax rate and budget; September 4 Tuesday Hold second public hearing re: proposed tax rate September 13 Thursday Notice of vote to adopt tax rate appears in News September 18 Tuesday Approve ordinances adopting budget, tax rate, salary plan October 1 Sunday New budget takes effect Staff looks forward to meeting with the City Council and advisory committees to discuss the budget in more detail. We will be happy to provide any additional information that will be helpful during your consideration. êï ±º ïîç êî ±º ïîç CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS FY2008 PROPOSED BUDGET PROPERTY TAX IMPACT 8/30/2007 (v4) FY2006FY2007FY2008 ADOPTEDADOPTEDPROPOSEDDOLLARPERCENT BUDGETBUDGETBUDGETCHANGECHANGE TOTAL TAXABLE VALUE (CERTIFIED) 4,804,267,7374,314,149,841 5,444,836,544 640,568,807$ 13.33% TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES $ 24,187,62422,172,114$ 25,420,793$ 1,233,169$ 5.10% NON PROPERTY TAX REVENUE Sales tax2,500,000$ 3,100,000$ 3,455,731$ 355,731$ 11.48% Franchise fees2,060,000 2,185,000 2,185,000 -$ 0.00% Building permits1,130,000 1,300,000 1,400,000 100,000$ 7.69% Traffic/parking fines360,000 360,000 486,000 126,000$ 35.00% Service charges414,160 474,160 474,160 -$ 0.00% Direct alarm monitoring fees514,000 540,000 589,750 49,750$ 9.21% Interest income450,000 600,000 600,000 -$ 0.00% Utility Fund contribution550,000 550,000 550,000 -$ 0.00% Miscellaneous626,906 781,760 834,563 52,803$ 6.75% TOTAL NON PROPERTY TAX REV.8,605,066$ 9,890,920$ 10,575,204$ 684,284$ 6.92% PROPERTY TAX REVENUE Operations & Maintenance (O&M) need13,355,548$ 14,063,204$ 14,611,589$ 548,385$ 3.90% Penalty/interest & attorney's fees120,000 135,000 135,000 -$ 0.00% Delinquent (prior years) taxes91,500 98,500 99,000 500$ 0.51% TOTAL PROP TAX OP REQUEST13,567,048$ 14,296,704$ 14,845,589$ 548,885$ 3.84% DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENT $ --$ -$ -$ 0.00% PROPERTY TAX RATE Operations & Maintenance (O&M)0.30958$ 0.29272$ 0.26836$ (0.02437)$ -8.32% Debt Service- - - -$ 0.00% Total Property Tax Rate per $1000.30958$ 0.29272$ 0.26836$ (0.02437)$ -8.32% IMPACT ON HOMEOWNER Average single-family market value816,423$ 918,583$ 1,064,621$ 146,038$ 15.90% Less: 20% homestead exemption(163,285) (183,717) (212,924) (29,208)$ 15.90% Average single-family taxable value653,138 734,866 851,697 116,830$ 15.90% $ 2,1512,022$ 2,286$ 134$ 6.25% Tax levy Increase in levy over prior year103 129 134 EFFECTIVE TAX RATE $ 0.2839090.297868$ 0.265693$ DIFFERENCE (PROPOSED RATE LESS ETR)0.011707$ 0.008814$ 0.002664$ EFFECTIVE TAX INCREASE3.93%3.10%1.00% 10% APPRAISAL CAP EFFECT TAXABLE VALUE BEFORE CAP734,866$ 851,697$ TAXABLE VALUE WITH 10% CAP$ 808,353 CAP LOSS$ 43,344 CAPPED TAX LEVY$ 2,169 INCREASE FROM PRIOR YEAR ($)$ 18 INCREASE FROM PRIOR YEAR (%)0.84% êí ±º ïîç CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS FY2008 PROPOSED BUDGET TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE REQUIREMENTS -- 1 OF 2 CHAPTER 102: MUNICIPAL BUDGET SECTION 003 ITEMIZED BUDGET; CONTENTS (a) Provide a comparison of expenditures in the See attached proposed budget and actual expenditures for the page. preceding year. (b) Budget must contain a complete financial statement of the municipality that shows: GeneralUtilitySanitationTotal Outstanding obligations of the municipality (1) (7/31/2007): Accounts Payable97,211 156,753 13,037 267,002 Debt-- -- Total97,211$ 156,753$ 13,037$ 267,002$ Cash on hand to the credit of each fund (2) (7/31/07): Cash(19,383) - - (19,383) TexPool50,271 400,375 236,339 686,985 TexStar838,777 1,406,801 124,191 2,369,768 TexasDaily525,592- 525,592- Total1,395,257$ 1,807,176$ 360,530$ 3,562,962$ Funds received from all sources during the (3) preceding year (FY06) $23,518,05811,466,228$ 2,540,410$ 37,524,696$ Funds available from all sources during the (4) ensuing year (FY07) Beginning of year fund balances: 5,870,41611,050,394 655,550 17,576,360 smae revenues Etitd24,500,00010,400,000 37,436,2352,536,235 Total funds available from all sources35,550,394$ 16,270,416$ 3,191,785$ 55,012,595$ Estimated revenue available to cover the (5) proposed budget: $25,420,793$11,385,033$2,926,550$39,732,376 Estimated tax rate required to cover the (6) proposed budget. $0.26836 Filename: Complete FY2008 Budget.xls Tab: State Law Summary Page 1 êì ±º ïîç Last Printed: 8/31/2007 2:31 PM CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS FY2008 PROPOSED BUDGET TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE REQUIREMENTS -- 2 OF 2 CHAPTER 102: MUNICIPAL BUDGET SECTION 003(a): ITEMIZED BUDGET; CONTENTS FY07FY07FY07FY08 ADOPTEDAMENDEDESTIMATEDPROPOSED BUDGETBUDGETACTUALBUDGET% CHANGE$ CHANGE GENERAL FUND 01-11 REVENUES 24,187,624 $24,340,509$24,550,000$25,420,7935.10%$1,233,169 TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES$24,187,624$24,340,509 $24,550,000 $25,420,793 5.10%$1,233,169 $0 $0 EXPENDITURES 01-02 EXECUTIVE 906,784 $957,302 $938,500 $1,047,301 15.50%$140,517 01-03 FINANCE 1,060,625 $1,070,625 $1,065,000 $1,106,642 4.34%$46,017 01-04 HUMAN RESOURCES 342,661 $342,661 $340,000 $310,985 -9.24% 01-05 INFORMATION SERVICES 760,751 $947,146 $940,000 $770,293 1.25%$9,542 01-10 COURT 272,132 $272,132 $268,000 $280,191 2.96%$8,059 01-19 BUILDING 748,204 $839,799 $825,000 $808,399 8.05%$60,195 01-20 ENGINEERING 901,974 $1,053,108 $1,014,000 $955,061 5.89%$53,087 01-25 TRAFFIC 849,197 $933,958 $905,000 $881,543 3.81%$32,346 01-35 FACILITY MAINTENANCE 695,567 $800,653 $795,000 $731,505 5.17%$35,938 01-40 FIRE 4,462,340 $4,543,847 $4,500,000 $4,559,363 2.17%$97,023 01-50 POLICE 5,730,453 $5,793,201 $5,750,000 $6,107,776 6.58%$377,323 01-70 PARKS 2,546,522 $2,672,772 $2,600,000 $2,645,274 3.88%$98,752 01-75 SWIMMING POOL 173,946 $188,946 $165,000 $213,449 22.71%$39,503 01-80 STREETS 1,792,422 $1,828,172 $1,810,000 $1,968,948 9.85%$176,526 01-85 TRANSFERS 2,943,871 $3,088,871$3,088,871$3,032,1873.00%$88,316 TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES$24,187,449$25,333,193 $25,004,371 $25,418,917 5.09%$1,231,468 DIFFERENCE$175$1,876 UTILITY FUND $714,838 02-11 REVENUES 10,670,195 $10,670,196$10,270,000$11,385,0330.00% $714,838 TOTAL UTILITY FUND REVENUES$10,670,195$10,670,196 $10,270,000 $11,385,033 0.00% EXPENDITURES 02-21 UTILITY OFFICE 5,987,128 $5,987,128 $5,800,000 $5,962,953 -0.40% $230,122 02-22 UTILITIES 2,975,942 $3,176,637 $3,170,000 $3,206,064 7.73% $62,082 02-85 TRANSFERS 2,069,389 $2,069,389$2,069,389$2,131,4713.00% $268,029 TOTAL UTILITY FUND EXPENDITURES$11,032,459$11,233,154 $11,039,389 $11,300,488 2.43% DIFFERENCE($362,264)$84,545 SANITATION FUND 04-11 REVENUES2,660,500$2,660,500$2,580,000$2,926,55010.00%$266,050 TOTAL SANITATION FUND REVENUES$2,660,500$2,660,500$2,580,000$2,926,55010.00%$266,050 EXPENDITURES 04-60 SANITATION2,659,860$2,697,469$2,623,000$2,857,9287.45%$198,068 TOTAL SANITATION FUND EXPENDITURES$2,659,860$2,697,469$2,570,000$2,857,9287.45%$198,068 DIFFERENCE$640$10,00$68,622 0 TOTAL REVENUES$37,518,319$37,671,205 $37,400,000 $39,732,376 5.90%$2,214,057 TOTAL EXPENDITURES$37,879,768 $39,263,816 $38,613,760 $39,577,333 4.48%$1,697,565 DIFFERENCE($361,449)$155,043 Filename: Complete FY2008 Budget.xls Tab: State Law Summary Page 2 êë ±º ïîç Last Printed: 8/31/2007 2:31 PM AGENDA MEMO (09/04/2007 AGENDA) ÜßÌÛæ ß«¹«¬ îèô îððé ÌÑæ ر²±®¿¾´» Ó¿§±® ¿²¼ Ý·¬§ ݱ«²½·´ ÚÎÑÓæ Ø¿®®§ л®¿«¼ô ÓÎÌÐ×ô ß×ÝÐô ݱ³³«²·¬§ Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ Ó¿²¿¹»® ÍËÞÖÛÝÌæ ݱ²·¼»® ¿°°±·²¬·²¹ ¿ Þ«·´¼»® ݱ³³·¬¬»» ¬± ©±®µ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» ݱ²«´¬¿²¬ ·² ®»ª·»©·²¹ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ·«» ·² ¬¸» Í·²¹´» ¿²¼ Ó«´¬· Ú¿³·´§ Ü·¬®·½¬ò Background/Analysis: Ѳ ß°®·´ íô îððéô Ý·¬§ ݱ«²½·´ ¿°°®±ª»¼ ¬¸» ͽ±°» ±º Í»®ª·½» º±® Ü¿² Í»ºµ± ¿²¼ ß±½·¿¬» ¬± ®»ª·»© ¿²¼ ³¿µ» ®»½±³³»²¼¿¬·±² º±® «°¼¿¬·²¹ ¬¸» ½«®®»²¬ ¾«·´¼·²¹ ¿²¼ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ¬¿²¼¿®¼ ·² ¬¸» Í·²¹´» Ú¿³·´§ ¿²¼ Ó«´¬· Ú¿³·´§ Ʊ²·²¹ Ü·¬®·½¬ò ß °¿®¬ ±º ¬¸¿¬ ®»ª·»© °®±½»ô ¬¿ºº · °®±°±·²¹ ¬± ·²½±®°±®¿¬» ¬¸» °¿®¬·½·°¿¬·±² ¿²¼ ·²°«¬ º®±³ ¿ Þ«·´¼»® ͬ»»®·²¹ ݱ³³·¬¬»»ò ײ ¿¼¼·¬·±² ¬± ¬¸· ݱ³³·¬¬»»ô ¬¸» ½±²«´¬¿²¬ ©·´´ ¿´± ©±®µ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» Ʊ²·²¹ Ñ®¼·²¿²½» ß¼ª·±®§ ݱ³³·¬¬»» øÆÑßÝ÷ ¿²¼ ¬¸» д¿²²·²¹ ¿²¼ Ʊ²·²¹ ݱ³³··±² ¾»º±®» º·²¿´ ®»½±³³»²¼¿¬·±² ¿®» º±®©¿®¼»¼ ¬± Ý·¬§ ݱ«²½·´ò Recommendation ͬ¿ºº · ®»½±³³»²¼·²¹ ¬¸» ¿°°±·²¬³»²¬ ±º ¬¸» º±´´±©·²¹ Þ«·´¼»®æ Í·²¹´» Ú¿³·´§ ݱ²¬®«½¬·±²æ øï÷ Ù¿¹» Ю·¬½¸¿®¼ øî÷ Ù»±®¹» Ô»©· øí÷ Ϋ¬§ Ù±´º Ó«´¬· Ú¿³·´§ ݱ²¬®«½¬·±² øï÷ η½¸¿®¼ Ó»¿² øî÷ ܱ² Ù¿´» øí÷ Ó¿¬¬ Ú®¿²µ´·² Attachments: ͽ±°» ±º Í»®ª·½» ïðì ±º ïîç SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND PREPARATION OF A SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND RELATED SERVICES City of University Park, Texas TASK 1 - PROJECT ORIENTATION/ISSUE IDENTIFICATION ̸» °«®°±» ±º ¬¸· ¬¿µ · ¬± »²«®» ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» º±®¬¸½±³·²¹ ©±®µ °®±¹®¿³ · ±®¹¿²·¦»¼ °®±°»®´§ ¿²¼ ®»´»ª¿²¬ ·«» ¿®» ·¼»²¬·º·»¼ ±² ¬¸» ±«¬»¬ ©¸·½¸ ³«¬ ¾» ¿¼¼®»»¼ ·² ¿³»²¼·²¹ ¬¸» Ʊ²·²¹ ¿²¼ Í«¾¼·ª··±² Ñ®¼·²¿²½»ò ̸» ݱ²«´¬¿²¬ · ¿´®»¿¼§ º¿³·´·¿® ©·¬¸ ±³» ±º ¬¸» ·«» ·¼»²¬·º·»¼ ©·¬¸·² ¬¸» Ý·¬§ô ¾«¬ ¬¸»®» ³¿§ ¾» ±¬¸»® ½±³³«²·¬§ ·«» ©¸·½¸ ¿´± ²»»¼ ¬± ¾» ¿¼¼®»»¼ò ̸» ݱ²«´¬¿²¬ ©·´´ ¬®«½¬«®» ¿² ±®·»²¬¿¬·±² ³»»¬·²¹ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» Ý·¬§ò ̸» ±®·»²¬¿¬·±² ³»»¬·²¹ ©·´´ ¾» ½±²¼«½¬»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» ݱ²«´¬¿²¬ ¬± º·²¿´·¦»ô ±® ³¿µ» ¿²§ ²»½»¿®§ ®»º·²»³»²¬ ¬± ¬¸» Ʊ²·²¹ Ñ®¼·²¿²½» ¿³»²¼³»²¬ °®±½» ¿²¼ ¬¸» Í«¾¼·ª··±² Ñ®¼·²¿²½»ò ̸» °®»´·³·²¿®§ ¿³»²¼³»²¬ °®±½» · ±«¬´·²»¼ ·² ¬¸· ½±°» ±º »®ª·½»ò ̸» °®±½» ³«¬ ¾» ½´»¿®´§ ¼·ª·¼»¼ ·²¬± µ»§ °¸¿» ¿²¼ ·²½±®°±®¿¬» ¿² ·²°«¬ °®±½» ©¸·½¸ · »¿·´§ «²¼»®¬±±¼ ¾§ ¬¸» °«¾´·½ò ̸» ±®·»²¬¿¬·±² ³»»¬·²¹ ©·´´ ¿´´±© ¿ º±®«³ º±® ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ¿²¼ ¬¸» ݱ²«´¬¿²¬ ¬± º¿³·´·¿®·¦» »¿½¸ ±¬¸»® ©·¬¸ ¬¸» »¨°»½¬¿¬·±² º±® ¬¸» °®±¶»½¬ò ߬ ¬¸» ½±²½´«·±² ±º ¬¸· ¬¿µô ¿²§ ®»º·²»³»²¬ ¬± ¬¸» ½±°» ±º »®ª·½» ½¿² ¾» ³¿¼» ¬± ¿¼¼®» °»½·º·½ ·«» ·¼»²¬·º·»¼ ¼«®·²¹ ¬¸· ¬¿µò ß¼¼·¬·±²¿´ ®»º·²»³»²¬ ³¿§ ¾» ²»»¼»¼ ¬± ¿¼¼®» ·«» ·¼»²¬·º·»¼ ´¿¬»® ·² ¬¸» «°¼¿¬» °®±½»ò TASK 2 - PROJECT SCHEDULING AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ײ ½±²¶«²½¬·±² ©·¬¸ Ì¿µ ïô ±® ·³³»¼·¿¬»´§ º±´´±©·²¹ô ¿ °®±¶»½¬ ½¸»¼«´» ¸±«´¼ ¾» ¼»ª»´±°»¼ò ߺ¬»® ¬¸» ±®·»²¬¿¬·±² ³»»¬·²¹ô ©» ©·´´ ¸¿ª» ¿² «²¼»®¬¿²¼·²¹ ±º ©¸¿¬ ¸±«´¼ ¾» ¿½¸·»ª»¼ º®±³ ¬¸» ½±³³«²·¬§ù ±ª»®¿´´ ±¾¶»½¬·ª»ò Þ¿»¼ ±² ¬¸»» °®±½»»¼·²¹ô ¿ °«¾´·½ °¿®¬·½·°¿¬·±² °®±¹®¿³ ©·´´ ¾» »¬¿¾´·¸»¼ò Ù»²»®¿´´§ô ¬¸» ¾»¬ ¿°°®±¿½¸ · ¬± ·²½±®°±®¿¬» ¬¸®»» þ´»ª»´þ ±º ·²°«¬ ·²¬± ¬¸» °®±½»ò Ѳ» ´»ª»´ ±º ®»ª·»© ¿²¼ ·²°«¬ · ¿½¸·»ª»¼ ¿¬ ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ¬¿ºº ´»ª»´ò ̸»§ ½¿² °®±ª·¼» ³«½¸ ¾¿½µ¹®±«²¼ ¿²¼ ±¬¸»® ¼»¬¿·´»¼ ·²º±®³¿¬·±² ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸»§ ³±²·¬±® ±² ¿ ¼¿§ó¬±ó¼¿§ ¾¿·ò É» ©±«´¼ ¿²¬·½·°¿¬» »¨¬»²·ª» ·²¬»®¿½¬·±² ¿²¼ °¿®¬·½·°¿¬·±² ¾§ ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ¬¿ºº ¬¸®±«¹¸±«¬ ¬¸» °®±¶»½¬ò ̸» »½±²¼ ´»ª»´ ±º ®»ª·»© ±½½«® ¬¸®±«¹¸ ½±³³·¬¬»» ¿²¼ »´»½¬»¼ ±ºº·½·¿´ô «½¸ ¿ ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ݱ«²½·´ò ׬ · «²¼»®¬±±¼ ¬¸¿¬ ¿ þͬ»»®·²¹ ݱ³³·¬¬»»þ ¸¿ ¿´®»¿¼§ ¾»»² »¬¿¾´·¸»¼ò ׬ · «¹¹»¬»¼ ¬¸» ݱ²«´¬¿²¬ «¬·´·¦» ¬¸· »¨·¬·²¹ ͬ»»®·²¹ ݱ³³·¬¬»» ¬± ©±®µ ©·¬¸ Ý·¬§ ¬¿ºº ¿²¼ ¬¸» ݱ²«´¬¿²¬ ·² °®»°¿®·²¹ ®»ª··±² ¬± ¬¸» Ʊ²·²¹ Ñ®¼·²¿²½» ¿²¼ °®»°¿®¿¬·±² ±º ¬¸» Í«¾¼·ª··±² Ñ®¼·²¿²½»ò ïðë ±º ïîç ̸» ¬¸·®¼ ´»ª»´ · ·²°«¬ ¾§ ·²¬»®»¬»¼ ½·¬·¦»² ¿²¼ °®±°»®¬§ ±©²»® ±º ˲·ª»®·¬§ п®µò ߬ »ª»®¿´ °±·²¬ ¼«®·²¹ ¬¸» «°¼¿¬» ±º ¬¸» Ʊ²·²¹ ¿²¼ Í«¾¼·ª··±² Ñ®¼·²¿²½»ô ·¬ ©·´´ô ·² ½»®¬¿·² ·²¬¿²½»ô ¾» ¼»·®¿¾´» ø¿²¼ ·² ±¬¸»® ·²¬¿²½» ¾» ®»¯«·®»¼÷ ¬± ¸¿ª» °«¾´·½ ¸»¿®·²¹ ±® ©±®µ¸±° ¬¸¿¬ ·²¬»®»¬»¼ °»±°´» ½¿² ¿¬¬»²¼ ¿²¼ ¼«®·²¹ ©¸·½¸ ¬¸»§ ½¿² °®±ª·¼» ·²°«¬ò ̸» °«®°±» ±º ¬¸· ¬¿µ ©·´´ ¾» ¬± º·²¿´·¦» ±® ¿¼¶«¬ ¬¸» ©±®µ °®±¹®¿³ »´»³»²¬ô ¬¸» ½¸»¼«´·²¹ô «²¼»®¬¿µ» ¿²§ ¿°°®±°®·¿¬» ¾¿½µ¹®±«²¼ ®»»¿®½¸ô ¿²¼ ¬¸» ½·¬·¦»² ±® ¼»ª»´±°»® °¿®¬·½·°¿¬·±² °±·²¬ ¬¸®±«¹¸±«¬ ¬¸» °®±½»ò Ѳ½» ¬¸· · ¿¹®»»¼ «°±² ¾§ ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ¿²¼ ¬¸» ݱ²«´¬¿²¬ô ¿ ³»³±®¿²¼«³ ©·´´ ¾» °®»°¿®»¼ ©¸·½¸ »¨°´¿·² ¬¸» °®±½» º±® °®±¼«½·²¹ ¬¸» Ʊ²·²¹ ¿²¼ Í«¾¼·ª··±² Ñ®¼·²¿²½» ¿³»²¼³»²¬ò ̸· ³»³±®¿²¼«³ ©·´´ ¾» «·¬¿¾´» º±® ¼·¬®·¾«¬·±² ¬± ¬¸» °«¾´·½ô ²»© ³»¼·¿ ¿²¼ ±¬¸»® ·²¬»®»¬»¼ ·² ¬¸· °®±¶»½¬ò ׬ · ·³°±®¬¿²¬ º±® ¬¸» °«¾´·½ô ¿ ©»´´ ¿ ¬¸» ³»¼·¿ô ¬± «²¼»®¬¿²¼ ¬¸» °®±½»ò É» ¸¿ª» º±«²¼ ¬¸¿¬ ·º ¬¸»» »²¬·¬·» ¿®» ·²½´«¼»¼ ±® ·²º±®³»¼ ·² ¬¸» ¾»¹·²²·²¹ô °«¾´·½ °»®½»°¬·±² · ³±®» °±·¬·ª»ò ׺ ·¬ · ¼»¬»®³·²»¼ ¬¸¿¬ ·¬»³ ·³°±®¬¿²¬ ¬± ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ¸±«´¼ ¾» ¿¼¼®»»¼ ·³³»¼·¿¬»´§ô ¬¸±» ·¬»³ ½¿² ¾» ¿¼¼®»»¼ ¼«®·²¹ ¬¸· ¬¿µò ̸» ݱ²«´¬¿²¬ ©·´´ °®±ª·¼» °®»´·³·²¿®§ ½±³³»²¬ ±® ®»½±³³»²¼¿¬·±² ±² ¬¸±» ·¬»³ò TASK 3 - PREPARATION OF DRAFT ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS Þ¿»¼ «°±² ¬¸» ·²°«¬ ¿²¼ ®»«´¬ ±º Ì¿µ ï ¿²¼ îô ¬¸» ݱ²«´¬¿²¬ ©·´´ °®»°¿®» ®»½±³³»²¼»¼ ¿³»²¼³»²¬ ¬± ¬¸» Ʊ²·²¹ Ñ®¼·²¿²½»ò ̸» Ý·¬§? »¨·¬·²¹ Ʊ²·²¹ Ñ®¼·²¿²½» · ±®¹¿²·¦»¼ ·²¬± ¬¸» º±´´±©·²¹ ¿®¬·½´»æ ß®¬·½´» ï ó Ù»²»®¿´ Ю±ª··±² ß®¬·½´» î ? Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ λª·»© Þ±¼·» ß®¬·½´» í ? Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ λª·»© Ю±½»¼«®» ß®¬·½´» ì ? Ü·¬®·½¬ λ¹«´¿¬·±² ß®¬·½´» ë ? Ù»²»®¿´ Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ ͬ¿²¼¿®¼ ß®¬·½´» ê ? Ò±²½±²º±®³·¬·» ß®¬·½´» é ? Û²º±®½»³»²¬ ß®¬·½´» è ? Ü»º·²·¬·±² Ó±¬ ±º ¬¸» ®»·¼»²¬·¿´ ¿°°»¿®¿²½» ¬¿²¼¿®¼ ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ¸¿ ·² °´¿½» ¿®» ·² ß®¬·½´» ì øÜ·¬®·½¬ λ¹«´¿¬·±²÷ ¿²¼ ß®¬·½´» ë øÙ»²»®¿´ Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ ͬ¿²¼¿®¼÷ò ß´¬¸±«¹¸ ±³» ¿³»²¼³»²¬ ³¿§ ¾» «¹¹»¬»¼ ¬± ±¬¸»® ¿®¬·½´» ³±¬ ±º ¬¸» ¿³»²¼³»²¬ ©·´´ ¾» ¬± ß®¬·½´» ì ¿²¼ ëò ̸» °®±°±»¼ Ʊ²·²¹ Ñ®¼·²¿²½» ¿³»²¼³»²¬ ©·´´ ·²½´«¼» ±® ¿¼¼®» ø¾«¬ ²±¬ ²»½»¿®·´§ ¾» ´·³·¬»¼ ¬±÷ ¬¸» º±´´±©·²¹ ¿ ¬¸»§ ®»´¿¬» ¬± ®»·¼»²¬·¿´ ½±²¬®«½¬·±²ò λ·¼»²¬·¿´ ±® ³«´¬·óº¿³·´§ ¼·¬®·½¬ ©·¬¸ ¼·¬®·½¬ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ¬¿²¼¿®¼ ±® °»®º±®³¿²½» ¬¿²¼¿®¼ Ü»º·²·¬·±² ø²»© ±® ®»ª·»¼÷ ïðê ±º ïîç Ë» ½¸¿®¬ ø²»© ±® ¼»´»¬»¼ «»÷ Í·¬» °´¿² ®»ª·»© ®»¯«·®»³»²¬ ¿²¼ °®±½»¼«®» д¿²²»¼ Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ °®±½» ¿²¼ ¬¿²¼¿®¼ Þ«·´¼·²¹ ¿®¬·½«´¿¬·±² ¬¿²¼¿®¼ øº®±²¬ ú ·¼»÷ Þ«·´¼·²¹ ¸»·¹¸¬ ß½½»±®§ «» ¬¿²¼¿®¼ ᬻ²¬·¿´ º±® ·²²±ª¿¬·ª» ¬¿²¼¿®¼ô ·²½»²¬·ª» ¿²¼ ¾±²« ¬¿²¼¿®¼ ͬ¿²¼¿®¼ ¬± »²«®» ½±³°¿¬·¾·´·¬§ ©·¬¸ »¨·¬·²¹ ²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ ±® ¸±³» ͽ®»»²·²¹ñ¾«ºº»®·²¹ ®»¯«·®»³»²¬ô »¬½ò ×´´«¬®¿¬·±² ø²»© ±® ®»ª·»¼÷ п®µ·²¹ ®»¯«·®»³»²¬ º±® ³«´¬· º¿³·´§ ø²«³¾»® ±º °¿½»ô ¼»·¹² ¬¿²¼¿®¼ô »¬½ò÷ λª·»¼ ±® ²»© º»²½» ¬¿²¼¿®¼ Ü®·ª»©¿§ ¬¿²¼¿®¼ Í°»½·¿´ ±® «°°´»³»²¬¿´ ®»¯«·®»³»²¬ б´·½·» ¿²¼ °®±½»¼«®» º±® ²±²½±²º±®³·²¹ «» ߺ¬»® ¬¸» ®»½±³³»²¼»¼ ¼®¿º¬ Ñ®¼·²¿²½» ¿³»²¼³»²¬ ¸¿ª» ¾»»² °®»°¿®»¼ô ¬¸» ݱ²«´¬¿²¬ ©·´´ ³»»¬ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ¬¿ºº ¬± ¼·½« ¬¸» ½±²¬»²¬ ±º ¬¸» ¼®¿º¬ ¿²¼ º«²½¬·±²¿´ ±°¬·±²ò ߺ¬»® ³«¬«¿´ ¿¹®»»³»²¬ ¸¿ ¾»»² ®»¿½¸»¼ ®»¹¿®¼·²¹ ¬¸» ·¬»³ ¿²¼ »´»³»²¬ ¬± ¾» ·²½±®°±®¿¬»¼ Ñ®¼·²¿²½» º±®³¿¬ô ¬¸» ®»½±³³»²¼»¼ ¼®¿º¬ Ñ®¼·²¿²½» ¿³»²¼³»²¬ ½¿² ¬¸»² ¾» °®»»²¬»¼ ¬± ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ݱ«²½·´ò ׬ · «¹¹»¬»¼ ¬¸¿¬ ©±®µ¸±° ¾» ½¸»¼«´»¼ º±® ·²º±®³¿´ ®»ª·»© ±º ¬¸» °®±°±»¼ ¿³»²¼³»²¬ò ߬ ¬¸»» ©±®µ¸±°ô ¬¸» ݱ²«´¬¿²¬ ½¿² °®»»²¬ ¬¸» ´±¹·½ ¿²¼ ®»¿±² º±® ¬¸» ª¿®·±« ¼·¬®·½¬ô ¬¿²¼¿®¼ô ¿²¼ °®±½»¼«®» ®»¯«·®»³»²¬ò TASK 4 – PREPARATION OF THE DRAFT SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE ß´¬¸±«¹¸ ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ½«®®»²¬´§ ¸¿ ±³» °´¿¬¬·²¹ ®»¯«·®»³»²¬ øº±® ¿³»²¼·²¹ ¿²¼ ®»°´¿¬÷ ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ¼±» ²±¬ ¸¿ª» ¿ Í«¾¼·ª··±² Ñ®¼·²¿²½»?ò ׬ · ®»½±³³»²¼»¼ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ¿¼±°¬ ¿ ³±®» ½±³°´»¬» »¬ ±º ®«´» º±® «¾¼·ª··±²ò Þ¿»¼ «°±² ½±³³«²·¬§ ±¾¶»½¬·ª» ¿²¼ ¼»·®»¼ °´¿¬¬·²¹ ¿²¼ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ®»ª·»© °®±½»¼«®»ô ¬¸» ݱ²«´¬¿²¬ ©·´´ °®»°¿®» ¿ ¼®¿º¬ Í«¾¼·ª··±² Ñ®¼·²¿²½»ò ̸» ݱ²«´¬¿²¬ ¸¿ º±«²¼ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» º±´´±©·²¹ Ñ®¼·²¿²½» ¼·ª··±² ¿®» ¹»²»®¿´´§ »ºº»½¬·ª»æ Ù»²»®¿´ Ю±ª··±²æ ß«¬¸±®·¬§ô ®»´¿¬·±²¸·° ¬± ¬¸» Ʊ²·²¹ Ñ®¼·²¿²½»å ®»´¿¬·±²¸·° ¬± ±¬¸»® ®»¹«´¿¬·±² ¿²¼ ¬¸» Ý·¬§? »¨·¬·²¹ ¼»·¹² ¬¿²¼¿®¼ º±® °«¾´·½ ·³°®±ª»³»²¬å ®»°±²·¾·´·¬·» ±º ±ºº·½·¿´ ¿²¼ ¾±¿®¼ ·² ¿°°®±ª·²¹ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ¿°°´·½¿¬·±²å ¼»º·²·¬·±²å ·²½±®°±®¿¬·±² ±º Í«¾½¸¿°¬»® Þ ±º ݸ¿°¬»® îïî ±º ¬¸» Ì»¨¿ Ô±½¿´ Ù±ª»®²³»²¬ ݱ¼» ¿²¼ ³·½»´´¿²»±« ¹»²»®¿´ °®±ª··±²ò ïðé ±º ïîç Í«¾¼·ª··±² Ü»·¹² ͬ¿²¼¿®¼æ ͬ¿²¼¿®¼ º±® ¬¸» ´¿§±«¬ ¿²¼ ¼»·¹² ±º ¬®»»¬ ø·²½´«¼·²¹ ¬¸» ¼»ª»´±°»®? º¿·® ¸¿®» ±º °»®·³»¬»® ®±¿¼ ¿²¼ «¬·´·¬·»ô °®±ª··±² º±® ¬®¿ºº·½ ·³°¿½¬ ¿²¿´§·ô ¿²¼ ®«´» º±® °®·ª¿¬» ¬®»»¬ «¾¼·ª··±²÷ô ´±¬ ¿²¼ ¾´±½µô ¿´´»§ ø·º ½±²¬®«½¬»¼÷ô »¿»³»²¬ô ·¹¸¬ ª··¾·´·¬§ »¿»³»²¬ô ·¼»©¿´µô ¾«·´¼·²¹ ´·²»ô «¬·´·¬§ º¿½·´·¬·»ô ¬±®³ ¼®¿·²¿¹» º¿½·´·¬·» ¿²¼ ©¿¬»® ¯«¿´·¬§ º»¿¬«®»ô ¬®»»¬ ·¹² ¿²¼ ´·¹¸¬·²¹ô ¾¿»³»²¬ ¼»·¹²ô ½®»»²·²¹ ¿´¬»®²¿¬·ª»ô ®»¬¿·²·²¹ ©¿´´ô ³±²«³»²¬¿¬·±²ô »¬½ò Ü»·¹² Í°»½·º·½¿¬·±² º±® ͬ®»»¬ пª·²¹ ¿²¼ Ѭ¸»® Ы¾´·½ ׳°®±ª»³»²¬æ ̸· °±®¬·±² ·²½´«¼» ¬¿²¼¿®¼ º±® ¬¸» ¿½¬«¿´ ¼»·¹² ¿²¼ ½±²¬®«½¬·±² ±º ¬®»»¬ ¿²¼ ±¬¸»® ®»¯«·®»¼ ·¬» ·³°®±ª»³»²¬ º±® ¬¸» «¾¼·ª··±² ·²½´«¼·²¹ ¿´¬»®²¿¬·ª» °¿ª·²¹ ³¿¬»®·¿´ò ß ®»ª·»© ©·´´ ¾» ½±²¼«½¬»¼ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§? »¨·¬·²¹ ®»¯«·®»³»²¬ ¬± ¼»¬»®³·²» ·º ¿²§ ®»ª··±² ¿®» ²»½»¿®§ò Ì·³·²¹ ±º ¬¸» ݱ²¬®«½¬·±² ±º ͬ®»»¬ ¿²¼ Ѭ¸»® Ы¾´·½ ׳°®±ª»³»²¬æ ײ ¬¸· ¼·ª··±²ô ¬¸» ¬·³·²¹ º±® ¬¸» ½±²¬®«½¬·±² ±º ·³°®±ª»³»²¬ · »¬¿¾´·¸»¼ô ¿²¼ °»®º±®³¿²½» ½±²¬®±´ ¿®» ·²½´«¼»¼ ¬± »²«®» ¬¸¿¬ ª»®¬·½¿´ ½±²¬®«½¬·±² ±º ¾«·´¼·²¹ ¼±» ²±¬ ¹»¬ ¬±± º¿® ¿¸»¿¼ ±º ½±³°´»¬·±² ±º »»²¬·¿´ °«¾´·½ »®ª·½» ¿²¼ º¿½·´·¬·»ò λ¯«·®»³»²¬ º±® ß½½»°¬¿²½» ±º Í«¾¼·ª··±² ¾§ ¬¸» Ý·¬§æ ̸· ¼·ª··±² ·²½´«¼» °®±ª··±² º±® »²«®·²¹ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» ¼»ª»´±°»® ±® ¾«·´¼»® º·²·¸» ¬¸» ®»¯«·®»¼ °«¾´·½ ·³°®±ª»³»²¬ ø·º ¿°°´·½¿¾´»÷ ·² ¿ ¬·³»´§ º¿¸·±²ô ¿²¼ ©¸¿¬ ¬± ¼± ·º ¬¸· ¼±» ²±¬ ±½½«®ò ׬ ¿´± ·²½´«¼» º±®³ ±º «®»¬§ ø¿«®¿²½»÷ ¬¸¿¬ ¿ ¼»ª»´±°»® ³¿§ ½¸±±» ¬± «» º±® ½»®¬¿·² °«¾´·½ ·³°®±ª»³»²¬ ¬¸¿¬ ©·´´ ²±¬ô º±® ®»¿±² ¿½½»°¬¿¾´» ¬± ¬¸» Ý·¬§ô ¾» ½±²¬®«½¬»¼ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» «¾¼·ª··±²ò д¿¬¬·²¹ñÜ»ª»´±°³»²¬ Ю±½»¼«®»æ ̸· ¼·ª··±² »¬ º±®¬¸ ¾±¬¸ ¹»²»®¿´ °®±ª··±² ¿°°´·½¿¾´» ¬± ¿´´ °´¿¬¬·²¹ñ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ¿°°´·½¿¬·±²ô «½¸ ¿ ²±¬·½» ¿²¼ ¸»¿®·²¹ ®»¯«·®»³»²¬ô ¿²¼ ¬¸» °®±½»¼«®¿´ ¬»° º±® ¿°°®±ª¿´ ±º °»½·º·½ ¬§°» ±º °´¿¬ò ̧°·½¿´´§ ·²½´«¼»¼ ¿®» »½¬·±² °»®¬¿·²·²¹ ¬± ©¸¿¬ ½±²¬·¬«¬» ¿ ½±³°´»¬»? ¿°°´·½¿¬·±²ô ©¸»² ¬¸» ¬¿¬«¬±®§ íð󼿧 ¿°°®±ª¿´ °»®·±¼ ¾»¹·² ¬± ®«²ô °®±ª··±² º±® »¨°·®¿¬·±² ±º ¼±®³¿²¬ °´¿¬ô ©¿·ª»®ñ«°»²·±² ±º ½»®¬¿·² «¾¼·ª··±² ®«´»ô ¿°°»¿´ ¿²¼ ±¬¸»® ·³·´¿® ·¬»³ò ߺ¬»® ¬¸» ¼®¿º¬ Í«¾¼·ª··±² Ñ®¼·²¿²½» ¸¿ ¾»»² °®»°¿®»¼ô ¬¸» ݱ²«´¬¿²¬ ©·´´ ³»»¬ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ¬¿ºº ¬± ¼·½« ¬¸» ½±²¬»²¬ ±º ¬¸» ¼®¿º¬ ¿²¼ º«²½¬·±²¿´ ±°¬·±²ò ߺ¬»® ³«¬«¿´ ¿¹®»»³»²¬ ¸¿ ¾»»² ®»¿½¸»¼ ®»¹¿®¼·²¹ ¬¸» ·¬»³ ¿²¼ »´»³»²¬ ¬± ¾» ·²½±®°±®¿¬»¼ ·² ¬¸» ²»© Ñ®¼·²¿²½»ô ¬¸» ®»½±³³»²¼»¼ ¼®¿º¬ Ñ®¼·²¿²½» ©·´´ ¾» °®»»²¬»¼ ¬± ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ݱ«²½·´ò ׬ · «¹¹»¬»¼ ¬¸¿¬ ©±®µ¸±° ¾» ½¸»¼«´»¼ º±® ·²º±®³¿´ ®»ª·»© ±º ¬¸» ¼®¿º¬ ¬»¨¬ò ߬ ¬¸»» ©±®µ¸±°ô ¬¸» ݱ²«´¬¿²¬ ½¿² °®»»²¬ ¬¸» ´±¹·½ ¿²¼ ®»¿±² º±® ¬¸» ª¿®·±« °®±ª··±² ·² ¬¸» Í«¾¼·ª··±² Ñ®¼·²¿²½»ò ̸» °®±¼«½¬ ±º ¬¸· ¬¿µ · ¿ ½±³°´»¬» ¼®¿º¬ ±º ¿ ²»© Í«¾¼·ª··±² Ñ®¼·²¿²½»ò TASK 5 - PUBLIC WORKSHOPS ׬ ©·´´ ´·µ»´§ ¾» ²»½»¿®§ ¬± ¸±´¼ °«¾´·½ ©±®µ¸±° ©·¬¸ °»®±² º®±³ ¬¸» ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ½±³³«²·¬§ ¿²¼ ·²¬»®»¬»¼ °®±°»®¬§ ±©²»®ô ¿ ©»´´ ¿ ¬¸» ¹»²»®¿´ °«¾´·½ ¬± º¿³·´·¿®·¦» ¬¸»³ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» °®±°±»¼ ïðè ±º ïîç ¿³»²¼³»²¬ ¿²¼ñ±® Ñ®¼·²¿²½»ò ̸» °®±°±»¼ ¬»¨¬ ¼±½«³»²¬ ½¿² ¾» ®»°®±¼«½»¼ ¿²¼ ¼·¬®·¾«¬»¼ °®·±® ¬± ¬¸»» ©±®µ¸±° ·º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ± ¼»·®»ò ̸»» ©±®µ¸±° ¸±«´¼ ¾» «²¼»®¬¿µ»² °®·±® ¬± ¬¸» ®»¯«·®»¼ °«¾´·½ ¸»¿®·²¹ ¬± ¿ª±·¼ ¼»´¿§ ¿º¬»® ¬¸» °«¾´·½ ¸»¿®·²¹ °®±½» · ·²·¬·¿¬»¼ ¿²¼ ½±±®¼·²¿¬»¼ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» ³»¼·¿ô ½¿¾´»ô ±® ±¬¸»® °«¾´·½ó¿½½» ³»½¸¿²·³ò ïðç ±º ïîç TASK 6 - TEXT REVISIONS FOR PRODUCTION OF THE FINAL DRAFTS Þ¿»¼ «°±² ¬¸» ·²°«¬ ¿²¼ ¹«·¼¿²½» º®±³ ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ª·¿ ¬¸» °«¾´·½ ©±®µ¸±°ô ·¬ · »¨°»½¬»¼ ¬¸¿¬ ®»ª··±² ©·´´ ¾» ²»½»¿®§ ¬± ¬¸» º·®¬ ¼®¿º¬ ¼±½«³»²¬ò ̸» ¬®¿¬»¹·» º±® ¬®»¿¬³»²¬ ±º ²±²½±²º±®³·¬·» ¿´± ©·´´ ¾» ·²½±®°±®¿¬»¼ ·²¬± ¬¸» Ñ®¼·²¿²½»ò ̸» ݱ²«´¬¿²¬ ©·´´ °®»°¿®» ¬¸» ®»½±³³»²¼»¼ º·²¿´ ¼®¿º¬ ¼±½«³»²¬ ·²½±®°±®¿¬·²¹ ¬¸» ¿°°®±°®·¿¬» ®»ª··±² ¿ ®»½±³³»²¼»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» ͬ»»®·²¹ ݱ³³·¬¬»» ¿²¼ Ý·¬§ ݱ«²½·´ò ׬ · ¿²¬·½·°¿¬»¼ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸»» ©·´´ ¾» ¬¸» ¼®¿º¬ ¼±½«³»²¬ «·¬¿¾´» º±® °®»»²¬¿¬·±² °®·±® ¬± ¬¸» °«¾´·½ ¸»¿®·²¹ ¿ ®»¯«·®»¼ ¾§ ͬ¿¬» ´¿©ò ̸» ݱ²«´¬¿²¬ ©·´´ô ·º ®»¯«»¬»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» Ý·¬§ô ¿·¬ ·² °®»°¿®·²¹ °«¾´·½ ¸»¿®·²¹ ²±¬·½» º±® ¿¼ª»®¬··²¹ ¬¸» °«¾´·½ ¸»¿®·²¹ò ر©»ª»®ô ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ©·´´ ¾» ®»°±²·¾´» º±® ¿½¬«¿´ °«¾´·½¿¬·±² ¿²¼ ³¿·´·²¹ ±º °«¾´·½ ¸»¿®·²¹ ²±¬·½» ·² ¿½½±®¼¿²½» ©·¬¸ ͬ¿¬» ´¿©ò TASK 7 - PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE FINAL DRAFT ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE ߺ¬»® ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ݱ«²½·´ ¿²¼ ͬ»»®·²¹ ݱ³³·¬¬»» ¸¿ª» ¸¿¼ ¿² ±°°±®¬«²·¬§ ¬± ®»ª·»© ¿´´ ¿°»½¬ ±º ¬¸» °®±°±»¼ ¿³»²¼³»²¬ ¿²¼ Ñ®¼·²¿²½»ô ¬¸» °«¾´·½ ¸»¿®·²¹ ½¿² ¾» ¸»´¼ò ̸» ݱ²«´¬¿²¬ ©·´´ ¾» °®»»²¬ ¿¬ ¬¸» °«¾´·½ ¸»¿®·²¹ ¬± »¨°´¿·² ¬¸» ²»© Ñ®¼·²¿²½» ¿²¼ ¬± ¿²©»® ¯«»¬·±²ò ߺ¬»® ¬¸» °«¾´·½ ¸»¿®·²¹ ¿®» ¸»´¼ô ¬¸» ݱ²«´¬¿²¬ ©·´´ ·²½±®°±®¿¬» ¿²§ ®»½±³³»²¼»¼ ½¸¿²¹» ·²¬± ¬¸» º·²¿´ ¼®¿º¬ ¼±½«³»²¬ò Ú·²¿´ þ½¿³»®¿ ®»¿¼§þ ¼±½«³»²¬ô ¿ ¿°°®±ª»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ݱ«²½·´ô ©·´´ «¾»¯«»²¬´§ ¾» ¼»´·ª»®»¼ ¬± ¬¸» Ý·¬§ò ̸» ¬»¨¬ ¼±½«³»²¬ ©·´´ ¾» ¼»´·ª»®»¼ ·² ¸¿®¼ ½±°§ ¿²¼ »´»½¬®±²·½ º±®³¿¬ò ïï𠱺 ïîç COMPENSATION FOR ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS AND PREPARATION OF A SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND RELATED SERVICES City of University Park, Texas ßò Ú±® »®ª·½» ¬± °®»°¿®» ¿³»²¼³»²¬ ¬± ¬¸» Ʊ²·²¹ Ñ®¼·²¿²½» ¿²¼ °®»°¿®¿¬·±² ±º ¿ Í«¾¼·ª··±² Ñ®¼·²¿²½»ô ¬¸» ¿³±«²¬ ±º ½±³°»²¿¬·±² ¬± ¬¸» °´¿²²·²¹ ½±²«´¬¿²¬ ¸¿´´ ²±¬ »¨½»»¼ üêèôðððò Þò ̸» °´¿²²·²¹ ½±²«´¬¿²¬ ©·´´ ·²ª±·½» º±® ©±®µô ±® ¿ °»®½»²¬¿¹» ±º ¬¸» ©±®µô ½±³°´»¬»¼ ·² ¿½½±®¼¿²½» ©·¬¸ ¬¸» º±´´±©·²¹ ¿³±«²¬æ Zoning Ordinance Ì¿µ ï Ю±¶»½¬ Ñ®·»²¬¿¬·±²ñ׫» ×¼»²¬·º·½¿¬·±² ü ïôîððòðð Ì¿µ î Ю±¶»½¬ ͽ¸»¼«´·²¹ñЫ¾´·½ ﮬ·½·°¿¬·±²ñÞ¿½µ¹®±«²¼ λ»¿®½¸ ëôêððòðð Ì¿µ í Ю»°¿®¿¬·±² ±º Ü®¿º¬ Ʊ²·²¹ Ñ®¼·²¿²½» ß³»²¼³»²¬ îéôðððòðð Ì¿µ ì Ю»°¿®¿¬·±² ±º Ü®¿º¬ Í«¾¼·ª··±² Ñ®¼·²¿²½» îçôðððòðð Ì¿µ ë Ы¾´·½ ɱ®µ¸±° øî÷ íôðððòðð Ì¿µ ê Ì»¨¬ λª··±² º±® Ú·²¿´ Ü®¿º¬ ìôðððòðð Ì¿µ é Ы¾´·½ Ø»¿®·²¹ øî÷ »¬·³¿¬»¼ îôîððòðð Total Professional Services Fees : $ 72,000.00 Ýò ̸» ¿¾±ª» »¬·³¿¬» ¼± ²±¬ ·²½´«¼» °®·²¬·²¹ô ³¿° ®»°®±¼«½¬·±² ½±¬ô ¼»´·ª»®§ñ½±«®·»® ½¸¿®¹»ô °«¾´·½ ²±¬·º·½¿¬·±² »¨°»²»ô ±® ±¬¸»® ·³·´¿® ¼·®»½¬ »¨°»²»ò ̸»» ½±¬ ©·´´ ¾» ·²ª±·½»¼ ¬± ¬¸» Ý·¬§ »°¿®¿¬»´§ ¿¬ ¬¸» ݱ²«´¬¿²¬? ¿½¬«¿´ ·²½«®®»¼ ½±¬ ³«´¬·°´·»¼ ¾§ ïòëò Üò ̸» ¿¾±ª» »¬·³¿¬» ¼± ²±¬ ·²½´«¼» º»» º±® ¿²§ ´»¹¿´ »®ª·½» ®»´¿¬»¼ ¬± °®»°¿®¿¬·±² ±º ¬¸» Ʊ²·²¹ Ñ®¼·²¿²½» ¿³»²¼³»²¬ ±® ¬¸» Í«¾¼·ª··±² Ñ®¼·²¿²½»ò Ûò ̸· ½±°» ±º »®ª·½» ·²½´«¼» ¬©»´ª» øïî÷ ³»»¬·²¹ ¬± ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ±º ˲·ª»®·¬§ п®µò Ó»»¬·²¹ ·² »¨½» ±º ¬©»´ª» ¸¿´´ ¾» ½±²·¼»®»¼ ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ ¬± ¬¸» ½±°» ±º ¬¸· ½±²¬®¿½¬ô ¿²¼ ¸¿´´ ¾» ·²ª±·½»¼ ¬± ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ¿¬ ±«® ½«¬±³¿®§ ¸±«®´§ ®¿¬»ô °´« ¿²§ ·²½«®®»¼ °®»°¿®¿¬·±² ±® ¬®¿ª»´ »¨°»²»ò Úò ̸» ½±°» ±º »®ª·½» ±«¬´·²»¼ ¸»®»·² ¸¿´´ ¾» ½±³°´»¬»¼ ©·¬¸·² ¬»² øïð÷ ³±²¬¸ º±´´±©·²¹ ¬¸» »¨»½«¬·±² ¼¿¬» ±º ¬¸· ½±²¬®¿½¬ «²´» ¼»´¿§ ¿®» ½¿«»¼ ¾§ ½·®½«³¬¿²½» ¾»§±²¼ ¬¸» ݱ²«´¬¿²¬? ½±²¬®±´ ø«½¸ ¿ ½¸»¼«´·²¹ ±º ³»»¬·²¹ ¿²¼ ©±®µ¸±° ¾§ ¬¸» Ý·¬§ô °®±´±²¹»¼ °«¾´·½ ®»ª·»© ¬·³» °»®·±¼ ¼»»³»¼ ²»½»¿®§ ¾§ ¬¸» Ý·¬§ô »¬½ò÷ò ̸» ݱ²«´¬¿²¬ ©·´´ ¿¼¼®» ¿²§ ·²¬»®·³ ¬¿²¼¿®¼ ·¼»²¬·º·»¼ ·² Ì¿µ î ¿ ±±² ¿ °±·¾´»ò Ùò ̸» ½±²«´¬¿²¬ ³¿§ ·²ª±·½» ³±²¬¸´§ ±²´§ º±® ¬¸» °»®½»²¬¿¹» ±º ¬¸» ¿³±«²¬ ±º ©±®µ ½±³°´»¬»¼ ±² »¿½¸ ¬¿µô ¿²¼ ¿³±«²¬ ·²ª±·½»¼ ¸¿´´ ²±¬ »¨½»»¼ ¬¸» ¿³±«²¬ ¿´´±½¿¬»¼ º±® »¿½¸ ¬¿µ ø»» Þ ¿¾±ª»÷ò ß´´ ·²ª±·½» ¿®» ¼«» ©·¬¸·² í𠼿§ ±º ®»½»·°¬ ¾§ ¬¸» Ý·¬§ò ïïï ±º ïîç AGENDA MEMO (09/04/07 AGENDA) DATE: August 29, 2007 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Jim Criswell, Director of Information Services SUBJECT: Computer Software and Server Enhancements and Upgrades BACKGROUND: As you know, over the past year, the Information Services Department has been heavily involved in building the computing infrastructure to support two personnel moves, and the new Peek Dispatch Center. As a result of the required time commitment to plan and successfully complete those projects, there are a number of planned and budgeted system upgrades and enhancements that were delayed. HTE Naviline Police, Fire, and EMS Application User Interface The HTE Naviline application user interface is a web browser-based method to access the data contained in the Crimes, Fires, and EMS systems. It allows the end users to retrieve the information using software with the look-and-feel of browsing an Internet web site. It has the added advantage for the Information Services support staff of eliminating the time spent making changes at each desktop. HTE is recommending this change for all of their clients, and supporting it with reduced annual maintenance costs. Sungard HTE Naviline licensing, training, and implementation - $22,343.00 Dell Naviline Server - $3,779.25 This project was budgeted in 2006, and the funds were carried over to the 2007 budget. QREP Web Public Safety Reporting Software The HTE QREP Web Reporting System is required to make Police, Fire, and EMS Calls for Service reports easily available with the Computer-Aided Dispatch Version 6 software which has been in use since the Peek Dispatch Center was activated on June 27, 2007. The new reporting tool also has the capability of automatically generating and emailing selected reports, such as calls for service by type, service area, and selected time frames. Currently, the QREP reporting capability is limited to a few people and requires more human intervention than desired. ïïî ±º ïîç Sungard HTE QREP Web licensing and training - $10,040.00 Dell QREP Web Server - $3,779.25 This project was budgeted in 2006, and the funds were carried over to the 2007 budget. Citrix Presentation Server Upgrade The introduction of Citrix into the City’s network infrastructure has allowed both Staff and Council secured access to data, and simplified the process of application support. The City is using the most basic version of Citrix Presentation Server for doing application deployment and providing remote access. With the purchase of the Platinum version of Citrix Presentation Server, a higher level of service to the end user will be provided, and more tools will be available to help increase data security and make the experience friendlier. There are also added features that would benefit the Information Services Department with system support. Smart Access - would be in place to help protect data from unauthorized remote access uses by performing endpoint analysis and control. Password Manager - would allow a single sign on for users so they don’t have to remember numerous passwords, and help the IS Department comply with password security mandates. Application Streaming – deploying Citrix applications to users that can be offline, or off the network while still allowing the use of the application. Edge Sight - enable IT to quickly pinpoint and troubleshoot server, network, and application issues that impact the user experience. There were four bidders for the Citrix Presentation Server 4.5 upgrade. Dell Corporation - $21,319.71 MTM Technologies - $22,220.00 M&A Technology - $25,005.96 Florida Micro- No Bid Staff recommends the low bidder, Dell Corporation for $21,319.71. Funds are available in the 2007 Information Services budget. AppSense Environment Manager With the introduction of Citrix, and having many users access one computer to save cost, user profile management has become a daunting task. There are constant corruption problems with the user profiles, and inconsistencies in roaming profiles. With Environment Manager the IS Department would be able to provide a standard desktop environment to be delivered and maintained for all users, ensuring enforced protection from unauthorized changes. An additional level of user personalization can be offered, allowing a user's own changes to roam with them across multiple computer sessions. This has the added benefit of minimizing network bandwidth consumption, by saving and loading only relevant areas of a user's profile rather than transferring the whole profile across the network. ïïí ±º ïîç There were three bidders for the AppSense Environment Manager software. MTM Technologies - $6,735.50 Insight - $9,105.97 CDW-G - No Bid Staff recommends the low bidder, MTM Technologies for $6,735.50. Funds are available in the 2007 Information Services budget. Planned Replacement of the LaserFiche Document Imaging Server In June, 2003 the City implemented the LaserFiche Document Imaging software to capture electronic copies of all agendas, minutes, resolutions, and ordinances, as well as Planning and Zoning, Board of Adjustment, and building permit data. As part of the IS Department’s planned replacement program for servers, the 4 year old LaserFiche file server requires an upgrade. Dell LaserFiche Server - $3,779.25 This server is included in the approved 2007 Information Services budget, and funds are available. Planned Replacement of the Engineering Server The Engineering File Server contains the City’s parcel, tax roll, building permitting, and code enforcement data, as well as the City’s map data. As part of the IS Department’s planned replacement program for servers, the 4.5 year old Engineering file server requires an upgrade. Dell Engineering Server - $3,779.25 This server is included in the approved 2007 Information Services budget, and funds are available. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of these computer software and server enhancements and upgrades. ïïì ±º ïîç AGENDA MEMO (09/04/2007 AGENDA) DATE: August 30, 2007 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Kent R. Austin, Director of Finance SUBJECT: Resolution denying Atmos Energy GRIP 4 request Background Included on the September 4 City Council meeting agenda is a resolution denying the Atmos Gas Rate Infrastructure Program increase request for 2006, known as GRIP 4. This action is recommended by the Atmos Cities Steering Committee (ACSC). The Committee’s purpose is to assist its member cities in reviewing requests by Atmos Energy Corp. (formerly TXU Gas) for natural gas rate changes. As you know, on July 3, 2007, the City Council suspended the effective date of the GRIP request. This action was also recommended by the ACSC. During the suspension period, consultants and legal counsel for the Steering Committee have examined the details of the GRIP request. Their findings are described in two attachments -- a model staff report from legal counsel Lloyd Gosselink and a report from rate consultant Karl Nalepa. In short, the consultant identified $3.4 million in expenditures that should be excluded from the GRIP calculation. While this is not a large amount given the overall size of the GRIP request, excluding these items will benefit ATMOS customers by reducing the proposed GRIP surcharge. Recommendation City staff recommends approval of the GRIP rate denial resolution. ATMOS will likely appeal this action to the State Railroad Commission, which is the appellate body for natural gas rate cases. If no action is taken by the City Council before September 13, 2007, the GRIP increase will take effect as originally proposed. Attachments: Model staff report on Atmos Mid-Tex GRIP denial resolution Report by Karl Nalepa of R.J. Covington Consulting Resolution denying GRIP 4 rate increase ïïë ±º ïîç MODEL STAFF REPORT ON ATMOS MID-TEX GRIP DENIAL RESOLUTION Purpose of the Resolution: Atmos Mid-Tex filed its fourth surcharge request under the Gas Reliability Infrastructure Program (“GRIP”) statute, seeking to implement monthly surcharges of $0.59 (average residential customers), $1.47 (average commercial customers), and $28.74 for industrial customers. The resolution denies Atmos Mid-Tex's 2006 surcharge request on the grounds that it does not comply with the law and is not reasonable. The resolution also indicates the City's support for statutory changes to the Texas GRIP statute to ensure fairness for ratepayers and to eliminate piecemeal ratemaking for any change in invested capital. What is GRIP? GRIP is piecemeal ratemaking and would be illegal under traditional ratemaking that is in the public interest. Atmos, TXU Gas, and other gas utilities persuaded the legislature in 2003 to make an exception to the prohibition against piecemeal ratemaking to encourage increased investment in transmission and distribution pipe by allowing prompt recovery of investment, despite the possibility that increased revenues and declining expenses could more than offset increased investment. Unfortunately, utilities have used the GRIP filings to include other costs unrelated to infrastructure improvements. GRIP surcharges are reconciled in a general rate case that the utility may not file for another five years. Did the Legislature Address the GRIP Statute in the Recent Legislative Session? The GRIP statute violates fundamental standards of regulatory ratemaking because it eliminates a basic aspect of fairness for ratepayers that has been part of the ratemaking process for decades. During the most recent legislative session, the Senate Business and Commerce Committee unanimously approved a bill that would have repealed the GRIP statute, largely in response to the abuses of the GRIP surcharge by Atmos Mid-Tex. However, by the end of the session, the gas utility lobby was successful in killing meaningful reform and the legislation died. It is important to start building support for legislative reform of the GRIP statute now. Issues regarding utility ratemaking and GRIP surcharges are very technical and can be difficult to effectively communicate during the heat of a legislative session. Cities can build on the effective information campaign that started in the recent session that recently concluded and prepare for the next session by communicating with the legislators about this GRIP filing. The Executive Committee has recommended that ACSC members adopt a resolution supporting legislative changes to protect natural gas ratepayers and opposing GRIP surcharges. This denial resolution includes that information and will be forwarded to the City's legislative delegation. Observations on the Filing Pursuant to its statutory authority, the City suspended the effective date of the Company's surcharge request to evaluate the filing, determine whether the filing complies with law, and if ïïê ±º ïîç unlawful, to determine what further strategy to pursue. Review of the Company's surcharge request is particularly important given that the City, as part of the Atmos Cities Steering Committee, initiated a rate case (GUD No. 9670) in which the Railroad Commission determined that Atmos had included inappropriate expenditures in its previous GRIP surcharges for rate years 2003, 2004, and 2005. But for the investigation by the Cities, through ACSC, the impropriety of these expenditures and of their inclusion in the GRIP surcharges, would not have been exposed, and the refund of $2.5 million would not have been ordered. ACSC's rate consultant, Karl Nalepa, has identified approximately $3.4 million in expenses included in the 2006 GRIP surcharge request that are inconsistent with the statute and/or the Railroad Commission's order in GUD 9670. For example, the Company’s surcharge request is based in part on inappropriate expenses related to furniture and office fixtures. The Commission excluded furniture expenses from the Atmos Mid-Tex GRIP surcharge in GUD 9670. The Company acknowledges this and has removed some of the furniture and fixture expense from the current filing. The filing offers no explanation why any furniture or fixture expense remains part of the GRIP surcharge. In addition, Mr. Nalepa has also identified expenses included in this surcharge request that occurred prior to 2006, and are thus ineligible for inclusion in the 2006 GRIP surcharge. Finally, Atmos Mid-Tex has just received a rate increase of approximately $5 million and should be collecting sufficient revenues to earn its allowed return without the necessity for a surcharge to recover incremental investment. NOTE: IT IS CRITICAL THAT ALL CITIES PASS THE RESOLUTION TO DENY ON OR BEFORE SEPTEMBER 13, 2007. Explanation of “Be It Resolved” Paragraphs: 1. This paragraph sets out the finding that the Company’s request is unreasonable, and inconsistent with Railroad Commission precedent and the statute. 2. This paragraph provides for an immediate effective date. 3. This paragraph states the City's support for legislative reform of the GRIP statute to ensure fairness to ratepayers and to eliminate piecemeal recovery for any change in invested capital. 4. The paragraph requests the City's legislative delegation to support legislation in st the 81 Regular Session of the Texas Legislature that would reform the GRIP statute to ensure fairness for ratepayers and eliminate piecemeal recovery for any change to invested capital. 5. This paragraph cites conformance with the Open Meetings Act. 6. This paragraph directs that a copy of the signed ordinance be sent to a representative of the Company and a representative of the coalition of cities. ïïé ±º ïîç August 3, 2007 MEMO TO : Geoffrey Gay, Kristen Doyle, Georgia Crump FROM : Karl Nalepa SUBJECT : Atmos Energy Mid Tex 2006 GRIP Review On May 31, 2007, Atmos Energy Mid Tex (Atmos or Company) filed its latest request for an interim rate adjustment for calendar year 2006 under the Gas Reliability Infrastructure Program (GRIP). The Company’s proposed increase to current customer or meter charges is summarized in Table 1: Table 1 Rate Schedule Charge per Month Rate R – Residential Sales $0.59 Rate C – Commercial Sales $1.48 Rate I – Industrial Sales $28.90 Rate T – Transportation $28.90 RJ Covington Consulting (RJC) has reviewed this GRIP filing and has confirmed that Atmos has removed certain costs that were disallowed by the Texas Railroad 1 Commission (RRC) in Atmos’ most recent rate proceeding. However, RJC has identified several other items which we believe are inappropriate to be recovered from ratepayers through this interim rate adjustment. Costs Removed 2 The costs removed by Atmos in this filing consistent with the RRC order in the most recent rate proceeding are summarized in Table 2: Table 2 Adjustment Amount Remove SSU 2006 Additions for Ancillary $ (107,520) Equipment (office furniture) Remove Mid-Tex 2006 Additions for Ancillary (100,317) Equipment (artwork, office furniture, equipment) .Adjustment for Changes in SSU Cost Centers (2,764,894) 3 2006 Overhead Allocations to Mid-Tex 1 GUD No. 9670, Order on Rehearing, June 13, 2007. 2 Workpaper/Schedule A ïïè ±º ïîç August 31, 2007 Reduction of Mid-Tex 2006 Capitalized (20,718,589) Overheads to 13.5% Remove Direct Expense Account Costs Included (254,511) in SSU 2006 Additions (see Table 3 for details) Remove Direct Expense Account Charges (26,130) Included in Mid-Tex 2006 Additions (see Table 3) Remove Expense Account Charges within SSU (219,956) Overheads Included in Mid-Tex 2006 Additions (see Table 3) Remove Expense Account Charges within (235,404) Business Unit Overheads Included in Mid-Tex 2006 Additions (see Table 3) Total $ (24,427,321) The amount of capitalized expense removed from the filing, detailed by type of 4 expenditure, is shown in Table 3: Table 3 Meals & Misc.Other Personal TravelTotal Mid-Tex Lodging Entertain.Expenses Expenses VehicleExpense (Capital) Allocated SSU243,162 119,196 51,818 11,916 2,134 224,832653,059 254,511 Direct Mid-Tex 10,986 9,210 0 2,545 1,095 2,29426,130 26,130 Direct SSU333,567 505,954 395,624 10,967 0 654,093585,196 219,956 Overhead Mid-Tex 45,445 51,369 13,987 4,551 49,139 70,913235,404 235,404 Overhead Additional Adjustments While Atmos did remove significant categories of costs disallowed by the Order in GUD 9670, it still included other costs that should be removed. These costs are summarized in Table 4: Table 4 Project Number Description Amount 080.19238 Purchase and install $46,638 telecommunication and security system for the Hillsboro Service Center 080.19239 Purchase and install $48,267 telecommunication and security system for the Gainesville Service Center 3 1203 – Amarillo Customer Support Center, 1210 – Waco Customer Support Center, 1904 – Dallas Performance Plan, 1908 – Dallas Supplemental Executive Benefits Plan 4 Response to ACSC 1-5. ïïç ±º ïîç August 31, 2007 080.19806 Purchase furniture for the Boyd $147,382 Facility 010.11055 Purchase computer equipment – $555,187 hardware & software ADMIN 080 Asset transfer from Atmos $1,964,272 (retirement) Pipeline & Storage to Mid-Tex Adjustments General Office $140,756 Adjustments Customer Service $493,791 Total $3,396,293 Project 080.19238 According to Atmos’ response to ACSC 1-12, this project is actually to purchase furniture and fixtures for the Hillsboro Service Center. Atmos has removed similar costs and hasn’t shown why these particular costs remain in the filing. Project 080.19239 According to Atmos’ response to ACSC 1-12, this project is actually to purchase furniture and fixtures for the Gainesville Service Center. Atmos has removed similar costs and hasn’t shown why these particular costs remain in the filing. Project 080.19806 Atmos has removed similar furniture purchases, and hasn’t shown why these particular costs should remain in the filing. Project 010.11055 According to Atmos’ response to ACSC 1-23, this project relates to the purchase of computer equipment allocated to Mid Tex. The project was described as items purchased during the Mid Tex integration. While no invoices were provided, the acquisition of Mid Tex occurred in October 2004, with the transition occurring through 2005 - at least a year prior to the 2006 GRIP year. Based on the description of the assets, these purchases were made prior to the GRIP test year and should be removed. Project ADMIN 080 This project involves the transfer of existing assets from Atmos Pipeline to Mid-Tex. First, these plant costs were incurred prior to the GRIP test year, and are therefore 5 ineligible under the GRIP statute. Second, even if the costs should be included, they represent the cost of retirement. Transferring an asset that is no longer used and useful to Mid-Tex just so its customers can bear the cost of retirement is not reasonable. 5 TEX UTIL CODE §104.301 (b). ïî𠱺 ïîç August 31, 2007 Adjustments to General Office and Customer Service According to Atmos’ responses to ACSC 1-28 and 31, Atmos claims adjustments to General Office and Customer Service plant in the amounts of $140,756 and $493,791, respectively, for a total adjustment of $634,547. This adjustment is the result of the change in the shared services allocations factors between 2005 and 2006. The 2005 factors for General Office and Customer Service were 36.95% and 48.50%, while the 2006 factors were 36.88% and 49.02%. Atmos revised the allocation factors based on 6 changes in the component factors for 2006. This raises the question of whether allocation factors can be revised under GRIP. All other factors (such as return, 7 depreciation, taxes, and class allocations) are fixed until the next full rate proceeding, so it would be reasonable to expect that the factors used to allocate shared services expenses also be fixed from the last proceeding. Results Removing these additional categories of costs results in a reduction to 2006 net plant investment of $3.4 million. Applying this reduction to the rates as proposed by Atmos yields the revised charges reflected in Table 5: Table 5 Rate Schedule Revised Charge per Month Difference Rate R – Residential Sales $0.57 ($0.02) Rate C – Commercial Sales $1.44 ($0.04) Rate I – Industrial Sales $28.07 ($0.83) Rate T – Transportation $28.07 ($0.83) Atmos also proposed a revised methodology to calculate ad valorem taxes based on actual 2006 tax payments due to the recent changes in property tax law. If this alternative methodology is adopted, property-related taxes are reduced by $67,368, and the interim adjustment is reduced by a further $0.01 for commercial customers and $0.16 for industrial and transportation customers. The adjustment is too small to materially affect residential customers. Let me know if you have any questions. 6 Response to ACSC 1-6. 7 TEX UTIL CODE §104.301 (d). ïîï ±º ïîç RESOLUTION NO. _________ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, DENYING THE REQUEST OF ATMOS ENERGY CORP., MID-TEX DIVISION, FOR AN ANNUAL GAS RELIABILITY INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM (GRIP) RATE INCREASE IN THIS MUNICIPALITY, AS A PART OF THE COMPANY’S STATEWIDE GAS UTILITY DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM; SUPPORTING STATUTORY REFORM OF THE TEXAS GRIP STATUTE, FINDING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS RESOLUTION IS PASSED IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC; AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE OF THIS RESOLUTION TO ATMOS ENERGY CORP., MID-TEX DIVISION AND THE CITY'S LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION. WHEREAS, the City of University Park, Texas (“City”) is a gas utility customer of Atmos Energy Corp., Mid-Tex Division (“Atmos Mid-Tex” or “the Company”), and a regulatory authority with an interest in the rates and charges of Atmos Mid-Tex; and WHEREAS, Atmos Mid-Tex made filings with the City and the Railroad Commission of Texas (“Railroad Commission”) on or about May 31, 2007, proposing to implement interim rate adjustments (“GRIP rate increases”), pursuant to Texas Utilities Code § 104.301, on all customers served by Atmos Mid-Tex, effective July 30, 2007; and WHEREAS,the Gas Reliability Infrastructure Program (GRIP) statute approved in the th 2003 Regular Session of the 78 Legislature changes 100 years of Texas law and allows a natural gas utility to implement annual surcharges for increases in investment without having to account for the offsetting decreases in costs or increases in revenue experienced by the utility; and WHEREAS,Texas is the only state out of the twelve states served by Atmos that has a GRIP statute that allows for piecemeal recovery for any change to invested capital; and ïîî ±º ïîç 2557\02\res070807kpd 2006 GRIP denial WHEREAS, Atmos has implemented four GRIP surcharges and collected more than $20 million in GRIP surcharges from customers since the utility acquired the TXU Gas system in 2004; WHEREAS, the City supports the statutory reform of the GRIP statute to ensure fairness to ratepayers and to eliminate piecemeal recovery for any change to invested capital; and WHEREAS, Atmos Mid-Tex was recently granted a rate increase as a result of its filing in GUD No. 9670, in which the Final Order was only signed on March 29, 2007; and WHEREAS, in GUD No. 9670, it was determined that Atmos Mid-Tex had inappropriately included certain expenditures in its prior GRIP rate increases for rate years 2003, 2004, and 2005; and WHEREAS, the City, as a regulatory authority, suspended the July 30, 2007, effective date to examine this latest GRIP filing to determine its compliance with the Texas Utilities Code and Railroad Commission final order in the most recent Atmos Mid-Tex rate case; and WHEREAS, the City has joined with other cities to review the Company’s filing, said coalition being known as Atmos Cities Steering Committee (“ACSC”); WHEREAS, the consultant hired by Steering Committee has reviewed the GRIP surcharge application and has issued a final report finding that the Company has included millions of dollars of expenses in the current GRIP surcharge that are inconsistent with the Texas Utilities Code and Railroad Commission final order in the most recent Atmos Mid-Tex rate case and not related to ensuring the safety and reliability of the system; WHEREAS, counsel for the Steering Committee, upon review of the Company’s filing and the consultant's report, recommends finding that the Company’s proposal is unjustified and unreasonable; and ïîí ±º ïîç 2557\02\res070807kpd 2006 GRIP denial WHEREAS, ratepayers of Atmos Mid-Tex, including the City and its residents, will be adversely impacted by the proposed GRIP rate increases. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS: SECTION 1. That the Company’s GRIP rate increase request is found to be unreasonable and inconsistent with the Texas Utilities Code and Railroad Commission final order in GUD 9670, Atmos Mid-Tex most recent rate case, and is therefore denied in all respects. SECTION 2. This Resolution shall become effective immediately from and after its passage, as the law and charter in such cases provide. SECTION 3. That the City hereby advocates statutory reform of the Texas GRIP statute to ensure fairness to ratepayers and to eliminate piecemeal recovery for any change to invested recovery. SECTION 4. That the City calls upon its state representatives and senator to support st legislation in the 81 Regular Session of the Texas Legislature that would reform the Texas GRIP statute to ensure fairness for ratepayers and eliminate piecemeal recovery for any changes to invested capital. SECTION 5. That it is hereby officially found and determined that the meeting at which this Resolution 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 6. A copy of this Resolution, constituting final action on the Company’s application, be forwarded to the following: ïîì ±º ïîç 2557\02\res070807kpd 2006 GRIP denial Charles R. Yarbrough, II Atmos Energy Corporation 5420 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1800 Dallas, Texas 75240 Lloyd Gosselink Blevins Rochelle & Townsend c/o Geoffrey Gay P.O. Box 1725 Austin, Texas 78767-1725. SECTION 7. A copy of the resolution shall be sent to the elected lawmakers representing the City’s interests in the Texas House and Senate. DULY PASSED and approved by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on this the 4th day of September, 2007. APPROVED: ____________________________________ James H. Holmes, III, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ Kate Smith, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________ City Attorney ïîë ±º ïîç 2557\02\res070807kpd 2006 GRIP denial AGENDA MEMO (09-04-07 AGENDA) DATE: August 30, 2007 TO: Bob Livingston City Manager FROM: Gene R. Smallwood, P.E. Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Receive information regarding revisions to DART bus lines in University Park. Background. I met last week with one of the System Planners for DART regarding modifications they are suggesting that will affect bus routes within University Park. Because of declining ridership in this part of their system, DART staff is proposing to combine a couple of routes into a new line (route #539). The proposed 539 would run from the Mockingbird Station west along Mockingbird to Hillcrest and run north on Hillcrest to Lovers Lane, and then west to Love Field. They are proposing about fifty trips per day (twenty-five in each direction). The old route #21 along Hillcrest north of Lovers would be eliminated, and the route #8 running north of Lovers along Douglas would be eliminated. With City Council concurrence, DART will make all public notifications and will plan to implement the service changes in March of 2008. Consideration. I recommend that the City Council authorize staff to provide a written acknowledgement to their revised service plan. ïîê ±º ïîç To: Bud Smallwood Director of Public Works City of University Park From: Steve Biba DART Service Planning August 27, 2007 DART is proposing several changes in bus service for March 2008 that would affect University Park. We are proposing to re-establish former Route 539. This bus route would connect to the Red and Blue LRT lines at Mockingbird Station, travel west on Mockingbird, north on Hillcrest, west on Lovers, south on Lemmon, west on Mockingbird, and north on Cedar Springs to serve the terminal at Love Field. Proposed Route 539 would re-establish service along Lovers Lane between Hillcrest and Douglas where service does not currently exist. In addition, we are proposing to eliminate service along Hillcrest between Lovers Lane and Northwest Highway (Route 21), and along Douglas between Lovers lane and Northwest Highway (Route 8). Attached is a map showing the affected streets within University Park. Please distribute this material to the appropriate parties for their comment and let me know as soon as possible if any concerns are raised. ïîé ±º ïîç AGENDA MEMO (09/04/07 AGENDA) DATE: August 30, 2007 TO: Honorable Mayor James Holmes, and Members of the City Council FROM: David Ledbetter, Fire Chief SUBJECT: Discussion of Dates for Upcoming ICS Course Staff is requesting that the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council discuss and decide on a convenient City Council meeting date for a two hour training course. The training course is an overview of the Incident Command System (ICS) and was recently released by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) with a target audience of elected officials and senior staff members. This will serve as a refresher for the IS-700 computer course already taken by the Council. This is not a self-paced, self-study or computer based training course, and is one of the most requested courses generated by the Emergency Management Institute. The course will be taught by one of our recent UP Leadership graduates and member of our RACES group, Thomas Russell, M.D. Dr. Russell is very respectable and is an excellent instructor that delivered the IS-700 course to all of our RACES members. He has a keen interest in the preparation of emergency management and operations and is very conscious of the need to protect our citizenry during emergencies. ïîç ±º ïîç