Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda 11-11-03 Topics.doc
A G E N D A #2321 CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 11, 2003 AT 5:00 P.M. 4:00 - 4:15 P.M. CLOSED SESSION FOR CONSULTATION WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY UNDER SECTION 551.071 OF THE TEXAS G OVERNMENT CODE. 4:15 - 5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION FOR AGENDA REVIEW I. INVOCATION – City Manager Bob Livingston II. INTRODUCTION OF STAFF – City Manager Bob Livingston III. AWARDS AND REQUESTS FROM CITIZENS DEPARTMENT PIN: Linda Williams, Court Administrator, 25 - years of service. RECOGNITION: Tommy Vaughan, Maintenance Technician, Utilities Department, Meritorious Service Medal and Sgt. Robert Flood, Police Department, Defense Meritorious Service Medal & Joint Service Commendation Medal, for service during Ope ration Enduring Freedom. Presented by Former Councilmember James W. Walley, Jr., USNR, Rear Admiral (Ret). RECOGNITION: Certificates to graduates of Leadership University Park PROCLAMATION: Mayor Peek proclaimed November 11, 2003 as Don C. McIlyar Day in t he City of University Park in recognition of his leadership on the Dallas County Park Cities Municipal Utility District Board of Directors since 1988. IV. ITEMS FROM THE FLOOR PETITION FOR RESIDENT ONLY PARKING, 3800 BLOCK MCFARLIN 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. V. CONSENT AGENDA A. Consider: Bid for a nnual contract for sand, pea gravel, loam & landscaping soils B. Consider: Bid for annual contract for utility parts C. Consider: Bid for Brown Kraft (Yard Waste) Bags D. Consider: Food Establishment Inspection & Environmental Health Services Agreement FY2004 with Dallas County Health & Human Services E. Consider: Approval of City Council Minutes for October 7 & 22, 2003 VI. MAIN AGENDA A. Public Hearing & Ordinance: SMU’s request to rezone two residential lots in the 3000 block of Dyer from UC - 3 to UC - 2. Public Hearing will be opened & continued to an announced date in the future at the request of the applicant B. Consider: Action to withdraw ordinance amending PD - 22 (6101 Hillcrest) at the request of the applicant C. Consider: Recommendation from the Finance and Public Works Comm ittees regarding stormwater utility D. Consider: Resolution to adopt a Retirement Health Savings Program through ICMA - RC and establish a trust for the plan’s assets E. Consider: Health Plan renewal F. Consider: Purchase of digital mug shot/City ID Card equipment G. Consider: Proposal for replacement of digital cameras at Peek Service Center H. Consider: Purchase of concrete truck and two transfer trailers through H - GAC I. Consider: Purchase of Police Tahoes through H - GAC VI. RECEPTION: LEADERSHIP UNIVERSITY PARK As au thorized by Section 551.071(2) of the Texas Government Code, this meeting may be convened into Closed Executive Session for the purpose of seeking confidential legal advice from the City Attorney on any agenda items listed herein. VII. INFORMA TION AGENDA REPORTS, BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES A. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT B. EMPLOYEE BENFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Minutes for October 29, 2003 C. FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE Minutes for November 5, 2003 D. PARK ADVISORY COMMITTEE E. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISS ION Minutes for September 15, 2003 F. PROPERTY CASUALTY & LIABILITY INSURANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE G. PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE H. PUBLIC WORKS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Minutes for November 5, 2003 I. URBAN DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE J. ZONING ORDINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE K. CAPITAL PROJECTS REVIEW COMMITTEE L. CAPITAL PROJECTS UPDATE for Week of November 1, 2003 0 0 o 0 0 0 }Fhereas, Mr. Don MeIlyar, a resident of the City of University Park, was first elected to the Board of Directors of the Dallas County Park Cities Municipal Utility District in 1988, and Whereas~ Don has served as President for the Dallas County Municipal Utility District Board since 1996, and }Vhereas, During Don's service on the Board he has been instrumental in protecting the water rights of the District, and tg'hereas, under Don's leadership, the District has continued to provide a safe, reliable, and low cost water to all of the residents of the City of University Park and the Town of Highland Park, Now, Therefore, I, Harold Peek, Mayor of the City of University Park, do hereby proclaim, Tuesday, November 11, 2003 as HaroM Peek, Mayor A ttes t: Nina Wilson, City Secretary RESIDENT PETITION WE THE RESIDENTS OF THE 3800 BLOCK OF MCFARLIN REQUEST THAT OUR BLOCK BE DESIGNATED AS RESIDENCE ONLY PARKING. NAME SIGNAT_URE ADDRESS oIq. 5~t. q~ ro e DCAD,: Find Property By Street Address Page 1 of 2 L...Home I Find Property Find Property By Street Address I Contact Us ~.,. About DCAD ~... Search Appraisals i.... By Owner i.,.., By Account i.... By Address L... By Business :..... Find Property on Map ..... Taxing Unit Value Summary J ~.-... Exemptions .... Paying Taxes i'"' Taxing Unit Rates i.---- Protest Process ~.... Calendar · ~.-,-- F.A,Q. L... Forms .; ~,'.., Human Resources i,-.,-Links :ontact Us ~.... On-line Help Search By: Owner Name Account Number Street Address Business Name Map Address Street Name Direction Number (requh'ed) ............................. ....................................... City UNIVERSITY PARKi'~ ............................ Address Number Range Search From To ................................ ................................. Account Type [~ RESIDENTIAL ~ COMMERCIAL ~ BPP Hints: · Do not enter the street type such as Street, Drive or Lane. · To find a single address, fill in one Address Number field. To find a range of addresses, fill in both. ® If no results are found, try entering less information. ® Use % as a wildcard. For example, %oak in the street name to find all streets with "oak" somewhere in the name. < PREV matches 1 - 9 of 9 properties. NEXT > Page 1 of 1 Owner Name / Total Value Type Property Address City Business Name UNIVERSITY PARK 3800 MOFARLIN UNIVERSITY CITY OF $428,280 COMMERCIAL BLVD PARK DBA: PARK 3801 MOFARLIN UNIVERSITY PORTER RUFUS C $2,467,420 RESIDENTIAL BLVD PARK 3805 MOFARLIN UNIVERSITY SEYBOLD ADELE N $1,676,070 RESIDENTIAL BLVD PARK 3819 MOFARLIN UNIVERSITY NEWTON ROSSER $828,530 ~ESIDENTIAL 3LVD PARK & MARY C 3821 MCFARLIN UNIVERSITY MILLWEE $545,000 RESIDENTIAL BLVD PARK GERALDINE A EST 3825 MOFARLIN UNIVERSITY DAVIS BRADLEY .1 BLVD PARK & $696,440 RESIDENTIAL 3829 MCFARLIN UNIVERSITY HIGHLAND PARK BLVD PARK PRESBY CH $462,960 RESIDENTIAL 3833 MCFARLIN UNIVERSI'rY ,HIGHLAND PARK http://www.dallascad.org/SearchAddr, aspx 10/28/2003 DCAD: Find Property By Street Address Page 2 of 2 8 BLVD PARK PRESBY CH $494,290 RESIDENTIAL 3837 MCFARLIN UNIVERSITY HIGHLAND PARK 9 BLVD PARK PRESBY CH $581,270 RESIDENTIAL < PREV matches 1 - 9 of 9 properties. NEXT > Page 1 of 1 © 2003 Dallas Central Appraisal District. All Rights Reserved. Website designed by ATS, inc. http://www, dallascad, org/SearchAddr, aspx 10/28/2003 AGENDA MEMO (11/11/03 AGENDA) DATE: October 28, 2003 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Christine Green, Purchasing Agent SUBJECT: Bid #03 - 14, Sand, Pea Gravel, Loam, & Landscaping Soils - Annual Contract Bid #03 - 14 for the purchase of sand, pea gravel, loam, and landscaping soils on an annual contract basis was opened October 24th. This bid was posted on RFP Depot: 107 vendors received e - mail or fax notice of the bid; 23 vendors viewed the bid. Five vendors returned bids. ? ? Turf Mater ials, Inc. submitted the low bid on washed sand ($9.00/ton) and pea gravel ($10.25/ton). Based on last year's sand and gravel expenditures, this award is expected to be around $22,000. ? ? Matbon, Inc. submitted the low bid on sandy loam ($5.00/ton). Based on last year's sandy loam orders, this award is expected to be around $15,000. ? ? Living Earth Technology Co. submitted the low bid on professional landscape mix ($22.50/yard) and top dressing material ($19.50/yard). Based on last year's orders, this awar d is expected to be around $2500. ? ? David W. Copeland Sand and Gravel, Inc. submitted the low bid on shredded cedar mulch ($20.00/yard), but the vendor's product does not meet specifications (not cedar). Living Earth Technology submitted the only other bi d on this product ($23.50/yard). Based on last year's orders, this award is expected to be around $1000. These materials are used by the Street and Parks departments. These departments will pick up most of the material ordered, so the bid awards are bas ed on the low picked - up price. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends accepting the bid of Turf Materials for washed sand and pea gravel on an annual contract basis, the bid of Matbon, Inc. for sandy loam, and the bid of Living Earth Technology Co. for profes sional landscape mix, top dressing material, and shredded cedar mulch. A bid tabulation with price history is attached. 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363 - 1644 C: \ Documents and Settings \ nwilson \ Local Settings \ Temporary Internet Files \ OLK21 \ 0314memo.doc 8 : 17 AM 11 / 07 / 03 SEALED BID #03-14, ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR SAND, PEA GRAVEL, LOAM, LANDSCAPING SOILS - TABULATION OPENED 10/24/03, 10:00 A.M. 1. TURF MATERIALS, INC. 2. MATBON, INC. 3. DAVID COPELAND 4. ROYS SAND & GRAVEL 5. LIVING EARTH TECH. SAND & GRAVEL INC. UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE PICK UP DELIVERED PICK UP DELIVERED PICK UP DELIVERED PICK UP DELIVERED PICK UP DELIVERED UNIT DESCRIPTION 1. TON Washed Sand $ 10.50 $ 12.50 $ 16.00 No Bid $ 22.00 No Bid $ 29.90 No Bid $ 9.00 $ 12.40 2. TON Pea Gravel $ 10.50 $ 12.50 $ 20.00 No Bid $ 23.00 No Bid $ 34.90 No Bid $ 10.25 $ 13.65 3. TON Sandy Loam $ 7.00 $ 10.40 $ 16.00 No Bid $ 22.50 No Bid $ 16.00 No Bid $ 5.00 $ 12.67 4. CU.YD. Professional Landscape Mix No Bid No Bid No Bid No Bid $ 35.00 No Bid No Bid No Bid No Bid $ 22.50 5. CU.YD. Top Dressing Material No Bid No Bid No Bid No Bid $ 35.00 No Bid No Bid No Bid No Bid $ 19.50 6. CU.YD. Shredded Cedar Mulch No Bid No Bid No Bid No Bid $ 20.00 No Bid No Bid No Bid No Bid $ 23.50 RFP DEPOT STATISTICS: Notified: 107 vendors received e-mail or fax notice of the bid Viewed: 23 vendors viewed a copy of the bid. BID HISTORY (SAND & GRAVEL) BID HISTORY (LOAM & LANDSCAPING SOILS) 2001: Trinity Materials 2001: Sunbelt Materials Sand = $9.25/ton (picked up), $15.61/ton (delivered) Loam = $13.65/ton (delivered) Pea Gravel = $9.25/ton (picked up), $15.61/ton (delivered) Prof. Landscape Mix = $26.22/yard (delivered) Top Dressing Material = $22.48/yard (delivered) 2001: Bid #01-14 Cancelled Shredded Cedar Mulch = $27.65/yard (delivered) 1999: Trinity Materials 1999: Eubanks Sand = $8.75/ton (picked up), $12.50/ton (delivered) Loam = $12.83/ton (delivered) Pea Gravel = $8.75/ton (picked up), $12.50/ton (delivered) 1999: Living Earth Technology 1998: A & A Sand and Gravel Prof. Landscape Mix = $18.90/yard (delivered) Sand = $8.50/ton (picked up) Top Dressing Material = $16.90/yard (delivered) Pea Gravel = $8.75/ton (picked up) Shredded Cedar Mulch = $15.90/yard (delivered) 1997: Jimmy Wray Sand and Gravel Sand = $6.50/ton (picked up) Pea Gravel = $8.00/ton (picked up) AGENDA MEMO (11/11/03 AGENDA) DATE: November 7 , 2003 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Christine Green, Purchasing Agent SUBJECT: (A) Bid #03 - 11, Annual Contract for Utility Parts (B) Quote for Water Meters ( C) Reject and Re - Bid Ductile Iron Parts BID #03 - 11, ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR UTILITY PARTS Bid #03 - 11 for the purchase of utility parts on an annual contract basis was opened October 2, 2003. This bid was posted on RFP Depot: 374 vendors received fax or e - m ail notice of the bid; 64 vendors viewed the bid; five vendors submitted partial bids. The recommended bid award is based on the low bid per item as follows: Romar Supply, Inc. Items 1 - 39, 44 - 50, 69 - 75 Estimated Annual Total = $3,553.08 D & W Utility Supply Items 52, 62, 247 - 249, 255 - 256, 259 - 260, 269, 271 - 272, 347 - 348, 367, 394, 396 - 414, 424 - 426, 428, 431 - 432, 434 - 495, 498 - 499 Estimated Annual Total = $16,616.35 Ferguson Waterworks Items 40 - 43, 59 - 60, 66 - 67, 246, 250 - 252, 257, 261, 263, 265 - 268 , 286 - 288, 291 - 316, 319 - 327, 329 - 346, 350 - 361, 363 - 366, 368 - 393, 415 - 420, 422, 427, 433, 497 Estimated Annual Total = $54,911.94 Hose Specialty Supply Co. Items 51, 53 - 58 Estimated Annual Total = $2,246.10 Clifton Azok Items 238 - 244 Estimated Annual Tota l = $2,246.10 380 0 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363 - 1644 C: \ Documents and Settings \ nwilson \ Local Settings \ Temporary Internet Files \ OLK21 \ 0311memo.doc 8 : 20 AM 11 / 07 Utility Parts October 30, 2003 Page 2 Re - Bid (All Ductile Iron) Items 76 - 237 No Bid Items 61, 63 - 65, 68, 245, 253 - 254, 258, 262, 264, 270, 273 - 285, 289 - 290, 317 - 318, 328, 349, 362, 395, 421, 423, 429 - 430, 496 OVERALL ESTIMATED TOTAL (IF ALL PARTS ARE PURCHASED) = $77,491.11 QUOTE FOR WATER METERS National Waterworks (formerly U.S. Filter) is the only supplier of Invensys, the manufacturer of the City's water meters and associated parts. National Waterworks did not participate in Bid # 03 - 11, but instead submitted a quote for these products to remain firm for one year. Following is a list of the item numbers they are quoting and the estimated annual total: National Waterworks Items 68, 104 - 105, 258, 273 - 285, 290, 317 - 318, 328, 349, 423 Estimated Annual Total = $141,844.07 REJECT AND RE - BID DUCTILE IRON PARTS The specifications listed in the bid for ductile iron pipe, fittings, and valves were not specific enough, so we received bids on inferior - quality parts. These bid items (#76 - 237 ) should be rejected and re - bid with more descriptive specifications. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the following: ? ? Accept the bids of Romar Supply, Inc., D & W Utility Supply, Ferguson Waterworks, Hose Specialty Supply Co., Inc., and Clifton Azok in t he estimated annual total amount of $77,491.11. (The City spent $154,089.51 on utility parts through the recently expired contract). Due to the length of the bid tabulation (44 pages), a copy is not included as an attachment. A copy will be available for review at the Council meeting. ? ? Accept the price quote submitted by National Waterworks for Invensys meters and associated parts in the estimated annual total of $141,844.07. ? ? Reject all bids for Items 76 - 237 for ductile iron and re - bid these items. 380 0 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363 - 1644 C: \ Documents and Settings \ nwilson \ Local Settings \ Temporary Internet Files \ OLK21 \ 0311memo.doc 8 : 20 AM 11 / 07 AGENDA MEMO (11/11/03 AGENDA) DATE: October 30 , 2003 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Christine Green, Purchasing Agent SUBJECT: Bid No. 03 - 15, Brown Kraft (Yard Waste) Bags Bid #03 - 15 for the purchase of Brown Kraft (Yard Waste) Bags was opened on October 24th. This bid was posted on RFP Depot: 158 vendors received e - mail or fax notice about the bid; 52 vendors viewed the bid. Five vendors returned bids. Duro Standard Products Company Inc. submitted the low bid of $0.26 per bag for an annual total of $46,800.00. This is a $.005 per bag increase over the current contract price ($0.255/bag). Duro is the City's current vendor for yard waste bags. The cost of these bags is recovered through sale to consum ers. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends accepting the low bid of Duro Standard Products Company Inc. in the amount of $46,800.00. A bid tabulation with price history is attached. 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 7520 5 TELEPHONE (214) 363 - 1644 C: \ Documents and Settings \ nwilson \ Local Settings \ Temporary Internet Files \ OLK21 \ 03 - 15memo.doc 2 : 18 PM 10 / 30 SEALED BID #03-15, BROWN KRAFT (YARD WASTE) BAGS - TABULATION OPENED 10:00 A.M., 10/24/03 1. DURO STANDARD 2. AMPAC 3. SMURFIT-STONE 4. UL PRINTING 5. ABS PRODUCTS CO. INC. CONTAINER DESCRIPTION QTY. UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE Brown Kraft Bags 180,000 $ 0.26 $ 46,800.00 $ 0.29 $ 13,572.00 $ 0.31 $ 4,207.32 $ 0.31 $ 1,304.27 $ 0.32 $ 417.37 RFP DEPOT STATISTICS: Notified: 158 vendors received e-mail or fax notice of the bid Viewed: 52 vendors downloaded a copy of the bid PRICE HISTORY: Bid #02-09, Opened 3/4/02 Vendor: Duro Bag Price: $0.255 per bag Bid #00-18, Opened 8/7/00 Vendor: Duro Bag Price: $0.255 per bag Bid #98-20, Opened 7/16/98 Vendor: Arrow Industries Price: $0.245 per bag Bid #97-11, Opened 12/20/96 Vendor: Arrow Industries Price: $0.24472 per bag Bid #94-55, Opened 7/22/94 Vendor: International Paper Price: $0.2045 per bag AGENDA MEMO (11/11/03 AGENDA) DATE: November 6, 2003 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Nina Wilson City Secretary SUBJECT: FOOD ESTABLISHMENT INSPECTION & ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES AGREEMENT FY 2004 ITEM: Attached is an agree ment for October 1, 2003 through September 30, 2004 for food establishment inspections and environmental health services between the Dallas County Department of Health and Human Services and the City of University Park RECOMMENDATION: I t is staff’s re commendation that this agreement be approved. ATTACHMENTS: Agreement 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363 - 1644 U: \ Docs \ Dallas County Health \ Agenda Memo - Food Establishment Agreement.doc 1 : 36 PM 11 / 06 DALLAS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Environmental Health Division Betty J. Culbreath Director October 8, 2003 Bob Livingston, City Manager City of University Park Post Office Box 8005 Dallas, Texas 75205 SUBJECT: FOOD ESTABLISHMENT INSPECTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES AGREEMENT- FY '2004 Dear Mr. Livingston: Enclosed please find three (3) original copies of the above referenced contract between the City of University Park and the Dallas County Health and Human Services Department. The term of the contract will be from October 1, 2003 through September 30, 2004. Please have all three (3) contracts executed and returned to our office for transmittal to Commissioners Court. Following approval by Dallas County, one fully executed copy will be returned to you. As in the past, it has been a pleasure serving the City and citizens of University Park. It is our desire and commitment to continue providing excellent services in order to prevent any disease outbreaks in your City. We certainly appreciate your business, and therefore, look forward to the contract being resigned. In the meantime, should you have questions, please feel free to call me at (214) 819- 2115 or 2112. Sincerely, Chester Vaughn, R.S., M.S. Assistant Director, [5nv. Health/Inspections CV:pn C: Betty J. Culbreath, Director Zachary S. Thompson, Deputy Director Ganesh Shivaramaiyer, Asst. Dir., Budget/Finance 2377 Stemmons Freeway Suite 609 - LB12 Dallas, Texas 75207-2710 Office (214) 819-2115 FAX (214) 819-2868 STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF DALLAS FOOD ESTABLISHMENT INSPECTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN DALLAS COUNTY, ON BEHALF OF DALLAS COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND CITY 1. PARTIES This Agreement is made by and between the City of UNIVERSITY PARK, Texas ("City") and Dallas County ("County"), on behalf of Dallas County Health and Human Services ("DCHHS"), pursuant to the authority granted by Texas Local Government Code Chapter 791, Interlocal Cooperation Act and the City ordinance for inspection services of food establishments within City's jurisdiction and other environmental health services to City. 2. TERM This Agreement is effective from October 1, 2003 through September 30, 2004, unless otherwise stated in this Agreement. 3. INSPECTION SERVICES AND REQUIREMENTS County will perform a minimum of two (2) inspections per Contract Term of each food establishment for which the City has submitted an inspection request and for which a fee has been collected from the said food establishment; B. Additional follow-up inspections will be performed as deemed necessary by County; Co Any additional requested follow-up inspections by City of food establishments, including food establishments that are closed for non-compliance with the Health and Safety laws will be charged additional fees; Do Each food establishment inspection will be made by a Registered Professional Sanitarian employed by DCHHS, in compliance with all state laws and regulations promulgated by the Texas Board of Health; An examination of the following will be made during each inspection: food and food protection; personnel; food equipment and utensils; water source; sewage; plumbing; toilet and hand-washing facilities; garbage and refuse disposal; insect, rodent, and animal control; floors, walls, and ceiling; light; ventilation; and other operation. 4. BUDGET AND PAYMENT TO COUNTY A. Each City will collect and submit to the County a minimum of One Hundred Fifty and 00/100 Dollars ($150.00) per Contract Term. B. City will pay an extra Seventy Five and 00/100 Dollars ($75.00) fee for each additional inspection requested by City. City will collect Seventy Five and 00/100 Dollars ($75.00) to be paid to the County for a re-opening or inspection fee of a food establishment that has been closed due to non-compliance of Chapter 437, Health and Safety Code. City shall pay County the stipulated fees within thirty (30) days of the monthly request for payment, or if County fails to make the payment request, then City shall pay the stipulated fees no later than September 30, 2004. Any payment not made within thirty (30) days of its due date shall bear interest in accordance with Chapter 2251 of the Texas Government Code. 5. OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES Upon request from City, County will respond to Vector and/or Mosquito Control complaints. Ground application to include Adulticidal (spraying for adult mosquitoes) and Larvicidal (treating standing water) services will be provided by County on an as-needed-basis at no additional cost. In the event aerial spraying is needed to control St. Louis Encephalitis or West Nile virus throughout the County, City will have the option to participate in the County's Emergency Plan. Should City agree to participate in the plan, City must provide written notice to County and agree to the following: 1) Indicate the areas and amount of acres to be sprayed; and 2) Pay City's proportioned share of the cost based upon the number of acres to be sprayed multiplied by the per-acre spraying cost. 6. TERMINATION Without Cause: This Contract may be terminated in writing, without cause, by either party upon thirty (30) days prior written notice to the other party, but only after the initial three (3) year term of this Contract or earlier upon mutual written agreement. B. With Cause: The County reserves the right to terminate the Contract immediately, in whole or in part, at its sole discretion, for the following reasons: 1) Lack of, or reduction in, funding or resources; 2) Non-performance; 3) Contractor's improper, misuse or inept use of funds or resources; 4) Contractor's failure to comply with the terms and provisions of this Contract; and/or 5) Contractor's submission of data, statements and/or reports that are incorrect, incomplete and/or false in any way. 7. CITY ORDINANCE In order for this Agreement to be valid, the City must have or adopt a city ordinance that provides for the inspection of food establishments by a Registered Professional Sanitarian. City must require the payment of a fee(s) by each food establishment. Ordinance enforcement shall be the responsibility of the City. 8. INDEMNIFICATION County and City agree that each shall be responsible for its own negligent acts or omissions or other tortious conduct in the course of performance of this Agreement, without waiving any sovereign immunity available to County or City under Texas law and without waiving any available defenses under Texas law. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to create or grant any rights, contractual or otherwise, in or to any third persons or entities. 9. INSURANCE City agrees that it will at all times during the term of this Agreement maintain in full force and effect self-insurance to the extent permitted by applicable law under a plan of self- insurance that is also maintained in accordance with sound accounting practices. It is expressly agreed that City will be solely responsible for all cost of such insurance; any and all deductible amounts in any policy; and in the event that the insurance company should deny coverage. It is the intent of these provisions that insurance cover all cost allowed by Texas law so that County will not sustain any expense, cost, liability or financial risk as a result of the performance of services under this Agreement. Minimum insurance is a condition precedent to any work performed under this Agreement and for the entire term of this Agreement, including any renewals or extensions. 10. NOTICE Any notice or certification required or permitted to be delivered under this AGREEMENT shall be deemed to have been given when personally delivered, or if mailed, seventy- two (72) hours after deposit of the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, certified, or registered, return receipt requested, properly addressed to the contact person shown at the respective addresses set forth below, or at such other addresses as shall be specified by written notice delivered in accordance herewith: COUNTY Betty Culbreath, Director Dallas County Health & Human Svcs. 2377 N. Stemmons Frwy., Suite 600 Dallas, Texas 75207-2710 CITY Bob Livin.qston , City Manager City of UNIVERSITY PARK Post Office Box 8005 DALLAS , TX 75205 11. ENTIRE AGREEMENT AND AMENDMENT This Agreement, including any Exhibits and Attachments, constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes any other agreement concerning the subject matter of this transaction, whether oral or written. No modification, amendment, novation, renewal or other alteration of this Agreement shall be effective unless mutually agreed upon in writing and executed by the parties. 12. COUNTERPARTS, NUMBER/GENDER AND HEADINGS This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. Words of any gender used in this Agreement shall be held and construed to include any other gender any words in the singular shall include the plural and vice versa, unless the context clearly requires otherwise. Headings are for the convenience of reference only and shall not be considered in any interpretation of this Agreement. '13. SEVERABILITY If any provision of this Agreement is construed to be illegal, invalid, void or unenforceable, this construction will not affect the legality or validity or any of the remaining provisions. The unenforceable or illegal provision will be deemed stricken and deleted, but the remaining provisions shall not be affected or impaired, and such remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect. 14. FISCAL FUNDING CLAUSE 4 Notwithstanding any provisions contained in this Agreement, the obligations of the County under this Agreement is expressly contingent upon the availability of funding for each item and obligation for the term of the Agreement and any pertinent extensions. City shall not have a right of action against County in the event County is unable to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement as a result of lack of sufficient funding for any item or obligation from any source utilized to fund this Agreement or failure to budget or authorize funding for this Agreement during the current or future fiscal years. In the event that County is unable to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement as a result of lack of sufficient funding, or if funds become unavailable, County, at its sole discretion, may provide funds from a separate source or may terminate this Agreement by written notice to City at the earliest possible time prior to the end of its fiscal year. 15. DEFAULT/CUMULATIVE RIGHTS/MITIGATION It is not a waiver of default if the non-defaulting party fails to immediately declare a default or delays in taking any action. The rights and remedies provided by this Agreement are cumulative, and either party's use of any right or remedy will not preclude or waive its right to use any other remedy. These rights and remedies are in addition to any other rights the parties may have by law, statute, ordinance or otherwise. Both parties have a duty to mitigate damages. 16. SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY This Agreement is expressly made subject to City's and County's Sovereign Immunity, Title 5 of the Texas Civil Remedies Code and all applicable State of Texas and Federal Laws. This Agreement and all pertinent matters shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas and venue shall lie exclusively in Dallas County, Texas. '17. COMPLIANCE OF LAWS AND VENUE In providing services required by this Agreement, City must observe and comply with all licenses, legal certifications, or inspections required for the services, facilities, equipment, or materials, and all applicable federal, State, and local statutes, ordinances, rules, and regulations. 18. RELATIONSHIP OF PARTIES City is an independent contractor and not agent(s), servant(s), joint enterprise(s) or employee(s) of County. City and County agree and acknowledge that each entity shall be responsible for its own acts, forbearance, negligence and deeds, and for those of its agents or employees in conjunction with the performance of work covered under this Agreement. 19. SIGNATORY WARRANTY City and County represent that each has the full right, power and authority to enter and perform this Agreement in accordance with all of the terms and conditions, and that the execution and delivery of Agreement have been made by authorized representatives of the parties to validly and legally bind the parties to all terms, performances and provisions set forth in this Agreement. The City of has executed this Agreement pursuant to duly authorized City Council Resolution No. , dated ., 2003. The County of Dallas has executed this Agreement pursuant to Commissioners Court Order No. , on this day of 2003. EXECUTED THIS DAY OF 2003. COUNTY: CITY: BY: Margaret Keliher BY: County Judge Recommended: City Manager BY: Betty Culbreath Director, DCHHS *Approved as to Form: BY: Janet R. Ferguson Chief, Civil Section Assistant District Attorney *By law, the District Attorney's Office may only advise or approve contracts or legal documents on behalf of its clients. It may not advise or approve a contract or legal document on behalf of other parties. Our review of this document was conducted solely from the legal perspective of our client. Our approval of this document was offered solely for the benefit of our client. Other parties should not rely on this approval, and should seek review and approval by their own respective attorney(s). MINUTES #2319 CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBER TUESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2003 AT 5:00 P.M. Mayor Harold Peek convened the City of University Park City Council into Executive Session at 3:00p.m.to receive legal advi ce from the City Attorney regarding litigation under Section 551.071 of the Texas Government Code. The Executive Session was adjourned at 4:00p.m. No action was voted on or taken during the meeting. Mayor Harold Peek then opened the regular meeting of t he City Council. Present were Mayor Pro Tempore Dick Davis, Councilmembers Jim Roberts, Harry Shawver and Blackie Holmes. Also in attendance were City Attorney Rob Dillard, City Manager Bob Livingston and City Secretary Nina Wilson. PRESENTATION, AWAR D, DEPARTMENT PIN PRESENTATION: A 16X20 oil on canvas painting of City Hall and Firehouse was presented to Mayor Peek by Artist Audrey Varner, who related the story of selecting the scene due to the beauty of the building and surrounding area. AWARD: Purc hasing Agent Christine Green was presented an award from The National Purchasing Institute, Inc. for Excellence in Procurement for 2003 by Finance Director Kent Austin. The City of University Park is one of only 48 to receive this national award at least three th times. The City will be recognized at the 35 Annual Conference in Austin on October 20. DEPARTMENT PIN: City Manager Bob Livingston presented a 10 - year pin to Traffic Supervisor Dave Rogers. ITEMS FROM THE FLOOR th At the September 17 City Counci l Meeting, Mr. Lev Prichard’s request to place underground electrical conduit from the opposite side of the alley to the property he is building at 3612 Bryn Mawr was discussed. At the conclusion of the discussion, the Council indicated they wished to con tinue the policy, which does not allow these crossings. Mr. Prichard was unable to attend the th meeting and address the Council. With Mr. Prichard’s attendance at the October 7 meeting and explanation of his situation, Council requested a License Agreeme nt be drawn up with specifications and presented at a future council meeting for approval. Mr. Robert Welch, 4305 Stanford, had appeared before the Board of Adjustment on September . 22, 2003, regarding a setback variance request for his property, which had been denied He was appearing before the Council regarding the residential zoning requirements in the City, which . had affected that decision Mayor Pro Tem Davis requested the Building & Zoning Administrator address Mr. Welch’s concerns in a detailed an d explanatory letter regarding his concerns. Councilmember Holmes moved acceptance of the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Shawver seconded, and the vote was unanimous to approve the following: CONSENT AGENDA CONSIDER BID TO RESURFACE TENNIS COURTS AT WIL LIAMS, CURTIS AND CARUTH PARKS: B id #03 - 10 for tennis court resurfacing at three locations at Williams, Curtis, and Caruth Parks was accepted. Patriot Court Systems, Inc. submitted the low bid of $15,450.00. CONSIDER CONTRACT FOR HEALTH SERVICES FY2004 WITH DALLAS COUNTY HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT: Each year, we receive a renewal for the above - mentioned contract. The City agrees to pay the County the sum of $48.00 for the fiscal year October 1, 2003 through September 30, 2004, which is the agreed upon City’s share of the total cost less federal and state funding. Health services include tuberculosis control, sexually transmitted disease control, communicable disease control, and laboratory services. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINU TES: For September 17, 2003. MAIN AGENDA CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH GALLAGHER CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES REGARDING CITY HALL CONSTRUCTION: The original agreement with Gallagher Construction Management was executed in January of 2001 and con templated a project costing $4.2 to $5.0 million. Since then the scope of work has changed including the decision to deal with the City Hall floodplain issue and expansion of the Fire Department equipment bays. These modifications have increased the proj ected cost to a range of $8.5 to $10.0 million, which will result in additional work for the construction manager. An amendment to the original agreement extends the time for the agreement from 36 months to 60 months (January of 2006). Construction on th e floodplain/creek project should begin after the first of the year and construction on the building should begin in late fall or winter of 2004. The proposed fee would be capped at $520,000 regardless of the final cost. This should be between 5% and 6.2% of the final project cost. Councilmember Roberts moved approval of the time extension of January 2004 to January 2006 and the fee increase of $407,000 to $520,000. Councilmember Shawver seconded, and the vote was unanimous to approve the amendment. CONS IDER EXTENSION OF CONTRACT WITH DALLAS COUNTY PARK CITIES MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT: The current water service contract expired on September 30, 2003. A revised contract has been prepared for submission to the District. Councilmember Holmes moved approva l of the Mayor’s execution of the Contract extension, forwarding to the District the City’s proposed contract, and authorizing staff to meet with the District to discuss the contract. Councilmember Shawver seconded, and the vote was unanimous to approve th e extension of the contract. CONSIDER RENEWAL OF ANNUAL INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH DALLAS COUNTY TO COORDINATE A COUNTYWIDE HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL PROGRAM FY03 - 04: The Household Hazardous Waste Disposal Program was initiated in 1994. Citizens of University Park have used either local events or the Home Chemical Collection Center located at 11232 - 34 Plano Road to dispose of their paint, herbicides and pesticides. The City’s annual contribution to the program is $25,000. Mayor Pro Tem Davis mov ed approval of the renewal of the agreement. Councilmember Holmes seconded, and the vote was unanimous to approve renewal of the Interlocal Agreement with Dallas County. CONSIDER CHANGE ORDER WITH REBCON, INC. TO ALLOW RECONSTRUCTION OF VASSAR DRIVE FROM LOVERS LANE TO TURTLE CREEK BOULEVARD, PROJECT NO. 42720: By adding paving improvements for Dyer from Boedeker to the North Central Expressway wall interior street, the contract would increase by $90,186.00. Councilmember Holmes moved acceptance of the street addition and Change Order. Councilmember Roberts seconded, and the vote was unanimous to approve the Change Order. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. th PASSED AND APPROVED this 11 day of November 2003. Harol d Peek, Mayor ATTEST: Nina Wilson, City Secretary MINUTES #2320 CITY COUNCIL MEETING/WORK SESSION CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2003 AT 7:30 A.M. Mayor Pro Tempore Dick Davis opened the meeting. Present were Councilmembers Jim Roberts, Harry Shawver and Blackie Holmes. Also in attendance were City Manager Bob Livingston, City Secretary Nina Wilson and City Attorney Rob Dillard. Mayor Harold Peek was absent and excused. ITEMS FROM THE FLOOR Ms. Gloria Wise, 3444 University, requested the City investigat e the possibility of grinding down the sidewalks in the City that are at a certain height rather than have homeowners replace them. MAIN AGENDA Mayor Pro Tem Davis opened the public hearing for discussion on the ordinances dealing with the continued use o f existing portable buildings at the Highland Park Independent School District Administration Building, Highland Park Middle School, Hyer Elementary School and University Park Elementary School. As there was no discussion, Mayor Pro Tem Davis closed the p ublic hearing. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDINANCE TO AMEND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 17 FOR 7011 WESTCHESTER DRIVE, HIGHLAND PARK INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, ALLOWING CONTINUED USE OF AN EXISTING PORTABLE BUILDING FOR GENERAL OFF ICE SPACE THROUGH JULY 2008: On September 15, 2003, the Planning & Zoning Commission approved a request by the Highland Park Independent School District to allow an extension for the continued use of existing portable classrooms through July 2008. ORDIN ANCE NO. 03/27 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 AMENDING THE APPROVED SITE PLAN FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 17 FOR THE HIGHLAND PARK HIGH SCHOOL AT 7015 WESTCHESTER DRIVE, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1 - 9, BLOCK 9, OF METHODIST UNIVERSITY ADDITION AND BLOCKS 1 AND 2 OF THE OXFORD MANOR ADDITION, ADDITIONS 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. PUBLIC HEARING AN D ORDINANCE TO AMEND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 19 FOR 3555 GRANADA, HIGHLAND PARK MIDDLE SCHOOL, BY THE HIGHLAND PARK INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT TO ALLOW CONTINUED USE OF AN EXISTING PORTABLE CLASSROOM THROUGH JULY 2008: On September 15, 2003, the Planning & Zoning Commission approved a request by the Highland Park Independent School District to allow an extension for the continued use of existing portable classrooms through July 2008. ORDINANCE NO. 03/28 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF U NIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, AS HERETOFORE AMENDED, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 19 BY APPROVAL OF AN AMENDED SITE PLAN FOR THE HIGHLAND PARK MIDDLE SCHOOL, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS BLOCK E OF THE UNIVERSITY ANNEX ADDITION, FIRST INSTALLMENT, AN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 3555 GRANADA; PROVIDING SPECIAL CONDITIONS; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLIC T; 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. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDINANCE TO AMEND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 16, 39 20 CARUTH BOULEVARD, HYER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, BY THE HIGHLAND PARK INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT TO ALLOW CONTINUED USE OF AN EXISTING PORTABLE CLASSROOM THROUGH JULY 2008: On September 15, 2003, the Planning & Zoning Commission approved a request by the High land Park Independent School District to allow an extension for the continued use of existing portable classrooms through July 2008. ORDINANCE NO. 03/29 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING OR DINANCE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, AS HERETOFORE AMENDED, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 16 BY APPROVAL OF AN AMENDED SITE PLAN FOR THE ROBERT S. HYER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AT 3920 CARUTH, UNIVERSITY PARK, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1 - 18, BLOCK 39, OF THE UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS NO. 4 ADDITION REVISED, AN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS; PROVIDING SPECIAL CONDITIONS; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING A SEVERAB ILITY 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. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDINANCE TO AMEND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 15, 3505 AMHERST, UNIVERSITY PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, BY THE HIGHLAND PARK INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT TO ALLOW CONTINUED USE OF AN EXISTING PORTABLE CLASSROOM THROUGH JULY 2008: On September 15, 2003, the Planning & Zoning Commission approved a request by the Highland Park Independen t School District to allow an extension for the continued use of existing portable classrooms through July 2008. ORDINANCE NO. 03/30 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP OF TH E CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, AS HERETOFORE AMENDED, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 15 BY APPROVAL OF AN AMENDED SITE PLAN FOR THE UNIVERSITY PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AT 3505 AMHERST, UNIVERSITY PARK, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1 - 26, BLOCK C, OF THE UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS ADDITION REVISED, AN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, RECORDED IN VOLUME 3, PAGE 383 OF THE MAP RECORDS OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS; PROVIDING SPECIAL CONDITIONS; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL O F 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. Councilmember Roberts moved approval of the ordinan ces amending Planned Development Districts Nos. 17, 19, 16 and 15. Councilmember Holmes seconded, and the vote was unanimous to approve each of the ordinances dealing with the portable classrooms. CONSIDER ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ADOPT COMMERCIAL B UILDING HEIGHTS: A recommendation was made by the Planning & Zoning Commission on March 17, 2003 to place the following height restrictions on commercial properties: ? ? PD - 1 - R (Snider Plaza) – 40 feet overall ? ? PD - 2 - R (Miracle Mile) – 26 feet, with an additio nal 9 - foot allowance for equipment & screening ? ? General Retail (GR) – 40 feet overall Discussions have taken place with a number of Snider Plaza property owners regarding the impact the proposed height restrictions would have on their properties, their abi lity to build on the property, or their ability to sell the property. After reviewing the comments and suggestions from property owners, it was suggested that staff, the Planning & Zoning Commission, and the City Council explore other design opportunities for these retail districts. Mr. Taylor Armstrong, Architect with Leo A. Daly, who had been asked to assist in these discussions, presented a few height design options. It appears that an opportunity exists to implement various height “restrictions” that may result in more favorable roof and facade designs. Staff recommended the proposed ordinance amending the maximum building heights in the PD - 1 - R, PD - 2 - R, and General Retail zoning districts be rejected. Staff will continue in discussions with Mr. Armstr ong and others to bring a new ordinance to the Planning & Zoning Commission that will create a more favorable set of design opportunities for both the City and the retail property owners. Councilmember Shawver moved approval of the rejection of the ordina nce amendment. Councilmember Roberts seconded, and the vote was unanimous to deny the ordinance amendment. CONSIDER WATERMARK COMMUNITY CHURCH’S REQUEST TO USE BURLESON PARK FOR CHURCH PICNIC NOVEMBER 2, 2003: Stacy Kazee, Assistant to Jay Jacobs, and Be cky Duncan, both representing the church, informed Council that the picnic will be from 10:30a.m. to 1:30 p.m. Approximately 700 people are expected to attend. Council cautioned against using a loud volume for the music that will be played. Since parkin g will be a problem, the church was asked to see if SMU would allow them to use the parking garage at the corner of Airline and Daniel, which SMU agreed to do. City Attorney Rob Dillard requested the church give Police Chief Gary Adams a letter stating S MU approved church members parking in the garage and to also remind church members to do so. Mayor Pro Tem Davis requested the church notify the neighbors that there will be an event in the park by passing out flyers. Councilmember Roberts cautioned agai nst blocking the neighbors’ driveways. Councilmember Holmes moved approval of the request. Councilmember Roberts seconded, and the vote was unanimous to allow the church to use Burleson Park on November 2, 2003. DISCUSS UTILITY REPLACEMENT ISSUES ASSOC IATED WITH RECONSTRUCTION OF LOVERS LANE: During the recent design of Lovers Lane from Hillcrest to North Central Expressway, an existing sanitary sewer was discovered in the intersection of Hillcrest and Lovers Lane that is so shallow it will interfere wi th the reconstruction of the pavement. The only solution is to install a new sanitary sewer from Thackery to Hillcrest, as Thackery is the closest location with sufficient depth to correct the problem. An alternative would be to postpone reconstruction o f the Hillcrest intersection at this time and address the issue when the Hillcrest/Thackery section of Lovers Lane is reconstructed in the future. However, at that time, the traffic at North Central Expressway will not be blocked off, and dealing with Hill crest and Lovers Lane traffic will be very difficult. Councilmember Roberts moved approval to replace the sanitary sewer now. Councilmember Holmes seconded, and the vote was unanimous to approve replacement now rather than in the future. DISCUSS PROPOSED STORM WATER UTILITY: An unfunded federal mandate promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency will take effect for local governments beginning in 2004. The mandate, administered by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), requires citi es to initiate several new activities aimed at improving the quality of storm water. The City contracted with HDR Engineering to assist with the creation of a storm water management plan, which must be submitted to the TCEQ. Compliance with the new law w ill mean increased expenditures for the City of University Park. Significant portions of the hard surfaces, which contribute to storm water runoff within the City, are owned by entities that do not contribute tax dollars to the City. Consequently, the fi nancial burden of complying with the new legislation falls entirely on those individuals and businesses that currently pay property taxes. In an attempt to make the financial burden of this new program more representative of the contributions to the probl em, staff has pursued the feasibility of a storm water utility that would be paid by all property owners within the City (governmental entities, city and Highland Park Independent School District excluded). HDR’s scope of work was expanded to include a fea sibility study for the creation of a storm water utility. HDR has worked with staff to develop a proposed storm water utility rate structure. Great effort was made to ensure that the fee charged to each resident would be uniformly based on the property's contribution to storm water runoff. Staff is still collecting that data and forwarding it to HDR. When the data collection is complete, HDR will provide the City with a final report on its findings. The earliest time to bring the th matter before Council a gain would be at a special meeting called for December 20 . CONSIDER BID FOR CURB, GUTTER AND CONCRETE REPAIRS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS, Ken - Do Contracting submitted a bid for labor and materials in the amount PROJECT NO. 42991: of $1,739,127.20. Councilmem ber Roberts moved approval of the bid. Councilmember Holmes seconded, and the vote was unanimous to accept the contract. CONSIDER ENGINEERING PROPOSAL WITH GSWW, INC. TO PROVIDE ENGINEERING SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM FLOW M ETERING AND ANALYSIS: In 1996, GSWW, Inc. developed a report that identified certain deficiencies in the City's sanitary sewer collection system. Specifically, metering and smoke testing were conducted to locate sources of extraneous flows (groundwater and runoff from rainfall events) and compared to the flow data during dry and wet weather periods. In the seven years since the study, staff has administered several projects involving reconstruction of identified sources of infiltration - inflow. The proposal details the engineering services associated with quantifying the anticipated reduction in infiltration - inflow in the sanitary sewer system. The results should also address wet weather flows/capacity in the trunk sewer through the Town of Highland Park. C ouncilmember Holmes moved approval of the proposal. Councilmember Shawver seconded, and the vote was unanimous to approve the proposal in the amount of $38,080. CONSIDER ORDINANCE AMENDING FY2004 BUDGET TO CARRY FORWARD FY2003 ENCUMBRANCES AND AUTHORIZE T RANSFERS TO CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND: The ordinance would amend the FY2004 budget to carry forward funds encumbered at the end of FY03, thus making them available for expenditure in the current fiscal year. The total encumbrances of $1,104,513 include $659,59 0 from the General Fund, $428,436 from the Utility Fund, and $16,487 from the Sanitation Fund. Without this amendment, the City could not expend these funds without exceeding the adopted budget. The ordinance would also authorize the transfer of $4,549,3 08 from the annual operating budget to the Capital Projects Fund ($2,681,063 General Fund; $1,868,245 Utility Fund). The use of these funds for capital projects was approved as part of the budget adoption process. The ordinance formalizes the transfer. Councilmember Shawver moved approval of the ordinance. Councilmember Holmes seconded, and the vote was unanimous to approve amending the FY2004 Budget. ORDINANCE NO. 03/31 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, AMENDING THE 2003 - 2004 FISCA L YEAR BUDGET, ORDINANCE NO. 03/22, TO CARRY FORWARD ENCUMBRANCES FROM THE 2002 - 2003 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET, INCLUDING TOTAL GENERAL FUND ENCUMBRANCES OF $659,590.34, UTILITY FUND ENCUMBRANCES OF $428,435.77, AND SANITATION FUND ENCUMBRANCES OF $16,486.53; AME NDING ORDINANCE NO. 03/22 TO TRANSFER FUNDS FROM THE FISCAL YEAR 2004 GENERAL FUND AND UTILITY FUND INTO THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. CONSIDER PURCHASE OF REPLACEMENT VEHICLES FOR SANITATION, STREET AND UTILITIES DEPARTMENTS : A 16 - yard rear loader and three 5 - 6 yard dump trucks are scheduled for replacement this year. Replacement vehicles are available through the Houston - Galveston Area Council of Governments (H - GAC) Cooperative Purchasing Program with whom the City has had a n Interlocal Agreement since 1994. The rear loader purchase price is $84,664.85 from Santex Truck Center in San Antonio and is 4% more than the last rear loader purchased in December 2001 for $81,043.00 via Bid #02 - 02. The purchase price for each of the t hree dump trucks is $51,975.92 for a total amount of $155,927.76. This is $5,732.08 less per truck than the last dump truck purchase in February 2001 via Bid #01 - 03. The total cost for all four vehicles is $236,970.76. Councilmember Roberts moved approval of the purchase. Councilmember Shawver seconded, and the vote was unanimous to approve the purchase of a 16 - yard rear loader for the Sanitation Department and three 5 - 6 yard dump trucks, one for the Street Department and two for the Utilities Department. CONSENT AGENDA CONSIDER COMBINATION OF ONE - HALF DAYS AT CHRISTMAS AND NEW YEAR’S FOR CITY EMPLOYEES: The City’s holiday schedule calls for employees to have paid holidays on Christmas Day and New Year’s Day along with one - half day on both Christmas and N ew Year’s Eve. Since Christmas is on Thursday this year, the City would like to schedule a th full day off on Friday, December 26 . All City facilities will be closed on Thursday and Friday, th th December 25 and 26 . Police and Fire will continue to operate in their normal manner. Sanitation, which normally works 10 - hour days on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday, will work Friday and Saturday but have all day Wednesday and Thursday off. Any employee working a holiday has the option to either receive a n alternative day off or be paid for the day. CONSIDER BID #03 - 12 FOR ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR BULK AND BAGGED CEMENT: Cemex submitted the low bid of $5.55 per bag on the bagged Type 1 Portland cement. This price is $0.10/bag lower than last year's price. TXI submitted the low bid of $78.00 per ton on bulk Type 1 Portland cement. This price is $10.00/ton cheaper than last year's price. Based on cement purchases in 2002, the City will spend approximately $42,500.00 through these contracts. CONSIDER BID # 03 - 13 FOR ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR READY - MIX CONCRETE: Beall Concrete submitted the low bid of $65.00 per cubic yard. This price is $4.00 per cubic yard less than last year's contract price. Collins Concrete submitted the second low bid of $67.00 per cubic ya rd, and the Street Department would like to list them as a secondary, back - up vendor. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned into an Executive Session at 8:30 a.m. under Section 551.071 of the Texas Government Code for consultation w ith the City Attorney. The Executive Session was adjourned at 8:55a.m. No action was voted on or taken during the meeting. th Passed and approved this 11 day of November 2003. ________________________ Harold Peek, Mayor ATTEST: ________________ _______ Nina Wilson, City Secretary AGENDA MEMO (11/11/03 AGENDA) DATE: November 6 , 2003 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Wade McLaurin, Building & Zoning Administrator SUBJECT: SMU request to rezone 3015 & 3016 Dyer from UC - 3 to UC - 2 BACK GROUND: On October 15, 2003 the Planning & Zoning Commission voted unanimously to recommend an approval of the rezoning request made by Southern Methodist University. The request is to rezone 3015 & 3016 Dyer from University Campus District 3 (UC - 3) to University Campus District 2 (UC - 2). The current zoning does not permit the fraternity or sorority house usage that the University desires to locate on these lots. The property to the west of the lots in question is zoned UC - 2, and permits such uses alrea dy. SMU has requested that this item, along with the consideration of the existing Development Agreement regarding the construction of a wall along Dublin Avenue, be continued to a future date. PUBLIC NOTICE: Notice for Public Hearing was advertised in the Park Cities People on the following dates: ? ? For P&Z - 10/2/03 ? ? For Council - 10/23/03 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that these items be continued to a future date in order for all parties affected to be given notice and an opportunity to vo ice any concerns over the proposed changes. 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363 - 1644 ORDINANCE NO. ___________________________ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, AS HERETOFORE AMENDED, BY GRANTING A CHANGE OF ZONING TO UNIVERS ITY CAMPUS - 2 UC - 2 FOR THE PROPERTY AT 3015 AND 3016 DYER, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 3. BLOCK 1 AND LOT 3, BLOCK 2, OF THE UNIVERSITY HILLS WEST ADDITION, 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. 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 otherwi se, 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 Comprehensiv e Zoning Ordinance and Map of the City of University Park, Texas, as heretofore amended, be, and the same are hereby, amended by granting a change of zoning to University Campus - 2 UC - 2 for the property described as Lot 3, Block1 and Lot 3, Block 2 of the U niversity Hills West Addition, an addition to the City of University Park, Dallas County, Texas, and more commonly known as 3015 and 3016 Dyer, respectively. SECTION 2 . That the property described herein shall be used only for the purposes and under the c onditions set out in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City of University Park, Texas, as heretofore amended and as amended hereby. 59948 SECTION 3. That all ordinances of the City of University Park in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance, o r the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance as amended hereby, be, and the same are hereby, repealed. SECTION 4. That should any sentence, paragraph, subdivision, clause, phrase or section of this ordinance or the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, as amended hereb y, 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, ille gal 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 Compr ehensive 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 e ach 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 case s provide. DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on the ___ day of ___________ 2003. 59948 APPROVED: ____________________________________ HAROLD PEEK, MAYOR ATTEST: ____________ ________________________ NINA WILSON, CITY SECRETARY APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________________ CITY ATTORNEY (RLD/10 - 15 - 03) 59948 ORDINANCE NO. _______________________ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, AMENDING THE C OMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, AS HERETOFORE AMENDED, BY GRANTING A CHANGE OF ZONING TO UNIVERSITY CAMPUS - 2 UC - 2 FOR THE PROPERTY AT 3015 AND 3016 DYER, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 3. BLOCK 1 AND LOT 3, BLOCK 2 , OF THE UNIVERSITY HILLS WEST ADDITION, 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. DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on the ____ day of ____________ 2003. APPROVED: ___________________________________ _ HAROLD PEEK, MAYOR ATTEST: ____________________________________ NINA WILSON, CITY SECRETARY 59948 MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: November 5, 2003 University Park residents living in the area bounded by University Blvd., SMU Blvd., Central Expressway and Airline. Mayor, City Council and City of University Park Staff SMU Rezoning Request and Dublin Wall On November 1 lth, the City Council is scheduled to hold a public hearing on the proposed rezoning of two lots located midway in the 3000 block of Dyer and owned by SMU. If approved, the change would allow fraternity and sorority houses to be constructed 50 feet farther east on the blocks than present zoning allows. SMU plans to use this area to construct replacement houses for those presently located on Binkley adjacent to the new Student Services Building. The location on Binkley will be used to construct a parking garage serving the new Student Center as well as the main campus. SMU has proposed to construct a screening wall along Dublin Avenue from SMU Blvd. to University Blvd. The wall had been contemplated as part of SMU's Master Plan, and it was originally proposed to the City when SMU introduced the Plan in 1998. The wall was in response to requests by homeowners, who asked that the area east of Dublin be isolated from the campus. Development agreements between the City and SMU for other improvements committed SMU to funding and building the wall at an undetermined time as the Plan was executed. During the past few weeks, City staff and Council have received comments from residents living in the area regarding the rezoning and the wall construction. To be fair to all involved, the City Council intends to move forward in the following manner: At the November 11th Meeting, the public hearing will be continued to a date most likely in January. The applicant, SMU, has requested the continuance. The only action the Council will take at the November 11th meeting will be to determine a date and time to continue hearing on the rezoning and wall construction. Once the date and time is determined, a notice will be delivered to residents in the area informing of the date and time of the meeting. This approach will ensure that everyone is heard. If you have questions, please call Bob Livingston, City Manager (214-987-5300) or Wade McLaurin, Building and Zoning Administrator (214-987-5410). 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 Mov 05 03 03:33p P'2 OSMU SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY the General Counsel November 5, 2003 Mr. Bob Livingston City Manager City of University Park 3800 University Blvd. University Park, TX 75205 Dear Bob: The City Council has on its agenda for November 11th Southern Methodist University's request for a zoning change in the 3000 block of Dyer. Due to confusion in the neighborhood resulting from issues surrounding the proposed reconfiguration of Dublin and the associated wall, the University is requesting a postponement of the hearing until such time as the Council has had the opportunity to hear public comment on the Dublin reconfiguration and wall. Respectfully submitted, S. Leon Bennett General Counsel and VP for Legal Affairs and Government Relations !'O Box 750132 Dallas TX 75275-0132 214-768-3233 Fax 214-768-1281 AGENDA MEMO (11/11/03 AGENDA) DATE: November 6 , 2003 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Wade McLaurin, Building & Zoning Administrator SUBJECT: Requested amendment to PD - 22 (6101 Hillcrest) BACKGROUND: O n October 15, 2003 the Planning & Zoning Commission voted 3 to 2 to not recommend approval of the requested amendment to Planned Development 22 (PD - 22) made by the 6101 Hillcrest Hotel Group, L.P. The applicant was seeking an amendment to the existing pla nned development in order to add an additional floor to the building, along with an additional twelve rooms. The denial by the Commission was a result of the plan not conforming to the parking requirements found in the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has requested that this item be withdrawn. The proposal has been th revised and will be taken to the November 17 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting in the hopes of receiving a favorable recommendation. The item will be brought back to the Council at a later date. PUBLIC NOTICE: Notice for Public Hearing was advertised in the Park Cities People on the following dates: ? ? For P&Z - 10/2/03 ? ? For Council - 10/23/03 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that this item be withdrawn as requested. 3800 UNIVERS ITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363 - 1644 AGENDA MEMO (11/11/03 AGENDA) DATE: November 6, 2003 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Jacob Speer, Assistant to the Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Proposed Storm Water Utility BACKGROUND: As you are aware, staff has been working with HDR Engineering to study the feasibility of implementing a storm water utility to fund the new functions required by recent state and federal legislation. On November 5, 2003, a joint meeting of the Finance and Public Works Advisory Committees was h eld to review the consultant's final report and make a recommendation to the Council. ITEM: First, the committees recommended the establishment of a storm water utility. It was determined that a utility fee would be a better mechanism to fund the newl y mandated storm water program than tax revenues. A utility allows the City to collect money from all property owners in accordance with the impact their property has on the storm sewer system. Under the tax - funding scenario, those residents who pay prop erty taxes would be funding 100% of a program that benefits all members of the City, including those members who do not pay property taxes. For example, the average University Park homeowner would pay approximately $140 per year in taxes to fund storm wat er related functions; meanwhile, the average homeowner would pay approximately $72 per year in storm water fees to fund storm water related functions. The Committees and Staff recommend exempting properties owned by the City of University Park and the Hig hland Park Independent School District. Charging these two taxing entities would ultimately have the affect of charging the taxpayers twice. This problem would be compounded by the revenue loss experienced by the HPISD as a result of "Robin Hood." When developing the proposed rate structure, HDR and city staff attempted to create a system that was both equitable to all residents and efficient to administer and operate. Impervious surface area (roofs, driveways, etc.) of a property is the most equitable basis for a storm water fee. However, it is also the most difficult to determine and maintain citywide. The City's Code of Ordinances establishes a maximum impervious surface area for each zoning district within the City. That maximum area is expressed as a percentage of the total lot area. The current building trend throughout the City is to develop a property at or very near the maximum impervious surface area allowed by 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363 - 1644 C: \ Documents and Settings \ nwilson \ Local Settings \ Temporary Internet Files \ OLK21 \ SWU Recommend 11 - 11 - 03.doc 2 : 52 PM 11 / 06 ordinance. Therefore, the maximum impervious surface area was used as a factor in establishing the proposed storm water fee. City staff calculated the average lot size within each of the City's residential zoning districts. The maximum impervious surface area percentage was then applied to the average lot size for each zoning distr ict. The result was the average impervious surface area for parcels within each residential zoning district. The maximum impervious surface percentage was applied to the actual area of each non - residential property individually. These calculations were used to develop a fee per square foot of impervious surface area that would yield the required revenues. To simplify the billing process, the fee per square foot of impervious surface area was applied to the average area for each residential zoning catego ry to arrive at a flat monthly fee for all properties within a given zoning category. This allows the City to base the fee on a common rate for all properties and also reduces the costs and burden of administering the program. The wide variety of parcel s izes within non - residential categories made the averaging technique ineffective. Consequently, non - residential properties will be billed individually based on the maximum impervious area of the property multiplied by the rate per square foot. The consult ant, advisory committees, and staff discussed individual cases where the actual impervious surface area of a parcel may be significantly less than the maximum allowed by ordinance. It was agreed that a consistent approach was necessary; however, given the absence of information on the actual impervious area of every piece of property in the City, actual impervious area is not a realistic basis for determining the fee. Using the maximum impervious surface area also eliminates the need to recalculate the fe e for a property each time a new feature is added. The advisory committees recommend the following rate structure: Single Family District 1: $19.59 per month Single Family District 2: $6.21 per month Single Family District 3: $5.24 per month Single F amily District 4: $4.85 per month Single Family District Attached: $3.88 per month Duplex District 1: $3.93 per month Duplex District 2: $2.76 per month Multi - Family Districts 1, 2, & 3: $1.36 per month Non - residential per square foot: $0.001078 per m onth It is estimated that the recommended rate structure will generate approximately $550,000 per year in revenues. The funds will be sufficient to fund the Storm Water Management Plan and approximately $350,000 worth of storm water related capital impro vements each year. If Council elects to proceed with the committees' recommendation, HDR and staff will work to draft an ordinance establishing a storm water utility and amend the City's fee resolution to reflect the new fees. Public hearings must be adv ertised and held prior to considering either the ordinance or the rates. The public hearings must be advertised for 30 days prior to holding the hearings and taking action on the items. The notices and proposed ordinance and fee resolution amendments wil l be published beginning November 20, 2003. Thus, the earliest date the public hearing could be held is Friday, 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363 - 1644 C: \ Documents and Settings \ nwilson \ Local Settings \ Temporary Internet Files \ OLK21 \ SWU Recommend 11 - 11 - 03.doc 2 : 52 PM 11 / 06 December 19, 2003. As the City Manager discussed at the last City Council meeting, it is important that the utility be implemented prior to th e end of the year. This timeline will also require Council to direct staff to schedule an additional City Council meeting th st between December 19 and 31 . RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council proceed with the recommendation issued by the Finance and Public Works Advisory Committees and direct staff to prepare an ordinance and fee resolution to establish a storm water utility with the rates and provisions outlined above. It is also recommended that Council direct staff to schedule an additional m eeting on December 19, 2003 for the purpose of holding public hearings and taking action on the issue. ATTACHMENTS: HDR Engineering's Final Storm Water Feasibility Report ? ? Minutes of the 11/5/03 Joint Advisory Committee Meeting ? ? 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363 - 1644 C: \ Documents and Settings \ nwilson \ Local Settings \ Temporary Internet Files \ OLK21 \ SWU Recommend 11 - 11 - 03.doc 2 : 52 PM 11 / 06 CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS JOINT MEETING OF FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC WORKS ADVISORY COMMITTEE WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2003 at 8:30 A.M. PEEK SERVICE CENTER M I N U T E S Attendees: Finance Advisory Public Works Advisory Committee Committ ee City Council and staff Consultants Atwood, John Ferris, John Austin, Kent Bagwell, Tony Edwards, Richard Moore, Mike Livingston, Bob Jarrett, Lara Harralson, Howell Pulliam, Paul Shawver, Harry Mahon, Ed Shawver, Reed Smallwood, Bud Stuart, Joh n Stewart, Tommy Speer, Jacob Walker, Kelly Tvardzik, Tom 1. Call to order. Public Works Director Bud Smallwood called the meeting to order at 8:38 a.m. and reminded the attendees that the purpose of the meeting was to review the consultant’s storm w ater management utility feasibility study and consider a recommendation to the City Council. 2. Consider proposal to establish storm water utility and set related rates. Smallwood introduced HDR consultants Tony Bagwell and Lara Jarrett, who briefed the Comm ittees on their findings, including: ? ? A storm water utility is proposed to fund actions required to comply with the Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES). The utility would be funded by a per - parcel monthly fee based approximately on the par cel’s maximum allowable amount of impervious surface (i.e., hardened groundcover that does not absorb rainfall). ? ? A utility approach is advantageous because it encompasses property owners who are exempt from traditional property taxes. Additionally, proper ty owners pay more in proportion to their storm water contribution than under a tax funded approach. ? ? A five - year storm water quality management program was developed by HDR in coordination with City staff. The program carries an annual cost of approximate ly $560,000, which includes a $350,000 capital component. ? ? Rather than attempt to measure the amount of impermeable surface on each of the City’s over 8,000 parcels, the consultants and staff recommended using zoning classification as a means of estimating a property’s impervious surface amount. ? ? Staff and consultants recommended that publicly funded institutions, namely the City and HPISD, be exempted from the fee. Churches and SMU would be assessed the fee like other property owners. ? ? The SF - 4 zoning categ ory was chosen as the benchmark for establishing a monthly rate for other types of property and was assigned an “Equivalent Residential Unit” value of C: \ Documents and Settings \ nwilson \ Local Settings \ Temporary Internet Files \ OLK21 \ Committee Minutes 11 - 05 - 03.doc 11 / 06 / 03 one (1) and a monthly rate of $4.85. Other zoning categories, such as SF - 3 and MF, would be assessed a m onthly fee in relation to SF - 4. The attendees discussed the proposed utility and fee vigorously. After much discussion, the Committee members voted 6 - 1 in favor of the storm water utility and related fee structure. 3. Adjourn. The meeting adjourned at appr oximately 9:45 a.m. ___________________________________ ______________________________ Submitted by Kent R. Austin, Director of Finance C: \ Documents and Settings \ nwilson \ Local Settings \ Temporary Internet Files \ OLK21 \ Committee Minutes 11 - 05 - 03.doc 11 / 06 / 03 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. .III ES-1: S W U ...................................................................................................... TORM ATER TILITIES III ES-2: D C ................................................................................................................. ATA OLLECTION IV ES-3: R ............................................................................................................. ECOMMENDATIONS VII 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... .1 1.1 S P G .................................................................................................1 TUDY URPOSE AND OALS 1.2 S L ..............................................................................................................2 TUDY IMITATIONS 2.0 CURRENT AND POTENTIAL FUTURE STORM WATER PROGRAM SERVICES AND FUNDING ME CHANISMS .......................................................................................................3 2.1 C S W P L F ................................................3 URRENT TORM ATER ROGRAM EVELS AND UNDING 2.1.1 Historical Funding in the U.S. .......................................................................................4 2.1.2 Alternative Sources of Funding for Storm Water in University Park .............................5 2.1.3 Storm Water Rate Design Issues ....................................................................................8 2.1.4 Storm Water Utility Rates within North Central Texas ................................................12 3.0 MODELING OF ALTERNATIVE PROGRAM FUTURES .............................................15 3.1 I F P M .......................................................................15 NTEGRATED INANCIAL LANNING ODEL 3.1.1 Rate Basis ..................................................................................................................... 15 3.1.2 Equivalent Residential Unit and Nonresidential Rate Structure ..................................17 3.1.3 Identification of Future Program Scenarios to be Modeled .........................................18 3.1.4 Assumptions Common to All Future Program Scenarios .............................................19 3.1.5 Comparison of the ?Full Cost? and ?Partial Cost? Estimates ...................................22 3.2 FUTURE PROGRAM SC ENARIO RESULTS ...................................................................23 3.2.1 Scenario 1A ? Continue Status Quo/No Action without the TPDES Phase II Program. 23 3.2.2 Scenario 1B ? Continue Status Quo/No Action with the TPDES Phase II Program. ...23 3.2.3 Scenario 2 ? Full Cost Scenario with a SWU Rate of $4.85 ERU/Month. ...................24 3.2.4 Scenario 3 ? Full Cost Scenario with a SWU Rate of $5.00 ERU/Month. ...................24 3.2.5 Scenario 4 ? Full Cost Scenario with a SWU Rate of $5.87 ERU/Month. ...................24 3.2.6 Scenario 5 ? Partial Cost Scenario with a SWU Rate of $4.85 ERU/Month. ..............24 3.2.7 Scenario 6 ? Partial Cost Scenario with a SWU Rate of $5.00 ERU/Month. ..............24 3.3 C C M S ..................................................24 OMPARISON AND ONTRAST OF ODELING CENARIOS 3.4 R O F P ....................................................27 ECOMMENDED RGANIZATIONAL AND UNDING LAN 3.4.1 SWU Organizational Concept ......................................................................................27 3.4.2 Storm Water Funding Recommendations .....................................................................28 List of Tables Table ES-1: Equivalent Resi dential Unit or Fee Basis .......................................................................... v Table ES-2: Comparison of Estimated ?Full-Cost? and ?Partial Cost? Scenarios ................................v Table ES-3: Summary of Pr oposed Rate Structures ............................................................................vii Table 2.1: Characteristics of Alternative Storm Water Funding Mechanisms .......................................6 Table 2.2: Demographic Forecasts for the City of University Park 2000-2030 ....................................7 Storm Water Feasibility Study City of University Park, TX i Table 2.3: Rate Structures and Monthly Fees for Representative Cities in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex ...................................................................................................................... ...............13 Table 3.1: Average Area and Impervious Area of La nd Uses within the City of University Park .....16 Table 3.2: Estimated Storm Water Utility Customers .........................................................................17 Table 3.3: Residential Zoning Classifications and Ca lculation of the Equivalent Residential Unit ...18 Table 3.4: Organizational, Program, and Funding Scenarios to be Modeled ......................................19 Table 3.5: Municipal Storm Water Program Estimated Costs ............................................................20 Table 3.6: Inventory Estimate of Current Drainage Facilities .............................................................21 Table 3.7: Forecasted Capital Projects ......................................................................................... ........22 Table 3.8: Comparison of ?Full Cost? and ?Partial Cost? Programs ..................................................23 Table 3.9: Comparison and Contrast of Storm Water Utility Scenarios ..............................................26 Table 3.10: Comparison of R esidential Rate Structures ......................................................................29 Table 3.11: Example Non-residential Rates ..................................................................................... ...29 List of Figures Figure ES-1: Typical Rate Basis for Storm Water Utilities .................................................................iv Figure ES-2: Comparison of Cumulative Ending Oper ating and Capital Combined Balances for Each Scenario ....................................................................................................................... ..................vi Figure 2.1: Common Sources of Funding for Storm Water Utilities ....................................................8 Figure 2.2: Conceptual Tradeoff Between Fair and Equity and Cost of Administering a User Charge System ............................................................................................................................................9 Figure 2.3: National Survey of Typical Stormwater Utility Rate Structures ......................................11 Figure 2.4: Representative, Flat Residential Rates ............................................................................ ..12 Figure 3.1: ?Full Cost? Scenarios: Ending Balance of Capital Reserve Fund ...................................25 Figure 3.2: ?Partial Cost? Scenarios: E nding Balance of Capital Reserve Fund ...............................25 Figure 3.3: SWU Organizational Concept. ........................................................................................ ...27 Storm Water Feasibility Study City of University Park, TX ii In addition to ongoing operational and maintenance as well as capital costs for locally-determined storm water management, the City of University Pa rk is also required to comply with the Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) Phase II Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) program. As a result, the City is anticipated to incur approximately $200,000 in additional expenditures annually to address this unfunded mandate. The total forecasted cost of the City?s storm water program over the next five years is $4.9 million. Like many other cities, University Park wishes to evaluate the feasibility of a storm water utility to provide an additional re venue source to meet its storm water funding needs. The City of University Park contracted with HDR to conduct a storm water feasibility study to evaluate the feasibility of a storm water utility. With key data provided by City staff, HDR estimated the City?s operational costs associated with the st orm water program and then compared those needs to the potential revenue generate d by various rate scenarios. This executive summary provides an overview of the resulting rate structures as well as various components of the potential storm water utility. A storm water utility is a municipal utility, like a water or wastewater utility, and it is established by ordinance. The State of Texas requires that m unicipalities fully account for the costs and revenue generated from utilities and establish policies for both th e rate structure and any possible credits to be provided under the utility. A majority of storm water utilities throughout the na tion rely upon impervious area as a basis for the storm water fee. Impervious area is defined as hardened, relatively imperm eable, ground cover that does not absorb rainfall and yields greater amounts of storm water runoff than permeable surfaces. The use of impervious area as a rate basis also a llows municipalities an opportunity to correlate the potential contribution of storm water runoff from a pr operty to the storm sewer system and ultimately attribute a more equitable portion of the program cost s to that user. The use of tax revenue for storm water funding requires each tax payer to pay an e qual percentage of taxes to address storm water runoff without recognizing the contribution of the property to storm water runoff. Storm Water Feasibility Study City of University Park, TX iii The m o st common chara c t eristics of st orm wa ter r a te sy stems acr oss the U.S. include: i m pervious cover as the preferred basic mea s ure of storm water ? s ervice use?; a single rate (charge) per square foot of im pervious cover; two customer class es wher eby : - all single family residential properties recei ve an equivalent bill per m onth reflecting average an am ount of im p e rvious cover per si ngle-family residenti a l propert y , - non-residential (apart ments, co mmercial business, industry , a nd institutional land uses) receive unique m onthly bills based the specific am ount of im p e rvious cover deter m ined for these individual properties; and a possible cre d it against pay i ng the full rate that is based on the degree of on-site drainage im provem e nts funded b y someone other than the g o v e rning entit y and where affected custo m ers m u st file for a consideration of the credit. Figure ES-1: Typi ca l Rate Basis for Sto r m Wate r Uti l i ties I m pervi ous A r ea Gros s A r eas and Gros s A r ea and Dens i t y Fac t ors I m pervi ous A r ea Ot her The City of University P a rk?s Public Works a nd Finance staff conducted an analy s is of existing parcels to identify the num b er of pote n tial custom e r s, identify various classif i cations of c u stomers, and the aver age i m pervio us are a of ea ch. City sta ff, with the assist ance of HD R, also identified capital and operational and maintenance costs of the proposed storm water management program . The resulting data and discussions with staff y i elded possible rate structure scenarios to be analy zed with a financial planning m odel develope d b y HDR. The City suggested that the rate basis would be on esti m ated i m pervious area, and the rate structure would include sever al flat-rate residential clas ses o r billing tiers. Nonresidential rates would be calculated for each parcel based upon the m a xi m u m a llowable i m pervious area under zoning or other developm ent regulations for that parcel. The squa re foot of im pervious area rate would be based upon t h e Equ i valent Residential Unit (ERU). The ER U represents the average residential unit, and for this study, the ERU is based upon t h e SF-4 zoning. The rate of the ERU would be divi ded by the average im p e rvious area of SF-4 and result in the s quare foot rate for nonresi den tial properties. Table ES-2 illustrates the ERU, identified as land use class SF-4, as well as scaling factor that is used t o generate stor m wate r rates for the ot her class es of resi dential land uses. Storm Wat e r Fea s ibility Study City of University Park, T X iv Table ES-1: Equivalent Residential Unit or Fee Basis Zoning District ERU Factor Single Family District 1 (SF-1) 4.04 Single Family District 2 (SF-2) 1.28 Single Family District 3 (SF-3) 1.08 Single Family District 4 (SF-4) 1.00 Single Family District Attached 0.80 Duplex District 1 0.81 Duplex District 2 0.57 Multi-Family District 1, 2, & 3 0.28 The study also identified all known costs associated with the storm water management program. Concurrent with the five-year compliance period fo r the TPDES permit, the planning horizon of this storm water finance study is 2004-2009. Anticipated program costs include TPDES Phase II compliance, including existing and proposed project s; salary costs for staff; and capital projects, which are estimated to include $900,000 of new projects between 2004 and 2009. The City suggested that the study ev aluate two different major classifications of scenarios: ?full cost? and ?partial cost.? The ?full cost? scenario includes all identified costs of the storm water program. The ?partial cost? scenario excludes staff salari es, including a possible Storm Water Coordinator, from financial support provided by the stormwater utility charges. It is important to note that the City will incur the costs of the staff salaries regardless of whether or not they are included in cost estimates. Table ES-3 provides an overview of the estimated costs. Additional information on the assumptions and values used to forecast costs are provided in the body of the report. Table ES-2: Comparison of Estimated ?Full-Cost? and ?Partial Cost? Scenarios Item 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 ?Full Cost? Program $763,293 $803,229 $829,411 $832,062 $842,537 $853,654 ?Partial Cost? Program $556,887 $576,822 $580,292 $583,853 $587,510 $591,267 In order to evaluate these scenarios, HDR tailore d the financial planning model to the City of University Park?s storm water program design and developed six different rate scenarios supporting differing levels of costs. In order to evaluate th ese scenarios, the model identified the projected year ending balance of the operational cost reserve (a tw o-month reserve) and a capital fund reserve target of $500,000. The rate scenarios are summari zed below as well as the amount of net revenue generated by each. Additional descriptions of each scenario and resulting net revenue are then described further in the report. represent implementation of the storm water program without funding from the storm water utility. These include Scenario 1A which represents a future storm water progr am without implementing the TPDES program and Scenario 1B which also includes implementation of the TPDES program. If these scenarios, were implemented, the City woul d incur the total cost of the storm water program under the General Fund that is supported an ad valorem property tax. Failure to comply with the TPDES Phase II program would also result in noncompliance fines and other penalties from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). Storm Water Feasibility Study City of University Park, TX v represent i m p l e m entation of the storm w a ter progra m with the goal of achieving f undi ng for all of the stor m water utilit y?s identif ied costs. Three scenarios w e r e evaluated: Scenario 2: $4. 85/ERU/Month; Scenario 3: $5.00/ERU/Month, and Scenario 4: $5.87/ER U/Month. T h e resulting end balances suggest that onl y Scenario 4 would provide the Cit y with adequate revenue to support t h e storm water utility. represent im pl e m entation of the storm water program with the goal of funding a m a jority of th e utility?s identified costs. Two scenarios were evaluated: Scenario 5: $ 5 .00/ERU/M onth an d Scenario 6: $5.0 0 /ERU/Mont h. A review of the endin g balances suggests that either scenario wo uld pr ovide t h e City wit h adequate revenue to support t h e storm water utilit y . Figure ES-2 provides a graphical illustration of th e c u m u lative en d balances of each scenario? s contributi on t o the capital fund target once other prog ram costs and the operating reserve ar e f unded. Figure ES-2: Comparison of Cumulati ve Ending Op e r a t ing and C a pita l Combin ed Bal a nces f o r Ea ch Scenario $1,000,000 $800,000 $600,000 $400,000 $200,000 $- 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 $( 200,000) C apital Fund R e serv e T a rget Scenario 2: $4.85/ER U / M o nth (Full C o st) Scenario 3: $5.00/ER U / M onth (Full C o st) Scenario 4: $5.87/ER U / M o nth (Full C o st) Scenario 5: $4.85/ER U / M onth (Partial C o st) Scenario 6: $5.00/ER U / M o nth (Partial C o st) Once a program exceeds it s operational and capital reser ve goal, the additional revenue can be used to fund additional operational and capital costs. In Scenarios 5 and 6, fund balances reach and exceed targeted levels and could b e used to pro v id e for further O&M or capital cost spending. Storm Wat e r Fea s ibility Study City of University Park, T X vi A review of the City?s fiscal needs related to the storm water program suggest the City will incur an estimated $4.9 million in total costs for the storm water program over the next five years. Approximately $1 million will be required for ne w program to address the TPDES requirements over the next five years. Five of the evaluated scenario s provide additional revenue to the City that would support, to varying degrees, the funding of the storm water program. Scenario 4 is a ?full cost? scenario that represents a more complete cost accounting and full recovery of the city?s stormwater financial needs. While Scenario 5 and 6 are ?par tial cost? scenarios, both eventually provide for substantial coverage of the City?s anticipated stormwater costs. As a result, HDR is recommending that the City proceed with the establishment of a storm water utility compliant with Chapter 402 of the Municipa l Utilities of the Texas Local Government Code. The rate structure of Scenario 4 or a rate structur e within the range of Scenario 5 and 6 would provide additional income to substantial support for th e storm water utility. Table ES-4 summarizes the different rate structures. Table ES-3: Summary of Pr oposed Rate Structures Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Scenario 6 Residential Customer Class (Full Cost) (Partial Cost) (Partial Cost) Single Family District 1 (SF-1) $23.73 $19.59 $20.21 $6.40 Single Family District 2 (SF-2) $7.51 $6.21 $5.42 Single Family District 3 (SF-3) $6.36 $5.24 $4.85 $5.00 Single Family District 4 (SF-4) / ERU $5.87 $3.98 Single Family District Attached $4.68 $3.88 $4.03 Duplex District 1 $4.73 $3.93 $2.84 Duplex District 2 $3.33 $2.76 $1.39 Multi-Family District 1, 2, & 3 $1.63 $1.36 Square Foot of Max. Allowable Impervious Area $0.001378 $0.001078 $0.001111 Storm Water Feasibility Study City of University Park, TX vii The City of University Park, TX is required to comply with the requirements of the Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) Phase II re gulations for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4). Requirements of the program incl ude public involvement and education programs; mapping of the storm sewer system; detection of illegal or illicit connections to the storm sewer system and enforcement of local regulations to prevent and correct such connections; inspection of construction sites to ensure compliance with local regulations designed to manage construction and post-construction storm water runoff; and good hou sekeeping measures for municipal operations. It is estimated that compliance with the proposed permit would require an approximate $200,0000 annually in additional revenue over a five-year period. Various departments already fund some of the programs required by TPDES Phase II, but a majority of these best management practices would require the establishment of new programs or signi ficant expansions of existing programs. Based upon a tentative release of the final permit in N ovember 2003, the City would be required to submit and begin implement of its Stor m Water Management Plan (SWMP) by March 2004. In addition to the TPDES requirements, the City of University Park also funds capital storm water improvement projects and has an existing National Flood Insurance Program. The City?s General Fund supports these projects. The Parks and Maintenance Depart ment also fund other operations and maintenance costs. The purpose of this financial analysis is to evaluate the feasibility of a storm water utility for the City of University Park. In addition to estimated the revenue requirements for the storm water program, the study will present and evaluate various scenarios, including possible rate structures, which would be necessary to address the identified operationa l and maintenance costs of the storm water management program, including TPDES Phase II program and related activities and/or future capital projects. The study will also provide general reco mmendations regarding the structure and policies of the possible storm water utility. This report examines the following topics: The City?s current organizational and funding approach to providing storm water services; The expected costs of meeting the non-discretionary NPDES-Phase II permit requirements; o the identified capital improvements plan (CIP); and o annual costs of providing the required storm water service levels; and o A series of alternative future program leve ls, organizational approaches, and funding methods/ tools that could provide for these program futures. The goal of this report is to identify a recommende d course of organizational and funding actions for the City that, when implemented, will allow it to meet its TPDES regulatory requirements, address Storm Water Feasibility Study City of University Park, TX 1 ?catch-up? and future storm water infrastructure ne eds, and provide for a level of operations and maintenance that will assure that storm water fac ilities are performing according to expectations of the Public Works Department. Currently, there is no formal storm water department or division in the City of University Park. The Storm Water Program is managed by the Department of Public Works with support from Parks Department. Contractual arrangements with third- party vendors are also used to implement the program. Existing city storm water capital projects primarily consist of curb and gutter improvements to improve drainage. As such, it was necessary to co mpile data on current level of storm water service and associated expenditures by various departments and present it as a ?virtual? program that is occurring, but has no separate identity within the current City organizational structure. Forecasts of the next five years? program expenses were also made under a series of assumptions about the potential capital and TPDES Phase II program s. The forecast of potential revenue sources was also made using existing available informati on that needs to be further studied and improved prior to the implementation of any new funding tools. As the future storm water program takes shap e and improved information becomes available, program expenses, revenue requirements, and amount of funding levies will change to some extent. Therefore, the program descriptions and financial an alyses addressed in this report should be viewed as only a conceptual feasibility study of alternative pr ogram futures with a level of analysis sufficient to guide the City in its decision-making process, but one that needs further study to guide and refine implementation efforts. It should also be noted that TPDES Phase II costs estimates are based upon the City?s draft TPDES permit, completed in early 2003. Storm Water Feasibility Study City of University Park, TX 2 The historical storm water management activities of City of University Park have been closely associated with the City?s Public Works Department?s sanitation, ro ad construction and maintenance programs, and plan review process as a result the storm water activities do not have any noticeable separate identity in the City?s budgeting process. The City?s FY2004 Capital Improvements Program (CIP) in identifies two drainage improvements that are associated with the City?s road construction and rehabilitation improvements. Staff currently performing or supporting storm water functions are dispersed throughout the Public Works and Parks Departments. These functions in clude engineering; planning; National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and sanitation services provided by the Public Works Department; and waterbody and stream channel maintenance on public property by the Parks Department. A majority of the public water bodies are located within City parks and inspection and removal of accumulated sediment occurs at a minimum of every 5 years. Most equipment used in storm water maintenance is shared with other City services. In general, the current storm water activities of the City have no separate or distinct organization, staffing, or resource identity. For the most part, the Public Works Department utilizes designated staff from different departments to manage the storm water program. The City currently funds programs that provide storm water management, aesthetic, and public health benefits; these include the household hazardous waste program, street sweeping (which is completed under a vendor contract), pet waste management pr ograms, code enforcement, and maintenance of detention and retention structures or waterbodies. Each of these efforts represents a storm water management best management practice that coul d be included in the storm water management program and receive credit under the TPDES Phase II program. The original estimates for TPDES Phase II compliance include the total cost of each of these programs. For purposes of establishing a baseline or current-day level of City?s storm water spending, it was necessary estimate what portions of various City expe nses were attributable to storm water efforts. Estimates of storm water spendi ng from the Public Works and Parks Department for existing programs that could be attributed to the TPD ES program as well as Staff Salaries and Benefits, Contractual Services, Repair and Maintenance Services, and new Cons truction accounts were provided by City Public Works and Finance staff. Based on those estimates, current annual spending related to City?s storm water activities totals a bout $289,706, including part-time support efforts of various City departments and other progra ms within the Public Works Department. Storm Water Feasibility Study City of University Park, TX 3 Revenue to support the storm water program currently is funded by the General Fund that originates from the City?s property taxes (ad valorem taxes) . The FY2003 existing property tax rate is $0.32932 per $100 of assessed value. This rate is forecasted to result in results in $3,553,903 in revenue. The FY2004 property tax rate is $0.32 601 per $100 of assessed value and e xpected to result in $3,769,405 in revenue. In FY2003, porti ons of these revenues were allocated to cover the anticipated expenses of the storm water management program. Around the U.S., drainage services have historically b een a periodic, sometimes visible issue for local government. When it rains and floods, it becomes a p ublic priority. When it is dry, public interest wanes. Funding support and desire for a focused, continuing drainage effort have typically followed this same cyclical path. Further, funding for dr ainage must complete for limited public funds with other program services (roads, police, fire, EMS, etc. ), many of which sustain a high-priority funding status. As a result, local governments are typically ?behind the curve,? just trying to catch-up and remediate existing drainage problems and maintain an eve r-growing drainage system particularly where significant growth has or is being experienced. The historically-unattainable goal for most local governments is to get out in front of the drainage issues and keep future problems from growing. Over time, even the terminology used to reference these essential governmental functions has evolved drainage storm water from a focus in providing for simple of floodwater to supplying effective management services that can promote multi-purpose goals of health and safety, water quality, environmental, and recreational/aesthetic values for the community. Probably the biggest impetus for the innovation of multi-objective storm water thinking is the current and prospective regulatory requirements of the federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) permitting process, which affects large urban areas and selected mid-size urbanized areas (i.e., MS-4 cities). NPDES- Phase II identifies urban runoff as a ?point source? discharge of pollutants to the nation?s water that requires a permit from the Federal or State government (where states have assumed designation as the permitting authority). Within the State of Texas, the NPDES is administered by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and refe rred to as the TPDES. The permits are being conditioned to require the permit holders under unfunded mandates to perform a variety of storm water management activities that will directly or indirectly address the qualit y of urban storm water runoff. Because of these federal and state requirements, many local governments are faced with not only continuing increased expenditures for storm water, but also annual expenditures for storm water management including administration of the Natio nal Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and operation and maintenance costs, including repair and replaceme nt of infrastructure. This has helped transform the old, sometimes important, drainage function into continuing multi-purpose storm water program requirements with annual reporting respons ibilities to the regulatory authority. However, the need for effective storm water mana gement should not be simply viewed as another un- funded federal mandate. A recent workshop of ten managers of pr ominent storm water utilities from around the U.S. all echoed a common theme: the lead ing-edge storm water pr ograms have achieved their success and support, not from basing the need for action on unfunded federal mandates, but instead by involving the public and helping to transform their waterways from sometimes hazardous, Storm Water Feasibility Study City of University Park, TX 4 perhaps unhealthy, streams and rivers into community assets that are used and valued by their citizens. These changing regulatory requirements, public preferences, development and environmental impact issues, and improved science are forcing a reevaluation of what and how these services are provided. The City of University Park will be a Phase II TPDES permit holder, and its proposed programs will continuing also elevate the priority for funding to support the City storm water services. This advent of the Phase II requirements occurs at an inopportune time for many state and local governments due to revenue shortfalls resulting fro m the current economic recession. Property and sales tax revenues have been diminished, while at the same time, many communities are forced with making increased infrastructure investments and opera tional spending to remedy the effects of for existing development and to provide for anticipated growth. Because of the increased funding needs for storm wate r, underlined by the fact that many general or dedicated funds cannot afford additional spending, many regional, county, and local governments are turning to the option of creating storm water u tilities. Storm water utilities were first created in Colorado and Washington in the 1970?s with a fo cus on funding drainage. The State of Texas? authorization of storm water utilities was first enacted on June 16, 1991. As described by the Texas Local Development C ode, Texas municipalities have the authority to establish a storm water utility (or municipal draina ge utility system). Under § 402.042, municipalities may declare a drainage system to be a public u tility and prescribe a basis for fees to support that system and then assess, levy, and collect tho se fees. § 402.047 established the basic criteria for establishment of such fees and is further described in the rate basis section of this document. Historically, most drainage services for municipa lities have been funded out of general revenues, comprised mainly of property and sales tax revenues. Some city governments use similar sources of funds or are able to enjoy special dedicated fundi ng sources that provide specifically for drainage or roads and related drainage. The primary source of funding for drainage services within the City of University Park is the General Fund, which is largely supported by property taxes within the City. Within the General Fund, monies spent on drainage compete with funds available for roads, parks, facilities, water and wastewater. Table 2.1 presents a list of various taxes, rates, a nd fees typically used by other local governments to fund storm water services. Various characteristi cs of these levies are described in Table 2-1, including whether or not: the levy can provide sufficient funds for an adequate storm water program (funding adequacy); a dependable amount of revenue can be counted on from year-to-year (revenue stability); the local government has some broader discreti on in how the funds are used (flexibility); the levy provides for ease and efficiency in managing the revenue program (cost of administration); current statutory authority exists for the county government to authorize the levy (needed legal authority); and the levy generally treats customers fairly for the services rendered (fairness and equity). Storm Water Feasibility Study City of University Park, TX 5 revenues are generally stable. Local governme nts have broad flexibility in the use of funds, and the cost of administration is relatively low. However, property taxes for most local governments have not proven historically sufficient to maintain an adequate, on-going drainage program, nor do they readily provide for debt funding of large drainage projects. Property taxes are also not they very equitable in charging th e populace for problems caused or services rendered. Property value has little relationship to the propert y?s contribution to flooding, and some states (including Texas) specifically prohibit the use of property value as a means of designing the funding levies for municipal storm water utilities. For instance, a high-value, multi-story building may have a small building ?footprint? that sheds relatively little storm water runoff, but a nearby paved parking lot with a low property value may produce a great deal of rainfall runoff. Dedicated or other special tax revenues are also generally stable over time, have a low cost of administration, and can be sufficient in funding a variety of storm water purposes-unless the tax authorization-more narrowly limits the size of the le vy or use of funds. However, gaining the sales tax funding tool typically require statutory authoriza tion and voter approval, a nd the level of economic (retail sales) activity behind the sales tax does not highl y relate to the contribution to flooding so its fairness and equity considerations are low. The City of University Park is a largely residential community with number of limited commercia l properties to generate sales tax revenue. (sometimes inappropriately called a storm water fee) can provide for sufficient, stable revenue for a variety of Storm Water programs, and th e legal authority is present in some states. User rates, properly designed, can fairly relate the c ontribution to flooding and area-wide services rendered to the levy charged. However, the cost of devel oping and administering a user charge system can be higher than other types of levies. An (also called capital recovery fee or a syst em development charge) is defined in the State of Texas as ?a charge or assessment imposed by a political subdivision against new development in order to generate revenue for funding or recouping costs of capital improvements or facility expansions necessitated by and attributable to new development.? Local Government Code § 395.001. In other words, a one-time fee designed to help a municipality or other political subdivision to address the ?impacts? or costs incurred as a result of new development. Impact fees are equitable in their nature and can produce a noticeable amount of revenue over time, but in most cases, the amount of revenue from this source is not fully sufficient to offset the costs related to growth. The amount of impact fee revenues can vary dramatically from year -to-year with development/business cycles. Also if the need for growth-related projects is near-t erm, the costs to get infrastructure in place may precede the collection of the impact fees, so that ot her funds or debt financi ng is required. A review of the demographic forecasts indicates that neither the City?s population nor the number of households is not expected to increase between 2000 and 2030. Table 2.2: Demographic Forecasts for the City of University Park 2000-2030 Variance 2000 2010 2020 2030 2000 to 2030 Population 20,764 20,764 20,764 20,764 0 Households 8,005 8,005 8,005 8,005 0 Employment 9,012 9,690 9,707 9,716 704 Source: North Central Texas Counc il of Governments, September 2003. Storm Water Feasibility Study City of University Park, TX 7 Proceeds from can be a valuable source of funds in that they do not directly origi n ate from local coffers. Ho wever, gran t fundin g is m a n y tim es targ eted towards a special project and is not flexible for a variety of uses. Ty pically , grants will also require a local cost shar e and provide o n l y a portion of the project funding . Fu r t her, grants are usually not a dependable source of fund ing an d m a y entail higher costs of adm i nistration and repo rting. Traditi onall y , Uni v ersity Par k has not relied upo n grant f undin g . Figure 2.1 pr ovides an overview of ty pical funding sources utilized by storm water utilities on a nation-level. The m o st common approach is the use of storm water utility fees only . Figur e 2.1: Common So ur ces of Funding for Sto r m Wate r Utili ties N on Ad Valorem or Special D i strict T a x e s M u ltiple R e v enue Sources Storm W a ter U t ility Fees O n ly Source: Compar ison of Florid a and Nation a l Stormwater Utility S u rvey s . 2002. Lienhar t , PE, Step hen R. Most user charge sy ste m s have an im pli c it trade-o ff between the de gree of fairness and equity for the individu al custo m er and the co m p lexity and ease/cost of ad m i nistrat i on of the user charge sy stem ( s e e Figure 2-1). Within a utili ty s y stem , whether it be an electric, water, wastewater or storm water utilit y , ever y indivi dual custo m er has a unique cost of service that it im poses on the sy stem . For exa m ple, a re sidential customer located next to a wastewater tr eat ment plant im poses a les ser degree of cost on t h e utilit y s y ste m than does a residential or commercial custo m er located on the far side of town whose effluent is convey ed over long distan ces or may be of higher waste w ater str e ngth. Changes in location, topography , soils, a nd service use charact eristi cs can all aff e ct the degree of custo m er cost s. Storm Wat e r Fea s ibility Study City of University Park, T X 8 Figure 2.2: Conceptual Tradeoff Betwe e n Fair and Equity and Cost of Administer ing a User Charge System Utility customers also benefit differently from the ser vices received. Water used for in an office restroo m m a y have a m u ch lower i m plici t valu e than water used in high-value, electronics manufacturing, y e t both m a y be charged the sa m e wat e r rate. The benefit-side as pects of a storm water user charge can be more co m p lex. While some custo m ers ma y benefit m o r e directly from stor m wate r im prove ments or services (s uch as allevia ting flooding to that property ), all area re sidents and businesses, even those on ?top of the hill,? benefit indirectly from i m proved safety , and transportation and emergency access to their hom es, sc hools, hospi t a ls, business districts, etc., as well as other possible advantages of im proved water quality, aesthetic or recreational opportunities. It is im practical to have uni que indi vidua l rates for every si ngle customer in a utility s y stem that accurately reflects a true co st and benefits picture. Not only are there analy tical problems in deriving such com p lex rates, the administrative c o sts of gath ering and m a intaining this le vel of inform ation is cost-prohibiti ve. As a means o f striking a ba lance betwe e n fairness/e quity and a m a n a geable, affor d able rate sy ste m , the concept of customer cl asse s is often used. W ith a custo m er cla s s approach, ?like? custo m er s are grouped toget h er for purposes of being charged a co mm on user rat e . In this m a nner, customer si m ilarities and differences, such as ser vice use char acteristi cs, can be broadl y acknowledged. Everyone within a custom er class does n o t achieve perf ect equity , but a generally, fair, equitable, and manageable u ser charge sy stem can resu lt. Case la w has upheld the right of utili ties to levy custo m er class and area -wide charges where unique cost-of-ser v i ce and benefit issues to individual properties are not overri ding co nsiderations. Another ke y issue in developing a user charge sy stem is the basis for which the service is charged. Is it the quantit y of service used? Is it the a m ount of time or time of day i n which it is used? Or i s it Storm Wat e r Fea s ibility Study City of University Park, T X 9 some other measure? In water rates, it is usually th e volume of metered water use. In electric rates, it may include both quantity of use and time of day. With respect to storm water rates, the most widely u sed basis for this type of levy is a square foot measure of impervious cover. Impervious c over is usually defined as hardened, relatively impermeable, ground cover that rejects the absorption of rainfall and yields storm water runoff. In this manner, the amount of impervious cover present on a property (typically rooftop, deck, driveway/parking area, and sidewalks) can identify a measure of contribution to the flooding problem and relate the cause of the problem to the amount of levy imposed on the customer. Since many communities do not collect data on impervious cover and are faced with the cost of developing and maintaining this information, so me entities have chosen to use more indirect measures as the basis of their storm water rate desi gn, such as building square footage or lot size. However, neither building square footage (especia lly in multi-story buildings) or lot size (developed or undeveloped) is as appropriate a measure of likely storm water runoff as the impervious cover statistic. However, even the impervious cover measure by itself is not a perfect indicator of storm water runoff. Some properties may have flat or highly absorben t soils while other properties may be rocky or sloping. Two properties with the same amount of im pervious cover may have different rainfall runoff characteristics due to the density of developmen t on the lot (i.e., fully developed versus grassy buffers) or the presence or lack of on-site drainage controls. Some properties may be located adjacent to waterbodies where there is no substantial downs tream development at ri sk from the increased runoff of the property. Once again, there are trade-offs in how complex a storm water rate system can get and still be the costs of administratively manageable and affordable . The public must bear in mind that administering the rate system are paid by the customers . The most common characteristics of storm wa ter rate systems across the U.S. include: impervious cover as the preferred basic measure of storm water ?service use?; a single rate (charge) per square foot of impervious cover; two customer classes whereby: - all single family residential properties recei ve an equivalent bill per month reflecting average an amount of impervious cover per si ngle-family residential property, - non-residential (apartments, commercial business, industry, a nd institutional land uses) receive unique monthly bills based the specific amount of impervious cover determined for these individual properties; and a possible credit against paying the full rate that is based on the degree of on-site drainage improvements funded by someone other than the governing entity and where affected customers must file for a consideration of the credit. Storm Water Feasibility Study City of University Park, TX 10 Figure 2.3: National Surve y of Typi cal S t ormwate r Utility Rate S t ructures Imperv i ous Area G r oss Areas and D ensity Factors G r oss Area and Imperv i ous Area Ot h e r Source: Compar ison of Florid a and Nation a l Stormwater Utility S u rvey s . 2002. Lienhar t , PE, Step hen R. There are many variations to this approa ch. So m e ent ities will bill storm water m onthly using an existing (water, wastewat er, etc.) utility billing s y st e m ; while others m a y use an assessment that is presented on the annual or sem i - a nnual propert y tax s t at ement. Some may levy different user rates for residential versus non-r esidential properti es (although t h is isn?t reco mmended as the run-o ff im pacts of residential im pervious cover can?t be easily disting u ish e d from the effects of non- residential impervious cove r). Some entities, particularly in the southeast U.S., provi de a tiered pricing block in their residential rate that is intended to provide ?lifeline? rate relief to low- or fixed-income custo m ers (if this is based purel y o n inc o me levels, there may be q u estionable legality to this approach from a cost of se rvice point of view). While othe r entities m a y enact tiere d pricing bl ocks or rates based on the density of developm ent on the parcel (im p ervious cover as a percent of total lo t size). Another variation from entity to entit y is whether ex em ptions are g r anted and to whom . Probably, the m o st co mm o n exem ption is for the entity m a king the storm water levy to exem p t itself. This is rationalized as not havin g t o m ove m oney from one of their pockets (departm ents) to another. However, good enterprise-fund cost accounting practi ces would be for all government depart ments to pay their full costs and for the pa y m ent of storm wa ter rates to be explicitl y i n clu d ed as a budg eted expense for all departments. There is often comm unity pressure to also exe m pt other ty pes of land uses, such as federal or stat e propert y , schools, charitable organizations, etc. which m a y be tax exe m pt and feel they should also continue to benef it in any new us er charge sy ste m . Howeve r, few of these entities can effectivel y argue that they shouldn? t pay for electric, water, wastewater, or garbage services provided to them , and the provision of general stor m wat e r services sho u ld not be vie w ed Storm Wat e r Fea s ibility Study City of University Park, T X 11 differently , unless there ar e valid cost of service re asons to m itigate charging the stor m wat e r rates. There is case law upholdi ng the right of utilities to charge for service to these types of customers. Within the St ate of Texas, Local Government Code § 402. 047. Drainage Charges regulates storm water charge s . The following excerpt provides an ove rview of the regulator y req u irem ents for storm water utility r a tes. ?(a) The go verning bo d y of the m unicipalit y m a y charge a l o t or tract o f benefited pro p erty for drai nage service on an y basis other than t h e value of th e propert y , but the basis m u st be directly related to drainage and the terms of the levy, and any classific a tion of the bene f ited properties in the m u nicipality m u st be nondiscriminatory , equitable, and reasonable. (b) In setting the schedule of charges for drainage s e rvice, the g overning bo dy m u st base its calculations on an inventory of the lots a nd tracts within the service area. The governing body may use approved tax plats and asses s m ent rolls for that purpose. The governing bod y m a y also consider the land use made of th e benefited property . T h e governing bod y m a y consider the size, in area, the num ber of water m e ters, and top ograp h y of a parcel of benefit e d propert y , in asse ssing the drainage charge to the property . (c) The governing b o d y may fix rates for drainage charges in advance and may change, adjust, and readjus t the rat es a nd charges for drainage s e r v ice fro m ti me to time. The r a tes must be equitable for si m ilar servic es in all ar eas of the s e rvic e area. (d) Unless a person' s lot or tract is ex em pt ed under this subchapter, the person may not use the drainage sy stem for the lot or tract unless the person pa y s the full, established, drainage charge.? The following table provi des an overview of popul ation and storm water utility r a tes charged by representativ e cities throughout the Metroplex. Rates we re calculat ed and presented in various way s by each of the cities. The f o llowing tabl e co m p ares rates where published information is directly co m p arable. Table 2.3 pre sents storm water u tility rates as well as populati ons f o r the surve y ed co mm unities. Figure 2.4: R e presentati ve , Flat Resi dential Rates $4. 00 $3. 50 $3. 00 $2. 50 $2. 00 $1. 50 $1. 00 $0. 50 $- A llen A r lin g t o n Du n can v ille E u less Gr ap ev in e Sour ce: Resear ch conducted by Jacob Speer , Assistant to the Public W o r k s Dir ector , City of Univer sity Par k , TX, May 2003. Storm Wat e r Fea s ibility Study City of University Park, T X 12 As a part of the storm water master planning effort, HDR has developed a financial planning model for the University Park storm water program. This model was developed on an Excel spreadsheet and provides for a five-year forecast of storm water re venues and expenses, given an array of ?what-if? assumptions of future program conditions. It integrates various planning, engineering, financial, and management/organizational issues into a coherent forecast of future program possibilities. The model was designed for flexibility and can be used for future program and capital planning, developing annual budgets, assessing alternative revenue sources, and providing a multi-year perspective on rate and fee-setting. The financial planning model is, of course, based on various assumptions and available existing data. As improved information becomes available over time, better inputs to the model can be specified and the forecasts made ever more relevant. Current limitations in the modeli ng or data include having to estimate current storm water expenses based on co mpiled data which may not be all inclusive, the lack of availability of reliable impervious cover da ta for the entire unincorporated area of the City, conceptual design and costing of new operational programs, conceptual engineering costing of new infrastructure projects, and other factors discussed in the following sections. During early meetings on development of the storm wa ter utility concept, HDR met with City staff to determine the appropriate rate basis for the storm wa ter utility. In order to most equitably distribute the cost of the storm water management, staff elect ed to utilize impervious area as the basis for the storm water fee. It was decided that single-family, residential customers would pay a fixed rate based upon the average maximum impervious area for each type of residential land use. Each class of single-family, residential land use would be assessed an individual rate. Nonresidential customers would be assessed a rate based upon the actual impervious area which would be allowed under the 2 maximum impervious area (ft ) allowable for that parcel under its zoning classification. For the purposes of estimating impervious area, the percentage of maximum allowable impervious area (as specified in zoning or development standards for eac h type of land use) was multiplied by the area of the parcel. This information that determines the basis for billing was developed by the City of University Park based upon a combination of parcel data from the Dallas Central Appraisal District, billing records, aerial photography, and plan data . Early in the planning stages, City staff recommended that the Highland Park Independent School District and city-owned property be exempt from storm water charges. As a result, these parcel s have been excluded from the financial model. The following table provides an overview of zoning district or land use categories within the City limits, the total area of those parcels, the total numbe r of parcels, the average area of those parcels by type, and the estimated average maximum allowable impervious area. Planned unit developments which c onstitute 539 parcels and approximat ely 4.6 million square feet of the City?s area where categorized by land use into each of categories provided. Storm Water Feasibility Study City of University Park, TX 15 Table 3.1: Average Area and Impe rvious Area of Land Uses within the City of University Park Zoning District / Land Use Total Area (sq. ft.) # of Parcels Avg. Area (sq.ft.) Avg. Impervious Area Cemetary 50,813 1 50,813 15,244 Commercial District 197,809 3 65,936 59,343 Duplex District 1 437,462 38 11,512 7,253 Duplex District 2 2,504,150 309 8,104 5,106 General Retail District 1,137,686 121 9,402 8,462 Institutional 943,046 9 104,783 94,305 Multi-Family District 1 58,143 7 8,306 5,233 Multi-Family District 2 2,608,601 232 11,244 7,084 Multi-Family District 3 499,514 46 10,859 6,841 Office District 1 71,673 4 17,918 16,126 Office District 2 27,002 1 27,002 24,302 Parking District 186,398 8 23,300 20,970 Retail Center District 197,343 2 98,672 88,805 Shopping Center District 318,923 10 31,892 28,703 Single Family District 1 2,910,504 56 51,973 18,191 Single Family District 2 23,334,218 1,895 12,314 5,760 Single Family District 3 16,011,058 1,707 9,380 4,877 Single Family District 4 12,922,602 1,683 7,678 4,500 Single Family District Attached 2,663,800 468 5,692 3,586 University Campus District 2 2,025,127 78 25,963 23,367 University Campus District 3 60,748 8 7,594 6,834 University Campus Main District 1 3,975,114 6 662,519 596,267 Source: Jacob Speer, Assistant to the Director of Public Works, City of University Park, 10/17/2003. Notes: City development regulations do not define maximum impervious area for cemeteries A factor of 30% was u tilized to factor a potential maximum impervious area. Due to the similarity of land use types, PD- 10 was combined with the Commercial District. Due to the similarity of land use types, PD-1, 2, a nd 22 were combined with the General Retail District. Due to the similarity of land use types, PD-8, 12, 20, 24, 27, 28, and 29 were combined with the Institutional land use category. Due to the similarity of land use types, PD -23 was combined with the Parking District. Due to the similarity of land use types, PD-4, 5, 6, 7, and 14 were combined with the Single-Family Attached District. Based upon a review of multi-family land use, the Ci ty concluded that an average impervious area per 2 multi-family would be approximately 838.15 ft . Storm Water Feasibility Study City of University Park, TX 16 The City selected to bill each residential cl assification by each dwelling unit within each classification. The following table contains the est imated number of each customer type based upon data provided by the City. Table 3.2: Estimated Storm Water Utility Customers Estimated No. of Customer Type Customers Single Family 1 56 Single Family 2 1,895 Single Family 3 1,707 Single Family 4 1,683 Single Family Attached 468 Duplex 694 Multi Family 1600 Nonresidential 247 Total 8,350 Sources: City of University Park GIS System and Dalla s Central Appraisal District, Study conducted from May to September 2003. During the planning phase of the project, city staff suggested the use of flat fees for single-family residential uses based upon the maximum permissible impervious area of each zoning classification. There are significant differences in the area and possi ble impervious area of single-family residential zoning classifications. For example, the maximum impe rvious area of a residential estate with an area of several acres would vary significantly from the potential impervious area of a World-War II era bungalow on a less than one-acre lot. At a later poi nt in the study, staff decided to include multi- family residential as a class in the calculation. As discussed earlier, the City intended to utilize im pervious area as the rate basis. To establish flat residential rates, the City elected to utilize one tie r (SF-4) as an equivalent residential unit (ERU) as the basis for the storm water fee and then propor tionally set the remaining tiers. An equivalent residential unit is based upon the average residential unit. This average would serve as the basis for each of the residential flat fee rates and othe r rates would be assigned based upon the average impervious area of the other zoning classifications. Storm Water Feasibility Study City of University Park, TX 17 Table 3.3: Residential Zoning Classifications an d Calculation of the Equivalent Residential Unit ERU Ratio Average Overall or No. of Total Prorated to Impervious Initial Zoning District Dwelling Impervious Reflect Area Value Units Area SF 4 =1 ERU (sq. ft.) Single Family District 1 (SF-1) 56 18,191 1,018,677 4.42 4.04 Single Family District 2 (SF-2) 1,895 5,760 10,915,200 1.40 1.28 Single Family District 3 (SF-3) 1,707 4,877 8,325,750 1.18 1.08 Single Family District 4 (SF-4) 1,683 4,500 7,573,500 1.09 1.00 Single Family District Attached 468 3,586 1,678,194 0.87 0.80 Duplex District 1 76 3,626 275,601 0.88 0.81 Duplex District 2 618 2,553 1,577,615 0.62 0.57 Multi-Family District 1, 2, & 3 1,600 1,247 1,994,742 0.30 0.28 Total or Average 8,103 4,117 33,359,279 1.00 0.91 Nonresidential rates would be based upon multiplication of the maximum impervious area for each parcel multiplied by rate per square foot of impervious area. In assessing future program alternatives, it is important to have, as a basic reference point, a picture of what might happen with continuing the status quo method of program organization and funding. In this way, the impacts of continuing to ?do business? the same way can be identified, and the potential effects and costs of any new alternative courses of action can be judged against the current program approach. An array of new program alternatives should also be defined that span a range of meaningful future options and provide some ?sens itivity? information on changes in key variables. As described in Table 3.1, two scenarios were identified for modeling, evaluation, and reporting purposes. The financial planning mode l will be available to the City at completion of this effort, so revised or updated scenarios can be modeled at a later date. Differences between current spending levels and Scen ario 1A & B illustrate the benefit of the Storm Water Utility and illustrate the effects of implementing the NPDES-Phase II program. The following sections provide additional information on the co sts associated with the storm water program. Storm Water Feasibility Study City of University Park, TX 18 Table 3.4: Organizationa l, Program, and Funding Scenarios to be Modeled N o Action/Continue Status Quo Scenarios The No Acti on scenarios repre sent th e cost of two different sto r m wate r management programs on an ad valorem t a x b a s i s w i t h o u t t h e s t o r m w a t e r u t i l i t y . ?Full Cost? Storm Water Program S cenarios Under full c o st scenarios , the entire, e s timated cost of the storm water progr am was compared to revenue gen erated by differen t storm water utility rates. In these models, costs included the full-cost of the TPDES P h ase II program, prorate d portions of the staff salaries that serve storm wate r managemen t roles, and other operational c o sts. Three different s c e n ar ios with different E R U?s we re eva l uated. ?Partial Cost? Storm Water Program Scenarios Under the p a rtial cost scenarios, a portio n of the storm water program cos t s wer e compared to the revenue generated by di fferent sto r m wate r uti lity rates. In these models, costs included the TPDES Phase II progra m and other operational c o sts but excluded prorated staff salaries. Two di fferent par t ial rate scen arios were e valuated with varying ERU rates. many of Universit y Park?s future storm water p r o g r a m c h o i c e s a r e n o t It should be n o ted that discretionary in the long run, it is just a consideration of how t o pay for efforts in a way that i s fair and will help mitigate financial i m pact s. Gene ral Ass u mptions. All scenarios begin with estimate s of current City storm wate r spending from the FY2003 budget. All future scenarios are m odele d over the pros pective 5-y e a r period, FY2004 t o FY2009. For the purposes of these esti m ates, rates of inflation for m o st expenditures are assu med at an annual rate of 2 to 3% with the exception of salaries estimated at 2% and gro up health and life insurance increasing at annual rates of 4%, respectiv ely. The curre nt classified j ob descriptions and Storm Wat e r Fea s ibility Study City of University Park, T X 19 salary schedules of the City are assumed to continue with exception of the aforementioned inflation adjustment. Cost estimates are provided for a five-year planning horizon. For all scenarios, except the status quo, a target of providing sufficient revenue to allow for a two- month operating reserve was also assumed. This operating reserve would provide for unexpected changes in projected expenses, su ch as unanticipated program expe nses or additional expenses that are incurred during severe weather conditions. In each of the scenarios, transfers of $200,000 and $300,000 from the General Fund would occur during th e first two years to improve the utility?s cash flow. For the purposes of model, operating costs ar e addressed first and then remaining revenue is allocated towards capital projects. By comparing the ending balances resulting from various rates for both the operating reserve and capital target, the mode l allows the reviewer to quickly evaluate the various ?what if? scenarios. Costing of TPDES Phase II Program. Various, new TPDES Phase II activities anticipated for the City are described in the separate draft TPDES Phase II permit along with an expected level of effort. The level of effort and expense will also vary from year-to-year as the program develops and as larger studies or activities are initiated. There is also a consideration of whether to achieve these program requirements through internal efforts or outsourcing. The City is considering the outsourcing of the one-time-type efforts or repetitive services that can be more efficiently provided by third-party vendors but retaining internal capabilities for policy- related evaluations or for efforts that will continue from year to year. Within Public Works, it was estimated that TPDES II would entail about an annual average of 1,382 hours annually. In addition to this, some activities may be outsourced, and estimates include outsourcing of a portion of the storm water mapping effort, recycling, and household hazardous waste collection. Of this internal effort, existing st aff could address a majority of the man hours needs associated with the TPDES Program. However, th ese estimates do not represent the salary costs for administration of the greater storm water program mana ged by the city or other city staff storm water responsibilities. Table 3.5: Municipal Storm Water Program Estimated Costs Item 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 1. Current O & M Towards TPDES Phase II $83,300 $83,300 $83,300 $83,300 $83,300 $83,300 (Incremental TPDES) 2. Remainder Current O&M Program $206,406 $226,407 $249,119 $248,209 $255,027 $262,387 (Salaries) 3. Incremental TPDES Phase II Program $123,587 $144,122 $147,591 $151,153 $154,811 $158,567 4. Total Storm Water Program O&M Cost $413,293 $453,229 $479,411 $482,062 $492,537 $503,664 5. Desired Capital Program $350,000 $350,000 $350,000 $350,000 $350,000 $350,000 6. Total Storm Water Program Cost $763,293 $803,229 $829,411 $832,062 $842,537 $853,654 7. Cost of Current Program (1)+(2)+(3)+(5) $639,706 $659,107 $681,819 $680,909 $687,727 $695,087 8. Incremental TPDES Phase II (3) $123,587 $144,122 $147,591 $151,153 $154,811 $158,567 9. Total Storm Water Program Cost $763,293 $803,229 $829,411 $832,062 $842,537 $853,654 Storm Water Feasibility Study City of University Park, TX 20 Costing of Adequate Maintenance Program. Table 3.7 presents the inventory estimate of current drainage facilities for which the City has ma intenance responsibilities, as well as a recommended frequency of maintenance and average duration of main tenance efforts per facility type. This leads to an identification of the amount of crews and equipm ents needed to better address the City storm water maintenance needs. It should be emphasized that these are representa tive averages and the actual frequency and duration of maintenance efforts and requisite equipment need s will vary from project to project. In some cases, special equipment, such as dredges or drag line excavators are not specified as part of the City?s equipment fleet, but could be contracted for services if needed. Table 3.6: Inventory Estimate of Current Drainage Facilities Recommended Type Units Frequency Duration Per Year Streets with Curb and Gutters 156 Miles 4 1.00 Hr/Mile Storm Drains 16.3 Miles 0.2 140 Hrs/Mile Ditches 0.5 Miles 0.1 0.5 Hrs/Mile Outfalls 0.5 Miles 0.1 0.5 Hrs/Mile Ponds 5 0.1 9 Hrs/Pond The city also regularly sweeps its streets to prevent water pollution. In addition to the street sweeping contract (estimated at $50,000 per year), which regularly cleans arterial streets and less frequently cleans other commercial and residential streets, city st aff spot clean streets. It is estimated that 1,856 labor hours are required for annual maintenance in addition to the costs of the street sweeping contract. Costing of Capital Improvements Program (CIP). City staff identified storm water capital improvements projects for the planning horizon. These projects total $900,000 over the pending five years. The ability to contribute to capital costs was evaluated for both the full and partial costs models. In each of the model scenarios, operating costs would be addressed first and remaining funding would be allocated towards capital projects. Storm Water Feasibility Study City of University Park, TX 21 Table 3.7: Forecasted Capital Projects FY Funding Forecasted Project Need Cost (2003 $) Flood Control Projects 2 Alley Project (Phase 1) 2004 $150,000 nd 2 Alley Project (Phase 2) 2005 $150,000 nd Miscellaneous CIP Projects 2004 $25,000 Miscellaneous CIP Projects 2005 $25,000 Miscellaneous CIP Projects 2006 $25,000 Miscellaneous CIP Projects 2007 $25,000 Miscellaneous CIP Projects 2008 $25,000 Miscellaneous CIP Projects 2009 $25,000 Estimated Total Project Costs $450,000 Water Quality Projects 2 Alley Project Phase 1 2004 $150,000 nd 2 Alley Project Phase 2 2005 $150,000 nd Miscellaneous CIP Projects 2004 $25,000 Miscellaneous CIP Projects 2005 $25,000 Miscellaneous CIP Projects 2006 $25,000 Miscellaneous CIP Projects 2007 $25,000 Miscellaneous CIP Projects 2008 $25,000 Miscellaneous CIP Projects 2009 $25,000 Estimated Total Project Costs $450,000 Estimated Total Project Costs $900,000 The ?full cost? estimates incorporate each of the identified and forecasted program costs including funding for existing staff contributions to storm water and funds specifically allocated for a Storm Water Program Coordinator that would represent a ne w position. As noted in Table 3.9, the ?partial cost? scenarios exclude both existing and potential staff salary-related costs. It is important to recognize that whether or not the City elects to pursu e a ?full cost? or ?partial cost? scenario in terms of storm water rate revenue support, the entire co st of the entire storm water program will still be borne by the City. Storm Water Feasibility Study City of University Park, TX 22 Table 3.8: Comparison of ?Full Cost? and ?Partial Cost? Programs Item 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2009 1. ?Full Cost? of the Program $763,293 $803,229 $829,411 $832,062 $842,537 $853,654 2. Salary Costs $206,406 $226,407 $249,119 $248,209 $255,027 $262,387 3. Partial Cost of the Program (3 = 1-2) $556,887 $576,822 $580,292 $583,853 $587,510 $591,267 In the status quo scenario, the City?s storm water services continue organizationally as an adjunct to its Public Works program, and its funding source would remain the same. Storm water projects identified in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP ) would be implemented with funding from the General Fund, and limited capital spending would continue to be dedicated for drainage by combining these activities with road or curb and gutter projects. In this status quo future, internal and outsourced activities for TPDES Phase II compliance would not be funded and the City would be out of compliance with federal and state regulations. If the additional funds were not able to come from the storm water utility, it would mean that funding for existing City programs would be reduced by that amount. It is not likely that the Public Works Department can provide the additional funding fo r new storm water programs without an increase of funding. Therefore in this scenario, the incrementa l funding might need to originate from the City General Fund. If all of the storm water program spending were to originate from general revenue, this would result in an implicit ad valorem tax rate of $0.0170 to $0.0184 per $100 assessed valuation. If the City were to elect to not implement the TPDES Phase II program, it would face state and possibly federal funds for environmental noncompliance. It is unlikely that either: (a) existing general fund programs would be reduced sufficiently to pay for these new storm water program initiatives with no new taxes, or (b) the economic and political pressures would allow for the requisite tax increase. This scenario is similar to Scenario 1 with th e addition of the TPDES Phase II program. This would result in an implicit $0.0202 to $0.0226 per $100 valuation. It is unlikely that either: (a) existing general fund programs would be reduced sufficiently to pay for these new storm water program initiatives with no new taxes, or (b) the economic and political pressures would allow for the requisite tax increase. Although this scenario is preferable to Scenario 1A because it would result in regulatory complian ce, the lack of additional funding to meet the unfunded mandate of the TPDES Phase II program as well as the need for funding specifically allocated to storm water would not be met. Storm Water Feasibility Study City of University Park, TX 23 Under this scenario, the proposed ERU would provide additional funding. This rate would contribute to the SWU operating fund reserve but would not meet the capital cost reserve at any time during the 5-year planning horizon. A revi ew of the ending balances resulting from this rate indicates that although this rate would yield additional operating revenue, but the ra te would not meet the targeted capital reserve goal even over a five-year period. The resulting revenue would continue to fall short of the capital reserve goal reaching a deficit of 36%. The rate would be insufficient to support an independent program, and, therefore, it is not advisable. Under this scenario, the proposed ERU would meet the operating reserve but would not meet the capital target ate any point during the five-year pla nning horizon. In fact, the resulting revenue would cumulatively fall short of the capital reserve and either fail to contribute or contribute modest amounts (less than approximately $10,000) followin g cessation of the transfers from the General Fund. Although this rate structure might be pr eferable to Scenario 3 from a revenue generation perspective, the rate would be insufficient to sup port the program, and, therefore, it is not advisable. Under this Scenario, the rate would generate in creasing funding towards the operating reserve and capital target throughout the pla nning horizon. The revenue resulting from this scenario would exceed program expenditures by between 10 to 23% a nnually and allow the City to reach 101% of its capital reserve target by the end of the fifth year. Once the reserve is met, excess funding in later years could be utilized to support additional O & M or capital projects of the storm water program. This scenario would provide the City would the most complete source of funding for the storm water program by addressing salary costs associated with the storm water program as well as the TPDES program and capital projects. Under this scenario, the ERU would meet operating costs and contribute annually between 14 to 30% to the capital reserve target at the end of each year . In the fifth year, the program would achieve its capital fund reserve target of $500,000 and exceed it by 21%. Once reserve targets are met in the year 2008, the additional revenue of about $145,000 could then be allocated towards other operational and capital costs, including salaries and unidentified capital projects. Under this scenario, the ERU rate would meet operating costs and contribute an annual ending balance between 20% and 32% towards the target capital reserve, annually. By 2007, the program would meet its $500K capital fund target and be gin producing about $160,000 per year above projected partial spending levels and could be allocated towards additional, unbudgeted operational and capital costs. This could include funding for a Storm Water Coordination or additional funding to enhance the TPDES program and accelerate completion of regulatory deadlines. To compare each of the scenarios, HDR evalua ted the ending balances of SWU?s operating fund reserve (a target of 2 months operating funds) and target reserve of capital fund ($500,000) at the end of each year. Figures 3.2 and 3.3 graphically compare the ending balances of the capital fund to the target reserve for both the ?full cost? and ?partia l cost? scenarios respectively. Table 3.9 compares the resulting revenue of each of the scenarios numer ically. Please note that the ending balances for the reserve fund are cumulative. Storm Water Feasibility Study City of University Park, TX 24 Figure 3.1: ? F ull Cost? Scenarios: Ending Balan c e of Ca p i t a l Res e rve Fu n d 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Scenario 2: $4.85/ER U / M onth Scenario 3: $5.00/ER U / M onth Scenario 4: $5.87/ER U / M onth C apital Fund R e serv e T a rget Figure 3.2: ? P art i al Cos t ? Scenarios : Ending Balan c e of Capital R e ser v e Fund $1,000,000 $900,000 $800,000 $700,000 $600,000 $500,000 $400,000 $300,000 $200,000 $100,000 $- 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Scenario 5: $4.85/ER U / M onth Scenario 6: $5.00/ER U / M onth C apital Fund R e serv e T a rget The excess r e venue resulting when the s cenario? s ending balance exceeds the capital fund res e rve could sup port an expansion of the capital program or increas es in operational and m a intenanc e costs. It is im portan t to recognize the ?partial cost? scenarios do not include salary costs which are not included in the TPDES Progra m esti m at e, such as engineering and ad m i nistrative functions. The additional revenue generated in 2 008 by t h e storm wat e r utilit y coul d be allocated back to the program for other activities. Storm Wat e r Fea s ibility Study City of University Park, T X 25 Given the regulator y and f unding pressures facing the City of Uni v ersity Park, the current method of funding from the General Fund will no longer be sufficien t to meet future storm water services needs. Further, it is not pr obable that additiona l revenue is available from the General Fund. Furthe rm ore, neither source of funding is very equitable in terms of m a kin g users (cau sing the problem or benefiting fro m the solutio ns) pay for service rendered. Many local g overnm e nts facing sim ilar program need s and fundi ng lim itations have already o r are in the process of turning to the SWU organization as the m o st viable m e thod for addressing futur e program needs. The storm water utility focuses the program eff o rts and provides for accountabilit y . The storm w a ter user rat es and i m pa ct fees are e quitable and are levied a t a primary cause of storm w ater p r oblems: im p e rvious cover runoff. Th e dedicated source of rat e r e venue also al low for other new possibilities, su ch as the use of revenue bonds that a void the difficult approval process associat ed wi th General O b ligation bonds. In consultation with City staff as to the m o st practical m e ans of acco m p lishing various storm water activities, it is reco mmended that the potential ne w storm water program incorporates appropriate elements of existing city departm e nts, but also centralize certain storm water efforts under the management um brell a of the storm wat e r utilit y hous ed within the Public Works Depart ment. In this scen ar io, a stor m w a ter division or virtual de part m e nt would be cre a ted i n Public Works with three key underly i ng program s : (a) adm i nistration of the stor m water utili ty, planning, and water quality (TPD ES Phase II) program s, ( b ) storm wat e r engineering and project management, and (c) plan review and project inspection. A Storm Water Program Manager or existing staff could m a nag e b y existin g staff or the proposed virtual utilit y. The full-cost m odels include sal ary costs for a TPDES Program Manager as well as prorated costs of so m e of the existing staff. The following provides a graphic representatio n of the indivi duals in volved i n stor m water m a n a gem e nt efforts for the Cit y . Figur e 3.3: SWU Or ganizational Conc ept. Storm Wat e r Fea s ibility Study City of University Park, T X 27 The SWU?s accounting system would require compliance with state statutes. An option for this approach would be the creation of project billing numbers that would allow staff to charge time and expenses specifically to the utility. Customers within the corporate boundaries would be assessed and charge the appropriate storm water fee. Under state law, properties outside the corporate limits can not be assessed the storm water fee unless the municipalities? population exceeds 900,000. Billing of storm water charges can occur with the municipality?s other billing. Under §402.049 Segregation of Income, the followi ng requirements are provided for the accounting system of the storm water utility. ?The income of the drainage utility system must be segregated and completely identifiable in municipal accounts. If drai nage charges are solely for the cost of service, the municipality may transfer the char ges in whole or in part to the municipal general fund, except the part collected out side the municipal boundaries and except for any part pledged to retire any outstandi ng indebtedness or ob ligation incurred, or as a reserve for future construction, repair, or maintenance of the drainage system. If the governing body has levied, in the drainage charge, an amount in contribution to the funding of future system improvements, including replacement, new construction, or extension, that amount is not transferable to the general fund.? Stormwater Funding. The option to implement either a ?full cost? or ?partial cost? scenario is a matter of city policy preference; however, the total costs of the storm water program would be borne by the City even if each of tho se costs are not included in the proposed model. The major difference between the two cost models is the inclusion or exclus ion of the salary costs. Scenario 4, a ?full cost? scenario with a monthly ERU of $5.87, would r esult in sufficient income to reach the city?s operational and capital targets over a five-year period. Scenario 5, a ?partial cost? scenario with a monthly ERU of $4.85, would allow the City to reach its operational and capital program targets and produce sufficient income by 2008 to subsidize other capital programs or inclusion of staff salaries as a line item funded from the storm water rates. Scen ario 5, a ?partial cost scenario? with a monthly ERU of $5.00, would produce revenue beyond it s operational and capital targets by 2007 and contribute that funding to towards other program costs. Although these rates appear to be high when comparing the rate to the flat residential rate of other communities within the metroplex, it is important to recognize that the City of University Park has a low population compared to other communities which reduces the potential revenue source. Also, the City of University Park does not have a large co mmercial tax base or anticipated growth which could fund in part the storm water management projects through impact fees. It is recommended at this time that the City of Un iversity Park consider implementing Scenarios 4, 5, or 6. Each scenario would provide a stable stor m water rate to meet the budgeted costs of the two storm water program expenditure scenarios. It is important to recognize that the choice by the City to implement a ?partial or full cost? scenario will not alleviate the need to address those expenditures but instead allocate funding for those programs differently (i.e. the funding would come from another source such as the General Fund). Storm Water Feasibility Study City of University Park, TX 28 The following table provides an overview of the resulting rate structure from Scenarios 4 and 6. Table 3.10: Comparison of Residential Rate Structures Residential Customer Class Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Scenario 6 Single Family District 1 (SF-1) $23.73 $19.59 $20.21 $6.40 Single Family District 2 (SF-2) $7.51 $6.21 $5.42 Single Family District 3 (SF-3) $6.36 $5.24 $4.85 $5.00 Single Family District 4 (SF-4) / ERU $5.87 $3.98 Single Family District Attached $4.68 $3.88 $4.03 Duplex District 1 $4.73 $3.93 $2.84 Duplex District 2 $3.33 $2.76 $1.39 Multi-Family District 1, 2, & 3 $1.63 $1.36 Note: Rates are presented on a monthly basis. Table 3.11: Example Non-residential Rates Residential or Nonresidential Customer Class Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Scenario 6 $0.001378 $0.001078 $0.001111 Square Foot of Max. Allowable Impervious Area Monthly Rate $21.56 20,000 Sq. Ft. of Max. Allowable Impervious Area $27.56 $22.22 $53.90 50,000 Sq. Ft. of Max. Allowable Impervious Area $68.90 $55.55 $107.80 100,000 Sq. Ft. of Max. Allowable Impervious Area $137.80 $111.10 $269.50 250,000 Sq. Ft. of Max. Allowable Impervious Area $344.50 $277.75 $1,078.00 1,000,000 Sq. Ft. of Max. Allowable Impervious Area $1,378.00 $1,111.00 The City of University Park has the authority to exempt various entities from the storm water fee (§402.053. Exemptions.) These include the state, a county, a municipality, a school district, and religious organizations that are exempt from taxati on pursuant to Section 11.20, Tax Code. City staff has recommended that the City of University Park and the Highland Park Independent School District are exempt from the storm water charge. Under that state regulation, the following will also be exempt from the provisions of any rules or ordinances adopted by a municipality. ?(1) property with proper construction and maintenance of a wholly sufficient and privately-owned drainage system; (2) property held or maintained in its natura l state, until such time that the property is developed and all of the public infrastruct ure constructed has been accepted by the municipality in which the property is located for maintenance; and (3) a subdivided lot, until a structure has been built on the lot and a certificate of occupancy has been issued by the municipa lity in which the property is located.? Storm Water Feasibility Study City of University Park, TX 29 As part of subsequent efforts to create a storm water utility, various ordinance provisions will be identified as to provisions for granting cred it for on-site improvements and other credits. Storm Water Feasibility Study City of University Park, TX 30 AGENDA MEMO (November 11, 2003) DATE: November 4, 2003 TO: Bob Livingston FROM: Luanne Hanford SUBJECT: Retiree Health Savings Plan Attached is a proposed resolution to adopt a Retiree Health Savings Plan (RHSP) administered through the ICMA Retirement Corporation. The purpose of the plan is to allow employees to set aside money “pre - tax” and “pre - FICA” into a savings account to pay for health insurance or Medicare Part B premiums as well as out - of - pocket medical expenses after retiremen t. Participation in the plan is voluntary. Employees who choose to participate will be required to deposit at least 1% of gross salary into their account each year. They will also be given the opportunity to deposit all or part of the vacation and sick leave pay employees receive at retirement. Employees who participate in the plan will control how the money they deposit is invested. Because the City already contracts with the ICMA Retirement Corporation to provide a 457 plan for city employees, and th e average 457 participant balances exceed $25,000, employer fees will be waived. In addition, because the deposits are not subject to FICA, the city will save the 6.2% FICA match on all funds deposited by employees. I have included a copy of the Plan Ado ption Agreement for additional information. The Employee Benefits Committee and staff recommend adoption of the Retiree Health Savings Plan through the ICMA Retirement Corporation. 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363 - 1644 C: \ Documents and Settings \ nwilson \ Local Settings \ Temporary Internet Files \ OLK21 \ AGENDAMEMO.doc 11 : 56 AM 11 / 05 Self-Insured Health Plan, 2003 ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Jnnuary, '03 $29,648.00 $78,050.00 $520.20 $6,510.84 $18,455.65 $116,905.73 ($33,654.02} February, '03 $29,364.00 $77,000.00 $3,066.98 $2,669.46 $17,558.10 $59,492.37 $29,711.05 March, '03 $30,322.00 $77,000.00 $174.28 $6,437.22 $18,029.28 $112,464.15 ($29,434.37) April, '03 $30,679.00 $78,050.00 $1,570.27 $6,217.70 $17,803.89 $106,322.87 ($20,045.19} May, '03 $30,824.00 $78,050.00 $0.00 $6,387.15 $18,327.06 $125,287.45 ($41,127.66) June, '03 $31,474.00 $78,750.00 $0.00 $6,487.43 $18,479.64 $71,285.75 $13,971.18 ,July, '03 $31,618.00 $78,400.00 $164.30 $6,362.08 $18,093.gg $87,515.95 ($1,789.72} August, '03 $31,643.00 $78,750.00 $2,233.73 $6,387.15 $18,495.42 $48,311.33 $39,432.83 September, '03 $32,422.00 $79,800.00 $0.00 $6,532.43 $18,620.64 $125,982.51 ($38,913.58) October, '03 $32,308.00 $80,150.00 $1,328.26 $6,467.36 $18,783.21 $126,811.50 ($38,275.81) November, '03 $0.00 December, '03 $0.00 *'Administrative fees include claims administration and contract with provider network I I ***Stop-Loss Ins. Includes individual and a~l~lre~late stop-loss covera~les Presented By: The 5ensen Co. CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK MEDICAL 11/3/03 "URRENT TPA: WA USA U BENEFITS BENEFIT DESCRIPTION CUKRENT RENEWAL Adma'm'stra tire Fee $11.39 $12.24 me As Rene PPO Access Fee $3. 70 $3.85 Medical Management Fee $2.50 $2.63 Disease Manasement Fee $2.75 $2. 75 Jensen Company $4. O0 $4. O0 Reinsurance Fee $2. O0 $2. O0 HIPPA $0.25 $0.25 COBRA $0. 75 $0. 75 PEPM Fixed Cost $2734 $28.47 Monthly AdmJn. Prerm'um $6,644 $6,918 Ann ual A dmm. Premium $ 79, 728 $83, O19 InstMlation Fee N/A N/A SpecitTc Stop Loss Level $60,000 $60,000 Specific Stop Loss Premium PAID PAID Employee (243) $44.48 $45. 44 $3 ~ ]15 Dependents (91) $70.50 $72.53 $5 !81 Monthly Stop Loss Premium $17,224 $17,642 $1~, ~01 AnnualStop LossPremium $206,688 $211,704 $1~12 PEPMAff~gre~atePremium $4.45 $4.45 Monthly Asp, re, aW Premium $1,051 $1,081 Annual A88resate Premium $12,972 $12,972 ~1 6, 39q /\ TOTAL FIXED COSTS MontM~r $24,.949 $25, 641 Almually $299,388 $30Z 692 / $273'423 / Aggregate Factors Employee (243) $340.32 $336.92 Dependents (91) $455.46 $453.88 AnnualAggresateCaP $1,493,011 $1,478,096 PPO Network PHCS PHCS I PHCS Stop Loss Reinsurer UHC UHC TOTAL "EXPECTED" COSTS* $1,490,169 $1,585, 769 * Quotes pending rew'ew o£1arge claims *Expected Costs = 80% of A~nual Agg Cap + Fixed Costs RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, ADOPTING A RETIREE HEALTH SAVINGS PLAN; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of University Park has employees rendering valuable services; and WHEREAS, the establishment of a retiree health savings plan for such employees serves the interests of the City of University Park by enabling it to provide reasonable security regarding such employees' health needs during retirement, by providing increased flexibility in its personnel management system, and by assisting in the attraction and retention of competent personnel; and WHEREAS, the City of University Park has determined that the establishment of the retiree health savings plan (the "Plan") serves the above objectives; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of University Park hereby adopts the Plan in the form of the ICMA Retirement Corporation's VantageCare Retirement Health Savings program, attached hereto. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the assets of the Plan shall be held in trust, with Investors Bankers Trust Company (IBT) serving as trustee, for the exclusive benefit of Plan participants and their beneficiaries, and the assets of the Plan shall not be diverted to any other purpose prior to the satisfaction of all liabilities of the Plan. The City of University Park has executed the Declaration of Trust of the City of University Park Integral Part Trust in the form of the model trust made available by the ICMA Retirement Corporation. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Director of Human Resources shall be the coordinator and contact for the Plan and shall receive necessary reports and notices. DULY PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, on the 11th day of November, 2003. APPROVED: HAROLD PEEK, MAYOR ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: NINA WILSON, CITY SECRETARY CITY ATTORNEY EMPLOYER VANTAGECARE RETIREMENT HEALTH SAVINGS (RHS) PLAN ADOPTION AGREEMENT Plan Number: 8 Employer Retirement Health Savings Plan Name: CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK I. Employer Name: CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK State: TEXAS II. The Employer hereby attests that it is a unit of a state or local government or an agency or instrumentality of one or more units of a state or local government. III. The Effective Date of the Plan: 01/01/04 IV. The Employer intends to utilize the Trust to fund only welfare benefits pursuant to the following welfare ben- efit plan(s) established by the Employer: RETIREE MEDICAL AND DENTAL EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT PLAN V. Eligible Groups and Participant Eligibility Requirements A. The following group or groups of Employees are eligible to participate in the VantageCare Retirement Health Savings Plan: X All Employees All Full-Time Employees Non-Union Employees Public Safety Employees -- Police Public Safety Employees -- Firefighters General Employees Collectively-Bargained Employees (Specify unit) Other (specify below) The group specified must correspond to a group of the same designation that is defined in the statutes, ordi- nances, rules, regulations, personnel manuals or other material in effect in the state or locality of the Employer. ~1 If this box is checked, in lieu of mandatory participation, the Employer provides for a one-time irrevoca- ble election by eligible Employees to participate in RHS. Until such time as the election is made, the Employee shall not participate in the Plan or receive contributions pursuant to Section VI. Newly eligible Employees shall be provided an election window of 60 days (no more than 60 calendar days) from the date of initial eligibility during which they may make the election to participate. Participation may begin no earlier than the calendar month following the end of the election window. If the Employee does not make the election in the year of initial eligibility, the election to participate may be made in a later year. An annual election window of 60 days (no more than 60 calendar days) shall be provided during which the election may be made. The election window shall run from NOV. 1 to DEC, 31 (insert your annual time frame for the election window, e.g. October 1 to November 29). Participation may begin no earlier than the calendar year following the year of the elec- tion. Once made, the election is irrevocable and may not be revoked while the participant is a member of the group covered by the RHS plan. If The Employer's underlying welfare benefit plan or funding under this VantageCare Retirement Health Savings Plan is in whole or part a non-collectively bargained, self-insured plan, the nondiscrimination requirements of Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 105(h) will apply. These rules may impose taxation on the benefits received 11 by highly compensated Employees if the Plan discriminates in favor of highly compensated Employees in terms of eligibility or benefits. The Employer should discuss these rules with appropriate counsel. B. Participant Eligibility 1, Minimum period of service required for participation is N~/A (write N/Aifan Employee is eligible to partici- pate or to elect to participate immediately upon employment). 2. Minimum age required for eligibility to participate isN/A (write N/Aifno minimum age is required). VI.Contribution Sources and Amounts A. Mandatory Contributions 1 1. Direct Employer Contributions The Employer shall contribute on behalf of each Participant__ Year. % of earnings or $. for the Plan Definition of earnings: "~ 2. Mandatory Leave Contributions The Employer will make mandatory contributions of leave as follows: Accrued Sick Leave* ~ Yes Z-~ No Accrued Vacation* ~1 Yes [~1 No Other* (describe) [~ Yes [~1 No * Please provide the formula for determining the Accrued Leave contribution: An Employee shall not have the right to discontinue or vary the rate of annual leave contributions. ~ 3. Mandatory Employee Compensation Contributions The Employer will make mandatory contributions of Employee compensation as follows: -! Reduction in Salary - % of earnings (as defined in VI.A.1.) or $ will be contributed for the Plan Year. Decreased Merit or Pay Plan Adjustment - All or a portion of the Employees' annual merit or pay plan adjustment will be contributed as follows: An Employee shall not have the right to discontinue or vary the rate of mandatory contributions of Employee compensation. 12 B, Elective Contributions 1. Elective Pre-Tax Contributions The Employer will permit each Employee to make the following elections to make pre-tax contributions to the Plan: a. Irrevocable Election for Pre-Tax Contributions from Compensation: A one-time, irrevocable election of the amount of Employer contributions of compensation made on his or her behalf. The Employer limits the amount elected to either a fixed percentage or a range of percentage,s of an Employee's earnings 1 % of earnings (as defined in VI.A. 1.) or up to 25 % of earnings (as defined in VI.A.1) for the Plan Year. Newly eligible Employees shall be provided an election window of 60 days (no more than 60) from the date of initial eligibility during which they may make the election to contribute. Contributions may begin no earlier than the calendar month following the end of the election window. If the Employee does not make the election in the year of initial eligibility, the election to contribute may be made in a later year. An annual election window of 60 days (no more than 60) shall be provided during which the election may be made. The election window shall run from NOV ! to DF.¢ o 31 (insert your annual time frame for the election window). Contributions may begin no ear- lier than the calendar year following the year of the election. Once made, the election is irrevocable and may not be revoked. ~1 b. Irrevocable Election for Pre-Tax Contributions of Accrued Leave: A one-time, irrevocable election of the amount of employer contributions of Employee accrued sick [~ vacation Yes ~ No otheCOMPENSA?OR~describe) leave made on his or her behalf. TIME The Employer limits the amount elected as shown below: uP TO 100% Newly eligible Employees shall be provided an election window of 60 days (no more than 60 calendar days) from the date of initial eligibility during which they may make the election to contribute. Contributions may begin no earlier than the calendar month following the end of the election window. If the Employee does not make the election in the year of initial eligibility, the election to contribute may be made in a later year. An annual election window of 60 days (no more than 60 calendar days) shall be provided during which the election may be made. The election window shall run from NOV. ! to DEC. 3! (insert your annual time frame for the election window). Contributions may begin no earlier than the calendar year following the year of the election. Once made, the election is irrevocable and m'ay not be revoked, c. Annual Prospective Election for Pre-Tax Contributions of Leave: An annual, irrevocable election to have his or her [~1 sick [~1 vacation [~ other (describe) leave to be accrued in the next calendar year contributed to the Plan on his or her behalf. The Employer limits the amount elected as shown Contributions of future leave accruals will be remitted to the Plan [~ as earned I~1 at the end of the calendar year. The election to contribute must be made in th begin. Once made, the election shall apl: revoked by the Employee on an ann 'ontributions are to 'se revised or An annual election window of days (no more than 60 calendar days) is provided during which eligible Employees may make the election to contribute. The election window shall run from to (insert your annual time frame for the election window)~ In adopting section a, b, and/or ruled on irrevocable election contributi counsel that such contributions are allowable L Employer should discuss this issue with appropriate counsel. ~rvice has not has obtained the advice of ~ns outlined in this Adoption Agreement. The 2. Voluntary After-Tax Contributions Each Employee may contribute up to a voluntary after-tax basis. of total contributions in any Plan Year. or $ for the Plan Year on 'y after-tax contributions exceed 25% An Employee shall have the right to discontinue or vary the rate of elective after-tax contributions of Employee earnings. By adopting this section, the Employer acknowledges that the'Internal Revenue Service has declined to rule on Employee after tax contributions in an integral part trust. ICMA-RC has obtained the advice of counsel that such contributions are allowable in an insubstantial amount (i.e. no more than 25% of total contributions in any Plan Year). The Employer should discuss this issue with appropriate counsel. C. Limits on Total Contributions The total contribution on behalf of each Participant (including both Mandatory and Elective Contributions) for each Plan Year shall not exceed the following limit(s): % of earnings (as defined in VI.A.1.). There ~s no Plan-defined limit on the percentage or dollar amount of earnings that may be contributed. Limits on individual contribution types are defined within the appropriate section above. See Section V.A. for a discussion of nondiscrimination rules that may apply to non-collectively bargained self- insured Plans. 14 VII. Vesting Schedule A. The account is 100% vested at all times, unless specified otherwise in B. below. B. The following vesting schedule applies to Direct Employer Contributions outlined in VI.A.I' Years of Service Completed Specified Percent Vesting % % % % % % % % C. The account will become 100% vested upon the death, disability, retirement, or attainment of benefit eligibility by a Participant. Definition of retirement: RETIREMENT FROM EITHER TEXAS MUNICIPAL RETIREMENT SYSTEM OR FIREMENS RELIEF AND RETIREMENT FUND D. Any period of service by a Participant prior to a rehire of the Participant by the Employer shall not count toward the vesting schedule outlined in B. above. VIII. Forfeiture Provisions Upon separation from the service of the Employer or upon reversion to the Trust of a Participant's account assets remaining upon the participant's death (as outlined in Section XI), a Participant's non-vested funds shall: Remain in the Trust to be reallocated among all Plan Participant's as Direct Employer Contributions for the next and succeeding contribution cycle(s). Remain in the Trust to be reallocated on an equal dollar basis among all Plan Participants. Remain in the Trust to be reallocated among all Plan Participants based upon Participant account bal- ances. Revert to the Employer. In the case of separation from service, the Participant's non-vested funds shall be applied as shown above. In the case of reversion due to the Participant's death under Section Xl, the remaining account assets shall be applied as shown above. IX. Eligibility Requirements to Receive Medical Benefit Payments from the VantageCare Retirement Health Savings Plan A. A Participant is eligible to receive benefits: X _At retirement only (as defined in Section Vll.C.) At separation from service with the following restrictions _At age only At retirement and age At retirement or age 15 B. Termination prior to general benefit eligibility: A Participant who separates from the service of the Employer prior to attaining benefit eligibility as outlined in Section IX.A. or C. will be eligible to receive benefits: Immediately upon separation from service. At age C. A Participant who dies or becomes totally and permanently disabled (as defined by the Social Security Administration) will become immediately eligible to receive medical benefit payments from his/her VantageCare Retirement Health Savings Plan account. X. Permissible Medical Benefit Payments Benefits eligible for payment consist of: A. × All Medical Expenses eligible under IRC Section 213' other than direct long-term care expenses, OR B. The following Medical Expenses (select only the expenses you wish to cover under the VantageCare Retirement Health Savings Plan): Medical Insurance Premiums Medical Out-of-Pocket Expenses* Medicare Part B Insurance Premiums Medicare Supplement Insurance Premiums COBRA Premiums Dental Insurance Premiums Dental Out-of-Pocket Expenses* Long Term Care Insurance Premiums Other (Must be eligible under IRC Section 213)* * See Section V.A. for a discussion of nondiscrimination rules which may apply to non-collectively bargained, self-insured Plans. Xl. Death Benefit In the event of a Participant's death, the following shall apply: Account Transfer: The surviving spouse and/or surviving eligible dependents (as defined in Section XIII.F.) of the deceased Participant are immediately eligible to maintain the account and utilize it to fund eligible medical bene- fits specified in Section X above. Upon notification of a Participant's death, the Participant's account balance will be transferred into the Vantagepoint Money Market Fund*. The account balance may bereallocated by the surviving spouse or dependents. * Please read the current prospectus carefully prior to investing. An investment in this fund is neither insured nor guaranteed and there can be no assurance that the Fund will be able to maintain a stable net asset value of $1.00 per share. Vantagepoint Mutual Funds are distributed by ICMA-RC Services, LLC, a controlled affiliate of ICMA Retirement Corporation. Member NASD/SIPC. If a Participant's account balance has not been fully utilized upon the death of the eligible spouse, the account balance may continue to be utilized to pay benefits of eligible dependents. Upon the death of all eligible depend- ents, the balance will be available for medical benefits for the designated beneficiary of the last dependent or spouse to die. Assets remaining upon the death of a designated beneficiary shall be available for medical bene- fits of the beneficiary's designated beneficiary. If there is no living beneficiary(les), the account will revert to the Plan to be applied as specified in Section VIII. 16 There will be no elective withholding of federal, state, or local taxes for medical benefit payments to the Participant's spouse's or dependent's designated beneficiary(les). If there are no living spouse or dependents at the time of death of the Participant, the account will be available for medical benefits for the designated beneficiary(les) of the Participant. Assets remaining upon the death of all designated beneficiaries shall be available for medical benefits of the beneficiary's beneficiary. Ifthereis no liv- ing beneficiary(les), the account will revert to the Plan to be applied as specified in Section VIII. There will be no elective withholding of federal, state, or local taxes formedica benefit payments to the Participant's beneficiary(les) or any beneficiary's beneficiary. Xll. De Minimis Accounts Upon separation from the service of the Employer prior to a Participant becoming eligible for medical benefits from a VantageCare Retirement Health Savings Plan account, Participant accounts that are considered de min- imis as specified below will be paid to the Participant. The de minimis account value shall be $5,000 or less. The de minimis account value shall be $ $5,000) or less. (insert dollar amount between $0 and The Plan shall not allow de minimis account distributions. XIII. The Plan will operate according to the following provisions: A. Employer Responsibilities 1. The Employer will submit all VantageCare Retirement Health Savings Plan contribution data via electronic submission. 2. Participant status updates and/or changes or personal information updates and/or changes (Participants' termination dates, Participants' benefit eligibility dates, etc.) will be provided via electronic submission. B. Participant account administration fees will be paid through the redemption of Participant account shares, unless agreed upon otherwise in the Administrative Services Agreement. C. Employer plan fees will be paid by the Employer as outlined in the Administrative Services Agreement. D. Assignment of benefits is not permitted. E. Payments to an alternate payee (payee other than a Participant) are not permitted with the exception of reim- bursement of health insurance premiums to the Employer. F. An eligible dependent is the Participant's lawful spouse and any other individual who is a person described in IRC Section 152(a). G. The Employer wilt be responsible for withholding, reporting and remitting any applicable taxes, as outlined in the VantageCare Retirement Health Savings Plan Employer Manual. XlV. The Employer hereby acknowledges it understands that failure to properly fill out this Employer VantageCare Retirement Health Savings Plan Adoption Agreement may result in the loss of tax exemption of the Trust and/or loss of tax-deferred status for Employer contributions. 17 EMPLOYER By:. Title: Attest: Accepted: Vantagepoint Transfer Agents, LLC Corporate Treasurer 18 AGENDA MEMO (November 11, 2003) DATE: November 5, 2003 TO: Bob Livingston FROM: Luanne Hanford SUBJECT: Health Plan Renewal Attached is the health plan renewal recommended by staff and the Employee Benefits Committee. The renewal includ es an increase in fixed costs (administrative fees and stop loss insurance premiums) of 3% (from $299,388 to $307,692). Changes in the health plan recommended by staff and the Employee Benefits Committee include increasing the monthly employee contributio n for individual employee coverage from $25 to $30 and increasing dependent premiums by 10%. Projected dependent monthly premiums for 2004 are as follows: Spouse increase from $209 to $230 Child(ren) increase from $166 to $185 Family increase fro m $351 to $385 Recommended changes in the benefit plan include: Dr. Visit Co - Pay increase from $20 to $25 Specialist increase from $20 to $40 Annual Deductible increase from $250 to $300 Co - Insurance increase from 90/10 to 80/20 Max. Out - of - Pocket increase from $1,750 to $2,000 Emergency Room Co - Pay increase from $50 to $100 The adopted budget for FY 2003 - 04 includes a 20% increase in the City’s monthly contribution for employee coverage (from $350 to $420). The changes noted above are necessary to offset the anticipated 20% increase in claims in 2004. 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363 - 1644 C: \ Documents and Settings \ nwilson \ Local Settings \ Temporary Internet Files \ OLK21 \ AGENDAMEMO.doc 9 : 24 AM 11 / 07 AGENDA MEMO (11/11/03 AGENDA) DATE: October 9, 2003 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Gary W. Adams, Chief of Police SUBJECT: Purchase of Digital Mug Shot / City I.D. Card Equipment ITEM: The police department is requesting approval for the purchase of a state of the art digital photo system from ImageWare Systems to be used in conjunction with the arrests of individuals, development of photo line - ups, capturing of crime scene photographs associated with incide nts and offenses, and compilation of a useable mug shot system. The ImageWare software integrates with the HTE Crimes Management System currently in use, allowing photographs to be accessed directly from the incident record screens. The digital system wou ld provide software that would allow our agency to share mug shots with other police agencies, as well as retrieve mug shots from their systems. Additionally, the system would be so sophisticated as to allow investigators to enter composite physical descr iptions provided by victims and/or witnesses, i.e., race, age, hair color, and sex, in order to quickly pull up any and all photos of persons in the system that match said description. This in turn would increase the likelihood of developing a suspect or suspects very quickly, which in turn would increase the likelihood of an arrest. The digital photo system can and will also be used by the City for the purpose of producing employee identification cards. Cards supported can be magnetic stripe, bar code, e mbedded computer chip proximity cards, or any combination. This feature is important related to the proposed City Hall renovation because the City Manager would like to go to a keyless entry and access system in the new building. The system will be a turn key mug shot solution in which a capture station would be set up in the book - in area of the holding facility. The capture station would include a digital camera, three - point lighting, and all necessary software/hardware. 3800 UNIVE RSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363 - 1644 C: \ Documents and Settings \ nwilson \ Local Settings \ Temporary Internet Files \ OLK21 \ Agenda Memo - Mug Shot System.doc 8 : 14 AM 11 / 06 / 03 RECOMMENDATION: The City sol icited responses to a high - tech request for proposal for a Police Mug Shot and Employee ID Card System in July 2003. Two proposals were received for evaluation. The bid results were: ImageWare Systems, Inc. $85,324.81 I/tx – SI3000 $99,513.00 Staff recommends the purchase of this equipment and software from ImageWare Systems, the low bidder for this project at $85,324.81. Funding has been set aside in the capital project funds and is available for the purchase of this equipment. 3800 UNIVE RSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363 - 1644 C: \ Documents and Settings \ nwilson \ Local Settings \ Temporary Internet Files \ OLK21 \ Agenda Memo - Mug Shot System.doc 8 : 14 AM 11 / 06 / 03 AGENDA MEMO (11 - 11 - 03 AGENDA) DATE: November 5 , 2003 TO: Bob Livingston City Manager FROM: Gene R. Smallwood, P.E. Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Consider proposal for replacement of digital cameras at Peek Servi ce Center. Background. Existing security camera equipment at the Peek Service Center is outdated and in disrepair. Parts for the cameras are no longer available. Staff met with a representative of San Angelo Security Services, who recently installed su rveillance cameras at City Hall for $13,579 (installation and annual lease). The SASS representative developed a proposal to install all cameras and appurtenances, compatible to those at City Hall, for a total purchase price of $23,369.50. During the evalu ation of this equipment, we asked Information Services staff to review the proposal to insure that the equipment is "network - ready". Although other companies provide similar equipment, the SASS proposal was solicited as a sole - source because of the compati bility issue with City Hall equipment. Furthermore, the maintenance agreement would cover both locations rather than having separate vendors. Discussion. Staff recommends City Council approval of the San Angelo Security Services in the amount of $23,369 .50 to furnish and install fourteen digital cameras, software, and appurtenances at the Peek Service Center. AGENDA MEMO (11/11/03 AGENDA) DATE: November 7 , 2003 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Christine Green, Purchasing Agent SUBJECT: Purchase of Replacement Equipment through H - GAC Attached is a memo from Jim G au, Jr., Fleet Manager, regarding the proposed purchase of a concrete truck for the Street Division and two transfer tractors for the Sanitation Division scheduled for replacement this year. Replacement vehicles are available through the Houston - Galvesto n Area Council of Governments (H - GAC) Cooperative Purchasing Program. The City has had an interlocal agreement for cooperative purchasing with H - GAC since 1994. Purchases made through H - GAC fulfill all competitive bidding requirements. The concrete truc k contract price is $146,075.00, and the transfer tractor contract price is $78,500.00 ($157,000 for two vehicles). Dallas Mack Sales, LP is the HGAC contract vendor for these vehicles. The total cost for all three vehicles is $303,075.00. Price History Concrete Truck Transfer Tractor 1990 = $77,156.00 1995 = $61,608.00 2000 = $51,126.00 (body only) 2003 = $78,500.00 2003 = $146,075.00 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends purchasing these vehicles through H - GAC in the total amount of $303,075.00. 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363 - 1644 C: \ Documents and Settings \ nwilson \ Local Settings \ Temporary Internet Files \ OLK21 \ HGAC Order 2003 - 2.doc 9 : 29 AM 11 / 07 City of University Park 4420 Worcola Dallas, Texas 75206 Equipment Services Division Phone 214 - 987 - 5440 Fax 214 - 987 - 5479 To: Kent Austin, Finance Director Christine Green, Purchasing Agent From: Jim Gau Jr., Fleet Manager Date: October 21, 2003 S ubject: Purchase of Equipment for Fiscal 2003 - 04 We are replacing several heavy trucks in this years budget, and I have requested pricing through participating buying co - operatives for these purchases. What follows is a brief history and justification for each replacement. Unit 1895 is a 1987 Concrete Truck with a 4.0 - yard volumetric mixer. The mixer is the second one that has been placed upon this chassis as the suspension has worn out two mixers in its sixteen years of service to the City. We are replac ing the entire unit, chassis and mixer, this time around and upgrading this unit to a six - yard mixer with cab over, tandem axle truck. The cab over design will allow for a truck with the same length and turning radius as the conventional cab, 4.0 - yard truc k we currently operate. The tandem axles are needed to carry the extra weight and to avoid the overloading problems we have battled with the current unit since it was new. The extra capacity of this unit will enhance productivity by reducing the number of trips to reload the truck during pours. The last time we purchased an entire unit with mixer and chassis was in 1990 and we paid $ 77,156.00. This was a four - yard body mounted on a Ford chassis. We last purchased a 4.5 mixer body in March of 2000 and we p aid $ 51,126.00 for the body. The 6 - yard body we hope to purchase is priced at $ 53,668.00 and is only $ 2,542.00 more than the 4.5 yard body we purchased almost four years ago. The mixers are both Cemen Tech so we have an exact duplication of equipment ex cept for size of the body. The cost to replace this unit is $ 146,075.00 purchased through HGAC Buying Cooperative. This is a Mack MR688S with a Cemen Tech 6.0 Yard Mixer Body. We expect this chassis to last fifteen years and to wear out two mixers as the unit it replaces has done. ? Page 2 November 7 , 2003 Units 1611 and 1894 are 1988 and 1987 Ford - 9000 truck tractors used to pull transfer trailers to the landfill. We have written specifications to match what we are using currently as they have provided excellent service to the City for more than fifteen years. The replacements will also have an expected life of fifteen years or more. The trucks will be purchased from the HGAC Cooperative Purchasing Program and are priced at $ 78,500.00 each. They are Mack Granite Commercial CV - 713’s. We last purchased a truck tractor in November of 1995 for the Street Department. We paid $ 61,608.00 for that unit which was a Volvo model 58860. The price has increased $ 16,892 in eight years. This is about a 3% increase per year for this equ ipment. It is my request that you review the quotes given to us, and provide purchase orders to purchase this equipment for the City. It is my belief that these prices are equal to or better than those we would receive if we went out for bid on our own P lease contact me if you have any questions related to the specifications for the equipment we are purchasing. Sincerely Yours, Jim Gau Jr. Fleet Manager AGENDA MEMO (11/11/03 AGENDA) DATE: November 7 , 2003 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Christine Green, Purchasing Agent SUBJECT: Purchase of Police Tahoes through H - GAC Attached is a memo from Jim Gau, Jr., Fleet Manager, regarding the purchase of two Chevrolet Tahoes for the Police Department. These vehicles are available through the Houston - Galveston Area Council of Governments (H - GAC) Cooperative Purchasing Program. The City has had an interlocal agreem ent for cooperative purchasing with H - GAC since 1994. Purchases made through H - GAC fulfill all competitive bidding requirements. The purchase prices are $29,440.00 and $29,500.00 (with carpet instead of mats) from Lawrence Marshall Dealership in Hempste ad, Texas. Below is a price history: April 2003 Tarrant County Cooperative Purchasing Program (Secondary Vendor) One 2003 Chevrolet Tahoe $30,119.00 Lawrence Marshall Dealership, Hempstead November 2001 Tarrant County Cooperative Purchasing Program (Pri mary Vendor) Four 2002 Chevrolet Tahoes $28,494.00 each Classic Chevrolet, Grapevine January 2001 Bid #01 - 04 Four 2001 Chevrolet Tahoes $29,400.00 each Lynn Smith Chevrolet, Burleson 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIV ERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363 - 1644 C: \ Documents and Settings \ nwilson \ Local Settings \ Temporary Internet Files \ OLK21 \ Tahoes 2003.doc 9 : 33 AM 11 / 07 Purchase of Police Tahoes through H - GAC October 30, 2003 Page 2 Taho es are not available this year through the Tarrant County Cooperative Purchasing Program. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends purchasing two Chevrolet Tahoes through H - GAC in the total amount of $58,940.00. 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIV ERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363 - 1644 C: \ Documents and Settings \ nwilson \ Local Settings \ Temporary Internet Files \ OLK21 \ Tahoes 2003.doc 9 : 33 AM 11 / 07 City of University Park 4420 Worcola Dallas, Texas 75206 Equipment Services Division Phone 214 - 987 - 5440 Fax 214 - 987 - 5479 To: Kent Austin, Finance Director Christine Green, Purchasing Agent From: Jim Gau Jr., Fleet Manager Date: October 23, 2003 Su bject:: Purchase of Police Tahoes Attached please find the requisition and HGAC pricing for two, Chevrolet Tahoe’s, to replace Units 1551 and 1552. These are the last Crown Victoria police cars that this department has, and these acquisitions complete the conversion to sport utility vehicles for this department. We last purchased a Tahoe for this department to replace a unit that was totaled in July of this year and we paid $ 30,119.00 for that unit on P.O. 03 - 000184 - 01. The HGAC price through Lawrence Ma rshall in Hempstead, Texas is $ 29,440.00, which is less than our price for the 2003 purchased in July. You will also notice the quoted price is sixty - dollars more than the requisition price. This is because the quote had rubber floor mats throughout and the Chief wanted carpet in one unit, which was a sixty - dollar up charge. The requisition is for the Tahoe’s plus the sixty - dollars for the carpet in one unit. Please review the following documents and solicit the necessary signatures and process for obta ining a purchase order for these units. Sincerely Yours, Jim Gau Jr. Fleet Manager EMPLOYEE BENEFITS COMMITTEE MINUTES Wednesday, October 29, 2003 A meeting of the Employee Benefits Committee was held on Wednesday, October 29, 2003. Present at the meeting were Chairman Bill Clifton, Jim Klancnik, Stephen Herod, David Burgher, and Ro ger Lambourn. Also attending the meeting were Councilmember Jim Roberts, City Manager Bob Livingston, Human Resources Director Luanne Hanford, Jerry Jensen and Kim Fowler of The Jensen Company, and Rob Stow from Wausau Benefits. Chairman Clifton called t he meeting to order at 7:35 am. He asked Jerry Jensen to present the health plan renewal to the committee. Mr. Jensen indicated a few changes to the spreadsheets he had distributed, then reviewed the renewal figures. The renewal for claims and administr ative services from Wausau included a 4% increase, which Mr. Jensen thought was reasonable and appropriate. Mr. Jensen reviewed the renewal quotes for stop - loss insurance from United Healthcare and Hartford. He noted that even though the Hartford quote w as lower, the United Healthcare quote was firm if the city bound coverage prior to November 7th, whereas the Hartford quote was subject to change upon reviewing claims submitted in October. Roger Lambourn told the committee that the United Healthcare qu ote was better because it was submitted on a “paid” basis rather than Hartford’s “18/12.” Also, if there were a couple of potentially large claims for Hartford to evaluate, they would not be able to submit a firm quote before the United Healthcare deadlin e. Mr. Lambourn told the committee that most insurance companies will not commit to a firm rate more than 60 days from renewal, so he would not expect a revised quote from Hartford prior to st December 1 . Stephen Herod said he thought the committee should recommend the United Healthcare quote. Mr. Lambourn said it was the lowest increase he had seen so far this year, calling it “a heck of a quote.” The committee then discussed the health benefit plan. Ms. Hanford distributed a benchmark survey of area c ities’ benefit plans and premiums. Mr. Lambourn told the committee that the City’s benefit plan may be comparable to other cities but was very generous compared to the private sector. He thought the trend was for employers to return to basic indemnity pl ans and eliminate co - pays for doctor visits and prescriptions. He suggested an annual strategy for the City to pay a set percentage of expected increases each year and the employees pay the rest of the increase. He suggested a 70/30 split. Ms. Hanford noted that the benchmark survey indicated a trend for area cities to raise deductibles, change the co - insurance from 90/10 to 80/20 and to raise the Maximum Out - of - Pocket. Mr. Lambourn said that those same changes would result in an estimated 10% savings on the stop loss insurance premiums. Discussion followed during which the committee agreed to recommend changes in the benefit plan to effect a 10% savings and to limit the increase in dependent premiums to 10%. Mr. Lambourn moved that the committee recom mend that the City contract with Wausau for Third Party Administration services and to purchase specific and aggregate stop loss insurance from United Healthcare. Jim Klancnik seconded, and the recommendation was unanimous. Jim Klancnik moved that the co mmittee recommend the benefit plan changes of increasing the doctor visit co - pay from $20 to $25, increasing the doctor visit co - pay for specialists to $40, increasing the annual individual deductible from $250 to $300, increasing the co - insurance from 90/ 10 to 80/20, and increasing the Emergency Room co - pay from $50 to $100. These changes would be contingent on Wausau confirming the estimated 10% savings. David Burgher seconded the motion, and the committee vote was unanimous. Mr. Klancnik moved that de pendent premiums be increased by 10%. Roger Lambourn seconded, and the committee vote was unanimous. Ms. Hanford was asked to e - mail the committee members to confirm the savings resulting from the benefit changes. The last item on the agenda was a revie w of the proposal to adopt a Retiree Health Savings Plan (RHSP) through the ICMA Retirement Corporation. Ms. Hanford told the committee that a RHSP would allow employees to set aside money pre - tax and pre - FICA into an account to pay for health insurance p remiums and out - of - pocket health expenses after retirement. The employees would be able to invest the money in their individual accounts. The City would realize FICA savings on all deposits. The City currently uses ICMA - RC for one of the 457 plans offe red to employees. Discussion followed. Mr. Herod asked about the annual fees and asked Ms. Hanford to get more specific information regarding the amount of fees the City might be required to pay to maintain the program. Bill Clifton said he would be in favor of it as long as the fees are not a financial drain on the city. Jim Klancnik moved to recommend the city adopt the proposed Retiree Health Savings Plan through ICMA - RC effective January 1, 2004. Bill Clifton seconded. The vote was unanimous. The re being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 am. _________________________________ ______________________________ Bill Clifton, Chairman Luanne Hanford, Director of HR CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS JOINT MEETING OF FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC WORKS ADVISORY COMMITTEE WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2003 at 8:30 A.M. PEEK SERVICE CENTER MINUTES Attendees: Finance Advisory Public Works Advisory Committee Committee City Council and staff Consultants Atwood, John Ferris, John Austin, Kent Bagwell, Tony Edwards, Richard Moore, Mike Livingston, Bob Jarrett, Lara Harralson, Howell Pulliam, Paul Shawver, Harry Mahon, Ed Shawver, Reed Smallwood, Bud Stuart, John Stewart, Tommy Speer, Jacob Walker, Kelly Tvardzik, Tom Call to order. Public Works Director Bud Smallwood called the meeting to order at 8:38 a.m. and reminded the attendees that the purpose of the meeting was to review the consultant's storm water management utility feasibility study and consider a recommendation to the City Council. Consider proposal to establish storm water utility and set related rates. Smallwood introduced HDR consultants Tony Bagwell and Lara Jarrett, who briefed the Committees on their findings, including: · A storm water utility is proposed to fund actions required to comply with the Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES). The utility would be funded by a per- parcel monthly fee based approximately on the parcel's maximum allowable amount of impervious surface (i.e., hardened groundcover that does not absorb rainfall). · A utility approach is advantageous because it encompasses property owners who are exempt from traditional property taxes. Additionally, property owners pay more in proportion to their storm water contribution than under a tax funded approach. · A five-year storm water quality management program was developed by HDR in coordination with City staff. The program carries an annual cost of approximately $560,000, which includes a $350,000 capital component. · Rather than attempt to measure the amount of impermeable surface on each of the City's over 8,000 parcels, the consultants and staff recommended using zoning classification as a means of estimating a property's impervious surface amount. · Staff and consultants recommended that publicly funded institutions, namely the City and HPISD, be exempted from the fee. Churches and SMU would be assessed the fee like other property owners. · The SF-4 zoning category was chosen as the benchmark for establishing a monthly rate for other types of property and was assigned an "Equivalent Residential Unit" value of C: lDocuments and SettingslnwilsonlLocal Settingsl Temporary lnternet Files[OLK21 ICommittee Minutes 11-05-03.doc 11/06/03 one (1) and a monthly rate of $4.85. Other zoning categories, such as SF-3 and MF, would be assessed a monthly fee in relation to SF-4. The attendees discussed the proposed utility and fee vigorously. After much discussion, the Committee members voted 6-1 in favor of the storm water utility and related fee structure. 3. Adjourn. The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:45 a.m. Submitted by Kent R. Austin, Director of Finance C:lDocuments and Settingslnwilson~Local SettingslTemporary Internet FileslOLK21 [Committee Minutes 11-05-03. doc 11/06/03 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES September 15, 2003 The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of University Park met on Monday, September 15, 2003 at 5:30 P.M. in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 3800 University Blvd. University Park, Texas. The following are minutes of that meeting. Commission Members Attending Staff Members Attending Robert West – Chairman Wade McLaurin - Bldg. & Zoning Administrator Doug Roach Jennifer Patrick – Administrative Secretary Bill Foose Rob Dillard - Cit y Attorney Bea Humann Randy Biddle Mr. West opened the public hearing and introduced the commission members, as well as Boy Scout Troop #82. Mr. West, then made a brief statement to congratulate the troop for attending the meeting to receive the merit badge. He then read the specifics of the first case. PZ 03 - 12 – Analytical Surveys, representing the owner of the property, requesting a replat of Lot 15 Block D, of University Annex No. 2 Addition of the City of University Park, more commonly 3445 Granada known as , into two (2) Single Family Attached lots. The property is zoned SF - A. Mr. West asked if the requested replat conformed to the requirements of the City. Mr. McLaurin replied that it did. Mr. West asked for a motion. Mr. Biddle made a motion to approve the replat, with a second from Mrs. Humann. The motion was approved unanimously. PZ 03 - 13 Mr. West made note, the second case was withdrawn by applicant. PZ 03 - 14 PZ 03 - 17 Mr. West announced the following cases through were all submitted by Highland Park Independent School District, and would therefore be simultaneously heard. He then read the specifics of each case. – PZ 03 - 14 Highland Park Independent School Dist rict requesting an amendment to PD - 15 3505 Amherst (University Park Elementary) at their property at . The District is requesting an extension to allow the continued use of an existing portable classroom through July 2008. PZ 03 - 15 - Highland Park Indepe ndent School District requesting an amendment to PD - 19 3555 Granada (Highland Park Middle School) at their property at . The District is requesting an extension to allow the continued use of an existing portable classroom through July 2008. PZ 03 - 16 - High land Park Independent School District requesting an amendment to PD - 16 (Hyer 3920 Caruth Blvd Elementary) at their property at . The District is requesting an extension to 1 allow the continued use of an existing portable classroom through July 2008. PZ 03 - 1 7 - Highland Park Independent School District requesting an amendment to PD - 17 7011 Westchester Dr (HPISD Administration Building) at their property at . The District is requesting an extension to allow the continued use of an existing portable building for general office space through July 2008. Mr. Jeffery Barnes, representing The Highland Park Independent School District Board of Trustees, was introduced. In attendance with Mr. Barnes were Dr. Ben Coker, the Assistant Superintendent of Business Services for the Highland Park Independent School District and Mr. Jon Polando, Facility Services Manager, for the Highland Park Independent School District. Mr. Dillard asked why was the school district was requesting a five (5) year extension versus the two (2) extension requested in the past. Mr. Barnes made a statement that the school district does not want to utilize the portable buildings, but certain factors make it a necessity. Mr. Barnes explained the Robin Hood Act, bond elections, new construction , and new students all impact the definite need for the portable buildings. Mr. Barnes also noted, if the Robin Hood Act were to be rescinded, the school district could utilize the additional funds for permanent additions to each school. Mr. Dillard inquir ed if the population projections were holding. Mr. Barnes replied the school district registers on average sixty (60) to seventy (70) new students a year. Mrs. Humann made a statement in regards to concerns of maintenance if the extension were to be gra nted for five (5) years. Mr. Barnes made a statement that neither the school district nor the parents would allow any lapse in maintenance on the portable buildings. Mr. Polando stated the PTA donates various plants and planting materials to improve the aesthetics of the portable buildings. Mr. William Karrington, resident of 3500 Granada, was introduced and spoke in opposition of the ( PZ 03 - 15). portable building located specifically at 3555 Granada Mr. Karrington stated the location of the port able building could have been better placed in the courtyard next to the schools cafeteria, versus right along Granada Ave. Mr. Karrington added that the portable building has not been well maintained. Mr. Barnes replied that the placement of the porta ble could not have been located in the courtyard due to certain factors. The school district had a fear of putting too many children in harms way, by placing the portable in the courtyard, near the parking lot. As well as, Mr. Polando made note that the courtyard could not have been utilized due to the lack of proper drainage. Mr. Barnes stated the district did not want to place the portable near residences, but there was not any other ideal local. Mr. West asked for a motion. Mr. Biddle made a motion to approve the extension, with a second from Mrs. Humann. The motion was approved unanimously. Mr. McLaurin asked Mr. Dillard if the Planning and Zoning Commission could amend the motion with a recommendation that the school district produce a landscape and maintenance plan in conjunction with minutes and concerns for City Council review. Mr. Dillard replied, yes, the members could amend the motion with those specifications. 2 Mr. Karrington responded enthusiastically to this amendmen t. Mr. Biddle amended the previous motion to include the school district produce a landscape and maintenance plan in conjunction with minutes and concerns for City Council review, specifically PZ 03 - 15 ( 3555 Granada) and all other locations. Mrs. Humann s econded the amended motion. The motion was approved unanimously. Mr. West asked for a motion to approve the minutes from the July 21, 2003 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. Mr. Roach made a motion to approve the minutes, with a second from Mr. Bid dle. The motion was approved unanimously. There being no further business before the Commission, Mr. West adjourned the meeting. Approved by: 10/20/2003 Robert West, Chairman, Planning & Zoning Commission 3 CAPITAL PROJECTS UPDATE Week of November 1, 2003 Project Target No. Description Cost Major Tasks Uncompleted Date * 42450 Fondren Tower - Fire Station No. 2 $30,000.00 (E) In-house construction (FD & FM) TBD * RLG completion of structural design Complete 42730 Lovers Lane Reconstruction II - Hillcrest to NCE $4,000,000.00 (E) * (1) Water & sanitary sewer construction Design Nov-03 * Bids Dec-03 * (2) Pavement & Drainage Improvements Interlocal agreement with City of Dallas Complete * Design Feb-03 * Bids Mar-03 * 42903 NCE Wall - Streets - Landscaping $150,000.00 (E) Street light equipment installed Complete * Tree / Street Lighting - Sidewalks "Entry Plaza" construction Sum-04 42980 C& G Replacement FY00-01 $2,223,254.65 (A) * Change No 1 (**) $351,523.50 (A) Amherst, Durham to Airline Complete ** Amherst, TC Blvd to Tulane Delete * Baltimore, Lovers Lane to Hanover * Bryn Mawr, Boedeker to Airline Complete ** Boedeker, Hanover to Southwestern Complete * 42980 C& G Replacement FY00-01 (continued) Caruth, Turtle Creek Blvd to Thackeray Page 1 * Centenary, Thackeray to Baltimore * Dyer, Boedeker to NCE (Street Reconstruction) Delete * Glenwick, Preston to Westwick Complete * Glenwick, Preston to HPHS parking garage Complete * Grassmere, Preston to Westchester Complete * Granada, Golf to High School Delete * Granada, Hillcrest to Key Complete ** Glenwick, Preston to HS Garage Complete * Greenbrier, Preston to Douglas * Hanover, Preston to Baltimore Delete * Hyer, Preston to Westchester Complete * Larchmont, Armstrong to Lomo Alto Complete * Marquette, Baltimore to Pickwick * Marquette, Turtle Creek Blvd to Thackeray ** McFarlin, Preston to Westchester Complete ** Normandy, Armstrong to Lomo Alto Complete * Purdue, Durham to Dickens Complete * Rosedale, Thackery to Golf Complete ** San Carlos, Preston to Armstrong + Lomo Alto Complete * Shenandoah, Douglas to Armstrong Complete ** Shenandoah, Roland to Armstrong Complete * Shenandoah, Hillcrest to Auburndale * Stanford, Airline to Hillcrest Complete * Stanhope, Armstrong to Lomo Alto Complete * Thackeray, Rosedale to Milton * 42980 C& G Replacement FY00-01 (continued) University Blvd, Golf to alley east of Haynie Complete ** Williams Pkwy, University to McFarlin (partial) Complete ** Windsor Pkwy, Douglas to Preston Pkwy Complete Page 2 * Windsor Pkwy, Douglas to Lomo Alto Complete * 45210 Traffic Signal - Hillcrest @ Normandy $71,000.00 (E) Materials / equipment ordered Complete * Signal installation Dec-03 45600 Infiltration-Inflow Remediation $104,429.04 (A) * * MH rehabilitation Design / Bids Complete * Council Consideration of bids Complete * 46310 MPY-Caruth Park Area $2,135,000.00 (E) Design Nov-03 Water / San Sewer / Stm Sewer 46510 MPY-Sanitary Sewer / Water / Pavement * (1) 4100 blk - Emerson / University alley Water line installation Dec-o3 * Sanitary Sewer Installation Complete * Storm Sewer Installation Dec-03 * Alley pavement replacement Dec-03 * (2) 4100 blk - Emerson / Glenwick alley Water line installation Complete * Sanitary Sewer Installation Complete * Storm Sewer Installation Complete * Alley pavement replacement Complete 46700 MPY - Sanitary Sewer / Storm Sewer / Water / Pavement $2,100,000.00 (E) * (1) 32-3300 blk - Colgate / Marquette alley (Hillcrest to Airline) Water line installation Complete * Sanitary Sewer Installation Complete * Storm Sewer Installation Complete * Pavement repair / replacement Nov-03 * (2) 3400 blk - Colgate / Marquette alley (Hillcrest to TC Blvd) Water line installation Complete * Sanitary Sewer Installation Complete Page 3 * Pavement repair / replacement Complete * (3) Airline, Colgate/Marquette alley to NW Hwy Water line installation Complete * Sanitary Sewer Installation Complete * Storm Sewer Installation Complete * Pavement repair / replacement TBD * (4) Hillcrest, Colgate/Marquette alley S to Caruth Pk Water line installation Complete * Storm Sewer Installation Complete * Pavement repair / replacement Complete * (5) Marquette / Colgate Street - Alley, 32/3300 blk Storm Sewer Installation Complete * 43700 City Hall - Renovation and Expansion ############ (E) Conceptual Design Complete * Construction Plans & Specs Spr-04 * 43710 City Hall II - Drainage Improvements $3,000,000.00 (E) Design Nov-03 * Corps of Engineers 404 Permit Complete * Wetlands Mitigation Credits Complete * Bids Jan-03 * 43710 City Hall III - 24" Water main Installation $630,000.00 (E) Water main construction Nov-03 * Pavement Repairs Dec-03 * 43720 Vassar Street Improvements $590,000.00 (A) Remove & replace street pavement (SBL) Complete * Remove & replace street pavement (NBL) Complete * Remove & replace driveway approaches (SBL) Complete * Remove & replace driveway approaches (NBL) Complete * Remove & replace sidewalks (SBL) Complete * Remove & replace sidewalks (NBL) Complete * Cleanup & punchlist Nov-03 * 48100 Paint Fondren Elevated Tank $300,000.00 (E) Specification / Bid Documents Fall-03 * Bids TBD Page 4 * 48200 MPY-Auburndale-Key / Water / Sanitary Sewer / Storm Sewer $555,000.00 (E) Design Sep-03 * Bids TBD * 48300 Automated Meter Reading $1,200,000.00 (E) AMR installation - Cycle 1 (N of Lovers Lane) Complete * AMR installation - Cycle 2 (S of Lovers Lane) Complete * AMR installation - Cycle 3 (Parks, large meters, etc.) Nov-03 * Training of City staff Nov-03 Page 5