Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 08-30-05 Names Tabs.doc AGENDA #2517 CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY, AUGUST 30, 2005 AT 5:00 P.M. 4:30-5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION FOR AGENDA REVIEW I. INVOCATION - Mayor James H. Holmes, III II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Mayor James H. Holmes, III III. INTRODUCTION OF COUNCIL - Mayor James H. Holmes, III IV. INTRODUCTION OF STAFF - City Manager Bob Livingston V. RECOGNITION OF BOY SCOUTS VI. ITEMS FROM THE FLOOR Anyone wishing to address an item not on the Agenda or having questions about items on the Consent Agenda should do so at this time. Questions and comments regarding Main Agenda items may be made when that item is addressed by the City Council. VII. CONSENT AGENDA A. CONSIDER: Contract for broker services to obtain stop loss coverage for self-insured health plan - Hanford Tab I B. CONSIDER: Approval of city council meeting minutes for August 23, 2005 - Wilson Tab II VIII. MAIN AGENDA A. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed tax rate and budget - Austin Tab III B. CONSIDER: Request from Watermark Church for use of Curtis Park - Bradley Tab IV As authorized by Section 551.071(2) of the Texas Government Code, this meeting may be convened into Closed Executive Session for the purpose of seeking confidential legal advice from the City Attorney on any agenda items listed herein. IX INFORMATION AGENDA Tab V REPORTS, BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES A. BOARD OF ADmSTMENT B. EMPLOYEE BENFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE C. FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE D. P ARK ADVISORY COMMITTEE E. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes for August 15, 2005 F. PROPERTY CASUALTY & LIABILITY INSURANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE G. PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE H. PUBLIC WORKS ADVISORY COMMITTEE I. URBAN DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE 1. ZONING ORDINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE K. CAPIT AL PROJECTS REVIEW COMMITTEE 19 AGENDA MEMO (08/30/05 AGENDA) DATE: August 25,2005 TO: City Council FROM: Luanne Hanford SUBJECT: Contract for Broker Services Each year, the City retains a broker for the purpose of soliciting proposals for Group Health Stop Loss coverages, Life and Accidental Death & Dismemberment (AD&D) insurance, and Long Term Disability insurance. These insurance coverages are part of the City's 2006 Employee Benefit Plan Year which runs from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006. State purchasing laws require that we retain brokers on a "fee basis" rather than allowing the broker to accept commissions from insurance companies. Attached is the contract for broker services between the City and The Jensen Co., which has provided broker services to the City for 18 years. I reviewed Mr. Jensen's fees of $18,225 with members of the Employee Benefits Committee, and the committee members feel that the fees are reasonable for the scope of work indicated in the contract. RECOMMENDA TION: Approve contract for broker services. 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK31 \AGENDAMEMO (10).doc 3:40 PM 08/251 CONTRACT FOR SERVICES Parties: City of University Park and Gerald C Jensen, dba The Jensen Company Re: 2006 Employee Benefit Plans (i.e.) Group Health, Life Insurance, AD&D, and Long Term Disability. Description of Services: The Jensen Company will prepare the bid specifications for the City of University Park Employee Benefits Plan Year which begins January 1, 2006 and ends on December 31, 2006. The bid specifications will be for Group Health Specific and Aggregate Stop Loss insurance, Group Life and Accidental Death and Dismemberment (AD&D) insurance, and Long Term Disability insurance. The Jensen Co. will advertise for proposals in accordance with State of Texas purchasing laws, and will provide bid packages to all qualified vendors for competitive bids. After the specified bid opening, The Jensen Company will compile and analyze the results to determine the finalists. After meeting with the City Manager and Director of Human Resources, The Jensen Company will continue to negotiate with the finalists for the best possible result for the City, consistent with quality and financial strength of the vendors. The Jensen Company will communicate the results and a recommendation to City of University Park representatives and its Employee Benefits Advisory Committee for approval. The Jensen Company will assist with the implementation of the plans and monitor claims and results throughout the plan year as well as assist with benefit and claims issues during the year. City of University Park agrees to pay The Jensen Company a fee for the services described above in the amount of$18,225. The Jensen Company agrees not to receive any other compensation or remuneration of any kind from any other source related to the services provided to City of University Park as part of this contract. Accepted By: Date: Name and Title / City of University Park Accepted By: Date: Name and Title / The Jensen Company MINUTES #2516 CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY, AUGUST 23,2005,5:00 P.M. Mayor Holmes opened the meeting of the City Council. Present were Councilmembers Syd Carter, Kelly Walker and Harry Shawver. Also in attendance were City Manager Bob Livingston and City Secretary Nina Wilson. Mayor Pro Tempore Jim Roberts and City Attorney Rob Dillard were absent and excused. AWARDS & RECOGNITION DEPARTMENT PINS: City Manager Bob Livingston presented CID Investigator Ken Ardanowski with a 15-year pin, D.A.RE. Office Robert Hardin and Maintenance Technician Nick Zavala with 10-year pins and Communications Supervisor Denise Rencher with a 5-year pin for a total of 40 years of service to the city. RECOGNITION OF BOYS SCOUTS: Ten Boy Scouts introduced themselves and stated the badges upon which they were working: Davis and Yates Bateman, 7422 Colgate; Reilly Beeman, 4324 Hanover; Joseph Bush, 3308 Beverly; Tower Cook, 3324 Bryn Mawr; Paul Dixon, 4200 Greenbrier, Mac Hartley, 3502 McFarlin; Colin Moore, 3949 Centenary; Drew Stephens, 4061 Purdue and Tim Wilson, 5909 Luther Lane, #2311. Councilmember Shawver moved acceptance of the Consent Agenda with the stipulation that the "limit of liability" clause be deleted from the RL. Goodson proposal. Councilmember Carter seconded, and the vote was unanimous to approve the following: CONSENT AGENDA CONSIDER PROPOSAL FROM RL. GOODSON, INC. TO PROVIDE ENGINEERING SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH THE DESIGN OF UNDERGROUND CONDUITS FOR RELOCATION OF AERIAL UTILITIES AT CITY HALL: RL. Goodson has completed the design tasks associated with the box culvert and the site civil improvements surrounding the proposed expansion of City Hall. Pursuant to previous discussions with the council and oversite committee, the existing aerial utilities must be relocated as part of the project. A proposal from RL. Goodson provides for the surveying, engineering, and consultation services to design the conduits for undergrounding the city's fiber optic interconnect, as well as, TXU and cable tv service to the building in the amount of $8,000 subj ect to the deletion of the "limit of liability" clause. CONSIDER PROPOSAL FROM GSWW, INC. TO PROVIDE ENGINEERING SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH HYDRAULIC EV ALUTION OF CERTAIN SANITARY SEWER CAPACITY AND TO DESIGN PERMANENT FLOW METERING STATIONS IN THE SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM: Staff solicited a proposal from GSWW, Inc. to provide professional engineering services to accomplish the following tasks: evaluate the hydraulic capacity of large trunk sewers within up's collection system; develop a computer model of the downstream impact on flow capacity; develop a flow metering plan and design the permanent metering stations to provide long term data regarding the city's discharges. The proposal is in the amount of$21,480. CONSIDER APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO COMMITTEE TO NAME VARIOUS PUBLIC FACILITIES: Previously, the council discussed the possibility of appointing a committee to name several parks and other facilities which, to date, have been unnamed. Facilities, which are unnamed, include: the linear park along Central Expressway from south of Lovers Lane to University Boulevard, the linear park along Central Expressway from south of University Boulevard to SMU Boulevard, the street running along the Central Expressway wall from Westminster south, the street running along the Central Expressway wall from Fondren south, the park on the northeast corner of Lovers Lane and Hillcrest, the park on the northwest corner of Lovers Lane and Hillcrest, and the new fountain to be constructed east of the Goar Park Gazebo as part of the park improvements. The following people have been proposed for the committee: Trevor Rees-Jones, Chair; James (Brad) Bradley, Kirk Dooley, Diane Galloway, Irwin Gordon and Bill Pardoe. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES: For August 2, 2005. MAIN AGENDA REVIEW CITY MANAGER'S PROPOSED BUDGET: Finance Director Kent Austin presented the budget and took questions from the council. Highlights of the proposed $34.749 million budget include a reduction in the property tax rate for the 11th consecutive year. The proposed FY06 rate of $0.30958 is a 4.86% reduction from last year's adopted rate of $0.32539 per $100 taxable value. Over $4.876 million in pay-as-you-go capital project funding is up 3% from last year. A proposed 15-20% increase in sanitation rates is the first increase in three years. PUBLIC HEARING FOR PROPOSED BUDGET: Mayor Holmes opened the public hearing. There were no comments or questions. Mayor Holmes closed the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING FOR PROPOSED TAX RATE: Mayor Holmes opened the public hearing. There were no comments or questions. Mayor Holmes closed the public hearing. CONSIDER ORDINANCE FOR NO PARKING, 6700 BLOCK DURHAM: This item was continued until the September 6th city council meeting. CONSIDER RESOLUTION FOR MEMBERSHIP IN THE COOPERATIVE PURCHASING NETWORK: The Cooperative Purchasing Network (TCPN) is the Region 4 Education Service Center (Houston area), which sponsors the cooperative purchasing program. TCPN was established to help school districts and other governmental agencies achieve more purchasing power through aggregating their needs for goods and services by using Area Job Order Contracts (AlOC). These are competitively-bid contracts for minor construction and facility renovation. Pre-qualified, local, small businesses perform plumbing, painting, and other repair work at pre- determined unit prices. Councilmember Walker moved approval of the resolution and Interlocal Agreement for membership in The Cooperative Purchasing Program. Councilmember Shawver seconded, and the vote was unanimous for approval to join the program. RESOLUTION NO. 05-16 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK. TEXAS, APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE REGION IV EDUCATION SERVICE CENTER, WHICH SPONSORS THE COOPERATIVE PURCHASING NETWORK (TCPN); PROVIDING FOR A COOPERATIVE PURCHASING PROGRAM FOR GOODS AND SERVICES; DESIGNATING AN OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY P ARK RELATING TO THE PROGRAM; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. CONSIDER LICENSING AGREEMENT WITH SPEEDEE OIL CHANGE: Staff received a request from Mr. Thomas R. Lanz of SpeeDee Oil Change to install additional landscape beds on the city's parkway along Lovers Lane in front of his business. Mr. Lanz indicated he would accept responsibility for the installation and maintenance costs of the additional landscape beds. By entering into a licensing agreement between the City of University Park and SpeeDee Oil Change, it allows the utilization of this property for additional beautification of the Lovers Lane corridor. Councilmember Carter moved approval of the licensing agreement. Councilmember Walker seconded, and the vote was unanimous to approve the agreement with SpeeDee Oil Change. CONSIDER MEMORIAL TREE AND BENCH PROGRAM: Staff has been examining the existing memorial tree and bench program the city offers to residents. It is believed that modifications to the existing program will create a more aesthetic and uniform appearance within our park system. The major concern with the current memorial tree and bench program is the installation of bronze plaques and concrete monuments honoring individuals or events. These requests and installations have created numerous plaques that have become more of a detraction, whether due to age, vandalism, ground movement/erosion or equipment damage, within our park system. It was suggested that individuals could be recognized in a more appropriate and distinguished manner by providing tree donors with an acknowledgement certificate, location map and an identification leaf on a decorative memorial tree located at city hall. Councilmember Shawver moved approval of the memorial tree and bench program. Councilmember Carter seconded, and the vote was unanimous to approve the program. CONSIDER LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR CURTIS P ARK AT LOVERS LANE AND DICKENS: Due to the recent street improvements along Lovers Lane, the northeast corner of Curtis Park at Dickens and Lovers Lane was impacted during construction. As a result, a contract has been entered into with Dennis Sims of the landscape architectural firm of Dunkin, Sims and Stoffels to aid in the development of landscape improvement plans associated with this portion of the street and park corridor. The landscape design plan illustrates the utilization of decorative retaining walls and botanical plantings in an effort to soften some of the street and traffic control improvements. The estimated cost of the project is between $15,000 and $20,000. Councilmember Walker moved approval of the plans. Councilmember Carter seconded, and the vote was unanimous to approve the landscape plans for Curtis Park. CONSIDER REQUEST FROM HIGHLAND PARK PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH (HPPC) FOR USE OF GOAR AND WILLIAMS PARKS FOR TWO-DAY EVENT FOR MISSION PROGRAM: A request was received from Highland Park Presbyterian Church to reserve both Goar and Williams Parks for a fall picnic event on Saturday, October 15 and Sunday, October 16,2005. The church anticipates 500-750 participants. The park department recommended the following minimum guidelines as a requirement: HPPC will pay a Park Usage Fee of $500 plus a refundable $250 Security Deposit. Due to YMCA soccer programming, the event will not begin until 2:00 p.m. on October 15, 2005 and must conclude by 11:00 a.m. on October 16, 2005. Park Hours of Operation are 6:00 a.m. - 11 :00 p.m. HPPC shall provide at least two portable restrooms, one at each park site for participant usage. HPPC shall refrain from using any P.A. system or amplified music prior to 10:00 a.m. on Sunday, and all trash must be consolidated at an agreed location. Council asked that a departure time of 9:00 p.m. be applied to the Saturday night event. Councilmember Shawver moved approval of the use of the parks with the additional request that the church conclude that use by 9:00 p.m. on Saturday night. Councilmember Carter seconded, and the vote was unanimous to approve the use of Goar and Williams Parks on October 15-16, 2005 by HPPC. CONSIDER CHANGES TO FIRE AND BUILDING CODES FOR AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS: The City of University Park Fire Department and Building Department requested amendments to the Fire and Building Codes. Current codes allow automatic fire sprinkler systems in residential properties with more than two units to a connection to the potable water supply on a domestic water line. It is necessary to change this to require a separate connection to prevent cross-contamination of the domestic water supply and potable water supply should the backflow preventer fail and, also, to ensure the building would retain adequate fire protection in the event the domestic water supply was disconnected for repairs or other reasons. This change is consistent with the Fire and Building Codes in other cities. The code would retain the right to allow one and two family residential structures to connect automatic fire sprinklers systems to the domestic water line. Councilmember Walker moved approval of the changes to the fire and building codes for automatic fire sprinkler systems. Councilmember Carter seconded, and the vote was unanimous to approve the changes. DISCUSS CITY COUNCIL POSITION REGARDING PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE WRIGHT AMENDMENT: Members of the city council have been approached by various groups and individuals regarding current attempts to repeal the Wright Amendment. The city council of 1990 considered this issue in late 1990 as a result of efforts to enact changes to the restrictions. At that time, the council elected to oppose any change to the act, and it remains in effect today with some slight modifications. Mayor Holmes had requested the council discuss this issue again. Council had an entire range of options, including taking no action, supporting the current position adopted in 1990, or supporting repeal or modification of the act. The council took no action. The resolution from 1990 stands. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. PASSED AND APPROVED this 30th day of August 2005. James H. Holmes III, Mayor ATTEST: Nina Wilson, City Secretary 19 AGENDA MEMO (08/30/2005 AGENDA) DATE: August 25,2005 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Kent R. Austin, Director of Finance SUBJECT: Budget and tax rate public hearings at 8/30/2005 meeting BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION As you know, Texas statutes require that cities provide notice and hold public hearings before adopting an annual budget and property tax rate. Proposed FY2006 budget The first budget hearing was held August 23, 2005. A second hearing is set for the August 30 Council meeting. At their September 6 meeting, the Council is scheduled to approve a budget and tax rate for FY2006. Three Advisory Committees - Employee Benefits, Finance, and Property, Casuality, and Liability Insurance - have reviewed and recommended approval of the proposed budget. At their August 23 meeting, the Finance Advisory Committee also made the following additional recommendations: · Increase the amount budgeted for fuel. Staff has added $51,622 more to the departmental fuel budgets. The three budgeted funds (General, Utility, and Sanitation) are still balanced. · Develop an action plan to build a reserve for the Firefighters' Relief and Retirement Fund. · Educate University Park merchants about the importance of identifying themselves as being in UP, so that sales tax dollars are properly remitted to the City, not other jurisdictions. · Approve a sanitation rate sufficient to cover operating costs and build a reserve for future landfill costs. The original proposed FY06 budget of$34.749 million has been increased to provide more for fuel costs. The new budget is $34.801 million, 1.84% larger than the adopted FY05 budget of $34.173 million. The proposed budget includes a tax rate decrease, no rate increases for water or C:IDocuments and SettingslnwilsonlLocal SettingslTemporary Internet FileslOLK31 IAGENDA MEMO Budget and Tax Rate Hearing II 08-30- 05.doc 08/26/05 9:22 AM 1 sewer service, and $4.876 million in capital project funding. To balance the Sanitation Fund budget, however, a rate increase of 15-20% is needed. More detailed information about the budget is included in the revised August 2 memo from the City Manager. Proposed property tax rate The property tax is the General Fund's primary source of revenue. The proposed FY06 rate of $0.30958 is a 4.86% reduction from last year's adopted rate of$0.32539. The certified taxable property base rose 9.84%. The proposed budget would collect $555,171 more in current property taxes than last year, a 4.5% increase. Thus it is correct to say that the City is both cutting the tax rate and raising taxes. Due to the intricacies of the official effective tax rate (ETR) calculation, the proposed $0.30958 rate that will raise 4.5% more tax revenue represents an effective tax increase of only 3.93%. The ETR is significant because it drives the notice and hearing requirements a city must meet per the Texas Truth-in- Taxation law. Cities proposing an effective tax increase greater than the prior year must hold two separate public hearings about the tax rate. The Dallas County Tax Assessor- Collector performs the effective tax rate calculation. Notice of the ETR appeared in the August 18 edition of the Park Cities News, as did notice of the upcoming hearing. The ETR's purpose is to identify the tax rate that produces the same revenue dollars this year as last year. Instead of using the new 2005 certified tax roll ($4.314 billion) as the base, the ETR calculation considers only those properties that were on the tax roll one year ago, after adjustment for changes in exemptions, values under protest, and court-ordered reductions. The resulting tax base number ($4.193 billion) is known as the "2005 Adjusted Taxable Value" and omits the $125 million added by new construction in University Park this year. This new construction makes up 32% of the $386 million increase in the certified taxable value. At the same time, the taxes levied one year ago are also adjusted for refunds and are known as the "Adjusted 2004 taxes with refunds." Dividing this figure ($12.49 million) by the adjusted tax base ($4.193 billion) produces an effective tax rate of $0.297868/$100. Comparing the new proposed tax rate of$0.30958 against the ETR yields an effective tax increase of3.93%. RECOMMENDA TION Holding the second public hearing regarding the proposed budget and property tax rates will comply with State law and allow opportunity for input from the community and coverage by the local press. Formal action by Council on the budget, tax rate, and salary ordinance is scheduled for Tuesday, September 6,2005. ATTACHMENTS: City Manager's budget memo of 8/2/2005, revised 8/25/05 C:IDocuments and SettingslnwilsonlLocal SettingslTemporary Internet FileslOLK31 IAGENDA MEMO Budget and Tax Rate Hearing II 08-30- 05.doc 08/26/05 9:22 AM 2 19 AGENDA MEMO (08/02/05 and 8/30/05 AGENDA) DATE: August 2, 2005 [Revised 8/25/05] TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Bob Livingston SUBJECT: Presentation of the City Manager's Proposed FY 2006 Budget INTRODUCTION This memo presents the City Manager's proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2006, (FY06 or October 1, 2005 - September 30, 2006). Highlights of the proposed $34.801 million budget include: · A reduction in the City's property tax rate for the 11th consecutive year. The proposed tax rate of 30.958 cents is 4.86% lower than last year's 32.539 cents per $100 taxable value. · Over $4.876 million in pay-as-you-go capital project funding, up 3% from last year. · Balanced budgets in all budgeted funds including reductions in the overall Utility Fund and Sanitation Fund expenditure budgets. · A proposed increase in sanitation rates, the first increase in three years. The Finance Director, Public Works Director, and Sanitation Superintendent are developing alternatives that range from an increase sufficient to cover operational costs to one that would continue contributions to a reserve for future landfill expenses. To achieve this latter goal, it appears a rate increase of 15-20% is needed. The table below provides a comparison of total expenditures for the City's three budgeted funds - General, Utility, and Sanitation. Three other funds - Capital Projects, Equipment Services, and Self-Insurance - are not included in the formal budget, because their revenues come from line-items in the three budgeted funds. A summary page showing the proposed budget by fund and department is attached, as is a worksheet detailing the property tax impact of the proposed FY06 budget. T t I B d t d E dOt oa u I~ ee xpen lures FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 Dollar Percent Fund Adopted Adopted Proposed Change Change Budget Budget Budget General $19,923,714 $21,067,545 $22,150,141 $1,082,59 5.14% 6 Utility 9,632,850 10,442,317 10,001,679 -$440,638 - 4.22% 1 Sanitation 2,496,972 2,663,410 2,649,308 -$14,102 - 0.53% Total $32,053,536 $34,173,272 $34,801,128 $627,856 1.84% The City's FY06 General Fund budget is up 5.13%, and the proposed total budget is up 1.84%. By comparison, over the past year, the Consumer Price Index (CPI)-AII Urban Consumers for Dallas-Fort Worth increased 2.8%, and the Municipal Price Index, which more closely tracks services and goods a municipality purchases, increased 4.1 %. The more rapid increase in City General Fund expenditures compared to the CPI is due to the difference in the goods and services whose prices are measured. Simply put, the CPI's collection of consumer goods does not align with the items purchased by the City. Increases of 47% for fuel, 22% for health insurance, and 41 % for software maintenance quickly push overall expenditures above the CPI measure. CITYWIDE ISSUES Several cost issues impact all three City funds for FY 2006, and deserve special attention: personnel costs, general liability and workers compensation insurance costs, external treatment costs, capital projects contributions, and fuel/equipment costs. Personnel costs Salaries and benefits make up 55.3% ($19.221 million) of the total budget, and they comprise 64% of the General Fund's increase. The proposed FY06 budget includes one new full-time position, a Public Information Officer in the Executive Department. This increases the total full- time headcount to 239. The number of total employees is still below the 247 employed in the early 1990's. One other position change that does not increase headcount is also included: transfer of the GIS Coordinator from the Engineering Division of Public Works to the Information Services Department. The proposed budget includes a market-based raise of 4% for all City employees. Last year's budget contained no market or cost-of-living increase for employees other than police and fire, who generally received a 3% increase in FY05. At the same time, all employees were required to pay more for health insurance coverage even though the City increased its contribution. Employee health insurance costs for the City again present a challenge. As is the case with most employers, City expenditures for medical claims and prescription drugs continue to climb. The proposed budget includes an additional 22%, or $320,107 citywide for health insurance. This compares to last year's increase of 20%. As you are aware, claims expenses have exceeded City and employee contributions for several years in the Self-Insurance Fund. I am optimistic this year will turn out better and that the additional contribution proposed in this budget will keep the program in balance. The employer contribution for the City's retirement plan is decreasing from 15.23% to 14.88%, a welcome contrast from last year's increase of 14.01 % to 15.23%. Even with the lower rate in FY2006, the City is budgeting $64,262 more than in FY2005 due to higher salaries proposed for all personnel. No changes to the retirement plan's benefits are included or proposed. The employer contribution rate is set by TMRS (Texas Municipal Retirement System) and is driven by factors such as employee turnover and tenure. TM RS, unlike many pension funds both public and private, is not experiencing financial difficulties. 2 Insurance costs In July, the City awarded bids for general liability and workers compensation insurance that will produce budgeted savings of $145,505 over last year. The decrease resulted from several factors, including better overall pricing from insurance carriers and excellent loss experience by the City. External treatment costs Unlike past years, in FY2006 the City expects to pay less to two outside agencies for water treatment (Dallas County/Park Cities Municipal Utilities District or MUD) and wastewater treatment (City of Dallas Water Utilities). Although both providers are increasing their wholesale rates to the City, lower projected volumes are more than offsetting the increases. The MUD is raising its rate per 1,000 gallons from $1.109 to $1.1125. This is another in a series of projected increases as the MUD modernizes its plant and establishes a new treatment method. Assuming City purchase of 2.136 billion gallons, the City projects total purchases of $2,376,322, compared to the FY2005 budget of $2,546,849, a decrease of $170,527. Dallas Water Utilities is also increasing its treatment charges, from $1.6802 to $1.7771/1,000 gallons, but this increase is offset by a 17.4% decrease in University Park's winter quarter water consumption and a 8.3% decrease in the infiltration/inflow (1/1) factor Dallas uses. The winter quarter consumption and 1/1 factor form the base upon which Dallas sets its sewer rate. These changes result in a reduction of $449,254 for wastewater treatment. City retail wastewater revenues will also decrease, but by a lesser degree. Capital project contributions The FY06 budget continues the City's successful practice of funding its capital projects on a pay-as-you-go basis, rather than a debt-funded basis. Details of the budget's capital project contributions from the General Fund ($2.866 million) and Utility Fund ($2.009 million) are provided below: Contribution description FY05 FY06 General govtl. projects (General Fund) $1,010,993 $1,031,323 Curb and gutter replacement (General Fund) 894,496 921,331 Asphalt overlay program (General Fund) 565,389 582,351 Mile-per-year (water/sewer/alley) replacement 322,288 331,957 (General Fund) Mile-per-year (water/sewer/alley) replacement 1,794,319 1,848,149 (Utility Fund) Fire hydrant installation (Utility Fund) 156,279 160,967 Total $4,743,764 $4,876,078 The first item, general governmental projects, will be used in FY06 to help fund the Northwest Parkway wall project. In addition to these budgeted operating contributions, the City sometimes transfers additional funds to the Capital Projects Fund each year. These transfers are made from unreserved fund balances in the General and Utility Funds by Council ordinance. Fuel/equipment costs The continued rise in gasoline and other fuels is well known. Although the City has three underground tanks for gasoline and diesel, as well as a propane tank, even bulk purchases cannot offset the sharp increases. The proposed budget includes a 47% increase in fuel purchases, from $195,898 to $288,162 citywide. The City budgets for equipment replacement 3 by purchasing vehicles in the Equipment Services Fund and then charging an annual contribution back to the operating departments. This levels the impact on the annual budget. For FY06, equipment replacement contributions will total $541,643, up 2.45% ($12,976) from $528,667 in FY05. Finally, maintenance costs are budgeted to increase 6.28% ($50,134), to $848,399. This represents the cost of operating the City's garage and warehouse. Even though it is an increase, the amount is even with the FY2004 actual expenditures of $848,589. Reduction of personnel in the department and a reduction in the number of vehicles used by the City have helped mitigate expenditure increases. GENERAL FUND The proposed FY06 General Fund budget totals $22.1 million, an increase of $1.08 million (5.13%), from FY05's total $21.1 million. As in past years, personnel-related costs are the primary reason for the increase ($676,557). Increases in Police and Fire personnel costs represent 49% of this total. The downstream cost of automation is also becoming apparent. In FY06 the City projects spending $305,882 for software programming and maintenance, up $90,146 citywide from FY05. General Fund departments will pay $225,649 of the total and $45,648 of the increase. Despite this increasing cost, the City's efforts at automation have yielded improved quality of information, productivity, and efficiencies that probably equate to one or two full-time positions. Other General Fund increases include capital project transfers ($73,796) and fuel ($40,745). The proposed budget includes no new major equipment or programs. Revenue considerations This year's proposed budget includes a major adjustment to several of the City's key non- property tax revenues. The projected sales tax amount, $2.5 million, is a 13.11 % increase over FY05's $2.21 million. The projection assumes a substantial increase to sales tax revenues resulting from an extensive ongoing audit of historic sales tax collections. Staff believes several hundred thousand dollars a year in sales taxes are being remitted to Dallas because of incorrect coding by merchants. Correcting this problem should produce annual sales tax revenues of about $2.5 million. Interest revenues are also expected to rise, from a budget of $350,000 in FY05 to $450,000 next year. Short-term interest rates have risen above 3%, compared to about 1 %, in the past year and a half. Building permit revenues are expected to continue at their current levels, which already greatly exceed the budgeted amount. Overall, non-property tax General Fund revenues are projected to increase 6.35%. Tax rate decrease The City's total certified taxable value increased 9.84%, compared to 4.2% last year. The FY06 budget proposes to reduce the tax rate from $0.32539 to $0.30958 per $100 taxable value. While the City is now debt-free and has no debt service portion of its property tax rate, it is helpful to think of Operations and Maintenance (O&M) as having an operations piece and a capital piece. The table below compares this year with the past three: Property tax rate comparison, FY03 - FY06 Adopted Adopted Adopted Proposed Tax purpose FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 Operations $0.25789 $0.25488 $0.25427 $0.24312 Capital 0.07142 0.07113 0.07112 0.06645 Total O&M 0.32932 0.32601 0.32539 0.30958 Debt Service 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 4 Total Tax Rate $0.32932 $0.32601 $0.325391 $0.309581 For FY06, the market value of the average single-family home in University Park is $816,423, a 10.77% increase from last year's $737,035. The owner of an average home with a homestead exemption whose value did not increase in assessed value this year would pay $93 less in City taxes compared to FY05. The owner of a home whose value increased by the citywide average would pay $103 more in City property taxes - less than $9 a month. The comparison with the prior three years is shown below: Property tax levy comparison, FY03 - FY06 Adopted Adopted Adopted Proposed FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 Assessed Value (Market) $705,739 $717,626 $737,035 $816,423 Less 20% Hmstd Exmp (141,148) (143,525) (147,407) (163,285) Taxable Value $564,592 $574,101 $589,628 $653,138 Tax Rate per $100 $0.32932 $0.32601 $0.32539 $0.30958 City Tax Levy $1,859.30 $1,871.65 $1,918.59 $2,021.96 Over the period FY03 to FY06, while the average single-family home in University Park increased 15.7 % in market value, the City tax levy increased 8.7%. Of the three taxing jurisdictions within the city's boundaries - the City, Dallas County, and HPISD -- the City portion comprises only 14% of a resident's total tax bill. UTILITY FUND The proposed Utility Fund budget includes no rate increases for water or sewer charges. As noted earlier, the decrease in expected payments for water and wastewater treatment is resulting in a reduction of the Fund's budget. The decreases also allow the Fund to absorb personnel cost and capital project contribution increases. The picture may change one year from now, when the MUD projects a rate of $1.1601/1,000 gallons, a 4.2% increase from the current $1.1125/1,000 gallons rate. Wastewater treatment charges from Dallas Water Utilities will also likely rise. SANITATION FUND Unlike the General and Utility Funds, Sanitation Fund revenues only increase if rates are raised or the number of serviced locations increases. In prior years, the Fund routinely expended less than its budget, which allowed it to finish the year with a positive balance. By the end of FY2004, however, Sanitation Fund expenditures exceeded revenues by $71,000, and the Fund is projected to finish FY2005 with a loss of about $84,000. To avoid a third consecutive year of net losses, Sanitation rates must be raised. The last increase occurred in 2002, when the monthly charge for residential service rose 16%, from $12.60 to $14.60. An increase of 15% would raise the monthly rate to $16.80, enough to cover the Fund's budgeted operational expenditures. Consistent with past years, however, the Sanitation Budget contains a $100,000 placeholder (labeled "Disposal Fees Contingency" in the line-item budget), which is intended to allow accumulation of reserves toward future landfill 5 needs. A rate increase of 20%, from $14.60 to $17.50, would produce enough revenue to continue accumulation of funds. Increases in rates for recycling and special pickups would need to mirror the increase in residential and commercial service. On the expenditure side, proposed Fund expenditures are down 0.53% versus last year's budget. This reduction is possible through a sharp decrease in current projected landfill costs. The City had been budgeting over $350,000 for annual landfill fees, but a reduction in charges in the past two years allows the City to project a lower annual cost, thereby reducing this line item by $170,000. This decrease more than offsets the $99,505 increase in projected personnel expenses. No new personnel are proposed. CONCLUSION As in the past, the proposed budget will be sent to the Employee Benefits, Finance, and Insurance Advisory Committees for review. Staff has begun scheduling those meetings. Changes to the State Truth in Taxation law now require two public hearings for any tax increase. Staff proposes the following schedule for the FY2006 budget's adoption: Date Day Description August 2 Tuesday Submit proposed budget to City Council; vote to hold public hearing re: proposed tax rate and budget August 11 Thursday Public hearing notice appears in Park Cities News August 23 Tuesday Receive staff briefing on proposed budget Hold first public hearing re: proposed tax rate and budget August 25 Thursday Second public hearing notice appears in News August 30 Tuesday Hold second public hearing re: proposed tax rate September 1 Thursday Notice of vote to adopt tax rate appears in News September 6 Tuesday Approve ordinances adopting budget, tax rate, salary plan Oct. 1 Saturday New budget takes effect Staff looks forward to meeting with the City Council and advisory committees to discuss the budget in more detail. We will be happy to provide any additional information that will be helpful during your consideration. 6 CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS FY 2006 BUDGET SUMMARY BY FUND AND DEPARTMENT 8/2/2005 UPDATED 8/25/05 FY04 FY05 ADOPTED ADOPTED BUDGET BUDGET GENERAL FUND 01-11 REVENUES 19,924,227 21,083,215 22,172,114 1,088,899 5.16% TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES $19,924,227 $21,083,215 $22,172,114 1,088,899 5.16% EXPENDITURES 01-02 EXECUTIVE 618,054 750,884 786,315 35,431 4.72% 01-03 FINANCE 918,432 955,847 998,131 42,284 4.42% 01-04 HUMAN RESOURCES 303,261 329,554 334,340 4,786 1.45% 01-05 INFORMATION SERVICES 485,068 520,191 705,241 185,050 35.57% 01-10 COURT 249,235 262,831 275,536 12,705 4.83% 01-19 BUILDING 580,616 623,731 659,492 35,761 5.73% 01-20 ENGINEERING 872,773 884,966 842,530 (42,436) -4.80% 01-25 TRAFFIC 740,709 778,387 797,368 18,981 2.44% 01-35 FACILITY MAINTENANCE 611,069 613,693 638,929 25,236 4.11% 01-40 FIRE 3,502,650 3,837,102 4,041,469 204,367 5.33% 01-50 POLICE 4,523,224 4,854,780 5,057,785 203,005 4.18% 01-70 PARKS 2,064,482 2,102,110 2,254,602 152,492 7.25% 01-75 SWIMMING POOL 166,950 147,969 164,968 16,999 11.49% 01-80 STREETS 1,606,128 1,612,334 1,726,473 114,139 7.08% 01-85 TRANSFERS 2,681,063 2,793,166 2,866,962 73,796 2.64% TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDS. $19,923,714 $21,067,545 $22,150,141 1,082,596 5.14% DIFFERENCE $513 $15,670 $21 ,973 $6,303 UTILITY FUND 02-11 REVENUES 9,451,675 10,222,831 10,012,388 (210,443) -2.06% TOTAL UTILITY FUND REVENUES $9,451,675 $10,222,831 $10,012,388 ($210,443) -2.06% EXPENDITURES 02-21 UTILITY OFFICE 5,140,536 5,760,061 5,155,859 (604,202) -10.49% 02-22 UTILITIES 2,624,069 2,731,658 2,836,704 105,046 3.85% 02-85 TRANSFERS 1,868,245 1,950,598 2,009,116 58,518 3.00% TOTAL UTILITY FUND EXPENDS. $9,632,850 $10,442,317 $10,001,679 (440,638) -4.22% DIFFERENCE ($181,175) ($219,486) $10,709 $230,195 SANITATION FUND 04-11 REVENUES 2,231,450 2,231,450 2,658,540 427,090 19.14% TOTAL SANITATION FUND REVENUES $2,231,450 $2,231,450 $2,658,540 $427,090 19.14% EXPENDITURES 04-60 SANITATION 2,496,972 2,663,410 2,649,308 (14,102) -0.53% TOTAL SANITATION FUND EXPENDS. $2,496,972 $2,663,410 $2,649,308 ($14,102) -0.53% DIFFERENCE ($265,522) ($431,960) $9,232 $441 ,192 TOTAL REVENUES $31,607,352 $33,537,496 $34,843,042 $1,305,546 3.89% TOTAL EXPENDITURES $32,053,536 $34,173,272 $34,801 ,128 $627,856 1.84% DIFFERENCE ($446,184) ($635,776) $41,914 $677,690 FilENAME: Complete FY2006 Budget Summary lAST PRI NTED 8/26/2005 908 AM Page 1 of 4 CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS FY2006 PROPOSED BUDGET PROPERTY TAX IMPACT 8/2/2005 TOTAL TAXABLE VALUE (CERTIFIED) $ 3,553,903,488 3,769,405,331 3,927,730,289 4,314,149,841 $ 386,419,552 9,84% TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES $ 18,957,713 $ 19,924,227 $ 21,083,215 $ 22,172,114 $ 1,088,899 5,16% NON PROPERTY TAX REVENUE Sales tax $ 2,160,220 $ 2,160,220 $ 2,210,220 $ 2,500,000 $ 289,780 13,11% Franchise fees 1,650,000 1,805,000 2,060,000 2,060,000 $ 0,00% Building permits 700,000 700,000 1,100,000 1,130,000 $ 30,000 2,73% Traffic/parking fines 355,000 355,000 360,000 360,000 $ 0,00% Service charges 400,160 452,160 414,160 414,160 $ 0,00% Direct alarm monitoring fees 285,000 350,000 450,000 514,000 $ 64,000 14,22% Interest income 650,000 600,000 350,000 450,000 $ 100,000 28,57% Utility Fund contribution 450,000 450,000 550,000 550,000 $ 0,00% Miscellaneous 433,228 571,562 596,906 626,906 $ 30,000 5,03% TOTAL NON PROPERTY TAX REV, $ 7,083,608 $ 7,443,942 $ 8,091,286 $ 8,605,066 $ 513,780 6,35% PROPERTY TAX REVENUE Operations & Maintenance (O&M) need $ 11,703,605 $ 12,288,785 $ 12,780,429 $ 13,355,548 $ 575,119 4,50% Penalty/interest & attorney's fees 110,000 115,000 120,000 120,000 $ 0,00% Delinquent (prior years) taxes 60,500 76,500 91,500 91,500 $ 0,00% TOT AL PROP TAX OP REQUEST $ 11,874,105 $ 12,480,285 $ 12,991,929 $ 13,567,048 $ 575,119 443% DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENT $ $ $ $ $ 0,00% PROPERTY TAX RATE Operations & Maintenance (O&M) $ 0,32932 $ 0,32601 $ 0,32539 $ 0,30958 $ (0,0158) -4,86% Debt Service $ 0,00% Total Property Tax Rate per $100 $ 0,32932 $ 0,32601 $ 0,32539 $ 0,30958 $ (0,0158) -4,86% IMPACT ON HOMEOWNER Average single-family market value 705,739 $ 717,626 $ 737,035 $ 816,423 $ 79,388 10,77% Less: 20% homestead exemption (141,148) (143,525) (147,407) (163,285) $ (15,878) 10,77% Average single-family taxable value 564,592 574,101 589,628 653,138 $ 63,510 10,77% Tax levy $ 1,859,30 $ 1,871,65 $ 1,918,59 $ 2,021,96 $ 103 5,39% FILENAME Complete FY2006 Budget Prop Tax Impact LAST PRINTED 8/26/2005908 AM CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS FY2006PROPOSED BUDGET TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE REQUIREMENTS -- 1 OF 2 CHAPTER 102: MUNICIPAL BUDGET SECTION 003 ITEMIZED BUDGET; CONTENTS (a) Provide a comparison of expenditures in the proposed budget and actual expenditures for the See attached preceding year. page. (b) Budget must contain a complete financial statement of the municipality that shows: General Utilitv Sanitation Total (1 ) Outstanding obligations of the municipality (7/31/05): Accounts Payable 95,807 409,662 25,121 530,590 Debt Total $ 95,807 $ 409,662 $ 25,121 $ 530,590 (2) Cash on hand to the credit of each fund (7/31/05): Cash 250,774 250,774 TexPool 1,883,621 666,649 260,852 2,811,122 TexStar 2,539,128 1,058,145 306,709 3,903,982 Total $ 4,673,523 $ 1,724,794 $ 567,561 $ 6,965,878 (3) Funds received from all sources during the preceding year (FY04) $ (4) Funds available from all sources during the ensuing year (FY05) Beginning of year fund balances: 8,967,451 6,275,926 644,541 15,887,918 l::stlmated revenues 21,400,000 10,300,000 2,200,000 33,900,000 Total funds available from all sources $ 30,367,451 $ 16,575,926 $ 2,844,541 $ 49,787,918 (5) Estimated revenue available to cover the proposed budget: $22,172,114 $10,012,388 $2,658,540 (6) Estimated tax rate required to cover the proposed budget. $0.30958/ $100 Filename: Complete FY2006 Budget Tab: State Law Summary Page 1 Last Printed 8/26/2005908 AM CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS FY2006 PROPOSED BUDGET TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE REQUIREMENTS -- 2 OF 2 CHAPTER 102: MUNICIPAL BUDGET SECTION 003(a): ITEMIZED BUDGET; CONTENTS GENERAL FUND OH1 REVENUES $21 ,083,215 $21 ,086,715 $21,400,000 $22,172,114 5.16% $1 ,088,899 TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES $21,083,215 $21,086,715 $21,400,000 $22,172,114 5.16% $1,088,899 EXPENDITURES 01-02 EXECUTIVE $750,884 $851,884 $850,000 $786,315 4.72% $35,431 01-03 FINANCE $955,847 $974,347 $950,000 $998,131 4.42% $42,284 01-04 HUMAN RESOURCES $329,554 $329,554 $300,000 $334,340 1.45% $4,786 01-05 INFORMATION SERVICES $520,191 $740,259 $670,000 $705,241 35.57% $185,050 OHO COURT $262,831 $262,831 $260,000 $275,536 4.83% $12,705 OH9 BUILDING $623,731 $627,831 $600,000 $659,492 5.73% $35,761 01-20 ENGINEERING $884,966 $817,033 $810,000 $842,530 -4.80% 01-25 TRAFFIC $778,387 $788,304 $700,000 $797,368 2.44% $18,981 01-35 FACILITY MAINTENANCE $613,693 $654,199 $630,000 $638,929 4.11% $25,236 01-40 FIRE $3,837,102 $3,952,620 $3,900,000 $4,041,469 5.33% $204,367 01-50 POLICE $4,854,780 $4,916,467 $4,900,000 $5,057,785 4.18% $203,005 01-70 PARKS $2,102,110 $2,149,729 $2,120,000 $2,254,602 7.25% $152,492 01-75 SWIMMING POOL $147,969 $147,969 $140,000 $164,968 11.49% $16,999 01-80 STREETS $1,612,334 $1,694,834 $1,600,000 $1,726,473 7.08% $114,139 01-85 TRANSFERS $2,793,166 $2,793,166 $2,790,000 $2,866,962 2.64% $73,796 TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES $21,067,545 $21,701,026 $21,220,000 $22,150,141 5.14% $1,082,596 DIFFERENCE $15,670 ($614,311) $180,000 $21 ,973 UTILITY FUND REVENUES $10.222,831 $10,222,831 $10,300,000 $10,012,388 0.00% $ (210,443) 02-11 REVENUES $10,222,831 $10,222,831 $10,300,000 $10,012,388 0.00% $ (210,443) EXPENDITURES 02-21 UTILITY OFFICE $5,760,061 $5,760,061 $5,300,000 $5,155,859 -10.49% $ (604,202) 02-22 UTILITIES $2,731,658 $2,952,965 $3,000,000 $2,836,704 3.85% $ 105,046 02-85 TRANSFERS $1,950,598 $1,950,598 $1,950,000 $2,009,116 3.00% $ 58,518 TOTAL UTILITY FUND EXPENDITURES $10,442,317 $10,663,624 $10,250,000 $10,001,679 -4.22% $ (440,638) DIFFERENCE ($219,486) ($440,793) $50,000 $10,709 SANITATION FUND 04-11 REVENUES $2,231,450 $2,231,450 $2,200,000 $2,658,540 19.14% $427,090 TOTAL SANITATION FUND REVENUES $2,231,450 $2,231,450 $2,200,000 $2,658,540 19.14% $427,090 EXPENDITURES 04-60 SANITATION $2,663,410 $2,664,806 $2,300,000 $2,649,308 -0.53% TOTAL SANITATION FUND EXPENDITURES $2,663,410 $2,664,806 $2,300,000 $2,649,308 -0.53% DIFFERENCE ($431,960) ($433,356) ($100,000) $9,232 TOTAL REVENUES $33,537,496 $33,540,996 $33,900,000 $34,843,042 3.89% $1 ,305,546 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $34,173,272 $35,029,456 $33,770,000 $34,801,128 1.84% $627,856 DIFFERENCE ($635,776) ($1,488,460) $130,000 $41,914 Filename: Complete FY2006 Budget Tab: State Law Summary Page 2 Last Printed: 8/26/2005 9:08 AM 19 AGENDA MEMO (08/30/2005 AGENDA) DATE: August 23, 2005 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Gerry Bradley, Director of Parks SUBJECT: Reservation Request for Curtis Park - Watermark Church BACKGROUND: The Parks Department has received a request from the Watermark Community Church, Dallas, Texas to reserve Curtis Park for a church picnic on Sunday, October 2, 2005. Watermark Church anticipates approximately 700 participants to be in attendance and plans to be at the park site from 9:00 a.m. until 1 :00 p.m. Watermark Church has hosted past events at the park site without incident. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending City Council approve the request from the Watermark Church to reserve Curtis Park for a church picnic based on the following criteria which was established during their last request: · Rental Fee is $500.00 plus a refundable $250.00 security deposit. · Watermark Church shall rent two (2) additional port-a-potties for participant usage. · Watermark Church shall refrain from using any P.A. system our any amplified music prior to 10:00 a.m. · All trash must be carried off the park site. ATTACHMENTS: Letter of request from Watermark Church 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK31 \Watermark Community Church Fall 2005.doc 11 :36 AM 08/23/05 08/17/2005 13:25 214361651'3 WATERMARK COMMUNITY PAGE 02 August 17, 2005 Gerry Bradley University Park Recreation Department 3800 University Blvd. Dallas, TX 75205 Dear Mr. Bradley, Please accept this letter as our request in writing to reserve Curtis Park on Sunday, October 2, from 9:00am until 1 :OOpm for a church service. Based on previous events we anticipate up to 700 in attendance. The participants of the service are as follows: II We will have a sound system playing music. Music will not began playing until lO:OOam. III Two port-a-potties will be rented. Please allow this letter to serve as our written submission that you will bring before the City Council on our behalf, Thank you for your consideration to our request. I look forward to hearing from you! Sincerely, Stacy Kazee Assistant to Jay Jacobs Watermark Community Church 7.5"10 LB) Freeway - Suite 800 - D""05. Texas 7.525 I 21"1.361.2275 - fa",: 2'4.361.6519 . web sire: www.wa~e"m"rkcommunity.or.g PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS MINUTES August 15, 2005 The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of University Park met on Monday, August 15, 2005 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 Robert H. West - Chairman Bill Foose Randy Biddle Ed Freeman H. Reed Shawver III Absent & Excused Doug Roach J 0 Ann Norton Present & Seated Bea Humann Staff Members Attending Bud Smallwood - Director of Public Works Lewis Nichols - City Attorney Harry Persaud - Community Dev. Mgr. Jennifer Deaver - Administrative Secretary Mr. West opened the public hearing and introduced the commission members. He then read the specifics of the first case. PZ 08-16 - Analytical Surveys, representing the property owner, for a replat of Lot 1, Block 13 of University Heights, Third Installment, being an Addition of the City of University Park, more commonly known as 3336 Southwestern Blvd. The replat will subdivide the lot into two single family lots located in the SF-2 zoning district classification. Ms. Jennifer Freeman, owner/seller of the property in question, stated that upon learning what was required, she is within the law. Mr. Don Yount, proposed buyer of3336 Southwestern and owner/ resident of3337 Greenbrier, stated that the tax value will rise stated news paper article was wrong that the lot is 140 feet wide not 125 feet and would be split into two 70 feet lots. Mr. Darrell Rice, owner/ resident of3337 Southwestern, stated he has lives in the neighborhood over thirty years and is concerned that this replat would affect the history and architectural aspects of the area. He also asked all of the opposing parties present to stand. (The majority of the room stood) Mr. John Farris, , owner/ resident of3400 Southwestern, stated that Caruth Park and the surrounding areas are in a high flood zone and that the existing drainage system would not be able to handle the addition. Mr. John Stuart, owner/ resident of 3325 Southwestern, stated he opposed to sub dividing because he does not like the thought of zero lot lines, traffic would be an issue with rear entry drives, and that developers sold these lots originally as one 140 foot on each corner of Southwestern Blvd to be anchor lots. He then stated he is opposed to splitting the lot. Mr. Earnest L. Hallman, owner/ resident of3212 Southwestern, stated that he admires the double lots at the end of his block and urged the community to let the lot remain in its current state Mr. Norma Caldwell, owner/ resident of3330 Southwestern, stated she has owned her property for 43 years and does not like to see the homes jammed together this way. She then urged the committee to leave the lot as is. Mr. John Howard, owner/ resident of3239 Southwestern, came forward to ask that this lot be left as an anchor lot. Ms. Catherine Ritchie, owner/ resident of3939 Marquette, stated these lots would soon be filled with "cookie cutter" homes, then, asked that the replat be denied. Ms. Catherine Clinton, owner/ resident of3320 Greenbrier, read the letter her husband wrote to the commission. Mr. Alan Raynor, owner/ resident of3237 Southwestern, stated he is afraid that the increase in property owners on this block would hinder the traffic flow for rear entry drives. Ms. Jennifer Freeman, owner/seller of the property in question, stated that her lot would be divided to be the same width in the front as all of the neighbors on this street and wished she had known that everyone was opposed to the replat before the hearing. Mr. West inquired if the replat conformed to city regulations. Mr. Persaud stated yes, the replat conformed to city regulations. Mr. Biddle stated he agrees with the opposing public for reasons of safety and integrity but stated that the community is required to abide by rules, therefore sees no legal reason to deny this request. An unidentified person asked how to change these regulations. Mr. Foose asked Mr. Peraud to explain lot depth requirements Mr. Persaud stated that in order to change any regulations their concerns should be taken to the city council. He then explained zoning rules. Mr. West inquired if the replat conformed to city regulations. Mr. Persaud stated yes, the replat conformed to city regulations. Mr. Freeman asked for a motion Mr. West moved to approve the request, with a second from Mr.Foose. The motion was approved unanimously 5-0. Mr. West asked for a motion on the minutes from the July 18,2005 Planning & Zoning meeting. Mr. Foose moved to approve the minutes, with a second from Mr. Biddle. The motion was approved unanimously 5-0. There being no further business before the Commission, Mr. West adjourned the meeting. Approved by: Date: Robert West, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission