HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 05-18-05 Names Tabs.docAMENDMENT TO AGENDA FOR MAY 18, 2005
An Execmive Session was added to the posted City Council Agenda for May 18, 2005 at
11:50 a.m. on May 13, 2005. The Executive Session will be from 8:30-8:45 a.m. and
will be for the purpose of seeking legal advice from the City Attorney under Section
551.071 of the Local Government Code.
AGENDA
#2510
CITY COUNCIL MEETING/WORK SESSION
CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS
CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM
WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 2005 AT 7.'30AM
II.
III.
ITEMS FROM THE FLOOR
Anyone wishing to address an item not on the Agenda or having questions
about items on the Consent Agenda should do so at this time. Questions
and comments regarding Main Agenda items may be made when that item
is addressed by the City Council.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. CONSIDER: Ordinance
for approval of expansion and conditions for
Planned Development District No. 20, University Park United Methodist
Church - Smallwood Tab I
CONSIDER: Bid & award of contract to Intelligent Traffic Equipment
Marketing Ltd. for lighted crosswalk warning system, 3500 block Lovers
Lane - Smallwood Tab II
CONSIDER: Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes for May 3, 2005
- Wilson Tab III
MAIN AGENDA
A. CONSIDER: Resolution to change city council meetings to 1st & 3rd
Tuesdays at 5:00 p.m. - Wilson Tab IV
B. CONSIDER: Ordinance for city trees - Bradley Tab V
C. CONSIDER: New banner design and park information signs - Bradley
Tab VI
D. DISCUSS: Citizen Survey options - Smith Tab VII
E. DISCUSS: Radio Interoperability - Ledbetter Tab VIII
F. CONSIDER: Bid for Annual Contract for Utility Parts - Green Tab IX
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.
AGENDA MEMO
(05/18/05 AGENDA)
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
May 12, 2005
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Bob Livingston
SUBJECT: Approval of Ordinance Approving Expansion and Conditions for
Planned Development District No. 20 - University Park United Methodist
Church
Approval of the ordinance will implement the conditions for the PD as discussed by the
City Council at it May 3rd meeting. The conditions set standards for the way the
construction on the property will be handled and are intended to minimize impact on
adjacent properties both during construction and after. Representatives of the Church
have been provided copies of this information.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the Ordinance as proposed.
ATTACHMENTS:
Planned Development Ordinance and Exhibits
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK31 \UPUMCPD051205.doc 1:31 PM 05/12J
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, AMENDING
THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF
UNIVERSITY PARK, AS HERETOFORE AMENDED, SO AS TO AMEND PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 20 FOR UNIVERSITY PARK UNITED METHODIST
CHURCH TO ADD THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 9-17 OF BLOCK 45,
UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS NO. 4 ADDITION, AN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF
UNIVERSITY PARK, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, AND MORE COMMONLY KNOWN
AS THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE 4000 BLOCK OF COLGATE, UNIVERSITY PARK,
TEXAS; APPROVING A CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT "A";
PROVIDING SPECIAL CONDITIONS; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL
ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING
FOR A PENALTY OF FINE NOT TO EXCEED THE SUM OF TWO THOUSAND
DOLLARS ($2,000.00) FOR EACH OFFENSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of University Park and the City
Council of the City of University Park, in compliance with the laws of the State of Texas with reference
to the granting of zoning classifications and changes, have given the requisite notices by publication and
otherwise, and have held due hearings and afforded a full and fair hearing to all property owners
generally and to all persons interested and situated in the affected area and in the vicinity thereof, and
the City Council of the City of University Park is of the opinion and finds that a zoning change should
be granted and that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and Map should
be amended; Now, Therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY
PARK, TEXAS:
SECTION 1. That the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and Map of the City of University
Park, Texas, be, and the same are hereby, amended so as to grant an amendment to Planned
Development District No. 20 for the University Park United Methodist Church so as to add the
property described as Lots 9-17, Block 45, of the University Heights No. 4 Addition, an addition to the
City of University Park, Dallas County, Texas, and more commonly known as, the south side of the
4000 block of Colgate, University Park, Texas.
SECTION 2. That the conceptual site plan depicting the improvements for the planned
development is attached hereto collectively as Exhibit "A" and made part hereof for all purposes the
same as if fully copied herein. That a detailed site plan, containing the data required by Section 22-500
of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, shall be submitted for review and approval by the City
73918
Council without an additional public hearing.
site plan for consideration.
waived.
SECTION 3.
phases.
Colgate.
west end of the 4000 block of Colgate.
following special conditions:
The City Council shall immediately schedule the detailed
Review of the detailed site plan by the Planning and Zoning Commission is
This Planned Development District is planned to be constructed in two general
The first phase will be the parking lot and landscaping at the east end of the 4000 block of
The second phase will be the parsonages and other additions to the north of the Church at the
The Planned Development District is granted subject to the
(a) The property will be developed only in conformance with the requirements of this ordinance
and the approved detailed site plan;
(b) The property will be landscaped in accordance with the approved landscape plan to be
attached as an Exhibit to the detailed site plan and made part hereof for all purposes, the same as if fully
copied herein;
(c) That the property will be used only for Church purposes, as defined by the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance;
(d) UDADAC will review preliminary architectural plans and comment on general
architectural style prior to approval of detailed site plan;
(e) The Park Advisory Committee will review landscape plan and comment prior to
approval of detailed site plan;
(f) One year after the completion of the construction allowed by this ordinance, the
Church will pay the cost of a review of the traffic conditions in the area surrounding the Church.
The work will be accomplished by a licensed traffic engineer chosen by the Public Works Director
of the City of University Park;
(g) In order to minimize disruptions caused by construction, the Church will be limited in
time for completion of the work allowed by this ordinance. All phases of construction will be
completed no later than 48 months from issuance of the initial building permit.
(h) The UPUMC shall pay for the cost of an appraisal of the alley right-of-way between
Caruth and Colgate from Pickwick to Preston to determine the fair market value for same as part
of the City's abandonment of the alley. Before abandonment, the Church must pay to the City the
fair market value as determined by the appraisal;
(i) An 8-foot screening fence shall be erected around the entire construction site during
the first phase of construction and remain in place while construction is ongoing. The fence will
73918
be of wood painted in a color approved by the Public Works Director. The fence will block the
sight of passersby onto the site. Prior to starting the second phase, UPUMC will submit a fencing
plan to screen the site during that phase which will be approved by the Public Works Director;
(j) Entry to the construction site for all activities and delivery of materials shall be from
Preston Road;
(k) No parking of construction vehicles or contractors' employees' vehicles on City
streets. UPUMC will require the contractor to provide offsite parking for construction employees
and a method of transferring employees to and from that location;
(1) A fire suppression system shall be installed in all UPUMC existing and proposed
buildings;
(m) No explosives shall be used in the construction activities;
(n) UPUMC shall provide a full-time liaison during the construction to respond to
questions and complaints from citizens on a 24/7 basis.. A phone number for this contact will be
provided to all adjacent property owners and posted at the Church and job site where it can be
found by interested parties;
(o) All exterior lighting will be of a type and design that will eliminate spillover onto
adjacent property and streets;
(p) The fence and landscaping surrounding the parking lot shall be designed so that cars in
the lot will not be visible from ground level on the properties north of Colgate adjacent to the
project when Phase ! is completed;
(q) Only activities sponsored by UPUMC will be held on the premises;
(r) All trash receptacles will be totally screened from the view of adjacent property and
located as close to the building as possible.
(s) Any buses used by the Church to transport members for activities away from the
Church will queue in either the parking spaces on the north side of Caruth adjacent to the Church
or in the newly constructed parking lot;
(t) Background checks will be performed by the contractor for all construction workers prior to
their working on the site. The information will be provided to the church and a file of all
background checks will be kept by the Church.. A convicted felon or pedophile will be barred
from working on the project;
(u) Badges with photo IDs will be worn by construction workers at all times; and
(v) No street closings for construction will be permitted between the hours of 7:15 a.m. to
8:45 a.m. and 2:15 p.m. to 3:45 p.m.
73918
SECTION 4. That all ordinances of the City of University Park in conflict with the provisions
of this ordinance or the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance as amended hereby are hereby repealed.
SECTION 5. That should any sentence, paragraph, subdivision, clause, phrase or section of
this ordinance or the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, as amended hereby, be adjudged or held to be
unconstitutional, illegal, or invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of this ordinance or the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance as a whole, or any part or provision thereof, other than the part
decided to be invalid, illegal or unconstitutional.
SECTION 6. That any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions or terms
of this ordinance or the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, as amended hereby, shall be subject to the
same penalty as provided for in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City of University Park,
Texas, and upon conviction in the municipal court of the City of University Park, Texas, shall be
punished by a fine not to exceed the sum of two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) for each offense, and
each and every day such violation is continued shall be deemed to constitute a separate offense.
SECTION 7. That this ordinance shall take effect immediately from and after its passage and
the publication of the caption, as the law and Charter in such cases provide.
DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on the 18th day
of May 2005.
APPROVED:
JAMES H. HOLMES m, MAYOR
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
NINA WILSON, CITY SECRETARY
CITY ATTORNEY
73918
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, AMENDING THE
COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY
PARK, AS HERETOFORE AMENDED, SO AS TO AMEND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT NO. 20 FOR UNIVERSITY PARK UNITED METHODIST CHURCH TO ADD
THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 9-17 OF BLOCK 45, UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS
NO. 4 ADDITION, AN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, DALLAS
COUNTY, TEXAS, AND MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE
4000 BLOCK OF COLGATE, UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS; APPROVING A
CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN; PROVIDING SPECIAL CONDITIONS; PROVIDING FOR
THE REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY
CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY OF FINE NOT TO EXCEED THE SUM OF
TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS ($2,000.00) FOR EACH OFFENSE; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on
the 18th day of May 2005.
APPROVED:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY SECRETARY
73918
DATE: May 12, 2005
TO: Bob Livingston
City Manager
FROM: Bob Whaling, P.E.
City Engineer
SUBJECT: RFP:
AGENDA MEMO
(5/18~05 AGENDA)
3500 Lovers Lane School Crossing, Project No 42730.2500
Background. Request for Proposals (Competitive Best Value) were taken in the
Conference Room at 4420 Worcola, Dallas, Texas 75206 at 11:00 A.M., Friday, April
29, 2005. This RFP had six (6) vendors with two (2) responding.
The RFP's were evaluated by using the criteria stated in the RFP and by adhering to the
weighting as assigned. All evaluation factors, other than cost, were considered prior to
determining the effect of cost on the score for each participating bidder. After the
evaluation was completed, all responsive bidders were be ranked from most
advantageous to least advantageous to the City, considering only the evaluation factors
stated in the RFP.
The evaluation factors listed in the RFP were as follows:
Best Value Factors
Percent
The total long-term cost to the municipality to acquire the bidder's 10
goods or services;
The reputation of the bidder and of the bidder's goods or services; 10
The extent to which the goods or services meet the municipality's 10
needs;
Warranties, guarantees, and return policy; 10
The quality and reliability of goods and services; 10
Indicators of probable vendor performance; 10
Cost of employee training associated with a purchase; 10
On site Bidders Technical Support (3 days); and 10
The purchase price. 20
Total of best value bid evaluation factors
lO0
I have attached the evaluations and bid tabs for your review and comments.
Vendor Ranking (most advantageous to least advantageous to the City)
Intelligent Traffic Equipment Marketing Ltd. ($24,721.34)
Architectural Lighting Associates ($27,609.60)
Recommendation. Staff recommends City Council approval of the bid and award of a
contract to Intelligent Traffic Equipment Marketing Ltd., in the amount of $24,721.34.
Best Value Factors
Percent
Intelligent
Traffic
Equipment
Marking Ltd.
Architectural
Lighting
Associates
The total long-term cost to the
municipality to acquire the bidder's
goods or services;
the reputation of the bidder and of
the bidder's goods or services;
the extent to which the goods or
services meet the municipality's
needs;
warranties, guarantees, and return
policy;
the quality and reliability of goods
and services;
indicators of probable vendor
performance;
cost of employee training associated
with a purchase;
On site Bidders Technical Support (3
days); and
the purchase price.
Total of best value bid evaluation
factors
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
20
100
58
52
Municipal Utility Power/W Wired Lighting Fixtures and Signs
Item
Power Control
Unit/Transmitter Unit
Uninterruptible Power
Supply With Battery
Back-Up
Control Unit/Service
Equipment Enclosure
In-Roadway Lighting
Fixtures
In-Roadway Lighting
Fixtures (Maintenance
Stock)
In-Roadway Light
Fixture Housing (Base
_.
Unit
Each
Each
Each
Each
Each
Each
Quantity
10
10
Intelligent Traffic Equipment
Marking Ltd.
Unit Selected
Amount
Price Options
$2,576.75
$920.00
$300.00
$617.55
$617.55
$0.00
$2,576.75
$920.00
$300.00
$6,175.50
$3,087.75
$0.00
$2,576.75
$920.00
$300.00
$6,175.50
$3,087.75
$0.00
Architectural Lighting Associates
Unit Selected
Amount
Price Options
$4,246.40
$0.00
$566.40
$64O.OO
$64O.OO
$0.00
$4,246.40
$0.00
$566.40
$6,4OO.OO
$3,200.00
$0.00
$4,246.40
$0.00
$566.40
$6,4OO.OO
$3,200.00
$0.00
Municipal Utility Power/W Wired Lighting Fixtures and Signs
Item
In-Roadway Light
Fixture Housing (Base
Plate) (Maintenance
School Advance
Warning Signs
Primary Activation
System - Pushbutton
Activation
Secondary Activation
System -Infrared
Detector Option 1:
Secondary Activation
System - Microwave
Detector Option 2:
Secondary Activation
System - Bollards
(2)Detector Option 3:
Unit
Each
Each
Each
Each
Each
Each
Quantity
Intelligent Traffic Equipment
Marking Ltd.
Unit Selected
Amount
Price Options
$0.00
$546.25
$232.30
$800.00
$595.00
$2,005.00
$0.00
$3,277.5O
$464.6O
$1,600.00
$1,190.00
$4,010.00
$0.00
$3,277.5O
$464.6O
$4,010.00
Architectural Lighting Associates
Unit Selected
Amount
Price Options
$0.00
$792.8O
$500.00
$2,676.00
$0.00
$2,500.00
$0.00
$4,756.80
$1,000.00
$5,352.00
$0.00
$5,000.00
$0.00
$4,756.80
$1,000.00
$5,000.00
Municipal Utility Power/W Wired Lighting Fixtures and Signs
Item
Unit
Quantity
On site Bidders
Technical Support (3
Day
System Wire
LF
1000
Related Equipment As
Necessary For A
Complete Operational
System
LS
TOTALS
Intelligent Traffic Equipment
Marking Ltd.
Architectural Lighting Associates
Unit Selected Unit Selected
Amount Amount
Price Options Price Options
$200.00 $600.00 $600. $700.00 $2,100.00 $2,100.00
$1.59 $1,590.00 $1,590. $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
$1,719.24 $1,719.24 $1,719. $340.00 $340.00 $340.00
$27,511.34 $32,961.60
$24,721.34 $27,609.60
MINUTES
#2509
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
TUESDAY, MAY 3, 2005, 5:00 P.M.
Mayor Blackie Holmes convened the City of University Park City Council into Executive
Session at 4:08 p.m. to receive legal advice from the City Attorney under Section 551.071 of the
Government Code. The Executive Session was adjourned at 4:29p.m. No action was voted on
or taken during the meeting.
Mayor Holmes opened the regular meeting of the City Council at 5:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers. Present were Mayor Pro Tempore Jim Roberts and Councilmembers Syd Carter,
Kelly Walker and Harry Shawver. Also in attendance were City Manager Bob Livingston, City
Attorney Rob Dillard and City Secretary Nina Wilson.
INTRODUCTION: Mayor Holmes introduced Harry Persaud, new Community Development
Manager.
AWARDS & RECOGNITION
CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION: The presentation of the certificate to Jo Ann Norton,
upon her retirement from the Planning & Zoning Commission has been rescheduled to June 7,
2005 due to family illness.
RETIREMENT: Chief of Police Gary Adams introduced Officer L.B. Harris and expressed
appreciation for his 14 years of service to the City. Councilmember Walker presented Officer
Harris with a plaque and a monetary gift from the City.
NATIONAL POLICE OFFICERS WEEK: Chief of Police Gary Adams, Lt. Robert D. Brown
and Sgt. Robert E. Flood, Chairman of the Awards Committee, presented the following awards:
Life Saving Awards, Officers James L. Savage and Eric L. Walden; Certificates of Merit, Officer
James L. Savage and Warrant Officer Timothy K. Spillman; Certificates of Commendation,
Officers Curtis R. Ellenburg, Jr. and Kevin C. Clark, and Certificate of Civic Achievement,
Administrative Assistant Donna Wilkerson.
BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA: Boy Scouts Will Cobb, GeoffPingree and Joe Beeby introduced
themselves, stating the badge upon which they were working.
Councilmember Shawver moved acceptance of the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Walker
seconded, and the vote was unanimous to approve the following:
CONSENT AGENDA
REVIEW CONTRACT RENEWAL WITH DOLFIN SWIM SCHOOL: For the past few years,
the Dolfin Swim School has contracted with the city to utilize Curtis Park Swimming Pool from
6:00-8:00 a.m. from May 31-September 1. The cost of the contract has been $2,000 for the
season. Staff has recently received an amended 2005 contract from Dolfin Swim School that
indicates use of the pool May 31-August 1, 2005. The reason for reduction of the lease was a
drop in enrollment towards the end of July. As a result, Dolfin Swim School has requested a
reduction in the lease agreement to $1,500 and use of the pool from four (4) months to three (3)
months. As there has been some discussion about whether or not the Dolfin Swim School would
abide by the amended contract or return to the original dates and cost since the item was placed
on the agenda, Council approved the contract for May 31-September 1, 2005 for $2,000 for the
season, dependent upon the preference of the lessee.
CONSIDER RESOLUTION FOR MAX-A-MILLION CARRIAGE RIDES: This item was
pulled from the agenda due to the fact that changes to the agreement and resolution were
received too late to be considered. This item will appear on a future city council agenda.
CONSIDER CONTRACT AMENDMENT FOR CARTEGRAPH MODIFICATION
SERVICES AND LICENSES: Cartegraph is designed to route all requests for service to the
appropriate division and provide that division the opportunity to create a work order. Staff has
recently completed Phase I of the implementation. Phase II of the implementation includes
tracking individual infrastructure assets, which will allow staff to track work completed on
various infrastructure assets and determine the lifecycle costs associated with maintaining or
replacing the asset. During Phase I of the implementation, staff identified certain areas of the
software that needed modification. Cartegraph can develop special software modifications to
address these needs; however, each modification is out of the original scope of the contract. Staff
proposed amending the contract and including additional licenses for the software application.
Staff is also working on the development of a 311 call system that would utilize Cartegraph
across multiple departments. Therefore, additional licenses will need to be purchased to
implement the 311 system. The proposal also includes a reduction in services from the original
contract to be credited towards the amended contract.
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES: For April 20, 2005.
MAIN AGENDA
CONSIDER ORDINANCE APPROVING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD-20) FOR
UNIVERSITY PARK UNITED METHODIST CHURCH: A public hearing to receive
information regarding a request from the University Park United Methodist Church to expand
their existing PD north across the alley to Colgate was conducted at the April 5, 2005 city
council meeting. As presented, the proposed campus would convert ten (10) residential
properties to church use for expansion of the existing building, construction of four (4) housing
units, and a parking lot. Pursuant to Council direction, staff compiled a list of possible
conditions, which are detailed in the ordinance. City Manager Bob Livingston read the
conditions, including proposed changes. Technically, the public hearing was closed at the last
meeting; however, Mayor Holmes made an exception to allow those present to speak. Those
who spoke in opposition were Mr. Robert Carter and Ms. Kitty Ritchie Holleman. Mr. Charles
Cooper spoke in favor. Mayor Holmes read the following statement expressing the concern of
the city council in regard to the neighbors and city: We, as your city council are not unmindful
of the significant responsibility placed upon us to preserve the quality of life that we all enjoy in
University Park and in individual cases such as this, that we arrive at a just, fair and equitable
decision for all concerned. Like every case where an attempt to reach a middle ground is
pursued interest on both sides of that middle ground wi//not be satisfied with the result. We
have spent many long and arduous hours reviewing all of the letters, e-mai& reports and studies
in trying to achieve a favorable outcome as we view it for the city of University Park and the
church. ], personally, appreciate and applaud the interest and work of the neighbors in bringing
to the attention of the council their detailed concerns and recommendations addressing the
application submitted for this planned development. From the legal jurisprudence standpoint, I
hope all of you appreciate the position that a city council, when acting as a governmental entity,
is confronted with when passing on requests of this nature made by a religious institution. Such
an entity clearly has rights protected by the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution, known as
freedom of religion. The Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code provides "that a city may not
substantially burden the person's free exercise of religion unless the city demonstrates that the
burden is in furtherance ora compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means
of furthering that interest." That language applies to any city ordinance, and the ordinance
must have as its principal or primary effect, one that neither advances nor inhibits religion. The
United States Supreme Court has ruled "that a statute must not foster an excessive governmental
entanglement with religion. One of those entanglements is an attempt to regulate programs,
whose very nature is apt to entangle the state in details of administration." However, a church
or religious institution does not have the unfettered right to use its property as it sees fit. It has
been hem that conditions that are reasonably designed to counteract the deleterious effects on
the public's welfare of a proposed religious or education use, shouM be upheM by the courts
provided they do not, by their costs, magnitude or volume, operate indirectly to exclude such
uses altogether. Such language recognizes a church's right to use its property. Beginning in the
1980 's, a number of state and federal courts moved from rather absolute positions, advocating
that religious structures enjoy a constitutionally protected status which severely curtails the
permissible extent of governmental regulation in the name of the police powers to a concept of
balancing the competing interest of municipalities and religious institutions. That is what I
think we have done through the language of this ordinance. Also, the ordinance recognizes that
any activities hem on the campus will be those of the University Park United Methodist church
only. Other portions of the ordinance address the issues of safety and welfare of the
neighborhood and traffic generated by the new facility. Mayor Pro Tern Roberts moved approval
of the zoning for University Park United Methodist Church. Councilmember Shawver seconded,
and the vote was unanimous to approve the zoning and consider the ordinance with modified
conditions at the next city council meeting.
CONSIDER ORDINANCE REGULATING NEWSPAPER RACKS IN SNIDER PLAZA: The
city will purchase newspaper racks that hold multiple publications and install the units at fixed
locations throughout Snider Plaza. The city will then lease individual boxes within the
newspaper racks to publications to recover a portion of the costs. Publications will be required
to obtain a permit and pay an annual fee of $48 per space. Installation of the newspaper racks on
Snider Plaza will occur this summer. Mayor Pro Tern Roberts moved approval of the ordinance.
Councilmember Walker seconded, and the vote was unanimous to approve regulating newspaper
racks in Snider Plaza.
ORDINANCE NO. 05/12
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, AMENDING CHAPTER 4
OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES TO ADD A NEW ARTICLE 4.1200, "PLACEMENT OF
NEWS RACKS"; PROVIDING FOR DEFINITIONS; PROViDING FOR A PERMITTING
PROCESS; PROVIDING MAINTENANCE STANDARDS; PROVIDING REGULATIONS FOR
PLACEMENT OF NEWS RACKS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY; PROViDING FOR
REMOVAL FOR NONCOMPLIANCE; PROVIDING FOR APPEALS; PROVIDING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROViDING A REPEALING CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A
PENALTY OF FINE NOT TO EXCEED THE SUM OF FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($500.00)
FOR EACH OFFENSE; AND PROViDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
CONSIDER RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH FEES FOR RENTAL OF CITY NEWS RACKS IN
SNIDER PLAZA: Councilmember Shawver moved approval of the resolution to establish fees for
the rental of city news racks in Snider Plaza. Councilmember Carter seconded, and the vote was
unanimous to approve the rental fees.
RESOLUTION NO. 05-09
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK,
TEXAS, AMENDING RESOLUTION 05-05, EXHIBIT "A", SECTION I
"ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES", BY ADDING "NEWS RACK RENTAL FEES" TO
ESTABLISH FEES FOR THE RENTAL OF CITY NEWS RACKS IN SNIDER PLAZA AS
AUTHORIZED BY ARTICLE 4.1200 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES; AND PROVIDING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
CONSIDER USE OF COFFEE PARK FOR PEACE RALLY: Mr. David Phillips requested the
use of Coffee Park on May 14, 2005, from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. to hold a peace rally for the
purpose of promoting world peace and feeding the hungry. He anticipates less than a dozen
people will be participating and holding signs and banners at Northwest Highway and Hillcrest.
There will be no bullhorns and no chanting. Mayor Pro Tem Roberts moved approval of this
request providing Mr. Phillips agrees to pay any fees associated with the use of the park and the
hiring of at least one (1) police officer to be on site during the rally. Mayor Holmes seconded,
and the vote was unanimous to approve the request if the park fees are paid and a police officer
is hired to be on site during the rally.
PUBLIC HEAR1NG FOR ORDINANCE TO REZONE 4032 MARQUETTE FROM D-2 TO
SF-A: The zoning on the property at 4032 Marquette from Duplex-2 (D-2) to Single Family
Attached (SF-A) was originally zoned D-2 as a buffer between Preston Road and the single
family properties to the east. Most of the other D-2 properties abutting Preston have been
previously rezoned to SF-A. Councilmember Shawver moved approval of the ordinance.
Councilmember Walker seconded, and the vote was unanimous to approve rezoning 4032
Marquette from D-2 to SF-A.
ORDINANCE NO. 05/13
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, AMENDING THE
COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY
PARK, AS HERETOFORE AMENDED, BY CHANGING THE ZONING ON THE PROPERTY
AT 4032 MARQUETTE FROM DUPLEX-2 (D-2) TO SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED (SF-A),
SAID PROPERTY BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 1, BLOCK 47,
UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS NO. 5, AN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK,
DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN
CONFLICT; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY OF
FINE NOT TO EXCEED THE SUM OF TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS ($2,000.00) FOR EACH
OFFENSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
REVIEW FY2004 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND MANAGEMENT LETTER COMMENTS
(MLC): The FY2004 MLC from the city's external auditors, Deloitte & Touche L.L.P., was
presented to council. The FY2004 published financial statements, known as the Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report (CAFR), represent the second year of statements compliant with the
Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 34 standard. The City of
University Park is required to comply with this Statement to remain consistent with Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). GASB 34 requires the city to value, record, and
depreciate its entire physical infrastructure, not just utility-type assets, as under the old standard;
produce a city-wide income statement-style report, known as the Statement of Activities; and
adopt a new format for the Balance Sheet, now known as the Statement of Net Assets. Fund-
level statements are still required and are also presented. FY2004 MLC is even briefer than last
year's letter and contains no comments regarding significant corrections or changes that must be
made. The past three (3) years have been spent improving internal processes and complying
with the new accounting standard. Staff recommended council accept the FY2004 MLC and
CAFR and refer them to the Finance Advisory Committee for further examination. Council
agreed.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 18th day of May 2005.
ATTEST:
James H. Holmes iii, Mayor
Nina Wilson, City Secretary
AGENDA MEMO
(05/18/05 AGENDA)
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
May 5, 2005
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Nina Wilson
City Secretary
CHANGE IN CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATES & TIMES
This memo is written to clarify the reasoning behind the request to change the time and
date for the city council meeting presently held on the 3rd Wednesday of the month at 7:30
a.m.
Several circumstances would be improved if the Wednesday morning meeting were
changed to 5:00 p.m. on the 3rd Tuesday of the month with an agenda review at 4:00 p.m.
It would be possible to have more public hearings, a 5:00 p.m. meeting would be more
convenient for residents, and meetings could be held in the Council Chambers allowing
larger groups of people to be present.
Recommendation:
It is the recommendation of staff that the city council meetings be held on the first and
third Tuesdays of the month at 5:00 p.m. with an agenda review at approximately 4:00
p.m. beginning June 1, 2005.
Attachments:
Resolution
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
U:\Docs\City Secretary\Change in city council meetings dates memo.doc 8:37 AM 05/06J
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, ADOPTING MEETING DATES AND
TIMES FOR THE CITY COUNCIL; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of University Park wishes to establish its
regular meeting dates and times for the convenience of the citizens;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS:
SECTION 1. That, effective June 1, 2005, the City Council will hold its regular
meetings at 5:00 p.m. on the first and third Tuesdays of each month in the Council
Chamber at the City Hall, 3800 University Boulevard, or other designated location. Each
regular Council meeting will be preceded by an agenda review meeting at approximately
4:00 p.m. All meetings will be open to the public, subject to the provisions of the Texas
Open Meetings Act, except where closed sessions are permitted and appropriate notice
has been given.
SECTION 2. That the City Council reserves the right to call, upon proper
posting of an agenda, such other extra and special meetings as may be necessary for the
proper disposition of City business.
SECTION 3. That this resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage,
and it is accordingly so resolved.
DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on
the 18th day of May 2005.
APPROVED:
JAMES H. HOLMES iii, MAYOR
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
NiNA WILSON, CITY SECRETARY
ROBERT L. DILLARD, iii
CITY ATTORNEY (RLD; 5/4/05; 74108)
MEMO
(05/18/2005 Agenda)
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
May 12, 2005
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Gerry Bradley, Director of Parks
City Tree Ordinance
BACKGROUND
On April 20, 2005, staff provided City Council with background information
regarding the development of a Parkway Tree Ordinance. Staff presented City
Council with a tree list from tree species supported by the City's Arborist and the
North Texas Urban Forestry Council. The list of tree species is intended to serve
as an approved guideline in providing direction for tree planting on public
property.
Since the April meeting, staff has been in contact with the National Arbor Day
Foundation to obtain information regarding the City of University Park being
recognized as a Tree City USA award recipient. The application requires the
following standards for review by a State Forester.
Standard 1: A Tree Board or Department establishment - Mayor and Council can
authorize Park Advisory Board to serve as the Tree Board.
Standard 2: A Community Tree Ordinance - See attached
Standard 3: A Community Forestry Program with an Annual Budget of at least
$2.00 Per Capita - Parks Department Annual Tree Maintenance Costs and
"Trees for Town" program costs will support this standard.
Standard 4: An Arbor Day Observance and Proclamation - Staff will prepare
program and proclamation for Mayor and Council review.
Based on Standard 2, staff plans to present a comprehensive "Tree Ordinance"
that involves tree planting guidelines on all public property for the Mayor and
City Council's approval. Based on approval, staff will begin the application
process with the National Arbor Day Foundation for Tree City USA recognition.
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
City Council -Parkway tree Planting Ordinances 11:19 AM 05/13/05
The NationM
Arbor Day Foun fioff
'i~ ~EE CYFY USA
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is requesting City Council approval of this amendment to be incorporated
into the City's Codes and Ordinances under Article 3.1906 Tree Ordinance. Staff
is also requesting City Council's approval for staff to proceed with application
with the National Arbor Day Foundation for Tree City USA recognition.
ATTACHMENTS:
Tree City USA Application
Example of Revised Ordinance
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
City Council -Parkway tree Planting Ordinances 11:19 AM 05/13/05
TREE USA
As of the city of ,,
m~ n ager,
population ............................................................................................................................
Da~e
· layor Or equivalent
Addms.~:
Ce:~ification
~Ts Be C~lel~d ~y The S~a~;e: Foresl;e~)
reco~ized ;and designated as; a Tree City USA, flor the calendar year, havin;g in my opinion met the lkmr
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
City Council -Parkway tree Planting Ordinances 11:19 AM 05/13~05
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, ADDING
SECTION 13.1906 "TREE ORDINANCE" TO THE CODE OF ORDINANCES;
PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A TREE BOARD;
PROHIBITING THE PLANTING OF TREES EXCEPT FROM THE TREE LIST;
PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT;
PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY OF
FINE NOT TO EXCEED FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($500.00) AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS:
SECTION 1. That the Code of Ordinances of the City of University Park, Texas, is
amended by adding Section 13.1906 "Tree Ordinance" as follows:
"Sec. 13.1906 Tree Ordinance
A. Definitions
Parkway trees: "Parkway trees" are herein defined as trees on land lying between
the back of curb and the city sidewalk on either side of all streets, avenues or ways
on public property.
Park trees: "Park trees" are herein defined as trees in public parks having
individual names, and all areas owned by the City, or to which the public has free
access as city property.
B. Creation and Establishment of City Tree Board
There is hereby created and established a City Tree Board for the City of University
Park, Texas which shall consist of the mayor appointed members of the Park Advisory
Board and the city's Urban Forester. The board will also review the planning and
implementation of the city's annual Arbor Day Celebration.
C. Duties and Responsibilities
It shall be the responsibility of the City Urban Forester to study, investigate, council
and develop and/or update annually, and administer a written plan for the care,
preservation, pruning, planting, replanting, removal or disposition of trees , along
streets and in other public areas. The City Urban Forester, when requested by the
Park Advisory Board or City Council, shall consider, investigate, make finding, report
and recommend upon any special matter of question coming within scope of its work.
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
City Council -Parkway tree Planting Ordinances 11:19 AM 05/13/05
D. Parkway Trees Species to be planted
The following list constitutes the official Tree Species for the City of University
Park, Texas. No species other than those included in this list may be planted in a
parkway.
Tree Common Name
Bald Cypress
Bur Oak
Cedar Elm
Chinese Pistachio
Chinqapin Oak
Crape Myrtle
Mexican White Oak
Live Oak
Red Oak
Botanical/Scientific Name
Taxodium Distichum
Quercus Macrocarpa
Ulmus Crassifolia
Pistachia Chinensis
Quercus Muehlenbergi
Lagerstroemia Indica
Quercus Mexiana
Quercus Virginiana
Quercus Shummardi
E. Park Trees Species to be planted
Trees from the official Tree Species list for the City of University Park may be
planted within the City park system. Any additions to this list including small
ornamental trees shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Parks, the
City's Urban Forester and the Park Advisory Board.
F. Distance from Street Corners and Fireplugs
No parkway tree shall be planted closer than 35 feet to any street corner or 15 feet
to any alley corner, measured from the point of the nearest intersecting curbs or
curb lines. No parkway tree shall be planted closer than 10 feet to any fireplug.
G. Public Tree Care
The City shall have the right to plant, prune, maintain and remove trees within the
lines of all streets, alleys, avenues, lanes, squares and public grounds, as may be
necessary to insure public safety or to preserve or enhance the symmetry and
beauty of such public grounds. The City Urban Forester may remove or cause
order to be removed, any tree or part thereof which is in an unsafe condition or
which by reason of its nature is injurious to sewers, electric power lines, gas lines,
water lines, or other public improvements, or is affected with any injurious fungus,
insect or other pest.
H. Pruning, Corner Clearance
Every owner of any tree overhanging any parkway or right-of-way within the City
shall prune the branches so that such branches shall not become an obstruction to
traffic, a hazard, unsightly, or interfere with lights from any street lamp or obstruct
the view of any street intersection and so that there shall be a clear space of eight
feet (8') above the sidewalk and fourteen feet (14') above the curb line. Said
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
City Council -Parkway tree Planting Ordinances 11:19 AM 05/13/05
owners shall remove all dead, diseased or dangerous trees, or broken or decayed
limbs that constitute a menace to the safety of the public. The City shall have the
right to prune any tree or shrub on private property when it overhangs a public
right-of-way or easement and interferes with the proper spread of light along the
street from a streetlight or interferes with visibility of any traffic control device or
sign.
I. Interference with Tree Ordinance
It shall be unlawful for any person to prevent, delay or interfere with a City
employee or agent while he is engaging in the planting, cultivating, mulching,
pruning, spraying, or removing of any parkway tree or park tree as authorized in
this article."
SECTION 2. All ordinances of the City of University Park in conflict herewith are
repealed.
SECTION 3. Should any word, phrase, paragraph, section or portion of this
ordinance, or of the Code of Ordinances, as amended hereby, be held to be
unenforceable, void or unconstitutional, the same shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of said ordinance, or of the Code of Ordinances, as amended
hereby, which shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 4. This ordinance shall take effect immediately from and after its passage
and the publication of the caption, as the law and Charter in such cases provide.
DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, this the
18th day of April 2005.
APPROVED:
JAMES H. HOLMES iii, MAYOR
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
NiNA WILSON, CITY SECRETARY
CITY ATTORNEY (RLD/5/11/05) (74240)
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
City Council -Parkway tree Planting Ordinances 11:19 AM 05/13/05
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, ADDING
SECTION 13.1906 "TREE ORDINANCE" TO THE CODE OF ORDINANCES;
PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A TREE BOARD;
PROHIBITING THE PLANTING OF TREES EXCEPT FROM THE TREE LIST;
PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT;
PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY OF
FINE NOT TO EXCEED FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($500.00) AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Duly Passed by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, this 18th day of
April 2005.
APPROVED:
JAMES H. HOLMES iii, MAYOR
ATTEST:
NiNA WILSON, CITY SECRETARY
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
City Council -Parkway tree Planting Ordinances 11:19 AM 05/13/05
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
AGENDA MEMO
(05/18/2005 AGENDA)
May 10, 2005
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Gerry Bradley, Director of Parks
Graphic Artist - Project Discussion with City Council
BACKGROUND:
On April 20, 2005, City Council met with Mari Madison of Design Strategies to
discuss seasonal banners and park informational signage. At the meeting, City
Council provided direction to the graphic artist based on the review of concepts
provided. On May 18, 2005, Ms. Madison plans to present the latest concepts of
banners and signs for City Council approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is requesting City Council allocate a short portion of the May 18, 2005
meeting to review design concepts for seasonal banners and park informational
signage with our graphic artist consultant.
ATTACHMENTS:
None
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK31\graphic artist Meetinga.doc 11:22 AM 05/1(
AGENDA MEMO
(05/18/05 AGENDA)
DATE: May 12, 2005
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kate Smith, Administrative Intern
SUBJECT: Citizen Survey Options
BACKGROUND:
In order to ensure that University Park city services are responsive and that adequate
resources are provided and placed appropriately within the community, staff would like to
solicit residents' comments through a citywide citizen survey. The last time a citizen
survey was conducted by the city was in 1992 with the assistance of a UNT business
policies class. Staff feels that it is time to conduct another survey and would like to
establish the practice of conducting a survey every 2 years from now on. It is a regular
practice of many cities to conduct citizen surveys in an effort to obtain the opinion of
residents to make city services as responsive as possible. The goal of the citizen survey
would be to gather feedback from residents on city services and programs and to use this
feedback to develop and enhance service delivery.
Conducting a citizen survey also falls under Strategic Goal #6 which is, Service Delivery:
Commitment to excellence in city services. The results of a citizen survey would give staff
a clear agenda for focusing attention on the improvement of our already high levels of
service and would serve as an affirmation of Strategic Goal #6.
Staff has explored three survey options. These options will be presented Wednesday
morning at the Council Meeting.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is seeking direction from Council.
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
AGENDA MEMO
(05/18/05AGENDA)
DATE: May 10, 2005
TO: Honorable Mayor and
City Council Members
FROM: David Ledbetter,
Fire Chief
SUBJECT: Radio Interoperability
The North Central Texas Council of Governments commissioned RCC Consultants to
assess the radio interoperability needs of local governments in Region 40 in order to insure
communications among State, Federal and local government agencies during emergency
operations. The City of University Park is located in Region 40. RCC Consultants met
with The City of Dallas, Dallas County, The Town of Highland Park and The City of
University Park in January 2005 to discuss the needs of each entity. From that discussion
RCC visited each entity's dispatch sites to view and assess first hand what equipment was
on hand and what would be needed to accomplish interoperability.
The assessment was completed and issued on March 9, 2005. (The assessment is attached
for your convenience.) From this assessment each entity must approve the
recommendations to be eligible to receive funding from the Department of Justice to
purchase the equipment. The North Central Texas Council of Governments will have
oversight of the funds and issue equipment specifications for the equipment to be
purchased and installed. Each entity however, will be responsible for the maintenance of
the equipment for reliability. We are also responsible to file for any radio frequency
license required by FCC to operate the frequencies, procure frequencies necessary to
operate the system and/or develop Interlocal agreements with the agencies to operate on
their frequencies. The assessment report addresses these concerns specifically on page 2
and 3.
! have reviewed the assessment report with the City Manager, Police Chief and
Communication Supervisor and all agree that the improvements need to be made for radio
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson\Local Settings~Temporary Internet Files\OLK31~AGENDA MEMO NCTCOG
InteroperabilityAssessment (2).doc 3:00 PM 05/11/05
interoperability. I therefore have given tentative approval to NCTCOG to proceed with
developing the equipment list and specifications for the improvements. ! have also talked
to Police/Fire Chief Darrell Fant of Highland Park to address the issue of which City
should receive the "DFW East" channel to communicate with Federal agencies outlined on
page 16 item 2. Chief Fant consented to having University Park receive this channel.
I request that you review the assessment report and voice any questions you may have
concerning the report.
ATTACHMENTS: RCC Consultants, Inc. Assessment Report, Memorandum from Fed
Keithley, NCTCOG
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK31~AGENDA MEMO NCTCOG
InteroperabilityAssessment (2).doc 3:00 PM 05/11/05
North Central Texas Council of Governments
Date:
May 3, 2005
To:
County Judges, City Managers, Public Safety Officials, and State Homeland Security
Program Points Of Contact
From:
Fred Keithley
Director of Community Services
Coordinator of Interoperable Communications
Subject:
Interoperable Communications. (The ability of Public Safety Personnel to communicate
across jurisdictional boundaries regardless of their communications frequencies or
equipment.)
Please accept my apology if you receive this correspondence more than once. I am using
multiple databases.
September 11, 2001 saw the collapse of the Twin Towers with significant loss of life to public safety
personnel. One reported reason for the loss of fire personnel was that they were unaware of the
eminent collapse of the towers. Why were they not informed by the helicopters that saw the Towers
begin to glow, or by incident commanders on the ground? According to the Atlas Report which followed
the disaster, ". .... it would appear that non-interoperability was at least partially responsible for the loss
of 343 firefighters at the World Trade Center." They were operating over different communications
systems.
Two years ago, the North Central Texas Council of Governments, and its consultant, RCC Consultants
Inc, initiated a broad-based assessment of local public safety agencies' interoperable communications
capabilities. Findings of this first phase reinforced what public safety personnel have known for many
years, that agencies operate different equipment over different frequencies, both of which may be
incompatible with neighboring cities' and counties' communications systems.
NCTCOG, through RCC, continued in 2004 with a detailed assessment of equipment needed to
achieve effective interoperability. Findings of this assessment on interoperable communications
capabilities ranged from "Good" to "None". NCTCOG is now implementing the equipment part of the
program. One important part of this initiative is that Homeland Security funds have been set aside
specifically to cover equipment and installation costs, and local funds should not have to be used for
the initial purchase. Ongoing maintenance, repair, and replacement costs will be the responsibility of
local governments once warranties have expired. However, these costs are typically budgeted for
present communications systems.
Most local public safety agencies have received their Interoperability Assessments that detail RCC's
recommendations. These recommendations have been sent to the public safety and other officials who
met with RCC and NCTCOG representatives during the detailed assessments of each of the major
616 Six Flags Drive, Centerpoint Two
P.O. Box 5888, Arlington, Texas 76005-5888
(817) 640-3300 FAX: 817-608-2372
www. nctcog, org
Page 2
Interoperable Communications
North Central Texas Council of Governments
Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs), which were the primary focus of the program. Some county
judges and city officials hosted and/or sat in on those "drill down" sessions. So in addition to public
safety representatives' briefings on this program, some local officials have had direct involvement.
The next steps leading to interoperability include the following:
· Your review and approval of the Assessment. Approval of the Assessment will trigger
RCC's development of the detailed equipment list, specifications, and costs. This step is an
important one because all others depend on it. We encourage you to review the Assessment as
soon as possible, and notify Fred Keithley at fkeithley@nctcog.org. Some cities and counties
have already approved theirs, and if you are among these, please accept our appreciation for
your positive response.
· Purchase of equipment and installation. Once you have approved RCC's recommendations,
you will receive the equipment list, specifications, and costs. Installation funds are included in
this program.
Working with your primary Point Of Contact (POC list is attached), there are several steps that
you will need to follow to purchase and install the equipment, and receive reimbursement: (1)
the POC will help you build the list of equipment on the Texas Domestic Preparedness
Assessment (DPA) website, www.texasdpa.com. (2) NCTCOG will compare the list against the
RCC equipment list, (3) NCTCOG will forward the list to Texas Engineering Extension Service
(TEEX) for review and approval, (4) TEEX will notify the POC of approval, (5) local agency is
now authorized to procure equipment and installation services using its own process, (6) once
equipment is received and installed, the POC will send copies of invoices, purchase orders, and
packing slips to TEEX, (7), TEEX will compare invoices and packing slips to approved
equipment list and reimburse the city or county, (9) the city or county will then pay the
manufacturer and/or contractor for the equipment and installation.
In addition to working closely with your public safety officials and PC)C, you may wish to involve your
service shop personnel, equipment vendor, and your technical staff, where this is applicable, especially
if they may be the ones who will install the equipment. They can advise you on getting the most out of
the funds for which you are eligible.
Public Safety Interoperable Communications is this state's highest homeland security priority. Our goal
is to complete equipment purchases and installation by the end of this year.
Please contact me at 817-695-9171, or by e-mail at fkeithle¥@nctco.q.or.q when you have approved
RCC's Assessment, or if you have questions about the program.
616 Six Flags Drive, Centerpoint Two
P.O. Box 5888, Arlington, Texas 76005-5888
(817) 640-3300 FAX: 817-608-2372
www. nctcog, org
"~--.~-----~ RCC CONSULTANTS, INC.
NCTCOG - REGIONAL INTEROPERABILITY PROJECT
NCTCOG - Region Wide Interoperability Project
Phase II Assessment - General Information
The purpose of the Phase II assessment is to customize the solution sets, as outlined in
RCC Consultants' "Region Wide Interoperability Assessment" of December 2003, for
each of the participating agencies of the North Central Texas Council Governments
region. The scope of this assessment is for Public Safety (police, fire, EMS) voice
communications.
A more detailed evaluation of the major Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) and
associated two-way radio systems was performed as part of the Phase II Assessment
for each of the participating agencies within the sixteen county area of the COG. This
was accomplished via on-site visits and interviews with the Public Safety personnel.
The result of this process is included in the following pages, and includes specific
recommendations for enabling an improved level of interoperable two-way radio voice
communications. Recommendations are listed for agencies in Dallas County, and
include specific suggestions for those agencies taking part in the Phase II assessment.
It should be noted that many of the recommendations are contingent upon meeting
certain criteria and may require that an agency take specific action in order to
implement the solution. Many of the criteria cannot be verified at this time, but will
require direct action by an agency in order to affect a particular solution. Additionally,
there may be ongoing costs associated with a recommendation, and except where
specifically noted, these costs are the responsibility of the individual agency.
These contingencies are noted below as well as in the specific recommendations for
each agency, which are contained in the following sections.
1. A number of identified solutions require the procurement of radio frequencies, and
are only valid if these spectrum resources are obtained.
Certain solutions require the obtaining of a FCC license. Unless noted, any costs
associated with any frequency coordination and license procurement are the
responsible of the individual agency.
Shared usage of radio channels will require a letter of agreement or interlocal
agreement among the participating agencies and are subject to operational policies
and procedures outlined by the agreement.
Some solutions require that equipment be placed at a radio tower site.
Recommendations are given in this regard, however, installation of any equipment is
subject to the approval of the tower site owner/operator and may require that a tower
loading analysis be performed as well as a RF interference/intermodulation study be
undertaken. Any costs associated with this work are the responsibility of the
PAGE 2 OF 24 3/9/2005
"~--.~-----~ RCC CONSULTANTS, INC.
NCTCOG - REGIONAL INTEROPERABILITY PROJECT
licensee. Costs associated with tower site leases or rentals are the responsibility of
the individual agency, including any start-up costs.
Some solutions require that a means of connectivity be present between the radio
tower site and dispatch center. Any associated connectivity costs, including initial
installation, are the responsibility of the individual agency.
Any implementation of the 800 MHz NPSPAC mutual aid radio channels require
coordination through the local Regional Planning Committee (RPC), i.e., Region 40,
and must adhere to the NCTCOG, NPSPAC Usage Plan, currently under evaluation
by the NCTCOG Technical and Operational Oversight Committees. Additionally, the
"Rebanding Initiative" may influence the implementation of these channels. See
following comments.
Potential Effects of the 800 MHz Spectrum Relocation Initiative~
The use of the 800 MHz NPSPAC mutual aid channels is recommended for the
NCTCOG Interoperability Project as one means to enable and/or improve interoperable
communications. In certain cases, recommendations call for the implementation, by
specific agencies, of additional 800 MHz NPSPAC mutual aid repeater stations and/or
associated 800 MHz RF control stations. As noted in various points in this Assessment
Report, the licensing of stations is the responsibility of the particular agency that is
placing the equipment in operation.
Implementation of these stations may be affected by the requirements of the
"Rebanding Plan" as noted in the various on-going proceedings of the FCC and other
interested parties. A case in point is that the FCC will "freeze" 800 MHz applications in
a given NPSPAC region as well as any applications within seventy miles of the Region's
borders when the FCC issues the Public Notice announcing the date when voluntary
negotiations must be concluded for that Region. NCTCOG is contained within Region
40 and is included in the second "wave" of the rebanding program. The current Public
Notice window is between April and September 2006. Given the present timeline of the
NCTCOG Interoperability Project, all 800 MHz mutual aid repeater stations, and/or
associated RF control stations should have been licensed before the 2006 date. If not,
implementation could be delayed. Once licensed and in operation the 800 MHz mutual
aid stations and associated RF control stations will be subject to the processes included
in the rebanding plan. Accordingly, the licensee of these stations must take the
appropriate steps to ensure that the requirements of the plan are met.
~ Refer to FCC publication dated 1/31/2005 titled "Regional Prioritization Plan of the 800 MHz Transition
Administrator" - In the Matter of Improving Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz Band - VVT Docket No. 02-
55.
PAGE 3 OF 24 3/9/2005
"~--.~-----~ RCC CONSULTANTS, INC.
NCTCOG - REGIONAL INTEROPERABILITY PROJECT
Funding
The recommendations noted here are to be presented to each participating agency for a
final review. Any suggestions and modifications introduced during the review period will
receive one more appraisal by the NCTCOG Interoperability Committee. At this point,
detailed equipment lists will be developed by RCC. These lists can be used by each
agency to purchase the recommended equipment and services.
Equipment and services noted here will be funded through a process defined the
NCTCOG. RCC recommends that a competitive procurement of the equipment be
pursued by the agencies in order to obtain favorable pricing. Alternately, existing state
and local government purchasing programs such as the Houston-Galveston Area
Council (H-GAC) Cooperative Purchasing Program, the Catalog Information Systems
Vendor (CIVS) Program, and the federal government's General Services Administration
(GSA) contract may be used, as well as other approved vendors.
Radio Coverage Illustrations -
Radio coverage maps have been included to provide an indication of what can be
expected from a specific implementation. However, generic components and factors
were used in the analyses, and it should be noted that the actual radio coverage would
depend upon a number of interrelated items, which can include:
1. Actual location of the radio tower in relation to the desired service area
2. Base/repeater transmitter RF power output
3. Base/repeater antenna gain and antenna height
4. Base/repeater antenna system components, i.e., transmission line, cavity filters
duplexer, and/or transmitter combiner losses
5. Mobile unit RF power output
6. Mobile unit antenna gains and losses
7. Result of the frequency coordination and subsequent FCC license, which will
specify the effective radiated power (ERP), which in turn can be affected by the
antenna height
Individual Assessments -
Assessments are arranged by agency and include demographic information as well a
listing of the Public Safety agencies. A short summary of the existing radio systems of
the participating agencies is included, followed by the recommendations.
Recommendations center on a number of initiatives, which can include:
The implementation of a VHF interoperability system comprised of mobile relay,
(repeater stations) and RF control stations, placed in a five to six county area
containing Parker, Palo Pinto, and Erath Counties, followed by an expansion of
the system to Hood and Wise, and possibly to Somervell County. The City of
PAGE 4 OF 24 3~9/2005
"~--.~-----~ RCC CONSULTANTS, INC.
NCTCOG - REGIONAL INTEROPERABILITY PROJECT
Rockwall is also planning the activation of a countywide VHF interoperability
channel.
The implementation of 800 MHz NPSPAC mutual aid repeater stations and/or
associated equipment in Johnson, Ellis, Kaufman, Navarro, Hunt Rockwall, and
Denton Counties and possible later expansion to Wise and Parker Counties,
along with the optimization of the existing NPSPAC stations operating in Collin,
Dallas and Tarrant Counties. - (See comments above regarding the 800 MHz
rebanding initiative).
The provisioning of equipment to allow interconnection to the Department of
Justice NCTCOG Urban Area Radio VHF radio system. The metro area counties
of Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant are participating in a project that will
provide interoperability for Federal and State & Local Public Safety agencies via
two DOJ funded radio systems, one of which is centered in Dallas County with
the other in Tarrant County. Radio coverage from the two systems extends into
portions of Wise, Parker, Hood, Johnson, Ellis, Kaufman, Rockwall, and Hunt
Counties and will provide another means of interoperability for properly equipped
agencies. The expected coverage from each of the systems is noted below.
Expected Radio Coverage From the Tarrant County Based DOJ VHF Radio
System2
: Radio coverage map for the DFW Metro 25 Project provided via the FBI-Quantico Radio Electronic Unit
PAGE 5 OF 24 3/9/2005
"~--.~-----~ RCC CONSULTANTS, INC.
NCTCOG - REGIONAL INTEROPERABILITY PROJECT
Expected Radio Coverage From the Dallas County Based DOJ VHF Radio System3
HOP
For both maps, the multi-colored areas illustrate the Talk-In coverage for the receiver-
voting sites located in a particular area. The composite of these areas is the total
coverage area. Both the "West", or Tarrant County based system, and the "East", or
Dallas County based system, operate on different narrowband analog radio channels,
and employ a high-powered centrally located repeater station, which is complemented
by a number of receiver voting sites.
As illustrated by the maps above, the radio coverage provided by the DOJ system does
not extend into all portions of Wise, Parker, Hood, Johnson, Ellis, Kaufman, Rockwall,
and Hunt Counties, but does cover significant portions of these counties. Access to the
DOJ system will provide another means of communications interoperability and its use
is highly recommended for the major PSAPs of these counties. The primary benefit of
these channels is interoperability with Federal agencies, although the channels are also
being considered for dispatch center intercommunications as well. These channels will
be present in dispatch centers, but will not be added to mobile and portable field radios.
However, dispatch centers may patch these channels to other channels, subject to the
operational agreements that are being developed.
Radio coverage map for the DFW Metro 25 project provided via the FBI-Quantico Radio Electronic Unit
PAGE 6 OF 24 3/9/2005
"~--.~-----~ RCC CONSULTANTS, INC.
NCTCOG - REGIONAL INTEROPERABILITY PROJECT
Other NCTCOG interoperability initiatives include:
The provisioning of equipment to allow a greater degree of communications
interoperability among neighboring agencies currently utilizing disparate radio
communication systems. This can include the activation or reactivation of the
Inter City radio channels now more commonly known as Texas Law 1 and Texas
Law 2.
5. The implementation of system gateways via console or standalone hardware
patches that allow the interconnection of disparate systems.
6. The implementation of system components that allow the sharing of radio
channels and communication dispatch center resources.
The adoption of a common nomenclature in the naming of radio channels and
the subsequent programming of radio field units, i.e., mobile and portable radio
units, per a Regional Plan, which is being developed.
Each of these programs is addressed in turn for each participating agency and
recommendations, in the way of equipment and hardware required to enable a higher
level of interoperability, for each instance, is included in the following sections of this
report.
Current Interoperability Capability -
As a general rule, the Public Safety Agencies involved in this particular assessment
currently employ a very respectable level of communications interoperability. This is
especially true for the Public Safety Agencies within Dallas County, but also extends to
most of the neighboring counties who employ the same radio frequency band and
system technology. The use of the VHF radio band and conventional VHF radio
systems are prevalent throughout much of the NCTCOG region, especially in the ten
county area of Wise, Parker, Palo Pinto, Erath, Hood, Johnson, Ellis, Kaufman, Navarro
and Hunt Counties. For those agencies that utilize a different radio band and/or system
technology in these counties, steps have been taken to ensure that some form of
communications interoperability is available. 800 MHz trunked radio systems
predominate in Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant Counties although the VHF and UHF
radio bands are used as well. In Somervell County the UHF radio band is the most
heavily used, while in Rockwall County both the UHF and VHF radio bands are utilized.
The following recommendations are directed at improving and enhancing the present
state of communications interoperability. The focus of the improvements is upon the
Public Safety Answering Point dispatch centers. The communication consoles used at
a PSAP generally can be considered an interoperability gateway, since various radio
PAGE 7 OF 24 3/9/2005
"~--.~-----~ RCC CONSULTANTS, INC.
NCTCOG - REGIONAL INTEROPERABILITY PROJECT
system resources can be "patched", thus enabling communications for users of different
system technologies and/or radio bands. Accordingly, the solutions and accompanying
equipment recommendations are related to this area.
PAGE 8 OF 24 3/9/2005
"~--.~-----~ RCC CONSULTANTS, INC.
NCTCOG - REGIONAL INTEROPERABILITY PROJECT
Dallas County, City of Dallas, Town of Highland
Park, and City of University Park
PAGE 9 OF 24 3/9/2005
"~--.~-----~ RCC CONSULTANTS, INC.
NCTCOG - REGIONAL INTEROPERABILITY PROJECT
Dallas County- General Information
Land Area - 880 square miles - Persons per square mile - 2,523
~: ~;i, oblurph¥ ~t~¢ie
in Heights
Dallas County Road Map
Dallas County Elevation Map4
Dallas County Cities - (NCTCOG Estimated Population of 1000 or More - 1/1/04)
· Addison · Balch Springs · Cedar Hill
· Cockrell Hill · Dallas · DeSoto
· Duncanville · Farmers Branch · Garland
· Glenn Heights · Grand Prairie · Highland Park
· Hutchins · Irving · Lancaster
· Mesquite · Richardson · Rowlett
· Sachse · Seagoville · Sunnyvale
· University Park · Wilmer · Coppell
Law Enforcement Agencies
· Addison PD
· Cockrell Hill PD
· Dallas County Constables
· DeSoto PD
· Balch Springs PD
· DCCD PD
· Dallas County Sheriff
· Duncanville PD
· Cedar Hill PD
· DFWAirport PD
· Dallas PD
· Farmers Branch PD
4 Lower elevations colored blue, with a graduation to the highest elevations colored pink.
PAGE 10 OF 24
3~9~2005
"~--.~-----~ RCC CONSULTANTS, INC.
NCTCOG - REGIONAL INTEROPERABILITY PROJECT
· Garland PD
· Irving PD
· Richardson PD
· Seagoville PD
· Wilmer PD
· Highland Park PD
· Lancaster PD
· Rowlett PD
· UTD PD
· DART PD
· Hutchins PD
· Mesquite PD
· Sachse PD
· University Park PD
Fire Departments
· Addison FD
· Cedar Hill FD
· DFWAirport FD
· Farmers Branch FD
· Grand Prairie FD
· Irving FD
· Richardson FD
· Seagoville FD
· Wilmer FD
· Bach Springs Fire/Rescue
· Cockrell Hill VFD
· Dallas Fire/Rescue
· Garland Fire Department
· Highland Park FD
· Lancaster FD
· Rowlett FD
· Sunnyvale VFD
· Texas Instruments HazMat
· Carrollton FD
· Coppell FD
· DeSoto Fire/Rescue
· Glenn Heights FD
· Hutchins FD
· Mesquite FD
· Sachse VFD
· University Park FD
· Vought Aircraft FD
Dallas County Public Safety Answering Points -
· Dallas County SO · City of Richardson
· City of Dallas · Town of Addison
· City of Garland · City of Farmers Branch
· City of Irving · City of Rowlett
· City of Grand Prairie · City of Coppell
· City of Mesquite · City of Lancaster
· City of Carrollton · City of Sachse
· Town of Highland Park
· City of University Park
· SW Regional (N1)
· City of Wilmer
· City of Seagoville
· City of Hutchins
· City of Balch Springs
Dispatch Center Information -
Operator Positions Console Model Assessment Capacity
3 Motorola Very Limited Up to 16 stations
Centracom II Expansion
The Dallas County communication consoles are configured for the following radio
channels:
· Constable
· Road and Bridge
· Medical Examiner
· Detention 3
PAGE 11 OF 24 3/9/2005
"~--.~-----~ RCC CONSULTANTS, INC.
NCTCOG - REGIONAL INTEROPERABILITY PROJECT
· Bailiffs
· Detention 1
· Detention 2
· Spare (for DOJ VHF channel
addition)
· Constable
· Warrants
· lC Base (Texas Law 2)
· lC Patrol (Texas Law 1)
· Patrol
· Traffic (TxDOT)
· Spare (for DOJ VHF channel
addition)
· Fire Department
This photograph illustrates one of
the Dallas County dispatch consoles,
and it can be seen the maximum 16
positions will be filled if the 2 DOJ
channels are added to the console
display. For this reason, a couple of
alternatives are proposed,
depending on whether new consoles
will be funded by Dallas County
funding.
Operator Positions Console Model Assessment Capacity
9 Motorola Limited Expansion 16
CentraCom II
9 Motorola Gold Elite Expandable See assessment
The City of Dallas has separate, yet adjacent dispatch areas for police and fire. Police
are configured for the following 13 channels:
· Sector 1 · Sector 6
· Sector 2 · Tactical
· Sector 3 · Special Operations
· Sector 4 · Traffic
· Sector 5 · Other miscellaneous
· Other miscellaneous
· Other miscellaneous
· lC (Texas Law 2)
PAGE 12 OF 24 3/9/2005
Here is a photograph of a
Motorola Centracom II
"buttons and LED's" console
the police dispatch operators
use to interface with the
radio users:
This is the Motorola Gold
Elite video console the fire
dispatch operators use to
communicate with their
radio users:
It can be seen, the fire dispatch consoles provide a good deal of interoperability with
channels in the City of Dallas, as well as with several suburbs in the area, such as
University Park, Addison, Carrollton, Coppell, Duncanville, Garland, Grand Prairie,
Highland Park, and Piano. The fire consoles can also communicate on Intercity and
NPSPAC channels. The police dispatch consoles are in the process of being upgraded
to Gold Elite as well. The monitors are already in their possession, and the PC's should
be arriving in the near term. VVhen the upgrade is complete, the police will also be able
to incorporate the recommended improvements addressed later in this report. The 2
DOJ channels alone will consume 2 of the 3 available expansion positions, leaving only
a single expansion channel possible with the current dispatch consoles.
"~--.~-----~ RCC CONSULTANTS, INC.
NCTCOG - REGIONAL INTEROPERABILITY PROJECT
Operator Positions Console Model Assessment Capacity
2 Moducom Expandable See assessment
The Highland Park communication consoles are configured for the following radio
channels:
· Public Safety (Police/Fire)
· Public Works (UHF)
· Intercity (Texas Law 2)
· Intercity (Texas Law 1)
As can be seen, the interface is
programmable, and there are several
spare slots in the equipment rack
available to add channels. Highland
Park provides backup dispatch
services to University Park in the
event the University Park radio system
is not available, by virtue of the
University Park mobile/portable radios
having the Highland Park channels
programmed in the radios.
Operator Positions Console Model Assessment Capacity
3 Motorola Windows Not expandable See assessment
3.1 video console
system
The University Park communication consoles
are configured for the following radio
channels:
· Police
· Fire
· City Government
· NPSPAC
· Intercity (Texas Law 1 & 2)
PAGE 14 OF 24 3/9/2005
"~--.~-----~ RCC CONSULTANTS, INC.
NCTCOG - REGIONAL INTEROPERABILITY PROJECT
These consoles are using older Windows 3.1 software and are not supportable from an
expansion standpoint. This picture shows one of the console displays. University Park
provides backup dispatch services to Highland Park in the event the Highland Park
radio system is not available by having the University Park channels preprogrammed
into the Highland Park mobiles and portables.
Dallas County - Current Radio Systems
Dallas County uses 8 channels of VHF conventional Quantar repeaters for the bulk of
their radio communications, with the repeaters centrally located in the County and about
15 voted receiver sites also distributed throughout Dallas County. Sunnyvale and
Sachse contract to the County for radio services. Dallas County also operates 5 single-
channel 800 MHz systems at jail locations. Some channels from other VHF users are
programmed in the radios, such as Kaufman, Johnson, and Ellis County public safety
vehicles. Presently, there is no UHF (used by the City of Dallas) or 800 MHz (used by
many suburbs around Dallas) in the Sheriff dispatch. Texas Law 1 and 2 can also be
monitored. If the DOJ VHF channels were to be added to the dispatch consoles
directly, there would be no room for any additional channels in the existing dispatch
equipment.
The City of Dallas police use 12 channels of UHF analog conventional radio technology.
6 of these are positioned in the police sectors throughout the city, giving a single
channel for each sector. They have another 6 channels located near downtown for
citywide use, such as tactical, special ops, traffic, etc. The fire department uses 4
channels of UHF conventional channels, located near downtown Dallas. The city also
has a 3-site, 20-channel analog Motorola trunked system used city services and the
Cockrell Hill policefiire departments.
Highland Park operates a single channel 800 MHz analog radio system. They also
have a backup site, as well as serve as the backup radio system for University Park.
Dispatch can also monitor Texas Law 1 and Texas Law 2. Dallas UHF fire channels are
programmed in the fire equipment, but not in the dispatch center.
University Park has a 3-channel, single site, conventional 800 MHz analog system, with
one channel each for police, fire, and city services. They also have a backup site, and
monitor Texas Law 1 and Texas Law 2. Dispatch and some fire vehicles have UHF
radios, for working with the City of Dallas fire. University Park also serves as a backup
dispatch for Highland Park. SMU (2 channel 800 MHz conventional system) is a
secondary PSAP to University Park, and these agencies interact on a routine basis.
Dispatch has one 800 MHz multi-channel control station. Several channels are
programmed into the control station, including all of the University Park, Highland Park,
SMU and all 5 NPSPAC channels. In about a year or so, new consoles Gold Elite
consoles are being planned to replace the antiquated ones now being used.
PAGE 15 OF 24 3/9/2005
"~--.~-----~ RCC CONSULTANTS, INC.
NCTCOG - REGIONAL INTEROPERABILITY PROJECT
Interoperability Recommendations -
The County Sheriff's Department and the City of Dallas, Town of Highland Park, and the
City of University Park are currently taking very positive steps to improve interoperability
in the County. To augment these efforts, RCC recommends the following equipment
additions that are to funded by NCTCOG:
Activate NPSPAC 800 MHz mutual aid operations and equipment through the
addition of NPSPAC RF control stations. This action will allow communications
with 800 MHz equipped agencies, such as the Town of Highland Park and City of
University Park dispatch centers. The City of Dallas can patch the 800 MHz
mutual aid channels to their UHF channels to achieve interoperability with their
surrounding suburbs via the dispatch center.
Incorporate VHF RF control stations operating on the Department of Justice VHF
interoperability system. Dallas County and the City of Dallas are already a part
of this project, including the "DFW East and West" channels. Highland Park or
University Park would also benefit from having the "DFW East" channel. Only
Highland Park or University Park probably needs this capability, the 2 entities
should decide which will receive this channel. This action will allow direct
communications between Federal Law Enforcement Agencies from the dispatch
centers, and if necessary, can be patched to County and City radio channels.
3. Replace old Texas Law 2 radio equipment in each dispatch center.
recommendation requires the agencies to monitor the channel.
This
4. Add UHF RF control stations in the County, Highland Park and University Park
dispatch centers to improve interoperability with the City of Dallas.
5. Add trunked RF multi-channel control stations for M/A-COM EDACS and
Motorola trunked technologies in Dallas County.
Equipment Additions & Modifications for Dallas County Agencies
PSAP - Dallas County
DOJ VHF channels are already being added to dispatch under the scope of
the DOJ project, and would take up all of remaining positions on the consoles
if connected directly to the dispatch consoles. Therefore, the
recommendations below that add channels will either require new console
equipment (which, because of the cost of more functional consoles, must be
funded by the County) or connect the additional channels through an
interoperability gateway switch (IGS) located in an adjacent area, as there is
no room in the existing dispatch area. The preference would be to obtain new
PAGE 16 OF 24 3/9/2005
"~--.~-----~ RCC CONSULTANTS, INC.
NCTCOG - REGIONAL INTEROPERABILITY PROJECT
consoles, as additional capacity/efficiencies would provide a high level of
functionality, including existing needs within the County, with other agencies,
and having the ability to accommodate future radio system upgrades. If the
new console option is not feasible, the IGS would have to be accessed
manually, with a person manipulating the gateway to the desired channel as
needed. Obviously, this is a less efficient and functionally limited alternative.
2. After the existing consoles are upgraded or along with the interoperability
gateway addition, provide the following new stations:
a. Add 2 NPSPAC RF control station interface cards
b.
Add 2 City of Dallas UHF interoperability channel RF control station
interface cards.
Add 2 M/A-COM EDACS control station interface cards for Richardson,
Irving and DFW airport interoperability
Add 2 Motorola trunked control station interface cards for Garland, Piano,
and Metrocrest interoperability
Add 2 new NPSPAC 800 MHz RF multi-channel control stations with antenna
systems and accessories each operating on an assigned NPSPAC tactical
channel - The stations would be located at the dispatch center. Note 1, 2
Add 2 new UHF RF multi-channel control stations with antenna systems and
accessories operating on the City of Dallas radio system. - The stations would
be located at the dispatch center. Note 1, 2
Add 4 (2 M/A-COM EDACS, 2 Motorola) multi-channel control stations with
antenna systems and accessories for various interoperable communications
with other Dallas County agencies.
Replace the existing VHF RF control station with antenna system and
accessories operating on the Texas Law 2 interoperability channel. - The
station would be located at the dispatch center.
PAGE 17 OF 24 3/9/2005
"~--.~-----~ RCC CONSULTANTS, INC.
NCTCOG - REGIONAL INTEROPERABILITY PROJECT
Equipment Additions & Modifications for the
Dallas County Sheriff's Department PSAP
Add (2) 800 MHz NPSPAC
and (4) trunked Control
Stations with Antenna Systems
& Accessories
Previously
Approved
DOJ
Interoperability
Channels (2)
Add interoperability
gateway switch (IGS)
prior to adding UHF and
800 MHz control
stations
Add (2) UHF multi-
channel RF Control
Stations with Antenna
Systems & Accessories
Operating on designated
City of Dallas
Interoperability Channels
Redirect 2
existing VHF
channels
through the
IGS to allow
enhanced
interoperability
configurations
Note: If new consoles are added, IGS is not needed and all of the above
channels would connect directly to the consoles via central electronics bank
(CEB).
PSAP - City of Dallas
A typical example of an Embassy Network is illustrated below. All consoles are
able to share common resources and are able to operate designated trunked
talkgroups and other conventional two-way radio resources depending upon the
individual configuration of the console operator positions. This network
configuration lends itself to a high level of communications interoperability.
The existing City of Dallas embassy network is capable of being configured in
such a manner, lending it to even more interoperability than the extensive
amount currently available, especially to the various 800 MHz systems used by
several surrounding suburban cities.
PAGE 18 OF 24 3/9/2005
"~--,~------, RCC CONSULTANTS, INC.
NCTCOG - REGIONAL INTEROPERABILITY PROJECT
Dispatch
Example Of
An Embassy
Network
Near term interoperability recommendations are listed below.
DOJ VHF channels are already being added to dispatch under the scope of
the DOJ project, and will take up 2 of the 3 remaining positions on the
consoles.
Upgrade the capability of the existing consoles to accommodate the following
new station:
a. Add a NPSPAC 800 MHz RF control station interface card
PAGE 19 OF 24 3/9/2005
"~--.~-----~ RCC CONSULTANTS, INC.
NCTCOG - REGIONAL INTEROPERABILITY PROJECT
Add a new NPSPAC 800 MHz RF multi-channel control station with antenna
system and accessories operating on an assigned NPSPAC tactical channel-
The station would be located at the dispatch center. Note 1, 2
Replace the existing VHF RF control station with antenna system and
accessories operating on the Texas Law 2 interoperability channel. - The
station would be located at the dispatch center.
Equipment Additions & Modifications for the
City of Dallas County Police Department PSAP
Add an 800 MHz
NPSPAC Control Station
with Antenna System &
Accessories
Police console
to CRT ,..~,
upgrade
interface already ,--~
in progress
Previously
Approved
DOJ
Interoperability
Channels (2)
PSAP - Town of Highland Park
Upgrade the capability of the existing Moducom consoles to accommodate
the following new stations:
a. Add a NPSPAC RF control station interface card.
b. Add a City of Dallas UHF channel RF control station interface card.
e. Add a DOJ VHF interoperability channel RF control station interface card
(either Highland Park or University Park probably needs this capability,
and should be placed as agreed to by these agencies).
Add a new NPSPAC 800 MHz RF multi-channel control station with antenna
system and accessories operating on an assigned NPSPAC tactical channel-
The station would be located at the dispatch center. Note 1, 2
Add a VHF RF control station (or at University Park dispatch) with antenna
system and accessories that operates on the DOJ interoperability channel.
The station would be located at the dispatch center. - Note 1, 2.
PAGE 20 OF 24 3/9/2005
"~--.~-----~ RCC CONSULTANTS, INC.
NCTCOG - REGIONAL INTEROPERABILITY PROJECT
Add a new UHF RF multi-channel control station with antenna system and
accessories operating on the City of Dallas radio system. - The station would
be located at the dispatch center. Note 1, 2
Replace the existing VHF RF control station with antenna system and
accessories operating on the Texas Law 2 interoperability channel. The
station would be located at the dispatch center.
Add an 800
MHz
NPSPAC
Control
Station with
Antenna
System &
Accessories
Equipment Additions & Modifications for the
Town of Highland Park PSAP
Upgraded CEB with new cards
Control Station with
Antenna System
Operating on the
DOJ DFW East
Interoperability
Channel
PSAP - City of University Park
As part of the consoles replacement project in the next year or so, the following
actions can take place:
1. Upgrade the capability of the consoles to accommodate the following new
stations:
a. Add a NPSPAC RF control station interface card
b. Add a City of Dallas UHF interoperability channel RF control station
interface card.
c. Add a DOJ VHF interoperability channel RF control station interface card.
Add a new NPSPAC 800 MHz RF multi-channel control station with antenna
system and accessories operating on an assigned NPSPAC tactical channel-
The station would be located at the dispatch center. Note 1, 2
PAGE 21 OF 24 3/9/2005
"~--.~-----~ RCC CONSULTANTS, INC.
NCTCOG - REGIONAL INTEROPERABILITY PROJECT
Add a VHF RF control station with antenna system and accessories that
operates on the DOJ interoperability channel. The station would be located at
the dispatch center. - Note 1, 2
Add a new UHF RF control station with antenna system and accessories
operating on the City of Dallas radio system. - The station would be located at
the dispatch center. Note 1, 2
Replace the existing VHF RF control station with antenna system and
accessories operating on the Texas Law 2 interoperability channel. - The
station would be located at the dispatch center.
Equipment Additions & Modifications for the
New VHF RF Control
Station with Antenna
System Operating on
the DOJ DFW East
Interoperability
Channel
Add an 800 MHz
NPSPAC multi-
channel Control
Station with Antenna
System &
Accessories
City of University Park PSAP
Add a UHF multi-
channel RF
Control Station
with Antenna
System &
Accessories
Operating on
designated
City of Dallas
Interoperability
Channels
Future dispatch
consoles and CEB
by University Park
Other Considerations - Interoperability Solutions and Radio Coverage -
NPSPAC Mutual Aid System Coverage
Optimally, the implementation of the NPSPAC mutual aid repeaters should be such that
radio coverage is provided in the majority of the associated service area. In the actual
case, the radio coverage provided is the result of the system design and the effects of
terrain, and other factors that influence the eventual coverage footprint. The expected
800 MHz mobile radio coverage from the Dallas site is shown below and is portrayed as
a green colored overlay. In the proposed NCTCOG NPSPAC Mutual Aid Usage Plan,
the Dallas mutual aid station is configured as a "Primary" calling channel station. Other
PAGE 22 OF 24 3/9/2005
"~C__,C__, RCC CONSULTANTS, INC.
NCTCOG - REGIONAL INTEROPERABILITY PROJECT
backup calling channel locations include Irving, Richardson and Mesquite, with several
other sites also capable of activating tactical channels. Final decisions regarding this
proposal have yet to be made, but the expected end result should be close to the
proposed configuration. The actual use of any site must be coordinated using the
calling channels via the nearest "Primary NPSPAC Mutual Aid" dispatch center, which,
in the illustrated example, is the City of Dallas PSAP.
The next figure shows the total tactical channel coverage provided by several, but not
all, sites in Dallas County. Note that not all of these sites are currently in place, for
example, the DeSoto site is not currently built, but is in the NPSPAC usage plan.
However, it can be seen almost complete mobile coverage is attained when appropriate
tactical repeaters are activated.
Predicted 95% Reliable 800 MHz Mobile Coverage - Dallas Site
PAGE 23 OF 24 3/9/2005
"~--.~-----~ RCC CONSULTANTS, INC.
NCTCOG - REGIONAL INTEROPERABILITY PROJECT
Predicted 95% Reliable 800 MHz Mobile Coverage -
Several Sites in the Dallas County Area
Notes for Dallas County:
Note 1 - Requires interlocal agreement or letter of agreement from primary
licensee
Note 2 - Requires acquisition of FCC license
PAGE 24 OF 24 3/9/2005
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
AGENDA MEMO
(5/18/05 AGENDA)
May 12, 2005
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Christine Green, Purchasing Agent
Bid #05-09, Annual Contract for Utility Parts
BID #05-09, ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR UTILITY PARTS
Bid #05-09 for the purchase of utility parts on an annual contract basis was opened March 17,
2005. This bid was posted on RFP Depot: 1256 vendors received fax or e-mail notice of the bid;
95 vendors viewed the bid; six vendors submitted bids.
The recommended bid award is based on the overall low bid per category as follows:
Copper Tubing
Items 1-2 = All-Tex Supply Pipe Supply, Inc.
Estimated Annual Total $3, 704. O0
Ductile Iron Pipe, Fittings, & Valves
Items 3-24, 26-81 = Metro Valve Pipe
Estimated Annual Total $ 73, 226. 02
Item 25 = Municipal Water Works Supply, LP
Estimated Annual Total $580. O0
Fire Hydrants
Items 82-92 = D & W Utility Supply
Estimated Annual Total $13,361.92
Water Meters and Parts
Items 93-97
No Bids Received
(Invensys water meters only available through National Waterworks' who did not submit a bid)
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson\Local Settings~Temporary Internet Files\OLK31\0509memo (2).doc
8:34 AM 05/12/05
Utility Parts
May 12, 2003
Page 2
Water Meter Installation Parts, Valves, & Fittings
Items 98-143, 146-157 = Municipal Water Works Supply, LP
Estimated Annual Total $13,472.49
Item 144 = Ferguson Waterworks
Estimated Annual Total $50.47
Item 145 = D & W Utility Supply
Estimated Annual Total $678.80
Item 152 = Techline, Inc.
EstimatedAnnual Total $30.12
Pipe Repair Clamps
Items 158-174 = Municipal Water Works
Estimated Annual Total $13,472.49
PVC Pipe and Fittings
Items 175-230 = Metro Valve Pipe
Estimated Annual Total $20,501.46
Item 231 = Municipal Water Works
Estimated Annual Total $236.80
Tools
Item 232 = Metro Valve Pipe, Estimated Annual Total $168. O0
Item 233 = Municipal Water Work Supply, Estimated Annual Total $18. O0
Item 234 = Ferguson Waterworks, Estimated Annual Total $2,403.05
Item 235 = Municipal Water Works Supply, Estimated Annual Total $192. O0
Item 236 = Metro Valve Pipe, Estimated Annual Total $242. O0
OVERALL ESTIMATED TOTAL (IF ALL PARTS ARE PURCHASED) $142,337.62
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends accepting the bids of All-Tex Supply Pipe Supply, Inc., D & W Utility Supply,
Ferguson Waterworks, Metro Valve Pipe, Municipal Water Works Supply, LP, and Techline, Inc.
in the estimated annual total amount of $142,337.62. A bid tabulation is attached.
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson\Local Settings~Temporary Internet Files\OLK31\0509memo (2).doc
8:34 AM 05/12/05
BID #05-09, ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR UTILITY PARTS CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK OPENED 3-17-05, 10:00 A.M.
D & W UTILITY ALL-TEX FERGUSON METRO VALVE MUNICIPAL WW TECHL
KEYWORD UNIT EXT. UNIT EXT. UNIT EXT. UNIT EXT. UNIT EXT. UNIT
ITEM DESCRIPTION PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE
COPPER TUBING
1. COPPER:TUBING $1.81 $ 724.00 $ 644.00 $3.89 $ 1,556.00 $ 1.90 $ 760.00 $ 1.75 $ 700.00 $ 2.78
2. COPPER:TUBING $2.39 $ 3,585.00 $ 20~ $ 3,060.00 $5.10 $ 7,650.00 $ 2.50 $ 3,750.00 $ 2.25 $ 3,375.00 $ 3.66
$ 4,309.00 $3'704;00 $ 9,206.00 $ 4,510.00 $ 4,075.00
DUCTILE IRON PIPE, FITTINGS AND VALVES
3. DI:BEND-22.5D $53.13 $ 53.13 NO BID NO BID $73.10 $ 73.10 $ 60.49 $ 60.49 $ 69.00 $ 69.00
4. DI:BEND-22.5D $71.60 $ 71.60 NO BID NO BID $98.50 $ 98.50 $ 81.52 $ 81.52 $ 92.00 $ 92.00
5. DI:BEND-22.5D $98.49 $ 98.49 NO BID NO BID $135.50 $ 135.50 $ 112.14 $ 112.14 $126.00 $ 126.00 $ 68'10
6. DI:BEND-22.5D $149.04 $ 149.04 NO BID NO BID $205.00 $ 205.00 $ 169.69 $ 169.69 $190.00 $ 190.00 $8805
7. DI:BEND-22.5D $193.75 $ 193.75 NO BID NO BID $266.70 $ 266.70 $ 220.60 $ 220.60 $247.00 $ 247.00 $ 12708
8. DI:BEND-45D $52.16 $ 52.16 NO BID NO BID $71.80 $ 71.80 $ 59.39 $ 59.39 $ 68.00 $ 68.00 $ 2819
9. DI:BEND-45D $70.30 $ 703.00 NO BID NO BID $96.70 $ 967.00 $ 80.05 $ 800.50 $ 90.00 $ 900.00 $ 4337
10. DI:BEND-45D $98.49 $ 393.96 NO BID NO BID $135.50 $ 542.00 $ 112.14 $ 448.56 $126.00 $ 504.00 $6723
11. DI:BEND-45D $143.53 $ 143.53 NO BID NO BID $197.50 $ 197.50 $ 163.42 $ 163.42 $185.00 $ 185.00 $ 9195
12. DI:BEND-45D $190.19 $ 380.38 NO BID NO BID $261.80 $ 523.60 $ 216.62 $ 433.24 $244.00 $ 488.00 $ 126'65
13. DI:BEND-90D $78.40 $ 78.40 NO BID NO BID $107.90 $ 107.90 $ 89.27 $ 89.27 $102.00 $ 102.00 $49'88
14. DI:BEND-90D $112.42 $ 112.42 NO BID NO BID $154.70 $ 154.70 $ 128.00 $ 128.00 $145.00 $ 145.00 $77'64
15. DI:BEND-90D $226.15 $ 452.30 NO BID NO BID $311.30 $ 622.60 $ 257.49 $ 514.98 $289.00 $ 578.00 $ 15398
16. DI:BEND-90D $ 702.75 $ 702.75 NO BID NO BID $967.00 $ 967.00 $ 800.14 $ 800.14 $458;00 $ 458.00 $ 723.47
17. BI:CAP $ 22.70 $ 22.70 NO BID NO BID $31.20 $ 31.20 $ 25.82 $ 25.82 $ 31.00 $ 31.00 $t2'14
18. BI:CAP $ 29.80 $ 149.00 NO BID NO BID $41.00 $ 205.00 $ 33.93 $ 169.65 $ 39.00 $ 195.00 $ 1865
19. BI:CAP $ 39.85 $ 39.85 NO BID NO BID $54.80 $ 54.80 $ 45.37 $ 45.37 $ 52.00 $ 52.00 $2949
20. BI:CAP $ 71.92 $ 71.92 NO BID NO BID $99.00 $ 99.00 $ 81.89 $ 81.89 $ 93.00 $ 93.00 $5292
21. DI:CLEANOUT 37.26 NO BID NO BID $122.70 $ 122.70 $ 117.18 $ 117.18 $115.00 $ 115.00 $ 42.64
22. DI:CLEANOUT $ 13.00 NO BID NO BID $15.10 $ 30.20 $ 14.48 $ 28.96 $ 15.00 $ 30.00 $ 20.48
23. BI:COUPLING $ 147.89 $ 1,478.90 NO BID NO BID $148.90 $ 1,489.00 $ 157.48 $ 1,574.80 $139.00 $ 1,390.00
24. BI:COUPLING $ 215.20 $ 430.40 NO BID NO BID $216.70 $ 433.40 $ 229.15 $ 458.30 $205.00 $ 410.00 $ 14801
25. BI:COUPLING NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID $290'00 $ 580.00 $ 320.51
26. BI:COUPLING $ 327.22 $ 327.22 NO BID NO BID $329.50 $ 329.50 $ 348.44 $ 348.44 $30500 $ 305.00 $ 512.82
27. DI:GATEVALVE $ 651.20 NO BID NO BID $162.80 $ 814.00 $ 137.07 $ 675.35 $149.00 $ 745.00 $ 160.80
28. BI:GATE VALVE $ 228.12 $ 228.12 NO BID NO BID $276.00 $ 276.00 $20800 $ 208.00 $260.00 $ 260.00 $ 263.40
29. BI:GATE VALVE $ 295.29 $ 3,543.48 NO BID NO BID $354.70 $ 4,256.40 $265'00 $ 3,180.00 $330.00 $ 3,960.00 $ 336.00
30. DI:GATEVALVE $ 459.40 $ 459.40 NO BID NO BID $560.00 $ 56o.oo $ 44500 $ 445.00 $498.00 $ 498.00 $ 535.20
31. DI:GATEVALVE $ 713.93 $ 713.93 NO BID NO BID $863.00 $ 863.00 $68050 $ 680.50 $774.00 $ 774.00 $ 834.00
32. DI:GATEVALVE $ 902.38 $ 902.38 NO BID NO BID $1,090.00 $ 1,090.00 $85200 $ 852.00 $975.00 $ 975.00 $1,055.40
33. DI:GLANDKIT $ 120.48 NO BID NO BID $13.80 $ 165.60 $ 14.62 $ 175.44 $ 13.50 $ 162.00 $ 18.07
34. DI:GLANDKIT $ 1328 $ 1,328.00 NO BID NO BID $18.30 $ 1,830.00 $ 19.33 $ 1,933.00 $ 18.00 $ 1,800.00 $ 36.14
35. DI:GLANDKIT $20;41 $ 408.20 NO BID NO BID $28.10 $ 562.00 $ 29.70 $ 594.00 $ 26.83 $ 5,366.00 $ 42.17
36. BI:MANHOLE $9500 $ 95.00 NO BID NO BID $102.30 $ 102.30 $ 97.65 $ 97.65 $105.00 $ 105.00 $ 99.91
37. BI:MANHOLE $ 267.75 $ 267.75 NO BID NO BID $290.00 $ 290.00 $ 276.67 $ 276.67 $267.00 $ 267.00 $ 18632
38. BI:MANHOLE $9500 $ 570.00 NO BID NO BID $102.30 $ 613.80 $ 97.65 $ 585.90 $105.00 $ 630.00 $ 99.91
39. BI:MANHOLE $ 120.75 $ 724.50 NO BID NO BID $130.70 $ 784.20 $ 124.77 $ 748.62 $125.00 $ 750.00 $ 9991
BID #05-09, ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR UTILITY PARTS CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK OPENED 3-17-05, 10:00 A.M.
D & W UTILITY ALL-TEX FERGUSON METRO VALVE MUNICIPAL WW TECHL
KEYWORD UNIT EXT. UNIT EXT. UNIT EXT. UNIT EXT. UNIT EXT. UNIT
ITEM DESCRIPTION PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE
40. DI:METERCAN $ 140.00 $ 1,400.00 NO BID NO BID $148.00 $ 1,480.00 $ 141.05 $ 1,410.50 $139.00 $ 1,390.00 $ 12448
41. DI:METERCAN $ 106.16 $38,217.60 NO BID NO BID $111.70 $40,212.00 $ 106.65 $38,394.00 $105.00 $37,800.00
42. DI:METERCANLID $ 66.00 NO BID NO BID $69.50 $ 69.50 $ 66.30 $ 66.30 $ 72.00 $ 72.00 $ 80.77
43. al:PIPE $ 183.95 $ 367.90 NO BID NO BID $198.00 $ 396.00 $ 18.42 $169.00 $ 338.00 $ 14.51
44. al:PIPE $ 195.36 $ 1,953.60 NO BID NO BID $210.20 $ 2,102.00 $979 $ 97.90 $179.00 $ 1,790.00 $ 15.41
45. al:PIPE $ 269.12 $ 538.24 NO BID NO BID $289.80 $ 579.60 $13'48 $ 26.96 $234.20 $ 468.40 $ 21.23
46. al:PIPE $ 356.49 $ 712.98 NO BID NO BID $382.20 $ 764.40 $17'86 $ 35.72 $308.80 $ 617.60 $ 28.00
47. al:PIPE $ 486.21 $ 972.42 NO BID NO BID $523.60 $ 1,047.20 $ 48.74 $422.82 $ 845.64 $ 38.35
48. al:PIPE $ 450.00 $ 900.00 NO BID NO BID $484.60 $ 969.20 $ 45.10 $391.40 $ 782.80 $ 35.50
49. al:PIPE $ 889.90 $ 1,779.80 NO BID NO BID $958.00 $ 1,916.00 $44'59 $ 89.18 $773.80 $ 1,547.60 $ 70.19
50. al:PIPE $1,142.56 $ 2,285.12 NO BID NO BID $1,230.20 $ 2,460.40 $ 5~;25 $ 114.50 $993.60 $ 1,987.20 $ 90.13
51. al:PLUG $ 25.92 $ 25.92 NO BID NO BID $35.60 $ 35.60 $ 29.51 $ 29.51 $ 18;95 $ 18.95 $ 19.95
52. al:PLUG $ 43.09 $ 43.09 NO BID NO BID $59.30 $ 59.30 $ 49.06 $ 49.06 $ 29;35 $ 29.35 $ 29.49
53. al:PLUG $ 76.46 $ 76.46 NO BID NO BID $105.20 $ 105.20 $ 87.06 $ 87.06 $ 53.50 $ 53.78
54. BI:REDUCER $ 61.88 $ 61.88 NO BID NO BID $85.20 $ 85.20 $ 70.45 $ 70.45 $ 82.44 $ 82.44 $ 3123
55. al:REDUCER $ 90.40 $ 452.00 NO BID NO BID $124.40 $ 622.00 $ 102.92 $ 514.60 $119.00 $ 595.00 $4858
56. al:REDUCER $ 130.90 $ 1,439.90 NO BID NO BID $180.00 $ 1,980.00 $ 149.03 $ 1,639.33 $175.00 $ 1,925.00 $6549
57. DI:SLEEVE-CUTIN $ 181.10 $ 181.10 NO BID NO BID $214.50 $ 214.50 $123'00 $ 123.00 $218.00 $ 218.00 $ 198.96
58. DI:SLEEVE-CUTIN $ 220.95 $ 1,546.65 NO BID NO BID $256.00 $ 1,792.00 $t34'85 $ 597.40 $261.00 $ 1,827.00 $ 241.08
59. DI:SLEEVE-CUTIN $ 299.77 $ 599.54 NO BID NO BID $337.00 $ 674.00 $t82'00 $ 364.00 $340.00 $ 680.00 $ 327.54
60. DI:SLEEVE-CUTIN $ 394.10 $ 394.10 NO BID NO BID $429.50 $ 429.50 $ 23~16 $ 237.16 $437.00 $ 437.00 $ 431.18
61. DI:SLEEVE-CUTIN $ 533.13 $ 2,132.52 NO BID NO BID $571.00 $ 2,284.00 $297;05 $ 1,188.20 $582.00 $ 2,328.00 $ 583.04
62. BI:SLEEVE-SOLID $ 51.50 $ 257.50 NO BID NO BID $71.00 $ 355.00 $ 58.65 $ 293.25 $ 72.00 $ 360.00 $2993
63. al:SLEEVE-SOLID $ 75.50 $ 981.50 NO BID NO BID $103.90 $ 1,350.70 $ 85.95 $ 1,117.35 $ 98.50 $ 1,280.50 $4684
64. al:SLEEVE-SOLID $ 102.70 $ 102.70 NO BID NO BID $141.30 $ 141.30 $ 116.94 $ 116.94 $135.00 $ 135.00 $6159
65. BI:SLEEVE-SOLID $ 114.37 $ 114.37 NO BID NO BID $157.40 $ 157.40 $ 130.22 $ 130.22 $149.00 $ 149.00 $ ~287
66. al:SLEEVE-SOLID $ 172.04 $ 688.16 NO BID NO BID $236.80 $ 947.20 $ 195.88 $ 783.52 $225.00 $ 900.00
67. al:SLEEVE-SOLID $ 577.70 $ 2,310.80 NO BID NO BID $795.20 $ 3,180.80 $ 657.74 $ 2,630.96 $750.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 50573
68. DI:TEE $ 111.30 $ 222.60 NO BID NO BID $153.00 $ 306.00 $ 126.53 $ 253.06 $149.00 $ 298.00 $5769
69. DI:TEE $ 116.32 $ 465.28 NO BID NO BID $160.10 $ 640.40 $ 132.43 $ 529.72 $157.00 $ 628.00 $66'36
70. al:TEE $ 158.45 $ 316.90 NO BID NO BID $218.00 $ 436.00 $ 180.39 $ 360.78 $219.00 $ 438.00 $95'42
71. al:TEE $ 165.89 $ 165.89 NO BID NO BID $228.30 $ 228.30 $ 188.87 $ 188.87 $224.00 $ 224.00 $ 103'66
72. al:TEE $ 285.44 $ 285.44 NO BID NO BID $393.00 $ 393.00 $ 325.00 $ 325.00 $369.00 $ 369.00 $ 144'87
73. al:TEE $ 284.80 $ 284.80 NO BID NO BID $392.00 $ 392.00 $ 324.26 $ 324.26 $372.00 $ 372.00 $ 150'94
74. al:TEE $ 287.40 $ 287.40 NO BID NO BID $395.60 $ 395.60 $ 327.19 $ 327.19 $390.00 $ 390.00 $ 16092
75. al:TEE $ 301.00 $ 301.00 NO BID NO BID $414.30 $ 414.30 $ 342.70 $ 342.70 $460.00 $ 460.00 $ 1782~
76. al:TEE $ 356.72 $ 356.72 NO BID NO BID $491.00 $ 491.00 $ 406.15 $ 406.15 $440.00 $ 440.00 $ 18823
77. al:TEE-ANCHOR $ 340.85 $ 340.85 NO BID NO BID $469.20 $ 469.20 $ 523.00 $ 523.00 $438.00 $ 438.00
78. al:TEE-TAPPED $ 85.00 $ 85.00 NO BID NO BID $85.20 $ 85.20 $ 102.28 $ 102.28 $ 82.00 $ 82.00
79. al:TEE-TAPPED $ 107.20 $ 214.40 NO BID NO BID $107.90 $ 215.80 $ 141.00 $ 282.00 $104.00 $ 208.00
80. al:VALVE BOX $ 70.00 $ 140.00 NO BID NO BID $61.80 $ 123.60 $ 56.00 $ 112.00 $ 71.50 $ 143.00 $ 36'14
81. al:VALVE BOX $ 35.00 $ 1,400.00 NO BID NO BID $37.90 $ 1,516.00 $ 36.13 $ 1,445.20 $ 36.00 $ 1,440.00 $2767
$ 81,635.73 $ - $ 92,451.40 $73'226:02 $ 91,232.98
BID #05-09, ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR UTILITY PARTS CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK OPENED 3-17-05, 10:00 A.M.
D & W UTILITY ALL-TEX FERGUSON METRO VALVE MUNICIPAL WW TECHL
KEYWORD UNIT EXT. UNIT EXT. UNIT EXT. UNIT EXT. UNIT EXT. UNIT
ITEM DESCRIPTION PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE
FIRE HYDRANT:
82. FIRE HYDRANT: $ 37.00 $ 185.00 NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID $ 189.00 NO BID NO BID NO BID
83. FIRE HYDRANT: $ 3,561.44 NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID $ 962.00 $ 3,848.00 NO BID NO BID NO BID
84. FIRE HYDRANT: $ 93378 $ 3,735.12 NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID $ 984.00 $ 3,936.00 NO BID NO BID NO BID
85. FIRE HYDRANT: $ 97~13 $ 2,931.39 NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID $ 1,020.00 $ 3,060.00 NO BID NO BID NO BID
86. FIRE HYDRANT: $ 196.19 $ 1,177.14 NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID $ 990.00 NO BID NO BID NO BID
87. FIRE HYDRANT: $ 229.08 $22908 NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID $ 230.00 $ 230.00 NO BID NO BID NO BID
88. FIRE HYDRANT: $ 282.55 $ 282.55 NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID $ 250.00 NO BID NO BID NO BID
89. FIRE HYDRANT: $8900 $ 890.00 NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID $ 92.20 $ 922.00 NO BID NO BID NO BID
90. FIRE HYDRANT: $ 27'50 $ 165.00 NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID $ 84.00 $ 504.00 NO BID NO BID NO BID
91. FIRE HYDRANT: $8520 $ 85.20 NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID $ 110.00 $ 110.00 NO BID NO BID NO BID
92. FIRE HYDRANT: $4000 $ 120.00 NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID $ 110.00 $ 110.00 NO BID NO BID NO BID
$ 13'361 i92 $ - $ - $ 14,149.00 $ -
WATER METERS AND PARTS
93. METER:WATER NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID
94. METER:WATER NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID
95. METER:WATER NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID
96. METER:WATER NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID
97. METER:WATER NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
WATER METER INSTALLATION PARTS, VALVES AND FITTINGS
98. MTR:BRASS-IDLER $ 12.20 $ 12.20 NO BID NO BID $14.28 $14.28 $ 13.13 $ 13.13 $ 1180 $ 11.80 $ 36.14
99. MTR:BRASS-IDLER $ 6.22 NO BID NO BID $8.73 $8.73 $ 6.69 $ 6.69 $ 6.47 $ 6.47 $ 42.17
100. MTR:CORP $ 16.49 $ 98.94 NO BID NO BID $16.73 $100.38 $ 17.74 $ 106.44 $ 16.25 $ 97.50 $ 96~
101. MTR:CORP $ 16.49 $ 2,968.20 NO BID NO BID $16.73 $3,011.40 $ 17.74 $ 3,193.20 $ 16.25 $ 2,925.00 $ 1426
102. MTR:CORP $ 70.20 $ 140.40 NO BID NO BID $73.60 $147.20 $ 75.54 $ 151.08 $ 72.50 $ 145.00 $59'08
103. MTR:CORP $ 10.90 $ 218.00 NO BID NO BID $11.05 $221.00 $ 11.73 $ 234.60 $ 11.29 $ 225.80 $9'42
104. MTR:COUPLING $ 6.80 $ 136.00 NO BID NO BID $6.73 $134.60 $ 7.32 $ 146.40 $ 6.71 $ 134.20 $6'18
105. MTR:COUPLING $ 6.97 $ 174.25 NO BID NO BID $7.75 $193.75 $ 7.49 $ 187.25 $ 6.87 $ 171.75 $6'47
106. MTR:COUPLING $ 5.77 $ 5.77 NO BID NO BID $11.84 $11.84 $ 6.22 $ 6.22 $ 5.70 $ 5.70 $545
107. MTR:COUPLING $ 6.05 $ 6.05 NO BID NO BID $6.27 $6.27 $ 6.57 $ 6.57 $ 5:98 $ 5.98 $ 6.62
108. MTR:COUPLING $ 5.41 $ 5.41 NO BID NO BID $5;23 $5.23 $ 5.73 $ 5.73 $ 5.25 $ 5.25 $ 5.91
109. MTR:COUPLING $ 8.09 $ 24.27 NO BID NO BID $8.53 $25.59 $ 8.70 $ 26.10 $ 7;95 $ 23.85 $ 9.92
110. MTR:COUPLING $ 9.40 $ 18.80 NO BID NO BID $9.74 $19.48 $ 10.10 $ 20.20 5 926 $ 18.52 $ 11.34
111. MTR:COUPLING $ 4.50 $ 900.00 NO BID NO BID $4.72 $944.00 $ 5.24 $ 1,048.00 $ 4.80 $ 960.00 $ 271
112. MTR:COUPLING $ 28.08 $ 168.48 NO BID NO BID $29.10 $174.60 $ 30.22 $ 181.32 $ 27.65 $ 165.90 $ 2639
113. MTR:COUPLING $ 22.05 $ 66.15 NO BID NO BID $22.87 $68.61 $ 23.72 $ 71.16 $ 30.10 $ 90.30 $ 2112
114. MTR:COUPLING $ 21.09 $ 168.72 NO BID NO BID $21.86 $174.88 $ 22.70 $ 181.60 $ 20.78 $ 166.24 $20'22
115. MTR:COUPLING $ 20.80 $ 124.80 NO BID NO BID $21.56 $129.36 $ 22.39 $ 134.34 $ 20.50 $ 123.00 $t9'58
116. MTR:COUPLING $ 18.52 $ 111.12 NO BID NO BID $19.19 $115.14 $ 19.92 $ 119.52 $ 18.25 $ 109.50 $ t775
BID #05-09, ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR UTILITY PARTS CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK OPENED 3-17-05, 10:00 A.M.
D & W UTILITY ALL-TEX FERGUSON METRO VALVE MUNICIPAL WW TECHL
KEYWORD UNIT EXT. UNIT EXT. UNIT EXT. UNIT EXT. UNIT EXT. UNIT
ITEM DESCRIPTION PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE
117. MTR:COUPLING $ 14.47 $ 43.41 NO BID NO BID $15.00 $45.00 $ 15.58 $ 46.74 $ t425 $ 42.75 $ 14.30
118. MTR:COUPLING $ 64.44 NO BID NO BID $17.50 $105.00 $ 11.55 $ 69.30 $ 11.00 $ 66.00 $ 11.74
119. MTR:COUPLING $ 11.62 $ 34.86 NO BID NO BID $12.04 $36.12 $ 12.51 $ 37.53 $ 1145 $ 34.35 $ 18.07
120. MTR:COUPLING $ $ 65.31 NO BID NO BID $3.32 $69.72 $ 6.68 $ 140.28 $ 6.10 $ 128.10 $ 24:10
121. MTR:COUPLING $ 6.90 $ 69.00 NO BID NO BID $6.81 $68.10 $ 7.42$ 74.20 $ 6.75 $ 67.50 $569
122. MTR:COUPLING $ 6.11 $ 12.22 NO BID NO BID $6.27 $12.54 $ 6.50 $ 13.00 5 585 $ 11.7015 6168
123. MTR:COUPLING $ 5.94 $ 148.50 NO BID NO BID $6.17 $154.25 $ 6.39 $ 159.75 $ 5.79 $ 144.75 $5'69
124. MTR:COUPLING $ 5.13 $ 205.20 NO BID NO BID $5.42 $216.80 $ 5.52 $ 220.80 $ 4.98 $ 199.20 $4'70
125. MTR:COUPLING $ 4.88 $ 48.80 NO BID NO BID $5.06 $50.60 $ 5.24 $ 52.40 $ 4.90 $ 49.00 $440
126. MTR:COUPLING $ 6.47 $ 6.47 NO BID NO BID $6.22 $ 6.95 $ 6.95 $ 6.25 $ 6.25 $ 7.77
127. MTR:COUPLING $ 3.08 $ 154.00 NO BID NO BID $3.10 $155.00 $ 3.40 $ 170.00 $ 3.25 $ 162.50 $289
128. MTR:COUPLING $ 11.30 $ 113.00 NO BID NO BID $11.74 $117.40 $ 12.15 $ 121.50 $ lll0 $ 111.0015 12.36
129. MTR:COUPLING $ 37.36 $ 74.72 NO BID NO BID $31.25 $62.50 $ 40.20 $ 80.40 $ 36180 $ 73.60 $ 2410
130. MTR:COUPLING $ 26.14 $ 52.28 NO BID NO BID $27.10 $54.20 $ 28.12 $ 56.24 $ 51.50 $ 30.12
131. MTR:COUPLING $ 9.87 $ 98.70 NO BID NO BID $9.74 $97.40 $ 10.61 $ 106.10 $ 969 $ 96.90 $ 10.80
132. MTR:COUPLING $ 8.89 $ 88.90 NO BID NO BID $9.09 $90.90 $ 9.56 $ 95.60 $ 87.50 $ 9.72
133. MTR:COUPLING $ 6.65 $ 133.00 NO BID NO BID $6.74 $134.80 $ 7.15 $ 143.00 $ 6.55 $ 131.00 $386
134. MTR:COUPLING $ 58.62 $ 293.10 NO BID NO BID $60.76 $303.80 $ 63.07 $ 315.35 5 57'74 $ 288.70 $ 64.11
135. MTR:COUPLING $ 33.85 $ 169.25 NO BID NO BID $35.08 $175.40 $ 36.42 $ 182.10 $ 33'25 $ 166.25 $ 37.36
136. MTR:COUPLING $ 28.98 $ 144.90 NO BID NO BID $30.03 $150.15 $ 31.17 $ 155.85 $ 28'11 $ 140.55 $ 31.69
137. MTR:COUPLING $ 23.62 $ 70.86 NO BID NO BID $24.48 $73.44 $ 25.41 $ 76.23 $ 2295 $ 68.85 $ 25.82
138. MTR:COUPLING $ 7.68 $ 192.00 NO BID NO BID $7.58 $189.50 $ 8.26 $ 206.50 $ 758 $ 189.50 $ 8.39
139. MTR:COUPLING $693 $ 138.60 NO BID NO BID $7.82 $156.40 $ 7.45 $ 149.00 $ 6.95 $ 139.00 $ 7.57
140. MTR:COUPLING $ 5.35 $ 85.60 NO BID NO BID $526 $84.16 $ 5.75 $ 92.00 $ 5.30 $ 84.80 $ 5.84
141. MTR:COUPLING $465 $ 69.75 NO BID NO BID $4.72 $70.80 $ 5.01 $ 75.15 $ 4.79 $ 71.85 $ 5.09
142. MTR:FLANGE-KIT $ 26.80 $ 160.80 NO BID $35.70 $214.20 $ 14'00 $ 84.00 $ 26.00 $ 156.00 $ 25.19
143. MTR:FLANGE-KIT $ 27.60 $ 358.80 NO BID $38.50 $500.50 $ 209.30 $ 29.00 $ 377.00 $ 31.61
144. MTR:RISER $ 52.47 $ 52.47 NO BID NO BID $50;47 $50.47 NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID $ 96.39
145. MTR:RISER $5640 $ 676.80 NO BID NO BID $59.44 $713.28 NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID $ 96.39
146. MTR:RISER $ 29.53 $ 147.65 NO BID NO BID $30.58 $152.90 NO BID NO BID $ 36.00 $ 180.00 $23'31
147. MTR:TEE $ 14.39 $ 14.39 NO BID NO BID $14.19 $14.19 $ 15.47 $ 15.47 $ 14.10 $ 14.10 $1376
148. MTR:TEE $5;32 $ 5.32 NO BID NO BID $15.68 $15.68 $ 16.50 $ 16.50 $ 15.10 $ 15.10 $ 13.25
149. MTR:TOP-STOP $ 17.73 $ 3,031.83 NO BID NO BID $17.99 $3,076.29 $ 19.09 $ 3,264.39 $ 17.48 $ 2,989.08 $t740
150. MTR:TOP-STOP $ 15.54 $ 932.40 NO BID NO BID $14'99 $899.40 $ 16.72 $ 1,003.20 $ 15.31 $ 918.60 $ 24.10
151. MTR:TOP-STOP $ 10.13 $ 1,013.00 NO BID NO BID $9;80 $980.00 $ 10.90 $ 1,090.00 $ 10.50 $ 105.00 $ 11.35
152. MTR:TOP-STOP $ 32.44 $ 32.44 NO BID NO BID $35.22 $35.22 NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID $30'12
153. MTR:TOP-STOP $ 12.96 $ 648.00 NO BID NO BID $13.14 $657.00 $ 13.94 $ 697.00 $ 12.80 $ 640.00 $ 1247
154. MTR:U-CONNECT $ 14.66 $ 14.66 NO BID NO BID $1~;62 $14.62 $ 15.77 $ 15.77 $ 14.75 $ 14.75 $ 16.04
155. MTR:U-CONNECT NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID $1291 $12.91 $ 13.94 $ 13.94 $ 15.00 $ 15.00 $ 16.04
156. MTR:UNION $7;24 $ 7.24 NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID $ 9.00 $ 9.00 $ 30.12
157. MTR:Y-CONNECT $ 27;20 $ 27.20 NO BID NO BID $28.19 $28.19 $ 33.67 $ 33.67 $ 34.00 $ 34.00 $ 30.12
$15,053.65 $ - $15,551.39 $15,128.76 $13'472;49
BID #05-09, ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR UTILITY PARTS CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK OPENED 3-17-05, 10:00 A.M.
D & W UTILITY ALL-TEX FERGUSON METRO VALVE MUNICIPAL WW TECHL
KEYWORD UNIT EXT. UNIT EXT. UNIT EXT. UNIT EXT. UNIT EXT. UNIT
ITEM DESCRIPTION PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE
PIPE REPAIR CLAMPS: $ 39.00
158. PIPE'CLAMP $ 51.00 $ 51.00 NO BID NO BID $37.36 $ 41.33 $ 41.33 $ 39.00 $ 59.86
159. PIPE'CLAMP $ 75.60 $ 604.80 NO BID NO BID $58.16 $465.28 $ 51.08 $ 408.64 $ 392.00 $ 90.96
160. PIPE'CLAMP $ 77.49 $ 1,549.80 NO BID NO BID $66.04 $1,320.80 $5432 $ 1,086.40 $ 59.00 $ 1,180.00 $ 109.69
161. PIPE'CLAMP $ 135.60 $ 135.60 NO BID NO BID $103.20 $103.20 $ 94.74 $ 94.74 $ 8800 $ 88.00 $ 177.27
162. PIPE'CLAMP $ 85.32 $ 853.20 NO BID NO BID $64.36 $643.60 $ 58.62 $ 586.20 $ 56'50 $ 565.00 $ 102.41
163. PIPE'CLAMP $ 95.00 $ 4,560.00 NO BID NO BID $79.09 $3,796.32 $ 74.07 $ 3,555.36 $ 71'00 $ 3,408.00 $ 130.78
164. PIPE'CLAMP $ 155.52 $ 2,332.80 NO BID NO BID $115.12 $1,726.80 $ 108.84 $ 1,632.60 $t01'00 $ 1,515.00 $ 192.30
165. PIPE'CLAMP $ 85.59 $ 85.59 NO BID NO BID $68.16 $68.16 $ 61.27 $ 61.27 $ 5920 $ 59.20 $ 114.65
166. PIPE'CLAMP $ 96.66 $ 96.66 NO BID NO BID $84.45 $84.45 $ 66.38 $ 66.38 $ 64'00 $ 64.00 $ 124.03
167. PIPE'CLAMP $ 74.84 $ 74.84 NO BID NO BID $56.25 $56.25 $ 52.33 $ 52.33 $ 50;10 $ 50.10 $ 100.25
168. PIPE'CLAMP $ 109.08 $ 436.32 NO BID NO BID $92.87 $371.48 $ 85.22 $ 340.88 $ 77;90 $ 311.60 $ 158.16
169. PIPE'CLAMP $ 174.04 $ 696.16 NO BID NO BID $130.67 $522.68 $ 121.57 $ 486.28 $114;00 $ 456.00 $ 224.19
170. PIPE'CLAMP $ 153.63 $ 307.26 NO BID NO BID $111.85 $223.70 $ 103.13 $ 206.26 $ 199.00 $ 186.41
171. PIPE'CLAMP $ 125.76 $ 628.80 NO BID NO BID $96.41 $482.05 $ 87.86 $ 439.30 $ 84;50 $ 422.50 $ 162.82
172. PIPE'CLAMP $ 173.29 $ 1,213.03 NO BID NO BID $127.33 $891.31 $ 122.48 $ 857.36 $113;98 $ 797.86 $ 238.91
173. PIPE'CLAMP $ 270.27 $ 1,351.35 NO BID NO BID $192.85 $964.25 $ 177.27 $ 886.35 $165;00 $ 825.OO $ 339.22
174. PIPE'CLAMP $ 345.60 $ 345.60 NO BID NO BID $272.55 $272.55 $ 254.48 $ 254.48 $237;00 $ 237.00 $ 523.61
$15,053.65 $ - $15,551.39 $15,128.76 $13'472:49
PVC PIPE AND FITTINGS
175. PVC:BEND-22.5D $ 4.40 $ 105.60 $ 4.13 $ 103.63 $5.20 $124.80 $ 3.89 $ 93.36 $ 87.60 $ 4.37
176. PVC:BEND-22.5D $ 4.18 $ 501.60 $ 4.12 $ 493.92 $5.00 $600.00 $ 3.70 $ 444.00 $ 347 $ 416.40 $ 4.16
177. PVC:BEND-22.5D $ 8.66 $ 17.32 $ 8.52 $ 17.04 $10.25 $20.50 $ 7.67 $ 15.34 $ 715 $ 14.30 $ 8.61
178. PVC:BEND-22.5D $ 8.22 $ 8.22 $ 8.08 $ 8.08 $9.70 $9.70 $ 7.28 $ 7.28 $ 680 $ 6.80 $ 8.18
179. PVC:BEND-22.5D $ 25.25 $ 25.25 $ 24.81 $ 24.81 $29.80 $29.80 $ 22.34 $ 22.34 $ 20.90 $ 25.09
180. PVC:BEND-22.5D $ 26.36 $ 26.36 $ 25.90 $ 25.90 $31.15 $31.15 $ 23.32 $ 23.32 $ 21.80 $ 26.22
181. PVC:BEND-22.5D $ 29.72 $ 178.32 $ 11.88 $ 71.28 $28.00 $168.00 $ 26.30 $ 157.80 $ 22.00 $ 132.00
182. PVC:BEND-22.5D $ 29.72 $ 178.32 $ 11.88 $ 71.28 $28.00 $168.00 $ 26.30 $ 157.80 $ 22.00 $ 132.00 $636
183. PVC:BEND-45D $ 4.40 $ 281.60 $ 4.33 $ 276.99 $5.20 $332.80 $ 3.89 $ 248.96 $ 3'65 $ 233.60 $ 4.38
184. PVC:BEND-45D $ 3.96 $ 285.12 $ 3.89 $ 280.15 $4.70 $338.40 $ 3.50 $ 252.00 $ 3'30 $ 237.60 $ 3.94
185. PVC:BEND-45D $ 8.93 $ 8.93 $ 8.78 $ 8.78 $10.60 $10.60 $ 7.90 $ 7.90 $ 7'42 $ 7.42 $ 8.89
186. PVC:BEND-45D $ 7.92 $ 7.92 $ 7.78 $ 7.78 $9.40 $9.40 $ 7.00 $ 7.00 $ 650 $ 6.50 $ 7.87
187. PVC:BEND-45D $ 25.01 $ 25.01 $ 24.58 $ 24.58 $29.50 $29.50 $ 22.13 $ 22.13 $ 20'73 $ 20.73 $ 24.87
188. PVC:BEND-45D $ 23.89 $ 23.89 $ 23.48 $ 23.48 $28.20 $28.20 $ 21.14 $ 21.14 $ 1980 $ 19.80 $ 23.76
189. PVC:BEND-45D $ 91.38 $ 91.38 $ 96.53 $ 96.53 $108.00 $108.00 $ 80.87 $ 80.87 $ 7576 $ 75.76 $ 90.87
190. PVC:BEND-45D $ 33.30 $ 199.80 $ 8.94 $ 53.64 $26.20 $157.20 $ 29.47 $ 176.82 $ 22.10 $ 132.60 $650
191. PVC:BEND-45D $ 33.30 $ 199.80 $ 8.94 $ 53.64 $26.20 $157.20 $ 29.47 $ 176.82$ 2210 $ 132.60
192. PVC:COUPLING $ 1.06 $ 4.24 $ 1.11 $ 4.44 $1.30 $5.20 $ 0.94 $ 3.76 5 089 $ 3.56 $ 2.19
193. PVC:COUPLING $ 3.88 $ 7.76 $ 4.05 $ 8.11 $4.60 $9.20 $ 3.43 $ 6.86 $ 6.44 $ 9.01
194. PVC:COUPLING $ 10.86 $ 162.90 $ 5.34 $ 80.15 $6.45 $96.75 $ 4.81 $ 72.15 $ 450 $ 67.50 $ 5.41
195. PVC:COUPLING $ 18.44 $ 1,844.00 $ 10.68 $ 1,068.30 $12.90 $1,290.00 $ 9.61 $ 961.00 $ 9'00 $ 900.00 $ 10.80
196. PVC:COUPLING $ 18.44 $ 461.00 $ 18.12 $ 453.10 $21.80 $545.00 $ 16.31 $ 407.75 $ 15'30 $ 382.50 $ 18.34
197. PVC:COUPLING $ 38.46 $ 76.92 $ 43.25 $ 86.49 $48.40 $96.80 $ 34.04 $ 68.08 $ 67.90 $ 40.71
BID #05-09, ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR UTILITY PARTS CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK OPENED 3-17-05, 10:00 A.M.
D & W UTILITY ALL-TEX FERGUSON METRO VALVE MUNICIPAL WW TECHL
KEYWORD UNIT EXT. UNIT EXT. UNIT EXT. UNIT EXT. UNIT EXT. UNIT
ITEM DESCRIPTION PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE
198. PVC:COUPLING $ 55.85 $ 111.70 $ 62.80 $ 125.61 $70.30 $140.60 $ 49.43 $ 98.86 $ 4930 $ 98.60 $ 59.15
199. PVC:PIPE $ 0.95 $ 1,425.00 $ 1.04 $ 1,560.00 $0.93 $1,395.00 $ 1,215.00 $ 0.84 $ 1,260.00 $ 1.07
200. PVC:PIPE $ 2.07 $ 7,245.00 $ 2.23 $ 7,812.00 $2.02 $7,070.00 $ 6,125.00 $ 1.79 $ 6,265.00 $ 2.29
201. PVC:PIPE $ 3.71 $ 3,153.50 $ 4.00 $ 3,402.55 $3.62 $3,077.00 $ 2,669.00 $ 3.20 $ 2,720.00 $ 4.10
202. PVC:PIPE $ 5.83 $ 757.90 $ 6.28 $ 815.88 $5.68 $738.40 $4'92 $ 639.60 $ 4.98 $ 647.40 $ 6.43
203. PVC:PIPE $ 8.37 $ 108.81 $ 9.01 $ 117.13 $8.15 $105.95 $7'06 $ 91.78 $ 7.25 $ 94.25 $ 9.23
204. PVC:PIPE $ 1.36 $ 108.80 $ 1.60 $ 127.76 $1.33 $106.40 $116 $ 92.80 $ 1.20 $ 96.00 $ 1.52
205. PVC:PIPE $ 5.01 $ 400.80 $ 5.72 $ 457.68 $4.88 $390.40 $ 4.26 $ 340.80 $ 4.30 $ 344.00 $327
206. PVC:TEE $ 17.22 $ 2,238.60 $ 18.02 $ 2,342.60 NO BID NO BID $ 15.24 $ 1,981.20 $ t520 $ 1,976.00 $ 18.24
207. PVC:TEE $ 20.08 $ 20.08 $ 21.01 $ 21.01 NO BID NO BID $ 17.77 $ 17.77 $ 17'72 $ 17.72 $ 21.26
208. PVC:TEE $ 21.81 $ 174.48 $ 22.82 $ 182.58 NO BID NO BID $ 19.30 $ 154.40 $ 1925 $ 346.50 $ 23.09
209. PVC:TEE $ 21.69 $ 173.52 $ 22.69 $ 181.48 NO BID NO BID $ 19.19 $ 153.52 $ 1915 $ 152.20 $ 22.96
210. PVC:TEE $ 94.52 $ 378.08 $ 60.03 $ 240.12 NO BID NO BID $ 83.65 $ 334.60 $ 78.35 $ 313.40 $3429
211. PVC:TEMP.CAP $ 1.76 $ 35.20 $ 2.79 $ 55.78 NO BID NO BID $ 31.00 $ 1.70 $ 34.00 NO BID
212. PVC:TEMP.CAP $ 2.61 $ 26.10 $ 5.23 $ 52.32 NO BID NO BID $ 23.10 $ 2.45 $ 24.50 NO BID
213. PVC:TESTPLUG $ 1.20 $ 6.00 $ 1.34 $ 6.70 NO BID NO BID $ 5.30 $ 1.15 $ 5.75 NO BID
214. PVC:TESTPLUG $ 5.85 $ 204.75 $ 4.52 $ 158.20 $4.90 $171.50 $286 $ 100.10 $ 9.35 $ 327.25 NO BID
215. PVC:TESTPLUG $ 16.10 $ 660.10 $ 12.43 $ 509.59 $13.50 $553.50 $8'10 $ 332.10 $ 12.10 $ 496.10 NO BID
216. PVC:TESTPLUG $ 30.50 $ 61.00 $ 23.55 $ 47.11 $31.40 $62.80 $15'50 $ 31.00 $ 18.05 $ 36.10 NO BID
217. PVC:WYE $ 14.45 $ 144.50 $ 15.12 $ 151.23 NO BID NO BID $ 12;79 $ 127.90 $ 13.50 $ 135.00 $ 15.30
218. PVC:WYE $ 16.37 $ 16.37 $ 17.13 $ 17.13 NO BID NO BID $ 14.49 $ 14.49 $ 1445 $ 14.45 $ 17.33
219. PVC:WYE $ 21.57 $ 21.57 NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID $ 19.09 $ 19.09 $ 19'00 $ 19.00 $ 22.83
220. RUBBER-CAP $ 1.25 $ 93.75 $ 1.41 $ 105.68 NO BID NO BID $ 1.10 $ 82.50 $ 1;10 $ 82.50 $ 1.34
221. RUBBER-COUPLING $ 2.77 $ 60.94 $ 3.12 $ 68.60 NO BID NO BID $ 2.45 $ 53.90 $ 2;45 $ 53.90 $ 3.29
222. RUBBER-COUPLING $ 2.77 $ 185.59 $ 3.12 $ 208.91 NO BID NO BID $ 2.45 $ 164.15 $ 2;45 $ 164.15 $ 3.29
223. RUBBER-COUPLING $ 5.93 $ 1,304.60 $ 6.67 $ 1,467.84 NO BID NO BID $ 5.25 $ 1,155.00 $ 525 $ 1,155.00 $ 7.03
224. RUBBER-COUPLING $ 5.93 $ 456.61 $ 6.67 $ 513.74 NO BID NO BID $ 5.25 $ 404.25 $ 404.25 $ 7.03
225. RUBBER-COUPLING $ 9.10 $ 218.40 $ 10.24 $ 245.76 NO BID NO BID $ 8.05 $ 193.20 $ 8;05 $ 193.20 $ 10.82
226. RUBBER-COUPLING $ 9.10 $ 336.70 $ 10.24 $ 378.88 NO BID NO BID $ 8.05 $ 297.85 $ 8;05 $ 297.85 $ 10.82
227. RUBBER-COUPLING $ 12.34 $ 24.68 $ 13.88 $ 27.77 NO BID NO BID $ 10.92 $ 21.84 $ 10'90 $ 21.80 $ 15.04
228. RUBBER-COUPLING $ 12.34 $ 49.36 $ 13.88 $ 55.53 NO BID NO BID $ 10.92 $ 43.68 $ 10'90 $ 43.60 $ 15.04
229. RUBBER-COUPLING $ 14.74 $ 29.48 $ 16.58 $ 33.16 NO BID NO BID $ 13.05 $ 26.10 $ 13'00 $ 26.00 $ 17.55
230. RUBBER-COUPLING $ 14.74 $ 29.48 $ 16.58 $ 33.16 NO BID NO BID $ 13.05 $ 26.10 $ t300 $ 26.00 $ 17.55
231. RUBBER-COUPLING $ 15.10 $ 558.70 $ 7.26 $ 268.47 NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID $ 6;40 $ 236.80 $ 7.65
$ 25,541.41 $ 25,134.06 $18,177.75 $20'501:46 $ 21,254.58
TOOLS
232. TAPE $ 3.60 $ 172.80 NO BID NO BID $4.00 $192.00 $ 350 $ 168.00 $ 6.50 $ 312.00 NO BID
233. TOOl NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID $ 600 $ 18.00 NO BID
234. TOOL NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID $18485 $2,403.05 NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID
235. TOOL $ 5.55 $ 266.40 NO BID NO BID $7.00 $336.00 NO BID NO BID $ 192.00 NO BID
236. TOOL $ 21.50 $ 430.00 NO BID NO BID $42.00 $840.00 $ 242.00 $ 39.00 $ 780.00 NO BID